My Opinion

nothing but my opinion

Why the Quran is Not from Allah: 10 Reasons

QuranThe 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.

 

"Alarming" - Vienna: Every 3rd Muslim places religion above laws

Vienna, St. Stephen's CathedralThe results of a youth study commissioned by the City of Vienna on the topic of identity and radicalization are alarming: 27 percent of Muslim respondents reject the West and make their religion through the laws in force in Austria. Homosexuals and Jews are also denied.

On behalf of the City of Vienna, young people aged between 14 and 24 were interviewed. More than half of the young people are Muslim, 36 percent are Christians. There are two similarities: They are getting accustomed in youth centers and are from socially weak families. Therefore, the study is also not representative for Vienna. The numbers are speaking for themselves anyway.

59 percent of Muslims reject homosexuality. Among the Catholics there are 24%, the Christian-Orthodox 50%.

A total of 33% were negative about Jews. Among Muslims, anti-Semitism is seriously high (47%).

Female adolescents evaluate according to the survey of rare and less strong than male. Young people with higher education are also more tolerant. Clear correlations shown therefore between the tendencies of prejudice and concern for the future of vocational and scholastic education.

One focus of the study was the radicalization of the Muslim teenagers. 27% therefore sympathize with jihadism, affirmative violence and hostile to the West.

Should someone soothe that it is only 27%? These are those who are cared for in youth centers, how does it look with those who are not looked after? They openly reject the West. Why are not their applications for asylum rejected? Why these stupid Muslims have been going to a country which they hate and not respect the culture? What are they doing in Europe? What attracts them to the "unbelievers"?

It looks like these uneducated people don't know that they have to accept the local law and order of their host country. They like to take the system with them from which they have been escaping. It looks like they are so perverse and in need to get suppressed and cannot handle any freedom.

The city councilor Sandra Frauenberger said: "Young people talk about things, which they have not yet grown. No risk out of them, on the contrary, they are endangered. We must give protection".

In view of the results, Frauenberger now wants to consider how to reach those affected even more - so that they can defend themselves against the calls of radical adults. The instruments already exist, they should now be sharpened. Thus, topics such as anti-Semitism and homophobia are to be dealt with more strongly by young people.

In addition, young people who were previously difficult to reach, will be addressed by using their community. Especially young people from Chechnya or Afghanistan fall into this group, as it was called. The contact with the parents should get also intensified. The work has been coordinated since 2014 by the Viennese network for deradicalization and prevention.

27% it should be according to a much-publicized study in Vienna. So every fourth. Endangered to slide down in the violence, murder, terror, Jihad. Seduces and indoctrinated, but always voluntarily. Well, and since I now have a problem...

With the term "endangered". For example doctors without borders in war zones and areas of the disease are endangered for me. Or buddy's outdated mines. Or Red Cross workers in Iraq, in Syria. And more recently dealer in Manila.

But not every fourth Vienna Mohammedans, who whistles on integration, our culture neither accepted nor respected and is of the opinion that Islam must defend themselves against his "subjugation" by the "West" by all means. No, these people are not endangered. We are it. Their host country, their fellow citizens, their neighbors, perhaps even our friends.

Because these people, namely plain and poignant - are dangerous. This is the only correct term. But: Endangered sounds just less threatening as dangerous. And, of course, the old left-lined position is based on the fact that the victims are the perpetrators.

The survey, with the result that 27% of Muslims place religion above national laws is a confirmation of a similar survey from Germany. In Germany, naturalized migrants (i.e. German) Turkish origin were interviewed and the result was still devastating with 37%. For realists, there is no question in which direction the train will take in the future. The political leaders will find themselves again only in the history books if there will be this freedom still available.

These migrants are against the West and against the western culture. But they have no problem to take the money from unbelievers which they receive as social assistance. Send them back home if they are not happy here. Oh, yes, there the religion has already destroyed everything or is just happens now. Their rules do not work in their countries of origin (uprisings, civil war, etc.) and will also tear the Western World into the abyss.

But at some point must it even get the dumbest one, that the Western World is sitting on a powder drum where fuse is already burning a long time. The spiral of violence turns faster and faster since the Muslims arrived in the Western World.

 

The Vatican and the pact with the fascism

Pope Pius XIWith the interpretation that the Vatican was primarily critical about fascism are Pope Pius XI and historians cleaning up thoroughly.

Pope Pius XI. (1922-1939) is well known to most by his encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (English: "With Burning Concern"). The fact that he protested strongly against the discrimination against Jews is what historians call a "comforting narrative". On the contrary: "The Vatican played a central role in making the Fascist regime possible and keeping it in power," wrote a historian.

A prerequisite for investigations concerning the period under Pius XI was the opening of the Vatican archives in 2006. For more than seven years, historians have been researching there and in other archives.

An the beginning are the career and presuppositions of two men who shaped the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s: Achille Ratti, later pope Pius XI, and the fascist leader "Duce" Benito Mussolini.

Historians are portraying Pius XI. as an choleric power-man, feared by his colleagues, temper and stubborn. With these properties he was not dissimilar to the "Duce". Very vividly about the appearance of the dreaded papal temper tantrums: "Finally, he stood up and protested, screamed as loud as he could. He gasped and almost burst from anger..."

Cardinal Ratti became the head of the Roman Catholics at a time when the papacy had still not overcome one of its lowest points in history: During 1870, the church state got militarily annexed and Rome was declared to be the Italian capital. Humiliated and disempowered, the following Popes had to remain within the confines of today's Vatican state.

The First World War had overthrown Italy into a serious political and economic crisis; the socialists lost power. Mussolini, with the march to Rome in 1922, seized power. Against this background and under the impression of the October revolution in Russia, which worried about Communism throughout Europe, historians explain how the disastrous partnership between the Church and the fascists could come about.

This collaboration reached its peak in the Lateran Agreements concluded in 1929. They regulated the Constitution of the Vatican and the relations between the Church and the Italian State (Concordat). In addition, the Treaties included a financial compensation for the loss of the Church State.

Pius XI. counted on the Fascists because he hoped for the best possible protection for his church: he expected little from the traditionally close church-center party. With democracy as such, the pope did not much care about. He wanted to strengthen the Catholic Church again. Very important for him was the Catholic Action, the youth organization of his church.

Mussolini was aware about the Pope, whose intercession was politically important to him in almost one hundred percent Catholic Italy. With the help of sugar and whips, Mussolini was aware of the Pope whose intercession was politically important to him in almost one hundred percent Catholic Italy: the Fascist's leader, with the help of sugar and whips, ensured that the Fascist Party was officially friendly to Pius, who often teeth-crunching, made publicity for the Fascist Party by showing a good face to the evil game.

This did not work all the time. If the case happened that it did not work, fascist beating groups acted with brutal violence against priests and Catholic activists. They destroyed church institutions, beaten priests or forced them to drink castor oil - a perfidious and embarrassing torture which has been in vogue in Italy. Several times a foaming Pope made phone calls to Mussolini, protesting against such an action. He then Mussolini hid himself behind the alleged "People's temper" of his fascists and made demands.

But at least to a certain point, the pact also paid off for Pius XI He looked for Mussolini's support in order to prevent unpleasant book appearances and to enforce the "decent" behavior of women (for example, about offensive bathing clothes).

The Pope was silent on the anti-Semitic racial laws adopted in 1938. It was not easy for him, the racist theories from the Nazis and Fascists stood in contradiction to Christian doctrine.

In "With Burning Concern" the persecution of the Jews did not get mentioned, emphasize historians. On the other hand, the "Duce" granted the church privileges. Thus every fascist youth group had a priest, church expenses were paid with tax money, and Catholic clergymen always took a place of honor at state events.

Again and again this balance of benefits and costs threatened to tilt. On the other hand, Pius XI. Mussolini openly criticized in speeches or paused the signing of a document sulkingly. The Pope, for example, took the splendid reception which Mussolini Adolf Hitler prepared in Rome in 1938. Pius XI. Hitler and the Nazis hated Hitler's tendency to paganism, and he repeatedly complained to the Duce about the bad treatment of Catholic clergy in Germany.

There were several papal adlates for the balance between the two difficult leaders. Among them is Pietro Tacchi Venturi, an antisemitic Jesuit priest, who often served as a mediator and tried to maintain the relationship between Pope and Duce. The inglorious role of Catholic newspapers such as the Jesuit magazine "La Civilta Cattolica" also describes "The First Deputy". The paper kept bobbing against Jews and Protestants.

According to the latest findings, a papal adviser is not well off: Pius XI. Cardinal Secretary Eugenio Pacelli - his successor, Pope Pius XII. (1939-1958). Pacelli's role was that of a "system holder" in the effort to preserve Mussolini's favor. The events described in "The First Deputy" could have a definite influence on the possible canonization of Pacelli. Toward the end of his life Pius XI. Apparently, that he had miscalculated: the racial laws, which were also applied to formerly Jewish Catholics, and the massive persecution of the Jews shocked the pope.

When he turned to Mussolini, he was scorned by the fact that the Fascists would not treat the Jews as badly as the church had done in the past. Pius XI was already seriously ill. Secretly at a recent encyclical, which should contain sharper criticism of fascism and racism. But there was no more. He died on February 10, 1939.

 

Imams in Denmark are open calling Muslims to murder

If you religion teaches you to kill someone than you need to change your religion or start with yourself!

Imam Abu Bilal Ismail open called in Denmark the stoning of women who commit fornication. (Screenshot: YouTube/MEMRITVVideos)

The research of "Mosques behind the veil" ensures fierce reactions in Denmark. The television channel TV2 has recorded with hidden cameras several events in the Grimhøj mosque. The mosque is in Aarhus, the second largest city in the country, and their imams openly calling the believers to murder.

"Women who commit fornication must be put to death if they are no longer virgins," said Imam Abu Bilal Ismail. If they were still virgins, it is enough to whip them out. Even converts who turn away from Islam would have to be killed.

The problem is only that what this idiot speaks is against the law from the European countries. If one of his believers is following him then he will end up for the rest of his life in jail. In this case even not Allah is not able to help him because the local law is the primary law on which he get sentenced.

At another meeting in the mosque, women, learn what they should do with their children if they are disobedient and not want to pray. "Fear of Allah" is good for the little ones, says Imam Abu Bilal Ismail.

A woman asks him how to beat her child best. In no case too hard, so the Imam. Children's bones could break faster. It is also not allowed to throw children "on the wall" or "cut them with a knife". The children were beaten for training purposes and not for the sake of violence.

He is again ignoring the European law, because you are not allowed to beat your children. If the authorities get it that you are beating your children then your children get taken away from you and you'll end up in front of a law court. Again your religious believes will not be able to help you, because the law of the nation comes before any religious believes. You'll see your children never again in such a case. So why shall you follow such idiots? If you follow their instructions you'll get into troubles and the idiotic imam will laugh about you.

"I have the greatest pleasure to raze the Grimhøj mosque to the ground", the newspaper Berliner Morgenpost quoted the civil integration Minister, Inger Støjberg. However, it would be legally difficult. In addition, these Muslims would then simply continue underground.

According to Danish law, preachers of violence can not be expelled from the country and mosques can not be closed, even if they spread popular incitements like the Grimhøj Mosque.

More than 50 percent of the Danes are against Muslim immigrants. During the last EU elections, they made the country's strongest political force, the Danish People's Party.

The Imams from Aarhus defend their violence messages. According to Sharia law, stoning and flogging are permitted. Measures, on the other hand, were a repression of religious freedom which was unconstitutional.

In 2014, the Grimhøj Mosque in Aarhus expressed its support for the Islamic State (IS) fighters. And Imam Abu Bilal Ismail has prayed to Allaah in 2014 for the destruction of the Jews to Allah: "Count them and kill them to the very last one."

 

Is the Islam a religion of peace or war?

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

Islamic Expansion

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:

Islamic Expansion

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.