My Opinion

Muhammad clearly stated that people of other religions have to pay a tax to Muslims, as a reminder of their subordinate status. The tax gets called Jizya. This removes a previous verse saying that there is "no compulsion in religion" and it destroys every pretext that Islam is only a religion and not a political system.

According to the esteemed historian Ibn Kathir, Muhammad established the Jizya as a means to compensate for the "converted" Meccans for their loss of income after the total ban on other religions from the Kaaba. This had ended the century-old tradition of pilgrimages by people of all faiths during the sacred months that the local economy was dependent on:

When Allah decreed that the polytheists should be prevented from approaching the Sacred Mosque, whether in the pilgrimage or at other times, that Quraysh said they would be deprived of the commercial activity that took place during the pilgrimage, and that they would therefore suffer financial loss. And so Allah compensated them for that by ordering them to battle the people of the scriptures so that they either accepted Islam or paid the jizya tax ("being in a state of submission") Ibn Kathir Vol 4. p.1

This practice enabled Muhammad and his successors to finance Islamic military expansion and the lifestyle of the religious class by blackmailing non-believers. The following passage continues from above:

I comment that the Messenger of God therefore decided to battle the Byzantines. This was because they were the people nearest to him and those most appropriate to invite to the truth because of their proximity to Islam and to those who believed in it. God Almighty had stated, "0 you who believe, fight those unbelievers who are near you. Let them see severity in you; and know that God is with those who are pious (9:123)" (Ibn Kathir Vol. 4 p. 1)

In the year 630, the Prophet of Islam marched an army into the Christian countries, the so-called "Battle of Tabuk". In fact, there was no battle because there was no enemy army. The inhabitants were surprised. Some were killed, and the survivors were forced to pay protection money to Muhammad. (Clear abolition of the previous rule of "no compulsion in religion", which the modern apologists so gladly repeat).

Only eleven years after Muhammad's death, his companions swept across North Africa, spearheading those who did not submit to Islamic rule. In the year 643, Tripoli was conquered, and the Christian Berbers were forced to give their wives and children as slaves to the Muslims to satisfy the Jizya.

Like the mafia, the Muslims told their involuntary donors that they would pay for "protection" - although the main threat to their livelihood and their safety is, of course, from their benefactors, the Muslims.

This lucrative extortion was practiced over the centuries and was a part of the brutal Ottoman rule over Christians, Jews and others. The Serbs of Europe were particularly hard hit and often had to surrender their children to satisfy the drivers. The children were then converted to Islam and trained as jihad warriors for use in foreign campaigns (the so-called Janissaries).

In India, the women and children of impoverished Hindus were also taken away by Muslim publicans until the 17th century, and sold to slavery to meet the demands of Jizya. For many, the only way to lose their families was to convert to Islam. This immense discrimination is how Islam made interventions in populations that had nothing to do with it (as an Islamic cleric confirmed in 2013).

From a technical point of view, there is no innocent non-Muslim in Islam, which also makes these utterly cruel condemnations of "terror against innocent people" useless. There is a basis for the protection of "people of the book" (originally Jews and Christians), but later extended to Hindus, when the Muslim leaders realized that killing them was less profitable than their taxation). "Dhimmis" are completely under the rule of the Muslims, renounce all rights and commit themselves to finance the Muslim expansion. Unfortunately, this was not enough to spare religious minorities extreme persecution and massacres.

Traditionally, the collection of Jizya occurs at a ceremony designed to emphasize the subordinate status of the non-muslim, where the subject is often performed in a humiliating manner. M. A. Khan reports that some Islamic clerics encouraged the tax collectors to spit during the process into the mouth of Hindu dhimmis. He also quotes the popular Sufi teacher Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

"The honor of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the unbelievers (kafirs). One who respects kafirs dishonors Muslims... The real purpose of levying the Jizya on them is to humiliate them... [and] they remain terrified and trembling." Islamic Jihad

The British preacher Anjem Choudary points out that "the normal situation for [Muslims] is to take money from the Kuffar" (at that time, he encouraged believers in the UK to abandon their work and benefit from public advantages). The Koran also confirms that the collection of Jizya is the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. The verses that commission this (9:5) appear much later than the verse that there is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256), which means that it takes precedence and abolishes the earlier verse. For this reason, Islamic purists like Hamas and the Taliban want to reinstate Jizya. One of the first orders of the self-proclaimed caliphate, formulated by the Islamic state in 2014, was to impose Jizya by force on Christians who refused to embrace Islam.

An Egyptian cleric told on the TV channel al-Hafaz in 2013 that American foreign aid was a form of Jizya and "owed" to them. He also believed that Muslims should demand more money from the Americans, his words: "we can leave them alone". Only when the Jizya is paid will America be "allowed to perceive her own interests, which are allowed to them by the Muslims."

Contemporary Muslim apologists often use the earlier "no compulsion in religion" verse to portray Islam as a peaceful religion. They give very reluctantly that the Jizya is a punishment for not Muslims. They usually fall back on the assertion that the Jizya is merely a tax paid to the government - and that this "tax" is imposed on religious status and is almost always a much greater burden than for Muslim citizens . The interesting thing about this rhetorical strategy is that it directly contradicts every accusation that Islam is only a religion and not a political system.

Tolerance in Islam is not free. The Jizya is the tax that must be paid by non-Muslims to exercise their religion. Under Islamic law, people are to be killed or enslaved when the money is not paid or paid.

In the eternal and unchangeable Koran, which existed since ancient times, even Allah himself had to replace some verses and passages with a "better" version. Of course, this is a contradiction in terms. How can something exist since ancient times in an unchanged version if there are subsequent replacement by a better version?

The statement itself is an evidence that the Quran was not written by an omniscient and omnipotent God, rather by the bloodthirsty and a war hungry self-proclaimed prophet with the name Muhammad. He has shown his people by his success with the creation of Islam how to invent a God (Allah) and can be successful with treachery and insidiousness. Expressed in other words: not Allah sent Muhammad to bring his message among the people, but Muhammad has created Allah to put himself in the center. Which God would put an uneducated criminal illiterate as its Ambassador? The time history shows the result, which an omniscient should know before.

Koran: Even God sometimes replaces verses or passages with a "better" version

Verse 2:106

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

Verse 13:39

Allah blots out what He wills and confirms (what He wills). And with Him is the Mother of the Book (Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz)

Verse 16:101

And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.

Verse 16:103

And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is a clear Arabic tongue.

The above verses, especially verse 16:103 shows that even Muhammad reached with his lies the boundaries of his credibility at this point in time. What helps in such a case better than a new "revelation"?

Although all Muslim scholars believe that God replaced some earlier verses by substitution with later verses, there are great disagreements among them which verses have been replaced by which verses. Nevertheless, most agree on the sura 9: 5, called "the verse of the sword". Sura 9: 5 replaces most of the preceding verses about jihad. Some believe that this verse replaces more than 111 previous verses.

This fact reinforces the assumption that the Koran is nothing more than a loose-sheet collection, which got thrown into the air during a wind, re-collected the sheets and afterwards got a new religion from the hodge-podge created. Would a God ever act in such a way?

This procedure also shows how important the Koran has been for the Muslims in the ancient time. They did not care at all to keep the words of their God for posterity. The contents of the Koran were passed on by oral tradition, which has the same value as the well-known children's game "Silent Message". Thus is the reason for the different versions of the Koran, which existed already shortly after Muhammad's death. Is is not nice from Allah to spread His message in such a way? Would a God really act like that?

Despite this general agreement, many scholars from today cite the preceding superseded verses to validate their perception of Islam as a peaceful religion. As a result, modern, liberal Muslim leaders, particularly in the West, can preach the teachings of the "Islam of Mecca" with emphasis on non-violence and tolerance. At the same time, the "Islam of Medina" in its aggressive and totalitarian nature is taught and practiced by the Orthodox and fundamentalist Muslims in many parts of the Muslim world.

Verse 9:5

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

Religions have always been the enemies of any science. The religious fanatics are extremely afraid that their previous statements are getting refused scientifically.

Such an experience made the islamic joke figure, who calls himself to be a "theologian" and "law scholar", Bandar al-Khaibari, during Ferbruary 2015. He claimed in a mosque on previously submitted questions as to whether the earth is rotating or standing still: "It stands still" and "Of course, the earth does not revolve around the sun, which already had already ranked higher-ranking Islam scholars".

The preacher is with his view of the world in illustrious society. Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, long-time top Mufti in Saudi Arabia, also denied that the earth is turning. In 1982, he published a book in which he devoted himself to this thesis.

Three years later he corrected himself. Prince Sultan bin Salman could dissuade him from his error. He had good arguments: Prince Sultan had just been the first Saudi Arabian who has been flying into space on board of a space shuttle.

However, the science and the urge of man to know new areas of knowledge can not be forbidden by anything or anyone.

On August 12, 2008, the Intelligence Consortium Sheikh Saleh bin Fauzan bin Abdul-Lah al-Fauzan wrote on the subject "How is the question of the rotation of the earth to judge the sun properly?" a fatwa (legal opinion) with the number 10348:

This is a matter of Allah who administers the universe. The Koran says the sun is moving while the earth is still. The Koran obviously tells us this. We believe the message of the Koran, not what scientists say.

Even the geologists do not agree. The former geologists said that the earth is rotating around the sun. However, this was refuted by younger geologists.

We believe in the Qur'an and in what the Qur'an says in all its clarity. The words of the scientists are not sacred. The words of the Koran and the Prophet, on the other hand, are holy, true, and eternal.

In his own words "The words of the Koran and of the Prophet are holy, true and eternal," Sheikh al-Fauzan declares the Koran to be a fairy-tale book for uneducated idiots, and both Allah and Mohammed to liars. Intelligence is also not available for a sheikh.

In any case, the question remains open as to which university is supposed to have trained this apparently mentally disturbed man? Which organization has the right to write such a stupidity into a legal opinion? The following note can be found on the website of the Institute for Islamic Studies:

Sheikh al-Fauzan is one of the most prominent contemporary clerics of Sunni Islam. He earned his doctorate in the subject "Islamic Law" at the "Faculty of Islamic Law of Ar Riyad" at the Saudi Arabian University Riyad.

Al-Fauzan has also worked as a lecturer at the Riyad Scientific Institute, as well as at the Faculty of Islamic Law, the Department of Advanced Research at the University of Religious Foundations. He was the chairman of the Supreme Judicial Association and the governors of the [Islamic] Annunciation [Da'wa] among pilgrims. He was preacher and preacher of the mosque of Prince Mut'eb bin Abdul-Aziz al-Sa'ud in al-Mals / Saudi Arabia. At the moment, he is still a member of the Permanent Committee on Legal Advice and Research in Saudi Arabia. He is a book author and has written numerous books on Islamic law [the Shariah], the proclamation of Islam [Da'wa], on legal opinions [Fatwas], the Koran and the tradition [hadith].

The fact that the earth does not move around the sun, but rather stands in space, is also represented by other prominent Muslim scholars. For example, Sheikh Muhammad al-Uthaimeen argues that the Qur'an and the prophets of Islam claim that the sun is moving, which, however, does not say anything unambiguous about the [alleged] movement of the earth.

The Saudi Arabian University in Riyad, the Supreme Judicial Association as well as the Permanent Committee on the Legal Advice and Research of Saudi Arabia should urgently consider whether they should not seek an opinion on the state of mind of Sheikh al-Fauzan. Who still needs enemies if he has such advocates as Sheikh al-Fauzan?

On September 25, 2002, a group of armed Islamists entered the office of a Christian charitable organization in Karachi, Pakistan, bound seven workers to chairs and then brutally murdered them. According to Muslim witnesses, the Muslims showed no hurry and took a good 15 minutes to separate the Christians and ensure that each of their goals suffered the most terrible death.

The murder of non-Muslim humanitarian workers by religious followers of Islam often happens. While there is rarely a celebration on the side of other Muslims, there is also not much indignation by a community known for their weakness.

While rumors of a Koran desecration or a Muhammad cartoon produce deadly protests, riots, incendiary fires, and image fires, the mass murder of non-Muslims does not become a real passion. In the eleven years after September 11, nearly 20,000 Islamic terrorist attacks were perpetrated, but all of them do not provoke the kind of indignation on the part of most Muslims, such as the mere mention of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

This critical absence of the moral perspective confuses many Westerners, especially those who try to reconcile this reality with the politically correct assumption that Islam is like another religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition preaches universal love and selflessness, so it is expected that the pious Muslims will be the most peaceful and least dangerous ... provided that Islam is based on the same principles.

But among the rosy assurances of proponents of Muslim ideologies that Islam is about peace and tolerance lies a much darker reality that better explains violence and deep-rooted indifference. Quite simply, the Koran teaches supremacy, hatred, and hostility.

Consider the elements that define the hate speech:

• Distinguish between one's own identity group and those outside
• The moral distinction to which this comparison is based
• Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one's own
• Advocating the different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
• Call for violence against members of other groups

Unfortunately, and in spite of the best intentions of many respectable Muslims, the Koran qualifies as a hate speech in every respect.

The holiest book of Islam (61% of which refers to non-Muslims) draws the sharpest differences between Muslims (the best people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst creatures 98:6). The praise is wasted on the former, while the latter are condemned with burning generalizations.

Far from teaching universal love, the Koran continually preaches the inferiority of the non-Muslims, even if he compares them with disgraceful animals and smolks over Allah's hatred against them and his dark plans for their eternal torture. The Muslims are said to be destined to dominate non-believers, against whom hard treatment is promoted.

The Islamic state implements these teachings from the Koran into practice. In Ramadan in 2016 they raided a restaurant. They tortured and killed those who could not recite from the Koran while Muslims were spared.

Polished Muslim scouts in the West love to use the word "Bigot" to describe critics of Islam, but they are rarely challenged about their own view of the Koran. What does the book, which they claim to contain the literal and eternal Word of Allah, really say about non-Muslims?

• Quran: Distinguishes Muslims from non-Muslims in a hierarchy of relative values
• The Quran dehumanizes non-Muslims and describes them as animals
• Quran: Allah loves NOT the unbelievers
• Quran: Non-Muslims are destined for eternal torture in hell
• Allah himself hinders non-Muslims from understanding
• Allah is trying everything that all non-Muslims sin
• Quran: Do not make friends with non-Muslims
• Quran: Other religions are cursed by Allah
• Quran: People of other religions in this world are to be severely punished

The pattern of violence and aggressive disregard for human suffering, which is persistent in Muslim history, and the contemporary attitude towards non-believers reflects the message of the Koran, which is a personal superiority and arrogance.

In today's world, Muslim rule is characterized by the oppression and discrimination of non-Muslims, while Muslim minorities in larger societies are distinguished by varying degrees of aggravated demand, discord, and armed rebellion. Only a few Muslims are uncomfortable with this blatant double standard in which Islam, depending on its power position, is either a victim or makes others to a victim - and the reason is obvious.

Islam is a fully dominant ideology in which the role of non-believers is subordinated to the position of Muslims. Those who oppose Islamic rule are to be fought until they are either killed or completely humiliated and forced to acknowledge their subordinate status by committing themselves to Islam or by paying compensation and accepting submission to their own religion.

There is simply no other religion on earth that draws such a sharp distinction between their own members and others. No other religion devotes so much of their holiest text to the condemnation and dehumanization of those who merely decide not to follow their dogma.

So much about Islamic terrorism and the general equivalency of the broader Muslim community against violence makes sense only against this double nature of Islam - as well as the foreign willingness of the followers of Muhammad to tolerate their own subjugation under Ottoman or Arab tyrants such as Saddam Hussein They themselves violently attack other negligent neighbors.

The proponents of Islam do not lie when they say that Islam teaches love and kindness, but they forget to add that this is only for the treatment of those within the Muslim community. Loyalty to one's own identity group is above all appreciated, and empathy for those outside of faith is at best optional - and even explicitly undesirable.

If this is a "misunderstanding" of Islam by modern "radicals", then it is a mistake that the founder of Islam has also made. In Muhammad's time, non-Muslims were killed only for speaking against the new religion and their self-proclaimed prophet. Similarly, the Jews of Qurayza were compelled and killed on Muhammad's orders, even if they had not even fought. Since the life of a non-Muslim is cheap, the actual physical damage to a Muslim is not necessary to justify the murder according to the example of Muhammad.

The Koran fulfills every criterion with which we define hate speech. Not only the message inspires dislike and disregard for others, but the text claims the superiority of Islam, and violence can also be used as a means to achieve the goals.

In his later years, Muhammad directed military campaigns to subjugate other tribes and religions; they were "invited" to Islam with the sword and forced to pay tribute. He launched the aggressive military campaigns that waged war against all five major world religions in the first decades after his death.

Islam involves the ultimate devaluation of non-Muslims by teaching. While a Muslim can be sentenced to death for murdering another Muslim (Bukhari 83:17), no Muslim can be sentenced to death for the murder of a non-Muslim (Bukhari 83:50, 3:111 - Muhammad: "No Muslim can be killed for the murder of a Kafir (unbeliever).") The "law of equality" from the Koran applies only to Muslims. The human values and rights based on gender, religion and status are the exact opposite of equality in the Western liberal tradition in the Koran.

One can always find proponents of Islam who are willing to defuse the hard rhetoric of the Koran with creative interpretation, tortuous explanation or boundless denial. Their words and deeds are almost always a concern for the representation of Islam, which does not extend to the victims of Islam - at least not with the same sense of urgency.

Of course there are also exceptional Muslims who do not agree with the Islamic predominance and sincerely defend secularism and respect for all people. Some even find verses or fragments of it to support their independent beliefs. But for these people, the Koran as a whole will always be a constant challenge as it explicitly teaches the distinctive and subordinate status of non-Muslims.

A large-scale military campaign against the Islamic State (Daesh or IS) is planned for Mosul. The terrorist militia should be expelled from their last stronghold in the Iraq. The inhabitants of the city are now faced with the choice: If they stay, they expect air raids and a possible siege. If they try to flee, they would get threatened punishment by the fighters of the IS.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians are preparing for the offensive, which is being planned. There are still discussions about the execution at the international level: Iraq rejects the participation of Turkish troops. There is a consensus that the action against the Islamic State will get carried out in Mosul.

As the British "Guardian" reports, the IS keeps the residents from leaving the city by checkpoints along the exit roads. The houses of those who had already escaped were blown up, as punishment and deterrence for others.

The escape itself is life-threatening and often means a journey through minefields. Those who remain must be prepared for air raids and street fightings. Also a possible siege of the big city threatens, and last but not least the danger, as a human protective shield to be abused, as the IS has already done in other conflicts.

The Muslim cowards from the Daesh need some civilians, women, children, etc. where they can hide themselves behind. Such people don't have any honor and they will end up in hell for getting tortured from the Satan instead of playing with 72 virgins. What else can you expect from the "peaceful" Islam? In the Quran is murdering, men slaughtering, rapes, slavery, etc. of unbelievers allowed. But in this case the Muslim cowards are using innocent Muslim civilians, women and children as protective shield.

Iraqi soldiers and Peshmerga prepare themselves before Mosul. IS fighters should have retreated already in residential areas. "The children are crazy because the US jets bombed IS positions in residential areas. The sound is terrible, the windows are broken, the whole house is shaking and people are hysterical", the "Guardian" quotes a man from Mosul, who recently escaped with his family. In Mosul itself, people prepare themselves by building makeshift shelters and collecting food supplies.

While the Iraqi Mosul is still waiting for the big offensive, Syrian rebels with Turkish support have already launched an operation against the Daesh in Dabik. The Islamists there were preparing for an "apocalyptic battle" on Saturday, reported the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. More than 1,200 IS fighters are also on the road from other fronts to "defense Dabiks". Dabik, controlled by the Terrorist militia, lies north of Aleppo near the Turkish border. According to reports, Turkey is involved with tanks and fighting planes against the terrorists.

The 3000-inhabitant village is not of strategic, but of high symbolic importance: According to an Islamic tradition, an important battle between the Muslims and their opponents will take place here at the end of time. Not least because of its ideological importance, the IS named its English-language propaganda magazine after the city.

Dabik also plays an important role in Turkish history. Here, the Ottoman Sultan Selim I defeated the Egyptian Mamelucke Sultan, laying the foundations for the conquest of the Arab world.

With the support of Turkey and the USA, the rebels recently took several villages near Dabik.