The Party of Knowledge and the Party of IgnorancePolitical Islam

This is a really good analysis of the what Bill Warner sees in our two political parties, and how they see islam. he breaks this down further as islam not being a Republican or democratic issue so much as one that requires knowledge and research.


"The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam. They use the voice of Muslims to repeat apologies for Islam. The Party of Ignorance is always attacking the members of the Party of Knowledge with insults, put downs, mocking tones and allusions to the Party of Knowledge being bigots and hate-speechers. In short, the Party of Ignorance repeats what Muslims say and uses personal attacks against the members of the Party of Knowledge. Knowledge is evil; ignorance is good.


The true foundation of the Party of Ignorance is that they absolutely refuse to read any of the biography of Mohammed, the Sira, nor his traditions, the Hadith. The Party of Ignorance holds the Koran in high esteem, but no one in the Party of Ignorance has any understanding of it. Since it is impenetrable it must be profound. Since it is not understood, it can mean anything you want to project onto it."

---

The Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance
By Bill Warner


There is a false dichotomy about Islam. Some think that only conservatives are critical about Islam and the liberal/progressives/Democrats/leftists are supportive of Islam. But there are very conservative Christians who admire Islam and stand up for it. There are left-of-center types who abhor Islam because of its doctrine and treatment of women. There are people from both camps who support and condemn Islam.


Islam has little to do with left/right and liberal/conservative split. Islam is another axis and does not share the normal political divisions. Now it is true that the Democrats are the current benefit of Islamic support, but during Bush’s first election, Muslims in Florida claimed it was their support that tipped the election to Bush. Muslims have voted for both parties.


Although there are more conservatives who are critical of Islam than liberals, the correlation is not so strong as to be useful. There is another political axis that predicts whether someone supports or criticizes Political Islam. That axis is knowledge, knowledge about the doctrine and history of Political Islam.


Whether a Kafir (non-Muslim) supports or criticizes Islam is not classical left/right politics, but knowledge. There are two separate Kafir parties—the Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance.


The Party of Knowledge has learned about the political doctrine and political history of Islam and knows about words such as jihad, Sunna, dhimmi and Kafir. Members of the Party of Knowledge know that the Koran is a dualistic document and contains "good" and "bad" verses that are both true. The Party of Knowledge also knows that the biggest key to understanding Islam is knowing Mohammed, not the Allah of the Koran.


The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam. They use the voice of Muslims to repeat apologies for Islam. The Party of Ignorance is always attacking the members of the Party of Knowledge with insults, put downs, mocking tones and allusions to the Party of Knowledge being bigots and hate-speechers. In short, the Party of Ignorance repeats what Muslims say and uses personal attacks against the members of the Party of Knowledge. Knowledge is evil; ignorance is good.


The true foundation of the Party of Ignorance is that they absolutely refuse to read any of the biography of Mohammed, the Sira, nor his traditions, the Hadith. The Party of Ignorance holds the Koran in high esteem, but no one in the Party of Ignorance has any understanding of it. Since it is impenetrable it must be profound. Since it is not understood, it can mean anything you want to project onto it.


What are we to call the members of these two parties? Derivative names such as Knowers and Know-nothings suggest themselves, but there is already a classical set of names taken from Islamic doctrine. Members of the Party of Knowledge are Kafirs and members of the Party of Ignorance are dhimmis. Naturally the Kafirs know who they are and the dhimmis have not clue as to what their name means. Poetic justice?


A dhimmi is a creature created by Mohammed when he subjugated the Jews of Khaybar. Dhimmis can live under Sharia law, because they have agreed to never publicly oppose Islam and practice their beliefs in private. Today, the name dhimmi refers to an uncritical apologist of Islam.


How does this play out in real life? Here is the language of the Kafirs: Koran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia. Their language uses terms like Sunna and abrogation. Kafirs use details about the history of jihad and the dhimmi.


Dhimmis quote a Muslim or an apologist professor. But the favorite dhimmi talk is about how Kafirs are stupid and evil. Dhimmis always move away from the subject of Islam as soon as possible and start deprecating/trashing Christians and Western culture. Dhimmis tend to never use technical words such as jihad, but use words such as terrorist. Just as soon a terrorist is mentioned, then comes the example of that Christian terrorist, Timothy McVey. Of course, he was a self-avowed atheist, but that matters little to a dhimmi. The only Islamic history the dhimmi knows is a censored version of the Crusades and the fabricated Golden Age of Islam.


Analytic thought brings up the question of a Muslim being in the Party of Knowledge. There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge—Kafir and Muslim. How do we distinguish them from each other? Simple, how does a Muslim and a Kafir react to Kafir suffering? One fine day, Mohammed sat beside his 12 year old wife and watched as jihadist beheaded 800 male Jews. For a Muslim, this was as day of joy and triumph. The Kafir sees the deaths of 800 Kafir Jews as a war crime and an act of evil.


There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge, but only one kind of person in the Party of Ignorance. If you are confused, then you are a member of the Party of Ignorance.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-party-of-knowledge-and-the-party-of-ignorance/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

---

What makes a dhimmi?

"What Makes Johnny Dhimmi Run Away?", an article on Sultan Knish, provides a clearcut, uncompromising description of the personality traits, and thinking modes of dhimmis in positions of power, be they politicians, generals, beaurocrats, or businessmen.

A few excerpts:
"A closer look at the Dhimmi leadership will yield some surprises. These leaders of the Dhimmi class and of our own nations and cultural centers are occasionally left wing, sometimes liberal leaning but generally moderate. While their views may seem liberal to us, that's only because they lack any real views of their own. As the left's culture war has continued to push the center further and further to the left, views that were once liberal, become mainstream. And Johnny Dhimmi is a creature of the center, a true moderate in the sense that he moves with the herd of public opinion while pretending to be its shepherd. As a faithful worshiper of the status quo, Johnny Dhimmi is quick to adapt to whatever the dominant view appears to be."

"Johnny Dhimmi does not have any ideas of his own but he excels at borrowing other people's ideas, breaking them down to the simplest common denominator and using them as a repetitive slogan. You couldn't argue with Johnny Dhimmi because he spends very little time thinking about things and ideas need to be conveyed to him in bite size form. At the same time Johnny Dhimmi is suspicious of excessively simple ideas, such as national self-defense or a clash of civilizations, as a natural born manager, he prefers an answer that will smooth out the bumps and keep business moving. While he is not above exploiting patriotic symbols or rhetoric and even believes them at the time, he never takes them too seriously, they are a costume he puts on and takes off when appropriate."

"Johnny Dhimmi has learned throughout his career that the safest approach is the mildest. He is capable of bold rhetoric and action when needed, he is not emotionless or a robot, but he is naturally static and has trouble coping with new ideas. He prefers accommodation to conflict and while he will fight politically for what he believes in, it will only be until he realizes that it is hopeless and then he will look for a way out. It may however take time for this understanding to sink in, often making him the last man on the Titanic to notice the big iceberg."

"His response to the rise of Islamic terror is to look for easy solutions that work for everyone. His initial response is to ignore it. His second response is to accommodate the moderates while banishing the extremists. When this fails, he stalls and looks to someone else for answers. Finally he begins negotiating the terms of surrender for his country in order to get the best terms and limit the damage."

"The destructive capacity of Johnny Dhimmi lies in his sheer uselessness and lack of mental agility and ability. Devoid of any spine, he folds easily. Things have come easy to him in life and his entire professional career has been devoted to convincing people to do what he thinks is best. And what he thinks is best, is what will keep business going."

"Johnny Dhimmi is loyal, but not to a country. His first and foremost interest is not the nation, but that corner of it which consists of his friends' business interests. He is strongly loyal when it comes to his friends and what his friends want is for international trade to keep running smoothly."

---

For those interested in the full text:
What Makes Johnny Dhimmi Run Away?

Silencing the lemmings in the U.S. Intelligence and diplomatic agencies

There has been a lot written about the mullah obamaham's directive banning the use of words like "Islamic terrorism, Muslim terrorist, Islamism, Islamic fundamentalist, and Islamic radicalism," one can think this does not mean anything really new as Barry Rubin mentions. But what and where obama, the first mussie president of the United States, has done this is what makes this extremely alarming.It is really quite sickening to me, and I hope many others how badly obama is capitualting to islam and muslims. As Rubin states; "That's both scary and shocking. Because the implication won't be lost on career officials that along with not using these words it isn't going to help their future prospects to use these concepts.


I don't want to overstate the situation. In internal government discussions, people do refer to "Islamic radicals," for example. It is the written work that is more likely to suffer. And are things going to tighten up under this administration in the years to come?" I think things will get much worse as time goes by unless this coming November obama's power can be reduced by massive Democratic losses. He will still POTUS and further damages will be harder to accomplish. Still happy you voted for him, you libtards out there reading this?

---

Is the U.S. Diplomatic and Intelligence Community Being Brainwashed in Dealing with Islamism?
By Barry Rubin

When I first heard the story that President Barack Obama was barring from national security documents the use of terms like "Islamism," "Islamic fundamentalist," "Islamic radicalism," or any reference of any connection between Islam and terrorist or revolutionary groups; al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hizballah; Iran's regime or al-Qaida, I said to myself, oh that's nothing new. That kind of policy started under Bush.

But then I realized--and this isn't obvious in the coverage but is the most important aspect of all!--that this policy applies to internal government documents not just public statements. That's both scary and shocking. Because the implication won't be lost on career officials that along with not using these words it isn't going to help their future prospects to use these concepts.

I don't want to overstate the situation. In internal government discussions, people do refer to "Islamic radicals," for example. It is the written work that is more likely to suffer. And are things going to tighten up under this administration in the years to come?

Suppose I'm an intelligence analyst in the State Department, Defense Department, armed forces, or CIA, and I'm writing about one of these groups or this ideology. How can one possibly analyze the power and appeal of this ideology, the way that ideas set its strategy and tactics, why it is such a huge menace if any reference to the Islamic religion and its texts or doctrines isn't permitted?

Indeed, it is worse. Can you refer to the claims of these groups about Islam, even while insisting that they are wrong? Remember it isn't just a matter of forbidding officials from doing something, they are going to get the signal that it is better for their careers not to do so.

And if one cannot talk about "Islamist" groups can you identify them as a huge threat or is the analyst tempted to suggest that they can be won over and moderated rather than they need to be combatted? Perhaps, say, the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might not be such a bad thing, or Hizballah is something the U.S. government can work with?

How could one even talk about a coherent Islamist movement, which is possibly the most single significant feature of international affairs today, at least in the Middle East--if I cannot use the "I" word even as part of a different word?

Suppose I'm reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Could I say without fear:

Yes, of course, Islam is a religion of peace but these people want to hijack and distort it. So what they do is look at certain basic texts and important Muslim theologians and interpet their statements to mean that ultimately no compromise is possible, Egypt must become an Islamic [oops] state, America is going to be their enemy, and Israel must be destroyed. Of course, this is just a distortion of Islam [which is a religion of peace] but many people believe it because they have been taught an interpretation similar to the one the Brotherhood is using.

Or would I have to say:

Since Islam is a religion of peace and is really moderate and there's nothing in it that lends itself to a radical [mis]interpretation, therefore, the Brotherhood will realize this and become moderate or the Muslim masses--who, of course, understand their own religion--will inevitably reject the Islamists [oops!] false interpretation. In short, no worries and every little thing's gonna be all right. [Footnote: Bob Marley.] Continue reading