My Opinion

This is a criticism of all women who are taking their headscarf as a weapon and then start indiscriminately lamenting companies (or authorities) if they are not getting hired, or are only going there with this intention.

Migrants have it hard enough anyway. Because of these women who abuse their headscarf as a weapon, a company in the future will probably decide against migrants, because he has to reckon with this one complaining at every opportunity. Whether it is prayer time, in which the employee is not available, in order to be able to eat in the way of religion (ie supplementary offer in canteens), special wishes for holidays, or simply the refusal to come in contact in supermarkets with alcohol or pork, etc.

In a time when it is hard to find a job, it is an extra burden. Both for the employer and for all the migrants who are not invited to the interview because of the fact that the entrepreneur simply fears that the woman will later mutate to the headscarf woman and ask for further privileges. Those who use religion as a weapon, like this kind of headscarf women, in order to cloak themselves privileges, which may be an advantage in the short term. But he makes life unnecessarily difficult for others.

It's enough to look like a Muslim. You are already in the same pot, as all the Muslims, who make every day only anger, like the complaisant headscarf women. Here I have sympathy for the companies who don't like to take such a risk. But I am particularly sorry for those Muslims, who are not so bold as to complain about every trifle, and especially those migrants who have nothing to do with Islam, but who are constantly in despair because of their Jihadi-compatriots.

Especially secular / liberal Muslims should ask themselves whether they should not have realized a long time age that in a highly secularized society, it is only possible to go backwards if one wants to force others to his religion or force them to live their way of life.

The people in Europe consider religion as a private matter. It is therefore legit to reject people from his company, who are making from beginning the impression that they are taking their little God State into the company and expand themselves with it in the company. Non-Muslims among the employees would have a problem with this.

I'm just wondering, why secular Muslims are always behind those, as for example behind the head scarf women who make life difficult for them. It is not only the entrepreneur, who could be financially run-out by this crap, because he can not afford all the adjustments, or is sued in insolvency - apart from the damage of reputation. These are the hobby-jihadists, who are using every small pretext to run their war against Western society.

Problems do not resolve until you leave your religion at home. Fact is, if headscarf women want to sue their religion without regard for losses in places, in which too clearly shown religiosity is not liked, the counter-defense will become more and more aggressive.

The "Not all are the same"-argument is one from the worst ones. Supposedly it is intended to protect the majority of the peaceful Muslims. In fact, however, the extremist minority is not or only insufficiently affected. If a rapist is drifting around, it is not enough to justify the fact that the majority are not rapists. In addition, these 99% of the peaceful Muslims are in anyway nothing else than a lie. Studies and statements from Muslims themselves are proving that although not a majority, but enough of them have an extremist worldview and approve even violence in the name of religion.

If it were only 1%, then

• Erdogan would not have nearly 50% of the votes and 18% would not vote in Turkey for the right-wing extremists MHP whose members have to take an oath to the Koran

• the mullahs in Iran could never have seized power

• the Taliban would not have brought much of Afghanistan into their control

• Mursi in Egypt would have won not the elections, although he represents the Muslim Brotherhood, hence violence and terror in the name of Islam

• then the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi clergy would have been long ago overthrown and the country would have modernized itself already

• there would not be so many Muslims celebrating every terrorist attack

• there would be no such problems with the Muslims and the Islam

And even if it were only 1%, the terror attacks from 9/11, Charlie Hebdo, the assassinations in London, Paris, Madrid and the countless other small and big attacks of the extremists on non-Muslims or moderate Muslims are showing clearly that already few are sufficient to cause great disaster. Since it is not only 1% but much more, you can imagine by yourself what will happen when they grab even more power.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are ten quick cases:

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

   Consider verse 33:53:

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

   That must be deified on a tablet in paradise?

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

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

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

   Here's the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Wouldn't a flawless book show consummate ethical quality?

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

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

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

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

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

Humans like normally living in peace. Cowards like hate preachers and terrorist leaders like only to empower themselves by hiding themselves behind holy scripts. These idiots even don't know the meaning and the full content of their own scripts the are preaching about. I think that nobody like that his children risks their lives for such stupid war preachers. Responsible people and teachers have to create the opposition to such eggheads for creating a better world in favor for our children. Only educated and critical thinking people can lead the world to a better place.

Support for "diagnose position"

Religious teachers, especially when they are well integrated into the teaching body, can be of assistance in the classification of certain phenomena. If it is to assess conspicuities, they are particularly suited to make a cautious initial assessment of the situation.

Religious knowledge as an immunization against extremist thought

In the analysis of the manipulative methods and in the Islamic arguments, why extremists go a complete misdirection, the key is where to begin the reconnaissance and prevention work first. In this, a work assignment point by point (see the immediately preceding questions) is to assert the interpretative authority over Islamic doctrine through elucidation and information, and to reject extremist thought.

Competence-oriented teaching supports maturity

A teaching style in which it is not only a question of making knowledge reproducible, but rather of developing solutions to it, helps young people to become more mature.

Critical lighting of conspiracy theories

Simplified justifications for complex problems and lump-sum blame assignments to persons or groups provide enemy images that can harm the peaceful coexistence and obscure the view on realistic solutions.

Make the spiritual side of religion experienceable

Behind religious rituals, their spiritual core must stand out. This strengthens the individual in the perception of his own potential and conveys an attitude of love to the world as God's creation, which must be preserved. Extremists, on the other hand, lose their "soul" because they kill this side at themselves.

Delimitation

Above all, groups which themselves prefer a very orthodox lifestyle are particularly challenged to distinguish ideologically from the extremists.

Deconstruction of "longing images" from the past

The extremists are working on an emotional level by addressing longing images of a transfigured early age of Islam. To present this Islamic early history historically more precisely in the Muslim education work helps to deconstruct false notions about the "caliphate".

Living the peace order of Islam

In their inner diversity Muslims agree on the peace order of their religion. These can best be pursued through personal effort, a jihad in the best sense, in their own environment. This also includes peaceful conflict resolution models. Violence begins in the family and in education, as well as in the mosque.

Prospects for own responsibillity for a fairer world

Young people must be taken seriously in their needs. The desire for justice for oppressed people in crisis regions can be positively channeled into options for participation in humanitarian programs, donations, and similar civil society and political activities.

Self Reflection

As already stated, sectarian phenomena can occur in a weakened form, even in "normal" social dynamics. The points "authority faith" and "selectivity" must be considered particularly self-critically. Own complexes due to being excluded from the pulpit: "As Muslims we are the better people" to deepen the complexes and prevent social cohesion in a pluralistic society. Rather, Muslims must take their overall social responsibility and make a positive contribution. Likewise, religious authorities must be careful not to strive towards an absolute bond to the dependence of the faithful, but rather to convey the idea of maturity as value.

Accepting religion as a private matter

All religions got created from peoples and for peoples. A real, almighty and omniscient God does not need humans for fulfilling his wishes. He has more possibilities than all humans together. So accept religion for the reason it got created - as the first law that humans should not kill each other in their greediness and power hungry behavior. The creators of the religion only used a God for avoiding endless discussions. The mighty ones from the ancient time have used and formed the religion into their own favor for increasing their own influence.

The 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.