Bill Warner “Political Islam” lecture in Simi Hills, CA (part 1 of 9) (by DemoCast)
Bill Warner “Political Islam” lecture in Simi Hills, CA (part 1 of 9) (by DemoCast)
A Rational Study of Radical Islam, by Dr. Bill Warner (by Tin Ship Productions)
Robert Vaughan in Conversation with Dr. Bill Warner - Political Islam (by JustRightMedia)
Bill Warner holds a PhD in quantum physics and math. He has been a university professor, entrepreneur and applied physicist. Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religions and their effects on history. His study of Islam started in 1970, but became his singular focus after the horrific events of 9/11. Dr. Warner’s scientific training shaped how he analyzed Islamic foundational doctrine. In this collection of innovative works, Dr. Warner uses statistical methods to simplify and illustrate undeniable, fact-based findings about the world of Political Islam. Furthermore, all understanding of Islamic history and current events must be done in the light of the Islamic doctrine found in the Trilogy—the Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (Mohammed’s traditions). Dr. Warner’s writing is easy to follow and understand. You do not need to be a scholar to understand these books. (via Amazon.com: Bill Warner)
Security experts for a major airline’s pilot’s union have warned members that potential terrorists conducted apparent “dry runs” aboard domestic flights in recent weeks, and urged flight crews not to be pressured into taking to the skies if they are fearful. A memo from the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, which represents more than 5,000 pilots who fly for US Airways, cites “several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in-flight threat.” “Bringing down an airliner continues to be the Gold Standard of terrorism,” states the undated memo, first reported by WTSP-TV in Tampa-St. Petersburg. “If anyone thinks that our enemies have “been there, done that” and are not targeting U.S. commercial aviation — think again.”
On a Sept. 2 flight from Reagan National Airport in Washington to Orlando, a “Middle Eastern” man rose from his seat and sprinted toward the cockpit, before veering sharply to go into the forward restroom, according to the memo. While he was in there, sever other men moved about the cabin, changing seats and going into overhead bins, it says.
Another reminder - This is why Israel has security checkpoints. Some people prefer their Jews dead.
The tidbit below was written by Alex Fishman and published by Y-Net.
More than 30,000 global jihadists have settled in and are fighting in countries that border with Israel. They belong to various groups, but they all have one dream: To liberate the Arab world from heretic regimes, with the climax being the liberation of Jerusalem. Afghanistan is already here; on our border.
Global jihad is the main concrete threat the army will be preparing for in 2014, and it is the focus of discussions the defense minister is holding with the General Staff ahead of the next working year. While not all of the IDF’s top officers accept the term “Afghanistan is already here,” there is broad agreement regarding the scope of the threat this development poses to Israel.
This is an example of what one opinionator refers to as “Islam Bad.” Some people think that speaking out against political Islam, which is the foremost fascistic movement in the world today, is nothing less than “racism” toward Muslims, in general.
In this way they conflate Hamas and al-Qaeda with all people of the Islamic faith which, in itself, is a bigoted position.
This is something akin to being afraid to oppose the Klan out of a fear of insulting Christians. If I were a Christian and I was told that opposing the Ku Klux Klan is basically the same as “Christianity Bad” I would be deeply insulted, but this is precisely what people do when they oppose those of us willing to speak out against the movement for politicized Islam.
Is opposition to political Islam “racist” toward Muslims? What I argue is that political Islam is an exceedingly important political movement within the umma that we ignore at our peril and whose foremost victims are Muslims, themselves. We don’t need to go running around with our hair on fire, but we need to acknowledge and oppose a political movement that oppresses women, hangs gay people from cranes, seeks the submission of all non-Muslims, and cries out for the genocide of the Jews.
Some misguided individuals believe that this is “racist” towards Muslims, in general, which is why the opinionator mischaracterized it as “Islam Bad,” with the implication that such concerns are nothing but bigotry. I would suggest that the opposite is true. It is not those of us who are opposed to the Jihad who are bigots, but those westerners who cannot bring themselves to stand up against the Jihad who are bigots, because they think that doing so is a smear on all Muslims.
The progressive-left tends to be exceedingly squeamish when it comes to political Islam. It’s not that they are afraid of getting blown up by Jihadis, but that they fear their fellow progressives will smear them as “racist” if they find the cajones to stand up against the movement. The fear is social, not physical. This makes them not only cowards, but ultimately stooges for a cause that would see their own people either destroyed or oppressed. So long as some people oppose those of us who speak out against this movement then those people become stooges for the movement, itself.
One can be a western progressive without being a stooge for political Islam, but not if one insists on spitting hatred at those of who speak out against it. It’s one thing to ignore the rise of a large-scale fascistic movement throughout the Middle East, but it is another thing entirely to oppose those of us who refuse to do so. Furthermore, supporting an American president that, himself, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and thus supported the rise of political Islam, more generally, is just plain stupid. It’s one thing to have voted for Obama, even twice, but not everyone who voted for Obama is a sycophant or remains a sycophant.
Failing to stand up to the rise of political Islam, it should be noted, is also a betrayal of progressive-left values. When I was growing up the progressive-left fought for things like women’s rights, gay rights, the rights of minorities to equal treatment within the public sphere. Now the progressive-left has turned 180 degrees and ignores women’s rights and ignores gay rights, so long as the people oppressing women and murdering gay people are Muslims in the Middle East. In this way, the western-left has obliterated its core value of universal human rights.
Until the western-left can find the strength and the intelligence to stand up for its own alleged values then it is essentially dead. It may still elect politicians to high office in the United States, and Europe, and Australia, but that has not prevented it from undermining its ideological core. So long as the western-left supports anti-Semitic anti-Zionism and withholds support for women, gay people, and Jews in the Middle East, then it is a movement that no longer stands for what it stands for.
It thereby sacrifices itself upon the bleeding altar of political Islam.
Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) operate in the same way, moving to shut down anyone and everyone who opposes them. Al-Aswany is a novelist and was speaking about literature, not about the Brotherhood, but the Brotherhood thugs didn’t care about that: he opposed them, and that was all that mattered. It is reminiscent of when the thuggish editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media a few months ago tried to get me canceled from a talk that had nothing to do with Islam — the goal of Brotherhood thugs is to destroy utterly every opponent of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.
"No one’s questioning the legality of waving this flag, people can do that if they want but I would not do that. But we should at least being willing to call it what it is. If this flag is being used as the backdrop for beheading videos it’s not because the Jihadists are confused. In fact it’s because we refuse to accept who the enemy is." -Buck Sexton
LEARN MORE FROM THIS BOOK: http://amzn.com/B005KL5Q8A
Many are familiar with the concept of revisionist history — the rewriting of past events to reflect a particular bias — but there is a contemporary example that receives far too little attention in our American media, that being the history of Jews in the Middle East.
Palestinian apologists have made a major industry out of creating a past for themselves by distorting the archeological record. What cannot be distorted is ignored, and what cannot be ignored has, in some cases, been destroyed. Not surprisingly, this particular form of historical reconstruction invariably finds the lowly Jew to be an interloper in the Middle East — not only now, but throughout all of discernible history.
“According to Islamic tradition, Allah sent the angel Gabriel to “re-orient” Mohammed during prayers, pointing him toward Mecca. From a purely logistical standpoint, early Muslims could count themselves lucky that Mohammed assumed that Allah meant to give them Mecca and not, say, Zanzibar, which lay in the same direction, only a scant two thousand miles farther.
The point being, not only did Allah and his prophet Mohammed show clear deference for the Jewish claim to Jerusalem, but this reality was confirmed and continued under “Omar the Conqueror,” Mohammed’s successor and the most powerful and influential caliph in Islamic history.
While Omar is widely known as the conqueror of Jerusalem, what is not so well-known is that after he conquered the city he promptly repopulated Jerusalem with Jews, repatriating them from the Arabian Peninsula, providing an ironic prefiguration of the establishment of the modern state of Israel centuries later.
Clearly, Omar felt that Jerusalem was a city for the Jews and encouraged their residence in a homeland they hadn’t seen since the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Omar constructed a small mosque in Jerusalem, allowing him the ability to maintain the spiritual health of the Muslim garrisons left to defend Jerusalem from the Romans, but otherwise granted Jews authority over their spiritual and ancestral home. Omar, successor of Mohammed, believed that the Jewish claim to Jerusalem was absolute, transcending five centuries of exile.”
Read More: American Thinker
From Rumors of War docu part 3
Beck gave an Update on Muslim Brotherhood Stealth-Jihadist Mohamed Elibiary’s whereabouts & activities on the 17th of September 2013
As women in Saudi Arabia prepare to challenge the kingdom’s ban on female driving next month, a leading Saudi cleric is warning women that driving could damage their ovaries and pelvises and could result in babies born with medical problems.
42-year-old Saudi princess, Mechael Alayban, held on a $5Â million bond after her arrest in July for accusations of human trafficking, was released when a judge dismissed the case. A Kenyan woman accused Alayban of confiscating her passport and paying her $220 a month forÂ service 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. Authorities arrest Alayban [&]
In Islam, it’s perfectly common and acceptable to keep slaves, and even sex slaves, as outlined in the quran and by muhammad. I guess this judge thought this was ok in America.
I thought slavery was outlawed in this country, I wonder what race they are? where is the outrage.
Islam (mostly the radical variety) has gotten a huge pass in this country. This needs to change. First there was a sex ring busted in Ohio and now this.
Not really in islam its forbidden to keep a slave ! SO You guys Need To look Up before you say anything stupid !! AND MORALITY DOSENT Come with religion ! So if someone Made some sick Thing Like keeping sex slaves Then He should be prosecuted by the law . NO MATTER WHO HE IS
Apparently you might need to do some research yourself
Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur’an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day.
Qur’an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Others are restrained to four wives, but may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:
Qur’an (23:5-6) - ”..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur’an (70:29-30).
Qur’an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible.
Qur’an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.”
Qur’an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…" Breeding slaves based on fitness.
Qur’an (2:178) - “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man’s).
Qur’an (16:75) - “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.” Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.’"
Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.
Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt.
Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.
Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.
Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).
Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.
Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.
Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.
Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.
Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad’s own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command.
Bukhari (59:637) - "The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.’" Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives,” since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.
Abu Dawud (2150) - "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur’an 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur’an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)
Abu Dawud 1814 - "…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.
Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.
Abu Dawud 38:4458 - Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”).
Ibn Ishaq (693) - "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).
Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine.
Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Qur’an, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin, and limits the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through the taking and ransoming of hostages, which began under Muhammad.
A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was “revealed” at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is not record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Qur’an changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world.
Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although doing so is said to increase a slave master’s heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Qur’an (4:92)). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment.
By contrast, Christianity was a major impetus in the movement to abolish the age-old institution of slavery. Yet, abolition had to be imposed on the Islamic world by the European West.
Given that there have never been abolitionary movement within the Islamic world, it is astonishing to see contemporary Muslims write their religion into the history of abolition. The lie - that the eradication of slavery had something to do with Islam - has been repeated so often that those who parrot are blissfully ignorant of its lack of factual foundation.
There was no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islam. As mentioned, Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. The second caliph, a companion of the prophet, was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam’s religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion.
Modern day apologists, in defending slavery under Islam, generally ignore the basic fact that reducing people to property is dehumanizing. Instead, they distract from this by comparing the theoretical treatment of slaves under Sharia with the worst examples of abuse from the era of European slavery.
The first problem with this rosy scenario is that the actual practice of Muslim slavery was often remarkably at odds with the relatively humane treatment prescribed by Sharia. For example, according to the Ghanan scholar John Azumah, nearly three times as many captured Africans died in harsh circumstances related to their transport to Muslim lands than were ever even enslaved by Europeans.
A more insurmountable problem for the Muslim apologist who insists that slavery is “different” under Islam is presented by the many examples of Muhammad and his companions selling captured slaves to non-Muslim traders for material goods. The welfare of the slave was obviously of no consequence.
Another myth about Islamic slavery is that it was not race-based. In fact it was. Muhammad’s father-in-law, Umar, in his role as caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves and even had all Arab slaves freed on his deathbed. This helped propel the vast Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia for importing into the Middle East.
The greatest slave rebellion in human history took place in Basra, Iraq beginning in 869. A half-million African slaves staged a courageous uprising against their Arab-Islamic masters that lasted fifteen years before being brutally suppressed. (See Zanj Rebellion)
Literally millions of Christians were captured into slavery during the many centuries of Jihad. So pervasive were the incursions by the Turks into Eastern Europe, that the English word for slave is based on Slav. Muslim slave raiders even operated as far north as England. In 1631, a French cleric in Algiers observed the sale of nearly 300 men, women and children, taken from a peaceful English fishing village:
"It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again." (from the book, White Gold, which also details the story of English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was beaten, starved and tortured into embracing Islam).
The Indian and Persian people suffered mightily as well - as did Africans. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders - far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans. However, these were only the survivors. As many as 85 million other Africans were thought to have died en route.
Most telling, perhaps, is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world - and you won’t see any of those Muslim apologists (who shamelessly repeat the lie that Islam abolished slavery) doing or saying anything about it!
In fact, a fatwa was recently issued from a mainstream Islamic source reminding Muslim males of their divine right to rape female slaves and "discipline" resisters in "whatever manner he thinks is appropriate". Not one peep of protest from Islamic apologists was recorded. In 2013, the same site prominently proclaimed that "there is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one’s slave woman, because Allah says so."
In 2011, what passes for a women’s rights activist in Kuwait suggested that Russian women be taken captive in battle and turned into sex slaves in order to keep Muslim husbands from committing adultery. (Other calls for turning non-Muslim women into sex slaves can be found here).
Since Muhammad was a slave owner and slavery is permitted by the Qur’an, the Muslim world has never apologized for this dehumanizing practice. Even Muslims in the West will often try to justify slavery under Islam, since it is a part of the Qur’an.
A comprehensive refutation of Paul Vallely’s “How Islamic inventors changed the world”
The Muslim Brotherhood is showing the world its true colors.