If you look into human history, you realise that we have
managed to put aside clubs and swords to replace them with legal books and courts.
Our era is probably the most peaceful ever, with only a fraction of a percent of
people being killed in person-to-person rivalry of any sorts. Territorial wars have
the lowest count ever and globalisation is gradually transforming from an evil,
exploitative monster into a viable win-win economic structure. We have also
managed to write down common rights for humans and have them signed by all but
a handful of countries. This means that humans on the entire planet have agreed
on something for the first time and have developed networks which enable
peaceful communication amongst people and the exchange of mutually beneficial dialogue
and information. We have developed emergency response systems and catastrophe
warning mechanisms along with weather previews and news coverage from any place
on this planet. This news coverage still requires a lot of work before it will
report newsworthy events in a balanced manner. Today, news outlets prefer
sensations, mayhem, deaths and catastrophes, which is why we read about individual
humans exerting power over others, some by blowing themselves up or humans
killing other humans who differ in their ideology or religious beliefs. One
such ideology is Islam, where we read about the followers killing and causing
widespread destruction every single day.
When the idea popped into my head to make a video about the
religion of peace and the contradicting reality, I had a tough time coming up
with a structure which presents the different facets, analyses them and finally
presents a rational and logical conclusion. I was more than happy to be
side-tracked and do other things week after week until I took a decision and finally
ran with it.
I decided I would
1. Show
what the reality is when looking at Islam and violence
2. Ask
what the difference is between a violent and a moderate Muslim
3. Look
at what the possible basis is for violence in Islam
4. Show
how Muslims view this
5. Historic
musings
6. Find
relevant passages in the Koran and hadiths, god vs man
7. Ask
where the peace is in Islam
8. Try
to suggest a solution
So, here goes, this is my take on the troubled relationship
between Islam, peace and violence.
Let’s start with reality today and the fact that not a day
goes by without the news of a Muslim somewhere on this planet having killed
another human. Islam has had something like 1400 years to demonstrate and
distil the effect of peaceful messages in the Koran and show that Muslims, as a
whole, reject violence as well as the torture and killing of humans.
Unfortunately, this has failed. A suicide bomber is praised
for his valour, defending his religion.
Only recently, a young drummer in the British army, was
brutally murdered in the UK, almost beheaded, by 2 armed men using knives and a
meat cleaver. They were Muslims.
Why do I even mention that they were Muslims? How can I say
this with any degree of certainty?
After killing Mr. Rigby, one of the murderers calmly walked
up to bystanders and said:
}video Woolwich_Attack_Short
“The only reason we have killed this man today is because
Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one is
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By allah, we swear by almighty allah
we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to
live by the shariah in Muslim lands? … There are many, many ayah throughout the
Koran that say we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth
for tooth. … You people will never be safe. … Leave our lands and you will live
in peace”
A Nigerian killing a man in London justifies this slaughter
with the presence of British troops in Afghanistan, which he considers his or
Muslim’s lands. What is the definition of the Muslim’s lands? Nobody knows.
Does he know anything about UN resolutions and why British troops were in Iraq
and still are in Afghanistan? I doubt it. He simply kills.
Is it really true that Muslim’s die at the hands of British
soldiers on a daily basis? Did he really investigate this? I doubt it. He
simply kills.
Is this what Muslims generally do? Or do Muslims deplore
violence and only a few misguided individuals resort to violence? Are these really
– as is so often claimed – misguided Muslims and not really true Muslims? Is
Islam really only about peace?
Just one day before the murder, the guy who killed Mr. Rigby
in Woolwich was a respected member of the Muslim community, a – according to the
bigot and professional victim Mehdi Hasan – powerless and voiceless minority.
The guy who killed Lee Rigby, was a respected member of the
Muslim community – until he decided it was time to try and behead a non-Muslim,
delivering what he thought was justice.
The guy who killed Lee Rigby, was a respected member of the
Muslim community - until he became a monster, a non-Muslim monster of course,
no longer a Muslim. Because Muslims are not monsters, but members of the
religion of peace.
Was this brutal murder an exception, exaggerated by the
media? Unfortunately, it is not.
A tea boy was executed by an ad-hoc firing squad in Syria
for making a joke, saying he would grant credit for his tea if Muhammad
returned from the dead. This turned some Muslims from members of the religion
of peace to executioners for the religion of peace. Is this justice?
Are Muslims more comfortable with a gun toting female Muslim
than one with a book in her hands, learning about nature? The shooting of young
Pakistani student Malala by a Muslim execution squad seems to indicate this.
I have a huge amount of questions regarding the reality of
Islam - in our world here and today: is there a single day when there is no
killing of fellow humans done by what is known as a Muslim? Is the teaching of
Islam instrumental in guiding young, impressionable and gullible people towards
violence and aggression? Is the ideology behind Islam inherently peaceful and
only a few crackpots misinterpret the teachings of Islam and commit acts of
violence? Several a day, every day?
I need to stress right from the word go that most Muslims
are great and likeable people who just want to live their lives and live their
lives peacefully and will never intentionally hurt anyone. Are they better than
their religious texts want them to be?
Just to clarify something else: I consider a person who
follows the Koran and believes there is only 1 god and this god is the god as
described in the Koran, a Muslim. I don’t really care about the 800 million various
other, theoretical factors, the same way as I consider the Jehovah guys and the
Amish girls to be Christians.
But what is the difference between a peaceful Muslim and a
violent Muslim? What turns a human being into a killer? What happens to empathy
and compassion when egotistical destruction takes over?
Why are reporters writing about Ramadan in Syria required to
do so in anonymity and in fear of writing something on Islam?
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?
He is full of glee and thinks this is a major win that Osama
bin Laden was killed after an extended time-period and with considerable effort.
His only thinking is along the lines of power, war
and killing whatever opposes Islam. He advertises Islam as
an economic and political solution – all based on his imaginary god up in the
sky somewhere.
The real and hard facts hit you when you hear this totally
deluded woman, who is so full of hate towards the country she lives in and its
people. She rambles on about Islamic education and not the homosexual education
in what she calls “the West”. This is such a waste of a mind. Sad.
Muslims in the street
are indoctrinated and brainwashed to such a degree that common sense is
completely silenced and only hate and violence in the form of bombs and fires
remains. Sad.
Is it really possible that a peaceful and devout Muslim
comes out of the mosque after his Friday prayers, straps on a belt consisting
of explosives and blows himself up, transforming from a pious follower of Islam
into a killing machine who suddenly was never actually part of Islam?
2. What is the difference between a violent and a moderate Muslim?
When exactly does this transformation take place, where a
peaceful Muslim turns into a heartless killer?
The Koran says:
22:39 Sanction
is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is
indeed able to give them victory; Those who have been driven from their homes
unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah … Verily Allah helpeth one
who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.
This is indeed a command to Muslims, the followers of this
book, which is there to enable aggressive fighting and killing when being
persecuted or wronged, where their own god is unable to protect them or does not want to stop the aggressors, even though it says here that he will.
It seems this god is not as strong as the Koran claims, when humans have to do
everything themselves and help god out a little. But more importantly: who exactly
decides what is being done unjustly, who is wronged in what way and is the
subsequent killing really sanctioned under all possible interpretations of this
sentence?
When Muhammad disrupted the trade of the selling of trinkets
and idols in Mecca, was he following any law or did he make up his own? Are the
people who tried to defend their business and livelihood the persecutors?
What about commands which are in the Koran? Is the husband who beat his multiple wives guilty
because he did what he thought was right and in line with a god’s wish? Is he
guilty or not for believing what is written in the Koran? Is a command given in
the Koran any different from the command given by an SS colonel to his
subordinates to throw the release switch of the gas canisters?
The 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.
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?
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”.
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.
This incredibly naïve, creepy and horrible man never misses
the chance to mention Hitler in his attempt at discrediting non-Islamic
societies and making Islam look better. He does not even try to camouflage
Islam as a religion of peace, but simply states the political supremacy of
Islam, using the quote “running” the whole of Europe. Probably with an
infallible, inerrant Ayatollah at the top who also deems an action such as a
man rubbing his penis between a girl’s thighs as acceptable (Mufa’
Khathat(otherwise known as ‘thighing’)) and considers his exporting the finger
amputation machine to all Islamic countries as a major economic breakthrough.
Looking at the 1940s, the Catholic Church did not openly condemn Mr. Hitler and even
celebrated his birthday. What was the reaction of Muslims at the time?
Some will be surprised by what happened, others will not.
Just as an example, the Muslim Brotherhood, after its
founding in 1928 in Egypt by a guy called Hassan al-Banna, was financed, in
part, by Mr. Hitler.
Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a house
guest of Hitler from 1941 to 1945, before joining al-Banna in Egypt in 1946.
This is a photo of him giving the Nazi salute while inspecting some troops,
staffed by Muslims..
Several platoons and even SS divisions were staffed by
Muslims and until today, they have kept the salute.
Even Wikipedia cites the 1949 Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals, mentioning “several all-Muslim SS divisions”. Fighting for Hitler,
not their god. Or did they think they were?
After the war, Muslims continued on in the Muslim
Brotherhood and after several assassination attempts of Arab leaders finally
renounced violence and in the 70s were abused to provide resistance to the
incursion of Russian troops.
So they split up in 1989 to become al Qaeda and the Muslim
Brotherhood we know today, pursuing its manifesto established in 1982 to
introduce shariah to the rest of the world.
This is another indication that Islam is more a political
ideology than a religion. Islam claims it can define the interior ministry as
well as foreign affairs, the ministries of economics, finance and justice as
well as the all-important war ministry. The aim of this ideology is to
implement shariah and have the Koran as basis for the entire existence of all
nations. Except that no group can agree on what the contents of this Islamic
law actually is.
One of the features of this Islamic law is that apparently the
finger amputation machine introduced earlier, is making the hacking off of
limbs for crimes according to shariah much more efficient. Will this be
standard issue in all Islamic Nations from now on?
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.
6. Koran and hadiths, god vs man
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.
This is all about bringing fear to the masses and enabling
control for the rulers and leaders. Anything which hurts Islam, its god and the
messenger, can and will be punished. Then you have apostasy, leaving Islam.
This the greatest fear of a ruler, who loses the people he rules and ceases to
be a ruler.
What is a king without subjects, a normal human.
Hence the jealousy and the careful guarding of their
territory.
Islam is paranoid about sex – at least when it comes to
young, unmarried couples and same-sex couples. Anything in sex if not practised
according to the tight rules, which cover pages and pages of does and don’ts,
is punished – even if biology says otherwise. Having sex with a non-Muslim can
result in non-Muslim children and Islam does not want that, so sex is
controlled, ensuring complete and total exposure of children to Islam. Same-sex
couples don’t produce Muslim children and are thus useless – and prohibited.
Having sex with your multiple wives, your war booty, your
slave-girls and the wives you marry for an hour and then pay are not a problem.
But sex outside of Islam is a problem
and can be punishable by death.
Where is the peace in Islam?
8. Suggestion of a solution
Do we need to change our ways when it comes to addressing
Islam and Muslims?
quote video clip of Mehdi Hasan morning show ending
3:10
No, we do NOT need to urgently change the way we talk and
write about Islam – Islam urgently needs to update its own attitude towards its
follower and the way they interpret Islam and interact with each other and
non-Muslims. Muslims need to change their behaviour towards others and not the
way we talk about Muslims.
Alternatively, we should take an even stricter course and
demand that people coming to Europe comply with local customs – just like my
wife and I are expected to do, when we are in Indonesia, Iran or any Muslim
majority country.
} Mehdi_Hasan_-_Non_Muslims_live_like_animals
Telling non-Muslims they are animals does not help at all.
If I visit or live with someone and misbehave, I don’t blame
them, but me.
I don’t expect them
to adjust to my whims and threaten
them if they don’t, but fall in with their
patterns and habits.
If I am a Christian and visit other people or live with them
and they don’t punish their kids for making jokes about Jesus, I don’t kill
them or expect them to install my
rules and viewpoints.
If I go to a braai – or BBQ as it is known is less civilised
countries - I don’t prescribe what meat goes on the grill and what drinks go in
the fridge. I adapt and go with the flow. Or avoid these people altogether.
Is a Mr. Ahmadinejad a spokesperson for Islam when he says:
death to Israel and Israel must be wiped from the face of the Earth? Doesn’t he
know that he, as a Muslim, regardless of whether he is a Sunni or Shia, is
supposed to represent peace and not the violent expulsion of people from their
country?
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.
“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?
