Saturday, January 9, 2016

The Koran

Damn. It’s with a big heavy sigh that I have to write about Islam, again.

It’s not that it’s an uninteresting subject which shouldn’t be written about. It’s not that it’s unimportant. It’s not that I’m tired of studying what’s going on relative to it. What bothers me is that I’m going to say something I know a certain segment of the people who read my material is going to disagree with. Now I don’t expect everybody to agree with me, and that’s okay. I don’t desire the agreement of everybody. It’s just that the subject of Islam is so overly emotionally charged in this country, particularly on the part of people of other faiths, that it’s difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with people on the subject.

I’m not that kind of guy who relies on internet memes circulated on Facebook and Twitter as the ultimate truth in my life. When something bothers me, I research it for myself using direct original sources wherever possible, discover a level of truth that I’m comfortable with, and write about it. If I see a meme that says something, whether I agree with it or not, I do my homework and verify it. I hate to be fooled and I hate to pass along false information that makes me look like a fool.

Let’s take, for the sake of unambiguous explanation, the example of everybody’s favorite tyrant; Adolf Hitler. “This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” The principle implied is completely true. However the quote is completely bogus. He never said it as far as anybody has ever been able to prove. He might have believed it. In fact, he probably believed it, at least as far as the Jews were concerned, thus accounting for the popularity of the supposed quote. It is most certainly factual that he acted as if he believed in gun control imposed on his opposition. But as far as I can tell, he never said it.

Things like this create a dilemma for those who wish to seek and spread the truth.

You wouldn’t think so, and in a world where people are thinking analytically it wouldn’t be a problem at all, but the unfortunate fact is it creates a bit of trouble.

There are two facts that create the problem. First; somebody, with intent, created this so-called quote, and circulated it knowing full well that it is a lie. Next in the logical sequence is that those who oppose gun control, of which I’m one, would tend to glom right on to it and pass it along as an argument to make our point because, if it were true, it would demonstrate exactly what we want to say. So it would tend to go viral. The thing is it’s a lie. At that point all a liberal would have to do is know that it’s a lie, then use it to discredit the conservative who passes it along. Thus it feeds the liberal propaganda line that gun toting conservatives are stupid liars and hicks because they are circulating bogus information about gun control. Second; there is something that happens to people when they are upset about something and you disagree with them. If you are a gun owner the threat of having your gun taken from you, over the express intent of the Second Amendment, is such a disturbance. People under pressure tend to react.

If I were to point out the fact that the quote is bogus during the height of World War Two, because of the interaction of the above two facts, the reaction would be predictable. “You’re a liberal! You want guns to be taken!” Or most probably, “You love Hitler!”

Here I have someone who I should have agreed with, that Hitler was a bad dude, and guns are a good thing to stop people like him. But now, because the person is reacting on emotion, this guy has done a maneuver that I call, “pulling an opposite.” Pulling an opposite is something that all people do at some point. For conservatives it only happens when they are extremely upset about some specific subject. For liberals, the rabid ones, it is a full-fledged propaganda technique which they can’t turn off. They will take any slightest disagreement with their world view and accuse you of the extreme opposite. You don’t think the federal government should be responsible for school lunches? “You just want children to starve to death!” You don’t like Obamacare? “You’re a racist and hate him because he’s black!” There are thousands of examples.

So, because of the emotionally charged environment in this country, before I can write an article about the Koran, I have to first write an almost thousand word dissertation on how people react emotionally in the hope that my exact words won’t be misconstrued into some perversion of the truth which equates to me supporting Satan or Islamic terrorism! Because I don’t support either. I’m just looking for the highest and most precise level of truth.

For some reason two quotes keep going through my head at this point. The first is from the inimitable Mark Twain, “Never argue with stupid people, they will only drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” The second is my own, “Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean I endorse whatever you conceive to be its opposite.” So if you are feeling a bit of stress in your life, before you react to what you think I’m saying, please, very carefully read and think about what I am really saying. Please.

With these points in mind, and begging the indulgence of the analytical reader, I set out to find the truth about the Koran. Internet memes aren’t going to get it. No amount of, “he said, she said,” BS is going to get it either. I came to the conclusion that the only way to tell the truth about the Koran was to read it for myself. There is nothing that beats firsthand information. In this endeavor I had two resources I went to. The first being, this translation of the Koran. It’s on and it is free. What a deal! The other is this link: which provides seven more translations of the Koran. The handy part of the second of two is to look up the supposed quotes that you see all over social media these days.

After having read the Koran, I have decided that I don’t believe a bit of it. As far as religions go, it’s just not my cup of tea. That’s a personal choice. I have no horse in the race for or against it other than the measure of my own truth of it and my own following observations, all of which I invite you to check for yourselves.

Now you may hear that the Koran is full of hate speech. It isn’t unless you also subscribe to the highest level of sensitivity towards political correctness. It does not say to hate unbelievers. It, like the Bible, which I will only invoke for the sake of comparison, does say that those who do not accept the truth will be doomed to an eternity in Hell. This is the same attitude for most religions. There are those who believe, who are going to heaven, and those who don’t, who God himself will judge and damn.

There is a lot going around about how the Koran says Christians and Jews should be hated and killed. This is not true. The Koran actually says in 2:62, “The believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabaeans— all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds— will be rewarded by their Lord; they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.” It does not say to behead them, in fact the word “behead” isn’t even in the first translation above. There is only one reference to “strike the unbelievers at the neck,” and that is in the context of self defense when you are in battle with them. All of the references where the Koran says for people to do violence to other people is in the context of self defense. E.g., 2:190-193 , “And fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression— for surely, God does not love aggressors. 191 Slay them wherever you find them [those who fight against you]; m drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for [religious] persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, slay them— such is the reward for those who deny the truth— 192 but if they desist, then surely God is most forgiving and merciful. 193 Fight them until there is no more fitna [religious persecution] and religion belongs to God alone. If they desist, then let there be no hostility, except towards aggressors.” Obviously somebody needs to point this out to ISIS.

Another word that is not in the Koran is, “Sharia Law.” According to Merriam-Webster the first known use of the word Sharia, wasn’t until 1855! Also not included anywhere in the actual text of the book is the word, “jihad.” Yep. That’s right. All of those internet memes in circulation that say the Koran is a book of jihad against the unbelievers? Completely false according to the text of the primary translation that I based my research on.

Now one may wonder; if the Koran isn’t filled with nothing but hate speech against Christians and Jews, what the hell is in it? I did some basic counting on this and found the following: 177 mentions of Moses—not counting mentions of Pharaoh where Moses wasn’t named, 81 mentions of Abraham, 51 mentions of Noah—not counting mentions of the flood without mentioning his name, 40 of Joseph, 34 of Mary—and her son, Lot was mentioned 29 times, Jesus 26 times—not counting as son of Mary, 26 of Adam, Solomon 25, Aaron 22, Jacob 21, Isaac 18, David 17, Zachariah 10, Jonah 5—not counting mentions of the whale without mentioning his name, John 5, Job 4 and Elijah 3. And every single mention of these people was in the exact same context as they are mentioned in the Bible, at least as far as I can recall. These references all say that these people were great profits of God’s word and that God’s word should be followed or extreme consequences would ensue.

Now again, I’m only reporting on what I see and observe for myself. I am not a Biblical expert or a religious scholar, nor do I have a horse in this race anywhere. But there is something about this that strikes me as overtly odd. It’s obvious that Radical Islam is a threat. In my study it has also become obvious that there are evidently a few people here and there who have some interest in not telling the truth. What they are saying about the Koran is simply not there in the way that they represent it.

I’m not going to go down the, “Islam is a religion of peace,” road or the, “Islamists want all infidels dead,” road because both are clearly vastly broad generalizations and to the exact extent of the obvious violence neither is true of all of the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world. If the more reputable surveys are true the 1.7 billion breaks down into 225 million reformists, 170 million potentially violent radicals, and 1.3 billion who are somewhere between the two. My problem is that by lying about the contents and context of the Koran, the people passing it are castigating, not only the 170 million who justly deserve some shooting with bacon tipped hollow points, and being sent on a one way trip to Hell, without virgins, but all people of the Islamic faith whether they would tend to support us or not.

This is strategic suicide at best. It’s the provocation of genocide at worst. More than that, it smells like a setup. Think of it this way; “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel.

I pointed out in my blog post, “The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3,” that the driving force behind all liberalism is to kill as many people as possible while pretending to help. What better way than to produce a religious war between the two largest religions currently on the planet? Creating such a crisis is easy when you’ve got an area as violent as the Middle East has been since the beginning of time itself. And yes, the area was violent long before Islam became the new kid on the block. The massive killing of people in that part of the world is documented by the followers of Moses in Numbers, just to name one example. All you have to do is hire people to go to one side and tell them, “those people are evil and want you dead,” then go to the other side and do the same thing. Convince enough people who can’t or won’t seek the truth for themselves that “everybody over there” is against you, combined with the well documented truthfulness and hypnotic effects of the Main Stream Media (***SARCASM ALERT!!!***) and voilĂ ! You have an instant crisis that needs to be handled. Combine that with a do-nothing president with his head in the sand and a foreign policy straight from the nightmares of George Washington and you get the potential destruction of America because both sides will be screaming for the death of the other.

Again, I am not saying Islam is great. I’m not saying it is evil. It is not my desire or responsibility to judge the rightness or wrongness of other people’s religions. What I am saying is why live with lies? They are the cause of wars. They are so antithetical to peace that there is a commandment against them! Follow the commandment. Be curious enough to seek the truth for yourself. You won’t get it from others, particularly sloppily written internet memes which are totally oblivious of context.

If it isn’t enough for you to tell the truth because of religious interests then why not take the secular argument? Pencils don’t cause you to spell words incorrectly. Spoons don’t make you fat. If you are willing to believe that guns don’t cause violence because they are inanimate objects, why on God’s Earth would you buy into the lie that a book would cause violence?

When someone says, “a Muslim beheaded somebody,” keep in mind that not all Muslims beheaded somebody! Just as if when someone shows an example of a Christian demonstrating bigotry you know that not all Christians were part of the demonstration. Such broad generalizations only have one purpose; to get people to fight each other.

The bottom line for me is that I blame the violent for violence. I blame terrorists for terrorism. I blame myself for being fat. I blame myself for my spelling. I blame the shooter for the shooting. If Islamic terrorism is a problem for you as much as it is for me, I beg you, be specific in your claims.

Having said all of this I hope I never have to write on the subject again.


  1. Broad generalizations make it is easy to point fingers, it makes people feel better. Then they don't have to deal with the real threats to life and freedom, like the national debt.

  2. Yeah. Broad generalizations are a big problem. Usually they are used to cover something else up in the media. With that said terrorism is a problem and will have to be dealt with, but generalizing terrorism out over an entire religion or group of people helps nothing.