French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation

Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was  superior to anything Islam had developed.  Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam.  Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions.  Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'.  Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.   

Archive - April 2022

Sura 4: Men own women and Jihad is a mandatory 'pillar' of the cult

A clear example of Koranic hate speech

Bookmark and Share



Sura 4 is divided into 2 parts. About half the Sura discusses how to treat, marry, have sex with; own, and manage your 'women'.  The other half is about Jihad, war, and converting or exterminating Infidel Unbelievers. 

The first theme of Sura 4 is female management.  Much of it reads like a litany of ancient discourse and laws on how to treat the female race including when you can beat them [4-34], slave-trade them, when you can have sex with them (when you want as long as she is ‘clean’), why you can marry slaves, and what levels of obedience and support you should expect from the women in your life including your mother, mother-in-law, daughters, wives, and sex-slaves. Whilst proscribing marrying one's mother; sex and marriage to a cousin is deemed acceptable. This is why in the Muslim inbreeding and low IQ is a real issue.  In sum the ideas around 'women' have no relevancy for an Iron age world, let alone a modern social culture.

The second theme of this Sura is of course the necessity of war and Jihad.  Demonisation of the Infidel is used to create a culture of animus, fear and hatred toward non-Muslims. Out of 176 verses in this chapter, 47 are clearly advocating violence, Jihad and intolerance against and towards non-Moslems, or almost 30%. Islam's two great obsessions – women and the Infidel – are joined in this Sura.

The 47 verses which preach violence against Unbelievers are in order:

1)14, 2)30, 3)31, 4)37, 5)38, 6)42, 7)44, 8)45, 9)46, 10)47, 11)48, 12)50, 13)51, 14)52, 15)53, 16)55, 17)56, 18)74, 19)75, 20)76, 21)77, 22)78, 23)84, 24)88, 25)89, 26)93, 27)95, 28)104, 29)115, 30)117, 31)121, 32)137, 33)138, 34)139, 35)140, 36)141, 37)142, 38)144, 39)145, 40)151, 41)155, 42)157, 43)161, 44)167, 45)168, 46)169, 47)170

Islam uses 'keywords' to describe those who should go to the Hellfire or be tormented in this lifetime; or who should be executed, crucified, and humiliated. The key words used include:  those who commit injustice or are unfair, steal, lie, deceive; those who create social discord [this includes anyone not following the Koran]; any who practice polytheism [eg. Christianity which worships a Trinity of God, Arab pagans, Hindus], any who worship false idols [the Jews, Arab pagans, Zoroastrains, Buddhists]; any who are criminals [all non-Moslems are considered criminal and blasphemers]; or anyone who does not support the Umma or community with tax payments, hospitality, and reverence.  It is a comprehensive list of hate.

The ugly fact about the Koran and Islam is of course that anyone who does not follow Muhammad, or the Allah [both of whom can be considered in their Koranic context to be the same]; are situated within the aforementioned categories. The cult rules. If you are outside of the cult, you are a criminal polytheist and instigator of social dislocation. These facts have to be kept foremost in mind when reading the Koran. As 4:30 and 4:92 both state, you must never kill a Moslem [but killing an infidel is fine]:

30: O you who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves unjustly except it be a trade amongst you, by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you.


92: It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya)

Compare this sentiment with verse 4:56:

Surely! Those who disbelieved in Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allah is Ever Most Powerful, AllWise.

Sura 4 contravenes modern hate speech. Like the other long Suras a good part of it is little more than rants of violence against those who are not Moslem. This cultural artefact of the Koran must surely distort the culture of the Moslem cult. To deny this is to be ignorant on a vast scale. Some of the more 'immoderate' phrases would be:

74-Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.

76-Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).

84-Then fight (O Muhammad SAW) in the Cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you), it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing.

89-But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

144-O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors or helpers or friends) disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

If you reject any part of Muhammad’s messaging and teaching (including his demands to Jihad, kill or convert unbelievers), you will be punished in this life and the next.  This is expressed in 4:14 and is a major reason why Muslim apostates are often killed.  You can join the cult, but never leave.

In summary we have a long discourse within Sura 4 on the inalienable rights of Muslim men over women, their divinely sanctioned grace to own more than 1 wife, have sex slaves and manage women as they see fit.  Along with that we have the Koranic demands to fight non-Muslims, kill the Infidel, convert or enslave the Unbeliever. Muslims must never trust Infidels or take them as friends. If you leave the cult you will be killed. Obey Muhammad [or Allah].

Such evocative verses of supremacy must certainly distort the Moslem mind and inculcate in their cult devotees a certain degree of supremacism and will to power.



Sura 3, The Family of Imran (or Moses). More hate speech.

You the non-Muslim don’t matter. Humans in general don’t matter.

Bookmark and Share


Muslim ‘theologians’ or cult apologists, admit that the longer Suras are the most important in the book ‘Recital’, with Suras 2, 5, and 9 holding the most honourable positions.  Sura 3 is a long-disconnected Sura, akin to Sura 2 in many ways, especially its overt supremacism.  It attempts to convince the reader that Moses was the prophet of Al Lah or Baal (Hebraic theology is the opposite of Baal or Al Lah worship) and that the followers of the 'Messenger' or Mohammed, will dominate the Jews, Christians and Unbelievers in general.  There is no Golden Rule within these Suras and very little charity, love, tolerance or respect is displayed especially when 'outsiders' are discussed.  Hence the term supremacism is apt and obvious when trying to make sense out of admittedly, very poorly written text. 

The main thrust of Sura 3 is pretty clear and deeply disturbing to any rational, spiritual or Christian-mind: obey Mohammed; obey Allah; reject Allah and you will most likely die; support Allah and you might be blessed; and Allah will decide on all matters.  What in essence does this doctrine teach us?

The idea of this Sura and of much of Islam is that humans don't matter. Submit to this Allah and you might be blessed, but you must submit to him or it (the moon idol of Mecca or Baal, is Al Lah or the Lord of Mecca). Muhammad demands that all humans obey the archaic, bronze-age rituals and beliefs of the moon deity of Mecca and that this Al Lah is the only power in the world.  

This monotheistic appropriation of Yahweh is, however, quite different than the Judeo-Christian view of the divine.  In Muhammadanism the human is essentially worthless.  Your only value is in your piety in obeying Allah and his interpreter Muhammad. Thinking, criticising, inventing, inquiry, living, are unimportant. Only Al Lah is important and to understand Al Lah you must follow the word of his ‘messenger’ and following that ‘word’ gives your life value. 

Reject those who deny Al Lah:

4. Then those who reject faith in the Signs of Allah will suffer the severest penalty, and Allah is exalted in Might, Lord of Retribution.

12. Say to those who reject Faith “Soon will you be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, - an evil bed indeed (to lie on)!

21. As to those who deny the Signs of Allah, and in defiance of right, slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous penalty (note, an obvious warning to Jews)


7. He it is Who has sent down to you the Book: in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part therof that is allegorical,.....

19. The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.

20. ....And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: “Do you (also) submit yourselves?” If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, your duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants.

Obey Muhammad:

132. And obey Allah and the Messenger; that you may obtain mercy.

164. Allah conferred a great favour on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves.....before that they had been in manifest error.

Muslims will rule:

110. You are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith....

123. Allah had helped you are Badr, when you were a contemptible little force, then fear Allah; thus you may show your gratitude.

Note; A smaller Muslim force led by Mohammed defeated a larger Meccan army at Badr in 622 A.D. This victory gave Mohammed and his band of basically lawless robbers great prestige.

Al Lah and the elect:

26. Say: “O Allah! Lord of Power (and Rule), You give Power to whom you please, and You strip off Power from who You please: You endue with honor whom You please.....”

60. The Truth comes from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt.

The Sura demands a slavish cult mentality.  It is riddled with commands to obey and follow only Muhammad and his interpretation of what Baal or Al Lah demands from Arabs.  There are no miracles, no healings, no forgiveness, nor division of faith from the state.   Every aspect of life is tied up into a complete package, a totalitarian creed based on what Muhammad demands.  The demonisation and linking of Christians and Jews with evil and Satan is an important element in Koranic supremacism.  No immanent, universal or Catholic appreciation of the divine logos, or creation makes an appearance.  The stench of bronze age paganism issues forth.

(source:  The Holy Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 1995)


God is not Love. But Fear.

No fear of hell or punishment? No moral, intellectual, or societal order.

Bookmark and Share

The Battle: Jesus, Our Passover Lamb 

Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke understood why Christianity was the foundation stone for Western Civilisation, a culture and concept which is now fast imploding and unless real faith is revived and rebuilt; will collapse.  They understood why the life, teaching and resurrection of Christ was so vital in the development of society, institutions, and true progress.  Kirk and Burke were two of the greatest philosophers and exponents of reality that our civilisation, now debased and effeminate, has produced.  They knew that truth and wisdom come from a strong belief, an active belief, a participatory belief, in God and most particularly and importantly, a fear of God.  If there is no fear in God almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, there is no wisdom, no societal structure based on truth, and nor moral or even intellectual order. 

God is not Love. 

The modern Churches are in main becoming useless appendages of the State.  They preach a Beatles melody that God is love, love, love and love is all you need.  It matters not what you do or believe.  Just love.  This is apocryphal, does not comport to the teachings of Christ, nor any of the prophets, is not found in scripture and is not based on common sense, science, or morality.  It is the insipid trumpeting of Thomas Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’, in which we should have unlimited rights, be forgiven for unlimited actions and evil intent, and be petted and patted as if God is the loving grandmother in our kitchen baking cookies and telling us in a soothing voice, ‘It is alright dear, you can do whatever you want, be whatever you want, act in any way, and I will forgive you.  Here eat a cookie.’  The modern approach to Christianity has little connection with Christianity and is a corrupted version of moral relativity and Enlightenment metaphysical madness.

Christ declared that he came with a sword to divide families and generate conflict.  He sought to overturn society and uproot traditional trees.  He said that only through him could you understand and see the Father, God almighty, and that he the Christ, was the portal to the immaterial spirit of creation.  Without a belief in Christ, you do not pass to the Father.  This is clearly stated and demanded.  No amount of ‘love’ will allow you to pass that door unless you believe.

Christ did tell his apostles to ‘love one another as I have loved you’, because they were his disciples who did in part, and only in part, believe in who he truly was and in his divinity.  He also asked his general followers to love their enemies (Sermon on the Mount), to show those who oppose us kindness, in the hopes of converting their hearts and souls, but he never declared that these enemies would be loved by God, accepted and forgiven.  He said nothing of the sort. 

Christ preached peace when peace might work, he also preached violence and overturned tables when God was desecrated and abused.  He never preached that love is all you need.  He did preach that based on actions and remorse you might forgive and show mercy, just as you would ask God for mercy and forgiveness, but you must believe in God and act in accordance with God’s wishes, to demand such grace. 

The divine Christ was scourged, beaten, tortured and crucified by the pagan Roman and compatriot Jews in the most violent and bloody manner imaginable, an episode confirming the prophecies and written by his own divine Father.  Christ was sacrificed on the exact same day that the Passover lambs were sacrificed in Jewish tradition.  He was the final blood sacrifice to God, paying the ransom of the sins of a wayward mankind who defied and still defies God’s word and intent, who still worship their graven images and idols, who still deny the created world and the miracles of life and of God’s handiwork.  Those who do not believe are never saved.  God does not ‘love’ those who disobey. 

And what ‘loving’ Father kills his own son? 

How could the Churches preach the happy melody of endless summers of love, when they ignore the wrath, the violence, the omnipotent reach of God?  The Old Testament readings on the Easter Vigil include the story of Abraham going to Mount Horeb to sacrifice his only son, out of fear and obedience to God.  An angel stays his hand, and a ram is offered instead.  Nary a sermon will pick up on the fear of God which compelled a wealthy man to attempt to kill his own son.  Yet on Easter, we have God the Father, condemning and allowing the sacrifice of his only son, even as the Christ cries out, why have you forsaken me? 

Where is the love in the sacrifice of Christ?

Christ never rebuked or effaced the Old Testament and its code and prophecies.  He fulfilled them.  He added a new covenant, that amongst Christians, we must love one another, and also love our neighbours be they Christian or not.  But to be a Christian is the message.  That means following the code and rules laid down by God.  It does not mean only love.  Love is an additional stricture added to the commandments and expectations given to Christians by God.  It is not the only and not even the most important part of the covenant.  Fearing God is the most important aspect of Christianity.  This fear leads to a moral order, a structure of thinking and activity, which drives progress and invention and creates a better society. 

The First Commandment is very clear, you will have no other Gods, but the one true God the Father.  Fearing his anger is the basis of Christianity.  Disappointing him, the premise of moral order.

The fear of God and Christ’s wrath is what drives both wisdom and ambition.  Christ is the door to the Father.  The Old Testament commandments must be upheld.  The fear of hell and punishment nicknamed Gehenna by the Jerusalem Jews was and is real.  If there is no punishment, there can be no reward.  In any game if there are no losers, there are no winners.  The material energy and physics of the soul must live on.  The immaterial spirit and essence of your soul must live on.  The proofs and the miracles over 2000 years supporting both hell and heaven are overwhelming and far exceed most modern ‘science’ in their detailed evidence. 

Why did a wrathful, vengeful God allow the death of his Son?  It was not just to remit and forgive our Sins as a sinful, deviant, unworthy race and species.  It was the great example of what is expected.  Fear God and even kill your own son out of that fear.  Fear God or be damned.  Fear God so you can endure the punishments, torture, pain and crucifixions of this life.  Fear God and follow his commandments and the model of living exemplified by his Son, so you too may partake of the immaterial eternity awaiting those who are blessed and who understand why God and real faith is so important.  Fear God so you too can be resurrected like his son, Jesus Christ.

[A very good compendium of why Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah:]

Henri Pirenne, 'A History of Europe: From the Invasions to the XVI Century'

No Catholic Church, no modern European civilisation.

Bookmark and Share


A History of Europe: From the Invasions to the XVI Century ...


This opus by Pirenne has largely stood the test of time and is a must read for any who wish to understand the turbulent, violent, complicated civilising mission and history of Christian Europe.  Some elements have been overturned or recalibrated including his assertion that the Musulman invasion completely destroyed all Mediterranean and commerce by the late 7th century (not entirely true, but his point is still valid).  Pirenne is not a Christian apologist, being quite critical of both the religion and its ecclesiastical culture and societal development, whilst maintaining a deep regard for its importance, civilisational mission and its defence of Europe against the Musulman invasions.  In summary it is clear, no Catholic Church, no European civilisation.  All would have descended back into pagan barbarism.  Some important excerpts from Pirenne, on this topic below.


The Musulman invasion(s) and Jihad

Musulmans appeared as the propagandists of a new faith, an exclusive and intolerant faith to which all had to submit. Religion, wherever they ruled, was the basis of political society; or rather, the religious organization and the political organization were for them identical; Church and State forming a single unity. The infidels could continue the practice of their cult only as simple subjects, deprived of all rights whatsoever. Everything was transformed, from top to bottom, in accordance with the principles of the Koran.


Koranic theology was society.  The Christian Church promoted the opposite – the absolute division of Church and State.


[Musulmans] can boast of little that is original. The conquered peoples were all more refined than their nomad conquerors, and the latter borrowed from them in a wholesale fashion. The Arabs translated the works of their scholars and philosophers, drew inspiration from their art, and adopted their agricultural, commercial and industrial methods. The extent and diversity of the countries and the nations upon which they imposed their rule subjected them to a quantity of influences, which blended together, giving the Musulman civilization an aspect of great variety, but little depth, of these influences, that of Hellenism rivalled that of Persia.


The Musulman Jihad, attacked, conquered, and squatted on far richer civilisations.  The driving impetus and galvanising feature of the Musulman Jihad was precisely the allure of richer states. 


Aristotle was the master of the Arab philosophers, who added nothing essential to his philosophy. On the whole, in the intellectual domain, the Musulman civilization did not greatly influence the European peoples. The explanation is simple: there was much in it that was artificial, and the sources upon which it drew most freely were, for the most part, European sources.


Musulmans did not build on ancient wisdom.  Nestorians and other Christians had translated their works for the new masters, but no discernible improvements or additions were made by the Musulmans.  It was static learning.


From the 7th to the 11th century Islam was incontestably the master of the Mediterranean. The ports which the Arabs constructed—Cairo, which succeeded to Alexandria, Tunis, and Kairouan—were the étapes of a commerce which circulated from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Indian Ocean, through the Egyptian ports, which were in communication with the Red Sea, and the Syrian ports, which gave access to the caravan route to Baghdad and the Persian Gulf. The navigation of the Christian peoples was restricted to a timid coastwise trade along the shores of the Adriatic and southern Italy, and among the islands of the Archipelago.


The Musulmans cut off the Mediterranean and the Christian civilisation of North Africa and the Levant was conquered, splitting West Christendom from Byzantine Eastern Christendom.  Trade, culture, wealth, and technology were all negatively impacted.


For centuries Europe had gravitated about the Mediterranean. It was by means of the Mediterranean that civilization had extended itself; by means of the Mediterranean the various parts of the civilized world had communicated one with another. On all its shores social life was the same in its fundamental characteristics; religion was the same; manners and customs and ideas were the same, or very nearly so. The Germanic invasion had not changed the situation in any essential respect. In spite of all that had happened, we may say that in the middle of the 7th century Europe still constituted, as in the time of the Roman Empire, a Mediterranean unity.


The ’Dark Ages’ or the reduction in traffic, commerce, wealth and de-urbanisation, only occurred after the Musulman takeover of the Mediterranean and the dismembering of its Christian unity.  This historical fact is still relevant today and still the reason, why there are conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East. 


The intercourse between the West and the East, which had hitherto been carried on by means of this sea, was interrupted. The East and the West were suddenly separated. The community in which they had lived so long was destroyed for centuries to come, and even to-day Europe is still suffering from the consequences of its destruction.


The destruction of Christian-Mediterranean civilisation was an epochal event, still resounding and reverberating even today. 


The Mediterranean by which it had hitherto kept in touch with civilization was closed to it. This, perhaps, was the most important result, as regards the history of the world, of the expansion of Islam.  For the Christianity of the West, when its traditional lines of communication were cut, became a world apart, able to count only on itself, and in respect of its further development it was thrown upon its own resources. Driven off the Mediterranean, it turned to the still barbarous regions beyond the Rhine…


Post 800 A.D. Europe looked to the North, the East, and to the Atlantic to rebuild itself and repair civilisation.  The littoral around the Mediterranean was either conquered by Musulmans or prey to savage piracy and slave trading.  Christian Europe retreated to the North and East.  Its large urban centres based around the Mediterranean became depopulated.  Taxes and trade were reduced.  Government was impaired.


In the second half of the 7th century all trade ceased on the shores of the Western Mediterranean. Marseilles, deprived of her ships, was dying of asphyxia, and in less than half a century all the cities in the south of France had lapsed into a state of utter decadence. Trade, no longer fed by sea-borne traffic, came to a standstill throughout the country: the middle class disappeared: there were no longer merchants by profession; there was no circulation of goods, and as a natural result the market dues no longer fed the royal treasury, which was henceforth unable to defray the expenses of government. Henceforth the landed aristocracy represented the only social force. The king was ruined, but the aristocracy, with its land, possessed wealth and authority. It only remained for it to seize political power.


The Church as saviour

Nevertheless, decadent though it was, the Church was the great civilizing force of the period; indeed, we may say the only civilizing force. It was through the Church that the Roman tradition was perpetuated; it was the Church that prevented Europe from relapsing into barbarism.


The Church swept up the pagan Roman empire and its infrastructure, learning, engineering, urban planning, literature, and ideals and combined them with Christianity, Christian philosophy and Christian science and culture.  It fought innumerable wars to save Christian Europe from Koranic domination.  Literate Church clerics kept learning alive, even as papyrus disappeared thanks to the Musulman invasion.  Social cohesion including hospitals, schools, hospices, roads, taxes and infrastructure, were dealt with, albeit in a haphazard and often inefficient way.  But society was restored, and after 800 A.D. growth and wealth creation become apparent as the foci of Roman Catholic civilisation shifts north and east looking to the Atlantic and Baltic and eventually the horn of Africa and beyond as it fought, defeated and constrained the Musulman Jihad. 


The main point made by Pirenne 100 years ago is still valid today.  The Musulman Jihad forever transformed the Mediterranean and accelerated the development of a distinctly superior European Christian civilisation. 


Slandering Medieval Christianity while applauding Muslim Paganism.

The Dark Ages never existed.

Bookmark and Share

We know that the Dark Ages are a myth.  This is clear from the archaeological and historical records. The list of inventions from the period 500 AD to 1500 AD rivals and probably surpasses that of any 1000 year era in the historical march of man. Indeed the entire modern world is built on the revolutions in agriculture, science, capital formation, reason, and social development, during this period. The medieval inventions in war and transport for instance, were far in advance of anything that the Greeks and Romans could have developed and far ahead of anything that Islam has ever created.

Yet the modern world, academics, 'experts' and the leftist-Marxist-pro Muslim cult, refuse to recognize the incredible energy, talent, and creative capability of the supposed 'Dark Age' peoples. It is slander. Instead of showing pride in the civilization of the West, the really smart people engage in 'nuanced', 'complicated' and 'cultural relative' corruption and bastardization, in order to forward their favorite theses that the West is stupid; Islam is superior; and the modern world is a morass of racism, oppression, destruction and the rape of poor, little, Mother Earth.

Yet in our ignorance about the Medieval period, we dare to call ourselves 'advanced' and 'educated' ? Please.

The inventions in the arts and sciences alone, make the European medieval period one of the most formidable in history. In music for instance, the Romans and Greeks sang and played very simple, monophonic music. This was little changed from the very basic music one would have found in the Neolithic era. One line was sung, and supported by a limited number of instruments, most of them quite simple in construction and usage.

European medieval musicians invented harmony and polyphony, well before 900 AD. This allowed for the creation of complex and emotional themes to be developed, sung, and played. It was the first time in history that a rich mixture of harmonic polyphony was developed – starting with Gregorian chants in the 6th century, buttressed by an impressive array of inventions in the 7th century including; the pipe organ, the violin, the bass, and the harpischord. In the 10th century musical notation was formed in Europe, making the teaching and construction of complex music much easier.

It is highly doubtful that 'barbaric', dirty and stupid Dark Age peoples would have been enlightened enough to produce such wonderful sounds and melodies – not to mention the blessings of the greatest instrument of all time – the violin. Nothing like these sequence of musical innovations existed anywhere in the world – though I am sure that the Muslims, supported by their Marxist abettors will try to take the credit. Islam did after all, invent the modern world through its program of love and tolerance - or so we are constantly told.

During this revolution in music, the arts also flourished. In fact the range of artistic development during the medieval age is more impressive than that of the much-applauded Renaissance. During the 11th century for example, we have the remarkable era in building, sculpture and art named the 'Romanesque period' – though it had little in common with anything Roman. The Romanesque era was a truly impressive epoch, named after 'Rome' by the ignoramuses, academics and other haute-couture personalities of the 19th century, who believed that European medieval advances could only have been derived by going back to classical culture. The claim and the name is absurd.

Romanesque brilliance was followed by the Gothic originality of the 12th and 13th centuries, in which some of the world's most impressive monuments, churches, public spaces, bridges, mills, and other construction projects were completed. 'Gothic' is another pejorative, used by really smart people in the Enlightenment to mean barbaric, or from the supposedly uncivilized 'Goths' who took down the 'civilized' Roman empire. The Gothic achievements are numerous. They include the use of the flying buttress which allowed for the safe construction of very large, high and internally-vaulted buildings; stained glass windows; thinner walls; and a new forms of sculpture and art production, which far surpassed anything that the Romans and Greeks created. It was during this period as well that the great Flemish painters the Van Eycks, redefined painting and realist art, long in advance of the Renaissance. In fact the Van Eycks were the progenitors of Renaissance genius in painting.

The same is true in literature. None of the array of penetrating writing dated from the Renaissance would have been created if the medieval world had not left Latin and entered the vernacular. Dante, Chaucer and many others wrote in the common tongue of their regions, establishing Italian, English, French, Spanish and German as languages of communication, beauty and common usage. By discarding cumbersome and unproductive Latin for flexible, simpler, and superior languages, society was able to simplify communication and employ resources more profitably into the creation of markets, skills, jobs, science, idea-generation, capital allotment and better governance.

This ability to talk, write, and communicate clearly found an ally in the establishment of regional and national universities where the vernacular languages quickly gained preeminence. The first modern universities in the world were founded in Europe during the 12th century. The innovation was to have the university system dedicated to debate, inquiry and logic – not in transmitting 'received wisdoms' as was being done in the Oriental despotism's within Islam and China. The first two modern schools appeared in Paris and Bologna in about 1150 AD, with Oxford and Cambridge being established circa 1200 AD. By the early 13th century each major university had between 10.000 and 15.000 students Nothing like this existed anywhere else in the world.

The attitude to reason, argue, understand and experiment permeated society which informed the university system, which helped birth modern science. The Enlightenment did not invent 'science', the medieval period did. The first rational-modern scientist was Roger Bacon. The rift with mystical Aristotelianism and the break with conformity to the 'received wisdoms of the past', was quite evident by the 11th century in Europe. Again, this was unique in the world. For example both Jean Buriden [1300-1358] and Nicholas Oresme at the University of Paris anticipated Newton by 300 years, in proposing laws of motion and gravity. Oresme pre-dates Copernicus by postulating that the earth orbited not only around the Sun but along its own axis. 'Dark Age' periods would not produce rational-scientific inquiry.

Another major innovation of medieval Europe – found nowhere else in the world, and certainly not within totalitarian Islam – was capitalism. The great French historian Fernand Braudel is still the best read on the development of capitalism and he was one of many who argued that the medieval period created the forms, the systems, the mechanisms and the capital, to build up what is loosely labeled, 'capitalism' or, the ability to use excess funds to return a profit. This was a European-only creation.

Capitalism mandates all sorts of socio-economic innovations including; management, organization, process complexity, product and service delivery, accountability, accounting, and the rule of contract law. It also presupposes freedom, individuality and social peace including transparent rules and governance. In that regard the most compatible system for capitalism, and one which allows it to flourish is representative democracy – another medieval invention which can be dated to the Magna Carta of 1215.

The capitalist system of the medieval period led to the development of the modern world. It was largely, at least initially, a by-product of Church activity. The Church was the most liquid asset holder in medieval Europe, and its largest landowner. Church-based wealth was deployed in all areas of social and economic life to improve living standards, diet, life expectancy, and farming productivity. The barter economy was replaced by a cash economy sometime in the early 13th century – mostly thanks to the Church and its system of capitalism. Labor specialization and skill developed, reinforcing productivity gains, became legion during the period of 800-1300. Diets, health, and living standards all improved dramatically.

The Church invented credit. The Knights Templars in the 12th century created international banking, letters of credit and depository receipts. This aided in the creation of pools of wealth, used for investments, mortgage loans, and business creation. Land or asset value lending was itself an innovation dating from the times of the Crusades when Nobles had to mortgage their properties. This is the first time in history when we see this done within a system of contractual law, coupled with modern styled contracts. [The word mortgage is Old French for 'dead pledge'. In this contract the lender collected all income from the land during the term of the loan.]

There is no proof that the Dark Ages, were either medieval or Dark. In almost all areas of the political-economy, this era was perhaps the most important and fruitful in history. Nothing like the list of innovations, creations, and advancements were experienced by any other part of the world. Yet we are told constantly that Islam created the modern world, and without the Arab destruction, slaughter and Jihad in Spain for example, the lights of civilization would have been extinguished throughout Europe.

Such views, so widely held and coveted are simply displays of stupidity and ignorance. They are intoned for the purpose of denigrating Christianity, degrading European civilization, and elevating a barbaric death cult to be 'relatively' as successful as what the Western world has produced.

This mental-intellectual barbarity does not conform to reality, facts or history.  The Dark Ages need to be renamed as the Age of the Early Modern World. 


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.