20 posts tagged “bill warner”
Political Correctness is a path that every Westerner consciously and unconsciously has practiced nearly on a daily basis. The concept seems to know no boundaries on the political spectrum that stretches from Left to Right.
The political spectrum often determines the degree of what is politically correct. An example might be that political correctness is determined through a filter of the political spectrum. That which is politically correct seems to be determined more by what is politically incorrect.
A Right Winger might feel politically incorrect extrapolating a goal from which is outside defined rules and defined conduct. A Left Winger might feel politically incorrect forced to extrapolate a goal solely on defined rules and defined conduct rather than discovering a potentially better goal that might be formed by the “now” situation of the collective will. The Right Winger is fine with change that falls within the parameters of perceived absolutes. The Left Winger is fine with change that falls within the parameters of relative realities which is felt to constantly evolve.
The society that seems to survive is one that has achieved a balance between perceptions of the absolute and relativity. When one totally squelches the other, society tends to unravel. So it is not as important to determine which is better between absolute and relativity. Rather what is important is to recognize a balance needs to be discovered between the absolute and relativity.
I am not suited to write a philosophical treatise on the effectiveness of a society balanced in the absolute and relativity. Rather I am writing this hypothesis that drives both scientists and philosophers nuts. This hypothesis is based on gut feeling.
My gut feeling is that Western society is out of balance. As a Right Winger I am guilty of believing that relativity coupled with politically correctness is way too dominant. This kind of political correctness dilutes morality to the point that the bad and ugly far outweigh the good. This kind of political correctness blinds society into accepting practicing ideologies (secular and religious) that are inimical to the progress of Liberty and Freedom in the West. This blindness has affected leadership in the West by allowing ideologies in the name of Liberty and Freedom which actually destroy Liberty and Freedom.
A Left Winger might view this unbalance as the intrusion of the concept of the absolute resisting the evolution of the collective into a better society. I’m a Right Winger not writing a philosophical treatise so I am not going there.
There are probably a number of paths my unscientific subjectivity could lead me. I could complain of the Western ruling elites wittingly or unwittingly focused on making the faith of Christianity irrelevant furthering progress of a Left Wing utopian multicultural and diverse harmony. (Interjection: sounds like an oxymoron, does it not?) This would take me down the path of removing Christianity from the public forum in addition to including alternate lifestyles (such as homosexuality) as morally acceptable to a normal society. The thing that is on my mind at the moment is a short Bill Warner essay I read entitled, “Questions for Every Muslim”.
Warner writes about how political correctness has failed American society (by extension include the West). Political correctness places the powers that be into an uncomfortable zone when it comes to asking the correct questions to ascertain an answer beneficial to American society.
America’s Muslim minority is beginning to go Mohammed medieval in American society. There are cases of honor killings that the government and the MSM have been reluctant to label as honor killings. This denial has the potential of placing a young Christian convert (aka Muslim apostate) in danger by forcing her to live with her Muslim parents.
Homegrown terrorism has been on the rise in America which the Bush Administration had been lucky enough to nip in the bud in most instances with the public having little to no knowledge of. Notice more and more of these instances of Islamic homegrown terrorists are coming into the public eye. The MSM have been reluctant to label obvious acts of Islamic violence as associated with the teaching of Islam.
The Ft. Hood Massacre exacted by Muslim-American citizen Nidal Hasan is an example. Muslim apologists have been quick to label Hasan’s massacre as the act of a singularly disturbed man. Muslim loving Leftist (Diversity don’t you know) apologists have gone to great length to back the disturbed man profile. The more scrutiny into Hasan’s activities prior to his murder of kafir (Allahu Akbar) demonstrates he was guided by classic Islamic principles.
There are many Islamic incidents in America. The most recent was the capture of Muslim-American citizens in Pakistan looking for terrorist training to come back home seeking to follow Hasan’s path of killing non-Muslim Americans. Ultimately this is following the example of Islam’s purportedly perfect human being – Mohammed the blood thirsty prophet.
Political correctness and the Leftist misguided utopian concept of diversity actually are allowing Muslims following the example of Mohammed to plan the demise of the American Constitutional experiment. With this in mind Warner puts forth a series of questions for Muslims that he feels might pass the muster of the need for political correctness. Warner believes the questions are unintrusive as to not offend the Muslim mind yet should draw obvious conclusions to comprehend that Islam is diametrically opposed to American concepts of Liberty and Freedom.
JRH 12/15/09
Have you heard or read from a Muslim, a Muslim apologist or a kafir who has befriended a Muslim a statement similar to this:
“Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism. They both have bloodshed – one in the Quran and the other in the Bible. Muslims worship the same god as Christians and Jews.”
I have heard this often from friends and family who question my criticism of Islam (Mohammedanism is a better word) as being hate-speech or racism.
Bill Warner of Political Islam has posted the best rebuttal to the accusation my blog(s) are full of hatred toward Islam and Muslims.
JRH 11/7/09
What!? Israel and Jews in general should confront the religion of Islam as being a pack of Jew-haters. How dare Bill Warner make such a suggestion? It is not politically correct of castigating an entire religion with followers in the billions, is it?
Actually Bill Warner is right on!
JRH 10/30/09
On October 6th I posted Bill Warner’s disdain for Lt. General Stanley McChrystal as the military leader in Afghanistan and Sarah Palin for a speech in Hong Kong that included her current thoughts on Islam.
Warner’s complaint is that these two do not have a grasp about the correct actuality about Muslim tenets to be in the positions they are either in or aspire to be in.
Another excellent writer exposing the tenets of Islam picked up on Warner’s piece and focused on the Palin’s Facebook description of her time in Hong Kong. Ben’s Blog took Palin to task for her ignorance of Islam because she followed the politically correct path of Islam is not evil, terrorists are. Or anyway that is my take on a brief summary.
Ben is very specific and so I cannot fault his thinking; nonetheless I had some thoughts that I posted in the comment section:
Ben you would be surprised how many Conservative Republicans feel Sarah Palin is not bright enough for Higher Office. I am not one those Conservatives.
Palin's total lack of knowledge about Islam is not unique. Leftists and Conservatives alike tend to believe spoon fed information concerning the religion of evil. Would Palin find advisors in the know if indeed she runs for Higher Office? I pray that is the case.
Bush began with Islam is Islamofascism. Whether or not that is a good description of Islam is debatable however at the least it had the seeds of knowing Islam inspired violence and not peace. Then as Bush began to backtrack by describing Islam as the religion of peace. One has to think that Bush caved into State Department Republicans of the nature of James Baker and the deception of American-Islamic organizations such as CAIR.
As it stands now I believe Palin is flexible enough yet political enough to grasp the wickedness of Islam yet not having to commit to a public understanding of such an understanding. To publicly announce Islam is evil would be political suicide in America today.
That is one lesson Palin or any Conservative candidate can learn from President Barack Hussein Obama: Deny everything, promise what your followers and centrists want to hear and attack the attackers' credibility for criticism.
P.S.: No anger here. Palin definitely has to change her vision of Islam.
With those thoughts in mind I discovered an article at Investors.com concerning Palin’s time in Hong Kong that is more on the positive side.
JRH 10/11/09 (Hat Tip: Don Moore of the Blind Conservative List)
Here is a ‘be educated in Mohammedanism’ moment: Mohammedanism is not the religion of peace that Muslim apologists or even the majority of Muslims believe it is.
Here is Bill Warner diffusing the propaganda of the American Left – read and educate yourself.
JRH 8/13/09
Here is an insightful interview conducted by Bill Warner of Political Islam with M.A. Khan of Islam Watch. As Bill Warner points out in his introduction, Khan is the author of an excellent book (which I have read) entitled, “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery”.
The theme M.A. Khan presents in the interview is to provide Mohammedans with the truth of Islam’s (Mohamedanism’s) history and legacy to shame Mohammedans out of Islam.
Brought up in the conversation is the difficulty of reaching this goal because of the extreme indoctrination Mohammedans receive in their environment coupled with the sad fact that the Hanafi-Salafist-Wahhabi-Ikhwan form of Mohammedanism is well financed. That financing includes offsetting truth with propaganda lies that truth tellers are Islamophobic haters.
The hater theme in the predominantly Mohammedan Middle East has resulted in the banning of such website as Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, Political Islam, Faith Freedom International, and The Religion of Peace and so on. Even some Western nations have blocked these websites because the big money involved in radical Islam has convinced Western governments to ban such truth telling websites.
M.A. Khan believes only a drastic change from somewhere will enable the truth to overcome the well financed lies perpetrated as truth.
JRH 7/22/09
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. critiques Bill Warner’s article, “Official Islam.” You can read the SlantRight.com post of Bill Warner’s article HERE.
Gary’s critique is entitled, “Islam’s Golden Rule.”
You should read the Warner piece before you read Gary’s piece.
I have a few words about Warner and Johnson. Both individuals obviously are obviously well versed in the ways of Islam. I find most of Warner’s articles at his website Political Islam. Johnson’s articles and informative essays are at his website United Against Islamic Supremacism.
To be honest Warner’s website is very good because the information he provides is some what written on a level that the grazing Internet surfer can grasp. Johnson’s website is extremely informative however Johnson writes on a level best suited for Internet seekers searching for the details of Islam from a Western perception yet with the Islamic perception in mind. Therein might lie a difficulty for the curious web surfer looking for understandable information for the reasons that Islam seems to so volatile toward Westerners, Jews and non-Muslims in general. Johnson often uses a Muslim conceptual word that nails the essence of his essays yet you might need to Google what that nail (word) means in understandable English.
My simplistic understanding of Johnson’s “Islam’s Golden Rule” is that he believes that Warner utilizes statistical information about the negative acts executed in the name of Islam. Johnson believes Warner’s emphasis political Islamic ideology is deficient in the larger picture of the “Muslim Ethos.”
When you tackle Johnson’s essay (and you really should!) it seems to me there are two words you should become familiar with: 1. Hisba 2. Jahaliya. I think more the former than the latter.
1. Hisba:
a. (simple): hisba. Office of accounting or public inspection. See muhtasib.
Muhtasib: The officer in charge of the hisba, whose duty, among other things, is to ensure the proper conduct of people in their public activities.
b. (summation of the book “Public Duties in Islam: The Institution of the Hisba” by Ibn Taymiyah): An exposition of the theory of Hisba in the wider context of a just society and an efficient market economy. Al-Haisba is a moral as well as a socio-economic institution in Islam through which public life is regulated in such a way that a high degree of public morality is attained and the society is protected from bad workmanship , fraud , extortion and exploitation.
In Part II - Toward a Just Society, Ibn Taymiya spells out the different stipulations of the Quranic command of amr bi’lma’Rif wa-n-nahi 'anil-munkar.
…
· Commanding Good and Forbidding Evil
· Strategy for Reform
· Men and Movements
· Society and Leadership
· Summing up on Knowledge, Justice and the Duties of the Rulers and the Ruled.
c. (Hisba Institution): The Hisbah is a religious institution under the authority of the state that appoints people to carry out the responsibility of enjoining what is right, whenever people start to neglect it, and forbidding what is wrong, whenever people start to engage in it. The purpose of this is to safeguard society from deviance, protect the faith, and ensure the welfare of the people in both religious and worldly manners according to the Law of Allah. Allah has made it obligatory upon all Muslims to enjoin good and forbid wrongdoing to the extent of their knowledge and abilities. (Click on “Hisba Institution” to read more)
See Also: Hisba: A Historical Overview and Notes on the Muhtasib.
2. Jahaliya (or Jahiliyya or various spelling):
a. Jahaliya or ignorance, is how Muslims term the customs and culture in Arabia before the advent of Islam. (Yahiya Emerick; The complete idiot's guide to understanding Islam. p 193. Google Books)
b. Sayyid Qutb on Jahiliyya: Qutb argued that the entire world, including the Muslim, was in a state of jahiliyah, or ignorance where man’s way had replaced God’s way.
According to Qutb, since jahiliyah and Islam cannot co-exist, offensive jihad was necessary to destroy jahiliyah society and bring the entire world to Islam. Until jahiliyah is defeated, all true Muslims have a personal obligation to wage offensive jihad. When Qutb added offensive jihad to the widely accepted concept of defensive jihad, Qutb broke with mainstream Islam and ridiculed Muslim scholars:
Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the home land of Islam diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life and consider it less important [than] their homeland. . . . However, [Islamic community] defense is not the ultimate objective of the Islamic movement of jihad but it is a mean of establishing the Divine authority within it so that it becomes the headquarters for the movement of Islam, which is then to be carried throughout the earth to the whole of mankind . . . (mumbai-central.com)
c. RELIGIOSCOPE - Another key concept in Qutb’s work is the concept of jahiliyya. Could you please explain its traditional meaning and the meaning Qutb gives to it?
IA-R - Jahiliyya is a term used by the Quran for describing the pre-Islamic conditions in Arabia. Roughly, it means ignorance or the phase of ignorance. Islam was supposed to supplant all the different traditions, practices, and ideas of jahiliyya with a new Islamic system that is far different from jahiliyya. Qutb, especially when he was in prison, used the term jahiliyya to refer to the Muslim world in the 20th century, that refused to implement the sharia or establish an Islamic state. That was full of jahiliyya according to him. But it seems to me that he did that under extreme circumstances, and this is the part the Jihad people in prison picked that up in the 1960s and the 1970s, and that became a dominant part of the Islamist discourse especially, in Egypt in the 1970s, 1980s. Many of these people who had that kind of discourse went to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets, and now they are a part of the Qaeda. Somebody like Qutb must have had a major impact on somebody like Bin Laden, for example, or Ayman al-Zawahri, or others. (Interview with Professor Ibrahim Abu-Rabi)
Now if my selections to give the reader an idea of “Hisba” and “Jahaliya” don’t match Johnson’s view, I am certain he will let me know.
So take a look at “Islam’s Golden Rule”.
JRH 7/11/09
My cousin Mary was not pleased with this YouTube video I posted at my Face Book profile page.
Here is Mary’s rebuke:
Not all muslims are bad, I married one! He had gone to Bible College when I first met him. He mixes Judaism with Christianity and Islam. Ishmael (?) was Abraham's son.
Mary I understand the reason you may defend Muslims because of your past matrimony with a Muslim and having two wonderful children with him.
Just to be clear I am fully aware that all Muslims are not evil. Indeed statistics report that 90% of Muslims consider them self as moderate and that the Islam practiced by Islamic terrorists place a bad name on Islam. However it must be kept in mind that the 90% who consider them self as a moderate also believe in the infallibility of Mohammed, his Quran and the near infallibility of the Hadith, Sunna, Sira and the developed Sharia Law.
It is the 10% of radical Muslims who actually follow this infallibility ideology to a tee. So in effect according to the Muslim holy writings the so-called radical Muslims are actually the good Muslims. The 90% that knowingly or unknowingly pick and choose the part of Islam that is not violent would not be considered good Muslims according to their own holy writings.
Because of this one rarely hears about a Moderate Muslim from the 90% being critical amongst their brethren about the 10% who are following the Theo-political tenets of Islam to the tee.
Now there is a good reason for this kind of self-justification among Muslims. The goal of Islam as set forth by Mohammed was to subjugate all humanity to Islam whether humanity appreciates Islam, Allah and Mohammed or not. So there is set of dualistic ethics that pertains to Muslims and other ethics that pertain to kafir (or house of war – aka dar al-harb).
Bill Warner says it best at his website Political Islam.
The dualistic ethical system of the Islamic Trilogy prepares the foundation of jihad with one set of ethics for Muslims and another set of ethics for the kafirs. So, there are two ways to deal with the kafirs. One is to think of them as inferiors but act in a kindly way. The other is jihad.
…
The following hadith summarizes all the key elements of jihad. (Notice that only the fourth item, the Day of Resurrection, is purely religious in nature). It tells us that the whole world must submit to Islam; kafirs are the enemy simply by not being Muslims. To achieve this dominance, Islam may use terror and violence. It may use psychological warfare, fear, and theft. It may take the spoils of war from kafirs. Violence and terror are made sacred by the Koran. Peace comes only with submission to Islam.
Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed: "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me:
Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month's journey.
The earth has been made for me and for my followers a place for praying and a place to perform rituals; therefore, anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
The spoils of war has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
I have been given the right of intercession on the Day of Resurrection.
Every prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind."
The story of the Trilogy culminates in the dominance of political Islam. The Trilogy teaches that Islam is the perfect political system and is destined to rule the entire world. The governments and constitutions of the world must all submit to political Islam. If the political systems of the kafirs do not submit, then force, jihad, may be used. All jihad is defensive, since refusing to submit to Islam is an offense against Allah. All Muslims must support the political action of jihad. This may take several forms-fighting, proselytizing or contributing money.
The Trilogy lays out the complete strategy, tactics, and vision of political Islam and jihad. Much of the Trilogy is about how Mohammed dealt with those people who disagreed with him. Violent political action with a religious motivation was taken against kafirs. Under Islam, their only political freedom was to submit. This legal inferiority is sacred, eternal and universal.Duality of ethics was the basis for Mohammed's greatest single innovation-jihad. Jihad is dual ethics with sacred violence. The key religious element of the dual ethics is that Allah sanctifies violence for complete domination. The kafirs must submit to Islam.
In Mecca, Mohammed demonstrated the initial practice of jihad when Islam was weak: persuasion and conversion. When he moved to Medina, he demonstrated how jihad worked when Islam was strong: using immigration against inhabitants, creating political power by struggling against the host, dominating other religions, using violence, sowing division among the tribes, and establishing a government.
Jihad is civilizational war for two reasons. First, jihad uses every aspect of civilization as an element of war. Violence, education, fear, psychology, sociology, sex, population, immigration, public relations, corruption and religion are all used in jihad. Military force and terror are the smallest aspects of jihad. The second reason that jihad is civilizational war is that the purpose of jihad is to annihilate every aspect of the non-Islamic civilization. Art, history, law, dress, manners, names, education, customs, government, foreign policy, economics, and every other detail must become Islamic.
…
Islam has been waging civilizational war for centuries. Before the Muslims arrived, Egypt and North Africa and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia-now Iran-was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now. Languages disappeared to be replace (sic) by Arabic.
…
Mohammed encouraged the rape of female captives after battles. This is reported in the Sira and Hadith and approved in the Koran. In jihad it is not considered rape to have forced sex with a woman as long as she is a kafir captive or slave. This is true even if she is married. In the Muslim world, the act is only rape when committed against a Muslim. Again, the dual ethics of Islam prevail.
Bukhari 3,34,431 One of the captives was a beautiful Jewess, Safiya. Dihya had her first, but she was given to Mohammed next.
4:24 Also forbidden to you are married women unless they are your slaves or captives.
Rape was one of Mohammed's tactics of conquest because it worked. Forced sex with women whose protectors had been killed was considered supreme domination. It was also a humiliation to the women's male relatives and husbands who had not been killed. If a woman is captured, raped and absorbed into the captor's environment, her helplessness renders her totally compliant and her submission is complete. To protect her children from slavery, many widows and rape victims readily agreed to conversion and their children were raised as Muslims.
Forced sex is far more than rape in political Islam. It is a method of war, a tactical strike which is not a crime because it is jihad. It is not a sin. It is practiced against the kafir and is sanctioned in the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith. (Excerpts from Bill Warner)
Thus it is my position that all Muslims may not be evil, but the potential to be evil is in their holy writings and the example of their prophet.
Bill Warner has a series of essays that exposes Islam as not a cool religion for humanity. The series is called, “An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam.”
As to Ismael being a son of Abraham. That is absolutely true; however the Muslim version is absolutely false!
The Muslims call Ishmael the preferred son because he was the oldest. Yet the Old Testament (the true Word of God written before Mohammed was born) clearly shows that Abraham was to have a child of promise through his wife Sarah. Ishmael is the son of Abraham and the slave girl Egyptian Hagar.
The child of promise was Isaac the son of Abraham and Sarah. It is from this bloodline that leads up to the incarnated birth of Jesus the Christ the Son of God and the son of Mary.
The New Testament portrays Ishmael as the son of the bondwoman Hagar. Isaac is portrayed as the son of the free woman Sarah. The promises of God flow the son of the free woman – Sarah – culminating in the Savior of the world Jesus. Salvation is by faith rather than by the sword. Deviated from Christianity is handled at the Last Judgment and not by execution in this life.
I often feel like the Lone Ranger because I defend President Bush’s action of invading Afghanistan and Iraq to take on fanatical Islam in one nation and secular genocide exploiting radical Islamic beliefs in the other nation.
Now I come upon an anti-Jihad writer in who I have tremendous respect for – Bill Warner of Political Islam.
Here I am saying my main message that Islamic doctrine as written in the Quran and other Mohammedan texts demonstrate a Theo-Political ideology (even I may say a cult) which any kind of political, monetary or military power will result in a Islamic Imperialism at worst or Islamic Supremacism at best.
Enter Bill Warner with an extremely hostile essay concerning President George W. Bush. You can imagine my mixed feelings prior to reading the message.
After I read Warner’s essay I had to agree with him. Warner is saying the kind of engagement with the enemies that attacked America’s homeland on 9/11 was a strategic error.
President Bush from the beginning tried to separate Islamic tenets from radical Muslims by calling them terrorists; ergo a Global War on Terror. From what I derived from the Warner essay is that it was a huge mistake to narrow the focus to a few by calling them terrorists. We should have recognized it was very tenets of Islam itself that the 9/11 attack was justified.
I have to say in retrospect I have to agree with Bill Warner on strategy which he says is a strategy of destined to failure.
On the other hand President Bush’s courage to go after what he would call radical Muslim terrorists was a decision I doubt a Leftist Democratic Party President would have had the cajones to pursue. Also I think it was worth the effort to try to build a democratic infrastructure in nations that have only known totalitarianism or tribal blood.
I say “worth the effort” for it appears that gamble probably is not compatible with an Islamic culture demands either full Sharia Law or watered down versions of Sharia Law. Even watered down Sharia Law is not compatible with Western concepts of Civil Rights and Liberty.
For Iraq that jury will be in when occupying American soldiers leave (or stay as an ally like in Saudi Arabia). If Iraq disintegrates into religious and tribal strife (Sunnis, Shias and Kurds) then the goal of at least some democratic infrastructure will be a total failure. If Iraq maintains a democratic Republic infrastructure even it is inimical to American National Interests then I would consider that a partial success; indeed it would be a foundation as an example for other Muslim States.
Of failure or success only time will tell. Unfortunately I suspect a good gamble may be a lost hand.
As to everything else Bill Warner writes about I absolutely agree with him. Unless the West and/or America changes its tactical outlook on what is threatening its existence, all things Western will slowly submerge into Islamic despotism.
So perhaps the Global War on Terror (GWOT) should be renamed. Let’s see how about something like Global War on Islamic Totalitarianism (GWOIST). Since Mohammedans have been trying to spread their Theo-Political ideology from the day pseudo-prophet Mohammed managed to conquer Medina and Mecca, we could even say GWOIST 2 or GWOIST 3 or 4 or 5. We could probably extend the numbers after consulting an honest historian.
O yes, the Obama Administration wants to redefine the GWOT as well. Unfortunately Leftist Appeasement is the New Administration strategy of the day. So far the Obama Administration definition for our Western existential crisis is “man-caused disasters”.
JRH 4/5/09
Bill Warner has placed a FrontPage interview conducted by Jamie Glazov on his Political Islam blog.
In the interview Warner speaks of a kind of Orwellian new order being placed on America (I would include all Western style Representative Governments). Warner even uses Orwell-speak by calling this emerging new order the “Newstate.”
Essentially the interview line of thought is the “Newstate” is in the tank for Mohammedanism to such a degree that American Free Speech is being anesthetized to squelch anti-Jihad free speech while accommodating Muslim Supremacism in American society.
It is an enlightening interview to read. I suggest you do so.
JRH 3/14/09
