Spero News(speronews@speronews.com)
How Islam's PR machine is conquering the soul of the West
23 May 2016
by Martin Barillas
There are numerous instances in which groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has sought to mediate between government authorities and the Muslim community in the United States. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California last year, CAIR held a press conference featuring the brother-in-law of Syed Farook – one of the two Muslim terrorists involved -- Farhan Khan refused to answer questions but delivered a statement: “I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.” Executive Director of CAIR-LA Hussam Ayloush said, “We unequivocally condemn the horrific act that happened today.”
Ayloush sought to blame American foreign policy for the carnage in California. “When we support coup leaders in Egypt or other places, when we support dictatorship, oppressive regimes around the world that push people over on the edge, then they become extremists, then they become terrorists. We are partly responsible,” he said. Seeking causes other than Islamic terrorism for the shootings, President Barack Obama assured Americans that there was no threat from the Islamic States, even while evidence of terror links had already emerged, while he continued to blame “workplace violence.”
Spero News conducted an exclusive interview with Bill Warner, an expert on political Islam who has travelled widely to speak on the topic both within the United States and overseas. Before the events of 9/11, Warner had already predicted war between Islam and the West. He has sought since then to reveal Islamic texts that shed light on Islamic terror. In the interview, Warner was asked to describe how Islamic organizations are seeking to shape American public opinion.
When Warner was asked whether political Islam is a threat to the West, he said “Yes, it is. Let’s deal with the term ‘jihad.’ We first have to dispel the idea mean ‘holy war.’ Jihad means ‘struggle,’ and in particular it means the struggle to advance Islam. It does have a violent aspect in war because there is jihad of the sword. But there is also the jihad of speech, writing, and money.” Warner said that terrorist attacks of the jihad of the sword, while spectacular, cause viewer deaths than drunk drivers do on a Saturday night. “Whereas in the jihad of speech, writing, and money,” he said, “influence us in a civilizational way. An example is the textbooks in Tennessee reflect a view of history which is very pro-Islamic.”
The proponents of political Islam, said Warner, realized long ago that school textbooks offer the means to change American’s views about Islam. “They buy influence in universities. They buy influence in the textbook companies. And they always plead their case as a victim. Islam is forever the victim. On 9/11, the real victim was Islam because people felt badly about Muslims. So they are now portraying the victim history mode in our textbooks, which is that they are the best of people, they’re religiously tolerant, they were the first to give women their rights, and the high point of human history was the golden age in Baghdad.”
Warner laughingly dismissed the notion that jihad is properly understood as a personal, spiritual struggle. Referring to the hadith, the scholarly commentary on the Koran, Warner said that 98 percent of the hadith mentioning jihad actually refers to the jihad of the sword.
In the interview, reference was made to the aftermath of the San Bernardino terrorist attack when family members of the terrorists took recourse to representation by the Council on American Islamic Relations. As to whether this is characteristic of Islamist public relations, Warner said “They do an extraordinarily good job at what they do. In fact, in the PR world, they beat us hands down. They’re always the victim, as they’re portrayed as here, and they always have a victim’s reasons as to why these things happen. They play us like a violin.” He added, “The main problem here is, is that Islam wants to win, and we want to tie.”
Warner is a physicist who taught at U.S. universities. His training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. He is the founder of PoliticalIslam, a website where his books (including a biography of Muhammad) and other materials about Islam are available. Warner asserts, after much study, that Islam is not based upon the same civilizational principles as the rest of the world. It is based, he writes on his website, on dualism and submission as foundational principles.
Among the outgrowths of those foundational principles, writes Warner, are the following:
Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.
There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).
Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.
Moreover, Warner says that Westerners must understand that there are three independent, irreconcilable views of Islam: a) believer-centric, b) apologist-centric, c) and Kafir-centric.
“The believer-centric view is the view of a Muslim. Apologist-centric is based upon the apologetic view of non-Muslims. Kafir-centric is the view of the non-Muslim. A comprehensive knowledge of Islam must include all three. These views cannot be resolved, but each must stand-alone.”
（End）
