Studies In Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and The Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad – Part Three

Studies in Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and the Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad – PART THREE                                                                                                               by Peter Burrows –  9/3/17 (The Sunni book of sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller (sic), referred to is the 1994 revised edition, published in 2015.) 
In Part One, I showed that the Koran is not God’s eternal creation but is instead the creation of Muhammad, a Seventh Century warlord. Part Two examined some self-serving “revelations” in the Koran giving Muhammad God-like status that are a plague on humanity to this day. The two verses that are especially damaging are verses 33:21 and 4:80, in which Allah, respectively, proclaims Muhammad is a good example for Muslims to emulate and that Muslims must obey Muhammad.  
This article will look at what the Koran‘s order to “obey Muhammad” means. This is important because Islamic law, sharia, is based not just on what is found in the Koran, but also on what Muhammad said and did.  What Muhammad said and did are not in the Koran, but are to be found in what I call “the Gospels of Islam,” the hadith, which are collections of stories about Muhammad as remembered and passed down by his contemporaries. 
As you can imagine, after Muhammad’s death, a lot of people gamed the system. To obey Muhammad is commanded by the Koran, so picture an Arab with three goats being approached by another Arab with only one goat, who proclaims: “Muhammad, peace be upon Him, said he who has three goats must give one to he who has only one goat.”   
That sort of thing led a number of early Islamic scholars to spend years gathering stories passed down after Muhammad’s death and culling them for the “authentic” sayings of Muhammad. These were then compiled into collections that are somewhat comparable to the Gospels in the Bible, but instead of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Sunni Islam has Bukhari, Muslim, Abu DawudTirmidhi, Ibn Maja and Nasa’i 
Of those six collections, the one that is considered to be the most authentic, with a status second only to the Koran, is Bukhari. Imam Bukhari (810-870) spent 16 years collecting and analyzing stories about Muhammad and authenticated over 7000 of them.  This was some 200 years after Muhammad’s death, and was a monumental task. His work, Sahih Al-Bukhari, sahih meaning “reliable,” is available on Amazon. The 9-volume set, 4000 pages or so, was $128 the last I looked.   
The other five also total thousands of pages. Don’t waste your time on any of them.  You can safely assume that any law found in the Sunni text of sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller (R of T), that is based upon something Muhammad said or did is from a thoroughly vetted hadith, which is usually cited.  (I know of one Muhammad quote in R of T that is questionable, but it is not a law-making quote.)  For practical purposes, The R of T incorporates all we need to know from the collections of hadith.  
Reliance of the Traveller (that’s how it’s spelled) on page iii describes itself as “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” Because it is “Sacred,” it has an authority that surpasses any law passed by mortals. That’s important to remember.  Not counting the index, R of T is over 1100 pages of mind boggling detail covering not just law and order, but how Muslims should lead their lives, from personal hygiene to “Holding One’s Tongue,” as one chapter is titled.    
I confess that I find it fun to browse through, mainly because so much of it is so bizarre, so macabre.  In spite of updates that Islamic authorities effect to account for such things as watching television (“a violation of Sacred Law” pg. 964), the book is essentially a time capsule. The last time I looked, you could buy a copy on Amazon for $37.85.   
Because so much sharia law comes from the writings and sayings of an Arab war-lord who died in AD 622, it shouldn’t surprise us to find things in the R of T that are a reflection of the time.  For example, in section o5.O page 593,  we find the expiation due to Allah for killing somebody unlawful to kill is to free a slave, or if none owned, fast for two months.  Free a slave?  And, if the one who kills is not legally accountable, e.g. a child, then the guardian must free a slave on the child‘s behalf. Obviously, Allah condones (requires?) slavery.                                                                                                               
Also, certain barbaric punishments extent in Muhammad’s time are still in force today. For example, in some Muslim ruled countries homosexuals are thrown off of tall buildings and adulterers are stoned to death.   We might think that’s horrid but how can something commanded by Allah or His Messenger be horrid?   In R of T, section p17.3, 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.”   
The Muslim who killed 49 at the gay nightclub in Florida over a year ago was simply obeying Muhammad, which the Koran commands him to do.  We can expect many more attacks against gays, and others, if we continue to allow political correctness to call what you are now reading “hate speech.”  
R of T p17.3 has this further quote by Muhammad:  “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”   The punishment for this is something I’m confused about. As I read it, if a lesbian is married, which in the context of Islam could only be to a man, she is guilty of adultery and is stoned to death. (See R of T o12.2 and o4.17.) If not, she is “scourged one hundred stripes” to be administered as described in o12.5, which includes: “The whip used should neither be new nor old and worn-out, but something in between.”  Women are allowed to sit, men are scourged standing up. (As an aside, can lesbianism NOT be by women?)  
Rule o12.6 on page 611 shows us the compassionate side of sharia: “A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child can suffice with the milk of another.”  Isn’t that sweet. I bet NOW approves of that.  
Regardless, as someone with two beloved relatives who are lesbians, I am offended by the above, and if anybody tries to lash either my cousin or my niece, I will shoot them.  Oh, my. There I go again, spewing hate speech and being an Islamophobe.  Making violent threats, too. Sigh.  I bet the ACLU will want my scalp, tout suite. Which reminds me, has an article you may find interesting: Does the ACLU Condone Killing Homosexuals and Flogging Lesbians?  3/18/17.  
Murdering people, that’s what you and I would call it, is something Islam is good at.  In fact, without God-sanctioned murder, Islam would not be the force it is today.  That’s because the Islamic penalty for apostasy is death, and apostasy is so broadly defined otherwise decent Muslims living in Islamic societies are afraid to be critical of ANYTHING about Islam.  Unfortunately, the same is becoming true for non-Muslims in non-Islamic societies.  
There are at least three passages in Bukhari in which Muhammad declared apostasy to be a capital crime, the most succinct being: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari 84:57) Nothing too subtle about that, is there?   
References to killing apostates can be found in the R of T in numerous places, e.g.f1.3, o8.1, and o8.4.  Section o8.7 lists 20 “things that entail apostasy from Islam,” all of which will get you killed, and this is only a partial list: “There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.” Unsurprisingly, “to revile the religion of Islam” is on the list.  What you are reading now qualifies.  
Interestingly, a devout Muslim doesn’t have to commit apostasy to earn the death penalty. Just neglecting to pray at the correct time can get you “executed, washed, prayed over, and buried in the Muslim cemetery.” (f1.4 page 109.) Last year, Swiss authorities closed a mosque in Zurich after the Imam threatened his tardy flock with that divine penalty.  I guess Switzerland doesn’t have a First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion. 
Murdering apostates, as bad as it is, is small potatoes next to murdering unbelievers.  Section o9.0, “Jihad,” beginning on page 599, makes it quite clear that all Muslims who are able to are obligated to wage warfare to establish the rule of Islam, which means to slay everyone who doesn’t become a Muslim or who doesn’t agree to pay a non-Muslim poll tax (o9.1, o9.2, o9.3, o9.8 and o9.9). The insistence that Islam is peace” is thus contradicted by Islam’s sacred laws.  In fact, it is a sin NOT to wage war against unbelievers (o9.1).                                                                                                                                  

This obligation to wage jihad, an obligation which is continuous and ongoing, combined with Muhammad’s decree that lying was permissible in war, means virtually nothing a devout Muslim tells an infidel can be believed.  This is because lying is obligatory for Muslims when it helps achieve a goal that is obligatory, the most important such goal being to propagate Islam, although such lying should be carefully done, in a manner that “deceives the hearer” (r8.2 page 745). 
The most obvious example of this today is the routine condemnation of terrorism from Islamic leaders whenever there is a terrorist attack in a Western country.   However, to a Muslim, terrorism is something that condemned when it is done to Muslims, not to unbelievers, a distinction left unsaid.  Muhammad said, “I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)” (Bukhari 4.52.220). 
The R of T contains a wealth of other interesting rules that are applicable wherever sharia is the law of the land, e.g. there is no “retaliation,” i.e. punishment, for a Muslim killing a non-Muslim and there is no punishment for killing one’s children or grandchildren (o1.2(2) and o1.2(4) page 584).  Little tidbits like that should make one pause before welcoming a Mosque into the neighborhood.  
Finally, before this gets WAY too long, something that shows what a petty tyrant Muhammad was.  He thought music distracted from one’s religious fervor, ergo these gems from Muhammad, as quoted in the R of T, pages 774 and 775: 
r40.1 (1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments —-.” 
r40.1 (2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” (I suppose, given the literalness of Islam, that if somebody were STANDING while listening to a songstress, that would be OK.)   
r40.1 (3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.” 
There are a couple of other similar quotes, but now you know why you’ve never heard a Muslim Renee Fleming, or an NPR broadcast of the Riyadh Symphony Orchestra, or seen the Medina Children’s Choir on TV or anything like that. And you never will.  
Think of that, ladies and gentlemen: no music from over a billion people.  They need to be freed.     


Studies in Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and The Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad – Part Two

Studies in Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and the Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad – PART TWO By Peter Burrows – 9/28/17 (The Koran used for and referenced in this article, unless otherwise noted, is the Khan-Hilali translation published by Darussalam, revised edition, March 1999.)

In Part One, I tried to show that the Koran itself proves that it was the creation of Muhammad, not Allah. In Part Two, we’ll examine some self-serving “revelations” that support that contention. These self-serving revelations should, but don’t, strain the credulity of devout Muslims. In order of their chronology:

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 —.” I call this the verse of the ego. Essentially, Muhammad said that whatever he did was approved by God. From this Muslims have come to believe, to this day, that Muhammad was the “perfect man.”

To illustrate this, let’s look at verse 3:70 from Sayyid Mawdudi’s highly respected, 20th Century translation of the Koran, and his footnote thereto. The verse says: “People of the Book! Why do you reject the signs of Allah even though you yourselves witness them?”

“People of the Book” refers to Jews and Christians, the book being the Bible. Muhammad was obviously frustrated that he wasn’t convincing Jews and Christians that he was God’s Prophet. Here is Mawdudi’s footnote, somewhat condensed:

“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 — and the loftiness of the teachings of the Qur’an all constituted such illustrious signs of God that it was very difficult for anyone — to doubt Muhammad’s prophethood.”

IMPECCABLE PURITY??? How could anyone, in light of Muhammad’s many, well documented atrocities, believe such a thing? The key is that the atrocities were committed against unbelievers, at the command of Allah, therefore they are not despicable but COMMENDABLE. For non-Muslims, then and now, it is not difficult to doubt Muhammad’s prophethood.

33:36: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.”

What this means is that whatever Muhammad decided, that was it. No dissention. Don’t argue with the boss. Notice the “Allah and His Messenger” phrase essentially makes Muhammad equal to Allah, and who determines where one stops and the other begins? If you said, “Muhammad,” go to the head of the class.

33:50: This revelation came about because Muhammad was criticized for taking a fifth wife when only four were allowed. It’s long, but essentially says Muhammad, and only Muhammad, can have as many wives as he can afford, including any first cousins he wants to marry. This was in addition to all the slave women he possessed. All other Muslim men are limited to four wives, plus slave women.

It’s my understanding that marriage to first cousins had been verboten until this revelation, which combined with verse 33:21, has led to lots of marriages being arranged between Muslim first cousins in the last 1,400 years, something some have said has caused some unfortunate genetic consequences. Regardless, I think it is probable that Muhammad had an attractive cousin or two that he had his eye on, or maybe they had their eye on him, ergo the “revelation.” Allah was ever so accommodating to His man, Muhammad.

4:65: “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decision, and accept (them) with full submission”

The message here is that faithful Muslims must unquestioningly accept Muhammad’s decisions, with “full submission,” no less. No thinking allowed. This revelation was in the context of advice to “hypocrites,” who are those who lack sufficient faith in Muhammad’s religion, in one way or another, and probably arose because somebody disagreed with Muhammad over something. Can’t do that!

Interestingly, verse 4:63 says hypocrites shouldn’t be punished, only admonished. Verses 9:73 and 9:123 abrogate that with commands that Muslims fight hypocrites, i.e. kill them. Also, note that while this verse is very similar to verse 33:36 there is no “Allah and His Messenger,” just Muhammad. Poor Allah. Starting to become redundant in the religion of Islam.

4:80 “He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad) has indeed obeyed Allah —.” There are quite a few “Allah and His Messenger” verses but none as explicit as this one, which quite specifically says Muhammad speaks for God.

This verse illustrates the circular reasoning so evident in Islam. We know the Koran came from God because Muhammad said so, and we know Muhammad is God’s Messenger because the Koran says so. We know Muhammad speaks for God because the Koran says so and because that‘s what Muhammad says the Koran says.

I especially like verse 4:80 because of its monumental chutzpah! Can you imagine Muhammad standing in front of a group of people, eyes closed, arms outstretched, hands quivering, head turned upward, and saying essentially: “Obey me for I am God”? Oh, my. Well, it is what it is and people believe in it and behave accordingly, which has been a problem for us non-Muslims for 1,400 years.

Let’s summarize: Allah — GOD!! — told Muhammad’s followers that whatever Muhammad did was “a good example” for other Muslims to follow. That meant that everything Muhammad did was commendable, above criticism. In fact, criticism of Muhammad carried the death penalty. Still does.

So, when Muhammad ordered the beheading of as many as 900 captives after the battle of Banu Qurayza, he set an example emulated today by ISIS, which regularly beheaded captives. As an aside, my reading of the beheadings in Banu Qurayza is that Muhammad himself did them all. (Page 464, “Life of Muhammad” by Ibn Ishaq.)

In addition to what Muhammad did, the Koran gives his decisions and his orders the Heavenly imprimatur of Allah. Allah — GOD!! — did not and does not allow disagreement with His Messenger. To do so is to turn your back on Islam, apostasy, or to be a hypocrite, both of which will earn you death on Earth and eternal damnation in Hell.

Finally, good ol’ Allah made sure Muhammad never had any sexual frustrations. Essentially, just about any Muslim woman he wasn’t related to by blood or marriage was fair game, plus, of course, any slave woman he wanted, no restrictions whatsoever. It was even OK for Muhammad to have sex with a nine-year-old, Aisha, as long as he was married to the little girl. That’s why the legal age of marriage for girls is nine — NINE — in Iran today.

In Part Three, we’ll take a look what obeying Muhammad means.

Studies in Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and The Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad

Studies in Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and the Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad – PART ONE by Peter Burrows – 8/20/17 (The Koran used for and referenced in this article, unless otherwise noted, is the Khan-Hilali translation published by Darussalam, revised edition, March 1999.)

After the first few lines of mortal prayer, devout Muslims believe every word in the Koran is the immortal word of their God, Allah. Muslims hold this belief in spite of the many contradictions in the Koran. Their rationalization of these contradictions should lead any moderately skeptical person to the conclusion that Islam is a fraud and that Muhammad, the greatest con man the world has ever seen, was the source of the “revelations,” not Allah.

The proof of this is found in the Koran itself, and since the Koran is the foundational sacred text of Islam, this means over a billion people believe in a fraud, a very dangerous, murderous fraud. Before reading any further, if you disagree, if you believe the Koran is in fact a compilation of revelations from God delivered through Muhammad, then stop reading. You are lost. If you are in doubt, I’m hopeful you will not be after reading this.

Muhammad was charismatic and brilliant, but nonetheless human, subject to all the foibles of humanity. He is an especially good example of Lord Acton’s famous observation that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you follow the chronology of Muhammad’s “revelations” in the Koran, you can trace his descent into Hell as he gained more and more power.

The chronology of the revelations is of utmost importance for another reason, and that gets us to the contradictions in the Koran. These stem from the history of Islam, which began in Mecca when Muhammad believed he met the Angel Gabriel who began imparting the Koran to Muhammad.

Muhammad preached in Mecca for 12 years with little success. He fled to avoid being assassinated and settled in Medina, where his fortunes changed dramatically. When he died 10 years later, he had conquered Arabia and was absolute ruler of all he surveyed.

It was in Medina that “Allah” first commanded Muslims to wage war. In chapter two, the first chapter of “revelations” received in Medina, verse 2:190 says “fight in the way of Allah those who fight you –” which was the first revelation concerning jihad. (See page 50 of Khan-Hilali for this assertion.) Muhammad was beginning to feel the intoxication of power.

It was in Medina that revelations began to equate Muhammad with Allah. The phrase “Allah and His Messenger” is common in the Medina verses while I could only find one such in the Mecca verses. It was in Medina where Muhammad told his followers that he spoke for Allah, as in verse 4:80: “He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad) has indeed obeyed Allah –.” Think about that statement!

The contradictions in the Koran, which were becoming apparent even in Mecca, came to a head when rabbis from nearby Jewish settlements attended Muhammad’s Medina sermons and noted inconsistencies in what Muhammad claimed was the word of God now versus the word of God in the past. “Allah” came to Muhammad’s rescue with a revelation that is the most important in the entire Koran, and, in my opinion, reveals the entire religion of Islam to be utter nonsense.

Here is that “revelation,” chapter 2, verse 106, one of the first revelations Muhammad received in Medina: “Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?”

To abrogate means to cancel or annul, which in this context means that the God of Islam, Allah, can change his mind because He “is able to do all things” and don’t you know that? ABROGATION SAVES ISLAM!

Consequently, every time Muhammad was caught changing his mind, he would say it was ALLAH changing HIS mind. How convenient! Defer to the ultimate authority, shut down debate, put brains in toilet, flush. It’s amazing that people believed this, even more amazing that they believe it today.

As a practical matter, this means the 86 chapters of “revelations” Muhammad received in Mecca can be ignored. Scholars have noted there are no Meccan revelations that order Muslims to spread Islam by force, while there are many such in the 28 Medina chapters, and, because of abrogation, those are the chapters that count.

I wonder if Muhammad was surprised that his abrogation “revelation” met with such acceptance. He used it over and over to abrogate not only Meccan verses but early Medina verses, something very apparent in chapter nine, which is virtually the last chapter of revelations, coming ten years after the first Medina revelations in chapter two, and not long before Muhammad’s death.

Chapter nine contains a number of warlike verses that contradict peaceful verses in Chapter Two, which are therefore abrogated. The best known example is verse 2:106 which says there is no compulsion in religion and is abrogated by verse 9:5, which says slay the pagans wherever they are found unless they become Muslims. There is also verse 2:109, which commands Muslims to “forgive and overlook” Christians and Jews who reject Islam, while verse 9:29 commands that Christians and Jews be fought until they feel “utterly subdued.”

What we have here is a God that in the ten years between the revelations of chapter two and the revelations of chapter nine, goes from commanding no compulsion and live-and-let-live, to commanding kill and utterly subdue. Those ten years saw Muhammad’s power become absolute. One has to assume Allah’s powers were absolute to begin with, so maybe it is not Allah changing His mind.

As an aside, abrogation ALWAYS goes from benign to malign, always from nice to not nice, NEVER the other. way. Muhammad did not become more compassionate as he became more powerful, and he died at the age of 62, before he had a chance to mellow with age, if he ever would have.

Knowing about abrogation is the key to understanding the Koran: Allah would change his mind which explains the contradictions in the Koran and is why the chronology of revelations is so important. Since the Koran is not in chronological order, don‘t waste your time reading it until you know the accepted chronological order, easily available on the web. Then, to avoid wasting time on abrogated verses, simply read the Koran in reverse chronological order.

The last chronological chapter of the 114 chapters is chapter 110. You can read it in ten seconds. It contains nothing of value. The next to last is chapter nine, by far the most important chapter in the Koran, containing Allah’s final revelations, revelations that were never, with one exception, abrogated and therefore must be obeyed until the end of time.

Chapter nine is replete with commands to kill and subjugate non-Muslims until the world is ruled by Islam. Nothing peaceful, nothing tolerant. That was the message of Islam then, that is the message of Islam today.

I mentioned there was one verse in this final chapter of revelations that was abrogated and it’s verse 9:41, in which Allah orders all Muslims, regardless of health or wealth, to wage war in the name of Allah. Muhammad saw this was causing a lot of difficulties, so in verse 9:91 he said that if you were too ill or too poor to wage jihad, that was OK as long as you were “sincere and true (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger.” Goodbye, 9:41. (Abrogation source: Tafsir Ibn Kathir.)

So, here we have an example of “Allah” changing his mind very quickly to correct a mistake. Seems the God of Islam is not very “all knowing” after all. Kind of short-sighted. Kind of HUMAN. Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, that this proves the “revelations” aren’t from God after all? But, this is Islam: NO THINKING ALLOWED!

I wrote earlier that abrogation saved Islam by explaining away the Koran’s contradictions. If you THINK about it, abrogation means it is Muhammad speaking, not Allah. Verse 9:91, abrogating a very recent command of Allah, shows Muhammad was not at all concerned with this manifest fact. After all, who would dare to question The Man Who Speaks For Allah? In my opinion, abrogation doesn’t save Islam, it destroys it.

Chapter nine has another verse that screams “Muhammad, not Allah,” 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!”

The problem for Islam’s “all knowing” Allah is that Judaism has never worshiped Ezra, or anyone else, as the son of God. From Wikipedia: “Modern historians have described the reference (to Ezra) as ‘enigmatic’ since such views have not been found in Jewish sources.”

Some Muslim scholars claim that the Koran does not say all Jews thought Ezra to be the son of God, just some. Reread 9:30 and tell me where it says “some” Jews. Furthermore, the footnote to verse 9:30 in the Khan translation leads to a long passage from the most respected “gospel” of Islam, Sahih Al-Bukhari, page 6/4581 (O.P.105), in which Muhammad is quoted as saying that on the Day of Resurrection Allah will first simultaneously save the Muslims and cast the pagans into Hell. Allah will then call upon the people of the scripture, Jews and Christians:

“Then the Jews will be called upon 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 son.”

Into Hell the Jews go. Ditto for the Christians, who are asked the same question, get the same answer from Allah concerning Jesus. What we have here is Muhammad, in both the Koran and in Sahih Al-Bukhari, declaring that the Jews worshipped Ezra as the son of God. The two most sacred texts of Islam both proclaim that utter falsehood. Why?

My interpretation is that someone told Muhammad that some Jews, somewhere, worshipped Ezra as the son of God. Maybe this was true, maybe this was a rumor or maybe this was a complete fabrication. No matter. Muhammad wanted to believe it because he wanted to cast ALL Jews as polytheists, which would doom the Jews to Hell. The Christian Trinity made Christians an easy target, but the steadfastly monotheistic Jews were a problem. Voila! Ezra became the Jews’ Jesus. Problem solved.

This is further proof that Islam is a total lie. I am puzzled that this verse hasn’t been used to ridicule the ridiculous religion of Islam.

Chapter Nine is about 95% of what you need to know about the Koran, and it is sufficient to prove Islam is an abomination and Muhammad a fraud. There are some other verses in the Koran buttressing Muhammad’s divine authority that cement the conclusion that the Koran was Muhammad‘s creation, not Allah‘s..

We’ll get to those in Part Two


Dear SPLC: Please add my blog to your list of Hate Groups. —

Dear Southern Poverty Law Center: Please add my blog to your list of Hate Groups. Thank you. Peter Burrows 6/2/17 –

Rodney Dangerfield had it good. “I don’t get no respect,” he’d say. Ha! El Burro don’t even get no DISRESPECT! Let me explain.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, is a “progressive” organization which, according to their web site, fights hate, teaches tolerance, seeks justice and battles the forces of evil, a.k.a. Republicans. (OK, I made that one up.). They have for years maintained a list of “hate groups” and a list of people they call “extremists.” Some groups and people on their lists almost all of us would agree belong on those lists, such as the KKK and Louis Farrakhan.

Started in 1971, the SPLC was formed to provide legal backing for those blacks and whites fighting to end segregation and abuses of civil rights so prevalent in the South in those days. My understanding is that they were very successful and left a legacy all Americans should be proud of.

However, like so many other institutions formed to address a specific problem, the SPLC continues to soldier-on in spite of having outlived its usefulness. One of its new missions is to silence critics of Islam. Ironically, the vitriol, hostility and animosity the SPLC directs at those who openly oppose Islam has turned the SPLC itself into one of the very hate groups it so vigorously disapproves of.

By my count, the SPLC lists 47 “Anti-Muslim” hate groups in America, which is an inaccurate description of those I am familiar with, all of whom are not anti-Muslim but rather anti-Islam, an important distinction.

The SPLC puts these groups on the same list as the despicable KKK, a weak-minded equivalence. Also, they would like us to think that the growth in “anti-Muslim” groups is an ominous sign of increasing intolerance, when it is actually a sign of increasing awareness of the threat posed by devout followers of Islam.

The following “anti-Muslim” groups listed by the SPLC are definitely NOT hate groups by any objective standard. Check them out and judge for yourself: ACT For America; Jihad Watch; The Refugee Resettlement Watch; Political Islam; Understanding The Threat; Sultan Knish, a Blog by Daniel Greenfield; The Clarion Project; and Center for Security Policy. There are many more.

By calling the above anti-Islamic groups Hate Groups, the SPLC is guilty of monumental stupidity. They are defending the religion of Islam, a 1,400 year-old cult that has been, and continues to be, the most destructive, most murderous and longest-lived hate group ever to exist.

I would be honored to join the above list of “anti-Muslim” hate groups, but so far not a peep from the SPLC. Sigh. Please, show a little disrespect, OK?

I’ve written 19 articles on the foulness that is Islam (see below). All of these articles can be found at, and all, with one exception, were posted by The Grant County Beat. (See “Columns, Libertarian Leanings” for my most recent.) The one exception was “Slandering the Prophet,” which wasn’t posted because the publisher of The Grant County Beat was worried it would cause some devout Muslim to behead me — and her too!

What does it say about our country that people are afraid to exercise their free speech rights because that might offend somebody who would then think they have the right to kill you? Offensive speech should never be condoned, but as a general rule it should be protected unless it incites violence against others. Ironically, the Koran is full of just such incitements, and from Allah, no less.

Sadly, in the opinion of some, an imam quoting the Koran in a Mosque is exercising both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, while somebody on the street corner critically quoting the same passages from the Koran could be guilty of “hate speech” and guilty of inciting violence AGAINST THEMSELVES. In other words, the victim is the criminal!

Why is it so difficult for so many people to recognize the simple truth that the First Amendment does not protect criminality? You cannot falsely yell FIRE! in a crowded theater and you cannot murder people because they reject your religion. You cannot have four wives, kill homosexuals, stone to death adulterers, flog lesbians, slay pagans and kill your children and grandchildren with impunity. All Islamic law, folks, all ALLAH’S LAW!!

Why are we continuing to allow people who believe the above to immigrate to our country? Crazy, isn’t it?

Well, enough of that. Back to my request to get on the SPLC list. I say: Keep devout Muslims out of our country because many of them will be compelled by the evil religion of Islam to murder non-Muslims.

Don’t you think that should do it? Help me out folks. Report me to Tell them I’m BAAAAD!

I need this because I don’t have much to show for my time here on earth. Lots of folks have a page or two of praiseworthy accomplishments. Me? Not even a paragraph. A sentence or two? Nope. That’s why I need the SPLC to put me on their hate list. Then, when I approach the Pearly Gates, I won’t be summarily dismissed by Saint Peter.

I can hear him now: “Burro!? What are you doing up here? Why, look at this list of sins! It goes on forever, and, and —— Whoa! Wait a minute. You were put on the SPLC’s hate list for WHAT? For calling Islam EVIL?? Well, come on in, son. JESUS WANTS TO SHAKE YOUR HAND!!”

Something like that.

Islam articles at
Monsters From The Id, 2/25/14
Groucho, Chico and Islams’s Useful Idiots 12/4/14
Islam 101, Part One 12/18/14
Islam 101, Part Two 12/27/14
Islam 101 Part Three 1/6/15
Islam For Smart Dummies 1/11/15
Islam 101 Part Four 1/18/15
Move Over, Neville Chamberlain 4/6/15
Slandering The Prophet 4/26/15
The Deadly and Suicidal Side Effects of the First Amendment 7/19/15
The Gathering Storm, 21st Century Version 8/22/15
Memo to Clueless Republicans: Start Quoting the Koran 11/29/15
Why I’m An Islamophobe 1/5/16
Hate Speech, Congress and The Prophet 1/28/16
Hate Speech, Congress and The Prophet, part 2 2/20/16
The FBI and me 7/17/16
Studies in Islam: Abrogation 9/25/16
Does the ACLU Condone Killing Homosexuals and Flogging Lesbians? 3/18/17
Manchester: A Devout Muslim Obeying Allah 5/23/17


Manchester: A Devout Muslim Obeying Allah

Manchester: A Devout Muslim Obeying Allah by Peter Burrows 5/23/17

As this is being written, authorities have determined that a Muslim suicide bomber was responsible for killing 22 people and injuring over 100 at a concert in Manchester, England.

We should all be horrified, but none of us should be surprised.  He was merely following the Koran. Devout Muslims believe the Koran is God’s timeless guide for humanity that sets forth laws for Muslims to obey.  Furthermore, the Koran commands that God’s messenger, Muhammad, be emulated and obeyed. (See sura 33:21 and sura 4:80 in the Koran. Sura means “chapter.”)

People who think Islam is religion of peace should read sura 9 in the Koran. It is virtually the last chapter and unquestionably the most important chapter in the Koran.  It’s a chapter I’m sure the Manchester bomber read and obeyed.

For example, 9:41 commands: “March forth whether light or heavy, and strive in the way of Allah with your belongings and your lives.” The Manchester bomber could have jumped in a car or truck and driven through a crowd of  infidels, but he chose instead to get a little “heavier” and built himself a bomb, probably following directions published at least twice by al-Qaeda.

His own death would have been a “trivial” concern. Sura 9:38 says “Believers! What is amiss with you that when it is said to you: ‘March forth in the cause of Allah,’ you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the worldly life to the Hereafter? Know well that all the enjoyment of this world, in comparison with the Hereafter, is trivial.” Sura 9:39 drives the point home: “If you do not march forth, Allah will chastise you grievously –.”

The fact that the bombing occurred at concert starring a female vocalist should also not come as a surprise.  Muhammad did not like music, and he especially warned against listening to women singing.  Too seductive, don’t you know, for the weak Muslim male. The Sunni book of Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveller (sic), r40.1(2), quotes Muhammad: “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”

You might think the Manchester bomber was usurping one of Allah’s Judgment Day prerogatives, but nowhere in any Islamic text does it say something such as, “Vengeance is mine, sayeth Allah.”  In fact, I know of one verse, 9:14, there may be more, where Allah, referring to apostates,  commands: “Make war on them. ALLAH WILL MAKE WAR ON THEM THROUGH YOU and humiliate them.” (My emphasis.)

In my opinion, there is much in the religion of Islam that encouraged the Manchester bomber and nothing that discouraged him.  Apologists for Islam might want to ponder the venue the bomber chose and the lack of any musical accomplishments from, or by, Muslims. No Mozart, no Ellington, no nothing.

I’ll wager there are quite a few infidels out there like myself who have spent many a pleasant hour “listening to a songstress.”  I’ve fallen in love with quite a few, starting with June Christy (damn, I’m old!) and Joan Baez, and more recently Sissel and Rene Fleming.  Allah will need buckets of molten lead for yours truly.

Muhammad’s songstress warning is further proof that he was no “Prophet” but merely an all-too-human, evil little man, albeit one of extraordinary charisma and intellect.  In my opinion, listening to Rene Fleming cannot be a sin when her voice is manifest proof that God exists.

My Comments at the PNM Hearing

My Comments At The PNM Hearing by Peter Burrows – 5/20/17

Last Thursday, Public Service of New Mexico (PNM) held a public meeting to get input on the company’s tentative plans to eliminate the use of coal by 2031.  There were about 60 people there, but my guess is that at least half were PNM employees or people associated with PNM’s coal operations.

Of those locals who made public comments, only three, by my count, favored PNM continuing to use coal: Chamber of Commerce Director Scott Terry; the Mayor of Santa Clara, Richard Bauch; and myself. If you read Christine Steele’s coverage of the event in The Daily Press, you will see she covered comments by Terry and Bauch, but nothing on my comments.

Ms. Steele, whom I met a number of years ago when she worked at the Sun-News, probably thought what I had to say just wasn’t worth the cost of the newsprint. Sigh. Call me Pete Dangerfield.

She did cover remarks by Tom Manning, director of Citizens for Fair Rates and The Environment, to the effect that if PNM didn’t expense writing off the coal plants, then PNM’s customers “would see the savings in the transition from coal to renewables immediately,” to quote Ms. Steel‘s article.

I spoke after Manning, and by chance my comments addressed his assumption that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, with a request that PNM publish estimates of what it would cost to go 100% renewable.  This would require lots of energy storage and the cost would be huge.

Environmentalists claim, usually in good faith, that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, right now, sans any “social cost” of carbon. They are wrong. Look at your electricity bill. You will see you a “renewable energy rider” that increases your cost, not a “renewable energy credit” that reduces your cost.

The real-world cost of renewables is something PNM apparently doesn’t want to publicize.

I wonder: If I had introduced myself as the Founder and Chairman of “Citizens For Energy Justice,” would  Ms. Steele have given me a little print space?  Hmmmm.  (Donations to the above are NOT deductible. Libertarians don’t believe taxpayers should subsidize special interest groups.  Cash preferred :~)

Below is a draft of my comments:

Thank you, My name is Peter Burrows. I have been a PNM customer for 11 years. I have a couple of requests.

First,  I urge you to continue to use coal to the extent justified by quantifiable objective costs, not highly subjective costs such as the estimated costs of carbon externalities. I realize you are being implored to eliminate coal in order to save the world, but you should put this into context. The most recent Greenpeace/Sierra Club survey of global coal-fired utilities, “Boom and Bust 2017,” shows that if India and China build no more coal plants and only 20% of the coal-fired utilities in the planning stage in the rest of the world are actually built, by 2031 new coal generating capacity worldwide –NEW capacity–will still equal 434 times PNM’s San Juan/Four Corners generation (497MW + 265MW, and 126 times as much as both plants’ total combined capacity: 1,848 MW SJGS + 770MW FCPP) While NM’s environmentalists want to save the world from coal, it appears much of the rest of the world just doesn’t want to be saved.  Even Japan is adding over 21 gigawatts of coal power.

Secondly, the claim that renewables are cheaper than coal is just plain false. I don’t have time to go into the details on why “Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE)” calculations are misleading other than to quote an MIT study from March of 2016: “ The LCOE —fails to capture the true cost of generation, and merely represents the cost of serving different parts of the load curve.” (Mapping The Economics of U.S. Coal Power and the Rise of Renewables- MIT March 2016.)

This means that solar generating costs at high-noon on a sunny day may be cheaper than coal, but in order to provide electricity at midnight, solar generation must be far greater than required at high-noon and the excess must be stored. This is very expensive.

PNM has been operating the 500KW Prosperity Energy Storage Project for a number of years now. It was once touted as “the nation’s first solar storage facility fully integrated into a utility’s power grid.” (Renewable Energy World, “New Mexico Utility Adding Wind, Solar and Geothermal to Its Power Mix, by Barry Cassell 3/2/15.)

I assume you have lots of cost data from this project and can provide us with an estimate of what our utility bills would be if PNM was 100% renewables-with-storage.  I suspect it would validate what Bill Gates said about the cost of going to all renewable electricity: “Beyond astronomical.”

And this is my second request: I would like you to publicize such cost estimates.  I would like to know what my bill would be if PNM generated electricity 100% from renewables. TYVM.

IF TIME:  Finally, PNM has a program called “Sky Blue” by which customers agree to have their bills increased to help pay for the extra cost of renewables.  Extra cost? Yes, indeed. Check your utility bills for the renewable energy rider. Participation in this program has been declining over the years, from 13,000 residents in 2011 to 3600 in 2013 to xxx today. (At the time, I had not heard back from PNM’s home office on the current number of Sky Blue customers. Within minutes of completing my comments, both a PNM representative in the audience and the home office called.  Both had the same number: 4068. Higher than I expected  but still far lower than 2011.)  This indicates demand for renewables is being driven by mandates and subsidies, not customers.

There are two things I would like PNM to do with this program. One, offer to publicize the names of participants if they agree. We want to celebrate such selfless visionaries, don’t we? Second, I’d like to see you offer a “NO Sky Blue” program where people, such as myself, can sign up to have our bills singled out for reductions of the renewable rider.  I realize most in this room think an old, evil global warming denier like myself should pay for my sins, but I, of course, only think it’s “electricity justice” if those who want renewables pay for them.  TYVM.


Does the ACLU Condone Killing Homosexuals and Flogging Lesbians?

Does the ACLU Condone Killing Homosexuals and Flogging Lesbians?  Peter Burrows – 3/18/17

On Saturday, March 11, the ACLU had a national webcast to launch the organization’s “People Power” project. Our local chapter hosted about 55 people for the viewing.   Nationally, the ACLU estimated about 200,000 people had signed up to attend local meetings such as the one in Silver City.

Anybody who attended thinking they were going to receive instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails was disappointed.   The meeting was almost all about organizing citizens to pressure local officials, starting with sheriffs and police chiefs, to resist efforts by the federal government to deport illegal immigrants.

This sort of Federalism is something I wholeheartedly support.  In this case, I think the ACLU’s goal is profoundly wrong, but the tactic is one I would expect the NRA to emulate if, for example, the federal government ordered all our guns to be confiscated.

In such a case, I would hope the NRA would conduct their campaign without all the demagoguery the ACLU dished out.  President Trump, you see, has a “hate agenda” aimed at immigrants, people of color and Muslims, especially Muslims. One of the speakers even said Trump had issued a Muslim ban, which is an outright lie. Trump may have said he’d like to do that in his campaign, but the recent Presidential ban on people from certain Muslim-controlled countries was obviously not a ban on all Muslims.

No matter. Such lies get the folks all fired-up with righteous indignation and feelings of moral superiority. Besides, who gives a damn about facts? One of the speakers even called for demonstrations of support at Mosques.

How ironic.  Do these “civil liberties” people know that by demonstrating in support of Islam, they are also supporting Islamic law, sharia law?  Sharia law, which is sacred law, cannot be separated from Islam, and sharia law is not compatible with civil liberties as we know them.  Period.

I used to think that learning about Islam would suffice to turn around the thinking of the PC crowd.  Now, I’m not so sure.   Yes, the facts about Islam persuade some people to change their opinion about Islam, but many others show disbelief, even hostility toward the “Islamophobe” presenting the facts.  This is very puzzling. Islam has been preaching its message of hate for 1400 years.  Straight up, no chaser.

Here’s a quick lesson on Islam.
1. The Koran is the forever, infallible word of God.
2. Shari law is based on commands in the Koran and, by extension, the commands of Muhammad because —
3. The Koran frequently orders Muslims to obey Muhammad, meaning anything Muhammad said or did has Allah’s approval.

Much of sharia law is based on Muhammad’s life and sayings, which are not found in the Koran but in the voluminous “gospels” of Islam, called the Hadith, and the biographies of Muhammad.   What Muhammad did in addition to what he said also effects sharia law, but we’re going to just examine a couple of things he said.

If you are interested, you can go on and purchase the definitive book of Sunni sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller (R of T), which frequently quotes Muhammad.  To repeat, since Allah directs Muslims to obey Muhammad, what Muhammad said is therefore Allah’s command.

Most of the people I know, when it comes to the LGBT community, are live-and-let-live types.  I even support Gay marriage.  If you’re somebody like me, or especially, someone in the LGBT community, you will not want Islam to enjoy First Amendment protection.  Why?  Look at this “sacred law” in R of T, section p17.3, 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.”

If you are supportive of Muslims immigrating to this country AND being allowed to freely practice their religion as protected by the First Amendment, you are saying Muslims have a religious right, a command from their God, to kill homosexuals. We have laws against that, but they are manmade laws. The devout Muslim feels no obligation to obey those laws. He must obey Allah’s laws.

Remember the Pulse night club massacre last June?  A Muslim killed 49 people at the gay night club and a month later the FBI issued a statement saying they had no evidence the Muslim targeted the club because it was gay.  NO EVIDENCE!?!?  OMG.

R of T p17.3 has this further quote by Muhammad:  “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”

The punishment for this is something I’m a little confused about. As I read it, if a lesbian is married, which in the context of Islam could only be to a man, she is guilty of adultery and is stoned to death. (See R of T o12.2 and o4.17.) If not, she is “scourged one hundred stripes” to be administered as described in o12.5, i.e. with neither a new nor worn-out whip, and sitting down. (Men are scourged standing up.)

Perhaps the ACLU can get their lawyers to look into this and make a determination as to what exactly the punishment for lesbians should be. After all, if we are to be a multicultural society that welcomes immigrants of all religions because “that’s who we are,” details like this have to be worked out.  It would also be nice, I know, to ban guns because we don’t want homosexuals to defend themselves against people exercising their religious rights.  That might be a hate crime.

Sarcasm aside, the ACLU should not be protesting a Trump ban on Muslims that wasn’t a ban on Muslims, but instead be protesting precisely because it WASN’T a ban on Muslims.

Personally, I would welcome all Muslims seeking religious asylum FROM THEIR OWN RELIGION. You see, the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. Muhammad said: “Whoever leaves his religion of Islam, kill him.”  Unfortunately, “apostasy” has grown to mean all sorts of transgressions, some quite minor, that are defined as “leaving the religion.”  Don’t pray on time?  Argue about the Koran?  Question what Muhammad said? Bye, bye.

The list is long.

I recently read a Pew poll taken in England that showed nine percent of the Muslims living there STRONGLY OPPOSED the imposition of shari law in England.  These are brave people who deserve our support.  There must be millions of decent people trapped in Muslim societies who want to escape that medieval madness. Those Muslims we should help.

That same Pew poll showed almost two-thirds of the Muslims DID want sharia law to be the law of England. Those Muslims can stay home.  Ooops! I speak only for myself. Maybe the ACLU wants those sharia Muslims to immigrate here, build mosques, and practice their beliefs. If that‘s the case, isn’t the ACLU tacitly accepting that homosexuals be killed and lesbians whipped? Shame on them.

Ladies and gentlemen, this nonsense about Islam being protected by the First Amendment has got to stop. Common sense has long dictated that First Amendment rights do not protect criminality. As famously noted, you do not have the right to falsely scream “fire”‘ in a crowded theater, nor do Mormons have the right to practice polygamy, nor do Muslims have the right to kill homosexuals, not in this country, not in any country.

For that matter, neither Muslims nor ANYBODY ELSE has the right to stop me from criticizing their abominable religion.  That’s my First Amendment right.  Hmmmm. I wonder:  Will the ACLU defend my First Amendment right or accuse me of hate speech?