Sunday, May 27, 2018

Government and Education: from CIVICS to CRIMETHINK


Psychopaths ("Thought-Killers") assert that, because Fear is "certain," it doesn't bear thinking about further! Therefore it only requires compromise and Submission!

Since thinking prioritizes fear, it IS fear, so thinking about it really ever only compounds the fear!

So it's better just to give up, despair and pity everyone as heroically helpless fellow victims:

As victims, they get to virtue-signal about their "hurt feelings," and about their hatred for people who are 'insensitive" (to THEIR hurt feelings)!


Since whites, men and Jews seem to be in charge of everything, they automatically get blamed for everything going wrong, as if they caused it on purpose.

And this scary fallacy results in the usual kind of cause-and-effect reversing, victim-blaming idolatry:
As most humans are masochists, those in power actually make things go wrong by trying to avoid the blame!

It's easy to blame those people who are naturally in charge due to merit, for anything that goes wrong, and then to make one's fortune out of the slander - and that would be: Whites, men, and Jews (in the order of the most general to specific categories).

Then to oppose them, we almost automatically get the racists, feminists, and anti-Semites, respectively.

And they generate lots of complaints: some justified but most just blaming other victims of circumstances.

Since there's no actual leaders for the largest groups of white Jewish men, it's relatively easy for their enemies to co-opt complicitly cowardly and opportunistic politicians to make rules against them and in favor of the slanderously extortive parasites, because "only the squeaky wheels get the grease," and they are the only ones who are complaining.

And of course men help women complain about men, Jews, and their own whiteness, in order to get laid.

On the bad side, a lot of Jewish white men in society do bad things while they are in power, in order to suppress all complaints, even legitimate ones, to protect them selves from slander, at society's expense:

Government controls EDUCATION.

The only real, valid purpose of education is to teach people to fend for them selves, to become self-sufficient and individualists, and therefore productive, innovative entrepreneurs who will at the very least not become a burden on others in society, and may also even become productive contributors to it.

But most people in government these days seem to want to rule others, (which is why they entered it in the first place) and so also want people to become their slavish dependents.

This is not only at cross-purposes but is also actually diametrically opposed to educations' real purpose.

So these days we have the people in the "Education System" abusing the children in their care with the mentally crippling notion that they are all really ever only helpless victims who need the Government to help them live their lives in all aspects of it, no longer merely as a temporary insurance company for when things go wrong, but all the time and in every conceivable way, to protect them from "unconscious micro-aggressions" and to guarantee them their rightful "safe spaces" everywhere, and all the time, too.

In short, they are told they need government as a protection racket, to protect them from the "systemic inequality" being covertly instituted against them by oppressive government racists who keep them down!

Government has morphed from from servant to master: from insurance company to coercive protection racket.

CIVICS - The notion that there is a contractual relationship between citizens and government, with both responsibilities and rights assigned to each side - is no longer taught in schools, because the people in government saw this truth as a major impediment to their plans to enslave the citizens as mere subjects.

They sell victimology, pretending life is too complex for anyone to understand, in order to sell them selves to the other non-government-employed people as much-needed "Expert Authorities" to run their lives.

And this is, of course, actually criminal negligence - at the very least!

(As an aside, who doesn't personally know at least one perfect example of all of the above: "men" who are feminist, self-hating white anti-Semites?)!


All "Expertise" and "Authority" is criminal negligence and attempted slavery, because the true moral onus thing to do would be to try to educate everyone in the basics of everything.

Sure, not everyone would necessarily be suited or want to actually do all the work in every venue, but at least they'd know how it was done, and how much in general it should cost.

And so people wouldn't be allowed to inflate their costs and their prices right out of the world.

It's not a recipe for communism, because one could still attempt to charge whatever they want, but at least with such a fiduciary duty of care in place through education, people would know what they're getting into.

All academic topics are idolatries because they all pretend these topics just exist on their own, but they're also all really only THINGS HUMANS DO.

Even "Science" and "Physics" is really only the study of humans studying science and physics.

And right now, especially with the so-called "soft" science "humanities," they always pretend that these are things which simply just happen to force poor victim humans to do things against and in spite of their illusory free-will choices.

All idolatry - all expertise and authority scams are actually victimology - getting people to think:
"I'm too helpless to understand this myself!"


Liberals seem to love Submitting to islam. The so-called "STOCKHOLM SYNDROME" is basically only turning one's FEAR of criminals into virtue-signalling PITY for them as equally helpless "fellow victims."

There's really not much more to it than that.

Similarly, "HATE-SPEECH" is anything that deprives a libertine "liberal" criminal extortionist of their false "right" to virtue-signal what a "heroic" victim they are: they're "offended" if you tell them that they're NOT a victim, and that they therefore should straighten up and do right by themselves - that's what they call "HATEFUL!" (hurtful) because it HURTS their feelings, and they can't indulge in their self-pitying victimology!


Saturday, May 26, 2018

Pope Francis: Equating Islam With Terrorism Is Wrong And A Lie

From here:

Stipulate for purpose of debate that the quote is accurate. The Dope declared equating Islam to terrorism is a lie and foolish. Right or wrong? 
I first saw this at Bare Naked Islam and traced it through two newspapers to a third where I could not find the interview. Evidently CAIR believes it 'cuz they posted it on Facebook. 

Pope Francis has said equating Islam to terrorism is "foolish" in an interview with an Italian local newspaper. "It might be coming out of many people's mouths, but this equation is a lie and it is foolish," Francis said in the interview published by L'Eco di Bergamo on Thursday,

The Dope is not just wrong, he is full of excrfement! The proof is in Islam's canonical texts. 



[Emphasis added.]
3:151We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers). 


8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." 

8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
So if you gain the mastery over them in war), if you defeat them and have victory over them in war,
(then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely punishing ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them. This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a lesson from their end, (so that they may learn a lesson. ) As-Suddi commented, "They might be careful not to break treaties, so that they do not meet the same end.'' So if you gain the mastery over them in war), if you defeat them and have victory over them in war, (then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely punishing ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them. This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a lesson from their end, (so that they may learn a lesson. ) As-Suddi commented, "They might be careful not to break treaties, so that they do not meet the same end.''

8:60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.

Ibn Kathir :  to threaten), or to strike fear

    At first glance, 8.57 & 60 may appear innocent. Muslims are commanded to give harsh treatment to defeated victims to tach a lesson to those behind them.  That means terrify those they intend to attack next.  Ibn Kathir adds "will be afraid. 

    Muslims are commanded to maximize military power  to threaten intended victims. Ibn Kathir adds "to strike fear". That is a clue for you.  Ibn Ishaq, Moe's biographer, has another clue for you found on page 326 of Guillaume's The Life Of Muhammad. 
326                             The Life of Muhammad
Then God mentions the unbelievers and what they will meet when they die, and describes them, and tells His prophet about them until He says: 'If you come upon them in war, deal with them so forcibly as to terrify those who follow them, haply they may take warning/ i.e. make a severe example of them to those that come after, that haply  they may understand. 'And prepare what strength you can against them, and cavalry by which. you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy' as far as His words, 'And whatever you spend in the way of God will be repaid to you: you will not be wronged,' i.e. you will not lose your reward with God in the next life and a rapid recompense in this world.


    Allah  awards Brownie Points for acts of terrorism intended to injure or enrage us.  On Judgment Day, the Muslim will stand before Allah, who will weigh his sins against his righteous good deeds. The swing of the balance will decide his  eternal destiny. 
Acts  to instill terror are credited to the terrorist as righteous good deeds. 
9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers), by strategies of war that would terrify their enemy (nor inflict), a defeat on the enemy,


    Allah cast terror and Moe was made victorious with terror! Note the allusion to 8.57 in the last sentence of 59.2.! 
33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. 

59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).


    Turn back to 8.6o  and take note of the phrase "including steeds of war". Islamic law has another clue for you.  Hedaya, the fiqh of the Hanafi madhab,  tells us  the purpose  keeping steeds of war.  It's terror, Stupid!  On  pages 175 & 176 of the second volume, there is a discussion of allocation of  shares of plunder. The horseman gets a share for his horse, it makes no difference how many horses he has or what breed, Persian or Arabian.  The text is barely legible and ocr fails. I highlighted the pertinent sections. 
Hedaya 2.175

Now read the last paragraph on page 176 for another clue. The act of setting out on a ghazwa inflicts terror on the infidels! 
Hedaya 2.176

    Every Muslim must be an object of fear to infidels because he  is likely to attack them.  Hedaya  spills the beans in a discussion of which Muslims are authorized to issue writs of protection.  Once again, I have highlighted pertinent parts. 

Hedaya 2.157


    "The Quranic Concept Of War" a strategy manual used by the army of Pakistan, describes terror on page 59. 
Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.  Once a condition of terrorinto the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.  It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. 

Who will get a clue? Read the highlighted  clauses over and over until reality sinks in. 

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Feminism 101

From here:

Feminism is divisive anti-united-humanism. It is virtue-signalling victimology and treason to all of humanity. And it began when corporations tricked women into thinking men were oppressing them, and thus were able to convince them to double their pool of available workers, and at half their original wages!

"Feminist Theory" basically asserts that, whenever one is having trouble with other females, always blame a male! It's a form of co-optive deflection - when one can't solve one's immediate problems, just blame something and someone else!

And it works out for "male feminists" who, as usual, really only want to get into the women's pants, too: because they can cut out the competition, by pretending to blame all other men as insensitive boors, whenever a women complains about her man or even about other women!

There is no "Patriarchy!" Men simply don't think about women enough (or in that way) to bother to plot or scheme to trick and oppress them - those are projected female tactics!

Only women - whose sex drives are naturally much less than mens' as they have to plan for better offspring and avoid men who are dangerous - have ever actually ganged up and grouped together to withhold sex from their men, united as a women's union, until their extortive demands are met!

Men would NEVER even remotely think to do such a thing!

In fact, most men are usually thinking about how they can beat other men, by pretending to be "male feminists!"

The modern "Racism" trope is also a product of Victimology, which is a product of SJW Feminism.

Men want to protect women and children. Women want to protect (pity) everyone, criminal rapists included. 

Women act like helpless defenseless victims in order to get laid, (the "damsel in distress" act) men always fall for it, and women know they always fall for it. 

So when women complain about evil male "patriarchy" (a silly hallucination they project, where all men supposedly get together to devise new  laws and strategies to oppress women, because men are really secretly afraid of women's intelligence LOL)  most men will eagerly prove the exact opposite by embodying their useful anger to whole-heatedly embrace the silly and slanderous fantasy, asserting that "Yes that's totally true, but only of all those *other* men, not for me!" in order to get laid.

Women organize with other women against men, actively withholding sex until their men fall into line. And it's women, as can be seen in muslim countries, who are the most viciously against women who stray, slut-shaming and honour-killing them allegedly "for allah" but really only to make them all conform.

Men, on the other hand, don't organize with other men against women - they tend to organize with women against all other men. This is why male "feminists" exist, and it's also, I strongly suspect, why male liberal cucks also exist, to embrace and pity the swarthy but childishly mentally inferior animal-people pets of their women!

The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement

Heather Mac Donald
Manhattan Institute
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on April 18, 2018, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.
Our nation is about to be transformed, thanks to the #MeToo movement. I am not speaking about a cessation of sexual predation in the workplace. If that were the only consequence of #MeToo, the movement would clearly be a force for good. Unfortunately, its effects are going to be more sweeping and destructive. #MeToo is going to unleash a new torrent of gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that all disparities in employment and institutional representation are due to harassment and bias.

The resulting distortions of decision-making will be largely invisible; we will usually not know of the superior candidates for a job who were passed over in the drive for gender parity.

But the net consequence will be a loss of American competitiveness and scientific achievement.
Pressures for so-called diversity, defined reductively by gonads and melanin, are of course nothing new. Since the 1990s, every mainstream institution has lived in terror of three lethal words: “all white male,” an epithet capable of producing paroxysms of self-abasement. Silicon Valley start-ups and science labs quake before the charge of being all or mostly male; their varied ethnic demographics earn them no protection from the diversity racket. The New York Times recently criticized the board of fashion giant H&M for being “entirely white.” We can therefore infer that there are females on the H&M board, or else the Times would have let loose with the bigger gun: “all white male.” When both categories of alleged privilege—white and male—overlap, an activist is in the diversity sweet spot, his power over an institution at its zenith.
But however pervasive the diversity imperative was before, the #MeToo movement is going to make the previous three decades look like a golden age of meritocracy. No mainstream institution will hire, promote, or compensate without an exquisite calculation of gender and race ratios.

Males in general, and white males in particular, will have to clear a very high bar in order to justify further deferring that halcyon moment of gender equity.
Hollywood and the media are already showing the #MeToo effect. At this year’s Oscar awards lunch, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, John Bailey, prefaced his remarks by noting that he was a “75-year-old white man.” Bailey was trying to get out ahead of the curve, since if he hadn’t pointed out this shameful status, feminist crusaders in the press and the industry would have done so for him.

Witness actress Natalie Portman’s sneer in presenting the best director prize at the 2018 Golden Globe awards: “And here are the all-male nominees.” Such shallow bean counting is now going to become the automatic response to any perceived lack of “diversity” in entertainment.
Naturally, Bailey announced reparations for the Academy’s predominantly white male profile: henceforth it would “balance gender, race, ethnicity, and religion” in all its activities and would double its female and minority members by 2020. Needless to say, this was not enough. Outside the lunch, the National Hispanic Media Coalition protested the lack of proportional ethnic representation in Oscar nominations and acting roles.
CBS is considering only females to fill the anchor slot at Face the Nation, to catch up with The Today Show, which now has two female anchors. The Recording Academy, which oversees the Grammys, has promised to overcome the “unconscious biases that impede female advancement” in the music industry, after bean-counting complaints from The Wall Street Journal’s pop music critic and female music executives.
The prospect of left-wing entertainment moguls having to sacrifice their box office judgment to identity politics is an unalloyed pleasure, and of little consequence to society at large. 

But quota-izing will hardly be limited to Hollywood.
Major publishing houses are analyzing their author lists by gender and race and making publishing decisions accordingly. What books get reviewed and who reviews them will increasingly be determined according to gender and race. There are likely no major newspapers that are not tallying reporter and op-ed bylines, as well as the topics they cover, by gender and race. In 2005, professional feminist Susan Estrich preposterously accused Michael Kinsley, then running the Los Angeles Times editorial pages, of excluding female writers. Naturally, Estrich ignored the fact that males are disproportionately interested in public affairs, as demonstrated by lopsided sex ratios among op-ed submissions and letters to the editor.

Eighty-seven percent of contributors to Wikipedia are male. There are no allegedly sexist gatekeepers at Wikipedia screening out females; contributions are anonymous and open to all. But males are more oriented towards highly fact-based realms.
Now, however, sterile bean-counting exercises such as Estrich’s have gone in-house. In response to the #MeToo movement, The New York Times created a “gender editor” who presides over a “gender initiative” to infuse questions of gender throughout all the Times’ coverage.

A recent front-page product of this #MeToo initiative covered the earth-shattering problem facing NFL cheerleaders: to wit, they have a dress code and are forbidden from fraternizing with the players. Despite these allegedly patriarchal conditions, females are still lining up to be hired, to the puzzlement of the Times.
Publisher Meredith Corp. has come in for the usual criticism after buying the floundering Time, Inc. late last year. “They’re basically all middle-aged white males from the Midwest,” grumbled a Time staffer, who, you would think, would be in no position to complain. Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is offering leadership training exclusively to females to try to meet its short-term goal of 40 percent female executives.
Corporate boardrooms, executive suites, and management structures are going to be scoured for gender and race imbalances. Diversity trainers are already sensing a windfall from #MeToo. Gender, diversity, and inclusion were the dominant themes at this January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The conference was chaired exclusively by women. Windows were emblazoned with slogans like “Diversity is good for business” and “Gender equality is a social and economic issue.” CEOs shared their techniques for achieving gender equity. It’s actually quite simple: pay managers based on their record of hiring and promoting females and minorities, as Hilton CEO Christopher Nassetta explained.

Never mind the fact that by introducing irrelevant criteria such as race and gender into an evaluation process, you will inevitably end up with less qualified employees.
U.S. banks and financial institutions are facing pressure from shareholder groups to release data on the number and compensation of females and minorities in their upper ranks. Immediate punishment befalls anyone in business who has the courage to criticize this war on merit

The chief creative officer of the advertising firm M&C Saatchi wrote last year that he was “bored of diversity being prioritized over talent.” Saatchi atoned for this heresy with a frenzy of female hirings and promotions.
Amazingly, John Williams—a white man—squeaked into the presidency of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York this April, to the outrage of the diversocrats. Don’t be surprised if he is the last to do so. “The New York Fed has never been led by a woman or a person of color, and that needs to change,” announced New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Williams’ “progress,” as The New York Times called it, in “diversifying” senior leadership when he was president of the San Francisco Fed undoubtedly made his unfortunate race and sex more palatable to the search committee.
#MeToo enforcers are even going after classical music. New Yorker music critic Alex Ross triggered outrage against the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra in February when he tweeted that they had programmed no female composers in their 2018-2019 seasons. Never mind that the CSO was even then performing Jennifer Higdon’s Low Brass Concerto—a piece commissioned by the Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore orchestras—at Carnegie Hall. It is ludicrous to suggest that these institutions are discriminating against female composers, but Ross and his followers demand affirmative programming quotas.
The public radio show, Performance Today, ran a series of shows in March about gender and racial inequities in classical music. At a time of diminishing classical music audiences, it is profoundly irresponsible to direct the poison of identity politics at our most precious musical institutions. Doing so only encourages potential young listeners and culturally ignorant philanthropists (I’m thinking of you, Bill Gates) to stay away. Facts are facts, and throughout most of music history, the greatest composers have been male. No amount of digging through score archives, however useful that enterprise may be for discovering unfamiliar works, is going to unearth a female counterpart to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, or Brahms. So what? We should simply be grateful—profoundly grateful—for the music these men created.
Orchestra boards will pay penance for their own inadequate diversity by a mad rush on female conductors, whose numbers are minuscule. It was already difficult two years ago to land a U.S. conducting position for a universally esteemed white male conductor, reports his agent. Now it would be nearly impossible, the agent believes, adding: “If I had a trans conductor, I would be rich.”
Academia, the source of identity politics, will double down on its diversity quota-izing in the wake of #MeToo. A panel at the annual American Economic Association meeting in January charged that gender discrimination was pervasive in economics—an argument that fit into the “larger national examination of bias and abuse toward women in the work force,” The New York Times reminded readers. In March, the Chronicle of Higher Educationand Priya Satia, former diversity chair of Stanford University’s Department of History, went into diversity meltdown over a history conference that Hoover Institution Fellow Niall Ferguson had organized.

Though Ferguson had invited females to speak, none had accepted.

Not good enough, according to Professor Satia. Ferguson should have suspended the conference entirely unless he could persuade females and minorities to participate. Although Satia did not identify any scholarly gaps that resulted from the actual lineup, Stanford University was so shaken by the controversy that it issued a statement on behalf of the president and provost assuring the public that it had made its concerns about the lack of diversity known to the conference organizers.
STEM departments—departments of science, technology, engineering, and math—have been under enormous pressure from the federal government to hire by gender and race.

Now they are creating their own internal diversity enforcers, notwithstanding the massive diversity bureaucracies already in place. UCLA’s Engineering Department now has its own diversity dean. Audrey Pool O’Neal, the director of UCLA’s Women in Engineering program, justified this sinecure with the usual role model argument for gender- and race-conscious decision-making. “Female students let me know how much they appreciate seeing a woman of color in front of their classroom,” she told the UCLA student newspaper.
Why not appreciate seeing the most qualified scholar in front of your classroom? Any female student who thinks she needs a female professor in order to envision a scientific career has declared herself a follower rather than a pioneer—and a follower based on a characteristic that is irrelevant to intellectual achievement. Marie Curie did not need female role models to investigate radioactivity. She was motivated by a passion to understand the world. That should be reason enough for anyone to plunge headlong into the search for knowledge.
Silicon Valley is a #MeToo diversity bonanza waiting to happen. It’s not for nothing that the Mountain View headquarters of Google is referred to as the “Google campus”; the culture of the Silicon Valley behemoth is an echo chamber of shrill academic victimology. Managers and employees reflexively label dissenters from left-wing orthodoxy as misogynists and racists. It is assumed that the lack of proportional representation of female, black, and Hispanic engineers at the company is due to bias on the part of every other type of engineer.
In August 2017, Google fired computer engineer James Damore for writing a memo suggesting that the lack of 50-50 gender proportionality at Google and other tech firms may not be due to bias, but rather to different career predilections on the part of males and females.

He cited psychological research establishing that on average, males and females are attracted to different types of work: males to more abstract, idea-centered work, females to more human-centered, relational activities.

Damore was not disparaging the scientific skills of the female engineers working at Google; he was trying to explain why there were not more of them. Nevertheless, Google accused Damore of using harmful gender stereotypes that put Google’s female employees at risk of some unspecified trauma.
Google’s adoption of the bathetic rhetoric of academic victimology to justify firing Damore was bad enough. But in January 2018, the National Labor Relations Board released a memo upholding Google’s action on the same grounds: Damore had engaged in discrimination and sexual harassment by employing “harmful gender stereotypes.” The reasoning behind the NLRB memo puts at risk the job of every academic scientist researching the biological and psychological differences between the sexes. The ideological imperatives of feminism are trumping the search for scientific truth. This is a dangerous position for a society to embrace.
The following month, a Google recruiter challenged Silicon Valley’s quota mentality by refusing to obey an edict to purge white males from consideration for entry-level engineering interviews. The recruiter alleges in a lawsuit that he was promptly fired.

Google, it seems, would rather not be informed about potentially groundbreaking tech talent if it comes in the wrong color and shape.
Such distortions of meritocracy will become even more intense following #MeToo. The mad rush of investor funding into the biotech fraudster firm Theranos was undoubtedly due in large part to the sex of its founder. Elizabeth Holmes claimed to have invented an advanced blood-testing device. Even as her claims about the largely fictitious device unraveled, investors continued to give her unqualified support. Her blue chip board boasted two former secretaries of state and James Mattis, then head of the U.S. Central Command and now Secretary of Defense. Hilariously, the #MeToo-obsessed New York Times opined that it was “surprising” how long Holmes was allowed to operate “before regulators stepped in.” Actually, what is surprising is that they stepped in at all, given the dominant narrative that the dearth of female start-ups is due to sexism on the part of venture capitalists and regulators.
Despite the billions of dollars that governments, companies, and foundations have poured into increasing the number of females in STEM, the gender proportions of the hard sciences have not changed much over the years. This is not surprising, given mounting evidence of the differences in interests and aptitudes between the sexes.

Study after study has shown that females gravitate towards different types of jobs than men, as James Damore fatally observed. Females on average tend to choose fields that are perceived to make the world a better place, according to the common understanding of that phrase. 

A preschool teacher in the Bronx, profiled by Bloomberg News, exemplifies such a choice. She has a B.A. in neuroscience, but opted not to go to medical school so as to have an impact on poor and minority children. Her salary is a pittance compared to what she could earn as a clinical or research neurologist, but she said that pay is not her top motivation when it comes to choosing a job.
Even under the broad STEM umbrella, females seek jobs that are seen as directly helping others by a two-to-one ratio over males. Females make up 75 percent of workers in health-related jobs, but only 25 percent of workers in computer jobs and 14 percent of engineering workers, according to a Pew Research Center poll. In 2016, nearly 82 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residents were female—yet no one is complaining about gender bias against males. And in a resounding blow to the feminist narrative about bias in STEM, it turns out that the more gender equality in a country, the lower the percentage of females in STEM majors and fields. The more careers open to females, the less likely they are to choose math or science.
Finally, there is the most taboo subject of all: the non-identical distribution of high-end math skills. Males outnumber females on both the bottom rung of math cluelessness and the top rung of math insight. In the U.S., there are 2.5 males in the top .01 percent of math ability for every female in that category. This is not a matter of gender bias and cultural conditioning; gender differences in math precocity show up as early as kindergarten.
Given these different distributions of interests and skills, the only way to engineer gender proportionality in the hard sciences is to put a ceiling on male hires, no matter how gifted, until enough females can be induced to enter the field to balance out the males. And indeed, the National Science Foundation, which has announced that progress in science requires a “diverse STEM workforce,” seems to be moving in that direction.

This is undoubtedly good news for China, as it furiously pushes ahead with its unapologetically meritocratic system of science training and research. Not such good news for the rest of us, however.
The #MeToo movement has uncovered real abuses of power. But the solution to those abuses is not to replace valid measures of achievement with irrelevancies like gender and race. Ironically, the best solution to sexual predation is not more feminism, but less.

By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the female virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism dissolved the civilizational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behavior that pervades society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed. Now, however, with the idea of “ladies and gentlemen” discredited and out of favor, boorishness is increasingly the rule.
Contrary to the feminist narrative, Western culture is in fact the least patriarchal culture in human history; rather than being forced to veil, females in our society can parade themselves in as scantily clad a manner as they choose; pop culture stars flaunt their promiscuity. As we have seen, every mainstream institution is trying to hire and promote as many females as possible. As the #MeToo movement swells the demand for ever more draconian diversity mandates, a finding in a Pew Research Center poll on workplace equity is worth noting: the perception of bias is directly proportional to the number of years the perceiver has spent in an American university. The persistent claim of gender bias, in other words, is ideological, not empirical. But after #MeToo, it will have an even more disruptive effect.

Thursday, April 19, 2018


Apart from the fact that most of this is a lie - these scientists didn't "create" anything yet, much less "by accident." Nonetheless, these naive little snowflakes should win the Darwin Awards for the entire coming millennium at least - because they're about to set humanity back to the Stone Age faster than you can say "Allahu Akhbar!"

Just think (and remember that thinking is no longer a requirement for graduates of these so-called and self-promoting "institutes of higher learning and education" at all) - what will happen when all of our computer cases, monitors, PLASMA TVs, all the wiring in your cars, (even the electric cars!) and trucks and buses etc and in the circuitboards in all computers and other chip hardware, ROTS?

And what else is made of these inherently evil (to indoctrinated snowflake Millennials) "petroleum products!"?

GASOLINE is. Gas for your cars. Gas for our airplanes. Yes - you read that right:


I strongly suspect some leftover bacteriums from the 1980s experiments to create some that eat oil-spills may be already responsible for several major aviation disasters so far - but this "new" development will make it certain!

From here:

Recycling 2.0: Scientists accidentally create mutant bacteria that dines on plastic

The researchers of the study said the discovery could help combat the world’s plastic problem

Researchers Bryon Donohoe and Nic Rorrer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) punching out coupon samples from a plastic bottle.DENNIS SCHROEDER / AFP PHOTO

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Islam In A Nut's Hell

From here and then from here and now, apparently, also available here:


Calling for Violent Jihad in Australia

There is not a Bible, Jewish or Christian, containing such incendiary commentary as populates page after page of 'The Noble Qur’an', which for four years has preached to the faithful in Canberra Airport's prayer room. The ideology it promotes is violent jihad. It is a book to start a war.

The Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt recently cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and imposed sanctions, accusing the Qataris of supporting terrorism. The Saudis have demanded that Qatar close Al-Jazeera and cut all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Islamic State. Qatar’s long-standing and well-known support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which aims to unify Muslim nations under an Islamic caliphate and has networks of supporters across the Middle East, is now perceived as a serious threat its neighbours.

 This is the pot calling the kettle black, for Saudi Arabia itself has a long record of exporting Islamic radicalism. Among its most notable exports are millions of Korans in translation, which, through commentary (mainly in footnotes) and accompanying materials, incite Muslims to wage violent jihad to establish an Islamic state.

Among the Saudis’ exported Korans is an English-language edition, TheNoble Qur’an, which can be found in mosques, prayer rooms and meeting places around the world. Anyone who applies to the Saudi embassy in Canberra will be sent a copy gratis.

The Noble Qur’an can be found in the musallah or prayer room of Canberra’s airport. What is apparently the same edition, with “AIRPORT MUSALLAH” written in black marker pen on the page ends, has been sitting there for the past four years, ever since the new airport was built. The Noble Qur’an is also publicly available in other “multi-faith” spaces that have been springing up in institutions across Australia in recent years, in universities, hospitals and other public places.
Canberra airport’s Noble Qur’an was printed by the order of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who ruled from 2005 to 2015. It includes the Arabic text, and, side-by-side, the English translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. There is also an endorsement by Shaikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz, Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia from 1993 to 1999, and a foreword by Shaikh Salih ibn Abdul-Aziz al-Shaikh, the current Saudi Minister for Islamic Affairs. After the Koranic text there are a hundred pages or so of appendices, and under the text there are footnotes, which offer a commentary. There are also frequent interpolations in brackets to help clarify the meaning in translation.

Marked “not for sale”, vast numbers of The Noble Qur’an printed by the Saudis are exported around the world. The King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an in Medina has printed over one hundred million Korans in thirty-nine languages since it was established in 1985. The handsomely gilded Noble Qur’an is distributed as part of the Saudis’ global da’wa or effort to propagate Islam. It appears to target two kinds of readers.

First, The Noble Qur’an seeks to enlist Muslims in violent jihad against non-Muslims, to establish an Islamic caliphate. Second, it aims to engage with Christians. The longest essay in the appendices is an argument that Jesus was a prophet of Islam, and commentary throughout The Noble Qur’an—in the explanatory footnotes, the interpolations in brackets and the appendices—challenges and “corrects” Christian teachings.

Sometimes it is said that when people use verses from the Koran to justify violence, they have taken them out of context. This criticism cannot be applied to The Noble Qur’an, which follows a traditional Islamic method of interpreting the Koran in the light of Muhammad’s example and teachings, known as the Sunna. In keeping with this tradition, citations from the Sunnasupply the great bulk of the explanatory footnotes.

On non-Muslims
The footnotes in The Noble Qur’an are repeatedly derogatory of non-Muslims. 

For example, a note to Sura 10:19 (p. 272, fn1) quotes Muhammad to say that human beings are born Muslims, and are “converted” away from Islam by non-Muslim parents. For Jewish or Christian parents to raise their child in their own faith is like mutilating them:
Every child is born on al-Fitrah, but his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity … An animal gives birth to a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?
The Arabic phrase al-fitrah refers to the doctrine that the innate state of human beings is to be a Muslim.

The Arabic text of the Koran calls non-Muslims unclean (Sura 9:28), using a derogatory word (najas). The footnote to this verse explains about non-Muslims that:
Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual because they don’t believe in Allah’s Oneness and in his Prophet Muhammad … and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and [menstrual] blood). [p. 248, fn 2]

Sura 3:85 states that “whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”. In the footnote commentary on this verse, The Noble Qur’an quotes Muhammad to explain that Christians and Jews who die disbelieving in Muhammad will end up in Hell:
there is none from amongst the Jews and Christians … who hears about me and then dies without believing in the Message with which I have been sent … but he will be from the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire. [p. 84, fn 1]

Sura 4:47 warns Christians and Jews that they should believe in Muhammad, or else their faces will be taken away in hell, to which the translators add, in brackets, “by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes”. The footnote commentary explains further:
This Verse is a severe warning to the Jews and Christians, and an absolute obligation that they must believe in Allah’s Messenger Muhammad … and also in his Message of Islamic Monotheism and in this Qur’an. [p. 115, fn 2]

The Koran has verses which exhort tolerance of Christians and Jews. Yet The Noble Qur’an takes pains to emphasise that such verses have been cancelled by later verses, following the Islamic contextual principle of abrogation (naskh). Here are two examples:

First, Sura 2:62 states that a Christian or Jew who “believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. This could be taken to imply that Christians and Jews will be accepted by God if they follow their faith properly. However, the commentary on this verse clarifies that:
This Verse (and Verse 5:69) … should not be misinterpreted by the reader … the provision of this Verse was abrogated by Verse 3:85 “And whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter, he will be one of the losers” (i.e. after the coming of Prophet Muhammad … on the earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone). [p. 13, fn 2]
What this footnote is actually asserting is that Christians and Jews will go to Hell unless they accept Islam, because earlier verses which seemed to counsel tolerance have been superseded and cancelled by later verses.

Second, Sura 2:109 states that Muslims should “forgive and overlook” the Christians and Jews, “till Allah brings His Command”.Yet the footnote makes clear that “the provision of this verse has been abrogated” (p. 21, fn 1) by Sura 9:29. The later verse commands Muslims to fight (that is, kill) Christians and Jews unless or until they surrender to Muslims and pay tribute:
Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad …) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Sura 9:29, p. 248]
Here again, a more tolerant verse is claimed to have been abrogated by a later verse which commands violence against non-Muslims.

The meaning of jihad
Some Muslims have proposed that the basic meaning of jihad is peaceful struggle. In contrast, The Noble Qur’an defines jihad as waging war against non-Muslims to make Islam dominant in the world. This jihad is obligatory for all Muslims, and rejecting this obligation will lead to hellfire.
This interpretation is made clear in the glossary, where the entry for jihad is:
Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam. See the footnote of (V.2:190) [p. 873]
The footnote referred to is a comment on Sura 2:190, “And fight in the Way of Allahthose who fight you …” This footnote reads:
Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being La ilaha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite. [p. 39, fn 1]
Here The Noble Qur’an is saying that the purpose of jihad is to make Muslims dominant over non-Muslims, and Islam dominant over other religions; Islamic warfare against non-Muslims is a kind of missionary enterprise to spread the faith, and any Muslim who does not fulfil this obligatory duty is a “hypocrite”.

What is bad about being a “hypocrite” is made clear by The Noble Qur’an on page 906 of the appendices: a hypocrite will end up in the lowest depths of Hell, the place of worst punishment. The Noble Qur’an is teaching here that any Muslim who does not engage in and support warfare to establish the dominance of Islam is destined to occupy the hottest place in Hell, worse even than that occupied by non-Muslims.

In its footnote on Sura 27:59, The Noble Qur’an quotes a tradition of Muhammad which refers to jihad (p. 512 fn 1). (Here again jihad is defined as “holy fighting”.) The footnote emphasises that fighting non-Muslims is the best possible pious deed for a Muslim, second only to becoming a Muslim.

The caliphate and universal war against non-Muslims
Sura 2:252 (p. 55, fn2, running on to p. 56) refers to Muhammad as a messenger of Allah. The footnote to this verse reports that Muhammad’s prophethood was distinguished by certain characteristics. Three of these are:
(i) Muhammad was victorious through fear or terror for a distance of one month’s journey: “Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.”
(ii) He was the first prophet from Allah given permission to take booty from his enemies: “The booty has been made Halal (lawful) to me yet it was not lawful to anyone else before me.”
(iii) Unlike previous prophets, he was sent to all mankind, not just to a specific group: “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only, but I have been sent to all mankind.”
The implication of this third point is that everyone, everywhere is obligated to accept Muhammad as their prophet, and the first two points show that he was uniquely commissioned to wage war against disbelievers, by terrorising and looting them. Muhammad is considered to be the best example for Muslims to follow, including, it becomes clear, in these aspects of his prophetic career. The Noble Qur’an emphasises these aspects of Muhammad’s mission to activate them for jihad.

In its footnote on Sura 3:55 (p. 76, fn 1), The Noble Qur’an states that when Jesus returns he will impose Islamic law and break the cross (that is, destroy Christianity). At that time Jesus will do away with toleration of non-Muslims, so that “all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative”. In other words they will be compelled to convert by force if required.
This teaching about Jesus’s return is repeated in a commentary on Sura 8:39 (p. 236, fn 1), and a comment on Sura 61:6 (p. 761, fn 2), which states that this tradition is intended as “a severe warning to Christians who claim to be the followers of ’Isa (Jesus) …” In essence The Noble Qur’an tells its Christian readers that when he returns Jesus will compel them to embrace Islam, and all people on the earth will have to choose between Islam and death.

In its commentary on Sura 9:29 (p. 248, fn 2) The Noble Qur’an cites a tradition of Muhammad about the Jews, which states, “The Hour (i.e. the final hour) will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” So, at the end, creation itself will cry out for Jewish blood.

In an interpolation in Sura 8:73, The Noble Qur’an states that Muslims of the world must not ally themselves with non-Muslims, but join together “to make victorious Allah’s religion of Islamic monotheism” (p. 242). It is explained in commentary that if Muslims do not do this, there will be terrible disorder and tribulation in the world, with wars and battles and calamitous breakdown of civil society. This is because of the deleterious effects of non-Muslim rule. Moreover, it is also wrong to have “many Muslim rulers”, because Muslims should unite under one ruler, the caliph: “it is a legal obligation … that there shall not be more than one Khalifah for the whole Muslim world …” Furthermore, anyone who works to divide Muslims into different groups under different rulers should be killed, according to Muhammad, who is reported to have said, “When you all [Muslims] are united … and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man” (p. 242, fn 1). This can be taken to imply that anyone who upholds the division of Muslims into distinct nation-states, which is the international order today, stands under a death sentence.

The Noble Qur’an paints a supremacist vision of an ultimate Islamic victory over non-Muslim religions, in which all non-Muslims will be converted to Islam or killed. The text of Sura 3:110 reads:
You (true believers in Islamic monotheism …) are the best of people ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin al-Mahruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief, and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. [Sura 3:110]
The footnote commentary on this verse explains:
You … are the best of people ever raised up for mankind” means, the best of the people for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam (and thereby save them from the eternal punishment in the Hell-fire and make them enter paradise in the Hereafter) … The people referred to here may be the prisoners of war who were captured and chained by the Muslims and their imprisonment was the cause of their conversion to Islam. So, it is as if their chains were the means of winning Paradise. [p. 89, fn 1]
This footnote is a reference to a tradition of Muhammad which states that Allah is pleased to see people entering Paradise in chains. This justifies making war on non-Muslims, and forcing them into Islam through enslaving them; enslaving non-Muslims is a kindness to them, because it enables them to attain Paradise.

This interpretation of Sura 3:110 is based on Muhammad’s teaching. Could it have any application in today’s world, or is it just a dead letter?

The very same tradition was cited by the Islamic State in the October 2014 edition of its magazine Dabiq, which included an article titled “The Return of Slavery Before the Hour”:
[Muhammad] said, Allah marvels at a people who enter Jannah in chains. The hadith commentators mentioned that this refers to people entering Islam as slaves and then entering Jannah [Paradise]. Abu Hurayrah … said while commenting on Allah’s words, You are the best nation produced for mankind … You are the best people for people. You bring them with chains around their necks, until they enter Islam.”
The same sentiment was also expressed by a Dutch Islamic State fighter, Israfil Yilmaz, who blogged about the correct Islamic motivation for sex slavery:
People [who] think that having a concubine for sexual pleasure only have a very simple mindset about this matter … The biggest and best thing of having concubines is introducing them to Islam in an Islamic environmentshowing them and teaching them the religion. Many of the concubines/slaves of the Companions of the Prophet … became Muslim and some even big commanders and leaders in Islamic history and this is if you ask me the true essence of having slaves/concubines.

The translators who crafted the commentary in The Noble Qur’an, and the Saudi leaders who endorsed the text, no doubt desired that readers would take to heart the teachings they had laboured hard to present. The evidence is that many have done so. The investment by the Saudis of billions of dollars to spread the kinds of ideas found in The Noble Qur’an has not been in vain, and the Islamic State provides the proof.

Evidence for their success is found in Israfil Yilmaz’s justification for sex-slavery. This not only aligns with official ISIS propaganda: it also is fully in line with the teachings of The Noble Qur’an. Another sign of the influence of The Noble Qur’an’s ideas has been the river of thousands of ISIS recruits flowing from Western nations to join the jihad in Syria and Iraq.

What does all this mean?
Ahmed Farouk Musa, a graduate of Monash University medical school in Melbourne, told a forum on Muslim extremism in Kuala Lumpur on December 7, 2014, that The Noble Qur’an incites violence against Christians and other non-Muslims: “I believe that propaganda such as the Hilali-Khan translation and other materials coming out of Saudi Arabia are one of the major root causes that feed extremist ideas among Muslims, violence against Christians and other minorities.”

There is not a Bible in print, anywhere in the world, Jewish or Christian, which contains such incendiary commentary as is found on page after page of The Noble Qur’an. This is a book with which to start a war. The ideology it promotes is primed to light the fuse of violent jihad.

Given its contents, it might seem surprising that a copy of The Noble Qur’an has been sitting in the Canberra airport prayer room for the past four years. The theological characteristics of this edition of the Koran are not a secret. Yet it seems no Muslim who used the musallah has objected, or if they did, the Canberra airport authorities paid no attention. Canberra’s politicians and their many advisers also regularly pass along the corridor where the musallah is located, but none of them seems to have thought to check what version of the Koran was being used in their airport’s prayer room.
Earlier this year the Public Health Association of Australia asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to reject the “notion” that there is any inherent link between Islam and terrorism. It seems that Public Health Association of Australia officials have also not visited the Canberra airport musallah to read its Koran.

There has been much discussion and sometimes puzzlement about how young Muslim men have become radicalised enough to fight for ISIS. Reading and believing the messages implanted in The Noble Qur’an in the Canberra airport prayer room would be sufficient to convert some people to the key points of the ideology of ISIS.

The message of The Noble Qur’an is no marginal phenomenon. It is not an opinion from the extremities of the Islamic world, but from its heartland, presented as a gilt-edged free gift from the Saudi king, the Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques. The political theology of The Noble Qur’an aligns with the official dogma of Saudi Arabia, and it has been endorsed by the Saudi king and the nation’s chief justice, the Grand Mufti.

It is necessary to grasp the authenticity of The Noble Qur’an and its message to the world. Those behind The Noble Qur’an manifestly believe that justice will be served only when Muslims rule the world, and that warfare necessary to achieve this goal is not only justified: it is a divinely instituted, inescapable obligation incumbent on every Muslim, because Muhammad and his Koran are, as Sura 21:107 puts it, “a mercy to the worlds”.

One sometimes hears the view that it is not up to non-Muslims to express opinions about Islam or its canonical texts, such as the Koran. But The Noble Qur’an’s running commentary on the text, because it has so much to say about non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, therefore gives non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, every right to form their own opinions about it. If a book talks about you, you have a right to make up your own mind about what it has to say.

In 2002 Christopher Hitchens fielded a question from Tony Jones on ABC’s Lateline as to why young, mostly well-educated men committed the 9/11 atrocity. Hitchens’s answer was, “Well, it could be they believe their own propaganda.” We have to assume that those responsible for The Noble Qur’an believe their own propaganda too, and that some who have read it have been influenced to believe it too.

What should Australians make of the fact that the Saudis have been presenting an open and unashamed apology for violent jihad, even commending the practice of enslaving enemies, in our own backyard for years, not to show Islam in a poor light, but to glorify it?
The fact that The Noble Qur’an is in the Canberra airport musallah is no accident. This edition of the Koran and the teachings it promotes can be found in Islamic bookshops, public libraries, prayer rooms and Sunni mosques all over the English-speaking world.

The British historian Tom Holland recently produced a documentary on ISIS called The Origins of Violence. A scathing review by the English journalist Peter Oborne was published in the Middle East Eye. Oborne excoriated Holland for suggesting that the problem with ISIS lies with Islam. Oborne found it repugnant to suggest that there is anything about Islam that might be considered a “threat”, and he railed against Holland’s suggestion that there could be anything in the example and teaching of Muhammad (whom Oborne respectfully calls “The Prophet”) which could have guided the actions of the Islamic State.

Such ignorance is the fruit of religious illiteracy. Or might fear be the issue? Has Muhammad, praised in the pages of the Koran for being “victorious by awe”, now extended his reign of fear, not just for the distance of one month’s journey as Muhammad declared he had achieved in seventh-century Arabia, but across fourteen centuries to Australia and the rest of the world?

Of course many Australian Muslims would, like Ahmed Farouk Musa, find the messages promoted through the footnotes and glosses of The Noble Qur’anutterly repugnant. It is disappointing that these well-meaning Muslims have not been able to determine which version of their own scriptures is to be placed in a public prayer room designated for their use. They could have lobbied Canberra airport to have this version of the Koran replaced by another, but if they have done so, their attempts must have failed.

The message contained in The Noble Qur’an and its widespread public distribution are matters Australians have every right to be concerned about. Its message has been promoted in public for years with hardly a whisper of objection coming from those who should know better.

It would be inappropriate, and indeed irrelevant if our leaders were to respond to the message of The Noble Qur’an with statements like “True Islam does not promote terrorism” or “No true religion supports violence”. For Australian officials to dare to instruct the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia or the Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques on what is true Islam would be ludicrous and offensive. But the leaders of our nation, against whose non-Muslim citizens The Noble Qur’an incites such undisguised enmity, have every right to say, “Not in our backyard!”

Dr. Mark Durie is an academic, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.

This article was first published by the Quadrant in November 2017. 


No single book, regardless of edition, is the problem. Islam is the problem: Islam as Moe preached and practiced it, recorded in the Qur'an, explained in tafsirs, exemplified in hadith and codified in sharia. It's Islam, Stupid!!!

Noble Qur'an: Mark Durie Aims At Wrong Target!

Noble Qur'an: Mark Durie Aims At Wrong Target!

    In a long and detailed post, Mark Durie argues that one edition of the Hilali/Khan Qur'an translation, because of it's commentary, tends towards radicalization, inciting violence.

There is not a Bible, Jewish or Christian, containing such incendiary commentary as populates page after page of 'The Noble Qur’an', which for four years has preached to the faithful in Canberra Airport's prayer room. The ideology it promotes is violent jihad. It is a book to start a war.

    Is there any evidence that anyone has ever taken that Qur'an from it's shelf and read it?   If they did, would they read  the fine print in the foot notes?  How many Muslims read Allah's book in their native tongue?    One research report puts Qur'an literacy at or below the 50% mark depending on  location and age. Use the Ctrl F search, for read and take the third result.

    Classical Arabic from the 7th century lacked vowels and diacritical marks so there were seven variant readings. Vocabulary and idioms have changed, so Joe Camel can't understand the Qur'an even if he can read modern Arabic.  Joe Camel needs a tafsir.  Tafsir Ibn kathir comes in ten volumes.  If Joe Camel has $200. handy, he can buy a set. If he has internet access and a large hard disk, he can get it free but it will take up 2.87 gigabytes.

    What does it really mean?  Only Muhammad knew for sure. His interpretation is in hadith collections. Sahih Bukhari  is said to be the most rigorous of the muhadditin, winnowing down 600,000 hadith to about 4700 discrete sayings. The 9 volume set will nearly destroy a pair of hundred dollar bills. Or you can download it from the archive.

    For obvious readons, most Muslims get their knowledge of Islam from their Imam or from the likes of Anwar al-Awlaki & Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  So where do the experts get their knowledge?  Ain't it obvious?

    The conquests of Arabia, Syria, Asia and the Balkans happened long before publication of this edition in 1985.   How do you explain that if  TNQ is the root of all evil?

Compare a few translations from Islam Awakened.

  • Literal
    • Fight those who (do) not believe in Allah and not in the Day the Last, and not they make unlawful what Allah has made unlawful and His Messenger, and not they acknowledge (the) religion (of) the truth, from those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the willingly, while they (are) subdued.
  • Shakir
    • Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
  • Hilali/Khan
    • Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    Click this link to Corpus Quran for a word by word breakdown of the verse. Click the first word: qātilū and read the concordance to see the other verses based on it.
What are Muslims commanded to do, to whom and why? Is there any defensive element in that verse? Does it mention being attacked first?

    Ibn Kathir provides plenty of detail in his tafsir.  Read the left hand facing page first, for 9.28. Mekkans worried about loss of revenue from prohibiting pagan hajj. Allah gave them 9.29 as a revenue replacement: jizya!

    Consider the title of this tafsir:  "The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They
give the Jizyah".  it implies offensive jihad, not defensive.

    What is the meaning of this: "Allah
commanded His Messenger  to fight the People of the
Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah,
and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the
people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination." ???

What did Allah command Moe to do?   He commanded him to attack the Byzantine Empire!! But the command is without geographic or chronological limits and has no expiration date. It is always valid.   Take a close look at the footnote.

 (V.9:29) a) See the footnote of (V.2:193)
b) Narrated Abu Hurairah 4»l ; Allah’s Messenger  said, “The Hour
will not be established untill you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew
will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him’ ” (Sahih Al-
Bukhari, Vol.4, Hadith No. 177)
c) Jizyah: a tax levied from the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), who are
under the protection of a Muslim government.

M (A) (V. 2:193) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar  Allah’s Messenger
said, “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people till they testify that
L i ilih a illa llih wa Anna Muhammmad-ur-Rasul A llih (none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah 3 y. and that Muhammad  is the Messenger
of Allah), and perform As-Salit (Iqimat-as-Salat) and give Zakit, so if they
perform all that, then they save their lives, and properties from me except for
Islamic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allah.” (Sahih
Al-Bukhiri, Vol.1, Hadith No.24).
    In the first instance, the infamous genocide hadith is quoted. In the second,  a hadith  in which caliph Umar quotes Moe as saying you save your wealth and life from Moe by reciting shahada.

    Take another look at the body of the ayat: did Hilali & Khan add anything to it or change it's meaning?  They only explained and confirmed the meaning by adding footnotes with exegesis and hadith.

    How did Moe interpret 8.39 & 9.29?  he marched on Tobuk, didn't he?  He did what Allah commanded him to do! Here are the relevant ahadith:
Sahih Bukhari  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Sunan Abu Dawud  14.2635
    Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

    The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

    The ayat says Fight those who. The tafsir says order to fight. The relevant ahadith say ordered or commanded to fight. Who can connect the dots?  Who has a clue?  Do you?

    How about the Islamic jurists, what do they say about  9.29? "Reliance Of The Traveller cites it as the scriptural source of a perpetual war rule outlined in o9.1 and made explicit in o9.8, which I quote.
o9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
    The caliph makes war on Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they pay Jizya.  He does it because of the command in 9.29. Note the condition precedent: issuance of dawa prior to attack!  Would the caliph waste time inviting aggressors to Islam if he was under attack?  No! This law proves the offensive nature of Jihad!!   The requirement to invite to Islam before attacking is confirmed in Hedaya & Risala 

    In the matter of Jizya: see hedaya, page 211.... for the gritty details of Islamic law. What looks like an elongated f is really an s. Once you get past that, you should be able to read the text.  Read the Noble Qur'an here. Read volume 4 of Sahih Bukhari here.

    This is a pull your head out of the sand moment: Islam: belief in Allah, his imperatives, threat and promise is the problem, not any single book or edition. Muslims believe that Allah is the almighty creator, who commands them to conquer the world for his good pleasure, in return for which he will admit them to his celestial orgy. But if they do not fight in his cause, he will damn them. That makes Islam a perpetual war machine. We need to eliminate belief in Allah. Eliminating one edition of the Qur'an is not sufficient.