My Opinion

On September 25, 2002, a group of armed Islamists entered the office of a Christian charitable organization in Karachi, Pakistan, bound seven workers to chairs and then brutally murdered them. According to Muslim witnesses, the Muslims showed no hurry and took a good 15 minutes to separate the Christians and ensure that each of their goals suffered the most terrible death.

The murder of non-Muslim humanitarian workers by religious followers of Islam often happens. While there is rarely a celebration on the side of other Muslims, there is also not much indignation by a community known for their weakness.

While rumors of a Koran desecration or a Muhammad cartoon produce deadly protests, riots, incendiary fires, and image fires, the mass murder of non-Muslims does not become a real passion. In the eleven years after September 11, nearly 20,000 Islamic terrorist attacks were perpetrated, but all of them do not provoke the kind of indignation on the part of most Muslims, such as the mere mention of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

This critical absence of the moral perspective confuses many Westerners, especially those who try to reconcile this reality with the politically correct assumption that Islam is like another religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition preaches universal love and selflessness, so it is expected that the pious Muslims will be the most peaceful and least dangerous ... provided that Islam is based on the same principles.

But among the rosy assurances of proponents of Muslim ideologies that Islam is about peace and tolerance lies a much darker reality that better explains violence and deep-rooted indifference. Quite simply, the Koran teaches supremacy, hatred, and hostility.

Consider the elements that define the hate speech:

• Distinguish between one's own identity group and those outside
• The moral distinction to which this comparison is based
• Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one's own
• Advocating the different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
• Call for violence against members of other groups

Unfortunately, and in spite of the best intentions of many respectable Muslims, the Koran qualifies as a hate speech in every respect.

The holiest book of Islam (61% of which refers to non-Muslims) draws the sharpest differences between Muslims (the best people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst creatures 98:6). The praise is wasted on the former, while the latter are condemned with burning generalizations.

Far from teaching universal love, the Koran continually preaches the inferiority of the non-Muslims, even if he compares them with disgraceful animals and smolks over Allah's hatred against them and his dark plans for their eternal torture. The Muslims are said to be destined to dominate non-believers, against whom hard treatment is promoted.

The Islamic state implements these teachings from the Koran into practice. In Ramadan in 2016 they raided a restaurant. They tortured and killed those who could not recite from the Koran while Muslims were spared.

Polished Muslim scouts in the West love to use the word "Bigot" to describe critics of Islam, but they are rarely challenged about their own view of the Koran. What does the book, which they claim to contain the literal and eternal Word of Allah, really say about non-Muslims?

• Quran: Distinguishes Muslims from non-Muslims in a hierarchy of relative values
• The Quran dehumanizes non-Muslims and describes them as animals
• Quran: Allah loves NOT the unbelievers
• Quran: Non-Muslims are destined for eternal torture in hell
• Allah himself hinders non-Muslims from understanding
• Allah is trying everything that all non-Muslims sin
• Quran: Do not make friends with non-Muslims
• Quran: Other religions are cursed by Allah
• Quran: People of other religions in this world are to be severely punished

The pattern of violence and aggressive disregard for human suffering, which is persistent in Muslim history, and the contemporary attitude towards non-believers reflects the message of the Koran, which is a personal superiority and arrogance.

In today's world, Muslim rule is characterized by the oppression and discrimination of non-Muslims, while Muslim minorities in larger societies are distinguished by varying degrees of aggravated demand, discord, and armed rebellion. Only a few Muslims are uncomfortable with this blatant double standard in which Islam, depending on its power position, is either a victim or makes others to a victim - and the reason is obvious.

Islam is a fully dominant ideology in which the role of non-believers is subordinated to the position of Muslims. Those who oppose Islamic rule are to be fought until they are either killed or completely humiliated and forced to acknowledge their subordinate status by committing themselves to Islam or by paying compensation and accepting submission to their own religion.

There is simply no other religion on earth that draws such a sharp distinction between their own members and others. No other religion devotes so much of their holiest text to the condemnation and dehumanization of those who merely decide not to follow their dogma.

So much about Islamic terrorism and the general equivalency of the broader Muslim community against violence makes sense only against this double nature of Islam - as well as the foreign willingness of the followers of Muhammad to tolerate their own subjugation under Ottoman or Arab tyrants such as Saddam Hussein They themselves violently attack other negligent neighbors.

The proponents of Islam do not lie when they say that Islam teaches love and kindness, but they forget to add that this is only for the treatment of those within the Muslim community. Loyalty to one's own identity group is above all appreciated, and empathy for those outside of faith is at best optional - and even explicitly undesirable.

If this is a "misunderstanding" of Islam by modern "radicals", then it is a mistake that the founder of Islam has also made. In Muhammad's time, non-Muslims were killed only for speaking against the new religion and their self-proclaimed prophet. Similarly, the Jews of Qurayza were compelled and killed on Muhammad's orders, even if they had not even fought. Since the life of a non-Muslim is cheap, the actual physical damage to a Muslim is not necessary to justify the murder according to the example of Muhammad.

The Koran fulfills every criterion with which we define hate speech. Not only the message inspires dislike and disregard for others, but the text claims the superiority of Islam, and violence can also be used as a means to achieve the goals.

In his later years, Muhammad directed military campaigns to subjugate other tribes and religions; they were "invited" to Islam with the sword and forced to pay tribute. He launched the aggressive military campaigns that waged war against all five major world religions in the first decades after his death.

Islam involves the ultimate devaluation of non-Muslims by teaching. While a Muslim can be sentenced to death for murdering another Muslim (Bukhari 83:17), no Muslim can be sentenced to death for the murder of a non-Muslim (Bukhari 83:50, 3:111 - Muhammad: "No Muslim can be killed for the murder of a Kafir (unbeliever).") The "law of equality" from the Koran applies only to Muslims. The human values and rights based on gender, religion and status are the exact opposite of equality in the Western liberal tradition in the Koran.

One can always find proponents of Islam who are willing to defuse the hard rhetoric of the Koran with creative interpretation, tortuous explanation or boundless denial. Their words and deeds are almost always a concern for the representation of Islam, which does not extend to the victims of Islam - at least not with the same sense of urgency.

Of course there are also exceptional Muslims who do not agree with the Islamic predominance and sincerely defend secularism and respect for all people. Some even find verses or fragments of it to support their independent beliefs. But for these people, the Koran as a whole will always be a constant challenge as it explicitly teaches the distinctive and subordinate status of non-Muslims.

It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encourages the rape of the other captured in the battle. The Hadith provides the context for the verse of the Koran 4:24.

The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to the Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought against him. They conquered them and captured them. Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah hesitated to have sex with the prisoners in the presence of their disbelieving men. And Allah, the Exalted One, has sent the Koran a new verse of the Koran:

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. (4:24)

"And women already married except those whom you right hands posses" (Abu Dawud 2150 and Muslim 3433)

In fact, as the Hadith remarked, it was not Allah, but "Allah the Exalted", who urged men to rape women before their husbands - which is all the more reason to think of Islam differently from other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unhappy victims were still alive after the fight. This is important because it is the proponents of Islam who like to claim that the women who had enslaved Muhammad, were not able to defend themselves. Even if these proponents of Islam were right, what kind of moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between rape and starvation?

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear possibility to reject the rape of women - and yet he offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men hesitated to degrade their new slaves for later reuse by fattening them. Muhammad was asked above all for Coitus Interruptus:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?"

The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Bukhari 34:432)

As indicated, the Prophet of Islam has no objection to the fact that his husbands rape women as long as they ejaculate in the bodies of their victims.

As you can imagine, the obvious approval of Muhammad for the rape of women captured in the battle and his personal involvement, as held in many places, is very unpleasant for the Muslim advocates of our time. For this reason, some of them try to disclose these many episodes and Koran references to sex with prisoners by pretending that they are cases where women had fled from bad marriages and sought shelter with the Muslims. Some of the supporters of Islam even refer to them as "women," although the Koran makes a clear distinction between "those who have their rights" and true women (33:50):

O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, - in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Beyond the despair of the proponents of Islam of the 21st century, however, there is nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history. The women of Banu Mustaliq were sold to slavery after their rape:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl?
He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us;
why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity of Muhammad and his gang of devoted followers:

"Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)

Is it Islamic to sell one's wife for horses? Clearly these were not wives!

More importantly, by definition a "captured" woman is not one who fled from her husband. She escapes from the Muslim slavery. This Hadith describes a typical attack in which the women and children are captured as they try to flee from the attacking Muslims:

"... and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along." (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The Muslim narrator sees the women who are trying to escape (after the massacre of their husbands) and cut their way by shooting an arrow into their way. These are not women who try to seek refuge with the Muslims. They try to avoid the capture by the Muslims.

The same Hadith tells further that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl ..." (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The Prophet of Islam and his companions used the war to gather women for personal sexual use and commerce. Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone's wife, the woman became sex slave. In no case was their fate tied to anything they had done personally, nor had they any choice about their future.

Islamic terrorists take and kill almost daily hostages. While we are often assured that this practice "has nothing to do with Islam," Muhammad has actually murdered even captives of war and other hostages.

After the Battle of Badr, several defenseless Meccans were slaughtered by Muhammad's companions. These included a man named Umayya and his young son, who were captured by a Muslim (a former friend who sought to protect them), but got afterwards to a mob before they could bring themselves into safety:

"I said (would you attack) my prisoners? But... The people formed a ring around us as I was protecting him. Then a man drew his sword and cut off his son’s foot so that he fell down and Umayya [the boy’s father] let out a cry such as I have never heard… They hewed them to pieces with their swords until they were dead." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 449)

Another heartbreaking depiction of the Islamic chivalry during the same battle concerns Abu Jahl, one of the arch enemies of Muhammad of Mecca. He was killed when he was defenseless. In this case, two Muslims took the opportunity to kill the death toll:

Mu’awwidh passed Abu Jahl as he lay there helpless and smote him until he left him at his last gasp. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 451)

Another Muslim named Abdullah then came by and put his foot on Abu Jahl’s neck and taunted him before decapitating him:
Then I cut off his head and brought it to the apostle saying, "This is the head of the enemy of Allah, Abu Jahl." … I threw his head before the apostle and he gave thanks to Allah. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 451).

Apparently, these fellows of Muhammad were not aware that "Islam is against the killing of captives." But who could blame them? Not only the Prophet of Islam praised them for their slaughtering, but he also ordered them to kill another captive.

Uqba bin Abu Mu'ayt pleaded for his life:

When the apostle ordered him to be killed, Uqba said, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?”
[Muhammad’s reply] “Hell.”
The man was put to death. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 458)

Other prisoners were ransomed, but Uqba received special treatment because he had mocked Muhammad in Mecca. His crime was that, for the pleasure of other Meccans, he had thrown the guts of a dead animal upon Muhammad's back when he prayed (Muslim 4422, Ibn Ishaq / Hisham 277). The Prophet of Islam noted that this fraternity stroke was worth killing. He was the first of several other occasions in which people were killed on Muhammad's order that mocked him.

Interestingly, it seems that Muhammad did not regret to kill all his prisoners, instead of demanding ransom. Verse 8:67 of the Quran was "revealed" in the succession of Badr:

It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

The Prophet of Islam continued his bloodshed with the execution of many other captives. Infamous is the execution of 800 captured in Qurayza men and boys. His men also brutally murdered an elderly woman named Umm Qirfa who got captured from the Banu Fazara tribe. According to al-Tabari, she was killed by placing a rope on each leg and the other end to a camel, then driving the two camels apart until the woman was torn to pieces." The daughter of the women got afterwards distributed to one of the Muslim murderers if her mother.

While it is common to hear from the Muslims that their religion is "against" killing of captives and hostages, the actual history of Islam proves that nothing could be more far away from the truth.

Christianity teaches that God loves all people, but hates sin. The Koran never says that. Instead, it explicitly states that Allah does not love those who do not believe in Him:

That He may reward those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), and do righteous good deeds, out of His Bounty. Verily, He likes not the disbelievers. (30:45)

Allah loves only those who obey Muhammad (at least according to the "narrative" of Muhammad):

Say (O Muhammad): "Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad)." But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers. (3:32)

Instead of a god who loves the sinner even if he hates sin, the wrath of Allah is laid upon the individual:

Truly, Allah defends those who believe. Verily! Allah likes not any treacherous ingrate to Allah [those who disobey Allah but obey Shaitan (Satan)]. (22:38)

Some verses say that Allah does not give grace to everyone. For this reason he gives some people no guidance:

And upon Allah is the responsibility to explain the Straight Path (i.e. Islamic Monotheism for mankind i.e. to show them legal and illegal, good and evil things, etc. so, whosoever accepts the guidance, it will be for his own benefit and whosoever goes astray, it will be for his own destruction), but there are ways that turn aside (such as Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, etc.). And had He willed, He would have guided you all (mankind). (16:9)

In fact, he instructs Satan to lead the unbelievers into the destruction:

"And Istafziz [literally means: befool them gradually] those whom you can among them with your voice (i.e. songs, music, and any other call for Allah's disobedience), make assaults on them with your cavalry and your infantry, mutually share with them wealth and children (by tempting them to earn money by illegal ways usury, etc., or by committing illegal sexual intercourse, etc.), and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit. (17:64)

For those who do not love Allah, there will be the most terrible eternal torments, including eternal roasting:

Surely! Those who disbelieved in Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allah is Ever Most Powerful, All-Wise. (4:56)

"Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98), and as we shall see, he hates them so much that he even leads them into sin and then actively prevents them from believing in him and thus facilitating their fate .

Ayatollah Khomeini, who studied Islam all his life, said that non-Muslims are somewhere between "faeces" and the "sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food". Little wonder: The Koran dehumanizes non-Muslims, describes them as "animals" and beasts:

Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allah are those who disbelieve , - so they shall not believe. (8:55)

Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers with "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.

Verse 7:179 says that they are much worse than "cattle".

Verse 9:28 says that the unbelievers are unclean.

Verse 6:111 says they are ignorant.

Verse 23:55 says they are helper of the devil.

Verse 5:60 even says that Allah has turned Jews into monkeys and pigs in the past. This gets repeated by verses 7:166 and 2:65.

A Hadith (Bukhari 54:524) says that Mohammed held rats for "mutated Jews" (also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving humans are worse than the demons who believe in Mohammed.

According to Islamic law, non-Muslims may be owned by Muslims, but - in accordance with the Islamic message - a Muslim should never be the property of another Muslim (unless they convert to Islam under enslavement). Even Christians and Jews are not considered completely human because the punishment for the killing of one of them is limited to one-third of the compensation due for the unintentional killing of a Muslim.