Benjamin Netanyahu knows a Palestinian state in Israel means a state led by Muslims. However, for him to say the disciples of Islam have slaughtered 250 million non-Muslims since the advent of Islam and Muhammad would border on insanity.

What Netanyahu knows but dares not say

Netanyahu knows Islam is generally regarded as one of the three great monotheistic religions. He dares not say, or quote Dr. George Weigel, that “To speak of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the ‘three Abrahamic faiths’ is a myth.”

Netanyahu knows what the renowned nineteenth-century thinker Alexis de Tocqueville has said about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. But the sanity of silence forbids him to quote de Tocqueville and “there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad” – this would be insane.

Netanyahu also knows what Winston Churchill said about Moslems, that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” But for Israel’s prime minster to say this would qualify him for the insane asylum.

Netanyahu can’t promote the two-state solution among the sane people of Israel by telling them what Churchill and de Tocqueville have said about Muslims. And he dares not them about extraordinary Simon Deng, a black who born in the Sudan. Deng was captured and enslaved by Muslims. He eventually escaped and immigrated to the United States where he has lectured widely about the horrors of Islam. But Netanyahu dares not tell Jews in Israel what Deng revealed in a speech at the New York Durban Watch Conference of September 22, 2011. I quote:

In South Sudan, my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II… Everybody at the UN is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. The UN dedicated a separate agency, UNRWA, to provide for them. While the UNRWA treats them with special privilege, my people [have been], ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved …

Slaughter a way of life

Netanyahu, Israel’s most astute prime minister surely knows about this genocide, but the sanity of silence forbids him to say anything about it. The same sanity renders him silent about the horrific revelations of former Muslim Dr. Abul Kassem, a prolific writer from Bangladesh. Kassem’s knowledge of Islamic barbarism is of no relevance to the two-state solution. No champion of a Palestinian state is going to “leak” what Kassem said in a January 7, 2008 interview with Dr. Jamie Glazer of the prestigious FrontPageMagazine (FPM):

A former Muslim speaks

When I was nine, a typical Mullah taught me the Islamic rituals … and how to recite the Qur’an correctly. He also taught us that Muslims are the only inheritors of the earth that we must never mix with the non-Muslims, we must hate them, humiliate them verbally, and if possible, physically.

In high school … one of my Hindu friends was brutally murdered by Islamist fanatics. This was a life-changing experience, as I witnessed the mutilated dead bodies of my friend, his parents, and siblings. When I discussed this with a few Muslim gentlemen … they told me that the Hindus deserved to be killed; there should not be any Hindus in our Muslim land. Further, I learned from them that in Islam, there is a great reward for killing the non-Muslims.

In 1971 the Islamic Army of Pakistan let loose a genocide, killing around 3 million Bengalis, and raping around 250,000 Bengali women. Local Islamists helped their barbarity in every way. They justified their actions by [the] Qur’an, Hadith [reports of what Mohammad said and did], and Sharia laws. After independence, I talked about it with a local Imam. He took out a Qur’an, read a few verses, and told me the genocide and mass-rape was a hundred percent Islamic-sanctioned. He said the Bengali Muslims have deviated widely from the real Islam, and as such, they deserve Allah’s punishment, and the Pakistani army did just that to purify us. Shocked, I decided to read the theological sources of Islam.

What I discovered horrified me. It was beyond my comprehension that a religion, touted to be the religion of peace, could contain such blood-curdling, terrifying, barbaric verses, cultures, and laws to entice the entire Islamic community to slaughter the infidels and the not-so-good Muslims.

More discoveries

Dr. Glazer then asked Kassem: “Share with us a bit of what you discovered in Islam.”

Kassem: Ok, here is a bit of my education [concerning Islam and its historical sources]:

• Prophet [Muhammad] allowed rape of war-captives.– Sahih Bukhari, 3.46.718.
• Muhammad ordered a Muslim woman to breastfeed a man. She protested but ultimately had to do so. – ibn Majah, 3.1943.
• The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.”– Tabari, vol.vii, p. 97-98.
• Muhammad beheaded between 600-900 Jews of B. Qurayzah who did not fight Muslims but were attacked, and they surrendered unconditionally – Tabari, vol.viii, ch. B. Qurayzah; Heykal, ch. the Campaign of Khandaq and B. Qurayzah, ibn Ishaq, ch. B. Qurayzah.
• Allah favours Arab racism … of Quraysh stock and of white complexion (ibn Sa’d, vol.1, p. 95-96, Sahih Muslim, 20.4483.
• Muhammad traded slaves for beautiful, young, and sexy women, such as Saffiya. – Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.2987, 2991.
• A woman must keep her sexual organs ready for service at all times (Ihya Uloom Ed-Din of Ghazali, Tr. Dr. Ahmad Zidan, vol. i, p.235)
• Allah made Muhammad wealthy through conquests (raid, plunder, war). – Sahih Bukhari, 3.37.495. These are only few of the thousands of documents that sized and shaped my journey through Islam.

Did Netanyahu know this?

Leaving Kassem aside, who obviously scorns the sanity of silence, the question arises: Did Netanyahu know of this savagery when he endorsed a Palestinian state? Or was he just practicing the sanity of silence?

Was he also oblivious of the revelations of Dr. Serge Trifkovic, author of The Sword of the Prophet (2002)? Trifkovic, a scholar of Serbian descent, pursued postdoctoral research at the prestigious Hoover Institute at Stanford. He portrays Muhammad as a fanatical warlord who used or invented Islamic ideas in the process of conquering Mecca and Medina. Citing the Qur’an and the Hadiths, Trifkovic exposes himself as an Islamophobe by dismissing the sanity of silence by referring to Islam’s prophet as cruel, ignorant, and lascivious. Thus, after slaughtering Arab tribesmen and looting their camels, the prophet and his followers kidnapped their women and staged an orgy of rape.

No champion of a Palestinian state would want anyone in Israel to know what Trifkovic says in, where he informs us that, “To the men of one Jewish tribe, Muhammad offered the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Upon their refusal, up to 900 were decapitated in front of their women and children. The women were subsequently raped.” Since this information would not garner support for a Palestinian state or for the two-state solution, a pragmatic politician will resort to the sanity of silence. And he can be confident that no journalist in Israel is going to shatter this silence.

Trifkovic, who is not as reserved about Islam as the very polite Englishman Bernard Lewis, sums up his assessment of Muhammad by quoting the eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905): “The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known.”

Someone must say it!

Although it would be insane for Netanyahu to say anything like this, the enemies of civilization are at the gate. Even though they have used their own children as human bombs, Netanyahu wants to reward these disciples of Muhammad with statehood. Netanyahu is not insane, but he is entrapped is the mendacity and treachery that produced and has perpetuated the Oslo Agreement. What is painfully obvious is that he lacks the heroic strength of character to act in accordance with the wisdom and sobriety we find in John Stuart Mill’s classic Representative Government. In language relevant to the barbarism manifested by the Palestinians, Mill declared that certain people may lack the moderation required of self-government:

A rude people, though in some degree alive to the benefits of civilized society, may not be able to practice the forbearance which it demands: their passions may be too violent, or their personal pride too exacting, to forego private conflict, and leave to the laws the avenging of their real or supposed wrongs. In such a case, a civilized government, to be really advantageous to them, will require to be in a considerable degree despotic: one over which they do not themselves exercise control, and which imposes a great degree of forcible restraint upon their actions. A people must be considered unfit for more than a limited and qualified freedom … that will not co-operate actively with the law and the public authorities in the repression of evil-doers.

The political policy required by Mill’s wisdom is beyond the spiritual resources of Israel’s prime minister. But does anyone believe that weekly newspaper articles by right-minded critics of Mr. Netanyahu or another conventional election is going to bring Mill’s sanity to Israel and thus overcome the sanity of silence?◙