Warner:
Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.
FP: Tell us a
bit about the Center for the Study of
Political Islam.
Warner: The Center for
the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars
who are devoted to the scientific study of the
foundational texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of
Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There
are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and
history, or as CSPI sees it—the theory and its
results. We study the history to see the practical
or experimental results of the doctrine.
CSPI seems to be the
first group to use statistics to study the doctrine.
Previous scientific studies of the Koran are
primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.
Our first principle is
that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a
whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize
the unity of the texts.
Our major intellectual
breakthrough is to see that dualism is the
foundation and key to understanding Islam.
Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with
its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god
but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet.
Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna
(words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and
Hadith).
Endless ink has been
wasted on trying to answer the question of what is
Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the
true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim
the real Muslim?
This reminds a
scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light
a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went
back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the
answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle
and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to
which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same
manner.
Our first clue about
the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two
books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of
Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the
Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions
in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these
contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This
means that the verse written later supersedes the
earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is
considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of
Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later
verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be
wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation
of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of
the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The
circumstances govern which verse is used.
For example:
(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they
[unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with
dignity.
From tolerance we move
to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of
the Universe can stand the unbelievers:
(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His
angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength
to the believers. I will send terror into the
unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even
the tips of their fingers!”
All of Western logic
is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things
contradict, then at least one of them is false. But
Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can
contradict each other and both are true.
No dualistic system
may be measured by one answer. This is the reason
that the arguments about what constitutes the “real”
Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single
right answer does not exist.
Dualistic systems can
only be measured by statistics. It is futile to
argue one side of the dualism is true. As an
analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a
statistical answer to all questions.
For an example of
using statistics, look at the question: what is the
real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle
or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the
Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of
jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are
about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So
the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and
3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad
inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an
article, you can make a case for either. But in
truth, almost every argument about Islam can be
answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the
duality are right.
FP: Why, in
your view, is there so much ignorance about the
history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?
Warner: First,
let’s see how ignorant we are about the history of
political Islam. How many Christians can tell you
how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic? What happened to
the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul’s
letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish
history of dhimmitude (second class citizens
who serve Islam). What European knows that white
women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca?
Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find
an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in
jihad over the last 1400 years.
We are just as
ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent
gets two hours of training on Islam and most of that
is how not to offend the imam. We are fighting in
Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine
of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single
rabbi or minister who has read the Koran, Sira and
Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen or
military leader displays a knowledge of the
political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course
available in a college about Islamic political
doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in
Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a
glorious history that ignores the suffering of the
innocent unbelievers. Graduates read comments about
the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual
doctrine.
FP: So why this
ignorance?
Warner: Let’s
start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of
Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the
unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion.
Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by
Turks; the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our
scholars were incapable of even naming the invaders.
Mohammed killed every
single intellectual or artist who opposed him. It
was fear that drove the vast majority of the media
not to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some
imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis for
ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all.
What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to
knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear is the
realization that political Islam is profoundly
foreign to us.
Let’s examine the
ethical basis of our civilization. All of our
politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic
that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:
Treat others as you
would be treated.
The basis of this rule
is the recognition that at one level, we are all the
same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will
show that we do not have equal abilities. But
everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In
particular, we all want to be equal under the law
and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the
Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have
created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and
men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a
unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the
same. All religions have some version of the Golden
Rule except Islam.
FP: So how is
Islam different in this context?
Warner: The
term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam.
There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality
of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical
statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not
lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a
Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it
advances Islam.
There is no such thing
as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims
are to be treated one way and unbelievers another
way. The closest Islam comes to a universal
statement of ethics is that the entire world must
submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he
never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim.
Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
By the way, this
dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical
system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and
therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the
unbeliever.
Now mind you,
unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the
Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on
its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.
There have been other
dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the
KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates
all black people at all times; there is only one
choice. This is very straightforward and easy to
see.
The dualism of Islam
is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to
treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated
nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle
well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the
unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there
are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a
Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim
may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend.
And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true
friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim,
but a hypocrite.
FP: You
mentioned earlier how logic is another point of
profound difference. Can you touch on that?
Warner: To
reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of
contradiction. If two things contradict each other,
then at least one of them has to be false. But
inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory
statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic
logic and we use unitary scientific logic.
Since Islam has a
dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is
completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently
from us and feel differently from us. So our
aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of
Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to
avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and
stay ignorant.
Another part of the
aversion is the realization that there is no
compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no
halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic
ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone
who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid
getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con
man, he will take advantage of you. There is no
compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic
politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our
civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it
dominates. There is never any “getting along” with
Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must
be met on Islam’s terms: submission.
The last reason for
our aversion to the history of political Islam is
our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into
slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a
white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex
slave. These are things that we do not want to face.
Jews don’t want to
acknowledge the history of political Islam, because
they were dhimmis, second class citizens or
semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to
recall how they were advisors and physicians to
powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or
what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There
is no compromise between being equal and being a
dhimmi
Why
should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery
and the destruction of their temples and cities?
After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the
Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that
they could not build anything as beautiful for
anyone else. The practice of suttee, the
widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral
pyre, came about as a response to the rape and
brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over
ancient Hindustan.
Blacks don’t want to
face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up
their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white
slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the
African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they
share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans
were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine
Islam is their counterweight to white power, not
that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.
Dualistic logic.
Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no
compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to
know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or
ethics.
FP
So is
there such a thing as non-political Islam?
Warner: Non-political Islam is religious
Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to
avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five
Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to
Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the
final prophet.
But the Trilogy is
clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira
(life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the
Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or
politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to
the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is
about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest
part of Islamic foundational texts.
Political Islam’s most
famous duality is the division of the world into
believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers,
dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy
relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs.
Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to
Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are
there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The
other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for
the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a
political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political
prison for those who speak against Islam.
Mohammed preached his
religion for 13 years and garnered only 150
followers. But when he turned to politics and war,
in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia
by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for
9 years. His success did not come as a religious
leader, but as a political leader.
In short, political
Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt
with and treated.
FP:
Can
you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?
Warner: The
history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s
immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s
appeal to the world has always had the dualistic
option of joining a glorious religion or being the
subject of political pressure and violence. After
the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when
persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.
After Mohammed’s
death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the
theological arguments of those who wished to leave
Islam with the political action of death by the
sword. The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a
pope-king) exploded into the world of the
unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East
and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate
of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the
victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is
the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East,
Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity
was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the
southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire).
Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during
the jihadic conquest.
Half of the glorious
Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million
Hindus killed.
The first Western
Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander
the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad
destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route.
About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of
Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.
Zoarasterianism was
eliminated from Persia.
The Jews became
permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.
In Africa over 120
million Christians and animists have died over the
last 1400 years of jihad.
Approximately 270
million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years
for the glory of political Islam. These are the
Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.
FP:
How
have our intellectuals responded to Islam?
Warner: The basis of
all the unbeliever’s thought has collapsed in the
face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic.
We have already mentioned how our first
intellectuals could not even name the invaders as
Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We
can’t agree on what Islam is and have no knowledge
about our suffering as the victims of a 1400-year
jihad.
Look at how
Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists
have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In
every case their primary ideas fail.
Christians believe
that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not
conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time
seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a
religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought
means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no
knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s
suffering.
Jews have a theology
that posits a unique relationship between Jews and
the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the
Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews
see no connection between Islam’s political doctrine
and Israel.
Black intellectuals
have based their ideas on the slave/victim status
and how wrong it was for white Christians to make
them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the
pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its
1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no
attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are
silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because
Arabs are their masters?
Multiculturalism is
bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every
civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance
collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of
dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring
the failure.
Our intellectuals and
artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the
psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the
psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused
child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between
the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals.
See how violence has caused denial.
The victims deny
that the abuse took place: Our media never
reports the majority of jihad around the world. Our
intellectuals don’t talk about how all of the
violence is connected to a political doctrine.
The abuser uses
fear to control the victim: What was the reason
that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed
cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence
for his novel. What “cutting edge” artist creates
any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our
intellectuals and artists.
The victims find
ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for
the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder
Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their
needs.
The victim is
humiliated: White people will not talk about how
their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants
to claim the victims of jihad. Why won’t we claim
the suffering of our ancestors? Why don’t we cry
about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too
ashamed to care.
The victim feels
helpless: “What are we going to do?” “We can’t
kill 1.3 billion people.” No one has any
understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of
what to try. The only plan is to “be nicer.”
The victim turns
the anger inward: What is the most divisive
issue in today’s politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq
really about? Political Islam. The Web has a video
about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed
September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the
watchword of our intellectuals and artists.
We hate ourselves
because we are mentally molested and abused. Our
intellectuals and artists have responded to the
abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a
rape victim would respond. We are quite
intellectually ill and are failing at our job of
clear thinking. We can’t look at our denial.
FP:
So
summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to
learn the doctrine of political Islam.
Warner: Political Islam has annihilated
every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The
total time for annihilation takes centuries, but
once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host
culture disappears and becomes extinct.
We must learn the
doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine
is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion
may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a
self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The
brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had
the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine
of our enemy or be annihilated.
Or
put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of
political Islam, our civilization will be
annihilated just as Egypt’s Coptic civilization was
annihilated.
Since unbelievers must
know the doctrine of political Islam to survive,
CSPI has written all of its books in simple English.
Our books are scholarly, but easy to read. As an
example, anyone who can read a newspaper can pick up
A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It
is not “dumbed down” and contains ever