A good article is provided below that details a word-count analytical comparison of political violence advocated by the Bible and the Koran; conducted by Bill Warner of the Center For The Study Of Political Islam. Among other interesting topics, note that Islam grew by about 10 converts per year during the first 13 years of Mohammad's peaceful ministry, and then grew by about 10,000 converts per year during the next ten years when politics and violence was used. In my opinion, this latter process is still at work throughout the USA and other parts of the world, as evidenced by the destruction of the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11/01 and numerous other attrocities by radical Islamist Fundamentalists who follow Mohammad's "perfect" model as spelled out in the Islamic Triology (the Koran, Sira and Hadith). Following Mohammad's model, these Islamists are masters of violent and non-violent jihad, with deceit and use of taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims), to advance their vision of Islam over us infidels (kafirs); they smile to our faces while stabbing us in the back.

=============================================

September 09, 2010

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

By Bill Warner

One of the most frequently used arguments in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument suggests that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but the analogy is very popular since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. "See, Islam is like Christianity; Christians are just as violent as Muslims." If this is true, then you don't have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the "other," or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called "fighting 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, or 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, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, also called the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text[1]. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam's sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed's is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of ten new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of ten thousand per year. All 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 go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy[2] and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible[3]. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is also the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts and that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics, and intellectuals. What artist, critic, or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats against and/or murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortune, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic, or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the responses to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruits from the two trees are as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

- Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

http://www.politicalislam.com

bw@politicalislam.com

---

[1] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/The_Relative_Sizes_of_the_Trilogy_Texts.html

[2] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Percentage_of_Trilogy_Text_Devoted_to_Jihad.html

[3] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/pdf/OldTestamentViolentPassages.pdf

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_political_violence_of_the.html at September 11, 2010 - 12:01:03 PM CDT

A Window of Opportunity Regarding Islamist Doctrine

A public discussion of mainstream Islam has finally opened in mainstream America because of something as simple as a proposed mosque near Ground Zero in NYC. Oddly enough, the proposed mosque has had an unfavorable effect upon Islamist doctrine by non-Muslims; After 9/11, only about 9% of the US population had an unfavorable view of Islamist doctrine.

Now, because of the proposed mosque, up to 45% of non-Muslims have an unfavorable view of this doctrine. The question is: what is there to like about an Islamist doctrine that advocates the subjugation of all non-Muslims, pay heavy poll tax, or accept death? Since the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, many non-Muslims are learning about such Islamist doctrine; it has become an acceptable topic of discussion in newspapers, radio, and TV.

The big question is: do the Muslims who are planning this mosque share the same hateful ideology as the highjackers on 9/11? Do they believe in the same jihadist objectives and methods, or are they lying to us using the principle of taqiyya? Now that the “veil” has been lifted; there are numerous books that non-Muslims can read on political Islam, jihad, sharia, and dhimmitude that highlight the characteristics of Islamist doctrine. Once the “facts” are known, you can begin to form an honest opinion about that doctrine.

What are the Important Elements of Radical Islam Fundamentalist (Islamic) Ideology?

Below are some important elements of radical Islamic fundamentalist (Islamic) ideology.
These are useful to help us infidels (non-believers) understand some of the reasons that
we are having problems with some of our Islamic friends today. This information has
been adapted from "CitizenWarrior.com"

============================================================

Posted: 20 Aug 2010 11:17 PM PDT

1. There is only one God, and Mohammad is His prophet.

2. Islam is a better religion than any other religion.

3. Islam has a better government and system of law than any other.

4. Anybody who is not a Muslim is worth less than a Muslim, deserves less respect, and under Islamic law, should be treated as a second-class citizen with fewer rights and a heavy tax burden.

5. Every Muslim should strive to make the whole world and everyone in it follow Islamic law. This is the prime directive.

6. Striving for this prime directive is the most important thing a Muslim can do. It is his (or her) most important religious duty. It is the most important expression of his religious faith.

7. He should strive to accomplish the prime directive with his time, his money, his speech and writing, and with weapons if necessary.

8. If he is in a place where Muslims don't have dominant political power, he can and should deceive non-Muslims if it helps Muslims accomplish the prime directive.

9. Any efforts by non-Muslims to inhibit the spread of Islam should be considered an attack on Islam.

10. Whenever Islam is attacked, it is a Muslim's holy duty to defend Islam by any means necessary.

11. A Muslim should never stop striving for the domination of Islam until it has been achieved.

If you don't already know this about Islam, you have some learning to do. Start with the Quran (and make sure the Quran you use has been unscrambled). Then take the pledge and read the Quran. [Source: CitizenWarrior.com]

Is Islam Intrinsically Islamist?

Below is a short but excellent response by an ACT! for America chapter leader in Arizona to an article by Dr. Krauthammer that erroneously asserts that Islam is not intrinsically Islamist.

===========================================================

Dear Dr. Krauthammer,

In your otherwise excellent article in today's Washington Post you wrote:

"Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi..."

This assertion is patently false. Of course, Islam is intrinsically "Islamist" because of what is in the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad which are inseparable from Islam. "Islamism" cannot possibly be separated from "Islam".

This does not mean that all Moslems follow the Islamist doctrines of Islam. You are making a common error of conflating the doctrines of Islam with the behavior of Moslems who may or may not follow the doctrines. "Islam" could mean "the world of Islam including the behavior of Moslems", and, if that is what you mean, then you should be clear about it and say "Muslims" instead of "Islam".

However, "Islam" usually refers to the body of Islamic doctrines and beliefs. To anyone who has read the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad, as well as the writings of the most respected Islamic religious authorities, it is perfectly clear that Islam, as a body of doctrines and beliefs, contains the Allah-given requirement for Moslems to make war on non-Moslems and to establish sharia law throughout the world. Even if many or most Moslems do not follow those doctrines, many other Moslems do follow them. Because those doctrines are taught and preached throughout the Islamic world, there will always be many Moslems who will take them seriously. Therefore, those jihadist, supremacist doctrines (both violent and non-violent!) will always be a source of trouble for the world.

Respectfully yours,

act-arizona@cox.net

Phoenix, Arizona

Symbolizing Victory, Islamic Conquerors Erect Mosques Over Sacred Sites

Below is an interesting article that highlights why the Islamists want to build a grand mosque at "Ground Zero" in NYC. The "real reason" isn't quite what they say. They say it is to promote peace and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. According to history, however, their smiling faces and pleasant words hide the real reason. [The article has been adapted from a Thomas Moore Law Center publication, Wednesday, August 11, 2010]

Ever wonder why Islamists want to build a mosque at "Ground Zero" in NYC? Consider their history. Muslim conquerors have built mosques over sacred places of invaded countries to show their superiority.

For example, the al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is built on top of one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Temple Mount.

The former St. Sophia’s Basilica, once the world’s largest cathedral and orthodox patriarchal basilica, was torn down and replaced with the principal mosque of Istanbul.

The Cordoba mosque in Spain was a former Christian cathedral. Muslims have engaged in this practice for centuries, symbolizing their victories over the infidels.

Today, in New York City, Muslim leaders are plotting to build a mega-mosque near the site of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, where over three thousand Americans were callously murdered by Islamic jihadists. The site of the Twin Towers has become the most hallowed ground in United States history since Pearl Harbor.

The Thomas More Law Center is defending the right to oppose the construction of the mega-mosque.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.