Dear Islamophobes: Stiffen thy spines! Confront the Evil!

Dear Islamophobes: Stiffen Thy Spines! Confront The Evil! By Peter Burrows, – 11/12/17 

Some months ago, I offered to give my talk, “An Infidel’s Guide To The Koran,” to three local churches and a university affiliated speakers’ forum. To date, only one response, and that was a firm rejection from the Unitarians.  

Now, some people may say the Unitarians don’t qualify as a “church,” which is a place people go to worship, but as someone who has gone to Unitarian services for almost 50 years, I can vouch that Unitarians are ardent worshipers, which is the reason they rejected my offer.  

You see, the “God” Unitarians worship is Government, and one of the pillars of Islam says, in part, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” which means the Muslims would no doubt classify Unitarians as pagans. Since Allah commands Muslims to “slay the pagans wherever you find them,” I can understand why Unitarians would just as soon not spend a Sunday listening to somebody quote the Koran.  Islamophobes, indeed! 

Now, you’re probably thinking, “So much for the Unitarians, what about the other two churches?” I would describe both as being in the Evangelical category, definitely not “pagan,” but the Koran has quite a few scary verses concerning Christians (and Jews), so it is understandable why those folks also wouldn’t want to be frightened on a Sunday morning.   

My Christian friends go to Sunday services to sing, pray, worship with fellow Christians and feel a sense of renewal with their Lord. They don’t want to be scared to death, and that’s precisely what Islam does. In fact, Allah says, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks–.” 

As you may have noticed, Islamophobia is rampant in America. For example, next week the Islamic expert Robert Spencer is supposed to give an address at Stanford, but terrified student organizations are protesting his appearance and urging students to boycott his speech.  Sorry, kids, the scary stuff is not going away just because you ignore it. Steel yourselves! Listen! 

While Islamophobes understandably fear Islam, Islamofools actually embrace Islam! Ironically, the Islamofools have successfully convinced the mainstream media that anybody who has the courage to honestly discuss Islam is the Islamophobe, not the cowards who refuse to listen!!  

I’m afraid the Islamofools are in charge. Notable fools include Presidents G.W. Bush and Barrack Obama; Prime Ministers Blair, Cameron and May; and sadly, Pope Francis.  



Allahu Akbar! Again.

Two days ago, a 29-year-old Muslim immigrant from Uzbekistan drove a rented truck onto a bike path in Lower Manhattan, killing 8 and injuring 11. The boiler-plate disinformation started immediately.

1) It was reported he jumped from the truck yelling “Allahu Akbar” which the media said meant “God is great” in Arabic. No. It means, “Allah is Greater.” Allah. Greater. It’s an important distinction.

I would bet that if he hadn’t said anything that the media would have been questioning whether this was a terror attack at all, and some pundit would have said anybody assuming it was by a Muslim was just a “racist,” and that Christians are just as big a problem around the world. After all, it’s so frequent that somebody yells “Jesus Saves” as they’re shooting up crowds, stabbing people or driving trucks over bikers, etc.

2) We were told that investigators were working to determine if that attacker was a “lone wolf” or had “connections to ISIS” or any other Islamic militants. No, he was not a “lone wolf,” nor is any other single jihadist. He was a Muslim. There’s hundreds of millions of them, most of whom openly or tacitly support terrorism. And, yes, he was connected to ISIS and every other militant Muslim. The connection is the Koran.

3) Somebody always says it was a “cowardly act,” this time it was Mayor De Blasio. Not from the attacker’s point of view, Mr. Mayor. He was going to kill some infidels, die in the process, and go to Paradise. To him, it was an act of war. To call it an act of cowardice is just a PC bromide.

4) PC also means Islam must be protected and, sure enough, the NYC Deputy Police Commissioner said, “This isn’t about Islam, this isn’t about the mosque he attends.” He warned against “Islamophobic” hate crimes. (Mustn’t give a Muslim a nasty look.) The mayor added, “The last thing we should do is start casting dispersions [sic] on whole races of people or whole religions –. That only makes the situation worse,” because, he continued, that would be doing what the terrorists want, affirming “that this nation is somehow anti-Muslim. We’ve got to do the exact opposite. We’ve got to show we respect all people in America.”

Just about everything in the above paragraph is precisely, 180 degrees wrong. Especially, we must show the world that our First Amendment does not protect the religion of Islam. Devout Muslims should NOT be welcomed, only those Muslims attempting to escape the religious persecution of their own religion, the apostates. I think that if the American people knew the fundamentals of Islam, that would be their overwhelming conclusion.

5) The immediate political response is always stupid, just a matter of degree. Governor Coumo said there will be “more police everywhere” but “not because there’s any evidence of an ongoing threat, it’s just out of vigilance –.” No evidence of an ongoing threat? Fourteen hundred years of jihad is not enough? President Trump was only slightly less obtuse: “I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program.” Oh, that’ll work.

This particular attack inspired the added entertainment of Chris Matthews musing on the air if there were geopolitical reasons why an Uzbeki would want to attack us.(1) I guess it would never occur to him that he attacked us simply because he is a Muslim. Matthews, like De Blasio, probably thinks such a thought would be “racist.”

It was awhile before anybody asked if the Muslim was attending a mosque (yes), or if the mosque he was attending had once been part of an anti-terror surveillance program shut down in 2014 (yes). Nobody drew the conclusion from the attacker brandishing paintball and pellet guns that he wanted to be killed. “Wanted to be killed” you ask? Oh, yes. Verse 9:38 in the Koran says that the Hereafter is much better than life on earth, so Believers shouldn’t hesitate to “march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) –.” (2)

Had he been really armed, this could have been a lot worse. (I wonder if somewhere he made an attempt to get guns and was thwarted?) It will be interesting to hear what the attacker, currently recovering from a gunshot wound, has to say about all this.

(2) Khan – Al-Hilali translation, The Noble Qur’an” Darussalm, 1996, pg. 255 and ftnt.

Speech to Republican Women 10/18/17

Speech to Republican Women of Grant County 10-18-17

Speech to R-Women 10/18/17, Sharia Law by Peter Burrows – Document 873 – “Maw” refers to the Sayyid Abdul A la Mawdudi translation: Toward understanding the Quran; “Kahn” refers to the Khan, al Hilali translation, The Noble Quran; R of T” refers to  Nah Ha Mim Keller’s Reliance of The Traveller. All available from Amazon. 

We’re going to talk about sharia and women, sharia being the laws of Islam. First, you have to understand that sharia law is God’s law—correction, ALLAH’s law –and where there is a conflict between Allah’s law and manmade law, Allah’s law prevails.  Devout Muslims believe manmade laws compete with Allah, and to obey them is to turn your back on Allah and Islam. That is apostasy, which carries the death penalty.

Sharia is derived directly and indirectly from the Koran, the foundational sacred text of Islam.  Let me take a minute to explain the Koran: It is NOT like the Bible. Get rid of that notion.  There are only a few words in the Bible direct from God, and they are the Ten Commandments revealed to Moses. The Koran has only a few words that are NOT direct from God, all the rest Allah’s words revealed through Muhammad.

Since the Koran is the word of Allah, it must be obeyed, accept for those parts where Allah changed his mind. We won’t be running afoul of those changes. Allah changing His mind is an Islamic fundamental of huge importance that I’ll cover at the next meeting of the GC Republican party, where I’ve been invited to give a talk on Islam.

The Koran commands Muslims to obey Allah, to obey and emulate Muhammad, and to obey “Muslims who are in authority “(V4:59 Khan pg. 127), not secular authorities but Muslim authorities, who acknowledge the sovereignty of Allah and the paramount authority of the Koran. Theocratic authorities.

(V4:59. See Maw pg. 121 for definitive footnote that reveals obedience owed to Allah, Mu, and those “invested with authority,” who are Muslims who rely on the Koran and Sunnah. See also the next verse V4:60 and ftnt pg. 122, equating secular law etc. with Satan, ditto “legal and judicial system that acknowledges neither the sovereignty of God nor the paramount authority of God’s book.)  

Over the centuries, “those invested with authority” have relied on the Koran and the life of Muhammad to produce a vast body of law which has been summarized for Sunni Muslims in this book, called Reliance of the Traveller, “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.”  Sunnis are 80-90% of all Muslims.

Let’s start with the most infamous verse in the Koran dealing with women. This is verse 4:34 – the 34th verse from the fourth chapter: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one of them excel over the other—“.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Of course, God “made one excel over the other” and that one is obviously women because it says right here that Allah commands us men to protect and maintain you women. But, that’s not quite what Allah had in mind.

Let me finish: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one of them excel over the other and because they spend out of their possessions to support them. Thus righteous women are obedient   — Allah’s command, ladies—-As for women of whom you fear rebellion, first admonish them, (next) remain apart from them in beds, and, last, beat them.

Hey, Allah’s command until the end of time. The helpful footnote from this Koran says: This does not mean a man should resort to these three measures all at once–.” See, Islam is compassionate!

This compassion is even more apparent when we go to the Reliance for details: on page 541 under Dealing With A Rebellious Wife, the husband may hit her quote “but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not break bones, wound her or cause blood to flow.” He can’t hit her in the face, either. So there, proof positive that compassionate wife beating is Islamic law. Sharia. Allah’s law.

Some of you are probably wondering about this scold her first, don’t sleep with her next stuff. Well, in Islam, a wife’s rotation is important, and you’re thinking “Rotation?” To explain, let me read Allah’s command from Verse 4:3 “–then marry the women that seem good to you: two or three or four. If you feel you may not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one —.”  (Maw pg. 102.)

Footnote: Muslim jurists are agreed that this verse fixes the maximum number of wives at four. (MAW 102) So, polygamy is Allah’s forever law and in the Reliance, we have rules for husbands so blessed to follow, for example, back to rotation: whenever he spends the night with one wife, he is obligated to spend nights with the others, “giving equal time to each one.”  (RofT pg. 539 m10.5) Proof  positive that Islamic law protects the rights of wives!

Some other nuggets: It is not permissible for a husband to enter the quarters of a wife when it is another wife’s turn.  If a husband wants to take a wife on a trip, he must draw lots to determine which one. That’s only fair, isn’t it?? Also, it is unlawful for a husband to house two wives in the same lodging unless they agree. Hey, sounds to me like Muslim women are in charge!! (rot, 538 – 540)

Also, it is unlawful for a wife to leave the house without her husband’s permission unless for a pressing need, and “It is not permissible for a woman to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed,” (RofT pg. 538 m10.4) and under no circumstance is she to be alone with a non-family member male. Can’t call the plumber, ladies, unless the boss is home.

Scholars unanimously agree it is unlawful for a wife to leave the house unveiled if there is a likelihood of a temptation, meaning anything that leads to sexual intercourse or its usual preliminaries.” (Whatever that means!!) (RofT 512 m2.3.) This from the Koran: “Remain in your homes and do not display your beauty as women did in the pre-Islamic period of Ignorance.” V33:33 The R of T adds this: It is a condition for the permissibility of her going out that she take no measures –no measures– to enhance her beauty, and that her figure is concealed or altered to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (RofT pg 682 p42.2(4))

Also, a woman cannot travel without a guardian, but I can’t find any definition of “travel”: To the store? Around the world? Beats me.

Any woman not taking such precautions opens herself to, at the very least, charges of rebelliousness and perhaps even charges of apostasy, because not being obedient is contrary to Allah’s law which means she is an apostate and “deserves to die.” Says so right here, page 596. (o8.4. Also & o4.17/o.5.4 pg. 593.) OK. Enough. We’ll return to this “modesty: theme in a moment.

Perhaps the second most infamous male-chauvinist-pig command from Allah in the Koran (V 2:282) concerns witnessing signatures to property transactions: “–call upon two of your men as witnesses but if two men are not there let there be one man and two women as witnesses so that if one of the two women should fail to remember, the other might remind her.”  (Also RoT pg. 637 o24.7.)

My wife, when informed of this heavenly directive gave me a look I can only describe as “bleak,” and said, “Not funny!”  I said, “Hey, I’m just quoting the Almighty. You’d think the daughter of a Lutheran minister would have a more worshipful attitude!”  Sigh. Allah’s work is never done.

This particular verse offers a perfect example of the circularity of reasoning so prevalent in Islam: We know the Koran is the word of Allah because Muhammad said so, and we know that Muhammad is Allah’s messenger because the Koran says so. Here, we have Muhammad declaring in the Koran that Allah says it takes two women equal one man, and in one of the stories in the most venerated of Islam’s “Gospels,” he refers to this Koranic “revelation” as “proof” of your mental inferiority, ladies.

(Buk 1:6:301)  I quote: Then he (Muhammad) passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell were women.’ They asked, ‘Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence —than you.  A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’  The Women asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence –?’ He said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?’ The women said “Yes.” He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Buk 3:48:826)

Note that part about a “sensible man could be led astray by some of you”?  That means, ironically, that sensible –sensible!!– Muslim men are weak minded compared to at least some Muslim women. One of the themes in Islamic law is that men cannot control themselves around women and it’s the woman’s fault!  So, who’s superior to whom?  (If time, relate story of M’s first cousin = it was m who couldn’t handle “a glimpse of stocking” which he then blamed on women and had Allah confirm the blame!)

In that same vein, an important verse in the Koran that is causing much harm today, and we touched on this earlier, is that “believing women” be appropriately clothed. Let me quote in full verse 33:59, (Maw pg 631): “O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them. It is likelier that they will be recognised and not molested. ”

Let me read you the footnote from this (Maw) Koran: “–when people see (women) dressed in garments exuding simplicity and modesty they will be recognised as honourable and chaste women. They will appear distinct from women of loose character who are ever on the hunt for lewd encounters. These women (those dressed appropriately) are unlike those whom immoral men would seek out to gratify their carnal desires.

Think about the ramifications of 1400 years of teaching that “honorable and chaste” women are “covered up” and if not, then they are “women of loose character who are ever on the hunt for lewd encounters.” Put a bunch of immigrant Muslim men on the streets of Europe and don’t be surprised when sexual assaults go through the roof.  To these men, a glimpse of stocking is not something shocking, it’s an invitation to rape, and proof that non-Muslim women are just scum good only for sex.

Thanks to mindless Muslim immigration, Sweden has become the rape capital of the Western world. In 1975, there were 421 rapes reported to the police, in 2014, there were 6,620, 78% committed by “foreigners,” and that doesn’t count second generation Muslims, who are “Swedes.”

Swedish courts have been reluctant to prosecute these rapists, and this in a country where feminists once crusaded to have men sit while urinating, standing being so symbolic of male dominance, don’t cha know. I didn’t make that up!  All over the world, the Muslim is a victim of racism, Islamophbia, Western exploitation and xenophobia. His victimhood far exceeds that of a raped female. Sorry about that, ladies.  In the politically correct order of victimhood, Muslims trump women.

In fact, sharia as practiced makes it virtually impossible to convict a man of rape. From the R of T, “–if testimony concerns fornication —then it requires four male witnesses–” –male witnesses (page 638 o24.9), “testimony concerns fornication,” no qualifications.

The “four witness” law derives from three verses in the Koran (V4:15 pg. 118 Khan, V24:4, V24:5) that don’t make sense to me because all of them say it takes four witnesses to convict a woman of the charge of illegal sexual intercourse, nothing about convicting the man. This has evolved into requiring four witnesses to exonerate her.    (If time, V24:4 and V24:13 were “revelations” specifically to refute allegations, made by THREE men, that Muhammad’s favorite wife had been adulterous. She said no, Muhammad believed her and VOILA!! Allah said FOUR witnesses required. People believe this crap.) 

The reading I’ve done suggests some Muslims think the four-male witness rule to substantiate a woman’s claim of rape is a misreading of Islamic law.  Their opinions count for nothing if the traditions of sharia say otherwise. What happens is that when a woman is raped, the man or men claim it’s her fault, and she’s automatically guilty.

Fortunately, most Muslim ruled counties have more Westernized rape laws, two glaring exceptions being Saudi Arabia and Somalia, where a woman claiming rape is seen as admitting she is guilty of fornication, which earns her 100 lashes if she is single, stoned to death if married.  (R of T 610, 611) But, hey! While men are lashed standing up, women are lashed sitting down! How sweet! NOW must approve.

While the sexual exploitation of Muslim women has a long history in Islam, so does the sexual exploitation of non-Muslim women.   The verse I referred to earlier that gave Allah’s permission to have up to four wives also says if you can’t marry, one, two three or four women, you can “marry from among those whom your right hand possess.”  (V4.3 pg 102 Maw & V2:221 pg. 47 Maw.)

The helpful footnote explains that the expression “those whom your right hand possess” means “slave girls –female captives of war who are distributed –when no exchange of prisoners takes place.” The Koran refers to “those your right hand possess” in many verses, e.g. one says that if men can’t afford the “bridal-due” (4:4 pg. 102 Maw) to marry a free believing woman, then “marry such believing women whom your right hand possess,” no payment needed. (4:25 pg. 111 Maw)

You might think that slave women being “captives of war” makes this Allah approval something irrelevant today, but oh, no. Islam is always at war with unbelievers, in most places for the last four hundred years or so that war has been suspended.  Recently, however, Iraq and Syria have been the battle ground for a new Islamic state, ISIS –Islamic State of Iraq and Syria— complete with self-appointed caliphate.

If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that ISIS delights in beheading captive unbelievers, something you can see for yourself on You Tube.  That’s what Muhammad did to his captives. Also, they have delighted in making sex slaves out of the wives and daughters of the unbelievers they’ve captured. That’s also what Muhammad did.

Now, the Koran forbids men from having sex with married women “except” I quote, “those women whom your right hands have come to possess as a result of war. This is Allah’s Decree and it is binding upon you.”(V 4:24 pg 110 and 111.) From the R of T: 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.” Rape away, boys!  (BTW no rape in a Muslim marriage. V2:223 pg. 48 = wives your tilth etc.)

ISIS even had a pamphlet printed up to guide their soldiers on the proper treatment of slave women. You can Google it up, e.g. ISIS Slave Women Manual.  A separate Q&A pamphlet on treating slave women had as 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 fit for intercourse; however, if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.”  Oh, my. ( and (Sharona Schwartz the blaze 12-14-14 when jihadists capture a woman–)

That ISIS would put such an abomination into print is not at all surprising when you know that having sex with nine-year-old girls has the indirect approval of Allah, who decreed that Muhammad was a good example for Muslims to emulate. V 33:21) And, guess what? Muhammad married a six-year-old and began having sex with her when she was nine.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, who became Iran’s Supreme Ruler after the overthrow of the Shah, had married a 10-year-old when he was 28. He said marriage to a prepubescent was “a divine blessing” and he urged Muslim men to marry off their daughters before they reached puberty. And after the Ayatollah took power, the legal age of marriage for brides in Iran was dropped to nine. Just a week ago, Pakistani lawmakers rejected a bill that would have banned child marriage: “Un-Islamic.”

A couple of other of “Allah’s forever commands” in the Koran still in force in Islamic societies today are the command that men receive twice the inheritance of women (V4:11) whenever possible and to divorce a wife a man simply has to say “I divorce you” three times. (Koran 2:228, 2:229 and 2:230., R of T pg. 558 n2.1)) The triple talaq” it’s called.

Early this year, the President of Egypt, concerned about the high divorce rate, proposed they do away with verbal divorce and he was met with fierce resistance. As one religious leader put it, “The authentication (of divorce) by virtue of a written document is a new phenomenon and was not applied at the time of the Prophet.” End of argument.

And, If there is some provision by which a wife can initiate divorce, I haven’t found it. If her husband gives her permission, yes, she can effect divorce by saying to him, “You are divorced.” (R of T pg 559 n3.3 (3)). From what I have read, the best a woman can do is take her grievances to an Islamic judge who then may — may—ask the husband to allow a divorce. (See files for blurb from islamqa.)

BTW, Tunisia passed a law a couple of weeks ago allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, which would put an end to that triple talaq crap for those women.  But, I wonder how long that will last. Such women would be committing apostasy and could be subject to honor killings.

Finally, one last piece of bad news, ladies. It is obligatory for Muslims to consolidate their political power into the office of a caliphate. (RoT 638) Unfortunately, ladies, the caliphate must be a Muslim –surprise!—- MAN! Says in here, “–the leadership of a woman being invalid because of the rigorously authenticated” saying of Muhammad: “A people that leaves its leadership to a woman will never succeed.” (RoT 641)

This leads me to my favorite Muhammad quote, at least my favorite when Miriam is telling me what to do: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Men are (already) destroyed when they obey women.” (RoT pg. 672 p28.1 (1))

YES!! I’ve noticed that. Thank you, ladies. We’ve run out of time but if you have any questions, I have been ordered to stick around and try to answer them and I always obey the ladies..


Studies in Islam: A Theocracy of Chains, Part Two

 By Peter Burrows 10/4/17 –

Islam’s useful idiots see nothing wrong with allowing Muslim immigrants to establish their own courts of law. This misguided bow to freedom of religion assumes that Muslims tolerate other religions just like Christians and Jews do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic law requires Muslims to forcibly subjugate followers of all other religions until they obey Islam. There is no First Amendment in the religion of Islam.

Furthermore, Islamic law, sharia, prescribes the death penalty for anybody who criticizes Islam or its prophet Muhammad, either in speaking or writing. There is no First Amendment in the religion of Islam. There is, however, much in Islam that is the equivalent of the Constitution’s Article VI, which declares the Constitution to be the “supreme Law of the Land.” According to the Koran, Allah commands that Islam someday must rule the world, which would make sharia the “supreme Law of the Land.”

To question the Constitution does not violate any law in the Constitution. Not so sharia. There are three laws in the most well known book of Islamic jurisprudence, The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), that prohibit Muslims from questioning their religion, but first, a little background on the Reliance of The Traveller, referred to herein as “R of T.”

The cover tells us it is “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” It was first published in the fourteenth-century as an update and summary of an earlier work by a “great thirteenth-century Shafi’i hadith scholar and jurisprudent who upgraded the work of previous generations —.”(Pg. vii.) In other words, the R of T’s bona fides are very old and very venerable.

The current edition is the Keller translation of 1994, last published in 2015. Authentications of the translation from contemporary Islamic scholars are found in the opening pages, e.g. “– its aim is to imbue the consciousness of the non-Arabic-speaking Muslim with a sound understanding of Sacred Law–” (pg xviii). Al-Azhar, Islam’s preeminent theological university, certified that the translation “corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community–” (pg. xx). Sunnis represent 80-90% of all Muslims.

I present these contemporary endorsements because there is much in the R of T that reminds me of tennis great John McEnroe, who would look at the linesman and scream “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!” Unfortunately, what’s in the R of T is serious, deadly serious. A Muslim who knowingly violates anything found in the R of T risks being branded a hypocrite, which makes the Muslim an apostate, and: “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate, or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die.” (R of T, o8.4, page 596.)

Therein lies an important reason for Islam’s longevity: Allah allows no dissention under penalty of death. His followers are ordered in the Koran to kill apostates (V 4:89.) in addition to anybody else who refuses to accept Islam. Communism’s goal of a dictatorship of the proletariat is kids’ stuff compared to Islam’s dictatorship of the theocratic. In fact, if a Muslim denies that Allah intends for Islam to rule “the entire world,” he is an apostate. (R of T o8.7(20), page 598.)

(When the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, addressed the faculty of Al-Azhar on January 1, 2015, and questioned the belief that Muslims should kill all the non-Muslims in the world, he committed apostasy and put his life in danger, something he was well aware of. His bravery should have, but didn’t, draw the praise of the entire civilized world.)

I am not sure how the R of T is updated. Most of it by definition cannot be updated because it represents the eternal word of Allah. However, change cannot be ignored, and the R of T has a recent section on television, an undated work by a Council of Islamic Scholars in South Africa. It’s a hoot to read, e.g. #5 on the list of why television is bad: “incitement to fornication.” Hmmm. Don’t believe I’ve experienced that one. Number 13, however, is spot on: “it wastes time.” Bottom line: “–no one can have any doubt of the illegality of television in Islam.”

What isn’t a hoot is that a devout Muslim father, or mother, could catch their children watching TV and KILL them for that sin. You think I jest? In Islam, there is no punishment for killing one’s children or grandchildren (R of T o1.2(4) page 584). I suspect the “illegality” of watching television is something enforced only at the convenience of the authorities, e.g. if someone earns the wrath of the Supreme Leader of Iran, they may find themselves arrested for watching Oprah.

The first rule in the R of T that puts the Koran in the “no thinking allowed” zone, is found under “Acts That Entail Leaving Islam,” all of which constitute apostasy. On Page 597, the seventh on the list is “to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it —.”

Scholarly consensus is defined in the R of T on pages 23-24 and essentially says that whenever there is unanimous agreement among qualified Islamic judges or scholars, their ruling becomes “an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey.”

Such a ruling is absolute and forever, and the R of T on page 24 justifies this as follows: “The proof of the legal authority of scholarly consensus is that just as Allah ordered the believers in the Koran to obey Allah and His messenger, so too He ordered them to obey those in authority among them, saying ‘O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you.’ (Koran 4:59.)”

The second rule that puts the Koran off limits is on page 693: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘Arguing over the Koran is unbelief.’ ” As you can imagine, “unbelief” by a Muslim is apostasy.

The third sharia law is on page 751, r14, in the section, EXPLAINING THE KORAN BY PERSONAL OPINION. At first read, this seems to allow some leeway for personal interpretation of the Koran: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, ‘Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah from his own opinion is in error.'”

The commentary then says this applies only to discussing the allegorical parts of the Koran and cites Verse 3:7, which says that Allah has sent down to people the Koran which has some verses which “are entirely clear,” and are the foundation of the Koran. Those are verses of commandments, obligations, and punishments. By definition, these are self-explanatory and not subject to opinion.

Other verses are “not entirely clear” and are the ones from which the doubters seek “hidden meanings” but “none knows its hidden meanings save Allah.” The verses “not entirely clear” are for Allah alone to know the meaning of, not for a mere a mortal to have an opinion about. Thinking prohibited!

All of this “no thinking” reminds me that the first verse to a number of chapters is simply Alif-Lam-Min, Arabic for the letters A-L-M. Some chapters start with Ha-Mim, or Qaf. In each case, The Khan translation of the Qur’an says: “These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur’an and none but Allah (alone) knows their meaning.” So, if you thought the Koran explained all things as per verse 16:89, you are “thinking” and should stop that right now.

Calling these unexplained letters a “miracle” is, in my opinion, a mindless rationalization of something inexplicable. Apparently, whenever Allah-Muhammad came up with some incomprehensible mystical nonsense, it was a “miracle,” not incomprehensible mystical nonsense. More proof against the divinity of Islam, in my opinion.

Ooops! Opinions not allowed in Islam.

In Part Three, we’ll use this unquestioning acceptance of Islamic dogma to counter the many lies Muslims are obligated to tell us infidels.

Studies in Islam: A theocracy of Chains

Studies in Islam: A Theocracy Of Chains, Part One, by Peter Burrows 9/24/17 –  

Non-Muslims have no idea how dictatorial Islam is.  Islam means “submission,” in this case submission to God, and the God of Islam, Allah, is a fire and brimstone dictator who tolerates no rivals and no dissent.  Allah demands His followers obey Him and His Prophet, Muhammad, and He commands His followers to punish anyone who disobeys or offends Him or His Prophet. Draw a picture of Muhammad? Die!  

The Allah of Islam does not turn the other cheek, He does not husband vengeance unto Himself, and He does not show mercy to those who do not worship Him. All this is found in the Koran, Islam’s foundational sacred text, which Muslims believe to be the forever word of Allah.  The Koran commands Muslims to obey its revelations and to obey Muhammad, through whom the revelations were revealed.   

The goal of Islam is to create a world-wide theocracy.  In theory, that’s not such a bad idea, is it?  After all, the Heaven of Jews and Christians is a theocracy ruled by God.  And there’s the rub. Any heaven on Earth must be ruled by human beings, and the founder of Islam was all too human.   

While the Koran says that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet or messenger, there are many verses in the Koran that lead anyone with an ounce of skepticism to the conclusion that Muhammad and Allah are one and the same, a conclusion devout Muslims cannot or will not see.  It’s also a conclusion many NON-MUSLIMS refuse to recognize.   

The reality is that the religion of Islam is the creation of a very successful Seventh Century Arab warlord.  (He was successful or Islam wouldn’t exist!)  As his power increased, so did his despotism and his egomania.  At his death, Muhammad-Allah had used the Koran to put his behavior above criticism (V33:21) and his every command as absolute (V4:80).     

The problem is that this Seventh Century creation, Islam, teaches that the Koran and Muhammad are Allah’s guides to be followed by all mankind FOREVER. The Koran is full of all sorts of eternal laws which are supplemented by more eternal laws derived from the accepted sayings and doings of Muhammad, which are found in separate sacred writings.  All of this, and much more, becomes Islamic law, Sharia, when the consensus of recognized Islamic scholars so decrees.   

Sharia is “Sacred Law” which cannot be overruled by laws passed by mere mortals.  Willingly obeying man-made laws that are contrary to the rulings of Muhammad-Allah is considered a major unbelief, a kufr, as per the following, from Islam Q and A, a website started in 1997 “for the purpose of valid interpretation of the Koran and Hadith”:    

Promulgating man-made laws that are contrary to the rulings of Allah and His Messenger concerning matters of blood, honor and wealth, is an act of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. There is no doubt whatsoever concerning that, and there is no difference of opinion concerning it among the Muslim scholars.  Promulgating such laws is competing with Allah —.”  

The Koranic justification for that scholarly consensus is in in Verse 42:21: “Or Have they partners with Allah (false Gods) who have instituted for them a religion which Allah has not ordained?”  Islamic scholars have interpreted “a religion Allah has not ordained” to include laws passed by mere mortals.  

This means, for example, that anybody who believes in the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause is behaving as though the U.S. Constitution was God’s law, and for that, “there is a painful torment.”  

(As an aside, do you think husbands should be allowed to beat their wives, any of the four wives Islam allows? If you think there should be laws against that, and maybe even laws against having more than one wife, than you are guilty of kufr, you miserable infidel. See V4:34 for Allah’s COMMAND that wives be beaten when all else fails.)    

There are numerous verses in the Koran that leave no doubt that the word of Muhammad-Allah is the final word, whatever the topic.  Verse 33:36 says believers have no option but to obey Muhammad-Allah.  Verse 4:65 says to be a Muslim you must accept Muhammad’s decisions “with full submission,” and verse 4:115 specifies Muhammad is to be obeyed to avoid burning in Hell. In both those latter verses “Allah” is conspicuous by His absence. Verse 4:80 says to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah. No ifs, ands or buts.   

Added authority for not questioning the Koran is found in the Koran itself.  The Koran is: The Book of Truth, (V4:105), that explains all things (V16:89), omits nothing (V 6:38), and declares the religion of Islam to be perfect (V 5:3).   Can’t improve on that, can you? Don’t even try!

Not surprisingly, it is a grave sin for the Muslim layman to question Islamic law.  If Muhammad-Allah has ruled, there is no need for personal reasoning, a.k.a. THINKING, which is called ijtihad.   Similarly, to pass laws that deviate from sharia is considered innovation, or bid’a.  Muhammad warned that “every innovation is misguidance,” which Islamic scholars have interpreted as those innovations which “contravene Sacred Law.”  (R of T pg. 915)  

The codification of all of this, and much, much, more is found in the Sunni book of Sacred Law, The Reliance of the Traveller (R of T). In Part Two, we’ll look at some sharia laws in the R of T that rule Muslims today —and forever.   

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

Studies in Islam: The Self-Destructive Koran and the Man Who Would Be God, Muhammad – PART THREE                                                                                                               by Peter Burrows –  9/3/17 (The Sunni book of sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller (sic), referred to is the 1994 revised edition, published in 2015.) 
In Part One, I showed that the Koran is not God’s eternal creation but is instead the creation of Muhammad, a Seventh Century warlord. Part Two examined some self-serving “revelations” in the Koran giving Muhammad God-like status that are a plague on humanity to this day. The two verses that are especially damaging are verses 33:21 and 4:80, in which Allah, respectively, proclaims Muhammad is a good example for Muslims to emulate and that Muslims must obey Muhammad.  
This article will look at what the Koran‘s order to “obey Muhammad” means. This is important because Islamic law, sharia, is based not just on what is found in the Koran, but also on what Muhammad said and did.  What Muhammad said and did are not in the Koran, but are to be found in what I call “the Gospels of Islam,” the hadith, which are collections of stories about Muhammad as remembered and passed down by his contemporaries. 
As you can imagine, after Muhammad’s death, a lot of people gamed the system. To obey Muhammad is commanded by the Koran, so picture an Arab with three goats being approached by another Arab with only one goat, who proclaims: “Muhammad, peace be upon Him, said he who has three goats must give one to he who has only one goat.”   
That sort of thing led a number of early Islamic scholars to spend years gathering stories passed down after Muhammad’s death and culling them for the “authentic” sayings of Muhammad. These were then compiled into collections that are somewhat comparable to the Gospels in the Bible, but instead of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Sunni Islam has Bukhari, Muslim, Abu DawudTirmidhi, Ibn Maja and Nasa’i 
Of those six collections, the one that is considered to be the most authentic, with a status second only to the Koran, is Bukhari. Imam Bukhari (810-870) spent 16 years collecting and analyzing stories about Muhammad and authenticated over 7000 of them.  This was some 200 years after Muhammad’s death, and was a monumental task. His work, Sahih Al-Bukhari, sahih meaning “reliable,” is available on Amazon. The 9-volume set, 4000 pages or so, was $128 the last I looked.   
The other five also total thousands of pages. Don’t waste your time on any of them.  You can safely assume that any law found in the Sunni text of sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller (R of T), that is based upon something Muhammad said or did is from a thoroughly vetted hadith, which is usually cited.  (I know of one Muhammad quote in R of T that is questionable, but it is not a law-making quote.)  For practical purposes, The R of T incorporates all we need to know from the collections of hadith.  
Reliance of the Traveller (that’s how it’s spelled) on page iii describes itself as “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” Because it is “Sacred,” it has an authority that surpasses any law passed by mortals. That’s important to remember.  Not counting the index, R of T is over 1100 pages of mind boggling detail covering not just law and order, but how Muslims should lead their lives, from personal hygiene to “Holding One’s Tongue,” as one chapter is titled.    
I confess that I find it fun to browse through, mainly because so much of it is so bizarre, so macabre.  In spite of updates that Islamic authorities effect to account for such things as watching television (“a violation of Sacred Law” pg. 964), the book is essentially a time capsule. The last time I looked, you could buy a copy on Amazon for $37.85.   
Because so much sharia law comes from the writings and sayings of an Arab war-lord who died in AD 622, it shouldn’t surprise us to find things in the R of T that are a reflection of the time.  For example, in section o5.O page 593,  we find the expiation due to Allah for killing somebody unlawful to kill is to free a slave, or if none owned, fast for two months.  Free a slave?  And, if the one who kills is not legally accountable, e.g. a child, then the guardian must free a slave on the child‘s behalf. Obviously, Allah condones (requires?) slavery.                                                                                                               
Also, certain barbaric punishments extent in Muhammad’s time are still in force today. For example, in some Muslim ruled countries homosexuals are thrown off of tall buildings and adulterers are stoned to death.   We might think that’s horrid but how can something commanded by Allah or His Messenger be horrid?   In R of T, section p17.3, page 665: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:  “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”   
The Muslim who killed 49 at the gay nightclub in Florida over a year ago was simply obeying Muhammad, which the Koran commands him to do.  We can expect many more attacks against gays, and others, if we continue to allow political correctness to call what you are now reading “hate speech.”  
R of T p17.3 has this further quote by Muhammad:  “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”   The punishment for this is something I’m confused about. As I read it, if a lesbian is married, which in the context of Islam could only be to a man, she is guilty of adultery and is stoned to death. (See R of T o12.2 and o4.17.) If not, she is “scourged one hundred stripes” to be administered as described in o12.5, which includes: “The whip used should neither be new nor old and worn-out, but something in between.”  Women are allowed to sit, men are scourged standing up. (As an aside, can lesbianism NOT be by women?)  
Rule o12.6 on page 611 shows us the compassionate side of sharia: “A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child can suffice with the milk of another.”  Isn’t that sweet. I bet NOW approves of that.  
Regardless, as someone with two beloved relatives who are lesbians, I am offended by the above, and if anybody tries to lash either my cousin or my niece, I will shoot them.  Oh, my. There I go again, spewing hate speech and being an Islamophobe.  Making violent threats, too. Sigh.  I bet the ACLU will want my scalp, tout suite. Which reminds me, has an article you may find interesting: Does the ACLU Condone Killing Homosexuals and Flogging Lesbians?  3/18/17.  
Murdering people, that’s what you and I would call it, is something Islam is good at.  In fact, without God-sanctioned murder, Islam would not be the force it is today.  That’s because the Islamic penalty for apostasy is death, and apostasy is so broadly defined otherwise decent Muslims living in Islamic societies are afraid to be critical of ANYTHING about Islam.  Unfortunately, the same is becoming true for non-Muslims in non-Islamic societies.  
There are at least three passages in Bukhari in which Muhammad declared apostasy to be a capital crime, the most succinct being: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari 84:57) Nothing too subtle about that, is there?   
References to killing apostates can be found in the R of T in numerous places, e.g.f1.3, o8.1, and o8.4.  Section o8.7 lists 20 “things that entail apostasy from Islam,” all of which will get you killed, and this is only a partial list: “There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.” Unsurprisingly, “to revile the religion of Islam” is on the list.  What you are reading now qualifies.  
Interestingly, a devout Muslim doesn’t have to commit apostasy to earn the death penalty. Just neglecting to pray at the correct time can get you “executed, washed, prayed over, and buried in the Muslim cemetery.” (f1.4 page 109.) Last year, Swiss authorities closed a mosque in Zurich after the Imam threatened his tardy flock with that divine penalty.  I guess Switzerland doesn’t have a First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion. 
Murdering apostates, as bad as it is, is small potatoes next to murdering unbelievers.  Section o9.0, “Jihad,” beginning on page 599, makes it quite clear that all Muslims who are able to are obligated to wage warfare to establish the rule of Islam, which means to slay everyone who doesn’t become a Muslim or who doesn’t agree to pay a non-Muslim poll tax (o9.1, o9.2, o9.3, o9.8 and o9.9). The insistence that Islam is peace” is thus contradicted by Islam’s sacred laws.  In fact, it is a sin NOT to wage war against unbelievers (o9.1).                                                                                                                                  

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

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

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

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

33:21: “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day —.” I call this the verse of the ego. Essentially, Muhammad said that whatever he did was approved by God. From this Muslims have come to believe, to this day, that Muhammad was the “perfect man.”

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

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

“Another rendering of this could be, ‘and you yourselves bear witness’ to Muhammad’s prophethood. However it is translated, the sense remains the same. In fact, the impeccable purity of the life of the Prophet — and the loftiness of the teachings of the Qur’an all constituted such illustrious signs of God that it was very difficult for anyone — to doubt Muhammad’s prophethood.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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