This blog is devoted to exploring the true nature of Islam as revealed in its sacred texts and its history. There is another Islam that was given voice by George Bush, Obama and the media. Bush laid down a basic version of Ofﬁcial Islam in the National Cathedral soon after 9/11. Obama added many details in his Cairo speech, June 4, 2009.
But Ofﬁ cial Islam was not invented by the media, Bush or Obama, but by the Muslim Brotherhood1. This doctrine became the standard in all of the universities when the Brotherhood, powered by Saudi money, invaded and took over the Middle East departments. That is the reason that the media went along with the ofﬁcial version. This is what they were all taught. The preachers, rabbis and all the politicians believe in this Ofﬁcial Islam, at least in public
Here are the major points of Ofﬁcial Islam, which is a deception:
- Islam is a religion similar to Christianity and Judaism.
- They all worship the same god and are of the Abrahamic faith. Good Muslims prove that Islam is good
- There are no jihadists, just extremists fueled by poverty
- “Extremists” cause the violence
- The “bad stuff” in the Koran is due to how it is interpreted
- Islam must be accommodated in as many ways as possible
- One of the proofs of Islam’s greatness is the Islamic Golden Age, thought by some to be humanity’s best days
- Violence is perpetrated by Muslims because they are poor and abused
- The West received the foundation of its intellectual world from Islam
- The Crusades were a great evil committed by Christians
- There are mostly moderate Muslims and only a few extremist Muslims
- Islam is only found in the Koran
- Good Muslims will reform the “extremists”
- Islam is the religion of tolerance
- Islam had a Golden Age
- Islam has a Golden Rule
- Islam is a wonderful part of American culture
- Islam is the religion of freedom and justice
But the ofﬁcial version of Islam is a Big Lie. The fact that the Ofﬁcial
Islam does not agree with the Koran, Sira and Hadith is of no importance,
since it is not based upon them. Ofﬁcial Islam is based upon the propaganda of our establishment media, government and schools. Not one line
of the Ofﬁcial Islam is totally true and many of the points are complete fabrications. At best, some assertions are partially true. A half-truth is a lie. When you testify in our courts you have to swear an oath: “I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Ofﬁcial Islam is not provable and is delivered by “authorities”. This
book is based upon critical/scientiﬁc thought. The Ofﬁcial Islam is based
upon authoritarian thought—that is, you must believe it because those
who have more power than you have say that it is true. Ofﬁcial Islam is
a mind-set of denial and delusion and is the intellectual basis of the destruction of our civilization.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a underground organization devoted to the rule of Sharia over the world. They have been active in the US since 1960.
- Ten obvious reasons why islam is NOT a religion of peace (upplysningscentralen.wordpress.com)
- Until our leaders admit the true nature of Islamic extremism, we will never defeat it – Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk)
- Enough Is Enough (jericho777.wordpress.com)
can’t we all just get along?
Kafi rs have a basic instinct when faced with Islam—let’s make some
compromises. We will do things your way, Islam can reform and life will
be good. This will not work and has never worked, but Kafi rs refuse to be
logical and study Islam to see why compromise won’t work.
We must go through all of the steps of compromise to see why they will
fail. In particular, we must see why reform is a logical impossibility. And
last, but not least, we must see why the “good” Muslim cannot and will not
help to achieve a solution.
The elites tell us that Islam has always been part of one big happy
human family. Islam is here and it is a wonderful thing. Islam is a foundational
part of our civilization. Muslims make wonderful neighbors.
The elites tell us that if we don’t get along with Political Islam, if we
fi nd a problem, then the problem is with us. The fact of the matter is that
Mohammed attacked every single neighbor he had. His only success came
through violence. His dying words were to hurt Jews, Christians and all
Kafi rs. Mohammed was Islam and he was never compatible with any Kafi r.
The Big Lie is just that. There is no way to live with Islam. Life with Islam
is a succession of demands. Mohammed never stopped until 100% of his
demands were met. That was life with Mohammed—the Sunna.
Islam is a civilization that is designed to extinguish all Kafi r civilizations
down to their last cultural vestige. Annihilation is Sunna. Mohammed did
not stop until the Kafi rs surrendered to his demands to change the smallest
details of their lives into his way of doing. The last 1400 years of history
is proof of the brutal effi ciency of Islamic politics. There has never been
a culture where Islam and Kafi rs existed in long-term peace. After a long
enough time period, Islam takes over the civilization. This is the goal of
can’t we just get along
let’s make a deal
But since Kafi rs don’t know anything about the history of Islam,
they think that we will work this out like we always have. We will fi nd
a compromise. After all, in Kafi r civilization, progress is made through
teamwork and compromise. The fi rst and crucial error is thinking that
Islam is analogous to our civilization and that our rules apply to it. Let’s
compare Islam with our civilization’s ideals.
Freedom Of Expression
First, the ideal citizen of Islam has no freedom, but is a slave of Allah
and the Sunna. Freedom of expression means you can disagree with
Mohammed laid the perfect example of freedom of expression when
he fi nally gained power in Mecca. In the beginning when he had no power
in Mecca, he allowed argument about his doctrine. After he was driven
out of Mecca and later returned as its conqueror, he issued death warrants
against all of those who had disagreed with him. When Mohammed died,
there was not a single person left in Arabia who disagreed with him. Intellectual
subservience to Mohammed/Islam was total. The Sharia denies
freedom of expression. Islam tolerates discussion of Islam only when it is
getting started and is politically weak.
Freedom Of Religion
If you are a Muslim and want to leave Islam, you become an apostate.
An Islamic apostate can be killed. An apostate is even a worse creature
than a Kafi r. The Koran says that apostasy is a crime worse than mass
But doesn’t Islam preach that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all
members of the Abrahamic faith? Is that not freedom of religion? In Islam
the only real Christians and Jews are dhimmis since they must declare
their own scriptures to be corrupt and that Mohammed is the last prophet
of both Jews and Christians. Those who don’t are not true Christians and
Jews, but Kafi rs.
And what about the atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and on and on?
They are all hated Kafi rs just like Christians and Jews.
If there is freedom of religion, explain how every Muslim country
becomes 100% Islamic eventually? Explain this in terms of freedom or
The Koran sanctions and encourages slavery. Mohammed was the perfect
slave owner, slave wholesaler, slave retailer, slave torturer and sex slave
user. Even though Islam sold Americans every slave, Islam has never acknowledged
this fact nor apologized.
In our culture, we have the ability to criticize our own actions and
the actions of our political and religious leaders and correct mistakes.
Criticism of Islamic religion or politics by Muslims is rare and can be
Freedom of the Press
Due to the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, buildings
were burned, people were killed, and almost no newspaper would reprint
these political cartoons. You can say anything you want about Islam as
long as Islam is not offended. Freedom of the press is forbidden in Sharia
law. Sharia blasphemy laws prohibit criticism, or even asking questions,
about Islamic doctrine.
Islam is the supreme mono-culture, dedicated to abolishing all other
cultures. There is no multiculturalism in Islam. After Islam takes over the
host culture devolves into some form of Islam. Where is the Buddhist culture
of Afghanistan? the Coptic culture of Egypt? the Berber culture of
North Africa? the Christian culture of Iraq? the Zoroastrian culture of
Iran? They have all been annihilated.
Equal Justice Under the Law
The Koran specifi cally says that justice is served with different penalties
for Muslims and Kafi rs. A Muslim is not to be killed in retaliation for
killing a Kafi r. A Kafi r may not testify against a Muslim in Islamic law. The
entire Sharia law is based upon one set of laws for Muslims and another
set of laws for Kafi rs.
Our ethics are based upon the Golden Rule, with all peoples considered
as equal “others”. Islam is based upon dualistic ethics, with one set
of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for Kafi rs. Kafi rs are hated
by Allah and are targeted for annihilation by Mohammed. Kafi rs must be
can’t we just get along
subjugated. Islamic ethics are dualistic—Muslims are treated well and
Kafi rs are treated as second-class citizens or worse, if it is deemed necessary
In Islam, women are subjugated to the males. In court they are treated
as half of a man and they are equal only on Judgment Day. Both the Sunna
and the Koran say that wives can be and should be beaten. The Sharia even
lays out the precise procedure for wife-beating.
Torture is allowed in the Sunna and the Koran recommends cutting off
of hands and feet and crucifying Kafi rs. Mohammed repeatedly tortured
Kafi rs, even to death. Torture of Kafi rs is Sunna.
Separation of Church and State
Our Constitution separates the church and state, but Islam demands
that religion and state be combined as one unit. Sharia law includes both
religious law and secular without distinction. Islam is a theocracy.
Surely friendship is one of the most basic aspects of being human. But
Mohammed was never the friend of a Kafi r. His uncle, Abu Talib, adopted
him, raised him, taught his business trade and protected him from harm
by the Meccans. When he died a Kafi r, Mohammed’s fi rst words were to
condemn him to Hell. There are 12 verses in the Koran that say that a
Muslim is not the friend of a Kafi r.
There are no human rights in Islam, because there is no humanity in
the Koran, just believers and Kafi rs. Kafi rs have no rights. Kafi rs are hated
by Allah and are lower than animals.
Since Islam does not have a point of agreement with our civilization,
there is no way to fi nd any compromise. Islam is not part of our civilization
and does not play by our rules. When we try to use our rules, we
always lose. How do you compromise with a civilization based on the
principles of submission and duality?
The magical thinking of many intellectuals is that Islam can be reformed,
like Christianity and Judaism experienced. This sounds great.
Islam changes its ways and settles down to live among fellow humans.
Only this will not work. It is impossible to reform Islam, because it was
designed so it could not be reformed or changed.
Why do we want to reform Islam? Do we care if Muslims pray three
times a day, instead of fi ve times? No. The only reason we want reform is
because of the violence against us. We do not want to reform the religion
of Islam; we want to reform Political Islam.
the problems of reform
The Koran is perfect, complete and universal. The Koran says that
Mohammed is the perfect model of a Muslim. The fi rst problem is the
perfection of the Trilogy—a perfect Koran and a perfect Sunna. How do
you reform perfection? Why would Muslims want to improve perfection?
If you take something out of the Koran, was the item you removed imperfect?
If so, then the Koran was not perfect. Do you see the problem with
The other problem with reformation is the amount of detail in the
Sunna. The Sira is 800 pages long and Mohammed is on every page. Then
there are the 6800 hadiths in Bukhari. The amount of Sunna is vast and
covers the smallest detail, down to how many times to breathe when you
drink a glass of water.
There is too much material for the doctrine to be reformed. For instance,
67% of Mohammed’s prophetic career is about jihad1; it is not as if
you can turn a blind eye to a few items and achieve reformation. Cutting
out 67% of the Sira does not reform it, but creates an entire new text.
And Islam will never eliminate the one concept that has brought it success,
jihad. All of Islam’s success has been based upon political submission,
dualism and violence. What the Kafi rs want changed is the violence, pressure,
arguing and politics. Demanding the Kafi rs’ submission and using
violence works for Islam. The violence, pressure, arguments and demands
are not going to stop because they have worked for 1400 years and are
working better today than any time in the past.
can’t we just get along
the good muslim
There is an attempt to make the problem of Islam go away. It is the
“good Muslim” who will save the day. Everybody seems to know a “good
Muslim” who is a friend at work.
What is a good Muslim? A good Muslim is one who seems non-violent.
But that point of view is not Islamic. Islam is the one and only basis of
determining what a good Muslim is. An apologist’s opinion of “good” is
not relevant to anyone, except to the apologist and his friends. Islam says
that a good Muslim is one who follows the Koran and the Sunna. That is
the one and only criteria of being a good Muslim.
Apologists think that good Muslims are a proof of a “good” Islam and
that the doctrine makes no difference. Oddly enough, Muslims do not
agree with this. Muslims have one and only one defi nition of what a “good
Muslim” is, one who has submitted to Islam and follows the Sunna. The
cause is Islam; the effect is Muslim. Apologists think that Islam submits to
Muslims, but apologists are ignorant, so they are free of facts, and in the
soil of ignorance, any fantastic fl ower grows.
The problem in talking about Muslims as a group of people is that
there are three kinds of Muslim. The fi rst kind is the Meccan Muslim. A
Meccan Muslim is primarily a religious person without the jihadic politics.
A Medinan Muslim is a political Muslim. Then there is the Muslim
who follows the Golden Rule, instead of Islamic ethics.
At this point a voice can be heard: “I know this Muslim and he is a good
person. There are good Muslims.” Notice the shift from Islam to a person.
Yes, he may be a good person, but that is different from being a good Muslim.
His goodness is due to his following the Golden Rule and treating a
Kafi r as a human being.
A Golden Rule Muslim is one who is an apostate to some degree.
Maybe the Golden Rule Muslim drinks beer or doesn’t go to the mosque.
All Muslims have some Kafi r in them. The Kafi r civilization has much to
offer: freedom, wealth, friendship, women who do not wear a bag for a
garment and great entertainment. Some Muslims prefer Kafi r civilization
to Islamic civilization in many ways.
Since every Muslim can have three parts, it is hard to nail him down.
There is a shifty quality that goes with the territory. Which center of gravity
is he coming from? Is he religious, political, or friend? If religious or
political, then he is not your friend, but a deceiver. But if he is your friend,
then he is following the Golden Rule and is a Kafi r. But how do you ever
trust him? When is he Kafi r? When is he Muslim?
Tolerance always seeks some form of negotiated compromise. Both
sides give a little and come up with a solution that both can live with. It
tacitly assumes honest discussions and fairness. Tolerance also assumes
equality between the persons, parties or groups. None of these criteria
are met with any negotiations between Muslims and Kafi rs. Islam has no
compromises to make. Islam is perfect and has nothing to learn or adopt
from Kafi r civilization. The Islamic positions are perfect because they are
based upon the Sunna of Mohammed. A compromise with Kafi rs is a
compromise with evil and ignorance.
Mohammed always pressed his neighbors for more and more accommodations,
and in the end, he always got what he wanted. In the end,
Mohammed achieved 100% of all of his demands. There was only one
time he compromised. At a certain point in his career, Mohammed compromised
with the polytheists and agreed that their gods had some power
to guide. Then the Koran spoke against this idea and said that Satan had
planted this idea (the Satanic verses). [This event was the basis of Salman
Rusdie’s novel, Th e Satanic Verses. That novel won his a death fatwah.]
It was the only error Mohammed ever made during his rise to complete
power. He never compromised again.
Accommodation and submission has never worked with Islam—never.
But that is the only solution we try and as a result, each day Kafi rs become
why we lose
Islam has expanded since its fi rst inception. We have decided to not
oppose its growth, since that would be bigoted. In our present mind-set,
there is nothing to stop Islam from prevailing. Europe is rapidly being
overtaken by Muslim immigration and high birth rates. The problem is
that Europe’s elites and governments are fully accommodated to the end
of European civilization and the beginning of Eurabia. European media,
intellectuals and government offi cials only want to help the process of the
death of Europe by assisting Islam and yielding to all of Political Islam’s
demands, including ever more welfare and immigration.
We agree to suspend the use of critical thinking and not study or critique
Islam’s political doctrine. All of the thinking is done for us. Are you afraid
of Islam? Accept the Offi cial Islam of the apologists and you will feel better.
We may have to make some accommodations for things like Sharia law,
but we have a happy surrender.
can’t we just get along
Ignorance is the offi cial political point-of-view. No one who actually
knows anything about the doctrine or history of Political Islam is ever
given a place at forums or discussions. Knowing the truth disqualifi es you
Ignorance means that in all of our dealings with Political Islam, we
will always make a decision based upon our ethics and our world-view, so
we will always make the wrong decision. A classic example was America’s
“War on Terror”. We decided to mount a military campaign against an
enemy we named as terrorists. We declared that Muslims were just like us
and that we would accommodate all of their demands while we battled
Knowledge about Islam would have meant that our fi rst question would
have been: who is the enemy? Since the enemy is Political Islam, it means
that we should have fought an ideological war, not a military war.
An ideological war would have meant that eight years after 9/11, every
American Kafi r would have been taught who Mohammed was, about the
message of the Koran and the fact that we were all Kafi rs. We would know
how Sharia law contradicts every principle of our government. In short,
by now we would know our enemy and what its nature is.
Instead, we fi nd ways to blame ourselves for the problem of Political
Islam. There are those mischievous jihadists, but they are not “real” Muslims.
This form of self-loathing is supported by our ignorance in the realm
of education. An audit of university curriculums shows that the following
are not taught at any known public American university:
The Tears of Jihad—the deaths of 270 million Kafi rs over 1400
The history of the dhimmi and dhimmitude
The conquest of Christian/Hindu/Buddhist territory—Afghanistan,
Pakistan, all the Silk Route countries, Turkey, Middle East, Egypt,
North Africa and the rest of Africa
How Sharia law impacts the lives of women
The concept of the Kafi r
The Koran (in its entirety)
The Sira (in its entirety)
The Hadith (in its entirety)
Islam’s dualistic ethics and logic are not examined in philosophy
What is taught about Islam is that it is one of the great world religions
and that the high point of human civilization was the Islamic Golden Age
in Baghdad and in Moorish Spain. Islamic poetry, architecture, and the
Arabic language are studied, as well as modern Arabic history are viewed
through a lens of political science and as a reaction to Western colonialism.
Islam is not taught as an empire of conquest. The spread of Islam
is taught as a wonderful benefi t for the conquered Kafi rs. The university
courses never teach about any suffering at the hands of Islam.
You can get a degree in Middle East studies, become a diplomat in the
Middle East and never read the Koran, Sira or Hadith. You will read some
selections from this Trilogy, but there will be no systemic study of it. If you
edit out the Jew-hatred from Hitler’s Mein Kampf, then there is nothing
offensive about it. In the same way, selective readings from the Koran, the
Sira and Hadith can be very benign.
Since all of our responses are based upon offi cial ignorance, our decisions
are not based on reality and our plans fail. We lose to Islam once
Islam is such a foreign topic to most people that your fi rst step should
be to prepare the basis of the discussion. Most people have never heard
much about Islam that makes sense. Look at the Koran. Who understands
it? Most people fi gure that there is no rational basis for talking about Islam.
Preparing a rational foundation gives you the advantage.
The most important aspect of persuading is teaching and explaining
about Islamic doctrine. This means educating the other person as a student.
However, presenting the facts is not enough. Political Islam is so far
removed from Kafi r civilization that it is strange. There is a tendency to
deny the facts. The inner voice says, “That cannot be Islam. It cannot be
that cruel. Muslims don’t really believe that.”
You are planting seeds and the ground must be prepared, exactly like a
garden. The student’s mind is fi lled with the beliefs of Offi cial Islam. The
foundation of Offi cial Islam is that Islam is very diffi cult and very complex.
This means that not only is the student unsure about what Islam is
(since there is so much disagreement about it) but also they presume that
such knowledge is impossible for anyone to obtain, except for imams and
professors. We must establish that there is such a thing as sure and certain
knowledge about Islam. Islam is a highly logical and coherent ideology.
However, it uses a different logic system than ours. Once you see dualism,
Islam becomes straightforward.
Offi cial Islam preaches that if you don’t believe its dogma, then you
are vilifi ed as a racist bigot. So the student has two fears—a secret fear of
Islamic violence and a fear of being called a bigot.
We need to shape the situation and establish the point-of-view. You
must shape the discussion and establish the common ground of critical
thought and present the facts of the doctrine of Political Islam.
Before we get into the actual shaping process, it is overwhelmingly important
to confi rm what the student says.
Repeat what is said or restate the problem.
This step is valuable for several reasons. First, the other person has been
heard and acknowledged. This is a powerful way to infl uence others—you
have heard and understood them. Secondly, this may keep the person
from repeating the same thing again and again.
There is another reason to repeat what is said. It gives you time to think
about your response.
Can we talk?
Acknowledge that Islam is not an easy subject to talk about, but can we
talk? You want to hear what they have to say and see if some things you
have learned lately could be enlightening.
Use your people skills to see if they are open and will allow discussion.
It doesn’t make much difference how much you know if they simply don’t
want to talk. Many supporters of Islam are not open to hearing any new
information since their position is mostly build on some foundation of
politically correct “tolerance”.
The rest of these points are in no particular order:
State that you are going to use critical thinking.
You will base your arguments on facts of the doctrine of Islam and not
on what any imam or writer says. Point this out when their statements are
not from Islamic doctrine. Everything that Islam does is based upon its
doctrine. So what you say can be proven by the doctrine and history of
Political Islam. Use facts, not opinions. Use the doctrine, not Muslims.
Ask if they have any familiarity with the Koran or Mohammed?
This question is very powerful since it establishes a hierarchy of who
knows what. If they have some familiarity with any of doctrine, now is a
good time to fi nd out how much they know and have read.
The next step is to explain how important knowing Koran and Mohammed
is. Obviously, you have to have read some version of the Trilogy
before you can do this step.
Establish that the actions and words of Muslims are based upon the
There is sure and certain knowledge about Islam. Every Muslim agrees
that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. The basis for
Islamic knowledge comes from Allah (the Koran) and Mohammed (the
Sunna, found in the Sira and the Hadith). If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam.
If it is not in the Trilogy, it is not Islam.
Mohammed is the supreme authority in Islam. No Muslim, no media
pundit, no imam, no book, no article, not even the president of the US
can be above Mohammed. Once you know Mohammed, you know the
truth of Islam.
This is the heart of the matter. All Muslims are Mohammedans. (This
does not mean that Muslims worship Mohammed. A Confucian does not
worship Confucius, but lives his life according to the precepts of Confucius.
In the same way, a Mohammedan patterns his life after Mohammed.)
Islam is simple. Islam is the political, religious and cultural doctrine
found in the Trilogy.
After you understand this, your world changes. When you read an article
in the New York Times by a government/university expert on Islam,
you will see it has no merit until the conclusion of the experts is checked
against the Sunna. If the “expert” agrees with Mohammed or Allah, then
the conclusions are correct. If they violate the Sunna or the Koran, they
What you will fi nd, in nearly every case, is the article of the “expert”
never contains the words “Mohammed” or “Allah”. The “experts” may
quote a single Koran verse, but never use Mohammed.
Think about this. There is only one Islam—the Sunna and the Koran.
Why do we need the experts? No one needs a Muslim to defi ne Islam.
The Koran and Sunna do that for us. Once you know the doctrine, Islam
is easy. You can grade the news reports, the government propaganda, the
smart articles. You will see that none of the experts ever speak about the
“why” of Islam. When you know the doctrine, you will always know why.
At this point the more sophisticated student will draw upon articles
written by “moderate” Muslims. They say that reform is possible for Islam.
And what will this new Islam be based upon? If the new reformed Islam
is not based upon the Sunna and the Koran, then it is apostasy, the worst
crime in Islam. There is no escape from the Koran and Sunna, ever.
The method is this: bring all arguments back to the Koran and the Sunna.
If you are the expert, then bring in Koranic verses, but Koran specifi cs
can be tricky. Stay with the Sunna (Mohammed) and you will never go
Once you introduce them to the idea of a true Islamic doctrine, you
can go into a thousand directions to your chosen advantage. The doctrine
is a devastating strategic weapon. The Sunna is also a weapon of magnifi –
cent power at small tactical details. Once you know Mohammed, there are
unlimited stories to illustrate any point you want.
There is no Islamic idea more important than that of the Kafi r. Kafi r
transforms a theoretical Islam into a personal Islam.
Always point out to your student that they are a Kafi r, just like you.
Explain to them how that in Islam Kafi rs are hated by Allah and how He
plots against us. Kafi rs can be enslaved, robbed, lied to, mocked, abused,
tortured, raped and so on. There is no limit to the abuse that a Kafi r can
receive. On the other hand, a Kafi r may be treated well, as that is Islam’s
What you see in Islam depends upon who you are. For example,
when Mohammed executed the 800 male Jews in Medina, what is the
For the believers, it was a glorious day. Islam triumphed over the hated
Jews. For the Kafi rs it was a day of ethnic cleansing, a tragedy, and an
end to free speech (the only crime the Jews had committed was that they
denied that Mohammed was a prophet). The dhimmi (apologist) view
is that we should not judge past times by our modern standards. Besides
Christians have done a lot of bad things too.
Which was it? Triumph, tragedy or no discrimination? There is no answer,
just different points-of-view. The dhimmi will always be sympathetic
to Islam and the Muslim will be always be proud. But in debate, argument
and teaching, be sure to tell the Kafi r side of the story.
There is no way around this viewpoint problem, since Islam divides the
world into believer, dhimmi and Kafi r. What you want to do is to tell your
side of the story. Don’t argue with the Muslim or dhimmi point, just state
that you have your point of view, that of the victim, the Kafi r. You are not
really arguing for anything but the inclusion of the rest of the story. You
are showing what Islam is like for Kafi rs, not Muslims. The other side of
the story is the Muslim/dhimmi view. It is only fair to present the Kafi r
side of the story.
The concept of Kafi r is what bonds you to the student. Both teacher and
student have the common bond of being hated by Allah. Mohammed fi rst
used charm on Kafi rs and then arguments. Finally, if the Kafi rs actively
resisted, he destroyed them.
What is the basis for what the other person says? What is his
This is an all-purpose question and the answer is usually an article in
the media. Most people do not have the slightest idea where they get their
Offi cial Islam, so it is a good question to ask. There is no need to press,
but there is a need for them to admit their lack of real knowledge, only
opinion. It is also a good time to separate the person from their ideas by
pointing out that they have been misled by people they trust.
It is always appropriate to ask if they have read the Koran, Sira and Hadith.
If they say that they have read the Koran (a very rare event) then ask
if they have read the entire Koran. If they have read the Koran, ask about
their understanding abrogation. Do they know that all of the “good” verses
are abrogated by the later verses?
Another question to ask is if they understand Islam from both Muslim
and Kafi r points of view? This Kafi r view is an entirely new idea. Part of
the Offi cial Islam doctrine is that only the view is of Islam is true. Offi cial
Islam denies that there is such a thing as a Kafi r view of Islam.
This seems like a lot to say, but you don’t have to use that many words.
Imagine that you fi nd yourself in a discussion with a friend about Islam.
You say to yourself that we are talking about Islam and it is time to shape
You might say, “Before we talk about Islam and women (or whatever
point that is up for discussion) it is good to know that Islam becomes simple
if you understand Mohammed. Instead of talking about an opinion
of some ‘expert’, use the doctrine for just about every question in Islam.
Once you know what Mohammed did or said, you can use fact-based
logic about Islam.
You can say, “Do you understand that everything in Islam has two
meanings? The Muslim viewpoint and the Kafi r viewpoint? I only talk
about Islam from the Kafi r point-of-view.”
Look at what you have set up in less than two minutes:
Islam has a doctrine and Mohammed is necessary to understand it
Most writing can be dismissed as opinion only
Introduced an entirely new viewpoint, Kafi r-centric reasoning
Established that you are going to use critical thought, not opinions
In these few simple steps, you have put the discussion on an entirely different
footing. The student’s very ground of discussion has been destroyed.
All of those articles in the mainstream media by the Harvard professors
and other Islamic scholars have been demoted to someone’s personal
opinion. More importantly, you have established that all truth of Islam is
knowable and they don’t know it. You have taken control of the discussion
before the point is even discussed. You have shaped the debate.
What does it mean if you are wrong?
This question goes to the heart of the problem. Most apologists are
desperate to believe that Offi cial Islam must be right, because if it is as
they fear, then they will have to do something. To do something will mean
that they will be socially ostracized by their friends.
The problem in using this technique is to remember to take the time to
set up the situation. In boxing, you do not try to knock out the opponent
with every blow. Most blows set up the situation for a real punch. In the
same way, in a debate, you do not want to come out swinging. Take time
to set up the punch.
With this shaping, you have also cut out the ground from under the
other person’s feet. You become the true multicultural person with this
shaping. You are insisting that Islam be based upon its own doctrine, not
some Western European basis. It may be politically incorrect to criticize a
Muslim, but that rule does not apply to doctrine.
At some point it is always needed to introduce Islamic dualism. Dualism
is covered in all of the CSPI Trilogy books. Islam does have many
features that seem good on the surface. However, when you look further
there is a contradicting idea, as well. It is the old Mecca-Medina concept
again and again.
political islam is 100% bad for kafirs
People will dig up any fragment of good about Islam they can fi nd.
Part of a winning strategy is to deny that there is any good for Kafi rs in
Islam, none. If they can fi nd one good fact or idea, then they will take
refuge in it. Part of the shaping is to challenge the other person to show
one good thing about Islam and then show that duality means something
more powerful will offset the good point.
Shape the debate or teaching moment by:
Summarizing the opposition’s point.
Using critical thinking based on the doctrine of Islam, not the opinion
of “experts” even if those experts are Muslims. Mohammed is the
Proving your statements by using the doctrine and in particular,
Mohammed. Show how the actions and words of all Muslims are
based upon the Trilogy, their sole authority.
Asking where they get their information.
Presenting the Kafi r viewpoint.
how to use this material
This material must be practiced. You may not get it totally right the
fi rst time, but even one or two of these points will move the discussion to
unfamiliar grounds—the truth of Islamic doctrine and history.
The doctrine of Political Islam provides the strongest argument against
Islam. The second strongest argument is the history of jihad.
In debating about Islam do not engage the others’ arguments on their
points. Instead create a new basis by bringing in facts from Islam’s political
nature, Kafi rs, duality and submission.
Instead of resisting your opponents, use the principle of duality to show
both sides of the contradiction. Point out that Islam always has two ways
to treat the Kafi rs and what you want to do is provide the rest of the doctrine
that is left out of Offi cial Islam. The apologists and Muslims present
their viewpoint so all you want to do is to show the Kafi r viewpoint.
All of the arguments found here are based on having read the Koran,
Sira, and Hadith. You cannot argue about Islam, if you do not know Islamic
Your continual strategy is to stay with the Koran and Mohammed.
When the other person brings up Christianity, stay with Islam If they want
to talk about Christianity, say you will compare Jesus with Mohammed,
but stay with Mohammed. If they want to talk about the Crusades, say
they were in response to the jihad that conquered Christian lands. And
jihad comes straight from the Islamic political doctrine.
If you will stay with the foundational doctrine, you will always prevail
and persuade. The Koran and Mohammed are so negative that you can’t
Nearly every argument you hear is from the media and the media never
talks about doctrine. So when you speak about doctrine, you are presenting
new material. Your debate opponents have opinions; you have facts.
Ask them where they got their arguments. You will be glad to tell them
where you get your facts.
When they tell you about what their Muslim friend says, tell them
that you have a Muslim friend called Mohammed. Your Muslim friend
outranks their Muslim friend. If they get their information from some
Muslim expert, the strategy does not change—go to Mohammed. He is
the supreme expert; their expert is second rank, no matter who he is.
It is also a good time to ask if they have any Muslim apostate friends.
This brings up the chance to introduce what apostasy means in the
When they say that what Muslims do is in response to our failures,
colonialism, foreign policy, whatever, show them how everything Muslims
do is based upon the doctrine.
All of these case studies are based upon the doctrine of Islam.
can you read arabic?
You may be asked if you can read Arabic. The implication is that Arabic
is a unique language that can’t be translated and therefore, how could you
know what you are talking about? First, the Koran claims to be a universal
message for all humanity for all times. If the message is universal, then it
must be understood by all. If everybody cannot understand the message,
then by defi nition it is not universal. So, which is it?
Another thing to consider is that over half of the Koran is about Kafi rs
and politics. Do you really think that a political message about a Kafi r
cannot be understood by the Kafi r? If so, what is that message that cannot
Also, it must be made clear which Arabic is being spoken about. The
Arabic of the Koran is classical Arabic which is about as similar to modern
Arabic as the English of Chaucer is to modern English. Said in another
way, not even a modern Arab can read classical Arabic. It is estimated that
fewer than a thousand scholars who read classical Arabic can compose a
paragraph in classical Arabic script on a random topic.
And what about the billion-plus Muslims who don’t understand modern
Arabic? If it is necessary to understand classical Arabic to understand
what the Koran is about, then how can all those non-Arabic-speaking
Muslims understand the Koran? And if they cannot understand the Koran,
how can they be Muslims?
Ask the person who presents the argument if they have any opinions
about the doctrine of Christianity. Then ask them if they read Hebrew,
Aramaic or Biblical Greek? If they do not read those languages how can
they form an opinion about something they have to read in translation?
Of course they can read it and form an opinion, the same way we can read
and understand the Koran.
A secondary question is why would anyone want to believe that the
Koran couldn’t be understood? What is the purpose of believing that out
of all the books in the world, it is the one that cannot be translated and
The Koran is only 14% of the total doctrine1 as found in the Koran,
Sira and Hadith. Would the questioner believe that the other 86% of the
doctrine, the Sira and Hadith, not be understood as well?
well, the christians / jews did…
There are two different ways to deal with comments about Christianity
Reject all conversation that is not about Islam. Reject all comparative
religious talk. Insist on talking solely about Islam. If they want to talk
about Christianity/Judaism fi ne, but don’t respond, except to say that you
want to talk about Islam, not comparative religion. When it is your turn,
return to Islam. Refuse to engage in comparisons. Islam must be taken on
its own. There is no comparison. Insist on discussing the Sunna and the
Ask if they have a reason that they don’t want to talk about Islam, since
they want to change the subject. The average person knows next to nothing
about this subject and sometimes this gambit is merely a way to steer
the conversation into a familiar ground.
They are just trying to prove that Islam is not any worse than Christianity.
At this point, welcome the chance to compare the two, but choose
the ground of comparison. The best place to start is with the founders.
Compare Mohammed to Christ. The other good comparison is in ethics.
Compare Islam’s dualistic ethics to Christian unitary, Golden Rule ethics.
Another version of this argument is that the person will compare some
failed Christian to a “good” Muslim they know at work. It is fairly useless
to do personal comparisons. How do you choose which Muslim out of
1.5 billion Muslims and which Christian does you choose out of a couple
A variation on the “Well, the Christians did …” is “What about the
Crusades”? This is the time to say you welcome a comparison of the Crusades
to jihad. Start with the question of why the Crusades were needed.
Islamic jihad invaded the Christian Middle East and subjugated them. The
Crusades were a response to a cry for help by the tortured and oppressed
Christians in their native land. Did the Christians do some wrong things?
Yes, but notice that the Crusades have been over nearly a thousand years.
Jihad is active today. And while we are at it, why do academic libraries have
many books on the Crusades, which lasted only 200 years, and so few on
jihad, which has been going on for 1400 years? The West has analyzed the
Crusades, ad nauseam, and has barely looked at jihad.
i know this muslim and he says…
Why is the Muslim an expert on Islam? Remember, the average Muslim
knows very little about the doctrine of Islam. Why? Because, historically
the imams have acted as the high priests of Islam and they have never
made the doctrine simple to understand. That is one way they keep their
prestige and power.
It does not make any difference who the Muslim is. Once you know
something about the doctrine of the Trilogy, you can say that you also
know a Muslim, and his name is Mohammed, and what you say comes
from the Sunna. In short, your Muslim, Mohammed, can trump your
friend’s Muslim on any issue of doctrine. If the Muslim your friend knows
says something about Islam that agrees with Mohammed, then it is right.
If what he says contradicts Mohammed, then he is wrong. Mohammed is
the only Muslim who counts.
i know this muslim and he is a nice man
So a man is nice and he is a Muslim. What does that prove about Islam?
He may follow the Golden Rule and not Islamic doctrine. That is, he may
be a poor practitioner of Islam and a good person.
The fi rst question to ask about “nice” Muslims is do they believe in the
Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed? They will say yes. Now is the time to
explain about the Islam of Mecca and the Islam of Medina. It is also time
to explain about dualism and how Islam always has two faces.
Stay with the doctrine and the history of Islam, never get personal and
talk about an individual Muslim. Actually, there is one way to talk about
any Muslim, just show how what they do and say follows the doctrine.
muslims rejecting sharia
You will discover that some Muslims say that they reject Sharia. What
they mean is that they reject some parts of the Sharia. Since Sharia covers
the details of the Five Pillars, including prayer, to reject all of the Sharia is
to become an apostate.
The fi rst question to ask any Muslim who rejects part of Sharia, is exactly
what part they reject. Since the rules of Sharia are based upon the
Sunna of Mohammed and the Koran, that means rejecting the Koran and
the Sunna. But a Muslim must accept all of the Koran as the exact perfect
manifestation of Allah. Therefore, the Sharia that is based on the Koran
must be accepted as valid. In the same way, Mohammed is the perfect
Muslim and is to be imitated in all matters. To reject Sharia based upon
Sunna is to be an apostate.
Here is a summary of the proper Islamic attitude about Sharia:
The word Sharia means “road,” and the implied imagery of the term is that
our life is like a road in a desert, with God the oasis we seek. Thus the primary
focus of Sharia law is on humankind’s jour ney toward intimacy with our Creator,
and the Sharia’s purpose is to establish the links or guideposts between
God and humanity. The Sharia is the body of divine guidance, its structure, format,
and con struct. It is important to Muslims because it is the guide by which
the Muslim determines what is good or ethical. To Muslim ears, “Sharia law”
means all that is constitutional, ethical, right, and compassion ate—the conditions
necessary for what Americans call the pursuit of happiness. This is why
many Muslims seek to base their national legal systems on Sharia law, for that is
the highest authority they can claim on their behalf in correcting wrongs2.
that is not the real islam
When you bring up an atrocity by Islam—the 9/11 attacks, Beslan, Russia,
Mumbai India—a common apologist response is that that is not the real
Islam. Ask them how they know what is and is not “real” Islam. Real Islam
comes from Mohammed and he frequently launched sneak attacks against
Kafi rs. For example, he attacked the Jews of Khaybar in a surprise raid in the
2 What is Right with Islam, Imam Feisal Rauf, Harper San Francisco,
2004, page 150.
morning (his favorite sneak attack time of day). After he had killed enough
Jews so that the rest submitted, he then tortured some to fi nd more buried
treasure while his men raped many of the women. That is how Mohammed
did atrocities, so murderous sneak attacks against civilian Kafi rs is Sunna.
If there is anyway that the event is similar to the Sunna, then it is the real
If you are quoting the Sharia, then it is the real Islam, by defi nition, as
are the Koran and the Sunna.
they don’t really believe that
You reveal some horrifi c part of the doctrine and the other person says
that Muslims don’t really believe that. What do Muslims call themselves?
The Believers. What do they believe? The Koran and the Sunna. They
say that is what they believe. Now ask two questions: have you read and
understood the Koran or the Sunna? If not, how do you know anything
about what Muslims believe?
i know this muslim and he is not violent
This is a restating of, “I know this Muslim and he is good man.” He
may be a non-practicing Muslim and a good man who follows the Golden
A non-violent Muslim believes in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed.
The Koran suggests both violence and tolerance against the Kafi rs.
Today in America, the political power of Islam is just getting started, so
Islam is still weak. When Mohammed was weak in Mecca, he did not kill
anybody. Islam is still in the fi rst phase of jihad here.
We know from the Sira that many Muslims just don’t have the stomach
for the violence. The Sira shows that Muslims can support jihad in
many ways, besides personal violence. The “peaceful” Muslim you know is
commanded to give money to Islamic charities and the charities give the
money to the actual fi ghters.
what about the violence in the old testament?
Apologists love to bring up the violence in the Old Testament to show
that Islam is no better or worse than Christianity and Judaism. This is
another version of “I don’t know anything about Islam so I will talk about
what I do know—Christianity and Judaism.”
There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison: measure
the differences in violence.
The fi rst item is the defi nition of violence. The only violence that matters
to someone outside either Islam or Judaism is what they do to the
“other”, or political violence. Cain killing Able is not political violence.
Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal
sacrifi ce. Note, however, both are violence for a vegan or a PETA member,
but it is not violence against them.
We now need to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The political violence of the Koran is called “fi ghting in Allah’s
cause”, or jihad.
We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has
three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is
Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions—what he did and
said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna.
It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here
is a chart about the results:
Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at
the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam
grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. All of the details of how to
wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision
of jihad—world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic
manual and the Hadith is a tactical manual of jihad.
Now let’s look at the Hebrew Bible. When all of the political violence
is counted, we fi nd that 5.6% of the text is devoted to political violence as
opposed to 31% of the Islamic Trilogy.
When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence,
we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy and 34,039 words in the Hebrew
20% 40% 60% 80%
Amount of Text Devoted to Jihad
Bible. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence
as the Hebrew Bible.
Then there is the qualitative measurement. The political violence of
the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible is for
that particular historical time and place.
Here is a measurement of the difference. Jihad has killed about 270
million non-Muslims over the last 1400 years. Jewish political violence
killed 300,000 (an order of magnitude surmise) since the days of the Old
Testament. As a comparison, jihad has killed thousands of times more
people than Jewish political violence.
These fi gures are not about moderate Muslims or extremist Muslims.
These fi gures are about the doctrine that Muslims say is perfect. All
Muslims, without exception, believe in the perfect Koran and the perfect
Sunna. Now, how much of it they are aware of is another question. But the
doctrine is there for all of us to see and study.
The violence in the Trilogy is for all Muslims, in all places and for all
time. Jihad is to stop only when every Kafi r submits. Look at Mohammed,
the perfect example. He was involved with violence until the day he died.
And on his deathbed he directed violence against the Kafi rs when he said
in his last breath: “Let there be neither Christian or Jew left in Arabia.”
if islam is so violent, how can it be so successful?
The Sira records that when Islam committed violence, it attracted new
followers. As Osama bin Laden said: “People like a winning horse.” After
9/11 in the US, new followers joined Islam. Communism was a political system
that preached, promised and delivered violence and it attracted many
Words Devoted to Political Violence
0 100 200 300 400
Thousands of Words
people. Many people love violence. Have you noticed that in Hollywood
violence is piled upon violence and people line up to pay money to see it.
there are different kinds of islam
The differences in the various sects of Islam are due to religion, not politics.
Take the Sunni/Shia split, its largest division. Both Sunnis and Shias
completely agree on how to treat Kafi rs and jihad. All Muslims subscribe
to one of fi ve schools of the Sharia and the Sharia’s position regarding
Kafi rs and jihad is similar for all the sects.
The only big difference is when to use violent jihad or peaceful jihad
against the Kafi rs.
hadith—some of those aren’t real
If you quote a hadith to a Muslim and they don’t like it, they will say,
“Well, some of those hadiths are not acceptable (or not true or some other
disclaimer).” Actually, when Muslims say this, they are practicing taqiyya,
sacred deception and duality. If it is a hadith, then a Muslim cannot be
denied the right to follow it. The Hadith are Sunna, the perfect example
The hadiths cited in this book come from the very best collections—
Al-Bukhari and Abu Muslim. These hadiths are the creme de la
creme of hadiths and are called sahih (genuine) by top Islamic scholars.
When Bukhari made his collection, he threw out 99% of those he
found. Those 99% are the unsure ones, the other 1% that are used here
So the hadiths quoted here are genuine and real.
Once you know something about the doctrine of Islam, you can wonder
if you really know that much when you hear some Muslim (or apologist
professor) say the following:
The Koran forbids compulsion in religion [2:256]
The Koran teaches the oneness of god and acceptance of all the
Acceptance of diversity [5:48]
Peaceful relations with the Jews and Christians [3:64; 29:46; 5:5]
Universal justice and fair dealings with all people [4:135; 5:8]
When you hear this good teaching from some Muslim or apologist you
may doubt your knowledge. Maybe you have misjudged the doctrine and
there is some way that Islam can be a force for the good of humanity.
Before we examine how good a force Islam is, let us examine how the
doctrine is designed to deceive.
[Bukhari 4,52,267] Mohammed said: war is deceit.
Koran 4:142 The hypocrites wish to deceive Allah, but He will deceive
Koran 8:30 Remember the unbelievers who plotted against you and sought
to have you taken prisoner or to have you killed or banished. They made
plans, as did Allah, but Allah is the best plotter of all.
When it comes to deception, Mohammed was a deceiver and advised
Muslims to deceive Kafi rs. Allah plots against Kafi rs and deceives them.
All Muslims who follow the doctrine are deceivers of Kafi rs. That is their
sacred task. So when you hear about all of those good verses in the Koran,
know that you are being deceived. All of the “good” verses in the Koran
are denied later in the Koran. This is an example of the Mecca/Medina
If Islam is so tolerant, why was there no Arab left to disagree with Mohammed
at the time he died? When he re-entered Mecca as its conqueror,
he issued death warrants for all those who had disagreed with him. Is this
A supreme example of deception, taqiyya, is Imam Feisal Rauf ’s book
What’s Right with Islam in which he claims that the Constitution is based
on Islamic principles and that Islam is based on the Golden Rule.
what is your basis?
Instead of arguing against a point, ask the question: “Why do you say
that? Where did you learn that?” In dealing with Islam, this is especially
important as most people who speak about Islam with you get their information
from a magazine, web or TV. Islam is a text based doctrine that is
all about Mohammed. Tell them that you want to hear what Mohammed
did and said. He is the basis to discuss Islam.
fill in the blanks
It is a very useful technique to not oppose what your opponent/student
says. Instead, give them the rest of the information. Fill in the other side
of the duality. The beauty of this approach is that the other person is not
being attacked at all, so they don’t tend to push back and argue.
Islamic doctrine has two faces. When someone brings in some part
about Islam that seems good, just give them the other side of the story.
If they talk about Meccan Islam, give them the other half, the Medinan
This is not scientifi c reasoning, but it is a debate strategy. When you are
fi rst beginning to debate in person, you may fi nd yourself in unfamiliar
areas and feel you lack knowledge about something. If you are debating
online or writing a letter to the editor, then you can research the facts, but
in person you may, for tactical purposes, decide to change the subject by
making a transition. Muslims do this all the time by changing the subject
with an accusation against the Crusades, Christians or colonialism.
You can win an argument by rhetorical tactics. This is not scientifi c reasoning,
but emotional reasoning. It works so well that you should always
be aware of it when it is used by others.
The technique is very simple—transition to Mohammed. It is always
possible to move the discussion to Mohammed. For instance, if there is
some talk about what is in the Koran, point out that the Koran repeatedly
says that all Muslims must follow the perfect example of Mohammed.
Once you get to Mohammed, you can move to abuse of women, hatred of
Jews, violence against intellectuals and artists, slavery…
Don’t ever attack the other person in any way. Don’t raise your voice
or insult. It never persuades and only makes the other person more angry
and stubborn. All debate should be done from the angle of teaching and
insults don’t create a teaching moment. More than that, it shows you to be
out of control and unprofessional.
If you are insulted, your response depends upon whether an apologist
or a Muslim insults you. If a Muslim insults, thank them for being such
a good Muslim and following the Koran and the Sunna. The Koran uses
many insults and curses against Kafi rs. Mohammed frequently cursed
and insulted Kafi rs. Insults are part of authoritarian reasoning and Islam.
Thank them for showing how Islamic logic and reasoning work. Their
next Islamic move should be to use some form of threat. Ask them if they
want to display their threat by revealing it.
If they are not a Muslim, stay with the authoritarian thinking theme. Point
out that insults, name-calling and put-downs are part of authoritarian thought.
Attack the fact that authoritarian thought is part of Offi cial Islam, the Big
secular muslims don’t believe the religious “stuff”
First, why talk about individual Muslims? What does any individual
prove about any group? If you know of a Christian who cheats, does that
prove anything about Christianity? No. Don’t discuss Muslims, except to
point out that they come in three fl avors—Meccan, Medinan, and Golden
Rule. A Golden Rule Muslim is actually a Kafi r, since he follows Kafi r ethics,
not Islamic dualistic ethics.
If they are a secular Muslim, then what part of the Koran and the Sunna
do they reject and why? Good luck on getting them to deny any part
why shouldn’t muslim women wear the hijab?
The hijab is a symbol of Sharia compliance. The Sharia is based upon
duality and submission. Hence, the hijab is a symbol of hatred, because it
is a sign of support for Sharia law which includes the hatred of the Kafi r
and violence against them.
demanding prayer at work
Why should Kafi rs submit to any Islamic demands? Freedom of religion
does not mean the right to dictate what others do. Demanding to
have special time for prayer is a political demand. If the Kafi r does not
allow it, then the Muslim does not have to pray. That is Islamic Sharia
law, because the Sharia gives the rules for makeup prayers, when prayer
is missed. While prayer is religious, the demand on the Kafi r is a political
islamic violence is caused by poverty and oppression
This statement is the same as saying: “I do not have the slightest knowledge
about the Sunna of Mohammed and am completely ignorant about
the Koran of Medina.”
During the last nine years of his life, Mohammed averaged a violent
event every six weeks. He is the perfect Muslim who is the perfect model of
behavior. Muslims are violent because Mohammed was violent. Violence
is pure Sunna and does not need poverty or a manufactured oppression.
Besides, nearly every jihadist leader is from middle class and is well educated.
They are far from poor or oppressed.
moderates can reform islam from the inside.
Islam is the religious, political and cultural doctrine found in the Koran,
Sira and Hadith. How does anyone reform any of the doctrine? Islam
cannot change or be reformed according to its own doctrine. A Muslim
can be reformed, but not Islam.
The Sira is comprised of 67% violence (jihad)3. Only 21% of the Hadith
is about jihad. The Koran devotes 64% of its text to Kafi rs4 and every reference
is bigoted, hateful and evil. How do you take this and reform it? No
one can reform Islam.
The only reform a Muslim can offer is to not choose what is on the
menu. This is what the so-called moderate Muslims do. The violence and
hatred are in the doctrine, but they do not choose to accept it. But, they
still defend Islam and deceive Kafi rs about the true nature of Islam that
they are avoiding. In other words, “moderate” Muslims are denying the
true doctrine and deceiving us that it does not exist.
All moderates must be asked if they believe in the Koran and the Sunna
of Mohammed. If they do then all the arguments in this section apply.
sharia law is just like jewish law.
Sharia law is based upon duality and submission. Sharia law expresses
hatred for the Kafi r and subjugates all women. Sharia law is designed for
world conquest, subjugation, oppression and annihilation of all Kafi r culture.
Sharia law opposes our Constitution and says that it is to replace
our form of government. Jewish law is about how to be a Jew and has no
designs on non-Jews. Indeed, Jewish law states that the law of the land
trumps Jewish law. Jewish law is not like Sharia law.
you are not a kafir; you are a person of the book
Muslims like to say this to Christians and Jews if they show knowledge
about Kafi rs. Kafi rs believe that Mohammed was not a prophet. A person
of the Book has to believe that Mohammed was the last of the prophets.
A Christian has to believe that Jesus was not the Son of God, there is no
Holy Trinity, that the Gospels are in error, and that Jesus was not crucifi ed.
Only if you hold these beliefs, then you are a real Christian in the view of
Islam. Since no Christian believes a doctrine which opposes the Gospels, a
church going Christian is just Kafi rs.
A Jew has to believe that the Torah is in error and that only the Koran
has the only true stories about Moses, David, Abraham and the other Jewish
patriarchs. If, additionally, the Jew accepts that Mohammed is the fi nal
prophet of the God of the Jews, then such a Jew is a person of the Book
and a real Jew (according to Islam). Otherwise, the Jew is simply a Kafi r.
treat them as a friend
The process of educating others about Political Islam can only start
with someone who has agreed to discuss Islam. When we speak one-onone,
the only winning method is to talk as if you were talking to a friend.
Never adopt a combative mode. Do not oppose and become emotional.
Be a teacher. The dhimmi is a good person who is trying to do the right
thing. They do not want to be a bigot and are terrifi ed of being called a
racist. They are fi lled with the media version of Offi cial Islam. They went
to school, even college, and they were taught the Offi cial Islam and so it
must be right.
Do not oppose them. Give them the added facts about the doctrine
and relate everything from the Kafi r point of view. For instance, what
does it mean to Kafi rs when a Muslim woman wears a burka or hijab?
Teach them from the Sunna (as was done above); always give the story of
bridge building and interfaith dialog
One of the most painful things is to watch ministers and rabbis go
to interfaith dialogues with Muslims. The dhimmi religious leaders want
to build a “bridge”, but don’t know the fi rst thing about how a bridge is
built. In the real world, when you build a bridge, you do survey work and
learn about what both ends of the bridge will be built on. But the dhimmi
bridge builders pride themselves on not knowing the fi rst thing about the
Muslim end of the bridge—not the fi rst thing.
The dhimmis build one end for the bridge on their theology and ethics
and the other end of the bridge is “tolerance”, another word for saying that
they will believe anything they are told by a Muslim. The bridges these
religious dhimmi leaders build are based on fantasy. They are not building
bridges, but are building rainbows. See how beautiful the illusion is? But,
it is still an illusion.
A general condemnation of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists is
that all the Kafi r religions have reduced their doctrine to compassion and
tolerance. That emotional quality is necessary, but it is also necessary to
have knowledge and truth to go with it. Otherwise you wind up with idiot
compassion. And that is what Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists offer
at interfaith dialogues—idiot compassion. They become useful idiots for
In debating with such dhimmis, praise their desire for peace, but point
out their lack of knowledge. They are basically narcissists, who see the
argument revolving around their own goodness, not truth. Point out how
self-centered they are and how true compassion would include learning
about Islam as well.
Show them how Islam has attempted to annihilate all Kafir religions
for 1400 years. Show them that the peaceful periods of co-existence are
merely temporary rests before annihilation. Make them dwell on suffering
of Kafi rs. Point out that Muslims never accept any responsibility for
this suffering and deny it.
i have seen moderate islamic web sites
Someone surfs the web and fi nds a version of a kinder and gentler Islam.
Why isn’t that true? Isn’t that hope?
The web site promises a tolerant and loving Islam, not like that terrible
extremist Islam. This is the ultimate dream of all Kafi rs. The dream is
that moderate Muslims will forge a reformation. This dream ignores the
simple fact that both the Wahabbis and the Taliban are reform movements
that arose during the 20th century. They do not dilute the doctrine found
in the Trilogy. They really walk Mohammed’s talk.
So why is the Wahabbi the real Islam and the kinder/gentler Islam not
possible? Islam means submission. Muslim means one who has submitted.
Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. Islam makes Muslims; Muslims
do not make Islam. What a Muslim says about Islam is immaterial. There
is only one authority, Mohammed.
The kinder/gentler Islam is based upon the Islam preached in Mecca
for 13 years. This Islam was followed by the violent jihad of Medina. Two
different Mohammeds, two different Islams. So the answer to reform is to
use the Meccan Koran and Meccan Islam.
There is a problem, however. Islam is a process; it is not static. Mecca is
the beginning part of the process. You can’t just throw it out. Then there
is the matter of the Koran clearly stating that the later Islam of Medina
is the stronger, better Islam. The Medinan Islam is the completion of Islam—
you can’t throw it out.
There is another problem. The Koran is perfect. The Sunna (Mohammed’s
sacred pattern of the perfect life) is sacred. How can you reject what
is perfect? That would mean labeling Medina as bad and evil. Rejecting
Medina would also mean rejecting the code that the Sharia is based
We must end our ignorance and learn about the doctrine and history
of Islam. It is no longer hard to do that. The entire corpus of Koran, Sira
and Hadith can be held in one hand and has been made easy to read. It is
immoral to be so ignorant. Turn to Mohammed, not some imam. Then
you will get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
radical islamic groups
What does “radical” mean? Does it mean killing, robbing, enslaving,
assassination, torture, deception, jihad? As long as those behaviors occur
with the Kafi rs on the receiving end, they are all acts that were performed
by Mohammed. If Mohammed performed these actions, then they are not
radical. Mohammed defi nes normative behavior for all Muslims.
What happened in Mumbai, India, the World Trade Towers and Beslan,
Russia was not radical. Each and every action at those sites was based upon
the Sunna of Mohammed.
moderates are using the koran to prove the radicals to
Anytime anyone references only the Koran when they are talking about
Islam, you are dealing with a deceiver or an ignorant person. The Koran
is only 16% of the Islamic canon. The Koran does not have enough in it
to accomplish even one of Islam’s vaunted Five Pillars. The Sira and the
Hadith make up the 84% of Islamic canon that shows a Muslim how to
be a Muslim.
The Hadith devotes 21% of its text to jihad5. The Sira devotes 67% of
its words to jihad. Which “moderate” can deny those facts?
The Koran devotes 64% of its words to Kafi rs, not Muslims. Out of all
this material in the Koran, some of it in Mecca seems to promise goodness
to the Kafi r, but the later Koran takes away this chance of goodness.
The “radicals,” the Medinan Muslims, are right. The Meccan Muslims
are deceivers, perhaps of themselves, but certainly deceivers without any
Disregard what anyone says, except Mohammed. Actually, there is one,
and only one, Muslim who will give you the straight truth and that is an
apostate, one who has left Islam.
don’t malign islam’s holy prophet
Why is quoting from the Sira and Hadith maligning? Mohammed gave
out the rules for rape in jihad. He owned sex slaves, told Muslims it was
good to beat their wives, laughed when his enemy’s head was thrown at his
feet. It’s in the book. Such behavior goes on for page after page, year after
year. Why is referring to facts maligning?
there are fundamentalists in every religion
We must be clear. All that matters is politics. Religion is prayer and
Paradise and Judgment Day. These things don’t concern us.
This statement assumes that Islam is comparable to other political systems
and religions. What is remarkable is that this statement is only made
by those who know nothing about the doctrine of Political Islam. They
don’t know Sunna from tuna. Mohammed is perfect. Every Muslim, without
exception, is supposed to imitate Mohammed down to the slightest
action. Is that fundamentalism? If so, then every Muslim is supposed to be
a fundamentalist. It is the Sunna.
interfaith dialogue will let us meet muslims and
So you change some Muslims, so what? Are you going to change Islam?
No. Is a Muslim going to change Islam? No. Islam is found in the Koran,
Sira and Hadith. That is not going to change.
You can reform a Muslim and make them an apostate, but you cannot
the koran has lots of peaceful verses
What does that prove? There have been men who killed a wife in jealousy.
The fact that the great majority of his life was good does nothing
about his being guilty of murder for only a second.
Mein Kampf is only 7% Jew-hatred. That means that it is 93% good
and therefore, Mein Kampf is a good book. Ridiculous.
not all muslims will deceive you
No, and for many different reasons. But deceiving the Kafi r about Islam
is ethical. So why do you want to do business with someone who has a
sacred directive to lie when it helps Islam?
Every Muslim has three natures—Meccan Islam, Medinan Islam and
Kafi r. If he is manifesting his Kafi r nature and the Golden Rule, then he is
honest. So honesty is proof of his Kafi r nature, not his Islamic nature.
it all depends on how you interpret it
There is truth to the fact that there are many things in the Koran that
depend upon interpretation. As an example, Muslims are to command
good and forbid wrong. This comes from a verse in the Koran. Interpretation
goes into exactly who does this and how they are to do it. But this is
a religious matter.
However, the way that Kafi rs are to be treated is not in this category. It
is true that the Koran says two different things about how to treat Kafi rs.
There is both tolerance and jihad. But this is not a matter of interpretation.
The tolerance is advised when Islam is weak, jihad comes when it is
The interpretation argument is an attempt to deal with duality in the
Koran. Usually, the interpretation argument is related to saying that there
are good and bad verses in the Bible. Today Jews don’t use those violent
verses to blow people up; they don’t interpret it that way. So, if Muslims
would just interpret the Koran in the right way, we could all get along.
But Muslims do interpret the Koran the right way according to Mohammed.
The Koran is a dualistic document and that is what Muslims do. Some
of them are playing good cop and a few play bad cop. Dualism reigns and
the dhimmis pretend that the good cops will interpret the Koran the right
way and change the minds of the bad cops. Not! The proper interpretation
of Islam is that the bad cops outrank the good cops.
Another approach to interpretation is the Sharia. Sharia is the classical
interpretation of Koran and Sunna by the fi nest Islamic scholars. As an
example the Sharia says that jihad is killing Kafi rs, not internal struggle.
That is the proper interpretation of the Koran.
All of these arguments amount to the same thing—use the doctrine of
Political Islam to provide a complete picture of Islam.
refuting official islam
Each and every point of Offi cial Islam is at best a half-truth. Since many
people believe these half-truths, it is very important to know how to refute
the errors of Offi cial Islam.
Here is a point by point refutation:
The religion of Islam is similar to Christianity and Judaism. They all
worship the same god.
Islam is not only a religion, however, but a complete civilization with a
political system of Sharia law and an Arab culture. It is the politics of Islam
that are ruinous, not the religion. The Koran has 64% of its text devoted to
the politics of the Kafi r, not how to be a Muslim. The Sira (Mohammed’s
biography) devotes 67% of its words to jihad. Religion plays very little
part in the Sira. Mohammed was a failure until he turned to politics and
jihad. Islam’s success depends upon its politics, even today.
The religion of Islam is the Tefl on cloak of Political Islam. People do
not think of Islam as a political system, but a religion. You cannot criticize
religion, so you cannot criticize Islam. This gets Political Islam off the
Both Christianity and Judaism have the Golden Rule as their central
ethical principle. Islam does not have a Golden Rule, but instead has dualistic
ethics with one set of rules for Muslims and another set for Kafi rs.
The Koran repeatedly says that the scriptures of the Jews and Christians
are corrupt and fi lled with errors.
The Koran defi nes Allah. The Hebrew Bible defi nes the Jewish god. Allah
condemns, rails against and curses the Jews, but the god of the Hebrew
Bible loves the Jews.
The Christian god is defi ned by the New Testament and loves humanity.
Allah does not love humanity, but hates the Kafi rs (non-Muslims) and only
loves Muslims. The Koran insists that Jesus was not divine, was not crucifi ed
and was not resurrected. The Koran says that the Christian Trinity is God,
refuting official islam
Mary and Jesus and then adds that there is no Trinity. The Koran rejects
every principle of Christianity.
The Jesus of the Koran is called Isa. Isa is not Jesus. And in the same
way, the Musa of the Koran is not the Moses of the Torah. Every single
“prophet” of the Koran that has a Jewish name is not actually the same
prophet of the Torah.
The concept of the commonality of Abrahamic faiths is purely an Islamic
assertion, without evidence.
Judaism and Christianity share the Hebrew Bible as being valid scripture.
Islam denies the validity of the Hebrew Bible.
Good Muslims prove that Islam is good
Muslims per se prove nothing about Islam. Islam is the doctrine found
in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. There is absolutely nothing that any Muslim
can do about the doctrine of Islam, except to choose what part of it to
follow. The word Islam means submission; the word Muslim refers to one
who submits. This establishes cause and effect—Islam causes Muslims;
Muslims do not cause Islam.
Besides, what is a “good” Muslim? Kafi rs mean that a good Muslim
is someone who seems nice. But that is a subjective and personal standard.
The only measure of “goodness” of a Muslim is the Islamic doctrine.
A good Muslim follows the Koran and the Sunna. So even if the Muslim
seems nice that proves not a single thing about the Koran, Sira and
It is faulty thinking to believe that everything that a Muslim does is
pure Islam. Those who call themselves Muslims are also attracted to Kafi r
civilization. Few Muslims follow pure Islam. Muslims are also part Kafi r
and the goodness is due to their Kafi r nature, not their Islamic nature.
When Muslims are good to Kafi rs they are following the Golden Rule, a
Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and atheist ethic, not Islamic ethical
dualism which asserts Muslims should not take Kafi rs as friends.
There are no jihadists, just extremists
This naming is either pure dhimmitude or deceit. It is impossible to
be an extremist if you are following the Sunna of Mohammed. Islam rose
to power through continued violence for nine straight years with an act
of violence, on the average, every six weeks. The act of jihad is not extremism,
but a manifestation of the core political doctrine of Islam. Put
another way, none of the jihadists on 9/11 were extremists, but were extraordinary
Muslims who followed the Sunna of Mohammed.
Islam must be accommodated in as many ways as possible
This is dhimmitude (serving the needs of Islam) based upon ignorance
and fear. Any student of Islamic history can show that Islam is never accommodated
until the host culture follows Sharia. Mohammed was not
satisfi ed until every person in Arabia submitted to Islam.
Accommodation of Islam means the end of free speech, free thought,
freedom of religion, freedom of the press and our civilization.
One of the proofs of Islam’s greatness that Muslims offer is the Islamic
Golden Age, humanity’s best days.
The Golden Age is discussed in full in Chapter 8.
Violence by Muslims is due to their being poor and oppressed
This explanation works best if you are a Marxist of some fl avor who
believes that economics and materialism is the driver for human behavior.
Anyone who has studied Islamic doctrine and history knows that Islam
is based upon violence and that without violence Mohammed would
have died a failure. Jihad was his best invention and was the reason for
his success in Medina. In Mecca he tried religion as a basis for success and
Violence by Muslims against Kafi rs is mandated by pure Islamic
The West got the basis of its intellectual world from Islam
When Islam destroyed the Greek culture of Anatolia and the Mediterranean,
many of the surviving Greek and Roman texts were translated by
Arabic Christians into Arabic. Later when Europe began to recover from
the destruction of the Roman Empire by barbarians and the destruction
of the Byzantine Empire by Islam, the Arabic translations became part of
the recovery process as the old texts were translated back into European
So as a result of the destruction of Greek culture and the preservation of
the texts by Christian Arabs, Islam gets credit for saving European culture.
Imagine that you had a valuable art collection that was stolen. Then the
thieves burned your house. Afterwards, the police recovered your stolen
art. Should the thieves get credit for the preservation of your art?
The Crusades were a great evil
The Christians of Europe committed some grievous errors in the
Crusades. The worst mistake was attacking Constantinople and fatally
refuting official islam
weakening the Greek Byzantine Empire. This attack led to Islam’s success
in conquering the Greek Byzantines, one of humanity’s great tragedies.
Another dreadful error was the killing of thousands of Jews on the way
to Jerusalem. Persecution of Jews occurred on more than one Crusade.
Having said that, it was one of the few times that European Christians
came to the aid of their tortured Orthodox Christian brothers. Remember—
the Crusades were defensive warfare. Islam invaded and conquered
the Christians of the Middle East. When the Orthodox Christians cried out
for help, the European Christians responded. Since that time, most Christians
have steadfastly ignored the suffering of their Orthodox brothers.
There are moderate Muslims and a few extremist Muslims
This is a perfect example of making statements about Islam based upon
the Golden Rule and ignorance (or deceit) of the doctrine and history of
The only scale for measuring Muslims is Islam, not our ethics. Only the
Koran and the Sunna give us the scale to measure a Muslim. Any Muslim
that follows the doctrine of either Meccan Islam or Medinan Islam is a
moderate. Medinan Muslims (jihadists) are moderates, just like Meccan
Muslims are moderates.
The only extremist Muslim is an apostate, since apostasy is the “extreme”
in Islam that is condemned.
Islam is found in the Koran (Mohammed is never discussed)
This is the grand error of Offi cial Islam. Once you know Mohammed,
you know Islam. Once you know Mohammed, you know you are a Kafi r
and it is the purpose of Islam to annihilate you and your culture.
Therefore, it is the prime directive of Offi cial Islam to never mention
Mohammed and only talk about the Koran, the book everybody has
heard of and nobody has read (and is considered impossible to understand).
Sheer belief in the profound nature of the Koran is superstitious
If someone tries to explain Islam based upon the Koran, he knows very
little about this subject. Immediately shift the conversation to Mohammed.
You can’t defeat Islam using the Koran, unless you are very skillful, but
anyone can use Mohammed and make major ideological points easily.
Of the three Islamic texts—Koran, Sira and Hadith—the Koran is
about 16% of the total content of the doctrine1. Islam is 84% Mohammed
and 16% Koran. To know Islam, know Mohammed.
Notice the brilliance of moving the Kafi rs’ attention to the Koran, not
the Sunna. The conventional wisdom is that you have to understand the
Koran to understand Islam. That is what our generation has been taught
in our schools. It used to be that the word Islam was not used, but instead
the word was Mohammedanism. That name points to truth and to Mohammed.
But everybody looks to the book they cannot understand, the
The Koran has been made impossible to understand without Mohammed.
Most of the educated Kafi rs never think about Mohammed, they are
left ignorant and believing whatever Muslims say.
The “bad stuff” in the Koran is just how it is interpreted
Luckily all of the bad stuff in the Koran has been interpreted in the
Sharia, so we don’t need to worry about interpretation. The Sharia says
that the verses about fi ghting in Allah’s cause means killing Kafi rs.
There is no “bad stuff” in the Koran. The Koran is crystal clear in its
nature. The fact that violence is repeatedly preached in the Koran does not
make the Koran bad. Everything is the Koran is pure Islamic goodness.
Jihad is part of that Islamic goodness.
Indeed, the entire concept of “good” and “bad” is un-Islamic. In contrast,
Islam is based upon what is permitted and not permitted.
Good Muslims will reform the “extremists”
As long as they are following the Sunna, a Muslim is a “good” Muslim.
But extremists are merely Medinan Muslims, since they follow the
Medinan doctrine of jihad. Extremists are jihadists. Jihadists are the best
Muslims and don’t need reform. Indeed, the Koran gives the jihadists political
power over the Meccan Muslims, the ones we call good Muslims.
Meccan Muslims are subordinate to Medinan Muslims, so reform can
only come from Medinan Muslims, not the Meccan Muslims.
Islam is the religion of tolerance
This is Sunna: when Mohammed became a prophet of Allah there were
360 religions in Mecca that were practiced at the Kabah. The Arabs were a
very tolerant people. There had never been a religious war in Arabia until
refuting official islam
After Mohammed came torture, murder, assassinations, enslavement,
rape, theft and deceit. After 23 years of Mohammed, there were no other
religions tolerated in Arabia. Mohammed was absolutely intolerant of all
Kafi rs. Mohammed was one of the most intolerant men who ever lived;
therefore, Islam is one of the most intolerant political systems in history.
Islam has a Golden Rule
Show me the Islamic Golden Rule. It is not found in the Koran, the Sira
or the Hadith. The very concept of “Kafi r” means that the Golden Rule
cannot exist. There is no Golden Rule in Islam, since it divides humanity
into two unequal groups—believer and Kafi r.
After Mohammed became a prophet of Allah, he attacked everyone
who did not agree with him. He kept attacking, fi rst verbally and then
physically, until everyone agreed to do exactly what he said. That is not the
Golden Rule, but it is the Sunna. Mohammed did not follow the Golden
Rule, therefore, it is not Sunna, and it is not Islam.
Islam is a wonderful part of American culture
American culture is founded on the moral principle of the Golden
Rule and the intellectual principle of critical thought. The Golden Rule
is manifest in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We
have full legal equality of sex, race, religion and freedom of thought, ideas
and the media.
Islam denies all of these principles with its dualistic ethics and dualistic
logic. It is Islam’s desire to eliminate all of our civilization and it is not part
of it, whatsoever. It is not possible for Islam to be a part of our civilization,
since it denies our core values.
Islam is the religion of freedom
This is an insult to Islam, since it is the civilization of slaves. Mohammed
was a slave of Allah. Muslims are the slaves of Allah. Mohammed
enslaved those who did not agree with what he said. Every Muslim is a
slave to the Sharia. Freedom is an anathema in Islam.
To leave Islam is a death sentence. Apostasy is the worst crime in Islam.
If you cannot leave Islam, how is it free?
It is important to understand the true Islamic Golden Age as it is such
a popular argument about the greatness of the intellectual power of Islam.
The Golden Age is part of Offi cial Islam and is taqiyya (deception).
The Islamic Golden Age occured in two places—Moorish Spain and
Baghdad in the ninth and tenth century. The oft-told Big Lie goes like this:
Islam established a paradise on earth where Christians, Jews and Muslims
lived in peace. Everybody got along. People were wealthy and knowledge
fl owed from the Islamic scholars in an unprecedented wave. While Europe
was in the Dark Ages, Islam was a light unto the world. The only way that
Europeans moved out of the Dark Ages was through the charity of Islamic
That is the short version told by our dhimmi professors in such works
as The Oxford History of Islam. Let us examine the Islamic Golden Age.
First things, fi rst. Islam invaded Baghdad and Spain with the sword in
hand. Islam killed so many people that the remainder surrendered. Those
who surrendered and did not convert were raped, robbed and made dhimmis,
except for those who were made slaves and shipped to another part of
the Islamic empire. How Golden a beginning is that?
The Muslim masters were the new rulers who put Sharia law in place.
What was the level of culture of the Muslims when they set up Baghdad as
the imperial city? Islam was only a century away from Mohammed. There
had never been a book written in Arabic until the Koran. Architecture
consisted of mud huts. Arabia was barely out of the bronze age. Superstition
ruled and the “science” of Mohammed as shown in the Hadith:
The fi rst men were 90 feet tall.
One wing of a fl y carries a disease, but the other wing is a cure for
Black cumin will cure all diseases except death.
Indian incense will cure seven diseases.
Honey will cure diarrhea.
A fever is caused by the heat from Hell.
The sun sets at night beneath the throne of Allah.
This was the state of Islamic knowledge when Islam conquered Baghdad
in the Christian nation of what is now Iraq. In short, Islam brought
nothing to the intellectual table to start the Golden Age. The knowledge
of the Golden Age in Baghdad came from the conquered Jews, Christians,
Persians, and Hindus.
Islam took the “Arabic” numerals and the zero from the Hindus. The
parabolic arch came from Assyria, the dome from Persia, and the barrel
vault came from the Romans. Suddenly, the ignorant jihadists “owned” the
world’s fi nest minds. This explains how so much of the Islamic knowledge
was actually translated into Arabic by Christians. O’Leary’s book How
Greek Science Passed to the Arabs gives a list of the best known scholars of
the Baghdad (Abbasid caliphate) Golden Age. Out of theses 22 “Muslim”
scholars, 20 were Christian, 1 was Persian and 1 was Muslim. Each and
everyone had an Arabic name, so it is assumed that they were Muslim. It
was the Christians Assyrians who translated the Greek philosophers into
Syriac and then Arabic. It had to be this way. The Christians had a long
tradition of education and learning that came from the Greeks, Jews and
Romans; the Muslims had none. It had to be Christian Kafi rs who brought
the Greek and Roman knowledge to the Muslims. Ironically, the Muslims
claim all of the credit for the translations saving Greek knowledge from
the Dark Ages (more about that name later).
Another example of taking credit is found in Iraqi history texts which
claim that the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Babylonians were all Arabs. This
allows Islam to take credit for earlier work.
Islam makes great claims for its advanced medicine, which was the best
in the West. However, the Christians and Jews were the chief practitioners.
For 200 years the Bakhtishu family, Assyrian Christians, were the physicians
to the Caliphs of Baghdad.
The Baghdad Golden Age disappeared as the persecution of the Christian
dhimmis continued, and they converted to Islam. Once the pool of
Kafi r talent became Muslims the gold went out of the Golden Age.
The Golden Age of Spain is much the same. Let’s examine the perfect
society of Christian, Jew and Muslim living in such harmony. Moorish
Spain is portrayed as the high point of multi-cultural existence and the
perfect expression of Islamic society. Islam came to Spain by the sword.
That invasion started an 800-year war with the Christians fi ghting against
the constant Islamic invasion at the border between Spain and Europe.
Why does a struggle of 800 years not sound so Golden? If Islamic Spain
was such a Golden Age, then why did the Spanish die in furious battles
to throw out the Muslims? Why is Islamic imperialism painted as such a
At this point it may seem as if there were no Islamic intellectual work
that was of any value. This is not true, but the Golden Age propaganda
is so strong, that a case must be established that the Golden Age was not
what is portrayed—a proof of Islam’s wonderful multicultural paradise
and superior intellectual achievements.
But even the Muslim scholars had to contend with an intellectual world
that was limited by the Koran and the Sunna. No thoughts were allowed
that went beyond these small and strict bounds. Averroes was one of the
best-known scholars of Moorish Spain and was very infl uential with both
Christians and Jews. His writings were not Islamic enough and he was
banished until shortly before his death. Many of his writings were burned.
No Islamic school of thought followed him. Only Europeans honored his
Al Farabi was a Muslim thinker of the fi rst rank and used Greek reasoning
to conclude that logical thought was superior to revelation, an Islamic
heresy. He used critical thought examining the Koran and rejected predestination.
He illustrates the idea that the best Muslim scholars were part
Al Khwarzimi was an Islamic scholar in mathematics and astronomy.
His translated works introduced Hindu mathematics to Kafi rs. His work
was the basis of algebra and the algorithm.
Even during the Golden Age, the Muslim scholarly output was small
and depended upon Kafi rs. In the modern world, Muslims have never
won a single Nobel Prize in science, medicine or chemistry by themselves.
There have been 8 prizes won by Muslims who worked with Kafi rs in Kafi r
countries. But there has never been a Noble Prize for Muslim research in
a Muslim nation.
Yes, there are Muslim thinkers who can produce good intellectual work,
but they are outstanding individuals and are not typical. Saudi Arabia is
the purest Islamic country and has untold billions to support any project
they choose. In 2003 there were only 171 patents granted to Saudis1; compare
this with 16,328 patents by South Korea2. Why is this?
1 Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society,
UN Publications, 2003, pg. 11.
This is not a modern phenomenon. It goes back 1400 years. The only
explanation lies with the nature of Islam itself and its limits on freedom of
expression, education, human rights, etc.
There is one more thing to notice about what Islam produced with
the Kafi r knowledge. Some of their best work was in math, but it never
went anywhere practically. Al Khwarzimi may have developed the algorithm,
but it was Kafi rs who put it to use in computers. Algebra was only
an idea in a book. It was a Kafi r, Sir Isaac Newton, who used algebra to
develop calculus and differential equations. And with calculus and differential
equations, Newton was able to show how the planets moved in
orbit. Muslims used glass for windows in their mosques, while Kafi rs used
it in telescopes and microscopes.
the final word
The basic problem with the Golden Age is the status of the Kafi rs. They
were dhimmis, third class citizens without civil rights.
The Islamic ethical basis of the Golden Age was dualism—one set of
ethics for Muslims and another set for Kafi rs. Kafi rs had to wear special
clothing, were prohibited from being in positions of power, had to get permission
to repair their houses of worship and could not testify in courts
against a Muslim. If a Kafi r killed a Muslim, he received a death sentence,
but if a Muslim killed a Kafi r, he paid a fi ne. A Kafi r was inferior in every
way to a Muslim. How Golden is that?
Every Kafi r lived under Sharia law and Sharia law is based upon the
evil of the principles of submission and duality. Sharia is oppressive and
Where did all this propaganda about the Golden Age come from? Two
sets of people created the Golden Age myth—French intellectuals such as
Gibbons, Voltaire, and Jewish writers such as Graetz. Both had the same
motivation—hatred of the Catholic church. Building up the wonderful
Islamic culture was a reaction to the hated Catholics. There were Kafi rs
who prospered under Islam. They submitted and served Islam and their
masters rewarded them. Every occupying army can persuade some locals
to act as traitors for their own personal gain. Some of these Kafi rs had positions
of some power, but in the end, they were still servants of Islam.
a case study
Here is a typical comment from a religious leader in response to a letter
in a paper that was critical of Islam:
We fi nd otherwise good people become bigots when they discuss Islam.
They judge Islam by its extremists. Unfortunately, Islamophobia is the last
remaining acceptable prejudice.
When they say that Islam abuses women, murders apostates and hates
outsiders, they are talking about a counterfeit Islam. We fi nd such hatred
amongst both Jews and Christians as well.
One Muslim writer pointed out that there is enough in the Koran for
global holy war. But there is also enough there for people of a peaceful
mind-set to discover a path to enlightenment and peace. There is bad material
in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as well. But we can
also fi nd sublime uplifting passages.
Our spiritual work, as brothers of the Abrahamic faith, is to combat ugly
anti-Muslim sentiments and make it socially intolerable.
Signed: Rabbi …
Let us start with an analysis of content. Here are some major points:
There is not one mention of Mohammed or Allah (Koran)
Bigots judge Islam by its extremists (what is an extremist? No scale to
measure extremism is given)
Being critical of Islam is prejudiced
Denies that Islam abuses women, murders apostates and hates
What is the basis for determining a counterfeit Islam? (If something
is false, how do we determine what is true or false. We must have a
a case study
Who is the “one Muslim writer” ?
There are good verses and bad verses in the Koran, but there is good
stuff and bad stuff in the Bible
Jews, Christians and Muslims are part of the same Abrahamic faith
In the last paragraph we are now hating people (not Islam)
People who speak against Islam must be condemned in society
Who is this man to make such moral judgments?
There are many points to attack. Here is one reply that tackles most of
these points. Notice that even though the writer is a rabbi, it makes no difference;
he could be a Christian or any other dhimmi.
First things fi rst. There is not one single fact about Islam in the entire
letter. We know this because anything that relates to the doctrine of Islam
includes the words Allah or Mohammed. Instead of facts, the writer
substitutes his authoritarian reasoning and the opinion of “one Muslim
writer”, not Mohammed. He declares from his high moral ground the
judgment that anyone who criticizes Islam is a bigot. Why? He decrees it.
Evidence? Facts? No need for those when you have the authority to make
they are talking about a counterfeit Islam.
He uses the word “counterfeit”. And what is the standard to determine
counterfeit from the real deal? Simple, the one and only standard of Islam
is the Koran and the Sunna. Let’s use that standard.
When they say that Islam abuses women
For those who enjoy fact-based logic: Does Islam abuse women? Let’s
start with the Koran:
Koran 4:34 Allah has made men superior to women because men spend
their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient,
and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah has guarded them. As
for women whom you fear will rebel, admonish them fi rst, and then send
them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedient after
that, then do nothing further; surely Allah is exalted and great!
Now let us turn to Mohammed as found in the Hadith (Mohammed’s
traditions). Mohammed’s words and actions (Sunna) are half of Islam. If
Mohammed did it, then it not extremist.
Abu Dawud 11, 2142 Mohammed said: A man will not be
asked as to why he beat his wife.
This hadith equates camels, slaves and women.
Abu Dawud 11, 2155 Mohammed said: If one of you marries
a woman or buys a slave, he should say: “O Allah, I ask You for
the good in her, and in the disposition You have given her; I take
refuge in You from the evil in her, and in the disposition You have
given her.” When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top
of its hump and say the same kind of thing.
Here is more advice about slaves and women:
Bukhari 7,62,132 The Prophet said, “None of you should fl og
his wife as he fl ogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with
her in the last part of the day.”
A statistical summary is revealing. Below is a table that summarizes all
of the hadiths about women that can be found in the Hadith by Bukhari.
Each hadith was judged as to whether the woman was superior to men,
equal to men or inferior. All of the superior hadiths were about women as
mothers. The equality sentences were about being judged equally on Judgment
Day. And what is one of the things a woman is judged on? How well
she pleased her husband. The conclusion is that Islamic doctrine debases
Superior Inferior Equal Neutral
Number hadiths 7 8 157 47
Percentage of text 0,6 % 89 % 10 % Not included
Equality of Sexes in Hadith
Does Islam murder apostates (those who leave Islam)? Let us look at
what the Sunna of Mohammed says:
Bukhari 9, 83, 37 […] This news reached Allah’s Apostle , so
he sent (men) to follow their traces and they were captured and
brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to cut their hands and
feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, and
then he threw them in the sun till they died.” I said, “What can be
worse than what those people did? They deserted Islam, committed
murder and theft.”
Bukhari 9, 84, 57 […] I would have killed them according to
the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic
religion, then kill him.’”
a case study
Bukhari 9, 84, 58 […] Behold: There was a fettered man beside
Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa
said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back
to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but
Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the
judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated
it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he
was killed. […]
It is Sunna to kill apostates, so Islamic doctrine says to kill apostates.
As an aside, when Mohammed died, the next caliph, Abu Bakr, killed
apostates for two years because many Muslims wanted to quit. Abu Bakr
persuaded the survivors to be contented Muslims.
Does Islam hate outsiders? Let us turn to the Koran and consider a
word introduced and defi ned by the Koran. The word is Kafi r (unbeliever),
the ultimate outsider. More that half of the Koran is about Kafi rs. The
only good verses about Kafi rs are abrogated later in the Koran. Allah hates
Kafi rs and plots against them.
Koran 40:35 They who dispute the signs of Allah [Kafi rs] without authority
having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah
seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.
Koran 86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot
and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the Kafi rs and
leave them alone for a while.
Kafi rs can be tortured, mocked, robbed, enslaved and raped. The Kafi r
argument may be carried further with more details. Make a list of what
Mohammed did to all of his Kafi r neighbors. In every case he attacked
them when they would not submit to his demands.
The rabbi grapples with the duality of the Koran in his paragraph about
the good and the bad in the Koran. He makes the usual argument: “it all
depends on the interpretation.” This drive for interpretation is an attempt
to eliminate the contradictory nature of the Koran. The Koran is fi lled
with contradictions at all levels, and this was pointed out to Mohammed
by the Meccans of his day. The Koran uses the principle of abrogation
to resolve these contradictions. The later verse is better than the earlier
But since everything in the Koran is the exact word of Allah and Allah
is perfect and cannot lie, then every verse of the Koran is true, even if it is
contradictory. This violates our logic so we try to decide which side is the
truth. But both sides are true in dualistic logic. The Koran is a dualistic
document and Islam is a dualistic ideology. The answer to the question:
“which side is it?” is always all of the above. That is the genius of Islam—it
can have it both ways, and this confuses the Kafi rs.
as brothers of the Abrahamic faith
Now to the idea of: “brothers in the Abrahamic faith.” Let us look to
Mohammed for the relationship between Muslims and their Jewish brothers.
At fi rst, Mohammed proved his validity by the fact that his angel was
Gabriel, the angel of the prophets of the Jews. Therefore, he was of the
same prophetic linage. Since there were no Jews in Mecca to deny him, the
When he went to Medina, which was half Jewish, the rabbis told him
he was no prophet in the lineage of the Jews. No one could contradict
Mohammed and as a result, three years later, there was not a single Jew left
in Medina. They were annihilated. Then he attacked the Jews of Khaybar
and made them dhimmis after he had killed, tortured, raped and robbed
them. On his deathbed he condemned the Jews and Christians to be banished
That is the Sunna. That is Islam. And that is the way Islam has treated
the Jews and Christians ever since—as dhimmis. Dhimmis are Kafi rs who
serve Islam by submitting and laboring for Islam. If the dhimmi is subservient
enough, Islam will be kind. There are no brothers of Abraham;
just dhimmis to Mohammed. The root of the Israel problem is that Israel
refuses to act like dhimmis.
This argument about the falseness of the Abrahamic brotherhood of
Jews, Christians and Muslims is attacked by the Sunna. Another attack is
to point out that a Jew or Christian is not a “real” Jew or Christian until
they meet Islam’s criteria. Jews must admit that the Torah is corrupt and
all of the stories about Moses, David, Noah and the rest are wrong. Then
Jews must accept Mohammed as the last of the Jewish prophets. Christians
must deny the divinity of Jesus, His crucifi xion and resurrection.
Christians must also admit that the Gospels are wrong and that Mohammed
is the fi nal prophet to the Christians.
Here is the place to make the argument that in fact, the rabbi and the
person who he claims is a bigot have something in common. They are
both Kafi rs. Of course, the rabbi is a dhimmi as well, but notice that the
a case study
word is never applied to him directly. Be careful to avoid name calling,
even dhimmi. Be that as it may, both are Kafi rs and are not Muslims. This
has consequences. If there is any brotherhood to be had, it is between Kafirs,
not between Jews (or Christians) and Muslims.
is to combat ugly anti-Muslim sentiments and make it socially
We need to address one last bit of sophistry. The writer subtly shifts the
argument about Islam to Muslims. Muslims are people and as such vary.
There are 1.5 billion varieties of Muslims, but only one source of Islam.
We need to stick to the study of Islam and leave Muslims out of it.
Making it socially intolerable to criticize Islam is pure social tyranny.
He rejects critical thought and calls on the authorities of a fascist state to
suppress ideas he does not like. Who is the true bigot?
It would seem that before a spiritual leader takes on the task of calling
those who use critical thought bigots, his better task would be to seek the
truth of Islamic ideology. The truth of Islam is found in the Koran, the
Sunna (Sira and Hadith) and Islam’s political history. As a spiritual leader,
once you have mastered those texts, then speak to the issue. Until then,
he should play the role of the student and stop referring to those with
knowledge as bigots.
There is really only one way to learn how to use fact-based persuasion—
practice. Remember, you don’t need to know more than any expert
you can imagine, but more that the person you are trying to persuade.
Since almost no one knows any facts, only opinions taken from the
media, persuasion is much easier than you might imagine. You are not
trying to change anyone’s political party or how they vote, but for them
to learn the truth about Islamic doctrine. If you know the facts, the way
forward is easy.