Author Archives: petervburrows

How To Read The Koran (and understand Islam)

How To Read The Koran (and understand Islam)– by Peter Burrows – – 8/11/18, updated 10/26/20 (How To Read the Koran is available as a pamphlet. Address inquiries to the above email address.) 

Table of Contents Introduction                                                                                                                                     Winston Churchill and Islam Fundamentals of the Koran Abrogation Simplifies Reading the Koran                                                   Summary: How to Read the Koran 

Appendix One: Chapter Nine Also Invalidates the Religion of Islam                                                        Appendix Two: Is the Abrogation Verse the Most Important Verse in the Koran?                             Appendix Three: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Muhammad                             Appendix Four: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Non-Muslims                             Appendix Five: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Women                                        Appendix Six: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Christianity                                    Appendix Seven: How a Devout Muslim Views the Koran                                                                                    Appendix Eight: Islam’s Big Lie Conclusions                                                                                                                                        Footnotes/Bibliography 


Anyone who has read the Koran, or even parts of it, knows that it is not an easy read.  My first Koran was the venerable translation by Yusif Ali, first published in 1934.  It has no explanatory footnotes or commentary.   My second Koran came many years later and was the result of watching a You Tube lecture by Robert Spencer, one of America’s foremost experts on Islam. 

The Koran Spencer used in his talk was a translation by the Pakistani Islamic scholar Sayyid Mawdudi, who died in 1979.  Mawdudi spent much of his life translating the Koran from Arabic to Urdu, the language of Pakistan, and simultaneously adding voluminous explanatory footnotes.  It was because of Mawdudi’s footnotes that Spencer recommended this translation. 

I would add that Mawdudi’s explanatory notes are in everyday language and frequently reflect the ardor and passion of a devout Muslim.  These footnotes, from a contemporary, 20th Century Muslim, occasionally provide a mind boggling read for a non-Muslim, as we shall see. 

Since the Mawdudi Koran is a translation from Arabic to Urdu, the language of Pakistan, and then from Urdu to English, I thought it might be useful to also have a translation that is straight Arabic to English.  By chance, I came across a translation even more helpful than Mawdudi’s. 

“Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an In The English Language,” is published in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, and the translators are two Saudi Arabian scholars, Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan, and Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali.  First published in 1996 and revised in 1999, this, too, is a contemporary translation, hereafter referred to as the Khan translation. 

This translation, which has an accompanying Arabic text, is also extensively footnoted.  Unlike the conversational footnotes in Mawdudi, the Khan footnotes usually cite other sacred texts or authoritative historical interpretations of the Koran.  As such, the Khan translation is much more scholastic, more of a textbook. 

Both of these translations are authoritative and contemporary guides to the religion of Islam. Every word, including the commentaries, has been approved by Islamic authorities.  If you are a devout Muslim there is nothing – nothing — in either of these two translations that you may disagree with. 

To do so would be to question accepted Islamic doctrine, which is considered an apostasy. The Reliance of the Traveller (that’s how it’s spelled) is, to quote the cover, “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.”  On page 597 it declares it an apostasy to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it.  

Islam punishes apostasy with the death penalty, which makes attempts to reform the religion of Islam a hazardous undertaking, to say the least!   

“Scholarly consensus” is the key.  Over the centuries, “scholarly consensus” has become unassailable dogma. As Muhammad said, “Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah (the Koran) from his own opinion is in error.”  (Reliance of The Traveller, pg. 751.) From the beginning, Muslims were not allowed to think, not allowed to challenge religious authority. 

That remains true today.  A devout Muslim who gives you “his opinion” about a verse in the Koran is out of bounds, and knows it:  “Never explain a verse of the Holy Koran 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.” (Reliance of The Traveller, pg. 804.) 

The point I wish to stress is that every word of the commentaries and footnotes in both the Mawdudi and Khan translations is scholarly consensus, as authoritative as the text of the Koran itself. (The Ali translation is virtually free of any input from the translator.)  

The primary difference between these two translations, one from Pakistan, the other from Saudi Arabi, is that the Khan translation emphasizes the jihad requirements of Islam while the Mawdudi translation emphasizes the theocratic requirements of Islam. I found them to be complementary, not contradictory.     

For the average person who wants to buy a Koran, I would recommend Mawdudi’s. It is both smaller and easier to read. For someone who wants to get into the weeds of Islam, the Khan translation is superb.  It references a number of learned interpretations of the Koran, called tafsirs; it frequently quotes Muhammad as recorded in the “gospels” of Islam, called the Hadith; and it occasionally tells us when a verse has been abrogated by a later verse. 

Hopefully, after reading this you will not feel the need to buy a Koran.  Knowing how to read it makes over 95 percent of the Koran irrelevant. 

In this essay, I’ll use whichever of the three translations is the easiest to understand or has the most informative commentary. The translations will be shorthanded as “A,” “M,” or “K.”  For example, verse 106 of chapter two from Mawdudi would be (M V2:106 pg. 21). The Reliance of the Traveller will be “RoT” with the page number, e.g. (RoT pg. 751.) Chapters in the Koran are traditionally called suras, but for clarity will be referred to as “chapters.” 

Winston Churchill and Islam 

Winston Churchill, in the first volume of his History of World War II, “The Gathering Storm,” wrote that when Adolph Hitler came to power, Hitler’s treatise on politics and philosophy, Mein Kampf, was of such importance that “there was no book that deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers. All was there -– the programme of German resurrection — the concept of the National-Socialist State, the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless but pregnant with its message.” (1) 

Churchill described Mien Kampf as the NEW Koran of faith and war.  If he were around today, Churchill would tell us that there is no book more deserving of our study than the OLD Koran:  “turgid, verbose and shapeless but pregnant with its message.” 

Churchill recognized the threat of Islam at an early age.  As a young officer in the British military, he fought against Muslim armies in both Pakistan and the Sudan. The latter experience led him to write “The River War,” published in 1899, in which he made this remarkable observation, in somewhat overwrought prose: 

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  — No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” (2) 

That was in written in 1899.  The only thing not true today is that Europe is no longer “sheltered in the strong arms of science.”  Muslims in Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons and Muslims in Iran will soon follow suit.  Muslim oil money buys fighter jets and AK-47s by the boatload and sponsors terrorists by the thousands, many of whom are being welcomed into Europe as immigrants. 

Churchill had it figured out over a hundred years ago, yet the three most recent Prime Ministers of Britain have defended Islam, calling it “a religion of peace.”  Ditto Presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. 

Even Pope Francis has joined the chorus. A Papal decree in 2013 said, “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for the true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” (3) 

“Disconcerting acts of violent fundamentalism” is another way of saying, “I’m confused by acts of terror committed by Muslims in the name of their religion.” Saying that “a proper reading of the Koran” reveals Islam to be “opposed to every form of violence” is akin to saying “a proper reading of the Heavens shows the Sun revolves around the Earth,” something believed by previous Popes, much to Galileo’s distress. 

Popes, along with Prime Ministers and Presidents, are NOT infallible. 

Muslims commit acts of violence against non-Muslims every day, and yet many Western leaders refuse to connect these acts of violence to the religion of Islam, even though the perpetrators often do, sometimes shouting “Allahu Akbar” — Allah is Greater – while killing people. 

Churchill identified Islam as a deadly threat to Western civilization because he studied his enemies. I have no doubt he was familiar with Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War,’ in which a maxim is to “know your enemy.” When fighting Hitler, Churchill read Mein Kampf. When fighting Muslims, he read the Koran.  

It is time we do so, too.  I want to stress at the outset, reading the Koran is NOT difficult if you know HOW to read it, but that takes a little explaining. 

Fundamentals of the Koran 

Since the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, Muslim terrorists, somewhere around the world, have committed about 2,000 deadly acts of terror EVERY YEAR. (4) We are told by all sorts of pundits, including presidents, prime ministers and Pope Francis, that these Muslims are perverting a “religion of peace.” 

Really? Let me quote the Ayatollah Khomeini, the religious ruler of Iran after the fall of the Shah. An ayatollah in Shi’a Islam is something like a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, a highly respected religious authority.  He said, “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam councils against war. They are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers —.” He cited the Koran as having many verses “urging Muslims to value war and to fight.” (5) 

The Koran? How can that be if Islam is a “religion of peace?”  Well, let’s look at the Koran, and from the perspective of a Muslim, not a president or a Pope or anybody else who “knows nothing of Islam.” 

The first thing you must know is that the Koran is NOT like the Bible.  The Bible is full of Jewish history and stories about Jesus in the Gospels, but there are only a few words that Christians and Jews believe are literally from God, and they are the Ten Commandments revealed through Moses. 

The Koran is just the opposite. Every word is the literal word of God revealed through Allah’s Messenger, Muhammad.  Since both Islam and Christianity are “revealed” religions, the Koran is therefore a far more powerful sacred text than the Bible – if you are a Muslim.   

As previously noted, because it is the literal word of God, the Koran cannot be disobeyed or disagreed with.  Only Allah can disagree with Allah, an important point we’ll get to later. 

The forward to the Mawdudi Koran, written by a devout Pakistani economist, tells us how MUSLIMS view the Koran. Paraphrased for brevity: 

“The Koran is the foundation of Islamic faith. (Its) uniqueness lies in it being the Final Revelation meant to be preserved exactly as it had been communicated to Muhammad because it (the Koran) was meant to serve as a BEACON LIGHT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF ALL HUMANITY TILL THE END OF TIME!” (M pg. (x), my emphasis.) 

He goes on, “The Koran, uncreated Word of God though it doubtlessly is—” by which he means devout Muslims believe the Koran is without question the literal word of God that has existed forever, hence “uncreated.”  God just picked it up and commanded the angel Gabriel to reveal it to Allah’s Messenger, Muhammad. This is what Muslims believe happened, one revelation at a time, for the last 23 years of Muhammad‘s life. 

To repeat: The first thing you must know about the Koran is that Muslims believe everything in it is the literal word of Allah-God to be obeyed forever. It ain’t the Bible, folks. 

The second thing you must know about the Koran is that there are a number of verses that are invalid because Allah changed His mind at a later date.  Remember, Muslims believe Allah made revelations to Muhammad for 23 years.  Over those years, as Muhammad’s circumstances changed, so did Allah’s revelations. 

This idea of Allah changing His mind needs a little background. Muhammad began his missionary work in Mecca, where he preached for 12 years with little success. When a supportive uncle who was a powerful tribal leader died, Muhammad began to suffer ever-increasing verbal and physical attacks from the polytheists. He eventually fled Mecca to avoid assassination. 

He and his followers settled in Medina, some 300 miles away, where Muhammad built his first mosque, something he had not been allowed to do in Mecca. 

As he began preaching in Medina, his sermons attracted rabbis from the nearby Jewish tribes who wanted to hear this self-proclaimed prophet of God. The Jews had long prophesized the coming of a savior other than Jesus, and maybe this was the man. 

Nope. This guy Muhammad often contradicted himself, something no God-sent prophet would ever do. When they pointed this out to Muhammad, he had no answer, but fortunately, Allah did. 

As Allah frequently did, He came to Muhammad’s rescue with a new revelation specific to the problem at hand.  This one is called the abrogation verse, to abrogate meaning to supersede, to cancel, and is a pretty sophisticated word for the supposedly illiterate Muhammad. 

In my opinion, this particular revelation not only saved the day for Muhammad, it saved Islam. For our purposes of understanding the Koran, it’s the most important revelation in the Koran. It is verse 2:106: 

“For whatever verse We might abrogate or consign to oblivion, We bring a better one or the like of it. Are you not aware that Allah is All-Powerful?“ (M pg. 21. Allah always speaks in the royal “We.”) 

Here is Mawdudi’s footnote: “This is in response to a doubt which the Jews tried to implant in the minds of Muslims. If both the earlier Scriptures and the Qur’an were revelations from God, why was it – they asked – that the injunctions found in the earlier scriptures had been replaced by new ones in the Qur’an?” 

The bottom line is that the all-knowing God of Islam would occasionally CHANGE HIS MIND, and who are you to say He can’t? As mentioned earlier, only Allah can disagree with Allah. 

(Mawdudi’s footnote two verses later, to V2:108 on page 22 is both humorous and sad: “The Jews, who were addicted to hair-splitting arguments, instigated the Muslims to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) a great many questions. God, therefore, cautioned the Muslims against following the example of the Jews in this matter and admonished them against unnecessary inquisitiveness.”  In other words, no thinking allowed for Muslims. OK for Jews, though.) 

If Allah can change His mind, which Allah did frequently, this means, and this is very, very important, that the chronology of “Allah’s” revelations determines their legitimacy.  This wouldn’t be of any concern if the abrogated verses had been removed from the Koran, but they weren’t. 

Defenders of Islam frequently quote the Koran out of chronological context, probably the most well-known out-of-context revelation is the one that says there is no compulsion in religion (v2:256).  This was abrogated by numerous revelations that came at later dates. (6) 

Why, you ask, was abrogation necessary? Because as Muhammad’s power grew, so did his despotism and egomania. The humble preacher of Mecca became the warlord of Medina and he had to figure out how to get rid of the peaceful revelations of Mecca and even those of his early days in Medina. 

Hey!! Allah can change his mind!! Problem solved. 

The old adage that power corrupts is on full display in Islam.  As Muhammad gained power, Allah’s abrogations almost always were from benign to malign.  I could find only one verse in which Allah showed mercy by abrogating an earlier verse, and that one verse is detailed in Appendix One. 

The importance of abrogation cannot be overstated. Without abrogation, the Koran, that literal word of Allah, is hopelessly contradictory. That is why knowledge of abrogating and abrogated verses has been of fundamental importance in Islamic theology since the beginning of Islam. 

Sharia law — Islamic law –requires Islamic judges to know which verses abrogate which other verses, and Sharia law even cautions the layman from discussing the Koran without knowledge of abrogation, as this would risk “discussing the Koran in error,” which is a mortal sin.  (RoT pg. 626 for clerics, pg. 752 for the lay person.) 

As mentioned, the confusion caused by abrogated verses could have been avoided had those verses been removed from the Koran, BUT THEY WERE NOT REMOVED.  In lieu of that, things wouldn’t be so confusing if the abrogated verses were identified in the Koran, BUT THEY ARE NOT IDENTIFIED. 

To repeat: The second thing you must know about the Koran is that because Allah changed His mind, the chronology of the verses is all important. 

The third thing you must know is that THE KORAN IS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. After the very short first chapter, the Al-Fatihah prayer, it is pretty much longest chapter to shortest. For example, the very long chapter two is the 87th chapter chronologically. 

Abrogation Simplifies Reading The Koran  

The chronology of the chapters, as generally agreed to by Islamic scholars, can be found on the Internet. The chronology is not some deep, dark secret.  So, to avoid wasting your time reading verses that may have been abrogated by later verses, simply read the Koran in reverse chronological order, starting with the last chapter of revelations, chapter 110. 

Chronologically, chapter 110 was the last of the 114 chapters, chapter 96 was the first.  Confusing, right? 

Here’s is Mawdudi’s footnote to chapter 110: “According to reliable traditions, this was the last sura (chapter) of the Qur’an that was revealed some three months before the Prophet’s demise.” (M pg. 977.) Though it is not necessary, this footnote alone would prove the Koran is not in chronological order. 

Here is chapter 110 in its entirety, Allah’s final revelation: “When the help comes from Allah and victory (is granted) and you see people entering Allah’s religion in multitudes, then extol the praise of your Lord and pray to Him for forgiveness. For He indeed is ever disposed to accept repentance.” (M pg. 977.) 

That’s it. Now, if you’re like me, you probably didn’t find much in there that we could call “a beacon light for the guidance of all humanity till the end of time.” So, you’re probably thinking, “What is the next to last chapter of revelations?” 

Good question! The next to last is Chapter nine, and it is the most important chapter in the Koran, some 28 pages in Mawdudi, 26 in Khan.  In Chapter nine are the final, unabrogated (with one exception) revelations from Allah, to be obeyed forever. It is the only chapter we need to read in the entire Koran. 

Perhaps the most well-known revelation in chapter nine is the Verse of the Sword, 9:5, which some Muslim scholars say abrogates 124 peaceful verses in the Koran. (7) 

The clearest version of V9:5 is in the Yusuf Ali translation, page 114: “But when the forbidden months are past, (there are four holy months in which Muslims are forbidden to initiate war) then slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” — unless the pagans “repent” and become Muslims. 

Allah commands: “Slay the pagans wherever you find them,” and you’re thinking, “Well, I’m no pagan, I’m Jewish” or “I’m Christian.” Sorry. There’s another verse in chapter nine, Verse 9:29, that specifically accounts for you: “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah—even if they are people of the book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (A pg. 116.) 

The “book” is the Bible, and “people of the book” are Jews and Christians; the jizya is the tax Jews and Christians pay to live in peace in Muslim ruled countries. Mawdudi’s illuminating footnote to this verse leaves no room for the Constitution’s First Amendment in the religion of Islam: 

“The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not, as one might think, to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather, its 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; unbelievers who do not follow the True Faith should live in a state of subordination. Anyone who becomes convinced of the Truth of Islam may accept the faith of his/her own volition. The unbelievers are required to pay jizya (poll tax) in return for the security provided to them as the dhimmis (“Protected people”) of an Islamic state. Jizya symbolizes the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam.”  (M pgs. 275 – 276.) 

“Those who follow of the True Faith” are Muslims and therefore only Muslims should have political power. That’s the eternal word of God to guide all humanity forever.  Obviously, this is totally incompatible with the Constitution’s First Amendment which prohibits government from either favoring or disfavoring a religion. 

So far, in chapter nine Allah has laid down the forever law to slay or convert Pagans, slay, convert or virtually enslave Jews and Christians and you’re thinking, “That about does it.”  Not quite. One more group to go.  Verse 9:123 says, “Believers! Fight against the unbelievers who live around you –” these being, as explained in the footnotes, “hypocrites” who are those who do not fulfill “their obligations as Muslims despite having embraced Islam.”(M ftnt. Pg. 296.) 

As a practical matter, this means Muslims are to kill other Muslims with whom they have theological differences, or even those Muslims deemed to be insufficiently devout.  That’s why Shi’a and Sunni Muslims kill each other, and why Islamic law, Sharia, prescribes death for Muslims who neglect to pray at the correct time, as that is an obligatory duty for devout Muslims. (RoT pg. 109.) 

So, Muslims fight pagans, Christians, Jews and even other Muslims, and this is not optional.  Starting with verse 9:38 and continuing through verse 9:41, Allah commands believers to: “March forth in the cause of Allah. Do you prefer the worldly life to the Hereafter?” (In other words, if you die for Allah, you will go to Heaven, a better place!) “—march forth whether light or heavy and strive in the way of Allah with your belongings and your lives.” (M pgs. 280.) 

And the purpose of all this marchin’ around?  Verse 9:33 explains, and this is very important: “(Allah) has sent his Messenger with the guidance and the True Religion that He may make it prevail over all religions, howsoever those who associate others with Allah in his Divinity might detest it.” (M pg. 277.) 

In other words, Allah commands Muslims to fight until Islam rules the world, whether non-Muslims like it or not. Mawdudi’s footnote contains this illuminating tidbit: 

“Since a Prophet is the representative of the Lord of the Universe, he seeks to make the Right Way prevail. If any other way of life continues to exist, it should be satisfied with the concessions made to it by Islam. For example, the rights granted to the dhimmis to enjoy the protection offered by Islam in lieu of jizya. The opposite of this should not happen, i.e. the unbelievers should not be dominant and the believers should lead the life of dhimmis instead.” (M pg. 277. A “dhimmi” is a Christian or Jew living in a Muslim ruled nation as very much a second-class citizen, as opposed to converting to Islam or being executed.)   

Finally, verse 9:111 is the Verse of the Bargain: “–Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their belongings and in return has promised they shall have Paradise. They fight in the way of Allah and slay and are slain. Such is the promise He has made—. Rejoice, then, in the bargain you have made with Him.” (M pgs. 293-294, my emphasis.) 

Let’s summarize what Chapter Nine tells us: In return for slaying and being slain so that Islam can rule the world, Muslims will live in Heaven forever. Nobody else. Peace will come when Muslims rule the world.  That’s Islam in a nutshell. Islam is NOT a religion of peace as non-Muslims understand the word “peace.”.  Muslims make no secret of this and haven’t for 1400 years. 

Chapter nine proves that Ayatollah Khomeini was correct to say Islam commands Muslims to fight, and that Pope Francis is wrong to say “authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”   Somebody should tell the Pope to read chapter nine.  The iconic leader of Christianity should be in the vanguard of the fight against Islam, not Islam’s most useful idiot. 

To avoid wasting your time with Popes and others who “know nothing of Islam,” just ask them a simple question: “Was the Verse of the Sword abrogated?” You know the answer, and they won’t know what you’re talking about. 

Summary: How To Read The Koran 

There are four things to know about the Koran that make it a much easier read: 

(1) The Koran is the literal word of Allah, to be obeyed forever, by all mankind. 

(2) Since Allah frequently changed his mind, abrogating earlier revelations, knowing the chronology of the revelations is crucial for understanding Islam, especially since the abrogated verses were neither removed from the Koran nor identified. 

(3) The Koran is not in chronological order, so don’t waste your time trying to read it as published; read it starting from the last chapters revealed, 110 and 9. 

(4) Chapter 110 is just a few lines of platitudes, so chapter nine is virtually the last chapter of revelations and is by far the most important chapter.  Chapter nine is 95% of what you need to know about the Koran. 

Appendix One: Chapter Nine Also Invalidates The Religion of Islam 

There are many verses in the Koran that strongly suggest the Koran is the self-serving fabrication of a Seventh Century Arab warlord, not an omniscient God. Chapter nine, that indispensable chapter, has two –TWO—proofs that behind the curtain of Islam, the Wonderful Wizard of Allah was none other than the man Muhammad, a religious zealot who became corrupted by his power. 

The first is an indirect proof found in Verse 9:41: “March forth whether light or heavy and strive in the way of Allah with your belongings and your lives. That is best for you if you only knew it.” (M pg. 280.) 

When I first read this, I thought “light or heavy” referred to how well one was armed. Light, for example, could mean having only a knife while heavy could mean having an AK-47, or, even heavier, a tank.   This is a case where having multiple Korans was invaluable, The Khan translation reads, “March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor) —.” 

Well, that was a surprise. Light and heavy had nothing to do with weaponry. Just to check, I went on the Internet and looked up V9:41 in The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir. A tafsir is a Koranic exegesis, and the most respected is that of Ibn Kathir, a Fourteenth Century Islamic scholar and jurist. 

This not only confirmed Khan but also declared that V9:41 was ABROGATED by V9:91 which says, “There is no blame on the weak nor on the sick nor on those who have nothing to enable them to join (the struggle in the Way of Allah) provided they are sincere to Allah and to His messenger.” (8) 

It is not difficult to imagine Muhammad, at the peak of his powers, arrogantly demanding that EVERYBODY join the battle lines. Then, seeing that the old, the ill and the shoeless were a liability to his army, Allah “revealed” a new verse, V9:91, that abrogated V9:41. 

We are told throughout the Koran that Allah is “all-knowing, all-wise,” yet Islam’s all-knowing Allah was unable to foresee the problems the sick and indigent would have on Muhammad’s army.  I also think it was very unwise for Allah not to remove V9:41 from the Koran, as it offers proof to some of us unbelievers that Allah was really Muhammad. 

This is reinforced by the belief that the Koran has always existed, unchanged, just like it is.  Since many verses are specific to the time of revelation, it is obvious Allah can see into the future. Surely, an omniscient Allah would have avoided this trivial mistake. 

By the way, 9:91 is the only verse I could find in the entire Koran that effected a merciful change from the verse abrogated. 

The other Chapter Nine proof of the Koran’s earthly origins is found in verse 9:30: “And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say: ‘Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!” (K pg. 253.) 

In researching this verse, I came across the observation that this was an “enigmatic” verse because the Jews had never worshiped any human as son of God, not Jesus and certainly not Ezra.  “Enigmatic” is hardly the correct word. Erroneous, fabricated or delusional would all be more apt words. 

The footnote to this verse, V9:30, in Khan refers to a sacred text that doubles down on the Islamic belief that the Jews worshiped Ezra.  It quotes extensively from something Muhammad said in the most authenticated “Gospel” of Islam, the hadith Sahih Bukari. 

The hadith, stories, are collections of Muhammad’s sayings and doings as recalled by those who knew him, and are thus similar to the Gospels of Christianity. Those compiled by Imam Bukhari are the most authenticated and revered, which is what “sahih” means, and are given a status almost equal to the Koran. 

Exceptions are those hadith in which Muhammad quotes words of Allah not found in the Koran. Those are hadith qudsi, holy hadith, and are given equal status to verses in the Koran. (9) 

Paraphrased for brevity, here is the holy hadith from Sahih Bukhari: “The Prophet said, on the Day of Resurrection the Jews will be called and it will be said to them, ‘Who did you use to worship?’ They will say, ‘We used to worship ‘Uzair (Ezra) the son of Allah.’ It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son.’ ” 

Into Hell go the Jews. Then come the Christians. Same question, but answered, “We used to worship ‘Isa (Jesus) the son of Allah.”   Allah calls them liars too, and into Hell the Christians go. (K pgs. 123-124.) 

What we have here are two of the most sacred texts of Islam, The Koran and Sahih Bukari, in which Allah claims that the Jews worshiped a human being, Ezra.  This is manifestly false. Why the critics of Islam don’t point this out at every opportunity is a mystery to me. 

I checked The Tafsir Ibn Kathir, as I did for V9:41, but he had no explanation for the Ezra worship. 

In my opinion, the explanation for this “enigmatic” claim that the Jews worshipped Ezra is that when it came to the “people of the book,” Jews and Christians, Muhammad found it easy to condemn the Christians to Hell because he considered the Trinity to be proof of polytheism, associating others with Allah.  No bigger sin than that, so into Hell go the Christians. 

The steadfastly monotheistic Jews were a problem.  Perhaps Muhammad fabricated the worship of Ezra, but more likely he heard a story that somewhere or at some time some Jews worshipped Ezra.  We’ll probably never know.  Regardless, Muhammad created a Jesus for the Jews and into Hell they go. 

Appendix Two: Is the Abrogation Verse the most important Verse in The Koran? 

I once read a supposed learned commentary that said the Koran couldn’t be taken literally because it contradicted itself so often.  It doesn’t if you are a Muslim, because the abrogation revelation reconciles the contradictions. 

Muslims have lived with the idea of Allah’s abrogations since the beginning of Islam and, as mentioned earlier, it is an integral part of Islamic law.  The Reliance of the Traveller on page 626 specifies that to be a judge in Islamic societies you must know which verses of the Koran abrogate which other verses.  If you are a layman, page 752 cautions you against even discussing the Koran without knowledge of abrogation. 

Abrogation has also provided the basis for an extensive rationalization of the 12 years Muhammad spent in Mecca. In Mecca, the powerless Muhammad found it prudent to temper his opposition to the local pagan rulers, and Allah’s revelations reflect that fact. It wasn’t until Muhammad arrived in Medina that he received the first revelation from Allah ordering Muslims to fight. (See K-V2:190 page 50 and the extensive footnote on jihad as a pillar of Islam.) 

There are 86 chapters in the Koran that are Meccan revelations, 28 that are Medina.  To reconcile all those passive revelations of Mecca with the aggressive revelations of Medina is no problem for a Muslim who accepts the idea of a God who changes his mind. 

Like any True Believer, the devout Muslim will rationalize reality to fit his beliefs. Mecca? Why that was part of Allah’s plan. Before Muslims could wage war on the rest of humanity, they first had to be imbued with the True Religion, which is what happened in Mecca. Only then and only after they had achieved sufficient numbers would Allah command them to fight, which is what happened in Medina. 

Furthermore, the first Medina revelations to fight were limited to defensive fighting, only later becoming offensive. Thus, Allah’s plan was to have Muslims live in peace while they achieved religious purity and gained strength, the Meccan period. 

Then Allah allowed the Muslims to defend themselves, the early Medina period, and finally Allah commanded Muslims to wage war until the world was ruled by Muslims, the final and perpetual Medina period. 

This progression of Muslims from aimless pagans to warriors in Allah’s Way required progressive revelations, which naturally involved abrogating a verse here and there. It was all part of Allah’s plan, you see, because Allah is All-Knowing, All-Mighty and All-Wise — if you are a Muslim 

In my opinion, the abrogation verse is the most important verse in the Koran for two reasons: it is the key to how to read the Koran, i.e. in reverse chronological order; and it proves to us infidels that the Koran was the creation of Muhammad, not Allah.  God changing HIS mind? Right. 

But that is the point of view of an infidel. For Muslims, abrogation is a given. They probably can’t understand why anybody would doubt something so obvious. 

For example, neither the Mawdudi nor Khan translation give the abrogation verse any special mention.  Khan gives the first jihad revelation, 2:190, far more attention, and Mawdudi has a very long footnote on page 121 to verse 4:59, which suggests he thought 4:59 is the most important in the entire Koran: 

V4:59: Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those vested with authority among you; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger–.” 

Here is Mawdudi’s lengthy footnote:  

This verse is the cornerstone of the entire religious, social and political structure of Islam and the very first clause of the constitution of an Islamic state. It lays down the following principles as permanent guidelines:  

(1) In the Islamic order of life, God alone is the focus of loyalty and obedience. A Muslim is the servant of God before anything else. 

(2) Another basic principle of the Islamic order of life is obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him). 

(3) In the Islamic order of life the Muslims are further required to obey their fellow Muslims invested with authority (ulu al-amr). These include all those entrusted with directing Muslims in matters of common concern. Hence, persons “invested with authority” include intellectual and political leaders of the community, as well as administrative officials, judges of the courts, tribal chiefs and regional leaders. 

(4) 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.  Whenever there is any dispute among Muslims or between the rulers and the ruled the matter should be referred to the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Muhammad’s life and sayings) and all concerned should faithfully accept the judgement that is arrived at. 

Obviously, Mawdudi considered 4:59 to be hugely important. It confirms that Islam is a theocracy, and that Muhammad is a Jesus-like figure. This virtual divinity of Muhammad is derived from a few key verses in the Koran, discussed below. 

Appendix Three: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Muhammad 

Other than the abrogation verse, there are only a few very important verses in the Koran that are not in chapter nine.  Verse 4:59 discussed above is one of them, but perhaps of even more importance are those verses in which Allah gives Muhammad His blessings. 

In many verses, Allah commands Muslims to obey “Allah and His Messenger,” but the most unequivocal is verse 4:80: “He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad) has indeed obeyed Allah –.” (K pg. 130.) 

This revelation gave Muhammad divine authority as a ruler, but since there is nothing in the Koran, ostensibly, that quotes Muhammad, why is that verse so important? Because there are volumes upon volumes of stories, hadith, about Muhammad, what he said and did.  Many of these hadith form the basis for Islamic law, sharia, today. 

The Reliance of the Traveller is full of laws based on what Muhammad said. For example, on page 665: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.’ ” 

Well, that’s it for homosexuals. Goodbye, Liberace. Actually, Liberace may have slipped under the radar in Muhammad’s time because he wouldn’t have been playing a piano anywhere near where Muhammad could have heard it. On page 774, Muhammad says, “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments—.” 

And the reason you will never hear the Muslim equivalent of opera great Renee Fleming? Because Muhammad said, “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” (RoT Pg. 775.) 

The musical talents of over a billion people have been suppressed because Muhammad said, “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.” (RoT pg. 775.) The Koran defines hypocrisy as insufficient devotion on the part of those who say they are Muslims, so apparently Muhammad thought listening to music could distract from one’s daily prayers, or something like that. 

Not only does the Koran enshrine what Muhammad SAID, it also deifies what he DID. This is found in what I call the “verse of the ego,” verse 33:21: “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the meeting) with Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” (K pg. 548.) 

The Yusif Ali translations says Muhammad provides a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for Muslims. Regardless of the translation, the meaning is clear: Whatever Muhammad did was approved by God and could be emulated by Muslims with God’s approval. Forever. 

Muhammad beheaded and tortured prisoners, authorized the rape of captive women, owned and sold slaves — including women he raped — and ordered the death of anyone who criticized him, amongst other niceties. He also consummated his “marriage” to a six-year-old when she was nine. 

The age of marriage for brides in Iran, today? Nine. Did ISIS behead prisoners, on You Tube no less? Yes.  Were there recently slave markets in ISIS controlled territories, where women were bought and sold? Yes. 

The very long Mawdudi footnote quoted above to V4:59 puts “obedience” to Muhammad right after obedience to God.  A non-Muslim could be forgiven for thinking that Muslims worship Muhammad as much as Christians worship Jesus.  That, of course, would be what Muslims call shirk, worshiping others beside Allah, and would be a mortal sin. 

However, another footnote from Mawdudi leaves no doubt that Muslims worship Muhammad in all but name. Here is V3:70 and its footnote from pages 78 and 79. “People of the book” are Jews and Christians, the book being the Bible: “People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of Allah even though you yourselves witness them?”  

Footnote: Another rendering of this could be, “and you yourselves bear witness” to Muhammad’s prophethood. However it is translated, the sense remains the same. In fact, the impeccable purity of the life of the Prophet (peace be on him), the astounding impact of his teachings on the lives of his Companions, and the loftiness of the teachings of the Qur’an all constituted such illustrious-signs of God that it was very difficult for anyone conversant with the lives of the Prophets and the tenor of Divine Scriptures to doubt Muhammad’s prophethood. 

That is quite a statement of belief.  To think that Muhammad led a life of “impeccable purity” is beyond comprehension. The only way anybody could think that is if they believed that non-Muslims are simply not part of the human race.  Apparently, because the acts of atrocity Muhammad committed were all against non-Muslims at Allah’s behest, they were therefore of “impeccable purity.” 

This should send a warning to every non-Muslim on earth.  Non-Muslims can be also be forgiven if they fail to detect any “loftiness” to the teachings of the Koran. 

Appendix Four: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Non-Muslims  

If killing Christians and Jews can be considered acts of impeccable purity, it shouldn’t surprise us to learn that Allah has a low opinion of Christians and Jews. Sure enough, verse 98:6 says:  Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) —will abide in the fire of hell. They are the worst of creatures. (K pg. 810.) 

The corollary is found in V3:110, which tells us that Muslims “are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” (K pg. 98)  

Because Jews and Christians are “the worst of creatures,” you might guess that somewhere in the Koran Allah would prohibit his Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians, and you would be correct. Verse 5:51: Believers! Do not take Jews and Christians for your allies. They are the allies of each other. And among you who takes them for allies, shall be regarded as one of them.” (M pg. 168.) 

The Khan translation defines allies as “friends, protectors, helpers.” To be “one of them” is to turn your back on Islam, to be an apostate, and an apostate “is “someone who deserves to die” (RoT  pg. 596.)  Verse 4:144 says much the same about befriending hypocrites. Essentially, what these verses say is that it is an unforgivable sin for a Muslim to have friends who aren’t devout Muslims. 

Do Muslims get any leeway in dealing with non-Muslims? A little. Verse 3:28 says, “The believers may not take the unbelieves for their allies in preference to the Believers — unless he does so in order to protect himself from their wrongdoing.” (M page 71-72.)  However, one of Mawdudi’s footnotes to this verse puts limits on how far a Muslim can go “to protect himself.” 

“One may resort to prudent concealment of faith (taqiyah) in order to save one’s life. This concealment should, however, remain within reasonable limits. The most one is permitted to do is to save one’s life and property without jeopardizing either the interests of Islam or the Muslim community as a whole, and without causing loss of life and property to other Muslims. One must never allow saving one’s own life to lead to the propagation of unbelief at the expense of Islam and to the dominance of unbelievers over Muslims.” 

That last sentence has some dire implications. I wish Mawdudi had explained exactly what he meant. Was he justifying suicide bombers? Islam considers it a sin for a Muslim to be guilty of “wanting the life of this world” more than the next (RoT pg. 967) but what sort of behavior does that dictate?  

For Muslims who live in non-Muslims nations, something becoming more and more prevalent as Muslim immigrants pour into Europe, Mawdudi has another revealing footnote, this one to verse 4:100: “He who immigrates in the way of Allah will find in the earth enough room for refuge and plentiful resources.” (M pg.131.)  

Mawdudi’s footnote cautions: “It should be understood clearly that it is only permissible for a (Muslim) 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.” 

Any country welcoming Muslim immigrants should bear the above in mind.  To “immigrate in the way of Allah” is to immigrate as a Muslim, and if that Muslim settles in a non–Islamic country, it is his duty to turn that country into an Islamic one. Should he be HAPPY living in that non-Islamic land, he has sinned. 

Doesn’t that make assimilation of devout Muslims into Western societies virtually impossible? 

Finally, while most interpretations of verse 3:28 above say it authorizes widespread deception of non-Muslims, Mawdudi’s restrictions make V3:28 a questionable justification for such deception. Here is where a saying of Muhammad in a hadith is of much more importance than a verse in the Koran. 

In the Reliance of the Traveller, we learn Muhammad said it was permissible to lie when conducting war.  Scholarly consensus, as binding as anything in the Koran, says that it is obligatory –obligatory – for a Muslim to lie if the goal is obligatory. 

Since to fight in the way of Allah until the world is ruled by Islam is obligatory, we should not be surprised when devout Muslims lie to us.  Muslims are advised that such lies should “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 the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer –.”  (RoT pgs. 745-746.) 

The most common example: “Islam is a religion of peace.” I think many Muslims could pass a polygraph while saying that because they actually believe Islam will bring peace, but only after all the non-Muslims are converted, subjugated or killed. 

Appendix Five: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Women   

Pope Francis recently wrote, “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” He apparently had not read verse 4:34. It contains a little marital advice from Allah:  “As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” (M pg. 114.)  

No actual transgression required. If a husband just “fears rebellion” from a wife, Allah says: Scold her, then don’t sleep with her, and if that doesn’t work, give her a whuppin’. 

Mawdudi has this helpful footnote: “This does not mean a man should resort to these three measures at once–.” The Reliance of the Traveller on page 541 has some more helpful advice to follow when beating one’s wife: Do not break the skin, do not break any bones, and do not draw blood.  Proof positive that only compassionate wife beating is allowed under sharia law. 

Verse 4:34 sounds almost like the disciplining of a child, and it could well be that one or more of a Muslim’s wives is in fact a child. I say “wives” because verse 4:3 allows Muslim men to have as many as four wives, and verses in the Koran, both directly and indirectly, permit Muslim men to marry prepubescent girls. 

The direct proof is found in verse 65:4, which concerns the waiting period required prior to a divorce: “The waiting period of those of your women who have lost all expectation of menstruation shall be three months in case you entertain any doubt; and the same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated.” (M pg. 866.) 

Mawdudi’s footnote says that “those who have not menstruated” could be “because they are too young.” The Khan translation reads: “—and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, –.” (K pg. 737.) Both translations thus leave no doubt that Allah approves of the marriage of pre-pubescent girls. 

The indirect Koranic proof is in verse 33:21 in which Allah says Muhammad is a good example for Muslims to follow. Muhammad married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.  Lest you think that is some long-discarded tribal custom, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Ruler of Iran after the Shah was ousted, had married a ten-year-old when he was 26. After he came to power, the legal age for brides was dropped to nine. 

Iran was not an aberration. In Pakistan as recently as 2017, a Senate committee rejected a bill that would have banned child marriage as “contrary to Islamic injunctions.”  In 2011, a Muslim cleric in Bangladesh said any law banning child marriage would put Muhammad’s character into question and he said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives to oppose any law restricting child marriage. (10) 

Sadly, such marriages are usually arranged by the parents. The Ayatollah Khomeini called a prepubescent marriage a “divine blessing” and urged Muslim fathers to get their daughters married before they began menstruating. 

Muhammad’s child bride had no say in the arrangement, and so it is today. On page 522 of The Reliance of the Traveller it states that a father can compel the marriage of his daughter, if she is a virgin, without her consent.  This is how Muslim men treat their daughters in many Islamic countries TODAY. 

There are many verses in the Koran in which Allah mentions slave women, referred to as “those whom your right hand possess.”  Mawdudi’s footnote on page 102 to V2:3 says: “This expression denotes ‘slave girls,’ i.e. female captives of war who are distributed by the state among individuals when no exchanges of prisoners of war takes place.” 

Such women are immediately subject to sexual exploitation, even if married.  As explained in Mawdudi’s footnote to V4:24: “Women who come as captives of war, leaving their husbands behind in Dar al-Harb (Domain of War), are not prohibited, for their marriage is nullified by virtue of their entry into Dar al-Islam (Domain of Islam).” (M pg. 411.) 

Reliance of the Traveller on page 604 confirms this as sharia: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” 

Since this is from “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law” based on the Koran, and since the Koran is a “beacon light to guide all humanity” forever, it should be no surprise that Muslim men, today, will enslave non-Muslim women when the opportunity arises. 

A few years ago, Iraq and Syria were the battleground for a new Islamic state, ISIS –Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – complete with self-appointed Caliph.  In 2014, ISIS issued a guide to its soldiers on how to treat slave women, mostly women captured when Yazidi communities, who are not Muslims, were overrun by ISIS forces.  (Google: ISIS Slave Women Manual.) 

In a separate Q and A pamphlet published by ISIS we find this revealing answer to Question 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.” (11) 

What does THAT mean? 

It was reported in November of 2017 that the retreating ISIS forces had moved their slave markets into Turkey, something not possible without the tacit approval of Turkey’s strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdoğanwho is showing signs that he would like to be Islam’s next caliph. (12) 

Finally, Robert Spencer has remarked on the circular reasoning so prevalent in Islam, e.g., we know the Koran is the word of God because Muhammad says so, and we know Muhammad is God’s messenger because the Koran says so.  Similar circular reasoning is displayed in a hadith (Bukhari 1:6 :301) in which some women ask Muhammad why it is he thinks women are “deficient” in their intelligence. 

Muhammad told them the proof was in the Koran, verse 2:282, in which Allah says that written debt obligations must be witnessed by two males, and if two males can’t be found, it is permissible to have one male and two women, “so that if one of the two women should fail to remember, the other might remind her.”  (M pg. 64.) 

My wife does not think there is ANY humor to be found in that timeless advice from Allah, and she, the daughter of a Lutheran minister! Verily, Allah’s work is never done. 

She doesn’t care for another of my favorite Muhammad quotes: “Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” (RoT pg.672.) Also: “A people that leaves its leadership to a woman will never succeed.” RoT pg. 641.)  This is Islam’s “Sacred law.” 

Sarcasm aside, how can anyone deny that women are second class citizens under Islam? 

Appendix Six: Important Verses Not in Chapter Nine Concerning Christianity 

I read an article recently in which a Muslim said there were 156 verses of mercy in the Koran, 65 verses of peace and 93 verses of love. (13) Mercy, peace and love. Sounds like something Christians can relate to. 

He even had the audacity to list a few of them. For example, one “peaceful” verse cited was 49:9, which says, “If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them.” Believers means Muslims, nobody else. A deceiving use of the word “peace”, don’t you think? 

As an example of a verse of “love” he cited verse 3:31 that says that Allah loves His followers, as any Christian would concur with. But the next verse (3:32) says, “–Allah does not love those who refuse to obey Him and His Messenger.” (M pg. 73, K pg. 82.) That means that Allah loves ONLY Muslims. Literally true while deceiving the hearer. 

He also didn’t mention the verse (48:29) which says Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. (M pg. 761, K pg. 673.) Love thy neighbor? Only if thy neighbor is a Muslim. 

The Koran is full of nasty stuff like that. Muslims won’t quote those verses. Instead they will purposely quote the Koran out of chronological context confident that most infidels won’t know a damn thing about abrogation. 

Muslims will truthfully tell us that Christians and Muslims have much in common: Both believe in one God, an all-powerful creator who is ever forgiving and most merciful and that believers go to Heaven. Says all that in the Koran. 

What they don’t tell you is that the Allah of the Koran is forgiving and merciful only toward Muslims; kill or enslave everybody else. In return for slaying and being slain in Allah’s way, Muslims go to Heaven. Nobody else. (M V9:111 pg. 293.) 

Turn the other cheek? Not for Muslims: verse 2:191: “For though killing is sinful wrongful persecution is even worse than killing.” (M pg. 90.) Mawdudi’s footnote says “persecution” is when “a person or group is subjected to harassment or intimidation for having accepted what is right and rejected what is wrong.”  

(Since Muslims, by definition, are those who have “accepted what is right,” anyone seen as “harassing” Muslims may have their lives threatened, as has happened to author Salmon Rushdie and anti-Islam activists Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders, among others. Film maker Theodore Van Gogh and the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo are just two examples of these threats being carried out.)    

“Vengeance is mine” sayeth Allah? Not for Muslims. Verse 9:14 says, “Make war on them. Allah will chastise them through you–.” (M pg. 272.) Verse 9:52 says much the same thing, so in two places in the most important chapter in the Koran, Muslims are encouraged to wreak vengeance on Allah’s behalf. 

That’s why Muslim sociopaths scream “Allahu Akbar” — Allah is greater — while they’re killing infidels. 

Love and forgive the sinner? Hah!  Allah once commanded Muhammad to not pray or even stand at the grave of a Muslim – A MUSLIM — who wasn’t a “good” Muslim. (M V9:84 pg. 288) 

Muslims tell us that Islam considers Jesus a revered prophet who was born of a virgin, performed miracles and was lifted to Heaven by Allah. It’s all in the Koran. (M V3:49, V4:157-4:158, V5:17 ftnt. 20, V5:114)  

What’s also in the Koran is Jesus denying his divinity, to Allah no less, and at the same time Allah declaring the trinity to be Jesus, Mary and Allah. Jesus, MARY and Allah? 

“–Allah will say on the Day of Resurrection, O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say unto men, ‘Worship me AND MY MOTHER as two gods besides Allah?’ He (Jesus) will say ‘Glory be to You, it was not for me to say what I had no right to say. –Never did I say to them aught except what You, Allah, did command me to say: Worship Allah–.” (K V5:116 and 5:117, pg. 175. My emphasis.) 

The translators then add: “This is a great admonition and warning to Christians of the whole world.”  That’s from a 1999 translation with a contemporary interpretation, not from a thousand years ago. 

Did you know that Jesus was not crucified? “And the Jews said, “We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary but they killed him not, nor crucified Him but it appeared so to them (the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man and they killed that man) but Allah raised him (Jesus) unto Himself (in Heaven).” Therefore, Jesus couldn’t have been resurrected. (M V4:157–158, pgs. 142-143.) 

Mawdudi has this footnote: “This verse categorically states that Jesus was raised on high before he could be crucified, and that the belief of both the Jews and the Christians that Jesus died on the cross is a misconception.” That’s what devout Muslims believe BECAUSE IT IS IN THE KORAN! 

It is important to note that Muhammad had to discredit the Resurrection, the foundational miracle of Christianity, in order to establish the supremacy of Islam. There could be no Holy Spirit in the Koran’s Trinity. How could Muhammad claim to be Allah’s last and most favored prophet if he too wasn’t resurrected? 

Even Muhammad, someone I believe drank his own Kool-Aid with gusto, knew deep in his con-man soul he couldn’t pull that one off. 

Regardless, Muslims claim Muhammad was not only the last of Allah’s prophets, but that his coming was even prophesized by Jesus in The Gospel of John.  In John 14:16, 15:26 and 16:7, Jesus said a Counselor would follow him, “another Counselor,” who will “be with you forever.”  

I’ll leave interpretations of those verses to those more knowledgeable about the Gospels, but I note that none of the verses from John describe the Counselor in any way, certainly not as a warrior who will kill, torture, rape, enslave and plunder until the world is ruled by a theocracy. 

Most Christians would also be surprised to learn that the Disciples were Muslims: “Then when ‘Isa (Jesus) came to know of their disbelief, he said, ‘who will be my helpers in Allah’s cause?’ The disciples said ‘We are the helpers of Allah, we believe in Allah and bear witness we are Muslims.’ ” (K V3:52 pg.86.) This was some 600 years before Muhammad was born. 

There are other verses refuting Christianity, among the most important: In verse 5:72, Allah says, “They do blaspheme who say, “God is Christ the son of Mary.” In the next verse, 5:73, Allah says, “They do blaspheme who say, “God is one of three in a trinity for there is no god except One God (Allah.).” (A pg. 71.) 

In verse 5:75, Allah delivers the coup de grace: “The Messiah, son of Mary was no more than a messenger—.” Mawdudi’s footnote says it all: “In these few words, the Divinity of Jesus is repudiated.” (M pg. 173.) 

Finally, let’s look at the opening lines of the Koran, the little prayer, Al-Fatihah, that devout Muslims in the course of their five daily prayers, recite many times per day. It is very instructive, very symbolic: 

In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.   

All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of all that exists.   

The Most gracious, the Most Merciful.   

The only Judge on the Day of Resurrection   

You alone we worship, You alone we ask for help.  

Guide us to the straight way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not the way of those who earned your anger, nor of those who went astray. (K pgs. 11-12. Slightly edited for brevity.) 

Hey! Sounds pretty good, right? Especially that part about “Guide us to the straight way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not the way of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray.”  

A little problem. From the Khan translation we get this explanation of the meaning of that last line, and from Muhammad himself. When asked who were those who earned Allah’s anger, he said, “They are the Jews.” And of those who went astray? Muhammad said, “The Christians—they are the ones who went astray.” (K pg. 12, ftnt. (1).) 

Muslims know what this prayer means. They pray every day to not be like Christians and Jews, and yet Muslims around America are undertaking outreach programs at which they frequently have everybody join hands and repeat this little prayer.  Deception, indeed. 

Appendix Seven:  How a Devout Muslim Views the Koran 

Churchill implied the Koran was “turgid, verbose and shapeless.” It is also contradictory, filled with hatred and has factual errors not consistent with an “All-knowing” Allah.  The commands to obey and emulate Muhammad, as well as the numerous times that Allah comes to Muhammad’s aid, leaves no doubt in a skeptic’s mind as to who wrote the Koran, and it isn’t Allah. 

Still, true believers will deny the obvious. They lie to themselves and believe the lies.  They protect themselves with what Eric Hoffer called a “fact-proof shield.” For example, Mawdudi’s paean to the Koran: 

“The Qur’an itself is a strong, persuasive testimony to its Divine origin. It is inconceivable that any human being should compose discourses on different subjects under different circumstances and on different occasions and the collection of those discourses should then grow into a coherent, homogeneous and integrated work, no component of which is discordant with the rest. It is also inconceivable that such a work would be permeated throughout with a uniform outlook and attitude, a work manifesting remarkable consistency in the mood and spirit of its Author, a work so perfect that it would never require any change or revision.” (M pg. 125, footnote to V4:82.) 

I hope that readers will have reached conclusions that are just the opposite of Mawdudi’s.  

Appendix Eight: Islam’s Big Lie 

Islam is NOT a “religion of peace.” Chapter nine is proof enough, but if you need further proof, read the footnote to verse 2:190 in the Khan translation: “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.”  

(It surprised me to learn that jihad was a pillar of Islam. The five I knew of didn’t include jihad: 1) Declaration of faith 2) Daily prayer 3) Charitable giving 4) Fasting during Ramadan, and 5) Pilgrimage to Mecca. In fact, those are the permanent pillars of Islam. Jihad is a temporary pillar, which will no longer be required once Islam conquers the world.)  

It continues: “Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”      

A few verses later, V2:216 says “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you,” and is a command expanded upon throughout the following Medina revelations, especially in chapter nine. 

Devout Muslims living in non-Islamic nations obviously feel it prudent to not –yet – openly admit to this jihad obligation, so they dissimulate using words that are “literally true” but in a way that also “deceives the hearer.” (R of T pgs. 745 and 746. See page 26 above.) 

An example is Muslims telling us that “jihad” refers to an “inner struggle,” and they may even quote a verse or two as “proof,” e.g. V 29:6 and V5:35. They neglect to mention that these verses do not abrogate ANY verse calling for violent jihad against unbelievers.  

Yes, there is an inner jihad. That will be small comfort to anybody being beheaded by a Muslim screaming, “Allahu Akbar!’  


Muslims don’t make a secret of anything in this pamphlet.  You’re probably thinking, “Why haven’t I heard any of this before?” Part of the answer is that Muslims have done a great job of portraying themselves as victims of discrimination, screaming “RACISM” and “ISLAMOPHOBIA” whenever Islam is criticized, while simultaneously lying to us about the fundamentals of their faith. 

What is very disturbing is that there is no Christian leadership against Islam, no “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Pope Francis, the iconic head of Christianity, is an apologist for Islam who knows nothing, nothing, about the religion. 

Equally disturbing, nowhere do I see the political courage to deny Islam First Amendment protection. In fact, the First Amendment is in danger being “abrogated” by efforts to label speaking the truth about Islam as “hate speech.” and to give Muslims special privileges in our schools, prisons and elsewhere. 

Islam also teaches that it is obligatory for Muslims to establish an Islamic theocracy ruled by a caliphate. (R of T pg. 639.)   Obviously, Islamic rule would do away with our Constitution and America as we know it, which is the stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood:  

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (15) 

Learning how to read the Koran is the first thing we must do to stop that from happening. 


(1) Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War Volume 1 – The Gathering Storm, (Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin, 1948, reprinted 1949, paperback edition), p. 50. 

(2) Winston Churchill, The River War, 1899, quote via: 

(3) Paragraph 253, Pope FrancisEVANGELII GAUDIUM, 24 November 2013, from Stephen Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure, (Washington D.C., Center for Security Policy Press, 2015), p. 511. 

(4) Updated terrorist attack totals and MUCH more from: 

(5) Robert Spencer, Islam Unveiled, (San Francisco, CA, Encounter Books, 2003, paperback edition), p. 35, which references the quote from Amir Taheri, Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism (Adler & Adler, 1987), pp.241-243. 

(6) Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades), (Washinton D.C., Regnery Publishing, 2005), p. 27. 

(7)  ibid, p. 25. 


(9) Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades), p. 33. 

(10) Robert Spencer, “Pakistan: Senate body rejects ban on child marriage as “un-Islamic,” 10/12/17- 

(11)  Easier to Google the general subject, “ISIS slave manual.” Etc. 



(14) Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol 3 – 213. 

(15)  An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, May 22, 1991, pg. 7. From footnote 84 Pg. 637, Catastrophic Failure, by Stephen Coughlin, Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. (Coughlin’s book is highly recommended. The first 150 pages are an in-depth look at Islam, VERY educational.)   

Bibliography of Sacred Texts 

The Qur’an Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., Publishers and Distributors of Holy Qur’an, Elmhurst, New York. Sixth U.S. Edition, 2001. 

Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an in The English Language, Translated by: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D., and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, DARUSSALAM Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Revised Edition: March 1999. This is also referred to as the Al-Hilali translation. The introduction says this is a summarized version of a nine-volume work. 

Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Abridged version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, by Sayyid Abdul a’la Mawdudi.  Translated and edited (from Urdu to English) by Zafar Ishaq Ansari, UK Islamic Mission Dawah Centre, Birmingham, UK, 2001. 

This is an abridged, English language version of Mawdudi’s six-volume translation of the Koran from Arabic to Urdu.  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, this translation would never have made it out of the Muslim nation of Pakistan. 

Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, Beltsville, Maryland. Revised edition 1994, reprinted 2015. 

China’s Muslims: A different perspective

China’s Muslims: A different perspective by Peter Burrows 10/2/20 – – 

The Grant County Beat has recently run a number of articles, “Education About China,” that have focused on China’s persecution of its Muslim minorities. Unsurprisingly, the Muslims are portrayed as victims while the Chinese government is accused of implementing “a system that allows evil to thrive and harm the Chinese people.” 

The irony is that Islam is at least as evil as Communism, although communism has less than 200 years of proof vs over1,400 for Islam.  If forced to choose between the two, I think I’d take communism. You can reason with communists, but not with people who think they are obeying God.   

I was surprised to learn there were any Muslims at all in China, but there are some 25 million, about half of whom are Uighur Muslims, pronounced ‘wee grr,’ who until recently were the majority in the province of Xinjiang.  Xinjiang, about three times the size of France, is on the far northwest border of China. and has been governed by China only since 1949. 

For hundreds of years it has been the land of the Uighurs, who are Muslims with roots in Turkey, and are of both a different race and culture than the rest of China.  In recent years the Chinese have been resettling large numbers of Han Chinese into the province, and today they outnumber the 12 million Uighurs.  The Han Chinese constitute the great bulk of China’s population, and at 1.4 billion people are the largest ethnic group in the world.  They are who we think of when we think of “the Chinese.” 

I don’t know when this resettlement of Han Chinese began, but it is an important part of Beijing’s plan to dilute the influence of Islam in Xinjiang.  If you have to ask why they would want to do that, you have not been paying attention.  All around the world, Islamic terrorists are killing people in the cause of Islam, especially in non-Muslim ruled nations.     

Xinjiang is no exception. Starting with a Muslim population of way over 50 percent, ruled by far-off pagans, acts of terrorism should come as no surprise. You Tube has lots of boo-hoo documentaries bemoaning the fate of today’s Uighurs, but here’s the one that you should watch first.  Its title is “Fighting Terrorism in Xinjiang.” It’s 50 minutes long and has lots of nasty stuff. Before you criticize China’s treatment of the Uighurs, you MUST watch this:  “Between 1990 and 2016, thousands of terrorist attacks shook the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in northwestern China, killing large numbers of innocent people and hundreds of police officers.” 

The question then becomes: How would YOU combat the terrorism? Would you recommend that China simply abandon the region to the Muslims? This would consign the Uighurs to centuries more of poverty and Islamic oppression.  It would also create a very hostile nation on China’s northern border.  If that’s your recommendation, China is not going to accept it.  

China has instead taken a number of actions designed to eliminate the threat of Islam in Xinjiang. Given China’s history of forced assimilation and indoctrination, e.g., The Cultural Revolution, The Grear Leap Forward, and Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, to name a few events from Mao’s reign, China’s handling of Muslims today is surprisingly humane.  

No one doubts that President Xi Jinping has the power to order the deaths of millions of Muslims, or any other group he deems a threat to China.  Seen in that context, China’s response to acts of Muslim terrorism should earn Xi commendations, but, of course, in today’s politically correct world of Islamic apologists, Xi is demonized.  

In spite of daily acts of terror around the world committed by terrorists screaming, “Allahu akbar,” apparently not enough people have been killed by Muslims to drive home a lesson that should have been learned centuries ago: Islam and its adherents cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of humanity. Their religion commands them to wage war until the world is ruled by Islam.   

In the short-term, China is doing what any government should do: flood the terror-afflicted region with law and order.  The next most visible response has been to demolish the mosques used by Uighur terrorists.  The mosques are the loci of terrorism. They are where the terrorists receive inspiration and funding.  

Also, in 2014, China began to build a vast system of concentration camps that have been the subject of intense international criticism. Thanks to satellite imaging, it appears that China has about 400 of these camps. Estimates are that they house about a million Uighurs.  These have been built in the wake of the terror attacks committed by Xinjiang’s Muslims, and one has to wonder if Mao would have been so “gentle.” By all accounts, these are NOT death camps.  

China claims these are “reeducation” camps, and there may be some truth to that. The typical Uighur does not speak Mandarin, the official language of China, and is an unskilled farmer-herder. Critics have said that most in the camps are only guilty of practicing Islam, which indicates to me that the Chinese have got it figured out.    

Uighurs are not the only Muslims in China. About half of China’s 25 million Muslims are ethnic Chinese, called Hui Muslims, pronounced ‘whay,’ spread throughout China where they have lived for centuries, the descendants of Chinese converted by Muslim traders over a thousand years ago. Up until recently, the Hui enjoyed a surprising amount of religious freedom, attending mosques, observing Ramadan, and some even undertaking the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.  

This began to unravel in the wake of terrorist attacks such as the one that killed five in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 2013, and one in the southern city of Kunming in 2014 that killed 31.  Uighurs took credit for both, bringing terrorism to the homes of the Han Chinese and sparking an anti-Islamic backlash throughout China.   

Critics say the Chinese government is encouraging this anti-Islamic trend, which is probably true.  The pragmatic Chinese have noted that if the terrorists are Muslims, maybe it has something to do with their religion.  Gee, you think?  

There is simply no gentle way to deal with Islamic terrorism, and as much as China’s treatment of the Uighurs may offend some people, there have been no acts of terror in Xinjiang since 2016. To see how that compares with the rest of the world, go to and look at what the jihadists have been doing lately. I warn you: it ain’t pretty.   

Wanted: Volunteers for Facemask Enforcement

Wanted: Volunteers for Facemask Enforcement, a “Futuristic” news special to The Grant County Beat by Peter Burrows – 8/10/20 

With Silver City’s new ordinance mandating facemasks, many concerned citizens are worried that the local police force will not be able to handle the increased responsibilities. In addition, some are concerned that facemasks alone may not be enough.  

“The facemask law is a good start, but people should also be required to carry yardsticks. Social distancing is just as important,” declared George Julien.  “Hell, three feet may not be enough,” he added. 

Julien was one of three senior citizens interviewed yesterday while they were having lunch at a picnic table at the El Viejo burrito stand on Broadway and Hwy. 90.   

Another diner, Skip Thacker, was more concerned about enforcement: “It’s a typical ‘feel good’ piece of virtue signaling,” he said of the new ordinance. “Who’s going to make sure golfers and tennis players are in compliance? What about joggers, bicyclers and people walking laps at Fox Field?” 

“We need some active citizen support,” chimed in the third person at the table, who identified himself only as El Burro, “and I don’t mean just social shamers, you know, those people who scream at you to put a mask on while you’re at Walmart.”     

Julien and Thacker both agreed, with Julien saying, “The cops have got enough to do without this facemask law, even though the law is obviously necessary and is something we should all be damned proud of.”  

All three agreed that a citizens’ task force was needed to send volunteers to monitor places like tennis courts, hiking trails, and golf courses, especially golf courses. 

Thacker, a frequent golfer at the city-owned golf course, said, “It is just disgusting to see people without masks just walking down the fairway, hitting golf balls, or on a green putting, especially on a green just putting away, as if they had no responsibility to the rest of us. I’ve tried to reason with such people, but we need deputized volunteers, ARMED volunteers, to deal with such scofflaws” 

El Burro said, “I couldn’t agree more. Not wearing a facemask should be the same as assault with a deadly weapon. BOOM! Bye, bye, evil-dirty-bastard-germ-spreader.” 

Julien added that “barefacers” deserve the same punishment as climate deniers, Islamophobes and other racists: “Hang the bastards.”   

Everybody nodded in agreement and the conversation turned to how exemplary Silver City’s new law was. This reporter noted that it was rumored that a CNN crew had recently tried to interview Mayor Ken Ladner about the progressive new ordinance, but since the CNN crew was from out-of-state, the Mayor had requested that they first enter into a 15-day quarantine.   

El Burro said that, if true, it only showed that common sense was alive and well here in Silver City.   

(Note to readers: The above is entirely fictional. Old friends George and Skip are real enough, but not the quotes attributed to them, although they approved of the “quotes.”  PB) 

Intellectual Insanity

Intellectual Insanity by Peter Burrows 8/3/20 

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell 

The world is full of intellectuals these days. Who else would think that letting prisoners go free to save them from Covid-19 was a good idea? Only people who bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences. One of the hallmarks of intellectuals is that they hardly ever pay for the damages their ideas cause.  

For example, they hold the absurd idea that the death penalty is no deterrent to murder, even though it is obvious that an executed murderer will never kill again. That obvious fact may become all too relevant as the recent Covid-19 prison release has also freed at least one convicted murderer.  

Should that murderer kill again, will the brilliant social engineers who made that murder possible pay any price? Ha! Our tort system is a mess, with far too many people being sued, but I would be fine with a few more in the docket, namely those idiots who enable criminals.  

This reveals another absurdity, the “lives matter” nonsense, whether it’s “Black lives matter,” or its counterpart, “All lives matter.” Before you condemn me to an eternity in Baltimore, let me explain. 

In Chicago last Saturday, a 20-month-old baby was killed in a drive by shooting. The week before, a three-year-old was killed in another drive-by shooting.  The lives of those two children matter; the lives of the killers matter not at all and, in fact, should be snuffed out ASAP. 

The skin color of any of those involved in these tragedies does not matter one whit. Only an intellectual would think otherwise. In fact, to an intellectual, almost all things are “race, race, race,” unless they are “gender, gender, gender.”      

For example, who else but an intellectual would believe that when a little boy puts on a dress, he becomes a little girl? You have to have a college degree to believe that, my friend, or at least have a law degree and work for the ACLU.   

Last April 30, the ACLU put on their web site an article by two of their attorneys, “Four Myths About Trans Athletes, Debunked.” In that article you will learn that one of the myths – myths – underlying unfair discrimination against transgender girls is that: “Sex is binary, apparent at birth, and identifiable through singular biological characteristics.” 

If you believe that, the ACLU would like to set you straight (no pun intended): “FACT: Trans girls are girls.” They expand on this “fact” with the following: “Girls who are trans are repeatedly told that they are not “real” girls and boys who are trans are told they are not “real” boys. Non-binary people are told that their gender is not real and that they must be either boys or girls. None of these statements are true.”  

Did you get that? “None of these statements are true.” And why is that? Because, “Trans people are exactly who we say we are.”  Exactly? That’s what they wrote: “exactly.” Well, that settles that. Pardon me while I barf.  

Gender subjectivity is probably the most obvious nonsense ever pushed by the left.  Nonsense or not, it promises to do a helluva lot of damage. The ACLU is part of at least two lawsuits supporting the “right” of boys to compete against girls at both the high school and college level.  

Furthermore, it appears that the Olympics is going to allow these self-identified women to compete as women, which will destroy the women’s Olympics. Who wants to watch such a travesty? Ditto women’s soccer. 

In the meantime, the real girls who should be winning the trophies and enjoying the fame are left with bitter tears. Where is the justice in that? Where are the outraged fathers?  

Yes, I wrote, “real girls.” If that offends you, you are probably an intellectual.  If I was a better human being, I would feel sorry for you.  

New Mexico ain’t Lake Wobegon

New Mexico ain’t Lake Wobegon by Peter Burrows 7/23/20 – 

For over thirty years, one of the most popular shows on NPR was “A Prairie Home Companion,” broadcast Sundays from St. Paul, Minnesota, and hosted by creator Garrison Keillor.  He always had a skit or two, some folk music, and a little home-spun wisdom embodied in his weekly News from Lake Wobegon:  

“The latest news and views from the little town where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” 

It was a great show but, unfortunately, Garrison was a bit of a lech and the show came to an ignominious end, proving once again that -– sigh –- nobody’s perfect. (Although I know somebody who is ALMOST perfect.) 

I was reminded of Lake Wobegon recently when a New Mexico district judge denied a motion to dismiss a 2018 court order against the state for failing to provide an adequate education for New Mexican children. It seems the judge wanted – GASP! — proof that the steps taken had actually improved educational outcomes.  

The state’s attorney argued that the state had met the court’s April 2019 deadline “to improve the public education system, which is what the court required.”  He argued that “there’s been a significant increase in funding and specific changes in programs” and that there was no evidence that the state had failed to meet the requirements of the 2018 ruling.  

Last year the plaintiffs in that 2018 ruling filed a motion for “additional discovery” to track the state’s compliance progress, a motion the state opposed.  The judge ruled with the plaintiffs that additional evidence is needed to prove compliance, rejecting the argument that more money and good intentions are better than silly things like improved test scores or higher graduation rates. 

In that 2018 lawsuit, Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico, plaintiffs charged that the state was not meeting its constitutional requirement to provide “a sufficient and uniform system of education,” especially for low income, Native American, English language learner and special needs students, the “at risk” students. 

Judge Sarah Singleton agreed and ruled that all New Mexico students have a “right” to be college and career ready and that the state was failing to meet this obligation.  As evidence, she cited New Mexico’s lowest-in-the-nation graduation rate of 70 percent, matched by the 70 percent of New Mexico students who cannot read or do math at grade level. 

She stated that the state had “failed to provide verifiable evidence” that existing programs “lauded” by the public Education Department were, in fact, working.  

She gave the state until Apri 15, 2019, to take remedial steps, noting that lack of funds was not an excuse. She ruled the state must provide the necessary funding and oversight for the needed programs, e.g. Pre-K, extended learning, small class sizes, teacher training, whatever. She helpfully listed 11 sources of additional funds the legislators could tap.  

She rejected the state’s claim that more money would NOT improve the achievement level of at-risk students, and she also rejected the argument that poor educational outcomes are the result of implacable socioeconomic factors, asserting that steps can be taken by the educational system to overcome the adverse impacts of a student’s background.   

Judge Stapleton, a liberal appointed by Governor Richardson, had her liberal bona fides on full display in her decision. She conjured up a “right” out of thin air and then proceeded to require the government to fulfill that right regardless of cost because, as all good liberals know, the government can solve any problem if it spends enough money on it. 

Where she deviated from liberal orthodoxy is by insisting on EVIDENCE that New Mexico’s educational programs are actually providing a sufficient education for all of New Mexico’s children.  Ironically the state argued that more money wouldn’t help educate at-risk students, and, for that matter, the state could have also argued that more money won’t help educate NON-at-risk students.   

Judge Stapleton passed away last year at the age of 70, so she didn’t live to see her intentions upheld in the recent court decision, and she won’t be around to witness what could be a clash of intentions versus reality.  

About now you’re thinking, “OK, Burro, what does all this have to do with Lake Wobegon?”  

Well, in the utopian city of Lake Wobegon, all the children are above average, while in the dystopian state of New Mexico a large percentage of the children, perhaps over fifty percent, are BELOW average.  What is worse, there may be nothing that the educational system can do about it. We may be stuck with that worst-in-the-nation 70 percent who don’t graduate and who can’t read or do math at grade level. 

Now before you teachers out there get your knickers all knotted up, this is not your fault.  It’s long been known that when it comes to educating children, the classroom experience is not nearly as important as the home environment.  The child that comes from a single-parent household is one strike down, is “oh and one,” in baseball parlance, before opening the classroom door.  

New Mexico suffers one of the highest out-of-wedlock birth rates in the nation: 51 percent. I do not know how many of those kids will be raised by just their moms, and I don’t know how many of those moms will be conscientious and caring, like Dr. Ben Carson’s mom was. There’s no doubt that a loving, caring single parent is better than two irresponsible parents. Unfortunately, Ben Carson’s mother was an all-too-rare exception. The typical kid raised by a single mom in New Mexico, or anywhere else, is not apt to be that lucky.  Botton line for that kid:  

Strike One!  

Add to that, research over the last decade or so has shown that proper prenatal care is important not just for the mom-to-be, but can have a profound effect on child development, including “higher attained school grades.”  I do not know to what extent the ‘proper’ prenatal care correlates with the income of the parents, but here in New Mexico, 20 percent of the population is below the poverty line and a whopping 71 percent of the births are paid for by Medicaid. The average prenatal visit on Medicaid: 15 minutes.  

Sorry kid: Strike TWO! 

As if that weren’t enough, research has shown that the fetus can be negatively affected by the mother’s mental health: “Maternal stress has been associated with increased rates of infant mortality, low birthweight and preterm birth, all of which may have long term consequences for health and development throughout childhood to adulthood.”

(Also:  and ) 

The poor, unmarried, uneducated and pregnant teenager is probably not going to be a picture of serenity, even with a supportive family.  Ironically, the more conscientious she is, the more apt she is to be worried about her future, to suffer “maternal stress.”  

Sorry kid: Strike THREE!  

Katherine Stevens, a Resident Scholar in early childhood at the American Enterprise Institute, was recently on a podcast with Paul Gessing of The Rio Grande Foundation, where they discussed New Mexico’s lousy education results.  In her opinion, trying to fix education with pre-kindergarten programs, what she called “a fourteenth grade,” is “a waste of money.” 40 minutes 

She described “the too-young mother problem” as “huge.”  It’s a problem that incorporates single parenthood, lousy prenatal care, and a stressful pregnancy, the trifecta that dooms the new-born child. Thinking that early education is going to fix all that is irresponsible nonsense. 

This is not to say that we shouldn’t try to help these kids, it’s just that trying to do so through the educational system is the wrong way.  She said that studies that show pre-k programs are effective are measuring the wrong variable. Since these programs are voluntary, their apparent success is really a function of more conscientious parenting.  

She expanded on the problem of confusing statistical significance with real world significance in a just released report published by the Rio Grande Foundation, “Why Expanding New Mexico State Pre-K Won’t help the Children Who Need Help the Most:  

New RGF brief debunks LFC report on pre-K: Why Expanding New Mexico State Pre-K Won’t Help the Children Who Need Help the Most

On a different podcast on the AEI website, Ms. Stevens noted that work of Dr. James Heckman, often used to justify pre-k programs, consisted of only two studies, done in the 1960’s, one of which was a full-day, birth to age five program targeted at poor kids, hardly what is being proposed today. Dr. Heckman recently said that he has never supported UNIVERSAL pre-school, and that “the benefits of public pre-school programs are the greatest for the most disadvantaged children.”  17 minutes

He did not describe the specific programs that helped, but they are almost certainly NOT those being proposed in New Mexico today. Regardless, using the educational system will not solve a problem Ms. Stevens describes as mostly medical, i.e., meeting the physical and emotional needs of pregnant, at- risk women will do more to improve far-off graduation rates than hiring hundreds of new pre-k teachers and Public Education Department experts. 

Ms. Stevens did identify a specific program for the at-risk child, one she says has had “extraordinary results.”  It involves group therapy and is called CenteringPregnancy. From the web site of The Centering Healthcare Institute:  

“How It Works: Centering group prenatal care follows the recommended schedule of 10 prenatal visits, but each visit is 90 minutes to two hours long – giving women 10x more time with their provider. Moms engage in their care by taking their own weight and blood pressure and recording their own health data with private time with their provider for belly check. Once health assessments are complete, the provider and support staff “circle-up” with moms and support people. They lead facilitative discussion and interactive activities –Centering materials help moms and providers ensure that everything from nutrition, common discomforts, stress management, labor and delivery, breastfeeding, and infant care are covered in group. 

“— CenteringPregnancy brings 8-10 women all due at the same time together for their care. Providing care in this way allows moms and providers to relax and get to know each other on a much deeper and meaningful level. Members of the group form lasting friendships and are connected in ways not possible in traditional care. Centering groups comprised of women of different ages, races, and socio-economic backgrounds see those differences diminish in importance as they share the common experience of pregnancy, birth, and family care. Many continue on for family centered well-child care through the first two years in CenteringParenting.”

It would also appear that this program would be much more cost effective than trying to comply with a court order that simply cannot be complied with, given the sad reality of so many New Mexican children. Shoe-horning those kids into a fourteenth grade, having smaller classes, home visits, extended teaching year, etc., all sounds good but I’m afraid it won’t be very effective, if at all. 

Since the state has acknowledged that more money spent on education won’t help the at-risk child, and since the at-risk child is precisely the child CenteringPregnancy is designed to help, one would hope that New Mexico would at least experiment with the CenteringPregnancy model.  One problem is that it will take a few years to see any measurable results, if there are any, but the same is true for all the other programs.  

The one very encouraging take-away from the recent court ruling is that it appears to require just that: measurable results, POSITIVE results, before letting the politicians and bureaucrats off the hook.   At long last, somebody wants proof that a government program is working. One can hope that this will also expose government programs that AREN’T working, but that may be a bridge too far.  

Dear Black Lives Matter: Tear down mosques, not churches

Dear Black Lives Matter: Tear down mosques, not churches. By Peter Burrows 6/29/20 – 

From The Daily Wire, June 23, 2020: ‘Tear Them Down’: BLM Activist Shaun King Calls for Destruction of Jesus Christ Statues, Churches: ‘White Supremacy,’ ‘Oppression,’ ‘Racist Propaganda’  – Shaun King, the controversial Black Lives Matter activist known for pushing false claims, called for the destruction of Jesus Christ statues and Christian churches for their depiction of the “white” holy family, which King argued are forms of “white supremacy” and “racist propaganda” that promote “oppression.” 

“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down,” the activist posted via Twitter on Monday. “They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.” 

“In the Bible,” King continued, “when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went? EGYPT! Not Denmark.” 

“Tear them down.” 

Good grief, Shaun. If you would have just checked the scriptures a little more closely, you would have known they actually wanted to go to Sweden but that flight was booked, so they opted instead for Denmark. When the Stockholm airport was snowed in, they had to land back in Egypt. Sheesh. Somebody might think you BLM types are really, really stupid, in addition to being mindlessly violent.    

But!! I know better, and I can prove it! Just bear with me. 

Jesus never owned slaves, nor as far as I know, did he ever advocate owning slaves. That would be mildly surprising, since slavery was widely accepted back then. Regardless, Seventeenth Century Christian abolitionists started the drive to eliminate slavery, and the American Civil War finally ended it. Not in the entire world, just in Europe and North America. 

Slavery still held on in parts of the Muslim world, and only a few years ago slavery became an accepted part of the ISIS ruled regions of the Middle East. That was because slavery is an accepted part of the religion of Islam. The website, The Religion of Peace, just published an article giving chapter and verse to this truth.

In the above article, there are citations to a number of authenticated stories about Muhammad and slaves he owned. These stories, called hadith, are similar to the Gospels of Christianity. The most revered are the “gospels” of Bukhari, and here are two that leave no doubt Muhammad owned black slaves: 

Narrated `Umar: I came and behold, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, “(Tell the Prophet) that here is `Umar bin Al- Khattab (asking for permission to enter).” Then he admitted me.‏ (Sahih al-Bukhari 7263, Book 95, Hadith 17. USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 91, Hadith 368.) 

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!” (Sahih al-Bukhari 6161, Book 78, Hadith 187. USC-MCA web (English) reference: Vol. 8, Book 73, Hadith 182.) 

Given there is no doubt Muhammad owned black slaves and Jesus didn’t, we have to ask why mosques aren’t being threatened instead of churches. Silly question! BLM and the Muslims are on the same side in the farcical race scam being played out, and both would like to see, for different reasons, American political institutions destroyed.  

In addition, I have no doubt that Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam will be very quick to show the BLM thugs that George. W. Bush was wrong when he said, “Islam is peace.” Ditto for many other mosques in America. Churches and synagogues are soft targets, the typical mosque could be an entirely different matter. The BLMs know this.  

Therein the proof that Shaun King and the BLM are NOT stupid, not mindlessly violent. They know just what they are doing, It’s the white people who are stupid and mindlessly acquiescent.  Now, if the BLM proves me wrong and they start to attack mosques, then I will apologize to Shaun King for ever doubting his stupidity.          

Islam and adolescent girls

Islam and adolescent girls by Peter Burrows 6/26/20 

I was surprised to learn that the population of Israel is over 17 percent Muslim. Any other Judeo-Christian nation with that many Muslims would be in a civil war. I wonder if Israel’s Muslim citizens are tacitly grateful to live in an oasis of civilization, free from the smothering requirements of sharia law.   

On the other hand, it could be the Muslims know their Jewish brethren have a low tolerance for sharia nonsense. I prefer that latter explanation, but what else would you expect from an old Islamophobe? 

It will therefore be interesting to see what happens in the wake of a recent Israeli court ruling that has, for the first time, indicted Israeli Muslims for facilitating the underage marriage of their daughters. The charges were brought against four families, and their daughters range in age from 11 to 14. 

Sharia law usually permits girls to be married as young as 9, although some Islamic scholars say girls can be married at any age. Also, sharia law explicitly empowers parents to arrange a virgin daughter’s marriage without her consent, regardless of age, which is no doubt what was about to happen in Israel.  

In Muslim ruled countries, attempts to raise the age of marriage to protect young girls from such a fate have often been met with violent outrage. Devout Muslims see such man-made laws as a desecration of both the Koran and the life of the Prophet Muhammad.   

In Islam, a man cannot divorce a pregnant woman, and to guard against this, Verse 65:4 in the Koran decrees a waiting period of three months, both for wives who have reached menopause as well as for wives “who have not yet menstruated.” Both the 1996 Saudi Arabian Khan/Al-Hilali translation, “The Noble Qur’an,” and the 2011 English version of the Pakistani translation by Sayyid Mawdudi, “Towards Understanding The Koran,” have scholarly annotations explaining that this part of the verse refers to prepubescent girls.  

Muslims are not free to disagree with this conclusion. Sharia law says, “Never explain a verse of the Holy Koran 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 your opinion differs, “forsake your wretched opinion and fling it against the wall.”  

A second verse in the Koran, Verse 33.21, tells Muslims that Muhammad lived a life worthy of emulation. Since Muhammad married a six-year-old and began having sex with the little girl when she was nine, a law that would prevent such a marriage is seen as a criticism of a man Allah says cannot be criticized.  (We know the Koran is from Allah because Muhammad said so. We know everything Muhammad did was approved by Allah because the Koran says so. Makes sense to me.) 

Thus, when Bangladesh considered a law banning child marriage, an Islamic authority said, “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the Holy Prophet of Islam,” adding that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage. In Iran, that wouldn’t be necessary because the law specifically allows girls to be married at the age of nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.  

This is how Islam treats girls who are Muslims.  If you think non-Muslim girls would be exempt, you couldn’t be more mistaken. The Koran authorizes the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women captured during war, and when ISIS was ravaging parts of Syria and Iraq, many unfortunate Yazidi and Christian women and children were raped by their Muslims captors, who felt no moral compunction against such behavior. It’s in the Koran, after all!   

In fact, ISIS published an instruction manual for its jihadists on the proper treatment of captive women, which answered a number of questions a jihadist might have. For example: “Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive? A: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive. –Question 6: Is it permissible to sell a female captive? A: It is permissible to buy, sell, or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property —Question 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 has not reached puberty —.” 

The enterprising ISIS Muslims even raised money by selling their captive women, pricing them by age categories. You might guess that the most expensive would be those in the 20 t0 30 group, but you would be wrong. For only $84.60 you could buy, on average, a Yazidi or Christian woman. The most expensive female slaves were children in the 1 to 9 age range, with an average price of $169.21, twice that for a mature woman.  

When ISIS came under military threat, they moved their slave markets into Turkey, where they were protected by the Erdogan government, Erdogan being an unapologetic Islamic fundamentalist.  

If you are appalled by the foregoing, then you must, perforce, be appalled by the religion of Islam.  Islam commands jihad, and Islam commands women captured in jihad are slaves who can then be sexually abused, regardless of age.  No ifs, ands or buts. If you think this is some perversion of Islam, you are wrong.  

This is what Muslims MUST believe or they are considered apostates, and apostates can be murdered with no penalty because they “deserve to die.” The question then becomes, “Why do we allow Muslims to immigrate to America?”  

Personally, I would allow Muslims to immigrate here if they were escaping their religion, but, unfortunately, almost all of them are bringing their abominable religion with them, a religion totally incompatible with our Constitution and our common decency, which has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethics.  

People who defend Islam on multicultural grounds are morons, as are those who think Muslims represent a ‘race’ that must be protected.   If you have been a defender of Islam and Muslims, for whatever reason, you have defended the molestation of young girls, whether you knew it or not.   

Now, you know it.  

The New Racism

The New Racism by Peter Burrows 6/12/20 –

The charge that America is systemically racist is, unfortunately, all too true.  I know some of you are thinking, “But Burro, whenever someone who says that is asked to prove it, they can’t.”

You’re right, they can’t.  No mathematical analysis of racial disparities shows that there is any meaningful racism in America, but those analyses are looking at what racism used to be. The old racism was the majority discriminating against minorities. That’s dead. The new racism is the majority discriminating FOR minorities. In addition, and this is a biggie, the new racism has the majority discriminating against ITSELF.

Some of you are thinking, “Burro is off his rocker again,” but how else can you explain white people buying into the absurd charge that they have benefited from ‘white privilege?’ Jordan Peterson, the Candian psychologist, demolishes this argument on You Tube by noting that what is called white privilege is simply majority privilege and has nothing to do with race. Would white people enjoy white privilege in China? Japan? Zimbabwe?

He points out that skin color is not nearly as important as things like intelligence, personality, education, family, character, talent, etc.  If you think white privilege trumps all that, then you will believe the following story:

When I was about 12, I discovered Louis Armstrong.  My parents bought me a used trumpet and I began practicing. When Louis appeared at a nightclub in nearby Chicago, my parents drove me and my trumpet over to hear him. I wanted to sit in, and Louis made a big mistake by saying, “Sure, kid. Let’s hear what ‘ya got.”

Well, I proceeded to blow poor old Louis off the stand. He was begging me, “Stop white boy, stop! I can’t compete against white privilege!” And then there was the time I got in the ring with Ali, and the time I auditioned on SNL against Eddie Murphy and — you get the point.

Racism, racism, racism. That’s all we hear today from the Left side of our political spectrum.  The Democratic Party is obsessed with race, defining almost every issue terms of race. For example, I just read that nuclear generated electricity and radioactive waste have a “violent legacy of environmental racism and injustice against indigenous people.” This from a leftist group that opposes nuclear power.

This is an example of what I define as systemic racism, and the only place I see it is the left wing of American politics, especially the Democrat Party, not anywhere else. I don’t see it in groups like the KKK because the KKK isn’t in charge of anything.  Democrats and their leftist allies are in charge of the schools, the old media, the social media, the environmentalists, Hollywood, and most of the religious groups in America. It’s through those institutions the left spreads its racist lies.

Ironically, the Democratic Party is openly racist in their support for quotas, minimum wage laws, and denying school choice to parents. (See, “Take the ‘Who’s a racist’ quiz,”, 12/19/2019.) They get away with this because white Republicans are too intimidated to make race an issue even when the facts are on their side.

Black Republicans are another matter, but they lack both credibility and numbers. Black Democrats, however, if they start to see through the BS, could become the catalyst for both the destruction of the Democrat Party and the salvation of America, which are NOT mutually exclusive goals.  Whites can help, but far too many whites are blinded by ‘white guilt.’

Have you seen those videos of white girls on their knees begging forgiveness for their white privilege? I’m surprised we haven’t seen the little dears performing fellacio on the black punks to prove they aren’t racists. Those black punks must be laughing their asses off at these stupid white liberals, but the blacks who aren’t punks, and that’s the great majority, are not laughing as they watch their neighborhoods being destroyed.

In the past, such destruction might have had a glimmer of justification as racial protests, but in today’s mayhem there are white punks joining in the fun destroying black neighborhoods, and that may be a bridge too far.   When Black Lives Matter teams up with Antifa and this has the approval of Democrat mayors, both black and white, some of the good black people of America are starting to realize they’ve been had.

I hope it’s not too late. Harry Stein, a liberal turned conservative, dedicated a book he wrote thusly: “To black conservatives everywhere, shock troops in the battle for America’s soul.”

Amen, brother.

If I were “Mao For a Day”

If I were “Mao For a Day” by Peter Burrows 6/06/20 –

Some years ago on Meet the Press, famed New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said that he had often fantasized about America being China for a day so that we could “authorize the right solutions” for “everything from the economy to environment.”

Since China is a dictatorship, what Friedman really fantasizes about is Tom Friedman being a Mao Zedong for a day. Like most liberals, Friedman possesses invincible moral and intellectual certitude. That’s why his solutions would be the” right” solutions.

Well, the Friedmanites of the world are not the only ones who possess invincible certitude.  I have a list of things I’d do if I was ‘Mao for a day,’ hereafter MFAD.  My first list of MFADs addresses four issues that I perceive as posing existential threats to America. Two are external, two are internal.

1) No Mosques, no Muslims. Islam is an authoritarian theocracy totally incompatible with our Constitution. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken. I have written about this in the past and will do so again in the near future.

2) The death penalty for anybody involved in the manufacture or distribution of the synthetic drugs fentanyl and methamphetamine, and any analogue of those drugs, which are pouring into our country from China via Mexico. Death by OD will be administered after a tribunal reviews the evidence.  No death row for these offenders. They are busy killing us, and we should return the favor.

3) Any proposed Federal regulation must be reviewed by a Congressional oversight committee before it goes into effect, and if no such oversight occurs within 60 days, the proposed regulation is null and void and must be resubmitted – indefinitely.

Our Federal bureaucracy, by one estimate, issues 4,000 regulations per year, few of which are reviewed by the actual people we elect to pass laws. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 was supposed to restore this Constitutional responsibility, but has failed because it allows unreviewed regulations to automatically become law within 60 days.  My MFAD reverses that: No Congressional review within 60 days? Start over.

4) Anybody receiving a government payment cannot vote in that government’s elections. This would eliminate the biggest weakness of any democracy, which is politicians using the public purse to buy votes.  Essentially, any voter getting money from a government has a conflict of interest and shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

I know some of you are thinking, “Old Burro is off his meds again,” but let me explain. If you work for the Federal government, or if you are receiving Federal retirement checks, you can’t vote in Federal elections for Federal office holders. Ditto for state and local governments. I might even extend the restriction to include campaign donations. I’ll have to Mao mull that for a bit.

This would mean that in New Mexico, all the school teachers, University employees, state bureaucrats, state retirees, etc., could not vote for who is going to be their boss. In the last election, they all voted for the Democrat, who promptly gave them a pay raise. Some of that pay raise will go into union coffers to elect more Democrats, even though the taxpayers are not all Democrats. Sweet deal, isn’t it?

The prohibition includes Social Security and welfare recipients. No welfare recipient could vote for anybody who would be able to increase his or her welfare benefits, and no one whose SS benefits are over, for example, 30 percent of total income could vote in a Federal election.

Imagine how that would change the political landscape! The big negative is administering the eligibility lists, something best done by the IRS. This would mean that to vote, a person has to file a tax return. This could enable cross-checking with voter registration lists, another measure to reduce voter fraud.

I admit, number four needs a little Mao mulling, but I think it could fly. After those four, I have a long list of MFADs that are relatively trivial. None would require the use of force, although some people might say term limits “force” people out of elected positions, which is why I would grandfather all current office holders. Anybody running for office in the future would know the rules. Don’t like the rules? Don’t run for office. After term limits, in no particular order:

Tort reform requiring the loser pay court costs  –  A national voter ID card like Mexico has –  A national ‘Constitutional carry’ law for handguns – Leave the UN and form a League of Democracies –  Eliminate ethanol blending into gasoline – Legalize marijuana and have the FDA regulate THC levels – Raise Social Security retirement ages to reflect current mortality rates –  Eliminate the corporate income tax – Eliminate the estate tax – Eliminate the Dept. Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Fold the EPA into the Department of the Interior and the Department of Education into HHS – Eliminate the Federal minimum wage law – eliminate subsidies for wind and solar – eliminate the EEOC division of DOJ – eliminate the Energy Information Division in the Department of Energy – eliminate the efficacy test  required for FDA approval of new drugs – Eliminate Federal fuel efficiency standards, e.g. CAFE – Eliminate Federal flood insurance –  figure out some way to penalize states that don’t allow parents to get school vouchers – etc., etc., etc., ad-damn-near-infinitum.

Is Islam a ‘race?’

Is Islam a ‘race’? By Peter Burrows, 5/25/20 – 

Is Islam a ‘race’? Most people I know would think that is a really, really dumb question, but most people I know aren’t liberals.  The liberals I know have to think about that question, proving that all you have to do to turn a liberal’s brains to mush is to mention the word ‘race.’  

For proof, see the following, from a liberal, one who even has a Ph.D.:  

re: is Islam a race? As a biologist, that is a difficult question because the genetic necessity of the category does not hold up to statistical testing. In other words, if racial categories are considered statistical treatments, we find more variability within the treatments than between them. At the scale of the individual case and only considering the evidence you have presented for cause and effect (which is again a problem of scale), then I would, of course, and meaninglessly, agree with you. 2/25/20 

I know what you’re thinking: “You made that up, Burro! Nobody, NOBODY could be so creatively stupid!” 

Nope.  I’m flattered if you think I’m smart enough to come up with such a convoluted parody of liberal thinking. It brings to mind something George Orwell once said: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” 

To clarify the above answer from my liberal friend, his PhD. Is not in biology, but Forestry, and while he ends by agreeing with me, I had proffered no opinion, so I assume he knew that I don’t think Islam is a ‘race.’ In that he is correct.  

After all, if Islam is a race than Christianity is also a race, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.  These ‘races’ must be further divided into sub-species, e.g., Islam would have the Sunni race, and the Shi’a race; Christianity would have the Catholic race and the Protestant race; and the latter would have its own subspecies, e.g. the Baptist race. 

All of which would mean that my Lutheran wife and I have had a very long biracial marriage, me being raised a Methodist. Of course, if I wished to join the Muslim race, all I would have to do is repeat the shahada: “There is one God who is Allah and His prophet is Muhammad.”  

Voila! I have changed my race! About now you are thinking, “Enough, Burro! We get it. Nobody can possibly think a religion is a race.”  

Au contraire, mon frere.  Trump’s terrorist travel ban targets mostly Muslim majority countries and has been called “blatantly racist” by the National Council of Churches. When Trump expanded the travel ban last January, The Executive Director of The National Immigration Justice Center said, “This Muslim Ban expansion is founded on nothing more than cruelty and racism.”  

Sadly, the terrorist travel ban should be against all Muslims but it isn’t. Trump was on the right path when he campaigned on an anti-Muslim theme, saying in 2015 that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the Hell is going on. We have no choice.” 

That was then. Unfortunately, while the word ‘race’ turns liberals’ brains into mush, it also turns conservatives’ SPINES into mush. Trump advisors John Bolton and Sebastian Gorka, who were familiar with Islamic ideology are gone, and Trump now sounds like so many other politically correct morons. 

For example, the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting, is celebrated with a dinner called Eid al-Fitr, “Festival of Breaking the Fast.” The White House had hosted such diners since 1996 as a gesture of friendship to the Muslim world. Trump ended that tradition in 2017, and I had hopes there would never be another. However, he reinstated the dinner in 2018, continuing in 2019 and 2020.   

This year he put out a press release that read: “On Eid al-Fitr, the First Lady and I send our warmest greetings to Muslims in the United States and around the world as they celebrate. —Now more than ever we are reminded of the reassuring peace, uplifting love, and heartening fellowship that religion brings into our lives.  We send our best wishes for a blessed and joyous Eid al-Fitr.” 

“Reassuring peace”?  The Religion of Peace website has this tally for acts of atrocity committed by Muslims during this year’s Ramadan: 718 deaths in 175 attacks in 20 countries. The site notes that this year’s Ramadan didn’t have any incidents “in the name of other religions or from the much-touted ‘right-wing’ threat.” 

So, what has changed Trump the realistic campaigner into Trump the delusional President? I doubt he thinks Islam is a ‘race,’ and I hope he is engaging in some Machiavellian strategy to lull Muslims into a false sense of security, but I’m afraid that’s not the case. I think he just doesn’t understand Islamic fundamentals and for political reasons is trying to refute the charge that he’s a ‘racist.’. 

I’m saddened because I was hoping to cast a proactive vote for a president this year, instead of voting against whomever the Democrats nominate. But alas, Trump has joined his two predecessors, Obama and G.W. Bush, as just another useful idiot in the spread of Islam. I cannot vote ‘for’ a president who doesn’t recognize that Islam is an existential threat to our country. 

I wish there was a “None of the Above” on the ballot.