Letter to the editor

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.    

  1. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/25/afghanistan-surge-islamic-state-attacks-shia 

Muslims hate dogs, but they LOVE little girls

Muslims hate dogs, but they LOVE little girls by Peter Burrows 8/23/22, elburropete@gmail.comhttps://wordpress.com/home/silvercityburro.com  

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.      

Sources 

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:  

(1)  https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/08/iran-regime-agents-raid-dog-shelter-kill-more-than-1700-dogs In the article, Spencer references three Shia hadiths, saying: “Islam hates dogs. This goes for Shi’ite Islam as well as Sunni Islam. 

“Abu Abd Allah, Alayhi al-Salam, said, ‘It is detestable for a Muslim to allow a dog to live in his house.” (Al-Kafi H 12735, ch. 12, h 1) 

“Abu Abd Allah, Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘Whoever keeps a dog, every day one Qirat (a certain unit of measurement) is reduced from the (good) deeds of his owner.’” (Al-Kafi H 12736, ch. 12, h 2) 

“Abu Jafar, Alayhi al-Salam, has said that Amir al-Mu’minin has said, “There is nothing good in dogs except hunting dogs or that which guards cattle.’” (Al-Kafi 12738, Ch. 12, h 4) – (Explosive detection dogs sent to Jordan were mistreated inspite of being working dogs. Are Muslims so blinded by their religion that they cannot expand on what “working dog” means? https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/09/watchdog-state-department-needs-stop-letting-antiterrorism-dogs-die-jordan/159785/ 

“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.  

(4) ibid 

(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 

(6) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/10/pakistan-senate-body-rejects-ban-on-child-marriage-as-un-islamic – see also 

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/pakistani-parliamentarian-again-oppose-the-child-marriage-prohibition-bill-1.1556720215025

(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.   

(9) ibid 

(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 

(15) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9647549-a-man-can-have-sexual-pleasure-from-a-child-as  

(16) ibid 

(17) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-releases-abhorrent-sex-slaves-pamphlet-with-27-tips-for-militants-on-taking-punishing-and-9915913.html. Might be easier to Google the general subject, “ISIS slave manual” etc.  

(18) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820603/The-price-slave-determined-official-ISIS-price-list-Islamist-group-sets-prices-Yazidi-Christian-women-girls-nine-fetching-highest-price.html   

Muslim Duplicity

Muslim Duplicity by Peter Burrows 7/29/22 elburropete@gmail.com

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. 

(4) ibid   

(5) JIHĀD IN ISLAM In the Name of Allah, the Merciful and the Most Beneficent (An Address delivered on Iqbal Day, April 13, 1939, at the Town Hall, Lahore) http://www.muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/jihah_in_islam/jihad_in_islam.pdf 

(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.)  

(16) Peter Burrows, China’s Muslims: A different Perspective October 10, 2020 –  https://silvercityburro.com/2020/10/02/chinas-muslims-a-different-perspective/ 

Gas pump reality

Gas pump reality by Peter Burrows 6/22/22 elburropete@gmail.com 

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:  

Cold facts about coal

Cold facts about coal – by Peter Burrows 6/10/22 elburropete@gmailcom   

Back in 2012, New Mexico had four operating coal mines that produced 22.92 million tons of coal, most of it used to generate electricity. By 2020, that number had dropped to 10.25 million tons and by 2045, if not sooner, it will drop to zero.     

Burning coal, you see, creates carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide creates climate change, and climate change is an existential threat to all of humanity. New Mexico, doing its part to prevent such a calamity, passed a law in 2019, The Energy Transition Act (ETA), phasing out the use of coal, or any fossil fuel, to generate electricity in the state.    

Electricity instead is to be generated by renewable energy, which in New Mexico means photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines, backed up by batteries: 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and 100% by 2045.  New Mexico’s political and environmental leaders were ecstatic:   

“New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act is the strongest package of its kind in the country,” said Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Secretary Sarah Cottrell Propst.    

“The ETA cements New Mexico’s place as a national leader in the transition to a new, renewable energy economy,” said sponsor Sen. Jacob Candelaria.     

“The ETA protects consumers and reduces electricity costs as New Mexico moves away from coal.” – 350 New Mexico.    

And on and on it went. WOW! Little New Mexico leading the country (world?) toward a future of renewable energy, free from electricity produced by evil, dirty, deadly coal.    

There’s only one tiny problem: The rest of the world isn’t following our lead. China, the world’s number one producer and consumer of coal, is planning on INCREASING coal production by 300 million metric tons this year on top of an increase of 220 million tons last year. That’s 520 million tons MORE COAL in two years.    

Since those are metric tons, 10% larger than the short-ton measure used in the US, that equals about 570 million tons in New Mexico. BTW, China’s total coal production this year will be 4.4 BILLION metric tons.    

And then there’s India, the world’s number three coal producer/consumer:  The government there estimates that thermal coal demand will increase to 1,500 million metric tons by 2040, up from current levels of 955 million tons.   

If China merely holds production flat, which is highly unlikely, the two countries will be producing a total of 5.9 billion metric tons by 2040, an increase of over 900 million short tons from 2020-2021. This is 90 times the amount of coal tiny New Mexico, “a national leader” is going to eliminate by 2045.  

If California and Germany are examples, this will increase our electric bills by at least 50% and make blackouts a regular occurrence. And will this have any meaningful effect on climate change? Of course not. The only thing it will do is make Public Service of New Mexico more profitable and reveal New Mexico’s politicians and environmentalists to be a bunch of virtue signaling, narcissistic morons.      

 Sources: 

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/thermal-coal-demand-to-increase-to-1500-million-tonnes-by-2040-union-coal-minister/article65496481.ece

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/25/1094586702/china-promotes-coal-in-setback-for-efforts-to-cut-emissions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/china-coal-climate-change-xi-energy/

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-looking-boost-coal-output-by-up-100-mln-tonnes-reopen-closed-mines-2022-05-06/

https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/mining/the-top-five-coal-producing-countries-million-tonnes-2021/

Islam and the American Civil Liberties Union

Islam and the American Civil Liberties Union 4/2/22 

The ACLU has a proud history. It was formed in 1920 from groups that had opposed Woodrow Wilson’s extensive violations of the constitution during WW I. Anybody who thinks an Adolf Hitler couldn’t happen here doesn’t know how close we came with Woodrow Wilson. (1) 

In the Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925, the new ACLU established its First Amendment, free speech bona fides by supporting Clarence Darrow in his defense of the school teacher who taught evolution, a hot issue back then.  The ACLU backed the NAACP in another hot issue in 1954 when the Supreme Court found school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Education. Perhaps the ACLU’s most famous case was in 1977 when a Nazi organization requested their help to get a permit to parade in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL.  A Jewish lawyer at the ACLU took the case and prevailed!  

Those cases, and many others, are a legacy ALL of us can be proud of.  Unfortunately, as the saying goes, that was then. Today, the ACLU has essentially become “another Dem super Pac,” as Allen Dershowitz put it. He added, “Everything the ACLU does today seems to be a function of its fundraising. To be sure, it must occasionally defend a Nazi, a white supremacist, or even a mainstream conservative. But that is not its priority these days, either financially or emotionally. Its heart and soul are in its wallet and checkbook. It is getting rich while civil liberties are suffering.” (2)

Dershowitz was a member of the ACLU National Board back when it was relatively poor:  

“The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor. — Today it is flush with cash, with net assets of over $450 million dollars. (In) 2017, it received “unprecedented donations” after President Trump’s election. Unprecedented it truly has been: the ACLU received $120 million dollars from online donations alone (up from $3-5 million during the Obama years).” 

(By 3/31/21, revenues had grown to $422 million and net assets to $748 million. I’m betting they would LOVE it if Trump ran again in 2024!) 

Ironically, some of those donations were and are in support of the ACLU’s defense of Muslims, a group that couldn’t be more opposed to our civil liberties. It started when Trump criticized Muslims and put restrictions on travel from six Muslim nations. This was immediately branded a “Muslim ban,” which it wasn’t, and “racist,” as if Islam is a race, which it isn’t.

No matter. The ACLU is big on “racial justice.” From their web site, excerpted for brevity: “The ACLU Racial Justice Program actively supports affirmative action – Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women – A centuries-long legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated – We need affirmative action now more than ever.” (3)

Now more than ever? Affirmative action was never needed and certainly not now.  Obviously, the ACLU has run out of things to do to justify their fat income statement and huge balance sheet.  

MUSLIMS TO THE RESCUE!! 

Sadly, if recent history is any guide, the ACLU will protect Muslims at the expense of others. Just like affirmative action has harmed those forced to make room for “people of color and women,” putting Muslims first will do harm to others, and the ACLU won’t see it.    

Dershowitz nails it: “The questions being asked today by ACLU board members is: is it good or bad for the left, is it good or bad for Democrats, is it good or bad for women, is it good or bad for people of color, is it good or bad for gays? These are reasonable questions to be asked by groups dedicated to the welfare of these groups but not by a group purportedly dedicated to civil liberties for all.” (My emphasis.) 

For example, Muslims could have – and probably did – write this entry on the ACLU website: 

“PROTECTING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF MUSLIMS – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech — First Amendment, US Constitution.  — From religiously motivated discrimination and attacks on existing and proposed Islamic centers to vicious rhetoric from presidential candidates, Muslims in America are being unfairly targeted simply for exercising their basic constitutional right to religious liberty. We must always — especially in times of controversy — vigilantly uphold our core values.”  

The problem the ACLU doesn’t realize is that Islam doesn’t share our core values, something all too apparent in Islamic nations. Ironically, the only religion Islam allows is Islam, which means the ACLU shouldn’t cite the First Amendment to protect Islam, but should cite the First Amendment to BAN Islam. Here’s Islam’s mission statement, from Allah Himself Verse 9:33 in the Koran, my clarifications in parentheses:  

He (Allah) it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance and the True Religion (Islam) that He (Allah) may make it prevail over all religions, howsoever (followers of those religions) might detest it. 

A Twentieth Century Islamic authority had this explanation of that verse: “— a Prophet is the representative of the Lord of the universe, he seeks to make the Right Way (Islam) prevail. If any other way of life continues to exist, it should be satisfied with the concessions made to it by Islam.” (4)

In short, Allah decrees that Islam must rule. To that end, Muhammad declared, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah — If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me.”  (My emphasis.) (5)

Commanded to fight people? Saved their blood? This is Islam, the religion the ACLU defends and if you think those threats were only a problem when Muhammad was around, you are wrong.  Numerous verses in the Koran make it clear that Muslims must wage war until Islam rules the world. Here is a footnote to Verse 2:190 from a contemporary translation published in Saudi Arabia: 

“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 and (Islam) is propagated. — Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim – -.” (6)

Jihad can take many forms, both violent and non-violent. Non-violent is the early stage that uses persuasion to advance Islam. It is “in its later stages when the struggle assumes a combative dimension.” (7) America is still for the most part in the non-violent stage, characterized by political activism that supports Muslim organizations, such as the Muslims Student Association, and encourages Muslims to run for political office, e.g., there are three Muslims in Congress.  

Less benignly, Muslims also push for censorship of any criticism of Islam, such as this article, and brand critics as “Islamophobes” and “racists.”  Muslims would love to have laws passed criminalizing such criticism as “hate speech.” Islamic law, sharia, defines slander as anything that offends a Muslim, whether true or not. That would effectively shut down factual discussion of what Islam really is, as opposed to what so many Muslims want us to believe it is.

(I wonder how today’s ACLU would come down on that? They are already defending Islam’s “right” to violate the First Amendment’s religion clause, so maybe they would defend their “right” to violate the free speech clause, too.) 

America is also no stranger to Islamic violence, the most destructive being the Twin Towers attack, which killed 2,977. The next most lethal was the 2016 Pulse Night Club attack, a gay bar where a Muslim killed 49. (I wrote about this in “The FBI and me,” 7/17/16.) There have been numerous other deadly attacks, but none of them, including 9/11, has ever been blamed on devout Muslims simply doing what Islam demands. 

It’s always extremists and radicals, never plain vanilla Muslims. We should listen to what the honest Muslims tell us. Recep Erdogan, the president of Turkey, once said, “‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” 

To get the ACLU to wake up to that fact, I think victims of violent jihad should sue their socks off.  On their web site, the ACLU cites cases where they have legally challenged the “Infiltration and surveillance of Mosques and Muslim communities.” In 2013, for example, they sued the New York Police Department for “discriminatory surveillance” of Muslims:

“The NYPD’s program, dedicated to the total surveillance of Muslims in the greater New York City area, operated under the unconstitutional premise that Muslim beliefs and practices are a basis for law enforcement scrutiny.” 

(I’m not sure if that’s an “unconstitutional premise” given that it is a factual reality.) 

“The final settlement approved by the court in March 2017 established a number of reforms designed to protect New York Muslims and others from discriminatory and unjustified surveillance. — The reforms include the following: Prohibiting investigations in which race, religion, or ethnicity is a substantial or motivating factor;” 

Thus, the ACLU won a court order preventing any surveillance if religion was a “motivating factor,” yet Islam preaches violence in its literature and its mosques. The assumption that surveillance of Muslims and mosques is “unjustified” is completely wrong. I don’t think there should be any mosques, but that isn’t going to happen until the “clear and present danger” of Islam is finally recognized.  

To expedite that long overdue realization, victims of Muslim violence should sue the ACLU for aiding and abetting, or something like that. For example, the Muslim immigrant who drove a rented truck down a bike path in New York in 2017, killing 8 and injuring 12, had this to say when arraigned: “The judgments that are made here are not important for me,” he said through an interpreter. “They are not Allah’s judgments.” (9)

This is Islam straight, no chaser. I wonder what a good lawyer would do with that. If it was me, I’d try to hire a lawyer working for the ACLU or who was once affiliated with the ACLU. Hmmmm. Two names come to mind: Allen and Dershowitz.

(Hat tip to Morgan Freeman. When cast to play Nelson Mandela in the movie, Invictus, he was asked if he had any ideas for a director. He said, “I have two names: Clint and Eastwood.”) 

Footnotes/Guide to Sources: 

(!) See Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, 2007, Chapter 3, “Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism,” pgs. 78 – 121. 

(2) Dershowitz, all quotes:  www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13087/aclu-opposition-to-kavanaugh-sounds-its-death 

(3) ACLU web site, all quotes: https://www.aclu.org/ 

(4) Sayyid Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, English version of “Tafhim al-Qur’an, 1993, Vol III, pg. 205.  

(5) The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), “A Classic Manual of Islamic Scared law,” pg. 599 

(6) Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an, Khan, Al-Hilali translation, 

            Darussalam, Riyadh,   Saudi Arabia, 1999 pg. 50,

(7) Mawdudi,  ibid pg. 225 

(8) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/erdogan 

(9) //sports.yahoo.com/accused-n-y-attacker-says-u-courts-judgment-214633436.html v

Revised 3/22/22: Monsters from the Id – 2/25/14

Monsters From the Id  2/25/14 (Note to readers: This was written when we first began negotiating with the Iranians to prevent, or at least delay, their development of nuclear weapons. As this pamphlet is being printed in 2022, a new round of nuclear negotiations is underway and Iran is still ruled by Shias.  Unfortunately, our leaders are still unaware of the inherent threat nuclear-armed Mahdis pose.)   

I read recently that scientists in England are having success improving some peoples’ mathematical abilities by using mild electrical stimulation to their brains.  This reminded me of a classic sci-fi film from 1956, “Forbidden Planet.” 

The plot, in brief, has a space ship landing on a planet inhabited by only two people who arrived there sometime in the past, a mad scientist and his really ugly daughter. (Sure.)  He tells the new arrivals that the planet was once occupied by an advanced species that totally and mysteriously disappeared. 

Still intact is a vast system of power generation and a device that, when strapped to the head, either measures intelligence or, at the flip of a switch, gives the brain an intelligence boosting electrical shock.  The mad scientist had given himself the shock treatment and had barely survived, though with a newly enhanced intelligence far higher than he had prior to the shock, and far higher than any of the newcomers. 

Since mini-skirts were the craze throughout the galaxy, you don’t need to press a AA battery to your forehead to know that the inevitable soon begins to happen between daughter and Captain astronaut.  This, Papa doesn’t like, but even he doesn‘t know how much he doesn’t like it. 

As the romance blossoms, the astronauts come under ever more ferocious attacks by invisible beings.  Just when the end looks near, one of the astronauts puts on the headset, gives himself an intelligence shock, and, sure enough, it does him in.  Before dying, he whispers that the jolt gave him the insight on their dilemma, namely, that they were being attacked by “monsters from the Id.” 

Back in those days, Freudian psychology had captured the public imagination, so many in the audience were probably familiar with the mad scientist’s explanation when asked what the Id was:  “It’s an obsolete term once used to describe the elementary basis of the subconscious mind.” 

Think of the Id as the source of the survival instinct, the kill-or-be-killed reaction, the unreasoning source of hate, lust, and fear.  This, of course, is immediately understood by our hero-lover-astronaut, who sees the source of all their troubles in the subconscious of the mad scientist father, who fears losing his daughter. Of more importance, the father has the intelligence to command the vast power of the forbidden planet through telekinetic abilities he doesn’t know he has, can‘t control, and which will lead to their total destruction. 

I won’t bother you with the ending, other than to say it is an apt metaphor for our times.  The technology to destroy ourselves, as happened to the original inhabitants of the Forbidden Planet, is spreading rapidly, and we remain little more than intelligent apes, prone to primitive, tribal emotions that may not have been so dangerous in the past, though disastrous enough. 

Who would deny that Hitler was a monster from the Id?  Furthermore, he Pied- Pipered the whole nation to follow him.  Up until they started losing the war, the German people adored Adolph Hitler, the Id monster. Just look at the young ladies in the crowds from 1930’s documentaries.  Elvis never had such “love.“ 

Furthermore, and this is the really scary part, a disinterested Martian paying us a visit in 1910, if asked to pick the most advanced, civilized, prosperous society on earth, would probably have picked Germany. Fast forward 25-30 years: Behold! German monsters from the Id run rampant. What if Hitler had possessed nuclear weapons? 

There are three facts of life I wish were not true, but are: 

1) Monsters from the Id will always be with us. 

2) The spread of WMD means we cannot afford the luxury of a Neville “Peace in our time” Chamberlain. 

3) Neville Chamberlains will always be with us. 

In a MAD age, an age of mutually assured destruction, there is hope that the monsters from the Id will be held in check by angels from the superego and reason from the ego — to exhaust my Freud —but, and this is very relevant, what if a nuclear armed monster from the Id is suicidal?   

I am thinking of the Muslim sect known as Mahdaviats, Shia Muslims who believe the world will be saved by the Twelfth Imam, also known as the Mahdi, who disappeared in the ninth century and will return to save a world descended into chaos and destruction.  Shia Muslims rule Iran and Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  

President Obama once said we needn’t worry about Musim’s using nuclear weapons because that would be “against their religion.”  He couldn’t have been more mistaken. In fact, some Mahdaviats believe it is their religious duty to hasten the Imam’s return by creating the chaos required.  In such a world, MAD is not a deterrent but an encouragement. Monsters from the Id, indeed. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad ordered the widening of a boulevard in Tehran to accommodate the triumphal return of the Twelfth Imam.  Why would he do such a thing? He is no longer president, but the new Iranian President, Hasan Rouhani, in a speech last May, said: “Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy. We need to express ’Death to America’ with action.”  

The Iranians say they are not trying to build nuclear weapons, and even if true for now, their long-range intentions are very suspect. They’ve been waiting for the Mahdi for over 11 centuries. A few more years, or decades, to gather the means to start the final confrontation with the Satanic West is of little import. 

The number one question: if they obtain nuclear weapons, will they then think they have a religious imperative to use them?  If so, preemptive war is the only rational course of action. 

Question number two, maybe it’s really number one: Do we have the moral courage for such a course of action? 

Slandering the Prophet, revised from 4/26/15

Slandering The Prophet  4/26/15 (Revised posting 3/22/22. Note: The original was NOT posted in the Grant County Beat because the editor/owner feared physical retaliation from Muslims!) 

SLANDER: Verb: 1. Make false and damaging statements about (someone).   Synonyms: defame (someone’s character), blacken someone’s name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone’s reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint, malign, traduce, vilify, disparage, denigrate – 

President Obama is not shy about displaying his ignorance of Islam.  My favorite is his assertion that Iran wouldn’t obtain nuclear weapon because “it would be contrary to their faith,”(1) which couldn’t be more wrong. (See: Monsters from the Id.) A close second is when he addressed the UN and said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”(2) 

I’ve been thinking about how one could slander Muhammad given Muhammad’s well documented history of atrocities. The fact that he has inspired, quite literally, billions of people to think he was following God’s commands makes him, in my opinion, the worst human being who ever lived. His documented life and his opus magnum, The Koran, are my proofs. 

One of his most egregious atrocities was his raid against the Jewish village of Banu Qurayza. After 25 days of siege, those who did not convert to Islam were persuaded to surrender in the belief their fate would be determined by a person Muhammad had chosen to pronounce judgement, someone they thought was an ally. 

This “ally” then ruled that “the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.”  The prisoners were brough to Medina where Muhammad had trenches dug. “Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.  — There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.” (3) 

The above example, and hundreds more, are why knowledgeable, decent people fervently hoping the future will not belong to those who PRAISE the prophet of Islam.  Unfortunately, the Koran commands all Muslims to do just that: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah.” (4) 

That means “struck off their heads” is not just Seventh Century butchery but is a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for Muslims forever. When ISIS posts beheadings on the Internet, they’re not being fanatical or radical: they are being devout.  

I’ve thought of a few “slanderous” things to say about the Prophet of Islam, but first, I need to make an important distinction: In Islamic law slander is anything that offends a Muslim, regardless if true or not. That’s how Muhammad defined slander, so it is therefore true forever. If you tell a falsehood about someone, Muhammad said then “you have calumniated him.” (5)    

“Calumniated?” Maybe Muhammad wasn’t quite as illiterate as he wanted his followers to believe. Ooops! I may have just slandered Muslims. Below is a list of slanders by our definition, calumnies if you are a Muslim. These are off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more, but these should be enough to ensure that I don’t suffer ownership of the future. 

Muhammad: -loved Jews -loved music -loved dogs  -loved homosexuals -opposed slavery -believed women should have equal rights with men -taught tolerance toward all religions -believed in monogamy -counseled peace with unbelievers, not war -believed in the separation of church and state -was humble and modest -treated prisoners with compassion and mercy -tolerated criticism of himself or his teachings  

Footnotes: 

(1) White House speech during conference on violent extremism. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/20/obama-islam-woven-into-the-fabric-of-our-country-since-founding/ 

(2) Address to the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012. 

(3) Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume translation, Oxford University Press, 1967, pg. 461 – 464. 

(4) The Qur’an, Yusif Ali translation, verse 33.21 

(5) Reliance of the Traveller, A classic Manual of Islamic Law, pg. 732. 

Would the world be better off with no Jews or no Muslims?

Would the world be better off with no Jews, or with no Muslims? By Peter Burrows 3/8/22 elburropete@gmail.com 

In the Koran, which is the eternal and infallible word of God, we are told that Jews and Christians are “the worst of creatures.” God then tells us that Muslims are the “best of creatures.” Elsewhere in the Koran, God clarifies that Muslims are not just the best relative to Jews and Christians, but that Muslims are “the best of people ever raised up for mankind.” 

God also tells us that between Jews and Christians, it is the Jews who are “the most hostile” to Muslims while Christians “are closest to feeling affection” for Muslims. Thus, of the two “worst of creatures,” God leaves no doubt that the worst of the worst are the Jews. 

These revelations, some 1400 years ago, came at the beginning of Islam while Judaism had been around for hundreds of years.  The Jews obviously far outnumbered the Muslims then, but Muslims are fierce proselytizers, and in only a decade or two they outnumbered the Jews, who are anything but fierce proselytizers.  Today, the world population of Muslims is about 1.8 billion and the Jews only about 15.2 million, a ratio of over 100 to one.  

The Koran, however, does not say that Muslims were destined to be the MOST people, but that they are, and always will be, the BEST people. Since the Allah of Islam is all-knowing, all-wise, omniscient and omnipotent, surely after 1400 years He has enabled His Muslims to achieve a stunning array of achievements.   

At the very least, we should see these achievements reflected in the number of Nobel Prizes received by Muslims.  The Nobel Prize has been awarded since 1901 for accomplishments in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Economics was added in 1968. These are what I call the objective prizes. The two subjective prizes are for literature and peace.  

Since 1901, 609 Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 975 people (prizes are frequently awarded to joint efforts) and Muslims have received – Drum Roll Please – THIRTEEN!! Of those, only three were in the sciences, seven were Peace Prizes, three for literature. None of those were awarded to Saudi Arabians, who have preserved the holy cities of Mecca and Medina for 1400 years and could be considered the best of the best. In fact, not one Saudi has even been nominated for a Nobel.  

How does that compare to the Nobels received by the worst of the worst, the Jews? Wikipedia estimates that Jewish recipients were at least 20 percent of “over 900” recipients, and a Jewish organization estimates the number is “at least” 210. To be conservative, and to simplify the math, let’s assume that the number is 195, or 20 percent of the 975 recipients.  

That would mean that Jews, who are outnumbered by Muslims over one hundred to one, receive 15 times as many Noble Prizes. If my math is correct, that makes Jews FIFTEEN HUNDRED TIMES better than Muslims. If we just count the Nobels won in the sciences since 2000, which doesn’t count literature or peace prizes, the Jews outnumber the Muslims by 52 to one. (Fifty-two hundred times better?)  

Nobel Prizes are only one criterion to judge “best” people. Music, for example, is an area where the Jewish contribution to America, and the world, is endless, from Gershwin to Billy Joel to Itzhak Perlman. Very few know that both “White Christmas” and “God Bless America were written by a Jew, Russian-born Israel Isidore Beilin, aka Irving Berlin.  Since Muhammad declared music to be sinful, the Muslim contribution to music has been zero.  

On the other side of the coin, how do the two religions compare in crimes against humanity as opposed to contributions to humanity? Here, there is no question that Muslims are far ahead of Jews. No group of people have been more murderous than the followers of Islam. While it is true that the followers of Karl Marx have caused an impressive amount of mayhem, they were not fellow Jews. The Torah and the Talmud do not command Jews to forever wage war against unbelievers, as the Koran does for Muslims.  

I use the word “forever” even though the Muslim holy war, jihad, will cease when Muslims make Islam “prevail over all religions, howsoever those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity might detest it.”  After 1400 years, Muslims are still only about 23 percent of the world’s population, so they continue to soldier on. Last month, February of 2022, Muslims carried out 86 attacks in 20 countries that killed 369 people, at least four of whom were Muslims conducting suicide bombings. 

Since the spectacular jihad attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, there have been over 41,000 such attacks. Last year, 2021, “there were 2266 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which 11197 people were killed and 9591 injured.”  I couldn’t find the totals since 9/11/2001 on The Religion of Peace website, but those numbers would just reinforce the overwhelming evidence that the only thing Muslims are good at is killing innocent people.  

So, let us return to the question: would the world be better off with no Jews or no Muslims? I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Koran got it exactly backwards. It is the Muslims who are the worst of people and the Jews who are the best of people. I think it’s time the world recognized those facts.  

p.s. A note on my personal bias. When I was a kid, I wanted to play the clarinet like Benny Goodman and had a crush on opera star Roberta Peters, both Jews.  Seventy years later, I still want to play like Benny but I’ve ditched Roberta in favor of Julie Budd. She’s Jewish, too. 

Sources:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates

https://www.newsweek.com/imams-called-death-jews-trump-jerusalem-announcement-776941

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-nobel-prize-laureates

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2021

Toward Understanding the Qur’an, Sayyid Mawdudi translation, verses 98:6, 98:7, 3:110, 5:82, 9:33. 

Reliance of the Traveller, f40.0, Music, Song, and Dance, pgs. 774-776 

White math and the NFL

White math and the NFL by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 2/21/22 

My wife and I stopped watching professional football when they began playing a “black” national anthem before the games. That didn’t last long. Having spent many years in Wisconsin, we both suffer from Packerism, which is incurable, and we were soon watching the games again. 

I’m glad we did. The playoffs were terrific and an added bonus was seeing all those Covid-conscious fans wearing one or even two Fauci mandated masks. (Sarcasm libs, sarcasm.)  Also, the NFL is proof that all the rhetoric about “white privilege” and “systemic racism” against black Americans is just nonsense.  

I’m excluding the systemic reverse racism inherent in programs such as affirmative action and, especially, the dumbing down of academics so that more black kids can get “passing” grades. All the kids, black and white, know just what that means, and if that would have been tried in my high school, the black kids would have kicked your honkey ass. Of course, back then I don’t think ‘honkey’ was a word. It would have been your “white trash” ass that would have been kicked. 

Unfortunately, the current dumbing down efforts, e.g., teaching that the correct answer to a math problem is a “white” thing, are misguided attempts to address a real problem, one that didn’t exist when I graduated from high school in 1957. Back then, the black kids did just as well, on average, as the white kids. Now they don’t. What has changed? 

The black intellectuals I respect, e.g., Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker and others, lay much of the lame on the welfare programs that started in the mid 1960s which led to the destruction of the two-parent black family. The rise of the single parent, teen-mom ‘family’ was NOT a good way to raise a child, and many of those children did poorly in school.  

I would add that affirmative action also set up black kids who DIDN’T do poorly in secondary school to fail in colleges. When Thomas Sowell taught at Cornell back in the late 1960s, he saw black kids in his class who scored, on average, at the 75th percentile of SAT scores vs. Cornell’s white kids who averaged in the 99th percentile. The 75th percentile, by the way, is pretty damn good, way above the median score (50th.) Still, most of those black kids flunked out, and many were embittered, blamed racism etc. And they were RIGHT to blame racism, only it was reverse racism that did them in! 

This happened all over America as the elite schools sought to fill self-imposed quotas of black students, often at the expense of qualified Asian students. Most of those black kids didn’t have a chance. They paid the price for white liberal virtue signaling.  Most of them would have done very well with white kids like me at Michigan State. (Harvard, Yale, Duke, Princeton, Cornell, MIT etc., and ME? You’ve got to be kidding.)   

One of the tragic consequences of this reverse racism was the resegregation of college campuses, a resegregation imposed by the BLACK students. What an irony. When I went to MSU, black kids didn’t sit by themselves, nor was there a separate black graduation ceremony or any other such BS. Affirmative action changed all that. (At the end of this article, I’ve appended an excerpt from a Thomas Sowell interview back in 1990 in which he describes this phenomenon. It’s a good read.)  

The tragedy of the welfare system soon corrupted the high schools. As more and more black kids found that they couldn’t compete academically, those that COULD compete found themselves under peer pressure to NOT compete, which was denigrated as “acting white.” Of course, acting white by doing homework, etc., would make the struggling black kids look even worse. What a mess. 

 A key part of this understandable defense mechanism was the flip side of “acting white,” which was acting black, aka being a “bad ass MF”er.” This added to the mess. Glen Loury and John Mcwhorter talk about this in a 10 minute You Tube video I’ve linked at the end.   

About now, some of you are thinking, “OK, Burro, this is all very boring, but what does it have to do with the NFL?” Elementary, my dear Lombardi: To excel in the NFL you can’t just be a big, tough bad ass MFer, you have to be able to THINK. NFL playbooks, for both defense and offense, are complex and require hours of study.  

It’s sort of a chess match, the quarterback and/or the offensive staff call plays that vary with the circumstances, e.g., score, time on the clock, etc., etc.  Ditto the defense. It’s fun to watch as offense and defense dance around each other. Having knowledgeable announcers in the booth helps.  

On more than one occasion, I have watched games where every player on the defense was a black player. The opposing quarterback, who is sometimes also black, looks them over and tries to outsmart them; sometimes he does, and sometimes they outsmart him. Hours of preparation and study are being put to test, and mental screwups are going to be noticed, especially by the players themselves.  

Now here’s my question: If black players were, on average, dumber than white players, don’t you think we would know about that after 60+ years of professional football? Of course we would, and we wouldn’t be hearing about it from the white players. It would be the black players who would be weeding out the blacks who couldn’t hack it. I can hear it now: “Learn the playbook, n—–, or get out of my locker room.” 

These guys want to WIN. No room for kiss-ass racism in a meritocracy. The black football player must meet the high expectations and standards of both his coaches and his peers. Many blacks would also do well if they were in secondary schools with the same sort of high ACADEMIC expectations.   

Here’s where school choice would be a big help. Many parents want to send their children to that sort of school, which is rarely the public school. Ironically, the traditional opposition to school choice from liberals may change in the face of growing parental opposition to gender studies and critical race theory.   

Parents who want their kids to learn about gender fluidity, CRT, or any other topics that are (hopefully) being removed from public schools, should have the option to send their kids to private schools. So, too, should parents who have learned from the covid school closings that their kids can get a better education with home schooling.  

Last year, 22 states expanded or established school choice initiatives such as vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education savings accounts. Very few Democrats supported those efforts. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the woke crowd began to push for vouchers? Stranger things have happened. Stay tuned.       

Sources: 

Playbook complexity/necessity:                                                          https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2076186-welcome-to-the-nflheres-your-first-playbook   

Sowell at Cornell:  https://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1990/09/10/86090/index.htm 

Bad ass MFers:                                                                                                                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOKiKZeYZbU 

Two blogs from El Burro:                                                                                    silvercityburro.com/2021/03/27/white-math-and-black-math/ silvercityburro.com/2021/03/30/thoughts-on-white-math-and-other-absurdities

https://thepostmillennial.com/californias-new-educational-guidelines-say-math-is-racist

amgreatness.com/2022/01/28/what-will-it-take-to-convince-democrats-that-school-choice-is-a-worthy-endeavor/ 

www.currentargus.com/story/news/education/2021/07/22/what-black-education-act/7916007002/ 

Thomas Sowell, from a 1990 interview, Money Magazine, URL above: Sowell at Cornell.  

Sowell: Racial relations on the nation’s campuses today are worse than they have been at any time in the past 30 years. 

MONEY: What do you think accounts for that? 

Sowell: If you’re going to have double standards for admission, grading, behavior and faculty hiring and, on top of that, engage in a great hypocritical pretense that this isn’t going on, it will only be a matter of time before the people who are not getting special treatment become resentful. Moreover, when you bring minority students in under a double standard, they themselves have a serious problem. They can accept the standards of the institution and lose all self-respect when they fail to meet them. Or they can seek to regain their self-respect through political activity — by putting pressure on the school administration to change the standards. When you give people those choices — meeting tough standards or lobbying to have the standards lowered — it’s not surprising they choose the second option. When you have the racial polarization created by this political uproar, blacks and whites are likely to be more hostile. 

MONEY: How do you detect racial tension on campus before you enroll? 

Sowell: In places where race relations are really bad, it doesn’t take long to find out. A campus visit will tell you. I always suggest you go to the dining room at lunchtime and see whether all the blacks are congregated over here, all the Hispanics over there or whether people are mixed around the room.                                                                                                                                                                                                  ### 

Addendum: Here in New Mexico, it was only last year that our lawmakers finally got around to making sure our black kids would also suffer from being helped by liberal educators. The Black Education Act was unanimously passed by the NM Legislature in March of 2021 and went into effect last July 1.  One of the bill’s sponsors said the act will, among other things, “recommend methods and practices that will improve education outcomes for Black students.” 

Why single out black students? Won’t that be terribly humiliating for the black kids? Do you think the recommended “methods and practices” will entail extra homework, after hours or weekend tutoring, getting parents to turn off the TV, and maybe special summer classes, or will standards just be lowered?