Thanks for the memories,  Duke Ellington. By Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 3/5/15

Clark Terry died.  He was 94. The name doesn’t mean anything to most of you, but it does to anybody who played, or tried to play, a trumpet in the last 60 years or so.  Clark Terry was a great jazz trumpeter.

When I read of his death, what immediately popped into my mind was his great but brief solo on Duke Ellington’s Perdido, recorded way back in 1952:  The rapid staccato notes up and down the scale and then a burst of “pretty notes,” as Satchmo would say, that blended back into the orchestra’s theme. Great stuff.

I hadn’t played it in years, so I dug out my “Ellington Uptown” CD and sure enough, the solo hadn’t changed. (That’s a joke folks. I’m not THAT old.) Ever had times when a tune runs through your head for an hour or even longer?  Clark Terry’s little riff is in my head FOREVER.  Fine by me.

I couldn’t just play Perdido, so I relistened to “Take the A Train,” with Betty Roche’s terrific vocal, and “The Mooch” with it’s fantastic duets.  Oh Lord, Duke was such a treasure.

This got me to thinking of how lucky I am to be able to listen to something recorded over 60 years ago with such great fidelity.  My father couldn’t have listened to an Enrico Caruso aria of such quality, if at all, if he would have lived to my age.  Of course, it’s not just music from years ago that we can enjoy, but movies, too.  Some of those old ones are still pretty good. I especially like the Fred Astair, Ginger Rogers movies.

The downside of some of those old and not so old movies is age-shock, a term I just coined to describe how you feel when you watch Dirty Harry right after seeing Clint Eastwood on some news show talk about his latest movie. (Or, for that matter, when you watch yourself from years ago.  I’m trying to get my wife to throw out some old, old tapes from our curling years.  Once again, not something my parents could have done.)

Well, one memory led to another and I got to thinking about the first time I saw the Ellington orchestra live, and how, in some ways, race relations are worse today than 60 years ago.  The year was 1957 or ‘58, and the venue was some long forgotten dance hall between Chicago and Detroit. The big bands of the era would make a one night stand there as they over-nighted between the two cities.

My home town of Dowagiac was only an hour or so away, so four of us kids made the trip. (I remember the oldest looking buying a case of beer for the occasion. He was about 18. Legal was 21. Great fun.)

I still remember some things from that evening.  After a number, Duke would thank the audience for their applause with his great line, “Thank you, thank you, we love you all —madly.”  I also remember a little man playing the piano, who must have been the great Billy Strayhorn.  Especially memorable was the drum solo “Skin Deep,” where the entire band walked off the stage leaving the drummer all alone, pounding away.  After a few minutes, they wandered back in, casually picked up their instruments, put out their cigarettes and BAM! hit the opening note. Great theater.

One other memory that night brings me to today’s distressing political/racial environment. In particular, it is a common opinion amongst otherwise sane people that voter ID laws reflect white voters’ fears of losing their political power to “people of color” or some such nonsense.   One of my favorite professors over at WNMU, an Hispanic man, even made that statement at a forum last year.

I think this is very sad.  In my 75 years on earth as a white person, I believe I have spent maybe a billionth of a second worrying about white people losing political power. No, even less than that.  However, I got to thinking that I really don’t know what it’s like to experience life as a member of a racial minority.   I can sympathize, but I really can’t relate.

It outrages me that people would ever suffer from racial prejudice, from having different “packaging,” as Dr. Ben Carson would say.  You really can’t love music and be a bigoted moron.  There is no way you can tell the race or sex of a musician by listening to a CD.  Furthermore, some of the GREATEST jazz musicians were pure African, e.g. Louis Armstrong, Sarah Vaughn, Duke’s fabulous baritone sax player, Harry Carney, and many, many others.

However, I do recall one instance in which I was a minority of one white in a crowd of black faces. It was at the aforementioned Duke Ellington one-nighter.  As was common at an Ellington dance hall performance, a crowd would form in front of the bandstand, centered on Duke’s piano. I was in the crowd that night, and, you guessed it, I looked around and was the only white person.

I wish I could relive that moment. I was in good company.

Islam For Smart Dummies by Peter Burrows – 1/11/15 –  elburropete@gmail.com

Last week, masked gunmen stormed the Paris office of a satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people.  French television showed footage of two men leaving the building shouting in French: “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad. We have killed Charlie Hebdo.” They also shouted in Arabic,  “Allahu akbar,” which means “Allah is greater.”

All this was brought about by Charlie Hebdo printing unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which is a grave sin in Islam.  The Western, non-Muslim mind boggles at this: 12 dead, for WHAT?  Knowing very little about Islam, Western politicians, pundits and journalists try to explain the event in terms of religion and society as they understand them, NOT as the Muslims understand them.

This is nuts.  Instead of fabricating reasons to explain why Muslims are engaged in carnage around the world, why not accept the Muslims’ explanations?   This, of course, is impossible in a world where facts take a backseat to political correctness.  The media has not yet realized that “radical Islam” is a redundancy.

For example, an MSNBC reporter in Paris, like virtually all the commentators I heard, expressed sincere, but mistaken, beliefs in defense of Islam. He said the gunmen were radical Muslims who “cherry pick” the Koran to justify their violence.   In reality, it is the defenders of Islam who “cherry pick” the Koran when they say “Islam is peace,” or some such claim that flies in the face of reality, day after day after day.

The following is a brief summary of all you need to know about Islam. Call it “Islam for Smart Dummies,” as opposed to “Islam for PC Dummies,” which is what you get from most politicians and journalists who have never studied Islam and who get their opinions, by and large, from other politicians and journalists who have never studied Islam.  There are five things you need to know:

1)  The Koran is the eternal, infallible word of Allah as revealed to Muhammad over a period of many years.
2)  The Koran lists Muhammad’s revelations in chapters called suras, which, with the exception of the first sura, are listed in order by length, longest to shortest, NOT by chronology.  There are 114 suras.
3)  Abrogation: Over the years, Allah, who is all powerful and all knowing and can do as Allah pleases, would CHANGE HIS MIND as circumstances warranted.  This renders previous revelations in the Koran null and void.  As Allah says in the  Koran, sura 2:106: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; don’t you know that Allah has power over all things?” (Abrogate: To abolish or annul by authority.)
4)  In the Koran, Allah proclaimed Muhammad the forever exemplar for Muslims.  Sura 33:21: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah.”
5)  Allah, through The Koran, orders Muslims to fight unbelievers until they are subdued.

Points two and three make the Koran a confusing guide to proper Islamic conduct and belief. You have to know when a revelation occurred to determine its legitimacy.  Islamic scholars divide the suras into four chronological groupings, early Meccan, middle Meccan, late Meccan and Medina.  Of the 114 suras, 28 are Medina suras and are Muhammad’s final revelations and therefore the most authoritative.  (The two suras cited above, 2:106 and 33:21, are Medina.)

This is very important, because as Muhammad gained more and more power over the years, his revelations became more and more hateful and vindictive, especially toward Jews.  (An infidel might think he was just an aging despot becoming more and more corrupt as his power increased.) When people proclaim Islam is about peace, they are reading or quoting either abrogated verses or verses out of context.  (For those with a Koran, the Medina verses in chronological order are: 2, 8, 3, 33, 60, 4, 99, 57, 47, 13, 55, 76, 65, 98, 59, 24, 22, 63, 58, 49, 66, 64, 61, 62, 48, 5, 9, 110.)

The last two revelations of Muhammad were suras 9 and 110.  Sura 110 is a short deathbed prayer.  Sura 9, however, is 11 pages long (in my Koran) with 129 verses.  It is mostly about how Believers should deal with unbelievers and hypocrites, unbelievers being Jews, Christians and Pagans.  It is the only sura that does not start with the phrase “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.”  There is not much in sura 9 that is gracious or merciful.

For hundreds of years, Islamic theologians have taught that the ninth sura’s fifth verse, the Verse of the Sword (9:5) abrogates at least 124 earlier, peaceful verses in the Koran. (See The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer, page 25.) The key passage: “But when the forbidden months are past (four months of treaty) then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them–.”  In other words, no more peace with the unbelievers.

I personally think sura 9:29 is the more definitive: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

“People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews.  The Jizya is a levy non-Muslims pay for protection in Muslim ruled lands, even to this day.  Disagreeing with what has been forbidden by both Allah and his Messenger, means finding fault with any of the Sharia laws imposed in Muslim societies, including beheadings and stonings to death.  “Religion of Truth” is, of course, Islam.

Sura nine should be read by anyone who thinks Islam is a religion of peace being hijacked by radicals.  In fact,  the ISIS soldiers and terrorists are faithful Muslims, not radicals. Radicals would be those Muslims questioning Islam’s relevance in the twenty first century. They are few, indeed, considering the courage that would require.

While the Koran leaves no doubt that Islam preaches war against non-Muslims, even more convincing is the vast body of sacred literature describing Muhammad’s life and deeds.  This brings us to point four above: Allah said Muhammad, in sura 33:21, was someone whose conduct was a “beautiful pattern” to emulate. This opens up a real big, fat can of worms for those who think Islam preaches peace.

Since the Koran gives no details of Muhammad’s life, we must refer to voluminous writings on Muhammad’s deeds and everyday sayings, the Hadith, and his biographies, the Sira. One way to appreciate Muhammad’s “beautiful pattern of conduct” is to read The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Isaq (d. 786 AD.), a revered biography. My copy is the translation by A. Guillaume and is over 800 pages long.

The most revealing chapters are those describing battles and raids led by Muhammad.  One that is especially relevant today is Muhammad’s raid on the Jewish village of Banu Qurayza. Once the village was conquered, Muhammad approved a verdict that the “men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.”

Muhammad ordered trenches dug in the market place.  “Then he sent for them (the captives) and cut off their heads as they were brought out to him in batches.”
It reads as though Muhammad did this himself, but that seems unlikely, given the number beheaded: “There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.” (Life of Muhammad, page 464.)

It doesn’t say if swords or knives were used.  The ISIS jihadists seem to prefer knives, as you can see for yourself on the Internet.  Assertions that such beheadings are alien to the “peaceful’ nature of Islam are simply wrong.  Even if the biographies are discounted, the Koran leaves no doubt that such barbarities are sanctioned by that most sacred text of Islam:  “Therefore when you meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks;” Sura 47:4.

Finally, the fifth thing you must know about Islam is evident around the world today: Jihadists are fighting the unbelievers, as Allah directed.  They are not hijacking Islam, they are being devout Muslims. The sooner we acknowledge this fundamental fact, the sooner we can begin to protect ourselves. This is no time for multiculturalism or other such politically correct nonsense.

In conclusion, to be an Islamaphobe is to be a realist.  Those who think otherwise are ignorant of what Islam is. Ignorance is a correctable condition.  Stupidity is not.

Islam 101, Part 2 by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 12/27/14

“Islam is a religion that preaches peace—,” President Obama.

My copy of the Koran, the Yusuf Ali translation, is 423 pages long.  It would be longer in the original Arabic, which has repetitions and extraneous phrasing making it poetic and easier to remember. In fact, “Koran” means “recitation” in Arabic, and much of the Koran was transcribed from the memories of close followers of Muhammad shortly after his death in 632 A.D.

Technically, any translation from the original Arabic is a blasphemy, but one tolerated to help spread Islam.  Since translations differ on Arabic interpretations, to be an Islamic scholar, as well as to read the Koran in its sacred original, one should learn Arabic.  That, however, would be just the beginning.

The Koran is NOT the sole sacred text in Islam. Far from it. Of almost equal importance are the Hadith, a vast collection of stories (hadiths) of Muhammad’s life, including details of various revelations.  This makes the Hadith indispensable to understanding the Koran.

Robert Spencer, the author of eight books concerning Islam, says reading the Koran, a monologue of Allah speaking to Mohammad, is like overhearing a conversation between two strangers: “It’s confusing, disorientating, and ultimately incomprehensible. That’s where the Hadith, the traditions of Muhammad enter. The Hadith are volumes upon volumes of stories of Muhammad in which he (and sometimes his followers) explains how and in what situations various verses of the Qur’an came to him, pronounces on disputed questions and leads by example.” Spencer concludes that without the Hadith, the Koran is often “simply incomprehensible.” (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, pg. 33.)

The Hadith are a source of Islamic authority second only to the Koran.  While the Koran is not about the life of Muhammad, the Hadith are.  They are the work of Muslim historians who began recording the mostly oral history of things that  Muhammad said and did, starting about one hundred years after his death.  There are six accepted Hadith, and they range in authority based upon their accepted authenticity.

They are named after their authors, and the two most revered are those by Imam Bukhari (d. 870 A.D.) and Imam Abul-Husain Muslim (d. 875 A.D.)  They are known as the Two Sahihs, sahih being Arabic for “trustworthy.”  You can purchase translations of Sahih Bukari and Sahih Muslim on Amazon for about $120 each.   Each contains over 7,500 hadiths, each is 4,000 or more pages.  When the Islamic scholar finishes those, there are four more.

To complicate the task of the Islamic scholar, the above apply only to the Sunni branch of Islam. The Shias have their own voluminous Hadith, the best know of which is The Four Books, written by three authors known as the Three Muhammads.  One of my sources notes, “Shia clerics also make use of extensive collections and commentaries by later authors.”   Oh, my.

The Hadiths leave no doubt that Islam is war, not peace.  Sahih Bukari has five hadiths in which Muhammad is heard to say, “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah —-.”

Need more? Sahih Bukari has three hadiths and Sahih Muslim four, in which Muhammad made similar remarks about talking stones and talking trees, this one is from Sahih Muslim Book 041, #6985:  “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be on him) as saying: ‘The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it it’s the tree of the Jews.’ ”

There are Muslims TODAY who think Jews in Israel are planting Gharqad trees around their homes as a defense against Muslim attacks.  This means they take the hadith quite literally.  With such people, peace is not possible.

Next week:  More proof Islam is not peace.

Islam 101 by Peter Burrows – elburropete@gmail.com 12/18/14

An ancient specter is haunting humanity again. Dormant for over three hundred years, Islam is on the march again.  Not since their 1683 defeat at Vienna have the forces of this primitive cult been strong enough to wage widespread war, or jihad, again.

Enriched by petroleum money and emboldened by a compliant and ignorant foe, Islamists are killing “infidels” across the globe. In just this past November, jihadists killed 5,042 people in 14 countries. There is no end in sight to this jihad, and there is no place to hide.

Jihad has changed with the times, and Islam’s threat is not from armies in the field, but from terrorists flying airplanes into buildings,  planting bombs and blowing themselves up in crowds.  Soon, they will have nuclear weapons to use, and use them they will.

They are waging their modern jihad largely unopposed thanks to boneheaded political correctness concerning Muslim immigrants and converts, and an appalling ignorance of Islam.  We must wake up before it’s too late.  In this column, I will discuss Muhammad and the Koran. Later columns will explore other parts of Islam.

Muhammad, c.570 – 632, began receiving revelations from the angel Gabriel at the advanced age of forty. Three years later he began preaching these revelations, and slowly gained followers.  Not having much success in Mecca, his birthplace, he moved his fledging congregation to Medina, where he was successful in uniting the local tribes in warfare against Mecca. By the time of his death, he had united all of Arabia under the religion of Islam (“surrender” in Arabic.)

The Koran is a compilation of the revelations Muhammad received throughout his life.  These, and seemingly every other detail of his life, were faithfully recorded and/or remembered by his followers.  (It was not unusual for people before literacy was widespread to commit prodigious amounts of information to memory. Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, for example, were passed down by word of mouth for centuries.)  For Muslims, the Koran is essentially a transcription of a holy text that has existed forever, one that Allah gave to Gabriel with instructions to reveal it to Muhammad, His Messenger.

Muhammad must have been charismatic and brilliant.  While usually depicted as an illiterate, he may not have been.  Posing as an illiterate enhances claims of Devine inspiration, but it doesn’t matter. He had slavish followers noting and committing to memory his every act and word for posterity, even those he deemed not to be revelations.  .

He was also a skilled military commander, which in those days involved sharing the spoils of war with the soldiers, something sure to attract new recruits, even those not motivated by religious zeal.  As his military power increased over the years, so did his malevolence toward anyone who crossed him, especially those who did not think he was Allah’s Prophet.

Thus we have revelations from his powerless days in Mecca that show compassion and tolerance, contradicted by revelations from his despotic days in Medina that are full of hate and murderous commands.  Which revelations to obey?

This brings us to the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, meaning that Allah can change or cancel any law He gives Muslims. (Abrogate: To abolish or annul by authority.) The Koran says, “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: don’t you know that Allah has power over all things?” (2:106) In essence, Allah, being all powerful, can change His mind, and when He does, it will be with a new revelation similar OR BETTER than the old revelation.  Therefore, the most recent revelation trumps the older one.

An infidel might be excused (by another infidel) for thinking it was Muhammad changing HIS mind as circumstances or his desires dictated, and the Islamic holy texts have many examples of Allah granting Muhammad special favors, e.g. unlimited wives instead of the four allowed all other Muslim men (sura 33:50).

Islamic scholars divide Muhammad’s revelations into four chronologies: Early Meccan, Middle Meccan, Late Meccan and Medina.  When referring to Koranic passages or revelations, you have to know from which of the above the passage belongs as a first step to determine if it is still valid.  It may have been abrogated by a later revelation.

Unfortunately, the Koran offers no help because it is not written in chronological order. That is a very important point.  One of the reasons the Koran is a difficult read is because it is not arranged either by subject matter or chronologically.  With the exception of the first chapter, al-Fatiha, Islam’s most repeated prayer, consisting of just seven sentences, the remaining 113 chapters, called suras, are arranged pretty much longest to shortest.

I know of only one translation that is arranged in chronological order, that by the Episcopal Reverend John Rodwell of London, done in 1861.  I was tempted to get a copy through Amazon but one reviewer thought the translation was marred by the Reverend’s Christian oriented refutations.  (I’m interested in how Muslims view the Koran today, not how it was viewed by a 19 Century Christian.)

Abrogation and the subsequent importance of the chronological order of the revelations is especially important to keep in mind today when so many Western world leaders run around saying “Islam is peace.”  Muslims will encourage this by quoting peaceful verses in the Koran that are just not applicable today and haven’t been for 1400 years.  The non-Muslim who wants a quick way to cut to the essence only has to read sura 9 of the Koran, the penultimate sura and the last of the major revelations, thus abrogating anything prior.

(The very last sura is 110, a three sentence  revelation revealed some three months before Muhammad’s death, and is a brief celebration of Islam’s ultimate victory.)

Sura 9 is 12 pages long in my Yusuf Ali translation and has 129 verses, one of them the infamous Verse of the Sword (9:5).  A number of Islamic theologians think this verse abrogates all the more peaceful and tolerant verses in the Koran, some 124 of them, including “every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater –.” (See Robert Spencer’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam“ page 25.)

Sura 9:5 in part says, “ –slay the Pagan wherever you find them — ,” which could mean the People of The Book, Christians and Jews, are spared.  However, Sura 9:29 dashes that hope: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, —–nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Jizya is the tax inflicted on nonbelievers living in a Muslim ruled society.)

Personally, I think Sura 47:4 , another of the 28 Medina suras, is a little more explicit: “Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks.”

Religion of peace?  Only if you’re a Muslim or an infidel paying the jizya.  Of course, you have to be the right kind of Muslim, or off with your head, as we are witnessing today in the Middle East conflict in which Sunni Muslims are beheading Shia Muslims by the hundreds, a fact that really complicates things for the “religion of peace” morons.

Next time, more on other sacred Islamic writings.

Groucho, Chico and Islam’s Useful Idiots by Peter Burrows, elburropete@gmail.com 4/12/14

The Marx brothers, Groucho, Chico and Harpo, were well known comedians to people of my parent’s generation, Groucho being by far the most famous.  He is often credited with the phrase, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”

Unfortunately, the actual phrase was, “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” and it was a line delivered by Chico Marx, not Groucho, in the movie classic, “Duck Soup.” I say unfortunately because “lyin’ eyes” is so much more powerful, implying somebody is telling a lie or claiming something to be true in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary.   Plus, it’s fun to play with the phrase. For example, on global warming: “Who you gonna believe, Al Gore or your lyin’ thermometer?”

All this was brought to mind watching British Prime Minister David Cameron react to the beheading of a British citizen by ISIS terrorists.  “They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people —they claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters!”

He appeared to be quite outraged that anybody would blame Islam for the beheading, in spite of the fact that the people DOING the beheading are quite happy to cite the Koran as justification.  A month later Cameron also said the Islamic State, ISIS, has “nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace.” He later added, unnecessarily, “I’m not a scholar of any religion.”

Cameron’s predecessor, Tony Blair, who was Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, has a similar wrongheaded view of Islam. In an interview last May on NPR on the topic of terrorism, he said “—the way we defeat that is to bring people of different faiths together, and let the true faith of Islam, which is a peaceful religion actually, it’s not a violent religion at all, let it, let those sensible, moderate majority voices in Islam be heard.”

I’d always thought that British PMs were far better educated and more worldly than U.S. Presidents, in no small part due to the rough and tumble of their parliamentary system, but it’s obvious they can be PC-blinded Bozos too, just like their American counterparts.

Speaking of which, less than a week after Muslims destroyed the Twin Towers,  President George W. Bush said “Islam is peace” in a speech at the Islamic Center in DC.  At the time, what little I knew about Islam included knowing that Islam is NOT a religion of peace.  When he said that, I became obscenely incoherent.

Condoleeza Rice, whom at the time I wanted to someday run for President, was then his National Security Advisor, and she should have known better.  Looking back, I think I was more disappointed in her than in President Bush.

Our current president, Barrack Obama, who spent a few of his formative years in the Muslim society of Indonesia, has said things about Islam that are so divorced from reality that he is either a Muslim practicing taqiyyah, or he is another hapless soul blinded by political correctness and unable to see Islam’s threat to Western society.

I opt for the latter. While he spent first through fourth grades in Indonesia, three of those were in a Catholic school.  People say he is a Muslim because he once said the call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.”  I don’t agree, but you can hear for yourself on the Internet.

It must be noted, the daily calls to prayer in Islamic societies are always in Arabic, which is sometimes not the native language. In fact, many non-Arabic Muslims grow up being taught Islam in Arabic, the original language of the Koran as specified by Allah, and have little, or no, understanding of the meaning of what is being taught.

In his book, “ The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran,” Robert Spencer recounts that a devout Pakistani Muslim once said to him, “I am very proud of my religion, and have memorized almost all of the Koran, and one day I plan to get one of those translations and find out what it means.”

Until I read that, I didn’t know Nancy Pelosi was a Muslim.

Taqiyyah, pronounced  tacky-ah, referred to above, is the practice of religious deception or concealment and is historically associated with Shi’ite Muslims protecting themselves from Sunni Muslim persecution by lying about their true feelings. It has evolved to mean any deception Muslims feel is necessary in their dealing with infidels as well as Muslims of different sects.  Today, backed by several verses in the Koran (3:28, 3:54 and 16:106), and other Islamic sacred writings, Islamic scholars do not think lying to infidels is a sin.

While Muhammad forbid lying between Muslims, it was OK to lie to one’s enemies.  As he famously said: “War is deceit,” and what is jihad, if not war against the enemies of Islam?  Indeed, the meaning of jihad is often obscured by Muslims who insist to the infidels that jihad, which means struggle, refers to the universal internal struggle against sin and human weakness.

That is true, but it is only one part part of what jihad means. This inner struggle is called the “greater jihad.” The “lesser jihad” is to wage war against the infidels, unbelievers etc. This is not an either-or choice: Jihad is both.  When Muslims say this is not so, are they engaging in taqiyyah? You bet.

Similarly, when President Obama in an interview on TV said, “Islam is a religion that preaches peace–,” he was being politically correct but not entirely factually correct.  Islam divides the world into two main parts,  dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb: House of Islam and the House of War. (A third is dar-al-Sulh, House of Truce, a temporary abode.)

The House of Islam is the utopia where Islam rules and all is peace and happiness. It is the state of the world that all Muslims must strive for and is the “peace” that they preach. Of course, to get there non-Muslims must be eliminated through peaceful conversion or war, dar-al-harb.  This war is mandated by the Koran and ends only when dar-al-Islam rules all.  (The irony of ISIS Sunni Muslims beheading Shi’ite Muslims should not go unnoticed.)

What we infidels fail to realize is that for all practical purposes Muslims see jihad against infidels as a permanent war with only temporary truces and expedient disengagements.  This permanent war has been going on since the Seventh Century A.D. and is now heating up again, to the immense satisfaction of Islamic purists.

The idea that “Islam is peace” is an absurdity the politically correct useful idiots spout.  The late Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s Supreme Leader following the fall of the Shah, once had this Beatific, sweet and loving response to the “Islam is a religion of peace” choir:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam councils against war. (They) are witless.  Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! — The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of (Koranic) psalms and Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) urging Muslims to value war and to fight! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

So who you gonna’ believe, Prime Ministers David Cameron and Tony Blair, Presidents George W. Bush and  Barrack Obama, or that lyin’, expectoratin’ Ayatollah Khomeini?

Election Musings Created on Thursday, 06 November 2014 14:20

Yen For Ben, Part Two  by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com 9/25/14

In Yen For Ben part one, I briefly outlined why I will support Dr. Ben Carson for president, should he decide to run. I encourage those who feel as I do to sign the “Run Ben Run” online petition, easily accessible via Google.

Dr. Carson would like to see a flat tax, health savings accounts, voter ID cards, school choice and tort reform.  Me too.  While just one of those positions by any politician would go a long way toward getting my vote, all those issues are trivial compared to the big, big reason to vote for Dr. Ben Carson.

The number one reason is that he recognizes the seriousness of the threat from Islamic terrorists. This threat means, in his words: “we must have airtight borders.” He calls this part of a “logical defense” in our war against terrorism.

At long last, someone who recognizes we must get serious about border security, even if that means offending those who want to continue our de facto policy of open borders.  By all means, let us start offending those delicate souls who think that sealing the border is “racist.” Those same morons probably run around saying “Islam is peace.”

The Islamic terrorists must think we are really, really stupid to allow those twin pillars of political correctness to endanger our very existence. They are right.

Dr. Carson sees such “political correctness” at the heart of disunity and divisiveness in America. To quote page 12 of his book One Nation:  “Self-appointed political correctness police (PCP) have set up speech guidelines that go far beyond the requirements of kindness, good manners education and tact.”   Oh, yes indeed.

“Political correctness” prevents intelligent, unemotional discussions about some very important issues.  It makes cowards out of most of us.  For example, Attorney General Eric Holder was right when he said America was a nation of cowards on the race issue. We’re too cowardly to call Holder and President Obama the racist political opportunists they obviously are.

(I wrote a couple of articles last November, “Eric Holder Was Right, I & II.”  My list of personal prejudices engendered by affirmative action even got me branded a racist by one of the locals.  PCP in action, right here in Silver City!)

In an article in the 9/2/14 Washington Times, “Resisting the Islamic State’s Demand For Submission. Seeds of tyranny also grow where political correctness reigns,” Dr. Carson wrote, “The Islamic State (usually called ISIS) and the other advocates of Sharia law are growing rapidly, along with their zeal to eradicate or convert all ‘infidels.’ For those who are asleep at the wheel, in the opinion of these fanatics, most of Western civilization – including America – fits into the infidel category.”

He goes on to say, “I normally encourage conversation and compromise where possible, but how does one negotiate or compromise with someone who desires your elimination? — Obviously the expansion of groups like the Islamic State represents on existential threat to our nation and our way of life. If ever there was a time to work together for self-preservation, the time is now.”

He then offers some common sense: “When it comes to elimination of those trying to destroy us, we have to be smart enough to realize that we must have airtight borders to prevent easy access for terrorists. Some say this is too difficult. I guarantee that it is easier than trying to rebuild a nation that has been destroyed because we thought logical defense was too difficult. There is no question that unpleasantries brought about by our own forces will be necessary to accomplish our goals and defeat terrorism, but you cannot win a politically correct war.”

I suspect “unpleasantries” means some very un-PC things, but as he says, “you cannot win a politically correct war.”  Regardless, by whatever means, the border needs to be “airtight” as an act of national security. Period. Dr. Carson recognizes that, which gets my vote even though I suspect the Good Doctor is guilty of a little PC himself when he qualifies the Muslim terrorists as “fanatics.”

We cannot win a politically correct war against Islam. Period.