My Opinion

Unlike 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.

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.

Every religion/people think that their religion is superior. Why can't we respect our differences and be respectful? Is religion the only thing what the people have learned in some parts of the world? Is it in this case religion not a brainwashing? If you read in the international news additional about the prayer from the Imam of the Great Mosque in Mecca, what is beginning with "O Allah, grant victory, dignity and empowerment to our brothers Mujahideen (Jihadists) ...", then you know as a normal person the intentions of the followers from this Imam with the name Abdurrahman ibn Abdulaziz as-Sudais.

Recently I got an invitation to show which reputation the Islam has for the remaining part of the world. The nature of the people is that bad news keeping longer in memory than good ones. The Islam is a totalitarian system and does not really know the word freedom. Examples for the totalitarian system can get found in masses by browsing the news sites where the leaders of the Islam are getting cited. In the same way you’ll find negative news in masses about the crime coming in the name of Allah to the countries of the "non believers".

As everybody participating in the social networks is speaking English and can find understandable news in the Internet and my mother tongue is German, I have decided to bring up an actual case from the German mainstream news sites. Mainstream news sites are the opinion makers of the crowd. The result has been the an article, which I have distributed with the following description and link at the social networks (Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter):

Is the sentence that the Islam is a peaceful religion only a bad joke?

Some claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and the jihadists are just wacky fringe groups. Extremists precisely. This especially in the West cherished by non-Muslims was wishful thinking now, corrected by Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the imam and Quran reciter from the "Sacred Mosque" of Mecca. The Salafist and Wahabit Imam Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais applies Sunni Muslims as one of the most reliable and popular interpreters of the Koran.
https://myopinion.wwpa.com/post/is-the-sentence-that-the-islam-is-a-peaceful-religion-only-a-bad-joke

The basis for the report of the main stream news sites is a prayer from the Saudi Imam Abdurrahman ibn Abdulaziz as-Sudais of Mecca's Grand Mosque, which is a war declaration from Saudi Arabia against the rest of the world and got live distributed from the Egyptian TV station:

New video of Saudi Imam of Mecca's Grand Mosque calling for the killing of Shia, Jews, and Christians during prayer pic.twitter.com/G1yPsbA0xG

— Bassem (@BBassem7) 4. September 2016

The good news are coming from an Egyptian TV commentator who roasted the Wahhabi Imam of Mecca's Grand Mosque, Abdurrahman ibn Abdulaziz as-Sudais. As bad news are riding on a jet plane while good news are taking a snail are got this good news, which are showing that not all Muslims are from the same kind, not published in the main stream media. The business from the media site is done with their headlines. Bad news are bringing more readers than good ones. Here is the video of the Egyptian TV commentator:

Egyptian TV commentator roasts Wahhabi Imam of Mecca's Grand Mosque ???? pic.twitter.com/y1ik98yqWI

— Zulfiqar (@Leb_Twelver) 3. September 2016

Here is a transcript from the English sub-titles:

TV Commentator: What does he say in his prayer?

Prayer: O Allah, grant victory, dignity and empowerment to our brothers Mujahideen (Jihadists) in Yemen, in Sham (Syria) and Iraq and everywhere.
O Lords of the Worlds grant them victory over the godless Rafidah (Shia Muslims), grant them victory over the treacherous Jews and over the spiteful Christians and over the untrusted hypocrites.
Oh Allah, grant them victory, help and strength.

TV Commentator: Rafidah (Shia Muslims), Jews, Christians?!!!
And then you wonder when a Mosque is exploded in Najran?!
A Shia’s mosque in Saudi Arabia?!
Listen!
All the people around the world are their enemies!
All the people are enemies to Salafis!
They are the only saved group!
They’re the only true Muslims, The Wahhabis and Salafis
All the other people are enemies and should be defeated
Rafidah (Shia Muslims), Jews and Christians
We will kill them all. We will fight them all
They’re talking about Muslims and about Jews and Christians in general
Not even the American coalition in which they are part of
No. No.
And then we ask ourselves how Daesh (ISIS) was created. Are you ridiculing us?
Then you say "we will fight terrorism!"
Fighting terrorism?! Are you ridiculous?
You are the source of terrorism. You are the terrorism itself.
Let’s have a break

Here are some links from news sites with a good reputation which have reported about this case in the German speaking countries (Austria, Germany and Switzerland):

• http://www.krone.at/welt/lass-dschihadisten-boesartige-christen-besiegen-imam-hetzt-in-mekka-story-529868
• http://www.katholisches.info/2016/09/13/imam-der-heiligen-moschee-in-mekka-oh-allah-schenk-den-dschihadisten-auf-der-ganzen-welt-den-sieg/
• http://www.kritische-presseschau.com/single-post/2016/09/16/Hasspredigt-in-Mekka---%E2%80%9ELass-Dschihadisten-b%C3%B6sartige-Christen-besiegen%E2%80%9C
• http://www.zukunft-ch.ch/de/imam-betet-fuer-sieg-ueber-die-boesartigen-christen/
• http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/welt/imam-schockt-mit-hetzpredigt-in-mekka-dschihadisten-sollen-boesartige-christen-besiegen-a1935804.html
• http://www.oe24.at/welt/Imam-Dschihadisten-sollen-boesartige-Christen-besiegen/251585087
• http://www.haolam.de/artikel_26436.html

The same way as the Muslims do not differ between the subcategories of other religions from the World nobody else will differ between the subcategories of the Islam. Main stream news sites and TV stations are the opinion makers and a war declaration to the rest of the world, which gets done from the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca is nothing what can get ignored. Such leaders are promoting the image from the Islam to the rest of the world. In civilized countries such hate preachers would end up in jail and would not find some audition any more. Freedom is one of the base values in the Western World. There is also a Freedom of Religion included, but each freedom ends there where the freedom from others will get limited or influenced. Everybody has his right of freedom and not only some.

Such hate preachers and wannabe warlords like the Imam from the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, are the reputation of the Islam. They like to distribute their totalitarian system all over the world and are stupid enough to think that they can do everything without punishment. Does anyone think that other countries will use millions of dollars everyday for making a firework by throwing their bombs against the Daesh (ISIS) as the Muslims are not able by themselves to stop the terrorists and such preachers? Don't forget the Islamic terror started 1983, more than 33 years ago and not with the Syrian conflict. At WikiPedia you'll find an incomplete list from the Islamic terror attacks. That list and the speeches and hate-prayers from the leading Imams are making the reputation of the Islam in the mainstream media of the world. Such news are remembering others about their own dark history. Each child of the Western World is learning in the school about the history and all children of the Western World have to visit the schools for at least 8 years. This rule is forced by law.

If we take a look at the Muslim Population of the world from the year 2014, then we see that a minority likes to rule the world. The Muslims are even not able to make peace under each other, how they will be able to rule the world?

As we have seen from the comments from the of the Egypt TV station seems it come to the same situation like the world has been before World War II as Hitler has declared his war against the Jews. I think everybody knows how the story has ended. You need only compare the prayer from Abdurrahman ibn Abdulaziz as-Sudais with the ideology from Hitler and you'll not find any difference.

Under such circumstances I expected a real shit storm for my article in the social networks. Only in the LinkedIn group Better Future4Earthlings a discussion about the topic has started and got a lot of comments.

The first comment made Zaheer Mirza, the moderator of the group Better Future4Earthlings. I fully agree with the following comments he wrote:

Hi Rudolf Faix ... thank you for posting this ... I urge calm discussion in this ... those who agree give reasons rather than be swayed by emotions ... and those that disagree please give reasons based on Quran and Hadith (life of prophet Muhammad PBUH) ... this is not easy ... but essential dialogue if we are to reduce/eliminate divides.

---

What people believe in is their personal matter ... we should only talk about how it impacts us ... we are not here to discuss merits of theologies and doctrines ... but rather the actions of others that are making our lives unbearable and then understanding the root causes of the behaviour.

An comment which describes situation in the best way has been coming from Pam Stofle:

It's a difficult conversation. Period. I was raised to believe the holy book of Islam says it is ok to kill infidel. Without anyone to ask, because separation was the way in my neighborhood. It just stuck. Bring in media and it's easy to believe. Dating back for me to fear of leaders in Iran 70s and Libya, we had evidence to perpetuate the belief.
It wasn't until I made a pen pal , OBVIOUSLY before the internet, that I realized the news is not fact. My little friend was from a tiny island Qatar. She asked me the most amazing questions. Do all of you wear cone heads then burn black face people on fire? Do all of you wear mini skirt and show your cleavage to men? Do all of you kill babies? Why to Christ followers hate and kill bombing everyone everywhere? Why does America favor one small place and take land to give to Jews.? Do all Americans kill each other and dance naked at musical events? Why do Americans shoot their police. Why do the divide by white and everyone else?
You get the point
I was in 6th grade.
Shocked
Sad and certain there was no hope for world peace. As media became more powerful, I questioned everything.
I protested every war, and also became agnostic for decades.
I am back with Christianity, only because I saw the possibilities for mutual aid when Islam and Christian helped after earthquakes or floods.
I'm sorry for us all.
My answer is simple, just keep being you. The light in you shines through. Yes your head coverings may scare us here, but also are you afraid our smutty dressed girls will influence your daughter's. We must find a way to let our children heal. Know, read watch the truth. Just a grandma remembering my little friend
Blessings
Humbly
Pam

The comment from Pam is correct describing the situation from people, who don't know how everything started - a war which started 33 years ago with terror attacks from a few idiots, who have been thinking that they can rule the world by killing innocent people. Isn't it time to stop this war for the favor of the next generation? Are such power hungry Imams like Abdurrahman ibn Abdulaziz as-Sudais, whos like to continue a war, which they cannot win, only for killing their own boredom, so important for their followers that they are not able to use their own brain? Are all the Muslims already brainwashed that they even not try to stop their dirty henchmen? After 33 years of terrorism is there no other way available than to put all these terrorists and their leaders into jail. That is the only reason for the alliance fighting against terrorism. If you take away this reason then the alliance has no reason to continue their bombings, which hits innocent people too. There is no way to make some capital out of it. Years ago I have been reading sometimes that the bad US alliance are only fighting for the available oil in the Arabian countries. The problem is only where shall get the oil used? The leading car manufacturers are all already promoting electric driven vehicles. It has been only a wishful thinking from uneducated people that the reason for the war is oil.

A very good comment, which explained how people can coexists with each other has been coming from Dave Aubin:

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in. I am new to this, before i only listened to what was available. I will admit that it has been a challenge to understand. I have asked and have recieved some insight from friends on this site that are helping me. To understand i found that i had to remove all preconceived thought and start over. Here is what i found to date.
That we are all just human beings. We all have basic needs to live. Human beings who have been abused and/or marginalized will feel and react in a simular way. Here we have many Religions, too many to count, but each retreats to their own group and basically operate and live together but yet isolate themselves as they believe only they know the real truth. I think i do not care that they behave this way as long as they are not harming anyone else. Should they choose to fight among themselves, so be it. I will just watch as i have no interest. My interest is only that all people are the same and i do not condone...

---

Mistreatment of anyone. Any animal will fight if cornered and feel threatened. I do not expect any less from Human.
The question for me is that at what point did we begin to seperate and believe that we were above nature or could control nature. To understand our mental limits. To move forward we must look in the mirror and ask ourselves some very serious questions. If we were created in her or their image than we must work to prove that we are worthy. To date we have failed. And that is the ultimate challenge. She is not going to help us. She expects us to use the gift she gave us to rise above the primitive. To date we have proved that we have the power to destroy ourselves. Hardly a step in the right direction.

Another comment is showing that some people are thinking that they can make someone else guilty for the fails from their own rows. Some people are searching the failures from others instead from taking a look into the mirror and start by themselves:

Dear Rudolf Faix ... why are there refugees in the first place? Could Germany, other European countries or US done something to stop this from happening? Were some of these governments partly responsible to create this situation?

We need to stop addressing symptoms ... we need to go to root causes. What roles did various governments play to stop people becoming homeless?

The refugees are victims from a war started from Islamic terrorists against the rest of the world. It is humanity for taking care for these people. Asking for the root causes is nothing else than a joke. The Islamic terror started during the early 80^ths and continues until now - 33 years. It is a problem of the Islamic world to stop these terrorists who are killing in the name of Allah.

These refugees were living in environments very different to what they have found themselves in post migrating to Europe. It does not take a scientist to conclude that you can't expect very controlled people to find complete freedom and have no negative consequences.

In the above comment gets even confirmed that the Islam religion is a totalitarian system without any freedom and controlled from the religion. Sure that people who are relocating from such a system have problems to find their own way in a free world.

This is similar to another simple reality that so many seem unable to comprehend - you can't eliminate terrorism by war. We all have seen the picture of the child who was dragged from the rubble - what will he become?

The terrorists have started with their attacks the war against the Western World. Like you see in the prayer from Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais supported from the highest Imams. That shows why the Muslims are not acting against the terrorists, who are killing in the name of Islam. Shall the Western World wait until they are getting slaughtered? Why did you not use it if you know a better method stopping the terrorists? As you don't have any working method found during the last 33 years why others shall wait in fighting against the terrorists? Don't forget that there is a way to reduce the terror coming from one region. The end of the second world war has shown it. The result will be not only one crying child. A lot of innocent people would lose their life and the area will be a desert for thousands of years.

Any comments on comments made by Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq? He made a lot of effort to answer the original question.

Dr. Mohammad Omar has completely failed the topic. Here is the discussion about how to make a better world for all and not about understanding the Islam. Deeds have more weights than words and everybody is free in his own decisions and beliefs. Nobody will ask if the intentions are sincere if someone kills himself with a bomb in the middle of a crowd by yelling "Allahu akbar". The result is still the same. Whom do you like to explain the Islam in this case?

Some others like Nazim Ali misunderstood the topic of the posting and of the group completely wrong:

though I usually refrain myself the posts and commenting in this group but as Zaheer Mirza has named me so its my responsibility to respond about this .. first of all I would like to as Mr. Rudolf Faix about a few words he used... wahabbism..? what exactly wahabbism means about and how it was originated..? how wahabbism is associated with the roots of ‘house of saud' ..? what the term jihadi, jihad means in comprehensive way..? what is the context of particular phrase in which the word used by imam in a prayer during such communal gathering..?
please answer me these few questions and then I will start explaining it...

---

well after reading a blurry and staggering response from the person claiming that imam invoked jihadist and prayer for them.... I m done.... because you are also inspired by the similar problem of relying in media though urging others to deny that.... next time before raising a question please take a thorough look on the things you going to post...

The group is named Better Future4Earthlings and not discussion about the exact meanings of some words. It does not matter what I'm understanding about some words. Important is what the crowd is understanding by the named words when they are reading them in the international press. I wish Nizam Ali good luck by explaining some words to the masses while the terrorists are making his explanations to a lie. With neglecting the news from other countries and other opinions nobody can win something. Such comments got expected from narrow minded people. Simple to summarize: "I simple not believe it and for this reason it cannot be".

A little bit better has been the comment from Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, but still far away from the real topic. He tried to convince me about the Islam religion. Sorry, but the crowd has a negative view about the Islam, because the actions from the terrorists, who are killing in the name of the Islam are speaking louder than any words. Victims from the Islamic terrorist and their family members are not interested if the terrorist has been a true Islamist or a fake one. That does not change something for them. The result is still the same. These actions are the problems and not the real teaching of Mohammed. Whom do you think you can convince that the Islam is a peaceful religion if your leaders are praying for power for the Jihadists for killing others? Do you think that the crowd in the Western World is the same way uneducated like in the countries of the Islamic world?

One comment from Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq is for me very strange:

Salam, Mr. Faix. If the Saudi Grand Mufti made such a statement, it is something to be deeply concerned. However, before we jump to conclusions, I opened the link and visited the site. Quite interestingly, the "About" button is disabled. Even more interesting is the fact I could not identify a single such report from any of the mainstream media. If it was said, it would be a big news not to be picked up by others. For the credibility of this report, it would be helpful if alternate sources from mainstream media is provided. Thanks and warm regards.

My article has no links inside and my website does not have an About link. My website has a disclaimer box and a link to the full disclaimer including my contact details. As he even did not mention which link he has followed I'm not able to know about which About button he is writing. At this time got provided from only one link to a WikiPedia article and one link to the Austrian newspaper kronen.at, an old newspaper company with a good reputation. As the content from krone.at is written in German, there cannot get an About-Link found. Other links to my sources got provided at the end of the discussion. So I really don't know which website the guy is meaning.

Even some very narrow minded people have left their comments to the posting. One from these people who are believing something only for the reason it is written somewhere is Robert San Miguel / Vasquez. This guy has even not been reading the full article and even don't know the name of the group. He think that he needs only to write some statements and everybody will believe and agree with him. The professional golfer Robert San Miguel / Vasquez is even contradicting himself in his statements. He is simple starting with the words "This is nonsense" without the knowledge what is really written in the article. He like to compensate his missing knowledge with big words:

This is nonsense ! Islam isn't the culprit. The true catalyst to all world conflicts are the fake lying Ashkenazi Jews. The real imposters. They love to cause " social disorder ".

---

These f kers are the filthiest of all in humanity.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

Why ? Because they love to cause " social disorder " then they get the boot ... But now with them stealing / occupying a state they are centralized to cause havoc across the Middle East like a wolf in sheep clothing. Isis is Israel ... Israel is Isis.

---

The world is blind or easily mislead by pure propaganda .... The Hebrew Jews left dark skinned from Israel and now returned " white " ! Really world wake up ! Speak up ! Stop this nonsense of " white washing " history.

---

We have more than enough American wealth to have them removed its their venom of fangs are biting into all other countries ! They are vile... the children of Satan " their father is the King of lies and deceit.

---

The Jews declared war on Germany ! Not Germany declaring war ! They lived in Germany and wanted to conquer! Hitler saw it growing up so yes it was his personal mission to rid those vile people off the earth ! And skin color is the racism all humanity is taught daily. It makes a huge difference! It's called being an impersonator to deceive the world with their bs " emotional ideology " of nonsense main stream media propaganda.

---

John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

And the truth isn't hate ..its those that hate the truth that are in denial

---

The end of humanity is in Revelations and guess who is the culprit causing " social disorder "

Revelation 2:9
I know your afflictions and your poverty--yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Even in the Quran they are the evil ones ! Sorry it's in all the holy books of the vile ones in humanity the great imposters of lies and deceit.

---

Rudolf Faix bro I didn't kill Jesus or any of the holy prophets ..... But I can tell you who did and show you through the Torah Old and New Testament or even the Quran.

Ponder ??

Jesus = Muslims love and recognized Jesus as…

---

The truth isn't an insult brother ! I love God ! God knows what's in my heart I refuse to conform what others deem correct in society. God lives through me so I will always do my best in speaking and seeking the truth.

---

Rudolf Faix the holy books are not a lie but they do tell of the " great liars in humanity "

---

99 percent of Islam is super peaceful and that other 1 percent that are bad are driven by those that cause the social disorder. The world the UN has displaced thousands and thousands of people from the regions of the Middle East so yes cultures will clash but it's all premeditated pre-orchestrated by those occupying Israel !

---

Religions are man made up first of all. That's the issue for those practicing organized religions. Islam and Christianity are not religions ! ..it's a way of life not what the main stream media ( idiot box / tv ) feeds the masses to indoctrinate.

---

Rudolf Faix who caused the displacement of those Muslims in Europe ? Of course there will be huge cultures clashed they knew that when they caused the displacements !

---

I lived for over 10 years of my life serving my country over in the Middle East and when I say I lived .. I adapted to their culture I walked amongst them and even pray with them. Do not believe what you read or see fed through main stream media

As I have asked him: "Robert San Miguel / Vasquez, which Islamic war do you mean with replacement of the Muslim from Europe? Between 1423 and 1878 had happened 10 unsuccessful wars initiated from the peaceful Muslims against Europe. Sorry that Europe did not welcome them." I got the following reply from the deadbeat:

Rudolf Faix heading to play golf I'll catch up with you later. Have a blessed day 🙏🏻

I did not hear something again from the fake profile from Robert San Miguel / Vasquez - the professional golfer who likes to be from the US. LOL

Here you can download the full thread with all comments: Is the sentence that the Islam is a peaceful religion only a bad joke.pdf (901.75 kb)

Bible and evolution theory: these are two spheres which seem like opposites. But as the history of mankind in the "book of books" leads to different opinions.

Is the story of Adam and Eve to be understood as a metaphor for the existence of early human hunter-gatherers in paradise? Cain kills Abel - an image of conflicts between nomadic herders and sedentary farmers? At first glance, it seems unlikely that events so far in the "darkness of our primate past" were, should have found their way into one of the most important books of mankind. When the Bible was the big change in the lives of early humans was mixed farming finally been largely completed.

Ancient myths as a basis

However, evolutionary biologist and historian, argue the Bible was not over night or out of nothing. Rather, it is the result of many different stories, myths and oral traditions, which already had been ancient in part at times of the formation of the old testament.

May be a reflection of traditions from the early days of Homo sapiens ranged into at the time of the creation of the Bible, is her thesis. It is believed this condition as a likely you can discover actually much perplexing in the Bible. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden is a metaphor for "the strongest a event in the history of mankind: the transition from egalitarian of hunter and collector groups to the sedentary way of life with agriculture and animal breeding".

This change to living conditions, for which people have been biologically not prepared and actually were until today ill-suited is the basis for many of the most memorable stories of the Bible. "The Bible is probably the most ambitious attempt to get those human problems that plague the Homo sapiens since the settle down."

Change of circumstances

In anthropology, called an inadequate adaptation to the environment "Mismatch". By the radical change in the quality of life of Homo sapiens and to agriculture and animal breeding a number of problems was surfaced abruptly could not get explained by themselves in another way.

The hitherto nomadic groups were now far more dependent on the vagaries of weather than before, because they had an impact on the harvest. The Biblical Flood might well have had a real "model" in the form of flooding or a tsunami.

Epidemics as God's punishment

Also the early farmers had been afflicted much more frequent and more intense of infectious diseases and epidemics. Domestic animals living in close proximity to were carriers of pathogens, which eventually went over to the people. They had searched for explanations for the new, terrible plagues.

Even the "emergence" a powerful, single God from an animistic world view inhabited by ghosts, the early humans had probably explained as a necessary "adjustment performance". It had to be a more powerful, more irritable God in the game, and people had to have somehow attracted his anger. From this got born a "catalog of sins" in addition to a number of commandments which should govern the life pleasing to God. The observance of the commandments in biblical societies was flanked by draconian penalties.

One sins and all need to suffer

Behind it is the belief that the sin of an individual, can entail penalties for society as a whole. Viewed in this light cruel punishments for crimes considered today as a minor can understand: the sinner or the sinner endanger finally with their behavior the whole community.

The other reason for the strict laws in the area of marriage and sexuality is simply the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases through the close coexistence of many people: monogamy and the constraint of sexuality of particularly women should remedy. Also the cleanliness rules fall into the category of disease prevention.

Jesus softens again

The New Testament with its message of charity in the reasoning in a way to the beginnings of the people returns: the doctrine of Jesus does not take back the commandments of God, she mitigate them but with the recommendation to mercy.

Based on the story of the woman taken in adultery makes it clear: Jesus won't defend the sin, but with his testimony he claimed something "who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her", which was probably natural in "Old hunter and collector culture": solidarity in the Group and a certain sense of proportion in terms of punishment.

Back to the roots

With Jesus back in the prehistoric times? That would shorten the theory too much. But what the Bible, particularly the Jesus story, "demanded by the people in terms of charity, is so simple to behave like hunters and gatherers in the own community always so conciliatory".

This 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.