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 following video shows an interview from Mullah Krekar given to a Norwegian TV station. It shows clearly the the intentions from the Muslims to rule the world and how they are using the Quran for their own purpose. Instead of integrating themselves into the community of the country where they have been coming they try to bring their system from which they have been running away to their destination country and expect that others have to respect their beliefs and their stone-age system. Such people are not accepting other cultures or beliefs but this narrow-minded people are expecting that the other 70% of the world will respect them. The Muslims have even not learned until now that respect has to get earned and cannot get demanded. Respect can get only earned with good deeds and by respecting the local law.

These people are nothing else than parasites, which like to get all the advantages from the Western World and like to give terror, war and killings in exchange. Are the Muslims thinking that the Western World has only perverts living there?

If the Mullah Krekar and his followers are enjoying the Sharia, then they have to relocate to a country where the Sharia is state law and not to a country with a different law system. I would recommend to bring him immediately to such a country for the reason of peace in Norway.

Here is the interview wit Mullah Krekar from the Norwegian TV station:

Here is a transcription from the questions (Q) and answers (A) given in the video:

Q: For someone who burns the Koran, the punishment, according to Islam, is death, is that correct?

A: If you burn the Koran, which is an insult, then the answer is clearly yes.

Q: You sat in prison for threatening [?] and the Prime Minister, now one of the [?] says that you have threatened him again. Is that correct?

A: No, that is not correct. He can go the way of the courts and try to prove that.

Q: But that man who has burned the Koran, would it be right that he loses his life even though he lives in Norway?

A: I know absolutely that he has committed a criminal offense where the punishment is death.
The responsibility for carrying out the punishment is on the Ummah, our Muslim brotherhood (Ummah).
Regardless if he lives in Norway or if he is Barack Obama. I am not myself threatening the person. I am telling you what is stated in the law. I have told you what is in the Koran and in the Hadith. I have not pointed at one specific person and said “You we must kill.”

Q: One of those who burned a Koran is afraid because somebody who listens to you might want to kill him. Because you have said that that is the punishment according to the Koran, isn’t there the risk that somebody would listen to you?

A: He must fear the Somalis, the Indonesians, the Africans, the Chechens – anybody who follows the Koran. He doesn’t have to be afraid of me, but will have to fear – the crime he has committed and fear that his punishment will be executed.

Q: Doesn’t that mean that you, with your religious interpretations, as a matter of fact sentence him to death, even if you won’t personally do the deed then somebody else will do it?

A: Not only those who listen to me. Anybody who knows of his punishment can kill him. Anybody. We will defend our religion with your own blood. Our only limits are limits of blood, limits made of explosives. Those who insult our religion must know that one of us will die. Those who insult our religion and our honor must understand that this is a matter of life and death.

Q: But would you be satisfied if this man gets killed?

A: Yes, I would send a gift to the person who kills him. Why wouldn’t I be happy about that?

Q: Does that mean that you are happy about the attack on Charlie Hebdo in France and also the attack against Lars Vilks in Denmark?

A: I know little about the attack in Denmark. But of course I am happy about what happened in France.

Q: Those who attacked Charlie Hebdo, how would you describe them?

A: They were defending their honor, they were defending their holiness.

Q: Those who attacked Charlie Hebdo in France, where they heroes?

A: Yes, of course. They where Jihadists.

Q: Would you wish to also find heroes like that in Norway?

A: No, I don’t hope for that. Not because I live in Norway, but because France deserve it. But if the Scandinavians also go down the same path as France, then they would deserve it.

Q: If, for example an artist draws a Muhammad cartoon in Norway, for the first time, that is, the first one to make it, would it then be all right for an Islamist to find that person and blw himself up to kill the cartoonist?

A: It is not I who gives permission to do this. But the cartoonist would have become an infidel warrior whom it is then permitted to kill. Still, explosives must not be used as it could also then kill innocents.

Q: But if he is alone then that is OK?

A: Wipe him out, wipe him out. Because he has stepped on our dignity our principles and our belief, he will have to die. Those who do not respect 30% of the earth’s population (Muslims) have no right to live.

Q: But there are also Norwegian newspapers and TV stations amongst others, who have published some of these cartoons!

A: It is the first action that matters. For example, when Jyllands-Posten published those despicable cartoons in 2005 in Denmark, then those are the ones that count. Later 13 other countries who also published the drawings to lessen the pressure on Denmark. This is also not the right thing to do but still is the first action that deserves a reaction. We live in an open time. Those who mock our religion have to know that we are not like the Jews – who keep silent and bow down before international “drawing-terror”. No. We will die for our religion and we live for our religion. Nothing is more holy than our religion. Those who insult our religion must know that we will meet them with our bombs. There will be no indulgence, no understanding or negotiations in this case. We do not live for the sake of our own lives, we do not live for our wives. We live only for our religion.

Q: Is it good that Norwegian Islamic youth travel abroad to strengthen both their belief but also to learn fighting skills in order to fight for Islam?

A: Youth, girls and boys who take off to do Jihad should carefully consider and study the fighting, and the area he is going what he wishes to accomplish there. Then he should go. And if he goes he should not regret it. If he comes back after six months then he would be looked upon with suspicion even if he just went down to be a street sweeper. Those who leave to do Jihad must not return but have to stay. If he comes back, there will be lots of trouble and difficulties for Muslims and international intelligence will scrutinize him. And the pressure on the Muslims here will increase. I don’t support that.

Q: The war that right now is happening in Syria and Iraq, is it important?

A: Yes, of course it is important. What is happening in Syria is right. The people want to remove the old regime which has done criminal things nobody had ever done before. The West stood silent and watched while their consciences were either dead or on vacation. So the only real thing for Syria is Jihad, despite what the West might think.

Q: How important is the establishment of a Caliphate with a Caliph that is of Muhammad’s own family?

A: This is an important point which I do no think the West fully understands. Some politicians understand but they do not really wish to understand. And that is that Islam is not like Christianity. Our Islam is a political movement. The Bible is not the same as the Koran. The Koran has 500 verses about politics and ruling, about its Sharia laws and its justice system. You don’t find that in the Bible. There is a big difference; therefore we cannot in Islam separate politics on the one side and religion on the other. Religion and politics go hand in hand in Islam. So, the establishment of a Caliphate is both a legal and a religious event. From the deepest part of our religion. What is happening in Syria where Dr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed the establishment of a Caliphate, a regime the West fears. Two important points about al-Baghdadi: Firstly, Obama and all who are with him fear the Caliphate because we Muslims support it, right from Indonesia to Morocco, from Chechnya to South Africa if we think he is the rightful Caliph. Because that would mean that the old borders are wiped out. The Sykes-Picot-line that we do not acknowledge.

Q: Are you ready to swear allegiance to the Caliph?

A: I am not yet ready. This is because I don’t know him and the Caliphate well enough. Which rules they follow. In our religious books there are seven conditions for a Caliphate. But if I recognize him as the Caliph then yes, I would swear allegiance to him in front of the Norwegian parliament and I would endure and accept all sorts of reactions from the rest of the world.

Q: Do you think that this Caliphate or another Caliphate will take over dominion of the world?

A: Not the whole world. But I think that within the next 20 years we will again have our Caliphate. And it will play a big role in the international community. I mean that our Islamic community (Ummah) has reached 70%. We need then only 30%, and in my opinion we will reach this within 20-25 years. God willing, then we will our own Islamic state which everybody will have to swear allegiance to whether the West likes it or not.

Freedom of speech was won for criticism of religious authority.
Without that freedom, all other freedoms will be labeled as a religious matter and will be lost to us.
Criticizing religion, and even ridiculing it, is not just a freedom. It is a profound obligation.

Already the fact that not one original version from the Quran is today available makes it impossible to find out the original teaching and what has been added by other humans. The Quran was recorded on tablets, bones, and the wide, flat ends of date palm fronds. Most suras were in use amongst early Muslims since they are mentioned in numerous sayings by both Sunni and Shia sources, relating Muhammad's use of the Quran as a call to Islam, the making of prayer and the manner of recitation. However, the Quran did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. There is agreement among scholars that Muhammad himself did not write down the revelation. More information about the history of the Quran can get found at WikiPedia.

Nobody needs to wonder himself that such people like Mullah Krekar are not getting welcomed in the Western World. Such people are only depress the hospitality underfoot.

Which people the Muslims are get shown in their deeds and war crimes. They have even destroyed in the last days the truck convoy which should bring help to the innocent people from the Syrian conflict. The trucks have been marked with the Red Crescent and Red Cross. Even their own people are not counting for these power horny leaders who are only using the religious beliefs of the crowd in their own favor. In reality they are nothing else than barbarians.