My Opinion

The Quran makes a great deal of cases about itself. It says that it is the ideal and upright disclosure of God to man, and that it is important to the point that it has existed endlessly on tablets in paradise.

Faultfinders assert that it is a seriously masterminded gathering of citations from one man, go off as the expression of God to a guileless crowd in a primitive society. At the point when blamed for being a lunatic, for instance, Muhammad would go into his tent and afterward develop with a pearl 'from Allah' like, "You (Muhammad) are not a madman" (68:2). The general population would then take this as evidence that he was most certainly not.

A few Muslims say that the Quran would not be accepted by such a large number of today in the event that it were not valid. In any case, conviction does not make truth – especially when it must be indecently implemented with segregation, mutilating and demise.

Truth be told, most Muslims have never perused the Quran, a book they (in any case) will murder and pass on over. Their conviction depends on what they get notification from different Muslims, especially as they are growing up.

A target peruser would probably reason that the Quran is less a result of awesome root than Muhammad's creative energy and the conditions in which he got himself.

Here are ten quick cases:

1. As specified, regardless of being a little book, the Quran should be the immortal, unchangeable expression of God. Why might God utilize valuable and significant space on the individual existence of one man - a similar one who happens to portray the "disclosure"?

   Consider verse 33:53:

   O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, except when leave is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without sitting for a talk. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth.

   That must be deified on a tablet in paradise?

   Significant bits of the Quran (especially suras 33 and 66) are similarly self-serving and address the sex, cash or regard from his spouses to which Muhammad is entitled. Additionally, a few such sections are redundant.

   Couldn't Allah have thought about a more critical message for humanity than letting us know (a few times over) that Muhammad may lay down with a boundless number of ladies?

2. The Quran says that composed duplicates of the Bible (Torah and Gospel) existed at the season of Muhammad (29:46, 3:3, 3:78) and a considerable number verses "affirm" that those duplicates are valid (regardless of the possibility that the Jews and Christians were later blamed for misconstruing them "with their tongues"). Parts of the Quran clearly depend on the Bible for culmination and numerous verses demand that the Word of God can't be changed or debased.

   Here's the issue:

   There are several New Testament original copies that pre-date the season of Muhammad, all found at various times and better places by various individuals. There are hundreds a greater amount of the Torah. All concur splendidly with the current adaptation of the Bible, which repudiates the Quran.

   In the meantime, not a solitary duplicate or part of either the Torah or Gospel from any period has ever been discovered which veers off in a way that concurs with the Quran.

   How is that the "genuine" Bible - the one that as far as anyone knows affirms the Quran - never made due in any shape, while such a large number of "defiled" duplicates did?

   Is it safe to say that it isn't more probable that Muhammad basically made it up as he came and later blamed Christians and Jews as a main story for his own particular missteps?

3. Not at all like the Old Testament prophets, Muhammad described negligible safeguards of his claim as a prophet (and even his own particular rational soundness) that are strikingly excess.

   For instance, no less than 8 entries (83:13, 27:68, 46:17, 16:24, 6:25, 26:137, 25:5 and 23:83) say that "Allah's messenger" is blamed for rehashing "tales of the ancients," yet that any individual who doesn't trust him will smolder in Hell. Is there any good reason why allah wouldn't simply say it once and afterward utilize the rest of the space for something all the more illuminating?

   Isn't this a greater amount of what one would anticipate from an excessively cautious poseur than from an interminable disclosure of God to man?

4. The Quran says that it is "clear", yet then says somewhere else (3:7) that lone Allah comprehends the importance of a few verses (which makes one wonder of why they are there). It says that it clarifies "all things" (16:89), however then advises Muslims to take after the case of Muhammad (33:21) - without saying what that is.

   In down to earth terms, it is difficult to comprehend the Quran without references to outer sources, for example, the Hadith and Sira (generally laid out in voluminous commentaries). However these sources are regularly conflicting and never concurred on.

   Indeed, even in the Quran, passionate Muslim researchers induce drastically extraordinary implications from similar verses. For instance, most elucidations of 38:33 say that Solomon sliced at his own steeds, disjoining their legs and necks. Notwithstanding, some contemporary interpreters, including a standout amongst the most regarded (Yusuf Ali) say that Solomon truly just ignored his hand their bodies affectionately.

   Additional disturbing (and shockingly more run of the mill) are verses like 5:33, which orders killing the individuals who "wage war on Allah"... without truly clarifying what this implies.

5. The Quran tells Muslim men that they may engage in sexual relations with ladies caught as slaves. Far more terrible: the entry is rehashed in four better places. By differentiation, there is not a solitary verse that advises Muslims that they are to supplicate five times each day.
   
   

6. The Quran confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Aaron (and Moses) in Sura 19.

   In spite of tormented rational theology, the least difficult and most evident clarification is that Muhammad was mixed up. This would likewise clarify why the Quran that he described wrongly expresses that Christians revere the Virgin Mary as a divine being (5:75, 5:116) when they never have.

7. Regardless of being a moderately little book, the Quran contains pointless repetitions. Moses is specified 136 times. A few sections of misquoted Bible stories are almost word-for-word indistinguishable (e.g. Suras 20 and 26).

   Why might God squander space saying basically a similar thing in regards to something dark when he could have offered clear good standards about peace, resistance (or sex with youngsters)?

8. Such an extensive amount the Quran is committed to repetitive cases and dangers about Muhammad's status as a prophet, yet there is not a solitary unique good esteem. No place does it advise men not to assault ladies or forgo sex with kids. Actually, it gives men consent to assault their slaves and suggests that sex with kids is passable (verse 65:4).

   Wouldn't a flawless book show consummate ethical quality?

9. Verse 5:3 says that the Islamic religion was "perfected" and "finished" on "this day", yet 249 more verses tail it, including two extra Suras (9 and 110).

   Additionally, how could the Quran be interminable if sometime in the past it was not finished?

10. Verse 27:91 peruses "For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this city." If these are the expressions of Allah, then it would imply that somebody is "commanding" him to serve another god. The verse just bodes well if Muhammad is talking from his own particular point of view.

    (This would likewise clarify why "Allah" guarantees to Allah in no less than seven different verses).

Timeless... unchangeable... perfect?
Mmm... maybe not.

A large-scale military campaign against the Islamic State (Daesh or IS) is planned for Mosul. The terrorist militia should be expelled from their last stronghold in the Iraq. The inhabitants of the city are now faced with the choice: If they stay, they expect air raids and a possible siege. If they try to flee, they would get threatened punishment by the fighters of the IS.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians are preparing for the offensive, which is being planned. There are still discussions about the execution at the international level: Iraq rejects the participation of Turkish troops. There is a consensus that the action against the Islamic State will get carried out in Mosul.

As the British "Guardian" reports, the IS keeps the residents from leaving the city by checkpoints along the exit roads. The houses of those who had already escaped were blown up, as punishment and deterrence for others.

The escape itself is life-threatening and often means a journey through minefields. Those who remain must be prepared for air raids and street fightings. Also a possible siege of the big city threatens, and last but not least the danger, as a human protective shield to be abused, as the IS has already done in other conflicts.

The Muslim cowards from the Daesh need some civilians, women, children, etc. where they can hide themselves behind. Such people don't have any honor and they will end up in hell for getting tortured from the Satan instead of playing with 72 virgins. What else can you expect from the "peaceful" Islam? In the Quran is murdering, men slaughtering, rapes, slavery, etc. of unbelievers allowed. But in this case the Muslim cowards are using innocent Muslim civilians, women and children as protective shield.

Iraqi soldiers and Peshmerga prepare themselves before Mosul. IS fighters should have retreated already in residential areas. "The children are crazy because the US jets bombed IS positions in residential areas. The sound is terrible, the windows are broken, the whole house is shaking and people are hysterical", the "Guardian" quotes a man from Mosul, who recently escaped with his family. In Mosul itself, people prepare themselves by building makeshift shelters and collecting food supplies.

While the Iraqi Mosul is still waiting for the big offensive, Syrian rebels with Turkish support have already launched an operation against the Daesh in Dabik. The Islamists there were preparing for an "apocalyptic battle" on Saturday, reported the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. More than 1,200 IS fighters are also on the road from other fronts to "defense Dabiks". Dabik, controlled by the Terrorist militia, lies north of Aleppo near the Turkish border. According to reports, Turkey is involved with tanks and fighting planes against the terrorists.

The 3000-inhabitant village is not of strategic, but of high symbolic importance: According to an Islamic tradition, an important battle between the Muslims and their opponents will take place here at the end of time. Not least because of its ideological importance, the IS named its English-language propaganda magazine after the city.

Dabik also plays an important role in Turkish history. Here, the Ottoman Sultan Selim I defeated the Egyptian Mamelucke Sultan, laying the foundations for the conquest of the Arab world.

With the support of Turkey and the USA, the rebels recently took several villages near Dabik.

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.

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Iran about the Hajj, the annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, is looking like a kindergarten game than a serious issue between educated people. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the leaders of Saudi Arabia "unbeliever", a commander put the Kingdom on the same level with the arch-enemy Israel.

Already this fact shows that the self-appointed leaders of the Islamic religion cannot get taken serious. This leaders are using only the religion from the crowd for their own favors and by doing this they forget their own teachings. They are clearly stating with their behavior that their own rules are only valid for masses but not for themselves.

It also shows that these leaders are not able learn from the mistakes of others and only want to extend their own claim to power. The history from other and older religions shows clearly the results for such a conduct. For example have been the religious wars in Europe a few hundred years ago, which got started for the reason of intrigues done by the church. It resulted in a strict separation between church and state without any power of the religion. Some countries have even forbidden the religion.

As long as the crowd will believe their power-hungry leaders, there will no peace in their area. As soon the crowd will start to use their own God given brain such irresponsible leaders will have an easy game with their own propaganda. Maybe it will take a few hundred years until the crowd is ready to send their stupid leaders to the counterpart of God, however they will call him. Not one religion teaches that unbelievers needs to get killed. That is only an invention from irresponsible, stupid and power-hungry people. Don't forget such people have copied the holy scripts over more than 1,000 years and changed the content to their own favor. Normal people could even not read or write during the old time.

Khamenei, the religious and political leader of Iran called on to rethink the management of the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca by Saudi Arabia. He argued on Monday, among others, the death of thousands of pilgrims in the past year. In a stampede over 2,000 people were killed. Moreover Khamenei berated the leaders of Saudi Arabia as infidels and murderers. "The Muslims should the blasphemous and (world powers) dependent nature of the Saudis recognize world," Khamenei said in his annual message of Hajj.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are regional rivals. Iran considers itself as a protector of the Shiites, Saudi Arabia as a protector of the Sunnis. The leadership in Tehran supported the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the royal family in Riyadh, however, the rebels fighting against Assad.

Riyadh broke off diplomatic relations with Tehran after applied protesters stormed the embassy of the country in Tehran. Previously, 47 people in Saudi Arabia got executed as "terrorists", among them the prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr. His beheading sparked massive tensions between the two Islamic powers.

The source from the conflict shows exactly that mighty ones are using the religion for their own favor and are thinking that they have the same level as God - masters of life and death - while they are even using the real terrorists for increasing their own influence. Do you really think that you'll meet such people in paradise? Such people will end up in the hell - in the torture chamber from the devil.

Nobody is asking you here to change your believes. You'll are only asked to use your own brain and rethink about the basic teaching from each holy script, where is written that you shall live in peace, accept the opinion from others and don't kill.