Hamza and my incontinence

Has Hamza changed his mind about scientific accuracy of the Koran?

Whenever Hamza the liar Tzortzis opens his mouth or puts pen to paper it causes muscular contractions in my body which feels as though I am loosing body fluids through every conceivable body crevice or opening.

This time around (there’s no date, so I’ll take today, 20.08.2013), he has outdone himself once again.

He is releasing a draft, a pre-release draft, a released pre-release. Is there such a thing as a draft after release status? I have never released a draft in my life, as my draft developed into a release version, before I released it. My versions 0.x were not released, but version 1.0 was the release version. I have never released a draft. Hamza does. He makes this very clear by labeling it Pre-release Draft 0.9b. He probably uses it to let others fix his mistakes.

Hamza outlines the topic, making it clear that over time, Muslims were using science to verify miracles. Which is impossible from the word go because science doesn’t do magic tricks.

Also, science was used to verify that a discourse was divine with a capital D. That is equally impossible, right from the start. Science does not concern itself with anything super-natural, be it ghosts or gods.

So the entire essay will be about the impossible. Great stuff.

The text he is referring to is the Koran, is a vague, unstructured book, not a discourse, which I have down as a formal discussion of a subject or the formal treatment of a subject, but whatever, if he needs words which sound important to make a boring and primitive subject more interesting or upgrade a book…. It’s just that a book as vague and ambiguous as the Koran just doesn’t deserve to be called a discourse in my eyes.

In linguistics, it can be any unit of connected speech, but when reading a book, I would not use this expression for sure. But never mind la, not important

Hamza, acting like the academic he wishes he were, provides a link to Google in the form of a footnote, showing the result of a search – but when he makes a huge claim, such as the claim that “Islamic classical scholarly tradition was engaged in a debate as to whether to use science”, there is no source. I actually doubt there is one and that he made that up, simply because it sounds nice.

Our Hamza now goes into his usual waffling mode, saying that the birth of this what he calls “movement” was based on a book from the 70s, but it was born in the 80s. Of course.

Let’s take a quick look at the sequence of events:

A Muslim from Yemen, Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, studied in Cairo, was fired and went to Saudi Arabia, where he and his friend and fund-raiser, Osama bin Laden, embarked on several projects together. Zindani, a one-man deception party, founded the “Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah”, based in Saudi Arabia. He found a French doctor at the Saudi court, Dr. Maurice Bucaille, who delivered the basis for Bucaillism, “Bible, the Koran and Science” a hilarious book. Zindani then found another doctor, this time from Canada, a Dr. Keith Moore, who released one his editions of a textbook which also became a hit with gullible Muslims. Even today, some Muslims call him a “scholar”, full of admiration for his outstanding capabilities to lie to Muslims and deceive them for so many years.

The back cover of the Bucaille book claims that “As a surgeon, Maurice Bucaille has often been in a situation where he was able to examine not only people's bodies, but their souls.” So we know what level these doctors are operating on.

Today we know that both these charlatans and medical doctors went ahead and made huge amounts of money, selling complete nonsense in the form of ridiculous claims, without much effort.

Next, Zindani branched out and used different deceptive tactics and now produced a movie, using non-Muslim academics. They were not prominent Western academics or eminent non-Muslim scholars, as Hamza would like to think, but University professors or scientists, who went not to one, as Hamza mistakenly claims, but several conferences. The movie was edited in a way that it seemed that they were making positive remarks regarding scientific contents in the Koran, which they were not, as they themselves attested recently in interviews by the Wall Street Journal and the VLogger TheRationaliser.

The lies and deception did work however through 30 or 40 years, making people like Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya very rich people. Maybe Hamza thought in his naivety and largely unused brain he could latch on to that.

He probably has not realized yet that a few years ago the facts emerged and the entire movement claiming scientific miracle died down. He should know as he was the last to experience this when the embarrassingly bad paper on the scientific accuracy of embryology in the Koran was completely destroyed and shown to be utterly fallacious and wrong, demonstrating that biased and preconceived research delivers only the results you want, not the truth.

People who were gullible enough to join Islam due its modern appeal and the apparent scientific accuracy were soon disillusioned and were appalled by the dishonest and deceptive marketing tricks used by the salespeople and scouts. They left Islam just as quickly as they had joined and I have not heard of any of them having been killed, as is demanded by Muslim clerics over and over. One learns to be grateful for things like that.

So this is where we are today.

For the first time, Hamza acknowledges this. He actually brings up entire paragraphs which make total sense to the extent that I thought he finally got it. But then he writes something silly, showing he is a good copy/paste artist but does not have the brain to actually process the contained information and understand it.

He uses the ideas of a Muslim scientist, who deplores the state of education amongst Muslims and fights for less dogma and more knowledge, but Hamza does not really understand the professor. He never has.

He just pretends he does.

But now he has a problem: he says the Koran is not really scientifically accurate because science is not 100% accurate. But then why use this unreliable and inaccurate science to verify the divine origins of the Koran? What he tries to do is to soften the reliability of science – but is still faced with the problem of the many, many mistakes in the Koran which are not based on science. He concedes the errors of scientific accuracy but can’t allow for divine errors. So he does today,  what the so-called “scholar” did with me 2 years ago in the Fanar in Doha: he said that over time, scientists will conclude that sperm is not produced in the testes but in the torso, hoping that unreliable science will one day say the same as the Koran.

But excuse me, then the Koran would be just as unreliable and inaccurate as science.

But Hamza is not honest enough to let go of this stupid divine and inerrant concept in the Koran, which is actually killing Islam. Maybe he thinks that because then internet is not mentioned in the Koran it does not exist, but it is there and delivering the facts which lead to more and more questions around the Koran without convincing answers.

In the section on miracles he loses the plot completely, mixing “scientific” sentences with naturalistic explanations and linguistics.

Maybe that’s why it’s a "Pre-release Draft 0.9b"

Oh no, here go the muscle again….

He now softens up the text of the Koran in that words may mean something or may not. So the words “there is no god but god” or “don’t eat pork” may mean something completely different today, according to Hamza.

He tries and represents what the devout Muslim, a Dr. Nidhal Guessoum, an Algerian astrophysicist and Professor of Physics in the UAE has written. This scientist is still a creationist who loves to tinker with evolution, trying to find and propagate any type of alternative explanation even though he accepts the basic theory and hates rejectionists like Harun Yahya. Reading about this guy and what he has written is quite fascinating and I need to, I all honesty, congratulate Hamza on this find.

Dr. Guessoum writes academic and scientific papers such as “Setting up a Student Satellite Receiving System”, something I do in practice without a paper in 2 hours on a Saturday afternoon.

But he does an excellent job when it comes to assessing Islam, where he says: “While there is no doubt in people’s minds that human knowledge evolves and grows, it is often understood that religions, especially Islam, are absolute, immutable, and transcendent principles, which are set in rigid frames of reference.”

Dr. Guessoum takes a refreshingly different approach towards Islam and the Koran, rejecting the classic “revelation via angel” story and sees the text as a collection of very loose indications. He does fall into the propaganda trap of the so-called “Islamic Golden Age”, but does point out that the lives of the protagonists at the time were hardly considered Islamic at all.

He shows the dilemma of the literal Koran and says that the Koran MUST be taken metaphorically to be applicable in different times and by different people and is quite happy to be accused of cherry-picking.

In an exciting critique of Guessoum’s book, Dr. Rana Dajani, an assistant biology professor in Jordan, writes:

“In his presentation, Guessoum addresses the reader’s intellect and leaves it to him or her to draw conclusions concerning science and religion.”

On evolution she openly admits:

“As a molecular biologist, I will focus on the issue of Islam and evolution (human and nonhuman). Evolution is a fact that cannot be denied. We see manifestations of it in the design of drugs that target the influenza virus and in antibiotic resistance of bacteria and in forced evolution exhibited in artificial breeding of various plants and animals.”

“Guessoum presents this reaction to evolution with various examples in his chapter. The fact that a sound scientific theory is so vehemently denied by Muslim scientists, let alone the layperson, on the basis of belief not logic is scary because it makes one wonder what else is being denied in the name of religion and played upon by people who want to control others through ignorance and emotion. This position alienates the world of Islam from thinkers and deprives the individual Muslim of the full use of his mind”

Hamza does not take advantage of the brilliant brain of these scientists and the huge reservoir of wisdom available to him here, but, ever the copy/paste artist, we get shown just 2 or 3 words from the book.

Without any explanation on how Dr. Guessoum applies this idea in practice, but we are told that now we get a new approach, which is demonstrated by using words, which look exactly the same as they did in Hamza’s previous, embarrassingly bad essays.

It has the same result in that premiss 1 is that the Koran is never wrong and premiss 2 that if reality is different from the Koran, reality needs to be changed and adapted to the Koran..

He spouts total and absolute nonsense, claiming that the sun swimming in an orbit around Earth makes sense “in light of today’s scientific findings [i.e. celestial mechanics]”

We then get to Hamza’s pet word alaqa and the millions of meanings it can have and how a multilayered Koran can have any meaning you want at the time you need it. He can’t get over it and is unable to write anything but stuff that results in laughter and derision.

Hamza is truly embarrassing, even if he were a 6^th grader. He takes what we have shown him several times and now acknowledges that we were right all along and the Koran copies or reflects the knowledge at the time, alaqa=blood clot. But what is hilarious is that he actually says that – and now get this - his god “agrees with the predominant scientific view of the time”. Because the Koran is god’s word. So Hamza now puts more importance on what science says than what is in his magic book.

He claims the word alaqa means blood-clot or worm or leech. How does know when it means which? Maybe it was leech in the 7^th century and blood-clot in the 14^th and worm today. Or none of the above. Nobody knows.

Hamza, in his wisdom, which I hope someone will be able to demonstrate at some stage, claims that it is so obvious that the Koran in using the rubber word alaqa must mean blood-clot when read for the first time. What is his reasoning? None!

But after a few days or years or decades or centuries, the word blood-clot changes into worm or leech. None of this is specified or with any evidence attached. He says this can be verified using several instructions on what to say and how to think.

The height of his inability to grasp reality and the way science works is demonstrated in these very steps at the end of his pamphlet.

He mentions “historical statements” in the Koran, without specifying what a “historical statement” is and without providing a single example.

He mentions a “linguistic and literary miracle” which everyone knows does not exist.

Then we get the “preserved” Koran, which is nonsense, the religious messages and the killer argument: “other remarkable features”, which anyone can make up by the looks of it.

Oh boy! How bad can it get?

Well, it gets worse. Now he actually tries to apply his favourite word alaqa as a multi-layer, multi-functional word which can mean different things, all wrong.

Leech. Let’s take a look at a leech, the medicinal leech. Oh, but why the medicinal leech? Does the Koran say anything about a medicinal leech? No? Why not? Leeches come in different sizes, shapes and colours. So which one does the embryo look like? At what stage is the embryo supposed to look like a leech? From what day to what day? Come on, you say this is scientifically accurate, so where’s the scientifically accurate data? All Hamza has, is one single word: alaqa, which he says meant blood-clot at some stage and at some stage it magically transformed into leech.

blood-sucking worm

feeds on blood

increases body size 10 times

13 cm long

posterior and anterior suckers

60 to 100 teeth

secrete a substance called hirudin

clings to its prey

attaches to outer skin

lives in freshwaters

spend most of their time buried in the muddy bottom of a pond

has five pairs of "eyes"

has chemoreceptors near their head

breeds in summer

lays eggs

are hermaphroditic

ie not created in pairs and male or female. The leech is probably the worst example for Koranic veracity you could have chosen, you oaf.

In the real world out here, a human embryo results from a cell, the ovum, being fertilised by a sperm cell.

Any mention of this by Hamza?

And if you have doubts? Well, Hamza has the solution: special pleading. Because god really exists and if he exists he must be right? Why? Because he’s a god.

And science can be wrong.

Take it from god erm Hamza

Finally, “it could be argued that a verse could be deemed as more likely” a scientific miracle – which he said in the beginning doesn’t even exist.

So, finally, we get the same as we had before. The conclusion does absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, zero to the existing Bucaillism and gullible Muslims. It’s the same, identical deception. Does Hamza care about the education of his fellow Muslims? No, he wants them dumb and prostrating in submission because Allah knows best.

You can test any of the laughable claims against this list and come out with the same and identical result as before. Is the Universe expanding? Yes and all the points are checked. The same goes for the Big Bang in the Koran and all the other ludicrous claims. It is just a bad joke.

It’s an attempt to sound different and as though this was now a more modern approach. It is not

In contrast, take the simple 3-step test I developed 2 or 3 years ago:

1.                      Is this really a miracle?

2.                      Is this really mentioned like that in scripture?

3.                      Does it reflect reality?

Because Hamza is intellectually challenged, he passes the buck and hides: “Scholars, thinkers and apologists should develop this further”. Oh well.

Another pathetic attempt at sounding educated and delivering a complete fail. Why doesn’t he just shut up and stop embarrassing himself and his fellow Muslims?

Islam and Violence

If you look into human history, you realise that we have managed to put aside clubs and swords to replace them with legal books and courts. Our era is probably the most peaceful ever, with only a fraction of a percent of people being killed in person-to-person rivalry of any sorts. Territorial wars have the lowest count ever and globalisation is gradually transforming from an evil, exploitative monster into a viable win-win economic structure. We have also managed to write down common rights for humans and have them signed by all but a handful of countries. This means that humans on the entire planet have agreed on something for the first time and have developed networks which enable peaceful communication amongst people and the exchange of mutually beneficial dialogue and information. We have developed emergency response systems and catastrophe warning mechanisms along with weather previews and news coverage from any place on this planet. This news coverage still requires a lot of work before it will report newsworthy events in a balanced manner. Today, news outlets prefer sensations, mayhem, deaths and catastrophes, which is why we read about individual humans exerting power over others, some by blowing themselves up or humans killing other humans who differ in their ideology or religious beliefs. One such ideology is Islam, where we read about the followers killing and causing widespread destruction  every single day.

When the idea popped into my head to make a video about the religion of peace and the contradicting reality, I had a tough time coming up with a structure which presents the different facets, analyses them and finally presents a rational and logical conclusion. I was more than happy to be side-tracked and do other things week after week until I took a decision and finally ran with it.

I decided I would

1.      Show what the reality is when looking at Islam and violence

2.      Ask what the difference is between a violent and a moderate Muslim

3.      Look at what the possible basis is for violence in Islam

4.      Show how Muslims view this

5.      Historic musings

6.      Find relevant passages in the Koran and hadiths, god vs man

7.      Ask where the peace is in Islam

8.      Try to suggest a solution

So, here goes, this is my take on the troubled relationship between Islam, peace and violence.

Let’s start with reality today and the fact that not a day goes by without the news of a Muslim somewhere on this planet having killed another human. Islam has had something like 1400 years to demonstrate and distil the effect of peaceful messages in the Koran and show that Muslims, as a whole, reject violence as well as the torture and killing of humans.

Unfortunately, this has failed. A suicide bomber is praised for his valour, defending his religion.

Only recently, a young drummer in the British army, was brutally murdered in the UK, almost beheaded, by 2 armed men using knives and a meat cleaver. They were Muslims.

Why do I even mention that they were Muslims? How can I say this with any degree of certainty?

After killing Mr. Rigby, one of the murderers calmly walked up to bystanders and  said:

}video Woolwich_Attack_Short

“The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By allah, we swear by almighty allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the shariah in Muslim lands? … There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran that say we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth. … You people will never be safe. … Leave our lands and you will live in peace”

A Nigerian killing a man in London justifies this slaughter with the presence of British troops in Afghanistan, which he considers his or Muslim’s lands. What is the definition of the Muslim’s lands? Nobody knows. Does he know anything about UN resolutions and why British troops were in Iraq and still are in Afghanistan? I doubt it. He simply kills.

Is it really true that Muslim’s die at the hands of British soldiers on a daily basis? Did he really investigate this? I doubt it. He simply kills.

Is this what Muslims generally do? Or do Muslims deplore violence and only a few misguided individuals resort to violence? Are these really – as is so often claimed – misguided Muslims and not really true Muslims? Is Islam really only about peace?

Just one day before the murder, the guy who killed Mr. Rigby in Woolwich was a respected member of the Muslim community, a – according to the bigot and professional victim Mehdi Hasan – powerless and voiceless minority.

Yet somehow, this powerless and voiceless minority is capable of creating fear and terror in an entire country and across continents. Fear, not respect.

The guy who killed Lee Rigby, was a respected member of the Muslim community – until he decided it was time to try and behead a non-Muslim, delivering what he thought was justice.

The guy who killed Lee Rigby, was a respected member of the Muslim community - until he became a monster, a non-Muslim monster of course, no longer a Muslim. Because Muslims are not monsters, but members of the religion of peace.

Was this brutal murder an exception, exaggerated by the media? Unfortunately, it is not.

A tea boy was executed by an ad-hoc firing squad in Syria for making a joke, saying he would grant credit for his tea if Muhammad returned from the dead. This turned some Muslims from members of the religion of peace to executioners for the religion of peace. Is this justice?

 

Are Muslims more comfortable with a gun toting female Muslim than one with a book in her hands, learning about nature? The shooting of young Pakistani student Malala by a Muslim execution squad seems to indicate this.

I have a huge amount of questions regarding the reality of Islam - in our world here and today: is there a single day when there is no killing of fellow humans done by what is known as a Muslim? Is the teaching of Islam instrumental in guiding young, impressionable and gullible people towards violence and aggression? Is the ideology behind Islam inherently peaceful and only a few crackpots misinterpret the teachings of Islam and commit acts of violence? Several a day, every day?

I need to stress right from the word go that most Muslims are great and likeable people who just want to live their lives and live their lives peacefully and will never intentionally hurt anyone. Are they better than their religious texts want them to be?

Just to clarify something else: I consider a person who follows the Koran and believes there is only 1 god and this god is the god as described in the Koran, a Muslim. I don’t really care about the 800 million various other, theoretical factors, the same way as I consider the Jehovah guys and the Amish girls to be Christians.

But what is the difference between a peaceful Muslim and a violent Muslim? What turns a human being into a killer? What happens to empathy and compassion when egotistical destruction takes over?

Why are reporters writing about Ramadan in Syria required to do so in anonymity and in fear of writing something on Islam?

A woman jailed in Dubai for getting raped has been released. This means that even Islam CAN adapt to worldwide morality standards even if the religious texts say otherwise. The fact that she was released from her job in Qatar as well shows the 2-faced system and hypocritical reality.

If Islam is based on peace and understanding, why are so many Muslims so violent? Why do we have Muslims committing acts of terrorism again and again?

This one claims that “Muslims today are forced to live under democracy and freedom”

He is full of glee and thinks this is a major win that Osama bin Laden was killed after an extended time-period and with considerable effort. His only thinking is along the lines of power, war

and killing whatever opposes Islam. He advertises Islam as an economic and political solution – all based on his imaginary god up in the sky somewhere.

The real and hard facts hit you when you hear this totally deluded woman, who is so full of hate towards the country she lives in and its people. She rambles on about Islamic education and not the homosexual education in what she calls “the West”. This is such a waste of a mind. Sad.

Muslims in the street

are indoctrinated and brainwashed to such a degree that common sense is completely silenced and only hate and violence in the form of bombs and fires remains. Sad.

A cleric who heard that women in Egypt formed a soccer team sees only violent retributions and punishment, nothing about peace or communication here at all….. This somewhat excitable Muslim cleric personifies what Islam loves and hates. The strict, rules based and restricted yet perfectly organised life versus the fear of ridicule over such pictures. It shows how Islam is run by despotic old men, threatening, not supporting.

These people however, are the same people who claim that Islam means peace and a violent Muslim going on a rampage and killing other humans is not a real Muslim.

Is it really possible that a peaceful and devout Muslim comes out of the mosque after his Friday prayers, straps on a belt consisting of explosives and blows himself up, transforming from a pious follower of Islam into a killing machine who suddenly was never actually part of Islam?

2. What is the difference between a violent and a moderate Muslim?

When exactly does this transformation take place, where a peaceful Muslim turns into a heartless killer?

The Koran says:

22:39               Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed able to give them victory; Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah … Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.

This is indeed a command to Muslims, the followers of this book, which is there to enable aggressive fighting and killing when being persecuted or wronged, where their own god is unable to protect them or does not want to stop the aggressors, even though it says here that he will. It seems this god is not as strong as the Koran claims, when humans have to do everything themselves and help god out a little. But more importantly: who exactly decides what is being done unjustly, who is wronged in what way and is the subsequent killing really sanctioned under all possible interpretations of this sentence?

When Muhammad disrupted the trade of the selling of trinkets and idols in Mecca, was he following any law or did he make up his own? Are the people who tried to defend their business and livelihood the persecutors?

What about commands which are in the Koran? Is the husband who beat his multiple wives guilty because he did what he thought was right and in line with a god’s wish? Is he guilty or not for believing what is written in the Koran? Is a command given in the Koran any different from the command given by an SS colonel to his subordinates to throw the release switch of the gas canisters?

The Jewish and Christian gods are brutal and deadly. They kill millions, 2.4 million humans to be a bit more precise. Not using estimates like during the flood or Sodom And Gomorrah, no, numbered deaths.

The Islamic god is slightly different, leaving the killing to his subjects. What is telling is that this particular god is unable to abolish violence altogether or doesn’t even want to. It also seems that it is beyond the capabilities of this god to protect places of worship. Instead, humans are required to fight and stop the demolition of  monasteries, churches, synagogues oh and mosques.

Muslims are encouraged in 1000s of pages on the net  to take matters into their own hands and destroy anything and anyone opposing Islam. Not through dialogue, but violence. Along with the commands and the justification for their usage you get the detailed instructions on how to build devices which deliver death and mutilation, not peace.

When we speak of this god of Islam, are we talking about the Islam as a political ideology or the Islam as a worshipping of this super-natural entity existing outside our known Universe to ensure personal benefits in an afterlife?

3. What is the basis for violence in Islam?

This question gets highly confusing when we look at the basis for this aggression and violence. While a few years ago analysts said that most suicide bombings were a result of political activism, a more detailed look unveils that violence aimed at inciting fear to remove UN troops from Muslim majority countries was classified as political. So the confusion stems from a lack of definitions. It’s the attempt of Islamists or fundamental, militant followers of Islam to act on the political arena using religious means of achieving this. This became obvious when UN troops moved out of Iraq and the violence even increased. Now it was a clear case of Muslims killing Muslims over religious differences or internal power struggles in the name of their god.

The book claimed to be written by this very god contains several sentences only serving to regulate the behaviour in warfare such as in

8:61                 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace

Or the famous 9:5, which gives people the option of either joining Islam or dying:

                         when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them

and the option part:

                         But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then leave their way free

Which is repeated such as in 4:90

                         if they stay away from you, and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you any authority against them.

Is this a political, a religious or a wartime set of commands? Is this still applicable today? Who gets to decide whether a nation or a group of people or an individual is in a state of war?

Following the recommendation in the Bible to even betray your own family when it comes to the belief in their god, the Koran commands in

4:135 O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both

If a person does something which is not exactly as prescribed in the Koran, ignore family ties or allegiances and betray them and have them punished just like anyone else.

How does the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait fit into this, where a Muslim nation occupies another Muslim nation and Muslim lands? How does the Muslim community react, when  - what they call – “Muslim Lands” are occupied not by UN troops but Muslim troops? Is it then considered as being justice? Or does the Nigerian Muslim fly to Chicago and kill an Iraqi Muslim to force Iraq out of Kuwait?

Haven’t we, the human race as a whole, left this behind?

The Koran quotes I use are here just to serve as examples and do not represent the full collection of these sentences found in the Koran. But what happens when you combine these violent sentences with the command found several times in the Koran to obey this god?

4. How do Muslims view this?

What do sentences like these and the attitude of the god described in the Koran do to followers? Is Islam a violent ideology and religion which tells its followers it is peaceful? Can these sentences be abused to persuade an impressionable person to do whatever it takes to follow and install the will of what is described here as the will of a god?

Is the Muslim male coming out of the mosque after prayers a good Muslim? Is this Muslim a devout and believing Muslim?  Is he?

Is this Muslim who deeply believes in the one god, prays regularly, has been on Hajj twice, pays zakat willingly, fasts during daytime when it’s Ramadan, someone any Muslim would consider a good Muslim?

What about this devout believer of the Koran and follower of Muhammad if he suddenly pushes a switch and kills everyone around him?

Does this good Muslim suddenly and instantly morph into a non-Muslim? Are all Muslims ticking time-bombs? No, of course not.

But!, do Muslims, as a consequence of this killing, declare that using weapons is un-Islamic? Can Islam and its followers condemn killing and violence? Can Muslims condemn a fellow Muslim? Will Muslims declare the violent sentences in the Koran as null and void? Will Muslims take a closer look at sentences in the Koran, and the Sunnah for that matter, and tell their brothers which sentences are obsolete because they are not at war and the sentences only refer to war-time behaviour? Will the sentences ever be deleted which tell believers they are not allowed to marry Muhammad’s wives, 1000s of years after they are dead? Is it time for a Koran v2.0?

Why, if Islam is all about peace, does the Koran contain so much violence? If this is intended only as self-defence, why can’t a god manage to stop all killing and aggression in the first place even if he insists on constantly testing his design and creation?

It is often claimed that Islam itself means “peace”. Is this true? No, it is not. Muslims don’t greet each other with “Islam aleikum”.

If you count how many times commands relating to “kill” or “slay” are used in Islamic texts you end up at almost 1000 instances. Yet Muslims will never tire of presenting the same 2 sentences from the Koran:

1.       There is no compulsion  in religion

2.       If you kill a human it is as though you kill mankind

Showing that killing is not condoned in Islam.

Great stuff – but is it true? Sadly, no. Quite the contrary, non-believers are assured – something like 83 times - of the most horrendous punishment if they maintain their stance and insist on being stupid, dumb, blind, deaf, un-intelligent, non-thinking, etc  This makes it more a compulsion than not.

I have been told that according to 10:99 we would all believe, if this god of Islam would have wanted it – yet at the same time says that (51:56) we humans are created for the sole reason of worshipping this god, meaning there is plenty compulsion and coercion going on.

Next, looking at the text of 5:32 more closely, we can see that it is actually lifted from the Talmud and in the Koran means quite the opposite, telling Jews not to kill others and at the same time justifying the killing of non-Muslims. It allows killing for “corruption”, which in 5:33 is shown to have severe punishment associated with this “corruption”. The Tafsir then define corruption as being: unbelief, idolatry, fornication or waylaying and the like. So Jews are not allowed to touch a Muslim, but a Muslim is justified in punishing humans for almost anything.

The punishment described in 5:33 is quite strange, where a person is either killed OR crucified.  Is that really an alternative? Is being crucified seen as an act of mercy? Because the next best option is having the hands and feet cut off and lastly expatriated.

}KSA behead

All we have is some cherry-picking, where individual words need to be taken and interpreted as having some association with something peaceful and we see that the claim that Islam is based on peace due to these 2 examples is not only not the case but backfires badly.

Muslims in general just want to live their lives. They want to have a happy life, ensure the family is taken care of and that the children are on track to handling their own life in the future. They run through the routines and hope they are doing enough in case there really is this superior being which will judge them and their actions. They read the lines in the Koran and the stories about Muhammad and slot them as allegoric parables, applicable in the 7^th century.

But unfortunately some people, usually young and naïve, are being abused. They are told that “The West” is at war with Islam, that “The West” is stealing the resources which rightfully belong to Muslims.  The story is then told to sound as if Muslims are the ones who are persecuted and they are defending themselves. Most have forgotten that it was Iraq, a Muslim nation, which invaded Kuwait, another Muslim nation. They are told that it was actually Israel, which made it look as though Muslims were to blame for 9/11 and that it couldn’t have been Muslims, because, as every Muslim knows, there is no compulsion in religion and killing a human is like killing mankind, claims we now know are false.

Muslims are told that once Islam is “in control”, the entire issue falls away and peace will settle in. But now we slowly get to see, what the actual meaning of peace is, in the context of Islam. It is not the absence of physical violence, because physical punishment is there to stay, but the absence of disobedience and objection to submission. So the 2 “houses” of Islam, the house of war and the house of peace are differentiated by the willingness to subject oneself to the interpretations of what humans think their god wants.

Does this submission to one of the gods then guarantee an absence of any kind of physical violence? Far from it. If we look at the beginnings of Islam we see a violent and very bloody beginning indeed.

5. Historic musings

Why does Islam start in violent territorial expansion? Why does the violent expansion continue for centuries? Why are caliphs assassinated one by one and even by Muslims? It was when Islam was eventually considered an ideology and not just a religion that it was stopped and armies retook their countries and drove the Muslim marauders out. Is the reclaiming of a country an act of aggression?

Muhammad disturbed trade in Mecca to the extent that he was supposed to be silenced forever. He fled from Mecca, where he was intensely hated and despised and went to Medina. Is being chased out of a city because he destroyed the source of income for some people justifiably called being persecuted? Is being chased out of a foreign country you conquered called being persecuted?

Much of my work has focused on the ways in which Jewish, Christian, and Islamic cultures constitute themselves by inter-relating with or thinking about each other. My first book, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages, studied social interaction between the three groups within the context of Spain and France, in order to understand the role of violence in shaping the possibilities for coexistence.

David Nirenberg, PhD, The University of Chicago, Field Specialties
 Christians, Jews, and Muslims in medieval Europe and the Mediterranean

He found the following:

For the Egyptian al-Qarāfī this annual event, the attacking of Jews during Holy Week, was emblematic of the intolerant depravity of European Christians, and he used it (pace his Iberian coreligionists) to draw an unfavorable comparison of Christian violence against minorities with Muslim tolerance.

Was the idol and role model of Muslims, the messenger called Muhammad, the reason for the later brutal conquests and the associated violence? Reading the hadiths should be for very mature audiences only. Cutting off limbs, gauging out eyes, letting people bleed to death before your eyes or crucifying them are not exactly acts considered to be peaceful actions. But those were to be the standards for the next 500 years.

Today, these sentences are swept under the rug and Muslim apologists rather point out the more benign sentences. But are the violent ones deleted or declared not authentic? No, they don’t go that far. Is the sentence which condones the beating of your wife updated to say to never beat your wife under any circumstances? No, rather try and make the word beating sound a bit softer; point out the preconditions; apply qualifiers to the violence to make it look as though it was rare and only applied after careful consideration. That’s what apologists do. They don’t acknowledge the harsh truth and reality in Muslim homes today.

I was unable to find any further instances of violence in the name of the Islamic god, when Muslims were not embarking on political and personal gain but pursued a more spiritual enlightenment.

What appeared later is the increase of sectarian violence, where different branches or schools of Islam not only agreed to disagree but started fighting each other over their variants of a belief. Also, Muslims became increasingly intolerant towards the symbols of other religions and cultures. What also appeared was the development of ever increasing intolerance and hatred towards Jews when the country of Israel appeared on the map.

Zealous bigots such as Mehdi Hasan have no clue or are deliberately lying when it comes to the history of Muslims and the Nazis.

“Had Muslims been running Europe in the 1940s, an extra 6m Jews would be alive today”

This incredibly naïve, creepy and horrible man never misses the chance to mention Hitler in his attempt at discrediting non-Islamic societies and making Islam look better. He does not even try to camouflage Islam as a religion of peace, but simply states the political supremacy of Islam, using the quote “running” the whole of Europe. Probably with an infallible, inerrant Ayatollah at the top who also deems an action such as a man rubbing his penis between a girl’s thighs as acceptable (Mufa’ Khathat(otherwise known as ‘thighing’)) and considers his exporting the finger amputation machine to all Islamic countries as a major economic breakthrough.

Looking at the 1940s, the Catholic Church did not openly condemn Mr. Hitler and even celebrated his birthday. What was the reaction of Muslims at the time?

Some will be surprised by what happened, others will not.

Just as an example, the Muslim Brotherhood, after its founding in 1928 in Egypt by a guy called Hassan al-Banna, was financed, in part, by Mr. Hitler.

Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a house guest of Hitler from 1941 to 1945, before joining al-Banna in Egypt in 1946. This is a photo of him giving the Nazi salute while inspecting some troops, staffed by Muslims..

Several platoons and even SS divisions were staffed by Muslims and until today, they have kept the salute.

Even Wikipedia cites the 1949 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, mentioning “several all-Muslim SS divisions”. Fighting for Hitler, not their god. Or did they think they were?

After the war, Muslims continued on in the Muslim Brotherhood and after several assassination attempts of Arab leaders finally renounced violence and in the 70s were abused to provide resistance to the incursion of Russian troops.

So they split up in 1989 to become al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood we know today, pursuing its manifesto established in 1982 to introduce shariah to the rest of the world.

This is another indication that Islam is more a political ideology than a religion. Islam claims it can define the interior ministry as well as foreign affairs, the ministries of economics, finance and justice as well as the all-important war ministry. The aim of this ideology is to implement shariah and have the Koran as basis for the entire existence of all nations. Except that no group can agree on what the contents of this Islamic law actually is.

One of the features of this Islamic law is that apparently the finger amputation machine introduced earlier, is making the hacking off of limbs for crimes according to shariah much more efficient. Will this be standard issue in all Islamic Nations from now on?

Is the implementation of a law and a legal system and the entire state administration possible when it is based on the vague and ambiguous wording of the Koran? Can it be based on the principles and cultural norms valid in the 7^th century in the desert of Arabia, propagated by marauding hordes invading entire countries?

Apologists never cease to claim that Islam expanded peacefully. Nations like Spain opened their borders in joy and handed over the country to the Moors. Jews and Christians flocked to Cordoba in al-Andalus to partake in the stupendous scientific revolution sparked by Islam.

This pamphlet openly admits the re-labelling of conquer to opening. Believe what sounds nice.

In reality, this is nothing but a big, fat lie. It is propaganda lapped up gratefully by un-critical and easily impressed followers of the Koran, who are taught obedience, submission and to actively ignore what might cause doubt or trouble the believer (5:101)

In reality, European history books need to be rewritten, as currently, it was the Visigoths, Huns, Vandals and other barbarian tribes from the North, who were given the blame of plunging Europe into disarray and the so-called Dark Ages. Today we know it was Muslim marauders, attacking from both East and West, who were out to plunder and feed the slave markets in Damascus, not to learn and pray. Islam was used only on those who had heard of the savage brutality of the attacking hordes and did not fight, hoping to be spared. They were “merely” taxed or force-converted and then left alone. Churches and synagogues were simply requisitioned and declared as mosques.

It was only when the Muslim forces were weakened because they were spread out too much and the long standing fighters were eventually killed and the French kings stopped fighting each other and turned against the marauding  invaders that the Muslims were pushed back, out of France and finally out of Spain too.  We have more and more accounts emerging, which shed new light on what happened during those battles, some written by the locals and some even by Arabs, who wrote chronicles of their advances and what happened to whom during the later retreats.

Today we have historians such as Emmet Scott who picks up where Henri Pirenne left off in his “Mohammed et Charlemagne” and shows the huge discrepancy between what some scholars had assumed to be Muslims contributing to in the increase of knowledge and those who had not bought into

the blatant exaggerations and had rather followed the path of the evidence. And this evidence then, is painting a completely different picture than the myths and propaganda spread so readily by believers and the gullible.

6. Koran and hadiths, god vs man

A professor has studied anything to do with violence and sex-related crimes in connection with religion. Dr. Pfeiffer has a huge history of studies, papers and other publications, showing the trends and developments not only in Germany. He found that religiosity plays an important role in the level of violence and aggressive behaviour towards others. He found that the deeper religiosity was, the higher the propensity to use violence.

This has resulted in an occupancy of jails in Berlin amongst youths being 90% Muslim.

As a result of this, pork is no longer served in the canteen.

Turning to other countries, 50 out of 56 rapists in the UK turned out to be Muslims.

In Denmark an Islamic mufti said that Danish women after being raped by Muslims had only themselves to blame for not being fully covered.

A Koran teacher repeatedly raped pupils who came to him to learn how to read the Koran.

The Koran condones violence where necessary. But fails to specify what the “necessary” is.  As we have seen, the Sunnah is full of violence and killing and torture. Non-Muslims are tortured for eternity. So a god writes the Koran, demanding justice and the necessary physical commitment and the Sunnah delivers the practical examples in the form of brutal dominance over anyone opposing Islam and its political expansion as implementation of Islamic law, the sharia.

On the other side you have Muslims who claim that Islam is a religion, a religion which is governed by peace and justice, not violence. They claim that Islamophobia – whatever that may mean – is the cause of the distortion of the sentences in the Koran.

7. Where is the peace in Islam?

As I have asked earlier: is Islam violent and only telling its people it is peaceful? If that is wrong, where are the peaceful parts?

All I see is that people I show what the Koran says threaten me with all sorts of deeds and my “blod”. In polls, Muslims tend to see a justification for violence in the form of terrorism to achieve their goals. The least violent one is, when I criticise 2 brain-dead and deluded females propagating submission and segregation, that they immediately block me and my pesky questions.

I asked Muslims about peace in the Koran and was always presented the 2 sentences I have shown to be completely irrelevant to the peaceful behaviour of Muslims.

The Koran wishes peace onto its messengers and prophets. Constantly. Like with most religions and street gangs, Muslims treat only each other with respect and some degree of tolerance. They will not easily criticise a sister or a brother – and never the Koran or Muhammad.

So at the end of the day we have Islam promising peace to all under 2 conditions

1.      The planet is run by Islam

2.      You are in heaven

But even then, we still have the Koran with all the punishment for every little refraction from the strict rules like

Death for adultery.

Death for apostasy.

Death for fornication.

Death for blasphemy.

Death for homosexuality.

Death for honour violation.

Death for spreading mischief.

Death for suicide bombers.

Oh sorry, that slipped in there somehow.

Here we have the more detailed – but not complete by any means - rules for all sorts of things which are normal in our society but are punishable by a violent death in Islam.

This is all about bringing fear to the masses and enabling control for the rulers and leaders. Anything which hurts Islam, its god and the messenger, can and will be punished. Then you have apostasy, leaving Islam. This the greatest fear of a ruler, who loses the people he rules and ceases to be a ruler.

What is a king without subjects, a normal human.

Hence the jealousy and the careful guarding of their territory.

Islam is paranoid about sex – at least when it comes to young, unmarried couples and same-sex couples. Anything in sex if not practised according to the tight rules, which cover pages and pages of does and don’ts, is punished – even if biology says otherwise. Having sex with a non-Muslim can result in non-Muslim children and Islam does not want that, so sex is controlled, ensuring complete and total exposure of children to Islam. Same-sex couples don’t produce Muslim children and are thus useless – and prohibited.

Having sex with your multiple wives, your war booty, your slave-girls and the wives you marry for an hour and then pay are not a problem. But sex outside of Islam is a problem and can be punishable by death.

Where is the peace in Islam?

8. Suggestion of a solution

Do we need to change our ways when it comes to addressing Islam and Muslims?

quote video clip of Mehdi Hasan morning show  ending  3:10

No, we do NOT need to urgently change the way we talk and write about Islam – Islam urgently needs to update its own attitude towards its follower and the way they interpret Islam and interact with each other and non-Muslims. Muslims need to change their behaviour towards others and not the way we talk about Muslims.

Alternatively, we should take an even stricter course and demand that people coming to Europe comply with local customs – just like my wife and I are expected to do, when we are in Indonesia, Iran or any Muslim majority country.

} Mehdi_Hasan_-_Non_Muslims_live_like_animals

Telling non-Muslims they are animals does not help at all.

If I visit or live with someone and misbehave, I don’t blame them, but me.

I don’t expect them to adjust to my whims and threaten them if they don’t, but fall in with their patterns and habits.

If I am a Christian and visit other people or live with them and they don’t punish their kids for making jokes about Jesus, I don’t kill them or expect them to install my rules and viewpoints.

If I go to a braai – or BBQ as it is known is less civilised countries - I don’t prescribe what meat goes on the grill and what drinks go in the fridge. I adapt and go with the flow. Or avoid these people altogether.

Is a Mr. Ahmadinejad a spokesperson for Islam when he says: death to Israel and Israel must be wiped from the face of the Earth? Doesn’t he know that he, as a Muslim, regardless of whether he is a Sunni or Shia, is supposed to represent peace and not the violent expulsion of people from their country?

As long as people like Adam Deen deny the problem and maintain that Islamic texts prescribe the peaceful co-existence between all people, something which we saw earlier, is an outright lie, we will not be able to tackle the problem.

Other spokespeople such as the totally confused, dull, destitute, empty Myriam Francois Cerrah, who, in an interview not even 10 minutes long, manages 35 “you know” and without any competent or constructive suggestions only make people laugh but don’t provide any constructive contributions. Here she is in an intimate tete-a-tete with Adan Deen. They should try to discuss a way out of this dilemma instead of only diverting attention away from the problem areas of the Koran.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah says her favourite quote is from Muhammad

“Forgive him who wrongs you; join him who cuts you off; do good to him who does evil to you, and speak the truth although it be against yourself.”

She claims this is what Muhammad said, and conveniently forgets to mention where it is really claimed to be: Inscribed on the hilt of the Prophet’s sword. Looking at different pictures you can see different swords being passed off as once having belonged to Muhammad – and anyone with sufficient levels of delusion can make out the entire inscription. Words of peace on an instrument of death. How quaint.

When the apostle arrived at the home of his family he gave his sword to his daughter

Fatima, saying, ‘Wash the blood from it, little one. By Allah, it has been true to me

today.’ … The name of the apostle’s sword was Dhul-Faqar.

- Sirat Rasoul Allah by Ibn Ishaq, P73

This is showing peace in action. Maybe he just cut himself cleaning his finger-nails and that’s how the blood got onto the sword.

Instead of hi-lighting a few words, the Koran should be upgraded to demonstrate that it represents a religion to be taken seriously and not a militant political system, that it favours a secular system, condones what is acceptable by humanity in general and supports a compassionate attitude towards other humans and a positive attitude to the spiritual side of an individual - if required. Is that so difficult?

In conclusion, we need to face the fact that Islam is indeed not just a religion, but a socio-political system which bases a lot of its ability to keep believers on their toes and in the fold on violence, fear and threats. We are lucky that humanity has progressed and Muslims in general are better than their book teaches them to be.

The Koran contains 100s of violent sentences and threatens anyone daring to do differently than the Koran suggests with torture and death. The Sunnah is even worse, making Islam a primitive, backwards and brutal ideology with a role model who lived a life of a prophet and a pirate, killing and plundering while preaching his message of submission and obedience. Muslims until today admire this book and its prophet.

This will not change until Muslims pluck up the courage to openly and honestly discuss the different aspects of their texts, finding a way of eliminating outdated, nonsensical passages. instead of focussing on redirecting the attention of others to the texts of other religions and ideologies and cherry-picking the scarce benign words or actions. Otherwise, Islam will continue to tear itself apart and die out.

When will religions go where they belong: a museum?