Thursday, April 19, 2018


Apart from the fact that most of this is a lie - these scientists didn't "create" anything yet, much less "by accident." Nonetheless, these naive little snowflakes should win the Darwin Awards for the entire coming millennium at least - because they're about to set humanity back to the Stone Age faster than you can say "Allahu Akhbar!"

Just think (and remember that thinking is no longer a requirement for graduates of these so-called and self-promoting "institutes of higher learning and education" at all) - what will happen when all of our computer cases, monitors, PLASMA TVs, all the wiring in your cars, (even the electric cars!) and trucks and buses etc and in the circuitboards in all computers and other chip hardware, ROTS?

And what else is made of these inherently evil (to indoctrinated snowflake Millennials) "petroleum products!"?

GASOLINE is. Gas for your cars. Gas for our airplanes. Yes - you read that right:


I strongly suspect some leftover bacteriums from the 1980s experiments to create some that eat oil-spills may be already responsible for several major aviation disasters so far - but this "new" development will make it certain!

From here:

Recycling 2.0: Scientists accidentally create mutant bacteria that dines on plastic

The researchers of the study said the discovery could help combat the world’s plastic problem

Researchers Bryon Donohoe and Nic Rorrer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) punching out coupon samples from a plastic bottle.DENNIS SCHROEDER / AFP PHOTO

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Islam In A Nut's Hell

From here and then from here and now, apparently, also available here:


Calling for Violent Jihad in Australia

There is not a Bible, Jewish or Christian, containing such incendiary commentary as populates page after page of 'The Noble Qur’an', which for four years has preached to the faithful in Canberra Airport's prayer room. The ideology it promotes is violent jihad. It is a book to start a war.

The Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt recently cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and imposed sanctions, accusing the Qataris of supporting terrorism. The Saudis have demanded that Qatar close Al-Jazeera and cut all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Islamic State. Qatar’s long-standing and well-known support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which aims to unify Muslim nations under an Islamic caliphate and has networks of supporters across the Middle East, is now perceived as a serious threat its neighbours.

 This is the pot calling the kettle black, for Saudi Arabia itself has a long record of exporting Islamic radicalism. Among its most notable exports are millions of Korans in translation, which, through commentary (mainly in footnotes) and accompanying materials, incite Muslims to wage violent jihad to establish an Islamic state.

Among the Saudis’ exported Korans is an English-language edition, TheNoble Qur’an, which can be found in mosques, prayer rooms and meeting places around the world. Anyone who applies to the Saudi embassy in Canberra will be sent a copy gratis.

The Noble Qur’an can be found in the musallah or prayer room of Canberra’s airport. What is apparently the same edition, with “AIRPORT MUSALLAH” written in black marker pen on the page ends, has been sitting there for the past four years, ever since the new airport was built. The Noble Qur’an is also publicly available in other “multi-faith” spaces that have been springing up in institutions across Australia in recent years, in universities, hospitals and other public places.
Canberra airport’s Noble Qur’an was printed by the order of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who ruled from 2005 to 2015. It includes the Arabic text, and, side-by-side, the English translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. There is also an endorsement by Shaikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz, Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia from 1993 to 1999, and a foreword by Shaikh Salih ibn Abdul-Aziz al-Shaikh, the current Saudi Minister for Islamic Affairs. After the Koranic text there are a hundred pages or so of appendices, and under the text there are footnotes, which offer a commentary. There are also frequent interpolations in brackets to help clarify the meaning in translation.

Marked “not for sale”, vast numbers of The Noble Qur’an printed by the Saudis are exported around the world. The King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an in Medina has printed over one hundred million Korans in thirty-nine languages since it was established in 1985. The handsomely gilded Noble Qur’an is distributed as part of the Saudis’ global da’wa or effort to propagate Islam. It appears to target two kinds of readers.

First, The Noble Qur’an seeks to enlist Muslims in violent jihad against non-Muslims, to establish an Islamic caliphate. Second, it aims to engage with Christians. The longest essay in the appendices is an argument that Jesus was a prophet of Islam, and commentary throughout The Noble Qur’an—in the explanatory footnotes, the interpolations in brackets and the appendices—challenges and “corrects” Christian teachings.

Sometimes it is said that when people use verses from the Koran to justify violence, they have taken them out of context. This criticism cannot be applied to The Noble Qur’an, which follows a traditional Islamic method of interpreting the Koran in the light of Muhammad’s example and teachings, known as the Sunna. In keeping with this tradition, citations from the Sunnasupply the great bulk of the explanatory footnotes.

On non-Muslims
The footnotes in The Noble Qur’an are repeatedly derogatory of non-Muslims. 

For example, a note to Sura 10:19 (p. 272, fn1) quotes Muhammad to say that human beings are born Muslims, and are “converted” away from Islam by non-Muslim parents. For Jewish or Christian parents to raise their child in their own faith is like mutilating them:
Every child is born on al-Fitrah, but his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity … An animal gives birth to a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?
The Arabic phrase al-fitrah refers to the doctrine that the innate state of human beings is to be a Muslim.

The Arabic text of the Koran calls non-Muslims unclean (Sura 9:28), using a derogatory word (najas). The footnote to this verse explains about non-Muslims that:
Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual because they don’t believe in Allah’s Oneness and in his Prophet Muhammad … and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and [menstrual] blood). [p. 248, fn 2]

Sura 3:85 states that “whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”. In the footnote commentary on this verse, The Noble Qur’an quotes Muhammad to explain that Christians and Jews who die disbelieving in Muhammad will end up in Hell:
there is none from amongst the Jews and Christians … who hears about me and then dies without believing in the Message with which I have been sent … but he will be from the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire. [p. 84, fn 1]

Sura 4:47 warns Christians and Jews that they should believe in Muhammad, or else their faces will be taken away in hell, to which the translators add, in brackets, “by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes”. The footnote commentary explains further:
This Verse is a severe warning to the Jews and Christians, and an absolute obligation that they must believe in Allah’s Messenger Muhammad … and also in his Message of Islamic Monotheism and in this Qur’an. [p. 115, fn 2]

The Koran has verses which exhort tolerance of Christians and Jews. Yet The Noble Qur’an takes pains to emphasise that such verses have been cancelled by later verses, following the Islamic contextual principle of abrogation (naskh). Here are two examples:

First, Sura 2:62 states that a Christian or Jew who “believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. This could be taken to imply that Christians and Jews will be accepted by God if they follow their faith properly. However, the commentary on this verse clarifies that:
This Verse (and Verse 5:69) … should not be misinterpreted by the reader … the provision of this Verse was abrogated by Verse 3:85 “And whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter, he will be one of the losers” (i.e. after the coming of Prophet Muhammad … on the earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone). [p. 13, fn 2]
What this footnote is actually asserting is that Christians and Jews will go to Hell unless they accept Islam, because earlier verses which seemed to counsel tolerance have been superseded and cancelled by later verses.

Second, Sura 2:109 states that Muslims should “forgive and overlook” the Christians and Jews, “till Allah brings His Command”.Yet the footnote makes clear that “the provision of this verse has been abrogated” (p. 21, fn 1) by Sura 9:29. The later verse commands Muslims to fight (that is, kill) Christians and Jews unless or until they surrender to Muslims and pay tribute:
Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad …) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Sura 9:29, p. 248]
Here again, a more tolerant verse is claimed to have been abrogated by a later verse which commands violence against non-Muslims.

The meaning of jihad
Some Muslims have proposed that the basic meaning of jihad is peaceful struggle. In contrast, The Noble Qur’an defines jihad as waging war against non-Muslims to make Islam dominant in the world. This jihad is obligatory for all Muslims, and rejecting this obligation will lead to hellfire.
This interpretation is made clear in the glossary, where the entry for jihad is:
Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam. See the footnote of (V.2:190) [p. 873]
The footnote referred to is a comment on Sura 2:190, “And fight in the Way of Allahthose who fight you …” This footnote reads:
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, (His Word being La ilaha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. 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 fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite. [p. 39, fn 1]
Here The Noble Qur’an is saying that the purpose of jihad is to make Muslims dominant over non-Muslims, and Islam dominant over other religions; Islamic warfare against non-Muslims is a kind of missionary enterprise to spread the faith, and any Muslim who does not fulfil this obligatory duty is a “hypocrite”.

What is bad about being a “hypocrite” is made clear by The Noble Qur’an on page 906 of the appendices: a hypocrite will end up in the lowest depths of Hell, the place of worst punishment. The Noble Qur’an is teaching here that any Muslim who does not engage in and support warfare to establish the dominance of Islam is destined to occupy the hottest place in Hell, worse even than that occupied by non-Muslims.

In its footnote on Sura 27:59, The Noble Qur’an quotes a tradition of Muhammad which refers to jihad (p. 512 fn 1). (Here again jihad is defined as “holy fighting”.) The footnote emphasises that fighting non-Muslims is the best possible pious deed for a Muslim, second only to becoming a Muslim.

The caliphate and universal war against non-Muslims
Sura 2:252 (p. 55, fn2, running on to p. 56) refers to Muhammad as a messenger of Allah. The footnote to this verse reports that Muhammad’s prophethood was distinguished by certain characteristics. Three of these are:
(i) Muhammad was victorious through fear or terror for a distance of one month’s journey: “Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.”
(ii) He was the first prophet from Allah given permission to take booty from his enemies: “The booty has been made Halal (lawful) to me yet it was not lawful to anyone else before me.”
(iii) Unlike previous prophets, he was sent to all mankind, not just to a specific group: “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only, but I have been sent to all mankind.”
The implication of this third point is that everyone, everywhere is obligated to accept Muhammad as their prophet, and the first two points show that he was uniquely commissioned to wage war against disbelievers, by terrorising and looting them. Muhammad is considered to be the best example for Muslims to follow, including, it becomes clear, in these aspects of his prophetic career. The Noble Qur’an emphasises these aspects of Muhammad’s mission to activate them for jihad.

In its footnote on Sura 3:55 (p. 76, fn 1), The Noble Qur’an states that when Jesus returns he will impose Islamic law and break the cross (that is, destroy Christianity). At that time Jesus will do away with toleration of non-Muslims, so that “all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative”. In other words they will be compelled to convert by force if required.
This teaching about Jesus’s return is repeated in a commentary on Sura 8:39 (p. 236, fn 1), and a comment on Sura 61:6 (p. 761, fn 2), which states that this tradition is intended as “a severe warning to Christians who claim to be the followers of ’Isa (Jesus) …” In essence The Noble Qur’an tells its Christian readers that when he returns Jesus will compel them to embrace Islam, and all people on the earth will have to choose between Islam and death.

In its commentary on Sura 9:29 (p. 248, fn 2) The Noble Qur’an cites a tradition of Muhammad about the Jews, which states, “The Hour (i.e. the final hour) will not be established until you fight against 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.’” So, at the end, creation itself will cry out for Jewish blood.

In an interpolation in Sura 8:73, The Noble Qur’an states that Muslims of the world must not ally themselves with non-Muslims, but join together “to make victorious Allah’s religion of Islamic monotheism” (p. 242). It is explained in commentary that if Muslims do not do this, there will be terrible disorder and tribulation in the world, with wars and battles and calamitous breakdown of civil society. This is because of the deleterious effects of non-Muslim rule. Moreover, it is also wrong to have “many Muslim rulers”, because Muslims should unite under one ruler, the caliph: “it is a legal obligation … that there shall not be more than one Khalifah for the whole Muslim world …” Furthermore, anyone who works to divide Muslims into different groups under different rulers should be killed, according to Muhammad, who is reported to have said, “When you all [Muslims] are united … and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man” (p. 242, fn 1). This can be taken to imply that anyone who upholds the division of Muslims into distinct nation-states, which is the international order today, stands under a death sentence.

The Noble Qur’an paints a supremacist vision of an ultimate Islamic victory over non-Muslim religions, in which all non-Muslims will be converted to Islam or killed. The text of Sura 3:110 reads:
You (true believers in Islamic monotheism …) are the best of people ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin al-Mahruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief, and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. [Sura 3:110]
The footnote commentary on this verse explains:
You … are the best of people ever raised up for mankind” means, the best of the people for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam (and thereby save them from the eternal punishment in the Hell-fire and make them enter paradise in the Hereafter) … The people referred to here may be the prisoners of war who were captured and chained by the Muslims and their imprisonment was the cause of their conversion to Islam. So, it is as if their chains were the means of winning Paradise. [p. 89, fn 1]
This footnote is a reference to a tradition of Muhammad which states that Allah is pleased to see people entering Paradise in chains. This justifies making war on non-Muslims, and forcing them into Islam through enslaving them; enslaving non-Muslims is a kindness to them, because it enables them to attain Paradise.

This interpretation of Sura 3:110 is based on Muhammad’s teaching. Could it have any application in today’s world, or is it just a dead letter?

The very same tradition was cited by the Islamic State in the October 2014 edition of its magazine Dabiq, which included an article titled “The Return of Slavery Before the Hour”:
[Muhammad] said, Allah marvels at a people who enter Jannah in chains. The hadith commentators mentioned that this refers to people entering Islam as slaves and then entering Jannah [Paradise]. Abu Hurayrah … said while commenting on Allah’s words, You are the best nation produced for mankind … You are the best people for people. You bring them with chains around their necks, until they enter Islam.”
The same sentiment was also expressed by a Dutch Islamic State fighter, Israfil Yilmaz, who blogged about the correct Islamic motivation for sex slavery:
People [who] think that having a concubine for sexual pleasure only have a very simple mindset about this matter … The biggest and best thing of having concubines is introducing them to Islam in an Islamic environmentshowing them and teaching them the religion. Many of the concubines/slaves of the Companions of the Prophet … became Muslim and some even big commanders and leaders in Islamic history and this is if you ask me the true essence of having slaves/concubines.

The translators who crafted the commentary in The Noble Qur’an, and the Saudi leaders who endorsed the text, no doubt desired that readers would take to heart the teachings they had laboured hard to present. The evidence is that many have done so. The investment by the Saudis of billions of dollars to spread the kinds of ideas found in The Noble Qur’an has not been in vain, and the Islamic State provides the proof.

Evidence for their success is found in Israfil Yilmaz’s justification for sex-slavery. This not only aligns with official ISIS propaganda: it also is fully in line with the teachings of The Noble Qur’an. Another sign of the influence of The Noble Qur’an’s ideas has been the river of thousands of ISIS recruits flowing from Western nations to join the jihad in Syria and Iraq.

What does all this mean?
Ahmed Farouk Musa, a graduate of Monash University medical school in Melbourne, told a forum on Muslim extremism in Kuala Lumpur on December 7, 2014, that The Noble Qur’an incites violence against Christians and other non-Muslims: “I believe that propaganda such as the Hilali-Khan translation and other materials coming out of Saudi Arabia are one of the major root causes that feed extremist ideas among Muslims, violence against Christians and other minorities.”

There is not a Bible in print, anywhere in the world, Jewish or Christian, which contains such incendiary commentary as is found on page after page of The Noble Qur’an. This is a book with which to start a war. The ideology it promotes is primed to light the fuse of violent jihad.

Given its contents, it might seem surprising that a copy of The Noble Qur’an has been sitting in the Canberra airport prayer room for the past four years. The theological characteristics of this edition of the Koran are not a secret. Yet it seems no Muslim who used the musallah has objected, or if they did, the Canberra airport authorities paid no attention. Canberra’s politicians and their many advisers also regularly pass along the corridor where the musallah is located, but none of them seems to have thought to check what version of the Koran was being used in their airport’s prayer room.
Earlier this year the Public Health Association of Australia asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to reject the “notion” that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism. It seems that Public Health Association of Australia officials have also not visited the Canberra airport musallah to read its Koran.

There has been much discussion and sometimes puzzlement about how young Muslim men have become radicalised enough to fight for ISIS. Reading and believing the messages implanted in The Noble Qur’an in the Canberra airport prayer room would be sufficient to convert some people to the key points of the ideology of ISIS.

The message of The Noble Qur’an is no marginal phenomenon. It is not an opinion from the extremities of the Islamic world, but from its heartland, presented as a gilt-edged free gift from the Saudi king, the Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques. The political theology of The Noble Qur’an aligns with the official dogma of Saudi Arabia, and it has been endorsed by the Saudi king and the nation’s chief justice, the Grand Mufti.

It is necessary to grasp the authenticity of The Noble Qur’an and its message to the world. Those behind The Noble Qur’an manifestly believe that justice will be served only when Muslims rule the world, and that warfare necessary to achieve this goal is not only justified: it is a divinely instituted, inescapable obligation incumbent on every Muslim, because Muhammad and his Koran are, as Sura 21:107 puts it, “a mercy to the worlds”.

One sometimes hears the view that it is not up to non-Muslims to express opinions about Islam or its canonical texts, such as the Koran. But The Noble Qur’an’s running commentary on the text, because it has so much to say about non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, therefore gives non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, every right to form their own opinions about it. If a book talks about you, you have a right to make up your own mind about what it has to say.

In 2002 Christopher Hitchens fielded a question from Tony Jones on ABC’s Lateline as to why young, mostly well-educated men committed the 9/11 atrocity. Hitchens’s answer was, “Well, it could be they believe their own propaganda.” We have to assume that those responsible for The Noble Qur’an believe their own propaganda too, and that some who have read it have been influenced to believe it too.

What should Australians make of the fact that the Saudis have been presenting an open and unashamed apology for violent jihad, even commending the practice of enslaving enemies, in our own backyard for years, not to show Islam in a poor light, but to glorify it?
The fact that The Noble Qur’an is in the Canberra airport musallah is no accident. This edition of the Koran and the teachings it promotes can be found in Islamic bookshops, public libraries, prayer rooms and Sunni mosques all over the English-speaking world.

The British historian Tom Holland recently produced a documentary on ISIS called The Origins of Violence. A scathing review by the English journalist Peter Oborne was published in the Middle East Eye. Oborne excoriated Holland for suggesting that the problem with ISIS lies with Islam. Oborne found it repugnant to suggest that there is anything about Islam that might be considered a “threat”, and he railed against Holland’s suggestion that there could be anything in the example and teaching of Muhammad (whom Oborne respectfully calls “The Prophet”) which could have guided the actions of the Islamic State.

Such ignorance is the fruit of religious illiteracy. Or might fear be the issue? Has Muhammad, praised in the pages of the Koran for being “victorious by awe”, now extended his reign of fear, not just for the distance of one month’s journey as Muhammad declared he had achieved in seventh-century Arabia, but across fourteen centuries to Australia and the rest of the world?

Of course many Australian Muslims would, like Ahmed Farouk Musa, find the messages promoted through the footnotes and glosses of The Noble Qur’anutterly repugnant. It is disappointing that these well-meaning Muslims have not been able to determine which version of their own scriptures is to be placed in a public prayer room designated for their use. They could have lobbied Canberra airport to have this version of the Koran replaced by another, but if they have done so, their attempts must have failed.

The message contained in The Noble Qur’an and its widespread public distribution are matters Australians have every right to be concerned about. Its message has been promoted in public for years with hardly a whisper of objection coming from those who should know better.

It would be inappropriate, and indeed irrelevant if our leaders were to respond to the message of The Noble Qur’an with statements like “True Islam does not promote terrorism” or “No true religion supports violence”. For Australian officials to dare to instruct the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia or the Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques on what is true Islam would be ludicrous and offensive. But the leaders of our nation, against whose non-Muslim citizens The Noble Qur’an incites such undisguised enmity, have every right to say, “Not in our backyard!”

Dr. Mark Durie is an academic, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.

This article was first published by the Quadrant in November 2017. 


No single book, regardless of edition, is the problem. Islam is the problem: Islam as Moe preached and practiced it, recorded in the Qur'an, explained in tafsirs, exemplified in hadith and codified in sharia. It's Islam, Stupid!!!

Noble Qur'an: Mark Durie Aims At Wrong Target!

Noble Qur'an: Mark Durie Aims At Wrong Target!

    In a long and detailed post, Mark Durie argues that one edition of the Hilali/Khan Qur'an translation, because of it's commentary, tends towards radicalization, inciting violence.

There is not a Bible, Jewish or Christian, containing such incendiary commentary as populates page after page of 'The Noble Qur’an', which for four years has preached to the faithful in Canberra Airport's prayer room. The ideology it promotes is violent jihad. It is a book to start a war.

    Is there any evidence that anyone has ever taken that Qur'an from it's shelf and read it?   If they did, would they read  the fine print in the foot notes?  How many Muslims read Allah's book in their native tongue?    One research report puts Qur'an literacy at or below the 50% mark depending on  location and age. Use the Ctrl F search, for read and take the third result.

    Classical Arabic from the 7th century lacked vowels and diacritical marks so there were seven variant readings. Vocabulary and idioms have changed, so Joe Camel can't understand the Qur'an even if he can read modern Arabic.  Joe Camel needs a tafsir.  Tafsir Ibn kathir comes in ten volumes.  If Joe Camel has $200. handy, he can buy a set. If he has internet access and a large hard disk, he can get it free but it will take up 2.87 gigabytes.

    What does it really mean?  Only Muhammad knew for sure. His interpretation is in hadith collections. Sahih Bukhari  is said to be the most rigorous of the muhadditin, winnowing down 600,000 hadith to about 4700 discrete sayings. The 9 volume set will nearly destroy a pair of hundred dollar bills. Or you can download it from the archive.

    For obvious readons, most Muslims get their knowledge of Islam from their Imam or from the likes of Anwar al-Awlaki & Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  So where do the experts get their knowledge?  Ain't it obvious?

    The conquests of Arabia, Syria, Asia and the Balkans happened long before publication of this edition in 1985.   How do you explain that if  TNQ is the root of all evil?

Compare a few translations from Islam Awakened.

  • Literal
    • Fight those who (do) not believe in Allah and not in the Day the Last, and not they make unlawful what Allah has made unlawful and His Messenger, and not they acknowledge (the) religion (of) the truth, from those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the willingly, while they (are) subdued.
  • Shakir
    • Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
  • Hilali/Khan
    • Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    Click this link to Corpus Quran for a word by word breakdown of the verse. Click the first word: qātilū and read the concordance to see the other verses based on it.
What are Muslims commanded to do, to whom and why? Is there any defensive element in that verse? Does it mention being attacked first?

    Ibn Kathir provides plenty of detail in his tafsir.  Read the left hand facing page first, for 9.28. Mekkans worried about loss of revenue from prohibiting pagan hajj. Allah gave them 9.29 as a revenue replacement: jizya!

    Consider the title of this tafsir:  "The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They
give the Jizyah".  it implies offensive jihad, not defensive.

    What is the meaning of this: "Allah
commanded His Messenger  to fight the People of the
Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah,
and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the
people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination." ???

What did Allah command Moe to do?   He commanded him to attack the Byzantine Empire!! But the command is without geographic or chronological limits and has no expiration date. It is always valid.   Take a close look at the footnote.

 (V.9:29) a) See the footnote of (V.2:193)
b) Narrated Abu Hurairah 4»l ; Allah’s Messenger  said, “The Hour
will not be established untill you fight against 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, Vol.4, Hadith No. 177)
c) Jizyah: a tax levied from the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), who are
under the protection of a Muslim government.

M (A) (V. 2:193) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar  Allah’s Messenger
said, “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people till they testify that
L i ilih a illa llih wa Anna Muhammmad-ur-Rasul A llih (none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah 3 y. and that Muhammad  is the Messenger
of Allah), and perform As-Salit (Iqimat-as-Salat) and give Zakit, so if they
perform all that, then they save their lives, and properties from me except for
Islamic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allah.” (Sahih
Al-Bukhiri, Vol.1, Hadith No.24).
    In the first instance, the infamous genocide hadith is quoted. In the second,  a hadith  in which caliph Umar quotes Moe as saying you save your wealth and life from Moe by reciting shahada.

    Take another look at the body of the ayat: did Hilali & Khan add anything to it or change it's meaning?  They only explained and confirmed the meaning by adding footnotes with exegesis and hadith.

    How did Moe interpret 8.39 & 9.29?  he marched on Tobuk, didn't he?  He did what Allah commanded him to do! Here are the relevant ahadith:
Sahih Bukhari  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Sunan Abu Dawud  14.2635
    Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

    The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

    The ayat says Fight those who. The tafsir says order to fight. The relevant ahadith say ordered or commanded to fight. Who can connect the dots?  Who has a clue?  Do you?

    How about the Islamic jurists, what do they say about  9.29? "Reliance Of The Traveller cites it as the scriptural source of a perpetual war rule outlined in o9.1 and made explicit in o9.8, which I quote.
o9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
    The caliph makes war on Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they pay Jizya.  He does it because of the command in 9.29. Note the condition precedent: issuance of dawa prior to attack!  Would the caliph waste time inviting aggressors to Islam if he was under attack?  No! This law proves the offensive nature of Jihad!!   The requirement to invite to Islam before attacking is confirmed in Hedaya & Risala 

    In the matter of Jizya: see hedaya, page 211.... for the gritty details of Islamic law. What looks like an elongated f is really an s. Once you get past that, you should be able to read the text.  Read the Noble Qur'an here. Read volume 4 of Sahih Bukhari here.

    This is a pull your head out of the sand moment: Islam: belief in Allah, his imperatives, threat and promise is the problem, not any single book or edition. Muslims believe that Allah is the almighty creator, who commands them to conquer the world for his good pleasure, in return for which he will admit them to his celestial orgy. But if they do not fight in his cause, he will damn them. That makes Islam a perpetual war machine. We need to eliminate belief in Allah. Eliminating one edition of the Qur'an is not sufficient. 

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Humanity-Destroying Feminism In League With Islam

The only thing both militarists and pacifists can agree on, is that there should be no resistance to aggression!


The nanny state appeared when women were given the vote.


All criminals, when caught, extort and blame their victims by playing dumb and acting as victims themselves. Some if not most even habituate to playing "fellow" victims all the time.

Into that last category are WOMEN. Women USUALLY play the victim towards men - just to attract them and get laid - and are believed by superficial people simply because they are smaller and weaker, even if and when no specific physical threat was implied to have been involved. This emotively slanders all men as cunning predators, even though most men feel protective of women and, contrary to the women's slanderous victimology narrative that  men are all part of "the Patriarchy" who are always united in proactively plotting to suppress their rights, most men do not think of women as intellectually threatening enough to warrant needing to be plotted against or suppressed at all, and further won't unite with other men to do so!

Women resent being treated as mindless sex objects, but then project their own insecurities onto men by also accusing them of taking women seriously as intellectual threats, even so far as to presume that the sexual objectification of women is a deliberate choice belittle and disparage them, only in order to cover up the men's own intellectual insecurities!

In fact, however, men don't unite with other men to suppress women, and in stead most men can be counted on to betray other men and even to adopt the women's own victimology narrative, and to slander all (the other) men as aggressors.

This is why in a democracy, the political and legal systems tend to eventually be slanted 90% against men and in favour of women.



Feminism is divisive anti-united-humanism. It is virtue-signalling victimology and treason to humanity.

"Feminist Theory" basically asserts that, whenever one is having trouble with other females, always blame a male! It's a form of co-optive deflection - when one can't solve one's immediate problems, just blame something and someone else!

And it works out for "male feminists" who, as usual, really only want to get into the women's pants, too: because they can cut out the competition, by pretending to blame all other men as insensitive boors, whenever a women complains about her man or even about other women!

There is no "Patriarchy!" Men simply don't think about women enough (or in that way) to bother to plot or scheme to trick and oppress them - those are projected female tactics!

Only women - whose sex drives are naturally much less than mens' as they have to plan for better offspring and avoid men who are dangerous - have ever actually ganged up and grouped together to withhold sex from their men, united as a women's union, until their extortive demands are met!

Men would NEVER even remotely think to do such a thing!

In fact, most men are usually thinking about how they can beat other men, by pretending to be "male feminists!"

Further, gender isn't a "social construct" - in general terms, it's biologically mandated by evolution in ALL animals.

There's a real and evolutionary reason women are better than men at speech, and worse at spatial orientation:

Women have to be able to talk their way out of things, and yet cannot become adept at fighting (off men).

Most women admit they engage in static gossip and simply talk out their feelings about things while not actually doing anything to solve problems. Men, on the other hand, don't talk about problems, but simply solve them.

This is why women excel in the arts but not the sciences, while more men are prone to be engineering scientists.

But if and when women can use their superior language skills to convince their men to solve their problems for them, especially to attempt to solve the "problem" of the existence of (other) men in general, that's how and when a societal collapse is initiated.

Many if not most women admit they engage in "rape fantasies" because Submissive masochism is how their brains are wired - there are indeed such things as separate-function specific "male brains" and "female brains," and this whole new slanderous "gender-is-only-a-social-construct-of-the-evil-(white) male-patriarchy" nonsense denies basic reality.

It's also why women excel in the currently confusing social sciences/humanities - because they can more easily hold and memorize "cognitively-dissonant" opposite ideas in their heads without actually thinking about them - because they are programmed to go along to get along with the stronger, larger men - or at least, initially.

First Submit, then subvert (undermine, control, subsume)!

Our inherent societal sexism is such that all women, simply by dint of being smaller and weaker, are also presumed to be less intelligent, and so are always considered helpless victims to be pitied, and so it's bad form to ever become righteously angry at the little dears, and any evil male who dares to display anger towards any female is to be judged a hopeless criminal brute!

And this form of criminal slander has been codified by Western governments into our laws and gone global!

And, hadn't you heard?! Being angry at ("hateful" towards) criminals is now held the most vile sin, while pitying ("tolerating") them all as "fellow victims," is to be deemed the highest moral virtue, these days!

Having no facts, logic, or reasonable arguments with which to defend their own crimes and treason, most criminals (women) must in stead substitute this global attempt to control our very thinking - through an emotional, sub-conscious "narrative" - so much so, that the only advice we hear from "our" hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:

"Anyone who doesn't automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!"

Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a "hateful" crime itself!

This excess of "empathy and compassion" (synonyms for PITY) is what happens when natural cowards (cf: women) are allowed to rule. Pity is the fake dynamic form of static FEAR, while righteous ANGER is the dynamic form of static HOPE. Which emotion and attitude actually solves problems, and which condones and so enables crimes? Well then, guess which emotional attitude criminal hypocrites (cf: politicians) promote?


Criminals (liberals, muslims, divisive feminazis, etc) HATE cause-and-effects, because it proves them to be lying slanderers each and every time.

The REASON women, as a group, on average, earn less than men in the exact same jobs, is because they don't stay in those jobs. Everyone gets incremental raises, even while doing the same work of the same description in the same job position, the longer they keep at it, right?

But no matter what level of which job women are in, they often opt to become pregnant and leave those jobs - either temporarily on maternity leave, or for years, to raise the kids - so OF COURSE they aren't still earning any money there, or getting any raises!

THIS is what the statistics reflect, and if the agitating feminist activists (extortionists) were honest enough to admit it, their whole "men deliberately underpay us!" slander narrative would be instantly over!

Most men instinctively want to defend and protect women. In being taught to reject those types of men, WHILE slandering them ALL as rapists, these kids will grow up smugly alienating well over half of the human population (because no other women will want to associate with them, either, at least not whenever any men are around them)! So all they'll have left to console them in their later years is their carefully fostered anger, hatred, and resentful victimology just as their feminazi mothers had planned for them!

Feminists hate to have men involved in ANY children's lives, so always opt to increase government control.

Worse, over time, as the most angry and aggressive men kill each other off in wars, it leaves only the more cowardly, subversive and dishonest beta-cuck criminals to reproduce, leading to the almost inevitable further feminization of our societies and corruption of the human race in general - at least in the West.

Which leaves the only real alpha males (although corrupted and almost equally feminized in the exact other way, by living in the only truly unbalanced Patriarchal societies,) left, those in the islamic world. Simply because the older richer men are allowed to sweep up four of the youngest women each, the rest of the men turn out gay.

And which for some "unknown, unexplained" reason, (the nascent global oil-bankster hegemony) hordes of gay muslim rapists are currently being imported into the West, to replace all the beta-make cucks here, too. None of which is good for any society or indoctrinating "culture," even their masters.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

"SWAMPONOMICS" Exposed - How Much Do YOU Owe?


... for even more gory details!


America is $21 Trillion in debt, with only 326 million citizens, only 104.5 out of the alleged eligible 206.5 million who are actually employed.

As of May 2017, the number of working age Americans without a job increased to just a shade under 102 million.

What is this "working-age population of America"?

Apparently, it's those from between the ages of 15 to 64:

"The working age population is defined as those aged 15 to 64. The basic indicator for employment is the proportion of the working age population aged 15-64 who are employed. The age dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (people younger than 15 or older than 64) to the working-age population. This indicator is measured as a percentage of population."

So that means that the rest are dependants - too old, too young, or too unemployable in today's economy, who have to be carried by the 104.5 million who actually work.

Let's do the math:

$21,000,000,000,000 debt, divided by 104,500,000 actually working people, = $200,956.94 each.

This is expected to double in 10 years, by 2028.

Average income? The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year.

How much can the average working American afford to put aside to pay off that $200,000 debt in the next ten years, before it doubles?! And even that estimate is presuming that government spending doesn't increase at all in that same time frame LOL!

You figure it out.


I've seen how libtards try to dodge these debt facts, too - they say "well, that $21 trillion is still only a tiny part of the GNP or GDP - but it isn't, because the GNP and GDP is only $18.6 Trillion, so the debt exceeds yearly income! 

Therefore, they next try to compare the government's yearly budget DEFICIT with the overall GNP/GDP in stead, claiming that since it is only $1 Trillion per year, nobody should worry - except that, like I just pointed out, the overall DEBT exceeds the yearly income for the whole country, while the government's deficit is still 5% of the COUNTRY's spending, not merely the government's spending! 

And of course when the government runs a deficit, it's spending outstrips its income, too - by $1 Trillion a year, or by another $9,570. per working person per year - so they run up YOUR credit cards by ANOTHER ten grand each and every year that they are allowed to remain in office! 

Now that's "swamponomics!" 

AND, it's really even alot worse than that! For the real horror story, check out these sites, too:
Americans owe over $21 trillion, AND have $112 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and most Americans don’t have $1,000 in savings.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

The gun grabbers' ultimate goal is slavery

 Government wants to disarm the people simply because there are more people than government men, and government can't win if you don't give up your gun.

What game do they want to win? They want control over you.

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." — George Mason, The Virginia Ratifying Convention

When the gun grabbers are in full throat, I think of Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn pondering on an armed citizenry in The Gulag Archipelago: "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

"Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush ...?

"The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

Make no mistake that the elites are not coming for your guns because they don't like you skeet shooting. Yes, you will be restricted from purchasing a gun simply because it looks frightening, and a bunch of pointy-headed, intellectual, overeducated elitists will tell you it is not "needed" for hunting.

But they are coming for your guns because government hates competition, and the liberty-loving, armed individualist is healthy competition.

Of course there are those who want to convince you that each incremental step in taking away your right to bear arms in your own self defense is "reasonable." They often cite the Swiss as models of gun ownership.

  • Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland.
  • All men between the ages of 18 and 34 deemed "fit for service" are given a pistol or a rifle and trained.
  • After they've finished their service, the men can typically buy and keep their service weapons. They just need to get a permit for them.
  • Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits.
There are more than a few problems in Switzerland regarding guns, however. The first one is that there is a gun registry, or a log of each gun owner kept by the regions or cantons. Second, you cannot conceal-carry there. And not all is happiness in Switzerland, despite what you're told. There is gun violence there — most of it is the result of suicide by gun. This is similar to the U.S as of the over 30,000 deaths from gunshots per year here, a majority — about 60 percent — are suicides.

What Michael Bloomberg and the left-wing gun control crusaders continually ignore is that guns and the availability of them are not the problem. The problem is a dysfunctional society with a culture of violence that they had a large hand in creating and allowing to fester.

But if you are thinking of acceding to the gun-grabbers' plans and are starting to think a gun registry of each owner is "reasonable," Franklin Sanders of The Moneychanger got it right when he wrote:

"Owning guns is about having something to use against the government when they come to put your family up against the wall and shoot them. Ask the Russians, Germans, Chinese, and anybody else in the world. The only thing preventing total tyranny right now in the USA is that there are 300 million guns out there and government doesn't know where they are."

How many guns?

300 million is probably a low number. Let's take a moment to hear out a former Special Forces soldier and blogger who cites the ATF's "Access 2000" system. It's voluntary, and has been kept since the year 2000, with manufacturers and sellers entering 252,443,229 unique gun serial numbers.

Those are just the voluntarily recorded guns since 2000. The real total of all guns held by citizens in the U.S. is likely to be more in the 400-600 million range.

That's twice as many guns as estimated by the mainstream media. Yet though we've just doubled the number of actually existing guns held by the populace as opposed to the perceived number, still the anti-gun lobby loves to pull out figures and statistics that it claims show that America is the most violent place on the planet, saying that if guns were simply banned America would be a crime-free utopia.

Hogwash. Gun statistics researcher BJ Campbell points out that "There is a statistically sound case that no clear relationship exists between gun proliferation and gun homicide rate." None:

"Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide
There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. The correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

And anyone with access to the internet and a basic knowledge of Microsoft Excel can check for themselves."

And there are no statistics on the number of 3-D printed guns. How 3-D printing can create an AR-15 or AR-47 is over my head. But my information says that 3-D printing is being used to create AR-15s and AK-47s that actually work, without any kind of gun registration. Seems to me like this would be Bloomberg & Company's worst nightmare.

It could put powerful self-protection in the hands of everybody and their dog.

The State Department has tried to block access to many sites that show you how to create these guns, but instructions are already on computers around the world.

What to look for

Since they cannot stop gun creation, keep an eagle eye open for any attempt to establish national gun registration. This is a prelude to confiscation of guns of every kind.

Keep an eagle eye out for the end-around gun control with ammunition control. All they have to do is make ammo in short supply by buying it up. After all the government buys what it wants with paper money that costs them nothing.

The thought police can bankrupt every ammunition maker by making guns perfectly legal but ammunition illegal, or impossible to get without — you guessed it — registering your purchase.

I remember in years gone by that many people re-loaded spent ammunition. This would be a great opportunity for you men out there who would like to learn a secondary trade for a post-collapse society.

Also, buy a gun, get trained in its use and practice, practice, practice. Have a spare magazine handy for situations like this one. Don't be a helpless victim.

Now, while I do believe constitutional amendments are in fact constitutional, and Justice Stevens has every right to call for an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment, remember that the 2nd Amendment was not put in place for hunters or even for self-defense.

It was put in place to protect Americans from totalitarians in government like New York's Rep. Jerrold Nadler. He once told CNS News: "One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that's insane."

Insane? Tell that to Solzhenitsyn. If the State has a monopoly on violence, that is full-blown tyranny. Americans would no longer be citizens, they would be subjects.

Nadler revealed the end game: Reducing murders is not the goal of the power elites. It's total disarmament. That would give the State the long-awaited monopoly — on everything. That amounts to slavery.

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™