Wiser Monkeys - Islam

Wiser Monkeys

See evil, hear evil, talk about evil


Islam was founded by the self-styled prophet Muhammad (570-632) and consists of political, religious and cultural doctrines. Islam only became successful when Muhammad fled Mecca for Medina in 622 and became a political leader and warrior, converting others by force. Islam means "submission" - not peace - and Muslim means "one who has submitted". Islam divides the world into two sectors: Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). The only countries considered to be at 'peace' are those where sharia Islamic law is fully enforced. Islam also divides the people of the world into two: Muslims who go to Paradise and the kuffar, or kafirs, the inferior unbelievers who go to Hell. Political Islam is the only doctrine that relates to the kuffar as a Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with them. Every part of kuffar culture is offensive to Allah. Following this doctrine, the kuffar are treated very badly by Islam; for example, threats, violence, torture, mutilation, beheading, theft, slavery, rape, false friendships, lies and deception can all be justified at times. A believer may use taqiyya or kitman respectively to say something isn't true as it relates to Muslim identity, or to lie by omission, such as selectively quoting the Quran. In time of war, a truce or hudna is only entered into for the tactical purpose of allowing weakened Muslim forces to gain strength.

Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing better or holier than jihad warfare to dominate unbelievers. (A less warlike interpretation of jihad as an 'inner struggle' often used by Muslim apologists contradicts the Quran and is not supported by classic Islamic scholars.) The call to jihad has three stages which depend on the status of Muslims in a society:

  1. Stealth jihad: When Muslims are so outnumbered by non-Muslims that physical conflict would not succeed, they extol the virtues of peace and tolerance, yet still insist that unbelievers will be punished in the future. They claim victimhood and persecution, like Muhammad and his early followers did in Mecca.
  2. Defensive jihad: When there is a sufficiently large and resourced Islamic community, Muslims are called to actively defend Islam whenever they perceive any threat to it, whether physical or intellectual, real or imagined.
  3. Offensive jihad: When Muslims are in the majority and have political power, they are commanded to fight all unbelievers, not just those who pose a threat. For non-Muslims, only three outcomes are possible: conversion to Islam, subjugation, or death.

Migration for the cause of Allah, or hijra, emulating Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Medina, is a form of 'civilization jihad' and considered to be a highly worthy act. Its aim is to spread sharia so that Islamic law ultimately dominates all government and society.

Dhimmis are non-Muslim citizens under Islamic rule who are fined and penalized for staying kafirs. They are humiliated by paying the jizya tax and always being treated as intrinsically inferior to Muslims. Different ethics and sharia regulations apply to Muslims and the kuffar. Sharia is fundamentally incompatible with Western concepts of law, freedom of speech and non-discrimination, especially against unbelievers, women and homosexuals. Leaving the faith, or apostasy, is a capital offence. Islam does not recognize the validity of any other religions. As per sharia, that which is lawful and permissible to use or consume within Islam is termed halal; that which is forbidden is haram. Hungry Muslims can eat non-halal food (Quran 5:3), so insistence on halal food is an artifice.

There is a trilogy of sacred Islamic texts which defines the Islamic doctrines and the foundation of sharia:

  1. The Quran tells what Muhammad said that the angel Gabriel said that Allah (god) said, and holds up Muhammad as a "beautiful" or "excellent" role model for all Muslims to follow.
  2. The Sira is the biography of Muhammad, written around a century after his death.
  3. The Hadiths are the traditions of Muhammad, written two centuries or more after his death.

Together the Sira and Hadiths constitute the Sunna, Muhammad's words and deeds. The Quran (14% of text, about Allah) and Sunna (86% of text, about Muhammad) define all the guidance for one to be a Muslim, applying to all aspects of their entire life. Muslims believe Allah is perfect and that his words in the Quran are exact and eternal. The Islamic trilogy devotes 52% of its content to kafirs and 31% to jihad, the struggle against unbelievers. The trilogy contains 9.3% anti-Jew text (compared with 7.0% in Hitler's Mein Kampf) and almost ten times more words devoted to political violence than the Bible's Old Testament. Where the Islamic trilogy has contradictory verses, the Quran specifies that the principle of abrogation (or naskh) applies: a later verse is better or stronger than an earlier verse. So, selective quoting of earlier (invariably, milder) verses is disingenuous.

The collective worldwide body of believers in Islam is called the umma. Following Muhammad's death in 632, violent disagreements within the umma over succession caused a bitter schism between Sunni and Shia factions which continues unabated to this day. Sunnis (which include the Salafis and Wahhabis) account for most Muslims, while Shias (or Shiites) make up the second largest sect of 10-20%. Small sects like the Ahmadis (comprising only 1% of Muslims in the UK and worldwide) are not even recognized as Muslims by most other Muslims, leading to animosity and violence against them.

Drawing parallels between the Muslim conquests and the Crusades is fatuous: the Crusades were not acts of unprovoked imperialism by Western Christianity against the Islamic world, but were a belated attempt to recapture Christian lands and routes conquered by Muslim aggression over preceding centuries. Furthermore, the Crusades were not called to convert Muslims or others to Christianity by force. The Islamic invasion of Western Europe started in 711, a full 384 years before the calling of the First Crusade in 1095. And as late as 1683, or 411 years after the end of the Ninth and final Crusade, Vienna was besieged by the Islamic armies of the Ottoman empire. Though brutal at times, the scale of the Crusade wars was small compared to the Muslim conquests. Large areas which were predominantly Christian before they were invaded by Islam include the countries we know today as: Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, and Tunisia. By the 10th Century, Muslims had annihilated 50% of all the Christians in the world of that time. Relentless Muslim conquests helped to turn Islamic slavery into the most monstrous and cruel the world has ever known, with an estimated 180 million victims.

Islam has never been subjected to successful reform or re-interpretation, unlike other religions, such as Christianity with its New Testament and Reformations. Literal interpretations of the Quran still reign supreme. Challenging Islamic doctrine or proposing innovative interpretations of the Islamic trilogy is regarded as theological sin or even apostasy.

Revised 5 July 2017

Sharia the unjust law

As a fundamental principle, Islam asserts that its doctrine is perfect, universal and final; and that nothing must contradict it (see Quran 5:44-50). Sharia is the complete manual on how to run a civilization according to Islamic doctrine. It is intended to rule over Muslims and non-Muslims alike, everywhere, for all time. Sharia claims to be the only applicable law of Allah and demands to replace any and all man-made forms of government and jurisdiction.

Sharia is founded on the Islamic trilogy of the Quran, Sira and Hadiths, and covers just about every situation in life. Its remit extends way beyond religious, political, criminal and business matters, and it penetrates intrusively into relationships and personal conduct, often in ludicrous detail. Muslims are actually forbidden from obeying statutes that are not in line with sharia. And worryingly, research has found that sharia compliance correlates with violent attitudes among Muslims. The supreme status assigned to sharia by Islam puts it in profound conflict with the legal codes of modern Western societies. In 2003 and earlier in 2001, the European Court of Human Rights "found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy".

Fiqh is the human understanding of sharia as interpreted by Islamic jurists and implemented by the rulings (fatwa) on questions put to them. Here is the contemptuous and intolerant ruling on non-Islamic religions specified by one of the most widely-used and authoritative fiqh manuals:

Reliance of the Traveller w4.1(2): "Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras … but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam … it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as "Christianity" or "Judaism," are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him give him peace) to the entire world. This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars …"

The same manual also declares that knowledge of philosophy, the sciences, and "anything that is a means to create doubts" is unlawful. In Islam, Allah determines everything, for everybody, everywhere, for all time.

The differences arising between sharia and UK law are fundamental and irreconcilable, including for example:

Revised 6 February 2018

Islamophobia™ stifles critics

Islamophobia is an imaginary mental disorder. Fear of Islam is a reality-based awareness.
Dr Bill Warner

A phobia is an irrational fear, disproportional to the actual danger posed. However, it is entirely rational and reasonable to feel more than a little concern when fanatics torment and behead two British aid workers in the middle-east, promising to bring such savagery to the UK, or a gunman massacres 30 British holidaymakers on a beach in Tunisia, or closer to home, suicide bombers slaughter 52 commuters on London's public transport, or two murderers firstly drive over and then butcher a British soldier with knives and a cleaver in broad daylight in Woolwich. These are utterly horrific and cowardly crimes by any civilized measure. What links them is that they were all committed by Muslims for the cause of Allah, their god. From a typical Western viewpoint, we find such actions hard to reconcile with our own liberal ideas of what a personal religion entails, but these are the brutal facts about Islam's effect on some of its followers. Public anxiety about such crimes and reasoned criticism of the Muslim perpetrators and their ideology cannot sensibly be called 'islamophobia' because most people's concerns are proportional and based on proven danger to UK citizens.

So why is islamophobia the go-to word for Muslims and their apologists whenever the slightest criticism of Islam or its adherents is raised? In short, the term islamophobia™ was invented circa 1990 with the express aim of stigmatizing critics of Islam and silencing them. One person present at its birth now says:

"This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics."

It is scurrilous to turn criticism or mockery of Islam - a right of free speech - into a mental health pathology, labelling those who hold negative views of Islam as suffering from a phobia. Nevertheless, powerful Islamic lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Muslim Brotherhood have fought hard to convince the UN, EU, governments and various authorities to adopt the terminology and introduce legislation to criminalize as 'racist' those who are 'islamophobic'. The OIC's definition of islamophobia is dissonant with the West's concept of bigotry: it includes anything that portrays Islam or Muslims in a negative light, including hard evidence and undisputed, accurate factual reports, for example, of Islamic terrorism. Another definition of islamophobia drawn up by the Runnymede Trust is prevalent, with inconsistent and contradictory criteria so vague they can be easily applied to just about any criticism of Islam. It also ignores the actual content of Islam's sacred texts and the hard data on how much terrorism is uniquely Islamic. Islamophobia conflates the legitimate critique of Islam as a political and religious movement with the stigmatization of those people who adhere to it. Also, crying "islamophobia" provides a handy distraction from the anti-kafir (and especially anti-Jewish) hatred contained in the Quran and Sunna, and voiced blatantly by many imams and devout Muslims worldwide.

Despite the OIC's claim that "one of the biggest threats to global peace and security in our present time is the scourge of Islamophobia", the evidence tells a different story. Metropolitan Police data determines that the per capita incidence of anti-Semitic crime is currently 3⅓ times greater than that of "Islamophobic" crime. The true ratio may be over 4½, as a freedom-of-information request by Sikhs exposed that 28% of 'islamophobic crimes' were not even against Muslims at all. In Scotland, per capita offensive conduct against Judaism is 3⅔ times greater than that against Islam. Many so-called islamophobic incidents cited are merely reports of negative behaviour on the part of Muslims; this is construed as islamophobia. Unfortunately, the media often accepts statistics from Islamic bodies without checking the nature of the claims, giving an inflated impression of widespread and pervasive prejudice against Muslims. The UK islamophobia watchdog Tell MAMA, set up with considerable public money, did not have its funding renewed after it was found to have greatly exaggerated the number and severity of attacks and incidences of intimidation against Muslims. On the contrary, Muslims are over-represented, by around an order of magnitude, in the commission of anti-Jewish crimes in Western Europe. In France, attacks against Christianity constitute 90% of all 'religiously motivated attacks', while crimes against Muslims have actually decreased by about 25%.

In this excessively politically correct age, islamophobia has effectively become a worldwide 'thought crime', as bad as anything George Orwell envisaged in his nightmarish novel Nineteen Eighty-Four about the totalitarian state. However, our contemporary 'thought police' who sniff out ideologically unsound attitudes and beliefs about Islam come in many different forms. One is just as likely to be condemned for islamophobia by the UK's politicians, media and public authorities as by hard-line Islamic advocacy groups. Whether driven by fears of violent retaliation or of being (incorrectly) labelled "rascist", non-Muslim 'useful idiots' or 'dhimwits' have accorded Islam an illogical level of reverence and privilege which no other political movement or religion remotely enjoys. Examples of foolish acquiescence to Islam include:

  1. Leading politicians:
  2. It is illegal to carry out halal slaughter and knowingly allow the meat to be consumed by non-Muslims. Despite this, halal meat is regularly being fed surreptitiously to many consumers, including restaurant diners, hospital patients and schoolchildren. Well-known brands such as Cadbury, Kellogg's, KFC Kingsmill, Kraft, Nestlé, Pizza Express, Subway, and Unilever all pander to obey sharia to a greater or lesser extent, often without advertising the fact. Halal ritual slaughter causes "intolerable cruelty" to animals and some part of certification fees funds jihad. The insistence of Muslim activists on eating halal food is a scam anyway: the Quran (5:3) permits hungry Muslims to eat non-halal food.
  3. British police officers:

Informed observers have commented that such unthinking 'islamophilia' is a much greater threat to our civilized society and its freedoms of thought and expression than islamophobia. Even ex-Muslims have been more effective at calling the bluff of islamophobia.

Kafirophobia is the real problem

While the term 'islamophobia' is highly dubious, the term kafirophobia - an irrational or disproportionate concern about the kuffar, or non-Muslims - is surely not and should be recognized more widely. The evidence for the validity of kafirophobia, kuffarphobia or infidelophobia as it is alternatively called, includes:

To conclude: Concealed within a Trojan horse of religious tolerance and respect, 'islamophobia' is a contrivance to disarm the West and establish the blasphemy provisions of sharia which forbid any criticism of Islam whatsoever. While bigotry against Muslims certainly exists, its prevalence is greatly overstated, especially compared with prejudice against Jews which is actually built-in to the doctrine of Islam. Kafirophobia is, in reality, a much more valid and prevalent problem from which the 'islamophobia' ruse deflects attention.

Revised 21 February 2018

Protecting us from jihad

Quran 8:12: "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels"
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:220: "I have been made victorious with terror"

Striking terror into the kuffar citizenry is only a strategy; the motivation which drives it comes from the doctrine of jihad within Islam itself. The link between Islam and violence is proven beyond doubt. But dissimulating apologists like these:

deny the Islamic roots and shamefully try to normalize the expectation of apparently mysterious terrorist attacks. Why will the authorities not condemn jihad for what it is and take every effective measure to protect us? Does the leftists' Holy Trinity of multiculturalism, tolerance, and offence avoidance have too great a hold? Have we been so bullied by shrieking and demanding Islamists that our cowed politicians will do anything to evade the inevitable backlash from hardliners in Muslim ghettos? Have we prostituted our own values and culture so much in the rush to grab massive Sharia-compliant Islamic investment everywhere that we can't afford to make a stand?

Many people glibly assume that, regardless of soaring Muslim numbers and a correspondingly greater jihadi threat, our police and intelligence services will continue to cope and "do enough" to maintain our relatively peaceful way of life. That this is a dangerous fallacy is easily established by considering the figures involved in the UK:

Who Number
Identified jihadis 23,000 - 25,000
    Posing threat 3,000
    Posing risk 20,000 - 22,000
MI5 employees 4,000
GCHQ employees 5,600
Police officers (of which around 5% carry guns) 151,000
24/7 Surveillance operatives 20 needed per jihadi
Muslims sympathizing with suicide bombers 124,000

The UK now has more jihadis than any other country in Europe (compare France's 19,000 and Spain's 5,000 or so). The security services are hopelessly inundated with potential surveillance targets; just keeping track of jihadis who pose a definite threat would require 60,000 operatives. A staggering 460,000 - 500,000 operatives would be needed to fully monitor all the jihadis who are potential terrorist attackers. Even these are probably conservative estimates. In reality, only a very small fraction can be adequately monitored with current resources, and more and more, like the Manchester suicide bomber, will slip through the net.

Around 425 of the 850 jihadis who went abroad to fight for the Islamic State have since returned to the UK. Astonishingly, the government has claimed that "a significant proportion of those … are assessed as no longer being of national security concern". None of the government, Home Office, Ministry of Justice or the Crown Prosecution Service can confirm that any of the returning jihadis have been prosecuted.

If most terrorism was really caused, not by Islam, but by random acts of evil across society then we should also expect to have 342,000 - 372,000 non-Muslim potential terrorists in the UK (scaling up from the 23,000 - 25,000 jihadis found in the 6.3% of the population which is Muslim). Comparing the numbers of terror attacks by Muslims and non-Muslims shows a highly significant discrepancy, strongly indicating that Islam is linked to terror. The Metropolitan Police have identified the dangers of weak borders and how 'segregated, isolated communities, unregulated [Islamic] education and home schooling' are a breeding ground for home-grown jihadis.

The only sensible and safe way forward is for the government to reduce the number of jihadi suspects in this country. Here are the steps which must be taken urgently to greatly ease the challenge facing our security services, and hence, to protect us better from jihad:

  1. Our borders have to be properly guarded and those entering the country must be strictly vetted. If 'extreme or ideological vetting' is required, then so be it. We can immediately impose the controls we need on non-EU migration, and, with Brexit approaching, we should flex our muscles to only allow in confirmed bona fide EU migrants too.
  2. All non-British citizens who are involved in any form of Islamic extremism must be deported. That will include not only those who finance, support, prepare or carry out acts of terror, but also those who proselytize, preach or threaten our democractic freedoms and rule of law with the imposition of Sharia. Dual citizens will be stripped of their British citizenship and also deported.
  3. Those who voluntarily leave the UK to join or train with groups abroad conducting violent jihad, such as the Islamic State, al-Qaeda or the Taliban, must not be allowed to return. With frontline experience and exposure to hyper-extremists and their methods, they are highly dangerous.
  4. Internment should be introduced for British citizens who cannot be prosecuted, deported or barred, yet are shown convincingly by intelligence to be involved in terrorism.

Of course, these hard-nosed measures will evoke virtue-signalling howls of condemnation from those determined to hold the human rights of jihadis above those of the innocent British men, women and children the terrorists may slaughter or maim in the name of Allah. But we have to have the confidence and determination to reset our moral compass towards the protection of our own people and the re-establishment of a civilized, peaceful society.

Revised 8 February 2018

Scandal of the Muslim grooming gangs

From at least 1975 onwards, organized 'grooming gangs' of predominately Muslim men in Britain (and the Netherlands) have systematically lured non-Muslim underage girls into lives of sexual slavery and prostitution. This danger lurks in places such as outside school gates, takeaway restaurants, shopping centres, bus stations and taxi ranks. Typically, an alluring Muslim youth flatters a schoolgirl with compliments, plies her with money and gifts, and positions himself as her 'boyfriend'. Her naive emotional attachment is then abused as he introduces her to drugs and alcohol, and persuades or coerces her into also having sex with his friends or relatives. From there a downward spiral of rape and prostitution is established, with the gang controlling the girl through various forms of physical and mental abuse, threats, intimidation, and brutality. If the victim is not already estranged, the gang will deliberately drive a wedge between the girl and her parents or carers by, for example, exploiting teenage rebellion and bandying around accusations of 'racism' against them. The girl's family and friends are often directly threatened with violent reprisals if they try to intervene or report the abuse.

The industrial scale of the Muslim grooming gangs' criminality and the significance of the disparity in ethnicity between the perpetrators and their victims are now proven beyond reasonable doubt. We are witnessing probably the biggest child-protection scandal in Britain in a century, covered-up by authorities, media and professionals obsessed with political correctness, multiculturalism and kowtowing to Islam. It is very likely that the grooming gangs have made hundreds of millions of pounds in profits through pimping. Despite convictions, there is evidence that their crimes are continuing on a large scale all over the country. We summarize below the main points about the grooming gang phenomenon, mostly extracted from Peter McLoughlin's book Easy Meat, which is thoroughly recommended. (This is the only comprehensive investigation available, and you may access his convictions data online.)

Revised 25 February 2018

The great Muslima cover-up

Why do Muslim women - Muslimas - wear hijabs, niqabs, burqas, and so on? As a (mostly revolting) fashion statement of their choice? As an expression of religious piety? As an indication of modesty? Well, Islam clearly spells out why they must wear these garments:

Quran 33:59: "Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized and not be molested. Allah is ever forgiving and merciful."

Daniel Greenfield neatly summarized the meaning thus: "It's not about modesty. It's not about religion. It's about putting a 'Do Not Rape' sign on Muslim women. And putting a 'Free to Molest' sign on non-Muslim women." Women who don't comply with this Quaranic instruction are not 'decent' and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men, emulating how Muhammad and his marauding gang treated non-Muslim slave girls. The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants across Europe in recent years is a direct result of this warped mentality. In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator. The fact of an assault proves the guilt of the woman or girl who was assaulted. Alluding to gang rapes by Muslim men, Australia's Grand Mufti opined: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."

Muslimas are bullied into covering up by threats from Muslim men of violent beating, disfigurement by acid thrown in the face, other forms of maiming, or even death. Regardless of whether some of the menfolk in their own family take a more enlightened view, there are plenty of other strident Muslims around who will ensure that Islamic orthodoxy usually prevails. A 2003 French survey found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamists. The intimidation is ubiquitous and leaves Muslim women who try to rebel being labelled as 'whores' and treated as outcasts. As well as obvious discomfort and restricted vision, the habitual wearing of Muslima garb has been proven to lead to serious health problems such as chronic vitamin D deficiency.

Of course, it is not cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic doctrine and bigotry which are woven into it. A Muslima who wears Islamic garb is holding up a sign which points at non-Muslim women, saying "harass them, not me" to Muslim men. It is effectively passive-aggressive complicity in the manifestation of Islamic supremacism over non-Muslims and in a blatant refusal to integrate with the host society. An advanced, educated and just civilization cannot permit a form of women's clothing to become a licence for Muslim men to molest non-Muslim women who don't comply with Sharia law. Prohibiting the wearing of Muslima garb in public would uphold the following rights:

Can you imagine the liberal and media furore if a white supremacist group - say, the Klu Klux Klan - behaved in an analogous manner, insisting that its women covered up by wearing white Klan cloaks and hoods, so that Klan men would avoid raping them and molest non-white women instead?

Revised 9 May 2017

Daesh is a distraction

Many people are confused about what to call the extremist group which has proclaimed itself to be an Islamic state and worldwide caliphate - IS (Islamic State), ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), or Daesh? We are now urged to use Daesh by the UK government, Presidents Obama and Hollande, and other pro-Muslim politicians such as the SNP's Alex Salmond. Arabs do use the word Daesh because it is merely the exact Arabic equivalent to the English acronym ISIS, or more accurately, ISIL. It does not mean anything else in Arabic and, as with all acronyms, its pronunciation is arbitrary. So why use this Arabic acronym which just means the same as ISIS and ISIL, and which we can't pronounce unambiguously? We contend that it is a dangerous distraction from the primary issue of Islamic terrorism, for the following reasons:

2 December 2015

Culture clash video evidence

The following videos provide graphic evidence of the difficulty of reconciling the Western and Islamic cultures. They are only illustrative examples from the mass of evidence which is available but have been chosen because their veracity has been established or their provenance is reliable. Those who wish to explore the culture clash in more detail are encouraged to read the seminal book Why the West is Best by Ibn Warraq, a Muslim apostate’s defense of liberal democracy.

Revised 3 February 2018

Disturbing facts and figures

Some evidence of concern about Islam, to help inform discussion:

Revised 19 January 2018

© 2015-2018 WiserMonkeys.uk

website statistics

  1. Rotherham’s population is 1/250th of the UK population and yielded 1,510 victims of grooming according to the National Crime Agency (NCA). Scaling up to the whole of the UK, and factoring in Rotherham’s Muslim population relative to the whole UK (3.7% and 6.3% respectively), leads us to estimate that the total number of victims nationwide is: 250 × 1510 × 6.3 ÷ 3.7 = 642,770.