Defense Issues

Military and general security

Islam – a religion of peace or a totalitarian ideology

Posted by Picard578 on July 1, 2017

“Truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

  • Gloria Steinem

During times of universal deceit; telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

  • George Orwell

Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

  • Potter Stewart

The worst form of inequality is to try make unequal things equal.

  • Aristotle

Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation. Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region.

  • Arthur Kemp

There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.

  • Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi, Libyan Leader, March 2007

Western liberals (including the current Pope) all too often choose to sacrifice truth and critical thinking to the god of political correctness. But political correctness is the enemy of truth. While democracy is based on a compromise, there cannot be compromise with truth. Something is either true or it is not. If it is not true, then it is either a mistake (if accidental) or a lie (if intentional). But lies have many variants: direct lie, half-truth / omission, “from a certain point of view”, relativism. Thus, what follows will be an attempt at unbiased and non-politically correct answer to a question: is Islam a religion of peace? First comes the name itself. „Islam“ comes from „al-Silm“, which means „submission“. While Muslims say that it means „al-Salaam“ or „peace“, that is an example of „taqiyya“ – or a „holy lie“ (explained later). Next stage will naturally be the Qur’an, as it is the basis of Islam just as the Bible is the basis of Christianity – crime begins with a thought, and thought itself can be a crime. Since I have no knowledge of Arabic, I will be using translation by the Hadrat Maulawi Sher’Ali.

First two chapters are mostly standard as for the any Abrahamic religion – while mocking and hostile to other religions (calling any non-Muslims blind and deaf), there are no overt calls to violence. However, it must be understood that in Qur’an, later verses supersede earlier ones; thus the earliest verses / chapters are the least relevant. I will also only cite verses that call for overt violence or deception. Any ambigious verses I will leave out, as I will also do with any verses describing concepts natural to all Abrahamic religions (e.g. people who are not believers in that particular religion are condemned to damnation), unless relevant for the article.

This changes in the verse 25 of Chapter 2: “But if you do it not – and never shall you do it – then guard against the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for the disbelievers.” Any disbelievers go to Hell, but of interest is fuel of “men and stones” – a clear call to stone disbelievers.

Verse 38 of Chapter 2 gives an inkling of a merciful Allah: “Then Adam learnt from his Lord certain words of prayer. So He turned towards him with mercy. Surely, he is Oft-Returning with compassion, and is Merciful”. But this mercy is only given to the followers of Allah – as is seen in the verse, Allah only turned towards Adam “with mercy” once Adam learnt “certain words of prayer”.

Verse 74 of Chapter 2 clearly shows that Qur’an commands a death sentence for a murderer: “Then We said: “Smite him (the murderer) for a part of the offence against him (the murdered person)” Thus Allah gives life to the dead and shows you His signs that you may understand”. This, while not very merciful, is by no means unusual – especially for that age.

Verse 94 of Chapter 2 is not a call on violence, but is important: “And when it is said to them: “Believe in what Allah has sent down”, they say: “We believe in what has been sent down to us;” and they disbelieve in what has been sent down after that, yet it is the Truth, fulfilling that which is with them. Say: “Why, then, did you attempt to slay the Prophets of Allah before this, if you were believers?” This is clearly a reference to Christianity. Arab word “Allah” is actually a common noun, meaning “God” – that is, Allah is intended to be the same as Christian God. This passage clearly dumps Christians and Jews among disbelievers, as they do not recognize Koran as a sacred text.

Verse 95 of Chapter 2 seems to suggest that “truthful” should wish for death. If correct, this can be linked to suicide bombers: “Say: “If the abode of the Hereafter, with Allah, is solely for you to the exclusion of all the people, then wish for death, if you are truthful.”

Verse 178 of Chapter 2 clearly glorifies warfare: “(…) and the patient in the poverty and afflictions and the steadfast in time of war; it is these who have proved truthful and it is these who are God-fearing.”

Verse 160 of Chapter 2 does not call for a violent crime, but does require believers to hate and curse disbelievers; and hate creates violence: “Those who conceal what We have sent down of Signs and guidance after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, it is these whom Allah curses: and so curse them who curse.” This is also likely an origin of Muslim practice of “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.”

Verse 179 of Chapter 2 endorses “eye for an eye” type of retaliation: “O ye who believe! equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you: the free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” It also, however, endorses “blood money”.

Verse 191 of Chapter 2 appears to forbid the offensive warfare: “And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.”

Verse 192 of Chapter 2 commands reconquest of lost areas, or areas where Muslims have been driven from (e.g. Mecca): “And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.” This is likely in the background of ISIL’s wish to establish a Caliphate which encompasses Spain and the Balkans in addition to Muslim areas. It should be noted that historical context of the verse, as well as the 191, is not defensive: at the time of writing, Muhammad and Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not in any danger. Verse was written to urge them to drive Meccans out of Mecca – which Muslims later did. Additionally, Arab word used here is not actually “persecution” but “fitna” – “disbelief”, and thus the passage is a clear call for a holy war against unbelievers. Actual Arabic word for persecution is “idtihad”, and for oppression it is z-l-m.

Verse 194 of Chapter 2 commands fight until Islam is freely professed: “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against agressors.”. This would include inhumane practices such as islamic behavior towards women, utterly unacceptable in civilized societies, since those are also part of Islam. As before, the word used is “fitnah”, “disbelief”, so actual translation would be “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.).”. The historical context of the passage, just as with the previous verse, is not defensive; it urges offensive warfare.

Verse 217 of Chapter 2 is the first clear call onto holy war against non-Muslims: “Fighting is ordained for you, though it is repugnant to you; but it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you like a thing while it is bad for you. Allah knows all things, and you know not.” This verse was written when Muhammad was trying to motivate the audience into raiding merchant caravanes for loot.

Verse 244 of Chapter 2 portraits Allah as a something of a psychopath, killing and reviving thousands on a whim: “Dost thou not know of those who went forth from their homes, and they were thousands, fearing death? And Allah said to them: “Die”; then He brought them to life. Surely, Allah is Munificent to men, but most men are not grateful.”

Verse 245 of Chapter 2 commands a holy war, to fight for Allah: “And fight in the cause of Allah and know that Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” This alone discredits the idea of Islam as a peaceful religion.

Verse 257 of Chapter 2 says that there should be no compulsion in religion: “There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” This passage however is abriged (nullified) by a later Verse 84, Chapter 3, and is thus irrelevant.

Verse 29 of Chapter 3 encourages lies and deception; falsely befriending disbelievers so as to gain advantage over them: “Let not the believers take disbelievers for friends in preference to believers – and whoever does that has no connection to Allah – except that you cautiously guard against them. And Allah cautions you against His punishment; and to Allah is the returning.”. This is in the background of all the lies about Islam being peaceful – Muslims are to befriend disbelievers if latter are at (military) advantage.

Verse 84 of Chapter 3 promotes forcible conversions to Islam: “Do they seek a religion other than Allah’s, while to Him submits whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned?”

Verse 113 of Chapter 3 encourages killing of unbelievers: “Smitten shall they be with abasement wherever they are found, unless they have protection from Allah, or protection from men. They have incurred the wrath of Allah, and smitten are they with wretchedness. That is because they would reject the signs of Allah and kill the prophets unjustly. That is because they rebelled and used to transgress.” As revealed in verses 52, 60, 61, 65 and 73 of Chapter 5, both Jews and Christians are unbelievers.

Verse 152 of Chapter 3 calls for warfare against polytheists and Christians alike: “We shall strike terror into the hearts of those that have disbelieved because they associate partners with Allah for which He has sent down no authority. Their abode is the Fire; and evil is the habitation of wrongdoers.” In Mohammed’s view, Christians are polytheists as well because he did not understand the true nature of the Holy Trinity, so he believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “partners” that Christians had “associated to Allah”.

Verse 75 of Chapter 4 states that he who fights for Allah is rewarded, regardless of wether he is slain or is victorious. This obviously refers to an armed struggle, and is a basis for today’s suicide bombers: “Let those then fight in the cause of Allah who would sell the present life for the Hereafter. And whoso fights in the cause of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, We shall soon give him a great reward.”. It is followed by Verse 77: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”.

Verse 90 of Chapter 4 contains an explicit command that apostates – those who abandon Islam – are to be killed: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you may become all alike. Take not, therefore, friends from them until they emigrate in the way of Allah. And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and take no friend nor helper from among them”.

Verse 96 of Chapter 4 clearly threatens repercussions against any beleiver who does not participate in killing non-beleivers, with the exception of those who are wealthy or physically disabled: “Those of the beleivers who sit still, excepting the disabled ones, and those who strive in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their persons, are not equal. Allah has exalted in rank those who strive with their wealth and their persons above those who sit stll. And to each Allah has promised good. And Allah has exalted those who strive above those who sit still, by great reward”. Provision for the disabled would make no sense if Jihad was anything but a religious war.

Verse 104 of Chapter 4 places emphasis on pursuit of a defeated enemy: “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they suffer pain as you suffer pain…”. While possible to explain in the context of self-defense, it makes more sense in a context of offensive warfare.

Verse 31 of Chapter 5 might seem like it condemns murder: “But his mind induced him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became one of the losers.”. But this merely retells the tale of Cain and Abel, and since Cain and Abel were progenitors of mankind, many would not be born (in reality Adam and Eve, even according to Bible, had many more sons and daughters than just Cain and Abel; tale is merely supposed to explain the origin of warfare).

Verse 34 of Chapter 5 commands crucifixion or cutting off arms and feet of those who make war against Allah or Muhammad: “The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messanger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land.”

Verse 13 of Chapter 8 commands that unbelievers are to be beheaded: “When thy Lord revealed to the angels, saying, “I am with you; so give firmness to those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Smite, then, the upper parts of their necks, and smite off all fingertips.”. No spiritual struggle or even just self-defense there.

Verse 16 of Chapter 8 commands no retreat (unless to gain an advantage, as revealed in a following verse): “O ye who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve, advancing in force, turn not your backs to them.” Verse 17: “And whoso turns his back to them on such a day, unless maneuvring for battle or turning to join another company, he indeed draws upon himself the wrath of Allah, and Hell shall be his abode.”

Verse 40 of Chapter 8 commands Muslims to fight disbelievers until Islam is the only religion on the Earth: “And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly for Allah.” While some translators (including the translator of the Qur’an I used here) interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, real meaning in context is “unbelief” into Allah, as supported by the historical context: Meccans were allowing Mohammed and his band entrance into their city, just not as an armed group. And it was Meccans who were acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (as shown by the “religion wholly for Allah” part).

Verses 60 and 61 of Chapter 8 commands Muslims to embark on religious warfare: “And let not those who disbelieve think that they have outstripped Us. Surely, they cannot frustrate God’s purpose. And make ready for them whatever you can of an armed force and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the enemy of Allah and your enemy and the others beside them whom you know not, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah, it shall be repaid to you in full and you shall not be wronged.”

Verse 66 of Chapter 8 talks for itself: “O Prophet, urge the believers to fight.”

Verse 5 of Chapter 9 commands murder or enslavement of idolaters (i.e. everyone except Muslims), unless they convert or pay tax: “And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free.” Muslims for whom it is written are clearly not under the attack, as when in selfe defense they have to fight even during the sacred months. The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Verse 14 of Chapter 9 commands warfare against unbelievers: “Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the minds of a people who believe.” Humiliating non-believers is not only blessed by Allah, but is ordered as means of acrrying out his punishment, and even healing the hearts of Muslims.

Verse 20 of Chapter 9 reveals that those who support religious warfare are much more worth in Allah’s eyes than those who do not: “Those who believe and emigrate from their homes for the sake of God and strive in the cause of Allah with their property and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of Allah. And it is they who shall triumph.”. The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” here has the same root as “jihad”; context is clearly holy war.

Verses 29 and 30 of Chapter 9 commands Jews and Christians to be fought and enslaved: “Fight those from among the people of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection. And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of Allah; that is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah’s curse be on them! How are they turned away!” The following verse curses “May Allah curse them!”, Muhammad having forgotten that it was Allah who was allegedly dictating the book.

Verses 38 and 39 of Chapter 9 command a Holy War: “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you that, when it is said to you, go forth in the way of Allah, you sink heavily towards the earth? Would you be contended with the present life in preference to the Hereafter? But the enjoyment of the present life is but little, as compared to Hereafter. If you do not go forth to fight, He will punish you with a painful punishment, and will choose in your stead people other than you, and you shall do Him no harm at all. And Allah has full power over all things.” Basically, any Muslims who refuse to fight in the name of Islam will be punished with Hell.

Verses 41 and 42 of Chapter 9 give immediate account of Muslim offensive operations against Romans: “Go forth, light and heavy, and strive with your property and your persons in the cause of Allah. That is better for you, if only you knew. If it had been an immediate gain and a short journey, they would certainly have followed thee, but the hard journey seemed too long for them. Yet they will swear by Allah, saying: “If we had been able, we would surely have gone forth with you.” They run their souls; and Allah knows they are liars.” Romans had a (relatively) secular state, and were fighting only to defend their own territory. Previous centuries of Arab raids were no major danger, especially compared to Persian threat. Consequently, Constantinople failed to understand the seriousness of the new threat (if it noticed the change at all), and thus did not extinguish Islam in its beginnings; they, and civilized world as a whole, have paid dearly for this mistake. Battles were waged in another country, specifically on Roman soil; it completely contradicts the excuse about jihad being a defensive war.

Verse 88 of Chapter 9 states that Muslims will fight and thus prosper: “But the Messanger and those who believe with him strive in the cause of Allah with their property and their persons, and it is they who shall have good things, and it is they who shall prosper.”

Verse 111 of Chapter 9 states that Muslims are Allah’s slaves (property), and those who kill and are killed for Allah are guaranteed Paradise: “Surely Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their property in return for the Garden they shall have; they fight in the cause of Allah, and they slay and are slain – a promise that He has made incumbent on Himself in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Qur’an. And who is more faithful to his promise than Allah? Rejoice, then, in your bargain which you have made with Him; and that it is which is the supreme triumph”.

Verse 123 of Chapter 9 states that Muslims should fight unbelievers and be harsh with them: “O ye who believe! fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you and let them find hardness in you; and know that Allah is with the righteous.”

Verse 107 of Chapter 16 states that severe punishment awaits anybody who leaves Islam: “Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has beleived – save him who was forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith – but such that open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment.” In Saudi Arabia in 2003, 22 Christians were tortured for converting from Islam – and such pressure is commonplace all across the Islamic world.

Verse 16 of Chapter 17 states that punishment for rejecting Islam is “utter destruction”: “And when We intend to destroy a township, We address Our commandment to its rebellious people but they transgress therein; so the sentence of punishment becomes due against it, and We destroy it with utter destruction.”. Muslims sent Romans and Persians an invitation to convert to Islam before attacking them, and Osama Bin-Laden likewise issued Americans an invitation to Islam before ordering 9/11 attacks.

Verses 65-81 of Chapter 18 lay theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. This includes killing one’s own offspring in hopes of getting better offspring.

Verse 44 of Chapter 21: “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”

Verses 20-23 of Chapter 22 shows that disbelievers are to be tortured and murdered: 20 “As for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; and boilling water will be poured down on their heads.” , 21 “Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted.”, 22 “And for them there will be maces of iron with which to punish them.”, 23 “Whenever they will seek to get out of it from anguish, they will be turned back into it: and it will be said to them: ‘Taste ye the punishment of burning.'”

Verse 53 of Chapter 25 endorses Jihad: “So obey not the disbelievers and fight against them by means of it a great fight.”

Verses 60-62 of Chapter 33 sanction slaughter against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who do not fight for Allah), those with “diseased hearts” (which includes Jews and Christians) and those who merely speak against Islam: “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who cause agitation in the city, desist not, We shall surely give thee authority over them; then they will not dwell therein as your neighbours, save for a little while.” – closer translation would be “we shall surely urge thee on against them”.

Verse 5 of Chapter 47 states that unbelievers should be beheaded or taken captive: “And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters – then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom – until the war lays down its burdens.”

Verse 36 of Chapter 47 states that: “So be not slack and sue for no peace; for you will certainly have the upper hand. And Allah is with you, and he will not deprive you of reward for your actions.” This commands Muslims to fight until the end. There can be no peace until Islam is completely victorious. Hence any thought of integrating Muslims into European societies is a folly.

Verse 18 of Chapter 48 states that: “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” This clearly means that Jihad is all about physical warfare – spreading faith with a sword – hence why blind, lame and sick are exempted from the duty. It completely disproves apologists’ assertion that “jihad” is a “spiritual struggle”.

Verse 30 of Chapter 48 states that a Muslim should not be merciful to unbelievers, but only to believers: “Muhammad is the messanger of Allah. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers, tender among themselves.”

Verse 5 of Chapter 61 states that Allah loves those who fight in His name in a battle formation: “Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His course arrayed in solid ranks, as though they were a strong structure cemented with molten lead.”. Spiritual struggle requires no battle formation; warfare does.

Verse 10 of Chapter 61 describes the cause of the above: “He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions, even if those who associate partners with God hate it.”. Infidels, Christians included, have to be fought as long as they resist Islamic rule.

Verse 10 of Chapter 66 states that Prophet should fight against disbelievers and hypocrites. While not obvious at the first look, concept includes “holy war” (that is, slaughter): “O Prophet! strive hard against disbelievers and the hypocrites; and be strict against them. Their home is Hell, and an evil destination it is.” (If the goal is to fight against hypocrites, then Muslims should start to fight against themselves, first. But no Muslim sees himself as a hypocrite, because he believes his mission is holy.)

Complete list of jihad passages can be found here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Qur’an can be found here:

https://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-English.pdf

In total, Qur’an contains 109 verses calling for war against the unbeliever. Unlike violent Biblical verses that were one-shot affair, limited to time and place they were noted at, Quranic verses are open-ended: they are as valid today as they were back when they were written. They also have little context: Qur’an is approximately what one would get if he took all violent verses from the Bible, extracted them from historical context, and mixed them together. Qur’an itself appears to have been written by a schizophrenic. Bible in contrast has a lot of historical detail, and most violent parts are limited to a historic context and against a single specified target, as opposed to open-ended verses in Qur’an.

Problem here is that there are many translations of Qur’an. Most of them are intentionally “butchered” from the original in order to make Islam appear more peaceful than it actually is. Because of this sugar coating, verses I have cited above probably do not paint the true image of Islam, and present it as far better than it actually is. However, even the citations I have listed – and these are only the most important ones, not all of them – clearly show that Islam has most in common with Fascism and Nazism, and is worse than either. Islamic definition of “unbeliever” simply means “one who does not toe the line”, as shown in 38:75. Therefore, there is no possibility of peace within Islam communities, let alone between Islam and rest of the world. Any unbeliever that refuses to convert must be fought until they convert, surrender, or are killed. Idolaters are to be killed – which is ironic, considering that Muslims themselves are idolaters (praying to a black rock in Mecca). In essence, Qur’an is a book of political ideology. Its closest equivalent in the West would be Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which indeed drew some inspiration from Islam.

Qur’an is not the only Muslim holy book to call to war. Hadith 56:2, for example, contains a verse: Allah’s Apostle said, “There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.“ Muslim holy books are in general filled with verses that call to violence and religious conquest. Hadith 41:6985 calls for an utter extermination of Jews: „Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.“ Thus, Muslim holy texts not only condone but call for the worst type of violence: genocide. Consequently, Islamophobia is not just a logical, but a moral choice (as long as it is understood that not all Muslims agree with Islam). Hadith 52:256 states that it is permissible to kill women and children of the unbelievers; this provides justification for terror bombings. In Hadith 56:186, Muhammad states that he has been made victorious through terror. In 52:73 Muhammad states that “Paradise is under the shades of swords.”. Hadith 626 describes how Muhammad ordered all people who had not left their homes for the mosque to be burned in their houses. Muslim 20:4645 shows that religious warfare in the name of Allah elevates one’s position in the heaven [He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!]. Muslim 19:4294 proscribes that any non-Muslims who refuse to either convert or pay religious tax are to be fought [Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge;]. Muslim 31:5917 shows that non-Muslims are to be fought because they are not Muslims [Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger, and when they do that then their blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands but what is justified by law and their reckoning is with Allah.]. Tabari 7:97 commands extermination of the Jews: “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.”. Tabari 9:69 then quotes Muhammad as saying that “Killing unbelievers is a small matter to us.”. The largest group of perpetrators of anti-Jewish crimes in Europe were young Muslim males; violent anti-Semitism is closely correlated with Muslim immigration.

Hadith and Sira are even worse than Qur’an when it comes to religious insanity, and it is them that present the worst facets of Islam. Hadith also gives spoils of war to anyone who has killed the enemy, which helps cause war insanity, and in one passage Muhammad clearly states that he has been victorious through terror. That is to say, Islam was spread through rape, pillaging and looting.

Qur’an, Hadith and Sira all call for murder of homosexuals:

Quran (7:80-84) – “…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)”

Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

Abu Dawud (4448) – “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.”

Bukhari (72:774) – “The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses .’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.”

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”

Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 – “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”

On the other hand, there is no problem with paedophillia (while not immediately obvious, this interpretation is supported by Mohammad’s own behavior):

Quran (76:19): “And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.”

Apparently, Islam has inverted Spartan relation to homosexuality and paedophilia; while Spartans allowed homosexuality but despised paedophilia, Islam despises homosexuality but allows paedophilia, a complete no-brainer. Homosexuals are executed in Iran and Saudi Arabia; latter country is one of the most strictly Islamic countries in the world, and is also a major sponsor of Islamic terrorism. The only point of debate is not whether homosexual should be killed, but how should it be done: by stoning or burning. In November of 2012., a cleric on British television stated, “What should be done to those who practice homosexuality? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.” But in 2012, a cleric issued a fatwa endorsing sodomy as a means of widening the anus in order to pack it with enough explosives to kill bystanders in a suicide bombing. As Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab explained, “Jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it.”

Islam has four basic concepts: taqiyya, tawriya, kitman and muruna. Each of them is a form of deception Muslims use when dealing with infidels (non-muslims, which my spellcheck appropriately wants to change to “non-militants”). Taqiyya means that it is allowed to lie in order to achieve aim of advancing Islam, as shown in Qur’an 3:28. Tawriya means that it is allowed to break the intent of the oath as long as the letter of the oath is not broken. This includes “creative lying”, that is, lying through implication or context. Kitman is a half-truth, which is to say lying through telling only part of the truth. Examples include saying that jihad refers to an internal struggle, or using a pacifist passage from Qur’an despite knowing fully well that it is abrogated by a later, more militant verse. Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with surroundings. Consequently, Muslims are allowed to ignore some of commandments of Qur’an as long as they are striving for a greater goal. Thus Muslims trying to advance Islam in the West are allowed to significantly deviate in their rhetorics and behaviour from commands of the Qur’an. This includes marrying a non-Muslim. One such example could be Hillary Clinton’s staffer Huma Abedin, who had married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Regarding taqiyya specifically, it is often stated in defence of the Islam that taqiyya is only permitted to save one’s own life; that is, one is allowed to deny his own religion – that he is a Muslim – if doing otherwise would place his life in danger. But this interpretation itself is an example of kitman. Everything stated in it is correct – but it does not say everything. While that interpretation is correct in the light of Koran, Koran itself is not the only Muslim holy book – and other books throw significantly different light on taqiyya. Koran 33:2 encourages Muslims to follow the example of Prophet Muhammad (Mohamet), as shown in Hadith. His examples clearly show that Muslims are allowed to lie and deceive non-Muslims significantly above and beyond the necessities of self-preservation. First one is assassination of elderly Jewish leader Ka’b ibn Ashraf, who mocked Muhammad. The prophet ordered his death, and a young Muslim Ibn Maslama volunteered, on the condition that he be allowed to lie to get close enough to the Jew. Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama travelled to Ka’b, and began to complain about Muhammad until he convinced Ka’b enough that the latter dropped his guard and befriended him. After behaving like a friend for some time, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim pretending to have apostatized, slaughtered Ka’b and brought his head to Muhammad with usual cries of “Allahu Akbar”. In another example, Muhammad used Naim bin Mas’ud, one of leader of anti-Muslim confederates who had secretly converted to Islam. Mas’ud returned to the Confederates, giving them bad advice and instigating quarrels, until they disbanded. These examples clearly show that taqiyya‘s real purpose is not defence of Muslim’s life under persecution. Rather, its purpose is making Islam supreme in the world (the only reason why Confederates gathered was because Muhammad and his followers massacred hundreds of them in an earlier, completely unprovoked attack). Taqiyya is also not, as often stated, purely a Shiite concept; it is inherent in Islam itself, regardless of the denomination.

One lie often repeated is that jihad means “struggle”, in general meaning of doing religious duty (such as helping the ill). In Islam however, it means warfare for the purpose of spreading Islam – typically violent, but also includes non-violent types of coercion. As Encyclopedia of Islam states: “The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general.… Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.… Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.”. One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”. Likewise, Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, clearly states that jihad is offensive warfare: “In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”. Jihad is armed offensive warfare on behalf of Islam, nothing more, nothing less. Only exception to that is Sufi interpretation of jihad as a “spiritual struggle” against one’s vices. It is Sufi interpretation which is being taught in politically-correct liberal Western school system, yet Sufis make up only one per cent (1%) of all Muslims. But even Sufism is not actually peaceful – it is a lie (taqqiya) to enable conversions. In practice, Sufis in India did nothing to stop forced conversions and genocides, and merely used the situation to get more Hindus to join Islam. In fact, they helped Muslim rulers establish control of India and spread Sharia law. Sufis used the facade of peace and religious harmony to prevent the armed Hindu resistance – but they did support executions of Sikhs, and believed that Islam and Hinduism could not coexist. To Muslims, forcing Islam upon other people is not something to be ashamed of. On the contrary, it is a religious duty of Muslims to “open” (futuh) infidel countries and inhabitants to Islam. Anything is allowed for that goal, and because the goal is holy, Muslims do not have to apologize for any atrocities committed in the process. Another claim is that jihad is merely a war against injustice and oppression. But the word used in Qur’an, fitnah, means sedition or disrupting the order. According to Muhammad, anyone opposed to him was causing fitnah. This means that jihad is mandated against unbelievers. It also means that whenever Muslims complain of oppression, they actually mean opposition to Islam. And anyone “oppressing” Muslims may be killed.

As written by Dr. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Qur’an into English: “Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at (Repentance, IX) [the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon “the fighting” against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So at first “the fighting” was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.”. For Muslims, fighting against non-Muslims is obligatory. Dr. Mahathir, the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia, said that Muslims must put aside terrorism and instead learn science and technology, improve their economy, become strong and with that wealth acquire “guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships” and then jointly attack “their detractors and enemies” when their victory is assured. Jihad against unbelievers is only bound by its capability for success; as long as “infidel” nations are militarily stronger than Muslim ones, Muslims will not attempt a conventional military conquest.

Muslims also claim that one reason for Muslim violence against the West is West’s support for Israel. But this is wrong. Even if issue of Palestine were to be resolved, Quran’s call to subjugate the world will remain in effect. Same goes for US bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, which are also sometimes cited as a reason for Islamic aggression. But Muslim authors use standard arguments of “Islamophobia”, secularism and liberalism to shift discussion away from real problem – that is, Islam – and towards the theory that West is guilty of all problems that occur with Islam. Good discussions of Islam by former Muslims can be read here and here.

As Dr. Ghamidi, a moderate Muslim, explained, Jihad is a fight against non-believers, and non-Muslims have to be either put to death or completely subdued until Islam reigns supreme. More specifically, members of Abrahamic religions are to be subjugated, and everybody else murdered. Two specific categories that have to be murdered are “those who cause mischief” and “unworthy of living in this world anymore after they had denied the clearly communicated and understood message of God.”. “Mischief” means any opposition and/or critique of Islam. Anything except the blind adherence to Islam is grounds for murder. Jihad must continue until the entire world becomes Dar al Salam.

Unlike Westerners, Muslims give no signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. They believe they have a duty to lie to help the spread of Islam. Mossab Hassan Yousef converted to Christianity in order to (successfully) infiltrate Israel’s intelligence agency, and then the American church – main source of international support for Israel. Typical liberal interpretation of „jihad“ as an „inner struggle“ is a clear example of Taqiyya. While in Arabic „jihad“ means any kind of struggle, in Islam texts it means only „holy war“. Verse 4:96 clearly exempts the elderly and disabled from jihad, showing it is indeed an armed struggle. In fact, all mentions of jihad in Qur’an and Sahih Bukhari clearly show that jihad is a holy war. Muslims schools also practice taqiyya. Investigators have found multiple examples of Islamic Faith Schools promoting anti-Western and sectarian material, including their websites. They also preach anti-Western propaganda, while showing a respectful face to Western inspections and society at large.

***

Islam has made its mission to dominate the world, and the current flow of refugees – while unaware of their mission – are expected to make it happen, in Europe at least. They do it by pure inertia: religion itself is terrorist in nature, and when Muslims immigrate they immediately start making Sharia demands. And because Kafir (Infidel) nations, with their multiculturalism and liberalism, are susceptible to these demands and typically do not oppose them, they slowly start transforming themselves – willingly – into Sharia (Islamofascist) nations. Imams in Christian lands typically agree that Muslims in Christian lands have right to steal, since Christians there are not paying jizra, the protection tax demanded of all infidels in Muslim lands. This right to steal also extends to women – Islam immigrants have no qualms about raping Christian women, and women in Islam are mere objects. Immigrants who come to Europe intentionally exploit the generosity of Western welfare states, as Islam gives them the right to cheat and lie to countries that harbour them. But the welfare state can only exist as long as most people are not taking advantage of it; with influx of Muslim immigrants, a point will soon be reached when welfare state will become unsustainable. In Denmark, Muslims make up 5% of the population yet receive 40% of welfare outlays. Muslims have actually changed marriage customs into a strategic weapon against the West. In Muslim countries, it is a tradition for a new wife to move in with the husband’s family, never the opposite. But nowadays in Europe, whenever a transnational marriage takes place, the spouse that migrates is always the non-European spouse, and the first residence after migration is his or her in-laws’ home. This has two purposes. First, it allows immigration since a non-European spouse brings family to Europe as well. Second, it reverses whatever progress the European-born spouse might have made towards becoming Westernised. This also prevents any possibility of integration, even in the case of intermarriage. And it is a systematic practice, repeated through generations. These marriages are almost always arranged, and in Denmark a measure forbidding anyone from importing a wife from abroad if either spouse is under 24 has been successfully implemented. These measures were actually welcomed by young Muslims, whom they protected against forced marriage. Nature of Muslim immigration as a weapon against Europe is also obvious in their demographics: almost all of the “war refugees” are young men of fighting age (70% of them are males younger than 30). Among them there are almost no women and children. That way, Muslims – before eventually bringing in spouses and children – are free to rape European women. In Southern Italy, “refugees” destroyed their resettlement community because Sharia law demands were not met. Main Muslim weapon is their women: in Islam, women are considered little more than baby-production machines. As a consequence, whereas fertility rate in France is mere 1,8 children per family, fertility rate among French Muslims is 8,1 children per family. In larger cities, 45% children of age 20 and younger are Muslims; by 2055., France will be an Islamic Republic. Between 1985. and 2015., British Muslim population has grown from 82.000 to 2,5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of all the newborns are Muslim, and by 2030., half the population will be Muslim. Muslims are 20% of the Russian populace; in few years, 40% of the Russian Army will be Islamic. In Belgium, 25% of the population and 50% of newborns are Muslim. The German government had admitted that Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Overall, there are 52 million Muslims in Europe; the number is expected to double in the next 20 years, to 104 million.

As noted on The Religion of Peace: “One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.”” Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,”. This is a clear admission that violence is a valid way of enforcing the rule of Islam, bound only by its capability for success. Fact that the “refugee crisis” is actually a Muslim invasion of Western countries is also proven that no Arab Christians have emigrated to Europe – despite Europe (still) being Christian continent, and despite Christians being most heavily hit by the violence. Most “refugees” come from areas that are nowhere close to combat zones, and are not affected by the fighting. Further, almost all “refugees” are young males of the fighting age – there are no women, because they expect to find many European girls ready to be raped.

Islamic conquest is divided into four stages. First one, infiltration, consists of immigration and an appeal for tolerance from the host society. During that stage, Islam is portrayed as peaceful, and Muslims as victims of racism (this works especially well in liberal European countries). Since women are, in Islam, not human beings but rather birthing machines, Muslims in host countries achieve high birth rate and increase population above and beyond immigration. Mosques are used to spread Islam and hate against the home country, while so-called „Islamophobia“ is criminalized. In order to pre-empt resistance and suspicions, Muslims publicly condemn „radical“ Islam and position Islam as a religion of peace. They seek “interfaith dialogue” and position that Sharia is not a threat since it will never be applied outside the host society. Second stage is consolidation of power. Jihadi cells are established and terror used against indigenous populace. History is revised and Islamized, while historic evidence that reveals true Islam is destroyed. Anti-Western propaganda is employed, allies recruited (communists, anarchists) and opponents silenced in alliance with liberals. Hate and blasphemy laws are used to silence critics, while efforts on population increase through immigration and natality are continued. Charities are used to recruit supporters and fund jihad, political base created and critics murdered. Pressure is employed on the host society to adopt or at least enable strict Islamic conduct, followed by overt rejection of non-Muslim society’s legal system and culture. Power base of non-Muslim religions is undermined. Third stage is open warfare against the host society and culture. This includes open barbarity to foster fear and submission, efforts to cause economic collapse, eradication of opposition, mass executions and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims, rejection of host society’s secular laws and culture, murder of rare „moderate“ Muslims, destruction of churches, synagogues and other non-Muslim institutions. Women are restricted in accordance with Sharia law. Populace is destroyed via mass murders and bombings, political power usurped and Sharia law imposed. Fourth stage is totalitarian Islamic Theocracy, where Sharia becomes the law of the land. All non-Islamic human rights are cancelled, non-Muslim population is enslaved or exterminated, freedom of speech destroyed and all religions other than Islam are forbidden while all evidence of non-Muslim culture is destroyed.

Muslim refugees keep practising jihad even as they are fleeing to Europe. In an incident in 2015, Muslim immigrants threw 12 Christians overboard to their deaths because they were not praying to Allah. But description of the event itself is even more telling. While only one person was thrown overboard initially because he was praying to a Christian God instead of Allah, that by itself was enough to get Muslims onboard into a religious frenzy which ended with twelve Christians being thrown overboard before the rest managed to organize and defend themselves. Majority of Muslims consider Islamic terrorists to be heroes. Donald Trump has pointed out that Brussels could easily find itself a target of the attack soon – at that time, he was mocked by both New York Times and the Mayor of Brussels. In Russia, a deranged jihadi nanny beheaded a Russian child, claiming that „Allah ordered her“ to do it. A more peaceful jihad is waged in food chains: Muslims want certified halal food, and only Muslims can prepare such food. As a result, Muslims begin to control the food supply. All halal products require a monetary purchase of halal certificates, and that money goes to Muslim terrorists, to finance jihad. And since halal butchers quit as soon as they receive certificate, that requires constant import of Muslim butchers from Islamic countries. Halal butchers that have quit the job can then use their butchering skills to very effectively kill non-Muslims. Further, Islamic law requires a 2,5% tax called zakat which is imposed on income and accumulated wealth of all devout Muslims. This naturally involves all workers in the halal industry – butchers, imams, workers, business and shop owners etc., and a portion of this tax too goes to the terrorists. And the fact that Western companies have to buy halal certificates means that they already are paying a tax of sorts to Muslim terrorists. Halal slaughter is needlessly cruel even by the already extremely low Western standards, and it is being promoted by both liberal consensus that all cultures are better than Western one, as well as by the capitalists eager to export meat to the Muslim market: animal’s throat is cut while the animal is fully conscious, and it is left to die from bleeding. It is an implementation of Sharia, and along with Sharia itself, a form of cultural terrorism. Halal meat is often not clearly labelled, and is fed to people on work, in schools, hospitals and other public places. In few cases, school workers lost their jobs for accidentally serving non-halal meat to a Muslim child. But there are no apologies to non-Muslims whose children were fed meat of animals that were tortured to death for the sake of Muslim superstition. Apparently only Muslim feelings matter; everybody else’s are irrelevant. But according to Qur’an, halal meat is not even compulsory for Muslims; if it is not available, Allah will forgive them for eating non-halal meat. Qur’an 2:174 states that “He has made unlawful to you only that which dies of itself, and blood and the flesh of swine, and that of which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, it shall be no sin for him. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”. Further, it is clearly stated in Qur’an (5:6) that meat slaughtered by the Christians or the Jews is already halal: “This day all good things have been made lawful for you. And the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.”. Consequently, there is no need for Muslims to import Muslim slaughterers except to use them for conquest and terror of non-Muslim countries. Yet already in Denmark school children are forced to eat so-called halal meat.

In Western countries, there are already areas where Sharia law is imposed due to Muslims being a majority in the particular area. In these communities, the law of the country is formally followed, while informally, Islamic law is the rule. Marriages, property ownership and other social relations are annulled upon de-conversion from Islam, and an apostate is often-times murdered. In Sweden, 9/10 largest mosques told the women that men had the right to have more than one wife – a statement that goes directly against the Swedish law. Female circumcision, animal slaughter and other inhumane practices are strictly followed. Female circumcision is very different from, and far worse than, a male one – which in itself is already deeply inhumane with heavy consequences for the child, both physical and psychical. Female circumcision, or as more accurately called, female genital mutilation, often results in lifelong psychical pain, chronic infections and extreme discomfort during urination and sex. Main reason for performing mutilation, as given by the parents themselves, is conviction that women’s sexual feelings are sinful and their sexual organs unclean, and that mutilation provides protection from sin. Mutilation takes place in every country of Western Europe, and only one part of France has implemented measures against it; Sweden, Norway and Britain have passed laws against it, but these laws remain a letter on the paper. In Austria and Germany, the government is convicting even non-Muslims for violating Sharia law; Germany has also legalized polygamy for Muslim men (polygamy is inherently a form of discrimination and even slavery, as it suggests that women are worth less than men). In Italy, a court has allowed a Muslim man to brutally beat his daughter when anybody else would have been imprisoned. In Spain, Muslim police has been organized. In Holland, deaths sentences against Sharia law-breakers have been carried out – and in its four largest cities, “Muhammad” is the most common name for male newborns. In UK, Muslim Imams outnumber Christian pastors, and in 2008 UK government has formally recognized first Sharia law court – today, there are over 100 such courts, and Sharia law is enforced in parts of most towns and cities in the country. People burning the Qur’an are promptly arrested; people burning the Bible, are not. Liberals have been defending Islam by pointing out that Muslims who adapt to Western culture also act as Westerners, while neglecting to mention that in order for assimilation to work, there has to be significant majority of Westerners relative to Muslims – significant enough to preclude formation of Muslim-only communities which could introduce local application of the Sharia law (which is to say, number of Muslims should not be allowed to climb above 2-5% of any given country’s populace – at most). It should also be noted that formation of such isolated communities depends almost solely on a number of immigrants in a country: policies aimed towards more successful integration can, at best, delay its formation somewhat; but limiting or stopping immigration so as to avoid breaking the critical point is the only way to prevent formation of such communities. But these policies are typically not effective with Muslims as they refuse to integrate. In civilized world, ethnic identity is more important than religious one; in Islam, religious identity overrides ethnic one. In Britain, 81% Muslims consider themselves Muslims first. Even in France, more Muslims consider themselves Muslim rather than French; situation is same with Muslims in all countries. This mentality prevents integration of Muslims in home societies, creating friction and conflict. There is little difference in political views of European Muslims compared to those from predominantly Muslim countries, especially in foreign relations. Muslims are a pushy minority, and an extremely oppressive majority. And “respecting Muslim culture” leads to oblivion; Muslims view any concessions as a weakness to be exploited, and as an approval to seek even more concessions. Appeasing Muslims is like feeding a crocodile, hoping it will it you the last.

Sharia law itself is, as noted, deeply inhumane. Criticizing or denying any of the following is punishable by death: any part of Qur’an, Muhammad as a prophet, Allah the moon god. Also punishable by death is apostasy (leaving Islam), leading a Muslim away from Islam, marrying a Muslim woman if one is not a Muslim himself. Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand, man can beat his wife for insubordination. This is not „extremism“, rather these criminally draconian measures are intrinsic to Islam. Sharia sets no lower age limit on marriage: an adult man can marry a newborn, as demonstrated by the following:

Case of one of two wives suckling the other-If a man marry an infant and an adult and the latter should give milk to the former, both wives become prohibited with respect to that man [their husband], because if they were to continue united in marriage to him, it would imply the propriety of joint cohabitation with the foster-mother and her foster-daughter, which is prohibited, in the same manner as joint cohabitation with a natural mother and daughter-It is to be observed on this occasion, that if the husband should not have had carnal connexion with the adult wife, she is not entitled to any dower whatever, because the separation has proceeded from her, before consummation :-but the infant has a claim to her half dower. – Hedaya Vol. I Book III, page 71

Despite the clear insanity of Sharia, 74% of Egypt’s Muslims want to make it an official law of the country, as do 86% in Malaysia, 72% in Indonesia and 71% in Jordan. In Iraq, that percentage is 91% – possibly helped by US neo-liberal shenanigans. Unlike Western legal system, Islam has no concept of inalienable rights, because in its nature it is a totalitarian ideology wrapped into a religious overcoat. That being said, Sharia law, while a part of Islamic tradition, is not derived directly from Islam. While much of it comes from Qur’an and the Hadith, much of it comes from ancient Arab traditions (including much of what is found within the “holy texts”) and portions are also derived from the popular and administrative practice under the Umayyads. Only later was the law – including portions created from the scratch by very-much-human caliphs – set in stone at the behest of the Muslim ulama (theologians) as the edicts of Allah, not to be questioned, only to be obeyed. Basically, ulama made human laws into a Word of God.

Islam also demands other groups to be murdered. First are people who oppose Islam, in any way – be it by force, or through arguments. Anyone arguing against Islam has to be killed. As Dr. Zaheer has stated here, pg 169.: The possibility of killings mentioned in the Qur’an are either meant for those who were guilty of murder, or causing mischief on earth, or those who were declared unworthy of living in this world anymore after they had denied the clearly communicated and understood message from God.”. Word fitnah used in the context means “mischief, opposition, persecution”, and even arguing against Islam is opposing it – a capital crime, in Islamic eyes. This is the only reason why Islam still exists, and is also effective at spreading Islam: in the West, journalists and media routinely censor themselves to avoid being killed. They are afraid of Islam, and they are afraid to admit that they are afraid. Second group that has to be murdered are the people who decide not to believe in Islam after they are called to convert; in other words, one must either accept Islam or die. Nobody has the right to stay in his original religion after receiving a message of Islam (link should be read as many other important things are said as well). Third group is the people who misinterpret Qur’an. This is in the basis of inter-Muslim violence, as Muslims are divided and each group considers all other Muslim groups to be heretics. It is no accident that Muslim countries are regularly the most violent in the world (among Sub-Saharan countries, it is Somalia – the only entirely Muslim country – which leads the pack when it comes to political corruption, oppression and poverty). If the world is ever converted to Islam, it will mean a start of an era of perpetual violence and bloodshed all across the world as different Islamic denominations and schools start killing each other on a massive scale. But all these groups follow the same basic mindset, and victory of any one will mean a disaster for non-Muslims. What Gandalf said about the One Ring and Sauron in Lord of the Rings can also be said about Islam: “If he regains it, your valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts. If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again.” But destroying Islam will be far harder than destroying the One Ring, because it is an ideology which takes advantage of inherent human stupidity. Islam is so convinced of its own perfection that any self-examination, criticism, dialogue and attempts at moral progress are brutally shunned.

***

The world’s largest, oldest and best camouflaged jihadi movement is The Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan. It promotes itself as the “acceptable branch of Islam” that promotes Muslims’ socio-political integration, religious protection and economic welfare. However, in reality it is a camouflaged Jihadi movement whose goal is to subjugate the world under Quran’s Sharia Law. Its motto makes that goal very clear: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”. It has the same goals as Al-Quaeda and ISIL, but is aiming to achieve them through Taqqua and manipulation of the democratic institutions of the West. It infiltrates and indoctrinates West’s universities, prisons and military, and recruits from there. Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, and financed by Adolph Hitler; its members fought in two Muslim Waffen SS divisions. It continued to grow after the war, supported by the West which saw it as a counterweight to Russian Communism. In 1948., Muslim Brotherhood members assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud Fahmi al-Nuqrashi and participated in the invasion of Israel. But violent conflict with the Egyptian Government, including two assassination attempts on President Gamal Abdel Nasser, led to many leaders being jailed, and its members established cells in Europe, UK and USA. In 1979. in formed Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, supported by the Western powers, and in 1987. it created Hamas. In 1989. the Brotherhood pushed Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, and then split – one of fractions became Al-Quaeda. In 2012., its candidate Mohamed Morsi finally won the general election. Morsi quickly threw off the cloak of democratic moderation which got him elected, and set out to lay the foundation for the imposition of the Sharia law. Having overplayed his hand, he got overthrown by the military; the Muslim Brotherhood was forced underground, while at the same time infiltrating Western democracies which are more vulnerable to its influence. Muslim Brotherhood has already infiltrated United States, and there are five million Muslims in United States – and that populace is growing five times faster than the national rate. Muslim Brotherhood members are already at high positions in the US Government – White House Muslim Advisor Mohamed Elibiary, who declared United States to be an Islamic country. Muslims are also “advising” US counter-terrorist programs, and have so far managed to a) delete Islam’s violent nature and past from FBI counter-terrorism training manuals, b) block the planned indictments of American Muslim Brotherhood organizations, c) require written communication between and from government agencies to be more Islam-friendly, and d) push for the prosecution of criticizing Islam as hate crimes.

Muslim Brotherhood has a plan for infiltrating the West, a 1982 manifesto titled “The Project”. It calls for coordination between Islamist organizations while avoiding ties with terrorist organizations, takeover of existing Muslim organizations, usage of deception to mask the intended goals of its actions. Social conflicts with Westerners should be avoided to facilitate expansion of Islam, while Western media should be monitored and Islamist advocacy groups established. This included think-tanks and academic groups. A network of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islam should be established, democratic government infiltrated and its institutions placed into service of Islam. It also calls for alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals (of destroying the Western civilization), autonomous “security forces” created and Muslims in the West kept in the “jihad frame of mind”. Muslim Brotherhood entered Europe in the 1950s and, financed by Saudi Arabia, established beachheads in Geneva, Switzerland and Munich, Germany. In 1960s, it spread across Europe, spearheaded by the Muslim student groups, and recently received massive boon as immigrants from Muslim countries started coming after appearance of ISIL (most of them are not actual refugees, and come from areas untouched by war).

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic supremacist group within United States, has set up a whole department dedicated to Islamophobia. In fact, they have a whole web site dedicated to Islamophobia, located here. This fear-mongering and branding of groups or individuals as “Islamophobia” is a way to easily discredit any opposition to Islam. But because of what Islam is like, it is not Islamophobia, it is Islamorealism. CAIR wants to impose Sharia law on United States, and to do so they present Muslims as victims, and stereotype them as professional complainers.

There are now court cases which involve conflict between civil and Sharia law in the US. Many American states have introduced bills banning Sharia law, but many of those bills have been stalled by court challenges from well-financed Muslim groups, which accuse politicians supporting bills of Islamophobia. Increasing number of American institutions are becoming Sharia compliant in order to attact Middle Eastern Muslim wealth. This includes donating a percentage of annual profits to Islamic organizations, which then funnel that money to terrorist groups.

In United States, and possibly other Western countries, there are already Muslim training camps for terrorists. One such camp was at Islamberg, camouflaged as a makeshift mosque named “International Quranic Open University”. Camp has since closed, but there are dozens of others active across United States.

***

Muslims do not allow anything – scholarly study of religion, science, historical facts or a philosophical debate – to challenge Islam. Anything that questions Islam dogmas is blasphemy. Early compilations of Qur’an are different from the ones we have now, and Mohammed changed Qur’an through his life, and as he wrote it. Multiple verses of Qur’an directly contradict scientific evidence, and other verses get history wrong. In fact, “modern” Qur’an became accepted only after all the other versions were destroyed, with few texts surviving (the Uthmanic recension). But anyone who points any of that out is automatically committing blasphemy, and has to be killed. Charlie Hebdo magazine was bombed for making a total of five covers against Islam, yet it made hundreds of hate covers aimed against Christianity with no consequence beyond some verbal backlash. But fascism inherent in Islam caused the attack to happen (human ego is a powerful thing, especially when combined with religious insanity). That being said, magazine itself is as hypocritical and morally cowardly as Islam: despite ridiculing both Christianity and Islam, it fired a cartoonist for mild anti-Semitism; so not only did it abuse freedom of speech, it failed to even abuse it in a “fair” manner, and it stopped drawing any anti-Islam caricatures after the attack. Muslim scholars in Caucasus attacked the scientists of Shamakhi Observatory in Azerbeijan for daring to disagree with Qur’an with the appearance of new moon. While there were no beheadings (yet), this example shows Islam’s anti-intellectual nature. The greatest Muslim “university”, Al Azhar in Cairo, decided that those who renounce Islam should be killed. Islam kills more people every year than Spanish Inquisition did during its entire existence. And this is a problem. Every Westerner can criticize ideas, smash taboos, question cultural norms and rebel – typically without provoking physical violence (even though he might receive legal/administrative backlash, as in the case of Holocaust denial). This allows individualism and intellectual freedom, which in turn allows positive evolution of the society at large. But Islam rejects all these values, and Charlie Hebdo is but one such example. In the West, concepts and ideas can be questioned, yet Muslims have protested – and killed – because of few truthful, if insulting, depictions of Prophet Muhammad. Christians, atheists, democrats do not kill people who question their beliefs – worst that typically happens are insults. But Muslims do, because in Islam, people’s lives are worth less than Islamic ideas. Theo van Gogh was murdered in Holland in 2004., for making a movie that highlighted the role of Islam in the oppression of women. A note from Koran was left on his body. In the past, he had made movies attacking Judaism and Christianity, yet because Jews and Christians have accepted civilization, that had no physical consequences for him. When Salman Rushdie published “The Satanic Verses”, riots, book burnings and shop vandalism followed. Embassies across Middle East were attacked, some overrun by gunmen. A Muslim who opposed death threat against Rushdie was murdered in Belgium. Rushdie himself was forced into hiding. Yet Muslims claim “victimization” when their beliefs are challenged.

Most Muslim acts take direct inspiration from Prophet Mohammed’s acts (compiled and described in Sahih Al-Bukhari), as Muhammad’s pattern of behaviour is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam (the Sunnis, denomination that 90% of Muslims belong to, are named after the concept of sunna, which holds that anything approved and performed by Muhammad is applicable to Muslims today no less than yesterday). One example is rape. Mohammed molested his wife – six years old Baby Aisha, albeit he did not properly rape her (as in, penetrate) until she was nine years old. She could not have been sixteen / nineteen as apologetics of Islam claim. There are no versions of the story which state that she was anything but six years old at the time of marriage, and nine years old at the time of rape. She was described playing swing with other girls, and her mother grabbed her by hand and rubbed her face with water. When she was taken to Muhammad’s house, she had dolls with her, and she used to play with them in Muhammad’s presence, as she herself described. Clearly, six/nine year old description is the one that is correct, and because of that, millions of underage girls are being forced into marriage and even raped. In other words, in Islam, paedophilia is completely acceptable. In Islam, there is no lower age for marriage -a newborn can be forced into marriage. Umar, a 56-year-old, married Umme Kulthum when she was 4 or 5 years old, and consummated marriage (had sex) when she was no older than 10 years old (Umar was 61 years old when he was assassinated); he did so following Mohammed’s example, as any good Muslim is expected to. Mohammed expressed a wish to marry a newborn baby before death overtook him, and married the wife of his own adopted son despite something like that being unacceptable according to Arab customs. To justify this marriage, Mohammed wrote verse 33:37 that permitted Zayd to divorce Zaynab and gave the licence to Muhammad to sleep with her (of course, he stated that Allah sent him down the verse). Mohammed also raped a retarded woman, had a sex with his own dead aunt, kept women as sex slaves (he had sex with 61 woman during his life, and at one point had eleven wives). As 33:51 details: “O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war (…) We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess”. And in Bukhari’s Hadith, Muhammad approved the rape of female prisoners, as well as regular rape of female slaves. He prohibited sex out of the wedlock, yet prescribed and practised rape of women captured in war. His obsession with sex is likely the origin of the myth about 72 virgins (which is partly authentic, albeit it does not appear in Qur’an itself – it appears in Hadith, and only says “72 wives”, not “72 virgins” with no mention of suicide. As a matter of fact, Qur’an verse 4:30 explicitly forbids suicide – but suicide bombing is not suicide to Muslims, because it helps spread Islam). He also tended to behead his enemies, and at one point beheaded a 13-year-old Jewish boy after pulling down his pants and inspecting his groin for pubic hair. He ordered murder, torture and terrorization of other religious groups, and assassinated people for insulting him or Islam (even for something as trivial as satirical poets – as seen with assassination of aged poet Abu Afak and later Asma bit Marwan, a mother of five small children, who was stabbed to death by Muhammad’s envoy after a suckling infant was removed from her breast). Other people, children included, were killed merely for being non-Muslims. Aside from assassination, Muhammad advocated deception and treachery in general. If people missed a prayer, they were burned in their homes. He participated in slave trade, and compared his black slaves with Satan. He encouraged prostitution, rape, wife beating – all of which he participated in himself. Murdered prisoners of war, advocated suicide attacks, abolished adoption, beat alcoholics, lied, ordered thief’s hands chopped off, tortured a man out of greed, looted, plundered, extorted money, forced conversions to Islam. Mohammed also encouraged his followers to carry out same acts – and this stands even today, forming a basis for behaviour of so-called “extremists”. Qur’an and life of Mohammed make it clear that in Islam, women are considered to be inferior to men, nothing more than men’s property. After military conquests, able-bodied men would be killed, and everybody else enslaved. Mohammed would give captured women to his men, and women would then be raped in front of their husbands (those that survived to be captured, anyway). Mohammed himself had sex with (i.e. raped) Safiya only one day after torturing her husband to death. He later repeated that with Rayhana, but she refused to marry him, preferring to remain a sex slave. Qur’an gives Muslim men a permission to beat their wives for disobedience; and if woman is raped, she is killed for bringing dishonour to father or a husband. Rapist remains free. Woman also has no material safety; she is husband’s property, and must be sexually available to him at all times, and woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth only half that of a man. Even Muslim response against critics takes clue from the Prophet: Asma bit Marwan was a female poetess who mocked Muhammed, and whom Muhammed had killed for it. And she was not the only such example. He also personally beheaded hundreds of Jews. His nickname did him justice: Mohammed was nicknamed “the Obliterator”, and he himself nicknamed his possessions. His swords were nicknamed “Pluck out”, “Very sharp”, “Death”, “Sharp”, “That is wont to sink” and “Having the vertebrae of the back”.

Muhammad was also a narcissist, obsessively seeking self-gratification and domination. Narcissists exaggerate their skills, talents and accomplishments, and are pathological liars – a description which fits Muhammad to a T. Muhammad regarded himself the anointed Messenger of God, as well as Khayru-l-Khalk, “Best of Creation” and the highest of the prophets, “the preferred one”. Upon death, he would be the one to advise Allah whom to send to heaven and whom to hell. He was so impressed with himself that he wrote Allah as calling him “a lamp of spreading light”, that first thing Allah ever created was Muhammad’s own soul, and that if it weren’t for Muhammad, Allah would not have created the universe. In Qur’an 33:57, he claims that “Allah and his angels send blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! you also should invoke blessings on him and salute him with the salutation of peace.”. He claimed to have “sublime morals” (68:4), to be a good example to follow (33:21), a mercy for all creatures (21:107) and to be an honourable messenger (81:19). All these claims are demonstrably false. He lied, and thus cannot be a prophet of God. Due to his narcissism, he could not tolerate dissent, and believed that might makes right. Thus he killed thousands, and is indirectly responsible for deaths of hundreds of millions. He ordered death of anyone who dared even doubt him, let alone ridicule him. Among the victims of Muhammad were a street performer poet Ibn Khatal and his two dancing girls, who had mocked him when he was in Mecca. And because Allah is a projection of Muhammad, Muhammad’s own alter ego, Allah himself is a vengeful psychopath narcissist.

Everything Muhammad did was due to his own personal issues. During his stay in Mecca, neither he or the 70-odd followers he accumulated over his 13-year stay in Mecca were every criticized, much less persecuted; polytheistic Meccans were quite tolerant of different gods (as were pre-Christian Romans, as long as worshipping said gods did not impede doing duty to the state). Meccans started mocking his followers – unlike what Muslim historians claim, there was no violent persecution (the only casualty was a 70-year-old woman who died from stress). But once Muhammad’s uncle Abu Talib dies, Muhammad was left without protection against the Meccan leadership, whom Muhammad constantly agitated. He in fact refused the offer of Meccan leadership sent to his uncle which stated that “You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours.” (Ibn Ishaq 278). Muslims were also starting to become violent against non-Muslims. Muhammad made a treaty of war against Mecca with the people of Medina; it was only then that Meccans decided to capture and execute Muhammad (but none of his associates or relatives were even threatened, much less harmed). Muhammad ran to Medina (in 622 AD) and waged war against Mecca for not accepting him and his God (or him and him, as Allah is merely a projection of Muhammad). As he became more powerful, he also became increasingly intolerant and ruthless. Before Muhammad, religious animosity and persecution were unheard of in the ancient Arabia. There were Christians and Jews in Mecca as well, and they were not persecuted. Meccans did not harm Muhammad during 13 years of his stay in Mecca, but as a psychopathic narcissist he was, Muhammad was naturally paranoid. Thus he concocted a verse in which Allah “warns” him of a plot to murder him. When he came back to Mecca at the head of a conquering army, he sought and killed those who had ridiculed him during his earlier stay in Mecca. At Medina itself, soon after Muhammad’s arrival there, a peaceful religion was supplanted by militant and totalitarian Islam. During the last ten years of Muhammad’s life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted under pain of death and even rounded up and slaughtered according to expediency.

Overall, Muhammad – a “perfect person” whose example every Muslim is expected to follow – was a rapist, a paedophile a marauder, an assassin, a mass murderer, an egoist, a liar, a narcissist. Anyone who follows his example cannot be a functional member of a society; yet anyone who does not follow his example cannot be considered a true Muslim. In Islamic countries, thanks to Muhammad’s example, daughters are often given to be married at nine years old; other his acts are also followed (such as lying and genocide).

On political plan, Mohammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life, and personally led 27 of them. Eventually he began attacking tribes simply for not being part of his growing empire – against Mecca alone, he undertook seven expeditions of agression, and 78 raids. Meccan caravans had to pass within 80 miles of Medina, while being twice as far from Mecca. Caravans were attacked in holy months, when Meccans would least expect it. The Battle of Badr was fought against the Meccan army sent to protect the caravans. Enemies were not given notice, and all victims were civilians. He also took to plundering towns and beheading captives. Three Jewish tribes living around Yathrib refused to accept Muhammad as the prophet, but were ready to accept his political rule. Further, their knowledge of the Torah threatened Muhammad’s credibility, as they were aware that his teachings contradicted established revelation. As a result, once enough Arab polytheists converted to Islam, he banished the Banu Qianuqa and the Ban Nadir tribes, and exterminated the Banu Quariza tribe, massacring men (and adolescents), and taking children and women. The extermination was launched after a call to prayer – in Islam, a call to prayer is also a call to war. Previously, Banu Quariza tribe had loaned weapons and shovels to Muslims so that they could defend themselves from the Meccan army besieging Medina; but true to psychology of Islam, Muslims accepted Quariza’s help, only to back-stab them once the help was no longer needed, as Muhammad wanted their wealth (and took a full fifth of Jewish wealth once they had been dealt with). Mohammed himself boasted: “I have been made victorious through terror”. Muhammad raided unwary villages when inhabitants were out doing their business. He would besiege a fortress and tell its inhabitants to submit or face extermination. He called that ultimatum itmam al hujjat (giving the undeniable proof). On several occasions, he rejected the offers of surrender from towns so he could butcher the inhabitants, and also butchered the captives. Mecca was likewise conquered by treason; Muhammad signed a ten-year peace treaty with Meccans, but he broke the treaty after two years, as soon as he became strong. He attacked the city without notice and the Meccans, not expecting an attack, had to surrender. Such treason would become a standard characteristic of Muslim military endeavours. Islam’s empire eventually conquered two thirds of a Christian world, and established slave-trading routes which stayed open for 1.300 years, until pressure from growing Christian nations forced Muslims to declare slavery illegal. Not only does Qur’an fail to condemn slavery, it gives masters explicit right to sexually exploit their slaves. Muhammad himself was an avid slave trader and owner, and there was never an abolitionist movement within Islam. In fact, the abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European powers. In Islam, African slaves were often castrated (which is why there are no black people in Arab countries), and were generally treated like animals. Caliphs maintained harems of hundreds or thousands of slaves, forced to satisfy their master’s sexual requirements. In India, 200.000 Hindus were captured and transported to Iranian slave markets in a span of two years. In fact, it was Islamic slave trade that ushered in later European slave trade. Even today, slavery is practised in many Muslim countries, which makes Muslim slave trade the longest lasting and most extensive in history. A genocide is being carried out over Christians in Muslim-majority countries. In all of these countries, murder, rape, torture, discrimination are used to wipe out Christianity. Christians face harassment in 102 countries worldwide, more than any other religion. Most of it is driven by a rise in Muslim literalism – literal application of Qur’an. It is not due to a change in mood – rather, it is caused by a recent collapse of authoritarian regimes that had protected minority faiths from persecution. Jews are also facing persecution from Muslims, as are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and other non-Muslims – and while Christians are the primary target for now, Islam does not treat other religions in any different way. Muhammad insulted Christian belief into Trinity, which he did not even try to understand. He smashed the icons in Ka’ba that people held sacrosanct, insulted and destroyed the icons of Quarish. Following his example, Muslims burn churches and synagogues, and demolished the statue of Buddha in Bamian, destroyed thousands of temples in Iran and India. On his very death bed, Muhammad urged his followers to go to war in Tabuk, and sent 30.000 men against the Roman Empire.

After his death, Muslims, led by Muhammad’s followers, invaded Persia and the Roman Empire to gain money, sex slaves and power.. This happened just after a war that left both states war-weary and exhausted. Worse, Orthodox Romans had made themselves hated in predominantly heretic (Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians) provinces in Northern Africa and Middle East, a problem made worse by high taxes levied. Multicultural and multi-ethnic nature of Roman Oriental and African provinces made them weak and vulnerable. When Muslims fist came, Arian Christians at first welcomed them because of promise of low taxes and religious freedoms. Both these promises were broken once Muslims gained power, and Christians either converted, left, paid the tax or were killed or taken to slavery (women and children). This scenario is almost identical to one of ISIL’s current invasion across the Middle East. Just like Saracen invaders of the 7th century, ISIL is motivated by submission to Allah and a slavish adherence to Qur’an. As Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire world.”. All non-Muslims are considered infidels, hence mandate to fight against them whenever they are found covers the entire world. But infidel tag also covers Muslims whose beliefs and practices do not align with ISIL’s vision; this leads to some Western observers incorrectly believing that religion is not in the background of ISIL’s terrorism since ISIL slaughters other Muslims as eagerly as it slaughters Christians. While Islam is more tolerant of fellow „people of the book“ (Christians and Jews), this merely means that these groups are not immediately murdered. Muslim „tolerance“ of these groups takes form of institutionalized discrimination: they cannot share faith, build houses of worship without permission. In Muslim countries that abide to the letter of sharia, they also have to wear distinguishing clothing/symbols („Yellow badge“ that Nazis used to mark Jews originated from Muslim practice). They (dhimmis) also have to pay tax – if they cannot, they are murdered and their children are taken from them, to be raised in Islam. Religions that are not „of the book“ (e.g. Hinduism) fare worse: people either convert or are slaughtered. Tamerlain and his Muslims killed tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, displacing or converting millions more. In the West, in Spain, Islamic conquest was nowhere nearly as peaceful as commonly portrayed. Nobody welcomed the Muslims. Many people were butchered, raped and enslaved. Cities were burned, people crucified, many boys and infants killed with a sword. Musa’s son, Abd al-Aziz, systematically raped and sexually abused the wives and children of murdered Christian nobles. Islamic rule was totalitarian; in the Treaty of Tudmir, seven Christian towns had to agree to terms that included not giving shelter to the fugitives, having to pay one dinar every year for every adult male in the town, as well as “four measures of wheat, four measures of barley, four liquid measures of concentrated fruit juice, four liquid measures of vinegar, four of honey and four of olive oil”. Overall, Muslims have no right to complain of Christian crusades – they have organized crusades (jihad) against their neighbours since 623., and have not stopped until today – a total of 1.393 years of purely offensive warfare. For comparison, Christian Crusades began in 1.096 and ended in 1.487 – a total of 391 year. They were also mostly defensive in nature, being waged in response to Muslim aggression, aimed at recovering lost land and stopping the spread of Islam. They were also partly launched as a response to rising Muslim atrocities against Christians in the Middle East, and it took centuries of philosophical debate (from Augustine to Aquinas) for Christians to rationalize even purely defensive warfare, something which should not need to be rationalized. According to Islam, Christian states have to be destroyed and their lands conquered – and that is precisely what Islam has been trying to do since its inceptions. Christianity used to be a religion of Mediterranean and Middle East – it spread from the Spain and British Isles in the West to India and China in the East – but through coercion and genocide, it has been pushed back to its European shores. Only religiously and ethnically homogeneous Frankish and Roman Empires managed to stop the first expansion of Islam, the latter only after loosing all non-Greek, non-Orthodox areas east of the Constantinople. Helped by the Neapoli, Muslims take Messina and rest of the Sicily. Attempts at diplomacy were all refused by the Muslims, and Frankish and Roman Empires had to stay on defensive. Between 828. and 878. Muslims ravage Italy, and pope had to pay 20.000 silver mancas per year to stop it. But this does not stop the attacks; only in 916., when Franks and Romans first forced the Neapoli to cease the alliance with Muslims and then destroyed the Arab fortress of Garigliano, that the attacks ceased.

The Islamic invasion left its mark. Mediterranean was long the life artery of the European civilization. On all its shores, culture, religion and general civilization were very similar. Even after Germanic invasions, Mediterranean civilization continued unabated. Germanic rulers accepted the primacy of Constantinople, they continued to value and develop the Greco-Roman culture they adopted, and Mediterranean continued to serve as a centre point of trade. Romania lost merely some border areas towards Germania as well as Britain. Everywhere else, Roman traditions continue unabated, and Germanic kings continued to rule in the name of the Emperor in Constantinople. But Muslim invasions broke apart this unity. Germans adapted Roman culture; but Muslims did not. To them, their culture is superior to all others merely because it is Islamic. Muslims did not assimilate with the conquered populaces; merely being Muslim makes them, in their eyes, superior and thus in no need to assimilate. Islam means “submission”, and it is duty of Muslims to force it upon any non-Muslims. There is no forced conversions. Non-Muslims are degraded, insulted and ignored, which is a far more effective tool for conversion than force; unbeliever is a slave, nothing more. Vast majority convert quickly, only small numbers of non-Muslims remain, and those are enslaved. Any traces of non-Islamic influence are destroyed. Only the nationally, culturally and religiously homogeneous Frankish Empire as well as the equally homogeneous Greek block of the Roman Empire managed to resist the first expansion of Islam. But Muslims controlled the seas, and cut all the maritime links between Constantinople and the Western Europe. To Western Europe, Roman Empire became a foreign entity, and for the first time, Western Europe got isolated from the rest of the world. Trade across Mediterranean ceased, for the most part; only significant maritime trade was Islamic and Roman, both limited to their respective spheres of control. By the 8th century, only the Roman and Islamic trade remains; as Ibn-Kaldun puts it, “Christians can no longer let a board to float on the sea”. Once large port of Marseille has completely ceased activity, and cultural and economic unity of Mediterranean is completely shattered. By 716., trade with the East has completely stopped. Even the pilgrims move by land until they reach Roman cities in southern Italy and protection of the Roman navy. By 677. even the reserves of papyrus have run out, and the Merovingian royal chancellery shifts to parchment. Italy still has papyrus in 1057., having acquired it from the Arabs through the Roman Empire. Oriental spices disappear after 716. Import of gold has also ceased; Merovingian coins in 8th century contain ever increasing percentage of silver; after Pepin, only silver coins are in circulation. Diverted from the Mediterranean, centre point of the European civilization will move to the north, towards Atlantic and the North Sea. Carolingian Empire, whose centre was in the north, has signified this move away from the Mediterranean, and served as an introduction to European colonial expansion over the Atlantic seven centuries later. Supply of papyrus having been cut off, the only material remaining was parchment, too expensive to allow education of sufficient number of people necessary for the state administration. There is little to no trade with Islamic areas; Muslims only pillage and loot. Jews, tolerated by both Christians and Muslims, are the only ones who sustain the trade connections of West with the East, but that trade is limited in its volume. The centre of Europe shifts North; Paris is the main city of the Frankish Empire, and this shift north eventually ushers the European Atlantic exploration and colonisation of Americas. Sporadic mentions of travellers and traders going between Muslim world and Europe are irrelevant; that trade has no volume, and is limited – when and where it exists at all – exclusively to trade of high-value goods. Muslim invasions have reduced the Western Europe to feudal, purely agricultural society. During the Roman dominance over mare nostrum, travel was predominantly maritime due to its economy of scale and relative speed. But during the Carolingian era, only land routes are available for travellers who want to come from North to Italy. There is no trade between Frankish Empire and Spanish Caliphate. Only the luxury trade has survived, but that cannot be basis of economic activity. Only the Church, its organization having been built up during the Roman Empire, and its power, material belongings, organization and influence allowing it access to otherwise rare materials, was able to preserve literacy. Even unintentionally, this gave it huge power and influence: Church clergy was the only way for the West to preserve state administration even in limited and significantly reduced form. Church preserved the Roman tradition, and it became the teacher of the new age. Some trade did survive: between 800. and 880. cities in Italy continue to trade with both Roman Empire and Muslim areas. Slave trade, forbidden by Christianity, is only maintained because of interest for slaves in Muslim areas. But as a rule, the only trade surviving in the West is between people in the cities and peasants from the countryside; but due to limited volume and distances involved, it is done through barter. Italian cities also fight between each other, often calling Saracens for help. In 875., they join Saracens in looting the Roman coast. But it is insufficient to maintain standards of the Roman Empire. Carolingian Empire is completely cut off from the rest of the world, and Mediterranean unity is shattered. This also holds true for religion: for Church, events of 476. had no importance. Roman Pope remained the head of the Christian Church, and patriarchs in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria accepted his primacy. When Roman Empire reconciled with Rome, it also abandoned any hope of reconquering Monophysite provinces in the East. But since links between Roman Empire and Pope in Rome are shaky, this leads to Rome turning to Franks for help (in 754.), as well as to until then non-existent duality of rule, separation of Church and the state. But the centre of Frankish Carolingian Empire is in the North, in Austrasia, and by crowning the Emperor, Pope gives himself secular authority as well as religious one. In Frankish Empire, land becomes the only measure of wealth; long-distance trade has disappeared, along with shipping. The sole exception is Netherlands area, whose maritime trade survived until Norman invasion destroyed that last vestige of antiquity in Frankish Empire. But even that trade is oriented towards Britain and northern coasts. Luxury trade – mostly through Jewish traders – has also survived, as noted before, but it cannot be basis of economic activity. The whole society is ruled by landowners; consequently, the government becomes private, and monetary transactions almost completely disappeared. All of this is a consequence of Muslim expansion; it was Islam that destroyed the antiquity and ushered in the Middle Ages.

Muslim attempts to destroy Christianity have caused the Roman Empire to, eventually, call for help – which arrived in the form of First Crusade (although Romans were really hoping for mercenaries, not Crusaders). Crusader knights, typically wealthy landowners, often gave up everything to embark on Crusades, in order to liberate their brothers in faith from Muslim yoke. Unlike jihadis, Crusaders did not attempt forced conversions: Muslims were generally left free to profess their faith. But with the rise of nationalism and reduction in Christian ecumenism, Crusades faltered. Sack of Constantinople, an event brought about by a deadly mix of Roman (“Byzantine”) politics and Venetian treason, drove Catholic and Orthodox Christianity apart. In 14th to 16th centuries, Islam conquered much of Europe, and destruction of European Christian civilization was a real possibility. In 1480., Mehmed II captured Otranto in order to attack Rome, but died before he could do it. In 1529., Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. But in 1571. a Holy League (a naval Crusade) defeated Ottoman fleet at Lepanto, and in 1593. Ottoman army was defeated by Croatian and Slovenian troops at Sisak (both countries then a part of the Austrian Empire). Devoid of its source of economic and cultural growth – military expansion – the Ottoman Empire slowly withered, first an invisible internal collapse, followed by rebellions and independence movements in the conquered territories.

After Ottomans conquered Croatian province of Bosnia, they used immigration and Islamic laws of discrimination and persecution to convert most of the province to Islam. So-called “Bosniaks” or Bosnian Muslims are actually descendants of Croatians who had been converted to Islam, and because Bosnia was reconquered too late (not even reconquered; it was merely occupied by the Austria-Hungary), Islam still maintains a significant presence there. What is interesting is that they hate Croatian nation with passion; it was by their own wish that they were recognized as “Bosniaks” in 1968. This is largely a consequence of 70 years of Yugoslav rule. Even names of most important “Bosniaks” through history reveal their actual origin: Mahmut-pasha Hirwat, Rusten-pasha Hrvat, Pijali-pasha Hrvat, Sijavus-pasha Hrvat etc. (Hirwat/Hrvat = Croat). In the 16th century almost everyone on the Ottoman Court knew Croatian language, and it was customary to speak it even in official occasions; Croatian language was one of official languages of the Ottoman Court and many negotiations were conducted in it. Croatia itself lost majority of its population to emigration and war, due to Ottoman strategy of burned land, constant raids and enslavement. In Bosnia, Croats had to pay “tax in blood” – devishirma; every 3-4 years, 300-1.000 healthy boys were taken by force to Turkey, converted to Islam and educated for religious or military professions. Catholic priests and bishops were murdered, and Catholic churches turned to mosques; Catholics were not allowed to build new churches, but only to repair those built before the 1463, and those were often converted to mosques. By 18th century, only three monastic Catholic churches were left in whole of Bosnia, as well as two small churches. Taxes for Catholics were higher than for Orthodox Christians (who served as soldiers) and far higher than for Muslims – to the point of people converting to Orthodoxy or Islam to avoid dying of hunger. Ottomans also brought along a large number of Orthodox Vlachs, who adopted Serbian national identity in the 19th century, at the behest of the Court in Vienna (many of those were settled in the devastated areas of Croatian Military Border); many Croats were also converted (often forcibly) to the Orthodox Christianity – and religion is what determined ethnicity in Bosnia (albeit many Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia are descendants of non-Slavic Orthodox Vlachs, who were used as soldiers by the Ottomans). In 1690., Orthodox Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo and settled in province of Srijem, which belonged to Croatia, and in Vojvodina, which used to be a part of Hungary. Overall it was 17th and 18th centuries that were most problematic for Croats; in 16th century, Croats were still a majority in Bosnia. That was mostly a consequence of reprisals for successful anti-Ottoman wars in the 17th century. Areas emptied of Croats were then populated by Muslims and Vlachs. This ethnic-cultural mix-up, a result of a cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing, will be crucial in causing problems for everyone involved for the next hundred years, partly due to insane British insistence on creating Yugoslavia from a bunch of countries with completely incompatible cultures. Demographic loss was large – until the 18th century, two million Croats were exiled (and additional two million in 19th and 20th centuries, albeit for reasons other than Islam). Today, Croatia has half the territory and less than half the populace it would have had without Muslim invasions (some areas, such as Slavonia, experienced 80% populace loss just in the Great Turkish War). Today there are around 8,5 million Croats in the world, of which only 3,9 million live in Croatia itself. This does not count cca 3 million Bosniaks, most of whom are descendants of Croats who were islamized during the Ottoman occupation. Many of the Serbs in Bosnia are also descendants of Croats who adopted the Orthodox Christianity during the Ottoman occupation and were later Serbianized. Artificial construct of “Bosniaks” will likely continue to plague the area for a long time in the future. A major factor in problematic history and future is also Catholocism, an internationalist faith that has allied itself with Central European imperialism against smaller nations of Eastern Europe (and continues to do so, with Pope Francis promoting destruction of European cultures and identities).

Ottoman Empire did not lose its religious insanity in the 19th and 20th centuries. After a Bulgarian uprising in 1876., Bulgarian women were raped and murdered through beheading by the Ottoman soldiers suppressing the uprising; men and children were also murdered. As one account of the massacre points out, when a Muslim kills a number of infidels he is assured a place in heaven – and that was the moral basis of the massacres. Many of the victims were not even buried by the Ottomans, as Christians were not thought to be worth a burial. Later, under Ismail Enver and Kemal Ataturk, Ottomans murdered 1.800.000 Armenians, 1.750.000 Greeks and 100.000 Assyrians in 1894. – 1923. timeframe. In 1934., 15.000 Jews had to flee the Thrace region of Turkey due to anti-Jewish violence. Adolf Hitler later cited the world’s indifference to Turkish genocide of Armenians when he concluded that he could do the same to the Poles (and thus, by implication, Jews and Gypsies).

When Pakistani soldiers invaded Bangladesh (East Pakistan) in 1971, they raped the women, Hindu and Muslim alike, because a Pakistani cleric declared them kafirs. Three million people were massacred and 250.000 women raped; these action have a clear root in Islam and actions of Muhammad. Pakistani troops did not think they were doing anything wrong; they were emulating Muhammad, and thus following Islam. No apology was ever issued. Today, an ongoing genocide of non-Muslims and apostates waged in Darfur by Sudanese government has left a million people dead.

None of the victims of Islam ever initiated the hostilities; Muslims were always the aggressors. All wars between Islam and other societies were initiated by the Muslims, or by victims of previous Muslim aggressions retaliating against them; even the Crusades were an answer to violent expansion of Islam. It was Muhammad who kept raiding the Meccan caravans, and him who broke all the treaties (and even invented the sura 9 and made his sock puppet Allah approve his treachery). It was Muslims who initiated a war against Persian and Roman Empires, after both had exhausted themselves in mutual war. It was Muslims who attacked mainland Europe. Since all the wars that Muhammad himself launched were raids with no warning, almost all people killed were non-combatants, and his followers after him intentionally targeted non-combatants to weaken the enemy’s demographic and economic base.

Islam, while a creation of a madman, has a lot in common with a way of life that was already prevalent in Arabia before it, and is in fact its codification. The Arabian Peninsula of Muhammad’s time was a barren wasteland, with tribes fighting over few oases available. The only constant was warfare, both between Arabs (Saracens) themselves as well as attacks on Roman and Persian border areas. Arabia did not have any culture of its own, and that is codified in Islam: Islam does not allow any culture or knowledge outside itself; it is a religion which has produced nothing but religion, and is thus unique among all major religions. Inhospitality of the area protected it from conquest and foreign influence, sand dunes and some sheep not being worth fighting over. For Arabs, morality was dictated by necessity, and obligations did not extend outside one’s tribe (today in Islam, ethics of any act are determined only by whether it benefits Islam or not). Muhammad’s own Quraish tribe worshipped a moon god called Allah, and a black meteorite. Other gods were recognized and worshipped as well. Islam is a (bad) mix-and-match product of these pagan practices combined with Muhammad’s erroneous understanding of Judaism and Christianity.

Muhammad was born in AD 570 and worked for his uncle as a camel trader. Being an orphan, he did not achieve any status in the community until age of 25, when he married 15 year older wealthy widow Khadija. Khadija was a trader, and Muhammad used his trade travels to acquire knowledge not accessible to local population. He would later use that knowledge by incorporating stories he had come across into his “revelations” of Allah; in particular tales from Judaism and Christianity. One day at age 40 he told his wife that he had been visited by an angel Gabriel in a dream, which began a series of made-up “revelations”. Using his wife’s influence and support, Muhammad declared himself a “prophet”, and started trying to convert people near him. He used “Allah” to reinforce his status as a prophet and dictator – at least twenty times in Qur’an does Allah command Muslims to follow and obey any Muhammad’s earthly wish.

***

But going back to suicide attacks: Islam does not see them as suicides. “Suicide” strictly defined is senseless taking of one’s own life, due to a lack of will to live. But so called “suicide bombers” are not, as seen by Islam, performing suicide. Actions speak louder than words, and there is more than suicide attacks, too. Islam, in both theory and practice, is a violent dogma. In fact, since only fighting in Jihad can guarantee salvation for a Muslim, suicide bombings are something of a quick way to Heaven for Muslims unwilling to do it in a slower and harder way of semi-conventional warfare. A 2006 Pew survey has shown that 26% of Muslims in United States think that suicide bombings could be justified to defend Islam, compared to 35% in Britain and 42% in France. Thirty-six per cent Muslims in the UK think that apostates should be killed, and 40% backed introducing Sharia law in parts of Britain. These figures are almost certainly under-representations, as some would not have revealed their opinion in a liberal society (taqiyya). In Egypt, 29% of Muslims think that suicide bombing is sometimes justified, while 65% of Muslims in both Egypt and Pakistan think that leaving Islam should be punishable by death. Education does not do much to liberalize these views: in the United Kingdom, 32% of Muslims on the campuses believe that killing in the name of religion is justified, 40% want the UK to be under the Sharia law (2001).

In Islamic countries, it is customary to execute unbelievers, apostates, political opponents or any other undesirable groups; sorcery, witchcraft and blasphemy are also punishable by death. Only reason why Islam still exists is that nobody is allowed to leave Islam, and if they do, they get killed. „Civilized“ Saudi Arabia regularly carries out mass executions of listed groups. So does Iran. In Pakistan and Egypt as well, blasphemers are regularly executed. And where the establishment is not Islamic, Muslim minorities take it upon themselves to execute „undesirables“ (i.e. everybody but themselves). While Islam does prohibit the killing of innocent, it also considers anyone not Muslim to be guilty of infidely by default. Only non-Muslims who receive some kind of protection are so called dhimmis – yet they are still discriminated against, and the very word dhimmi is derived from an Arabic root which means „guilt“ or „blame“. Only group that bears a guilt greater than non-believers from polytheistic religions are the Munafiqin – the hypocrites who are unwilling to wage or fund the holy war. According to the Sharia, if a Muslim is hindering the expansion of Islamic authority, he is declared an apostate and then executed for treason against Islam. Saudi king will not be accused of anything like that – Saudi Arabia is handsomely assisting the Jihad, and in 2011., it treated unrepentant Palestinian terrorists to a “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca; not a single Muslim protested. Saudi Arabia also regularly carries out burning of Christian Bibles, just like Nazi Germany used to destroy books that did not agree to its ideology. Islam itself is hostile to democracy, and in fact demands totalitarian dictatorship: „O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and obey those who are in power!“. This is the root cause of inability of Muslim countries to function as democracies. Anybody who questions Islam is treated as an enemy, no matter how minor or benevolent that questioning is; their books are burned and they themselves killed. This mindset naturally spills over into politics, and prevents the healthy debate that is necessary for democracy.

***

Islam’s idea of peace is completely different from the Western one. In Islam, peace can only exist where Sharia reigns supreme, because Islam is at war with any other ideology / religion. Peace in Islam means that non-Muslims are subdued and humiliated to the point that they have no strength left to rebel. Islamic peace is therefore achieved through subjugation and domination, as Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq, as is being done in Saudi Arabia and every single other Muslim country (even Turkey as of late). Likewise, in Islam, freedom is achieved through submission to Allah. In Islamic definition of the term, person is only free when they have no thoughts or feelings of their own, and have submitted their entire will to Allah and his messenger. Even this “freedom” is reserved only for Muslims; non-Muslims have to be subdued, humiliated, taxed or murdered. Consequently, if Muslims achieve peace and freedom, everybody else will loose those same privileges. And until non-Muslims are subjugated or killed, Muslims will feel “oppressed”. According to Muslims, the gravest crime which deserves capital punishment is not worshipping Allah. One must accept the lie of Muhammad and Allah as truth, or die. Muslims don’t think there is any need for evidence for the claims of Muhammad, and that anyone who does not see it is deaf, dumb, blind or arrogant. Might makes right (argumentum ad baculum), and the threat of violence is the only evidence Islam needs. Qur’an has both overt and covert threats against “unbelievers”, and in Islam, threat is a valid substitute for logical arguments. Looting, rape, murder and genocide are not evil and immoral when victims are Muslims. Meanwhile, freedom of thought is an evil thing that has to be eradicated. Anyone opposing Islam is creating disorder and must be punished. That is the reason why Muslim world is in shambles, and why Muslims who ran away from a world in shambles are also trying to turn Western world into shambles as well.

Muslims will make peace treaties and even abide by peace if they are weaker than their adversaries. Islam respects strength. As long as they are weak, Muslims will make treaties, and respect others’ customs and lifestyle. But once they gain a position of strength, they will fall on weaker nations, forcing them to convert or be killed. Allah and his Muslims have no obligations towards unbelievers, and this also extends to having to respect the treaties, laws and customs of war, laws and customs of home societies, as well as any ethical principles. Currently, Muslims are not in a position of strength, so their current behaviour is not an indication of how they would behave should they ever attain it. This also draws from Muhammad’s behaviour: when Muhammad was in Mecca, he had no more than 70 or 80 followers. Consequently, he had no choice but to refrain from the violence. Even Hitler did not kill anyone when he knew he would not get away with it. Six years after leaving Mecca, Muhammad and his followers re-entered Mecca under an agreement whereby he set aside his title as “Prophet of Allah”. He used this time to gain a foothold, and eventually conquered Mecca, killing those who had previously insulted him.

This duplicity can be seen from the Qur’an itself. Meccan verses, written during Muhammad’s stay in Mecca, are predominantly peaceful, and command tolerance of other beliefs and faiths. Verse 73:10 states: “And bear patiently all that they say, and part with them in a decent manner.”. But the verse, as stated, was written while Muhammad was in a hostile environment in Mecca. Verses written in Medina paint a completely different picture. Verses 9:4 and 9:5 commands that non-Muslims should be killed, unless there is a (temporary) treaty with them; and once the treaty expires, murders should be resumed, unless they accept Muslim dominance: “4. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous. 5. And when the forbidden months have passed, killed the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe the Prayer and pay the zakat, then leave their way free.”. Verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight Christians and Jews until they are subjugated under the Islamic rule: “29. Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.”. Many of the violent verses are listed at the beginning of the article, with context being explained where needed.

Meccan surahs were written while Muhammad and his followers were in a position of weakness, and are thus typically tolerant. They call for adherence to good moral and ethical standards – truthfulness, kindness, and also refute polytheists with arguments. But Medinian surahs, which override Meccan surahs, are violent, thus reflecting Muhammad’s own inherent evil. They call for jihad, detail Islamic legal system, and contain arguments with “people of the Book”. Reason for this is that Meccan surahs were written when Muhammad was weak, and weak people cannot be intolerant. But as person’s true character is revealed through giving them a position of strength, so was Muhammad’s. Once in a position of power, Muhammad immediately became extremely intolerant, and this is revealed in Medinian surahs; previously, his intolerance was only displayed through constant threats of divine punishment via hell (actual Hell, not the hell on earth that Muslims create wherever they achieve rule). For example, verse 73:11 reads “And bear patiently all that they say; and part with them in a decent manner”. Verse 109:7 states “For you your religion, and for me my religion.”. But later, Medinian verses are extremely violent, as Muhammad wrote them from a position of power. Verse 9:123 reads “O ye who believe! fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you and let them find hardness in you; and know that Allah is with the righteous.”. It should be noted that more accurate translation of 9:123 as provided by Ali Sina reads “…Murder those of the disbelievers…”, which is to say that all non-Muslims are to be murdered, regardless of wether there is a state of war or not (in other words, 9:123 calls for a genocide, an extermination campaign). Verse 9:5 states “…kill the idolaters wherever you find them…”; only limitations there are that any treaty with idolaters should be fulfilled till its actual term (but permanent peace is impossible), and that those who accept supremacy of Islam are not to be killed. Because Medinian surahs were written after Meccan ones, and because they were written when Muhammad did not have to hide his true face, they take precedence over Meccan verses. And Muhammad’s – and thus Islam’s – true face is very ugly. Islam is a religion of peace only when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change, and Islam becomes a religion of persecution, expansion and genocide. In fact, Islam is always at war, either with other religions or with itself.

***

While most Muslims are peaceful, this is in spite of Islam rather than because it. Reasons for this peacefulness vary: some are peaceful because they are genuinely good people who do not know their religion; some are peaceful because they are too lazy to do anything (or afraid of repercussions); and some are peaceful simply because there are no “infidels” at hand to kill. But when there are no infidels, many Muslims make them up: most killings carried out by Muslims were due to intra-Islamic sectarian conflicts, and against their fellow Muslims. Genuinely pacifist Muslims as well as Muslims that do not follow the same denomination as a majority of Muslims in a particular surrounding are at danger of being killed by their fellow believers. To suggest that people who follow a criminal ideology are automatically criminals is not correct: some Nazis were morally upstanding people (Erwin Rommel) as well as many high-ranking officials in Nazi Germany who were not members of the Nazi Party (Erich Raeder), but Nazism itself was a crime, and most people were complicit in it. Same goes for Islam, whose founder Mohammed was a psychopathic genius at the same level as Hitler (arguably even worse, seeing how he actually left major following even behind his death). In fact, most Muslims who do participate in attacks against others, especially suicide bombers, typically have no motivation other than martyrdom. And since they get to pick seventy people to join them in the afterlife, they make sure to include their family among those so they wouldn’t grieve. Many Muslims, in Ali Sina’s experience, defend Muhammad’s most heinous acts – because they were committed by Muhammad, and Muhammad can do no wrong. This does not mean that those Muslims carry out same acts, but it does indicate lack (or rather, non-existence) of ethical standards in Islam. Islam kills conscience and in the process, creates sleeping monsters.

At the governmental level, Muslim countries are aware that they are far weaker than Western ones. Since Muslims only respect power, West still exerts a powerful influence on Muslims and prevents them from reverting to total barbarity. They feign civility in order to placate and impress the West. To Muslims, image is everything. But if Islam ever becomes the world’s dominant religion, this planet will become the planet of apes. Islamic insanity, free from its restraints, will be magnified, and the planet will be thrown into the dark ages. And because there is no possibility for dissent in Islam, and any knowledge contrary to the Qur’an is prohibited, the dark age will never end.

Literal (“extremist”) Muslims can be found everywhere: from the poorest of slum-dwellers to most powerful heads of the state. One such example is the Prime Minister Ahmed Davutoglu of Turkey, who actively supported both ISIL and Al-Quaeda in northern Syria over the last three to four years. Same goes for the Turkish president Recep Erdogan. But where Muslims have a strong sense of themselves, modern politically correct Europe has lost that sense. This is a consequence of, among other things, rabid relativism and a sense that there is no really right and wrong, itself a consequence of (neo)liberal materialism. Thus Europe, when attacked, reacts with either fear or appeasement; but never by confronting the problem itself. Only forces that attempt to confront the problem come from outside the established political spectrum, mostly from far right – which is then skilfully utilized by Muslims and their appeasers so as to make it appear that Muslims are completely innocent victims. Where Islam is dominant, religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in minority, threats of violence are used to secure it more favourable position – far better than it would allow any other ideology under its rule. And this extremism is not extremism in a classical sense – it is literalism, since it comes straight from the Qur’an. Moderate, liberal Muslims are typically terrorized into silence, as was the case of Dr. Usama Hasain, an Imam of an east London mosque. Islam is far worse than other potentially violent ideologies because it has inbuilt death punishment for anyone who does not toe the line. Consequently, reform of Islam is impossible, at least in areas with Muslim majority, or significant Muslim minority – anyone who tries to reform Islam is murdered. And because Islam is in reality a violent, genocidal ideology, it is far too easy for “moderate” Muslims to turn “extremist”. Qur’an claims that unbelievers are “the vilest of animals”, encourages Muslims to slay unbelievers whenever they are found, etc. These statements are not contextual, or in any way unclear; to claim Islam to be peaceful requires these statements to be completely ignored.

Turkey, an allegedly secular country, has shown itself to be anything but. The coup attempted in 2016. was an answer to autocratic tendencies of the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, tendencies hailling straight from Islam. Erdogan used the coup to increase and solidify his rule. Turkey itself is islamizing, with a secular minority being increasingly isolated; but it is this minority which is a source for the Western newspaper, thus paining an incorrect view of Turkey. Imams are increasingly powerful, and more and more women are carrying veils. In both Egypt and Turkey, the military has staged a coup in response to increasing Islamization of the country; but where in Egypt the people supported the military, in Turkey, they opposed it and its attempts to return Turkey to a secular country as envisioned by Ataturk. Among the military personnel who attempted the coup were officers and generals whose mentors Erdogan removed from the military in the last ten years. In both military and civil administration, Erdogan undertook a purge of non-Islamist elements, with full support of majority of people in Turkey (Kurds excepted). The coup placed NATO between a rock and a hard place: by opposing it, it would have supported Erdogan’s Islamist dictatorship; by supporting it, it would have supported a military dictatorship. But NATO, perhaps revealing a lack of understanding of problem in the West, quickly supported Erdogan, who used to coup to purge the military, judiciary and educational systems. The swiftness of purges has shown that they were planned well in advance; the coup was merely used as an excuse to quickly implement the already prepared changes (which is why there are those who suspect the Erdogan having organized the coup himself). As his key weapon against Europe, Erdogan uses thousands of “refugees” currently in Turkey, meaning that European leaders cannot criticize him too much. Turkey is also supporting ISIL (training, logistics and medicinal support as well as armament and munitions supply), and is overall an Islamic country that Europe would be best without.

***

Islam has a lot to answer to. Its criminal philosophy has resulted in slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus between 1000 and 1500 AD. Islam also nearly wiped out Buddhism. Judaism and Christianity met similar fate, albeit more slowly, in the areas conquered by Muslims. In fact, Islam is so addicted to war that it is always at war with either other religions, non-religious ideologies, itself, or some combination of these. Its wars are invariably those of aggression; defensive wars fought by Islam or Islamic entities were few and far between, and were almost always started by a victim of one or more previous Islamic offensives retaliating against it. Much like Mongols, early Islamic jihadists slaughtered the entire grown male population of any settlement that dared resist, with women and children taken to slavery. According to The Encyclopedia of Wars, 6,98% of all wars were waged in the name of religion, and 3,75% were waged in the name of Islam – more than all other religions combined. In United States, Muslims committed 24% of terrorist attacks while making up 1% of the population, and those 24% of attacks accounted for 94% of all casualties. Jews, with twice the population, killed a total of three people. Since 1980, Muslims in the US have been 35 times more likely to commit terror than all other demographics combined, albeit absolute number is still low. In total, Islam is responsible for at least 669 million deaths – and that is just non-Muslims; including Muslim sectarian violence would significantly increase the number. Egypt had a populace of 14,5 million in Umar’s time; when Napoleon walked in 1.000 years later, it was down to 2,5 million people. Death toll due to Islam in Africa is at least 120 million; in India it is 400 million, albeit that number includes Muslims. Islam is, in fact, a war religion aimed against civilization in general, as can be attested from its actions against both Western (Greco-Roman) and various civilizations of Indian subcontinent. Only ideologies which come close to Islamic deaths are atheistic Communism and pagan Nazism; albeit liberal capitalism (also atheistic) is responsible for appearance of both, and is also helping the current spread of Islam. For comparison, while Islam caused 670 million deaths, Communism caused 94 million deaths, and Nazism caused comparatively paltry 28 million deaths. Both world wars were caused by banking cartels, not by nationalism, or even ideology in general. No other ideology is as violent as Islam, yet liberal media start screaming about Nazism whenever dangers of Islam are pointed out, and Communism gets by ignored. Even today, in United States, Islamists kill 62 people for every person killed by right-wing extremists, and are responsible for 50% of extremist attacks despite making up 1% of the populace. By using the basic principle of “Do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you.”, it can be seen that Islam as an ideology is evil. Muhammad murdered people and stole their possessions, yet did not like when the same was done to his followers. Muslims today behave in the same way. They come to non-Muslim countries, demand tolerance, freedom of faith and privileges. None of these things exist in countries where Muslims are a majority, but they don’t see anything wrong with it; they believe they are superior because they follow Islam. In some parts of the world people accused of blasphemy are lynched on the spot, without any effort being made to even confirm the accusation.

Medieval Islamic rulers were well aware of the danger that Literal Islam represented. Saladin made literal interpretation of Qur’an a capital crime. Despite this, Islam still caused massive damage in social terms. All Muslim “advances” during Dark Ages, touted as a proof of Islamic advantage, were nothing of sorts. Most of their knowledge came to them by plunder of Roman libraries in the cities they conquered, containing works of Greek and Roman scholars. Then they forced Christians and Jews to translate those books on Arabic. Scientific advances that Muslims “made” during that period were simply taken from others: concept of zero was taken from Indians, as were so-called “Arab numerals” themselves. Algebra, geometry and the decimal system are other Hindu advances that Muslims stole and brought to Europe. Even “domestic” Muslim advances were not made by Muslims, but rather by the conquered populations until the same got converted to Islam by the threat of dhimmitude. Those few genuine scientists that Muslims produced were typically considered heretics – such as Persian scientist and philosopher al-Razi. While an astronomer Taqi ad-Din constructed a great observatory in the freshly conquered Istanbul in 1577., Muslim clerics convinced the sultan do demolish it in 1580. Only modern Muslim scientific accomplishments are limited to turning cellphones and cars into instruments of mass murder – and even in that, they got outstripped by Christianity (first car bomb ever was the one used in an assassination attempt on Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II, by Christian Armenian separatists). To Islam, anything that is not Islamic is from a time of ignorance –Jahiliyya- and must be either destroyed or appropriated and called Islam’s. Typical response is blaming European colonialism for this lack of advancement. However, as noted before, all Muslim “advances” came during the era of expansion. Ottoman Empire, a then-superpower that was definitely not under European colonial rule, started to fall well behind European technological achievements by the late 16th century – long before it suffered any significant territorial losses. On the cultural field, nothing is different. Only originally Muslim (Arab) parts of the Islamic culture are religion and the language. But all conquered nations were far more culturally developed and sophisticated than their Muslim conquerors, so their scientific, social and cultural advances were taken by handfuls. Multiplicity and diversity of nations and cultures that Muslims conquered led to large number of intermixing influences, which turned Muslim civilization into multiplicity of nuances with no depth. Aristotle is the teacher of Arab philosophers, who failed to add anything to his thought, and everything Europeans “learned” from Islam was but what Islam took from the European Mediterranean civilization it destroyed. In terms of social development, Ottoman Empire and Persia/Iran fell well behind Europe even earlier, and Iran still lags well behind it, having had no modernizing European influence. Modern Islamic rulers – those of Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc. – have wholeheartedly embraced Islam. Saudi Arabia is just as ruthless in executions as ISIL is – and ISIL has support of 63 million Muslims in 11 countries, with additional 287 million being “undecided” (and by not opposing evil one is already supporting it). Total Muslim population in said 11 countries is 590 million (2.542.000 Lebanon, 1.287.000 Israel, 6.397.000 Jordan, 4.298.000 Palestine, 204.847.000 Indonesia, 74.660.000 Turkey, 75.728.000 Nigeria, 11.270.000 Burkina Faso, 17.139.000 Malaysia, 14.585.000 Senegal, 178.000.000 Pakistan). This means that 11% Muslims support ISIS, and 49% are undecided; in other words, ISIS has direct or indirect support of 59% Muslims in listed countries. What has to be remembered is that only 7-10% Germans supported Nazis, which was enough to cause World War II. Fact that most Muslims are “moderates” would be irrelevant even if it were true; most Germans being “moderates” did not prevent the genocide or the World War II. When Sweden’s foreign minister Margot Wallstrom dared speak the truth about subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia and UAE both withdrew ambassadors from Sweden. But the claim that most Muslims are moderates is false. As noted before, 59% of Muslims in Middle East support ISIS. In Europe, 75% of Muslims believe that texts of Islam have to be taken literally; considering how violent these texts are, this makes said 75% a clear and present danger to Europe. 80% of young Turks in Netherlands see nothing wrong with waging jihad against non-Muslims. In 2006., 49,9% Muslims supported Osama bin Laden. 70% of youth offenders in Denmark have Muslim background.

***

One lie (taqqiya) often repeated is that Allah is the same as the Judaeo-Christian God, Yahveh. In reality, Allah is a pagan moon god of the ancient Mecca. “Allah” (al-Illah) was a personal name of the moon god, the highest of 360 deities worshipped in ancient Mecca. Pagan Arabians, when worshipping their moon god, prayed to a piece of rock in Mecca, and visited it once a year to walk around it several times. Muslims pray towards a piece of rock in Mecca five times a day, and have an obligation to visit it at least once in their life, and to walk around it several times (in this, Islam is similar to Christianity which took many more visible aspects from Roman pagan religion as well as Mitraism – 25th December is a birthday of Mitras – Jesus was born in spring/summer; most Christian rituals are pagan in origin). More specifically, crescent, the symbol of Islam, was a personal symbol of the Moon God. Muhammad based Allah off the al-Illah because he could not comprehend the Christianity, specifically the Holy Trinity. He also mistakenly believed that the Biblical Trinity refers to God the Father, Mary and Jesus (Quran 5:116). Reason for this is partly that he was only actually familiar with the Judaeo-Christian sects which accepted Christ as a prophet but rejected his divinity (e.g. Nazoreans, Eboinites etc.) and heretical trinitarian constructions such as those of Collidarians, and many of their beliefs were adopted by Islam. He also believed that Jews and Christians are to be counted among the polytheists because they “believe in idols”; but earlier, when he was weak, Muhammad showered them with praise as “fellow people of the book”. Reason for the change was primarily that they had rejected him; to a narcissist, rejection is an ultimate crime. And how can Allah, who prescribed equitable retaliation, be the same as a relatively forgiving Christian God (Qur’an 2:179: “O ye who believe! equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you: the free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female”). Jesus saved a woman from being stoned by saying that “Who is without a sin, let him throw the stone first.”; Muhammad urged the Jews who had abandoned the barbaric practice of stoning to stone a woman accused of adultery. Jesus sat with the sinners, ate with them and befriended them; Muhammad prohibited his followers from associating with the “sinners”. Jesus forgave the people who had crucified him; Muhammad murdered people who merely mocked him. Either Jesus was lying or Muhammad was; but since Muhammad himself accepted Jesus as a Prophet of God, the only possible answer is that it was Muhammad who was a liar. Jesus said that false prophets are to be recognized by their fruits, and fruits of Islam are ignorance, bigotry, fanaticism, intolerance, violence, misogyny, discrimination, terrorism, dictatorship, wars, poverty and misery.

Qur’an, claimed to be a literal and unchanged word of a God – and thus making no mistakes – is riddled with errors. It claims that one night, God took Muhammad to the „Al-Asqua“ mosque in Jerusalem. Yet that Mosque was completed in 705., Jerusalem conquered in 637., and Mohammed died in 632. Qur’an claims that Moses confronted Aaron and Samaritan over a golden calf – yet the golden calf incident happened in 1.446 BC (assuming that Exodus is anything but a myth), whereas Samaritans are offspring of people from various parts of Assyria who came to Israel and intermarried with Jews. Assyria conquered Jewish northern kingdom in 722 BC, meaning that first Samaritan was born 725 years after the Mount Sinai incident. Qur’an claims that it was Ismael whom Abraham had to sacrifice, when in the Bible, it was Isaac. Qur’an claims that God preserved the body of a pharaoh that drowned in the Red Sea while chasing the Israelites, taking it from the sea to serve as a sign. Reason for this is that Muhammad did not know that all pharaohs in Egypt were mummified, nor that Pharaoh is a title as opposed to a proper name. In Bible, Mary was young when she had Jesus – a teenager, as was usual during that time. But according to Quran, Mary was 1.500 years old:

“Then she brought [Jesus] to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.” – Quran 19:27-28

“And Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, and We breathed into (her body) of our spirit; and she believed in the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was of the devoutly obedient.” – Quran 66:12

Mary who was daughter of Imran (Amran) and sister of Aaron lived in the 15th century BC. This mistake of Mohammed is logical, since he had very limited knowledge of either Judaism or Christianity – he himself was illiterate. It also clearly shows that Qur’an was not dictated to Mohammed by God; even if there were prophets, Mohammed was not one of them. If it really is a book of God, it should not have a single error; yet there are hundreds of errors in Qur’an. On the contrary, Bible was written over the course of 1.600 years by over 40 people, yet it contains far less errors (most of it is actual history, as preserved by verbal tradition before being written). But Qur’an has never undergone significant probation, as Islam prohibits anyone from questioning Qur’an and its author. Even the clearly made-up mythology contradicts its equally made-up sources: in the Bible, Creation happened in seven days. So it did according to Muhammad (in a response he gave to a group of Jews), but that is where similarities stop.

Day of Creation

Bible

Qur’an

First

Night and Day

Earth

Second

Sky and Sea

Earth

Third

Land and Vegetation

Mountains

Fourth

Stars, Sun and Moon

Cities, Vegetation, Rivers, Development and Ruin

Fifth

Sea Creatures and Birds

Times of Deaths, the diseases

Sixth

Animals and Mankind

Adam

Seventh

None (day of rest)

None (day of rest)

Not only is the order of creation completely different from the Bible, it makes no bloody sense at all. Cities were created before there were humans, and diseases were created before there was any living being other than plants that could catch them. When Jews pointed out contradictions to Muhammad, he got very angry and made Allah reveal the verse 46:34: “Have they not seen that Allah, who created heavens and the earth and was not wearied by their creation, has the power to give life to the dead? Yea, verily, he has power over all things.”. Muhammad’s idiocy is excused by Allah’s omnipotence. At no point did Muhammad admit his errors, which is a constant point of his character, and very presence of the myth of creation in seven days outright negates the Qur’an as having originated from God.

Qur’an contradicts the Bible from theological viewpoint as well. Muhammad believed that Mary mother of Jesus was a part of the Holy Trinity (Christian Holy Trinity is made up of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. The Father is YHWH, The Son is Jesus and The Holy Spirit is the manifestation of their mutual love. Christian God is one being made up of these three different persons). Reason for these contradictions is that Muhammad – being illiterate – never read the Bible and relied on hearsay. When people who knew the Bible caught these errors, Muhammad lost his temper and lashed out at them, saying that the Bible was mistaken – an action perfectly consistent with his own narcissistic personality. Jesus is also referred to by Qur’an as “Isa”, which is the Arabic form of the name “Esau”. But Arabic Christians used actual Arabic variant of the name, which is “Yasu”. Both the Greek “Jesus” and the Hebrew/Aramaic “Yeshua” mean “Jehovah saves,” while Esau means “hairy”.

Qur’an borrows from a large variety of pre-Islamic texts, both Christian and pagan in origin. Many were legends extant before Muhammad: the story of the she-camel which leapt out of a rock and became a prophet was known in Arabia long before Muhammad. The story of an entire village of people who were turned into apes because they broke the sabbath by fishing was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day, as was the story of the seven men and their animals who slept in a cave for 309 years and woke up perfectly fine. The story of Moses and the gushing twelve springs comes from pre-Islamic Arabian legends. The story about the birth of Mary in Surah 3:35-37 is loosely based off an apocryphal 2nd century work, The Protevangelion of James the Lesser. Many Jewish texts were also used when developing the Quranic relevation, such as Testament of Abraham which provided the details about the judgment day. Story of Moses’ resurrection appeared in Talmud. Muhammad also used heretical Christian sources. Quranic definition of the Trinity, consisting of God, Jesus and Mary, was a doctrine held by a small Arabian pseudo-Christian group known as the Collyridians, with whom the early Muslims apparently had some contact.

Qur’an often contradicts itself. Verses 40:7-9 for example contradict other verses (2:48, 2:122-123, 2:254, 4:123, 6:5, 6:70, 39:43-44, 82:18-19, 17:56-57) by claiming that Muhammad does, in fact, have the power to intercede on behalf of the people (previously, it was claimed that noone has such power). Hadiths claim the same thing, likewise contradicting the previously noted verses. Moreover, Muhammad is clearly supplicating to Allah in those verses, therefore they cannot be a literal Word of God. But Hadiths also claim that Allah himself will intercede [The Prophet added, “Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, ‘Now remains My intercession.’”]. Unless Allah has schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, or is himself subservient to a higher deity (which would be contrary to Islamic teachings), such a claim makes no sense. Muhammad also claims that only he has the power to intercede, and no other prophets (Jesus, Abraham etc.) have that power. In that he also gives his believers a cheque en blanc to do whatever they want to do – they can be rapists, paedophiles, mass murderers, genocidal maniacs; but as long as they have a minimum amount of faith in Muhammad, they will go to Heaven. This claim that people are saved by faith alone (sola fide) is a perversion of the Bible that is also propagated by the Protestants. In fact, it is outright rejected by the Bible [You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)], which is important because Qur’an was partly based on Muhammad’s incomplete knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. Many Muslims happily live by that dictum, and slit the throat of, or at the very least verbally abuse, anyone who dares doubt Islam. Muhammad further claimed that 40 people who pray at funeral can intercede for the dead person [If any Muslim dies and forty men who associate nothing with Allah stand over his prayer (they offer prayer over him), Allah will accept them as intercessors for him.]. One can do anything from a theft to a genocide, and if forty people come to their funeral and pray, all is forgiven. And since wealthier people have larger funerals, they are far more likely to attain forgiveness for their sins. This despite the fact that wealthier people have both greater propensity for injustice, and greater capability to cause damage; even if it weren’t so, mere idea of intercession is inherently unjust. It is also absurd that people should have the power to change God’s mind. But in other verses it is claimed that intercession is useless [Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (9:80)], or at the very least, useless for non-Muslims. And regardless of possibility of intercession, God should be all-knowing and all-understanding. How can anyone tell Him what He doesn’t already know? And if He already knows everything, including what is in human heart, and if His wisdom, compassion and mercy exceed those of His creatures, why would He alter his decision merely because of human prayers? Intercession denies Allah’s omniscience, wisdom, fairness and mercy, making him into a foolish tyrant – and a tyrant with human flaws at that, more akin to Greek Zeus than to Judeo-Christian YHWH. Yet according to Islam, Allah is perfect – Muslims, even Muhammad, are not. Therefore, intercession is blasphemy – and blasphemy in Qur’an is only possible if it is not literal word of God. Even worse, Muhammad states that God would not only listen to his prayers, but to his curses as well. But listening to people even though decision has already been made is nothing more than sadism; which means that Allah is evil. Allah also claims that only humans shall be His messengers (17:94-95, 25:20 – 21, 12:109, 21:7-8) yet later he claims that he shall “bring forth a beast of the earth to speak unto them (27:82), and in Qur’an it was also claimed that there were two angels in Babel, and that an angel also appeared to Zechariah, and later also to Mary mother of Jesus. Whether angels can or cannot be messengers to humans, some part of Qur’an is false. Even the issue of afterlife is not clear: in one place in Qur’an, a claim appears that souls go to Heaven right after the death. But that is contradicted by another claim which states that they will disappear into nothingness until corpses arise in the Last Day to receive their judgement. Both claims cannot be true. Only thing that is clear in Qur’an is the message of hate and evil. In fact, an entire sect – Mu’tazelis – tried to make Islam compatible with reason; they utterly failed, and chose faith over reason, and evil over morality.

Muhammad also claimed to received verses that turned out to having been from the devil whenever he needed to change Qur’an to suit his current needs – primarily to justify his life of hedonism and excess. But if that claim is true, how was Muhammad, if he really is a Prophet of God, so easily fooled by Satan? How can he – or anyone else – be sure that whole of Qur’an, or even any part of it, is received from God, and not from Satan? If he was fooled by Satan so easily, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole book might have been dictated by Satan pretending to be a God. Either way, Qur’an is replete with contradictions, which has a consequence that anything and everything can be justified by simply quoting parts of Qur’an. Consequence of this is constant sectarian strife among Muslims. When Muhammad found out he could not control his lustfulness for wives (even though Islam allowed four wives), he made his Allah reveal the verse 33:49-50 telling him that he is exempt and can have any number of women as he wants (he ended up having eleven wives at the same time), but that it is allowed only to him, the Prophet. An alleged “perfect human being” was unable to contain his own lust, an an alleged God made his lust lawful (apparently Allah cared more about Muhammad’s sex life than about all the injustice in the world). To be able to have Mariyah, Muhammad broke an oath he swore on Allah, and Allah apparently approved of it. Naturally, Allah, a figment of Muhammad’s own imagination, could not stop his own maker from doing whatever he pleased. He even took the wife of his adopted son Zeid, and married her. To silence his critics, Muhammad again took Allah out of his sleeve, to claim that adoption is a bad thing. To satisfy his own lust, Muhammad denied countless orphans a second chance at life. If Allah really did say that and was not just a part of Muhammad’s imagination, then Allah is equivalent not of Judaeo-Christian Yahveh, but of Satan (which would then make Muhammad into an Antichrist). Muhammad introduced obligatory fast during Ramadan, but he himself did not observe it; he ate what and when he wanted. He used his influence to demand a fifth of a loot from all the conquered tribes, and Muhammad the Prophet became Muhammad the Obese.

Qur’an itself was changed through time. Original texts were lost; some were lost very soon after Muhammad’s death, leading to attempts at compilations of Qur’an. Modern Qur’an is the end result of this compilation, begun by Muhammad’s successor Abu Bakr, and finished by Caliph Uthman, who ordered all copies of Qur’an that did not conform to his compilation destroyed by fire (the Uthmanic Recession). Moreover, all of the ancient manuscriptal evidence that has been found post-dates Uthman by at least a century (a similar situation as with the biblical New Testament), and even so, it differs from the “standard” version of Qur’an on a number of points. Even the oldest examples are from the late 8th century at the earliest. Even so, some of the old copies contradict the modern Qur’an on a number of points. In Samarkand codex, Surah 37:103 reads wa ma ‘aslamaa, which translated means “and they did not submit”; the present Arabic “standard” Qur’an reads Falammaa ‘aslamaa, which means “when they submitted”. This is the complete opposite meaning, due to a single word; and such examples are very numerous, showing that Qur’an has undergone significant alterations. Sana’a manuscripts, from the end of the seventh century, contain only portions of Qur’an, but even these portions differ from the corresponding portions of the modern Qur’an. Quotations from Qur’an that appear on coins and inscriptions towards the end of the sevents century differ from modern Qur’an as well. Until the latter part of the 8th century, Christian historians had no idea that Muslims had a holy book. And in the 8th century, Surah al-baqarah was not considered a part of Qur’an, but rather a separate book, while the Book of the Camel of God was found in the 8th century Qur’an, but is absent from the present Qur’an. Contemporary sources only show knowledge of a part of Qur’an. John of Damascus only shows familiarity with Suwar 2-5 of what is presently Qur’an, as well as some stories which were then not a part of Qur’an but eventually made their way into the Qur’an itself. Roman Emperor Leo III likewise was familiar with Islamic teachings – having grown up in Syria – and in correspondence with Caliph Umar II, he issued a defense of Christianity against the Islam. He never mentions Qur’an as a complete body, and makes references primarily to Suwar 2-5, as well as making references which could be interpreted to point to some other Suwars, but are likely references to oral tradition. Leo also asserts that the texts of the Arab holy books were redacted, replaced, or otherwise altered by al-Hajjaj, an Umayyad administrator who died in 714 AD, saying that al-Hajjaj “…had men gather up your ancient books, which he replaced by others composed by himself, according to his taste…”. Hajjaj apparently destroyed the old Hagarene writings to cover up the evidence of his tampering. Literal structure of Qur’an makes it clear that it was “sewn together” from multiple disparate traditions, as it is lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure, and given to repetition of whole passages in variant versions. Zaid bin Thabit himself states that he had to compile the Qur’an “by collecting it from the leafless stalks of the date-palm tree and from the pieces of leather and hides and from the stones, and from the chests of men (who had memorized the Quran).”. Several verses were only known by one of the companions, pointing to highly unreliable nature of this compilation. Many of the reciters were killed at the Battle of Yamma, meaning that many portions of Qur’an were irretrievably lost. This even was what, in fact, prompted Abu Bakr to start compiling Qur’an. Even before that, whole portions of Qur’an were simply forgotten by Muhammad and his companions, as Muhammad himself attested. Nineteen years after Muhammad’s death, at least three different compilations of Qur’an existed, which was resolved by Caliph Uthman by establishing Zaid’s compilation as a standard. But Zaid himself was from Medina, and his text was translated to the Meccan dialect, with much possibly being lost in the translation. These were not differences in pronounciation, as claimed by Muslim apologetics, but rather differences in meaning – Arabic writing has no vowels, and use of markings to point to vowels was not yet in use. Traditions also document the disappearance of the “stoning verse” (verse which commanded stoning person commiting an illegal sexual intercourse) from the Qur’an. All of this gives lie to Muslim claims that Qur’an is unaltered, and that this unaltered nature proves its divinity since Allah has “obviously” protected it through history. Rather than Qur’an being the beginning of Islam, Islam was the finisher of the Qur’an. Full Islamic belief system was not finished until Muslims had conquered non-Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, and took over many of their belief systems. In fact, even the tradition about Muhammad, including his importance to Islam, is questionable (which, unfortunately, does not reduce importance of Muhammad-as-presented or of extant “holy texts” to the Islam itself). In its current form, Qur’an did not appear until 10th century; from 8th to 10th centuries, multiple parallel – and equally valid – versions of Qur’an existed. In 8th to 9th centuries, there were at least seven different authoritative versions of the Qur’an passed down. Two main transmissions used today are those transmitted by Hafs and Warsh, while transmissions of ad-Duri and Qalun are also in print (Qalun himself being a secondary transmitter of Warsh). Hafs and Warsh have significant differences in transmissions of both vowels and consonants. One surah had 200 verses in the time of Ayesha, but only 73 by the time of the Uthmanic recession (in which Uthman destroyed all the versions he could find that he himself disagreed with – recession was a political, not a scholarly, act). Muhammad himself made, and allowed, direct alteration of the revelation that supposedly came from Allah; a scribe Abdollah Abi Sahr had suggested writing down “knowing and wise” in the place of “mighty and wise”. The Prophet answered that there is no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Abdollah renounced Islam on the ground that revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe. Abi Sahr was one of the first men whom Mohammed condemned to die after Mecca was conquered, but was allowed to convert back to Islam instead at the intercission of his uncle Uthman.

This is critical because, unlike Christianity, which was keenly aware of imperfection of its oral tradition – and thus made an organized and systematic effort to investigate the Bible, and ascertain what were the readings of original Biblical autographs (at least once scientific methodology was available to do so) – Islam never made such an effort. Because Bible is not seen as a Word of God, Christianity has managed to eliminate alterations or omissions made by individual traditions / manuscripts, and arrive at a relatively intact whole. Islam, on the other hand, has refused to even acknowledge that the problem exists. Average Muslim is continually brainwashed into believing that Qur’an is the literal Word of God, handed down unchanged from Muhammad. Because Uthman has destroyed or suppressed alternate versions of Qur’an, there are no means by which to determine whether the readings in the present Qur’an are the original readings.

And if Qur’an really is the literal word of God, how to explain the very first Sura?:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

The Beneficent, the Merciful.

Master of the Day of Judgment.

Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.

Keep us on the right path.

The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of

those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

Apparently, either Allah thinks of himself in the third person or the text itself was written by Muhammad. Muhammad also failed to provide any proof that he really is the prophet of Allah when asked about it; Allah himself only complained (through Muhammad, naturally) that humans are asking for a proof. Unlike other prophets, Muhammad could not do any miracles (or even “miracles”) – a fact that he himself acknowledged. Qur’an also claims to be “a clear book (5:15) easy to understand (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40) explained in detail (6:114), conveyed clearly, (5:16, 10:15) with no doubt in it (2:1), with clear ordinances, (98:3), of divine nature, (10:37) and full of wisdom (36:2)”, and adamantly denies being a book of poetry. Yet it is so convoluted and contradictory that it is impossible to follow or understand without conveniently “forgetting” large parts of it, and it is too convoluted to even be considered poetry. This goes directly against its stated purpose as a book of guidance (if it is assumed that Allah did in fact dictate Qur’an to Muhammad, it means that Allah was an illiterate idiot. Of course, it is easy to explain if one accepts the explanation that Muhammad himself wrote the book with no divine input, and Muhammad himself was illiterate on top of some psychological issues). Moreover, God’s holy book should be for all times and all peoples, yet Qur’an clearly is not. Only message that is clear in Qur’an is the message of hate and violence towards unbelievers; in all other aspects the book is incredibly obtuse. A consequence of that is incredible number of tafseers written by Islamic scholars; unlike fairly understandable and clear Bible, Qur’an can hardly be understood without tafseers (if at all). But Muhammad not only went against ethical principles of society he lived in, he also went against his own stated rules. He did whatever he pleased, and to justify his actions he pulled new verses out of his sleeve and attributed them to his imaginary Allah in order to silence the critics; anybody who continued to doubt him could, and would, be murdered as an “unbeliever”.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God, and Qur’an to be a book dictated by God. But God – in Abrahamic tradition – is perfect. Thus His Word has to be perfect as well, and there should be no holes in the claim of one claiming to be a prophet either. If there is one hole, then the “prophet” is not a prophet, but a liar and an impostor (and possibly a madman, as Muhammad was). As noted before, multiple verses of Qur’an directly contradict scientific evidence, and other verses get history wrong. If there were only a few such verses, it could be argued that the mistakes had crept in at a later date. But there are hundreds of them – internal contradictions, scientific errors, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes (e.g. inheritance regulations), logical absurdities, grammatical errors, ethical fallacies. These alone disqualify Qur’an as a Word of God, especially as an “unchanged” Word of God. Qur’an sometimes uses completely different words from the intended meaning, such as has.ab, “pebbles”, instead of “fuel” (for fires). This has.ab should be hat.ab, “firewood”, and it is far from the only such error. Sometimes the whole new words were added to passages, turning logical sentences into something that made no sense at all. Muhammad’s intimate relationship with Allah failed to do away with his superstitions, leaving many bizarre rules for Muslims to follow, including which direction they should defecate and how many stones they should wash their anus with afterwards. But in religion, and especially Islam, lack of critical thinking is seen as a purity of heart, to the point that outright logical fallacies are completely acceptable – Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah because Qur’an says so, and the Qur’an is from Allah because the Messenger says so. Since ideology itself, and especially religion, is irrational, rational people do mental acrobatics to prevent their entire belief system from crumbling. Ideology is a lie supported by a lie supported by more lies; and Islam especially is a house of cards. As soon as a closer look is taken at it, it falls apart. But loss of faith is painful, so people refuse to see the truth. And that has very significant consequences. Without truth there can be no morality; and to know the truth, person must doubt. A sincere seeker is a doubter, yet Islam requires people to give up questioning. As Galileo noted, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”. To abandon a quest for truth means to give into evil, and Islam requires believers to abandon any doubt. Ergo, Islam requires believers to give into evil. Even if its moral standards were acceptable back when it first appeared, they are clearly not acceptable today; thus Islam should be removed from existence. God would not want to have criminals and zombies in heaven, so Muhammad cannot be His prophet. So what answer will Muslims give should they one day stand before Him? Ignorance is not excuse, especially when information is so easily available. Jesus is considered to be a prophet by Muslims, and he said that false prophets shall be recognized by their fruits. Muhammad’s fruits are nothing but blood and tears. Fact that many people believe Muhammad is the prophet is irrelevant. There was a time when it was widely believed that Sun, Moon and natural elements were humanoid deities. There was a time when it was widely believed that Earth is flat. A lie, repeated often enough, will necessarily be accepted by people as truth. And if it reaches a large number of people, large number of people will be affected – especially if said people were uneducated, as first Muslims were. Once it reaches a certain mass, it often snowballs, especially if backed up by promises of afterlife and threats of violence, as Islam is. That a bunch of 7th century highwaymen accepted an ideology which promised quick profits and then forced other people to accept it until they stopped questioning it is no proof of divine inspiration.

Muhammad makes ridiculous claims about Allah himself. He claims in one passage that Allah’s day is long 1.000 Earth years, or 50.000 Earth years in another. But if Allah is a God, YHVH, then days and years are meaningless to him, because He is not bound by time – considering that according to Abrahamic religions God is the origin of everything, time itself included. If God is bound by time, then He could not have existed before the universe came into being. This would then mean that God himself was created, even though he is supposed to have no beginning and no end. On quantum level, time-space is meaningless.

Qur’an itself contains multiple scientific fallacies, which should not be present had the book really come from Allah, the alleged Maker of the world. The embryo is said (23:14) to be formed by turning a sperm into a clot of blood, which then continues to grow into the embryo. This ignores the presence of the female egg (ovum), and turns the women merely into “fertile ground” for children. There is also the fact that spermatozoa do not turn into blood at all. In Surah 18:86, the Qur’an says that a traveler sees the sun set in a spring of murky water, and in 18:90 this same traveler finds the specific point at which the sun rises. This flat-Earth mythology is clearly incorrect, expected from uneducated people of the 7th century but inexcusable from an alleged “Word of God”. Muhammad himself said that the Sun “goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.”. In Surah 51.49, Allah is said to have made everything in pairs. However, there are many living beings which reproduce asexually, such as microbes as well as several species of plants and animals. Suwar 16:15, 21:31 and 31:10 all claim that mountains exist to prevent earthquakes, whereas in reality processes that created mountains are the same processes which cause earthquakes. In Surah 25:61, the Qur’an intimates that the moon gives its own light, calling it a “lamp” similar to Sun; again, it is in line with many pagan teachings. Of course, none of this has stopped Muslims from falsely asserting the miraculously prognostic scientific knowledge in the Qur’an. It also contains historical errors, such as claiming that the “Pharaoh orders Haman to begin making baked bricks in a kiln out of clay for the purpose of building a “lofty tower” so that Pharaoh can “survey the god of Moses” and “deem him of the liars””. This is an obvious imitation of the story about the Tower of Babel, except set in Egypt instead of Babel. But Haman was a Persian noble who lived a millennium after Moses. Egyptians of the time did not have baked bricks; they built their buildings of cut stone or sun-dried bricks, and baked bricks were only introduced by the Roman Empire. In Surah 20:87 and 20:95, the Jews are said to have made the golden calf idol at the behest of the Samaritans, a group of people who did not exist until the Post-Exilic period, nearly ten centuries after the Exodus.

Khalid Zaheer claimed (PDF pg 212) that Deuteronomy 18:15 prophesies Muhammad. But Deuteronomy 18:15 reads “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.”. If it really was a prophecy, then it may refer to Jesus who was a Jew, but certainly not to an Arab highwayman who had no Jewish ancestry, and did not live in Israel nor ever even visited it. In reality, the statement referred to already very much alive Joshua, whom Moses was preparing to succeed him, as indicated by the use of phrase “your brethren”.

Muhammad is in fact far less of a prophet than Nostradamus. Some speculate that Nostradamus had prophetic visions, and there are indeed many passages in the book of Nostradamus that can be seen as prophetic. On the other hand, only Muhammad’s “prophecies” that came to pass were self-fulfilled by Muhammad and by his followers. A murderer predicting that he will murder a person he was planning to murder for a month is not much of a prediction. Overall, Nostradamus is far more of a prophet than Muhammad, even though Nostradamus benefits from huge vagueness of his writings (but so did Muhammad – only aspect of Qur’an that is not vague is message of hate and inequity). All the miracles in Qur’an are wishful thinking (as a saying here in Croatia goes, “What grandmother wanted, grandmother dreamed about.”). Muhammad had no knowledge of the future. When the people of Medina accused Aisha of adultery, Muhammad was caught completely by surprise. He also did not know whom to believe, and only after a month chose to believe Aisha and had Allah “send down” a revelation confirming it was true.

Muhammad was a highly functional psychopath. Many such people have attained huge followings: Adolph Hitler, Josip Broz Tito and Milton Friedman being more prominent modern examples. Smaller but significant followings were attained by many who claimed to be saviours of humanity: Jim Jones, Sai Baba, John de Ruiter, Joseph Kony, David Koresh, Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara etc. Followers of the last three also went around murdering people. There are countless other psychopathic liars who managed to attain huge followings. Thus a number of followers of Islam is no proof of its divine nature, and neither is conviction of its followers: people who followed these figures listened first and then simply dismissed their doubts. Islam follows the same formula as the Bahai Faith: O SON OF DUST! Blind thine eyes, that thou mayest behold My beauty; stop thine ears, that thou mayest hearken unto the sweet melody of My voice; empty thyself of all learning, that thou mayest partake of My knowledge; and sanctify thyself from riches, that thou mayest obtain a lasting share from the ocean of My eternal wealth. Blind thine eyes, that is, to all save My beauty; stop thine ears to all save My word; empty thyself of all learning save the knowledge of Me; that with a clear vision, a pure heart and an attentive ear thou mayest enter the court of My holiness.”. That is not a healthy mindset; by accepting it, anything and everything becomes acceptable. And just as repetitio est mater studiorum, it also holds true that repetitio est mater fides. By repeating the same lie over and over again, it eventually becomes accepted as a truth by large number of people. This in turn gives it credibility, which makes it hard to dispose of. Once Abu Bakr started to believe that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, no absurdity Muhammad claimed – including that he flew to Jerusalem in one night – could shake his belief. Once person surrenders their intelligence to belief, they become ready to accept, and do, anything. Muhammad knew that, and used it to his own advantage. Imam Ghazzali said: “Where the claims of reason come into conflict with revelation, reason must yield to revelation.” This is also the principle of Christianity and any other ideology, and is precisely what makes ideologies dangerous. Islam fully follows St. Paul’s principle of Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd); more than that, it takes it to extremes. But nature of Islam as ideology of war and hate makes it unique among world religions, and thus far more dangerous than other widespread ideologies such as Christianity or liberalism (which are already extremely dangerous). As a self-appointed viceroy of God, Muhammad assumed all of His powers, and had a control over life and death of anyone – a wet dream of any narcissistic psychopath. Muhammad, psychologically speaking, is no different from Hitler who wrote: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”. But according to Muslims (such as Dr. Zaheer), Hitler is evil while Muhammad is not, because unlike Muhammad, Hitler did not have divine licence to kill.

Allah as described in Islam is no better than Muhammad. In Islam, natural disasters are a form of punishment. If true, it means that Allah does not care about murdering innocent people (it is mostly children that die) in order to punish a few wrongdoers – despite it being well within his ability to kill those few wrongdoers via a stroke or a bolt of divine retribution. And if one is to interpret natural disasters as punishments of God, then God must hate Muslims as he punishes them more than any other group. Of course, a God that is a psychopathic narcissist – as belief that natural disasters are God’s punishment would indicate – is completely unworthy of worship. So does the belief that Allah ordered Muslims to kill the unbelievers – but why would He need Muslims to kill unbelievers when He should be fully capable of doing so himself, and without any collateral damage? In Bible, which in Islam is considered valid, God destroyed Sodom via natural disaster; victims of Muhammad were killed by humans, treacherously and cowardly. Why no harm came to the enemies of Muhammad when he spent thirty days cursing them? Why is it Muslims who suffer the most from natural disasters; if God truly sends these disasters, shouldn’t that be an indication that they should abandon Islam? Is God punishing Muslims for believing in a false prophet? And if Allah is merciful towards everyone, not just the Muslims, why would he kill people, or order his followers to kill people? In Qur’an, Allah orders murder of large groups of people; if Muhammad did everything according to Allah’s wish, then it means that Allah hates humans. But why would God create beings He would later grow to hate? Allah as described in Islam is evil, and thus cannot be the compassionate creator of the world; he can only be the Satan, masquerading as God (of course, the simplest explanation is that Allah is merely a product of Muhammad’s own sick imagination). Overall, Allah is whimsical; he lies, deceives and plots; according to Qur’an he is the best of the deceivers. But a God cannot be a deceiver, meaning that Allah, if he exists, is in reality Satan, and Islam is a satanic cult. But because of it, deceit is, for Muslims, an admirable quality.

Muslim leaders are similarly psychopathic. During the earthquake in Pakistan and a tsunami, it was non-Muslim nations who helped the most; Muslim countries’ help was dismal. When in Bam an earthquake killed over 50,000 inhabitants, Israel immediately offered to help and to rescue people trapped under the rubble. The Mullahs turned that offer down and let people die an agonizing death. Only Islamic organizations actually helping people in the Middle East are Al-Quaeda and Hamas, but the only reason why they do it is to gain more recruits for their terror operations against infidels; to them human life is merely a resource to be used and discarded as necessary. What is interesting that in Chapter 16 of Genesis, Hagar, an alleged mother of all Arabs, is rude and ungrateful. She has to be treated like a servant so that she can be respectful. Her son Ismael is referred to as a wild jackass of a man. But Allah gave into Abraham’s wishes and increased descendants of Ismael, a monumentally stupid decision as Muslims with bombs and mentality of wild donkeys (according to Qur’an) are too dangerous. In the Bible, God refers to Isaac as Abraham’s only son, and Ishmael is not even mentioned, except that he will have many children causing sedition and war, and fighting with everyone. Overall, it is an excellent description of Islamic mentality – one that Jews were intimately familiar with, since it is merely a continuation and codification of older Arabic mentality, itself a product of resource-poor deserts they lived in. But had God wanted a prophet from Ishmael’s descendants, as Islam claims, he would not have called him an ass of a man.

***

Another claim that appears is that Christianity itself is as violent as Islam, and that thus Muslims can gradually become as Christians are today, without abandoning Islam but rather reforming it. Similar claim is that “Bible can be misread just as Qur’an”. Both are blatantly false. The first clue that isn’t so is the scarcity of Christian terrorist groups. In fact, the only major Christian (as opposed to national) groups have appeared in the areas where Christians are threatened by Muslims but still have the ability to fight back.

When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17) – As quoted by The American Muslim

That sounds similar to Qur’an 17:16. However, in keeping with the Islam’s doctrine of kitman, part of the passage was left out. Said part is “Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you”. In other words, Biblical passage is a close-ended order against specific people – people who no longer exist. Further passages specify that the command is given specifically to Israelites brought out of the Egypt. Consequently, modern-day Jews and Christians are not bound by that commandment, and would not be bound even if there were any of the mentioned groups left. Exodus 23:27 similarly states that “I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.”; but the next passage makes it clear that the enemies are very specific, today non-existent, groups of peoples: “I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way”. On the contrary, Qur’an commands slaughter of all non-Muslims who do not submit to Islam; who or what they are is irrelevant as long as reject Islam, and Muslims have to fight “until religion is wholly for Allah”.

Hymenaeus and Alexander I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1Timothy 1:20), another used for justification, refers purely to excommunication. It was indeed the practice of the early Church to excommunicate apostates, but the Church did not advocate killing of the apostates (at least not until it became a political superpower in Middle Ages). On the other hand, Bukhari 84:57 commands the murder of apostates: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”.

Similarly, Israelites slaughtered Philistines on several occasions because there was a perpetual state of war between two countries; but that state of war was not brought about by the religion, and Bible merely recounts historic events. Qur’an 8:13, as cited at beginning of the article, commands all unbelievers to be beheaded, and there is no historic context. Muslim apologists bring context from sources external to holy texts of Islam; but these have no relevance to Islam itself. This is a pattern which always repeats: Bible commands slaughter against specific ethnic groups or cities (e.g. Canaanites, Jericho); Qur’an and other holy texts of Islam command genocide against all non-Muslims. Biblical violence is descriptive; it simply describes evils that have happened. Qur’anic violence is prescriptive; it commands evils to be done time and again. Quranic violence does have historical context, but theologically, that context is irrelevant, and “sword-verses” are, even today, fundamental to relationship between Islam and non-Islamic world. Since sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of behaviour towards non-Muslims, they alone have abrogated about 200 earlier non-violent verses (such as the command that “no compulsion is to be found in religion”). Two descriptive words used in the Qur’an – “until” (hata) and “wherever” (haythu) in particular reveal the perpetual and all-encompassing nature of these commandments: there are still people of the Book to be enslaved, and idolaters to be slaughtered.

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.” (Luke 19:26-27) is used as an example of open-ended slaughter verse of Christianity. But that is an end of a parable told by Christ, not a direct command (albeit it certainly can be interpreted as such). On the other hand, Hadith 41:6985 is quite unambiguous about Muslims having a duty to exterminate the Jews.

“Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34-35) merely spells out the hardships that Christians would have to go due to their religion, as explained in the continuation of the passage: “Your enemies will be the members of your own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.“. Even Pope Urban did not quote that passage in his call for Crusades.

In many cases, Muslims (e.g. The American Muslim) even rewrite or otherwise manipulate Biblical passages to make the Christianity seem more violent. “If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death” (Deuteronomy 17:3-5); yet The American Muslim quotes it as “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.”. While not a commendable verse in either case, it is clear that the original verse is only relevant in Israel; outside Israel, command to stone Jewish apostates is not valid, and thus cannot be a basis of religious warfare. This is different from Islam, which commands murder of apostates and murder or enslavement of non-Muslims wherever they are found.

The American Muslim cites the following verse as proof that the New Testament can be interpreted as supporting religious war: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:20-32, as quoted by the American Muslim). But the full passage actually forbids the religious war, as God is the judge and not man: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgement against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human, pass judgement on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgement?” (Romans 2:1) Compare it to: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Quran 2:216)

A Biblical passage in support of violent Christianity that is quoted is also “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18). But this passage is aimed specifically against Midianites. It is not valid today, unlike Qur’an’s verses which command violence against any non-Muslims (e.g. Qur’an 9:29, 9:30).

If Qur’an’s violent verses are the same as violent parts of the Bible, why are they open-ended? Why the context is not right there, in Qur’an itself, as opposed to being accessible only through external sources (most if not all of which are external to Islam itself)? Did Allah expect all Muslims to have Th.D., Ph.D., D.S.Sc. and/or similar doctorates just to be able to understand His word? That would make Allah an idiot extraordinaire, seeing how his first followers were uneducated nomads, and how most Muslims today are uneducated. Of course, simplest, and thus most correct, explanation is that Qur’an really is as violent as it appears; far more violent than Bible, certainly. Bible can be used to justify violence against non-Christians; moods and patterns of thought are there, and any ideology is dangerous when in wrong (that is to say, human) hands. But there are no direct, valid commandments for such actions, whereas Qur’an is replete with commandments against non-Muslims in addition to mood and patterns of thought it creates. And Islam, by its nature, is inherently far more violent and dangerous than most if not all other ideologies that exist, or have existed.

***

Islam is perfectly designed for brainwashing, for creating monsters. In Islam, a value of non-Muslims has no sanctity, which is perfect for a war religion that Islam is – it is much easier to convince person to kill another person if they do not believe said person is actually human. Full 70% of youth offenders in Denmark have Muslim background; this is no accident. Islam and Muslim culture harm people’s development through various psychological mechanisms. As a religion, Islam aims at indoctrinating Islamic values in children as early as possible and by any means necessary – violence and intimidation included. This is reinforced by Sharia’s demand for a death sentence for any apostates, making parents desperate for preventing such a fate from befalling their children. Second group of mechanisms are tribal, cultural and psychological mechanisms. Brainwashing people into hating and killing innocents they typically do not know is done by pain and repetition; infliction of suffering breaks down the person’s resistance to constantly repeated message, and is thus often used by religious sects or less disciplined militias to fanaticize their followers. Consequently, Muslims grow up accepting pain and violence as something normal, and more importantly, are rendered almost completely incapable from resisting the indoctrination of Qur’an. This results in strong, often fanatical, devotion to faith, along with a lack of most other human qualities (such as a sense of humour – especially where Muhammad is concerned).

In the West, anger is seen as a weakness, a lack of self-control and self-discipline. But in Muslim culture, anger is accepted, and being able to intimidate people is seen as strength and source of social status. Likewise, Westerners are taught to accept valid criticism, and dismiss misguided one. But among Muslims, any criticism – no matter how valid – is seen as an attack on one’s honour, and honour is to be defended by any means necessary to silence the opponent. Consequently, it is almost never countered by logical arguments; instead, various emotional tactics – such as pretending to be offended, name-calling, threats and murder – are used. Westerners are taught that they themselves are in control of their lives, and expected to take responsibility; their “locus of control” is internal. Muslims are raised to experience their lives as being controlled from the outside; everything happens insha Allah; their “locus of control” is external, and many religious laws, traditions and male authorities leave little room for personal responsibility. Consequence of this is that everybody else is blamed for Muslims’ self-created situation. In the West, good person is defined as being open and tolerant, sometimes to the point of self-destructiveness; Muslims meanwhile are told that they are superior to non-Muslims, and that they must distance themselves socially and emotionally from non-Muslims. This is the same psychological propaganda used during the war to prepare soldiers (and citizenship in general) to kill the enemies. But Western people, especially liberals, underestimate the power of psychology embedded in religion and culture. No amount of tolerance, re-education, social security, political correctness or democracy can change that.

***

Islam is inherently anti-Semitic. As shown near the beginning of the article, Islam’s holy texts call for extermination of the Jews. A rise in anti-Semitism is closely connected to a rise in Muslim populace of any given country. Muslim immigrants are driving Jews out of Europe with their rabid anti-Semitism. It is fashionable to blame Jews for all the ills, while calling for them to be gassed (in one such spectacle, a Muslim MP also participated). As shown few paragraphs below, crimes against the Jews significantly outnumber crimes against the Muslims, despite Jews themselves being far outnumbered by Muslims in most of the countries listed. Yet Muslims complain about Islamophobia, while the holy texts of Islam call for a genocide against the Jews. Creating Palestinian state will not stop Muslim terrorism against the Jews. Islam will not stop until Israel itself is eradicated, and Jews – all the Jews in the world – exterminated (to be followed by Christians, Hindus, atheists etc.). None of the self-styled human-rights campaigners, liberals, “antifascists” will stand with the Jews once Islam comes to kill them, which is why Jews absolutely have to have a strong country – preferably, somewhere in North America, as it is never a good idea to be literally surrounded by enemies. Israel is the world’s technological leader, alone in the Middle East, but it will not stay so if Muslims conquer it.

***

Status of women in Arabia was far better before Islam came than after. Mohammed’s first wife Khadijah was a wealthy widow who ran her own successful mercantile business, and it was she who proposed marriage to Muhammad. Either of these things is a taboo in Islamic societies. Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, led the women of Quarish in encouraging their men in battle against Muslims. After Muhammad’s death, Salma, a slave girl in Muhammad’s household, went to her tribe and gathered a large army to oppose Muslims. Abu Bakr dispatched his general Khalid ibn Walid. Salma’s army proved too formidable, and Khalid realized that the only way to defeat her would be through treachery. He called her to discuss, and as they came close, he injured her camel and slew Salma with his sword. Her army scattered. This is far from the only such example: greatest victories of Islam were always gained through treachery. Crucial thing is that in pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabs respected their women enough for them to achieve political and military influence. Another example is Asma bt. Marwan, Jewish poetess of Medina who was assassinated because she was writing “inflammatory poems” against him; clearly, women back then were not dismissed as imbeciles, and could achieve political influence.

Hijab, a veil and a main external sign of Islamic discrimination against women, was suggested by Umar, Mohammed’s compatriot, and accepted by Allah (that is, Muhammed added a verse to Qur’an, and it appears in Hadith). Cases such as this, where allegedly omniscient Allah accepted changes of Qur’an proposed by lowly humans, caused Muhammad’s scribe Abdulah ibn Sarh to leave Islam. Reason for this verses was Muhammad’s fear of younger men laying eyes on his harem of young and beautiful women. Muhammad made women in everything subservient to men, and women who do not obey men would go to hell. Muhammad also instructed men to beat their wives if latter are not obedient (as usual, he did it through the mouth of Allah the Moon God). Worse, a man can beat his wife not only if she is disobedient, but also if he fears her disobedience; his insecurities become her problem. Good women do not complain if husbands beat them, and husbands do not have to explain themselves to anybody. Muhammad considered women to be “deficient in intelligence and religion” compared to men. According to Islam, women are “created for men”, for their enjoyment, much like animals and plants. Women who refuse sex will be cursed by angels, and woman should rather leave the lunch burn in an oven than leave husband’s sexual desires unattended:

“The prophet of Allah said: When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, let her come to him though she is occupied at the oven.”

Women are expected to stay in the house (even for a prayer), and woman’s testimony is worthless unless backed up by that of a man. In fact, originally women were not allowed to leave house at all except at designated times. The veiled clothes, burka, was enforced when Umar noticed that Muhammad’s wives sometimes ventured outside the house to “answer the call of nature”; Muhammad, afraid of competition for his wives, obliged. If victim of a rape becomes pregnant, that is evidence of the adultery and she could be charged and punished with death by stoning. Women also inherit far less than they did during pre-Islamic time, as blood-brothers receive double the inheritance of women (in pre-Islam times, relationship was equal). Mohammed explicitly compared women to farmland which can be entered whenever or however one likes: “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…”. This “how ye will” means that any orifice can be used for sex; women in Islam are but sex toys, created solely to appease men’s sexual urges. In Islam, women are an actual farmland, being used only to produce as many children as possible in order to spread Islam. Prior to Islam, women could even become monarchs, as happened in the Roman and Persian Empires. But When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.””. In some Islamic countries today, women do achieve political success (prime ministers etc.) but that is possible only because Muslims at large are ignorant of basic tenets of their religion. Muhammad believed that it is not befitting for God to have daughters when ordinary men can boast of having sons; ironically, all of Muhammad’s sons died at infancy. Man’s only duty towards a woman is to maintain her; he allowed man up to four legal wives (possibly; maybe even unlimited, depending on how verse is translated) and as many sex slaves as one can sustain. But since women receive no respect and have no self-esteem, sons they raise have no self-esteem either. They grow up into men with bruised egos, inferiority complexes, who thus seek control, power and recognition. But men with low self esteem are dangerous, prone to violence; Islam is in root of violence in Muslim world, even the violence which is not obviously caused by Islam. Moreover, this lack of self esteem prevents Muslim countries from forming functional democratic society; Muslim men cannot function in a society unless it is dictatorial. Muslim women themselves are raised to accept abuse as normal, and thus fail to protest. Daughters are seen as burden and are given away to be married at first opportunity. They are not given education and work opportunities. Islamic family relationship is one of sadomasochism (or “codependency”). In Islamic law, women are nothing but incubators for children. All of this has a consequence: suicide rate among young Muslim women is highest in the world. And because neither men nor women have no self-respect, and men have no respect towards the women, traditional Muslim countries have some of the highest rates of rape in the world – despite burka, which is alleged to be created precisely for preventing such thing from occurring (and is actually quite effective, as most of the countries that outstrip traditional Muslim countries in rape rate are liberal countries with significant Muslim minority. Islam is bad, but liberalism + Islam is far worse. Burka is there to help Muslim men control their sexual urges – and if they cannot control them when all the women around them are covered with tents, head-to-toe, how will they control them if women leave most of their skin exposed – as European women are wont to do in summer?). In Islam, if woman gets raped, it is her fault – and it is woman that gets stoned, not the rapist. Because of that, dressing women in mobile tents does not really help in anything except humiliating women. Burka is also a security problem as it prevents identification and allows even male Muslims to disguise themselves and carry out terrorist acts, as well as a health problem because it causes women to suffer from chronic vitamin D deficiency. It is also a political statement of forcible separation from any non-Islamic society that Muslims chose to invade live in, as well as a symbol of women’s status as a slave. Women have no choice in the matter, so tolerating burka is not an example of cultural respect; and women who defend burka are basically legitimizing oppression of all the other women in the Islamic world. Burka’s closest equivalent is the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear under Islamic and later Nazi rule. Liberating women from oppression of Islam is the first step to liberalizing said totalitarian ideology which calls itself a religion.

***

Muslims view dogs as unclean. Why? Because Mohammed – being the psychopath he was – wanted dogs dead. In fact, in Hadith, he ordered all dogs to be killed and none to be spared, especially black dogs. Muslim cab drivers regularly deny service to disabled people with service dogs. In the UK airport terminal, political correctness gone crazy has resulted in handlers being taught how not to offend Muslims. Police dogs must wear special booties when entering Muslim homes so as not to offend. Muslim prisoners are given a fresh change of clothes and sheets after dog searches their cell, and dogs are not allowed to have any contact with prisoners’ Qur’ans. In Scotland, Muslim community reacted with an outrage when a police department sent out a postcard with a new telephone number that featured a puppy. Police department immediately apologized. In communities with large percentage of Muslim residents, mass poisonings of dogs are a regular affair (and whoever is willing to kill a dog is also willing to kill a person). Muslims also pressed for a ban on dogs on public transportation. In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood used puppies during a protest by dipping them in gasoline and setting them on fire.

***

So where does the misconception about “peaceful Islam” come from? There are several main sources. Primary one is laziness – as shown before, Muslims themselves are often uninformed, and those who are not are more than willing to lie (and since informed Muslims act as shepherds for the rest, fact that many or most Muslims do not directly know about Qur’an’s murderous verses is not any reason for relaxing). Many thing that “Islam” comes from “al-Salaam”, which means peace. However, even the cursory reading of Qur’an shows that Islam actually comes from “al-Silm”, which means “submission” or “surrender”. This submission has two meanings: willing submission of a Muslim to Allah, and a forcible conversion of non-believers to Islam. This conversion takes two primary forms: brute force or passive pressure. Muslim “tolerance” of other religions in practice means discrimination: other religions are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims, have limited legal rights and have to pay a tax in order to practice their religion – a tax that is, for most, impossible to pay. And if they cannot pay, they are to be either killed or have their children taken from them by the tax collector. This applies only to Abrahamic religions: everyone else must either convert to Islam, or be killed by the followers of Allah. Further, intolerance is not limited only to religion: Muslim countries tend to be the most racist in the world. Other indicators are not very good either.

Liberalism promotes plutocratic-friendly multicultural society, while at the same time closing an eye to all the difficulties such a society presents. Endorsement of Islam is simply an expression of that spirit – after all, as is clear all across the political spectrum, in a conflict between ideology and truth, former typically wins. By defending “another culture”, one viewed as oppressed, they show themselves to be true believers in liberalism. And Western liberals seem to hang on their misconception of peaceful Islam – even at the cost of their life. An Italian woman decided to hitch-hike from Italy to Israel in order to promote world peace. She made it to Turkey, where she was promptly raped and murdered by Muslims. More specifically, she was killed in the village of Gebze – mere 40 miles south-east of Istanbul. Muslim refugees have brought their culture of gang-rape with them – they believe that infidel women exist only for their pleasure – and only Russians (and an occasional Croatian) seem to be doing something about it. It seems easier to ignore that vast majority of Muslims either support or remain silent about terrorist attacks against the West – and to not speak against evil equals supporting it. Thus accusations of Islamophobia. „Phobia“ is an irrational fear or dislike of a particular thing or a group; an exaggerated fear. But to fear and dislike Islam is not irrational – not to do it is. Given the words of Qur’an and Imams, to dislike and despise Islam is the only rational course of action. Muslim imams and leaders in general are aware of it, which is why apostasy punishment is so harsh, and why sites such as faithfreedom.org are banned in Pakistan.

A combination of increasing Muslim populace and money from oil-rich Muslim countries is endangering democracy in Europe. Voters give them power, and money acts as a multiplier for that power. Since primary concern of any politician is to get re-elected, politicians do not want to tackle the issue of Islam. Islamophobia is a term coined in the 1980s by Muslims and/or their liberal apologetics. Today, any negative statement about Islam, no matter how factually correct, is likely to be met with accusations of Islamophobia. But that accusation in itself is factually incorrect. “Phobia” is an exaggerated or irrational fear, and fear of Islam is not irrational – as explained in detail before. In fact, not to fear Islam is irrational – just as irrational was to appease Hitler. But liberals have not learned the lesson: appeasing the lion will only make him hungrier. Appeasing Hitler did not work, appeasing Islam will not work either. And Nazism-Islam comparison is the only one appropriate: both are ideologies created for the purpose of a war. Both are based around a single book (Mein Kampf / Qur’an) written by a genocidal lunatic. Both promote military expansion, genocide (especially against Jews), complete obedience to those in power. But Nazism still allows many more freedoms to ordinary people (those it doesn’t exterminate anyway) than Islam does, and is generally more liberal and civilized in its views. “Moderate Muslim” makes even less sense than a “moderate Nazi”. If a Nazi were to moderate his beliefs, he would become a nationalist, no longer a Nazi. Likewise, if a Muslim were to moderate his beliefs, he would become a deist, a theist, or a Christian; he could no longer call himself a Muslim, barring nearly complete ignorance of Islam on his part. But a person who calls himself a Muslim yet does not hate unbelievers, does not kill apostates and hate women, or at least support these actions, is not a Muslim; because these are (some of) the things that Islam itself demands.

Islam is extremely xenophobic, aggressive, militant and totalitarian ideology with complete disregard for ethics. It is utterly self-absorbed, impossible to open dialogue with because it is convinced of its own perfection. It is not even an actual religion, but an expansionist and oppressive ideology, similar to Nazism (but worse – and in fact, quite a few neo-Nazis have converted to Islam, because they found it so similar to Nazism). Islam is a political ideology which merely uses religious cover as a shield to exploit religious freedom for political ends. One can either be a decent Muslim or a decent human being. Not both. The very moment a person embraces Islam, that person becomes evil – Islam is the only religion in the world where people become more violent the stronger they believe in it. But many – maybe majority – of Muslims have never read Qur’an in their whole life, and thus have illusions about their own religion. Some Western Muslims genuinely believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muhammad is the most peaceful man who ever lived. But while this ignorance allows them to believe in Islam while not being monsters, it also means that – in proper conditions – they are extremely easy to “radicalise”, because that is what Islam wants. Muslims that come from actual Islamic countries typically do not have such illusions, and are perfectly okay with using violence and embracing the worst aspects of Islam. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim – there are only ignorant Muslims, who do not know Islam, and terrorist Muslims, who do know Islam. For this reason, many Muslims abandon Islam and turn typically to either Christianity or atheism immediately after they read the Qur’an for the first time – unless forced to remain (at least on surface) ardent believers by their fascist compatriots. Islam is a totalitarian, criminal, fascist ideology and it should be treated as such. At the very least, it should be outlawed within the civilized West – else West will not remain civilized for much longer. Reason for this is that Islam itself is a non-integrating religion, and even though some Muslims are willing to integrate, emergence of a liberal, integrated Islam is almost impossible. In a way, Islam is a religion of peace – people are most peaceful when they are dead, and if all humans die, there will be no more war. And while „bad“ Muslims want to kill everybody else, many „good“ Muslims are just praying that they succeed. Even those that do not do so, typically do not do anything to oppose them (except a protest here and there, but these are limited exclusively to the safe West, and do not happen anywhere where it would truly matter – these protests are nothing but a PR stunt). ISIL could never have gotten to power without at least passive support of majority of Muslims in the areas it controlled. Fact that they do nothing to either help or interfere with the “extremists” in no way reduces their culpability; they are still guilty of allowing something like that to happen. Any person who supports Islam is guilty of all the crimes committed in the name of Islam; and unlike citizenship of a country, leaving Islam is a personal choice. And “people supporting Islam” includes not only Muslims, but also Westerners that preach uncritical tolerance and make excuses for Islam. To tolerate evil is to support evil, and to support evil is to be evil. Liberals and Muslims alike have contributed to the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism simply by claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, by being Muslim and by defending Islam from any and all criticism.

In fact, Islam has no characteristics of a religion, but all characteristics of a cult. Muslims are extremely zealous about their faith and have an unquestioning commitment to their Prophet. They are forbidden to question and doubt basic tenets of their faith, and dissent is punishable by death. Praying five times a day is used as a mind-control practice, to suppress any doubts about Islam. Muslim leadership dictates, in great extent, how members should act, think and feel (e.g. halal food). They become extremely violent if their prophet is slighted (to the point of murdering people), regard themselves as superior to anyone else, and when in non-Muslim country they lobby for preferential treatment (few caricatures of Muhammad resulted in an armed attack on Charlie Hebdo and violent protests; a crucifix in a jar of urine displayed in a New York Museum resulted in nothing more than a protest). Further, Islam has very strong inherent us-versus-them mentality, where all non-Muslims are viewed as enemies to be wiped out, and Muslims are encouraged to carry out violence in the name of Islam. Non-Muslim countries are viewed as a Dar al Harb, House of War, and war must be waged against them until they submit. Leaders, especially Muhammed, are not accountable to any authorities – Muhammed’s actions constitute law, and everything he did (rape, paedophilia, torture, genocide) is consequently not only allowed, but an ideal that should be emulated. Islam teaches that its “exalted” ends may be achieved by any means necessary. Suicide may be prohibited, but suicide bombing is a holy act because it advances the cause of Islam. Stealing from Muslims is prohibited, but stealing from non-believers is not. Sexual intercourse out of marriage is a taboo, unless it is rape of unbelievers, in which case it is acceptable. Lying is prohibited, except when it advances interests of Islam. Leadership uses feelings of guilt to control its members. Muslim converts are encouraged to cut ties with family and friends unless they as well convert. Muslims’ main goal is promoting Islam; anything else is secondary, and members are expected to devote unordinary amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. Members are encouraged to live and/or socialize only with other group members. Spiritual message in Islam is secondary to its totalitarian control over every aspect of followers’ lives. If God exists, then Islam is a blasphemy – against Him, and against all of His creation. If God truly was as evil as Islam portrays Him, He would never have created anything. But Islam’s God is nothing but Muhammad’s own alter ego, everything Muhammad wanted to be, but couldn’t. It is just a creation of a delusional, narcissistic psychopath.

Today in Europe, Muslim supremacism is being called multiculturalism. It is forbidden to say that immigration creates schisms, brings terrorism to Europe, and that mass immigration from Muslim countries threatens Western culture with extinction – the same culture which created economically successful, free society which has attracted immigrants in the first place, and which those same immigrants want to destroy. It is forbidden to say that Muslim immigrants do not integrate, but rather create separate worlds and communes. It is forbidden to point out that Islam brings with itself a guaranteed intolerance, conflict and social division, but no diversity. It is forbidden to point out that immigration, multiculturalism and Islam are weapons that plutocrats use against nation-states, the last barrier against the perfect plutocratic world. It is forbidden to say that Islam is a tool used to create plutocratic United States of Europe. Brussels’ fanatical internationalism is aimed at crushing all resistance to neo-liberalism, and creation of multicultural society prone to divisions and conflict. It is forbidden to reveal that immigration, multiculturalism, internationalism and Islam are used to destroy anything that is independent from the world plutocracy. Opposing Islam is being labelled “hate speech”, even though Islam itself is the clearest example of hate speech in existence. Truth, democracy and responsibility are being sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism. After Islamic terrorism attack, media always employ a standard response. First sentimentalists are shown promoting „unity“ and „tolerance“. Then a good story is found among the rubble. After Paris it was reported that one of the suicide bombers at Stade de France had been turned away by a brave Muslim security guard. Story was a lie, but it promoted good feelings about Islam. In the next phase, media will ask questions that do not address actual problems. If a politician actually makes a good suggestion, media will immediately scream „radicalization“. Somebody will mention Palestine, and after a few days, nobody will talk about Islam. This is a consequence of excessive political correctness, itself a totalitarian ideology that has a lot of common with Islam – violent attacks against ideological opponents (i.e. everybody else) included. Freedom of expression – which also means freedom to scrutinize and if necessary insult somebody else’s beliefs – is in the basis of democracy, and indeed in the basis of freedom itself. Without such freedom, there is no freedom at all. Avoiding discussion for sake of not hurting somebody’s feelings is the wrong approach to take, yet liberal political correctness demands precisely that approach, and enforces it with totalitarian mindset. Islam is the only religion which outright promotes intolerance and hate. It brings out the worst in humanity, and teaches them to be obedient to worst of the worst people – because it is typically psychopaths that achieve positions of power. Basic tenets of Islam are murder, mutilation, psychopathy, murder, obedience, murder, intolerance, aggressiveness and murder. If it were not for the order to murder everyone undesirable – apostates, non-Muslims, political opponents – Islam would not exist today.

But to point this out is “Islamophobia”. Apparently anyone pointing out dangers of Islam is mentally disturbed. Yet the term “Islamophobia” itself reveals a mental condition of people using said term. “Phobia”, by definition, is an “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”. But to fear Islam is not irrational, because Islam as an ideology is evil. It commands evil, and to not fear – or at least dislike – evil is itself irrational. The term “Islamophobia” is a type of cultural terrorism, a slander against anyone who refuses to tolerate the intolerable. It is an attempt to preventively create a feeling of guilt in any critics of Islam, and thus terrorize them into silence before, or as soon after as possible, they have said anything against Islam. It is just as logical to speak of “Naziphobia” as it is of “Islamophobia”, yet because Nazism is not an “exotic”, non-Western ideology, anybody crying about Naziphobia will be ridiculed. Anyone using the term “Islamophobia” is a traitor to humanity. Liberals and Muslims talk about numerous attacks on Muslims in the West – but most of these attacks are merely insults, many of them on the Internet. But as can be imagined, people brainwashed by egocentric ideology such as Islam are rather hurt by even minor insults. Accusations and very existence of “Islamophobia” are a badly disguised attempt, supported by the liberals, to impose blasphemy laws on the West. Accusations of Islamophobia have all characteristics of illogical ad hominem attacks, and as such discredit anyone using such arguments. The word itself was invented by Islamic supremacists as a way to silence critics of Islam and its inherent evils (including, ironically, intolerance). It is a scam, nothing more. In United States, there are ten times more hate crimes against gays and Jews than against Muslims. In France, in 2014. there were 851 hate crimes motivated by anti-Semitism, and 133 hate crimes against Muslims. Out of 148 violent attacks, 122 were motivated by anti-Semitism, and 7 by anti-Muslim feelings. Needless to say, most anti-Semitic attacks are caused by Islam. Two young Muslims in 2011. drove 13.000 miles around the America, and were welcomed wherever they went. Compare this to an incident in 2008., when an Italian woman that tried to hitch-hike her way from Italy to Israel to promote the message of peace and love. She was raped and strangled in Turkey, just few miles South-East of Istanbul. As cited by an article written about the case, “The performance piece, a trip through nearly a dozen countries in the Balkans and the Middle East, many of them ravaged by war recently, was meant to underscore that “by overcoming differences and lowering the level of conflict,” individuals and cultures could come together, Ms. Moro said in a telephone interview. “Meeting people was the key.””. She easily made it through “backwards, nationalistic” Balkans only to be murdered in “secular” Turkey. Her body was found in a dumpster near the city of Gebze, merely 40 miles south-east of Istanbul. Yet liberals pretend that this has nothing to do with Islam’s treatment of women as mere objects, existing to be raped, and draped in black bags to prevent uncontrollable Muslim males from raping them.

Liberals and Islamists like to call anyone opposing Islam and multiculturalism to be a “racist”. Yet Islam is not a race, it is an ideology – no different from Nazism, except far worse. According to liberal definition of racism, then, antifascists who fought against the Axis in the Second World War would also be racists, because they opposed an ideology, and should thus be despised. But that does not matter to liberals; to them word “racist” is merely a weapon to discredit their ideological opponents without having to resort to argumentative debate. Yet people who see racism everywhere are typically racists themselves; they patronize other races, and often hate the white race for evils that stem from ideologies, not race – evils of which Islam is just as guilty of, if not more guilty than, any European-origin ideology or nation, or group of ideologies or nations. By patronizing other races, they engage in racism, and deny said races right to self-development. Liberal ideology defends Islam merely because it is an ideology that does not originate from Europe or from people of European origin, in spite of all its evils; how is that for racism? Liberals (progressives) measure a person first and foremost by the colour of their skin; but in their warped world, being racist towards the white people is not racism, and Islam – itself a racist ideology, at least by liberal definition – is given a free pass because most of its followers are not white. Mormons are ridiculed by liberals in ways that Muslims never would be, because they are predominantly white. To progressives, being born in a first world is a sin – and they try to get rid of that sin by turning the first world into a third world, via Muslim immigration. Muslims are never guilty; no matter what they do, liberals, somehow, always shift the blame to the non-Muslims. According to Muslims, rape victims are guilty because they did not cover themselves head-to-toe; according to progressives, victims of Islam’s terror are guilty because they have provoked the Muslims. Fact that the “provocation” in question is merely existing is, to them, irrelevant. Apparently, such patronization of non-whites (or more specifically, non-Westerners) is, to liberals, perfectly okay, because liberals want and need to feel superior; this superiority complex is something that liberals and Muslims have in common. The ultimate insult for progressives is when the truth does not confirm to their world-view (as it is for any ideology). Progressives refuse to understand that not all cultures are equal; some are worth preserving, and some are danger for humanity and should be destroyed. They also refuse to understand that black-skinned people can be just as racist as the whites. They go mental at the idea that nobody has the right to censor anybody else’s opinion, no matter how hurt their feelings may be. They, just like the Muslims, aggressively silence anyone who disagrees with them. In fact, progressives often display – especially when it comes to the topic of Islam – a cognitive dissonance typically associated with religious beliefs. They claim to be fighting for human rights, but when it comes to most fundamental and important of all human rights – the freedom of expression – they do everything they can to stamp it out, labelling it “hate speech”. Example of that is a Sweden – what once used to be a country is now a war zone and an insane asylum, rolled into one. A Swedish politician was convicted of a “hate speech” for correctly connecting Muslim immigration to high levels of rape. The court said that it did not matter that what he said was true, or that it could be proven to be true, it was enough that it caused a potential offence to Muslim immigrants. It does not matter that Muslim immigration has turned Sweden from the safest country for women in the world into a rape capital of Europe (with twice the rape rate of the next country), or that Jews had to leave because Muslims would have attacked them. It does not matter that almost all rape crimes in the neighbouring Norway are committed by Muslim immigrants. Political correctness has turned Sweden into totalitarian, (Islamo)fascist police state. Anyone voting for the only party that is against Muslim immigration is treated like a Nazi voting for Satan, when the only Nazi Satan around is Islam itself. Swedish government had changed the Constitution without consulting the people, in order to better accommodate Islamofascists, so that a person no longer has to be Swedish citizen to hold an important office, and Swedes are constitutionally required to practice multiculturalism. Muslim (economic) immigrants from relatively safe countries stay in Sweden, while Christian refugees are sent back to Iraq to be butchered like pigs. In England, English Defence League is considered “far right”, “fascist” and “racist”, yet it opposes fascism and racism (but apparently, opposing Islamic fascism and racism is fascist and racist). In Western universities, students brainwashed with ideology often shout down the speakers that they disagree with. And people see nothing wrong with it, as long as it happens only to people who do not share the so-called “progressive” consensus. Just like all the other useful idiots, who let their ideology dictate their reality instead of the opposite, they are afraid of anything that would rock the foundations of their castle on a cloud. Especially of the truth; but that is a normal reaction of people who are emotionally invested in a lie. Liberal ideology of political correctness is no different from the Creationism; equally irrational and baseless, the only difference being that creationism is far more benign. Liberals are too busy crying about “racism” and the rise of the “far right” and “nationalism” (as if nationalism is something bad) to notice a blood-red Allahphant in the room, about to go on a murderous rampage, all thanks to the multicultural nightmare they had imposed on the West.

But that is cowardice. Real reason why Islam is so defended by the progressives and the media is because said people are cowards. They are afraid. Afraid of Muslim violence and murder, afraid of conflict and danger. Afraid, of having to admit to themselves, that multiculturalism and tolerance sometimes do not really work. Afraid, of having to realize that not all cultures are equal, and that some cultures are a danger that has to be destroyed. Afraid, of actually having to stand up and fight for the values they profess to hold so dear. Afraid of the truth, because truth offends Islam, and when Islam is offended, violence follows. But media have the responsibility to the society at large; truth is necessary for freedom, and if journalists and media organizations sacrifice truth for the sake of safety, they are committing high treason against the society they are supposed to serve. Today’s people are cowards, and Western Europe has already caved in to Muslim cultural terrorism. Cowardice is dressed in nice terms such as “tolerance”, “respect” and “multiculturalism”, and people are so afraid they are ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away. They are afraid of doing what needs to be done, worse, they are afraid of even acknowledging that there is a problem at all. Europe today, at least the Western Europe, lacks spine, brain and heart; it is on a course to imminent self-destruction. And the left-wing “progressives” will defend that lack of critical organs – with violence, if necessary, because truth is frightening. And the truth is that with Muslim immigration, Europe is headed towards a civil war and death, of culture, of humanism and of democracy.

Islam itself is a totalitarian ideology, *the* most comprehensive totalitarian ideology which has ever appeared, and thus perfect for controlling people. Islam is against critical thought, individuality, human rights… in other words, it is against all the things that are actually dangerous for capitalists controlling the West. Islam and multiculturalism are being used as weapons against working class in the West, but neither the so-called “right” nor the so-called “left” see it, and any socialism on national(istic) basis, which is the only ideology actually dangerous to capitalists, is pre-empted by cries of Nazism (and Nazis themselves, ironically, were corporatists, not actual socialists). But neither the so-called “right-wing” nor the so-called “left-wing” political parties recognize this, because they themselves are controlled by capitalists, much like Hitler was.

***

What are the possible solutions? First, immigration from Muslim countries must be strictly limited as immigrants prevent Muslims already in Europe from adapting to the society, and in any case society can only process a certain number of immigrants, even when immigrants come from a culture that is not actively hostile to the home society. Immigrants, before being allowed in, must pass screening tests where they show that they understand values of the society they are entering; they should also be sterilized. Religious schools and home-schooling must be abandoned or forbidden; compulsory citizen schooling has to be enforced for everyone. Arranged marriages have to be forbidden, and in the case they are carried out anyway, the whole family ought to be deported to a Muslim country the spouse comes from. Western laws and customs have to be enforced even in Muslim-majority areas. Death sentence should be introduced for crimes such as murder and rape, both of which are used as tools for spreading Islam. Next, Islam itself has to be stopped. West has to stop buying oil from Muslim countries, in order to cut off the flow of money to terrorists who attack the West (this will require researching alternative energy sources, e.g. fusion reactors). Muslim Imams have to be forbidden access to schools, college campuses, armed forces and prisons. Truth must be opposed to Muslim lies. Finally, Islam must be criminalized, much like other totalitarian/genocidal ideologies. Muslims that refuse to accept European culture and values, which includes converting from Islam to another religion (or no religion), and instead riot in the streets, have to be deported into the Muslim countries, with no possibility of going back to Europe. Those that do not riot have to be treated the same way Muslims treat non-Muslims: second-class dhimmis, heavily taxed and with no civil rights. Muslim children should be taken from their families and raised by state in a secular, atheistic environment. Muslim countries have to be isolated from the rest of the world and then left to their own devices, to self-destruct in constant violence inherent in Islam, waging jihad against each other, lest they grow powerful and delusional enough to trigger a nuclear war with the West; West for its part must not allow itself to loose massive advantage it has in nuclear warheads over the Islamic world, nor to allow itself to become part of the Islamic world. Islam itself is evil, and to tolerate evil is to support evil – a lesson that Europe should have learned in World War II, but has apparently failed to do so. In the long run, the only answer is to stop the immigration from Muslim countries, and kick out anyone causing trouble.

Unless Islam is gotten rid of, the only possible outcome is another world war, albeit different in nature – where World War I was caused by imperialism, World War II was caused by liberal capitalism, World War III will be caused by a combination of multiculturalism and Islam. But that is likely what Western plutocrats want, a war that will enable them to roll back the progress of democracy, while at the same time creating a “multicultural” mass without identity that will be easy to rule over. Nationalism is the only true “religion”, it is a prerequisite for democracy, and that is why plutocracy uses multiculturalism and Islam – a war ideology where loyalty to religion is more important than loyalty to nation – to destroy nationalism and, consequently, democracy (Turkey only achieved democracy once, under Ataturk, national loyalty became more important than Islamic one). Islam cannot be reformed. With “civilized” Islam, there is always a possibility of believers discovering “old-school” Islam somewhere, as is indeed happening non-stop in Europe, and that is a risk which cannot be taken. In fact, if one takes away all the bad aspects of Islam – genocide, aggressive separatism, intolerance, supremacism, special pleading, egoism, narcissism, misogyny, psychopathy, hatred, censorship, violence – there is nothing left. Doing so would transform Islam into general theism. West has already tried controlling and undermining Islam through usage of Muslim pop-culture icons and capitalist Islam as a means to override classical, political Islam. It worked for a while, but then it backfired, with Muslims – pop icons included – reverting back to the political Islam. It doesn’t work simply because Muslims believe that their original society – which they ran away from – is superior simply because it is Islamic. Islam is rigid as a fossil. In the end, the only permanent solution – one which may guarantee that there will be no reversal to actual genocidal ideology – is the destruction of Islam and its replacement with another ideology (such as nationalism, or Christianity adapted to nationalism). Where Islam comes, it stays, unless displaced by force. And because Islam is an ideology of hate which goes directly against principles of democracy and state, and threatens state by placing God above it, it cannot be tolerated. Nothing which threatens the purpose and existence of state can be tolerated. Respecting beliefs is only fine as long as they don’t cause harm; Islam has to be eradicated. But ideology can only be fought by another ideology, such as nationalism and/or Christianity. Ideology can’t be fought with lack of ideology, or with decadent ideologies such as liberalism and materialism; least of all Islam, a satanic cult made up by an illiterate psychopath from 7th century Arabia.

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

– Manuel II Paleologos

“What is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion if the activities or teaching of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked.”

– Rowan Atkinson

Further reading

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/downloads/probing-islam.pdf

Henri Pirenne – Mohammed and Charlemagne

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/call_to_muslims.htm

https://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKopcpNlK48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmeyEGm4qO4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FBTpR_uSE0

http://jewtube.tv/islam/the-next-time-someone-tries-to-convince-you-that-islam-means-peace-show-them-this-video/

http://worldmediamonitoring.com/reflections-terror-paris/

http://worldmediamonitoring.com/what-isis-wants/

http://1389blog.com/2013/06/23/four-arabic-words-every-infidel-must-know/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/french-ex-president-charles-de-gaulle-is-the-founding-father-of-eurabia/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/rape-adultery.aspx

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/savage-the-franks-islam-is-worse/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mistic/myths_islam.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/183852/islamic-slavery-and-racism-daniel-greenfield

http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-muslim-nabeel-qureshi-islam-religion-of-peace-interview-153539/

http://pc.blogspot.hr/2015/01/one-of-best-arguments-against-people.html

https://christianspooksite.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/islam-the-religion-of-peace-is-that-meant-to-be-a-joke/

http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/religion-of-peace-is-not-a-harmless-platitude/

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/peace-loving.html

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/10-reasons-not-peace.aspx

http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-islam-a-religion-of-peace-133504/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/swedens-feminist-foreign-minister-has-dared-to-tell-the-truth-about-saudi-arabia-what-happens-now-concerns-us-all/

http://madworldnews.com/muslims-killing-dogs/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/islam_and_dogs.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/dangerous_times_how_putin_might_end_up_saving_europe.html

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/thought-crime/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/13/maher-asra-nomani-liberals-are-afraid-to-tell-the-truth-about-radical-islam/

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/04/29/the-reason-that-liberals-hate-christianity-but-ignore-islam/

http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/svijet/danas-je-u-europi-zabranjeno-govoriti-istinu-procitajte-briljantan-orbanov-govor-906623

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/islam-basic-most-important-features/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/women.aspx

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/islamophobia.aspx

http://1389blog.com/2008/02/03/islam-and-brain-damage/

http://1389blog.com/2010/08/27/islam-and-genetic-damage/

http://1389blog.com/2011/06/29/why-non-muslims-should-avoid-halal-food/

http://1389blog.com/2010/12/26/collaborating-with-muslim-nazis/

http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2013/05/27/423524/story.html

http://www.boycotthalal.com/halal-funds-terrorists-zakat/

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/islam_western.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-europe.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/religion-of-peace.html

http://www.historyofjihad.org/russia.html

http://www.historyofjihad.org/france.html

http://www.historyofjihad.org/america.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/52.0.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/islam-expansion.html

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.204/britain-may-be-an-islamic-nation-within-20-years.html

http://www.genocidetext.net/iags_resolution_supporting_documentation.htm

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6587/carson-taqiyya-dissimulation

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=10831

http://www.meforum.org/3182/history-muslim-conquests

http://oopscaliphate.blogspot.hr/p/blog-page.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/muslim-brotherhood-movement.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/islam-expansion.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/explaining-the-trinity.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/halal-meat-slaughter.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/muhammad-false-prophet.html

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/muhammads-favorite-wives.html

http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et02.html

http://indiafacts.org/sinister-side-sufism/

http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/05/28/sufism-the-sweetest-poison-of-them-all/

http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/02/17/demographic-seize-of-al-hind/

http://shoebat.com/2015/05/06/china-declares-war-on-islam-prayer-in-mosques-is-outlawed-and-all-muslim-shopkeepers-must-sell-alcohol-or-face-prosecution/

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/downloads/probing-islam.pdf

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/pedophile.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/terrorist.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/assassin.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/looter.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

http://infojur.ufsc.br/aires/arquivos/RushdieSalmanSatanicVerses.pdf

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/pedophile.htm

http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/five-reasons-why-islam-is-a-cult/

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/political_islam/punishmnt.html

http://freethoughtnation.com/canadian-muslim-professor-if-you-want-sharia-law-go-back-to-the-hellhole-country-you-came-from/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/islamophobia.aspx

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch2.html

Web sites

http://www.barenakedislam.com/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://1389blog.com/

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

http://www.answering-islam.org/

http://www.debate.org.uk/

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.hr/

https://destroyislamnow.wordpress.com/

http://islamthreat.com/

http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.hr/

http://oopscaliphate.blogspot.hr/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://facingislam.blogspot.hr/

http://gatesofvienna.net/

Advertisements

25 Responses to “Islam – a religion of peace or a totalitarian ideology”

  1. Extremely well research Picard! Congratulations!

    It will take me time to find points on which I differ, and they are rather details. I had just the time to scan the article.

    “Phobia” has acquired the sense of irrational fear, maybe, but initially it was just a fear, a panic, deriving from the sense in Homer of “flight”. Fearing Islam is only rational, as the Qur’an wants to “throw in the fire”, most of humanity!

    It’s important to point out that there are more than 100 variants of Islam, and some forms of Sufism are more secular and modern compatible than any form of Christianism. However, indeed, most of the Islam invading European minds right now is LITERAL Islam, also known as “SALAFISM” (the way of the old ones).

    The Salafism was outlawed in the Twelfth Century in Egypt, and punished with the death penalty. Wahhab, an Arabic fanatic resurrected it in the Eighteenth Century and made an alliance with the Saudis to use Salafism as a propped to conquer Arabia. The Saudis were happy to have an apparently non-selfish reason to rob and kill their enemies (Roman emperor Theodosius inaugurated the method in 390 CE, by rewarding “heresy” with death). Thus Saudi Arabia was conquered.

    Notice that at the same time, in 1200 CE, the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad was a plutocracy, but not really Islamist. However islam is very friendly to dictators (Sura 4, verse 59), and slavery, and thus conducive to dictatorship, hence plutocracy.

    The Mongols, Franks, Georgians and Armenians, in a coalition, destroyed the Caliphate, the House of Wisdom, etc. In other words, the intellectual class was eradicated, and Islamist practice returned to savagery… All the more as the Popen and Saint Louis spurned the Mongols… who then embraced Islam, instead of the Christianism they were told they couldn’t join!

    Thus, the intellectual class having been chopped off, Islam degenerated completely, even by its own, admittedly low, standards…

    The real history has been drowned by a tsunami of fake history and Political Correctness, so many individuals among the elite believe fakery which they hold to be the genuine truth, just because they heard another ignoramus tell the same lies.

    As the planet is under threat from the runaway greenhouse, and global plutocracy killing democracy everywhere, Salafist Islam is not just an existential threat, it’s a deadly distraction.

    The only way to fight it is to point out 99% of known religion have been outlawed, especially those ordering religious sacrifices. And, of course, islam orders religious sacrifices. To know this no need to know how to read, one can just watch the news!

    • Picard578 said

      “It’s important to point out that there are more than 100 variants of Islam, and some forms of Sufism are more secular and modern compatible than any form of Christianism. However, indeed, most of the Islam invading European minds right now is LITERAL Islam, also known as “SALAFISM” (the way of the old ones).”

      Problem is that literal Islam is the “natural” form of Islam, whereas any “humane” forms of Islam require heavy external intervention to be rendered as such. In other words, they are unsustainable.

      “The real history has been drowned by a tsunami of fake history and Political Correctness, so many individuals among the elite believe fakery which they hold to be the genuine truth, just because they heard another ignoramus tell the same lies.”

      Not just the elite. Truth is insulting, but modern Western society believes insult to be the crime. As a result, truth has been criminalized.

      • Sufi Islam, as found around Senegal, was in full expansion until a few years ago, when the plutocrats saw the danger: it is, in practice, a welfare system of the wisest type. So they tried to derail it. That sort of Sufi “Islam” is NOT compatible with Salafism, and, actually, the top dog most revered is not Muhammad, but more recent thinkers!

        A president of Senegal is on the record saying that “Islam” as practiced in Senegal, is not the same religion as Islam practiced in Arabia. However, indeed, as you say, if one insists that Sufism is Islam, the weight of the Qur’an is great. So the Qur’an itself has to be derailed… using Aisha… (See my reblogging comment).

        This problem is very old. This is why some variant of Islam (Druzes, etc.) refuse to say whether they are Muslims or not, and keep their religious practices secret: precisely because they can’t be viewed as apostates, if they are not Muslims to start with!

  2. Tanguy Pluchet said

    Picard, first, congrats ! The amount of research you put in this post is bloody impressive !
    While I mostly agree with you, there is a point I’d like to discuss.
    You claim the average birth rate in France is 1,8, and 8,1 for muslims, that 45% of people of age 20 and younger are muslims in larger cities, and that muslims will be the majority of the population in 2055.
    I do know all these numbers are from a single french source, with not a single reference to back it up, and which was subsequently totally debunked all over the french-speaking internet.
    First, the average birthrate in France is just short of 2,1 children per women (according to the INSEE), thanks to extensive childcare that enables women to both work and have children.
    Second, take a look at this research from the PEW research center:
    http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/
    According to them, tere were 4,7 M muslims in France in 2010 (7.5% of the pop), and there will be 6.8 M in 2030 (around 10% of the pop). I must point out, however, that it is illegal to make studies trying to determine the percentage of a given ethnicity in the total population, and as such, it is impossible to know how many muslims there are in the nation. This is why a number of different figures are cited by different parties, be it by politically correct leftists, or by fear-surfing far-rightists.
    So, according to Le Monde Des Religions, there were 2.46 M muslims in France in 2007, 4,2 M in 2008 according to the INED, 4,7 M in 2010 according to PEW, from 5 to 10 M in 2010 according to Claude Guéant (our Minister of the Interior and the Cults at the time), 8 M according to the National Front in 2010 and… (drum roll) 15 to 20 M according to Jean-Marie Le Pen (you may know him, he’s the guy who once said that “gas chambers were a detail of history” and more recently shouted “Jeanne! Au secours!” in front of a Joan of Ark statue while his daughter was taking over his political party. In short, a pretty enjoyable comedian). I tnink the number of muslims today is superior to 6 M, but inferior to 9 M, thought I have no way to prove it.
    Third, according to this 2004 study (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004FrenchES.pdf), the birthrate among immigrant women (90% of immigrants in France are muslims) was of 2.15 and falling. I personally think that the birthrate per muslim woman is inferior to 2.5 and falling.
    Thus, while you’re right to warn people and while I agree with the historical elements of your post, I think the situation is nowhere as apocalyptic as you present it. It’s no a reason not to take the appropriate measures thought.

    I assume you found the numbers you mentionned in your post on an english speaking site, and you didn’t realize they were complete BS because you didn’t have access to french sources. And I think that, in your honorable efforts to warn the public of the nature of Islam, you fell into a trap Robert McNamara describes way better than I can:

    MCNAMARA: “We see incorrectly… or we see only half of the story at times…”
    REPORTER: “We see what we want to believe !”
    MCNAMARA: “We see what we want to believe, you’re absolutely right ! Belief and seeing… They’re both often wrong.”

    • Picard578 said

      “You claim the average birth rate in France is 1,8, and 8,1 for muslims, that 45% of people of age 20 and younger are muslims in larger cities, and that muslims will be the majority of the population in 2055.
      I do know all these numbers are from a single french source, with not a single reference to back it up, and which was subsequently totally debunked all over the french-speaking internet.
      First, the average birthrate in France is just short of 2,1 children per women (according to the INSEE), thanks to extensive childcare that enables women to both work and have children.”

      You might have misunderstood the part, what I wrote is that native French have 1,8 birth rate, muslims have 8,1 and that brings total birthrate to 2,1.

      As for the rest, it is indeed interesting data. And yes, despite my nickname, I am not French and I don’t know French language either (in fact, my – very poor – knowledge of Latin is far superior to my knowledge of French). Thanks for the correction.

      • I know many “Muslims” in France, or French living overseas who are “Muslim”. First they have less than two children per couple, average. Second, those “Muslims” aren’t really “Muslims”. They just plain don’t believe in Islam.

        Much of South-West France carries Berber and Arab alleles, thanks to the dreadful, hyper-violent invasions of the Eight Century. However, don’t tell those part descendants of Muslims that they are Muslim, they will think you are an insane moron!

        One of my ancestor was ennobled for fighting the Muslim invaders. However, i would not be surprised that he himself had some Muslim ancestors. That doesn’t make me a Muslim. Also it was in the Ninth Century!

        I think a Muslim is somebody who defines herself, or himself, or can be objectively defined through actively engaged behavior, mental or physical, as such. Same for Jews, Christians, Americans and Cannibals.

        Viewed that way, most people of Muslim ancestry in France are NOT “Muslim”.

        Only a minority among those has a high birth rate. The number “8.1” is fanciful, and may be relative only to a small subset of Imams who live off French social security (by having lots of children, as Orthodox Jews do in Israel…)

      • Tanguy Pluchet said

        I perfectly understood what you wrote. What I meant to say is that the average birth rate of muslim French is NOT 8.1, but certainly less than 2.5. In short, I thankfully will still be able to say “Je suis Français” for at least another century.

        Also, what I meant with the Gulf of Tonkin video is that today, with Internet, people can choose to live in their own bubble of reality (Including people like Sean “Largest Inauguration Crowd” Spicer). Truth is dangerously becoming an abstract concept, and fact-checking is all the more important.

        But enough of that. Again, great post overall !

        PS: Did you know your nickname is also the name of a large French frozen good firm ? 🙂

        • Patrice here! I agree with Tanguy, great post overall.

          Frankly I overlooked the French part because the French DISINFORMATION campaign by the Anglo-Saxon plutocrats (and other plutocrats in tow) is so strong, that nearly everything French is enormously distorted, or the opposite of truth, worldwide out of the francosphere (300+ million).
          Yes, israel has a Muslim demographic problem.
          Not France.

          Out of the 70+ million holders of French passports, certainly no more than 2 millions are practicing Muslims. And most are “good” Muslims, namely those “hypocrites” the Qur’an orders to kill!

          A third of the French population is hard core agnostic:
          https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/why-this-site-shouldnt-interest-most-americans/

        • Picard578 said

          No, I didn’t. And thanks!

    • I didn’t see that part of Picard’s essay (much to do!) But I agree with Tanguy!
      The fundamental reason Islam fundamentalists hate the French so much is that so many of the French had (part) Muslim ancestors, or are people who escaped Islamism by going to France (case of my parental family). Such people are the most fundamental enemies of Islamism. Thus, to count them as “Muslim” is not just silly, but self-defeating!

      • Tanguy Pluchet said

        J’ai des ascendances Pieds-Noirs, mais je crois que c’est le nationalisme algérien qu’ils fuyaient. On en est à regretter ce temps-là…

        • Le nationalisme est tribal, le religionisme aussi… Algeria under the French was multi-national, multi-confessional. The left thought they were progressive by embracing “Algerian” nationalism and islamism, but they were just embracing regression, Mecca, Washington, and Moscow.

  3. Tanguy Pluchet said

    Also, about that “muslim support to ISIL”:
    https://www.quora.com/How-many-Muslims-support-Daesh-Why

  4. Reblogged this on Patrice Ayme's Thoughts and commented:
    PRESENT DAY ISLAM IS A LIE, SAID AISHA:
    I lived my childhood in Muslim countries, from the age of two weeks. Islam was then never a problem, it was a very tolerant and tolerable part of the landscape. I never had a problem with the call to prayer, anymore than I had with church bells. Both of them could be heard, as the places I grew up in enjoyed diverse version of “Sufi” Islam. “Sufism” is actually immensely varied. In West Africa it meant not only women didn’t wear a veil, but were going bare chested.

    Now things have completely degenerated: Saudi and emirates’ wealth, discreetly propped by divisive Western plutocracy, have imposed a variant of Islam which was basically unknown when not outright outlawed eight centuries ago in the places of higher civilization (Sultanate of egypt, Abbasid Caliphate, Persia).

    This unamusing version comes straight out of the Qur’an written by Uthman, Third Caliph, which Aisha, the child-bride wife of the Prophet, condemned and went to war about because, she said, it was a pack of lies and fake representations of what Muhammad thought. Interestingly, Aisha fought Ali at the Battle of the Camel, so she is hated by the Shia, too. Thus Aisha condemned both Sunni and Shia Islams.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

  5. josephhokayem said

    Reblogged this on josephhokayem.

  6. EugenR
    rodeneugen.wordpress.comx
    rodanogen@yahoo.com

    In reply to Tanguy Pluchet.
    The more important question than how many Muslims are in Europe or France is what cultural influence they have and how they integrate into the European life. If gradually through the generations they would adopt the modern secular view of life, accepting liberty, fraternity, equality as their own values, it wouldn’t matter.

    But the opposite is the situation, they prefer despotism of the worst kind, as it happened to be seen by cruel despotic behavior of European Muslim youth recruits to ISIS. You may oppose that those are small minority, but i say it is only the top of the iceberg of most of the Muslim believers, who support the idea of Muslim Caliphate, what is in its essence is a creation of cruelest, most despotic Empire, where many infidels (non believers or most of the European population, mainly from the lefties) can be executed, unless becoming despotic Muslims themselves. And remember, by Muslim law, ones a Muslim ever a Muslim. Exit from this religion, only to the grave.

    • Tanguy Pluchet said

      Indeed, the only important matter is the survival of the ideals of this country. For that, however, we need increased integration policies (mandatory National Service would be a great idea IMHO). The fact that all (IIRC) terrorists who made attacks in France were second-generation French citizens clearly shows that. We need to empahize the fact that we are French above all else. Our intellectuals should also accept the true nature of the Qur’an and listen to people like Kamel Daoud. Right now, many of our intellectuals are calling him an “islamophobic muslim” (lol) and are promoting communautarianism despite what most muslims in France think. I think it is nearly a neo-colonial attitude (“We know better than you what is good for you”). The fact is, most French muslims consider themselves French and/or are willing to integrate. As for communautarianism… well, just look at Belgium and Britain.

      As for the rest of the world… I wish Arab nationalism could rise from its ashes. Anything can happen thought, just look at the Kurds (albeit they’re not Arabs). You would think a nationalist, socialist and radical-feminist people would not exist in this part of the world… but they just do.

      And inded, consider this: You are born a muslim. You are born a jew. But you become a christian.

      • Tanguy: Agreed to all.
        The so-called intellectuals are mostly at fault in claiming that one is racist if one does not love Islam. They are actually whores paid by the oil plutocracy and its helpers in finance.

        I don’t know Kamel Daoud…But most of what I know from France is filtered by the French government…

  7. Picard: A technical note. It seems that advertizing on your site is eating up memory, and makes it difficult to read comments or text! This is new… It tends to jump us back to the advertizing…

  8. EugenR
    rodeneugen.wordpress.comx
    In reply to Tanguy Pluchet.
    Yes, the Kurds are amazing surprise. They become the strongest country in the region after Turkey and Iran, in spite of all, just because they are not refusing modernity and western attitudes. Their fighting girls is the prove, that they mean seriously with women liberation. The suppression of women in other Muslim countries is devastating for their societies. After all the suppressed illiterate women are the mothers, who educate the next generation. What kind of education you can expect from them?

    • Picard578 said

      Indeed. It is a biological fact that children are more attached to mothers than to fathers – meaning that gender roles in raising kids do make sense. But it is also a fact that most things are adopted in family. Hence, educated mothers are necessary for educated children. And this is something that both liberal “progressives” and Islamist regressives do not get.

  9. Andrei said

    I think the best summation of the difference between Christianity and Islam is given by Eva Green’s character in the Kingdom of Heaven: “The Prophet says obey. Jesus says decide.” And this is also the best summation of way literal Islam is not compatible to Western Civilization: our whole way of being is based on free will and the power of the individual to decide, even dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and absolutist monarchies have had trouble limiting individual free-will in Western people. Therefore Islamic habits such as the covering of women because one has to obey, prayer because one has to obey, eating certain foods because one has to obey, are incomprehensible to the average citizen of a European nation. Tolerating such habits will result in isolation of the population which pursues them, which will lead to poverty and conflict with the surrounding population. Therefore I’m not alarmed by statistics which give birth rates of 8 children for Muslim emigrants, such birth rates can only be achieved in a highly isolated enclave, which will not last a generation. My point is that I heard such alarmist predictions relating to the gypsies in my country in the 80s. according to those predictions by now gypsies should have been 40% of the population. Guess what they are not. According to the official census they are only 3% of the population and even the most politically motivated estimate puts them at a maximum 8%. The reason is that most gypsies tend to integrate in overall society and the ones that cling to their traditions form either highly impoverished enclaves or rich crime ridden enclaves which disintegrate even faster then the poor ones. Same thing will happen to Muslims in Europe once the US stops fueling their migration.

    • Picard578 said

      I hope so. Because unlike Gypsies, islamic culture pushes Muslims to seek conflict – passively, and often actively as well – with all other cultures.

  10. […] to check to the levels that would be needed to confirm they are not terrorists. And due to the nature of Islam, even people with no terrorist record are a danger once they come to non-Islamic societies. They […]

  11. […] by tools other than weapons. Islamic immigrants do so through natality and propaganda. Islam is a totalitarian ideology not unlike Nazism. And within it, it contains a command to conquer the world. This can be seen in mass Muslim […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: