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 - July 2021

Corona Fascism and the Age of the Orc. Destroying Christianity. Abetted by the Pope.

Fascisms always seek to annihilate the Church.

Bookmark and Share



Formerly free, democratic and accountable Western States are now little more than Nazifying Totalitarian monstrosities.  All of the ‘conspiracy’ theories around the Corona Scam-demic are now proven, or soon to be proven true.  The latest is the 2 court rulings in the EU and the failure within the US of the PCR test method to identify the SARS II virus.  This is why the ‘flu disappeared’, and based on these false Corona positives, used as a pretext, societies were locked-down, people died from no hospital access, suicides mounted, small businesses were destroyed, families ripped apart, the Church effectively eviscerated and free-speech destroyed. 


We can see in the former Dominion of Canada an outright assault by atheists, Communists and other religious acolytes of State-Fascism against the Church.  The Churches themselves, in goosestep with the Fascist State, are threatening to 'limit' or even defrock unstabbed Priests. Given the 99.9% survival rate for this flu, this policy is not based on science, but on State-enforced compliance, tied to government funding and tax write-offs.  The more the State intervenes in the Church, the weaker, less Christian, and less attended it is.  Recently, 45 churches or so were burnt in Canada over a Fake News 'genocide' narrative in which Church schools murdered thousands of native children.  The story is entirely false, with the children sent to the Church schools by the government not the Church, many died from diseases and buried in graves, some due to native sensibilities without headstones.  The children were not murdered and eaten by Nuns and Priests.  There is of course, no apologies from the Fake News or the State, for instigating the Church arsons, and the resulting Christianophobia, with some of the more Fascistic calling for the demolition of all the Churches.  Imagine if Mosques were under a similar threat.


The reality of life is this:  you can hate Christians all you want. There is one immutable fact to expound.  When Christianity goes, it all goes.  If you Fascistically take down the Churches, the rest is going to follow: your society, your welfare, your culture, your spiritual strength, your science, your industry, all consumed into the State. Everything. The tragedy is that now instead of the great John Paul II leading the Catholic Church, we have a Globalist-Corona Fascism supporting halfwit, Pope Francis.  Instead of invoking St. Thomas Aquinas and natural law rights, we have a senescent puppet espousing plant food-causes climate-theology and demanding that his flock be stabbed with experimental poisons which have killed and injured millions worldwide, all in the rush to a police state.  Instead of defending our natural God-given rights to freedom and the control over our own bodies, we have a corrupt, criminal Vatican enjoining the faithful to surrender reason, real science and their bodies to a cabal of evil not seen since the apogee of the Soviet Union and Nazism.  No science, none, supports the Corona narrative.  It is all a fiction.  If the Church wants to support real science, it should be leading the opposition to the Corona Fascism. 


History is clear what happens when Fascism is implemented, and we can see the same road-map being followed in many countries. 


One of the first actions of the Atheist-Evolution supporting Nazis was to take over, neuter, control and then begin the liquidation of the Churches. By 1937 the Protestant Churches had been folded into the Reich Church, the seminaries were emptied, priests/bishops jailed and killed, sermons monitored, Christian newspapers and book publishing shut down and the only thing that saved the CC from being completely demolished was Hitler's insistence that pulling down the Churches (physically destroying them in Bavaria as desired by Himmler) could wait until the war was won. He needed legions from Catholic areas of the country. 5 million Christians were killed in camps in WW2. No movies about this. 


For information on the Nazi destruction of the Churches one should read, JS Conway The Nazi Persecution of the Churches who source material comes from the Nuremberg trials and confirms the plans from the Atheist Nazis and the deconstruction of both Church and civil society. The same was true of Communist Atheist Russia, Darwinist Russia.  More than 10.000 Churches pulled down, and millions of Christians murdered. 


How long before the same actions are enacted in ‘Western Democracies’, as part of the 'Health and Safety' Fascism?  The Age of the Un-Enlightened.  The Age of the Orc.



There was no 'Golden Age' of Islam

Islam's 'greatness' is just another marxist myth.

Bookmark and Share


Henri Pirenne aptly describes the contraction of Western Mediterranean trade with the Christian Byzantium empire and beyond, due the Muhammandan invasions of the 7th century.  Ports were emptied, urban life was circumscribed, raw materials began to vanish, gold circulation dropped, papyrus disappeared, and Western Europe become a collection of localities and long-distance trade almost vanished.  This is simply common sense, when one views the Roman empire, as one centred around and dominated by the Mediterranean, now sliced in half and largely controlled by Muhammadan ships, pirates and armies.  Rome sacked in 840, Genoa in 945, all the major islands and coast lines in the Tyrrhenian sea controlled by Muhammad’s cult.


The only part Islam had to play in helping establish modernity was as a trading zone stretching from Morocco to the borders of China – but one controlled by Muslims and one which discriminated against trade with Western Europe.  Venice, an outpost of Byzantium grew wealthy from trade with the Christian and Muslim states to its east and south.  But in the rest of Europe, until Genoa and Pisa, along with the Spanish Christian Reconquista during the 10th century, rolled back the Muhammadans, everywhere was contraction.  There is no evidence that in any other realm be it in medicine, the arts, sciences, math, philosophy, economy or politics, Islam invented anything of value.  All was known and developed by non-Muslims who simply squatted on far richer civilisations – ones weakened by a century of plague and war. 


The oft-repeated lie – that Islam was a vital part of creating the modern world – is ridiculous. Islam's modern poverty in all matters secular and ecclesiastical has been apparent since the beginning of Arab imperialism. Arab culture created and spread Islamic doctrine. The Koran is the uber-tool of Arab imperialism. Is it not curious that Muslims must chant in Arabic when 80% don't speak the language? If that is not a bizarre form of imperialism than what is it? [or do you really believe that the moon cult deity spoke a minor language to an illiterate pagan Arab circa 615 A.D.?].


Islamic apologists including respected academics like Bernard Lewis who is portrayed as a crank and critic of Islam, always trot out the 'golden age' of Islamic brilliance between 900 A.D. and 1100 A.D. when Europe was in the 'dark' ages and European civilisation apparently lagged so far behind that of the conquering Arabs and Muslims. In this bizarre view, only the Arab-Muslim world was rich, wealthy, educated and on the path to 'inventing' modern medicine [wrong] and implementing the creation of the zero [a Hindu invention], as well engaging in rapturous and learned enterprises of literature, philosophy, astronomy, and resurrecting ancient Greek texts of all varieties on all subjects.


It sounds so romantic and just – handsome Bedouins in flowing robes with papyrus texts earnestly discussing Aristotle over mocha coffee in a Baghdad madrassa. Honest, caring Muslims, so accepting of all cultures, religions and ideas, intent on furthering the powers of civilisation. Peaceful Arabs striving to create modern science, modern economy, modern politics and the theorems that underpin the modern world. How sweet and how ridiculous.


Islam was created by the Arabs as a tool of imperialism. The Arabs conquered the Near East, North Africa, parts of Europe, the Sudan, southern Russia, Persia, and parts of India and beyond. The Arabs by design and luck conquered far richer empires and this wealth allowed the Muslim empire to survive and thrive. It was not something that the Arabs invented or did that created civilisation or wealth. It was what they took that made them rich, and it was how they used Infidels, Dhimmis (second class citizens) to further develop some areas of Spain (eg. Cordoba in a limited way), or the former Persian metropolis at Baghdad. 


Byzantium, weakened by almost 100 years of plague (‘Justinian' plagues) which killed maybe 1/3 of its total population and the constant wars with Persia and 'barbarians' to the north, was still the richest and most cosmopolitan centre of civilisation in the world when the Arabs quickly defeated the emasculated and poorly led empire in Israel and Syria. Though the city of Constantinople held out until 1453, the richest areas of the Eastern Roman empire inexorably fell to the Arabs – including all the loot, assets and trade of the key region straddling modern day Anatolia, Lebanon, Syria and northern Iraq. Once shorn of its rich provinces the end for Byzantium was a matter of time and only staved off through great tenacity, military prowess and invention [including the use of Greek fire, a pre-modern flame thrower], and control over the Black sea trade routes.


The same is true of Persia, a much more advanced civilisation than anything the Arabs could imagine and a main conduit of east-west trade and commerce. Vast irrigation, canal works, engineering feats and imposing cities with running water dominated the Zoroastrian-Farsi culture. For 1500 years the Persians had believed in the teachings of Zoroaster a man with similar views to that of Christ, until the Arabs forcibly converted – on pain of death or higher taxes – the Farsi elite to Islam. It must have been bitter indeed for the Persians, once the conquerors of the Arabs and the world's super-power, to submit to Islamic imperialism.


The Jewish and Christian states were likewise far more civilised and modern than anything that the Arabs had ever seen. Straddling key trade routes these states showing precocious urban and engineering development, but were however, quite weak militarily and easy conquests for the Arabs. As with Persia, Jewish-Christian wealth flowed to the new Arab leadership and the Jews and Christians were either killed, taxed or deported [with their assets stolen by Arabs]. In any event by 900 A.D. the richest areas of the Near East and North Africa were in Arab hands. Such was the basis of the 'Islamic Golden Age'. In modern parlance we call it 'squatting'.


The Islamic and Muslim empire was of course hardly monolithic. It stretched across a wide area of the world. Arabs, Turks, Persians and others took leadership turns or established regional empires or sub-empires. Yet just because these states squatted on, and took advantage of pre-existing trade routes, urban centres, engineering development, and all manners of learning, does not make them 'enlightened' or advanced. Once the Arabs and their successors took over these lands what happened? What was developed and improved? What was invented? These are the key questions which are never answered.


The short answer is not much.


Science in the Muhammadan ‘Golden Age’ was premised only on translated texts of ancient Greek thinkers – translated it should be said by Nestorian Christians and Jews. No independent empirical deduction existed in Islam. Roger Bacon and others, during the supposed 'Dark Ages' of Europe in the 13th century, invented the scientific method, much of it premised on socio-cultural developments starting in the 11th century. No improvement was thus made on the ideas and 'laws' of the ancient Greeks by the Muslims, nor did they advance rational inquiry which is the premise of scientific discovery. Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes and others who existed 1300 years before the Golden Age of Islam, were I do recall, Greek mathematicians and experimenters.  Christian scientists - not Muslim - embarked on the investigations which led to the rational revolution and modern science.


The Muslims were inferior to the Greeks in geometry, calculus, the basic sciences, engineering [the Greeks were building domes and advanced arches that the Arabs could never replicate], philosophy, history [see Herodotus], and agriculture. They were also inferior to the Hindus in algebra where the zero became a revolutionary and entirely Hindu creation. As well the Muslims were far less advanced less the Zoroastrian Persians in matters of urban and irrigation technology including the building of canals, irrigation systems and even roads.


So, in essence what was this mythical Muslim golden age? It appears likely that the main Muslim commitment to helping develop the modern world was three-fold. First, they incorporated the learning, techniques and advances of the more sophisticated empires which they conquered. This amalgam of various influences can be seen in the development of Islamic society over the period 800-1400 A.D. Second, they helped spread knowledge, abetted by the Greek and Jewish translations of once forgotten Greek inventions and ideas. Lastly, they provided the means of trade between east and west which facilitated the exchange of everything from products to new military technology.


This then is about the sum of the Arabic-Islamic 'Golden Age'. One should also note this. The 'Dark Ages' in Europe were not that dark. They are called the dark ages because of the lack of information and description about society at that time. Yet inventions aplenty populated Europe during the rise of the Islamic empire. Agricultural techniques, harnesses, new military technologies, medicine, urbanisation and the rise of the burgess or merchant bourgeois, the building of roads and canals, all this and more dominated the so-called 'Middle Ages'.


The Europeans took a thickly forested, difficult, and rough land and turned it, over a painfully long period, into the centre of world civilisation. They were also able to equip and send out vast expeditions of men to the Holy Land, in a series of crusades designed to reclaim historical Christendom from the Turk, as well as roll back the Islamic invasion of Europe. Such a feat of logistics resulting in a 200-year occupation of the Holy Land would not characterise a poor and muddled civilisation. The Europeans learnt a lot from the Crusades about commerce, trade, building and military techniques. The Muslims, never interested in kaffirs, learnt a lot less. The decline of Islam was thus assured.


The Muslims and Arabs never advanced civilisation. They were content to squat and let the 'dhimmis' in their midst engage in building modern commerce; conduct inquiries and invent and create. The Koran as tool of power might be effective in making people submit and stay submissive. It is a tool of fascist-pagan oppression, designed to keep the masses ignorant and the wealthy powerful. Melding church and state, not allowing inquiry or risk [for instance disallowing biopsy or commercial interest], disavowing individuality, not creating institutions of law, politics and free expression – these defects and more reflect the anti-modern program of Arab imperialism.


Since these factors were in play 1000 years ago, how could there ever have been a Muslim 'Golden Age'? How does one explain this beautiful time of 300 million dead, due to racist and supremacist ideals? Even the divided and far less populated Christian states of Europe, never united against Islam, and in fact at times allied with it in their various internal wars, were in the case of France, England or Northern Italy more than a match for the entire Islamic world by 1300 A.D. Why was this?


The reasons should be obvious. Never forget that Islam was spread by the sword. Conversions were forced or taken by people to avoid the dhimmi [apartheid] tax and social repercussions and oppression of being a 'kaffir' [Arab word originally denoting a black slave]. In this vein Islam for many centuries was concerned with power and with military force. The men involved were originally pagan, and much preoccupied with original lusts – money, land, and women. Higher culture was an afterthought. Creating the modern world was a non-issue since the Koran ruled.


Islam is the ultimate pagan cult. Submission, rituals, chanting, and non-thinking obedience, encased in an apartheid society, is the goal of Islam.


There was no 'Golden Age' of Islam. If you think there was, then try this exercise – list all the Islamic inventions that created the modern world. The paper will be blank.



The Catholic Enlightenment, Ulrich L. Lehner. From the 16th century to Pope Francis.

One has to weigh both the good and the bad of those who proclaim ‘light of reason’

Bookmark and Share



The Enlightenment epoch, or rather the many different streams of Enlightenment thought, which rather facetiously applauded itself as being in the ‘light of reason’, when in fact many of the doctrines, were dark, dreary, deluded, irrational and tyrannical, occupied the more philosophically minded for about 2 centuries, from 1650-1850.  One of the birth defects of this period is of course the French Revolution, which was generated by the philosophes and their ‘enlightened’ ideals, it led ineluctably to death, war, totalitarianism and the general effacement of religious belief, now found in today’s various cults named Humanism, Rationalism, Deism, and Atheism.  Whilst one can make an argument for some good which emanated from the Enlightenment, there is no doubt that the balance sheet of liability including Darwinism, Socialism, Communism, and now Medical Fascism, and Gaia Greenism, has generated a tidal wave of misery, dislocation, death and anti-science.  Rarely if ever is a voice or a critique raised against the ‘Enlightenment’.


Rather perversely, the Catholic Church’s ‘reformation’ and reform minded programs preceded and anticipated the secular-Atheist movement of reform, which sought to separate church from state, religion from science, the material from the immaterial, and render the faith and doctrines of religion, subservient to the state and its interpretation of materialist science, now proclaimed as the ‘one’ and ‘only’ science. 


Lehner’s book is a good overview of this global program, and he seems to approve of most of the agenda of ‘liberal reform’ leading to the ‘reforms’ of the Second Vatican Council from 1962-65, in which many of the keystones of Church policy and belief were changed or discarded, in order to conform to the pressures of a secular, irreligious society.  Though careful not to condemn traditionalism, Lehner and many modern Catholics seem to be impressed by, and desire to show their cult adherence to, ‘reason’, though few if any define the word, or can coherently explain what reason might be, or why there is only one ‘reasonable’ set of rational beliefs. 


The fact that Catholic Enlighteners predate the secular philosophes would surprise most people.  The truncation of the Church post the Protesting-revolution and civil war initiated by Lutheranism, demanded a response.  For much of the 16th century the Church was engaged in an almost endless quest to understand the split, rectify it, create and initiate various transformations including ending simony (buying of a parish, or bishopric), priestly education, communication of standard canon laws, ending corruption, turning the Church away from mysticism back to practicality, and of course defending Catholic territory from the Protestants and Musulmans.  Art, science, building and welfare agencies supporting the general society became key foci as the Church sought a new relationship with the laity and endeavoured to defend and expand the Church within and outside Europe.


During the 16th and 17th centuries, as Lehner explains, Catholic Enlighteners developed plans for the improvement of the individual, humans, the church and the state.  All of these predate the secular-Atheist-Humanist philosophers.  Such far reaching plans were not always equal to the problems they hoped to address, examples being ‘taming capitalism’, promoting economic fairness, or introducing a fair wage for labourers and craft-workers.  The Catholic Enlighteners were the first to propound and disavow religious zealotry, superstition, and prejudice against non-Catholics, which in their view, limited reason, and clarity.  These ideals were the foundations of the secular Enlightenment, yet they were formed by Catholics, who worked with the secular state to redress what they perceived to be imbalances within the church and society.  Far from being opposed to the state, the Church actively engaged it.


Until 1789 the Catholic Enlighteners were on the rise.  After the French Revolution and its all-out, totalitarian attack on Christianity, the Churches, faith and innocent laity, with at least a hundred thousand Catholic peasants alone murdered in La Vendee, there was little hope in reconciling a Church of Reason based on Atheism, with Catholic doctrine.  The French Revolution threw up a new Godhead, a new Church it called ‘reason’ based on materialism, rejecting 1400 years of Catholic heritage and legacy.  The Church of reason sought the complete abolition of Christianity.  It still does today.


Not only was the Catholic Church emasculated and eviscerated in France.  It was assailed wherever French armies murdered and marauded.  When Napoleon occupied the Rhineland, the various German princes dissolved the monasteries and stole their assets and wealth.  As the Napoleonic totalitarianism rolled across Europe, Catholic schools, institutes and even Churches were closed or taken over by the state.  Charity organisations, newspapers, printing firms, were taken over or shuttered by the state.  Pope Pius VI died a prisoner of Napoleon in 1799.  The entire construct of religiosity and organisation was assaulted by the ‘Enlightenment’ Church of ‘Reason’, forcing an obvious response from traditional Catholics, namely the rejection of this secular-Atheist program and its ideals. 


Post the French Revolution and quite rationally, Catholic Enlighteners became viewed as a heretical cancer, part of the enemy’s forces of secular evil, an insidious collection of those opposed to the Church itself and its long history of rational thought including the creation of early modern science, education, universities, and naturalism.  Those opposed to the secularisation of the Church, promoted a Catholic Romanticism in the 19th century, linking the faith back to medieval scholasticism. 


This important movement, itself little understood and ignored by modern historians, made serious and important contributions in art, philosophy and science.  It opposed the largely secular ‘rational’ primacy of the Catholic Enlighteners whose agenda resurfaced in the early 20th century with the rise of the ‘modernists’ who posed difficult questions about the Church and modernity, and again of course during the second Vatican council of 1962-65 in which much of the vestiges of the Romantic and traditional Church was replaced by a new conformity to the modern. 


The Catholic Enlightenment finds its expression in the philosophies of the current Pope and the Vatican.  It is quite absurd, when one peruses the current doctrines of both, that this program is shining a ‘light’ onto human affairs.  Given the current acceleration toward some form of totalitarian fascism, premised on a minor flu disease, the opposite conclusion is apposite.



The Catholic Enlightenment, by Ulrich L. Lehner

The forgotten history of a Global movement

Bookmark and Share




The ‘Enlightenment’ which replaced a culture of reason and faith working together, in an effort to understand the world of the 5 senses, the material and immaterial, was a reductionist program where only the material mattered.  The idol of materialism became God, and everything was refracted through this idol worship to permeate all aspects of society.  Dogma replaced science.  The religious canons of evolution, long ages, abiogenesis, plant food causes climate, or the need to inject experimental poisons into humans to counter a 99.9% survival rate flu; all find their genesis, their old testament books, in the ‘Enlightenment’.


To further the fraudulent claim of ‘Enlightenment’ displacing a medieval darkness, the Enlighteners were never honest enough to even give credit to medieval institutions or the Church, for their ‘progressive’ ideals.  Indeed, many ‘ideas’ and beliefs from the Enlighteners are purloined from the Catholic Church.  As Ulrich states:


“Yet a closer look at history reveals the many progressive reforms within the Catholic Church predate even the Enlightenment.  Some of the most cherished values of modernity can be traced to the pre-Enlightenment Catholic Reform that began in the sixteenth century.  The rejection of arranged marriages originated in the Catholic Reform movement, as did prohibitions against domestic abuse, criticism of the denigration of women, and also the protection of the indigenous tribes of South and Middle America, and much else.”


As Ulrich outlines the Catholic Reform or Enlightenment movement, predates the secular-Atheist-Deist Enlightenment movement by some 100 years at least.  The Protestant revolution and nationalism which it promoted, lead to the division of Europe and the crumbling of the unitary Catholic culture which had formed the basis for the Continent’s prosperity and eventual world-domination.  To counter the Protestant heresy the Catholic leadership responded with a long conclave held in the city of Trent Italy, which lasted from 1545 to 1563.  Many reforms issued forth, including the requirement that Priests be educated, the codification of the Catholic canon and beliefs, the stress on human freedom, the optimistic view that humans through free will and could accept or reject God’s grace and could even perform good deeds without faith or divine guidance.  These and other doctrines emanating from the Council of Trent, were the foundations of the later Enlightenment obsession about human freedom and individuality.  Indeed, natural law rights and human free will finds great expression in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century.  The Council of Trent was carrying on a very long tradition of reform and elevation of human rights and free-will.


This council also generated energy and initiative.  Reforms throughout the church including schools, the parishes, all of the various appenages of Church management were undertaken.  Investment in art exploded and all of the artistic areas flourished in the cataract of genius called the ‘Baroque’, which forever changed Western art and gave the world some of the greatest paintings, sculptures, literary works, and edifices in history.  Also, as Ulrich recounts, the Council of Trent led to the formation of new, energetic, orthodox and pious religious orders, which changed society on a global scale.  The Jesuits for example under the leadership of St. Ignatius de Loyola are born in this era.


“…it also encouraged new orders centred on particular missions.  These orders increased exponentially the works of mercy administered by the church.  Some began caring for abandoned children and orphans, others for the sick and mentally ill; et others provided education.  This trend toward more practicality is also obvious in the new definition of sainthood that became prevalent after Trent.  It was the heroic virtues of the candidate for sainthood that now mattered and not whether he or she had performed miracles, or had visions, or suffered stigmata.  This idea of Christian heroism stressed, furthermore, that everyone was called to holiness.  The saints again became the role models for the laity, as they originally had been, and the universal call to holiness, especially emphasised by Francis de Sales, was increasingly preached, even though this was not defined as explicit church teaching until the twentieth century.”


The above is remarkable.  Here we have the firm rooting in reality of Church theology and activity.  The modern welfare state is little more than an imitation of the medieval and early modern Church apparatus which engaged every part of society.  The mysticism of the Middle Ages is now replaced by the sweaty, dirty, grimy work demanded by God and theology, in the world of the 5 senses.  One can see this in the Baroque art of the era, by masters such as Caravaggio or El Greco who attempt to depict religiously motivated messages within the context of everyday life.  This is not to suggest that the medieval era did not have the practical application of God’s work as a priority.  Christians after all invented hospitals, orphanages, poor relief, public schools, universities and a thousand other inventions that benefitted society, including capital markets and credit.  But the shift in attitude was noticeable and the focus was to relate real life back to doctrine. 


This shift in rational emphasis comported with the works of early Enlighteners such as Kant who postulated that God existed because morality needed to exist if society was to be a civilised undertaking.  Atheism was thus refuted.  It also hasted the creation of natural science institutions, built on the medieval legacy of the university, in which for example, the first school in the world for experimental physics was developed by Benedictines in Salzburg Austria in 1740.  Catholic lecturers discussed hydrostatics, electricity, mechanics, pneumatics, and optics.  Heliocentricity was developed by the Catholic Copernicus, whose theories were mathematically supported by the Protestant Kepler was commonly accepted and espoused.  By the 1750s the Catholic Churches reformation program had firmly aligned its theology with natural laws and natural science.


Hadith are supposedly divinely inspired. So too was Nazi theology.

Hadith only support the incoherence and violence of the Koran.

Bookmark and Share

The Hadith are authoritative and any sentient Moslem who actually reads about his own cult and its dogma, and who can struggle through the mountainous volumes of the Hadith; should be alarmed that Sharia Law is premised largely on these works coupled with the Koran. In fact, Moslem 'scholars', or cult propagandists as they should be named, believe that the Hadith are as divinely inspired as the Koran and are therefore legitimate as sources of 'law'.


Considering that the most authoritative Hadith was compiled by Bukhari more than 200 years after the totalitarian Muhammad's death, this must surely strike the rational observer as somewhat perplexing. Bukhari was simply a scribe, not a prophet, not a healer, not a man of spiritual faith, but a Moslem apologist who compiled some 7000 verses to try and explain the inexplicably bad Koran. There is no evidence that he or the Hadith are 'divinely inspired'.


In any event the Hadith give Islam a very bad name. A certain Moslem 'scholar', a Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, in his book, 'Introduction to Islam', states that 'the custodian and repository of the original teachings of Islam' are found 'above all in the Quran and the Hadith' (p. 250). He adds that 'the Quran and the Hadith' are 'the basis of all [Islamic] law' (p. 163).


Another Moslem apologist and respected as a 'thinker' on Islam, one Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan wrote an encyclical entitled, 'The Translation of the Meaning of Sahih Al-Bukhari' and he confirms the following:


-The Quran and the Hadith are both based on divine inspiration' (p. 23).

-[Allah] revealed to him [Bukhari] the Glorious Quran and the Second Inspiration, i.e., his Traditions.

-It is incumbent upon you to strive hard to do righteous deeds according to the traditions of Muhammad as is clearly expressed in his Hadith (p. Xvii).


Khan believes that Moslems must obey the Koran and Hadith to the letter and 'strive' to spread Islam by any way possible. In this line of 'thought' the Koran and Hadith are portrayed as divinely written and this is confirmed in Bukhari, in Hadith no. 643, vol. 9.


However, the real history of the Koran reveals that there are many Korans, many pre-Muhammadan phrases and writings which are in the Koran; and that the Koran itself was written long after Muhammad's death in the Arabic dialect of the Quraish and that even today there are 4 known versions of the Koran. As a matter of record, Bukhari's Hadith confirm that the Koran was put together by the Caliph Uthman after Muhammad died. The fact that the Quran is missing certain verses and that other verses were abrogated is admitted in the Hadith in vol. 4, nos. 57, 62, 69, 299; vol. 6, nos. 510, 511.



There is a couple of points to be made about the Hadith. First is that they espouse Jihad and violence against Infidels. Second, they were written 200 years post the Jihad's founder's death and are hardly liable to be accurate or true. Third, they reinforce the fraudulent nature of the Koran, being written by humans, and are full of mistakes, and rather incoherent. Fourth, they do not contain a spiritual-ethical program which is universal or immanent. It is a dichotomous cult. Be nice to Moslems. Convert, kill or dominate the rest.