Is ‘The New Republic of Texas’ just the beginning?

Is ‘The New Republic of Texas’ just the beginning? By Peter Burrows 2/18/21 

Next November, Texans will vote on whether the Texas Legislature should develop a plan for reestablishing Texas as an independent country, something I wrote about in “Is America starting to break apart?”  (2/8/21.) Texas could be just the beginning if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, hereafter the NPVIC, ever becomes law. Wikipedia has a long, very thorough explanation of NPVIC from which the following two paragraphs have been lifted:  

“The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2021, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. These states have 196 electoral votes, which is 36% of the Electoral College and 73% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force 

“—-The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including The New York Times,[11] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,[15] The Boston Globe,[16] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,[17] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.[18] Pete du Pont, a former Governor of Delaware, in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, called the project an “urban power grab” that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.[19] A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.[20] “ 

Whether the last two words in the first paragraph, “legal force,” are a fact or a fantasy is yet to be determined. As it is now, the NPVIC is a blatant attempt to bypass the Electoral College, which in two recent presidential elections has elected a president who didn’t receive a majority of the popular vote: Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. It was the 2000 election that started the NPVIC movement, and in 2007 Maryland became the first state to join the NPVIC. 

The 2000 election was the first time in 112 years that the electoral vote differed from the popular vote, which was followed only 16 years later by another such outcome, and then four years later when it nearly happened again in 2020. I don’t think this is just a chance thing; it’s indicative of the new reality of a hopelessly divided America.  (I include the recent 2020 election because while Biden allegedly won by 7 million votes, he could have lost the Electoral College vote with less than a million-vote switch in swing states.)   

The 15 states now in the NPVIC include 8 East Coast states (I included Vermont); 4 West Coast (includes Hawaii); and 3 interior (IL, CO, NM.) As you might expect, all are considered “Blue” states, I.e., regularly vote Democrat. A Constitutional amendment requires approval of 75 percent of the states, which would be 38 states today, a formidable task. By contrast, the NPVIC needs only 18 to 25 states to reach its goal of 270 Electoral College votes, and they’re well over halfway there. (It’s 18 if both TX and FL join; an unlikely scenario.)  

If and when that happens, the Compact is triggered and the states are supposed to cast their votes to the candidate who won the majority of the national vote, regardless of how their state voted, if that candidate would otherwise lose the election in the Electoral College.  When that happens, the legality of the Compact will end up before the Supreme Court, where it will almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional.    

ALMOST certainly. The Constitution does not require Electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state.  Enforcement has been left to the states, where it is very lax and electors, with surprising frequency, don’t always vote as they are supposed to.  

In the 2016 election, for example, three of Hillary Clinton’s electors voted for Colin Powell and one for XL Pipeline protester, Faith Spotted Eagle.  They were fined $1,000 each and last year the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, upheld the fines. As Justice Kagan wrote in her opinion, supported by Justice Thomas, “The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee and the state voters’ choice for President.”  

If the NVPIC ever gets in front of the Supreme Court, the question would then be if a state also has the authority to direct the electors to vote in OPPOSITION to the state’s voters’ choice for president. I expect such a Supreme Court challenge long before the NPVIC hits its 270 goal. Republicans in one or more of those states will want to determine if they should bother to vote at all.  

Regardless, the Electoral College is probably doomed, one way or another. It’s always been the most contentious part of the Constitution, gathering over 700 attempts to change it over the years, and it has never had public support. Interestingly, the latest Pew poll has 55 percent of the voters in favor of abolishing it, which is down from 71 percent in 1981. I would guess that some people are starting to worry about an “urban power grab.”   

The Texas referendum will be closely watched, but it could be that it’s too late for Texas to secede. There are many new Texans from liberal states, and the Texans who live in urban areas may be just fine with an “urban power grab.” That wouldn’t be the case for The New Republic of North America. More about that hypothetical, but possible, new nation in the next article. 

Is America starting to break apart?

Is America starting to break apart? Peter Burrows –2/8/21 – 

Have you heard of “Texit?” It is shorthand for Texas + Exit and refers to the state of Texas seceding from the United States and becoming a separate nation, something that hasn’t happened since the Civil War. Texans will vote in a referendum next November on whether to authorize the Texas legislature to determine the feasibility of such a move. 

It’s going to be interesting following the campaign leading up to the vote, as well as seeing how the vote breaks down between urban and rural areas. In my opinion, Texit is a reaction to an increasingly dysfunctional Federal Government, which, in turn, increasingly reflects the dysfunctional, and corrupt, governments of our major cities, all run by the Democrat Party. 

The 2020 election was the eye-opener. Massive election fraud in a few of those major cities very probably swung the election to Biden, and for proof, look no further than to the Democrats themselves. Now that they control everything in Washington, D.C., they are proposing national election laws which will virtually legalize the voter fraud they used so successfully in 2020.  

The Democrat controlled House of Representatives will be voting on something called the “For the People Act,” which will ensure only Democrat “People” will henceforth have a majority in the House. This will complement their pending, permanent, control of the Senate following the addition of four new Democrat senators from the new states of Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.  

 The demagoguery justifying the “People Act” is an example of “Big Lie” politics writ large. Here’s what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, without a shred of prof, in support of the bill:  

“House Democrats are doubling down on our longstanding commitment to advance transformational anti-corruption and clean election reforms by again passing H.R. 1, the For the People Act. Our democracy is in a state of deep disrepair. During the 2020 election, Americans had to overcome rampant voter suppression, gerrymandering and a torrent of special interest dark money just to exercise their right to vote.”  

The bill would require same-day voter registration, online registration, at least 15 days of early voting, no requirement for witness signatures or signature matching on mail-in ballots, allow felons to vote, forgives ineligible voters who are “mistakenly” registered, and essentially removes any requirement to prove citizenship. Gosh, what could go wrong? It would also mandate that 16-and 17-year-olds be registered. Pelosi has said we should allow 16-year-olds to vote, so I guess she is laying the groundwork for that.   

I read that the bill (791 pages!) would violate the states’ constitutional right to set election procedures, but I’m not so sure about that. Article 1, Section 4, says “The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations —.”    

The extent that Congress can “alter” is probably in the interpretation of “Manner of holding elections,” although the states’ determination of “Times” certainly would be usurped by a national 15-day early voting law. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court, and if found unconstitutional could very well trigger the court-packing implied by Biden’s commission on Supreme Court reform. 

Regardless, Democrats at the national level are well on their way to achieving one-party rule even without their proposed bill because they already are very good at stealing elections. The new bill only makes it easier to do so everywhere, not just the big cities in swing states. 

Not everybody thinks that’s a good idea, hence, Texit.  Texas, with its size, entrepreneurial tradition, long coastline and booming energy industry, would probably “thrive as an independent nation,” as the referendum’s sponsor claims. Also, people forget that Texas, unlike any other lower 48 state, had been an independent nation, The Republic of Texas, for nine years before it became a state in 1845.  Other states don’t have such a rich heritage or such bountiful natural assets.   

Critics claim such a move would be unconstitutional, which is probably correct. Article IV, Section 3, says that “no new state shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned AS WELL AS OF THE CONGRESS.” (My emphasis.) 

Some may say that “new state” could also mean “new nation,” but I don’t think that would get too far. In either case, it seems clear that the Constitution prohibits any part of the country from UNILATERALLY changing its political affiliation. 

Still, if push comes to shove, will Congress declare war to prevent an independent Texas? What moral principle would justify such a war?  It is quite possible the nation would prefer an independent Texas to a war-torn, forever alienated Texas. 

Ironically, Texas could claim it is seceding to preserve the Constitution, at least in Texas, and they would have a point. The Constitution is rapidly becoming a dead letter as the Democrats want not just to usurp the states’ Constitutionally delegated election mechanics, but also to vitiate the First Amendment with hate speech laws, chip away at the Second Amendment with national gun-registration, and the list goes on and on.  

The final nail in the Constitution’s coffin would come if an intimidated Supreme Court declares the National Popular Vote movement to be Constitutional.  I hope that never happens, but we’ll look at what effect the NPV could have on the secession movement in my next article.     

Laugh or cry?

Laugh or cry? by Peter Burrows 1/25/21 – –     

One of Biden’s first acts as president, if not the first, was to implement a transgender speech code at the White House. In case you haven’t heard, the White House contact form now asks for the “preferred pronoun” by which you wish to be addressed: she/her, he/him, or they/them. Those are in addition to the conventional Mr., Mrs., and Ms.  Additional options are: Mx., other (please specify), and none.  

(I had to Google “Mx.” for a definition. Summarized from Wikipedia: “Mx (usually pronounced miks) is an English language neologistic honorific that does not indicate gender. It was developed as an alternative to common gendered honorifics, such as Mr. and Ms, in the late 1970s.” Late 70s? Unwoke me is just learning about it. Sigh.) 

The inclusion of “other (please specify)” may need a little explanation for all you unwokes out there who may be unaware of the recent proliferation of pronouns needed in our Brave New Progressive World.  Why, you say, are more pronouns needed?  Because, silly, there are now more than two genders.  

Male or female used to be one of the easiest things in the world to determine, but not anymore.  I found a site on Google, hopefully satirical, that identified 112 different genders. However, there’s nothing satirical about a $250,000 fine, is there?  

“In New York City, it is now illegal to discriminate anyone whose gender is male, female, ‘or something else entirely.’ Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office last week released a list of 31 genders approved by the New York City Commission on Human Rights — . The list is a guide for businesses, which can now be fined as much as $250,000 if establishments refuse to address someone by their preferred pronoun.” 

That’s from a June 1, 2016 news article. “Only” 31 genders back then, so perhaps 112 today is a serious number. (Facebook was up to 58 by 2018.) And if you think nothing so ridiculous can be serious, you haven’t been paying attention, mis amigos.  Newly re-elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, proving that advanced senility is all the rage in D.C. these days, has proposed that only “gender-inclusive language” be allowed on the House floor. Members are to: 

— eliminate gendered terms such as “‘father, mother, son, daughter,” and more. — the rules package would “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.”  — Terms to be disallowed include “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin (Huh??), nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, grandson, [and] granddaughter,” to be replaced with “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin (Huh?? again.), sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, [and] grandchild.” — “  (Summarized from The Epoch Times 1/21/21, ‘Huh?s’ added.) 

If Pelosi gets her way, and she will, this will become the law in both the House and eventually the entire country, to be enforced, and not just in New York City, with jail time and fines. This is already true In Norway, where hate speech against transgenders, if said in public, can get a transphobe a fine and up to three years in jail. The law was recently stiffened to include a year in jail for something said in private. Turn off Alexa, you transphobic SOBS!  

In studying this issue, though, I’m afraid enforcement could be extremely difficult. The problem is how to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns” when the pronouns to use are proliferating almost as fast as the genders they’re supposed to represent. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Resource Center at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (thank you, Wisconsin taxpayers), explains the need for all these new pronouns, and adds a very helpful table.   

“A gender neutral or gender inclusive pronoun is a pronoun which does not associate a gender with the individual who is being discussed. Some languages, such as English, do not have a gender neutral or third gender pronoun available, and this has been criticized, since in many instances, writers, speakers, etc. use “he/his” when referring to a generic individual in the third person. Also, the dichotomy of “he and she” in English does not leave room for other gender identities, which is a source of frustration to the transgender and gender queer communities. People who are limited by languages which do not include gender neutral pronouns have attempted to create them, in the interest of greater equality.”  

zie zim zir zis zieself  
sie sie hir hirs hirself  
ey em eir eirs eirself  
ve ver vis vers verself  
tey ter tem ters terself  
em eir eirs emself  

Obviously, the above is too complex to be incorporated into any legal code written to protect our transgender brothers and sisters — pfffft! — siblings from hate speech.  Plus, using those terms is asking too much of a transphile who wishes to avoid offending zir/hir trans friends. 

Years ago, the nongender pronoun “it” was used as a flattering term for movie starlets to describe those ladies who really had “it,” the “it” being something us male pigs do not need defined. The first to enjoy this pronoun was silent star Clara Bow. (No, I’m not QUITE that old.)    

I suggest we revive that trusty old pronoun and use it to both simplify and ensure political correctness in our everyday speech.  For example, a transgender male, a female who identifies as a male, could be called and referred to as “he-it.”    

Most of us would find that relatively simple to use, e.g., “good morning, Mx. He-it,” or, “let’s ask for he-its opinion,” and so on. For transgender women, men who identify as women, the corresponding pronoun would be “she-it,” as in “good morning Mx. She-it.”  

Simplicity itself, don’t you agree? (Please, don’t thank me.  Just my humble attempt to promote peace and understanding.) 

Why do Democrats steal elections?

Why do Democrats steal elections? by Peter Burrows 12/18/20 

I know some of you are thinking, “C’mon Burro, Republicans steal elections, too.” That may be true, but it seems to be relatively rare. I have three books about Democrats stealing elections,* and if you can show me ONE book about Republicans stealing elections, I’ll buy you a Don Juan Burrito.   

In fact, stealing elections is built into the Democrats’ DNA. You want proof? Just ask a Democrat if we should require a national photo-ID to vote, such as they have in Mexico: “HORRORS!! What a voter-suppression RACIST idea! Besides, there’s no proof of voter fraud — NONE! NONE! — you dirty-bastard racist Republican.”  

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Methinks they doth protest too much,” although some of them actually believe that nonsense.  Actually, photo-IDs wouldn’t do much to prevent the new ways elections are stolen, which involves falsifying mail-in ballots, corrupting voting machine software, harvesting ballots, and voting by non-citizens, to name a few biggies.  

All of which requires a good-sized organization of like-minded people, especially where more than one polling place is involved, e.g., Cook County in Illinois, Wayne County in Michigan, and Milwaukee County in Wisconsin. Sound familiar? As Hillary Clinton might say, stealing an election requires a village, so to speak. 

Furthermore, if the collusion involves numerous states, it becomes an effort to overthrow a “duly elected” national government, which is an act of treason. Democrats, of course, don’t see it that way. In fact, they’ll tell you they’re being patriotic because putting Democrats in office is obviously the best thing for America because, as everybody knows, Republicans are evil.    

This explains why Democrats cooperate to steal elections: they share the same twisted ideology. They all believe Republicans are racist, fascist, sexist morons who cling to their Bibles and their guns. Republicans will put blacks back into chains and force women to have babies. Republicans don’t care about science, people, or social justice. In a word, Republicans don’t CARE!!   

This makes them bad people, a conviction far too many Democrats hold with an invincible moral certitude. That’s why people who wouldn’t think of cheating on the golf course or stealing a candy bar have no compunction about stealing elections from Republicans:  It’s the morally correct, right thing to do. The end justifies the means, baby. 

Liberals have always thought they were morally and intellectually superior people. This is in spite of the fact that they have NO evidence to support their high opinion of themselves, and that there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the typical liberal is a self-righteous, ignorant hypocrite, far more concerned with moral grandstanding than actually doing anything good.  

Now, however, moral grandstanding has been replaced by moral crusading, and crusaders burn people at the stake. The Social Justice Warriors, SJWs, have taken over the Democrat Party, and the ‘justice’ they want most of all is to punish those evil-dirty-bastard Republicans who voted for that racist-Nazi Trump. While they’re at it, they’ll bring justice to those damned climate deniers, Islamophobes and transphobes, too.   

It wasn’t always this way. Stealing elections used to be more about money and ego. Back in 1960, when JFK’s win over Nixon was highly questionable, nobody was hyperventilating about Armageddon if the other side won. Back then there wasn’t that much difference in the two candidates.  JFK cut taxes like a good Republican, and Nixon, when he was president, sounded like a good Democrat when he declared, “We’re all Keynesians now.”   

Today, the nation cannot survive such electoral treason. The partisan divisions are too stark.  Can you imagine Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi making like Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill; kicking back with a bottle of bourbon, swapping Irish jokes and ironing out disagreements? Ha! Bipartisanship is dead.    

Soon, the two-party system could be dead, too. The Democrats learned from their mistakes in the 2016 presidential election, and they will learn from the 2020 election that they have to steal more than just the top of the ticket. We’ll see how well they learned that lesson in the 2022 elections. If those elections give the Democrats control of Congress, expect the Democrats to try to do the following, which is only a partial SJW wish list: 

-eliminate the anachronistic Electoral College;  -politicize/neutralize/pack the Supreme Court;   -confiscate guns;   -lower the voting age to 16;   -open our borders; -statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. 

America will then become a one-party state. Fortunately, that party, the Democrat Party, has enough divisions that the country should avoid becoming a dictatorship. However, history is replete with examples of militant minorities gaining control of political movements. In fact, SJW militants aren’t a minority, but a MAJORITY in many places, e.g., Portland, OR, where the top two contenders for Mayor, the incumbent and an even more radical opponent, received 86 percent of the vote.   

Also, the Congressional elections saw AOC and three SJW Muslims (MUSLIMS!) reelected, all with comfortable majorities: AOC 72%, Illan Omar 65%, Rashida Tlaib 80%, and Andre Carson, the underachiever of the group, with ‘only’ 60%.  

If Biden is actually sworn in as president, the ‘tell’ will be to what extent the SJW succeed in persecuting their political and ideological enemies. Lenin persecuted the kulaks; Hitler the Jews, Pol Pot the urbanites, to name a few earlier Social Justice Warriors. Are Trump supporters going to have their homes burned to the ground? Are fossil fuel executives going to prison? 

You don’t think that sort of thing can happen? Sadly, history has proven Voltaire correct: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”  If this sort of “justice” is allowed free rein, it will prove that government of, by, and for the people, could not long endure.    

* If It’s Not Close They Can’t Cheat by Hugh Hewitt, 2004 

   Stealing Elections by John Fund, 2008 

   Who’s Counting? By John Fund and Hans Von Spakovsky, 2012 

Conjectures on stolen elections

Conjectures on stolen elections by Peter Burrows 12/6/20 

I hate to date myself, but I first voted in a presidential election back in 1960.  In that election, Kennedy defeated Nixon, thanks in part to Chicago’s Mayor Daley, who waited to see how many votes JFK needed from Cook County to carry the state. Cook County went for Kennedy by a massive 450,000 votes, giving Kennedy the state by only 9,000 votes.  

It turned out that Kennedy might have won even without Illinois. However, also throw out Texas and Nixon would have won. Kennedy won Texas with 50.52 percent of the vote, and by only 46,000 votes, “pocket change,” so to speak, for his running mate, Lyndon Johnson, who knew a thing or two about stealing elections in Texas. 

Nixon didn’t think he had much chance of overturning the results in both states, so he quickly conceded and put on his statesman mantle, although behind the scenes he encouraged efforts to challenge the results. In hindsight, he should have raised Hell and taken both Texas and Illinois to court.  Texas may have been a dry hole, but Illinois could have seen some convictions.  

William Rodgers, then Attorney General, was both a friend of Nixon’s and an experienced criminal prosecutor. (He would later become Nixon’s Secretary of State.) He certainly would have been a valuable ally had Nixon thought the fight was worth the effort. Then-president Eisenhower, who didn’t especially like Nixon, even urged him to openly contest the results, but Nixon didn’t.   

Regardless, Kennedy won the election and no Democrat ever paid a penalty for stealing votes, a precedent that seems to be continuing today.  In my opinion, that is the real negative legacy of Nixon, a RINO I voted for because the alternatives were always worse.  

It wasn’t long before JFK charmed the socks off the nation (and Marylyn Monroe, amongst other damsels,) which I think helped his unqualified younger brother, Ted, win a seat in the Senate in 1962, where he did damage to the nation for the next 47 years, long after his brother’s assassination.  

In hindsight, Kennedy’s assassination was a turning point in American politics, one from which the nation has never recovered. That’s because it made LBJ the president, and LBJ was one smart operator; unprincipled, but smart.  He knew how to use a “crisis” to his Party’s advantage: in came Medicare for the older voters and The Great Society welfare programs for the poor voters, especially the black voters.  

Allegedly, he famously said, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.” Some 50+ years later, it looks like the old bastard knew what he was doing. To illustrate, Trump got over 12 percent of the black vote in the latest election, and while that was up from the 8 percent he received four years ago, it was nowhere near the 32 percent Nixon got in 1960. That’s right: 32 percent. 

(I should note that even though LBJ commonly used the “n” word, he did not allow his racism to override his political judgement.,)  

Even then, the Democrats were winning a majority of the black vote, in spite of being the party of some pretty blatant, politically well-entrenched racists, such as Senators Willliam Fulbright and Robert Byrd. This may have been what inspired the “Southern Strategy” of the Republican Party, which sought to appeal to the Southern white voter, much as the Democrats were doing.  

LBJ, being smarter than the Republicans, turned the tables on them and implemented a nation-wide strategy that has delivered huge majorities of the black vote for the Democrats ever since.  LBJ may not have been the father of identity politics, but he turned Uncle Sam into its rich uncle.  

He may have also been responsible for setting in motion the anti-Americanism so prevalent in our youth today. After The Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, he turned Vietnam into an American war, which radicalized young adults all over the country, especially on college campuses.  Some of those kids went on to become college professors, where they propagated their disillusionment with America. 

(Ironically, all the campus unrest disappeared in 1973 when NIXON eliminated the draft.) 

Consequently, patriotism has joined the evils of racism, sexism and genderism as something to be eradicated, along with all the other sins of America. If, like the election of 1960, the Democrats are allowed to steal what votes they can, they will open the final chapter to the end of America:   

The Supreme Court will be expanded to reflect political realities, not outdated principles; the anachronistic Electoral College will be done away with, to be replaced by popular vote totals; the racist-inspired Constitution will be rewritten to provide social justice for minorities; laws will be passed to bring to justice Islamophobes, climate deniers, gun owners and other enemies of the people; and on and on. 

I hope I’m wrong.. My two-bit analysis is pretty superficial, but I think the slide into totalitarianism is as undeniable as a facemask law. If this keeps up, someday the Progressives will build statues honoring thier revolutionary heroes, Mayor Richard Daly and Lee Harvey Oswald.     

Covid Virus: “Tests” vs. “Cases”

Covid virus “tests” vs. “cases,” by Peter Burrows 11/30/20 – Note to readers: The following is a summary of: 

The COVID Case Con Continues By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D. 11/30/20 American Thinker                                                                                                                                          As many Americans recover from their “virtual Thanksgiving,” the media is pushing the narrative that COVID cases are once again surging. The Washington Post claims that cases are “skyrocketing” while the New York Times wails that “It has hit us with a vengeance.” Yet the media is oblivious, either ignorantly or deliberately, to the reality that positive tests are not the same thing as cases.                                          

The CDC provides a specific “case definition.”  A case is NOT just a positive test.  What is needed is “presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.”  Notice the AND, meaning not simply a positive test. The current COVID surges are positive tests, and even those are suspect, without regard to whether those who test positive are actually sick or not.  

Given the sensitivity of the COVID PCR test, it is likely that some of those being tested, without any symptoms or exposure, will be reported as test positive and added to the case tickers running constantly on Fox News and CNN. Saying someone with a positive COVID test is a “case” is fraudulent.  

COVID is tested using PCR (polymerase chain reaction) which amplifies any viral fragments found in the nose repeatedly until the test is positive. This is called the amplification cycle and the higher that number the more likely a positive test, even if it is clinically insignificant. From the New York Times

“The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time.” 

The amplification cycle is the problem:  

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.” 

With too high an amplification cycle, the PCR test is hyper-sensitive. Most commercial tests set this threshold at 40 cycles, whereas it would be more clinical meaningful if much lower, say at 30. Otherwise as the NY Times notes:  

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.” 

The CDC admits the test is too sensitive:  

The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles.”                 

With an overly sensitive test, almost 90 percent of the so-called surge is fake news. This is easily understandable basic science. If the CDC and NY Times can figure it out, other “journalists” can as well and should be providing caveats to their surge reporting rather than their typical hair on fire reactions. 

When we look at deaths, we see the same 3-card monte. Death counts are back in vogue.  Johns Hopkins University recently published a study which found: “In contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.” (Not surprisingly John Hopkins deleted the study from their website.) 

Case numbers are simply positive tests, perpetuating the con that things are far worse than they really are.  

Great Barrington Declaration Summary

A Sensible and Compassionate Anti-COVID Strategy 10/9/20 by Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. The following is a summarized version of an article that appeared in the October issue of Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College. The full article can be found at 

The COVID-19 Fatality Rate – In early March, the fatality rate was estimated at roughly three percent—I.e., three out of every hundred people who were identified as “cases” of COVID died from it. Today, we know the fatality rate is closer to 0.2 or 0.3 percent. The reason for the inaccurate early estimates is simple: in early March, we were not identifying most of the people who had been infected by COVID. The majority who are infected have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. These people weren’t identified in the early days, which resulted in a highly misleading fatality rate that continues to drive public policy. 

Last April, I ran a series of studies to see how many people in California’s Santa Clara County, where I live, had been infected. About 1,000 COVID cases had been identified, but our antibody tests found that 50,000 people had been infected—i.e., there were 50 times more infections than identified cases. This was enormously important, because it meant that the fatality rate was not three percent, but closer to 0.2 percent; not 30 in 1,000, but 2 in 1,000. —there are now 82 similar studies from around the world, and the median result of these 82 studies is a fatality rate of about 0.2 percent—exactly what we found. 

Who Is at Risk? The single most important fact about COVID-19 is that it is not equally dangerous for everybody. There is a thousand-fold difference between the mortality rate in older people, 70 and up, and the mortality rate in children– for young children, this disease is less dangerous than the seasonal flu. This year, in the United States, more children have died from the seasonal flu than from COVID by a factor of two or three. 

Whereas COVID is not deadly for children, for older people it is much more deadly than the seasonal flu. If you look at studies worldwide, the COVID fatality rate for people 70 and up is about four percent: 40 in 1,000 vs. 2 in 1,000 in the overall population — this huge difference in the danger of COVID to the young vs. the old is the most important fact about the virus. Yet it has not been sufficiently emphasized in public health policies. 

Lockdowns and Where to Go from Here – Last week I met with two other epidemiologists—Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard – in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. The three of us come from very different parts of the political spectrum, yet we arrived at the same view: the widespread lockdown policy has been a devastating public health mistake. In response, we wrote and issued the Great Barrington Declaration, which can be viewed online at The Declaration includes the following points: 

 1) As public health scientists we have grave concerns that lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health —e.g., lower childhood vaccinations, fewer cancer screenings, etc., etc.                        

2) Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. For children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than influenza.    

3) Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable elderly should be the central aim, e.g., nursing homes should perform frequent testing of staff and visitors, retired people living at home should have groceries delivered, etc.    

4) Everybody else should immediately resume life as normal with some additional hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick. Schools and universities should be opened and extracurricular activities should be resumed, low-risk adults should go back to work and restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sports, and other cultural activities should resume. 

To date, the Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by over 43,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners. It does not represent a “fringe” view within the scientific community.  

(A three-minute news show covering the above can be found at: / ) 

Islam and Judaism: A Tragic Irony

Islam and Judaism: A tragic Irony by Peter Burrows – 11/14/20 

Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God, and in the Koran God commands Muslims to hate just about everybody, especially Jews. There are a number of verses, a.k.a., revelations, that make this hatred of Jews VERY clear. Two verses even say that Allah turned Jews into apes and pigs when they broke their sabbath. (2:65 and 5:60) 

Muslims believe this is the literal truth, that it actually happened and could happen again. Therefore, if you’re Jewish you’d better get your affairs in order. Any second now you could be rooting around out in the garbage or swinging around town on utility poles.   

You have to be a religious fanatic to actually believe something as ridiculous as that, and it doesn’t make you an “Islamophobe” or a “racist” to point that out.  I note that it’s only the Jews who are honored with this “apes and pigs” stuff; not Christians, pagans, agnostics, atheists or anybody else. Damn. I was hoping to wake up someday and REALLY surprise my wife. Oh, well — 

What I find ironic is that the Jews themselves may have been responsible for this Jew-hatred, this special enmity that goes back to the start of Islam, some 1,400 years ago. Let me explain: 

Muhammad spent the first 12 years of his “calling” preaching his message of monotheism and prophethood in Mecca, which was both a commercial hub and a center of pagan worship. He proved to be very good at alienating just about everybody; not so good at gathering converts.  He aroused such hostility with his in-your-face message of monotheism or damnation that the Meccans finally decided they would kill him. 

He and his followers wisely fled to Medina, some 300 miles away, where he was welcomed as just who he said he was: A Prophet sent by God.  The reason he was accepted in Medina is because the people of Medina WANTED TO BELIEVE HIM. Why? Because he was an ARAB prophet. This, in turn, needs a little explaining. 

Some of the Arab leaders in Medina, who were mostly illiterate and pagan, had heard of Muhammad, this person in Mecca who said he was a prophet sent by God, and they made an effort to meet him when they travelled there for commercial and religious events.  They had been told for years to expect the coming of such a prophet.  

And from whom did they hear this? The Jews of Medina.  The Jews? Aye, there’s the rub, Hamlet. The Jews claimed this future prophet was going to be a JEW who would lead the JEWS in a mighty kick-ass war against the oppressor du jour, and anybody else the Jews didn’t like. 

I think this was a typical belief of the times:  An Almighty God was going to send a savior to earth who would grab a sword, mount a steed and lead his people to victory over the Romans — or the Egyptians, or the Persians, etc., etc. Jesus? He didn’t count. “Turn the other cheek?” How silly. That wasn’t going to kill anybody.   

Furthermore, the Arabs in Medina had been told that they would not escape the wrath of this future Jewish savior. In Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, a Medina Arab made this telling observation: 

“What induced us to accept Islam, apart from God’s mercy and guidance, was what we used to hear the Jews say. We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were people of the scriptures with knowledge which we did not possess. There was continual enmity between us, and when we got the better of them and excited their hate, they said, ‘The time of a prophet who is to be sent has now come. We will kill you with his aid —.’ We often used to hear them say this. When God sent His apostle (i.e. Muhammad) we accepted him when he called us to God and we realized what their threat meant and joined him before them.  We believed in him but they denied him.” (Ibn Ishaq pg. 93, my emphasis.)  

This turned the tables on the Jews. Now the Arabs had a prophet and the Jews didn’t. Any hostility the Jews showed toward Muhammad was thus easily explained: “About this time the Jewish rabbis showed hostility to the apostle in envy, hatred and malice because God had chosen His apostle from the Arabs. — It was the Jewish rabbis who used to annoy the apostle with questions and introduce confusions so as to confound the truth with falsity.”  (Ibn Ishaq pg. 239, my emphasis.) 

In the Mawdudi translation of the Quran, there is a footnote to verse 2:108 that refers to those annoying questions: “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.” 

God also saved Muhammad from his own contradictions with the abrogation verse, 2:106, but that’s another topic. For our purposes, the Jews earned Muhammad’s undying hatred because they questioned his revelations and disputed his self-proclaimed prophecy, something I think Muhammad truly believed in. Once he achieved the military prowess to avenge his “annoyance,” he proceeded to destroy the three Jewish tribes of Medina.    

It didn’t stop there. The very first verse of the Quran is a little prayer for Muslims to say many times a day. It has Muslims praying not to be like those who earned Allah’s anger, who are, according to Muhammad, “The Jews.”  

Muhammad also said about The Day of Judgement: “The hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”  (Sahih al-Bukhari book 52 Hadith 177.) 

That’s hatred on steroids. In retrospect, it all sounds a little childish; the Jews taunting the Arabs, who, when the chance arose, were happy to return the favor: “My prophet is bigger and badder than yours,” or something like that. Unfortunately, since both the Quran and what Muhammad said are eternal verities, Muhammad’s hatred of Jews 1400 years ago became a part of Islam, where it remains today and forever. 

It’s a fruitless speculation, but if the Jews of Medina had not threatened their polytheist Arab neighbors with talk of an imminent Jewish warrior-prophet who was going to kill them, maybe the Arabs wouldn’t have been so receptive to Muhammad. Maybe they would have also tired of this fanatic who kept telling them they were going to Hell unless they changed their ways. Maybe they would have finished the job the Meccans wanted to do. We’ll never know.    

So you want to learn about Islam —

So, you want to learn about Islam — by Peter Burrows 11/5/20 

The study of Islam can be a daunting task. There is so much canonical literature that it would take a LONG lifetime to read it all. To complicate things, the two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shi’a, each have their own libraries, full of holy interpretations of the Koran and Muhammad’s guidance, and they are often in disagreement.  

Since the Sunnis are 85 percent of all Muslims, and since Sunni literature is widely available and Shi’a literature isn’t, we’ll stick to “just” the Sunnis’.  

While both branches use the same Koran, Islam’s holiest book, even there I would strongly recommend two different translations, detailed below, each of which has extensive explanatory and complementary explanations of various verses.  

The problem with a “straight,” unannotated Koran is that in spite of describing itself as a book in which “there is no doubt” (Verse 2:2), and which offers “a clear proof” (Verse 6:157) of its divinity, it’s full of contradictions and verses that are difficult, if not impossible, to understand.  

Over the centuries, this has motivated many of Islam’s devoted scholars to write extensive Tafsirs, a tafsir being a Koranic exegesis. (An exegesis is “critical explanation or analysis of a text.” My apologies to those of you who knew its meaning. El Dummy had to look it up.) 

Of the 30 or so tafsirs, the most respected is the Tafsir al-Tabari, written by an Islamic scholar named al-Tabari in the Ninth Century. A 30-volume edition was published in Cairo in 1903. If you find it inconvenient to travel to Cairo’s Al Azar University to enjoy all 30 volumes, you can buy a 13-volume set on Amazon, 8,000 pages, $300.   

Next would be the Tafsir Ibn Kathir, written in the 14th Century. Ibn Kathir relied on al-Tubari, added other sources and, I am told, is relatively easy to read. Ibn Kathir’s is probably the most relied upon tafsir.  Amazon has a 10-volme set, 6,600 pages, $208. 

Rivaling Ibn Kathir in popularity, is the Tafsir al-Jalalya. The work of two scholars who shared ‘Jalal’ in their names, it was published in 1505 and, wonder of wonders, is only one volume, a mere 675 pages; $40 at Amazon, paperback. 

Tafsirs are important because they embody scholarly consensus, which over the years has solidified into unassailable dogma, from which there can be NO disagreement. Any credible Islamic scholar should have all three of the above tafsirs. They total over 15,000 pages. 

You think that about does it? Oh, no-no-no, mon ami. We’re just getting started.  

The other problem with the Koran is that it specifically deifies the sayings and doings of Muhammad, Allah’s “Messenger.” Since the Koran does not, ostensibly, have anything in it that was said or done by Muhammad, we need to refer to the biographies of Muhammad, called the “sira”, and recollections of what Muhammad said and did, called the “hadith.” 

Unsurprisingly, there is some overlap between the two. Combined, the sira and hadith are called the “sunnah,” the way of Muhammad.   

The most important biography of Muhammad, and the only one I’ve ever seen referenced, is “The Life of Muhammad,” a translation by Alfred Guillaume, an Oxford professor, of Ibn Ishaq’s biography written in the Eighth Century, some of which has not survived. Guillaume supplemented his translation with numerous additions from other early sources, and the result is an 800-page scholastic tour de force.  

I hesitate to call an 800-page book “trivial,” but compared to the thousands of pages of hadith, stories about Muhammad, this biography/sira is trivial.   

Since the Koran says that Muhammad spoke for Allah, it is understandable that after his death, some Muslims fabricated self-serving stories about Muhammad. To sort the wheat from the chaff, a number of Islamic scholars set about determining which stories were true.  

The most respected scholar of hadith narrations was Muhammad al-Bukhari (810 AD – 870 AD). He spent 16 years traveling throughout lands ruled by Islam, and collected almost 600,000 hadiths. That’s right, 600,000! (For you pedants, the plural of hadith is ahadith, not hadiths.) 

Bukhari condensed these down to 7,500 in total, or about 2,600 if we take out repetitions and different versions of the same story. Amazon has a 10-volume set, 4,050 pages, for $220. The next most authentic hadith collection was by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also known as Imam Muslim (822 – 875).  You can buy a seven-volume set, 4,000 pages, for $134 on Amazon.   

Those two collections of hadith are called “Sahih,” meaning, roughly, most authenticated, and have a status almost equal to the Koran. There are four other collections of hadith that are considered canonical by Sunni Muslims, and these are called “Sunan,” short for sunnah, the way of Muhamad.  From Wikipedia:  

The Six Canonical Books of Hadith: 

  1. Sahih al-Bukhari 
  2. Sahih Muslim 
  3. Sunan Abu Dawood 
  4. Sunan al-Tirmidhi 
  5. Sunan al-Nasa’i 
  6. Sunan ibn Majah 

You can find all of them on Amazon. I tried to get a total page count but Amazon was out of the four-volume set of al-Nasa’i and didn’t offer any details, e.g., number of pages. Abu Dawood’s three-volume set was “only” 1,200 pages; ibn Majah’s 5-volume set was 2,678 pages; al-Tirmidhi’s one-volume was 936 pages, and was probably an abridged version. 

As a rough guess, the above six total at least 15,000 pages and represent the principal “Gospels” of Sunni Islam. To these we must add some lesser but still important collections. Wikipedia lists 34 of these, which we’ll save for another lifetime. 

At this point, we’re somewhere over 30,000 pages of tafsir, sira and hadith. Before you shop for more bookshelves, you should check the Internet, where all of the above mentioned tafsirs and collections of hadith are available. I have Googled up “Tafsir Ibn Kathir” for specific verses on numerous occasions, and you can find all six of the above hadith collections at  

The Koran, sunnah and tafsirs form the basis for Islamic law, sharia. The Sunnis have four schools of Sharia jurisprudence: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali, named after the jurists associated with each. The Shafi’i book of law is The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), over 1,200 pages and available on Amazon for $55. I believe it is the best-known and most quoted book of Sharia law in Western nations. 

The Hanafi book of jurisprudence is the Al-Hidayah (The Guidance) and is available on Amazon, two volumes, for $65; about 1,000 pages.  The Maliki book is Al-Muwatta of Iman Maliki; 1,164 pages, $46. The best I could find on Hanbali was “The Mainstay – A Handbook of Hanbali Fiqh (law) for 456, only 347 pages. (I couldn’t find any of these posted on the Internet.)  

It is my understanding that these schools of jurisprudence are in total agreement on the basics of sharia law but differ on details. For example, zakat, charitable giving, is a basic requirement for Muslims, and there are eight groups of designated recipients, all Muslim, by the way. The Hanafi school allows the donor to designate amounts to each, the other schools require equal amounts to each, i.e., one-eighth.    

So, we must add at least 3,000 pages of “law book” to our total, which now stands at roughly 33,000 pages. (15k tafsirs + 15k hadith + 3k law.) That’s about as many pages as are in The Encyclopedia Britannica, and I’ve left out the most important text of all: The Koran.  

The shortest translation I have is by Yusif Ali and is 423 pages, first verse to last, no commentary. My favorite translation is by the renowned Pakistani Islamic scholar Sayyid Mawdudi and is 1,006 pages, Introduction to last verse. The Introduction and Forward are very important reads, so I’ve included those pages. Also, the text is extensively footnoted, with very clear interpretations.  

This translation is frequently given away to mosque visitors in England, which is how the Islamic expert Robert Spencer received his. I even have a photo of an imam presenting one to a visitor in a mosque in London. 

In very close second-place on my favorites list is “Interpretations of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an In the English Language” by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali. It’s almost 900 pages and is also extensively footnoted. Adding to its length is an accompanying Arabic text.   

Which reminds me: before you undertake all of the above, if you really want to do it right, you should take the time to read and understand Arabic. If you take care of that little detail, then you will be able to say to someone who disagrees with you, “You can’t read Arabic, so you don’t know what you’re talking about.” That’s what the Muslims do. 

By now, most of you are thinking, “Enough, Burro, enough! What’s your damn point?” 

My point is that all of the above is unnecessary. Understanding Islam does not require much effort at all. A couple of bites is all you need to get the essential flavor. A different metaphor, one I bury at the end of long blogs because it might provoke devout Muslims to kill me, is that Islam is like a septic tank: once you pop the lid, you don’t need to dive in to know what it’s full of.  

My recommended “lid-popper” is my “How To Read The Koran (and understand Islam.)” It’s only 40 pages, but the gist is in the first 22 pages, through Appendix Two. For $5.00 I’ll send you a copy. I’d do it gratis but the Post Office charges me $4.00 because they say it is a “package.” Or, you can go to my blog site,, where it is a 23-page CRT read. Here’s a direct link: in a new tab) 

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.