French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation

Join Gab (@StFerdinandIII) Western Civilisation was and is superior to anything Islam has developed.  Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam.  Raising the alarm about the fascism called Submission since 2000.  

Archive - March 2020

Islam's 'great' culture invented what exactly?

As ridiculous as the claims of the Nazis and the Soviets.

Bookmark and Share


Screaming Marxists and bomb-throwing Muslims cannot obfuscate the obvious – Islam was, is and always will be, a complete failure. Look around the modern world, what did the Muslims invent? [and no the zero was a Hindu invention]. What enlightened spiritually have they given the world? What advances in thought, science, society, architecture, or business has the Arabic-Islamic culture given the world? Answer; absolutely nothing. Or do you really believe that a ritualised cult, premised on 7th century pre-modern ideals is the great petri-dish of innovative vigor and excellence?


Islam has never invented anything. Muslim apologists point to all sorts of absurdity and jump and down, while crying, 'see the Muslims created that!'. Grow up. Imbibing Muslim propaganda and consuming fantastical claims while ignoring when, how and why the modern world was created does not a tolerant multi-cult lover make. It just means you are rather dim. 

Like the Muslims, the Russians had the same trick with the mysterious but omnipotent 'Popov', the master creator of the universe, appearing everywhere. The Russians still celebrate Popov-day to honor the mythical man who apparently invented the radio and the cathode ray tube – no thanks to Marconi, Edison, Tesla et al. No one knows if Popov really existed [there was a minor scientist by the name, who lived in the mid-19th century, but he did not invent anything of note], but for the Communists that did not matter. Popov was the representation of Soviet reality – the classless man who defeated the immoral, bourgeois West, in scientific invention. That is to say, the fantasy of Popov was to express what should have been true, but which was only a piece of Soviet propaganda. 

The Nazi's of course had their heroic legends as well. Absurdly the Nazi's were convinced that their descendants were of Aryan stock [in actual fact the Aryans are traced to Persian, and northern India], who were physically, mentally, and culturally superior to all other races. In Hitler's race based theory, this Aryan stock was responsible for European culture or at least the vast superiority of German culture versus that of the rest. Sub-humans must then bow down to the Aryan wunderkind. For the Nazi's all the great feats of modern living and culture were the direct result of Aryan-German effort and brilliance. From Beethoven, to Frederick, to Bismarck, to architecture, to military technology, the Germans had invented any and everything of modern interest. It was the Communist lie about Popov on a racial scale. That is at least what was fed to the German people during the 1930s. 

The Muslims do the same. In Muslim legend those peaceful, honest, culturally sublime Arabs and friends were not busy with war, expanding the Islamic empire, slave trading, pursuing women and gold – of course not. They were in earnest and thoughtful conversation and study, extremely occupied with setting up hospitals, universities, scientific institutes, and inventing algebra, medicine, manned-flight, culinary masterpieces, architectural wonders, and all manners of devices to improve the life, liberty and potential of the average human. 

Really they were. The Arabs of course as all the Muslim apologists know, not only saved the West from its 'Dark Age' barbarism, but actually invented the modern world! You can't be a denier! Without the profundity and remorseless energy and intelligence of the Arabs and their Muslim friends, Europe would still be nothing more than a forested land of infected and uneducated half-humans unable to spell Aristotle, let alone comprehend the writings of Galen, Socrates, Aeschylus, Thales, Euclid, Pythagoras and a variety of other ancient writers – who must of course have stolen their ideas from the pagan Arabs. As everyone knows Aristotle who tutored Alexander was really named Mohammad. 

Not one single invention attributed by the Muslims to themselves were invented by the Arabs or their conquered Muslim slave-states. Arab imperialism has given the world nothing but a sick culture of paternalistic violence, bomb-throwing, racism and hatred of all things modern. All the usual suspects of supposed Arab and Islamic prowess; the astrolabe; algebra, architecture, the zero, and 'medicine', were all invented, built, extended, developed, and used by others – far more advanced than the Arab-Islamic slave states. 

For the hard of reading, advanced mathematics was a Greek invention, as was medicine [Muslims can't perform biopsies or autopsies which severely limits medicial inquiry]; algebra was built by a 3nd century Christian [Diophantus] who based his work on ancient Greek texts; the zero comes from the Hindus [about 100 million of which were murdered by Arab armies]; advances in sea-faring including the astrolabe date from Byzantium and the Phoenician fleets; and the complex of scientific inquiry and rational methods had to wait until Bede, Francis Bacon the I, and the application of higher math to solve scientific laws. I don't recall Bede, Bacon, or the founders of rational thought being named Mohammed. 

Even in architecture the Arabs took advanced engineering works and concepts from Byzantium, the Jews and Persia to create what some might call an Arab-style. They invented nothing knew but amalgamated existing ideas. In fact all the artisanal and architectural works of the Arab-Islamic states were performed by engineers who were not Muslim or had converted to Islam but in fact were Greek, Persian, Jewish or formerly Christian. 

There is not one single record or fact which exists which can prove that the Arabs improved upon existing engineering techniques. In 500 B.C. the Carthaginians had running water [a semitic group originally from Lebanon]; in 1100 B.C. the ancient Greeks had invented advanced arch forms; in 540 B.C. the Persians had constructed vast and improbably great irrigation systems. What were the Arabs and 'pre-Muslims' doing during these epochs? Mired in hate, violence and illiteracy one imagines. 

Even during the period of Islamic expansion the Muslims created nothing new or innovative. Hospitals were a Christian idea. Scientific institutes were formalised by the ancient Athenians. Rational inquiry took root in 500 B.C. in Ionia – among the Greeks. The creation of towns and social structures lies with the Jews – Jericho is the oldest city in the world. Running water, sewers, irrigation and crop rotation were perfected by the Romans and Persians. Monotheism was of course in the main a Jewish invention, though the 10th century B.C. Persians did have Zoroastrianism – a precursor to Jewish monotheism. 

The Arab-Muslim invention of note is of course the Koran. A text of violence, supremacism, racism and vitriol. It is the imperial tool par excellence. Submit, be taxed, exile yourself, or die! Other than this pagan-fascist manuscript not much except spices, some textiles and camels, has come out of Arabia. But of course the Arabs must have invented trade, commerce, banking, and the division of labor! [between ruling Muslims and slaves, one imagines]. 

Consider this – fascisms don't invent, they destroy. Paganisms don't create they ritualise. The only creation of a fascism or a pagan cult, is either death, or mindless propaganda to support the supremacist ideal. Mohammad, the Koran, the political objectives of Dar-al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb [non-believers], makes Islamic ideology fascist and quite primitive. No private property, no respect for rights, no inquiry, no debate, no need for freedom, no need for equality or justice - just submit to a leader and its government. Ossified Islam is the anti-thesis of any societal construction which allows the blossoming of rationality, science and perforce – the creation of anything we might call modern. 

Like the Nazis and Communists the Arabs and Muslims are good at using propaganda. Be very careful believing the myths around Islam. The reality of the 5 senses should tell you otherwise. Or do you really think that an ideology which commands complete submission and obedience, and which was spread by war and violence is somehow civilized? 

Review: 'Byzantium and the Crusades', by Johnathan Harris.

Confirming the superiority of the West over the Orientalized Byzantines.

Bookmark and Share


Harris is an expert on Byzantium and this book is an invaluable and extraordinarily interesting resource. He looks at the Crusades in the Holy Land, from 1095 to 1291, through the perspective of the Byzantines. Harris uses mostly Byzantine and 'Eastern' sources, as well as chronicles from Latin and Western participants who had first-hand experience with the various Crusades. Harris' work confirms what is pretty clear when one reads about the Crusades. The Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which a Christian army on its way to the Holy Land was diverted to attack the capital of Eastern Christianity, was an event brought upon the Byzantines by their own perfidy, greed, policy making and duplicity. It was in other words, a long overdue payback by the West to the Eastern Greeks.


Harris' theme thus runs counter to the mainstream view of Crusading. In universities, schools, the media, and most books, the Western Crusades are portrayed as a long, sorry saga, of Catholic European imperialism, greed, lust for Near Eastern wealth, and the unprovoked disruption of wonderful, peaceful, sophisticated and advanced Muslim societies, with the so-called 'sack' of Constantinople the apogee of illiterate barbarism and bloodshed. In reality the opposites are true.


The 1204 sack of Constantinople was perhaps 1/10 as 'bloody' as the Turkish assault, slaughter, pillage and rape of 1453, in which some 40.000 people were marched off into slavery and some 20.000 killed. No one was enslaved in 1204 and no more than 3.000 were killed – the fighting was over quickly and the 'Crusaders' never did slaughter anyone in the streets [though rape, idol destruction, and the theft of anything containing gold or silver was rampant, as is usual in medieval warfare]. Muslim war against Christians had already be in train for 460 years before the first Crusade entered Turkey, and over 560 years before the Crusaders breached Byzantium's walls in 1204. It is a puerile mind indeed which makes the claim that the eternal and vicious Muslim Jihad was not the originator of the Crusades.


It is also nescient to claim that the Crusades were some sort of imperialist venture. As Harris and others make clear the flow of money was one way – from West to East and no Franks migrated to settle in the Crusader states.  In fact most Crusaders left after a few weeks or months of fighting, due to a lack of money, a belief that duty was done and their sins remitted, or a desire to return to their families and home societies. There was little point in fact, to migrate from Europe to Israel or the Holy Land. Compared to Europe the Holy Land was poor and offered little in the way of attractions.


The main value of this book, is that Harris takes a realistic and pragmatic view of Byzantium through its own sources, and how the Eastern Greeks tried to 'manage' the Crusades. After their crushing annihilation in 1071 by the Turks at Manzikert, the Eastern Greeks or Romans, appealed to Western Europe for help in rolling back the Muslim tide. The Crusades followed and in 1099 Jerusalem was retaken. Yet the Byzantines never viewed the Westerners as allies. The Greeks or Romans, eyed the Latins as competitors, viewing Western power which was obviously much greater by this period than Byzantine, as a threat to the continuation of the Eastern Roman empire. So much for Christian unity in the face of the Muslim threat.


Harris relates very well the threats that the French Normans based in Sicily posed to the Byzantines, especially to Eastern Roman lands in Greece and the seaboard of Anatolia. Venice was at times both an ally and a competitor to Byzantine ambition in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Byzantines also faced threats from the Bulgars, Russians, various Turkish tribes and were marred by intra-Byzantine civil wars and claims to the throne. In the anarchic chaos and in the face of declining power, Byzantine policy became ever more tangled, corrupt and confused – an empire grasping at straws.


Harris repeatedly makes the important point that in essence and in-toto, Byzantine policy made little sense, and was the main cause of the empire falling to the Latins in 1204 [it was recovered in 1261].

“The Byzantine political elite were working within the context of a strongly defined political ideology to which all subscribed, whatever their differences in terms of faction or party.”


That policy was quite simplistic though in implementation it could be complex. The Byzantine state was weak. By the 11th century it had no standing army and no navy – it relied on paid mercenaries to do its fighting. But it did have money from trade and manufacture; and it did have an imperial reputation of wealth and power. Eastern Roman policy against its enemies was at its core one of crass simplicisme. Pay off your enemies. Divide them against each other by using gold. Hire foreigners to do your fighting for you. Make many and sundry alliances to counter-act any threats. It was the policy set of a weak and enfeebled state and it lead ineluctably, to lies, cheating, immorality and opacity:

“Duplicity was almost a measure of sophistication, a mark of superiority over the uneducated and uncultured.”


The Byzantine elite Harris reports, were not only arrogant but under-educated. They were tutored in memorization of classic Greek texts, and schooled in the use of arcane rhetoric in which lies could be presented as honest facts. In other words, the system of education was not oriented towards science, discovery, investigation or robust debates and innovation. It was premised on arcana and deceit. It must have produced a wonderful collection of rich and sophisticated nitwits:

“To the modern mind, there is something faintly absurd about the conviction of the Byzantine elite that their classical education gave them all the skills they needed....”


That would be an understatement.


The fruits of bad policy and not very rational, clear-minded or moral leadership would find its expression in some 200 years of conflict with the West. Byzantine policy by itself, ensured that there would be a war with Latin armies. In fact in every single Crusade, as Harris relates, we see that Byzantines or their mercenaries attacked Crusading armies; helped the Turks; and denying Latin soldiers food and supplies – all in contravention of various signed treaties. As Harris so helpfully relates, Byzantine sources reveal the depths of Eastern depravity:

“The importance of Choniates's History, however, goes far beyond its basic balance. It is from Choniates that we first discern doubts being raised inside Byzantium as to the wisdom of applying traditional Byzantine foreign policy aims and methods to crusading expeditions and to the crusader states.”


Choniates was a high ranking Byzantine leader and politician and had personal first-hand experience of the Third Crusade.

“For Choniates the message was clear. Byzantine diplomacy was a fatal mix of swaggering arrogance and abject submission, and completely unsuited to the situation in which the empire now found itself.”


In many ways the Byzantines viewed the Latins as more of a threat than the Turks. The Second Crusade was purposefully destroyed by the Greeks, when their scouts lead the Crusading army into a Turkish trap in southern Anatolia and the entire army was wiped out. This was standard Greek policy. Harass, attack, and deflect the Crusading armies as they passed through Byzantine territory. Pay Turkish mercenaries to harass or give battle to the Christians. Deny them food, or sell them poisoned food at inflated prices. Help them not.

“In order to weaken the passing crusade [the second] armies so that they would have no opportunity to attack Byzantine territory....[the emperors had] ordered attacks on their armies in the Balkans usually by Pecheneg mercenaries. There was little difference between this and paying the Turks to do the same thing in Asia Minor.”

“The promised supplies [for the Third Crusade] also failed to materialise forcing the Germans to forage for food. When the German army reached Philippopolis on 24 August 1189, news arrived that Isaac II [the Byzantine emperor], had arrested and imprisoned the ambassadors that Frederick had sent ahead to Constantinople.”


Open alliances with the Turks persisted during almost the entire duration of the Crusading period – a fact not lost in Western Europe, who were sending men and treasure to both rescue the Holy Land from Turkish occupation and in so doing, save Byzantium by defeating the Muslims. One main source of irritation for Latins was the Byzantine claim that its church was the true 'Mother Church', one that had taken on the legacy and glory of Rome and its founding Church. In other words, Byzantium expected Rome to submit its religiosity to that of the Eastern Church. Since the Latin West was so much wealthier in aggregate, stronger, more civilized in many ways, and certainly more innovative and dynamic, this absurd claim that the 'Franks' should submit their spirituality to the powers of the Eastern Orthodox church would have grated hard on the nerves and sensibilities of not only Crusaders and Popes, but simple laymen as well.

“ amount of repackaging could disguise the fundamental differences that existed between east and west over the questions of papal authority and the Filioque.” [Filioque references which church should be supreme - the Western or Eastern].


By 1203 there were over 100 years of conflict and bad blood between the Latins and Byzantines. Seen in the 'long duree' of history, an all out conflict while not inevitable, was probably unavoidable. The Greeks did their best to provoke the Latins . Venetians were expelled from Constantinople in 1171 and their property seized. Some were killed in riots. And 10 years later;

“Adronicus....During his seizure of power in 1182, he permitted a massacre of Italian residents in Constantinople...Henceforth it would inevitably be an agreement with the sultan of Syria and Egypt, Saladin, over the protectorship of the Holy deliberate and sinister machinations against the Holy Land and Jerusalem.”


Not only were the Greeks helping the Muslims and attacking Western armies. But they were expelling and killing citizens and traders living in their capital. Anti-Latin sentiment within Byzantium, appeared to be all too real to Western eyes.


As Harris confirms the attack on Constantinople in 1203 and its reduction in 1204, was not an accident. It was for the most part however, foreordained given Byzantine perfidy and poor policy and diplomacy.

“When the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade first attacked the walls of Constantinople in the summer of 1203, they did so at the behest of a Byzantine prince, Alexios Angelos, while the stiffest resistance they encountered came not from the Byzantines but from the western European troops in imperial service.”


The attack was motivated in part of course by Venetian ambition in the Eastern Mediterranean and the necessity for money. The Fourth Crusade owed the Venetians through a contractual agreement, a lot of money that they did not have. The easiest available source of wealth was of course resident in the Eastern capital of Christendom:

“The need for Byzantine wealth was all the greater because the Fourth Crusade had been plagued by shortage of finance from the very beginning.”


Not all the Crusaders agreed to attack Constantinople. Many left directly for the Holy Land. But even so the reality is pretty clear. If the taking of the tired, obsolete, superstitious and ill-educated Eastern Orthodox capital by Western forces had not occurred in 1204, it would have happened at some point. Harris's work makes this rather clear. The beauty of the book is that he dispenses with all of the ill-informed opinions about the 'sack' of 1204. And Harris uses Byzantine sources to prove the point.


It is clear that by 1200, the Byzantine empire was no longer an imperial state of great use or import. It was poor, shrivelled, mired in illiteracy and superstition, weak with no standing armies or navies, and living off its past. Like the Western Roman empire, which for the last 200 years of its existence obstructed Europe's growth; the Eastern empire was a force for regression, not progress. One of the 'miracles' of history is that it lasted until 1453. It was already a decaying carcass long before 1204.


All of this is revealed in this excellent book.


The Muslim Millet System – an imperialist tool.

Taking over land without buying the title.

Bookmark and Share

The Millet system is a peculiar Muslim system pre-dating the Ottoman empire with its roots in Sharia law. The Millet system is alive and well today from Europe to Iran. Its basis is reasonably simple and was worked out for centuries – the dhimmis or infidels would be allowed some loose self governance within a Muslim state, but it would be the Muslims who owned the land, the tax revenues and who would dominate the political hierarchy. The import of the Millet system is that whenever a Muslim majority exists, the Muslims expect and demand land ownership. This will be a serious issue for Europe in the next generation.

The Multi-cult cult is a sign of failure.

Society is not a group of tribes unified by the state. Islam is not a culture.

Bookmark and Share

At the risk of going to jail for 'thought crimes', it is laughingly obvious to any who study the political-economy, that the cult of multiculturalism, was always destined to fail. Uni-cultures, premised on natural law rights, freedom, political representation, open-trade, and military preparedness survive. Multi-cults who posit the inane and immoral idea that all cultures are the same and that the history's of all people are 'similar and important' create states riven by group 'rights', ghetto mentalities and the destructiveness of state power. The multi-cult is the surest path for a state to force 'conformity', elevate its power to ensure 'equality of cultures', and indoctrinate its citizenry in the cult of the state, as it deposes and reduces the original majoritorian culture to a theology which not only must be rejected, but even criminalized. Thus, if you criticise the failure of a moon-cult from Mecca, and dare to argue that Muslim baths, worship rooms, and state-financed mosques are deleterious to the greater society, than you must be punished and imprisoned for hate crimes.


Lately major European political figures have pointed out the obvious that Islamic non-culture does not integrated with host cultures. Why should it? The Koran is very clear in its racism and supremacism. Infidels burn in hell for not following the Allah-thing and only Muslims will be blest with ever-lasting bounty and ease in heaven. Maybe individual Muslims do integrate nicely into European or North American society. Maybe not. No one knows what the individual thinks or does. But it is a certainty that the cultural cant of his cult is magnificiently supremacist and puts itself at Jihadic odds with the host society. There is no disputation about that fact. Muslim demands as their populations grow will only intensify. The internal multi-cult war within the West will only accelerate in sharpness and querelousness as Islam swaggers in to fill the spiritual-social void ripped apart by Western cultural Marxism and massive, unbridled, illiterate statism. Where there is almost unlimited state power and despotism, we know that ignorance, the destruction of natural law rights and individuality; and the evisceration of true culture is never far behind.


The Multi-cult cult, is a terrible idea in both practice and reality. There is no moral, social, economic or cultural relativity between states, empires, locales, or histories. None. The Ottoman empire was a despotic Orientalized brutality whose practice in slavery, Christian destruction and unlimited Jihadic warfare was echoed by its savaged populations in which poverty, illiteracy, ritualization and fear all competed for attention. This culture had nothing in common with northern Italy's rebirth, nor with the Gouden-Eeuw or Golden age of maritime Holland, nor with the Christian imperial spread of Catherine's Russia across Central Asia. Middle class Britain laughed at by the fascist despot Napoleon, had little in common with the ruins of non-societies one would have found in 19th century Persia, Turkey, Africa or Saudi Arabia.


The truth is this: there is no cultural relativity whatsoever between Western development and the Orientalisms of Asia and Islam. Western history is simply superior. This is not to say that all matters of Western development are moral in our modern sense of that word. But likewise it is also rather obtuse and disingenuous to apply today's standard of morality – a Western invention – to past Western epochs, but not to say Islamic history or Arab imperialist expansion. Thus the US which fought a civil war to end slavery in which 400.000 Blacks were brought to the US in chains and whose population had grown by 1860 to 2 million, is vilified even today as a racist-white power culture. Yet Islam still sanctions, practices and trades in slavery, including the sex slavery of women. Islam never fought, and never will fight a war to liberate slaves. The Koran says that slavery is fine. Mohammed traded in slaves and had 12 or more sex concubines. Ergo for Muslims and the Koranic cult, slavery is fine. What 'relativity' then makes Islam just as exalted as US culture?


The sickenss of the multi-cult club should be obvious. But perversely this illness is a touchstone of modern political certainty. The logic is vapid but oft-repeated - the more multi-cult your country is, the more superior it must be. The multi-cult propaganda, sponsored by the state is endless, extolling in a mindless sort of way, the supposed virtues of tolerance, diversity, respect and humanity. In actual fact of course, the ineluctable outcome of the multi-cult fetish, one enforced upon society by the state, is the opposite of what is proposed. The most rabid of the multi-cult lovers including state human rights commissions and their political masters are the most intolerant and un-diverse of minds and attitudes. The multi-cult thus morphs into something that it demonizes – an intolerant despotism.


The multi-cult signals a failure not only of society, but of state interference in the organic growth of the nation state.


Islamic theology demands a takeover of Europe.

Will there be a civil war ? Or a cowardly surrender ?

Bookmark and Share



Is Bernard Lewis correct that Europe will become Muslim or Islamicized within, or before the end of this century? It appears that demography and fanatical motive force, including adherence to the regressive and unenlightened Koran, favour the Musulmans and perhaps support Bernard's languorous and dim view.


Islamic theology is remorselessly expansionist. We know this from history, the endless Jihad and Islamic liturgy. Koranic exegesis for example demands that the entire world submit to the moon deity Il, Al, Ali, or El-Allah. Individual Muslims like individual Nazis, or Communists in times past, might be indifferent to this imperialist philosophy and the demands, precepts and expectations of the cult. They might reject expansionism, war, Jihad, violence and hate. But their cult and most of its leadership, now and in centuries past, certainly demand and have impelled such expressions of will-to-power and supremacism. The problem with Islam, is simply Islamic theology and the merger of church, state, society, culture and rituals into an ossified, corrupt and natural-law denying despotism.


The Europe of our past and imaginations, the great flower of civilisation might well cease to exist between 2050 and 2100. Contrary to EU government lies there are about 40 million Muslims in Western Europe out of a population of 350 million. By 2050 the number of Muslims will be over 100 million out of a similar total population. Europeans are not reproducing. Muslim women have on average 3 to 4 children. European women 1.2. Immigration will still favour Muslim migrants. The Muslim ability to not only produce 4 offspring on average per woman, but to engage in what in essence is unfettered family based immigration means of course that in many European urban centers Europeans or 'Whites' [as the pejorative label would have it]; will be a minority. Only in the non-urban hinterland will non-Muslims still be in the majority by 2050.


Europe is now experiencing a new and novel but still vicious onslaught of unbridled Islamism. A main concern of any European should be Islam. Will Europe succumb to Islamic theology in toto, or in partis? The elite and media have certainly surrendered. Islam is a barren poli-cracy of power, control and oppression.


Demographic facts are stubbornly against White European culture. Will demography and the empty silliness of cultural Marxism force Europeans to finally succumb to Muslim depredations, in train since the 710 AD invasion of Spain ? Or will they actually summon some resolve and fight back to preserve what was once the unique genius of Judeo-Christian civilization ? If so will Europe experience a civil war?


Many in Europe are beginning to agree with Lewis and freedom fighters such as Geert Wilders. Anti-Koran and anti-Islamist parties now exist in many EU states. It might be too little too late however. Dutch politician and former EU Competition Commissioner, Fritz Bolkenstein said the obvious some time ago about Europe's Islamcization.


The second problem, Bolkestein warned, is that immigration is turning the E.U. into "an Austro-Hungarian empire on a grand scale." He alluded to certain great cities that will soon be minority-European--two of the most important of which, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are in his own country--and warned that the (projected) addition of 83 million Muslim Turks would further the Islamization of Europe. It was this part of his speech--in which he referred to Lewis's projections--that made headlines around the world:


"Current trends allow only one conclusion," Bolkestein said. "The USA will remain the only superpower. China is becoming an economic giant. Europe is being Islamicized."


Bolkenstein's assessment that the US will still be a super-power in the future is open to question given the embrace of mind-numbing cults such as relativity, abiogenesis, Darwinism, Globaloneywarming, Climatechange, open-borders, LGBQT, socialism, and transnationalism.


Regardless his fears about Europe are accurate. Mark Steyn and others have written endlessly about the lack of reproduction in Europe. The welfare state neuters many cultural, social and economic artifacts – one being a cult of life. Why bother having children when the world revolves around your own hubristic desires and life is but one long joyful, sex-filled, coffee-addled vacation ? Raising little ones is so tiresome and so un-progressive.


Muslims see the world differently. In Muslim theology the entire planet as Dar-al-Islam – the house of Islam. Islam can't defeat the West through military and economic competition. But it can surely out-breed it. The Muslim 'Millett' system, established during the Ottoman empire, represents the Islamic attitude to 'rights'. Once Muslims become a majority in an area they assume that they should own title to the land and implement Muslim Sharia law in opposition to infidel law. Throughout Europe this fact is emerging in almost every major urban center where Muslims claim ghettoes and Arabicized or Islamicized enclaves as beyond the powers of the host society.


As Muslim demands on the welfare state increase – more state money for mosques, Muslim only schools, recognition of Muslim holidays, institutions of Sharia Law – some Europeans will react. When Muslims and their political puppets begin to distort European political and foreign policy, some Europeans will react. When Muslim culture comes to dominate and over-ride that of the indigineous European culture, some Europeans will react.


The question is how many Europeans will react to the Muslim takeover of the Continent and what will happen?


One path will lead to civil war. In this scenario the military still controlled by the Europeans, along with para-military citizen militia will declare a war of survival and physically assault Muslim mini-states, strong-holds, and urbanized redoubts. This would be an asymmetrical war, an urban war, one premised on the viciousness of Stalingrad and one which would take years to play out.


Another path is political and cultural appeasement and surrender. In this scenario Europeans accept their existential and social Dhimmitude, bowing low to Islamic cultural and intellectual fascism as being stronger, more vibrant and even 'liberating'. In this scenario Muslims and their political slaves take over political high offices including the military. In such a case we will have a world in which for example, French nuclear power is controlled by Muslim politicians or their paid acolytes.


A few years ago Daniel Pipes stated it well: “One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it.” U.S. columnist Dennis Prager agrees: "It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war."


Both are correct. The European civil war might be hot or it might be very tepid and cold. It could include violence, or it might just be an unconvincing display of resolution by a radical few against a Muslim takeover, followed by a quick surrender. No one knows. But Europe is in dire straits. Between a debt implosion and financial collapse; and Islam, the future looks decidedly unsettled.


The world is very often not grey and it is usually quite black and white. Europeans have only two choices 40 to 50 years hence. Fight Islam and Muslim fascism to safeguard the remnants of European high civilization. Or meekly embrace an Arabian moon cult, and make excuses and engage in cognitive distortions as to why that is an enlightened and 'intellectually sophisticated' choice.




There is no 'misinterpretation' of Muhammadism. Moslems themselves say this.

Ein volk. Ein Reich. Ein Muhammad (und ein Koran).

Bookmark and Share


Great essay by Michael Copeland in The Gates of Vienna Blog below, about ‘mis-interpretations’, or the painfully ridiculous ‘Islamist’ label; applied to the 100 or so violent Moslem Jihad groups and the millions of Moslem world-wide who support a Caliphate, ISIS, and Global Hegemony of the Al-Lah Muhammadan cult (in Mein Koran, it is hard to tell the difference at times between the Moon idol Hubal or Al-Lah, the ‘God’ or ‘Lord’ of Mecca and mad Mohammed, whose family were the caretakers of the Hub’Al shrine).

But in the low information, stunted IQ of the modern world and within the Western-Secular Religion of relativity, historical rewriting, scientific atavism, factual ignorance and reality-avoidance, the poor little Muhammadans are always the victims, the sufferers, the poor, the blighted, or perversely, the genius, the innovator, the inventor, the creator, the expert.

The cult of Muhammad is rarely viewed for what it is – a supremacist, intolerant, racist, fascistic cult of power and blood.

But saying the Truth today means you are an Alt-right, bigoted, Nazi, KKK, Phobe who denies Science.

Colour is mine.


“It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

by Michael Copeland


“Ah, but it’s their interpretation of Islam”, we are assured by smooth-talking muslim speakers. Journalists have picked this up, and dutifully write about “an extremist interpretation” that lies behind the latest atrocity. This assurance about interpretation is surprisingly successful. It is designed to make us doubt what Islam’s source texts mean, including — and this is the crafty part — those whose meaning is clear and obvious. We can easily be taken in by this appealing and fair-sounding assertion. It puts us off the scent. That is the idea.


First, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an “interpretation”. If an instruction says “give away one tenth of your income to charity”, that does not require an interpretation. The meaning is quite clear, and the instruction can be exactly followed. An “interpretation” is different. Say a politician repeatedly evades an interviewer’s question with some bland generalisation. Eventually the interviewer says, “I’ll take that as a ‘No’”. That is an interpretation. It is quite a different matter from the straightforward following of what a text says.


Bearing in mind that the Koran — all of it — forms part of Islam’s law, how does the “interpretation” allegation stand up to the test?

Let us see. We can take commands and instructions from the Koran and Hadith and compare them with what muslim leaders and speakers say.


Koran 60:4 praises the “excellent pattern” shown by Ibrahim when he said (to the Jews):

“Between us and you enmity and hatred forever….”.


How do the spokesmen treat that?

·         Osama bin Laden: “Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us.”

·         Osama bin Laden: “Battle, animosity, and hatred — from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”

· “Muslims in the West must have … enmity and hatred of the kaffirs.”

· “You should hate them, disown them and their religion.”

·         Abu Usama, Birmingham: “No one loves the kuffaar. We hate kuffaar.”

·         Anjem Choudary: “As a muslim I must have hatred for everything non-Islam.”

·         Yousuf Makharzah, muslim cleric: “Animosity towards the Jews is an obligatory religious duty, and one of the signs of the believers.”




The Koran commands:

·         “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them” 9:5

·         “Kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from wherever they have expelled you….” 2:191


What do the clerics say?

·         Ayatollah Khomeini: “Islam says: Kill all of the kafirs. Put them to the sword. Cut them in pieces. Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels.”

·         Haj Amin al Husseini: “Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”

·         Mufti M Hussein: “Islam’s goal is to kill Jews.”

·         Al-Aqsa TV: “Allah, strike the Christians… count them and kill them to the last one.”

·         Prayer on Mecca loudspeaker: “O Allah vanquish the unjust Christians and the criminal Jews, … end their lives in humiliation and oppression…”


Forced conversion

The Koran commands muslims to force kafirs to convert on pain of death:

·         “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them. ….but if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakat, let them [go] on their way.” 9:5

·         “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” 9:29

·         Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt: “Muslims must kill kafirs wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.”

·         Abu Askar: “Convert or be killed.”

·         Ibn Khaldun: “…a religious duty to convert everybody by persuasion or by force.”

·         Osama bin Laden: “Does Islam or does it not force people by the power of the sword to submit…? Yes!”

·         Abu Qaqa, of Boko Haram: “…all Christians must convert to Islam. Allah has tasked all Muslims in Quran 9:29 to continue to attack Jews and Christians who refuse to believe in him and his messenger, Prophet Mohammed.”

·         Al Baghdadi: “Conversion to Islam or death.”




Mohammed is recorded as saying: “I have been made victorious with terror.”

The Koran commands muslims:

“Terrorise them!” 8:60

What do muslims say?

·         Ragab Hilal Hamida MP: “The Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism…”

·         Gen. S. K. Malik: “…to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies”.

·         Abu Izzadeen: “Terrorism is part of Islam!”

·         Nassim ben Iman: “Every Muslim is a potential terrorist.”

·         Zakir Naik: “Every Muslim is a terrorist.”

·         Islamic State manual: “The Management of Savagery”.

·         Child with dagger, singing: “Our terrorism is blessed, a divine call”.


Impose Islamic rules on all mankind

The Koran commands muslims to “fight” — that is, slaughter — non-muslims until all the “deen” — the governance — is Islam, namely Sharia law. The Arabic word “deen” is normally and artfully translated “religion”, but that is inadequate. In the West, quite unlike in Islam, religion is understood to be restricted to private conscience: it is not government. In Islam from Mohammed’s time to the present there is no distinction between religion and governance: religion is government. The mosque is an arm of the state:  “Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims.” Dr. Ja’far Sheikh Idris, Sudanese Muslim Philosopher

The Koran’s instruction is at 8:39:

Fight the kafirs until the “deen” [governance], all of it, is Islam.


What do Islamic clerics say?

Musa Cerantonio, Australia “The answer is, as the Prophet said, to fight the infidels until the religion belongs to Allah.” Jihad Watch, December 2012

What is the conclusion to draw about the “interpretation” assertion? It is a red herring, and a dishonest one at that.

Lt-Col Allen West sums it up succinctly: “They are doing exactly what this book says.


For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.



Turkey sends an army against Greece: EU, NATO, UN, all the big brains have a collective yawn

A Declaration of War.

Bookmark and Share



Turkey sends Mujaheddin warriors against Greece.

Low IQs, including most Feminists, Leftists, Globalists, Europhiles, call the invasion ‘a migrant crisis’.

For the hard of thinking:

-100.000 Moslems, 99% appear to be young Moslem men

-They are not from Syria, but from the Moslem world at large

-Erdogan, Sultan of the Turkish Khanate, has stated that he has sent a Moslem army (the supposed refugees from Syria), to cause the downfall of Europe

-These assault forces are supported by, and probably even armed by, the Turkish military


Erdogan publicly announces an invasion of Europe.  He states this is Islam’s ‘Last Army’, meaning the Moslem horde which will bring down civilisation and herald the ‘end of times’, as given in Mein Koran.  The World yawns.  NATO supine and stupid, does nothing.  Euro-left-tards denounce Greece.


00:00       “This storm that is breaking out is the Turkish horde, my Lord!

00:06       The horde that will die for your sake, O Lord!

00:10       Until the glory of your name rises with the call to prayer

00:15       Win the victory because this is Islam’s last army.”

00:20       [Cheers]

00:26       Yes, this storm that breaks is our army.

00:32       Allah stands behind it along with the prayers of millions of our friends.


00:39       This storm is the heart of our nation. Everyone sees or will see what it is capable of.

“Turkey has deployed 1,000 special forces police to its border with Greece to ensure that the migrants it has released don’t return to Turkey. Meanwhile, the Turkish army is reportedly helping the people-smugglers get the migrants to Europe, making sure they don’t overcharge their customers.”


Vast majority of the invaders are from Afghanistan.

Countries of origin of the 252 migrants and refugees detained in Greece so far, per Greek govt:

Afghanistan: 64%
Pakistan: 19%
Turkey: 5%
Syria: 4%
Somalia: 2.6%
Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Egypt: 5.4%


Catholic Church blames Israel for the 'Wall' and Christian persecution and poverty....

For Leftards, the Moslem is never to blame.

Bookmark and Share



As a Catholic, one gets tired (if one’s IQ is over 60); of listening to sermons, appeals and other junk-propaganda from Left-wing Liberal ‘Priests’, vomiting out the satanic spew issued by the Vatican, embracing inter-alia; globaloneywarming, climate-geddon; Muhammadans-are-our-friends; unfettered immigration is mandatory; Christ was a migrant; and of course anti-semiticism disguised as it always is, by criticising ‘Israel’ and its ‘treatment of Palestinians’ (a people which do not exist), including supposedly, Palestinian Christians.


The latest anti-Jew appeal is for this Lenten season, to support something called the ‘Holy Land Foundation’, co-chaired in the UK by extreme Liberals, Archbishop Welby of the ridiculous Anglican State Church of England (with Welby mentally deficient and physically laughable); and Vincent Nichols, apparently a Catholic Archbishop who is not too bright if his friends extend to someone as ridiculous as Welby.


The tenor of the sermon-appeal in our Church was nauseating.  According to the Priest who had visited Israel the 18 foot-high wall (it is 26 feet high in reality), was a monument of pain and anguish, separating Christian ‘Palestinians’ from their families, work, farmland and ability to go the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.  He called Jewish territory ‘Occupied Territory’.  Bethlehem was ‘surrounded’ by the wall, the birth-place of Christ, with the wall a Herodian reminder of Jewish immorality and vanity.  Thus, it is the evil Israeli aka the Jew, who is to blame for the poverty, high cost of medicine and lack of jobs in the ‘Occupied Territories’. Ergo, send money as part of your Lenten penance, to the Holy Land Foundation, so we can right the Jew-created wrongs and bring harmony between ‘Palestinians and Jews’. 


That such drivel can be stated in a Catholic Church should be roundly condemned.  But considering that most of the laity are Liberals divorced from reality, it is probably accepted in toto, as the gospel truth.  


No mention was made of why there is a wall.  It was built of course as a response to the endless Moslem Jihad against Jews and Israel.  Until the mid 1990s the ‘territories’ were run by Israeli military authorities and no wall existed.  After Arafat declared an endless intifada all was changed.  The ‘West Bank’ became a perennial source of Moslem terror and intifada violence against Jews and Israelis.  The Wall exists thanks to Moslem terror.


While Christians living in these areas do suffer from hardship, it is not hard to understand why.  Moslems.  The Moslem Jihad has forced a complete and utter military-security response from the Israeli state.  In fact, there are about 200.000 ‘Palestinian Christians’ in Israel, 51.000 live in the Hamas-PA run territories.  It is these 51.000 that are under duress, the rest of the Christians who live elsewhere in Israel are not discriminated against or molested by Israeli security or military policies and personnel.  However, the duress of Christians living in the ‘Occupied Territories’ is mostly due to Moslem supremacism and violence (see the links below). There is therefore no context to the claim that Israel is persecuting Christians.  51.000 may indeed suffer in PLO-PA-Hamas dominated territories.  But Moslems are arriving in Bethlehem in great numbers, as Christians leave.  If the ‘persecution’ is so bad, why are Moslem populations growing and Christians shrinking in these areas?


And yet the Muslim population of Bethlehem is growing. Muslims, in fact, are not fleeing. They are arriving—in large numbers.

Surely there is some significance in this disparity between the two populations. Why is the Muslim sector of Bethlehem growing while the Christian sector is falling? Both face the same exact set of circumstances. Could it be that this disparity tells the true story?

It is important to note, first of all, that Jewish sovereignty does not, ipso facto, lead to Christian emigration. Inside Israel proper, the Christian population has been growing steadily for decades. Today, Christian Arabs are serving in the army and at various levels of the Israeli government.

As far as the decrease of Christians inside the Palestinian territories…..The barrier is indeed a factor, but far more important is the reason that the barrier was built in the first place: rising Islamism inside the Palestinian territories and bad governance on the part of the Palestinian Authority.

It is no coincidence that Bethlehem was mostly Christian until the 1990s. Until then, Bethlehem was ruled directly by Israel through a military administration. Although they were not full citizens of Israel, Palestinian Christians (and Muslims) could travel freely inside the country, visit the beach, and shop in Jewish neighborhoods. That all changed in the mid-1990s when Israel agreed to let the PLO rule parts of the West Bank and Gaza under a famous treaty called the Oslo Accords.


So the ‘Wall’ is there for a reason - Moslems.  And because of that fact, checkpoints, searches, and zero tolerance is now Israeli state policy. 


It is the Moslems who have turned the ‘territories’ into another hell-hole – terrorism, Jihad, high-unemployment, endless grievances and demands, all flowing into anti-Christian discrimination.  But Moslems are never to blame.  For the Church and other Liberal hair-flicking multi-culti supporters, Muhammadans are always the victims.  The Jews or the Americans are always to blame.


Some reading for Priests, Bishops and the Vatican – the Moslem Persecution of Christians:

Far-Left Guardian calls the Christian Persecution by Moslems in the ME a genocide

Hard-Left Huffington Post calls the Moslem persecution of Christians a genocide

What you will never hear in the Fake News; Fortunate Arabs in Israel (Gatestone)

The UK government’s foreign office report on the persecution of Christians – by Moslems in North Africa and the ME



Christianophobia – Islam's hatred of Christians: Sura 2 first part only

33% of the first part of Sura 2 is Christianophobic. Is this a human rights crime? Or just more enrichment?

Bookmark and Share


We are told by the Marxists, Secularists, and cult worshippers of the state, the warm [weather fascists], the homosexual, the feminists, and sundry other worthies, that Islam and perforce all Moslems are pro-Christian 'extremists', spending most of their day eagerly kissing, embracing and loving their 'brothers' and co-equal 'people of the book'. These big–brains would have us believe that Moslems love Christians more than themselves – a difficult proposition for a cult that is so egotistically self-absorbed that badly drawn cartoons about Muhammad spark riots and death. In the real world, we have seen how historically for 1400 years, Christians have been enslaved, slaughtered, raped, and confined to second-class dhimmitude status within the Moslem world. Does the Koran promote this hatred of Christians ? Is there Koranic Christianophobia? Curious minds would like to know.


Number of verses in Sura 2: 286

Number of verses in the first part of Sura 2: 120

Number of verses of Christianophia in the first part of Sura 2: 39

% of Christianophobic verses in the first part of Sura 2 of the total: 33 %

[Much of this Sura is also Anti-Semitic of course]


Sura 2 or the Heifer is one of the last 'revelatory' chapters given by the archangel Gabriel, he of Gospel fame, to Muhammad, on behalf of the former family deity and moon idol Hub'Al, recast by Muhammad as the monotheistic Al-Lah or 'The One'. Being one of the last 'communications' with the divine, Sura 2 is of great importance in the Koran and within Moslem liturgy. Over half of this Sura is Christianophic with at least 15 % of this chapter, or some 44 verses [bare minimum], being openly violent and preaching the physical destruction of the Christians. Combined these examples of Christianophobia appear to be a surprisingly large and intolerant amount from a cult dedicated to peace and brotherly love:


There is lots of compulsion within Islam and Sura 2. 44 verses make the following clear. The Jews and Christians are inferior to Moslems. Unbelievers [Christians and Jews], are in league with Satan, blind, greedy and stupid. Due to this Moslems can kill them. Allah wants Moslems to war against the Unbelievers and destroy them since they are sinners and a threat to the Allah cult. Even if Moslems do not kill the Unbelievers, all unclean sinners and criminal polytheists will burn in hellfire on Judgement Day. If Moslems turn away from their duty they will be viewed as part of Al-Mushrikun or an idolator. They will thus be punished. Allah can do this since Allah knows all and Allah is acquainted with everything which transpires in the material and spiritual realms. The 'good' humans and those destined for paradise are therefore those who simply follow the Allah cult and its creed.....This is the main message of the Moslem cult. A religion this is not.”


Christianophobia is particularly rife in Sura 2, as the chapter makes lurid claims about the superiority of Moslems over Christians. Contrary to the lame-brain media expostulation that Moslems deeply covet friendship with Christians, admiring them as 'people of the book', Moslems look down upon Christians as inferiors, and the reference, 'people of the book' is a pejorative, since within the Koran the book of the Jews and Christians is always described as corrupt, stupid, immoral, 'wrong', 'erroneous' and satanic. The only 'book' worth reading is of course the Koran, not the Torah or Bible. Read the following carefully. It is very obvious that the 'book' of the Christians and Jews is utterly wrong, according to Moslem theology:



This is the Book (the Qur'an), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].


Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend out of what we have provided for them [i.e. give Zakat spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, etc., and also give charity to the poor and also in Allah's Cause - Jihad, etc.].


And who believe in (the Qur'an and the Sunnah) which has been sent down (revealed) to you (Muhammad Peace be upon him) and in [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter. (Resurrection, recompense of their good and bad deeds, Paradise and Hell, etc.).


They are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are the successful.


Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.


Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.


And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not.


They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not!


It is quite obvious that the Jews and Christians are 'hypocrites' who pretend to worship Al-Lah, but in fact reject him. They deceive the Allah, and will disbelieve. Jews and Christians will thus be tormented in this life and the next for rejecting Al-Lah's guidance.



O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).


Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).

* * 

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him), then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful.


But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.


Jews and Christians must not only fear the Al-Lah thing and worship it, but also venerate Muhammad. Muhammad replaces Christ in effect, and the Muhammad-Al Lah nexus, replaces the Trinity. If a Christian does not revere the Koran, in which it states very clearly that both Al-Lah and Muhammad are to be followed for salvation, they are damned to hellfire. Further Islam demands that Christians recognize that Muhammad is foretold by Isiah and other prophets, indeed he replaces Christ as the fulfilment of Jewish and Christian theology. Denying this will earn the good Christian a place in Moslem hell.



And believe in what I have sent down (this Qur'an), confirming that which is with you, [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], and be not the first to disbelieve therein, and buy not with My Verses [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] a small price (i.e. getting a small gain by selling My Verses), and fear Me and Me Alone. (Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol. I, Page 253).


And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth [i.e. Muhammad Peace be upon him is Allah's Messenger and his qualities are written in your Scriptures, the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] while you know (the truth) .


And perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, and Irka' (i.e. bow down or submit yourselves with obedience to Allah) along with ArRaki'un.


Enjoin you Al-Birr (piety and righteousness and each and every act of obedience to Allah) on the people and you forget (to practise it) yourselves, while you recite the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah)]! Have you then no sense?


And seek help in patience and As-Salat (the prayer) and truly it is extremely heavy and hard except for Al-Khashi'un [i.e. the true believers in Allah - those who obey Allah with full submission, fear much from His Punishment, and believe in His Promise (Paradise, etc.) and in His Warnings (Hell, etc.)].


Fear Al-Lah, and obey Muhammad. In other words reject completely your own Christian worship, practices and beliefs.



* * * 

Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.


And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying): "Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).


Then after that you turned away. Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers.

* * 

And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected."


So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).


Jews and Christians rejected the Al-Lah idol, and will now receive their punishment. This is rather obtuse since Judaism as a monotheistic endeavour dates from the Hebraic traditions beginning with Abraham circa 2250 BC, or a mere 2900 years or so before the advent of Islam. Christianity pre-dates the Meccan cult by 600 years. Yet in the fantasy-world of the Koran, the Al-Lah idol and his book, existed long before either of these monotheistic systems were developed. This is very convenient for a supremacist cult which usurps history and common-sense and says 'we were first, and we are therefore better'. It sounds like the chanting of a 5 year old.


If a Jew or Christian denies that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah or gospels, or that he is the last and most supreme of the prophets, they are doomed to hellfire.



And when they (Jews) meet those who believe (Muslims), they say, "We believe", but when they meet one another in private, they say, "Shall you (Jews) tell them (Muslims) what Allah has revealed to you [Jews, about the description and the qualities of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him , that which are written in the Taurat (Torah)] that they (Muslims) may argue with you (Jews) about it before your Lord?" Have you (Jews) then no understanding?


Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal?


And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess.


Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.

* * 

And they (Jews) say, "The Fire (i.e. Hell-fire on the Day of Resurrection) shall not touch us but for a few numbered days." Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Have you taken a covenant from Allah, so that Allah will not break His Covenant? Or is it that you say of Allah what you know not?"


Jews knew that Muhammad was insane and illiterate, and therefore the Koran or Muhammad's recitals a mass of gibberish and plagiarized copy [hence the admonition from the Al-Lah thing that anyone making up a Koranic verse will be punished 2:79]. Such claims must have greatly annoyed Muhammad and so he 'reveals' the above verses to negate criticism of the Koran being a fantasy mixed with plagiarized verses from the Torah, Gospels and Arab pagan prayers.



O you who believe! Say not (to the Messenger Peace be upon him) Ra'ina but say Unzurna (Do make us understand) and hear. And for the disbelievers there is a painful torment. (See Verse 4:46)


Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikun (the disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, idolaters, polytheists, pagans, etc.) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His Mercy whom He wills. And Allah is the Owner of Great Bounty.


Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?


The Christians are clearly warned here to believe in the Allah, not to engage in the idolatrous practice of worshipping the Trinity, and not to question Koranic inconsistency, such as abrogation, or new verses replacing old ones [the Satanic verses are a clear example of this].


Muhammad's illiteracy about Judaism and Christianity is obvious and enormous. A simple example is this claim that Jews and Christians are doomed to hell since the two sects cannot agree on the meaning of the same 'book'. This is ridiculous. In Christiant theology the Old Testament predicts the New, with the 39 books of the Old Testament supporting and confirming the 27 books of the New Testament. Jews focus on the Torah and Old Testament, Christians in the 7th century, on the entire corpus of 66 books, with the end of prophecy being the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Demanding that a Christian stop worshipping the Trinity is similar to demanding a rejection of imbibing water and food.



Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even, after the truth (that Muhammad Peace be upon him is Allah's Messenger) has become manifest unto them. But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His Command. Verily, Allah is Able to do all things.


And perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, and whatever of good (deeds that Allah loves) you send forth for yourselves before you, you shall find it with Allah. Certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what you do.


And they say, "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." These are their own desires. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him), "Produce your proof if you are truthful."


Yes, but whoever submits his face (himself) to Allah (i.e. follows Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism) and he is a Muhsin (good-doer i.e. performs good deeds totally for Allah's sake only without any show off or to gain praise or fame, etc., and in accordance with the Sunnah of Allah's Messenger Muhammad Peace be upon him) then his reward is with his Lord (Allah), on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [See Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol.1, Page 154].


The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing.


The above is obviously incorrect. Jews and Christians do not state that the other 'follows nothing'. They worship different ideals and 'proofs'. Christians embrace the Old Testament. They don't regard it as 'nothing'.


The main ideal of this Sura is found in the following verses, where Muhammad demands that Christians and Jews worship himself and Al-Lah and discontinue their polytheistic, pagan practices.



And they (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: Allah has begotten a son (children or offspring). Glory be to Him (Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth, and all surrender with obedience (in worship) to Him.


The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it : "Be!" - and it is.


And those who have no knowledge say: "Why does not Allah speak to us (face to face) or why does not a sign come to us?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike, We have indeed made plain the signs for people who believe with certainty.


Verily, We have sent you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him) with the truth (Islam), a bringer of glad tidings (for those who believe in what you brought, that they will enter Paradise) and a warner (for those who disbelieve in what you brought, they will enter the Hell-fire). And you will not be asked about the dwellers of the blazing Fire.


If Jews and Christians reject Muhammad, 'the plain warner' they are going to hell. Period. Islam is the only 'truth' and replaces the Torah and gospels [2:119]. Al-Lah cannot produce a son, and cannot be a part of a Trinity [2:116]. Al-Lah simply does what he wants [2:117] and will tell you what to do. Jews and Christians should give up their erroneous ways and embrace Muhammadanism:



Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him) till you follow their religion. Say: "Verily, the Guidance of Allah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur'an), then you would have against Allah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper.


The above is important. Al-Lah is telling the most important human in history, Muhammad, that the Jews and Christians will never willingly convert to Islam or the cult of Muhammad. This sets the stage for the next development of Christianophobia within Sura 2 – the call to Jihad against the polytheistic Trinity worshippers, a theme which takes up a lot of ink in the book Recital, one supposedly dedicated to peace and love.


Christianophobia within Sura 2 verses 1:120: 39 or 33 %

4-7, 9-10, 13-20, 23-24, 27-28, 41-42, 62, 64-65, 89-90, 95-96, 105, 108-109, 111-116, 118-120