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 "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.

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.

In Germany, the church receives 19 billion Euro annually from the state. Why? Because they are churches and religions in this country have always been financed by taxpayers, although their assets are estimated to be about 500 billion euros (all property, land, property, etc.).

The Islamic associations are now yelling: STOP STOP, NOW I SPEECH! And also demand money and are immediately screaming discrimination, if they do not get it. Since the two Christian churches are trying to prevent any debate about the legality of this welfare-State benefits, they figure dairymaid-like, it is still most profitable for them if you mass tax money also the associations of Islam get (they don't pay it finally), that they voluntarily give up "their" money.

This is the main reason why the Islamic associations are pushing open doors, and the churches are at the forefront of equating Islam in every respect before they give up billions of euros in taxpayers' money. This also means that the Islam in the schools will be that imams and Islamic religion teachers will get financed by the government and of course, that they eventually get their own Islamic labor law and legally covered, who is not a Muslim, which simply doesn't get the jobs allocated by them in their institutions. Against this nothing can get done otherwise the Christian churches will loose their privileges too.

The state is thus trying to breed its own Euro-Islam, which he believes he can direct. Only the Islamic associations, however, are firmly linked with the foreign countries, with partly anti-democratic countries and governments, which are only too willing to use this privilege to subvert and influence. And also here the state will not intervene, because he would tangle in this case with the churches, which don't want to renounce no cent of tax money. Anyway others are paying it and with the often negative effects the population must come alone clear. If not, they are supposed to be "Islamophile" or "Islamophobia", in order to make them guilty and subordinate intolerance.

Even if Christians do not like it, the churches are mainly responsible for the fact that there is an Islamization. And with Islamization, we do not understand that all are forced to Islam, but that Islam is going to clash all the privileges that the churches already have. Including the non-criticism of their practices. The only rational way against Islamization and the excessive influence of foreign Islamic governments is therefore secularization and rethinking the privileges of the religions. All religions!

The bottom line it looks namely, that as Turkey gets here a big co-right and this co-right get even paid from the German tax payers, because many associations of Islam by the dominance of the Turkish members are Turkey enslaved. Germany, however, does not have any co-right in Turkey and other Islamic countries. In such a case it would get spoken about colonialism, Hitler and any right of scrutiny gets rejected.

As long as the churches are only keen on the tax money, they will always look away, whenever everywhere else Christians are getting persecuted, while they themselves contribute to this, that Islamic groups, who are advocating the Christian persecution in their homelands are rising their influence.

Whenever a suicide bomber blows himself and other innocents by yelling Allahu Akbar and having the Koran in one hand and an ax in the other one, Muslims always use the same and easily refutable standard excuses.

By using these standard excuses the stubborn Muslims even oversee that their religious duty is to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. As nobody in the Western World is so stupid and provides himself under a religious dictatorship this religious duty can get only fulfilled by force.

These brainwashed and uneducated Muslims even not get it that they are getting contradicted by their idiotic Imams, who are praying for the terrorists and who are calling their believers to murder.

Under these conditions, these idiots are expecting that others are more stupid than themselves and are believing the following excuses:

1. This has nothing to do with Islam

   With what does it have to do? Maybe with a beekeeper club? But certainly not with Islam. That the assassins are regular guests in mosques, know more about Islam than the hobby-Muslim next door, that does not matter. It has nothing to do with Islam, because it is not allowed to have for unbelievers something to do with Islam. If you continue annoying, you get marked as Islam hater and for the reason that the word comes from hate, you are already nothing worth and stamped as stalker. The Muslim goes to the next mosque for shaking hands with gay haters, Antisemites and Islamists. Every vote counts. This is true democracy.

2. These are not true Muslims

   A standard phrase, which you can always hear in pubs and bars when you drink with Muslims one over the thirst. As we all know, Mohammed has preserved his revelations (nicer words for lies and hate speech) in pubs, and was presumed to be dead drunk. How many true Muslims nowadays drink more than they pray? So, in the future, one may continue to listen to the hobby drinkers in the future, that the one who drinks nothing, pursues no gamble and otherwise tries to live as Islam compliant as possible, can not be a true Muslim. If a beer drinking and Shisha smoking Muslim says it, then that is just like that. The fact that the IS, Hamas, the Taliban and other Islamic pacifists rightly justify this prosecution of particularly different Muslims, we would rather not mention. This would be anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim racism and only evil Nazis do. So keep your mouth shut and continue to be good.

3. This kind of Muslims don't exists

   It is true that the majority of the Muslims form the idea that Muhammad's life should be imitated and the Muslims will take over the world, as Muhammad envisaged. If one imitates the life from Muhammad and cuts off the head from others then it has at first nothing to do with the Islam, at second is this one not a real Muslim and at third such Muslims don't exist. So you can run a double strategy that you deny at the same time that it has not been Muslims at all, but because you do not always come through, such Muslims simply do not exist. So you can excuse himself on a different and less beautiful flow of Islam.

4. Islam is peace

   Nobody is interested in that the core of Islamic ideology actually means submission. If it is for example interesting for a girl, her brother will exorcise her until she will subjugate herself. Here, the brother forms, that he is Islam, because in fact, Islam is the pretext for a transient wannabe macho, in order to exert power on others. Preferable against weaker ones because against stronger ones will it be hard to win. Who knows, if the 40 cousins have time to beat the one guy?

   It is simple a fact that all countries with a Muslim majority and religious parties are acting in a pacifist way. At least, when you're on drugs and can spot colorful lights in the air. Saudi Arabia beheads, Iran is stoning, Turkey locks away for years, Afghanistan is stoning too (but in even uglier clothing), Indonesia takes the truncheon, Egypt genitally mutilated over 90% of girls and women. Apart from these few exceptions, any Islamic society is truly peaceful and tolerant. Who denies that Islam means peace, must simply be reminded by force. It finally serves a good cause, the world peace.

5. You son of a bitch, I fuch your mother

   For everything, for which there is (no) excuse, or the old excuses do not work because of the more educated Islamic critics, this sentence fits. But as you hear it from every fourth Muslim and not from all (there are indeed a lot of Muslims that you like), these are only isolated cases.