Thursday, June 29, 2017

23 Questions About Islam

23 Questions---From The On-Line "American Thinker" Of September 17, 2006

What matters now is not press reports about pieces of a German lecture by Benedict or the Musllim reaction. If we must answer “yes” to all, or any, of the following 23 questions about Islam, are we entitled, nay bound, to be very concerned indeed ?
1. Does Islam claim that every single word in the 6,234 verses of its Quran was not merely divinely inspired, or authorised, but actually dictated, in Arabic, directly by Allah Himself, and revealed over 22 years from 610 CE, and so is uncorrupted and  unalterable ? It descended [nuzila] ready-made and complete from heaven.
2. Does Islam hold the “Principle of Abrogation” – Nasikh -  [Quran 2:106] whereby later verses always over-ride and replace or cancel the earlier ?
3. Are the 14 later [Medina] chapters and over 1,600 verses in the Quran, from 622 CE to 632 CE, thus supreme and unchallengeable when they contradict the earlier Mecca ones ?
4. Are there some 164 later Medina verses [from 24 Surah, between Surah 2 and 76]  favouring violent Jihad, Jihad Bis Saif, by the sword, or Holy War [Qital Fi Sabilillah], not merely Jihad-e-nafs or struggle against desires ? See list, and full texts, on, including 9:5 “slay the idolaters whereever you find them and take them captive”. And see for 10 different English translations of any verse.
5. Are there many later Medina verses like 5:82 [“the most implacable in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews”] teaching utter hatred for Jews, as 24 Surah and nearly 90 verses translated into English on the Jewishvirtuallibrary web-site, or 20 references in the Fatwa Database from Sheik As-Salam Alaykum on the Islam On-line site, indicate?
6. Does the Quran allow, or even command, the killing of Apostates who leave Islam, like Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali ?
7. Likewise for Blasphemers – like Salman Rushdie?
8. And of Infidels in extending, or restoring, the rule of Islam?
9. And of Gays?
10. Does the Quran provide for hand amputation for thieves, as in 5:38 ?11. For flogging?
12. For public beheading?
13.  For beating wives, as in 4:34?
14. And are there many Hadith which show the Prophet ordered stonings [introduced under the Second Caliph, 634-644 CE, ‘Umar, a Companion of the Prophet’]?
15. Does the Quran demand the eventual Global Rule of Islam, with no secular realm, whereas Judaism is about waiting for their Messiah, and Christianity offers salvation to persons everywhere?
16. Does the Quran demand the ultimate enforcement of Sharia Law everywhere, even on us Infidels?
17. Does the Quran permit Freedom of Worship to all faiths?
18. Or Free Speech?
19. Or the Right of Free Organisation?
20. Does it treat women as inferiors not only regarding inheritance, but as witnesses?
21. Does the Quran command Muslims to never surrender any land once held by them, such as Spain, or Western Palestine/Israel?
22. Did their “Prophet” order or lead 74 raids or wars during his Medina decade from 622 CE to his 632 CE death?
23. Were 600-900 male Jewish prisoners beheaded in March 627 CE [see Surah 33:25-26]?
If the clear honest answer is “yes” to all, or even to any, of these 23 questions, how can Islam [as distinct from other Faiths] be compatibile with either the 1945 UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Constitution? And how can we democrats not fear both any such system, and any who seriously adhere to it, and their increasing number in our midst?
We do not [yet] live in Dar al-Islam, the Realm of Submission, which is exactly what the word “Islam” means, that territory where the population have either become ‘submitters’ [muslimun] or else ‘dhimmis’, submitting by paying the Jizya tax, and accepting Muslim Rule. We by contrast, still live in Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War, the territory where all, or most, of the population have not yet submitted, and who must be made to, by force.
Those who argue that Islam was not spread by the Sword because conversion was not encouraged in the early period, totally miss the point that the territory had been captured by force and the population made ‘dhimmis’.
Are we now to condemn “Western Imperialism” but are not allowed to even mention Islamic Imperialism?
Let us have precise answers to such vital questions of principle, not emotive denounciations and abuse. What is the real answer to each of those 23 points ? And what reasonable person or society should tolerate, or surrender under,  any “Dont call us violent, or we’ll kill you” threats, from any quarter?
Tom Carew, Dublin, Ireland   9 18 06

Monday, June 19, 2017

Redistricting In Wisconsin

1. "Partisan = Democracy" as is the means of declaring our fellow citizens (Not some elitists') differing views on what should be the laws of our State and our Republic;
2. That choice is represented by the constitutional/democratic choices of the People in the only polls that matter AND not by two/three appointed and also anti-democracy Federal judges;
3. In Wisconsin the turning over of authority-and-responsibility for redistricting to the GOP is a result of both the popular vote, our Constitution and law and the nation-wide movement towards like transfers-of-power in an ever increasing number of States;
4. Any rational and pro-democracy citizen should compare the map of the original "Gerrymandering" Vs. Wisconsin's last, legal and democratically established, map and see that there is no valid comparison---Especially when considering our laws regarding such districtsAnd, 
5. Although the lawful maps may give the GOP some small advantages, any map which would be inflicted by appointed judges  would be both unconstitutional and against the will of a majority of our citizens (As is the very apparent goal of Democrats and their Fascist co-actors)

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Protecting Free Speech On Campuses

Alert university/college authorities considering the future appearances of speakers who might generate strong feelings about their positions (And even thuggish responses to them) should/must, very publicly, make the following prior announcements---And take the cited actions as required to protect free speech and academic freedom.

1. Announce that any student or college employee who attacks that free-speech exercise of academic freedom will be immediately banned from campus and, after the usual due-process hearing, formally expelled or fired;
2. Speaker's audiences will be video-recorded and any such persons will be identified;
3. Any concealment of faces-and-identities will also result in the same actions;
4. Police officers have been asked to be present per our school's formal request; 
5. Any acts of violence will both result in the above, punitive actions, and arrest by police officers and referral for criminal prosecution;  And,

6. This college has advised those police that it has no objections to the use of any force necessary to execute any such arrests AND, more specially, to halt any acts which represent "a clear and present danger of death OR great bodily harm" to others---OR, even a reasonably perceived such danger.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Trump, Bader & Muslim Immigration

It appears that some (eg Judges) maintain that President Donald Trump's pre-election comments on the immigration of Muslims into our Republic vacate his constitutional and statutory authority to restrict immigration under Article-I of our Constitution and as per 8 US Code 1182, (f).

If that is the case, do the pre-election comments, about those statements by President Trump, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disqualify her from ruling on President Trump's pending appeal? (Would her failure to then recluse herself be cause for impeachment and trial?)

Friday, June 02, 2017

Social Programs & Science

Almost every week brings news of some new program as to various "Social Problems" (eg Homelessness, Domestic/Street Violence, Under-Achieving Schools/Students).

What is lacking for most (Almost all? All?) of those proposals/programs is some, built-in, plan to scientifically determine if each such program is effective and a wise use of both public and private monies. (Please remember that private contributions are often used to reduce the tax-liability of donors which reduces government's funds and places increased burdens on our fellow citizens.)

There are two basic models for any such scientific evaluations.

One is the "Control Group Vs. Experimental Group(s)" where random selection of subjects (eg
From the pool of all persons alleged to need a proposed program) is made and like subjects are assigned to the studied program. After the unmodified programs are in-place for some reasonable time, a statistical analysis is done to see if there is any, positive/negative differences can be found to exactly determine if that program had: A positive effect; Or, a negative effect; Or, no effect.

The other might be termed "Multi-Factor Analysis". In this mode, all in a larger number of subjects are involved in the considered program; But, all such persons are classified by very many characteristics (eg Age, gender, race, history of  AODA, age of mothers at first birth, academic testing, results of MMPI testing). Thereafter, a more convoluted study can be done to determine any outcomes as can, mathematically, establish those results noted above and may provide more and useful information as to which personal characteristic result in those outcomes.

Unless such evaluations are built-into such programs (And exactly followed), the only sure results of such programs are: The wages/salaries paid those who are employed by them; A waste of public/private funds; And, to make some people "feel good"---Without due cause.