On 11 September 2001, I had a normal working day at SAP in Walldorf. On the way home I noticed the large, main entrance mounted monitor, were usually the broadcast SAP information and marketing movies. That evening he showed in a special broadcast the shocking pictures of the murders committed in the name of Allah. A cluster of colleagues had already formed about the head-shaking and visibly shocked watched the images. Also, I was stunned. For me, this day was a turning point and a cruel revelation. I felt like I was inside party. All differences that exist in the West, be it between conservatives and liberals, between Civil, socialists or communists, whether between Christians and Jews, agnostics and atheists, all these differences were suddenly insignificant, given the war of barbarism against civilization ( Wafa Sultan ) [1], which manifested itself here. All the imperfections and injustices of Western systems were small and insignificant in the face of this collapse of brute force. The Somali Ayaan Hirsi Ali was as shocked and stunned many in the West as grown men. She saw herself at that time as a Muslim herself. Again and again she read the arguments of Osama bin Laden, that justified these deeds. It examined the Koran and found that it was true, the Koran requires really killing infidels, it can indicate nothing about [2] Thus the decision was certain that she had to leave Islam back.. They, too, for this day was therefore a turning point. She wrote that she was not easy to break away from the fear of punishment in hell. Long after its rejection by the Muslim faith, she found herself in guilt before God. On the whole, their balance is positive - they could finally live in a civilized society, their desire for freedom. Even better, it would be natural if they do not under constant police protection should, as from the ranks of their former religious community they threaten her with murder - as any "apostate" (dramatizing for: Resigned) is under Islamic law of death: And if they turn back, then seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and you take no one of them a friend or helper!
(Sura 4.89 - read more at [3]). The police found a note with an anti-Ayaan Hirsi Ali death threat on the corpse of a Muslim Murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh (with whom she had made a film critical of Islam). His deed itself was derived from the murderer of Sura 5.33:
Behold, the wages of those who make war whom Allah and His Apostle and carry destruction to the earth, only that they killed or crucified, or alternately on the hands and feet be maimed or driven from the country. . It is here below their reward, and in the Hereafter will be a painful punishmentDar al-Harb
[4]
The death threat against people who break away from Islam, that is expressed not only against prominent critics of Islam such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she too is not an ancient Relic that is practiced only in some distant barbaric societies. We can protect ourselves with no excuses from the harsh fact that the death threat against "apostates" in the midst of our Western societies is alive and effective, as, for example, André glassmakers of living in Berlin, says converted to Christianity Iranians and Turks: These Christians must live counter to the government-guaranteed freedom of religion their faith in secret (like the early Christians of Rome, who met in the catacombs) to protect themselves from their former Muslim co-religionists. [5]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's impressive book
I'm a nomad
[ 2] testifies of the life and freedom from thirst, a personality that has earned itself the Enlightenment values. Urgently appealing to the people in the West, not lightly abandon these values, to living under the Sharia people are usually out of reach - such as religious freedom (including the freedom to turn away from religion, in which one is born), the free expression, the principle of equal treatment before the law, to vote and stand for election. These are all truly valuable things, even if we assume the habit of not more often. Her book is also addressed as a stimulus to the Muslims living in the West, their problems she knows first hand. The main problem is therefore the
Inshallah
mentality ("God willing"): the lack of ownership. Instead of living with all the opportunities it offers to take active and to live their own freedom, there is a supply and victim mentality, it is maintained a comfortable general resentment, and the foreign freedoms be used for special rights for Muslims demand. Immigrants from Muslim countries do, according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to create three main problems: money, sex and violence. In all three areas are now living on an anachronistic and often self-destructive way standards of countries of origin - often connected to a contempt of the host countries: It was and is common in the Islamic world, the "dhimmis", that look down Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, as second class citizens, whose duties it is, for example, by high taxes, the Muslims a greater living standards to allow. [5] Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls on Muslims to separate themselves from this simple but hardcore mentality that the West no more than
(House of War) to consider and as home of the Kuffar (infidels) despise, but freedom rights as a fundamental basic component of a modern society and as an invitation to everyone here to consider living - as evidenced by the enormous potential to discover that holds a free society for the development of each individual. particularly impressive, I found the letters to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali receives from Muslims living in and Muslim women, such as the following [6, emphasis added]: A woman from Sudan, who lives in Virginia, sent me e-mail. "I thought as a Muslim woman it is my duty to hate your book, but then I read it and identified me with you Every feeling that you were looking to put into words in this book have also I have experienced. any intellectual conflict, fought out with you to I too have already felt ... I realize that I want to understand Islam and it just can not. What is Islam itself that it is for my parents and Pefekt so tempting, but seems to me so wrong? ... I condemn Islam not because I think he brings a certain truth in it - if I and would condemn him where I should go then? .
"
throws light on an intellectual fermentation and rethinking, which is no doubt that many Muslims living under way The highlighted point incidentally shows the situation of
extortion by the conditions
, which are home to the Muslim woman: Sun punishable as apostasy is in their social system, it would require a tremendous jolt to renounce Islam - because this step is to lose all the existing securities of life of the family, especially the children to be alienated and also ensure its very existence to have. As it is evident how little to rouse what they already with reason as a better way to detect .- many people had the stop of 11 September 2001 as to Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an eye opener about the true, undisguised nature of Islam, on its totality political core. Unfortunately, I must also have a different type of reaction talk: The bodies of the attack were not cold, because you already tried to take Islam as a prompter of these murders from the line of fire to conceal, play down, even the actors themselves as the victims. As it was said about: the U.S. was due ihrere foreign policy, for example, Israel and its Afghanistan policy, even guilty of that offense. One must understand the perpetrators who had been in need radical elements into the trap. Or, especially popular in Europe: The killings were a failed previous, not caring enough attributable implemented integration policies. These are but of fact, nothing but distortions of the actual conditions - Along the lines of
Not the murderer, but the murdered man's fault!
The apology from the offender, the concealment of the motives of these self-referred, the appeasement of formulas, the deviation from the actual conditions are psychologically understandable. They are explained by a mechanism described by the psychologists identification with the aggressor or as Stockholm Syndrome . The police know very well this behavior of hostage-takings. Americans remember the case of Patty Hearst
, a young girl from a wealthy family who was kidnapped in 1974 by a confused terrorist group. Over their hostage was it even to a convinced adherent of this group, and later led by robbery for them. By the mere experience of violence, it was reversed to some extent, took the position of their captors. The identification with the aggressor is not limited to hostage-taking, but is effective in all forms of violence by threatening or actually exercised, and, above all, it goes far beyond a merely extorted behavior. The desired behavior is performed not only reluctantly, but thrilled with all my heart and full Faszinition. Thanks to the mechanism of identification with the aggressor, the whole individuality to some extent conquered. This is just a special case, unfortunately general rule: Violence is sexy. constantly feel attracted to women convicted felons to write love letters to murderers, rapists and bank robbers. In German prisons of this psychological phenomenon in everyday life. [6] This is particularly true for young people and especially if the violence is associated with an opposition to the fundamental values of society. This means: It is the blood trail of Islam, which is associated with his practice violence, not only in the form of individual terrorist attacks but also as an institutionalized terror in countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, of a freedom-loving people in the West, the blood freezes in your veins, acts not only by the implicit threat by, anticipating freedom rights will be curtailed as soon as can be expected as a result of its exercise of Muslim terror, about moving beyond it is
just the violence 
that Islam for many Westerners attractive. Many young people who convert to Islam in the West today is that flower but a rude awakening. Because of the way back is blocked: the conversion to the next fashion religion in some years the death penalty! The convert to Islam are facing a similar hard landing as the western women who are in have a relationship with a Muslim go and their harrowing stories on the website of the Forum
Bezness were collected. The American Islam critic Robert Spencer that Islam for many Westerners attractive. Many young people who convert to Islam in the West today is that flower but a rude awakening. Because of the way back is blocked: the conversion to the next fashion religion in some years the death penalty! The convert to Islam are facing a similar hard landing as the western women who are in have a relationship with a Muslim go and their harrowing stories on the website of the Forum make the effort, the 11th on behalf of Islam since the September terrorist attacks committed to document an ongoing basis. He is coming (February 2011) to the enormous number of 16,800 fatal attacks since 11 September 2001. This means that Islam called for a period of almost ten years
far more than ten times more deaths than the English Inquisition in all its 260th anniversary unfortunate history. [7] Anyone who doubts this number, may examine the statements of Robert Spencer, they underestimate I think rather the actual number of victims of Islamic terror. Given those numbers, you can not remember how to do it often, talk about confused individual perpetrators, from a handful of the mentally ill, but must face the fact that it is in these murders are related to a structural, Islam inherent phenomenon. Nor can it be said that the perpetrators interpret the Koran only wrong because the Koran contains calls to murder non-believers and dissenters leave scarcely any room for different interpretations. [8] One common obfuscation attempt it in the name of the Islam committed ugly practices are not due to Islam itself, but the so-called Islamists
. The Islamist is the worst, the movements of the peaceful religion of Islam itself in its opposite and make an instrument of death. Islam has nothing to do with these horrible things about anything, he was in truth the "religion of peace" (for which the similarity of the words
salam
, peace, and
islam , the self-subjection is used,). If true, it was just a matter of making the small group of "Islamists" pervert Islam, detect and destroy - a task that can easily to intelligence and security agencies may delegate, without its own personal use would be necessary. A nice solution. The problem is this: The separation of Islam and Islamism or Islamic fundamentalism "is an artificial one. keep self-Muslims and the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tyyip Erdogan (which is in the West, ironically itself out as a "moderate Muslim") on the other hand [9]: The names [moderate Islam / Islamism, RP] are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There are no moderate or non-moderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that's it ... Our religion is without fault.
In fact, fundamentalism is in itself not the problem but only that
is applied to the fundamentalism.
A fundamentalist is merely someone who takes his faith very seriously, it uses pretty strong and would have no other criterion considered his faith. The fundamentalist is therefore not dangerous in itself: It is important to what he believes! A fundamentalist Buddhist may retreat to the mountains and radical in search of enlightenment. A danger to society is not safe from it. A fundamentalist Muslim contrast, seeks to enlarge the "house of Islam" and the religious Struggle (jihad) to kill as many infidels. The problem therefore is not fundamentalism per se, but in its reference object - in this case: Islam itself is revealed by the people who take seriously the Islam, because they bring the contents of their religion most clearly expressed.
follows at this point most of the reference to the 1.6 billion Muslims, simply because of their high number but can not all be terrorists! This is undoubtedly true: There are Muslims who leave it to pursue the armed struggle against the infidels. There are Muslims who accept private for only parts of the Koran and the tradition. There are also Muslims, the Koran less familiar than the average critic of Islam - just as there are Christians who do not know what is actually being celebrated at Easter. There are Muslims who are only Muslim by birth and did not really care about their faith. There are Muslims, and conditions and only a few of their religious duties, practice their faith very lax. Thank God that way.
However the other way: why are all
suicide bombers, that we face today, the Muslim faith? If we the many, out of hatred, revenge and clan thinking atrocities by Muslims are lost as the acts of individual perpetrators are presented that the Koran only wrong understood them: Where are the suicide bombings, honor killings, genital mutilation, forced marriages of Buddhists, Christians, Baha'i, of atheists, who understood their beliefs wrong? Why is it almost exclusively among Muslims, the "confused individual perpetrators," the "The Faith-only false understanding"? This question remains with the explanations of the "confused individual offender" puzzling, even illogical.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage has thoroughly declined reverse this once (my emphasis). Although the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, that is undisputed - but [10]:
If a young woman on the open Street from her own brother is shot, one can safely bet large sums that both come from a Muslim family. If is cut through a hostage's throat in front of the camera, the offender will be Muslim. Those who are "German (English, Swedish) bitches" talk, is Muslim. Who is "more respect" demands for himself and his community is Muslim. Anyone who breaks and others with a dynamite belt in the air, such a murderer as "martyrs", explains the word "infidels" is used, his daughter can not learn to swim, she teaches instead that God commands the killing of Jews is Muslim. Countries where women raped be because of "adultery" thrown into prison are Muslim. Countries where the Bible may not be sold, but are probably the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Islamic. Countries where homosexuals are suspended from cranes are Islamic. Countries, is stoned in which are Islamic.
"Confused individual offenders" would occur under the laws of probability among all possible denominations. De facto, however, to focus the practices listed on Muslims. ME The only logical explanation is that these practices are derived from the teachings of Islam, and not from those of the Baha'is, Christians, Buddhists, etc. It is therefore something special about Islam, which distinguishes it from other denominations. This difference is to perceive it and to work out, instead of concealing it, or explained away.
is in the west but a political, practical interest in being explained away the difference of Islam from other religions and all beliefs are equal actual promotion. It does not hurt anyone if we could all religions as equal treatment, ignoring these differences, and one must not make the consequences that result just from the differences of religions. One should be clear: By looking away is it a lazy peace and also working on cementing the injustices with, is complicit. Rather, it is necessary to express the problematic issues clearly: Just can open the mind: Through honest, open dialogue. Might flow into tears, but no blood (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, [11]). Concealing unpleasant facts can not rely on the tolerance, but is strictly speaking nothing but cowardice: fear of the practical consequences that would derive from these unpleasant facts. The ideal of tolerance would require, in truth, just to look more closely. Tolerance has no blindfold on, but perceives the differences.
can also never practiced tolerance towards intolerance to be on pain of destruction. Tolerance can only work if the bare survival of the fittest is undermined if it can prevent the exercise of basic civil rights such as freedom of expression not by force or the mere threat of violence. This is not just since Sir Karl R. Popper The Open Society and Its Enemies "common property, but since the 18 Century, since the existence of modern, enlightened, democratic societies. [12] They could not have existed today without being shut out its external and internal enemies.
hear in conversations I often: Judaism and Christianity are still fundamentally similar to Islam. To believe West Europeans, who regard all cultures as essentially equivalent want and are prepared to ignore or deny painful differences with easily manageable arguments. Peace between religions, they do so eagerly, so they try to establish the fact that the facts before they threaten the peace or prevent this, close their eyes. The problem with the people from the West is not that they do not understand Islam. Your problem is that they do not understand Islam
complained already Wafa Sultan [13].
know Muslims themselves, however the essential difference of their religion to Christianity and Judaism very closely. In the 14th Century, more precisely, the Islamic scholars Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406) in his "Muqaddima" [14], Judaism is indeed able to assert itself politically in this world, but there was no universal right, vice versa have Christianity Although a universal claim, but he did not pursue the case with political and military means. Islam is superior to both religions, because it unites both: "In Islam, the Jihad (Holy War) is required by law, because it has a universal order and held that all of humanity voluntary or forced to convert to the religion of Islam".
Ibn Khaldun has hereby indicate a major difference between Islam to Christianity and Judaism, Islam demands that the whole world under its law, voluntary or forced
-, and of course: only
And fight them so that no temptation can take place, and fight until all worship is for Allah alone. If any of them however on the disbelief, then, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
(Sura 8:39). This is obviously not a theological Proposition, but a concrete, very worldly to be taken to action. For this, the world of Muslims will be divided into two kingdoms: the Dar al-Islam , the house of Islam, where it's already the state religion and the Sharia applicable law, and the Dar al-Harb , the House of War, ie not from Islam dominated parts of the world. The rules of conduct for Muslims, it actually belongs, not to settle in the house of war. If they go into the house but the war, so is their job, there jihad (literally
effort - which includes not only acts of war, but all types of application for Islam) result, ie the Cause of Islam to help the victory. By these standards, Islam proves to be a totalitarian, after the global caliphate, that is striving for world domination ideology.
Ibn Khaldun acknowledges, however, quite in line with the Quran, that Jews know very well, think well and act on this side and their religion and to defend militarily. to make the universal claim as it entertains, Islam, their own religion to religion all over the world, is foreign to Judaism, however. One might add that there were also wars in history, the Jews by the Bible were commanded by God, such as the conquest against the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 20.16-18 and Jos 10:40). But these were temporally and spatially limited wars. The universal claim
missing - and this is an important distinction, as I saw Ibn Khaldun and from which he derived the superiority of Islam.
Christianity on the other hand does have the universal claim:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you! And surely I am with you always, even to the end. (Mt 28:19-20). But it is a claim of the mission of preaching. Ibn Khaldun really know that Christianity is not commanded, this claim with political and military to track products . Christianity separates namely the temporal and spiritual things: therefore unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's
(Matt. 22:21), and just the essence of the Christian doctrine has no concrete worldly implications, but concerns humans as spiritual beings and a transcendent, though in this world into glowing Procedure (the "kingdom of God" or heaven). Christianity as a religion but would not survive if the community of believers in Christ, The Church, therefore, had not formed and secular, would become an institution in the world. This institution is in a permanent tension to the Embassy, for their protection, preservation and dissemination of it is taken up. This can not be otherwise, for an institution that provided no resistance to evil (Matt. 5:39), unconditionally loved
their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and
not taught, so that they will not be judged
(Matt 7:1), could not last long in this world. The fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is worked out in a "digression" by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage very beautiful. [15] Already the world and of man is fundamentally different. Islam affirms the world in the form in which it is found. For him, the believer is the way it is, an instrument of Allah. There is no fundamental criticism of this world. This world is God's creation, the whole world as given and Geselllschaftsordnung is part of God's will. This makes the extremely conservative Islam: At the time of Muhammad there was slavery, polygamy, female circumcision, Bedouin raids, clan and tyranny in place of guaranteed rights for all. Allah / Mohammed affirmed and legitimized this practice all that he has any objection to make, as long as it is exercised within the Umma, the Muslim community. Islam is the world set against affirmative. Although Islam also knows the world beyond the sky. But even this world is just by God in its basic structure by design, as it is. The Muslim can feel in this world as an extension of God. With the Koran, he has a divine guidance in hand, the simple terms and is not in need of interpretation. By Allah, the Muslim subjects (which is the literal meaning of "Islam"), it is part of the community of believers in this world, the
best of peoples, evolved for each person. Enjoining what is right, and you stop the injustice.
(Surah 3.110). He may therefore feel superior to its participation in the Ummah and the rest of humanity enjoys compared to the other two classes of people, the dhimmis and infidels, thanks to the Sharia Special rights (including the right to exercise authority over them).
Christianity is fundamentally different: the Christian suffering in the world and in it. For Christianity is the world as it is dropped out of the order of God. It is no longer in its original, holy, whole state - but sick. While everything points to her nor to the pure, unadulterated origin. But this source was lost by a kind of historical, universal human catastrophe: the "sin". The man knows only the longing for the "lost paradise", and the things of this world to remind him. But in its concrete form, they contain so much ungodly, so ungodly that an affirmative attitude to the world for the Christians is prohibited. The kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and all the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God (1 Cor. 1:20). Man has the following Christ a metaphysical perspective on the restoration of an original divine order, for Christ is the light (John 8:12) into light, which in this world in order to rise again in the willed by God order to let & ndash , and Christ, the new Adam
the first to go this route (Romans 5:12-15). The Christian can therefore never be completely absorbed in his actions in this world - It always remains a reserve. As a consequence, Christianity his whole being affirmed by the Säkularitätsprinzip, separating the secular from the divine order. For the Christian, is the already cited and fundamental principle: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's (Mark 12:13). Neither the rebellion against the social order to the better ordering sake [15a], or full integration into a social system can be a matter of the Christian. He lives in the world, but also relieved as spirits of the world. Party take a secular thing - this is something which he never fully absorbed can. Jesus, the Son of God and earthly at the same time human, united in the two orders. But shows his whole life, what preferences he was: he lived in the lower, little-respected social classes, and died - for love of the people - the shameful death on the cross, the death of a criminal - despite the fact that he never for violence call had. Since this Muslim world and understanding of religion is fundamentally opposed, denied Mohammed / Allah in Surah 4.157 the crucifixion of Jesus and instead depends on the Gnostic teachings, "another" was crucified instead of Jesus.
But now even the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the central elements of Christian faith, without even the prospect of a cure, the restored life in the resurrection would be unthinkable. The Bishop Melito of Sardis
- he lived in the 2nd Century, and the pagan mysteries were still popular - describes this "new mystery" [16]:
Nature shuddered and said, astonished What is this for a new mystery? The judge is directed and acts calm, The Invisible is seen and not afraid to The incomprehensible is detected and outraged not, The Unmeasurable is measured and not loath suffers the pain-free and does not avenge himself, The Immortal dies and refuses it. What is this for a new mystery?
If God, according to the Christians in the form of a disclosed in this world is absolutely powerless people, so can faith not be spread by force, but only on free decision of each individual are based. Man is by the decision of faith to the child of God, instead of being only one exporting slave of God's will: All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you slaves, so that you had to always fear, but you have received the Spirit who makes you sons the spirit in which we cry Abba, Father! The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Rom 8.14-15). This is the reason why the freedom is an important foundation of the Christian faith. The Church as well as secular institution, as mentioned, in a strained relationship with the radical non-political message of Jesus, for their protection tradition and they do actually. As a secular community, the church vulnerable, flawed, earthly and can of course also of Christians in the name of the Christian message to be attacked. How much temporal power must be exercised now and still can, to the Christian message and communion to save it from ruin, the result of a consistent realization of the central Christian doctrines would, was the subject of a protracted battle between religious and secular power. Thus the history of the church is also a history of religious divisions and schisms, which culminated in the Reformation as a temporary peak.
It is a common but incorrect view that the Enlightenment was a pure counter-movement to Christianity. On a superficial level that's right, because some scouts stood firmly against the church and Christianity, and undoubtedly there was strong opposition by the Church to the Enlightenment. But this is not critical. At its core are the basic values of the Enlightenment is nothing more than transformed , secularized Christian values . The Enlightenment can occur on any other ground than that of the Christian West. Values that lives a modern atheist or agnostic, are derived in part directly from Christian norms. Such directly from Christianity resulting standards include: the social element of turn to the weak that addressed ban that love commandment inclusive of enemies love and reflexive standards in the form of a
for all
people, not only for the members of the beliefs, current Golden Rule: all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, that ye do them (Matt. 7:12) [17]
Whether we like it or not, whether we do. ourselves as Christians or not, the self-referential standards of Christianity, are passed over us in flesh and blood, we can no longer (or only with great effort) emerging from them. For example, current ideologies as cultural relativism is nothing but the internalized Christian Standard: Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matt. 7:1). The criticism of someone else or in a group, we do not belong to the causes the Westerners an inner pain. He is to be directed criticism at once put into perspective with self-criticism and what he wants to abandon the other, first of all and particularly strict abandon themselves. This is a great standard - but can only work as long as wall as the internalized compared to them. Someone who does not experience this standard, the radical criticism thrown back on itself as self-humiliation, as an admission of inferiority. In the case of Islam has thus reflecting our ongoing hesitation, our scrupulous adherence to the rule of law, the constant self-criticism, the loud denunciation even minor offenses against guaranteed fundamental rights, permitting radical critique for freedom's sake, the Expression of relentless misfeatures own, only in one sense: as Selbsteingeständnis the inferiority of our culture . Since this is fully compliant with the image that Islam stands anyway from the Judeo-Christian culture, so that Muslims encouraged to look to enter aggressively for their own culture, turn out exactly the standards with relativistic referring back to their implementation in the form of liberal social orders, the biggest achievement of mankind is, as the real Achilles heel of our entire Western civilization. [1] Wafa Sultan: In its crystal-clear, on Al-Jazeera broadcast
opinion which has since become a classic, she explains that the conflict is not, as Samuel P. Huntington says that a "clash of civilizations" is, for civilization, not fight they compete. Rather, we are witnessing a clash of civilization against barbarism.
[2] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I am a nomad , Piper Verlag, Munich 2010, p. 13 For the derivation of violence and murder against unbelievers and footnotes [4] and [8].
[3] The Apostasy is the worst according to the Koran, what can a Muslim, and he will be cursed for it forever (Sura 4, 137). See also Sura 4.36 and Sura 16.106 ff and 9.68. An informative report on this, Christine Schirrmacher provides
http://www.igfm.de/Wenn-Muslime-Christen-werden-Glaubensabfall-und-Todesstrafe-im.466.0.html
[4] Also this quote Koran was found on the stapled to the victim list, see
http://widerworte.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/gewaltaufrufe-im-koran/
.
[5] André Glasmacher,
fear of punitive Islam
, Daily Mirror, 21.4.2007, http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/angst-vor-dem-strafenden-islam/v_default, 837238.html
[ 5a] Bat Ye'or,
The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam
, Resch Verlag, Gräfelfing 2005th
[6] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, supra, p. 277
[6]
, image online by 14/04/2010.
[7] Robert Spencer, attacks in the name of Allah, since 11 September 2001 ,
http://therelegionofpeace.com
. Among the casualties of the English Inquisition, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Inquisition # Death_tolls
[8] It is sufficient if - as part of a division of labor - even a part of the Muslims for the concrete implementation the total of 206 Koran feels responsible that explicitly call for violence against unbelievers (a listing of these centers is given as the site http://www.koran.terror.ms/ ) - as long as they are not from the rest of the Ummah fights is clear, then created a climate of fear, appeasement and extortion, as it actually unfolds before our eyes. His "fatwa" of 1998 to justify terrorism against America, Bin Laden is based inter alia on Sure 9,5: "And when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, an seize them and watched them from each ambush. " ( http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm ). [9] Erdogan, quoted in the newspaper Milliyet, 21.8.2007. See http://www.politik.de/forum/religion/212757-ministerpraesident.html [10] Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, The Jihad system. How Islam works. P.9. [11] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, op cit, p. 268 [12] Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its enemies, two volumes, Francke Verlag, Tübingen 1980th [13] Wafa Sultan, interview in the Helen Glover Show vom 12.03.2009 .
[14] Ibn Khaldun,
Muqaddima . Quoted from http://koptisch.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/die-grunde-fur-die-christlichen-kreuzzuge/
[15] Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, supra Digression: Why Christianity with modernity compatible, but not of Islam, p.135-146. [15a] The overthrow of order, in which he lives is not for the Christians - but the struggle against injustice. For example, fought Christians in the first centuries AD, the slavery, because it is contrary to its principle of equality before God (as there was in Islam never had a significant resistance against slavery and was abolished in many Muslim countries, slavery only by the colonial masters) . See Egon Flaig, world history of slavery
, Beck Verlag, Munich 2009, p. 199ff.
[16] Melito of Sardis, quoted from
http://www.kathsurf.at/gebete/vorfahren/vorfahren.html # A new mystery [17] In contrast to Christianity, Islam knows not universal, Golden Rule valid for all people. The Koran is a golden rule is entirely absent. On the contrary, the division of people into higher-value (Muslims) and inferior (dhimmis, non-believers) a clear violation of the Golden Rule, which runs through the whole Koran and of course the Sharia, which proves to be right
of inequality . The Hadithstelle 1,2,13
can not cite as evidence to the contrary, for the (Saudi) translation leaves no doubt that this rule is limited to its own religious community, which currently lacks the essential criterion of universal applicability, that the Golden Usually makes up. The golden rule would be contrary to the Koran and the Islamic reality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment