A political analysis of Islamic terror (German)

[Skybird]

http://www.koran.terror.ms/

German language only. But this longer analysis is so good that I am tempted to start to translate it. If you are interested in the matter, give it a try even if you are only weak and not fluid in German language. I 100% agree with the complete text, down to every detail. It also quotes many authors whose works I know and have red, and partially own myself.

Will try to find something of comparable callibre in English.

The only defense against Islamic demand for world ruling and it's constant spreading in the West is uncompromised information about and criticising it's many inhuman, hostile and intolerant aspects, especially with regard to what it has to say on violance, war, infidels and submission.

[rogerbo]

I din't read all jet, but i think that we have to be carefull. Sure in the Koran there are calls for Violence as in the Bible and if you look how the 2 Books have been writen then there is also an understanding.

the Koran is 600 or so Years younger then the Bible and is suposed to be writen by Mohammad himself. He did live in a violent time and had to fight so it's natural that the fighting does reflect in the Koran.

In my view the problem is NOT wat's writen in the Koran but HOW it get's interpreted. The real danger is that the Koran is Interpreted by a small Religious group only and the Islamic states which are build on the Koran are therefor to much under the influence of the Religion.

The christs have been no better in the Past, but we have the difference that in our Countrys the Religion is seperated from the Ruling so it has no direct influence on our Daily live and therefor it's much more moderate and doesen't have the same influence as the Koran.

[Skybird]

I din't read all jet, but i think that we have to be carefull. Sure in the Koran there are calls for Violence as in the Bible and if you look how the 2 Books have been writen then there is also an understanding.

the Koran is 600 or so Years younger then the Bible and is suposed to be writen by Mohammad himself. He did live in a violent time and had to fight so it's natural that the fighting does reflect in the Koran.

In my view the problem is NOT wat's writen in the Koran but HOW it get's interpreted. The real danger is that the Koran is Interpreted by a small Religious group only and the Islamic states which are build on the Koran are therefor to much under the influence of the Religion.

The christs have been no better in the Past, but we have the difference that in our Countrys the Religion is seperated from the Ruling so it has no direct influence on our Daily live and therefor it's much more moderate and doesen't have the same influence as the Koran.

Veto to almost all.

You seem to be new to this discussion, at least I haven't seen you before, but the arguments you bring up had been adressed repeatedly. forgive if I just quote myself, for that reason.

Quran has not been written by muhammad (he neither was able to read nor to write), he just "mediated" it as the god-given word by Allah. Muhammad dictated it - and their is plkenty of evidence that afterwards, although it was Allah's word, he changed it opportunistically. so much for the authenticity of "Allah's word". Two of his secretaries,. who discovered his "falsing", fell off Islam when realizing the betrayal and had to flee, in order to prprevent being murdered. Quran also was changed and put into different forms when it was spread in arabia, before the 2nd or 3rd Caliph enforced a binding reviison for all muslims, of which only five copies had been laid down - in the third attempt, I think. Nevertheless, again it was brought into the style and form that the local rulers wanted the professional quran-readers to tell the people, for their political interests. This was more than different interpretation, this was about different forms of what was written down. There is no such thing as "the one Quran". There has been dozens of versions. Historical more true is that whenever Muhammad was in need to justify his demands, deeds, and commands, he said that what he damnded from others was the will of Allah. That way muhammad could not be criticised without risking to get killed for heresy.

(...) That is also the reason why the often heared argument that the violant quotes from the Quran must be seen in historical context is complete nonsens, and self-contradictory. Quran as the revelation of a divine will that always has been, always is, and always will be there, never-changing, non-transitory and eternal, makes all it's claims and statements completely independent from any situational, time-dependant historical contexts. No matter if the darkest medieval, or the modern present - the same rules apply,always, without difference. It is put in stone, frozen in time, doomed to be unable to change and develope.

That there are different schools to interpret Quran, namels the socalled funad,mantalist Islam, and the ture, the real, the tolerant Islam Europeans are so obessed by is a self-made folly, deriving from the colonial conflict in northwest Africa over 100 years, I repeatedly commented on that in detail. There is no such things like different Islams. The basis in which Islam defines itself is one and the same, forever (Quran, Hadith, Sharia, Muhammad). Those planting bombs and justifiying it by arguments from the Quran - unfortunately are absolutely in correspondence with Islam/Quran. As time and again is verfified and ruled by the most prominent muslim leaders and chiefs of Muslims institution time and again. Use the search buttons, iw rote plenty of stuff about Islam, i do not sum it up again here.

Christiantiy has moved beyod the old testament, and developed new forms of understanding of itself. these processes of self-examination did never take place in Islam. Thus it never moved beyond Quran and sharia. Since it also sees itself as the final culination of history, it also sees no need to do so. As written above, the argmenbt of historical contexts works to understand the old testament - but not with regard to Islam.

The space for different interpretations is reamrkly small in case with the Quran. This is, because it is very much conrete and specific. and this is becasue,m as you said yourself, "He did live in a violent time and had to fight so it's natural that the fighting does reflect in the Koran.". Self-justification, as needed in specific situations of challenge. But you iknow, that man has launched over 60, some say up to 80, wars and raids. He ordered murder, mass murder and genocide, he killed with his own hand, ordere3d rape and supression of females, robbed, and is source of the biggest military conquest of human history. How could such a tyrant be labelled as hooly man, a founder of peace and reloigion? If he would live today, we would see him at The Hague. so it is no wonder that the Quran is an inconsistent, partly self- contradictory and highly violewnt piece of writing. It's the testament of a murder and gangster. Like "Mein Kampf" is the self-justification of Hitler.

You do not answer WHY we have the separation between religion and politics. Why our history went so much different than theirs. Why we were able to live thropugh historical phases that finally culminated in the blossoming of our civilization in the West, while Muslim socieites at the same time live by the rules of the medieval. These differenes are not the cause of Islam's problems, they are the result of Christian'S difference to to Islam. the question is why Islam was not and is not able to live a comparable developing history. And euopre and the West has little to do with it. The problem is the rigidity of Islam itself.

christs have not been better ijn the past. Yes. THE PAST. why is it that we were able to move beyond the dark age, while they got stuck in it? As a result of that relgion does not dominate our daily life - this condition is the outcome of a historical process, not a precondition for it.

You try some things from the end to the beginning here. Better see it the other way around.