Culture War – Islam and the West

Without an Islamic Reformation war is inevitable.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

The cultural differences between the systems of thought, induced by the ideologies of Islam and those which comprise Western society are worlds apart. Islam has little if anything in common with Christian ideals, Western culture, or modern, Christian and even secular rationalism – irrational and obtuse as much secular ‘logic’ is today (cosmology, globaloneywarming, tulips to teachers etc, which are philosophies not science). Contrary to revisionist literature and pathetic Muslim apologia Western scientific, artistic, religious, societal and historically development has little connection with and imported scant material from Islam. Islam is a complete system of 'being' and this cultural fact – mass communalism and subservience to an abstract and never explained moon deity from Mecca called 'Allah' or ‘The Lord’ (Baal of course); makes conflict at every level domestically, and internationally, inevitable. 

When cultures collide, conflict erupts. When modernity runs into pagan pre-modern cultures, modernity will triumph provided that it does not compromise its own culture. Our current post modern Marxist obsession with relativity and the dismantling of Western ideals is an obvious display of suicide premised on ignorance. Once you destroy what you are and who you are, there is little left to defend, and little energy remaining to improve. Islam does not suffer from post-modern communal loathing. 

Islam is not a religion in the Christian sense. The book of Matthew which houses the sermon on the mount; the golden rule; and the basic ethos of Jewish-Christian and indeed near eastern ideals on life, family, society, responsibility and spiritual health; has no equal or counterpart in the Koran. Christian thought is not replicated in Muslim-Quranic thought. 

Christianity is concerned with seeking truth, the obvious existence of the immaterial, mental and spiritual health; the consequences of actions; the need to reflect, tolerate, learn, embrace and be hospitable to strangers; as well as aid the poor and sick and build a better world for all. Islamic doctrine supplied by the Koran, the Hadiths and Sharia Law do not share these concerns.  The Koran splits the world into two, Moslems against the Rest; with lurid, violent calls to dominate, convert, war, commit jihad, and to rule. Islam is a cult in which the few – male Muslims – dominate the rest. 

Islam has never been based on reason, the interstation of faith and logic or universal morality. Christianity is suffused with all of these.  By its very nature, the faith of Christ is open to inquiry, socio-economic and technological change, invention, and fluidity.  It is malleable yet concrete, and this is the reason it was able to dominate the world.  Even the poorly named Christian reformation did in some sense aid in a liberation of spirit, economy and self-confidence which inspired European world domination. This ‘reformation’ was in many ways a deformation, calling for sola scriptura, the putting aside of good works with salvation through faith alone; and of course the violent destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives; art, treasure, irreplaceable artefacts and architecture.  The ‘reformation’ of the 16^th century in Europe was more about power and absolutism than anything else.  Having said the obvious, it is also clear that the egregious conduct at times of the Church, had necessitated a response.  There are no corollaries within the Arab cult named Submission. 

Christian spiritual reformation has always been on-going.  Bishop and ascetic Chrysostom in the 4^th century ridiculed the hypocrisy of contemporary Christians and especially the plutocratic elite; a series of charges which would be quite appropriate today.  Every era saw reformers of various bents and hues advocating change and usually a return to the simplicity of Christ’s doctrine.  In many areas of Christendom by the 15^th century, taken over by secular and monied interests, the Christian church had grown rotted and fat, greased with money, wealth, corruption and venality. It was as far removed from the book of Matthew as Islamic doctrine is removed from reason. The Christian church by the 16th century was no longer a spiritual force, but just another kingdom on earth with popes playing the role of emperor, the church elders engaged in legal issues and lawsuits, to expand their money, power and make states subservient to Rome, and tax money often flowing to a centralised and unaccountable church bureaucracy and city.  Yet, despite this, science, medicine, art, trade and capitalism, funded, supported and developed by the Church flourished.

Contrary to modern propaganda, the medieval Christian church had many positives. The monkish orders were the main providers of capital, agricultural technology and farming improvements. The church housed the most literate and learned of men. Roger Bacon one of the earliest exponents of the scientific method and other rationalists were monks and supported by church money to improve technology and daily life.  Hundreds of inventions including optics, eye glasses, modern math and astronomy, issued from the Church and its endeavours.  The Church was the only stable benefactor in a world of shifting kingdoms, neglect of the poor, denigration of women, and the persecution of the weak. 

It was the Church which saved civilization both from Rome, and post-Rome.  The Christian message of true spirituality released society from the burdens and regulations of dogma, superstition and irrational rule making. These were all prevalent in the violent Roman-pagan era, in which 90% of the population was poor, enslaved, illiterate and without hope.  Christianity refocused society on the true meanings of liberation, namely equality, faith and hope. It generated energy, dynamism and ideas. The Church made the call to individual freedom and the striking down of an unaccountable cultish mentality which had rotted pagan society into obsolescence. 

By contrast Islam has never a comparable base for its development, nor alignment with reason and faith.  It is totalitarian.  Islam though riven by sects and different interpretations is monolithic in the sense that the Koran rules and that subservience to the Koranic-Mohammed ideal the most important element in a Muslim's life. It is thus the communal over the individual. This ethos of communal universalism negates what the Christian Church has always taught. Invention, progress, self-reliance, democratic governance, rational scientism, these and other derivatives of Western greatness have no corollary in Islamic history. 

Islam was a squatter's empire. It has self-generated very little to aid human kind. Its purpose is communal domination. Its expansion was propelled by war, lust, gold, women and slaves. This is not to say that Western expansionism was benign or morally correct. But it is obvious that Western settled and developed areas are far better off than those which are not. 

The West is not some utopia of moral perfection but its original culture of individuality and Christian ethos regardless of what the chattering Marxists or Muslims say today, was and is far superior to anything that Islam has or can offer. Without a Muslim reinvention, a conflict at all levels between the pagan cult of Islam and the modern world is inevitable. It is a conflict that Islam will of course lose – as long as the West decides that it should win.

Holy Koran! Suras 83-114 'The plagiarized Kabaa poems'

Mixed with the usual Infidelophobia!

Monday, April 10, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Consider this hate speech and vitriol against Jews and Christians who are called Abu Jahl (disbelievers) and Al Mushrikun (criminals), in Mein Koran:

These themes saturate and inform Muhammad’s cult document.  Jews and Christians are satanic enemies, who must be destroyed and who will in any event, be tormented by Baal the moon deity, who is the Al Lah (Lord) of Mecca.

It is well known that the smaller Suras, compiled during the early phase of Muhammad's cult, were culled and plagiarized from the Kabaa shrine. These verses are later re-assembled and infused with the usual litany of Koranic-Muhammadan intolerance towards non-Moslems. It is worthwhile to note two obvious facts.

First, Muhammad's attempt at gang organization in Mecca, disguised as social 'reform' and concern for the 'poor', was a remarkable failure. He was deemed to be a social agitator, hungry for power, illiterate, quite stupid and probably insane. The Meccan elite had little patience for a man who was condemning Arab pagan theology, and distorting if not obstructing trade and money which flowed to the Meccan shrines from pilgrims and the pagan faithful. Instead of killing him for generating social turbulence the Meccans exiled him to Yathrib or Medina. A fateful mistake of course.

Second, Muhammad's lack of education, erudition and even innovative ideas is reflected by his plagiarism of both pagan Arab poems and ideas; and of Judeo-Christian tenets which he had picked up as a simple caravan trader in Syria. Nothing Muhammad said or uttered was new or ethical. Most saw through his thin veneer of 'social concern' to discern a brigand, a thug and a political-military adventurer, one who would lead armies, butcher men with his own hands, slaughter Jews, Christians and pagans, and engage in lurid sex trafficking and the establishment of a personal harem – all the while bathing in stolen gold and luxuries, and taxes for his Meccan cult centred around Hub'Al, the Lord, or the Al-Lah.

The moon idol, Al-Lah did not create the Koran. Muhammad and later generations of Arabs and Moslems did, each with a self-interested purpose. The Hadiths for example were largely compiled by the Abbasids during a civil war in the 9th century, some 200 years after the founder of Submission had been murdered by his own men.

Of particular import to Moslem and Arab culture is the random violence against non-cult members. The Koran is a merger of pagan Arab mores with Muhammad's intolerance. In the last 21 smaller verses of the cult document, there are 388 verses. Only 109 verses or 28%preach hate speech against the Infidel. Only a cult document would contain such lurid hatred against Unbelievers. Examples of hate speech verses from Sura 83 to 114 are:

The themes are simple-minded, fantastic, cultish and quite repetitive:

   1 ) Infidels are evil, greedy, stupid, ignorant and linked with Satan. They can be killed. Many verses above reference individuals that Muhammad murdered, justifying their deaths by the tautological claim that they were Unbelievers, or that they mocked or criticized Muhammad.

   2 )  Muhammad must be obeyed since the Al-Lah idol has designated Muhammad to be the most important human ever. Not to follow in-toto, Muhammad's diktat is a 'sin' perpetrated by 'criminals. 

   3 ) Al-Lah is the only free-will force in the entire universe. Humans only have the 'free will' to follow what he wants them to follow. 

   4)  All Infidels including those importunate enough even to question Al-Lah [aka Muhammad] will be tortured in Hell-fire on Judgement Day. 

   5 ) Islam is superior to any other cult, religion or social organization [Sura 9-102:6, you keep your 'religion' and don't taint Islam with your dogma].

These themes are that of a cult, not a religion. Perhaps Moslems might first want to read the Koran to associate themselves with the pagan-fascist [communalism which eradicates the individual, rationality and free-will], cult of a man who was most likely quite insane. 

The Arab and Muslim love affair with slavery.

And Blacks too for that matter. Certainly not a white-only issue.

Monday, April 03, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Muslim brutality and Islam's primitive nature is represented by its devotion to slavery. From 622 A.D. until now, the Muslims have harvested, shipped, and enslaved somewhere between 11 to 30 million Blacks and Caucasians. Until the 20th century at least 11-15 million Blacks were taken out of Africa and shipped into the Arab heartland. A similar number of Whites and Caucasians from Eastern Europe and the Black Sea regions were likewise transhipped into Muslim empires until the 19th century.

A far greater number of Hindus, Central Asians and Buddhists were similarly enslaved in the Arab empire and its successor states in the Subcontinent and beyond. It is a sordid record never discussed. No one knows for sure, but it is not an exaggeration to suppose that 40 million non-Muslims were directly enslaved by Mohammedans. This is four times greater than the number of Blacks sent across to the Atlantic – 4 million of whom ended up in Brazil, and 2 milion of whom ended up in the United States. 

But don't worry no-one will discuss the history of Arab and Muslim slave trading. This after all is a White-only crime. 

Arab and later Muslim empires were of course built on plunder, squatting and slavery. The Arabs and Muslims did not invent, nor create, anything new. They simply took over the existing and far superior civilisations of the Jews, the Christians, the Persians, the Hindus and the Greeks. Medicine, mathematics, philosophy, writing, literature, plumbing, hospitals, sewers, architecture, cement, agricultural techniques, irrigation – any and all sundry accroutements of civilisation were built by the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Persians, the Mesopotamians, or the Hindus. The Arabs contributed nothing. 

Except the slave trade that is. 

The Arabs were superb at trading human flesh. Better even than Blacks who had enslaved each other for millenia, long before the White man arrived on the African scene. The Arab's empire depended on slavery – for profit, for building, for tending to mines and industry, and even for military drafts. Without the trade in Black and White slaves, the Arab and Muslim empires would have collapsed. 

According to Bernard Lewis, author of 'Race and Slavery in the Middle East': "Black slaves were brought into the Islamic world by a number of routes - from West Africa across the Sahara to Morocco and Tunisia, from Chad across the desert to Libya, from East Africa down the Nile to Egypt, and across the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Turkish slaves from the steppe-lands were marketed in Samarkand and other Muslim Central Asian cities and from there exported to Iran, the Fertile Crescent, and beyond. Caucasians, of increasing importance in the later centuries, were brought from the land bridge between the Black Sea and the Caspian and were marketed mainly in Aleppo and Mosul." The trade was vital for the Arab economy. 

One can make a very good argument that Islam and the Koran are inherently racist and anti-Black, if not anti-White. Kaffir is a derogatory Arab word first used to denote Blacks as inferior sub-humans, which was later expanded to include all non-Muslims. Slavery of Blacks and other non-Muslims is expressly accepted and encouraged in the Koran. Though the mad fascist Muslim founder Mohammed, states that freeing slaves gains merit, he certainly never made any prohibitions against acquiring slaves. In fact Mohammed encouraged by his own actions and various 'revelations' extensive slave-owning. Sura 33, verse 50 states for example: "Prophet, we have made lawful for you.... the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty." 

Mohammed not only owned and traded slaves himself – he also quite enjoyed female slaves as sex toys. Women captured in war or bought as slaves on the market could be raped at will by Muslims. The Koran encouraged this. Suras 23:1 and 70:22 state that it is lawful to have sex with slave girls. The Hadiths are filled with references to slaves owned by Mohammed and his associates. In one Hadith Mohammed intervened to reverse one man's emancipation of six slaves. By casting lots, Mohammed denied freedom to four of them. Charitable he was not. 

One does not recall the figure of Christ using women as sex chattel. 

With such a poor example set by the founder of Islam, it is no wonder that Muslim countries were slow to forbid slavery. Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and the institution in 1837. Over 500.000 White males died eradicating in part if not instantly in whole, the insidious and barbaric Southern US slave society. Yet no such corollary exists in the non-Western world. 

The Ottoman Empire abolished slavery in stages, beginning in 1847, when trading in slaves was banned in the Persian Gulf – under threat of British military action. Women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire as late as 1908. Slavery continued after the Ottoman Empire was crushed in 1924. Qatar did not abolish slavery until 1952. Yemen and Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962, and Mauritania did not officially abolish slavery until 1980. And of course slavery still exists in parts of Africa, Brazil, Pakistan, the Sudan and other parts of the Islamic world including the forced marriages of young Muslim girls, usually premised on sex, to older men in exchange for money. Compassionate this trade is not. 

Muslims appear to be obsessed with slavery. This would make sense. Slavery has often been declared by Muslim clerics and 'thinkers' as a fundamental part of Islamic culture and doctrine. Many Muslim leaders refuse to countenance the destruction of the slave institution. It is not hard to see why. Muslim slavery of others simply highlights their superiority and Allah's admonition via Mohammed, that Islam must conquer the globe. If male Muslims rule, than de facto the rest are slaves or at best, second-class dhimmi citizens, prey to whatever rules Muslims devise. 

Sharia law, Muslim demands in the West to reorder social and cultural life, and radical extremist arrogance in viewing the world as a pre-determined domain of Allah or the moon cult, all stem from the Muslim obsession with domination. Dominating others through jihad, terror, and slavery is a fundamental aspect of Islamic intolerance. 

This is not to say that all Muslims are voracious slave traders and sex chattel operators. But there is something remarkably pagan and primitive, if not outlandishly savage, about an ideology in the 21rst century which still protects and participates in the most de-humanizing of activities. The natural law rights of men, such an important part of Western civilisational development, is completely alien to Islam. 

It is no wonder that the history of Islam is in some sense, a history of the slave trade. From West Africa to the islands of Indonesia, the Arabs and Muslims have been history's most ruthless slavers and flesh traders. This ties in nicely with Islamic ideology and its commands. 

But don't worry – no one will discuss it. After all according to the multi-cult piety, Islam is holy and good, even one supposes, its extensive history of slavery.

Sura 109 and Moslem supremacism. It is not a verse about peace and tolerance.

The one-world Cultural Marxist wonders need to learn how to read.

Monday, April 03, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Sura 109 is held up in awe by the one-world wonders as an example of Islam's endless love and tolerance. It ranks up there with 2:256 in the pantheon of cultural Marxist worship, in which the reader is informed that Infidels will be fought, overcome and dominated by those who follow Allah [read the entire passage from 2:256 to 2:275]. Sura 109 is a short Sura, orally transcribed by Muhammad when his cult was weak, with few followers and harassed by Meccan authorities, who were tired of listening to Muhammad's gibberish that the Arab pagan pantheon was 'evil', and that the Hub'Allah demanded a stricter, totalitarian, and more ritualistic method of worship – with himself as the prime actor in the cult.

Here is Sura 109 translated by Hilali-Khan:

“Al-Kafirun In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): "O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar, etc.)!

"I worship not that which you worship,

"Nor will you worship that which I worship. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

"Nor will you worship that which I worship.

“To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)."

Cultural Marxists and self-loathing Western idiots can't get enough of this Sura. You worship your Gods, I will worship mine. Oh wow, that is so tolerant. It proves Islam's superiority! But not really. There are three aspects to this verse that the one-world wonders miss.

1 ) Before Muhammad started Jihad, war, extermination, overt racism, and brigandage his small band of family members and cult devotees never numbered more than a handful. So of course someone who is being persecuted by the authorities is going to whine, 'please leave me alone, worship your 'Gods', and I will worship mine.'

2 ) More importantly, and rarely mentioned, is the fact that Muhammad is talking about Allah or Hub'Allah, being the main 'god' amongst many. In other words the import of this Sura is that it references Arab polytheism. What Muhammad is saying is that the Arabs can worship their many Gods, but he will worship only one – Hubal or 'ilah – namely the 'one Lord'.

3 )This Sura references a contract stemming from the above 2 points, forwarded by Muhammad to the Quraish elite.

Now some other translators have a different set of words for the 5^th sentence, and all of them make it clear that Muhammad is denying polytheism and elevating his idea of that Allah is the main 'God' amongst all the Gods:

Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Pickthall and Ali

Nor will you be the worshipper of what I worship. Daryabadi and Dawood

Nor will ye serve what I serve;- Palmer

Nor will you ever worship what I worship. Khalifa

And neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship. Asad etc.

Sura 109 is not a celebration of multi-cultural harmony. It is Muhammad stating the obvious. You pagan Arabs will continue to worship your Gods [as long as your state and society are strong]; and our small cult will worship our one 'God'. So let's agree to disagree is what he is asking.

But notice the contradiction in this Sura. The Koran demands that you believe that Allah or Hub'Allah is the 'one'. Only he can be worshipped. Yet Sura 109 is clear – other gods were being worshipped including Allah. Allah is not unique, not connected to Judaism, and has no reference in Judeo-Christian theology. Allah was being worshipped by the pagan Arabs [in the form of Hub'Al] along with 359 other deities. Muhammad is thus confirming the paganism of this Allah.

Lastly, the Sura is a proposed contract from Muhammad to the Quraish elite. We know this from Moslem sources. Maududi the early twentieth century Moslem fanatic and supporter of unfettered Jihad states that Sura 109 refers to a proposed peace initiative from Muhammad to the Quraish elite. When you take this into account the Sura does not declaim for tolerance, but simply rejects the Meccan belief system. This fact eventually drove Muhammad from Mecca – at the threat of being killed by the Quraish. Tolerance does not exist in Islam, nor in Muhammadan theology. As Maududi confirms:

“....[this Sura] was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity. Although it was addressed in the beginning to the disbelieving Quraish in response to their proposals of compromise, yet it is not confined to them only, but having made it a part of the Quran, Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith.”

So much for one-world, inter-faith tolerance. Sura 109 has nothing to do with love and hope. It is a clear statement of supremacism, and the innate Moslem belief of their own superiority.

Cultural Marxist/MSM/Islamophilia talking points when a Moslem attack occurs

Up is down. Lies are Truth. Reality is optional.

Friday, March 31, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Free the Christian Slaves held by Moslems

$500 can free a family of 6

Thursday, March 30, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

St. Thomas Aquinas on the ignorance of Muhammadism & Muhammadans

Islamophilia is a mental disease.

Monday, March 27, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

The Middle Ages were not ‘dark’.  Today’s culture is rather dark indeed with the various cults people belong to.  Panspermia; Dark Matter; Pregnant Black Holes; Globaloneywarming; Plant-food-is-evil; ‘Science’ [fiction]; Islam is Peace; Open Borders; Historical Revisionism; Abortion….the list is quite endless.  Regarding the hysterical modern cult of ‘Islam is Peace’ the philosophers of the Middle Ages [called ‘scientists’ today]; were under no illusions about Muhammadism, which is what Islam or Submission needs to be called.  Muhammadism is the cult of Muhammad and a cult it is.

One Middle Age scientist [or philosopher] was St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the brightest men that Western Civilisation has developed.  Living in the 13^th century, and through the last phases of the Crusades, Acquinas offered a biting critique of Islam based in large part on the questionable character and methods of its founder, Mohammed.

Aquinas and indeed anyone who has bothered to study Muhammadism, will know that this cult appealed to ignorant, brutish, carnal men and it was spread not by the power of its arguments or divine grace but only by blood and the power of the sword.  Muhammadism, like Nazism or Communism, is a coercive cult; one that must propitiate the Baal idol [or Al Lah, the Lord of Mecca], with blood offerings.  This propitiation with blood to appease the moon deity long precedes Muhammadism of course and was a central pillar of the Baal cults of the Near East, of which the Meccan was just one.  Muhammad’s family were of course the caretakers of the Baal or Al Lah shrine.

Aquinas knew this.  Being a keen observer of the human condition, he was also familiar with the chief works of the Muslim philosophers of his day including Avicenna, Algazel, and Averroes–and engaged them in his writings.  He found them wanting.  Unlike the claims by the modern cult of Islamophilia, Moslem ‘science’ produced very little.  Most ‘inventions’ ascribed to Moslems were converts or those living in Moslem domains.  Most of the creations pre-date Moslem conquests.  Acquinas knew this and was able to quite easily dissect Muhammadism both theologically and practically.

In his voluminous Summa contra gentiles, or Summary against non Christians, which Aquinas wrote between 1258 and 1264 AD, the genius argued for the truth of Christianity against other belief systems, including Muhammadism.  Looking at the poverty of Muhammad’s cult, this claim is not difficult to make. 

Aquinas for example contrasted the spread of Christianity with that of Islam, arguing that much of Christianity’s early success stemmed from widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus, whereas the spread of Islam was worked through the promise of sensual pleasures and the violence of the sword.  Muhammadism appealed to the deranged, venal, lying, bloody, material, violent and sexual.  Christianity to their opposites.

Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”

Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.

“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”

Because of the weakness of Muhammadism’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”

Muhammadism’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.

“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

At the time Aquinas was writing, Islam was generally considered a Christian heresy, since it drew so heavily on Christian texts and beliefs. Aquinas wrote that Mohammed “perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.”

According to the noted historian Hilaire Belloc, Muhammadism, “began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing.”

In his Summa contra gentiles, Aquinas ends his argument by stating the obvious that Muhammed, had to keep his followers ignorant in order for them to remain faithful. It was, Aquinas wrote, “a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.”

“It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly,” he wrote.

Aquinas is of course correct.  Muhammad himself was largely ignorant, a war lord, a man who had 24 sex slaves and wives, who had sex with a 9-year-old, who murdered started wars and brutalized populations.  For clever people, this makes him a ‘prophet’ of peace. 

The brain dead who defend Muhammadism & the cult of Submission

Nazism, Communism, Islam.

Friday, March 24, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

For the brain dead, the Muhammadan cult is peace, love and tolerance.  When Moslems engage in their weekly Jihadic activity somewhere in the West, the MSM, elite and politicians studiously ignore it, terming it ‘Islamist’, or the outbreak of mental illness and actions from the lone-wolf union membership.  Moslems become ‘Asians’, youth, ‘migrants’, or ‘immigrants’.  Their actions are never associated with the moon cult of Mecca [Baal is AL Lah, and Muhammad’s family were the caretakers of the Baal shrine]. 

The paedophile Muhammad, who had sex with a 9-year-old [to consummate an alliance with his most important general Abu Bakr, through his daughter Aisha]; and a man who slaughtered Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians; and who plundered these communities to enrich himself; is portrayed as a ‘prophet’ of peace, liberating women, enfranchising the poor, instituting moral standards and revivifying faith.  A ‘great man’ of a ‘great faith’, say Pope Frank, Prime Minister May, ex-Communist propaganda minister for youth and now Chancellor Merkel; and the other huge brains of the political scene.  Ascribing to this fuehrer figure such deeds goes beyond absurd – it is psychotic, mentally deranged, psychosomatically ill.  If such a man created a cult – why is it religious and why would it devotees behave any better ?

According to really smart people, only ‘fundamentalist’ [ie. ‘fascist’] Jews and Christians oppose the Muhammdan moon cult.  This is of course, a lie.  Socialists, Atheists and other worthies have also recognized the totalitarian barbarism of Muhammadan fascism.  One of the more famous recently is Oriana Fallaci, Italy’s best known socialist journalist and author.  Communism would probably describe rather succinctly, her ideas of the political-economy.  But unlike Merkel et al, she views Islam for what it is:

‘She vividly describes how Muslim migrants would urinate and defecate on artistic treasures in Florence, including the celebrated bronze doors at the Baptistery – the “Gates of Heaven” by Lorenzo Ghiberti. Right after 9/11, Fallaci wrote a furious article about the behavior of Muslims in the West; it took up four full pages in the Corriere della Sera; she then turned it into a book, The Rage and the Pride, a full-bore attack on Islam and Muslims that does not mince words, and that has sold millions of copies.’

Moslems urinating, defecating and defacing Christian symbols is nothing new.  It is demanded in Mein Koran.  All idols – pace Muhammad who smashed 359 idols of the Kabbah shrine, save that of Baal – must be destroyed.  Failing that a pious Moslem must desecrate them.  Fallaci of course criticized Islam for its sex slavery, misogyny, its hypocrisy, its wanton violence, its inimitable barbarism.  For that she was sued by ‘human rights courts’ in Europe and her life threatened by Moslems.

Atheists such as David Hume, in an age when clarity was not an issue also detested Islam.  Hume read Mein Koran and was instantly repelled – as any person with a brain would be:

Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.

Mark Twain was an Atheist, anti-Christian and a man who would now be termed a left-liberal. He had no illusions about Mein Koran:

When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters.

George Bernard Shaw another Communist-Atheist, who apologized for the fascism of Stalin, found Islam the most disturbing ‘faith’ imaginable.  At least he understood it has nothing to do with Christianity:

Islam is very different [from Christianity], being ferociously intolerant. ..When the Arabs had run this sort of idolatry to such extremes [that] they did this without black dolls and worshipped any stone that looked funny, Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration.

And then there is the atheist Bertrand Russell who wrote comparing the Fascism of Communism quite favourably with Islam:

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.

Immediately after his [Muhammed’s] death the conquests began, and they proceeded with rapidity… Westward expansion (except in Sicily and Southern Italy) was brought to a standstill by the defeat of the Mohammedans at the battle of Tours in 732, just one hundred years after the death of the Prophet… It was the duty of the faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam… The first conquests of the Arabs began as mere raids for plunder, and only turned into permanent occupation after experience has shown the weakness of the enemy… The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion were not a very religious race; the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion.

None of Russell’s analysis can be gainsaid or debated.  Islam is a totalitarian construct which destroys.  It does not civilize.   It adds no value.  It is a cult of sex slavery, violence, death and war. 

War, Jihad, Eliminate all non-Moslems. A small sample from Sura 5 & 8

Muhammadism is no more a 'religion' than Nazism

Sunday, March 19, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Sura 3: A sample of Koranic hate speech against Jews & Christians

27% of the Sura is a screed against the Zalimun [Unbelievers]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Sura 3 and the Battles of Badr & Uhud - Jihad is mandatory for Moslems

Islam was always Jihadic, predatory, violent.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Sura 2 and examples of Jihad and compulsion

There can be only 1 fascism to rule mankind.....Muhammadism

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

It is a lie when Moslems say that there is no ‘Jihad’ as committed by ISIS, Boko Harem, or any number of Moslem organisations around the world; who slaughter in the name of Baal the Meccan moon deity [Al Lah or the Lord]. 

Consider this fact.  Lesser Jihad, or the Jihad of war, is mandatory within the cult of Islam or Submission.  It is a duty to wage Jihad against the Unbelievers, see 2:216.  This demand runs rife and riot within Mein Koran.  Witness Sura 2 below, which contains 2:256 which begs the Meccan elite that there ‘is no compulsion in religion’.  But read the text below.  There is plenty of compulsion with Muhammad’s cult.  Compulsion to the point of death, if you deny Muhammadism’s supremacy.  Moslems lie when they claim they don’t compulse.  Only a witless fool believes that.

Sura 2:

Jihad from verses 2 to 25....only 153 phrases of Moslem Jihad.

Consistent violence and adjurations to wipe out ALL Unbelievers.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

About 1/3 of the Koran is violent hate speech.

Consider the Koran or ‘Recital’ and its lack of tolerance. 

There are no universal ‘laws’ about toleration of non-Moslems.  None.  Be nice to Moslems and kill or dominate the rest.  This is the theme of Mein Koran.  The only sentence fragment that can be considered conciliatory is 2:256 when Muhammad begs the Meccans to leave his newly formed and quite obnoxious cult alone.  But, if you read before 2:256 and after, you will notice that half the chapter is hate speech against non-Moslems.  The entreaty that there is no compulsion in religion, is followed by a page of why Islam will conquer and that if an unbeliever had intelligence, he would join the cult [or else].

Take the word Jihad. 

There are 2 forms of Jihad in Muhammad’s cult.  The Greater Jihad is to purify oneself and follow Muhammadan edicts embedded in Mein Koran.  The Lesser Jihad, is to kill and slaughter non-Moslems, and bring the non-Moslem world under Moslem domination.

Jihad as a word only appears 4 times in the Koran. But in the first half of the book roughly from Sura 2 to 25, the idea of Jihad appears no less than 153 times. There are 2925 verses in the first 25 chapters of Muhammad's totalitarian template, named Recital. 153 verses makes 5%. It is impossible for Moslems and Moslemophiles to make the claim that the cult of Submission is about peace. Fully 5% of the most important chapters in the Koran discuss Jihad and wiping out, destroying, eradicating, fighting and killing Unbelievers – ALL Unbelievers. No other cult document or one purporting to religious aspiration, even comes close to this level of outright intolerance. A further 21 % openly avow violence against the Unbeliever. Each chapter is consistently violent.

The Jihadic verses can be found here, feel free to read them in Mein Koran:

The Hadiths and the Koran – man created political commentary.

The moon idol did not make them....[as if that needs to be said]

Monday, March 13, 2017 by Ferdinand III
Full Article

Where did the Koran come from? Which humans made it? What are the historical antecedents for the writing of the Koran? Why is it littered with so many mistakes, nonsense, racism, surpemacism and violence? Why do Moslems believe that a moon deity Hub'Allah made it? Why don't they study it as a historical document? Why do Western ignoramuses accept the claim that the ilah [the one] created it?

Moslems worship the Koran with a devotion that borders on the irrational and mystical. As one author described it, the Koran "....is the holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster." For Moslems the Koran is simply the most important set of injunctions ever written down – some 1400 years ago.......

In times past the Koran was ridiculed within the Western world and anyone who has read the Koran would know why. Today of course a moon deity premised and pre-modern ritualized cult is recast as a religion. Gibbon the arch anti-religious and cult zealot described Muhammad's project and manual as an “incoherent rhapsody of fable.” 'Great Man' theorist Thomas Carlyle found the Koran an “insupportable stupidity”. Scholar Reinach wrote: “From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it.”

All true. The Koran is adolescent, irreligious cult dogma. It is a violent anti-humanist rant, which finds its corollary in Mein Kampf.

The Koran was created to form a cult of rabid devotion to Muhammad through the worship of an ilah or El-Lah, namely the one. In reading the Koran, both Allah and Muhammad seem interchangeable. This makes sense since Muhammad was the ilah's only spokesmen and whatever Muhammad wanted, the ilah also supported and vice-versa. It is certainly fair to state that Allah is another name for Muhammad.

When the 'great man' Muhammad died, four of his companions succeeded him as leaders of the Islamic cult. The last of these four was bizarrely both his cousin and his son in law. He was murdered by a rival named Muawiya in 661 A.D. and Muawiya became the first of the Ummayad caliphs an empire which lasted until 750 A.D. The Umayyads were deposed by the ‘Abbasids, who lasted in Iraq and Baghdad until the thirteenth century.

The Ummayads were termed 'godless' and had little inclination to Islamic totalitarianism. The Abbasids were 'purer' and regarded themselves as religious [or more accurately in the case of Islam cult] fanatics. It was the Abbasids who invented the Hadiths or the sayings of the great man Muhammad. The most 'legitimate' of the Abbasid writers of the Hadiths was of course Bukhari who lived during the 8^th century – at the time of the Abbasid revolt. As one historian pithily reported:

“The ruling power [the Ummayads] itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced [the Abbasids]; it too had to know how to discover a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn. And that is in effect what they did."

In other words once the Abbasids got the story telling rolling, the Ummayads responded in a like-minded manner. Both sides had story-tellers who made a good living inventing 'what the Prophet said and did....' Like medieval chansons de gestes, the Moslem troubadours regaled their audiences with the most minute facts about everything Muhammad said, did, wanted and alluded to. The most intricate details of his toiletry and defecation are even recorded. Rituals, prayers, positions, prostrations and mumblings all to support the pious school [Abbasids] or the ruling temporal powers [Ummayads] issued forth. Seen in this light Bukhari's works are political pieces of propaganda and are merely one of some 200 such sets of 'traditions', all of whom were invented some 200 years after Muhammad had expired.

The perspicacious Islamicist, Joseph Schacht, whose works on Islamic law are considered classics in the field of Islamic studies and are a must read, stated the following [my summary only]:

1.       The 'isnads' [the chain of transmitters] going all the way back to Muhammad only began to be developed during the Abbasid revolt —i.e., the mid-8th century;

2.       That ironically, the more elaborate and formally correct an isnad appeared to be, the more likely it was to be spurious.

3.       “No existing hadith could be reliably ascribed to the prophet, though some of them might ultimately be rooted in his teaching.” [quote from Schacht]

4.       The great majority of traditions from the Muhammadan era are documents which date not from Muhammad's life time but from much later stages in the development of the totalitarian doctrines which made up Islamic 'law' in succeeding centuries.

The Koran and the Hadiths are very much man-created. The Hadiths purport to explain the Koran, but they were created some 200 years after Muhammad died. How accurate can they be, based as they are on testimony and investigation during a time of 8^th century civil war? How accurate do you think the oral tradition lasting some 200 years was by 750 AD? What implications do the above facts have for Islam, Muhammadan law, and the concept of modern Sharia and Islamic liturgy?

R.C. Davis and Islam's slavery of Whites and Infidels.

10 million Whites, at least 25 million Blacks enslaved by the moon cult. This proves Islam is peace.

Sunday, November 27, 2016 by Ferdinand III
Full Article