My Opinion

The Federal Council regards the legal framework in Switzerland as intact for Blockchain / DLT. Therefore, there is no own law, but only adjustments to the existing

At the meeting on November 27, the Federal Council published its new template for the framework conditions for Blockchain / DLT. In terms of content, it continues where he ended up on the topic in the last round: The further improvement of the framework conditions for Blockchain / DLT.

The template roughly follows three goals:

• Increasing legal certainty
• Elimination of hurdles for applications of technology
• Limitation of abuse risks

Already at the end of last year, the Swiss Federal Council expressed itself positively and in a forward-looking manner. The framework conditions, which at that time were already classified as "good", need to be further improved. He emphasized that he wanted to create the best possible framework conditions so that Switzerland could establish and develop further as a leading, innovative and sustainable location for Fintech and DLT companies. New is the issue of abuse control. Because with increasing attractiveness of the market also increases the abuse and illegal activities.

Another point to which the Federal Council explicitly refers: Ensuring the integrity as well as the good reputation of Switzerland as a financial and business center. Here the global discussions around the planned digital currency Libra of Facebook seem. Switzerland has become more prominent here than the Swiss government have been enjoying it.

The report shows that the legal framework in Switzerland is already well suited today to deal with new technologies including DLT. Therefore, the Federal Council refrains from creating its own specific technology law. Even though there is a need for specific action. The submission received around 80 comments. In principle, the participants welcomed the proposals of the Federal Council.

The Federal Council has now adopted the Federal Law on Adaptation of Federal Law to Developments in Distributed Electronic Register Technology. Due to suggestions from the consultation, the submission has been revised and further developed in various points. The federal law, which was designed as a mantle decree, proposes punctual adjustments in nine federal laws, both in civil law and in financial market law. Parliament is expected to address the bill for the first time in early 2020.

The Federal Council currently sees no need to fundamentally adapt the legal framework or to introduce a comprehensive, specific law because of a specific technology that is still undergoing rapid development. The Swiss legal framework already offers a lot of flexibility and possibilities today. However, there are individual areas of law in which targeted adjustments are imposed to increase legal certainty, remove hurdles for DLT or blockchain-based applications, and limit new risks.

On behalf of the Swiss Federal Council
The Federal President: Ueli Maurer and The Federal Chancellor: Walter Thurnherr

Thanks to a new money laundering law, German banks will be able to retain Bitcoin and offer crypto services in the future. An important step in the adaptation.

From 2020, it will be legal for German banks to sell cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. German financial institutions are not yet allowed to sell cryptocurrencies directly to their clients, but this could change in the future. Thanks to the planned law implementing the EU's fourth money laundering directive. This should allow German banks to keep Bitcoin and offer other crypto services in the future.

As decided last week in the Bundestag, crypto values in Germany are becoming an official, regulated financial instrument. The new money laundering law allows banks to store and offer cryptocurrencies. This could open up a new business area for German banks from 2020 onwards. Currently, no institute offers its clients virtual assets, except for the Bitwala bank in Berlin. The law has already been passed by the Bundestag and now awaits the consensus of the 16 federal states.

The German crypto community is satisfied with the bill and thinks that Germany is well on the way to becoming a crypto-heaven. If the federal states agree with the proposal, German citizens could hold their digital currencies directly with banks. In doing so, banks will provide appropriate online banking solutions for the full range of assets, including stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies. This means that crypto owners can access their credit at the push of a button.

The final bill also provides for a deletion of the so-called separation bid. According to him, the re-regulated crypto-surplus transaction should not have been offered together with other regulated banking operations from the same legal entity. Until now, banks had to resort to special subsidiaries or external depositaries.

Interestingly, the Federal Association of German Banks (BdB) welcomes the new regulation. It is argued that lenders already have experience in storing client assets and risk management. The new law could prevent cryptographic money laundering and allow German investors access to the crypto room through domestic funds.

However, not everyone is satisfied with the bill because critics fear less consumer protection. The consumer center of Baden-Wuerttemberg fears that the banks with the new products will sell more aggressively and with all means at new customers. However, there is a risk that customers may not be sufficiently informed about the potential risks of investing in cryptos. When it comes to the safekeeping of crypto assets, Bafin¹ supervision must also intensively examine the additional IT risks, since storing Bitcoin places entirely new demands on the technical infrastructure.

The term "crypto values" will now appear and be defined in German law for the first time and is thus considered the core of the new regulation. By definition, crypto-values are digital representations of a value that has not been issued by any public authority or central bank but is used for investment purposes and accepted as a means of payment and exchange. On November 29, 2019, the Federal Council finally adopted the law, which means that the new regulation can enter into force on January 1, 2020.

¹⁾ Bafin - Federal Financial Supervisory Authority
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht) is a German public-law institution with legal capacity based in Frankfurt/Main and Bonn. It is subject to the legal and technical supervision of the Federal Ministry of Finance.

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.

What does Islam really teach about forced conversion?

Muslims are called upon to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam or are in a permanent state of submission under Muslim rule. Allowing people of other faiths to live and reverence independently of Islamic rule is not an available option.

Muhammad's efforts to recruit peacefully in Mecca were not really crowned with success. In 13 years, he managed to convince less than 100 followers, mostly friends and family. His tactics changed drastically during his last ten years. As soon as he had sufficient power, he began to force others with the sword-head to recognize him as a prophet and Allah as the only God. In many places in Hadith, he tells his successors that Allah has commanded him to fight unbelievers until they profess their faith in Islam (the Shahada).

During the later years, Muhammad did not appear to be at all disturbed by the fact that conversions were usually carried out under obvious compulsion. These include those of his sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. According to Muslim historians, when Abu Sufyan sought peace with Muhammad, he was instead forced to convert to Islam. The exact words which he was to speak in the presence of Muhammad were: "Say and testify that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah before you lose your head" (Ibn Ishaq / Hisham 814).

The entire city of Mecca converted to Islam, although the inhabitants and leaders originally abhorred Muhammad and resisted his sermons. Most of them "converted" to Islam on the day when he entered the city abruptly with an army. Only the most gullible would think that this is a genuine religious epiphany that coincides coincidentally with the time when a sword is held to their necks.

Meccans who did not want to change their religion were forcibly expelled from the city after the last Haj (9:5). The Christians and Jews who lived in Arabia at that time suffered the same fate. The cause was a kind permission of a murder order from Muhammad. They were given the choice either to accept Islam or be expelled from their land (Sahih Muslim 19:4366).

The Jews in Khaybar were not at war with Muhammad when he ordered his jihadis to attack them. Even his faithful son-in-law Ali, who was to lead the mission to Muhammad's instructions, was somewhat confused about the pretext under which he was to attack this peaceful peasant community, far from Medina:

Muhammad said: "Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory", and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: "Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?"

Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: "Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger" (Sahih Muslim 31:5917)

The Jews were, of course, quite surprised. Their wealth was stolen and their wives and children were taken and sold by the Prophet of Islam and his men as slaves. Muhammad even took a woman, after the death of her husband, for himself.

Before he died, Muhammad sent his warriors against pagan Arab tribes, like the al-Harith, and demanded that they should either be converted to Islam or extinguished. In the great selection which they had, they naturally chose the "religion of peace". He cursed Christians and Jews until his last breath (Bukhari 8:427).

According to al-Shafi from "The ordinances of the Koran", "Muhammad defeated the people until they bend Islam or break". Muslims are taught to follow their prophet. A messenger under Umar's rule has formulated it, "Our Prophet, the messenger of the Lord, has commanded us to fight them until you worship Allah alone or pay Jizya (i.e., tribute)" (Bukhari 53:386).

It also expressed Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion and immediate successor, when he aggressively invaded foreign territory in jihad and protested against people who did not want war and were not a threat. In a letter to the Persians, the Caliph declared bluntly, "You have be converted to Islam, and then you will be safe, if you do not, you must know that I will come to you with an army which loves the same way the death as you love life."

Over the centuries, Muslims have forced Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Gentiles, and others to accept Islam by either offering them death as an alternative or making their lives so miserable (taxes, denial of rights, etc.) that they finally converted to Islam.

There are compulsory conversions among extremists to this day. Recently, a Christian girl was kidnapped in Egypt and told that she would be raped if she did not convert. In 2010, an 11-year-old Christian boy was enslaved in Pakistan by his Muslim landlords. He proudly told the world that he would free the boy if he would convert to Islam.

None of these examples of attempted forced conversion was condemned by Islamic organizations, including in the West. From the Muslim perspective, the victim in any case retains technically the "choice" to convert, even if the only alternative is death. In fact, some even praised the Pakistani slave owner for magnanimous worship of freedom and debt relief to his theme for the embrace of Islam.

Since Muslims believe so sincerely that their religion is truth, they often can't help but feel, on some level, that forced conversion is more of a favor done to the subject - a case of the end justifying the means. As Muhammad said, "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains." (Bukhari 52:254).

After the high-caliber abduction and forced conversion of hundreds of Christian girls of Boko Haram in 2014, a Muslim woman in the United Kingdom proclaimed that the girls had actually been liberated from the "fetters of slavery".

It is also important to note the critical role that Jizya plays in the Islamic world. According to the Quran, the payment of a "tax" to the Muslims is the only way out for those who do not want to deny their religion. This source of income explains why Muhammad and his successor do not force anyone to commit to Islam after a military conquest.

Muhammad realized in the case of the Jews of Khaybar who were allowed to keep their farming as long as they abolished the profits of their labor to him that it was more lucrative to save the local economy in the place than to kill any man who was not converted. This loose rule followed the Muslim armies that swept through Christian, Jewish, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist countries throughout the centuries. Parts of the collected money were used to finance further Islamic military expansions, which in turn produced more income and more "converts".

As Muhammad said it by himself: "My sustenance is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya" (or by another translation: "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.") This hadith has been quoted by al-Qaeda and is found in the original version of Bukhari and Ahmad (5114 or 4869, depending on the translation).

In fairness it must be said that Muslims generally tend to follow verse 2:256 of the Koran, saying, "There is no compulsion in religion" and it is not right to force others to embrace Islam. But this does not change religion itself. Verse 2:256 was clearly overthrown by later verses, especially of Sura 9, otherwise the practice of killing apostates if they reject their previous creed would not have become an acceptable part of Islamic law.

Another point must be kept in mind. It is an important part of faith in Islam. Muslims are ordered to fight unbelievers until they say they believe in Allah or pay the Jizya. But there seems to be a tacit understanding that faith itself can not be compelled. (Really meant is "compulsion in religion"). However, as soon as a subjugated individual is converted to Islam under the burden of taxes and discrimination, a possible death penalty must also be revoked. The children also have to be educated as Muslims. And if they do not, they are exposed to garbage and killing. Thus, Islam succeeded in spreading successfully within the conquered populations in high percentages.

It is ironic that the Muslim community is most sensitive to a non-Muslim presence in "Muslim countries". Especially if these countries were not originally Muslim until they were conquered by force. The crass double standard is tempered purely rhetorically by explaining that Islam is the original religion practiced by Jews (like Moses) and Christians (like Jesus and his followers). Thus, the conquered populations are "restored". As many Muslims already seem to realize, this trick is neither wise nor even less convincing.

A final point of interest is that Muhammad's practice of obliging people to profess their faith in him was catastrophic for his own family and the legacy of his religion. At the time of his death, his empire comprised a great multitude of people and tribes, who had accepted his rule only to avoid war and bondage. Many of them, after he died, immediately wanted their freedom and self-determination back. There were several wars, causing thousands of deaths. The legacy of violent intolerance was firmly cemented in Islam.

Even Muhammad's sworn enemy, Abu Sufyan, has got a last laugh. So ambitious was the prophet of Islam to expand his empire, forcing his former archenemy to convert with the tip of his sword. Nevertheless, it was Abu Sufyan's own children who ultimately benefited - at the expense of Muhammad's family.

Abu Sufyan's son, Muawiyah, inherited the kingdom after defeating Muhammad's adopted son Ali. He also poisoned Hasan, one of the two dearest grandchildren of the Prophet. Abu Sufyan's grandson, Yazid, became the next caliph and immediately demanded the head of Muhammad's other favorite grandchild, Hussein. This was brought to him on a plate.

Koran 8:38-39

Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning). (8:38)

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do. (8:39)

Koran 9:29

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sureas 9 and 5 are the last great chapters that Muhammad narrated, replacing what had come before, including the oft-quoted verse 2:256 - "There is no compulsion in religion ...".

Koran 9:5

Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Prayer and poor tax are among the five pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. (See below). The Quran thus sanctions violence as a means of forced conversion.

Koran 9:11

But if they repent, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.

In connection with the preceding passage, this confirms that Muhammad speaks of conversion to Islam.

Koran 9:56-57

They swear by Allah that they are truly of you while they are not of you, but they are a people (hypocrites) who are afraid (that you may kill them). (9:56)

Should they find a refuge, or caves, or a place of concealment, they would turn straightway thereto with a swift rush. (9:57)

This refers to people who live with the Muslim tribe, but can not truly be believers. They must pretend to be believing to survive. They have no safe refuge to escape the Muslims. If Islam were a religion of peace, then why are they afraid?

Koran 2:193

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

The key phrase is here: "and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)".

Koran 3:83

Do they seek other than the religion of Allah (the true Islamic Monotheism worshipping none but Allah Alone), while to Him submitted all creatures in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly. And to Him shall they all be returned.

But did not the earlier verse 2:256 say that there is no compulsion in religion? This contradiction is resolved by abolition - where the later verse replaces the earlier one.

These are the dangers of forcing others to recognize you as a prophet. Even if they do not consider it true.

Some proponents of Islam consider themselves to be especially cunning if they cite only half the truth from the Koran. These apologists do not consider that they are even more unbelievable than they already are. Thus, these professional liars and rejectors have published the following text at the Fiqh Council of North America:

Verse 5:32 promotes the universal principle that all life is sanctified for Allah. It says, "Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all men, and whoever keeps it alive, it is as if he kept all men alive."

It is what the apologists want non-Muslims to believe and what is not in this form in the Koran, and in contrast to the dozens of other open passages which lead to warfare, decapitation and torture. But also the above-mentioned quote from verse 5:32 is not quite as it appears. There are just a few words missing. The full verse is:

On account of that incident, We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, except as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land, it will be written in his book of deeds as if he had killed all the human beings on the surface of the Earth and whoever will save a life shall be regarded as if he gave life to all the human beings on the surface of the Earth. Yet, even though Our Rasools came to them one after the other with clear revelations, it was not long before, many of them committed excesses in the land.

First you notice the gaping gap. Killing is permitted in cases of murder or "for the spread of mischief on the earth". Murder is fairly simple, but "spread mischief"? If anything required a careful and accurate explanation, this would be such a phrase that allows torture. But the generations of Muslims themselves are left to their own interpretation of what "mischief" means - with different standards. Violation of the Sharia (Islamic law) or the sharing of another religious belief seems to qualify. Verse 7:103 of the Koran even shows that the mere rejection of Muhammad and the Quran is considered a "mischief".

Considering the wider context of this verse, it turns out that this is not a divine commandment for Muslims. It is a repetition of a rule given to the Jews (in fact, from the Talmud). It is no warning against killing. It is an imaginary accusation against the Jews because it has violated the law conferred upon them. By "who" is not meant "anyone", but any of the Jews.

Any application to Muslims should apply only to Muslims - as with Muslim-to-Muslim murder within the brotherhood of the Faithful. In fact, the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain. Historically, this verse has never been so interpreted by Islamic scholars that the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims are equivalent to Allah. The Koran says that the reparation of a murder is bound to the law of equality (2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to the Muslims (39:9). Muhammad confirmed that a Muslim can be punished with death for the killing of a fellow Muslim, but a Muslim should never be killed for the killing of a non-believer.

Rather than promote tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is indeed an incitement to hatred with a touch of violence. Later, in the chapter, Jews and Christians were cursed as "evil" people with "sick hearts" and as hateful "blasphemers". Muhammad also reminds his people that Allah loves only those who "fight" in his ministry - and it is quite obvious who the enemy is.

Even Muslim apologists disregard the fact that verse 5:32 immediately follows a cruel verse, which, in the case of the above-mentioned "disaster," actually prescribes killing-and this was not taken from the Talmud. He even indicates the crucifixion and "cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides". (This arrangement was compulsorily observed by the IS in 2014):

The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (5:33)

Although verse 5:32 is a law given to the Jews, the following verse 5:33 counts unambiguously and for the Muslims. (One must imagine that instead of the law against murder and only to let go of anger, Jesus would have said, "You have heard that it is said that all life is holy, but I tell you that those who are waging war against God, should get crucified ... "

Verse 5:33 is the foundation for laws against blasphemy. On this basis, people can get executed for insulting Islam. Ironically, this part of the Koran will be used by apologists to portray Islam as a nonviolent religion. It has long been used as a justification for the punishment of oral capital crimes.

This passage is the best example of the moral side of the Quran. This verse is in fact the basis for the torture and execution of persons who interfere or threaten Islamic hegemony.

In this way, it is the best thing Islam has to offer. Therefore it is not difficult to guess why the religion contributes every year to more than a thousand lethal terrorist attacks on the world.