Hi guys,
I apologise in advance that this has become such a long
essay. I lack the intelligence and required level of sophistication to present
this in a shorter, more concise form. So, here’s the full monty, where I show
1. the origin of violence in Islam
2. a practical example when addressing a video by Hamza Tzortzis on the topic
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.
}Vid_Suicide Bomber praised
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 ( well, maybe he's not actually from Nigeria) 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.
} 8.0001 2:05
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?
}Syrian_jihadis_accused_of_executing_14_year_old_Human_rights_group_says_Islamists_killed_coffee_boy
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.
}young-arabs-uncovered normal
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?
} Damascus Reporter Name Withheld.jpg
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?
}Convert_to_Islam_and_two_other_UK_terrorists_wanted_to_target_MI5_MI6_leadership_plead_guilty 01:03
This one claims that “Muslims today are forced to live under
democracy and freedom”
} PREACHING_SHARIA_LONDON_Violence 3.40_a woman too 1:00 2:30
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,
} vid street stand
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.
} vid street stand
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
} Egypt MemriTV.jpg
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.
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.
} Egypt Fatwa Hamid AbdelSamad
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.
} vid Muslim Cleric Excitable
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 beats 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?
} K_4.34.jpg
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.
} Hate Video.jpg
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?
}”Koran EyeForEye
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”.
} KoranX_Kill slay.jpg
} Koran 5.32-33 Tafsir.jpg children of Israel kill
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 7th 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.
} Mehdi_Hasan_Islam_Is_A_Peaceful_Religion_3.40 6m Jews
“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..
} photo Nazi salute
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?
} Iran_Amputation Machine.jpg
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 7th 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.
} book cover
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
} discrepancies, rethink golden
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
} video
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.
} Death penalty
} death in Islam
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?
} Mehdi Hasan morning show ending
8.001 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?
} Video Ahmadinejad
} video Adam Deen
01:30
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.
} 23:41 (Myriam_AdamDeen.jpg)
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?
Thank you for your time.
The longer I waited, the more material I found.
The longer I looked, the worse it got.
Muslims never cease to claim that Islam is the religion of
peace all the way up to the monumental statement that Islam itself means peace.
I demonstrate, using history and Islamic texts, that this is
all fabrication, lies and propaganda. It shows that Muslims, just like any
other human, are people who are a product of their genes and environment. A
strong personality will look through the attempt of using Islamic texts, which
are 1000s of years old, to make it look his duty to fight and kill for the
benefit of access to the fast-track to heaven and other, associated benefits.
A susceptible, weak person can succumb to the idea of
creating a moment of glory for himself, which, unfortunately, goes largely
unnoticed - as do his other failures in life.
Sources:
peace and Islam
God killed how many humans?
Hitler‘s comment
Muslim Brotherhood cartoons
Manifesto
Koran vague
Henri Pirenne
Emmet Scott
Dr. Pfeiffer
Joseph Hogarty’s podcast “Europe from its Origins”. The
search resulted in another related find. . .
Hogarty’s “Europe from its Origins”, a series of 22 video segments
Hogarty’s “Europe from its Origins”, a series of 22 video segments
General violence
Cordoba videos on
Death to Israel by Ahmadinejad:
Iran constitution
List of sentences for non-believers by Sam Harris
Muhammad ibn Ishaq, The Life
of Muhammad, A. Guillaume, translator (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University
Press, 1967)
Download link:
Professional video with examples
“Shocking !! - Islam's Vision for America - America as an
Islamic State with Sharia Law”
Hi guys,
This
is Fanar, the Islamic Cultural Centre in Doha, Qatar, next to the harbour and
the souk, a market. It is an imposing building and fascinating, especially if
lit up at night. It houses a very nice reception area, several auditoriums, 2
mosques and a library. One of my Korans actually comes from that library. To
think that a Muslim somewhere paid his zakat to get an atheist his free copy of
the Koran.... What a strange and wonderful world.
This
was the venue which had the professional Muslim apologist Hamza Tzortzis, a
Greek convert to Islam, deliver a series of speeches, one them being on the Islamic perspective on violence,
terrorism and jihad.
At
times, his old days over at radical Hisb ut-Tahrir shine through the veneer.
The thin veneer. I felt physically and psychologically dirty and nauseated
after only 15 minutes of listening to him and realised that this was most
probably the reason that this particular speech was deleted from YouTube, meant
to disappear. Another reason might be that it was deleted the exact day a young
man in Woolwich was executed by some Muslims, who thought that slaughtering a
man in Britain would serve well as a show of displeasure at having UN
sanctioned troops from different countries in Afghanistan.
So
Lee Rigby was murdered on 22nd May. Hamza and Adnan's disclaimer video was
published on 22nd May. The Codename Terror video disappeared. Was it because the
video directly contradicts the disclaimer issued by iERA or was it because it
can be seen as the kind of incentive for exactly the kind of action we saw that
day? We will never know, but let’s take a closer look at that video and its
contents anyway, even if it was taken down after a while to understand the
mindset of apologists and the attitude towards terrorism.
Hamza
Tzortzis delivers a 50 minute speech on terrorism and Islam, looking at
different areas and from different perspectives. I will put a timeline with
some thoughts of mine on my blog if anyone is interested. Ok, so
He
starts off with the usual superstitious, ritual mumblings to please his god and
abruptly declares that Muslims speak the truth.
}
1.16-1.45
After
2 minutes he dives straight in and declares that fighting is a human
phenomenon.
Just
as a quick reminder: Hamza has no clue what science means and has no scientific
education whatsoever. I don’t even know what
education he has, but it is definitely not
in biology. Also, he freely admits he doesn’t know anything about evolution and
will not commit either way.
Here,
we see that he has no idea about the fights in the animal world over resources,
territory and mating rights. He has no clue that even plants and trees fight
wars over the same things. He sees humans as being separate entities from the
rest of the living world.
So
he lays out the topics he will cover and after 5 minutes starts off with citing
a Prof. Carter he, who says that many people died in the 20th and
the 21st century. Astonishing.
For
those who have not seen any videos with Hamza, what I am making fun of his
habit of adding he/she/they to the numerous names he drops constantly. So here it was Prof Carter, he.
Do
I really need a professor telling me that many people died? What we will see
throughout this speech is that Hamza will quote names. And more names. And then
some. Some of these are obscure idiots or, as one critic put it, living in a “hostile
dream world”. Some are serious historians or scientists, where Hamza will not
understand them and deliver his usual mixture of lies and fabrication,
delivering the goods in his role as entertainer and actor.
Hamza
tries to do 3 things:
1. Use a strawman fallacy to make Islamic terrorism
look better than it is by terming wars as government terrorism
2. Whitewash jihad to represent a purely defensive
reaction to the evil and violent actions of others
3. Make it look as though the Muslim conquests and
looting of other countries was a humanitarian mercy mission
He
claims that because many people have died, more people have died under the
banner of secular ideologies rather than the banner of religions. Does he
provide any proof for this? No.
He
now does something he is
really good at, quote mining. Here, he quote mines the Koran,
}
5:45 – 6:04
Therefore We ordained for the Children of Israel
that he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading
mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a
life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.
where
he leaves out the first 11 words of this sentence, which specify this is
intended only for Jews and then, to make up for it, he suppresses the words
which determine when Muslims are allowed to kill non-Muslims.
Please
remember that we are only 5 minutes into an almost 1 hour video and already we
have lies, deception and endless logical fallacies. His approach and that of
iERA is by now drawing criticism by fellow Muslims who accuse him of speaking
without knowledge and using arguments which make it easy for atheists to gain
popularity points and cause confusion in the heads of naïve Muslims. They warn
others of Hamza whom they describe as coming “along with glitter and fanfare”
and “because its leaders are apparently refuting atheists and philosophers -
when in the process - they are spreading poison that is concealed and
potentially deadly.” This is a true story. Just as non-Christians today laugh
about Dr. WL Craig, non-Muslims laugh about the antics of Hamza, Adnan and co.
Hamza
does not care about reason, facts or logics and we are now told that the real
terror – as opposed to the unreal terror, I suppose - is committed by
countries. States. Governments. How exactly are entire countries committing
terrorism?
Well,
he now tries to cite a Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, which is tough for him, as he does not speak Polish. …….
He
doesn’t speak Arabic either, nor does he speak ancient Arabic, makes endless mistakes
in English
}
Higgs-Boson_echo
and
doesn’t seem to speak any language properly, well, maybe Greek and now delivers
a pitiful performance with a name.
What
is more than just pitiful or a simple language inability or me being a prick
for making fun of his mistakes is the following quote, attempting to use undefined
numbers to make a point.
Dr.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor for the U.S.
government, paints a chessboard of worldpower – but 20 or 30 years ago. He is
criticised for his limited scope nowadays, but Hamza likes the numbers he
provided.
Hamza
quotes him continuously for the rest of this video as having said in a chapter
on "The Century of Megadeath" in his book “Out of Control: Global
Turmoil” that "Lives deliberately extinguished by politically motivated
reasons" amount to wardead alone being 87.5m people.
}
06:55
Not
3000 killed in 9/11 which is wrong and he disagrees with, not around 60 people
in 7/7 in London, which is wrong and he disagrees with. He probably also
disagrees with 11M, anything having happened in Madrid in 2004, where almost
200 people were wounded or killed. He simply disagrees and calls all those
attacks as being wrong, as in, never happened like that.
}
3000 wrong
But
he looks at, what he calls, the “root type of terrorism”, where countries or states
have, through politically motivated killings, annihilated 87.5 m people. So
Muslims committing acts of terror are ok as long as they stay below that 87.5m
deaths number, which he seems to think is quite high. He thinks that, by
setting up this primitive and dishonest strawman argument of nations committing
acts of terror, will minimise the impact of the number of Muslim driven
terrorist attacks in comparison.
Now
let’s just take a quick look at what terrorism means.
Terrorism
does not have a universal definition, but is different from a war, where war is
declared by a nation on another nation and the 2 armies slug it out. Terrorism,
even though there are so many different definitions, is when civilians kill
other civilians based on an ulterior motive without any declaration or
announcement.
When
Hitler’s armies invaded Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany 2
days later. Did France and Britain commit acts of terrorism when attacking the
German army? Hardly. But Hamza sees this differently. Throughout the video he
will continuously throw this number of 87.5m around.
But
where does he get this number? If you look at the source itself you discover
that Hamza has not understood what Dr. Brzezinski said.
1st
of all, he doesn’t speak of “politically motivated reasons" but rather
“politically motivated carnage". A minor mistake, maybe, but carnage is
slaughter, as in war; a massacre, not the reasons, the ideology or motivators behind
it.
Here
are the facts when you actually look
for the numbers:
"Lives
deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage":
Fatalities: 167,000,000 to
175,000,000
War Dead: 87,500,000
Military war dead: 33,500,000
Civilian war dead: 54,000,000
Not-war Dead: 80,000,000
Communist
oppression: 60,000,000
2nd,
We have the "wardead" with 87.5m and the "notwardead" at 80m, where the Communists
account for 60m, which leaves 20m, - not high enough for Hamza, who sees the
number of 87.5 in front of him. This shows that Dr. Brzezinski broke the
numbers down, which Hamza, in his dishonesty does not show. He simply declares
the higher number as being the result of what he terms “terrorism”.
Hamza
ignores that out of the 87.5m 33.5m are military personnel, which never ever
falls under terrorism in a war. A World War at that. The civilian casualties
were killed by a war and by military personnel and also don’t fall under the
definition of terrorism. So all we have is a terrible war with millions dead
which are suddenly re-declared as victims of terrorists.
And
3rdly he also ignores the 80m who died due to ideologically based
terrorism and totalitarian genocide.
What
is telling is when going through his numbers he’d really like to use the
highest of the numbers and starts off by saying "100 something" and then corrects himself when he
}
100 erm 87.5
realises this is just a little too high. This happens when you are blind
with rage and don’t expect anyone in the audience will check what you claim. Especially, when you coat it with the
righteousness which comes with attributing the solution to all this to one of
the gods.
Where
were all the gods when this happened? Giving the Mets their first away victory
or the guy down the hall the promotion he had been praying for, for the last 2
years?
}
08:15 let’s be just
Yeah,
let’s – and stop making a war sound like terrorism with a bigger budget.
But
Hamza stays with this figure and makes the terrorist attacks like in Beslan,
New York, London, Bali, Madrid, etc look as though they were minor incidents.
So
apart from looking like a human monster, he makes factual error after error. For
example he says that the 87.5m deaths occurred in the 21st century,
twice.
}21st,
06:40, 10:28,
Making
the same mistake twice is not a disaster as such, but he constantly does this,
saying things like the Big Bang happened 1400 years ago in a different speech amongst
other verbal malfunctions. But I mention this because he seems to have a
general problem with understanding the concept of numbering centuries as he
informed me that when I wrote something on his Facebook page - in the days when
I was still allowed to write something there - that there are Koranic texts
from the 6th century that I was talking about the years around 620
CE. So there seems to be a misunderstanding in his brain about this, but nobody
in the audience corrects him.
They
believe.
}
definition
We
hear that there is a definition for terrorism, but that the UN never agreed on
one. Well, did they or didn’t they?
What
is interesting is that he lies in one case and hides the facts in the 2nd
instance.
In
1992 the UN did come up with a
definition
Hamza
says it was “killing of innocents for politically motivated reasons”, which is
total nonsense which he simply made up. This is what the United Nations
produced as definition of terrorism in 1992;
"An
anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)
clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or
political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets
of violence are not the main targets."
Nothing
about “innocents” or “politically motivated reasons”. He just lies, as he has
done so many times before.
But
it gets even worse and here it gets not only worse, but quite bizarre.
The
UN wanted to update it 20 years later.
They
decided on
"Criminal
acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public,
a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political,
philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that
may be invoked to justify them."
This
was contested and there was an update meeting, a committee was assigned, which
came up with suggestions. And then they were stopped by representatives of –
who would have thought - Islam. The prime reason is the standoff with the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
}
UN3
who
want to exclude blowing up certain civilians from the reach of international
law and international organizations The
Muslims wanted to ensure that religiously motivated terrorism is excluded and
call it the “right for self-determination”. This right should probably allow
people to blow up themselves or others to self-determine themselves. This
allows people from Gaza to chuck rockets into Israel, for Muslims to fly planes
into buildings, blow up schools or trains – all for self-determination, of
course.
So
Hamza mentions the lack of a clear definition of terrorism today by the UN –
but conveniently forgets to mention why
there is none. It’s the pathetic attempt by representatives of Islamic
organisations trying to white-wash Islamic terror as legitimate – just as they
are trying to label the presentation of Islamic facts as blasphemy. These
Muslims are trying to legalise their own terrorism and outlaw everybody else’s.
Pathetic.
Despicable. Sad.
Hamza
now goes off into a topic he clearly does not understand at all: philosophy.
Remember that if he starts waffling, he keeps on adding the word “philosophically”
to make it sound important. Well he now starts by saying that Muslims need to
be just and that they “have an epistemic duty”
Epistemology is the philosophical study of belief
and all things pertaining to truth. Epistemic duty is the idea that there are
truths that people have a duty to believe.)
Hamza
now restates his misconception regarding the 87.5m people who died through
politically motivated reasons and then uses this as a base to justify terrorist
actions committed by Muslims via the high number of state backed acts of terror
of non-Muslim countries.
Hamza
uses the next lie, the number of casualties in Iraq. He does not reveal which
Iraq war he is referring to, whether the Muslims versus Muslims war Iran
against Iraq, the Muslims versus Muslims war Iraq against Kuwait or the
attempts by the UN to push Iraq out of Kuwait again or the ill-advised war
against Iraq by the US and the UK, which ended in 2011.
He
also does not specify what is included in this number and on what basis. As it
stands, we have several, very different estimates, yet they all range from
50,000 to 200,000, depending on the definition. A site with very clear and open
definitions comes to the conclusion that we are talking about 174,000 people
documented as “killed in violence” in Iraq since 2003. Sad and avoidable,
especially since people are now themselves disposing of unloved dictators who
committed genocide or killed entire groups during their reign. And since the
retraction of foreign troops in Iraq in 2011, the violence and killings have
not stopped at all.
But
if Muslims kill other human beings for their ideology, is this really
terrorism? For me it is. And for Hamza? Hamza applies double standards here, calls
this “being naughty” - if it’s Muslims
who are doing the killing. If non-Muslims kill, it’s labelled terrorism.
}
naughty
Now
this slimebag wants to get Jihad into a legitimate light. How does he do this?
Well, he declares the war in the Middle East a war for oil and strategic
dominance. Then he goes on to say that Libya was an endeavour by the Europeans
to gain access to the resources of the African continent, which is in the
interests of America.
What?
What does that mean? Why would Europe need additional access to Africa? And why
in the interests of America? This guy is so clapped out it is unbelievable.
We
are barely past the 14 minute mark and Hamza now tries to justify Jihad and a
violent book, the Koran. He says that the creator of mankind knew they were
going to have wars, which I presume he could have stopped if he was all-powerful
and just a tiny bit merciful - but elected not to. The all-powerful creator was
and still is unable to produce peaceful humans, or doesn’t want to. Because we
were going to have wars, the all-knowing creator issued rules - which would be totally misinterpreted by
humans in the 21st century, something this god apparently did not
know at the time.
Hamza
now waffles and describes some rules which everyone knows are the opposite of
what is in the hadiths, such as burning trees and killing women and children
and livestock. He says Abu Bakr issued 10 rules – not a god, but Abu Bakr he –
which included being nice to prisoners of war. Yet we know that
"Abu
Bakr instructed one of his commanders to lay waste every village where he did
not hear the call to prayer."
Joseph
Schacht (1959). Origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence, p. 145. ISBN
978-1-59740-474-7
We
know that Muhammad, if he really existed as described in Islamic texts,
tortured, mutilated, beheaded and finally married a woman whose husband and
father she had just seen killed by his men.
Is
that the role model for Muslims in the 21st century Hamza is
suggesting?
If
you go through the list you will easily find the total opposite somewhere in
the texts. The prohibition of mutilating dead bodies for example is immediately
watered down when you see the loophole, when it is in retaliation. Just as an
example, When Muhammad saw this, he was so furious that he promised: ‘If Allah
gives me victory over the Quraish (his own tribe) at any time, I shall mutilate
thirty of their men!’
So
for every command which on the surface sounds reasonable and positive, you get
the opposite, a double standard, and are quickly yanked back into reality,
which is not as nice and pleasant as professional liars and apologists like
Hamza want you to believe.
I
felt dirty at this moment, filthy dirty, physically and psychologically ill
from listening to such an evil, despicable person and I had to take a break. I
just couldn't handle it.
For
reasons of brevity I have decided to skip a few pages where I take the claims
Hamza makes about Zionists or the various hadiths regulating the behaviour of
Muslims and demonstrating that they either say the opposite or that opposing
hadiths exist and it’s a matter of choosing and picking.
He again misquotes the Koran, saying that killing
one person is the same as killing mankind, just as above.
After 17 minutes or so he claims Muslims are not
allowed to torture or attack a wounded person.
But the Koran states the opposite:
5:33 - "The punishment of those who wage war
against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only
this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet
should be cut off on opposite sides..."
8:12 - "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels
(with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will
instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks
and smite all their fingertips off them."
24:2 - "The woman and the man guilty of
adultery or fornication - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not
compassion move you."
he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were
branded with heated pieces of iron. Sahih Al-Bukhari
their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized,
till they die. Sahih Al-Bukhari
their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes
were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died. Sahih Muslim
So what we see is the Islamic texts ordering
torture without any compassion.
What a merciful and benevolent god Islam has.
And Hamza worships this god.
He now claims that prisoners of war should not be
slain.
What do the religious texts say?
When they reached as-Safra', he ordered that two
of the prisoners should be killed. They were an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqbah
ibn Abi Mu'ayt, because they had persecuted the Muslims in Makkah, and
harboured deep hatred towards Allah and His Messenger sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
Only one woman of the Jews was killed because she
had killed a Muslim warrior by flinging a grinding stone upon him.
Women captives were sent to Najd to be bartered
with horses and weaponry.
Umm suffered a cruel death. Zyad tied her legs
with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She
was avery old women. Then they brought Umm’s daughter to the Messenger. Umm’s
daughter belonged to Salamah who had captured her. Muhammad asked Salamah for
her, and Salamah gave her to him.” (Al-Tabari, Vol: 8, p. 96)
Sahih Muslim 19:4321 explicitly condones the
killing of women and children.
Abu Dawud 14:2665 has a woman laughing before she
too is killed, while the men behind her are being executed.
What is strange is that a piercing is prohibited
because of this, but circumcision is not.
Trees should not be cut.
Sahih Muslim 19:4324 explicitly condones the
cutting down of trees.
Sahih Bukhari 1:8:420 explicitly condones the
cutting down of trees.
ibn Kathir: to humiliate them and bring fear and
terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down
no one should be tied up and killed
In audacious defiance, he declared obstinate
enmity to the Prophet but admitted that Allah's Will was to be fulfilled. He
was admitted into the audience of the Prophet with his hands tied to his neck
with a rope. He was ordered to sit down, and was beheaded on the spot.
also we have teachings on the looting and
destruction of the enemies country.
Yet every attack or battle talks about both. What
was Muhammad’s profession? Pirate.
}K8:1 The
spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger
During the sacred months they raided a Meccan
caravan, looting it and “decided to kill as many as they could of them and take
what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin
al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him”
The only reaction was the instantaneous appearance
of 2:217, where the Islamic god condoned the heinous and brutal act by his
followers.
Some apologists come up with an explanation which
has Muhammad claiming his own property, which was robbed from him when he left
Mecca in a hurry. So does the reclaiming of your own property warrant the
killing of the people accompanying the caravan? Would Muhammad share the booty
if this was all his property? According to the narrative, the caravan was
transporting dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish, no
mention of Muhammad’s property.
But there was another raid on a Meccan caravan,
where Muhammad ordered his men “This is the Quraish caravan containing their
property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.”
19:00 We
believe in the sanctity of a dead body.
How does this affect organ transplants, not
foreseen and thus never mentioned in the Koran or the hadiths?
Also, there is a loophole: It is possible to
mutilate the dead only in case of retaliation
Saudi Sheik Omar Abdullah Hassan al-Shehabi:
"The dead can be mutilated as a reciprocal
act when the enemy is disfiguring Muslim corpses, or when it otherwise serves
the Islamic nation. In the second category, the reasons include "to
terrorize the enemy" or to gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior"
Is this why Muhammad asked during a funeral: “Is
there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last
night?” Abu Talha replied in the affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to
get down in the grave
Or why necrophilia in Egypt is ok for up to six
hours?
Apparently, “I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that
she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin (grave)
that I may lessen the pressure of the grave.” This hadith exists multiple
times.
When dead bodies were pulled out of a well, Unable
to contain his joy Muhammad started calling them by name and bragged to the
corpses about his victory.
Why does the Koran mention several times
unbelievers and that they will be killed, crucified and have their hands and
feet cut off? Is this a matter of preference or scale?
We believe in returning the corpses to the enemy.
Well, not actually returning, but allowing them to
be picked up.
We believe in the prohibition of the breach in
treaties.
Well, except if it suits you to do so.
20:15 Take
these amazing and beautiful values and contrast this with what happens in the
West on a practical level.
1.2 million in Iraq. BBC 40% smart bombs hit their
targets. (1999 Kosovo conflict)
War is always dirty. Why not prohibit it? Why not
declare fighting and killing haram if your almighty god is unable to or does
not want to create peaceful humans?
21:00 Zionists
as example.
Zionism is the national movement for the return of
the Jewish people to Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel
through support for the Israel Defence Forces. Today there are separate
movements, Political Zionism; Religious Zionism; Socialist Zionism and
Territorial Zionism.
The IDF murdered 100s of POWs in 1956 and
1967. (He forgot 1973 and 1982)
Is the fact that Israel killed Muslims the reason
that Muslims kill non-Muslims all over the world? Is there any justification
for this?
Why do we never see the mourning for the 3000
killed in XXX?
We see the 9/11 mourning every year, why not this
one?
I am not saying we should compare the 2. (So why
compare them?)
Does it mean that the blood if a Muslim is worth
less than that of a non-Muslim?
Is that what people are trying to say?
We don’t believe in this. We in Islam believe that
every human blood has equal value in this perspective.
Israel was found to be complicit and Ariel Sharon,
the defence Minister at the time was found to be personally responsible.
Israel Israel Israel
… and USA in South America.
We
pick up at around 24 minutes, where Hamza decries the unfair usage of the word
jihad as ”when Muslims go and fight”, used by Fox News and other dubious and
ridiculous media outlets.
Instead,
Hamza now says that jihad is a liberating concept. Jihad is “when Muslims go and
fight” - but there are rules as discussed before. He tries to differentiate
between 2 forms and invents a new expression, which he seems to think will fool
people.
1. Defensive
2. Progressive Jihad
26:10 the
defensive jihad is war, where Muslims gather to expel the armies which have
invaded their region.
Did
they do this when Kuwait was invaded? No.
Does
this include blowing yourself up and killing 30 Muslims?
What
about a Muslim suicide bomber killing 78 people, including 34 women and 7
children in Sep 2013? Is this what Hamza labels as “defensive jihad”?
27:20 Progressive
Jihad. Is practically undertaken by a legitimate Islamic state according to
some ulema. No such state exists today. The ultimate objective is dawa. In
reality.
Dawa via Jihad is removing the obstacles which
prevent the establishment of the peace and justice and mercy of Islam. Removing
oppressors, showing that the state is a humanitarian state. Therefore Islam
demonstrates it is humanitarian.
Yes,
as long as you join in the ranks of the Muslims. If not, you die.
What
if a nation does not actually want the peace and justice and mercy of Islam?
So
where does this progressive jihad fit in? Where does this expression come from,
which he has invented?
Secondary goals of progressive jihad:
Removing oppression
Defending the weak
Implementing the justice and the mercy of Islam
…
and this is where the problem comes in. Who in a free country wants the
ruthless, cruel, restrictive ethics of the 7th century imposed on them? I don’t
know anyone. On the other hand, if Muslims on “progressive jihad” or whatever
jihad go to Iceland, there is no oppression and there are no weak to defend,
but they implement sharia, which Hamza calls the “Mercy of Islam”
What
mercy of Islam? Islam is a highly misogynistic and violent ideology and does
not show any mercy. 1000s are executed in Muslim majority countries for as
little as making a joke which contains the name Muhammad or a couple of
harmless Twitter messages. What mercy is shown when Muslims go and kill people?
29:00 Coptic
Bishop John of Nikiou, Heraclius abused people,
Bishop John says when Muslims saw the hostility they helped the Muslims.
Hahaha,
I suppose he got a bit confused there.
He
continues saying that the non-Muslims welcomed the victory of the Muslims.
}Non_muslims
of Egypt
And
looks very proud of himself.
But
why would the Egyptians welcome this victory? How would they know that the
Muslims were better oppressors than the Romans? How would a Coptic Bishop know
this?
Sadly
for Hamza, reality was different from his little day-dream.
Someone
who wrote a historical text in Wikipedia does not agree with the version Hamza
is trying to dish out and cites 7th century John of Nikiou: “John credits the
Muslims for not destroying Christian holy places, but he also records the
numerous atrocities committed against the Egyptians and the prohibitive new
taxes placed on the native population. In some cases, the taxes were so
burdensome that families were forced to sell their children into slavery.“ So
much for the claim that the locals helped the Muslims. They did nothing of the
sort.
A.J.
Butler's “The Arab Conquest of Egypt”, also paints a very different picture.
On
page 365 he writes:
“The
whole country is described as suffering oppression at the hands of the Muslims”
The
conditions are laid out where, on page 321 he writes:
“For
the payment of tribute and taxes constituted them a protected people (ahl adh
dhimmah)
with a status implying these privileges. The tribute was fixed at two dinârs
per head for all except very old men and children, and the total capitation-tax
was found to amount to 12,000,000 dinârs, or about £6,000,000 but in addition
to the capitation-tax, a land-tax or property-tax was imposed.”
Umar
in particular was only interested in one thing: money. He asked ‘Amr, the
Muslim administrator for more money with higher taxes and ‘Amr just sent back
the message: Egypt works like the Nile, not like Umar. Umar got so angry with
this that he sent his particularly cruel cousin with a small army to Egypt,
where they plundered everything they could get their hands on. They marvelled
at the buildings in Alexandria, the likes of which they had never seen and
without taking the seasonal fluctuations of the Nile and the subsequent income
from barter and trade into consideration, simply destroyed whatever they saw.
They uncovered a stash of gold coins and when a traitor told them there was
more hidden under the incredibly beautiful and monumental lighthouse they
destroyed that too, until they were told they had been fooled.
So
after reading some historical texts we see that the statement that “The
non-Muslim Egyptians welcomed their liberators” is anything but true.
}
After
30:00 minutes, Hamza says that Oppression and all forms of genocide would
justify his “progressive jihad” and spells out the process:
1. Invites
anyone to accept belief
2. Invites
to immigrate
3. War
Then
he says that this is to remove the political structure or the barrier to the
promotion of peace and justice of Islam.
In
other words, “progressive jihad” first tells people they should join Islam, and
if these people don’t want this, the Muslims go to war against these people to
install the Islamic version of what they call “peace” and “justice” the sharia.
But remember: this is not terrorism – this is the liberation of people who are
not oppressed and peaceful and not in need of any liberation. How stupid,
gullible and naïve does he think people are?
33:00 If
Islam goes to war it is not for money but to remove oppression, to show people
the mercy, the rahma of the system of Islam. He quotes some Jew who praises
Muslims
34:00 USA
geopolitical wars, shifting its army, nothing humanitarian. France and UK are
expanding for access to African resources. Political parties claiming they want
equality and a defence of democratic values, All not true. Repeats Spain and
Jews again and again.
35:45 again
and again removal of oppression and injustice
36:30 Koran.
Mentions justified violence. To promote Islamic justice in war.
40:00 quotes
4:75 for some reason, to remove oppression and help oppressed people
41:00 results
of jihad. We can’t talk about jihad today because we don’t have an Islamic
nation so we have to talk about the past.
When, in the history of mankind, was there
one Islamic nation?
Reinhard Dosy Spain Christians happy with
tolerance of Muslims
Prof Thomas Arnold Christians Spain
ecstatic
Names and more names all describing Islam
as paradise on Earth
46:00 Most
suicide bombers are Tamil Tigers. Muslim suicide bombers appear where the USA
had or has armed forces. Iraq, before the invasion of the USA had not a single
suicide bomber. Political injustice provides the reason for the proponents of
such so-called terrorist attacks.
Prof Pape continues: there is little
connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any one of
the world’s religions. They have a secular goal. Allahu akbar
48:00 The
events in London were triggered by the occupation of Iraq.
So an army fighting a dictator is the
reason why civilians of that country should die.
I
will skip the next section, where Hamza tries to put the blame on Islamic
terrorism on others. He also continues
his attempt ate belittling terrorist actions by Muslims saying that “We must
condemn terrorist acts – but we have to be nuanced.”
And
then again assigning the blame for Islamic terrorism on “We have to understand
the role of negative Western foreign policy” and that “this has exasperated the
sense of injustice which facilitates this terrorism”.
Totally
deluded, void of any pity or compassion for the victims, Hamza goes on and on,
telling his audience that jihad brings peace, the Islamic version of peace and
that victims of Muslim attacks should blame their governments. He also keeps on
asserting that the citizens of the countries which were invaded by the
marauding hordes of the Caliphs cheered them on and welcomed them, thinking
that there were really regions, nations, people calling for Muslims. Calling to
Muslims: please oppress us, rob us and impose your 7th century superstitions
and backward ideology on us.
We
know today that historical Muslims were only interested in plundering and
looting the regions they invaded and then moved on, like locusts. It was only
much later that Muslims turned to the spiritual side of Islam and started
exploring the political as well as the religious aspects of Islam.
I
will not go into the remaining ludicrous and really pretentious arguments and
the fabricated points in his attempt to make Islam look as though Muslims only
react to violence. Hamza lies and suppresses reality and facts, where the
incredibly simple question of why Muslims kill Muslims or why a Muslim country
can justifiably attack or invade another Muslims country destroys his entire
approach.
There
is no such thing as a single Islam or THE Muslim. It is all down to personal
interpretation and the peaceful Muslim does not exist, the same way as the
violent Muslim does not exist.
This
is another demonstration of Hamza Tzortzis, his dishonest and deceptive tactics
and his attempt of keeping Muslims away from the truth and under the control of
his fundamentalist ideology, Islam.
Thanks
for your time.
Commenting
on a speech given by Muslim apologist Hamza Tzortzis in Fanar, the Islamic
Cultural Centre in Doha, Qatar on Islamic violence, terrorism and jihad.
I
urge everyone to apply a basic set of rational thinking and scepticism when
listening to the claims and please check for yourself, whether they really
apply and represent any kind of major advancement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJE3MY7vn0Q
Sources:
Codename
Terror, a video which was removed from YouTube
Champions
hitlist, Islamic Terrorism
Stats
Hizb
ut-Tahrir
Definitions
Epistemic
truth
Critique of Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski
Allowing terrorism
POWs
Joseph Schacht (1959). Origins
of Muhammadan jurisprudence, p. 145. ISBN 978-1-59740-474-7
necrophilia
Muslim critique of Hamza
Critique Scientific Miracle
claims
Muslims
looting
Codename
Terror 51:44
3rd
lecture
1:00 start, Muslims speak the truth
2:00 what is terror, examples, foreign policy,
fighting, Islam foreign policy, Jijad
3:00 positive fruits of Jihad, removing obstacles
and oppressors, foreign policy of The West, not humanitarian, but
geopoloitical, landgrabing, natural resources
4:00 defensive and progressive Jihad, why
fighting is permitted, is terrorism religiously motivated?
5:00 20 & 21st century bloody. Prof Carter
bloodiest century ever (not surprising, is it), more people have died under the
banner of secular ideologies, (wrongly) quotes the Koran as saying saving a
life saves mankind and killing a life is killing all humanity.
6:00 Dr. Zibi Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global
Turmoil
(1993,
former National Security Advisor for the U.S. government, paints chessboard of worldpower)
provides
deaths
(Hamza
says 21st century, which is hardly possible)
87.5m people in politically
motivated reasons, not 3000 in 9/11, which is wrong and we disagree with it
(conspiracy theories???), 7/7 London is wrong and we disagree with it. Look,
87.5m people through state terrorism.
(what
is terrorism for him?)
Fact:
"Lives
deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage": 167,000,000 to 175,000,000 Including:
War
Dead: 87,500,000
Military war dead: 33,500,000
Civilian war dead: 54,000,000
Not-war
Dead: 80,000,000
Communist
oppression: 60,000,000
http://necrometrics.com/warstat8.htm
so
it's politically motivated reasons. As usual, Hamza lies when it suits him.
Also,
"he is unquestionably a paranoid-schizophrenic in the rigorous
epistemological sense of that term." (Lyndon H. LaRouche)
7:00 terrorism according to the UN is killing for
politically motivated reasons,
(actually,
UN tried and was stopped by Muslims (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) over
9/11 for right of self-determination (KSA denounced the “official state terrorism”
carried out by Israel against the Palestinian people in their legitimate
struggle against occupation for the right to self-determination) the entire
minutes are available
online)http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gal3433.doc.htm
Hamza
is talking absolute nonsense: "The UN has no internationally-agreed
definition of terrorism."
http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/EYEontheUN/un_101/facts/?p=61
Why?
The
prime reason is the standoff with the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC), who want to exclude blowing up certain civilians from the reach of
international law and organizations
Hamza
goes from terrorism to war casualties to state terrorism being terrorism
8:00 We shouldn't kill innocent human beings,
let's be just here, we have an epistemic duty (Epistemology is the
philosophical study of truth and all things pertaining to truth. One discussion
in epistemology is the concept of epistemic duty, the idea that there are
truths that people have a duty to believe. ,
http://www.ehow.com/list_6953080_epistemic-duties.html)
if
this is true that 87.5m people died through politically motivated reasons
(untrue), via secular nations and states, then we need to start talking about
what is the real terror, which here, without a doubt is state backed terrorism.
8:40 We saw this in Iraq, 1.2 million people
dying (without specifying who and how).
174,000 people documented killed in
violence in Iraq since 2003
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/ten-years
The
last 13,000 U.S/ troops were withdrawn in December 2011.
We
saw this with the depleted Uranium on the tips of some bombs. (horrific) This
is state terrorism.
9:00 We Muslims need to speak the truth even if
it is against our own selves.
10:00 paraphrases hadith, where angel is ordered to
destroy a town along with an overly pious man. Repeats the lie that
100,
corrects himself, 87.5m innocent deaths for politically motivated reasons in
the 21st century.
11:00 Repeats claim that this is the real terrorism.
If discuss fighting it is quickly determined what the real terrorism is and who
is committing the real terrorism. We
Muslims do naughty things.
(what
a slimebag)
Break!
which
everyone condemns (well, no) - BUT we need to call the spade a spade and look
at the greatest terror, which we know is that the worst terrorism is the
terrorism committed for politically motivated resons by secular nations.
Now
the discussion should be what some people think terrorism is. Terrorism is not
Jihad. I will take you on an intellectual journey. Anthropological studies on
war and fighting. Fighting is a human reality. Different reasons, defence,
attack enemies, gain land, natural resources and geopolitics. War and fighting
are human phenomena and irrespective of race or religion.
Example:
US and UK fighting for oil and strategic dominance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even the support for Libya I would argue was more of a European project with
the French and the British. Libya is important because it provides access to
the resources of Africa and also because of oil. So let's not be under any kind of illusion
that when politicians come forward that this is humanitarian. Why are they not
in other countries? It's because of American interests
(what
happened to the Europeans?)
(they prevent innocent lives 2x)
14:00 Islam is not a religion, but a worldview and a
comprehensive way of life. Allah knows humans and humans fight, so Islam sets
rules for fighting and how Muslims go to war. Muhammad articulated rules we
find in the Geneva convention, ahead of his time. Divine revelation, like no
killing of innocent people, no killing of women and children, no burning of
crops and trees, only fight those that fight you, no wanton destruction.
15:00 Abu Bakr gave 10 rules to his army. This is
what Islam talks about when we want to engage in fighting - after diplomacy
fails (where does it mention that?).
(Joseph
Schacht (1959). Origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence. Clarendon Press. p. 145. ISBN
978-1-59740-474-7. "Abu Bakr instructed one of his commanders to lay waste
every village where he did not hear the call to prayer.")
We
didn't come up with the term collateral damage, which means the killing of
innocents. Every
16:00 The rights of the battlefield and the
combatants, K5:32, giving a wrong rendition, lying through his teeth.
Therefore
We ordained for the Children of Israel that he who slays a soul unless it be
(in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he
had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life
to all mankind.
I
felt dirty at this moment, filthy dirty, physically and psychologically ill
from listening to such an evil, despicable person and I
had
to take a break. I just couldn't handle it.
17:30 We are not allowed to torture or attack a
wounded person.
(5:33
- "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger
and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be
murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on
opposite sides..."
8:12
- "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am
with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts
of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips
off them."
24:2
- "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication - flog each of
them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you." )
(he
cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of
iron. Sahih Al-Bukhari
their
cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. Sahih Al-Bukhari
their
hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were
thrown in the sun, until they died. Sahih Muslim)
18:05 Prisoners of war should not be slain.
(When
they reached as-Safra', he ordered that two of the prisoners should be killed.
They were an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt, because they had
persecuted the Muslims in Makkah, and harboured deep hatred towards Allah and
His
Messenger
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. In a nutshell, they were criminals of war in
modern terminology, and their execution was an awesome lesson to oppressors.)
(In
audacious defiance, he declared obstinate enmity to the Prophet sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam but admitted that Allah's Will was to be fulfilled and added
that he was resigned to his fate. He was ordered to sit down, and was beheaded
on the spot.)
(Only
one woman of the Jews was killed because she had killed a Muslim warrior by
flinging a grinding stone upon him. )
(Women
captives were sent to Najd to be bartered with horses and weaponry.)
http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-of-the-prisoners-of-the-battle-of-badr-the
Sahih
Muslim 19:4321 explicitly condones the killing of women and children.
Abu
Dawud 14:2665 has a woman laughing before she too is killed, while the men
behind her are being executed.
innocent
person should be mourned.
Trees
should not be cut.
What
is strange is that a piercing is prohibited because of this, but circumcision
is not.
Sahih
Muslim 19:4324 explicitly condones the cutting down of trees.
Sahih
Bukhari 1:8:420 explicitly condones the cutting down of trees.
ibn
Kathir: to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered
their date trees to be cut down
no
one should be tied up and killed
was
admitted into the audience of the Prophet with his hands tied to his neck with
a rope… He was ordered to sit down, and was beheaded on the spot.
also
we have teachings on the looting and destruction of the enemies country.
Yet
every attack or battle talks about both. What was Muhammad’s profession?
Pirate.
K8:1 The spoils of war belong to Allah and the
messenger
During
the sacred months they raided a Meccan caravan, looting it and “decided to kill
as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow
and killed him”
The
only reaction was the instantaneous appearance of 2:217, where the Islamic god
condoned the heinous and brutal act by his followers.
Some
apologists come up with an explanation which has Muhammad claiming his own
property, which was robbed from him when he left Mecca in a hurry. So does the
reclaiming of your own property warrant the killing of the people accompanying
the caravan? Would Muhammad share the booty if this was all his property?
According to the narrative, the caravan was transporting dry raisins and
leather and other merchandise of Quraish, no mention of Muhammad’s property.
But
there was another raid on a Meccan caravan, where Muhammad ordered his men
“This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it,
perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.”
19:00 We believe in the sanctity of a dead body.
How
does this affect organ transplants, not foreseen and thus never mentioned in
the Koran or the hadiths?
Also,
there is a loophole: It is possible to mutilate the dead only in case of
retaliation
Saudi
Sheik Omar Abdullah Hassan al-Shehabi:
"The
dead can be mutilated as a reciprocal act when the enemy is disfiguring Muslim
corpses, or when it otherwise serves the Islamic nation. In the second
category, the reasons include "to terrorize the enemy" or to gladden
the heart of a Muslim warrior"
Is
this why Muhammad asked during a funeral: “Is there anyone among you who did
not have sexual relations with his wife last night?” Abu Talha replied in the
affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave
Or why
necrophilia in Egypt is ok for up to six hours?
Apparently,
“I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and
I slept with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the
grave.” This hadith exists multiple times.
When
dead bodies were pulled out of a well, Unable to contain his joy Muhammad started
calling them by name and bragged to the corpses about his victory.
Why
does the Koran mention several times unbelievers and that they will be killed,
crucified and have their hands and feet cut off? Is this a matter of preference
or scale?
We
believe in returning the corpses to the enemy.
Well,
not actually returning, but allowing them to be picked up.
We
believe in the prohibition of the breach in treaties.
Well,
except if it suits you to do so.
20:15 Take these amazing and beautiful values and
contrast this with what happens in the West on a practical level.
1.2
million in Iraq. BBC 40% smart bombs hit their targets. (1999 Kosovo conflict)
War is
always dirty. Why not prohibit it? Why not declare fighting and killing haram
if your almighty god is unable to or does not want to create peaceful humans?
21:00 Zionists as example.
Zionism
is the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to Israel and the
protection of the Jewish nation in Israel through support for the Israel Defence
Forces. Today there are separate movements, Political Zionism; Religious
Zionism; Socialist Zionism and Territorial Zionism.
The
IDF murdered 100s of POWs in 1956 and 1967. (He forgot 1973 and 1982)
Is the
fact that Israel killed Muslims the reason that Muslims kill non-Muslims all
over the world? Is there any justification for this?
Why
do we never see the mourning for the 3000 killed in XXX?
We
see the 9/11 mourning every year, why not this one?
I
am not saying we should compare the 2.
(So
why compare them?)
Does
it mean that the blood if a Muslim is worth less than that of a non-Muslim?
Is
that what people are trying to say?
We
don’t believe in this. We in Islam believe that every human blood has equal
value in this perspective.
Israel
was found to be complicit and Ariel Sharon, the defence Minister at the time
was found to be personally responsible.
Israel
Israel Israel
…
and USA in South America.
24:35 Jihad. Jihad is a liberating concept. Jihad is
when Muslims go to war and there are rules as discussed.
1.
Defensive
2.
Progressive Jihad
26:10 Muslims gather to expel the armies which have
invaded their lands.
Did
they do this when Kuwait was invaded? No.
Bla
bla bla crusaders invading Palestine, Mongols, etc. No mention of methodology
or weapons permissible.
Does
this include blowing yourself up and killing 30 Muslims?
27:20 Progressive Jihad. Is practically undertaken
by a legitimate Islamic state according to some ulema. No such state exists
today. The ultimate objective is dawa. In reality.
Dawa via Jihad is removing the
obstacles which prevent the establishment of the peace and justice and mercy of
Islam. Removing oppressors, showing that the state is a humanitarian state.
Therefore Islam demonstrates it is humanitarian.
Yes,
as long as you join in the ranks of the Muslims. If not, you die.
What
if a nation does not actually want the peace and justice and mercy of Islam?
Secondary
goals of progressive jihad:
Removing
oppression
Defending
the weak
Implementing
the justice and the mercy of Islam
…
and this is where the problem comes in. Who in a free country wants the
ruthless, cruel, restrictive ethics of the 7th century imposed on them? I don’t
know anyone.
29:00 Coptic Bishop John of Nikiou, Heraclius abused
people, Bishop John says that people
helped the Muslims.
Someone
who wrote the historical text in Wikipedia does not agree with the version
Hamza is trying to dish out and writes about 7th century John of
Nikiou: John credits the Muslims for not destroying Christian holy places, but
he also records the numerous atrocities committed against the Egyptians and the
prohibitive new taxes placed on the native population. In some cases, the taxes
were so burdensome that families were forced to sell their children into
slavery.
A.J.
Butler's “The Arab Conquest of Egypt”, from 1902 also paints a very different
picture.
On
page 365 he writes:
“The
whole country is described as suffering oppression at the hands of the Muslims”
The
conditions are laid out where, on page 321 he writes:
For
the payment of tribute and taxes constituted them a protected people (ahl adh
dhimmah)
with a status implying these privileges. The tribute was fixed at two dinârs
per head for all except very old men and children, and the total capitation-tax
was found to amount to 12,000,000 dinârs, or about £6,000,000 but in addition
to the capitation-tax, a land-tax or property-tax was imposed.
The
non-Muslim Egyptians welcomed their liberators.
30:00 Oppression and all forms of genocide would
justify progressive jihad.
1.
Invites anyone to accept belief
2.
Invites to immigrate
3.
War
This
is to remove the political structure or the barrier to the promotion of peace
and justice of Islam.
33:00 If Islam goes to war it is not for money but
to remove oppression, to show people the mercy, the rahma of the system of
Islam. He quotes some Jew who praises Muslims
34:00 USA geopolitical wars, shifting its army,
nothing humanitarian. France and UK are expanding for access to African
resources. Political parties claiming they want equality and a defence of
democratic values, All not true. Repeats Spain and Jews again and again.
35:45 again and again removal of oppression and
injustice
36:30 Koran. Mentions justified violence. To promote
Islamic justice in war.
40:00 quotes 4:75 for some reason, to remove
oppression and help oppressed people
41:00 results of jihad. We can’t talk about jihad
today because we don’t have an Islamic nation so we have to talk about the
past.
When,
in the history of mankind, was there one Islamic nation?
Reinhard
Dosy Spain Christians happy with tolerance of Muslims
Prof
Thomas Arnold Christians Spain ecstatic
Names
and more names all describing Islam as paradise on Earth
46:00 Most suicide bombers are Tamil Tigers. Muslim
suicide bombers appear where the ASA had or has armed forces. Iraq, before the
invasion of the USA had not a single suicide bomber. Political injustice
provides the reason for the proponents of such so-called terrorist attacks.
Prof Pape continues: there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any one of the world’s religions. They have a secular goal. Allahu akbar
Prof Pape continues: there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any one of the world’s religions. They have a secular goal. Allahu akbar
48:00 The events in London were triggered by the
occupation of Iraq.
So
an army fighting a dictator is the reason why civilians of that country should
die.
We
must condemn terrorist acts – but we have to be nuanced.
We
have to understand the role of negative Western foreign policy.
This
has exasperated the sense of injustice which facilitates this terrorism.
Totally
deluded, thinking that there were really regions, nations, people calling for
Muslims. Calling to Muslims: please oppress us and impose your 7th century
superstitions and backward ideology on us.
