Prayer on a Plane

Last week I was on a long haul flight. I kicked off my shoes and settled in and introduced myself to the guy next to me, a Jamun something.

After take-off I was still admiring the view over the ocean over on the right hand side, when a loud bang came from the left side of the plane. Because I was on the right I couldn’t see anything, but I did feel a shudder go through this huge construction and heard the spooling up and the screeching noise as the poor engine tore itself apart internally, as the revs per minute went way beyond what it was designed for.

There was an eerie silence in the plane and people waited for the next event which was either going to signal something good or bad. I turned to my left and saw the Jamun guy clasping his hands and reciting something as his lips moved fervently without any discernible words coming from his mouth.

I looked around and because a plane is always a fascinating microcosm, saw people doing different things, such as touching their foreheads, chest and then each shoulder in some superstitious ritual, apparently for good luck. Some were holding hands and rocking back and forth and others still were putting their hands together in front of their faces and looked up at the ceiling as though some safety instructions were printed there.

That reminded me, so I first checked that the plane was straight and level, slats and flaps were retracted and the remaining engines were humming reassuringly. I noticed the pilot was turning over the intact side and was releasing fuel. So I knew things were under control and now familiarized myself with the layout of the plane, identifying the emergency exits in front of me and behind me, counting how many rows were between me and the exit in case my vision was impaired should we make an emergency landing. I also made a mental note of the location of the compartments with fire extinguisher and first aid kit. So instead of relying on and pleading with my favourite god, I prepared myself the best I could. Just in case.

As far as I could recall, no plane emergency had ever resulted in a particular set of people adhering to a particular religion having escaped unscathed while atheists and believers of other religions had perished.  Well, on second thought, that actually goes for any catastrophe, funny enough.

I sent an SMS to my wife, telling her we’d be delayed due to an engine failure and overheard my neighbour talking to his wife on the phone, telling her he was in a plane which was crashing and his life was in the hands of his god and that they should pray for him so that his god would protect him. And wouldn’t this be a good moment indeed for any of the gods to come forward and say: here I am and now I will save you? Then, like Superman, take the plane and put it down gently on the tarmac. With all the smartphones with their cameras around, this would solve all the demands for evidence of the existence of a god and atheism would instantly dissolve.

But all that happened is that my Jamun guy only cried for more and more prayers.

Hang on, I thought, if your god is responsible for this and in a position to actively do something, why are you so selfish? Why not take care of some other people while you’re at it? If the god on duty was the Islamic god it would be easy as no bird or plane can fly without his personal assistance anyway.

} 16:79 Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the sky? None holds them up except Allah.

Other gods can’t do this for some reason. But maybe they could come up with a miracle.

While he was talking to his wife, I asked myself whether he loved his wife and children in a different way or more than I did. Do theists and atheists feel different for their loved ones?

Do theists and atheists have different preferences when it comes to coffee, Mozart or genocide?

Do theists and atheists have different preferences when it comes to anything if I exclude religious things for a moment?

It would seem that all humans operate under a similar set of rules, the well-being of the race, of society, of the culture, of the tribe, of the family, of me. I put this down to human nature. Theists, because they were told to believe this, need to introduce a super-natural being for this, their god, along with his texts, which are actually quite horrific when scrutinised.

If a family has a field, the other family a plough and the third a tractor, we all benefit if we combine our efforts. That increases well-being. If we now introduce more families from other parts of the world and we see that this improves the techniques or the materials used and in the long run this diversity increases efficiency and quality.

Isolation, on the other hand, decreases productivity and creativity. We see this all the time when we come across some undiscovered tribe in a jungle somewhere. In-breeding is causing huge problems today within some communities. Isolation also hinders development and progress.

So the ability to travel huge distances in a very short time did not come about by a single person reading scripture, but a group of people putting their combined brain power to the test and coming up with brilliant ideas and functional solutions. Unfortunately, because they are only humans and no gods are there to help out, there are flaws and mistakes are made. This means that ambitious projects carry inherent risks and dangers. Just as the malfunction of an engine on a modern plane.

A gentle bump threw me out of my day-dream and back into reality. We had landed. Safely. The pilots were trained to handle such a situation because people were aware of the possibility of failures and mistakes and had prepared for them. None of the pilots had gone down on her knees and shouted out a prayer but they had rather concentrated on identifying the problem and taking the action necessary to resolve the crisis and get 100s of people on the ground and now ground crew took over and got us into hotels to wait for a replacement plane.

Actually, I enjoyed the extra relaxation and spent the day on the beach sailing and snorkelling. But here is where I realised where the huge difference between a theist and an atheist becomes apparent. After we landed, my neighbour enthusiastically thanked his god for saving him and being a merciful god.

I went to the pilots and congratulated them for keeping their wits about them and thanked them for doing a good job.

Credit where credit is due.

Google has killed YouTube

I am StopSpamming1 on YouTube, Skype, Facebook, Gmail, Yahoo, etc etc

That is my brandname.

Since the beginning of November 2013, I think it was the 6th, I am locked out of being able to communicate with other humans on YouTube.

I am unable to log in
I am unable to change any settings
I am unable to even see my settings for comments
I am unable to comment on videos, not even my own
I am unable to reply to comments people make
I am not able to communicate with people
Is this the Google version of "Freedom of Expression"?
When - as was the case in Communist Germany - everyone could say what they wanted as long as it was according to the censorship board?
Why all this?
Google servers have decided that my name is not a real name and have blocked all communications between my YouTube channel and Google Plus (whatever is Plus about the Plus...).
This effectively blocks my channel even for myself.
Because only Google decides who is allowed to say what. I do NOT care to only hear from the people Google thinks I care to hear from. I like controversy and opposing arguments. It's how I learn.
I want to be able to decide what level of conversation I want to tolerate. It is MY choice. Not Google's choice.

On my channel I do not teach people how to apply lipstick or show the nipple piercing of a large breasted woman. I bring controversial topics, thought provoking and mind stimulating contents to YouTube. At least I hope so.
This brings with it a high degree of threats all the way to death threats. I can bring the controversial contents because of the anonymity the web grants me. Google is killing this, for their own commercial gain.

With this, they are killing YouTube. And they will continue until it is just another advertising channel with occasional contents.

Rest in Peace.

The Atheist and the Astronaut

If I would be in a debate or be holding a speech on a religious topic of sorts, I would probably use the following methodology to start off on.

I would point to a closed door and ask people: there is an astronaut behind that door. What information do you have about that astronaut?

I think people would say: none.

Which is true and wrong at the same time. If there is something I call an “astronaut” behind that door, nobody inside the room knows whether it is a male or a  female astronaut.

Nobody knows how tall that astronaut is.

Or whether wearing glasses.

What eye colour.

What political inclination.

Sense of humour

Punctuality

Honesty

of that astronaut.

We don’t know any of that.

But what we can deduce is that, because this is an astronaut, this person does not require a wheelchair and is reasonably fit, both mentally and physically.

If I say that there is a vegetarian behind that door, we have eliminated all further possibilities of having any knowledge whatsoever of what kind of person is behind that door.

We have only 1 single piece of information about that person: the lack of eating meat.

We can’t say how strong a vegetarian this is, whether an occasional fish-filet is ok or whether eggs are not. We know one thing and one thing only: this person does not like eating red meat.

Now if I say there’s an atheist behind that door and ask: what information do you have about that atheist?

There should be a single answer: this is a person who does not believe there is evidence for the existence of gods.

Nothing else. It does not provide any indication on the level of this belief or make any claim regarding the knowledge of the possibility of the existence of a god.

Regardless of what size fireworks go off in a person’s brain about atheists, if anyone thinks about it rationally for just 2 seconds, they will realise that this is the only information they really have. There is no atheist narrative, an atheist agenda or an atheist worldview.  Atheists can’t deny or hate gods. That would be absurd. Most importantly, atheists don’t make claims. An atheist only reacts to claims. Claims made by theists, who believe there is evidence of gods. Well, their favourite god at least.

Atheists are also passionate people with likes and dislikes, who do make claims about all sorts of things, depending on their individual personality. Because atheists are allowed to be individuals and are not required to fit-in with a restricted group culture. Atheists can work in accounting, as a taxi driver, a carpenter or a teacher. An atheist can be interested in or knowledgeable about science or not.

An atheist can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic anti-theist as well as an atheist, it depends on the individual. Which means that atheists disagree with each other and argue about anything and everything simply because there is no common understanding above and beyond the lack of a belief regarding gods.

Any claim over and above the evidence of gods made by me or any other atheist is not because we are atheists but because we are humans.

And if we are not only atheists but also astronauts, we don’t worry about asking for permission to leave Earth, which direction to pray in when we are orbiting Earth and what animal to sacrifice when.

}K33:33

“O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah].”

}K2:149
“And wherever you come from, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque”

}K2:67
“Moses said to his people: "God demands that you sacrifice a cow,"

We have left that behind.

Open Letter re iERA Action call

Open letter to
Professor Sir Adrian Smith,

I am pleased to hear that you are taking a stand against organised political activists from iERA (Islamic Education and Research Academy). Their goal is the implementation of Islamic Law (sharia) in the UK and the curbing of equal rights and freedoms our society has fought for. This is, for example, why they were banned from further events at universities in the UK, due to their insistence on gender segregation during those events.

The current wave of activity regarding the ban of iERA speakers (http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ebb500c4922ec74a0f5b35a48&id=f928b9f156&e=b6a10f9e5c) shows how dishonest this organisation is, making their ban due to contravening against segregation laws look as though this is politically motivated. The current ban based on the recommendations of a law enforcement body is completely warranted and called for. They are well known for their attempt at playing the victim and hiding behind undefined terms such as "Islamophobic" or anti-Muslim "racism".

One of their speakers has just a few days ago publicly declared that an old man having sex with a 9-year-old girl can be lawful under certain circumstances. This is called defending Islamic values, which you will find on the top left of their call for action. He has repeatedly made speeches about Islamic terrorism and was a member of a group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was banned in the UK. While I don't know what level of knowledge you have, please don't hesitate to ask for support in establishing what the public stand of the speakers from iERA actually is before being fooled by their attempts at looking peaceful and religiously motivated.

They are currently asking their followers worldwide to threaten you with further mails and calls in order to intimidate you and your staff by making their names and contact details public. I hope you will not be swayed in taking an objective decision.

Kind regards,
StopS

Timeline Debate Islam or Atheism which makes more sense Tzortzis Nomani v Perkins Robinson in Swinburne, Australia

Debate Hamza Melbourne
Debate Islam or Atheism which makes more sense Tzortzis Nomani v Perkins Robinson in Swinburne

non-segregated
remarkably unremarkable.

6:20 Perkins starts
violence worldwide, no benefit either moral nor society, does not make sense, atheism does make sense
being human makes sense and gods are not required. What does make sense? Does that make sense? Why does it make sense?
Explains why the Koran does not make sense. Science is wonderful, the Koran is not.
13:00 origins of Koran and Islam
16:40 it would not matter if it did not do any damage - but it is harmful. No democracy or secularism.
Knowledge is haram.
20:33

Here's a discussion on "Knowledge is Haram"

Hamza
21:00 wants to walk out.  Demands evidence that "knowledge is haram". Either lying or misinformed.
Says Perkins spews lies, is unethical, demeaning, disrespectful, shows bad on the atheist tradition.
... and if you're wrong I want an apology.

Perkins is right, of course.
20:114 Do not be in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, "O my Sustainer! Increase my knowledge."
3:190 contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth
58:11 who have been granted knowledge
there's 10 or 11 of sentences all talking about knowledge or reflecting - but always in connection with the Koran and the revelation. It's just not spelled out like that.

The culture and the tradition are anti-knowledge, but not the texts as such, so that's a bad move to say it without explaining it.

I would use 2:32 They (angels) said: "Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what you have taught us. Verily, it is You, the All-Knower, the All-Wise." to argue that nothing except which was taught by this god in the book he wrote is considered knowledge.

2:120 drives this further by saying that "after what you have received of knowledge (i.e. the Qur'an)"

2:255 "And they will never compass anything of His knowledge except that which He wills." repeats this.

Look at what happened to Malala, who was shot because she wanted knowledge from a school, not a Madrassa

So Hamza is just pounding his chest and acting. He gloats: I'm just trying to teach people manners.

Perkins gets stuck on Ghazali's "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and gets it wrong, making matters even worse for himself.
Ghazali does bring about the death of critical thinking and separates cause from effect to make his god with his angels possible, but uses sound logics to achieve this. Of course he drops rational thinking and reason to do this, but does not say so. He also kills the myth of all-powerful by saying a thinking mineral is impossible. Even for a god.

24:20 repeats myth about Islamic Spain, when Europe was dark
24:45 will present 2 key arguments why Islam makes sense, will repsond to some of the lies and distortions later.
Oh god! I thought he had learned from the humiliating and slow death he had received from Professor Krauss. Not so. He brings up the same stupid and non-sensical arguments as he did when he had the very same topic with Professor Krauss. Nothing changed, the speeches are interchangeable, word for word.

Actually, what is hilarious is that he makes the point Perkins made very apparent, showing that knowledge for him is haram, because he manages to confirm his ignorance when it comes to infinity and the origins of the Universe.

He then proceeds with his usual "the Koran is beautiful" argument as though this proved something.

I've been through this so many times it gets tiring. I'll just skip it.

Robinson
41:00 Why I am an atheist, why Islam does not make sense. Factual, rational, sound presentation, showing the superstitious base of Islam which requires gullibity and the denial of modern knowledge.

Nomani
58:30 Pigs and prophecy are his argument. What a strange character.
He calls Hamza's case convincing, even though he did not make a case for Islam. He changes the topic from why Islam makes sense to "why atheism does not make sense". I'm beginning to wonder whether he actually knows what atheism means.

1:01:20 This crackpot now says he has a problem with what he calls the "entire atheist narrative". He completely ridicules everything he says by now claiming that atheists believe theirs is the only belief which is rational and which can be proven. What a joker!! Where did they pick him up? He demonstrates why atheists laugh about Muslim apologist so much.

After a few minute of this clown I was in stitches, giggling hysterically.

1:02:30 cosmology, clueless
while Hamza nods wisely

1:04:40 epistemology, atheism = scientific method, my initial fears are confirmed, this guy has no clue what atheism is and simply makes stuff up

1:08:30 morality, continues his nonsensical and primitive rambling



Perkins rebuttal (bad audio)
1:16:00 Does Islam deny democracy? No answer. Explains how "knowledge is haram" was meant. Points out some discrepancies. Nothing special.

1:21:00 Robinson, debating tricks, lack of knowledge

1:25:00 Nomani, talks without saying anything, rattles off names

1:29:40 Hamza, names, names. names. Calls this evidence.



1:35:00 cross examine

Hamza, science, traps Perkins, a non-scientist, who answers, instead of keeping quiet
What does this have to do with Islam? Nothing.

1:40:00 Hamza has just a minutes earlier claimed that Muslims 1000 years ago were so scientific and actually invented the scientific method and is now tearing it down as "mere" transmission from authorities we need to blindly trust, calling it testimonial. Which is it? Man, he really does not have the slightest idea of what science is, yet doesn't shut up about it.

1:40:20 Hamza does not understand the onus of proof, telling the atheists they need to provide evidence that the Koran is NOT of divine origins. It is his claim, he needs to prove it. The atheist, quite rightly, does not see the inimitibility claim as proof or even evidence because humans have in fact provided unique books and the challenge is as firmly worded as the Koran, nameley, not at all.

He does not understand science and calls the results "scientific truths", which is nonsense, and then claims people need to blindly trust scientists when they explain evolution. He does not understand that you can't believe "in" evolution and that any human can go and verify the claims or disprove them.

1:42:00 the joker asks whether the atheists question the truths Muslims believe, a preconceived notion, a loaded question and a presuppositional argument. What makes him assume that what he believes is true, when the Koran gets almost every factual claim wrong.

Both Hamza and the Nomani guy now provide a superb show of their ignorance, equivocating the fabricated hadiths with the scientific method. Astonishingly primitive, amazingly obtuse and delightfully inane.

Hamza must be the most retarded person I have seen in a debate. He says that the atheists have not provided any evidence except testimonial evidence, where he has quoted scholars. Is he really too stupid to realise that him rattling off names is nothing else? He says Perkins has not performed the scientific experiments regarding evolution himself and has to rely on others.
Then he goes and says someone wrote about Muhammad, centuries after he dies and this proves the existence of Muhammad.

This is the level of intellectual debate Hamza delivers. Mind-boggling.


Hamza later lies, when he says "It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon" and they "each  swims along in  its own orbit" in 36: 40 is accurate and correct and represents reality.

We also have "By the Sun ... By the Moon as she follows him…  91: 1-2

Bukhari then confirms this by stating the sun orbit Earth during the day and then waits to rise again the next morning.

He goes off into his old-fashioned rhetoric and rambles on, trying to knock science without understanding it.

Has he gone gay now? He calls Perkins my darling and pretends as though in the UK you call everyone "my darling". Do you?


1:54:00 Perkins apologises in advance and asks whether 65.4 is an example of morality, where girls are allowed to be married.

The joker asks whether the girl has menstruated as though this were the sole criteria. Despicable.

He does concede the point thay Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl. He tries to justify it and the Muslims in the audience appload with ecstatic cries. That is what Islam does to people.

Hamza claims that the legal age in Greece for marriage is 13, Google provides the following:
The legal minimum age for marriage in Greece is 18 years for both men and women.
http://greece.angloinfo.com/family/marriage-partnerships/

What Hamza is referring to is this:
Muslim girls living in Thrace, north-east Greece, can expect to be legally married by the age of 13, without the state uttering a word against it. This is a violation of EU rules for the protection of childhood.

http://forum.sofeminine.co.uk/forum/carriere1/__f15_carriere1-Young-girls-legally-married-in-greece.html

It's really going for the worse here.

2:00:00 SMS Q&A

2:12:00 concluding statements

What do we learn at the end? Secularism is a disease.

Timeline "Codename Terror" w comments

Codename Terror 51:44

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/politics-current-affairs/is-jihad-terrorism/

3rd lecture, Doha Fanar, Hamza Tzortzis

1:00    start, ritualistic mumbling, 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.

http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/287-story-of-the-prisoners-of-the-battle-of-badr-the

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.

http://islamphobia.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/sex-with-dead-woman-misquoting-bukhari-book-23-hadith-426/

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 7^th 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

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.