My Opinion

Muhammad clearly stated that people of other religions have to pay a tax to Muslims, as a reminder of their subordinate status. The tax gets called Jizya. This removes a previous verse saying that there is "no compulsion in religion" and it destroys every pretext that Islam is only a religion and not a political system.

According to the esteemed historian Ibn Kathir, Muhammad established the Jizya as a means to compensate for the "converted" Meccans for their loss of income after the total ban on other religions from the Kaaba. This had ended the century-old tradition of pilgrimages by people of all faiths during the sacred months that the local economy was dependent on:

When Allah decreed that the polytheists should be prevented from approaching the Sacred Mosque, whether in the pilgrimage or at other times, that Quraysh said they would be deprived of the commercial activity that took place during the pilgrimage, and that they would therefore suffer financial loss. And so Allah compensated them for that by ordering them to battle the people of the scriptures so that they either accepted Islam or paid the jizya tax ("being in a state of submission") Ibn Kathir Vol 4. p.1

This practice enabled Muhammad and his successors to finance Islamic military expansion and the lifestyle of the religious class by blackmailing non-believers. The following passage continues from above:

I comment that the Messenger of God therefore decided to battle the Byzantines. This was because they were the people nearest to him and those most appropriate to invite to the truth because of their proximity to Islam and to those who believed in it. God Almighty had stated, "0 you who believe, fight those unbelievers who are near you. Let them see severity in you; and know that God is with those who are pious (9:123)" (Ibn Kathir Vol. 4 p. 1)

In the year 630, the Prophet of Islam marched an army into the Christian countries, the so-called "Battle of Tabuk". In fact, there was no battle because there was no enemy army. The inhabitants were surprised. Some were killed, and the survivors were forced to pay protection money to Muhammad. (Clear abolition of the previous rule of "no compulsion in religion", which the modern apologists so gladly repeat).

Only eleven years after Muhammad's death, his companions swept across North Africa, spearheading those who did not submit to Islamic rule. In the year 643, Tripoli was conquered, and the Christian Berbers were forced to give their wives and children as slaves to the Muslims to satisfy the Jizya.

Like the mafia, the Muslims told their involuntary donors that they would pay for "protection" - although the main threat to their livelihood and their safety is, of course, from their benefactors, the Muslims.

This lucrative extortion was practiced over the centuries and was a part of the brutal Ottoman rule over Christians, Jews and others. The Serbs of Europe were particularly hard hit and often had to surrender their children to satisfy the drivers. The children were then converted to Islam and trained as jihad warriors for use in foreign campaigns (the so-called Janissaries).

In India, the women and children of impoverished Hindus were also taken away by Muslim publicans until the 17th century, and sold to slavery to meet the demands of Jizya. For many, the only way to lose their families was to convert to Islam. This immense discrimination is how Islam made interventions in populations that had nothing to do with it (as an Islamic cleric confirmed in 2013).

From a technical point of view, there is no innocent non-Muslim in Islam, which also makes these utterly cruel condemnations of "terror against innocent people" useless. There is a basis for the protection of "people of the book" (originally Jews and Christians), but later extended to Hindus, when the Muslim leaders realized that killing them was less profitable than their taxation). "Dhimmis" are completely under the rule of the Muslims, renounce all rights and commit themselves to finance the Muslim expansion. Unfortunately, this was not enough to spare religious minorities extreme persecution and massacres.

Traditionally, the collection of Jizya occurs at a ceremony designed to emphasize the subordinate status of the non-muslim, where the subject is often performed in a humiliating manner. M. A. Khan reports that some Islamic clerics encouraged the tax collectors to spit during the process into the mouth of Hindu dhimmis. He also quotes the popular Sufi teacher Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

"The honor of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the unbelievers (kafirs). One who respects kafirs dishonors Muslims... The real purpose of levying the Jizya on them is to humiliate them... [and] they remain terrified and trembling." Islamic Jihad

The British preacher Anjem Choudary points out that "the normal situation for [Muslims] is to take money from the Kuffar" (at that time, he encouraged believers in the UK to abandon their work and benefit from public advantages). The Koran also confirms that the collection of Jizya is the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. The verses that commission this (9:5) appear much later than the verse that there is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256), which means that it takes precedence and abolishes the earlier verse. For this reason, Islamic purists like Hamas and the Taliban want to reinstate Jizya. One of the first orders of the self-proclaimed caliphate, formulated by the Islamic state in 2014, was to impose Jizya by force on Christians who refused to embrace Islam.

An Egyptian cleric told on the TV channel al-Hafaz in 2013 that American foreign aid was a form of Jizya and "owed" to them. He also believed that Muslims should demand more money from the Americans, his words: "we can leave them alone". Only when the Jizya is paid will America be "allowed to perceive her own interests, which are allowed to them by the Muslims."

Contemporary Muslim apologists often use the earlier "no compulsion in religion" verse to portray Islam as a peaceful religion. They give very reluctantly that the Jizya is a punishment for not Muslims. They usually fall back on the assertion that the Jizya is merely a tax paid to the government - and that this "tax" is imposed on religious status and is almost always a much greater burden than for Muslim citizens . The interesting thing about this rhetorical strategy is that it directly contradicts every accusation that Islam is only a religion and not a political system.

Tolerance in Islam is not free. The Jizya is the tax that must be paid by non-Muslims to exercise their religion. Under Islamic law, people are to be killed or enslaved when the money is not paid or paid.

Unlike the fact that Muslims have not killed all non-Muslims in their territory, there is very little else that they are proof that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam dominates (as in the Middle East and Pakistan), religious minorities suffer brutal persecution and have little support. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe), the threat potential is high due to the violence of the Muslim minority as long as their demands are not fulfilled. Every situation seems to be a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and can be found in the Koran, the Holy Scripture of the Muslims. Few verses of the most Islamic sacred text can be interpreted as corresponding to the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. They are the early "Meccan" verses, which are obviously lifted by later ones. They can serve as an example that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have sufficient power and are in the minority. As soon as this situation changes, their behavior also changes.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Koran really says. They prefer a closer interpretation closer to Jewish-Christian ethics. Some ignore harder passages. Others reach the "textual context" over various surprises to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message corresponds to their personal moral preference. Although the Koran itself claims to be clear and complete, these advocates speak of the "risks" of the attempt to interpret verses without their "help". These idiots attribute to an omniscient and omnipotent God that the latter is incapable of expressing himself clearly and clearly so that everyone can understand it. But the truth is elsewhere. The Koran was not written by Muhammad himself, since Muhammad himself was an illiterate, but by his successors. This also contains the reason why the Koran contradicts itself. It was written by man and man, and therefore contains the power of the ruling class and not the words of God.

The violent verses of the Koran played a key role in the very real massacres and genocide. This includes the brutal murder of a hundred million Hindus over five centuries, beginning around 700 AD with Mahmud of Ghaznis of bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islamic Genghis Khan) murdered an innumerable number, only to defend their temples from destruction.

Buddhism was almost exterminated by the Indian subcontinent. Jews and Christianity suffered the same fate, even slower, in areas conquered by Muslim armies. Including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people, is despised by Muslims and can hardly survive in modern Iran.

Violence is so deeply rooted in Islam that it has never really ceased to be in war, whether it be with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, besieged cities, massacred the men, raped their wives, enslaved their children and took the property of others other than his own. On several occasions, he rejected offers of capitulation from the beleaguered inhabitants and even murdered captives. He inspired his followers to fight, if they did not feel that it was right to fight, he promised them slaves, spoils, and threatened them with hell. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women, who were caught in battle. This usually happened the day their husbands and family members were massacred.

It is important to emphasize that, in most cases, Muslim armies have undergone aggressive assault wars and dramatic military conquests in the name of religion by the actual followers of Muhammad in the decades after his death.

The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a city should be destroyed (men got killed, women and children ended up as slaves) when defending themselves and resisting Islamic hegemony. Although modern advocates of Islam often argue that Muslims are only "attacking in self-defense," this oxymoron is clearly disproved by the reports of Islamic historians and others reporting from the time of Muhammad.

Some modern scholars are more honest than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terrorist attacks against Western goals by noting that there is no civilian population at a time of war:

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected... In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely extinguished five years after the arrival of Muhammad in Medina. Their leader decided to stay neutral as their city was besieged by a Meccan army, which was to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe did not kill anyone from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Mohammad after the Meccans were repulsed. But the Prophet of Islam had decapitated every male member of the Qurayza tribe, enslaved every woman and child, even raped one of the prisoners themselves (which Muslim supporters could call "marriage on the same day").

One of the most revered modern scholars of Islam, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly condemns jihad:

In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.

Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.

The widely acclaimed dictionary of Islam defines jihad as:

A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims ...

Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141:

The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.

Dr Salah al-Sawy, the top member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, declared in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," and reaffirmed legitimacy The cause of violence of Islamic rule - tied only by the ability to succeed. (Source)

Muhammad's mistake to leave a clear line of succession led to an eternal internal war after his death. Those who had known him best fought to prevent distant tribes from leaving Islam and returning to their favorite religion (ridda or "apostasy wars"). The spiral of violence continued to turn.

Early converted Meccans fought later as an enmity had developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar in Medina. Finally, there was also a violent struggle within Muhammad's family between his favorite wife and his favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left mutual traces on the shafts of the Shiites and Sunnis.

The most alien and untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a religion of peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual oppression, war ...) is equally applied to Islam, the verdict would be devastating.

Islam never gives what it has conquered, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does he make excuses nor does he make real efforts in moral progress. Islam is the least open to dialogue and mostly self-absorbing. Islam is convinced of its own perfection and prevents brutal self-examination and suppresses criticism immediately.

This is the reason why the Koran verses are so dangerous. They are given the weight of the divine command.

While Muslim terrorists, like everything else in their holy book, literally take, they understand that Islam is incomplete without jihad. The moderates offer little to disagree with their personal opinions. What do they really have? Speaking of peace and love one can win ignorant. But if every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks about Allah's hatred of non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced to convert or subjugate, it is hardly surprising that the sympathy for terrorism is so deeply rooted in the broad community. Unfortunately, this also works if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Also scholars such as Ibn Khaldun, one of the most respected philosophers in Islam, has understood that "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". Many other Muslims are either unaware or intentionally ignorant of the lack of verses in universal non-violence in the Koran. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others.

In the West it is typical for the faithful that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is superior in every respect. They are then surprised and embarrassed to find out that this is disproved by the Koran and the bloody history of the emergence of Islam.

Others simply accept violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was condemned to have stabbed her daughter because she was too westernized. A friend of the family came to their defense and clarified the jury that they did not understand the "culture" and claimed that the father was following "the religion" and said that the couple "had to discipline their daughter or lose respect." (Source).

In 2011, the Palestinian terrorists who were expressly responsible for the brutal murder of civilians, women and children in the name of Allah were rewarded by the Saudi king with a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca. Not a single Muslim voice rose to protest.

The most prestigious Islamic university in today's world is the al-Azhar University of Cairo. While the university is very fast with the condemnation of secular Muslims criticizing religion, it has never condemned the Islamic state (IS) as a group of infidels, despite the terrible slaughter in the name of Allah. When asked about Why, the Great Imam of the University, Ahmed al-Tayeb declared: "Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day -- even if he commits every atrocity."

The Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the God of political correctness, or to search for reasons to degrade other religions to the level of Islam, just to avoid the existential truth that this is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Koran literally ... and too many others who care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

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.

In Germany, the church receives 19 billion Euro annually from the state. Why? Because they are churches and religions in this country have always been financed by taxpayers, although their assets are estimated to be about 500 billion euros (all property, land, property, etc.).

The Islamic associations are now yelling: STOP STOP, NOW I SPEECH! And also demand money and are immediately screaming discrimination, if they do not get it. Since the two Christian churches are trying to prevent any debate about the legality of this welfare-State benefits, they figure dairymaid-like, it is still most profitable for them if you mass tax money also the associations of Islam get (they don't pay it finally), that they voluntarily give up "their" money.

This is the main reason why the Islamic associations are pushing open doors, and the churches are at the forefront of equating Islam in every respect before they give up billions of euros in taxpayers' money. This also means that the Islam in the schools will be that imams and Islamic religion teachers will get financed by the government and of course, that they eventually get their own Islamic labor law and legally covered, who is not a Muslim, which simply doesn't get the jobs allocated by them in their institutions. Against this nothing can get done otherwise the Christian churches will loose their privileges too.

The state is thus trying to breed its own Euro-Islam, which he believes he can direct. Only the Islamic associations, however, are firmly linked with the foreign countries, with partly anti-democratic countries and governments, which are only too willing to use this privilege to subvert and influence. And also here the state will not intervene, because he would tangle in this case with the churches, which don't want to renounce no cent of tax money. Anyway others are paying it and with the often negative effects the population must come alone clear. If not, they are supposed to be "Islamophile" or "Islamophobia", in order to make them guilty and subordinate intolerance.

Even if Christians do not like it, the churches are mainly responsible for the fact that there is an Islamization. And with Islamization, we do not understand that all are forced to Islam, but that Islam is going to clash all the privileges that the churches already have. Including the non-criticism of their practices. The only rational way against Islamization and the excessive influence of foreign Islamic governments is therefore secularization and rethinking the privileges of the religions. All religions!

The bottom line it looks namely, that as Turkey gets here a big co-right and this co-right get even paid from the German tax payers, because many associations of Islam by the dominance of the Turkish members are Turkey enslaved. Germany, however, does not have any co-right in Turkey and other Islamic countries. In such a case it would get spoken about colonialism, Hitler and any right of scrutiny gets rejected.

As long as the churches are only keen on the tax money, they will always look away, whenever everywhere else Christians are getting persecuted, while they themselves contribute to this, that Islamic groups, who are advocating the Christian persecution in their homelands are rising their influence.

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.