I would like to thank PA Pundits International for inviting me to be a commentator. In the last 10+ years I’ve been writing a column, Libertarian Leanings, for an online newspaper, the Grant County Beat, in Silver City, NM.
By way of introduction, I’m 83 and my main hobbies, since I gave up golf, are Islamophobia and Climate Skepticism. Hey, keeps me off the streets.
Peter Burrows, aka El Burro
Reparations, again. by Peter Burrows
Reparations are back in the news, and some really big numbers are being thrown around. California, for example, is considering paying up to $1.2 million to descendants of slaves, which is chump change compared to San Francisco’s $5 million proposal. The lowest number I’ve seen is $350,000 from a Black economics professor. (Duke University, no less!)
I touch on some of the absurdities and dangers of reparations in “White math vs. Reparations,” in which I also touch on the legitimate possibility that if reparations are owed, perhaps it’s from blacks to whites!
I explore that thought in a 2019 article, “Reparations? No thanks,” in which I also have a little fun with the underlying assumption that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of slavery. Given the historical fact that everybody was subject to slavery at one time or another in the history of humanity, it’s Bon Appetit! for Anglo-Saxon pizza lovers.
Ridicule beats logic when dealing with bullshit, don’t you think? Here are the links to the above articles:
The most important thing to keep in mind about reparations is that it is never going to happen. No Congress is going to pass, and no president is going to sign, a bill that takes money from the great majority of American voters to pay a debt that they don’t feel they owe.
Thomas Sowell 8/4/2001
I doubt if Dr Sowell, who recently turned 93, would make the above statement today with as much confidence as he did in 2001. The reparations drama going on in California and elsewhere will not be limited to the state and local level, you can bet the rent money on that. The race hustlers on the national stage smell blood in the water, a metaphor that I’m afraid will prove to be all too apt.
In case you haven’t been following the issue, last March San Francisco’s 11 city councilors voted unanimously to consider reparations for the city’s black residents that would include:
Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a family.(1)
Note the $97,000 for 250 years. This means the payments would be handed down through the generations, burdening as yet unborn White racists. (I don’t think they’re assuming that the “Black adult” is going to live for 250 years, but this is San Francisco, so you never know.)
This would turn the tables and make Whites, Asians, everybody, the slaves of Blacks for 250 years. At long last, racial justice, Baby, RACIAL JUSTICE!! For the next 250 years, Blacks will sit in their rocking chairs on the porches of their $1 homes drinking mint juleps, while Whitey picks cotton, totes that barge and lifts that bale.
The 11 city councilors in San Francisco, who also serve as County Supervisors, consist of 10 Whites and Asians and one Black. You can see the picture for yourself if you go on Wikipedia. The Black is Chairman, as you would expect. Merit, no doubt.
When these proposals were submitted for consideration last January, an economist at the Hoover Institution estimated that this would create a liability of at least $600,000 for every non-Black family living in San Francisco.(2) Imagine, if you will, that somebody knocks on your door and gives you a brand-new mortgage, or tax bill, in the amount of $600,000.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that every family presented with such a bill would either declare bankruptcy or move out of San Francisco, which would create a lot of empty $1 houses for Black people to move into. The counselors, who had over a month to study this $600,000 estimate, apparently either don’t agree with my predicted response or think the money will come from some source other than San Francisco’s non-Black taxpayers.
I’m tempted to declare that they might think the money will come from Milton Friedman’s mythical Tooth Fairy, but that would probably be considered homophobic these days, especially in San Francisco.
At the state level, on May 7 in Oakland, California’s reparation task force voted to recommend reparations of “only” up to $1.2 million per Black resident. At an occasionally tumultuous public meeting before the vote was taken, a meeting you can watch below in a nine-hour YouTube(3), much higher numbers were demanded.
One unidentified woman called in to declare that “$1.2 million is nowhere near enough. It should be starting at least $5 million like San Francisco.” She went on to say, “it’s our inheritance.” She was supported by another woman caller who said, “To even throw a million dollars at us is just an injustice.”
There were two or three Black office holders who spoke, all of whom were enthusiastic supporters of reparations. One was Congresswoman Barbara Lee, D-0akland, who called reparations “morally justifiable” and wants the federal government to pass reparations legislation. You can see her comments starting at minute 42.
There were about 30 other in-person speakers, each given 2 minutes at the microphone, and, not surprisingly, they all supported reparations. At least three identified themselves as pastors, suggesting that some (all?) of California’s Black churches are giving moral authority to the concept of reparations.
You can watch the most histrionic of the pastors, a Reverend Pierce, at the two hour and 44-minute mark. His most dramatic moment came when he declared that the 40-acres-and-a-mule promise made by General Sherman, NOT the Union government, back in 1865 would now be worth “$200 million for each and every African American.”
Full of self-righteous anger, the Reverend concluded his remarks with a dire warning: “Tell Governor Newsom we’re coming. He knows me.” His wasn’t the only threat. A former Black Panther Party chairwoman, Elaine Brown, urged people to express their frustrations through demonstrations.
Lest you think this is just a California problem and couldn’t happen in a state such as, for example, Florida, you would be wrong. At a recent Tampa Bay City Council meeting, a Black man stood up and demanded $3 million for Black citizens saying, “We care about our reparations, and we have to put White people on notice that we want our reparations —$3 million per person right here in this city.”(4)
From coast to coast, militant Blacks are starting to make threats, and therein lies the problem. The reparations movement is a fool’s errand, guaranteed to disappoint and frustrate its proponents. When their reparations demands are not met, and they won’t be, it will be “burn baby, burn.” Don’t be surprised if the Reverend Pierce is out there carrying a torch.
All the ingredients are there: a sense of entitlement, e.g., “our inheritance,” “our reparations;” the assurance, spread from pulpits, that reparations are morally justified; demagoguery from Black political leaders; the conviction that White people are responsible for everything that’s wrong with Blacks in America due to “systemic racism;” and the precedent of the widespread, unpunished, riots of 2020.
Ominously, in a teachers’ strike that is coincidentally underway in Oakland, the only thing the teachers’ union and the school district have agreed on is to create a “Reparations for Black Students Taskforce.”(5) Never mind that only about 20% of the Black students meet state standards for English, and only 11% for math, probably close to 100% can perform “smash and grab reparations” with A+ grades.
I doubt if there will be any pushback from Democrat leaders, Black or White, to any violence that erupts when reparations demands are not met, and they won’t be. The Nazis had the brown shirts; the Democrats have the brown skins with their Antifa masters. Besides, as Rahm Emanuel, former Democratic mayor of Chicago once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
This time, however, the waste may be to America’s cities.
The problem with the whole reparations kabuki dance is a little something called “math.” Now, it’s well known that Blacks aren’t very good at math, at least on the West Coast(6), so at the risk of being a horrid racist, I’d like us to look at a few numbers.
I’ve already noted the $600,000 that will be required of every non-Black San Francisco family, a number ignored by the San Francisco supervisors, most of whom are White. (White LIBERALS are also very bad at math, or maybe they’re just “acting Black” to not offend Blacks.) Not only is $600,000 far more than the average non-Black family can afford, I’m quite confident it’s much larger than their net worth and much, much greater than the difference between the net worth of White vs. Black families.
In 2019 at the national level the median net worth of White families was $188,200 vs. only $24,100 for Black families (and $36,100 for Hispanic families.)(7) The difference of $164,100 vs. White families is far less than the $600,000 tax would be. In fact, after receiving reparations the average Black family in San Francisco will have a net worth of millions of dollars MORE than non-Black families.
At the California state level, I haven’t seen what the estimated cost per non-Black family will be but the result will still be that Black families would end up far, far wealthier than non-Black families. This would be absurdly true of the Reverend Pierce’s $200 million dollar claim. As an aside, when discounted at 5% back to 1865, $200 million today equals a value of around $50,000 for that 40 acres, and that’s per family, not individual. 1865? Sounds a little (!) high to me. Oh well, the Rev probably graduated from an Oakland High School.
Reparations at the national level recently got a tout from Black Congresswoman Cori Bush, D-Missouri, who called for the federal government to pony up $14 trillion. She wrote in a Twitter post, “Every step of the way black Americans have been intentionally pushed back economically. A debt is owed. It’s time to pay that debt. It’s time for reparations.”(8)
She probably got the 14 trillion number from Black professor William Darity, who teaches economics at Duke University. On a recent Dr Phil show, that’s the number Darity used, saying that if it was spread evenly across 40 million people whose ancestors were in the slavery system, that would equal about $350,000 per person.(9)
When Dr Phil took issue with the whole idea, Darity accused him of UNFAIRLY preventing Black people from accessing what was RIGHTFULLY theirs, a belief that sure as Hell would justify a lot of violence, e.g., “no reparations, no peace!” and other nonsense.
For example, there was a black woman at a Target store in Ohio “who allegedly told Target employees they should give her more than $1,000 worth of items for free because she deserved reparations.” (10) She became belligerent and violent and the police had to be called and this was no kid. She’s 37 years old and no criminal history was cited. She said, “This is my Rosa Parks moment.”
(Rosa Parks was the Civil Rights hero who refused to give up her seat to a White woman on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, for which she was arrested. That was in 1955, and if Rosa was still alive, I have no doubt she would not appreciate being an exemplar cited by a fat, stupid, Black shoplifter.)
Thanks, professor Darity. And this moron teaches economics at one of the country’s most prestigious universities. An affirmative action hire? Only a racist would think such a thing, but then there IS a problem with the math in the professor’s $350,000 claim.
Recall that in 2019 the median net worth of white FAMILIES was $188,200. To simplify the math for Blacks and White Liberals, let’s assume it’s now $200,000. This would mean a Black couple would get $700,000 under Professor Darity’s proposal, making their family three and-a-half times wealthier than the median White family. Now, if that Black couple had a couple of children, would they also each get $350,000?
So, how is it fair for the government to make Blacks so rich at the expense of everybody else? Well, it isn’t fair, especially since Blacks in America are far wealthier than Blacks in the African countries their ancestors were abducted from. An American Black with ancestors in Gambia, for example, has a median level of wealth almost fifty times that of his Gambian relatives.(11) Why, some White people might even think that reparations are should be paid to THEM!(12)
Finally, although it probably wouldn’t do any good, Blacks pushing reparations should get a White person to help them with a little off-topic math. For example, some San Franciscans faced with a $600,000 bill may calculate that at about $30 for 50 rounds of .38 Special handgun ammunition, $600,000 will buy a million rounds.
At the state level, maybe the reparations bill for a non-Black family will only buy 10,000 rounds, maybe only a 1,000. Regardless, at whatever level imposed, state, local, or federal, the math indicates it will be cheaper to bury Black people than to pay them reparations. Is a race war what the advocates of reparations want? It sure looks like it, whether they know it or not.
Finally, for those guilty whites who think reparations will bring racial peace and harmony, another quote from Dr Sowell:
Assuming Black per capita wealth in the US is only 1/8 of the above US number of 78.3, that equals 9.79 which is 49X the per capita wealth in Gambia or Angola (9.79 divided by .2). The least favorable comparison with the above is 4.66X the per capita wealth in Namibia.
A couple of years ago a friend of mine recommended one of my articles to his daughter, who replied, “Oh Dad, I don’t have time to read something by an old white guy.”
I wasn’t offended in the least. We all make quick judgements like that. We categorize people to save time and effort. There are probably very few old white guys who have anything interesting to say, and quite a few people think that includes me.
But in this case, I think it also reflects something more basic. This gal, who’s in her 40s, is a liberal who has been told all her life that white guys are evil, especially dead white guys, a group I will someday join. Surprisingly, this is NOT a recent phenomenon.
“The demonizing of white men” reads the headline from an article in U.S News & World Report dated April 26, 1993. It was for John Leo’s column, “On Society” which he wrote for 17 years and syndicated to 140 newspapers. Here’s the first paragraph, which could have been written 30 minutes ago, not 30 years ago:
“Attention, men of the Caucasoid persuasion. Have you made a terrible mistake by being born white males? Consider these recent items from the press: A New York weekly newspaper fired a columnist because a higher-up decreed that the paper “should began getting rid of these middle-aged white men.” (Sexism, ageism and racism.) A group called Women, Men and Media honored a black female columnist for her assaults on “the male and pale” media powers. (Casual racism, melanistic feminism.) The catalog for the biennial art show at New York’s Whitney Museum suggests that whiteness is a “notion” or “fallacy.” (Logically stupefying artistic racism.) And Newsweek published a strange and jeering cover story on white males. (Sexism, racism, institutional sophomoricism.)”
Did you catch “melanistic feminism?” John Leo was good!
Not all of his article reads as if it could have been written 30 minutes ago. He didn’t foresee that white women would soon be demonized along with white men, and while there was “no grand alliance of non-whites against white men” back then, there is such an alliance today against all whites and, incredibly, some of that alliance includes whites!
In the recent Rasmussen poll that got cartoonist Scott Adams in such big trouble, only 81 percent of white people thought it was okay to be white, meaning that 19% didn’t think it was okay to be white or had some reservations about it. If this degree of self-loathing had been apparent among whites back in 1993, I think John Leo would have mentioned it.
Most of the other points he made back then are still right on the money. For instance, here’s Leo’s number one objection to the demonizing of white men:
“It’s wrong to attack or fire people because of race and gender, even if they happen to be white guys. And no one who is serious about social justice in America thinks it’s a good idea to divide up teams by skin color or gender and set them against one another.”
Here’s another of Leo’s still apt observations, just change “white male” to “white people”:
“The race and gender people are basically using a Marxist analysis of society, with the role of capitalist suppressor now played by the white male. This is a weird distortion that forces believers to argue that all white males are privileged, even ones who clearly aren’t. I would hate to be the race-and-gender special agent dispatched to Appalachia to explain how socially powerful white males are —.”
Here’s Leo’s last paragraph, which I’ve edited and paraphrased somewhat to bring it up to date:
“The current wave of attacks on whites are expressions of a hard-edged race and gender ideology now seeping into the general media. We are getting into the ugly phase of attacks on whites. The race-and-gender folk will bear watching.”
That was 1993 and guess what folks? We weren’t watching. Today, the 1619 Project and the vile Critical Race Theory are legitimizing hatred of whites, and transgenders and cross dressers are being paraded in front of grade schoolers. In case you missed it, First Lady Jill Biden just celebrated International Women’s Day by presenting the International Woman of Courage award to a biological male.
Thirty years ago, not only would this have been unimaginable, it would also have been unbelievable, and yet here we are today with this reality staring us in the face.
How did this happen? I blame our media. Journalism today is a far cry from being society’s objective watchdog, It used to be called the “fourth estate,” which recognized the importance of a free press to monitor Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches of government. Today, unfortunately, it is more accurately a “fourth branch” of big government.
This is because journalists are all products of a dumbed-down and indoctrinated educational system that has been dominated by progressives for the last 30 years or so. Progressives view government as a force for good, especially big government, because it takes the power of big government to right the injustices of a cruel and unfair world.
A prime example is Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty programs started back in the 1960s which ushered in affirmative action, quotas and an era of BLACK privilege, all of which was going to right the wrongs committed by racist whites. Today, black privilege is stronger than ever yet it is completely ignored by the press, which continues to push non-existent white privilege.
Also ignored is the utter failure of LBJ’s policies and the enormous harm done to blacks by “black privilege,” aka affirmative action, and all its nuances.
More on that in a following article.
p.s. I like to provide links to my sources, but I couldn’t find this article by John Leo on the internet. If anybody would like a hard copy of the article, it will cost you a cup of coffee at The Buzz.
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, is being called a racist when I think he’s just being a realist. Watch this for five and a half minutes from 13:25 and make up your own mind.
I also think he’s being petulant. Plenty of GOOD blacks to side with, eg guys like Alan West, Bob Woodson, Glen Loury, Tom Sowell and ladies like Star Parker, Candace Owens, Carol Swain, Winsome Sears, Amala Ekpunobi (!) etc. etc.
Piss on the rest.
Adams has the wherewithal to move away from black neighborhoods. What about all the other good, law-abiding people who can’t afford that luxury?
My advice to the good people who live where black punks roam the streets, car-jack, home-invade, shop-lift and shoot people, all without any effective law enforcement because that would be racist, is to buy a handgun and carry it with you at all times.
Be prepared to use it. The politicians won’t let the cops clean up our cities, so it’s up to you.
There are 26 constitutional-carry states where a permit to carry a concealed handgun is not required. If you live in a state that does require a permit, you may want to make like the hoodlums and punks and go ahead and carry without a permit. That’s a risk-benefit analysis you’ll have to make.
Here in New Mexico, the progressive legislature refused to increase the penalties for drug dealers who carry a gun considering how dangerous their occupation is, so maybe you want to buy a little fentanyl to put it in your pocket next to your gun.
That’s all the proof you need to realize that white liberals are NOT serious about gun control or crime. Piss on them, too.
Last Monday, two Democrats joined four Republicans to table a bill that would have increased the minimum wage in New Mexico. The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee voted 6-4 to table House Bill 28 which would have raised the minimum wage based on the consumer price index.
This is something I never would have predicted. Furthermore, one of the Democrats, Rep. Linda Serrato, D-Santa Fe, stated that: “Minimum wages shouldn’t be determined by a legislative body.”
She’s a Democrat I could vote for!
Minimum wage laws suffer from two problems: The first is that they put the economic cart before the horse. Minimum wage laws say that for every hour worked, a worker should be able to consume “X” dollars’ worth of goods and services. For example, a $15 an hour minimum wage says that for every hour worked a worker will be able to consume $15 worth of goods and services.
If the worker doesn’t produce $15 worth of goods and services, under most circumstances, the job can’t exist. To quote Russian dictator Leonide Brezhnev, “It is an elementary fact that a society cannot consume what isn’t first produced.”
What this means is, if we want people to earn more, we have to increase their productivity. The first place to start is with education. New Mexico is 50th in the nation when it comes to educational outcomes. That’s the place to start, not with the government mandating wage levels workers can’t earn.
Which illustrates the second problem of minimum wage laws, something I call the Camelot effect, or the “Government is God” syndrome. To quote the lyrics from Camelot, paraphrased slightly:
A law was made a distant moon ago: July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot. By order, summer lingers through September in Camelot.
I know it gives a person pause, But in Camelot Those are the legal laws.
“How can you use the term radical without first identifying the norm? Normative Islam is based on the unabrogated commands of Allah in the Koran, and the examples and teachings of Muhammad (the Sunnah). If the Koran and the Sunnah support a Muslim’s actions, that Muslim is not radical, he is devout.” Stephen M. Kirby – From his website, Investigating Islam: https://islamseries.org/
“If you’re moderate, you’re not Muslim.” George Julian, telephone interview, 10/13/22
All of the Islamic scholars I admire, such as Robert Spencer or David Wood, when citing some heinous act committed in the name of Islam, are quick to say that not all Muslims would do such a thing, or approve of such a thing, etc., etc. The clear message is that we shouldn’t blame all Muslims for the acts of a radical few, which promotes the dangerous idea that we don’t need to worry about most Muslims.
But we do. As the above quotes from Dr. Kirby and President Erdogan imply, what we think of as a “radical” Muslim is in reality a plain vanilla devout Muslim, one who is acting on his beliefs. Those beliefs are based on the “unabrogated commands of Allah in the Koran, and the examples and teachings of Muhammad (the Sunnah).”
This means all of Islam stems from a sadistic, egomaniacal Seventh Century warlord; what he “revealed,” what he said, and what he did. And what Allah/Muhammad “revealed” in the Koran is either what Muhammad believed or wanted his followers to believe. And please, let’s don’t pretend that the Koran is “Allah’s Word:” It is obviously Muhammad’s word.
As befits the times and Muhammad’s ambitions, the Koran and the Sunnah are full of barbaric commands, such as cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning to death adulterers, and killing unbelievers, especially on the battlefield. Since it is impossible to know just when or if a devout Muslim will act on those beliefs, it’s impossible to know if a Muslim will kill you if circumstances permit. They certainly aren’t going to tell you.
In Albuquerque recently, a Sunni Muslim refugee from Afghanistan ingratiated himself with a number of Shia Muslims before killing two, and probably four, of them. Sunnis consider Shias to be apostates (and Shias return the favor), so the Sunni considered it his religious duty to kill the Shias. That’s the penalty for apostasy.
The murderer was, by all accounts, mild-mannered and likable. If Muslims can’t tell when another Muslim is dangerous, how can we non-Muslims? We can’t, and we shouldn’t try. This may sound a little over the top, but if you work with a Muslim, it might be a good idea to figure out a way to have quick access to a firearm, especially during the holiday season.
I mention that because at a San Bernadino Public Health Department Christmas party a few years ago, an American-born Muslim employee and his Pakistani-born Muslim wife killed 14 of his co-workers and wounded 22. They were killed in a shoot-out with police shortly thereafter, leaving a six-month old baby for his mother to raise.
Who could possibly have predicted that a young Muslim couple with a baby would go on such a murderous rampage? Certainly not his coworkers, who probably thought he was a “moderate”, aka harmless, Muslim. Furthermore, unlike the Albuquerque killer, he was not an immigrant but was born in America. The only thing the two killers had in common was that they are both Muslims.
Gee, do you think there’s a clue in there somewhere?
While Christmas is especially offensive to devout Muslims, so is homosexuality. Muhammad said to kill the sodomizers and a devout Muslim did just that at a gay nightclub on June 12, 2016, in Orlando, FL. In the deadliest attack on the LGBTQ community in American history, American-born Muslim Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 53 during a shooting rampage at the Pulse nightclub.
To make sure the world knew why he was doing that, he called 911 while he was killing people and identified himself as an “Islamic soldier,” a “Soldier of God,” and a “Mujahadeen,” which means all-of-the-above. He also pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIL, the new Islamic state that was going to conquer the world for Islam. His explanations weren’t enough, though. After the massacre, authorities were looking for a motive. Sigh.
Mateen, 29, was born in New York to Afghan immigrants and was described by one family friend as loving, close-knit and “very respectful” of America. He was a college graduate with a degree in criminal justice technology and worked as a private security guard. He was married and the father of a 3-year-old boy. The only obvious clue that he might be dangerous was that he was a Muslim.
Another American-born Muslim killer was U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan. At Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, Hasan murdered 13 soldiers and support personnel and wounded 40 others. Hasan was a devout Muslim who gave lectures on Islamic fundamentals to his fellow officers, lectures that should have raised BIG alarms, but didn’t. Hasan is the rare exception to the rule that Muslim violence is always a surprise.
Hasan is still awaiting execution, unlike the Saudi pilot trainee at Pensacola Naval Station, who on December 6, 2019, was shot dead after killing three and injuring eight in a classroom. Other Saudi pilot trainees took videos while he was shooting. They were probably “moderate” Muslims. Of course.
In the above two cases, we have devout Muslims killing people on military bases. How much of a chance do you think you’ll have in your office or home? While it’s probable that most Muslims don’t have the stomach to engage in such acts of violence, they’re quick to hold the coats of those who do – or make videos of them in action.
They sure as Hell aren’t going to help you, the non-Muslim. Every day I check two web sites that cover the daily atrocities committed by Muslims around the world. Thousands of Islamic-inspired atrocities occur every year, and not once have I read where a Muslim tried to stop any of this mayhem. Not once have I read of a Muslim warning authorities of an impending attack. Not once have I read of a Muslim testifying against Muslims who committed any of these thousands of crimes against non-Muslims.
Muslims protecting non-Muslims from other Muslims may occur now and then, but it’s damned rare. Helping non-Muslims in such cases can be proof of apostasy, which puts the Muslim’s life in danger. The Koran has numerous warnings against befriending non-Muslims, and to disagree with any verse in the Koran is to be an apostate.
Apologists frequently claim that many Muslims should get a pass because they are ignorant about what is in the Koran or the Sunnah, but their ignorance is almost impossible to prove. A Muslim who claims ignorance simply can’t be believed because Islam requires – requires — Muslims to lie if that’s what is necessary to deceive us unbelievers. That complicates things a touch, don’t you think?
Perhaps the most common lie is claiming Muslims are free to disagree with anything in the Koran or the Sunnah. That’s an apostasy, and I doubt if there is a Muslim in the world who doesn’t know that. They also know that apostasy is punishable by death, and if they don’t know that, a devout Muslim is sure to inform them, and perhaps with more than just words.
In such a case, the accused Muslim can simply claim to be fulfilling the religious obligation to deceive the unbelievers. That’s the escape hatch for your Muslim friends, who are violating Verse 5:51 of the Koran if you are a Christian or a Jew, and also Verse 3:28 because you are an “unbeliever.”
Ask them about that and they may say they don’t believe in those verses, as if they had a choice, or that those verses are no longer relevant, at which point you should ask them if those verses have been abrogated. (They haven’t.) Then ask them what kind of person would follow a religion that sanctions the killing of dogs and sex with prepubescent girls?
That could end your friendship, but it may lead your Muslim friend to take a hard look at what Islam is, and therefore what it means to be a Muslim. No decent human being can be a devout Muslim, period. You should beware of all Muslims, but especially “ignorant” Muslims who remain Muslims after learning about Islam, and those who defend Islam in spite of what Islam teaches.
To be fair, apostates put their lives at risk, and apostasy doesn’t require an open break with Islam. Simply not being a devout Muslim suffices, and this judgement is often in the eye of the beholder. A Muslim with a pet dog, or a Muslim who listens to music, are Muslims at risk.
Again, while most Muslims wouldn’t murder a Muslim, or anybody else, for having a dog or listening to Renee Fleming, the small percentage who are psychopaths will, and some of those will do so even if they are captured or killed in the process. Even in America, apostates are in danger, as witness the brutal public attack on Salmon Rushdie by an American-born Muslim. Rushdie, a Muslim apostate, has been under a death threat for over 30 years because of a novel he wrote that disparaged Muhammad.
He was attacked last August on a stage just before he was to give a speech at the Chautauqua Institution in New York. Nothing subtle about that. HIs attacker was 24-year-old, US-born Muslim, Hadi Matar, whose parents immigrated from Lebanon. He has pleaded not guilty because, after all, he was obeying God’s law, not some silly man-made law, and, of course: “Authorities are investigating what motivated the stabbing.” Double sigh.
Matar has no criminal history and was described by an acquaintance as “a very quiet kid.” HIs arrest photos show a smiling, presentable young man, not at all threatening, just another “moderate” Muslim, proud of what he did for Allah.
As is obvious from the above examples, being an American-born Muslim doesn’t make the Muslim any less dangerous, but we should be especially careful around the immigrant Muslim, who may be in our country not to escape Islam, but to spread it.
In Texas recently, a Muslim immigrant was convicted of killing his two daughters because they were dating non-Muslims and becoming Westernized. He was a cabdriver at the time, and he shot his two daughters multiple times and left their bodies in his cab. Another not too subtle display of Islamic justice.
He was a fugitive for 12 years – 12 years –before his arrest, which was the result of a tip from a non-Muslim. His son and brother have also been arrested for helping him avoid arrest all those years, and I’d be very surprised if there weren’t many other Muslims involved in hiding him from the infidel authorities.
In fact, the Muslim community, the ummah, as they call themselves, can be expected to shield Muslim fathers who kill their daughters because the ummah recognizes the moral authority of those fathers. Moral authority? Yes, because in Islam, you see, there is NO penalty for a father who kills his daughters. You didn’t know that? Welcome to Sharia law. Unsurprisingly, the father has pleaded not guilty.
Thus, the ummah can be considered an accessory both before and after the fact. This is to be expected from a religious community that puts Allah’s laws above all “man-made” laws. In 2011, the California chapter of the Council for American Islamic Relations, CAIR, concerned about FBI investigations into terrorism, (Gosh, I wonder why?) released a poster with the stark message to all Muslims: Build a wall of resistance; Don’t talk to the FBI.
They pulled the poster after the national media picked it up, with CAIR officials professing their fealty to the law, blah blah blah, lie lie lie. These days, CAIR doesn’t have to protest police investigations into Muslims because the ACLU does it for them. This is the sort of virtue-signaling ignorance that gets people killed.
The bottom line, folks, is that as long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in this country, non-Muslims are at risk of being killed by them. If what has occurred here doesn’t convince you of that elementary truth, just look at what’s going on in Europe with their Muslim immigrants. It’s getting disastrous, and one wonders if the Europeans will ever wake up.
The same could be said here: that even after 9-11, we protect Muslims and their barbaric religion. This is insanity and you don’t have to play. When Muslims are around, keep your gun handy and your dogs and daughters out of sight. Recognize that no Muslim can be your friend, and that every Muslim will lie to you about Islam. Remember, no decent human being can be a Muslim.
Wake up and smell the hate, infidels, before the hate turns on you, and it will.
In an attempt to make the above more readable, I’ve omitted footnotes. People knowledgeable about Islam won’t need to fact check anything I’ve written, but this article isn’t meant for them. For those who want to “kick the tires,” see below.
– “Unabrogated commands” refers to Verse 2:106 in the Koran, which says that Allah-Muhammad can change his mind, abrogating previous verses. This gave Muhammad the freedom to improvise as circumstances dictated. The Sunnah, the life of Muhammad, what he said and did, is sanctified by verses in the Koran that say to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah, and that what Muhammad did is a good example for Muslims to follow, i.e., his actions, as well as his words, were approved by Allah. What a con man!! Verses 4:80 and 33:21 are applicable.
– Cut off hands, V 5:38; flog fornicators, stone adulterers, V 24.2 (Kahn translation); kill unbelievers, V9:5, 9:29, 9:123, 8:12, 8:39, 2:216 and many, many more.
-Attacks by Muslims re: Albuquerque, San Bernadino, Orlando, Fort Hood, Pensacola, New York, Dallas:
Reliance of the Traveller(sic) is “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” The obligation to lie to promote Islam or protect Muslims is on pgs. 745-746; the non-penalty for killing one’s children is on pg. 584; to deny any verse in the Koran is apostasy, pg. 597; no penalty for killing an apostate is on pg. 596; obligation to wage war against unbelievers pgs. 599 – 602; it is forbidden to aid the police if they “are going to commit injustice,” e.g., arrest a Muslim for obeying Islamic law, pg. 744 and explains CAIR’s warning to Muslims not to help the FBI; Muhammad’s command to kill sodomizers pg. 665.
Letter to the editor about NMSU and Muslims article of Friday Aug 26. Posted 8/26/22
Friday’s Grant County Beat had a story headlined: “NMSU pledges solidarity with Muslim community following shooting deaths.” The deaths referred to were four Muslim men murdered in Albuquerque since last November. A suspect has been arrested for at least two of the killings, and is probably responsible for all four.
This arrest was not mentioned in the NMSU article, which was all about how various groups and college officials at NMSU are wonderful people eager “to show a genuine act of kindness to respectfully serve and support the Muslim community in New Mexico,” in the words of Yoshi Iwasaki, Dean of NMSU’s College of Health, Education and Social Transformation. (Social Transformation?)
In fact, any mention of the suspect arrested for the killings would have detracted from all the virtue posturing at NMSU. The suspect, you see, is another Muslim, a refugee from Afghanistan. His motive for the killings is that the victims were all Shiite Muslims and he is a Sunni Muslim. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing each other for 1400 years. The Battle of Karbala in 680 AD marked the beginning of a never-ending Sunni-Shia civil war.
It is never-ending because each sect considers the other to be apostates or hypocrites, and the eternal command of Allah is to wage war against such unbelievers until they are subdued. An analogy would be if the Troubles of Northern Ireland in the late Twentieth Century represented a permanent condition of Protestant-Catholic Christians everywhere on earth.
Shia Muslims are the majority in only a few Muslim nations, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain. Shias are only between 10 and 20 percent In Afghanistan, where they have been routinely terrorized by the majority Sunnis. A recent report from Human Rights Watch concerning Afghanistan cited “— suicide bombings that killed at least 72 people at the Sayed Abad mosque in Kunduz on October 8, and a bombing that killed at least 63 people at the Bibi Fatima mosque in Kandahar on October 15. After the Kandahar attack, ISIS issued a statement saying it would target Shia in their homes and centers “in every way, from slaughtering their necks to scattering their limbs… and the news of [ISIS’s] attacks…in the temples of the [Shia] and their gatherings is not hidden from anyone, from Baghdad to Khorasan.”(1)
Note the warning that Shias would be attacked “in their homes and centers” i.e., mosques. This means that there is no place in Afghanistan where Shias can be safe from the Sunnis. But it’s not just Afghanistan: it’s everywhere. That includes the streets of Albuquerque and the campus at NMSU. Oh, you say, Muslim refugees won’t bring their cultural baggage with them when they come to America? They would be the first group who didn’t. We shouldn’t be surprised that a Sunni refugee from Afghanistan killed four Shias in Albuquerque — or anywhere else in America.
The good people at NMSU, and I mean that sincerely, invited Sureyya Husain of the Southern New Mexico Islamic Center to participate in their solidarity show. The Southern New Mexico Islamic Center is a SUNNI Mosque in Las Cruces. Was Sureya Husain there to be questioned about a Sunni killing Shias in Albuquerque? I’m afraid not.
Thus, the NMSU staff and faculty, by inviting Sunnis to participate, could be seen as supporting the Sunni killing of Shias. This was not their intention, but in a Sunni vs. Shia situation, you either take sides or condemn both. Knowledgeable people condemn both.
Muhammad, may he rot in Hell, once said the angel Gabriel wouldn’t deliver a revelation to him because there was a dog in the house. Dogs thus became forbidden in Islam unless they were working dogs. In my unsubstantiated opinion, Muhammad was a petty little narcissist who resented the attention and affection given to a dog when he, Muhammad, was supposed to be the center of the universe.
Muhammad expressed his displeasure with dogs, and since he spoke for the eternal Allah, dogs suffer Muslim cruelty to this day. Recently, Robert Spencer reported in his Jihad Watch that Iranian officials raided a privately run dog shelter and killed 1700 dogs, much to the displeasure of the decent people running the shelter.(1) No matter, Muhammad rules now and forever. In fact, I’m surprised the people running the shelter weren’t killed, too.
Just as Muhammad’s dislike of dogs some 1400 years ago is a problem for dogs today, so his pedophilia back then a problem for little girls today. You see, Muhammad married a six-year-old when he was 53, and until she was big enough to have intercourse with, which he started when she was nine, he would put his penis between her thighs and, apparently, ejaculate when they took baths together.
This is called “thighing” (2) and is something you’ve probably never heard of until now. Multiculturalism is so mind expanding, don’t you think? While some Muslims question the “thighing” narrative, none question that Muhammad bathed and fondled his young bride. This disgusting conduct is not only accepted today but REVERED because the eternal Koran blessed everything Muhammad did. Here is what Allah revealed in Verse 33:21:
“Surely there was a good example for you in the messenger of Allah, for all those who look forward to Allah and the last day and remember Allah much.” (3)
The only people looking “forward to Allah” on the Day of Resurrection are devout Muslims who are guaranteed heaven. Everybody else will go to Hell. Consequently, one way to ensure Allah’s favor is to emulate the “good example” of Muhammad. Tragically, the example of Muhammad, contrary to what Muslims might claim, cannot be rationalized by the context of the times. Here’s Mawdudi’s footnote to Verse 33:21:
It can also be translated as follows: “Surely there is (rather than there was) a good example for you in the Messenger of Allah ….” (4)
To repeat, Muhammad IS a good example, which means TODAY and FOREVER. Something that is forever is not limited by temporal context. Any Muslim who disagrees is disagreeing with Mawdudi’s opinion, and Mawdudi was a consensus Islamic scholar and NO dissent from such consensus is allowed. This is what Sharia law says on the matter:
“Never explain a verse of the Holy Quran by your own opinion, but check on as to how it has been understood by the scholars of sacred law who came before you. If you comprehend something else by it and what you have understood contradicts the sacred law, forsake your wretched opinion and fling it against the wall.” (5)
Since “scholars of sacred law” reject any contextual interpretation of Islam, it shouldn’t be surprising that efforts to raise the age of marriage in Islamic nations have frequently met fierce resistance. (6) Any such laws are considered un-Islamic and a criticism of the Prophet, which would be an apostasy. Nonetheless, the legal age of marriage has been raised in most Islamic nations to 16 or 18. The degree to which these laws are enforced is another matter, as is the very real possibility that some of these laws are passed to convince non-Muslims that Islam can change with the times.
But it can’t, and that, in a nutshell, is one of the problems with Islam: it’s frozen in time, Muhammad’s time. Fourteen hundred years ago, child brides were common, as was capital punishment by stoning. Slavery was considered normal and women were second class citizens, if that. All of this is still the case today where Islam rules.
Admittedly, the customs of 1400 years ago weren’t confined to Arabia, or to just Muslims. After all, it was only a little over one hundred years ago (1920) that women were allowed to vote in the United States, and while there are no women preaching in mosques today, neither are there any women preaching in Catholic churches. The big difference is that nowhere in Judeo-Christian canonical literature is it decreed that every detail set forth is from God and therefore possesses eternal verity to be obeyed in all aspects of life, including government.
Not so with Islam. In the forward to Sayyid Mawdudi’s Twentieth Century translation of the Koran, a devout, highly educated Muslim described the Koran as the “Last Book” from Allah which “was meant to serve as a beacon light for the guidance of humanity till the end of time.” (7)
Thus, Muslims believe the Koran is the eternal word of God to be obeyed forever, and the Koran extends this to include whatever Muhammad said or did. Allah makes this quite clear in Revelation/Verse 4:59: “Believers obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those invested with authority among you; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger —.” (8)
Mawdudi’s explanatory footnote puts Muhammad on virtually equal footing with Allah: “In an Islamic order the injunctions of God and the way of the Prophet (peace be on him) constitute the basic law and paramount authority in all matters.” (9)
An “Islamic order” is an Islamic theocracy and “the way of the prophet” is whatever Muhammad said or did. Since Muhammad had sex with a child, even though that was 1400 years ago, it is allowed today with some restrictions. The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), which is a book of Sunni law, recognizes the legality of prepubescent marriage, husband or wife,(10) as does the Koran for wives.(11)
Furthermore, the Reliance has a specific penalty that men must pay if having intercourse with a prepubescent girl causes physical damage to her: “A full indemnity is paid — for injuring the peritioneal (sic – should be peritoneal) wall between vagina and rectum so they become one aperture –.”(12)
This is called a recto-vaginal fistula (13) and it is a serious, painful and life-threatening condition. A full indemnity that a man must pay for doing this is 100 camels or their equivalent value.(14) Now, If I were Allah, the monetary penalty would be far, far greater and the Muslim man would be rendered physically incapable of ever again hurting another little girl — or a big girl, either.
The Reliance is a book of Sunni law and Shiite law is more onerous, though still far short of what Allah Burro would impose. The late Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shiite Muslim of unquestioned authority, had this to say on the matter:
“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… “(15)
The key line from the above is: “he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.” This penalty seems more apt than 100 camels, but it probably places the little girl’s life in danger. One must ask if sodomizing doesn’t also risk serious damage even though it is “acceptable.” Also, how does the Muslim man obtain children “as young as a baby?” Are they his children, his “brides,” or his slaves — or all three?
Since Khomeini said it is lawful for a man to “have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby,” it is apparent that pedophilia is legal under Shiite law as well as Sunni law. This is to be expected since all sects of Islam honor the “way of the Prophet” who was obviously a pedophile. That, of course, is a verdict based on today’s norms as practiced virtually anywhere in the non-Muslim world.
Not, however, where Islam rules. The fact that Islam has explicit penalties for physically damaging a young girl via intercourse or attempted intercourse is strongly indicative of the commonality of such practices, and the light penalties are further evidence of the second-class status of females in Islamic societies.
When the Ayatollah Khomeini became ruler of Iran, he lowered the marriage age for brides to nine. He also opined that it was “better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”(16)
Let’s repeat that last bit just for the sake of multicultural enlightenment: “Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.” Hmmm. Not exactly where Allah Burro would send such pedophile-pimp fathers, but Allah Burro is very closed-minded about such things.
Since Muhammad also owned slaves, another widespread custom of his time, it shouldn’t be surprising that Muslims today will practice slavery. The recent attempt of ISIS to reestablish a caliphate provides a case study on how slavery and pedophilia interact where The Way of the Prophet rules. This is from a question-answer manual instructing ISIS soldiers on how to treat prepubescent slave girls:
Q 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty? (A) It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse. However, if she is not fit for intercourse then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse. (17)
I assume that means sodomy, acceptable according to Khomeini, which raises a fundamental question: How can any normal man “enjoy” that? Maybe you have to be raised a Muslim. That would explain that when ISIS had slave auctions, the female slaves in the 1 to 9 age group commanded prices as much as four times that of the 20 to 30 group. (18) Another question: if intercourse with a slave girl causes a fistula, does the slave girl get 100 camels or sustenance for life?
To repeat, I find it difficult to believe a man could be raised to “have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.” I don’t count, though. It’s the Muslim man who counts, and I don’t want him in my country. Since there is no way to screen the good Muslim man from the bad Muslim man, that would mean no Muslim men allowed. Period. For those Muslim men already here, it should be made clear that our man-made laws supersede the “laws” of Allah. It should also be made clear that men sent to prison for pedophilia often receive the penalty Allah Burro would impose.
If you have been a defender of Islam and Muslims, for whatever reason, you have condoned cruelty to dogs and the sexual molestation and mutilation of young girls, even babies. The probability that a majority of Muslims don’t support such behavior is immaterial. They don’t actively oppose it either, and that is unacceptable.
Note: This article was motivated by a 32-minute YouTube: PfanderFilms Lloyd #13 Since Muhamma married Aisha, so can others!: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjZ71Lg8i0c&t=1488s:
“Amir al-Mu’minin is the leader of the believers, in this case, Muhammad.”
There are numerous references in Sunni hadiths, e.g. – Narrated Salim’s father: Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet (ﷺ) but he delayed and the Prophet (ﷺ) got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, “We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog.” Sahih al-Bukhari 5960 Book 77 Hadith 176 (USC_MSA web (English) reference Vol. 7, Book 72 Hadith 843.)
“The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat [a unit of measurement], unless it is a dog for farming or herding.’ In another report, it is said: ‘ …unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting.'”—Bukhari Sharif
Muslims base the prohibition against having a dog in one’s home, except for working or service dogs, on these traditions.
(2) https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Thighing – Question: What’s the ruling on thighing minors? Answer: If the question refers to the thighing of a minor wife by her man then this is permissible. But if the question refers to the thighing of a non-wife then it’s forbidden whether it’s the thighing of a minor or an adult, a male or a female.
(3) Sayyid Abdul a’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, abridged, hardcover version of Tafhim al-Qur’an. Translated and edited (from Urdu to English) by Zafar Ishaq Ansari, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK, 2015, Verse 33:21, pg. 866. This is an abridged, English language version of Mawdudi’s six-volume translation of the Koran from Arabic to Urdu. (Thirteen volumes in English.) While none of Mawdudi’s extensive footnotes are referenced, we can be sure that all of his interpretations are well-grounded in Islamic traditional theology. Otherwise, it could not have been published.
(5) Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misra, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1999, section t3.9 pg. 804
(7) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, forward by Khurshid Ahmad, pg. x. (Wikipedia: Khurshīd Ahmad (3/23/32 —) PhD, DSc, NI, is a Pakistani economist, philosopher, politician, and an Islamic activist who helped to develop Islamic economic jurisprudence as an academic discipline and one of the co-founders of The Islamic Foundation in Leicester, UK.)
(8) ibid, pg. 171 The Koran has numerus verses in which Muhammad had “Allah” tout Muhammad’s virtues, etc.
(10) Reliance of the Traveller, section n9.2, pg. 567: “A waiting period Is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has in the other has not.”
(11) In addition to V 33:21 which approves of everything Muhammad did, which would include his marriage to a six-year-old, there is Verse 65:4: “The waiting period of those of your women who have lost all expectation of menstruation shall be 3 months in case you entertain any doubt; and the same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated.”
This refers to the period before a divorce becomes final, and Mawdudi’s footnote explains, “Those women may not have experienced menstruation either because they are too young or because their menstrual cycle was delayed or because —-etc.” From Towards Understanding the Qur’an, pg. 1183.
(12) Reliance of the Traveller, section 4.13 pg. 592 (13)
(13) Fistula Definition: A fistula is an abnormal connection or passageway that connects two organs or vessels that do not usually connect. They can develop anywhere between an intestine and the skin, between the vagina and the rectum, and other places. The most common location for a fistula is around the anus. (From Google search. Emphasis in original.)
(14) Reliance of the Traveller, section o4.2 pg. 588
Never trust a Muslim. They will lie to you and pass a polygraph while doing it. This is because Muhammad, who spoke for Allah, said it was not a sin to lie during war, and Muslims are always at war with non-Muslims, in one form or another:
Al-Jihad, (holy fighting) in Allah’s cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means none has the right to be worshiped but Allah), and his religion, Islam, is propagated. – – Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. (1)
Since jihad against unbelievers is an “obligatory duty,” it is also obligatory to lie to the unbelievers if that helps the jihad. Here is what The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,” says: When it is possible to achieve (a praiseworthy) aim by lying but not by telling the truth it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. (My emphasis.)(2)
Most importantly, making “Allah’s Word” superior, “which means none has the right to be worshiped but Allah,” is an inherently POLITICAL as well as religious goal. In fact, Islam is a theocracy first and foremost:
“The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not, as one might think, to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather, it’s purpose is to put an end to the suzerainty of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over people. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the True Faith (Islam).” (3)
The above quote is from a Twentieth Century tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur’an, written by the renowned Islamic scholar and Pakistani political figure, Sayyid Abdul A’la Mawdudi, sometimes spelled Maududi. A Tafsir is a scholarly exegesis of the Koran, and in the religion of Islam, there is NO dissent from scholarly consensus.
Mawdudi goes on to write that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” Anywhere non-Muslims rule Muslims, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” (4)
In a different forum, Mawdudi explained what this means in unequivocal language: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam –. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To change the outlook of the people and initiate a mental revolution among them through speech or writing is a form of ‘Jihad’. To alter the old tyrannical social system and establish a new just order of life by the power of sword is also ‘Jihad’ and to expend goods and exert physically for this cause is ‘Jihad’ too.” (My emphasis.) (5)
“Jihad” thus means not just using the sword to spread Islam, but also proselytizing “through speech or writing” which, as noted, is not obligated to be truthful but just the opposite if necessary. “To expend goods” includes contributing financial support to the cause, which is helped by mandated giving to charity, called Zakat, or Zakah. This is usually set at a percentage of one’s ASSETS, not income, which is a good way to keep the zakat from fluctuating very much.
The Koran designates eight categories of zakat recipients, all of whom must be Muslims: “The alms are meant only for the poor and the needy and those who are in charge thereof, those whose hearts are to be reconciled; and to free those in bondage, and to help those burdened with debt, and for expenditure in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer. This is an obligation from Allah.” (6)
In the above, does “expenditure in the way of Allah” ring an alarm? It should. Mawdudi says it specifically means “jihad in the way of Allah,” and such funds can be used in either “persuading people to embrace (Islam) or in its later stages when the struggle assumes a combative dimension.” (7)
Note Mawdudi’s matter-of-fact acknowledgement that a “combative dimension” will eventually be needed, which is consistent with the history of the spread of Islam.
Since zakat is “an obligation from Allah,” anywhere there is a mosque in America there is a stream of funding dedicated to the destruction of our Constitutional Republic and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy, by persuasion or by force. Furthermore, Muslims who immigrate here, unless they do so to escape Islam, are not here to enjoy the freedoms we have; they are here to DESTROY those freedoms. Mawdudi, my go-to Muslim scholar when it comes to the theocratic side of Islam, had this definitive guidance for “He who emigrates in the Way of Allah:”
“It should be understood clearly that it is only permissible for a person who believes in (Islam) to live under the dominance of an un-Islamic system on one of the following conditions. First, that the believer strives to put an end to the hegemony of the un-Islamic system and to have it replaced by the Islamic system of life —. Second that he stays in a land where an un-Islamic system prevails because of his inability to depart from that land but he is utterly unhappy at living under such a system.” (8)
That the “Islamic system of life” has met with resistance since the beginning of Islam is hinted at in Verse 9:33 in the Koran, which tells us that Allah has sent Muhammad “with the guidance and the true religion that He (Allah) may make it prevail over all religions howsoever those who associate others with Allah in His divinity might detest it.” (9)
It is easy to understand why someone might “detest” living under an Islamic theocracy, where only Muslims would have political power. They would implement Islamic law, sharia, codified centuries ago, which still stones to death adulterers, amongst other niceties. If Muslims were up front about all this, it would make it extraordinarily difficult to achieve their obligatory goal: to make the rest of us “live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
Consequently, it is not surprising that Muslims have developed elaborate doctrines of deception for jihad in its “early stages,” which is where America is today. Muslims are only about one percent of the population and as their numbers increase, so will their militancy. On that, my friend, you can bet the rent money. (Go to religionofpeace.com for a current look at jihad in the rest of the world.)
The deceptions Muslims use fall into four general categories, and the following is a brief summary of each. The oldest form of Islamic deception is called “taqiyya,” and is defined as “prudent concealment of faith to save one’s life.” (10). It originated as a way for Shi’a Muslims to protect themselves from Sunni Muslims, but has evolved into a general term meaning “lying for the sake of Islam” or “deception when penetrating the enemy camp.” (11) As such, “taqiyya” has become the term to describe all forms of deception, including the categories described below.
A second, very common, deception is called “kitman,” which means telling only a partial truth. For example, calling zakat a charitable, and praiseworthy, requirement of Islam is kitman in two ways: one, we’re not told the funds are for Muslims only, and two, we’re not told the funds can be used in decidedly uncharitable ways, such as supporting a suicide bomber.
A third deception is called “tawriya,” and means “to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying” while deceiving the hearer. (12) Using words that have one meaning for Muslims but another for non-Muslims is the most common form of tawriya, and it’s almost unbelievable the extent to which it’s used without challenge.
For example, “terrorism” is defined in sharia law as the ‘killing of a Muslim without right.” (13) Consequently, for Muslims, “jihad is not terrorism.” (14) So, when Muslims denounce terrorism after an atrocity committed by a Muslim, they are engaging in tawriya.
Finally, there is “muruna,” which is when Muslims engage in non-Muslim behavior to blend in with the non-Muslim enemy. Drink, smoke, shave, have a ham sandwich, pick up ladies at the bar, etc. If done in Allah’s cause, all is forgiven. The 9/11 hijackers did just that as they prepared their attack, although I doubt they needed to.
About now, you are probably wondering if a Muslim can ever be believed, and the only time is when they are being truthful about Islam. My favorite example is Iran’s late ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who declared: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam councils against war.” He added, “I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim!” (15)
Strong letter to follow, and stay upwind of that old boy!
The problem is that there are so many of “those who know nothing of Islam.” Muslims and their mosques have no place in any nation not already an Islamic theocracy, yet their deceptions have allowed them to gain footholds in countries around the world. The only nation fighting this trend is China. (16) It appears China will soon be one of the few nations unburdened by either renewable energy or by Muslims.
The biggest deception the Muslims employ is hiding their draconian political dogma under the guise of “religion.” There is no way Islam should enjoy the protection of the Constitution’s First Amendment, but until enough of us learn what Islam stands for, Muslims will enjoy helping us commit suicide.
Note to readers: This video came out as I was completing the article. It covers the same material and confirms the above, although the commentator thinks “hiyal” is a better term than “taqiyya.” Whatever it’s called, BS is BS.
(1) “Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Qur’an in the English Language: A Summarized Version of At Tabari; Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. and commentary by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1999, Verse 2:190, fn (1) pg. 50, edited for brevity. The parentheses are in the original and represent scholarly clarifications.
(2) Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misra, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana Publications, 1999), section r8.2 pg. 745
(3) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. III Surahs 7-9, English version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, trans. Sayyid Abdul A’la Mawdudi, translated (from Urdu) and edited by Zafar Ishaq Ansari, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK, 1990, pg. 202, fn 28 re Verse 9:29.
(6) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. III, Verse 9:60, pg. 221
(7) ibid pgs. 224-225
(8) Towards understanding the Qur’an, Abridged version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, Mawdudi, paperback edition in English, 2011, UK Islamic Mission, Dawah Centre, Birmingham, UK., pg.131, fn 71 to V 4:100
(9) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. III, Verse 9:33 pg. 204
(10) Towards understanding the Qur’an, Abridged version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, fn 6 Verse 3:28, pg. 72.
(11) Stephen Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure – Blindfolding America In the Face of Jihad, Center for Security Policy Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pg. 178.
(12) Reliance of the Traveller, r8.2, pgs. 745-746 (Note: the passage describes “tawriya” without naming it as such.)
(13) Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure, pg. 231.
(14) ibid, pg. 236 (Coughlin details how the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the OIC, in their 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, later submitted to the UN in 1993, expressly declared that ”human rights,” as they used the words, were defined by Sharia Law, and by nothing else. pg 226-239.)
(15) Robert Spencer, Islam Unveiled, Encounter Books, San Fransisco, CA, 2002, pg. 35. (Re: Amir Taheri, Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism, Adler & Adler, 1987, pp. 241-43.)
Gas pump reality by Peter Burrows 6/22/22 firstname.lastname@example.org
I just took a quick look at Exxon Mobil’s second quarter earnings. While Bernie Sanders and other morons rail on about the huge profits earned by the evil-dirty-bastard oil companies, the numbers show that America’s biggest investor-owned oil company is about as profitable as the average electric utility.
Here we must distinguish between profits and profitability, a very important distinction that the average person should have some awareness of lest they be fooled by the Bernie Sanders of the world. Profits are in dollars; profitability is in percentages. For example, Exxon Mobile’s 2Q profits were $8.8 billion, which is a helluva lot of money, but the annualized return on assets was only 10 percent.
That’s about what Public Service of New Mexico, a regulated public utility, earns on assets.
Sometimes the profits/profitability distinction can result in a seemingly paradoxical situation where a company earning a large dollar profit is called “unprofitable.” For example, if a company earns a billion dollars but has assets of 100 billion, the return on investment is only one percent and pundits will describe it as “very unprofitable,” the “relative to assets” part being implied.
I also took a look at Exxon’s profit per gallon of petroleum product sold. I didn’t separate out profits from non-petroleum operations, such as chemical operations. That’s too much work. I just threw all the profits into the petroleum sector, which may overstate the profit per-gallon a touch. I came up with 4.05 cents per gallon.
The Federal per gallon tax at the pump is 18.3 cents, and the New Mexico tax is 22 cents. That means we are paying ten times as much in tax per gallon as Exxon makes in profit per gallon.
My analysis was pretty quick, so if anybody would like to check my numbers, here is the URL: