My Opinion

nothing but my opinion

Islam, Koran and terror are inextricably linked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The widely acclaimed dictionary of Islam defines jihad as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also scholars such as Ibn Khaldun, one of the most respected philosophers in Islam, has understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force". Many other Muslims are either unaware or intentionally ignorant of the lack of verses in universal non-violence in the Koran. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Islam and rape

RapeIt is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encourages the rape of the other captured in the battle. The Hadith provides the context for the verse of the Koran 4:24.

The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to the Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought against him. They conquered them and captured them. Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah hesitated to have sex with the prisoners in the presence of their disbelieving men. And Allah, the Exalted One, has sent the Koran a new verse of the Koran:

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. (4:24)
"And women already married except those whom you right hands posses" (Abu Dawud 2150 and Muslim 3433)
 

In fact, as the Hadith remarked, it was not Allah, but "Allah the Exalted", who urged men to rape women before their husbands - which is all the more reason to think of Islam differently from other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unhappy victims were still alive after the fight. This is important because it is the proponents of Islam who like to claim that the women who had enslaved Muhammad, were not able to defend themselves. Even if these proponents of Islam were right, what kind of moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between rape and starvation?

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear possibility to reject the rape of women - and yet he offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men hesitated to degrade their new slaves for later reuse by fattening them. Muhammad was asked above all for Coitus Interruptus:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?"

The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Bukhari 34:432)

 

As indicated, the Prophet of Islam has no objection to the fact that his husbands rape women as long as they ejaculate in the bodies of their victims.

As you can imagine, the obvious approval of Muhammad for the rape of women captured in the battle and his personal involvement, as held in many places, is very unpleasant for the Muslim advocates of our time. For this reason, some of them try to disclose these many episodes and Koran references to sex with prisoners by pretending that they are cases where women had fled from bad marriages and sought shelter with the Muslims. Some of the supporters of Islam even refer to them as "women," although the Koran makes a clear distinction between "those who have their rights" and true women (33:50):

O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, - in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
 

Beyond the despair of the proponents of Islam of the 21st century, however, there is nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history. The women of Banu Mustaliq were sold to slavery after their rape:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl?
He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us;
why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

 

In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity of Muhammad and his gang of devoted followers:

"Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)
 

Is it Islamic to sell one's wife for horses? Clearly these were not wives!

More importantly, by definition a "captured" woman is not one who fled from her husband. She escapes from the Muslim slavery. This Hadith describes a typical attack in which the women and children are captured as they try to flee from the attacking Muslims:

"... and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along." (Sahih Muslim 4345)
 

The Muslim narrator sees the women who are trying to escape (after the massacre of their husbands) and cut their way by shooting an arrow into their way. These are not women who try to seek refuge with the Muslims. They try to avoid the capture by the Muslims.

The same Hadith tells further that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl ..." (Sahih Muslim 4345)
 

The Prophet of Islam and his companions used the war to gather women for personal sexual use and commerce. Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone's wife, the woman became sex slave. In no case was their fate tied to anything they had done personally, nor had they any choice about their future.

 

Only the Greek translation from the Bible made Mary to a "Virgin"

Holy ScripturesThis article shows only that each translation is an interpretation and mirrors the opinion from the translator. Such translation failures can get found in each translation. As older the original text is and as more translation generations got done during the time as more of this interpretation failures are getting found in the last version. Don't forget that during the old time only the mighty ones have been able to read and write. These mighty ones have influenced the content of the interpretation into their own favor too. For this reason only stupid ones are believing into some written text without using their own brain.

There is a legend, a richly decorated narrative. And it goes like this: During the first half of the 3rd century BC asked the Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus the high priest Eleazar from Jerusalem to make a Greek translation of the Hebrew Code (Torah) for the famous Alexandrian library; 72 Jewish savants, six out of the twelve tribes of Israel, a "divine number", are on their way and transferred at the island of Pharao during a time period of 72 days the five books of Moses (Pentateuch) into Greek; It gradually formed the largest translation work of antiquity, the "Septuagint" (literally: the one of the Seventy).

A fantastic story, recorded in the so-called Aristeas letter, but nothing else than just a legend - at least for the used time frame of 72 days.

Legends, as we know, have a long life. The mythic narrative is picked up by the Jewish historian of Josephus Flavius, who died around the year 100 AD. And it expands the philosopher Philo of Alexandria (died in 50 AD): all 72 scholars were strictly apart from their peers and come to an identical conclusion independently of each other.

In reality, showing the biblical research, the giant project is (abbreviated as Roman numerals LXX) naturally grown slowly, it could even not get completed in the second century BC. However, since belong to it already the other books of the Hebrew Bible (Prophets, wisdom literature, etc.), but on individual scriptures the work continued until the time of the New Testament – for example the Psalms.

Don't forget that the Old Testament contains the basics from where got the New Testament and the Quran developed. Already this source contains a lot of interpretation failures and you can be sure a lot of fake stories added by the mighty ones. So don't tell me that you are believing the only available truth. It shows only that you are not open minded, you are repeating only the content you have learned and you are unable to use your own brain.

Mythical origin also the biblical claims that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit - and Maria has been a Virgin at his birth. In the Ancient Orient and in Greece it was tradition that heroes and rulers had gods as fathers in a way. The Evangelist Matthew sees through the virgin birth also fulfilled a prophecy of the Prophet Isaiah that he already understands in a certain way: In the Hebrew original, the speech is only of a "young woman" (the Hebrew word "Almah" describes only the age and not if the woman is single or already married, a virgin got called in Hebrew "betulah"), only the Greek translation of the Hebrew text made it a "Virgin". And so Matthew understood the text.

As Luke writes Matthew that Jesus got born in Bethlehem - unlike the Evangelists Mark and John, who did do not report the birth. He also tells of people and events that for no nativity play are hardly imaginable: the wise men from the East, the Massacre of the Innocents and the escape of Jesus family to Egypt. But probably has nothing to do with it historical reality.

No historical source attests that Herodes the great, who then ruled as King of Rome grace over Israel, ever told a child murder Herod. "The point is to show the danger to the newborn Jesus similar to Moses in the Old Testament, it’s modeled after Matthew draws", explains Jens Schröter, a theologian of the Humboldt-University of Berlin. Also the escape to Egypt should be an invention of the evangelists. Probably Matthew wanted to meet a further prophecy from the Old Testament.

The fact that the birth of a great man - Jesus - raises a star is another mythical motif of the Orient. The wise, who allegedly followed his light toward Bethlehem, it probably also not given, but they fulfilled according Schröter in Matthew an important function: "You should show that Jesus' birth was important for all people, not only for the Jews ".

Jesus is the Messiah prophesied by the ancient Jewish scriptures - Luke and especially Matthew wanted to represent that already in the Christian way at the beginning of their Gospels. And so they had to make the historical circumstances in a particular light. Herein they did not differ from their contemporaries, which is why it would be wrong to measure the evangelists on the scale of modern historiography. Apart from it was in antiquity, accessing mythical elements. "In the stories about Jesus birth had the legendary motifs that task, to make it clear that a very special person had come to the world", said Schröter.

Believe that what is in your comfort and into what you can trust. Don't accept anything word by word only for the reason that it is written somewhere. You will not really find the truth - you'll find only different opinions. Take the chance and build up your own opinion by using your own brain instead of stupidly following the crowd.