My Opinion

Like all other "holy books" the Quran got written by humans after the death of Mohammed. Only the mighty ones and the savants have been able to write in ancient time. So you find the influence and interpretation of such people inside the "holy scripts". Think about the value from quotes transported by mouth. Everybody forwards only these content what he has understood by himself. Errors and misunderstandings are inevitable in such a procedure. You only need to remember the kids game called silent message. Very seldom matches the result to that what has been provided to the start of the chain. Such a suspicious source got used for writing "holy scripts". Until here is no difference between the Islam and other religions.

The result has been that all these codices had differences in the same way like the content got transported from mouth to mouth by the people. The third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (644-656), burned all previous existing scripts and established a standard version known as Uthman's codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran known today.

In the year 1389 the Muslim savant Ibn Khaldun wrote (Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs):

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations"

(Muqaddimah, trans. Rosenthal, p. 183).

and

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

No other religions had no such universal mission and the holy war was not a religious duty to them apart from self-defense. This fact shows clearly that the Islam is nothing else than a dangerous teaching made from humans and not from any God. If a belief needs to get distributed by force, then this belief has no value because thoughts and opinions of people cannot get controlled. A God, however his name is or however you are calling him, is omniscient and omnipotent. For what does he need other humans to bring his rules and teachings by force to other people?

The mighty ones in ancient time have known this fact too and have decided by themselves to use troops instead of sending missionaries to other regions of the world. That shows that these mighty ones used their influence to get their wishes written into the "holy book" and not the truth. They are only using the Quran for hiding their own power hungry wishes from others. The Quran is nothing else than a excuse or a pretext for filling the pockets of the mighty ones without making themselves responsible for anything.

Another excuse get heard from time to time, that the Christians have loaded a lot blame with the Crusades. What is not known to many people but is the fact that it came only to the Crusades after the Muslims have almost 500 years (exactly 464 years long, from 635 until 1099 AD, (1099 = start of the first crusade)) invaded the Christian countries, they have robbed, terrorized and plundered. There were very many Christians murdered, raping their wives or sold together with their children into slavery. Christian churches were destroyed, burned down the houses of Christians and Christians had only to chose to convert to the Islam or to get killed by the Muslims.

For almost over 500 years, Muslim troops attacked formerly Christian countries such as Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Spain, Portugal, parts of France, Sicily, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, Armenia, Turkey (Byzantium), Cyprus, India, China and Pakistan. Not less cruel behave Muslims today towards the Muslims, who turn away from Islam: "whoever changes his religion ever, kill him."

For almost 500 years the Muslims in Christian countries left a wide trail of blood before Pope Urbans II 1095 called in Clermont to the liberation of Jerusalem and of the "holy land" (Israel) from the hands of the Muslims. During the reign of the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim occurred 1009 the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, one of the largest sanctuaries of Christianity, which should be located at the historical place of the crucifixion and the tomb of Jesus.

When we talk about the Crusades, then you should familiarize yourself very well with the causes of the Crusades and study the historical process very carefully. Therefore historical events should be displayed now more detail. Of course, there were cruel excesses of all kinds by the Crusaders. It should be at all not secretive, glossed over or endorsed. They happened only after the Muslims had almost 500 years terrorized and murdered Christians. The Christian Crusades were essentially nothing more than the Christians attempting finally to put an end to the cruel terrorist of Muslims. This was achieved but only temporarily, namely at the time of the Crusades. After the Crusades, the Muslims blithely continue the conquest of Christian, Buddhist and Hindu countries with the same cruelty until today.

For a better understanding of historical events, I would like to insert two pictures representing very vividly the Muslim conquests:

• Expansion under Muhammad, 612-632
• Spread under the first three Caliphs, 632-655
• Spread under the Umayyad Caliphate 661-750

The above map shows the Islamic expansion during the time of Muhammad from 622 until 632 (dark). After the death of Muhammad ruled the 4 rightly guided Caliphs Abu Bakr, 632-634-Umar ibn al-Khattab, 634-644 - Uthman ibn Affan, 644-656 - Ali ibn Abi Talib, 656-661. The red area shows the expansion in this period. After the 4 rightly guided Caliphs, the Umayyads came to power. Their reign stretched from 661 to 750. The ocher-colored area shows the areas that they captured.

The next picture shows an overview of the Islamic expansion up to 1500:

Here is a list that shows that the Quran has been nothing else that "holy scripts" where the warlords could hide themselves behind it:

• 632 A.D. (467 years before the start of the Christian Crusades): Death of Muhammad
  At this time, Islam was already spreaded by raids across large parts of the Arabian peninsula. These aggressions continued after the death of the "prophet" and turned into a scene of constant wars throughout the Mediterranean for centuries. The subjugated were not allowed to carry any weapons, they were incapable of military service, therefore no full men. Christians and Jews had to wear clothing or special colors (this discrimination led to the Jewish star), to be marked as "Dhimmi" (non-believer or Protectee).

  They needed to accept to get hits from Muslims and have not been allowed to defend themselves. If a "dhimmi" struck back, then his hand got hacked off or he got executed. Any testimony of a "dhimmi" could not really got used against Muslims. Muslims needed to bear only half of their penalty for offenses of a "dhimmi" and they could never got executed. Conversely, the most cruel forms of executions have been mainly reserved the "dhimmi".

  They were not allowed to ride horses, but only on donkeys, so they were constantly reminded of their humiliation. (In the 19th century were Christian Copts in Egypt, after all, using horses, but only if they have been sitting backwards, facing backwards.) They paid a tribute (jizya), which needed to get paid in person, where they received a blow on the head.

• 635 A.D. (464 years before the start of the Crusades): a Muslim army conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, Damascus, the capital of the former Christian Syria.

• 637/638 A.D. (462 years before the Crusades): a Muslim army conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, Jerusalem. Capture of Jerusalem by Caliph Omar

• 642 A.D. (457 years before the Crusades): a Muslim army conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, Alexandria, the capital of Christian Egypt.

• 645 A.D. (454 years before the Crusades): a Muslim army conquered the Christian Barka in North Africa (Libya).

• 674 A.D. (425 years before the Crusades): A Muslim attack on Constantinople (capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire and seat of the Christian emperor) got fended off

• 708 A.D. (391 years before the Crusades): The Muslim expansion to capture the Christian North Africa reached the Atlantic Coast (Spain).

• 710 A.D. (389 years before the Crusades): With the conquest of the last Christian town in North Africa is the entire former Christian North Africa is islamized. Nearly all of the 400 Christian dioceses in North Africa go down. North Africa was once a flourishing Christian world, has produced significant theologians of Christian antiquity: Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine.

• 711 A.D. (388 years before the Crusades): Desecration of the Christian basilica located on the Temple Mount Santa Maria to the al-Aqsa Mosque by Abd el-Wahd. Today, the mosque there is considered third important on in Islam because Muhammad there allegedly prayed there on his "Heavenly journey", but he was at this time already buried 79 years in Medina. This magnificent Church was built once by the Christian Emperor Justinian (527-565). For Islam, converting a famous Church means also always win over Christianity. Legend formations are more important than historical facts in Islam.

  Qur'an (17: 1) gets used as an indication that the "prophet" made in the year 621 a "Night journey to Jerusalem" and was taken from there until the seventh heaven (maybe it has been a drug trip). In fact, there is no historical evidence that Muhammad ever has been in Jerusalem. Since the Prophet of Islam already died in 632, the Koran cannot mean the Church St. Maria, because the church got converted in the year 711, so 79 years after his death, to the el-Aqsa Mosque. The dome of the rock is also not in question, because this building was not even built at this time.

  One may assume that the rise into seventh heaven is rather a dream or imagination from Muhammad and cannot be regarded as a real event. The problem is that the Muslims consider this alleged journey to heaven as a real event. But something like this you can find in all religions. You can tell to the believers the biggest nonsense and the crowd believes it. The same is valid for the resurrection of Jesus after his death and ascension into heaven at Pentecost.

  Muslim armies crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and invade Europe. Andalusia is Arab (Islamic) after its Christian population was subjected to a bloody campaign and continuously suppressed. Just as in present-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Turkey today, all of which were once Christian countries. The Islamic Dhimmisystem (system of government) should thereby have been even worse than the South African apartheid system. Domination and not integration or tolerance was the goal of Islam. Not only in mission, but also by wars. Two powerful military conquests penetrated Islam after they had won before in the Middle East and in Africa, 711 they have been coming to Spain and at 1453 from Constantinople to Vienna. True to the alleged words of the prophet or the interpretation of the Koran by the respective caliphs and sultans foreign nations were either forcibly islamized, with all the consequences for the most oppressed women, or made to second class subjects with greatly restricted human rights.

• 712 A.D. (387 years before the Crusades): the conquest of southern Spain is completed. The Muslims were the last Arab rulers in Al-Andalus, Muhammad XII. more than 800 years in Spain, until finally needed to capitulate on January 2, 1492 before the two Christian (Catholic) armies of Ferdinand II. (the King of Sicily and Sardinia) and Isabella I (the Queen of Castile, the northern Spain).

  Parallel with the conquest of Spain the Arab Muslims in the East penetrated until 712 A.d. up to the borders of China, India and Pakistan. In Uzbekistan they conquered Turkish territories, coupled with their momentous Islamization, the Uzbeks the Arabs partly stubbornly opposed resistance. Soon the Arabs also undertook first forays to India and Pakistan. Another reaching out to Western and Central India was prevented by the defeat of 738 against the Indian regional rulers, whose armies had grown the Arab troops well. The conquest of India by Muslims claimed the lives of 80 million Indians and to have been the largest genocide (genocide) in the history.

  751 the Arabs defeated finally in the Battle of Talas a Chinese army since allegedly saw much of the Chinese troops, the Arabs as liberators and ran to them. As a result, the Chinese influence in Central Asia has been pushed back in favor of the Arab-Islamic.

• 713 A.D. (386 years before the Crusades): The Arabs conquer Barcelona, crossing the Pyrenees and begin the conquest of southern France. Around ninety years after Muhammad's death are Muslim armies (not missionaries!) In the Christian kingdom of the Franks (now France).

• 720 AD (379 years before the Crusades): The Arabs conquer Narbonne in southern France and besieging Toulouse

  From al-Andalus Arab troops conducted regular raids from deep into the outbacks of Christian France. They looted repeatedly by the Rhone valley, terrorized southern France, occupied Arles, Avignon, Nimes, Narbonne, which they set 793 on fire, devastated 981 Zamora and deported 4,000 prisoners. Four years later they burned down Barcelona, killed or enslaved all the inhabitants, devastated 987 Portuguese Coimbra, which then remained uninhabited for seven years, León destroyed along with environment. Responsible for the latter operations was the Amiriden ruler al-Mansur, "the Victorious" (981-1002) made sure that he all philosophical books that he could find got burned. and who led fifty wars during his reign, regularly one in spring and one in autumn. His most famous was that of 997 against the holy pilgrimage town of Santiago de Compostela. After they had razed it to the ground, a few thousand Christian survivors needed to went into slavery.

• 732 A.D. (376 years before the Crusades): Great decisive defensive battle by Charles Martel, the "hammer" of Tours (now France), the European armies won over the Mohammedan aggression. After that, the Christians had 123 years resting from Muslim attacks.

• 846 A.D. (253 years before the Crusades) Muslims pillage Rome. The attacks on Rome began in the seventh century A.D. The prototype of a Muslim invasion occurred in the year 846 as a fleet of Arab jihadists landed at the estuary of the Tiber River, marched to Rome, occupied the city and took all gold and silver from the St. Peter Basilica. This is the reason why the Vatican, due to the repeated attacks of the Muslims (Saracens), to a fortified "city within a city" in Rome. Following the devastation performances of the Saracens in the St., St. Peter's Basilica, which deeply shook the Christian world, was decided to secure the area around the tomb of Saint Peter. The completed area got the status of a city with its own right, which was separated from the Roman Forum, the Center of political, economic, cultural and religious life in Rome.

• 1009 A.D. (90 years before the Crusades): Caliph al-Hakim ordered the systematic destruction of all Christian sanctuaries, including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem by Muslims is destroyed, like so many others before. The plunder and expropriation of Christian churches is attributed to the Caliph al-Hakim, who also began at the beginning of the Millennium, to coerce the mainly Christian officials in his territory to the adoption of Islam.

• 1066 A.D. (33 years before the Crusades): held the first Jewish pogrom of in European history in the Spanish Granada (!) in the "Muslim-tolerant" Al Andalus. The Muslim masses, which at that time romp through the ghetto, call themselves "Muhadjirun" (faith fighters in exile).

• 1070 A.D. (29 years before the Crusades): the Seljuk Turks, a Turkish nomadic people from Central Asia, which itself had converted in the 10th century A.D. to Islam gains control of Jerusalem. The peaceful Christian pilgrimage to the Holy places is hampered increasingly in a massive way.

• 1071 A.D. (28 years before the Crusades): Battle of Manzikert, a Christian Byzantine army is defeated by a Muslim army. The Seljuk Turks conquer the core area of the Christian Byzantine Empire in Asia minor.

• 1095 A.D. (4 years before the Crusades): the Christian Byzantine Emperor Alexios I. Komnenos sends an letter to Pope Urban II. asking for military help. At the Council of Clermont, the first crusade in history gets decided.

• 1099 A.D. - 1293 A.D.: After almost four hundred and seventy years Mohammedan expansion by the sword followed by two centuries of Christian defense and (re) conquest in the form of various crusades.

• 1389 A.D.: Battle of Kosovo (Kosovo). A Christian army of Serbs, Bosnians and Bulgarians is destroyed by a Muslim army. The Christian Balkan states are Muslim vassals. Even during the 14th century the famous Muslim savant Ibn Khaldun wrote, although Judaism is able politically to survive in this world, but there was no universal claim, conversely, did Christianity although a universal claim, but it has not been following him with political and military means. Islam is superior to both religions, because he clubs both: "In Islam, jihad (holy war) is required by law, because it has a universal mission and is maintained, voluntary or forced to convert the whole world to the Islam" (The Muqaddima).

• 1423 A.D.: Venice, as a leading commercial and naval power in the Mediterranean, began with the help of his mercenaries to oppose the Ottoman Empire, when it saw threatened by the expansion of the Turks towards Adriatic Sea its trade interests. To secure its trading privileges in the Ottoman Empire, but it closed soon peace and Thessaloniki ceded to the Turks.

• 1453 A.D.: conquest of Constantinople Opel (now Istanbul) by Fatih (after him are named mosques in Europe), the center of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Orthodox Church. The Christian emperor falls in battle. End of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Mehmet II Fatih ("Mehmet the Conqueror") was a wise leader of the Ottoman Empire. A truly kind man, and made for his people, he always wanted only the best. Throughout Europe, name the Turkish citizens in memory of Mehmet "Fatih" mosques. The list of "Fatih"-mosques is long.

  But there is also another side of Mehmet II .:
  The Serbian author Konstantin Mihailovic writes in his "Memoirs of a Janissary" about him: "Sultan Mehmed had after his father Murad a happy reign. But he was also very cunning and deceiving if he could - even with the truce. Religion has not been important for him, but he was a famous man of war and had a lot of luck. He had no loyalty. If someone rebuked him, therefore, he roared like a madman. His handling of persons subject was ambivalent. So on the one hand reports of generous gestures and protection decrees, on the other hand writes Konstantin Mihailovic an eyewitness: "The entire army of the Sultan murdered and massacred on the streets, in the houses and in the churches."

  With the conquest of Constantinople there were also individual murders, such as on Megadux (Byzantine dignitary) Lukas Notaras, the Mehmed wanted previously used as a governor of Konstantin Opel. He made him and his sons executed because Notaras refused to provide his (pretty) 14 year old son to the Sultan as catamite. The Ottoman chronicler Dervish Ahmed (1400-1486) reported similar: "The Giauren (Christians) of Istanbul were turned into slaves and the pretty girls were taken from Gazi (Muslim holy warriors) in arms."

• 1463 A.D.: After the fall of Constantinople (May 29, 1453), the Turks began the conquest of Greece and expelled the Venetians from the Greek mainland.

• 1480 A.D.: a Muslim army conquered Otranto in Italy. 1481 reconquest a Christian army.

• 1499 A.D.: Internal disputes the Ottomans took Venice to acquire 1489 Cyprus. Despite the support of Spain, Portugal, France, the Papal States and the Johanniter Venice had to give up more Greek cities and pay tribute.

• 1521 A.D.: a Muslim army conquered Belgrade.

• 1522 A.D.: The Order of St. John (cf.. Knights Hospitaller) had settled in 1309 on the island of Rhodes and controlled from there the sea trade in the eastern Mediterranean. After a first unsuccessful siege in 1480 ended 26 June 1522 great Ottoman invasion army on the island to conquer dominion over the eastern Mediterranean for the Ottoman Empire. The up to 160,000 invaders faced few thousand defenders. After heavy fighting the Knights capitulated on 22 December and departed on 1 January 1523

• 1526 A.D.: Battle of Mohacs (Hungary). A Christian army is beaten by a Muslim army. Muslim armies conquered most of Hungary and threaten Vienna.

• 1529 A.D.: The first siege of Vienna by a Muslim army fails.

• 1565 A.D.: After 1522 the Turks had chased away the Order of Saint John from Rhodes, offered the Emperor Charles V to the Order the island of Malta as a new residence. Johanniter settled down in 1530 on the island. On May 18, 1565 40,000 Turks began to command Süleyman the Magnificent with the siege of Malta. The approximately 9,000 Teutonic Knights held the siege until the Ottomans had to break off the siege due to the imminent autumn storms on September 8, after losses of an estimated 20,000 man.

• 1566 A.D.: The occasion was an uprising of the Transylvanian prince Johann II. Sigismund Zápolya. 1566 came to a successful Ottoman siege of Szigetvár. In the first peace of Adrian Opel loss Szigetvárs was recognized, restored otherwise the status quo.

• 1569 A.D.: After the Russian conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan Khanate, the Ottoman Empire wanted to bring these former Muslim empires in the Volga area back into its sphere of influence and undertook together with the Crimean khanate a campaign against Astrakhan. In order to use the Ottoman fleet for troop transport, was begun with the construction of a canal between two tributaries of the Don and Volga. However, the siege was unsuccessful.

• 1570 A.D.: The Turks conquered Cyprus; Spain, the Papal States and Venice joined on 20 May 1571 together to the Holy League. Its fleet under Don Juan de Austria defeated the Turks on 7 October in 1571 in the Battle of Lepanto. Despite the victory, Venice concluded in 1573 a separate peace, renounced Cyprus and paid 300,000 ducats to the Ottoman Empire.

• 1593 A.D.: Defense War of the Austrian, founded by almost annual Turkish invasions; 1606 Peace of Zsitvatorok, the Emperor was recognized by the Sultan as an equal negotiating partner, one-time payment of 200,000 florins ended the annual tribute.

• 1620 A.D.: Polish attempts to gain influence in Transylvania and Moldova, led to the posting of an Ottoman army which was victorious at Tutora on Prut end 1620. The following year, led Sultan Osman II. personally an army to Moldova, which unsuccessfully besieged Chotyn. In the peace treaty Poland renounced his claims on Moldova.

• 1633 A.D.: After the death of the Polish King Sigismund III. Wasa, Russian troops attacked Poland-Lithuania. Mohammed Abazy, the Turkish Pasha of Vidin, saw his chance and also invaded Poland. The Polish Hetman Stanislaw Koniecpolski organized a rapid and vigorous defense and hit back the Ottomans.

• 1645 A.D.: The war took place mainly from Crete. After the Turks had begun on 24 June 1645 to conquer the island, they besieged from 1648 for 21 years, the heavily fortified, defended by mercenaries capital Candia (today's Heraklion) before it was conquered 1669.

• 1663 A.D.: After tensions in Transylvania, the Turks in 1663 began an offensive against Emperor Leopold I and conquered several fortresses in Upper Hungary (among others Neuhäusl). 1664, however, they were governed by the imperial troops in Levice and St. Gotthard an der Raab. The quickly following the Peace of Vasvár confirmed the status quo, including the Turkish possession of Neuhäusl.

• 1672 A.D.: The Cossacks in the Polish-dominated right bank Ukraine under the leadership of Hetman Doroshenko placed themselves under the protection of the Porte; which demanded that the cession of the territories of Poland; 1672 began the Ottoman Empire to war; after heavy defeats led Sobieski, the Poles on 11 November 1673 at the Battle of Khotyn victory; Sobieski was then the Polish King John III. Sobieski selected. The war ended after eventful successes in the Treaty of 1676, in the Podolia with Kamieniec Podolski and most of the right bank Ukraine the Ottoman Empire was awarded.

• 1676 A.D.: After the conquest of Podolia in the war against Poland the Ottomans wanted to extend their domination on the Ukraine east of the Dnieper. The Cossacks, especially from the left-bank Ukraine under Hetman Ivan Samoylovich allied with Russia and sold with their help the turks friendly Hetman Doroshenko from its capital Chihirin in the right bank Ukraine 1674. Doroshenko recaptured him loyal Cossack troops Chihirin 1676, but was shortly thereafter besieged by the Cossacks from the left-bank Ukraine and the Russians again and this time jailed. Then sent the Turkish Sultan Ibrahim Szejtan and Yuri Khmelnitsky as his vassal in the Ukraine in 1677 with a 120,000 strong army towards the left-bank Ukraine in March, which was defeated in a battle, however. 1678 renewed the Sultan his will to subdue the entire Ukraine and sent up to 200,000 troops under Kara Mustafa against about 120,000 Russians and Ukrainians in Chihirin. The Russian army broke out of the siege, cross the Dnepr and ward off further Turkish attacks. Finally, a peace agreement was signed, which confirmed the Dnepr as a border again.

• 1683 A.D.: The second siege of Vienna by a Muslim army fails. Europe therefore remains essentially Christian to the present.

• 1710 A.D.: After Peter I the Swedes under Charles XII. had defeated in the Battle of Poltava in 1709, these fled to the Ottoman Empire. The Russian troops occupied Bessarabia were, but included the Prut and capitulated on July 22 in the Treaty of the Pruth; Azov and parts of the Ukraine were again Ottoman, Karl could peel back.

• 1714 A.D.: First Venice lost 1715 Peloponnese; Croats held successfully Sinj; 1716 called for the Austrians, the return of the territory of Venice; on August 5, 1716 suggested Prinz Eugen the Ottomans at the Battle of Petrovaradin, 1717 he conquered Belgrade; in peace Passarowitz from July 21, 1718 Austria received Belgrade and some other areas; Venice no longer participated from now on the Turkish wars.

• 1736 A.D.: War Austria to conquer Bosnia; Wins the Turks in Serbia; 1735 Crimea was devastated by the Russians; 1737 Bessarabia was occupied by Russia; on September 18, 1739 Peace of Belgrade, Austria lost the conquests of the last war again, Russia was unable to enforce the desired right to free passage for its ships on the Azov and Black Sea. Despite a 1738 closed alliance with the Ottomans Sweden remained neutral at first; only after the conclusion of peace it attacked the Russians and therefore hoped in the war over Finland in vain for a two-front war. However, France received 1740 additional privileges (capitulations) for his successful military aid against the Austrians.

• 1768 A.D.: In the Polish Civil War, the Turks have been called by the Confederation of Bar to help Russia occupied Moldavia and Wallachia, 1770 the Turkish fleet in the port of Çesme was destroyed by the Russian, 1774 victory of the Russians at Shumla; July 21, 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the southern Ukraine with the mouths of Bug, Dnieper and Don came to Russia, the Crimea became independent and annexed in 1783 by Russia, Russian ships were allowed to pass through the Straits, Russia received protectorate rights over Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire , first partition of Poland.

• 1787 A.D.: War to divide the Ottoman Empire, August 24, 1787 declaration of war of Turkey in Russia, February 9, 1788 entry into the war of Austria, 1789 Austrians conquered Belgrade and Bucharest, Russians occupied the Principality of Moldova, 1790 Austrian victory at Kalafat, a 1790 against Russia and Austria closed Ottoman-Prussian alliance forced Emperor Leopold II on August 4, 1791 peace of Sistova with the Sultan. January 9, 1792 Treaty of Jassy, Dnepr was border between Russia and the Ottoman Empire; Austria took distance from the plan to destroy the Ottoman Empire, since it was more and more in competition with Russia; Prussia gave Russia a free hand to the second partition of Poland; 1787 took Catherine II. An inspection tour to the newly conquered Crimea

• 1798 A.D.: Formally, to restore the authority of the Sultan and to rid the country of feudal Mameluke rule, the French Republic occupied in contrast to the traditional alliance policy of the kingdom under Napoleon Egypt. The Ottoman Empire joined under pressure from the British fleet off Istanbul in 1799 an alliance with Great Britain and the multiple-war Russia, a French advance into Syria failed before Akko the Turkish-British resistance. A full British-Turkish reconquest of Egypt failed despite battles with Aboukir before Anglo-French peace treaty of Amiens 1802.

• 1806 A.D.: The Serbian uprising of 1804 came to Russia help, it occupied the principality of Moldavia and Wallachia; on 28 May 1812 had to close Russia peace of Bucharest in order to focus on the expected attack of Napoleon. Russia received Bessarabia, the Prut, the new border between the two kingdoms; 1813 Serbia was conquered by the Turks again, the South Slavs, in their quest for independence, translated from now on Russia and not on Austria.

• 1828 A.D.: Encouraged by the Serbian Uprising, also rose the Greeks in 1821; Russia occupied Moldavia and Wallachia in 1829 the Russians crossed the first time the Balkan Mountains; September 14, 1829 Second Peace of Adrian Opel; Russia received territories south of the Caucasus; Moldova, Wallachia and Serbia became autonomous and came under Russian influence, the Straits were free for all ships.

• 1853 A.D.: The demand of the Russian Tsar Nicholas I on a protectorate for its Orthodox brethren in the Ottoman Empire has been rejected by the Sublime Porte, Russia occupied the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia; Britain and France supported the Turks and conquered the Crimean Sevastopol; the Treaty of Paris March 30, 1856 came Moldavia and Wallachia under a protectorate of the Western powers, Southern Bessarabia fell to the Vltava River, the Danube was internationalized, demilitarized the Black Sea; the internal crisis in Russia came to the fore and leading to reforms, including the abolition of serfdom.

• 1877 A.D.: After the defeat of Serbia in the Serbian-Turkish War (1876-1878) Russian troops led away to war, in the meantime to Romania federated former principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia occupied again, conquered Pleven and stood in front of Constantinople, on 3 March 1878 as it peace San Stefano came: The Ottoman Empire had to bend a favorable for Russia dictated peace. Since this increase in power the great powers Austria-Hungary, Britain and France went too far, the Balkans was divided again at the Berlin Congress on July 13: Romania, Serbia and Montenegro became independent, Bulgaria received a special status, but remained the Ottoman Empire against tributary , Austria-Hungary was allowed Bosnia and Herzegovina occupy, UK received Cyprus while Raszien, Albania, Macedonia and Rumelia the Ottoman Empire remained.

• 1969 A.D.: Nations illegal annexation of West Papua (the western half of New Guinea island) by the Islamic Indonesia, followed by forcible and serious human rights violations against Christian aborigines to today, and tolerated by the UN. Renaming the country in Irian Jaya ("Victorious Irian")

If I take a look at the above list then I see how peaceful the Islam is. In such a case I don't like to know what the Muslims are understanding under the word war.

Has anybody seen an Islamic missionary? I mean a real one without guns and bombs. I think it would not make any sense because everybody who has all his senses together would not submit himself voluntarily into a totalitarian religious dictatorship.

The western world has long been presumed that Muslims are rapists. The percentage of rape increases with the increase of Muslim refugees in the Western world. Now the suspicion got confirmed by the historian Dr. Saleh al-Saabdoon. He tried to justify the nation's ban on female drivers. He said during a TV interview given at the Saudi Rotana Khalijiyya TV that women who drive in other countries, such as the United States, don't care if they're raped and that sexual violence "is no big deal to them."

Saleh al-Saadoon claimed in the interview that women can be raped when a car breaks down, but unlike other countries, Saudi Arabia protects its women from that risk by not allowing them to drive in the first place, according to a translation posted online by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

The intelligence of the historian Dr. Saleh al-Saabdoon seems to be awesome and reflects the education system from the Muslim Universities and countries. He even did not think about it that women can get raped from their drivers too. Asked about this fact he replied: "There is a solution, but the authorities and the clergy refuse to take a note of it. The solution is to hire foreign women drivers for driving our women.". With other words: Only the driving woman will get raped and not the female passenger. Oh Lord, please let brain raining from the sky.

Saudi Historian Dr. Saleh Al-Saadoon at Rotana Khalijiyya TV (Saudi Arabia) January 11, 2015:

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Women used to ride camels, so one might ask what prevents them from driving cars. In Saudi Arabia, we have special circumstances. The city of Arar is 150 km away from Al-Jawf. From Al-Awf to Al-Ha'il it is 400 km. If a woman drives from one city to another and her car breaks down, what will become of her?

Reporter: Well, women drive in America, in Europe, and in the Arab world…

Saleh Al-Saadoon: They don't care if they are raped on the roadside, but we do…

Reporter: Hold on, who told you that they don't care about getting raped by the roadside?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: It's no big deal for them beyond the damage to their morale. In our case, however, the problem is of a social and religious nature.

Reporter: What is rape if not a blow to the morale of the woman? That goes deeper than the social damage.

Saleh Al-Saadoon: But in our case, it affects the family …

Reporter: What, society and the family are more important than the woman’s morale?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Perhaps morale is part of the problem, but it is not the problem itself. There is also the religious aspect. I will give you two examples …

Reporter: The other guests appear to be in shock …

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Well, they should listen to me and get used to what society thinks. If they are really so out of touch with it …

Reporter: You are afraid that a woman might be raped by the roadside by soldiers, but you are not afraid that she might be raped by her chauffeur?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Of course I am. There is a solution, but the government officials and the clerics refuse to hear of it.

Reporter: What is this solution?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: The solution is to bring in female foreign chauffeurs to drive our wives. Why not? Why not? Are you with me on this?

Such men can only get married with children. Normal thinking women would not chose them as their husband. These kind of men are simple too stupid for everything. Accordingly was the reaction of the international press and there was a recent interview about the international reactions:

Reporter: A few days ago, about a month after the interview, excerpts from the interview appeared in Western and European media and other outlets. The international press published detailed excerpts in various languages. Why did the interview raise such a great uproar, and how does Dr. Al-Saadoon respond to the international media coverage of his views on women's driving?

Saleh Al-Saadoon: [The media's response to what I said] was a surprise by any standard. I was especially surprised by the false translation. This was not an objective translation or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate and methodical falsification. I don't know if…

Reporter: How can you talk about falsification? They presented a video excerpt, not just something written. What was written was a detailed translation of the interview.

Saleh Al-Saadoon: They translated what I said. As you recall, sister Nadeen, we talked, but I did not say: "Women who drive cars do not care about being raped." The Daily Mail, for example, wrote: "A Saudi historian says that American women drive cars because rape is no big deal for them." This is not what I said.

I explained that they have no problem [with rape] from the religious and social aspects. Their problem is limited to their morale and to psychological aspects. I continue to maintain this. Western women are liberal. They are not governed by Christianity. They do not believe in Christianity.

Unless they are old, Western women are usually not religious – except for a handful of women who go proselytizing in Africa.

According to Islamic scholars, women are forbidden to ride in a taxi driven by a foreigner. If she does so, and the driver kidnaps and rapes her, she will be partially responsible, because she exposed herself to danger.

This is not my view. I'm just telling you the view of society. Don't blame me for conveying the views of 80% of Arab and Islamic society.

Reporter: Some people turn the victim into the criminal, but these views do not represent 80% of us.

Saleh Al-Saadoon: Many Saudis, Arabs, and Muslims hold this view – regardless of whether it is 70% or 90%.

As the reporter has been a woman does it look like the Muslim men have a defect in their gens. As soon as their little man is standing the body has not enough blood to serve their brain, but we know that the education in the Muslim countries has no quality. They are still at stone-age level as their law, the Sharia, reflects this impression too. Such people cannot get taken serious as long such stupidity does not get replaced from a little bit intelligence.

Here is another video in reaction to the interview above:

Transcription from the video:

Order Mad as Hell on iTunes Available now Now this story is atrocious in a lot of ways but it does have a funny element because the guy talking here what the Saudis call a historian and he's going to talk about why women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and why they are allowed to drive in West and that's the most interesting part so the middle east media research institute reported this and the Huffington Post wrote about it recently.

His name Saleh al-Saabdoon and he claimed in a recent TV interview that women can be raped when a car breaks down but unlike other countries Saudi Arabia protects its women from that risk by not allowing them to drive in the first place. Oh that's why they can't drive cause if they drove there's a tiny percentage change that they would break down and then they would obviously be immediately raped so here is Saleh al-Saaboon Saudi historian explain the phenomena to us. He says about the westerners they don't care if they are raped on the roadside but we do. OK I was not aware of that but he is a historian so it's hard to argue he says it's no big deal for them beyond the damage to their moral in our cause. However the problem is of a social and religious nature. Isn't that amazing? Man he's saying like oh you got raped. I mean for the western women it's just a moral problem right, but for us it's also a religious problem. So it's much more serious. That's not really how I view rape. I think is the serious part you're religious views about it is a little less important but obviously he doesn't view it that way and even the anchors and one of them was a female anchors covered her head and was like oh my god what do you say? That's cause you can't really justify not allowing women to drive. It makes no sense. Whatsoever right so you have to come up with nonsense things like this. Oh yeah no no western women rape is no big deal to them. So now let's be fair to the guy he apparently did have a solution, because you know one of the anchors asked him. They said well what their male tribers rape. Good question. OK there is a solution but the government officials and the clerics refuse to hear of it. The solution is to bring in foreign chauffeurs to drive our wives. I don't know why I didn't think of that before. They how do you give women more rights give them female chauffeurs of course. Isn't this insane this is one of the top allies of the United States of America that we protect these guys to no end the ISIS they do beheadings so do the Saudis oh Iraq they did 9/11 no they didn't 17 out of the 19 high jackers were Saudis and you have people like this Saudi historian talking about why you should never let women drive and the only reason westerners do is because they don't mind the rape. OK by the way if women do drive what's the punishment. Well Saudi women face serious penalties if they are caught driving including lashing. So get a lot of this their idea of how to protect women. Is we don't want you to get raped. So if you drive we will beat you with a whip. We'll whip you. OK and it's not theoretical right. Now two women who defined the ban on driving last year, Loujain al-Hathloul and Maysa al-Amoundi, who by the way are amazing heroes are being tried in a court that handles terror cases but that is fitting cause for the Saudi royals and the government and the people in power in Saudi Arabia. That is what strikes terror in their hearts a liberated woman. On the lighter side of things we did find the exchange with Saudi government of the issue of women driving and other rights. They might have and this a Young Turks exclusive. So we want to show it to you so you can judge for yourself if Ferengi females could wear cloths in public then they can leave their homes. If they can leave their homes then they can go to work. If they go work they can make profit. What's the matter? Quark afraid of a little competition? OK that might not have been the Saudis, but the Saudis do make similar claims as the Ferengi that the rest of us humans shamelessly cloth our women and want the other to unclothe them. Isn't it sad that there is a legitimate comparison between the Saudis and the Ferengi.

Why he should? He is omniscient. He can not win something if he lies to you. It would be hard to believe again if you catch someone telling you a lie. If someone would find a contradiction in the holy scripts then it would be a transcription, translation error or an interpretation failure. The religious leaders found at the world are protecting the word of their God. You should think that they are very well educated and are knowing how to interpret the holy scripts by knowing the exact meaning of the old language. How can it happen in this case that a lot of the religious leaders are failing in exact the case where they should be the masters of the holy scripts?

A very big fail made the Grand Mufti Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, the Chancellor of the Islamic University of Medina (1970-1975), and the Chairman of Saudi Arabia's Department of Scientific Research from 1975. He issued a based-on-the-Koran "fatwa" (pronouncement concerning Sharia law) in 1976, which claimed that the Earth is flat, and anyone, who said otherwise, was blaspheming.

I think I need not bring here some links for proofing the statement form the Grand Mufti Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz. If you are using your favorite search engine and enter islam flat world, you'll find enough results in this case and you can also find the "fatwa". You'll also be able to find the different interpretations for the idea of the Grand Mufti. In any case it shows the quality of education the Grand Mufti Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz got and the quality of education from the University of Medina if such a person has been their Chancellor. What the students could have learned from such a deadbeat?

He even had issued 1966 another Koran-based fatwa, which said that the Earth did not revolve, or orbit the Sun; instead the Sun orbited the Earth. He issued yet another fatwa in 1982, which reiterated his belief that the Sun orbited the Earth, and that anyone, who did agree with him, would be declared an infidel.

If such a nonsense would really be written in the Quran then it would be a proof that the Quran does not contain the words from Allah. Allah has no reason to distribute wrong information to his followers. It is more a sign that your religious leaders are even not understand the words written in the Quran. How can you trust into their words? Is it not time to use your own brain in such a case?

A Saudi cleric becomes online laughing stock after telling student the sun rotates around the Earth as otherwise planes would not be able to fly:

• Sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari claimed Earth is stationary and the sun rotates
• Offered religious statements and clerical comments to back up his belief
• Also launched into baffling explanation about airliners never being able to reach their destination if the earth was truly moving
• Also claimed NASA moon landings are the stuff of Hollywood fabrication

You don't believe that someone is so stupid - here is the online video from the year 2015 and it is not only published in the Western World only, you'll even find it at Al Arabiya:

How someone can give his life for a religion where the teaching is proven wrong? Do you really think that such idiots have not changed the word of God into their own favor over the time? If we remember the content from the video I published yesterday in the article Mullah Krekar in Norway gives chilling and honest interview about Islam and the West, there the Mullah said: "We will defend our religion with your own blood." I can understand that uneducated people will believe in such stupid teachings from uneducated leaders. Such uneducated and power horny people like to rule the world? I think that before this can happen, Allah will come back and kill these idiots by himself.

Here are some more examples why educated people will not take any Muslims for serious:

In 2010, Sheikh Abdul Mohsin al-Abaican, a consultant at the Saudi royal court, was also widely mocked in Western media for issuing a breast-feeding fatwa, which said that women can get around Saudi Arabia's ban on unrelated men and women mixing by feeding their breast milk to men, as doing so would make those men sons of those women.

The Sheikh said that women should not breastfeed men, just feed them their breast milk, but another Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abi Ishaq Huwaini, quickly disagreed with the fatwa, because, in his opinion, women had to actually breastfeed a man like she would breast her baby.

Gamal Abdel Nasser might have thought that such primitiveness was confined to Saudi Islamist circles, but in 2007, an Egyptian cleric, Dr. Izzat Attiyah of Egypt's Al-Azhar University – the most prestigious educational institutions in the Sunni Islam world – also issued a fatwa, which too said that women can breastfeed men to get around the Islamist ban on the mixing of sexes.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Munajid, who may have partly learned his gift for making hilarious statements from Grand Mufti Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, under whom he studied Islamic law, was widely mocked in Western media in 2008 when he said that Mickey Mouse was a soldier of Satan, who should die along with Jerry of the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon, because Sharia law calls for all mice to be killed. He also issued a fatwa, which discussed whether it was permissible to eat mermaids.

Another fatwa by an unnamed Saudi cleric, translated by the New York Times from the Saudi newspaper "Al-Watan", recommended 15 ridiculous changes to the international rules of football to ensure that Saudis do not play that game as people of other religious beliefs do. For example: "6. Do not play in two halves. Rather play in one half or three halves in order to completely differentiate yourselves from the heretics, the polytheists, the corrupted and the disobedient."

Moreover, in 2001, Egypt's top Islamic cleric, Grand Mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa, issued a fatwa, which said that drinking the urine of the prophet Mohammed was a blessing. He did not explain how a man, who has been dead since 632, could produce urine for people to drink.

It is not that only Sunni Islamic clerics issue such ridiculous statements. In 2010, Iranian Shi'ite cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi blamed scantily clad women for earthquakes, as this Los Angeles Times article explains.

It seems that even Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh has been not even only mentally deranged. He has been one of the pedophiles too, because he stated it's an injustice to NOT marry girls aged 10, says Saudi cleric.

Who will be able to recognize a religion with such leaders as a serious one? But don't worry because a few hundred years ago the Christian leaders have acted the same way. So it will take a few hundred years until the Muslim will recognize that such leaders are not really mental healthy and will go on distance to such incompetent leaders and send them there where should be already - to a madhouse.

Who should take a religion as an serious teaching if their leaders are such big fails?

The following video shows an interview from Mullah Krekar given to a Norwegian TV station. It shows clearly the the intentions from the Muslims to rule the world and how they are using the Quran for their own purpose. Instead of integrating themselves into the community of the country where they have been coming they try to bring their system from which they have been running away to their destination country and expect that others have to respect their beliefs and their stone-age system. Such people are not accepting other cultures or beliefs but this narrow-minded people are expecting that the other 70% of the world will respect them. The Muslims have even not learned until now that respect has to get earned and cannot get demanded. Respect can get only earned with good deeds and by respecting the local law.

These people are nothing else than parasites, which like to get all the advantages from the Western World and like to give terror, war and killings in exchange. Are the Muslims thinking that the Western World has only perverts living there?

If the Mullah Krekar and his followers are enjoying the Sharia, then they have to relocate to a country where the Sharia is state law and not to a country with a different law system. I would recommend to bring him immediately to such a country for the reason of peace in Norway.

Here is the interview wit Mullah Krekar from the Norwegian TV station:

Here is a transcription from the questions (Q) and answers (A) given in the video:

Q: For someone who burns the Koran, the punishment, according to Islam, is death, is that correct?

A: If you burn the Koran, which is an insult, then the answer is clearly yes.

Q: You sat in prison for threatening [?] and the Prime Minister, now one of the [?] says that you have threatened him again. Is that correct?

A: No, that is not correct. He can go the way of the courts and try to prove that.

Q: But that man who has burned the Koran, would it be right that he loses his life even though he lives in Norway?

A: I know absolutely that he has committed a criminal offense where the punishment is death.
The responsibility for carrying out the punishment is on the Ummah, our Muslim brotherhood (Ummah).
Regardless if he lives in Norway or if he is Barack Obama. I am not myself threatening the person. I am telling you what is stated in the law. I have told you what is in the Koran and in the Hadith. I have not pointed at one specific person and said “You we must kill.”

Q: One of those who burned a Koran is afraid because somebody who listens to you might want to kill him. Because you have said that that is the punishment according to the Koran, isn’t there the risk that somebody would listen to you?

A: He must fear the Somalis, the Indonesians, the Africans, the Chechens – anybody who follows the Koran. He doesn’t have to be afraid of me, but will have to fear – the crime he has committed and fear that his punishment will be executed.

Q: Doesn’t that mean that you, with your religious interpretations, as a matter of fact sentence him to death, even if you won’t personally do the deed then somebody else will do it?

A: Not only those who listen to me. Anybody who knows of his punishment can kill him. Anybody. We will defend our religion with your own blood. Our only limits are limits of blood, limits made of explosives. Those who insult our religion must know that one of us will die. Those who insult our religion and our honor must understand that this is a matter of life and death.

Q: But would you be satisfied if this man gets killed?

A: Yes, I would send a gift to the person who kills him. Why wouldn’t I be happy about that?

Q: Does that mean that you are happy about the attack on Charlie Hebdo in France and also the attack against Lars Vilks in Denmark?

A: I know little about the attack in Denmark. But of course I am happy about what happened in France.

Q: Those who attacked Charlie Hebdo, how would you describe them?

A: They were defending their honor, they were defending their holiness.

Q: Those who attacked Charlie Hebdo in France, where they heroes?

A: Yes, of course. They where Jihadists.

Q: Would you wish to also find heroes like that in Norway?

A: No, I don’t hope for that. Not because I live in Norway, but because France deserve it. But if the Scandinavians also go down the same path as France, then they would deserve it.

Q: If, for example an artist draws a Muhammad cartoon in Norway, for the first time, that is, the first one to make it, would it then be all right for an Islamist to find that person and blw himself up to kill the cartoonist?

A: It is not I who gives permission to do this. But the cartoonist would have become an infidel warrior whom it is then permitted to kill. Still, explosives must not be used as it could also then kill innocents.

Q: But if he is alone then that is OK?

A: Wipe him out, wipe him out. Because he has stepped on our dignity our principles and our belief, he will have to die. Those who do not respect 30% of the earth’s population (Muslims) have no right to live.

Q: But there are also Norwegian newspapers and TV stations amongst others, who have published some of these cartoons!

A: It is the first action that matters. For example, when Jyllands-Posten published those despicable cartoons in 2005 in Denmark, then those are the ones that count. Later 13 other countries who also published the drawings to lessen the pressure on Denmark. This is also not the right thing to do but still is the first action that deserves a reaction. We live in an open time. Those who mock our religion have to know that we are not like the Jews – who keep silent and bow down before international “drawing-terror”. No. We will die for our religion and we live for our religion. Nothing is more holy than our religion. Those who insult our religion must know that we will meet them with our bombs. There will be no indulgence, no understanding or negotiations in this case. We do not live for the sake of our own lives, we do not live for our wives. We live only for our religion.

Q: Is it good that Norwegian Islamic youth travel abroad to strengthen both their belief but also to learn fighting skills in order to fight for Islam?

A: Youth, girls and boys who take off to do Jihad should carefully consider and study the fighting, and the area he is going what he wishes to accomplish there. Then he should go. And if he goes he should not regret it. If he comes back after six months then he would be looked upon with suspicion even if he just went down to be a street sweeper. Those who leave to do Jihad must not return but have to stay. If he comes back, there will be lots of trouble and difficulties for Muslims and international intelligence will scrutinize him. And the pressure on the Muslims here will increase. I don’t support that.

Q: The war that right now is happening in Syria and Iraq, is it important?

A: Yes, of course it is important. What is happening in Syria is right. The people want to remove the old regime which has done criminal things nobody had ever done before. The West stood silent and watched while their consciences were either dead or on vacation. So the only real thing for Syria is Jihad, despite what the West might think.

Q: How important is the establishment of a Caliphate with a Caliph that is of Muhammad’s own family?

A: This is an important point which I do no think the West fully understands. Some politicians understand but they do not really wish to understand. And that is that Islam is not like Christianity. Our Islam is a political movement. The Bible is not the same as the Koran. The Koran has 500 verses about politics and ruling, about its Sharia laws and its justice system. You don’t find that in the Bible. There is a big difference; therefore we cannot in Islam separate politics on the one side and religion on the other. Religion and politics go hand in hand in Islam. So, the establishment of a Caliphate is both a legal and a religious event. From the deepest part of our religion. What is happening in Syria where Dr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed the establishment of a Caliphate, a regime the West fears. Two important points about al-Baghdadi: Firstly, Obama and all who are with him fear the Caliphate because we Muslims support it, right from Indonesia to Morocco, from Chechnya to South Africa if we think he is the rightful Caliph. Because that would mean that the old borders are wiped out. The Sykes-Picot-line that we do not acknowledge.

Q: Are you ready to swear allegiance to the Caliph?

A: I am not yet ready. This is because I don’t know him and the Caliphate well enough. Which rules they follow. In our religious books there are seven conditions for a Caliphate. But if I recognize him as the Caliph then yes, I would swear allegiance to him in front of the Norwegian parliament and I would endure and accept all sorts of reactions from the rest of the world.

Q: Do you think that this Caliphate or another Caliphate will take over dominion of the world?

A: Not the whole world. But I think that within the next 20 years we will again have our Caliphate. And it will play a big role in the international community. I mean that our Islamic community (Ummah) has reached 70%. We need then only 30%, and in my opinion we will reach this within 20-25 years. God willing, then we will our own Islamic state which everybody will have to swear allegiance to whether the West likes it or not.

Freedom of speech was won for criticism of religious authority.
Without that freedom, all other freedoms will be labeled as a religious matter and will be lost to us.
Criticizing religion, and even ridiculing it, is not just a freedom. It is a profound obligation.

Already the fact that not one original version from the Quran is today available makes it impossible to find out the original teaching and what has been added by other humans. The Quran was recorded on tablets, bones, and the wide, flat ends of date palm fronds. Most suras were in use amongst early Muslims since they are mentioned in numerous sayings by both Sunni and Shia sources, relating Muhammad's use of the Quran as a call to Islam, the making of prayer and the manner of recitation. However, the Quran did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. There is agreement among scholars that Muhammad himself did not write down the revelation. More information about the history of the Quran can get found at WikiPedia.

Nobody needs to wonder himself that such people like Mullah Krekar are not getting welcomed in the Western World. Such people are only depress the hospitality underfoot.

Which people the Muslims are get shown in their deeds and war crimes. They have even destroyed in the last days the truck convoy which should bring help to the innocent people from the Syrian conflict. The trucks have been marked with the Red Crescent and Red Cross. Even their own people are not counting for these power horny leaders who are only using the religious beliefs of the crowd in their own favor. In reality they are nothing else than barbarians.

This story shows what happens if journalists are copying from each other, without turning on their brain. Some stupid journalists and editors think of the headline and want to make money. Unfortunately, what sounds too good to be true it usually is. Readers need to use their own brain and not believe the content only for the reason that it is written somewhere. We find in the international press the following news:

• CNN: Islamists attack Radiohead fans at Turkish release party
  A group of men attacked fans at a Radiohead listening party Friday in Istanbul, apparently angry the fans were drinking during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
  By Gul Tuysuz and Merieme Arif, CNN
  Updated 2237 GMT (0637 HKT) June 18, 2016
  
  
• Dailymail/Mail Online: Shocking video shows mob of 20 Islamist extremists attacking guests at a Radiohead party for drinking during holy month of Ramadan in Turkey
  Mob stormed record store in Istanbul during live stream event on Friday
  They yelled 'I'm going to kill you, I'll burn this place with you inside'
  A man in the video said they broke beer bottles over his friend's head
  At lest two people were injured at the event, according to local media
  By EKIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE
  PUBLISHED: 15:42 GMT, 18 June 2016 | UPDATED: 16:30 GMT, 18 June 2016
  
  
• Business Standard: Islamists attack Radiohead fans in Turkey
  They trashed the store, hurled insults and broke up the release party of the album A Moon Shaped Pool
  AFP/PTI | Istanbul
  June 18, 2016 Last Updated at 16:07 IST
  
  
• Daily News: Radiohead fans assaulted in Istanbul for 'drinking alcohol' during Ramadan
  A group of 20 assailants carrying sticks and bottles entered a record store in central Istanbul on June 17, beating up store owners and Radiohead fans who were at a listening party of the band's new album, A Moon Shaped Pool.
  ISTANBUL June/18/2016
  
  
• Newsweek: RADIOHEAD FANS ATTACKED IN ISTANBUL FOR SERVING ALCOHOL DURING RAMADAN
  At least one person was injured when extremists attacked a Radiohead listening party in Istanbul Friday.
  BY NICHOLAS LOFFREDO ON 6/18/16 AT 11:48 AM
  
  
• Aljazeera: Turkish Radiohead fans attacked for 'consuming alcohol'
  Music group offers "love and support" to Istanbul fans beaten for listening to music and drinking beer during Ramadan.
  Turkish media reports say a group of men stormed a record store in Istanbul and attacked fans of a British pop group who were attending an album-listening event, claiming that they were "drinking beer during Ramadan".
  
  
• Die Welt: "Alkohol im Ramadan? Wir fackeln euch ab!"
  Eine Gruppe junger Leute wird in Istanbul brutal attackiert - weil sie im Ramadan Bier trinkt. Die Tat ereignet sich just nahe dem Stadtteil, der Inbegriff ist für das säkulare Leben in der Türkei.
  Von Deniz Yücel, Istanbul, Türkei-Korrespondent

The problem is only that the whole story is nothing else than a fake. By taking a look at the following picture you'll recognize the fake too:

• At the above picture it seems that the apparent victim has a lot of blood on his clothing and some on his body.
  
  
• The apparent victim has no visible wounds. For this reason the blood can come only from his nose or his mouth, but there you don't see any traces.
  
  
• The picture shows the apparent victim smiling. With such an amount of blood loss after a 4 minute fight, a real victim would not be able to smile because his face would be swollen and each muscle would hurt so much that he would cry with a broken nose and with some lost teeth.
  
  
• Drying blood has a darker color especially by such an illumination like the picture got taken.
  
  
• That the fluid which should be the blood is nothing else than a water and color mixture gets shown edge of the bloodstains. Bloodstains have everywhere the same color, but in the picture are the edges of the bloodstains much brighter than in the center. This shows that colored water got used for producing the fake picture.
  
  
• Real blood clots fast - within a minute or two. At the picture is it still wet. That shows that it is not real blood what we see.
  
  
• You don't see one hit by watching the Youtube video. All what you see is some people standing at the door and you hear some sound. What is happening outside is only an illusion.
  
  
• Even the people blocking the view of the camera by standing in front of the door are in a civilized country a case for the state attorney for the reason of failure to aid performance.

The video and the news posting have only one reason, which got into the news too. This reason and the result can get found at

abc news: After Turkey Radiohead Attack, Police Tear Gas Protesters
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ISTANBUL — Jun 18, 2016, 3:38 PM ET

Only stupid ones and hooligans are participating at demonstrations for no reason!