Posted on 02/17/2011 5:17:18 AM PST by SJackson
[Editor's note: The interview with Bill Warner below is reprinted from our Nov. 23, 2007 issue. The subject is Islamic theology's position on slavery and rape when it comes to kafirs (non-Muslims). Frontpage's editors thought it would be relevant in light of the vicious sex attack recently suffered by "60 Minutes" reporter Lara Logan at the hands of a mob in Egypt. It may not be insignificant that the perpetrators, as well as the supportive on-lookers, shouted "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.]
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.
FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.
FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.
Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.
The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.
Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.
Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.
Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.
FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?
Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.
But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.
Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.
He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.
FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?
Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.
When Mohammed destroyed the B. Qurayza tribe, all of the adult male Jews were beheaded, so that no husbands were left. Mohammed then took the children and gave them to Muslims to raise as Muslims and he sold off the Jewish women as slaves.
We know from another story that the women were divided into sex slaves and domestic slaves. In one scene, a jihadist is trying to obtain a high ransom for a woman and he is told that her breasts are flat and her mouth is cold, so her value was less. In short, she was only good for work around the house, not in the bedroom.
The Hadith tells of another story where the Muslims used coitus interruptus to avoid impregnating the kafir sex slaves. The reason was purely for business. If the kafir sex slave was pregnant, then she was worth less money.
Islamic doctrine says that kafir women should not be used for prostitutes, only for the pleasure of the master.
When Mohammed attacked the Jews at Khaybar, many moral precedents were set. Sexual slavery received an entire set of rules. Muslims were not to rape pregnant or menstruating women until they had delivered the child or finished their periods. At Khaybar, Mohammed’s god Allah, announced that even married women were fair game for rape.
Mohammed only killed some of the Jews at Khaybar. The male and female survivors were needed to work the land as dhimmis. (The original dhimmis were semi-slaves with no civil rights. Today, dhimmis are ignorant kafirs who apologize for Islam.) Since Islam needed the men to work, husbands were left alive. That was the reason that the Koran said that in this case, even with the husbands looking on, it was good to rape the women.
Sexual slavery was not only fun and profitable for the Muslim men, but rape was a powerful tactic of war, then and today. The women are forced into submission to Muslim men and the husbands are humiliated. Humiliated men are weakened men, so more kafirs were less able to resist Islam.
For some time Mohammed’s favorite sex partner was a Christian slave from Egypt named Mary. One of Mohammed’s wives caught him in some state of intimacy with Mary in the wife’s bedroom and raised hell. Mohammed promised to not do it again and moved Mary to her own apartment in Medina.
Mohammed had received Mary and her sister as gifts. He gave her sister away to a Muslim poet. He was used to giving away sex slaves. He gave several of his top lieutenants kafir sex slaves. Umar, who later became caliph, gave his sex slave to his son. [As an aside, when he was caliph, his son got drunk and Umar beat him to death.]
FP: This institution of Islamic sexual slavery isn’t just a reality of the past is it?
Warner: Everything that has been said up to now is not only history; it is Sunna (the example of the perfect pattern of action and morality found in Mohammed). So today we don’t have a beautiful blonde Christian girl on the block in Mecca, but we have continuous and ongoing rapes by Muslims in kafir cities. This goes on everywhere that Islam goes because it is Sunna.
This is a continuous 1400-year history of jihad. In every detailed history that comes from the original documents from history, rape is a constant. You have to look in the original documents, since our historians refuse to report it in so-called history books.
Rape is Sunna. Rape is not a sin. Rape is permitted and encouraged by Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is jihad. How good can it get? A Muslim gets to rape a kafir girl and get heaven credits. All jihad is a ticket to Paradise.
The most disgusting aspect of the Islamic rape of kafirs is not the rapes, but the kafir response. Kafirs become dhimmis by ignoring the rapes. I challenge you to find one, even one, mention of Islamic rape in the history books.
Islamic rape is more taboo than the N-word in the media. At least the N-word is acknowledged to exist. Even unicorns exist in media fantasy. But Islamic rape is forbidden to even exist as a fantasy.
And to reach a fevered rant: our so-called “feminist” scholars are absolutely intellectually and morally bankrupt hypocrites. They are traitors to our culture and a shame and a disgrace. They remain silent in the face of heinous crimes against women. They are arch-dhimmis when they refuse to speak of the Sunna, history and current rapes of our daughters, mothers, and sisters.
And our tax dollars support their evil in our public universities.
FP: Mohammed was a white man and had black slaves, correct? Isn’t there a racism here? Where is all the leftist indignation against Islam on this issue?
Warner: The relationship between blacks and slavery is ironic. A standard approach of Islam to blacks is that Christianity is the religion of the white man and Islam is the natural religion of the black man. They add that Mohammed’s second convert was a black slave, Bilal, who was Mohammed’s companion and the first muezzin (the man who calls to prayer).
The Hadith, however, goes out of its way, many times, to tell the world that Mohammed was a white man. The Hadith also tells us the race of the kafirs that Mohammed enslaved. And Mohammed had many black slaves in his household. One of his slaves was a black man called, Anjasha.
Mohammed owned black slaves. It is that simple. His favorite wife, the child Aisha, had a black slave. But to be fair to Mohammed, he was not a racist about slavery. He enslaved Arabs, Africans, and Greeks. Islam enslaves all kafirs, independent of race.
Mohammed was politically incorrect about blacks and called them “raisin heads” in the Hadith. Thus it would be a compliment to call a black Muslim a “raisin head.” It would be Sunna and not offensive. Mohammed also said that Muslims are to obey the Islamic leader, “even if they were black.” A left-handed compliment, at best.
Mohammed used his robe to shield Aisha, so she could watch black slaves perform a martial arts routine in the mosque. The Hadith tells of a prophecy about a black man bringing evil to Islam. Black men were prophesized to destroy the Kabah.
But when Muslims preach to blacks they only say that Islam’s first muezzin was a black man. They don’t tell the rest of the story.
FP: Can you give us a brief synopsis of the history of Islamic slavery?
Warner: It all started with Mohammed and then went worldwide.
When Islam burst out of Arabia into the kafir world, they took the wealth and slaves. Slavery was an unapologetic part of jihad.
The Arabic language is a good place to see how important slavery was. In The Submission of Women and Slaves, we collected over 30 Arabic words that deal with slavery. We think that Arabic has more words for slaves than any other language.
Both a black African and a black slave have the same name, abd. The historical reason for this is that African slavery was so important to Islamic economics. Language reflects history. Islamic legal history is filled with the complaints by African Muslim jurists about how Arabic Muslim slave traders captured African Muslims and sold them on the auction block.
History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed’s mosque in Medina.
African slaves were called abd; white slaves were called mamluk. Most black slaves were used in mining and heavy fieldwork. White slaves were used more for skilled trades. White slaves were even promoted to leadership positions, if they converted. Only one black slave was promoted to leadership. He ruled Egypt and was a eunuch.
Over a million white slaves were taken from Europe. Our word, slave, comes from Slav. A white woman was the highest price slave for 1400 years on the Meccan auction block. The Muslim who could not afford a white sex slave choose an Ethiopian woman at a third of the price.
The most revolting enslavement of whites was how Turkish Muslims took as a tax, one out of five Christian children in Islamic ruled Eastern Europe. These male children were taken back to Turkey where they became the janissaries, elite soldiers for the sultan. The Turkish sultans did not trust tribal Muslims to be the elite palace guards, since they all harbored ancient tribal rivalries. We see the same distrust of Muslim tribal politics in Afghanistan, where kafirs are used as presidential guards.
The Hindus were enslaved, but we don’t have the number. We do know that jihad took half of ancient Hindustan and killed 80,000,000 Hindus. We have accountings of Hindus being enslaved by the hundreds of thousands at a time.
Muslims enslave everyone, but no one enslaves Muslims. This knowledge is part of Islam’s arrogance and superiority. They know the history; it is the dhimmis (kafir apologists) who are ignorant of the doctrine and history of Islamic slavery.
FP: The violent capture and enslavement of black Africans by Muslim Arabs continues to this today. The root of this modern-day slavery is, of course, Islamic doctrine.
Warner: The enslavement of Africans is happening today. The only reason that Islam stopped enslaving whites and Hindus is that Islam is too weak to resist the social pressure. The Sunna of slavery has not changed, just the ability to use their law.
In the African countryside Muslims are still using jihad to enrich themselves. I have spoken with a Sudanese slave who escaped. The Muslims killed his parents and took him and his sister. Each night the jihadists gang raped his sister. Remember, rape is Sunna.
When he met his new masters, they put him in the middle of a circle of the family and each beat him with a stick. He was told that his new name was Abd, black slave. He slept in the barn with the animals.
Our media and intellectuals are quick to punish the slightest insult by a white against a black man, but they have not the slightest recognition of murder, rape and enslavement of blacks by Islam. Our media and intellectuals are dhimmis.
FP: Final thoughts and comments?
Warner: Slavery is the fruit of Islamic duality. Mohammed, the master of dualism and submission, used slavery as a tool of jihad because it worked. Mohammed’s life was infused with slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of Islam. Mohammed, the white man, owned both male and female black slaves. His attitude was pure dualism.
The most disgusting thing about Islamic slavery is not that Muslims enslave others, but that we ignore it. The Muslims have been fed the Koran and the Sunna in their mother’s milk. They are doing what is ethical according to Islam. In a strange way, Muslims are to be pitied. A Muslim is the first victim of Islam.
The criticism of whites because of their being involved in slavery is standard fair in the media and the universities. Try to find a university that even teaches about the killing of 120,000,000 Africans for Muslims to profit from the 24,000,000 slaves.
Blacks define themselves on the basis of slavery. They will not go beyond the white, Christian version of slavery. There is only one theory of history in the black community—the West African Limited Edition version of history. Blacks will not admit the broad scope of slave history. Hindu slavery? It never happened. White and European slavery? It never happened. Slavery on the East coast of Africa? It never happened. A massive slave trade through the Sahara into North Africa? It never happened. Black, eunuchs at the Medina mosque? It never happened. This incomplete history of slavery is what the taxpayers fund in the state universities.
How can black leaders ignore Islam’s sacred violence in Africa? Why aren’t the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are ignorant and in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.
Blacks are dhimmis and serve Islam with their silence. There is a deep fear of Islam that makes them overlook and placate Islam. Arabs are the masters of blacks.
One thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ignorant to know it. Blacks and whites have a secret shame buried under the denial of being slaves inside Islam.
But the rest of the media and intellectuals line up as dhimmis, too. One of the marks of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.
They don’t know about how jihad killed the 120,000,000 Africans, the 60,000,000 Christians, the 80,000,000 Hindus or the 10,000,000 Buddhists. Our intellectuals do not know about the Tears of Jihad (detailed in all of our books). That is a lot of death and ignorance—270,000,000 dead. Our intellectuals don’t know, don’t care and don’t bother. They deny.
University Islamic studies never mention the Islamic political doctrine. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don’t teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force
The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism. Islamic ethics and politics have one set of rules for Muslims and another for kafirs. Our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics, the Golden Rule. We do not have two sets of laws and ethics, like Islam. Our intellectuals cannot explain what dualism has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future—civilizational annihilation.
Our intellectuals and the media have only one view of Islam—a glorious civilization. They have created the “terrorist”, a bogus term based upon ignorance. And the “terrorist” is not even a “real” Muslim, but an extremist fundamentalist. All of these terms are based upon a profound ignorance of Islamic political doctrine.
Intellectuals cannot connect the dots of persecution of other intellectuals and artists today, such as Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, the Mohammed cartoon riots, and Daniel Pearl. Their persecution is part of a 1400 year Islamic tradition of keeping all intellectuals and artists in line with the doctrine of political Islam. But for our intellectuals, there is no history, no connection, no pattern, no doctrine of Islam. Their only doctrine is the doctrine of denial. These intellectuals write our textbooks. Then our tax dollars buy the books to feed the ignorance.
What explains the intellectuals’ silence and ignorance? The enormous violence of jihad has produced the psychology of the “molested child” syndrome. Intellectuals fear, apologize for, and placate the Islamic abusers, ignoring the violence of the past. Then they turn around and advise our politicians. The result is an ignorant populace who look to our intellectuals for guidance and find treachery and lies.
FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us.
Warner: Thank you for standing against political Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/17/islam-and-the-brutal-sex-assault-of-lara-logan/
A very interesting link because it confirms exactly what the author of the main article claims. From Ashley Banfield concerning her experience being aggressively groped:
“Without question, it enlightened me as to the lengths some Muslim men, in some very strict societies, would go to defy their God for a fleeting thrill.”
The groper was NOT defying his god, but doing exactly what his god expected. Banfield doesn’t get it and attributes her experience to bad behavior when it is actiually proper behavior for a Muslim male. She’s just an ignorant kafir and got only the minimum of what female kafirs are supposed to get. Laura Logan got what she was due according to Islam.
Mike
Here ya go... reality...
So true. I've often thought if an islamite, justified by their sacred babbling book, could use lying and deceit to "further" islam, what makes them so damned sure they haven't been lied to and deceived themselves?
I don’t know that injuries from groping require successive hospitalizations : /
May God give us strength.
Some time ago my company won an unbelievable huge contract to upgrade communications systems in a mideast muslim country. The pay, living expense and benefits package to go there to work was more than generous - in a few years you could salt enough away to be on your way financially.
For various business reasons the company wanted us to bring our families to live there. The company provided a comprehensive analysis of the living conditions and culture we would have to adapt to. There was the usual State Department gibberish about cultural exchange, the need to show respect for their culture, etc. But it was quite clear that we could expect our wives and children to be treated roughly and subjected to abuse and disrespect. After I read the report I did further research and decided that the money was not worth the living conditions and treatment my family would face.
Many of my co-workers did go there to work there and brought their families and without exception reported it was much worse than expected. Many of those who went either quit or demanded the company repatriate their families before the contract was complete. Bear in mind that these people were not living in American enclaves next to the embassy in the capitol - they were living in small groups all over the country.
Their experience is that the majority of muslim men considered western women pretty much as loose women and whores. And for many, the western children were targets of sexual abuse. The muslim women looked down on westerners as well, and they would protect, aid and abet the men. The only cultural exchange they were interested in was to exchange the yankee dollar for overpriced goods and services.
How can black leaders ignore Islam’s sacred violence in Africa? Why aren’t the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out?
Because islam will not give them free handouts and has no guilt about its crimes against humanity.
Abortion of kaffirs (at any time) is never considered “problematic,” btw. Many of the “doctors” who run abortion centers in the black ghettoes are Middle Eastern or South East Asian Muslims.
bump
Thanks, this is one of the best posts i’ve ever read on FR.
" Without question, it enlightened me as to the lengths some Muslim men, in some very strict societies, would go to defy their God for a fleeting thrill."
These men are not defying their God. They are taught that is is their right to defile non-Muslims according to Bill Warner's interview above:
"So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error."
There were two main classes of slaves in the Jewish tradition: prisoners of war and bankrupts.
For the case of prisoners of war, slavery was generally a good thing -- it provided an incentive to not just exterminate the conquered people.
For bankrupts, they got to spend up to seven years being the servant of somebody solvent enough to buy them, and maybe learn something about how to manage their finances. (In the Jewish tradition, slaves were to be freed after seven years of service)
Am with the writer here on the ignorance of the Leftist elite - not to mention, the 'blind eyes' on the right. The above however, rationale, feels like; looks like, intellectual pablum.
Other than that, the more light shed on the 'Trojan Camel' the better. Too late smart, of course, has it's downside.
So, because your friend was groped in the eighties while in Saudi; that explains - and diminishes - Lara's experience? Was your friend surrounded by hundreds of men - in a frenzy, so to speak and did they scream ; according to 'under-reports 'Jew - Jew' at her?
We tend to fashion reality by our experiences; but meantime, 'other things' do happen; which impact ours; and should enlarge our perceptions.
Personally, think she is lucky to be alive. Also think; she should never have been there.
So, because your friend was groped in the eighties while in Saudi; that explains - and diminishes - Lara's experience? Was your friend surrounded by hundreds of men - in a frenzy, so to speak and did they scream ; according to 'under-reports 'Jew - Jew' at her? (She is nt Jewish; but, no matter. . .)
We tend to fashion reality by our experiences; but meantime, 'other things' do happen; which impact ours; and should enlarge our perceptions.
Personally, think she is lucky to be alive. Also think; she should never have been there.
I hate to be a wet blanket here, but she says she *wasn’t* sexually assaulted.
Logan later said of the incident: “We were not attacked by crazy people in Tahrir Square. We were detained by the Egyptian army. Arrested, detained, and interrogated. Blindfolded, handcuffed, taken at gunpoint, our driver beaten. It’s the regime that arrested us.”
Now you’re trying to put a pretty gloss over slavery, just like the Muslims do.
No, I'm just saying that slavery was an alternative to death. Slaves were always free to take the alternative by rebelling, as Spartacus's followers did.
I believe you are correct. That and the western fascination with the "right" to abortion strikes me as the modern world's version of the false god, Moloch who required human sacrifice. And yet we consider ourselves to be so progressive.
She wasn't talking about the assault in Tahrir Square. The statement came from an article written BEFORE the Tahrir Square, where she was talking about her expulsion from Egypt the PRIOR WEEK.
In the later article, the earlier article where she made that statement is linked to with the passage:
The Politics Blog spoke with Logan as she was boarding her flight to Cairo on Thursday, February 10, one day before the assault took place. They were, in a sense, her last public words before the alleged assault — Logan didn't get a chance to file from Cairo before the incident in question took place. Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/lara-logan-egypt-assault-5241788#ixzz1EEUNNivc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.