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.  


vs. Christianity - Recent Articles

Islam is not a philosophy of peace but of violence

The opposite of Christianity.

Bookmark and Share

In the politically correct universe of the blind and uninformed many mantras are endlessly recycled that are so false, they elicit disbelief and anguish. Such a myth is the curious and unsubstantiated statements by politicians, media analysts and non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony. Even a cursory glance through Islamic history makes this statement a mockery. It is insulting that politician’s trip over themselves, in order to ingratiate the media and buy politically correct votes, to run to the local mosque and then state that Islam is a wonderful philosophy of gentleness and brotherhood.  

Islam, the ideology, the philosophy, the autarchic life controlling force, is the problem and it is undeniably a strain of ideological fascism. There is no ‘terrorism’.  There is however the Muslim Jihad, based on the Koran and Muhammad’s own example. In reading Islamic history and in discussing its violent, warlike and immature character we can make three concrete points supported by a range of experts -- theologians’ authors, historians and political scientists, both Islamic and non-Islamic – that clearly indicate Islam’s problematic and fascist nature.

First, Islam [meaning submission] is the very antithesis of the gospel of Christianity and the Christian appeal to charity, private property, equality, individual responsibility, private property rights, respect for women and the poor, compassion and social harmony. It is a religion of coercion, forced submission, repression, and control. It is in fact almost diametrically opposed in its philosophy to Christianity.

Second, Islam does not separate Church and State leading to state-controlled societies that destroy individualism and freedom.

Third Islam has never produced social, economic, technological or scientific advances [contrary to mainstream media propaganda] that have improved the life of its subjects. Thus, its domestic polity is a disaster.

To quell internal discontent Islam relies on external aggression. Jihad in Islam [Dar al Islam] has nothing to do with spiritual attainment but the forced conversion of non-believers [Dar al Harb]. All non-Muslims are in the house of Al Harb and they must submit to Islam. External aggression and destruction of non-believers is a necessity in failed societies. Otherwise, internal factors will cause the society to implode.

The above general points can be juxtaposed against Christianity and the West, which have given the world the entire modern political – economic structure that has led to vast improvements in the lives of everyone. Philosophy, science, business, education, charity, medicine, evolution, constitutional democracy and rational inquiry, were invented, improved upon and implemented in the West.  The fact that Western civilisation is imploding today only reinforces the vital fact that history presents.  Without a strong Christian belief, societies quickly slide back into oppression (Corona is just one example), paganism (Gaia-nature worship) and uncivilised, irrational theologies (gender fascism and the philosophies and stories of ‘scientism’). 

Mohammad and Islam

One first needs to look at the tenets of the Koran and of Islam itself, and especially its founder – Mohammed. There is a problem with the entire religion of Islam and its construct and its stems from its founder - a man who was not a prophet, had no compassion or love, but was lustful, sinful and violent. Mohammad was in fact the exact polar opposite of Christ. He was not a man of God but a political leader who used theology to conquer Arabia and bring various tribes under his control. His rule was spread not by love or compassion but purely by killing and war.

Mohammad through peaceful means had converted about 70 people in Mecca by 622 AD to his concept of Islam [submission to Allah]. He was however driven out of Mecca by those who saw his new theology as a threat to the city’s paganism. After fleeing to Medina Mohammad rejected peaceful methods and turned to violence [Sale, Life of Mohammad, p. 20]. Al Dashti an Iranian Muslim and scholar of Islam states, “After the move to Medina….he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword, and a scheming founder of a state.”[A.J. Schmidt, Great Divide, p. 14]. Christ in comparison was unlike Mohammad. Christ was a missionary, aiding the poor, the sick, the female, and the enslaved. He never engaged in conflict, war, or violence, nor did he create polygamous marriages, raid caravans or torture ‘non-believers’, take slaves, or butcher those who opposed his authority. All of these things and more, Mohammad did.

For Mohammad war was the means to build his state. Islam is not a religion but a state. Its creation was founded on war. For example recounts the crucial battle of Badr, in which Mohammad gained control of the local Arab tribes. During the battle Mohammed "took a handful of gravel when the battle was extremely heated [and] threw it at the faces of the pagans saying 'May Your faces be disfigured.' " According to the same page, "This battle laid the foundation of the Islamic State and made out of the Muslims a force to be reckoned with by the dwellers of the Arabic Peninsula." Islam was built in the fires and blood of war. Its ethos is imbued with this martial spirit.

University of Chicago professor Fred Donner, in his book The Early Islamic Conquests, theorizes that there may be something intrinsic to Islam that spurs a conquering attitude: "[T]here is the possibility that the ideological message of Islam itself filled some or all of the ruling elite with the notion that they had an essentially religious duty to expand the political domain of the Islamic state as far as practically possible; that is, the elite may have organized the Islamic conquest movement because they saw it as their divinely ordained mission to do so." Islam’s aggression is manifest today in terror and repression, but it has been attacking the West and Christianity for 1400 years.

Islam’s Aggression and Violence

Islam has been at war with the West since 632 AD. Islam expanded quickly by overrunning tired, isolated or small scattered kingdoms in a form of blitzkrieg, subjugating within 100 years [632-732], Arabia, the Levant, Syria, parts of Byzantium, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Sicily and parts of the Balkans. Islam was not spread through Hallmark cards, flowers, chocolates and group hugs. It was carried by fast moving, fanatical Arab horsemen, employing great speed, overwhelming strength and an incredible aversion to pain or fear, in their quest for booty, trade, plunder, gold, women, slaves and the benefices of going to heaven as a martyr for Allah. It was a fearsome mix of fanaticism, and speed. Most so-called ‘converts’ to Islam were forced to accept Allah on the pain of death, higher taxes, or the lure of women and the spoils of plunder. There is no evidence that the conquered people were spiritually willing to accept the house of Islam. Other factors were at issue to coerce ‘conversions’. Islam was spread by guile, by war and by force.

Indeed, Islam has never stopped attacking Europe. Defeated at Tours France by Charles Martel and the Franks in 732 AD, Islam recoiled but recovered, and quickly overran in succeeding centuries, Christian states in the Balkans, Central Europe, Italy and of course Byzantium itself [1453]. The Turks and Islam tried on various occasions to destroy Vienna and Christian Austria, Poland and Germany ultimately failing in 3 decisive battles: Malta in 1565, Lepanto in 1571 and Vienna in 1683.  

A few Knights under the remarkable leadership of de la Valette, along with the thousands of brave Maltese militia annihilated Suleiman’s II invading navy and army saved Rome.  Lepanto was a major naval victory that confined Islam to the eastern Mediterranean and Vienna was the beginning of the end of the Ottoman empire in Europe and started the unravelling of the Islamic empire. Coupled with the ejection of the Moors from Spain in 1492, Islam suffering from inferior troops, materiel, methods and leadership succumbed to a rather limited and unwieldy Christian counterattack. For the past 300 years it has been in constant retreat against the West in economics, science, politics, military power, artistic endeavours and wealth creation. Yet even today Islam weak, neglected and rotted, still persists in attacking Christians, Western nations and targets from the Sudan, across the Near East and in Europe and America.

But what about the Crusades?

Islamic apologists regard the Crusades as infinitely more evil than the 1400 year war Islam has waged against Europe, Christianity and the West. Such a viewpoint is entirely nescient. The Crusades running from about 1095 to about 1295 were Christian Europe’s second [Charles Martel at Tours being the first] and rather timid response to centuries of Islamic aggression. For 400 years, Islam had conquered Christian countries, enslaved and murdered thousands of Christians, expelled in 1197 the Jews from Spain, disrupted trade through piracy, and pillaged monasteries, churches and private property in a lust for gold and wealth, including the rape of Rome. They had invaded countries and subjugated and slaughtered subjects that had no appetite or interest in Islamic theology simply because they offered value in slave material or plunder.

Yet the crude and inaccurate picture of the Crusades persists. It was Europe’s first concerted response to Islamic attacks and involved the outfitting and transport of thousands of men across the Mediterranean – no mean feat of logistics and organization. It was intended to protect Christians who were being persecuted, travelers and traders from the West who were at times being enslaved or killed, and to protect the pilgrimage of Christian faithful to Jerusalem. The Palestine as well was originally a Jewish – Christian area and was never peacefully subjected by the Arabs. Its populations were either non-Islamic or in the case of the most ambitious, immoral or opportunistic, Islamic to avoid the non-believer tax, or engage in the political and economic affairs of the Islamic state.

Though many Crusaders committed un-Christian acts, it is hard to argue that they were unprovoked attempts to rightfully reclaim Christian lands. Islam for 4 centuries, had attacked, enslaved, killed and raped various parts of the Levant and Europe. Without this provocation it is most probable that Christian forces would never have invaded the Islamic lands. Islam declared an imperialist war on Christian states, long before the Christians took the offensive in an effort to stave off the Islamification of Europe. Such historical details usually escape the notice of Western apologists.

Islam the Koran and its Teachings

The personal philosophy of Mohammad embedded in his Islamic theology demands violence. This violence is directed not only against non-believers but also women. The widely used veil and burqa [in use since pagan times in most cultures] denotes the woman as private property. Not wearing a veil suggests a woman is a prostitute. Polygamy is the manifestation of the Islamic view of the woman as a pleasure toy for men, and an agent of domestic support. Polygamy and veiling women are expressions of centralized control and forceful violence. As one historian states: "This is why historically Christianity is associated with political freedom. Those who govern themselves morally do not need a strong central government power to maintain social order. Conversely Islam for all its high moral teachings, enforces them with external control."[Gene Veith, ‘Heart Problems’, World, May 3 2003, p. 13]

In Islam women are deemed to be a threat to society and are thus controlled. As Mohammad himself stated, “A woman comes in the image of the devil, and leaves in the image of the devil.” [Fadl, God’s Name, p. 275] This lack of equality, justice and compassion imbues and activates Islamic thought. Such precepts contradict Christianity.

Islamic violence extends of course to non-believers as well. The Koran has innumerable passages inciting holy war and violent Jihad. It promotes the killing of non-believers and the use of force to destroy those who will not convert. Contrary to Western apologists Jihad has nothing to do with improving one’s spirituality. It is directed at the conversion or extirpation of non-believers. In the Bible the Old Testament adjures its people to fight against specific enemies of the Israeli tribe. It does not command the Jews or Christians to exterminate non-believers. Importantly as well there is not one line inciting violence in the New Testament. The same cannot be said for the Koran, the supposed book of peace. Koranic text inciting violence would include:

“kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191)”;

"fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5);

"slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter" (5:34).

“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out ….persecution is severer than slaughter, …then slay them, such is the consequence of the unbelievers” [Sura 2:191]

‘Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world’s life for hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then he be slain or he be victorious. We shall grant him a mighty reward.” [Sura 4:74]

‘…then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper’ [Sura 4:89]

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them’ [Sura 8:12]

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth….until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” [Sura 9:29]

[Islam the Great Divide, Appendix A, others@

The above passages hardly sound like a theology of peace. I challenge anyone to find similar passages in the New Testament. Islam has little to do with compassion, charity, equality, love, respect for the poor, respect for women or individual responsibility. It is a religion of power, force, and coercion.

Some wits will of course point to verses in the Koran that discuss peace. First peace in the Islamic sense of the word means submission, not peace as Westerners understand it. Second according to the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society and others, compassionate Koranic verses come from the time before Mohammed seized absolute power. After Mohammad achieved absolute dictatorship his methods [violence in lieu of preaching] and his words changed drastically. As already discussed Mohammad was a vindictive, violent man who used killing to subjugate and spread his political doctrine.

Peace has never been at the root of Islamic expression. Fear, anger, hatred, and envy permeate Islamic belief. Bernard Lewis a foremost expert on Islam claims that for Muslims:

“What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law, and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society, and to the flouting or even the abrogation of God's law."

In fact the intolerance for non-believers is so stringent, that Islam is incapable of understanding, using or accepting outside influences and viewpoints. As historian Paul Johnson argued in the National Review, "in all countries where Islamic law is applied, converts, whether compulsory or not, who revert to their earlier faith, are punished by death." It is hard to imagine such great intolerance and fear of other thoughts, passions and ideals. It signifies a state owned fascist representation of the world in which no dissent can be accepted. When viewed historically and when analyzed objectively it is clear that Islam is not a religion of diversity, debate, reform, introspection or tolerance. It is myopic, monolithic, and intolerant of dissent or doubt.

Church and State

Nowhere is Islamic intolerance more obvious than in the melding of the Church and State. Islam is more a political doctrine of control than a religion. There is very little real spirituality that emanates from Islam in which equality, respect, charity, compassion, responsibility and love are honoured. Islam demands and orders submission. This political ideal necessitates the control by the State over theology. Christianity is totally different. It renders to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God and to the self what God and self-demand.

Islam does not render anything to anyone. The person is submerged in Islamic submission. Such submission takes not only the form of obedience to Koranic doctrine, but to the interpreters of the Koran – be they mullahs, dictators or fascists. Islam is the perfect ideological cover for fascism. Much like Nazi paganism Islam elevates the group over the individual, conformity over individualism, tradition over science, ritual over dynamism and communitarianism over free will. Mohammad himself declared that he was not only a prophet [untrue] but also the ruler of Islam. The prophet acted out political and military decisions much as any secular ruler did. Mohammad decreed and most Muslims accept, that Allah wants the state and the church to be one. This is indicated by the Sharia law – the law of the Islamic state that is binding on all citizens.

Without a separation of Church and State society is fascist in its organization and religion becomes a state program, not of spirituality, but of control. Islam is the perfect embodiment of this pagan ideal – the destruction of the individual and the elevation of the group and state.

Islam’s Economic and Intellectual Failure

In his book ‘Why I am not a Muslim’ former Muslim Ibn Warraq states that, ‘There is a persistent myth that Islam encouraged science.’ [273] He further states that Muslims have always been suspicious of knowledge for its own sake, and intellectual debate and inquiry is deemed to be a danger to the faith [273]. The general myth is that Islam was a great centre of scientific and cultured advancement. This is untrue. Compared to the Christian era of scientific, technological and intellectual advancement [800 – present day], Islam has contributed very little to the corpus of important advancements in any area. There is no comparing the West’s contribution from Francis Bacon I through the Enlightenment and various western economic and scientific revolutions with Islam. Simply put Islam has not produced anything of great value.

Most Islamic apologists point to the era of 700-1100 as one of glorious Arab achievement. But on close inspection this is false. Science in this era of Islam was based on translations of Greek and Syriac texts, not on independent empirical induction – a method that was a Western invention [see Francis Bacon I]. Second, Nestorian Christians were the ones who translated the Greek texts on science, philosophy and math. This was true in Spain as well as in the Near East. Jews were also prominent in translating and interpreting ancient Greek texts.

Translating texts and using Greek ideas while noble does not constitute great advancement. Arabs in the 9th century did not improve on the works of the Greeks. They added nothing new. Nor did they accept for over 200 years the Indian numerals and algebra which make higher mathematics possible. As one analyst writes, ‘In general the achievement of the Arabs in pure mathematics is below the Greeks in geometry and below the Hindus in algebra.’[Singer, A Short History of Scientific Ideas]. Math is the language of science and the lack of advancement by the Muslims in math, meant a corresponding lack of scientific innovation. In medicine, agriculture, astronomy, architecture and philosophy Arab methods during their ‘golden age’ were either the same as, or inferior to the ancient Greeks or Romans. Even in ‘Dark’ Europe the Christians had learnt to build a harness around a horses shoulder which was a landmark invention in agricultural development and transport. Such a simple idea eluded the ‘advanced’ Arabs.

The Muslims have never discovered any scientific laws nor did they improve upon Greek medicine [Islam forbade the dissection of bodies and corporeal empiricism]. The Arabs never discovered: Kepler’s 3 laws of astronomy; Newton’s law of gravity; Pascal’s law of liquid pressure; Ohm’s law in electricity; Boyle’s law in chemistry; Kelvin’s absolute zero; Faraday’s electromagnetic induction, Dalton’s atomic weights, Lavoisier’s law of energy conservation, or Mendel’s hereditary laws. Muslims never discovered; bacteria, chloroform, disease inoculation, blood circulation, antiseptics, or cadaver dissection. All of the above came from the Judeo-Christian tradition of inquiry, experiment, induction and rational logic built up patiently over 2000 years.

Such backwardness in the theology and statism of Islam now shows itself in today’s world with broken economies, fascist governments, slave trading, female enslavement, the wanton destruction of outside influences and knowledge and a group of nations outside of main global trading patterns. Economic impotence, military incompetence, political corruption, and mind-numbing education has led to ossified rigid societies incapable of free thought and inquiry and hence, mired in poverty. Islam thus finds recourse in violence and terror. The modern expressions of Islamic terror – rogue states, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hussein, Arafat, Nasserism, Khomeneism, the Taliban and so on – are not historical oddities. They are very much part of the troubled, demented, and violent statist program of fascist theology that has been hammering away at the West for 1400 years.

The Rise of Western Christendom, by Peter Brown (and the entry of Islam)

Triumph and Diversity, 200 A.D. – 1000 A.D.

Bookmark and Share


The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A ...


The Christianisation of Europe and large parts of Asia and Africa is accepted as a fait accompli, an inevitability, an unstoppable trend.  As Peter Brown’s very large, comprehensive, and dense book, which is fantastically written, and which illumines the opacity of the late ancient world, clearly presents, this was far from true.  The ‘geographical spread’ of Christianity, to quote Brown, is astonishing in itself.  The cultural adaptation across lands and societies is simply remarkable and an untold tale.  How did it happen?  Why did it happen? 


This triumphant diversity and even tolerance of the pagan and non-Christian is an important reason why the religion was able to spread and conquer previous cults and paganisms.  As Brown states, ‘What we now call a distinctively European Christianity was unthinkable in the year 500 A.D.  Even the notion of Europe itself only took on its modern meaning in around the year 650 A.D.  By the year 1000 A.D., what could be called a European Christianity had only recentl been established, with the conversion of Germany, of parts of Eastern Europe, and of Scandinavia.’  Christianity adapted, proved itself morally and socially superior, subsumed and conquered the literally hundreds of existing paganisms.  As Brown relates, every region presents a different story.  Western Christendom has a very distinct history than its brethren in Near Eastern lands, or further afield in Central Asia, and Western China.  How did a small Christian sect, numbering a few score in 35 A.D. manage to organise, coalesce and conquer Europe and huge swathes of Africa and Asia? 


Christian ‘Europe’ reaches far back into the past.  It is built on and is infused by millennia of pagan beliefs.  Socio-religious narratives, the immaterial, discussions over the soul, purgatory and hell, have deep antecedents in pagan culture and philosophy.  Cultural mores and beliefs would have greatly impacted all Christian practices and beliefs.  Christianity cannot be neatly divorced or disconnected from the age-old beliefs and certainties of the societies it entered, comingled with and eventually dominated.  This is why Christianity can look quite different depending on what region or area one investigates. 


As Brown states, ‘the warring Christian churches of Asia and Africa turned the Middle East into a vast echo chamber, resounding with lively conversations.  The literature of every church was characterised by debates with real or imagine rivals….it was the cyber highway of the age….The men who contributed…cared deeply about education.  Based in the city of Nisibis…Nestorian Christians…created an entire new system of Christian schooling…They also cared about the Greco-Roman past.’  Plato is clearly found within St. Augustine and neo-Platonic discussions on the soul and the immaterial world beyond the living.  Aristotle infused naturalism and Scholasticism.  Roman literature was analysed and discussed.  There was a continuity within the Mediterranean world from 200 A.D. to 1000 A.D in which Christian ideals were blended with Greco-Roman.  Civilisation continued and was improved.


Then when we the entry of Islam.  As Brown writes:  ‘The roots of Islam lay in an Arabian peninsula that was by no means a bleak and isolated desert.  The Hijaz, in which…Muhammad received his message, was part of great echo chamber of religious ideas that had developed throughout the Middle East in the late sixth and early seventh centuries.  We have also realised the zet with which the earl Muslims appropriated and adapted the artistic and technical skills of the regions which they conquered.’ 


If one reads the Koran, you will see that it is a purloined, and incorrect appropriation of Jewish and Christian canonical texts.  It is also quite pagan, given that the Al Lah of Mecca is Baal who is a moon deity, a common cult in the Near East.  What Muhamamd did was combine the aspects of miraculous and divinely sanctioned mono-theism with existing Meccan Al Lah worship.  The ‘echo chambers’ of articulated and emotional Christian argumentation would have been carried along the trade routes from the Levant to Christian communities in Arabia.  Muhammad was a caravan owner and would have encountered these lively debates and ideas.


As Brown recounts, the Muslims defined themselves in opposition to the Christians.  This led to two ideals within Islam.  The first was related to the ascetic, retired Monk, who denied the world and devoted himself (or herself in the case of Nuns), to God.  There are no communities of Nuns or Monks in Islam.  The second was more prominent and important, namely the ethos of the warrior Jihadi and soldier for Muhammad and the Al Lah of Mecca. 


“The Muslim idealisation of death on the battlefield…arrived at through a conscious wish on the part of Muslims to define themselves against non-Muslims – especially against Christians…..What they found was a hard doctrine.  The notion of Jihad repelled Jews and Christians.  Ever since, it has played a major role in the negative image of Islam.”


Jihad was the Muslim ethos of choice.  It was not just to ‘oppose’ Christian monasticism and ideological ferment, which is what Brown offers.  Jihad was practical.  Muhammad needed men to conquer, and the allure of booty, women, and land was paramount.  Muhammad was no prophet, but an empire builder.  Monotheism and the vanquishing of all pagan idols bar the Al Lah or moon deity was paramount for unification of diverse tribes and clans.  The Christian and Jewish communities in Arabia and beyond were wealthy and advanced in comparison to the penury of most Arab pagans.  The 7th century Jihad against Christianity in Arabia and beyond by the cult of Muhammad, has parallels with the Viking onslaughts against Britain and northern France in the 9th century.  Riches, an advanced and prosperous civilisation, sex slavery and pillage were the inspirational objectives of the Al Lah cult and Muhammad.  You need to pay brigands, gangs and mercenaries.  The spoils of war (to quote a Koranic chapter heading) is how you accomplish this.  The theological foundation of Muhammadanism was war and subservience to Al Lah and Muhammad. 


Scorching Winds and Christophobia

Sura 52 is yet another anti-Christian hate text

Bookmark and Share



 “But Allah has been gracious to us and has delivered us from the Penalty of the Scorching Wind.” [52:27]”


Sura 52 is another little-read chapter in Muhammad’s handbook.  There are 17 verses of supremacist cant against non-Moslems, specifically Christians, out of a total of 49, or 33%. A rather immoderate total.  There is not one verse that is moderate, accommodating or kind to Christians.  None. 


As verse 52:27 states, in order to escape the wrath of the Al Lah or Lord of Mecca, who was Baal the moon idol, and the scorching Arabian winds, one must follow Muhammad’s book, Recital, or Koran.  This book must followed in-toto.  Not in part, but completely and without question.  To doubt anything in Recital is blasphemous, and any who do not believe in its entirely such as a Jew, Christian, or non-Muslim, will be severely punished. 


Unlike Christianity, the Muhammadan doctrines are not a buffet of pick and choose.  Outside of the 10 Commandments and the last adjuration from Christ to ‘love’ (itself open to wide interpretation), there is little that is demanded within Christian Biblical tradition and doctrine that cannot be edited, amended or subject to some level of interpretation and implemented differently depending on time, space and culture.  This is not true in the Koran.  It is all or nothing.


The totality of Muhammad’s cult is ignored by most.  If a professing Muslim dares to investigate or disbelieve any aspect of Koranic-Sharia ‘Law’, they are blasphemers.  If they do not subscribe to all the rituals and dogma, they are officially apostates.  If they leave the cult, they are to be killed as demanded by Sharia ‘Law’.  All of this is quite pagan, antagonistic to freedom and the individual, premised on what a bronze age cult would establish to organise strength and conformity. 


Sura 52 and much of the Koran is anti-Christian.  It is not just anti-Semitic.  The ‘Peoples of the Book’ are targeted for extermination.  They refuse to follow the comprehensive totality of Muhammad’s handbook, or if you don’t believe that Muhammad really existed (an apocryphal belief), the guidebook of the Meccan cult named Submission. 


Muhammad was and still is, Baal's only spokesman.  To follow Muhammad is to follow ‘divine guidance’ and receive Baal’s grace. Sura 52 or The Mount', is simply a warning to anyone who does not follow Muhammad or the Koran:



Verily, the Torment of your Lord will surely come to pass,


There is none that can avert it; [why is that, see below verses 11, 12]


Then woe that Day to the beliers;


Who are playing in falsehood.


The Day when they will be pushed down by force to the Fire of Hell, with a horrible, forceful pushing.


This is the Fire which you used to belie.


Is this magic, or do you not see?


Taste you therein its heat, and whether you are patient of it or impatient of it, it is all the same. You are only being requited for what you used to do.


Verily, the Muttaqun (pious - see V.2:2) will be in Gardens (Paradise), and Delight.


Those who don’t believe in Baal and Muhammad (52:11) will inevitably (52:08) suffer torment (52:07) and Hell (52:14, 16).  The punishment will be horrible (52:13) and is not magic but real (52:15), and justified (52:16).  Only the Muslim pious will recline in heaven (52:17). 


This general warning becomes a specific injunction against Christians.  The Koran goes to great lengths to criticise the Christian Trinity or ‘partners of Allah’.  Al Lah as nothing to do with the Christian god head.  In fact Al-Lah is the opposite of the Christian conception of God, based on Baal associated as Baal always was, with Satanic practices.  Christians who defy the Baal cult are in good Koranic Orwellian doublethink, the real polytheists because they believe in a Trinity and are doomed to death and hellfire:


052:042 * URL

Or do they intend a plot (against you O Muhammad SAW)? But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism) are themselves in a plot!

052:043 * URL

Or have they an ilah (a god) other than Allah? Glorified be Allah from all that they ascribe as partners (to Him)

052:044* URL

And if they were to see a piece of the heaven falling down, they would say: "Clouds gathered in heaps!"

052:045* URL

So leave them alone till they meet their Day, in which they will sink into a fainting (with horror).


The Day when their plotting shall not avail them at all nor will they be helped (i.e. they will receive their torment in Hell).


And verily, for those who do wrong there is another punishment (i.e. the torment in this world and in their graves) before this, but most of them know not. [Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol. 27, Page 36].


If you disbelieve in the Al-Lah you by definition are always plotting against the Muslims (52:42) and this will guarantee you a place in hell (52:46).  Christians are specifically identified as those who are the enemies of Muslims, since they associate ‘partners’, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit, with the Al Lah (52:43) and given their general disbelief are always plotting against the Muslims (52:46).  Christians are rather stupid and ignorant of the Al-Lah’s grace, given that if a piece of heaven fell to the earth, they would identify it as simply a fallen cloud (52:44), meaning that only Muslims understand the greatness of Al Lah and his promises of heaven.  Christians are deluded in their aversion to Muslim truth, and innately opposed to the cult of Muhammad but this matters not.  Their plotting and disbelief only assure that Christians are destined for hell (52:45), and torture (52:47).


This is just one Sura amongst many which has similar themes.  There is an obvious dichotomy with Muhammandan theology, an ‘us versus them’, imperative.  Christians are identified as intractable, stubborn, rather stupid, and evil, indefatigable in their plotting and opposition to the Al Lah cult.  It is impossible to align these statements with the official pronouncements by the Vatican, ‘experts’, ‘academics’ and those reptilians called politicians, that Muhammad’s cult is tolerant and immanent.