July 25, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
58:12
4151 Political Islam | Bill Warner and Stefan Molyneux
Many religions have accepted the separation of church and state, but others like Islam, contain political elements in addition to religious teachings. Dr. Bill Warner is the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He has produced a dozen books and the first self-study course on Political Islam. For more from Dr. Warner, please go to: https://www.politicalislam.com Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
So if you've been on the web and you've been interested in Islam, you have probably come across the videos of Dr.
Bill Warner. He holds a PhD in physics and math and has been a university professor, businessman and applied physics.
He is the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which you can find at politicalislam.com and we'll link to a few of his videos below.
Dr. Warner, thank you so much for taking the time today.
A delight to talk to you.
About my favorite subject.
Now, a lot of people will be confused when you say the Center for the Study of Political Islam.
The P word is a little confusing to a lot of people because, of course, they view Islam as a religion and we wouldn't say political Buddhism or political deism.
So, why add the P? Well, for the one thing, I've never heard a Muslim say that Islam is a religion.
A Muslim will tell you Islam is a complete way of life, or to use my terms, it's a complete civilization.
One of the things that strikes you when you read Islamic sacred text is, is how much of the sacred texts are about a creature called the Kafir, K-A-F-I-R, usually translated as non-believer or infidel.
But I prefer to stay with the original Arabic for reasons which we may or may not get into.
But anyway, over half of the Islamic doctrine is about me and you.
Well, this is a bit peculiar, because you mentioned Buddhism, and I've read a lot of Buddhist texts, and they're concerned with Buddhists and how to be a Buddha.
So, that's the remarkable thing about Islam, is it has a political doctrine.
Now, the political doctrine, let me give you an example here.
Islam has Sharia law.
Now, some, they tell you, oh, well, it's just like Jewish law, halakha.
Big difference, because you see, the Jews don't eat bacon, but they don't care if I eat bacon or not.
Not a big deal to them.
However, Sharia does not allow halal bacon, so therefore not only when we were in, I forget the city, I just came back from Europe, we discovered that you couldn't get a pizza with pork on it, because all it was halal.
So therefore the Sharia tells me what I can eat, pork or not.
So there's a big difference.
And so the political aspect makes demands on me.
A long answer, but a very necessary one.
Thank you.
Christianity, or you could say even the Greco-Roman tradition, attempts to put forward universals in its ethical standards.
Thou shalt do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It doesn't say do to people of your own denomination but everyone else.
So the universalization or the universality, which has been a very strong component of Western religion, It is.
And you have seized upon what, in my opinion, is the core issue with Islam.
Everything else is peripheral to this.
Islam has a very odd ethical system.
What you're talking about is what I call a unitary ethical system, which is another way of saying the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Well, which others, Bill? All others.
Black ones, white ones, yellow ones, green ones, blue ones, male ones, female ones, whatever ones, okay?
So there's a recognition in this of a humanity.
But in Islam, there is no humanity.
You have the believer, the Muslim, and the non-believer, the kafir.
And all the world is divided into this.
And Allah, by the way, hates Kafirs.
Allah made some Kafirs for the purpose of burning in hell.
Although most people key on jihad as the disliked aspect of Islam, what I key on Islam that I don't like about it is 12 verses in the Quran say that a Muslim is never the true friend of a Kafir.
Now, they can be friendly, particularly if they will advance Islam.
But we must draw a big distinction here between being friendly and being a friend.
I'm looking to buy another car.
And so I've been on some car lights recently.
Did you know when you walk on a car light you meet a lot of very friendly people?
But they're not your friends.
So this Islam has a dualistic nature.
A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim.
But a Muslim is to never be killed for killing a Kafir.
These all come from the Sharia.
So this dualistic aspect of how do you treat another person well?
Are they a member of my group or not?
This is dualistic ethics, and it's the worst part, in my opinion, of Islam.
Is this whole concept of treating others as you treat them, as you'd be treated?
No. Treat them as they need to be treated to advance Islam.
And this question of speaking truth or falsehood, I think, is also quite important in the Christian tradition, of course, thou shalt not lie.
Well, I'm going to quote you here part of a hadith.
A hadith is something that Muhammad said or did.
We need to understand this, that there are 91 verses in the Quran which state that Muhammad is the perfect pattern for the divine life.
So this is not a casual story.
There was a Jew named Rafi who wrote a poem that Muhammad didn't like it because it was satirical.
And his last name was Ashraf.
Anyway, this hadith goes like this.
Muhammad, who will kill Ashraf who has offended Allah and his prophet?
I will, Muhammad, but I will need to deceive him.
Do so. Deceive him.
And then the story goes on, and it's actually, it's a made-for-TV little mini-movie here, how he deceives him and kills him.
But the important point is, Allah is the greatest of deceivers, and Muhammad said that they were the assassinists to deceive in order to kill.
This is a sacred moment.
So this is very important.
There are four kinds of deception in Islam, but usually I just say they mostly relate to half-truths.
I've been an expert witness in court and I had to take an oath that I would tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Why? Because a half-truth is a lie.
And almost all the defenses of Islam by Muslims turn out to be half-truths.
But this concept of deception, I'm going to use a word which you've probably heard now, stakia is the most popular name.
And to think that there is a term in an ethical system for sacred deception, the world gets upside down here.
Well, and Another thing that has struck me is that in the West, really, again, for over 2,000 years, there has been wrestling—we have been wrestling with the question of, do the ends justify the means?
And we—I think, generally, most people fall along, you know, do right, though the heavens fall, do right, and then we'll figure out what we'll do afterwards.
You know, we'll end slavery, and then we'll figure out how the cotton gets picked.
But we don't say, well, the cotton has to get picked, so we've got to keep slavery.
And this question of whether the end justifies the means is, I think, has been resolved to know.
But I would argue that on the Islamic side of the fence, if the end is the expansion of Islam, that the ends almost always seem to justify the means.
It is moral if it advances Islam.
That's the simple, very practical rule here.
There is an enormous practicality about hard-knuckle politics within Islam.
We have to understand that it is an amazingly successful political system.
It commands a quarter of the world today or a fifth of the world today.
And when I'm in Europe, as I just returned, there's a fear that Europe is going to become Islamic as well.
So it's a very practical system.
It keys on winning at all costs.
Well, and you point out, of course, that one of the things that was rather surprising to the powers that surrounded the initial expansion of Islam was the degree to which the Islamic leaders did not follow what were then considered to be the decent rules of war.
No, they were taught by a man who was the supreme jihadist.
You'll notice as I talk to you, numbers keep tripping off my tongue, and I'm going to give you another number.
Muhammad was involved in 100 events of jihad, not 99, not 101, the number is exact, 100 acts of jihad in the last nine years of his life.
Now, the reason this is important is this.
He preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and converted 150 people.
When he went to Medina, at the insistence of the Meccans, he became a jihadist.
And I could say averaged, well, it was barely about one a month.
But when he died, every Arab around him was a Muslim.
So therefore, this politics was incredibly successful.
What did his successors do?
They followed up with jihad.
That is, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali all were jihadists because Muhammad was a jihadist.
So it's a very simple cause and effect relationship here.
Jihad, of course, is often misconstrued as being solely to do with direct aggression, but it seems to be a much more complex web of deceit, of misinformation, of denying people the proper facts, of bribery.
It's a very complex web of advancement.
Well, jihad, let's establish something right off the bat.
Jihad does not mean holy war.
Jihad means struggle.
Harb is war. Jihad is simply struggle.
Now, I'm going to break the jihad down into two categories, which is the lesser jihad and the greater jihad.
And this is actually a deception used by Muslims in which they say, well, yes, we do have a jihad.
But the real jihad, the greater jihad, is the inner spiritual struggle, which we share with Buddhists and Christians.
Well, the basis of this is a hadith which is not well-founded.
What I like to key on is the fact that there are four kinds of jihad.
There's jihad of the sword, which is 9-11 and other such acts of violence are the jihad of murder.
There's the jihad of speech, jihad of writing, and jihad of money.
Now then, the jihad of the sword, which is what graphs the newspaper headlines or TV headlines, is the least important part of Islam.
Let's give an example here in America.
There were roughly 3,000 people killed on 9-11, and I'm not minimizing their suffering or the suffering of their families, but we lose I'm making this figure up, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
We lose more people than that in car crashes every year, and it does not close down the nation.
But the jihad of writing is being experienced here in Nashville, Tennessee, where there are new textbooks for the seventh grade.
Laud, Islam is the greatest civilization.
That Islam is the most tolerant religion.
That Islam was the first to give women their rights.
These are half-truths at best and some simply pernicious lies.
This is far more damaging, far more damaging To our civilization than 9-11 was.
We are professionals who are tough, and if we'll unleash them, we can deal with the jihad of the sword.
But we are not well prepared to deal with the jihad of speech, money, and writing because we get into this whole business.
You do know that you're talking to one of America's top ten biggest, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And why? I quote Muhammad.
I quote Allah. So those who will stand up against jihad of speech and writing are condemned by our own who should be protecting us.
A long answer.
Right, right. And this challenge of misinformation, you've talked about the degree to which information that goes out, particularly through any government agency, by which of course we can reasonably include government schools, generally is vetted by a council of Muslims to make sure that it meets their, it achieves their satisfaction.
Well, let's take 9-11.
On 9-11, a report was written about it.
Now, the first report that came out used words like jihad, jihadist, Wahhabism, Salafi, Islam, political Islam.
No, I didn't use the word political Islam.
However, the current updated version of the 9-11 report, there's no Islam and there's no Muslims.
They're simply terrorists, and there was a war on terror.
By the way, one of the worst things that Bush ever did was to declare a war on terror.
What does that mean?
It's like a war on a technique.
It's a meaningless term.
Since we have never identified the enemy, and we refuse to identify the enemy, or at least people like myself do, but we're not well accepted, we will lose every war we will fight against Islam.
We've poured a trillion dollars into Iraq into one purpose.
We've poured a trillion dollars into Afghanistan.
These are rough figures. I don't really know the exact, but I know there's a lot of blood and treasure going down, and we're going to lose both of them.
Because we refuse to accept the fact that Islam is the enemy.
Political Islam is the enemy.
When it comes to head counts, when it comes to the number killed, you've talked about the tears of jihad.
I wonder if you could help people understand the degree to which suffering and death have accompanied the expansion of this political system.
Here's the oddest thing.
I'm the first person who, in 1400 years, who's ever asked this question.
I'm not talking about being smart.
I'm talking about, how come no one else ever did this?
How come no one else ever asked the question, what is the total number killed in jihad over 1400 years?
It's a very rational question.
It's a meaningful question.
Here we could go into the high schools in America, and I bet we'd find that most people could give you some rough estimate of how many Jews Hitler killed.
Okay? There might be some argument as to whatever, but They would agree it's in the millions.
No one has ever asked the question how many were killed.
This is a measure, I think, of our fear of understanding Islam.
Islam claims to be similar to us.
That's its biggest lie.
Well, we're just another version of the Abrahamic faith.
Yet we refuse to ask tough questions about it.
And I think these are important questions.
I have been criticized for my numbers, and some say they're too small, some say they're too big, some say I've left people out like I had one guy write me who was Persian.
He said, how come you never talked about the Zoroastrians being killed?
Well, I'm a one-man research man.
Here we go. These are rough figures.
60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 120 million Africans, and 10 million Buddhists for a total of 270 million killed.
Now then, if you say those are wrong, what I ask you is, give me the right figure, but do not tell me that it's zero.
Because up to now we've said, well, we don't want to know.
And I say we must speak and know about this.
Well, yeah, I mean, north of a quarter of a billion souls departed is something, it's a kind of footprint that we might want to take notice of, because...
It's continuing to happen today, and we're continuing to ignore it.
I live in Nashville, Tennessee, which used to refer to itself as the buckle of the Bible belt.
No more, because the church's pants are down around its ankles.
We have churches here who say, oh, send us the Syrian refugees, who are neither Syrian nor refugees.
But they do not say, send us the persecuted Christians.
Look at the Pope! He brought home Muslims to his home, but not Christians.
It is a sin.
It is a moral wrong what America is doing to the persecuted church.
And I don't care if you're an atheist or a Buddhist.
Look, it's happening to everybody.
And it certainly is, you know, all civilizations have, I guess to put it mildly, some darker chapters in their history, but it is the degree to which there is a sort of conscience-ridden soul-searching and circling back to review and correct the errors of the past, you know, and of course the old argument is that which is not acknowledged is generally repeated, and the lack of explication.
I mean, you can't talk to a white Actually, it's not mirrored at all.
One of the things in debating with Muslims I find is Islam is perfect in its doctrine.
Islam is perfect in its application.
And if there are some historical problems, well they were caused by the Kafir.
Because this, Muhammad was never wrong.
So therefore a Muslim is never wrong.
Their history is never wrong.
For instance, within Europe there's this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over colonialism.
Well the most successful colonial system in the world is Islam.
They never, ever have any grief or sorrow about their colonialism, about civilizations which have been annihilated because Allah wants it that way.
Therefore, there is no guilt.
There is no self-reflection needed.
It was all done under the auspices of Allah and Muhammad.
There is no inner...
Let me say a little more about this.
There is no inner reflection that is part of the Islamic doctrine.
It's simply Muhammad laid out the perfect life.
You're to follow it or not follow it.
But you're not to do any...
There's a verse in the Quran which says, you should never ask difficult questions.
Think about that and apply it to your life.
Well, and of course, in my experience, just sort of being alive on the planet, the people who have a sort of monomania or a single-minded drive of purpose without inner conflict have a peculiar kind of energy behind them that more self-reflective and self-doubting cultures have a tough time matching.
It is true.
I've watched Christians go up against Muslims in some form of dialogue, which they always lose, the Christians do.
Because they're there to show how nice they are and how understanding they are and how compromising they can be.
Christians can continually compromise.
And by the way, I shouldn't just say Christians, but I've seen examples of this.
The Muslim, there's nothing wrong with Islam.
Islam is pure. It's correct.
And they just bear down and they always prevail.
They always prevail because they have this single-minded purpose.
Now, they find me a little different to deal with.
Now, The degree to which the American political system, as you've phrased it, is awash in Saudi money, I think is something that is relatively unappreciated in the American media and among the American public.
I wonder if you could help people understand the scope of that issue.
Well, in the deep throat, the famous admonition, follow the money, well, follow the money.
Eighty percent of the mosques built in America are built with Saudi money, Wahhabi money.
Which is very strict Islam.
Now, let me say here that if I were going to be a Muslim, I would be a Wahhabi Muslim.
Why? Because they drink it neat.
They drink it straight.
That is, what they preach is the doctrine, unflinching doctrine.
So here's what happens.
Let's take any country, Malaysia, Chechnya.
Let's take Chechnya, which is the Chechens provide the best jihadists, even the Arab jihadists defer to them with their excellence.
Did you know that Chechnya used to be a Sufi nation and all the Islam they had was the sweet, nice, loving, kind, humanity is one kind of mysticism, mystical Islam.
Then along came the House of Saud with their money.
And you see what happens is, it's not just the money.
They bring in an Imam who is thoroughly trained in all the aspects of Jihad and Islam.
They know the whole thing.
And so when they start quoting chapter and verse, you gotta go, well, Muhammad did do that.
And yes, Allah does say until every one of them says yes to the doctrine.
So as a consequence, the Saudi money changes the kind of Islam that is taught.
We see in America, Well, not just America, but in Europe.
It is the young generation of Muslims who are the most vicious.
The older generation of Muslims tend to, well, they didn't get the full Wahhabi thrust.
So what we have here, by the way, here's an off-the-cup fact.
There are hundreds of mosques in Belgium.
Do you know how many of these mosques have an imam who can speak any of the local languages?
Three. Hmm.
So it very much is.
And this is something that is confusing.
And one of the British political intellectuals who the guy who coined the term Islamophobia back in the 90s has recently come out and admitted that the integration is not happening.
And that the second and third generation of Muslims in England tend to be more radicalized than the earlier generation.
And you would argue that that's because of the pressure being brought upon the younger generations for conformity with the ideology by foreign-funded imams?
Two things.
You have the thrust of Islam, and then you have the decay of Western civilization.
Let me make this straight.
English civilization is better than Saudi civilization.
So, therefore, what we have is the House of Sod says our way is better, and in Europe they're going, well, you know, we had the Crusades, and, well, we want to be multicultural and tolerant, so we would never say that not beating your wife is better than beating your wife.
So what we have here is we don't have any pushback to the House of Sod.
Look, this is a civilizational war, a civilization based on critical thought versus a civilization based on authoritative thought.
A civilization based on unitary ethics versus a civilization based on dualistic ethics.
Our civilization is better.
There, I said it.
Now you know why I'm called a bigot and a hater and a racist.
I just said that a civilization based on the golden rule and critical thought is superior to one based on deception and dualistic ethics.
Well, and certainly...
I think from the Islamic side of things, they would argue that their civilization is better.
So if it's bad to say your civilization is better, I think the West has got a lot of catching up to do, which it might want to hurry up and do.
When I was in Denmark years ago, my Danish host said that they're now teaching in the schools that if you're proud of being a Dane, you're a racist.
That you shouldn't be proud of being a Dane.
Why not? Goodness gracious.
Beautiful women, fine food.
What's not to like?
Sorry. No, that's fine.
Now, with regards to the history of slavery, I've done a presentation on the truth about slavery, which was surprising to me when I began digging into the facts.
So the role of Islam and Judaism in the slave trade is something that just seems to be glaringly absent from the general history.
It's all considered to be sort of white Christians and everybody else was just not involved and not part of it and so on.
Well, first off, thank you for having the courage to examine a topic that is, shall we say, charged.
But you're quite right.
First off, it was white Christians who ended slavery.
And by the way, let's be very clear here.
Slavery was a universal tool of civilization.
There were various forms of it.
In Europe, you had more of the surf was bound to the land.
If you bought the land, you got the person that went with it.
You can argue whether that's slavery or not, but It's certainly akin to it.
The reason slavery ended in the final analysis was we invented a better slave.
It's called a steam engine, an electrical engine, a gas engine.
Let's not get on our moral high horse and say that we were morally superior.
We don't have to live like our ancestors and have those filthy slaves.
No, we don't need slaves.
I've got a better slave in my driveway and in my tool shed.
Now then, having said that, we do need to look at the fact that every single slave That was sold in America, North and South, was sold by an Islamic slave trader.
Islam were the slave traders.
The practice of jihad yielded the slaves, which they then put in pens, and it was a business transaction.
The American ships did not sail up to the coast of Africa, get down off the ships, and run into the bush and capture people.
That doesn't work.
I mean, there's just... Sailors are like truck drivers.
They go pick things up and haul them.
They don't make them. Well, and Europeans, because of bioincompatibility with the local bug set, Europeans' average lifespan in Africa was 11 months, because they just got felled by all other diseases they had no immunosystem response to.
You're quite right. So anyway, Islam played an incredibly important part in the slave trade.
Now then, you've touched on something, however, which is even more forbidden to talk about, which was the role of the Jews in the slave trade in the Mediterranean.
Dealing slaves from Europe to the Islamic world on the north coast of Africa and Baghdad.
This is a fact.
It's well documented, but it is not something that is easily spoken of.
But it was there.
Now, by the way, the Europeans were also involved in the slave trade.
They were not supposed to, however, capture Christians as slaves.
Now, the Jews did not have that hold off, if you will, so they did business where the Christians wouldn't do it.
But the Christians were involved in slave trade as well, as long as it was a slave that was not a Christian.
Now, those were the rules. Now, by the way, the Muslims weren't supposed to enslave Muslims either.
But you know what? If you're a Muslim slave trader and your pens are getting empty and the only jihad victims you have are Muslims themselves and you're an Arab and they're African, One of the biggest set of fatwas that occur in North African jurisprudence that is Islamic has to do with black Africans suing in the Sharia court saying you must stop capturing Africans who are Muslims and selling them for slaves.
You're not supposed to do that and you know it.
So what we need to do here is we need to have a free and open discussion that transcends the normal bounds of what I call the West Coast theory of white Christian slave trading because that's only a small portion The Muslims traded slaves to the West Coast.
They traded a million European slaves across the Mediterranean.
We need to study all these things, not with the purpose of being vindictive, but with the purpose of simply understanding.
Look, we all have bad things in our past, unless you're a Muslim.
And we need to use what has worked so well for us.
I've advocated critical thought, which means the discussion of all the points from all points of view without getting your blood pressure up.
Calm let us reason together.
That's what I say we should do about slavery.
And then we can let it go.
It is a funny thing, Bill, just the degree to which...
There's an old saying that says, no good deed goes unpunished.
And it always struck me that if you ever want to be really attacked in the world, merely admit fault.
And, you know, which is necessary for growth and for progress and for the continual refinement of ethical systems that support and sustain and grow our civilization...
But it seems like those cultures that refuse to admit faults are doing a lot better than those self-reflective cultures that wrestle with these issues.
The reason is that I think our self-reflection has caused us paralysis.
That is, we all look at our own guilt.
So therefore, we always pick our own scabs.
And this is one of the things when I see Christians interact with Muslims.
The Christians quickly get to picking their own scabs and will not look at anything that is wrong with Islam.
I'm not trying to defend Christianity here.
What I'm trying to say is, can we not examine everybody's scabs?
Then we'll live in a world which is more equal and more harmonious.
We all have problems.
But we also need to understand that all having problems means that you have problems too.
So I've discussed mine.
Can't we discuss yours? Well, and there is, of course, a specific cowardice that exists in the world where a lot of people who consider themselves objective, morally critical thinkers are very willing to criticize those cultures that are willing and open to criticism.
And those cultures which react in a more aggressive fashion to being criticized are often given a wide berth by people who claim to be morally courageous.
I would agree with you on the counts of both blacks in America who can prevail in a conversation about almost anything.
And then we have when the Kafirs deal with Muslims.
Now, I must say that what has happened here is that there are some self-educated Kafirs who push back quite hard, and so we do create a ruckus.
But what are those who...
And there's an article written in the NPR, National Public Radio, did an article here, a radio article in Nashville, Tennessee, in which I'm pointed out obliquely as being one of the hater, racist Islamophobes.
But the good person is a Christian minister who refuses to look at the dark side of Islam and is willing to take all the burden of suffering upon himself.
And he calls this goodness.
And people like me is like, well, see, you offend others.
Right.
There's a term on the Internet called hate facts, which is one of these.
You know, the facts are hateful or they're somehow hate imbued in facts.
Hate facts are rampaging across the...
Yeah, and it's an astonishing thing.
It would be incomprehensible, I think, even 50 years ago for there to be such a thing as hate facts.
But it seems to be something that's recognized these days.
Well, I guess facts can indeed turn out to be unpleasant at times, but they're still true.
By the way, we do have to ask ourselves, the question is, in Europe, is a fact-based statement a defense against libel?
In American law, it is.
In Europe, it's less clear.
And as a matter of fact, in America, it's becoming more and more like, well, you may be telling the truth about race relations or whatever, but you offend the minority, and so far, the higher moral value is the minority being offended as opposed to the truth of the statement.
So, by the way, I come down squarely on The side of offensive facts, I don't think that any progressive civilization is served by pretending that being offended is a problem.
Because every moral advance is going to be offensive to some people.
You know, when you ended slavery, that was offensive to people who were bigots and slave owners.
And, you know, when you invent the car, that's offensive to the horse and buggy manufacturers.
I mean, all progress is fundamentally offensive.
When women's rights were advanced in the West, That was offensive to certain diehard members of an ancient patriarchy.
I mean, the idea that we should not offend people is basically saying, well, let's let people's tantrums rule civilization, and I don't think that is civilization anymore.
You know, something we need to touch on here is humor.
Humor is becoming, when I grew up, you could make a joke about anything.
Racist humor, sexist humor, it was funny.
And we all laughed.
Now what was interesting is, is that all humor in some way kind of twists the knife, mocks or makes fun of.
And so now then we have lost the ability to have humor.
I bring this up because I've beaten the dents out of my own psychic fender here.
I've had my own suffering, which I had to go back down and look and see what caused it and then re-educate myself as to why this was so painful.
The point I'm getting to is, is after e-therapy that is effective, We'll put you at the point where you can finally laugh about it.
Make a joke about it.
You can talk lightly about it without having these pains of suffering.
It is interesting today.
We can see who our masters are when we answer this question.
Who can we not mock and make fun of?
And you're not supposed to...
I give you here the example of...
You've surely heard St.
Peter jokes, Moses jokes, Adam jokes, Jesus jokes, God jokes, Virgin Mary jokes.
I mean, I have, haven't you?
Mm-hmm. And they're funny.
There are no Mohammed jokes.
I mean, you have to ask this question because a mark of a well, now this is my personal theory, but a mark of a well-balanced person is someone who can laugh easily at his own foibles.
Oh, I agree with that.
Now, it's hard to ignore when looking across at Europe and the crisis that Europe is going to face this summer as millions of Africans and Middle Easterners gather In the smoking remains of Libya and other places looking to cross over into Europe, that Western Europe and Eastern Europe seem to have two different approaches to the migrant crisis, to put it mildly.
I wonder if you can help people understand the history that has led to this different approach.
Well, I am going to classify myself at least as a drive-by expert on Central Europe.
I go there twice a year.
I just returned from Central Europe.
I was in Vienna, Bruno, Czech, Warsaw, Munich, and I've been in Budapest, Prague.
By the way, it ain't no vacation when I go.
I am exhausted when I get through.
But as a result, I know a lot of Central Europeans.
The way they differ from the Western Europeans is a critical item called the occupation by the Soviets.
They have seen tyranny.
They know tyranny.
And they see Islam as communism with a god.
And they've already experienced communism without a god, and they're horrified at what can be coming.
So therefore, they have a very different social attitude than the French do or the Germans do, or the Brits do.
And this is one of the things that I noticed.
There's something else very different, by the way.
In America, I have large audiences, most of them over the age of 55.
In Europe, my audience is under the age of 35.
Indeed, the leader of my Center for the Study of Political Islam International in Europe is 29 years old.
So we see a big difference here in the audience.
The young audience knows tyranny and is afraid of tyranny.
In America, it's the older ones who are more patriotic and more love America.
So there's a big difference here.
And the difference is very much seen...
Well, we have Orban, who is...
I think I've said his name right, who is the president of...
Hungary just said, look, these people represent a different civilization.
They're not our civilization.
Besides that, these SOBs, he didn't use that term, left here 150 years ago, we remember what they were like.
We don't want them back.
Now then, let me say one thing about the Syrian refugees.
One of the things that's nice about my trips to Europe is I know many different kinds of people.
Some of them are apostates from Islam who are now Christian ministers in Iraq.
Something that people may or may not know is that, in general, you can tell where a man is from by his Arabic.
That is, their different forms of Arabic are very different.
Solomon says this.
He says, one out of five of these people is from Syria.
And he said, almost none of them are what I would call refugees.
He said, a refugee doesn't look at the date stamp on a can of food and go, this is too close to expiration.
I need better. He said, I was a refugee.
He said, I have literally drunk water from the puddle in the road.
He says, we would not throw away a bottle of water because it said Red Cross on it.
He said, these are economic migrants, and most of them are not from Syria.
Right. And I think you've pointed out as well, there have only been two times in history where an Islamic expansion has been successfully Resisted once, of course, in Spain in 1492 and the other, of course, in Eastern Europe, 1683.
And as the leaders in Eastern Europe are pointing out, they have some fairly vivid cultural memories handed down of their last occupation.
Yes, it was all very unpleasant when the religion of peace was running things.
It even changed the diet.
And one of them told me in Hungary, the reason we eat so much pork is when the Muslims were here, they would steal our cattle and goats and sheep.
And left us the pig, so it left a cultural bias about pork.
It's interesting, by the way, if you go back and look, there are traces of the evil of Islam.
You can find this in the folk songs of Romania, for instance.
There's a folk song about the beautiful girl who's getting, it's a death poem, she's getting ready to throw herself off the cliff because the sultan's men are coming and she, as a Christian woman, does not want to serve in the harem of the sultan.
So, we have here a trace or a shadow of the previous occupation.
But, no, Central Europe differs quite a bit from Western Europe.
Slovakia said, send us refugees, Christian refugees.
Right. And then, of course, there is this odd perception that criticizing Islam has something to do with racism.
And that is such a blanketly incorrect statement, the idea that Islam as a race is...
Very confusing to people even with a passing understanding of the system.
You mean, if I convert to Islam, my race has changed?
Apparently. And if I convert to Islam, does my race change back?
And I've seen blonde, blue-eyed Muslims.
I've seen black as cold Muslims.
Could you give me the color of a Muslim race?
And the color of their hair, the color of their eyes?
Tell me, when you say the Shahada, does your eye color change?
It's wacko.
But it is one of these pejorative terms that is designed to shut down debate and smear your opponent to the point where nobody's supposed to take any facts that he says seriously.
And this technique, which has been rising, hopefully we're reaching peak political correctness sometime yesterday.
But this idea that you can simply apply a pejorative label to somebody making an argument and you've somehow won.
When I was growing up, that meant you lost.
Like the first person to lose their temper and call names was the person you laughed out of the debating room or out of the casual conversation because, you know, it's like trying to win an argument by holding your breath until you turn blue.
But somehow it's changed over the past couple of decades now to the point where the person having the tantrum has somehow won.
It is indeed. The left has taught us that the one who screams and cries and hollers victim the loudest is the winner.
The peculiarity with me is, is I'm the nail that will not be driven down.
So therefore, when people call me racist, Islamophobic, bigot, hater, that covers the most of them.
I'm sure there's one I've left out.
They never, ever say, Bill, when you said there's 91 verses in the Quran which say a Muslim is not the true friend of a kafir, that's wrong.
No, they never say that.
They never say, you know, your point of view, your observation that Islam has dualistic ethics.
Look, the scriptures read like this.
You've misquoted the scriptures.
They never say that. Instead, they just go, you're a racist, hater, bigot, Islamophobe.
I've forgotten the others.
But anyway, so what's astounding is, is how effective this is.
So that's the thing that doesn't work with me.
There's another, the NPR article that came out refers to me.
I've had front page articles in the newspaper that say I'm a racist, hater, bigot, Islamophobe.
And I'm like, could we discuss the facts here?
How about just the facts, ma'am?
I'm old enough to remember there was an old black and white program called Dragnet.
And Sergeant Friday, was that his name?
Joe Friday, homicide. Joe Friday says, when the witness would start getting emotional, he'd say, just the facts, ma'am.
Just the facts. Well, I like the facts, but I don't see a lot of them out there with my opponents.
Instead, they say I'm a bad...
Actually, they say that I'm an immoral person.
That's what they're really implying.
It is immoral for you to quote Muhammad.
It is immoral for you to quote Allah.
It is immoral for you to quote facts of history.
We live in an upside-down world.
Well, so let's talk a little bit about a couple of pushbacks, right, which people will generally hear if they screw their courage to the sticking place and start to talk about these issues.
And just before I forget, I was sort of reminded when you were talking about humor how in King Lear the fool was the only person to be able to tell the truth to the king.
Humor is a very, very important way of a spoonful of sugar making the medicine go down.
But when it comes to...
pushback.
Of course, people say, well, you can find violent verses in almost all religions, and certainly in the Old Testament, you can find very hostile and violent verses, and I've certainly talked about them during this, in this show.
And other people say, well, of course, most of the Muslims that I know are nice people, and that they sort of confuse the individual with the ideology, and that criticizing an ideology does not require that everybody's straitjacket-like has to completely mirror that ideology.
You can criticize communism without saying that every communist is going to go and slaughter kulaks or anything like that.
And these kinds of issues, what are the typical pushbacks that you get when you talk about this stuff?
First off, when people bring up things about Christian, which is what they usually do, or the Jewish Old Testament, I usually reply to them, well, you're looking for the comparative religion lectures.
It's down the hall.
We're here to talk about political Islam.
And why do you want to change the subject?
I think it's because you don't know anything about political Islam, but you do have your favorite scab you want to pick with Christianity.
So why do we deal with political Islam?
And then when you finally get tired of that, we'll then deal with other subjects.
So that's one of the things that, and I've done this many, many, many times, when they want to get me off the topic.
Basically what I tell them is, You don't want to talk about Islam.
You want to talk about your own particular issue, but I came here to talk about Islam.
Since I'm always invited to the interview, that's kind of a, well, I guess we didn't do that, didn't we?
But I think that there's a lot of truth to the statement that people have a long list of things they don't like about Christianity and Judaism, or the Republicans, or the conservatives, or whatever, and they don't really know anything about Islam.
Why should they? We don't teach the truth about Islam in schools.
We don't teach the truth about Islam in our universities.
We don't teach the truth about Islam in our media.
So why would you know anything about Islam?
That's the reason you want to move the topic.
Besides that, the Christians, you've lived with them, they're kind of nice people.
You may not like what they, if they come to your door and knock and hand you a leaflet, but they're okay with you.
So if you can just say that Christians are equal to Muslims, then these Muslims with whom we have some dark fears, well, they're going to be all right.
Do you see the interior logic here?
Please, oh God, let them be as good or bad as the Christians, then this will all work out okay.
So those are my responses to the bad stuff in the Old Testament.
But if you do want to get down into the data ditch and dig around, we have gone through, of course, and counted all the jihad verses in the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith, and we've captured all the political Well, also,
I mean, a point that has occurred to me, you can let me know what you think, is the degree to which Christianity has had to wrestle with The Greco-Roman tradition is very, very important.
I mean, if you look at after the rediscovery of Aristotle, I mean, he was, of course, not a Christian, but was referred to by Christian theologians as the philosopher.
He was just the guy.
And the debates that occurred throughout Christian history about whether or not Socrates got to heaven or not...
The degree to which the Greco-Roman tradition has been absorbed into and the Christians have wrestled with, rather than simply dismissing it as non-Christian and therefore evil and bulldozing the Temple of Athens and so on, there is a wrestling with It ain't gonna happen.
Let me explain to you why.
First off, the Qur'an is meant to be exactly, literally, the breath of God.
There is no error in it.
There's no mistake in it.
It is perfect, complete, universal.
Well, what are we going to do here in terms of criticism?
Well, it turns out a lot has been done with regards to criticism because there's many—the Qur'an has too many internal contradictions.
But for a Muslim, it is perfect.
They would never think of asking difficult questions.
So it is perfect in uniform over time.
That is, it cannot be altered or changed.
The Sunnah of Muhammad is perfect.
We have it recorded.
It cannot change.
It is the perfect human being for all times.
So we have here the image of the world of Islam is it is complete.
Therefore, it doesn't need anything outside of itself.
And its contradictions are just simply not looked at.
One of the favorite contradictions is the Quran says this is a perfect document written in perfect Arabic.
Well, there's about 150 terms in it that are not Arabic at all.
So there are its own internal contradictions.
But Muslims don't deal with these.
Self-doubt is not a quality of Islam.
Self-assurance, absolute truth, is what comes with Islam.
It is a very different form of logic.
They use authoritative thought.
We use critical thought.
These are very different. Now, by the way, people like to say that while Islam preserved all of the Greek and Roman knowledge, they preserved about 10% of it, that which was useful.
The other 90% they threw away.
And the biggest preservation of the Greek and Roman material was, guess where?
In Christian monasteries.
Right, right. The fact that A lot of the Middle East and Egypt and Turkey and other countries were Christian or Greek or at least non-Muslim.
If you sort of look at the expansion map of Islam, it is funny when you think about or strange, tragic, sad really.
When you think about the degree of Western civilization that has already, or at least Christian civilization, that has already fallen under the heels of Islam, and you point out that it's actually quite easy to implement, and it's very, very hard to dislodge.
Now, are you referring about the fact that Christianity was annihilated by Islam?
I've missed the thrust of your argument there.
Oh, you've talked about the degree to which political Islam is relatively easy to implement in a country, and I wonder if you can talk about, I think it's the degree to which there's this soft erosion of willpower on the part of non-Muslims.
What happens is, is that jihad brings Islam into power, and it puts the sharia as the basis of legal decisions.
Now then, Muslims love to say, oh, under the Sharia we have the tolerance.
We're the most tolerant religion of all.
We have a place for Jews.
We have a place for Catholics.
We have a place for evangelicals.
We're the tolerant religion, the religion of peace.
But the formal place of the Christian under this law is demi, D-H-I-M-M-I. That's one of the spellings.
The demi is not even a citizen.
It's a second-class subject.
The demi cannot be the boss of the Muslim.
The demi, the church has to go to the shore council in order to get the permission to build a roof, to repair the roof.
The Christian is subjugated in every way.
He is worse than a slave because a slave is simply worked, but a demi is to be humiliated.
Hence the custom of small Muslim boys throwing rocks at a Christian woman or Jewish woman if she would walk down the street.
It is in order to humiliate them.
A Christian cannot testify in a court of law.
A Christian cannot be in a ruling position.
A Christian can carry a knife but not a sword, and on and on and on it goes.
There's a special tax called the jizya.
Now, by the way, this special tax called the jizya is an important issue.
We think that when we bring Muslims to America or Europe and give them welfare, that that is a gift for which they will see as an act of compassion.
No, no.
You owed us the jizya.
Christian boy, that was ours in the first place.
You have kept this here for Allah, because it is now ours to come and claim.
It is our right.
It is nothing on the compassion on your part, so there's no love lost here.
Give us the rest.
Do you understand how this demand for the jizya can affect what a Muslim sees as an act of compassion and love on the part of a Christian?
Once Islam puts the Sharia in place, the erosion of the society begins.
And what we see here in America is that the Sharia, and in Britain and in Europe, the Sharia is in place.
Now this may take centuries, but slowly over a period of time, Christians and non-Muslims will learn to accept their lot as being bossed around by the Sharia.
Well, I can't have pork on my pizza.
Oh, darn, I wanted the salami.
Well, get used to it, Kaffir boy.
You ain't getting it anymore.
The Sharia is here.
Alright, let's close off talking about women in the Muslim world.
And one of the great... One of the revelatory mysteries that is occurring in the modern world is the degree to which Western feminists are not having much of a problem with the incursions of Islamic culture, which speaks volumes about the degree of intellectual integrity.
I wonder if you can help people understand, and again, I know we're generalizing about Islam and there are various sects and so on, but overall, what is the view of femininity in the Islamic world?
Well, I'm going to give you numbers.
What I did was, is I went through the Quran and extracted every single verse that mentioned women in any way.
I then put these verses in three stacks.
Women are superior, women are equal, and women are inferior.
That is, they're told what to do.
Well, it turns out that, I don't remember the figures, but something like five percent say that women are superior.
And this is because there are verses in the Quran which say the mother is the highest point of humanity.
Okay, good. Then we have the equal verses.
They're like about 8%.
These numbers are very rough to me.
I haven't looked at them recently. But about 8% of our women are equal.
Equal on Judgment Day.
When everyone's responsible for their acts, but, but, but, but, the thing is a woman that a woman must be subjected to the authority of her husband.
So one of the chief things we'll be asking the woman on Judgment Day is, how well did you obey your husband?
Then we have the inferiority verses.
And one of these is like a woman can be beaten if she doesn't obey.
And my favorite one is, because it just leapt off the page at me, was in a Muslim family, it is the husband who tells the wife when it's time to stop nursing the babe.
Huh? But let's go back.
So there are verses which say that women are superior.
There are verses which say that women are equal.
But the great majority of the verses say they're to be told what to do with a man.
So you have what you want.
Yes, Islam gives women their rights.
That's true. A little bit.
But it abuses women.
A whole lot. So this is part of the dualistic nature of Islam.
The positions contradict each other.
Equality does not go with being told when to take the babe from the breast and taking a beating.
But you have what you want.
In this dualistic system, you have everything that you need.
You have peace, you have war.
You have beating, you have elevation of the mother.
So this is what the nature of Islamic doctrine is.
And by the way, the Hadith have done the same and the results are the same.
A little bit of superior, a little bit of equality, and a whole lot of shut up and do what you're told, woman.
Well, and it is, as you point out in one of your books, the degree to which England in particular is appeasing.
Boy, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson in the 30s.
But the degree to which England is appeasing to the point where polygamy is not legal in England, but a Muslim immigrant can bring in multiple wives, each of whom can receive government welfare.
You know, as a guy, I understand the innate appeal of having a harem.
And we want to look at the big harem owner.
Remember, Muhammad is the perfect example of the perfect Muslim.
If you study all the hadith about his wives, you discover that his harem was filled with jealousy and hatred.
And when his daughter Fatima was married to Ali, and Ali said, I want to take a second wife, Muhammad says, you will not, my daughter Fatima will not suffer the illness of having another woman in her house.
Just saying. So there you have it.
Jealousy, the idea that you can have a harem means that you're definitely going to have suffering within the home.
Well, but the harem facilitates...
If you want a polygamy, go back to where polygamy you had it.
Why come here and bring it here?
Well, to have lots of Islamic children, wouldn't that be the purpose?
And you can also have lots of welfare dollars.
The jizy, they owe it to you anyway.
Look, We have an idea here that everything we've talked about is a clash of civilizations.
There are two civilizations at war here, and only one of them will survive.
If we buckle up, we can win.
But the way we're doing it now is we're compromising our way to victory, which doesn't work.
No. And I think certainly there are certain cultures that view generosity, you know, the Christian idea of not just the golden rule, but also love your enemies and If your enemy strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other cheek, and so on.
It views that kind of compromise as an olive branch being extended.
But there are other cultures, of course, as we know, that view that kind of compromise as a confession of weakness.
Exactly. Yes.
I mean, I don't know. I could add to that.
But it's, once again, the idea that we have two completely different civilizations.
And we need to learn what those rules of the two civilizations are.
And look, ours is better.
I keep coming back to that.
We must win because I do not want my granddaughters being beaten by a Muslim husband.
All right. Now, let's just spend a minute or two before we close off Dr.
Warner to talk about action plans.
My particular approach for what it's worth is we're not at the phase yet of action plans.
We're still at the phase of getting information.
Into the hands or the minds of people.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I do know that continuing to ignore facts ain't going to get us to whatever it's going to be.
Well, I am, if you will, preparing the way for what will actually be a civilizational war.
My purpose is to educate.
I'm a pamphleteer, if you will.
I've studied both civilizations.
It is my judgment that our civilization is infinitely superior to the Islamic civilization.
And then what I want Christians to do is to take up the Great Commission and convert Muslims to Christianity.
And the Buddhists to do the same and the atheists do the same.
Look, I don't care if a Muslim becomes an atheist, a Christian, a Jew.
I don't care. As long as he doesn't look at me as a Kafir.
You see, that's what I object to, is that I'm a Kafir under these systems.
But we must have knowledge.
The minister who was portrayed in the NPR article as being a wonderful, kind, compassionate, loving minister, Doesn't know anything about Islam.
He knows nothing about Islam.
And yet he's saying that people like me are evil.
Well, be that as it may, what I say to him is, I quote Muhammad, why don't you learn how to quote Muhammad?
I quote Allah, why don't you learn how to quote Allah?
Because once you know who Muhammad is, once you know who Allah is, you will never again be an Islamophile.
Did I say it right? Islamophile?
Islamophile, why not?
All right. Well, listen, Dr.
Warner, very enlightening, a little terrifying, but I guess enervating.
And I just want to remind people that you can find your books are available at extremely reasonable prices, I might add, on Amazon and on the Kindle.
And you can go to politicalislam.com for more of Dr.
Warner's work. And we'll link, of course, you've got some videos with significant numbers of views that are well worth perusing.
