Katholisch Leben!

Den katholischen Glauben kennen, leben, lieben & verteidigen!

Islam


Kritische Verse aus dem Koran

Einige Verse sollten Christen kennen. Etwa die Sure 10:37:

„Dieser Qur‘an kann unmöglich ohne Allah ersonnen werden. Sondern (er ist) die Bestätigung dessen, was vor ihm war, und die ausführliche Darlegung des Buches, an dem es keinen Zweifel gibt, vom Herrn der Weltenbewohner.“ (Übersetzung von Scheich Abdullah as-Samit, Frank Bubenheim und Dr. Nadeem Elyas)

Dieser Vers lehrt, dass der Koran Gottes vollständige und endgültige Offenbarung ist. Der Koran bestätigt (!) hier auch, was vor ihm war – also die jüdischen und christlichen Schriften!

Weiter mit der Sure 5:44-47:

„Gewiß, wir haben die Thora hinabgesandt, in der Rechtleitung und Licht sind, womit die Propheten, die sich (Allah) ergeben hatten, für diejenigen, die dem Judentum angehören, walten, und so auch die Leute des Herrn und die Gelehrten, nach dem, was ihnen von der Schrift Allahs anvertraut worden war und worüber sie Zeugen waren. So fürchtet nicht die Menschen, sondern fürchtet Mich. Und verkauft Meine Zeichen nicht für einen geringen Preis! Wer nicht nach dem waltet, was Allah (als Offenbarung) herabgesandt hat, das sind die Ungläubigen.
Und Wir haben ihnen darin vorgeschrieben: Leben um Leben, Auge um Auge, Nase um Nase, Ohr um Ohr, Zahn um Zahn; und (auch) für Verwundungen Wiedervergeltung. Wer es aber als Almosen erläßt, für den ist es eine Sühne. Wer nicht nach dem waltet, was Allah (als Offenbarung) herabgesandt hat, das sind die Ungerechten.
Und Wir ließen auf ihren Spuren Isa, den Sohn Maryams, folgen, das zu bestätigen, was von der Thora vor ihm (offenbart) war: und Wir gaben ihm das Evangelium, in dem Rechtleitung und Licht sind, und das zu bestätigen, was von der Thora vor ihm (offenbart) war, und als Rechtleitung und Ermahnung für die Gottesfürchtigen.
Und so sollen die Leute des Evangeliums nach dem walten, was Allah darin herabgesandt hat. Wer nicht nach dem waltet, was Allah (als Offenbarung) herabgesandt hat, das sind die Frevler.“ (Übersetzung von Scheich Abdullah as-Samit, Frank Bubenheim und Dr. Nadeem Elyas)

Obwohl der Koran die Thora und die Evangelien immer wieder preist, sind die wenigsten Muslime mit der Bibel vertraut. Wir sollten also unsere muslimischen Geschwister dazu einladen, zu lesen, was ihr eigener Koran so sehr empfiehlt.

Sure 5:72-73:

„Fürwahr, ungläubig sind diejenigen, die sagen: „Gewiß, Allah ist al-Masih, der Sohn Maryams“, wo doch al-Masih (selbst) gesagt hat: „O Kinder Israils, dient Allah, meinem Herrn und eurem Herrn!“ Wer Allah (etwas) beigesellt, dem verbietet fürwahr Allah das Paradies, und dessen Zufluchtsort wird das (Höllen)feuer sein. Die Ungerechten werden keine Helfer haben.
Fürwahr, ungläubig sind diejenigen, die sagen: „Gewiß, Allah ist einer von dreien.“ Es gibt aber keinen Gott außer dem Einen Einzigen. Wenn sie mit dem, was sie sagen, nicht aufhören, so wird denjenigen von ihnen, die ungläubig sind, ganz gewiß schmerzhafte Strafe widerfahren.“ (Übersetzung von Scheich Abdullah as-Samit, Frank Bubenheim und Dr. Nadeem Elyas)

Hier werden sowohl die Göttlichkeit Jesu wie die Dreifaltigkeit geleugnet. Menschen, die daran glauben, werden vom Koran als „Ungläubige“ bezeichnet.

Sure 5:116-117:

„Und wenn Allah sagt: „O Isa, Sohn Maryams, bist du es, der zu den Menschen gesagt hat: ‚Nehmt mich und meine Mutter außer Allah zu Göttern!‘?“, wird er sagen: „Preis sei Dir! Es steht mir nicht zu, etwas zu sagen, wozu ich kein Recht habe. Wenn ich es (tatsächlich doch) gesagt hätte, dann wüßtest du es bestimmt. Du weißt, was in mir vorgeht, aber ich weiß nicht, was in Dir vorgeht. Du bist ja der Allwisser der verborgenen Dinge.
Ich habe ihnen nur gesagt, was du mir befohlen hast (, nämlich): ‚Dient Allah, meinem und eurem Herrn!‘ Und ich war über sie Zeuge, solange ich unter ihnen weilte. Seitdem du mich abberufen hast, bist Du der Wächter über sie. Du bist über alles Zeuge.“ (Übersetzung von Scheich Abdullah as-Samit, Frank Bubenheim und Dr. Nadeem Elyas)

Hier werden Christen angeklagt, Maria anzubeten!

Sure 5:69:

„Gewiß, diejenigen, die glauben, und diejenigen, die dem Judentum angehören, und die Sabier und die Christen, - wer (immer) an Allah und den Jüngsten Tag glaubt und rechtschaffen handelt, - über die soll keine Furcht kommen, noch sollen sie traurig sein.“ (Übersetzung von Scheich Abdullah as-Samit, Frank Bubenheim und Dr. Nadeem Elyas)

Juden und Christen können also gerettet werden!

Sure 98:6:

„Gewiß, diejenigen unter den Leuten der Schrift und den Götzendienern, die ungläubig sind, werden im Feuer der Hölle sein, ewig darin zu bleiben. Das sind die schlechtesten Geschöpfe.“ (Übersetzung von Scheich Abdullah as-Samit, Frank Bubenheim und Dr. Nadeem Elyas)

Hier ist vom Gegenteil die Rede: Juden und Christen können nicht gerettet werden.

Sure 38:21-25: Ein abgeänderter Bericht darüber, dass Nathan David mit seinen Sünden (Tod und Ehebruch) konfrontiert hat (2 Samuel 11).

Sure 33:37: Gott gibt angeblich Mohammed die Erlaubnis, die Frau seines Adoptivsohns zu heiraten.

Sure 12:1-111: Ein sehr verschönerter Bericht der Geschichte von Joseph, Jakobs Sohn.

Sure 12:41: Hier ist von den Ägyptern in der Zeit Josephs, Jakobs Sohn, die Rede (ungefähr 1500 bis 1200 vor Christus). Darin wird die Kreuzigung verwendet – Jahrhunderte bevor die Perser sie ca. im Jahr 500 vor Christus erfunden haben!

Sure 5:110-113: Dieser Bericht von Jesu Erschaffung eines lebendigen Vogels aus Lehm ist eine wohlbekannte Geschichte der christlichen apokryphischen Literatur (das Kindheits-Evangelium von Thomas) und wurde lang vor dem Koran geschrieben.

Sure 2:249-252: Hier werden die Geschichten von Saulus und Gideon (Richter 7) vermischt!

(Quelle: Beginning Apologetics 9. How to Answer Muslims. Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. San Juan Catholic Seminars)


Wie argumentiert man also gegen den Islam?

Für viele scheint der Islam allein wegen der großen Zahl und des Glaubenseifers seiner Anhänger und seines enormen Wachstums großartig zu sein. Viele von Menschen gemachte Religionen entsprachen jedoch genau diesen Kriterien. Sie allein sind also keine Garantie für Wahrheit.

Wenn wir den Islam streng im Licht seiner Lehren untersuchen, ist er weit weniger großartig. Wer den Islam sorgfältig studiert, findet eine Menge Ähnlichkeiten mit zwei anderen Glaubensrichtungen: Den Mormonen und den Zeugen Jehovas.


Der Islam und die Zeugen Jehovas

- Beide behaupten, dem Evangelium Jesu nachzufolgen, jede aber weist die wichtigste Lehre Jesu zurück: die Dreifaltigkeit. Beide hegen ihr gegenüber sogar eine ausgesprochen feindliche Einstellung.
- Beide sehen es als Götzendienst an, Jesus anzubeten und verurteilen dies leidenschaftlich.
- Beide verzerren Golgota. Moslems sagen es war nicht Jesus, sondern ein Betrüger, der am Kreuz starb. Zeugen Jehovas leugnen, dass Jesus gekreuzigt wurde und behaupten stattdessen, er wäre an einen Pfahl genagelt worden.
- Beide stehen der Vorstellung eines kirchlichen Amtes extrem ablehnend gegenüber.
- Beide verneinen die göttliche Sohnschaft Jesu. Zeugen Jehovas glauben, dass abgesehen von den 144.000 (deren Reihen 1935 geschlossen wurden) niemand Sohn Gottes sein kann. Beide haben eine Meister-Sklave-Vorstellung von Gottes Beziehung zu uns.
- Beide glauben an einen Himmel auf Erden: ein natürliches Paradies wie den Garten Eden. Beide glauben, wir könnten nicht darauf hoffen, die Ewigkeit mit Gott zu verbringen.
- Beide verwenden grausame Zwangsmaßnahmen hinsichtlich der Menschen, die nicht mehr guten Gewissens die jeweiligen Lehren annehmen können.
- Beide verzerren grob die Heilige Schrift während sie darauf bestehen, dass sie dem wahren Evangelium nachfolgen.
- Beide sind gegen theologische Forschung und kritisches Denken in religiösen Angelegenheiten.
- Beide verzeichneten in unserer Zeit ein schnelles Wachstum aufgrund des fanatischen Eifers ihrer Mitglieder.
- Beide teilen einen Hass auf die westliche Kultur, die sie als satanisch ansehen.
- Beide sind aus verschiedenen Gründen nur sehr schwer zu einer Konversion zu bewegen. Sie definieren ihre jeweiligen Religionen durch die Verneinung des Glaubens an die Dreifaltigkeit. Beide behaupten, dass Jesus zwar ein großer Prophet gewesen sei, aber trotzdem nur ein Mensch. An die Dreifaltigkeit zu glauben und Jesus als Gott anzubeten würde eine radikale Herzensänderung erfordern.


Islam und Mormonen

Sowohl Islam wie das Mormonentum begannen mit einem selbsternannten Propheten: Mohammed bzw. Joseph Smith. Ihre Anhänger wurden dem jeweiligen „Propheten“ gegenüber schnell fanatisch loyal. Nichts was diese „Propheten“ sagten oder taten konnte ihre Anhänger davon abhalten, ihnen nachzufolgen.

- Jeder der beiden „Propheten“ hatte mehrere Frauen und lehrte die Polygamie.
- Jeder der beiden „Propheten“ behauptete, von einem Engel Offenbarungen Gottes erhalten zu haben. Beide gaben an, diese Offenbarungen seien göttlich inspirierte Schriften: bei den Mormonen war es das „Buch Mormon“ und bei den Moslems der Koran. Beide waren der Ansicht, diese Offenbarungen würden die verfälschten Lehren des Christentums korrigieren.
- Sowohl der Islam als auch das Mormonentum führen dieselben subjektiven emotionalen Gründe als „Beweis“ dafür an, dass ihr Buch göttlich inspiriert sei: Die Schönheit der Sprache, die Tiefe der Lehren und deren Einfluss auf die Herzen der Gläubigen.
- Der Koran und das Buch Mormon bedienen sich ausgiebig bei biblischen und nicht-biblischen Quellen, ohne dies jedoch zuzugeben.
- Jede der Religionen hat eine ausgesprochen reglementierte und auf Taten basierende Herangehensweise an die Erlösung, wobei sie die biblischen Lehren der Vervollkommnung eines Christen ablehnen oder ignorieren.

(Quelle: Beginning Apologetics 9. How to Answer Muslims. Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. San Juan Catholic Seminars)


Taqiya im Islam - Dürfen Moslems lügen?


Taqiya bedeutet die Erlaubnis (bzw. Duldung Allahs) des Verstoßes gegen die Pflichten des Islams.

"Taqīya (arabisch تقية ‚Furcht, Vorsicht‘), oder in ebenfalls korrekter Transkription Taqiyya, ist ein bei verschiedenen schiitischen Gruppen geltendes Prinzip, wonach es bei Zwang oder Gefahr für Leib und Besitz erlaubt ist, rituelle Pflichten zu missachten und den eigenen Glauben zu verheimlichen. Im sunnitischen Islam ist das Konzept zwar ebenfalls bekannt, doch hat es nicht in der Allgemeinheit Anwendung gefunden, wurde zum Teil sogar abgelehnt. Verheimlichung des eigenen Glaubens in Gefahrensituationen gilt jedoch ebenfalls als zulässig. "
(Wikipedia)
Hier einige Beispiele:
In folgenden Fällen existenzieller Bedrohung bzw. bei Gefahr für Leben, Ehre und (möglicherweise auch) Eigentum ist es einem Moslem erlaubt, gegen die Pflichten des Islam zu verstoßen:

Verleugnung des Glaubens:
"Wer Allah verleugnet, nachdem er geglaubt hat - den allein ausgenommen, der (dazu) gezwungen wird, während sein Herz im Glauben Frieden findet -, auf jenen aber, die ihre Brust dem Unglauben öffnen, lastet Allahs Zorn; und ihnen wird eine strenge Strafe zuteil sein" (Sure 16:106)

Freundschaft mit Feinden des Islam:
"Die Gläubigen sollen die Ungläubigen nicht statt der Gläubigen zu Beschützern nehmen; und wer solches tut, der findet von Allah in nichts Hilfe - außer ihr fürchtet euch vor ihnen. Und Allah ermahnt euch, vor Sich Selber achtlos zu sein, und zu Allah ist die Heimkehr." (Sure 3:28)
Denkbar sind hier auch etliche weitere Fälle (etwa der Genuss verbotener Speisen). Daher kommt auch die Meinung, Moslems dürften lügen, solange es nur zum Wohle des Islams sei. Bei der Taqiya geht es nicht so sehr um das Brechen von Vorschriften zum Wohle des Islams sondern in einer Notsituation.

Während schiitische Moslems dies eher so sehen, sind sunnitische Moslems da allerdings skeptischer.
"Strenge sunnitische Theologen hoben immer wieder hervor, dass es ehrenvoller sei, Qualen zu ertragen, als seinen Glauben zu verleumden.[1] Unter anderem Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb kritisiert die Schiiten auf Basis der Taqīya, die seiner Meinung nach unislamisch sei. Die Interpretation des Begriffs atqākum in Sure 49:13 als diejenigen, die am meisten Taqīya betreiben, sei unzulässig. Diese Interpretation sei durch ein Hadith untersagt. Dass Schiiten Taqīya betreiben, sei demnach ein Beweis von vielen für ihren Unglauben.[13]

Der saudische schiitische Gelehrte Hasan as-Saffār, der 2006 gefragt wurde, ob seine öffentlichen Äußerungen überhaupt ernstzunehmen seien, da er ja als Schiit das Prinzip der Taqīya anwenden könne, äußerte, dass den Schiiten die Anwendung dieses Prinzips von den anderen Muslimen fälschlicherweise vorgeworfen werde. Es sei ein koranisches Konzept, das der Koran und der Islam ganz allgemein lehrten, und mit dem sich alle islamischen Gelehrten auseinandergesetzt hätten, die die betreffenden Koranverse kommentierten. Er berief sich außerdem darauf, dass in Sure 6:119 bereits die Rechtsmaxime angelegt sei, dass man in Zwangslagen Gebote übertreten dürfe."
(Wikipedia)

(Quelle: islam.de, diepresse.com)


Ehemalige Muslime, die katholisch geworden sind, und deren Freunde, an Seine Heiligkeit Papst Franziskus, über seine Haltung gegenüber dem Islam

Hier ist der Text eines offenen Briefes an Papst Franziskus, den Sie unterschreiben können, wenn Sie es wünschen. Wir werden ihn dem Papst zusenden, sobald er eine signifikante Anzahl von Unterzeichnern erreicht hat. Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, wenn Sie ihn weiter verbreiten könnten. Für alle praktischen Zwecke erinnern wir: „Entsprechend ihrem Wissen, ihrer Zuständigkeit und ihrer hervorragenden Stellung haben sie (die Gläubigen) das Recht und bisweilen sogar die Pflicht, ihre Meinung in dem, was das Wohl der Kirche angeht, den geistlichen Hirten mitzuteilen und sie unter Wahrung der Unversehrtheit des Glaubens und der Sitten und der Ehrfurcht gegenüber den Hirten und unter Beachtung des allgemeinen Nutzens und der Würde der Personen den übrigen Gläubigen kundzutun.“ (Can. 212 § 3):


Heiliger Vater,

Viele von uns haben wiederholt und seit mehreren Jahren versucht, Sie zu kontaktieren, ohne das wir je eine Empfangsbestätigung unserer Briefe oder Bitten um ein Treffen erhalten haben. Sie mögen keine weltlichen Floskeln, und wir auch nicht, so erlauben wir uns Ihnen offen zu sagen, dass wir Ihre Lehre über den Islam nicht verstehen, so wie wir sie in den Paragraphen 252 und 253 von Evangelium gaudium lesen, weil sie nicht in Betracht zieht, dass der Islam NACH Christus entstanden ist, und so nichts anderes sein kann als ein Antichrist (Vgl. 1 Joh 2.22) und einer der gefährlichsten von allen weil es sich als die Erfüllung der Offenbarung darstellt (von der Jesus nur ein Prophet gewesen sein soll). Wenn der Islam an sich eine gute Religion ist, wie Sie zu lehren scheinen, warum sind wir dann katholisch geworden? Stellen Ihre Worte nicht unsere gut begründete Wahl in Frage … die wir auf die Gefahr unseres Lebens getroffen haben? Der Islam schreibt die Tötung von Abtrünnigen vor (Koran 4.89, 8.7-11). Wissen Sie das nicht? Wie ist es möglich, islamische Gewalt mit so genannter christlicher Gewalt zu vergleichen? „Wie steht Christus im Einklang mit Belial? Was haben Licht und Finsternis gemeinsam? Oder welche Anteil hat der Gläubige gemeinsam mit den Ungläubigen?“ (2 Kor 6,14-15). In Übereinstimmung mit Seiner Lehre (Lk 14,26) bevorzugten wir Ihn, Christus, unserem eigenen Leben. Sind wir nicht in der richtigen Lage, um mit Ihnen über den Islam zu sprechen?
In der Tat, solange der Islam will, dass wir sein Feind sind, sind wir es, und alle unsere Freundschaftsbeteuerungen können nichts daran ändern. Im guten Stil des Antichristen besteht der Islam nur darin, der Feind aller zu sein: „Zwischen uns und euch gibt es nur Feindschaft und Hass für immer, bis ihr ausschließlich an Allah glaubt!“ (Koran 60,4) Für den Koran, sind die Christen „nichts anders als Unreinheit“ (Koran 9,28), „die Übelsten der Schöpfung“ (Koran 98,6), sie sind alle zur Hölle verurteilt (Koran 4,48), so muss Allah sie vernichten (Koran 9.30). Man darf sich nicht von den als tolerant bezeichneten Koranversen täuschen lassen, denn sie sind alle durch die Sure des Schwertes aufgehoben worden (Koran 9,5). Während das Evangelium die gute Nachricht Jesu verkündet, der gestorben und auferstanden ist für das Heil aller, als die Erfüllung des mit dem hebräischen Volk eingegangen Bundes, hat Allah nichts anderes zu bieten als den Krieg und das Töten von „Ungläubigen“ in Gegenleistung seines Paradieses: „Sie kämpfen auf Allahs Weg, sie töten und werden getötet“ (Koran 9.111). Wir vermischen nicht den Islam mit den Muslimen, aber wenn für Sie der „Dialog“ der Weg des Friedens ist, ist er für den Islam ein anderer Weg, um Krieg zu führen. So wie es angesichts des Nazismus und Kommunismus war, ist Blauäugigkeit gegenüber dem Islam selbstmörderisch und sehr gefährlich. Wie kann man von Frieden sprechen und den Islam unterstützen, wie Sie es zu tun scheinen: „Wir müssen die Krankheit, die unser Leben vergiftet, aus unseren Herzen ausmerzen (…) Diejenigen, die Christen sind, sollen es mit der Bibel tun und die, die Muslime sind, sollen es mit der Koran tun“ (Rom, 20. Januar 2014)? Dass der Papst den Koran als einen Weg der des Heils vorzuschlagen scheint, ist das nicht beunruhigend? Sollten wir zum Islam zurückkehren?
Wir bitten Sie, im Islam keinen Verbündeten zu suchen für den Kampf, den Sie gegen die Mächte führen, die die Welt zu beherrschen und zu versklaven suchen, weil sie alle tatsächlich die gleiche totalitäre Logik üben, die sich auf die Verweigerung des Königtums Christi stützen (Lk 4,7). Wir wissen, dass das Tier der Apokalypse, das versucht, die Frau und ihr Kind zu verschlingen, viele Köpfe hat … Allah verbietet auch solche Bündnisse (Koran 5,51)! Und vor allem haben die Propheten Israel immer getadelt für sein Willen, Bündnisse mit fremden Mächten einzugehen, auf Kosten des absoluten Vertrauens, das man in Gott haben muss. Sicher, stark ist die Versuchung zu glauben, dass eine islamophile Haltung den Christen in muslimischen Ländern zusätzliches Leiden ersparen werde, doch Jesus hat uns nie auf einen anderen Weg hingewiesen als den des Kreuzes, so dass wir auf diesen unsere Freude finden werden, und ihn nicht zu fliehen mit allen Verdammten, wir haben keinen Zweifel, dass nur die Verkündigung der Wahrheit uns mit dem Heil die Freiheit bringen wird (Joh 8,32). Unsere Pflicht ist es, Zeugnis zu geben für die Wahrheit „mit und gegen die Zeit“ (2 Tim 4,2) und unsere Ehre ist es, mit den hl. Paulus zu sagen: „Denn ich hatte mir vorgenommen nichts anderes unter euch zu wissen als Jesus Christus, und Jesus Christus als Gekreuzigten“ (1 Kor. 2.2).
Im Zusammenhang mit der Ansprache Eurer Heiligkeit über den Islam, und selbst dann als Präsident Erdogan, unter anderen, seine Mitbürger aufforderte, sich nicht in ihre Gastländer zu integrieren, Saudi-Arabien und alle Petro-Monarchien keinen einzigen Flüchtling aufnehmen, sind dies Ausdrücke unter anderen des Projekts der Eroberung und Islamisierung Europas, das seit Jahrzehnten offiziell von der OIC (Organisation für Islamische Zusammenarbeit) und anderen islamischen Organisationen ausgerufen wurden. Heiligster Vater, Sie predigen die Aufnahme von Migranten ohne darauf zu achten, dass sie Muslime sind, während das apostolische Gebot dies verbietet: „Wenn einer zu euch kommt und diese Lehre nicht bringt, den nehmt nicht auf in das Haus und sagt ihm auch nicht den Gruß; wer ihm den Gruß entbietet, macht sich teilhaftig seiner bösen Werke“ (2 Joh 1,10-11); „Wenn jemand euch ein anderes Evangelium verkündet, als ihr empfangen habt, so sei er verflucht!“ (Gal 1,9).
Jesus hat nie gesagt: „Ich war ein Eindringling und ihr habt mich aufgenommen.“ Oder gar: „Ich war ein Fremder und ihr habt mich aufgenommen.“ Genau wie „Ich war hungrig und ihr habt mir kein Essen gegeben“ (Mt 25,35), kann nicht bedeuten, dass Jesus gerne ein Parasit gewesen wäre, auch „Ich war ein Fremder und ihr habt mich nicht willkommen geheißen“, kann nicht bedeuten „Ich war ein Eindringling und du hast mich nicht willkommen geheißen“. Aber „Ich brauchte deine Gastfreundschaft für eine Weile, und ihr habt sie mir gegeben“. Das Wort ξένος (Xenos) im Neuen Testament bezieht sich nicht nur auf die Bedeutung des Fremden, sondern auf die des Wirtes (Röm 16,23, 1 Kor 16,5-6, Kol 4,10, 3 Joh 1,5). Und wenn YHWH im Alten Testament befiehlt, Ausländer gut zu behandeln, weil die Hebräer selbst Ausländer in Ägypten waren, so ist es unter der Bedingung, dass sich der Ausländer so gut in das auserwählte Volk integriert, indem er seine Religion und die Kultausübungen übernimmt … Nie geht es um die Tatsache, einen Fremden aufzunehmen, der seine Religion und seine Sitten beibehält! Wir verstehen auch nicht, dass Sie die Muslime auffordern, ihre Religion in Europa auszuüben. Die Interpretation der Heiligen Schrift darf nicht den Befürwortern der Globalisierung überlassen werden, sondern aus der Treue zur Tradition hervorgehen. Der Gute Hirte verjagt den Wolf, er führt ihn nicht in die Schafherde ein.
Die pro-islamische Ansprache Eurer Heiligkeit führt uns dazu, die Tatsache zu bedauern, dass Muslime nicht eingeladen werden, den Islam zu verlassen, dass viele Ex-Muslime, wie Magdi Allam, die Kirche verlassen, angewidert von Feigheit, verwundet von zweideutigen Gesten, verwirrt durch den Mangel an Evangelisierung, empört über das Lob, das dem Islam gegeben wird… So werden unwissende Seelen irregeführt, und die Christen werden nicht vorbereitet auf die Konfrontation mit dem Islam, zu dem der hl. Johannes Paul II. Aufgerufen hatte (Ecclesia in Europa, Nr. 57). Wir haben den Eindruck, dass Ihr Mitbruder Bischof Nona Amel, ein aus Mosul verbannter chaldäischer Erzbischof, in der Wüste ruft: „Unsere gegenwärtigen Leiden sind der Auftakt für diejenigen, die ihr, Europäer und westliche Christen, in naher Zukunft erleiden werdet. Ich habe meine Diözese verloren. Der Sitz meiner Erzdiözese und mein Apostolat wurde von radikalen Islamisten besetzt, die wollen, dass wir konvertieren oder sterben. (…) Sie nehmen in ihrem Land immer mehr Muslime auf. Sie sind auch in Gefahr. Sie müssen starke und mutige Entscheidungen treffen (…). Sie denken, dass alle Menschen gleich sind, aber der Islam sagt nicht, dass alle Menschen gleich sind. (…) Wenn sie das nicht sehr schnell verstehen, werden sie zu den Opfern des Feindes, den sie in ihrem Haus aufgenommen haben“ (9. August 2014). Es geht um Leben und Tod, und jede Selbstgefälligkeit gegenüber dem Islam ist Verrat. Wir wollen nicht, dass der Westen sich weiter islamisiert und dass Ihre Handlungen dazu beitragen. Wohin sollten wir gehen, um erneut Zuflucht zu suchen?
Erlauben Sie uns, Eure Heiligkeit zu bitten, schnell eine Synode über die Gefahren des Islam einzuberufen. Was ist von der Kirche übriggeblieben, wo sich der Islam niedergelassen hat? Wenn ihr noch Stadtrecht gewährt wird, dann ist es in Dhimmitude (als Schutzbefohlene), vorausgesetzt, dass sie nicht evangelisiert, dass sie sich deshalb selbst verleugnen muss… Im Interesse von Gerechtigkeit und Wahrheit muss die Kirche offen zeigen, warum die Argumente des Islam, den christlichen Glauben zu lästern, falsch sind. Wenn die Kirche den Mut dazu hat, bezweifeln wir nicht, dass Millionen, Muslime und andere Männer und Frauen, die den wahren Gott suchen, sich bekehren werden. Wie Sie in Erinnerung gebracht haben: „Wer nicht zu Christus betet, betet zum Teufel“ (14.03.13). Wenn die Menschen wüssten, dass sie zur Hölle gehen würden, würden sie ihr Leben Christus geben (vgl. Koran 3.55).
Mit der tiefsten Liebe zu Christus, der durch Sie seine Kirche führt, bitten wir, Katholiken aus dem Islam konvertiert und unterstützt von vielen unserer Glaubensbrüder, besonders den Christen des Ostens, und von unseren Freunden, Eure Heiligkeit, unsere Bekehrung zu Jesus Christus, wahrer Gott und wahrer Mensch, einziger Erlöser, durch eine offene und rechte Ansprache über den Islam zu bestätigen. Wir versichern Ihnen unsere Gebete im Herzen der Unbefleckten, und erbitten Euren Apostolischen Segen.
Liste der Unterzeichner und entsprechende E-Mail-Adressen (Wahrscheinlich werden nicht alle ehemaligen Muslime diesen Brief unterschreiben aus Angst vor möglichen Repressalien…).

http://exmusulmanschretiens.fr/de/


I keep on hearing that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and that Islam is a religion like any other. Terrorists are not real Muslims. Well then, where is this fancy Muslim country where a peaceful and democratic Islam exists? There are many Muslim countries around the globe, but not a single one of them observes the basic human rights like in any given Western (Christian-founded) democracy. Such a country simply does not exist - which in turn can only mean Islam is NOT a religion like any other.


Bishop of Mosul is Weeping...

What do Muslims believe about the Bible?

They do believe that both Old and New Testament are valid and ought to be believed in (you find that in several Suras - like 2:98 or 2:136), but they also claim that both Jews and Christians have corrupted these Scriptures. So what about it? Have we? Muhammad himself said in the 7th century that we need to believe and obey to what the Bible says.

Let’s take a look at the scientific evidence: Between 200 BC and AD 68 the Dead Sea scrolls were written and later rediscovered. They prove beyond any doubt that the Old Testament as we have it now is exactly the same that existed before the time of Jesus.

What about the New Testament? If you take a look at the historical facts and the Fathers of the Church, you also can see very clearly that today’s New Testament is the same the Apostles left.
Besides: Around 400 the Bible as we have it now was officially approved by the Church. That was 200 years before Muhammad was born!!

Therefore the claim that the Bible is true and Muslims have to obey it, but that we can’t really trust it because it had been corrupted is wrong.

We could even go as far as to say (along with Hilaire Beloc) that the Islam is nothing but a Christian heresy. Islam’s claims contradict the Bible, the history and common sense.

Muslims say the Koran must be believed in. But why? So do the Mormons with their “Book of Mormon”. All sorts of groups and people claim to be “inspired”. Give us some prove!

We can prove our point: If you read the early Church Fathers, some of whom even knew the Apostles themselves, you can clearly see that the teachings back then were Catholic – not Islamic. The quotes those Church Fathers are the same we use today.

What do you have?

Let’s take a closer look to what the Koran says:

It tells Muhammad to confirm God’s revelations by using a Bible verse in Sura 10:94. That does not go along with Muslim teaching: In the Sura mentioned above God tells Muhammad to ask those who have read the Scriptures before him. Why would God do that if these Scriptures were corrupted by Jews and/or Christians?

So the Bible is corrupted and the Koran is not. Why? Because it’s Allah’s book and He protects it. Does He? If that is true, why would He not protect His first book, the Bible?

Muslims also say that the Bible points to the prophet Muhammad in John 15:26 (““When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.“ NIV). So a corrupted Bible points to Muhammad? How can that be?

And if you assume the above claim, we need to also believe the other claim the Bible makes: Jesus being divine – the Son of God. Who tells us which Bible passages we can trust and which not?

Most of all: If the Bible had been corrupted, give us some prove. Show us the uncorrupted originals of the Bible. You can’t – because they don’t exist. So you can’t tell which Bible verses you can trust and which not either.

Next one: If you say the Old Testament had been corrupted, we need to ask you when that took place. As we have the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know that it was not corrupted after Jesus. However, if it was corrupted before, why didn’t Jesus mention it and warn us about it?

If you claim that Christians corrupted the New Testament, where is your proof? Who, when and where corrupted what exactly? You can’t give a proof because there is none.

So far, thousands of ancient Bibles that have the same content like those today were found all over the world. Not a single one of what Muslims might see as “not corrupted Bible” (the “original” so-to-speak) has been found to this day. Not a single archeological evidence.

Nothing.

Muslims sometimes also claim that the uncorrupted versions of the Bible were destroyed or suppressed on purpose. So far, however, they have not presented any evidence for that either. No mentioning of that in the whole history of Christianity. Besides: how exactly was that done? How did those who allegedly suppressed the true versions managed to do that all over the world? Back then there was no internet that you could infiltrate. It is simply impossible that this could have happened.

All Bibles are the same in content. If you claim there had been a corruption, there must have been a difference between the Bible verses that came before and those that came afterwards. None of that has ever been found. Furthermore, there would have been open resistance by faithful Christians. None of that has ever been documented.

Had there been a corruption, the Jews and Romans during the time of the early Church would have most likely used that against the Christian and protected the original version of the Holy Bible. Nothing of that has ever been heard or documented.

No historian ever – Jewish, Christian, pagan or non-believer – has ever mentioned a corruption of the Bible. How can this be if there was one?

Because that alleged corruption never took place. It is mere fantasy.

Robert

(For more information, go and get this resource: Beginning Apologetics 9. How to Answer Muslims. By Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. San Juan Catholic Seminars. www.catholicapologetics.com)


Interview with Mr. Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch:


Mr. Spencer, you thankfully agreed for an interview. I am positive your input is much needed over here.


Robert Gollwitzer: You are the director of Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org) and author of many books. Can you explain to us what your organization is all about?


Robert Spencer: Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. By shedding as much light as possible on these matters, we hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.


RG: What you are doing is certainly not "politically correct" and as such labeled as "islamophobic" or "racist". What do you answer those who try to make things simple by putting the adversary in a radical corner?


RS: Islam is not a race. Nor is the jihad massacre of innocent civilians. “Islamophobia” is a smear propaganda term designed to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror. To oppose jihad terror and Sharia supremacism is simple common sense for anyone who values pluralistic and secular societies.

RG: Why do we need an organization like Jihad Watch?


RS: Because there is a massive effort at disinformation and misinformation about the nature and magnitude of the threat. Jihad Watch aims to expose those lies and tell the truth.


RG: The West seems to be incredibly naive when it comes to Islam. Politicians, churches, schools, media etc. see it as a religion like any other. Do you agree?


RS: Yes, they do. There is no recognition of the fact that Islam has and has always had a core political component.


RG: "But not every Muslim is a radical!" is the standard answer when it comes to discussing Islam. Is the problem radical or not radical or is it Islam itself?


RS: The problem is rooted in the texts and teachings of Islam that jihadis cite to justify acts of violence and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims.


RG: You are not against Muslims, but against Islam - most of all radical Islam. Why the distinction?


RS: Islamic teaching is one thing, and how any given Muslim puts it into practice — if he does at all — is quite another. Human nature is everywhere the same. The ideology is the problem, not the people who may or may not fervently hold to that ideology.


RG: How do you feel about Donald Trump becoming the next President of the USA? Is that good news for you?


RS: It is very good news because he promises to address the jihad problem realistically, which neither Bush nor Obama did.


RG: Many young people leave Christian churches and convert to Islam. Why do you think this is the case?


RS: Because it presents an alternative to the prevailing relativism, and taps into the anti-Western sentiment that is now taught everywhere in the West.


RG: People like you, Pamela Geller or Geert Wilders are being shunned by everyone as radical fundamentalists. "Hate preachers". Why do you think people act like that?


RS: Herd mentality. The elites tell them it is so and most people don’t look into the question themselves to discover whether or not the charges are true.


RG: What do you think about the rise of right-wing parties in Europe?


RS: This is a reaction to the leftist elites’ refusal to address the legitimate concerns of their citizens.


RG: What should everyone know about Islam and what should politicians, churches and simple people do?


RS: Islam has a doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. All informed people in the West should be working to inform others about this.


RG: What role does Israel play when it comes to Islam?


RS: Israel is on the front lines of the global jihad.


RG: What message do you have for regular Muslims?


RS: Renounce the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with Western freedoms of principles of human rights, and you will be welcome here.


RG: Last question: I am sure you are being attacked, insulted and put down on a regular basis. What gives you the strength to hold on through?


RS: I know that what I am saying is true.


RG: Mr. Spencer, thank you very much for this interview. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and your family!


Robert Gollwitzer

www.robert-gollwitzer.com


Dr. Brown claims that while there is a direct link from the Quran to Islamic terrorism, there is no link from the New Testament to so-called Christian terrorism, a term that he claims is a complete oxymoron. http://bit.ly/1QzyXpS

Posted by AskDrBrown on Freitag, 11. Dezember 2015

Polish priest electrifies massive crowd! http://bit.ly/1I7tyFk

Posted by Church Militant on Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016

I love Muslims - that's why I fight Islam!

Franciscan University Presents: Catholics and Islam

Why are people in the West attracted by Islam?

Islam finds surprising numbers of converts in western countries - especially among young people. How can that be? Well, first it shows that there is a spiritual need in all of us that nothing can completely delete. People are looking for something else and they are hungry for more. Very hungry. Obviously the oftentimes wishy-washy offers of traditional Christian mainstream churches are far from quenching their spiritual thirst. Plus you have so many different and often opposing views of what being a Christian is all about, of what is right and what is wrong (and why!), that I can’t blame them for running to the hills. People are simply not spiritually fed anymore in Christian churches. They are looking for an alternative, for clear and simple rules to live by, for a safe haven within a community that backs them – and Islam offers all of that. At least at first view. They might find out later that Islam is not really what they thought it is, but it definitely seems to be a hook for many. How to respond? On a positive note Christians need to give people what they need: Spiritual food. Real food, not that “me, myself and I”-feel-good Christianity, but the truth. Other than that we need to tell people what Islam is all about and how to respond to its claims. Islam looks good at first, but is a major deception and will certainly not still the people’s spiritual needs. As long as we do not give them a clear and solid alternative, it makes no sense whining that they are running away from Christianity. We need to roll up our sleeves at first and get our own house in order so it will be attractive enough for people to want to be in there too!

Robert

The Myths of Islam

TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:
 

The Myths of Islam


Muslims often complain of popular "misconceptions" about their religion in the West.

We took a hard look, however, and found that the most prevalent myths of Islam are the ones held by Muslims and Western apologists.  The only glaring exception to this is the misconception that all Muslims are alike (they aren't, of course), but even Muslims often believe this as well, as evidenced by the various contrary factions insisting that they are the  true Muslims, while those who disagree with them are either infidels, hijackers, or hypocrites.

Don't be fooled!  Hear the myths, but know the truth.


Islam Means 'Peace'

Islam respects Women as Equals

Jihad Means 'Inner Struggle'

Islam is a Religion of Peace

Islam is Tolerant of Other Religions

Islam Facilitated a 'Golden Age' of Scientific Discovery

Islam is Opposed to Slavery

Islam is Incompatible with Terrorism

Islam is a Democracy

The Quran is the Muslim Counterpart to the Bible

 

Islam Means ‘Peace’

The Myth:

Lesser educated Muslims sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic.

The Truth:

An Arabic word only has one root.  The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.”  There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.   

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission.  As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to  subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule.  This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures.

 

Islam Respects Women as Equals

The Myth:

The Quran places men and women on equal foundation before Allah.  Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds.  Women have equal rights under Islamic law.

The Truth:

Merely stating that individuals will be judged as such by Allah does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men despite the efforts of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such progressive interpretation.

After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men.  In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands.  Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers.  There are four Quranic verses in which "Allah" makes clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape.

The Quran gives Muslim men permission to beat their wives for disobedience, but nowhere does it command love in marriage.  It plainly says that husbands are “a degree above” wives.  The Hadith says that women are intellectually inferior, and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants.

Under Islamic law, a man may divorce his wife at his choosing.  If he does this twice, then wishes to remarry her, she must first have sex with another man.  Men are exempt from such degradations.

Muslim women are not free to marry whom they please, as are Muslim men.  Their husband may also bring other wives (and slaves) into the marriage bed.  And she must be sexually available to him at any time (as a field ready to be “tilled,” according to the holy book of Islam).

Muslim women do not inherit property in equal portion to males.  This is somewhat ironic given that Islam owes its existence to the wealth of Muhammad's first wife, which would not otherwise have been inherited by her given that she had two brothers and her first husband had three sons.

A woman's testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s, according to the Quran.  Unlike a man, she must also cover her head - and often her face.

If a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then there must be four male witnesses to corroborate her account.  Otherwise she can be jailed or stoned to death for confessing to “adultery.”

Given all of this, it is quite a stretch to say that men and women have “equality under Islam” based on obscure theological analogies or comparisons.  This is an entirely new ploy that is designed for modern tastes and disagrees sharply with the reality of Islamic law and history.




Jihad Means 'Inner Struggle'

 

The Myth:

Islam’s Western apologists sometimes claim that since the Arabic word, Jihad, literally means “fight” or “struggle,” it refers to an “inner struggle” rather than holy war.

The Truth:  

In Arabic, "jihad" means struggle.  In Islam, it means holy war.

The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle.  It is also unclear why Muhammad and his Quran would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of character development.

With this in mind, Muslim apologists generally admit that there are two meanings to the word, but insist that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.”  In fact, this misconception is based only on an a single hadith that Islamic scholars generally agreed was fabricated.

By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith collections is that of Bukhari.  Jihad is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one carries a clear connotation to holy war, with only a handful of possible exceptions (dealing with a woman's supporting role during a time of holy war).


 

Islam is a Religion of Peace

The Myth:  

Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same.  Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary.  True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:

There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere.  According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

In truth, Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them.  The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way.  Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim.  Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.

The prophet of Islam's most faithful followers and even his own family soon turned on each other as well.  There were four caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his.  Three of these four were murdered.  The third caliph was murdered by those allied with the son of the first caliph.  The fourth caliph was murdered in the midst of a conflict with the fifth caliph, who began a 100-year dynasty of excess and debauchery that was brought to an end in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle (who was not even a Muslim).

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad.  Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals.  Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis.  His people became Shias.  The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.

Muslim apologists, who like to say that is impossible for today's terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims, would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima's followers and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience.  Muhammad explicitly held up both his favorite daughter and his favorite wife as model Muslim women, yet they were invoked respectively by each side in the violent civil war that followed his death.  Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about?

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus).  For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa.  Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans.  The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory).  To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of God as does Islam.  The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Quran most transparently.  They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.  In the absence of true infidels, they will even turn on each other.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith, as well as the aforementioned "hypocrites" (Muslims who don't act like Muslims).  In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Quran travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory).  The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message.  While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in "peaceful Islam" have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists.  By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.  In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power - and even then...


 

Islam is Tolerant of Other Religions

The Myth:  

Religious minorities have flourished under Islam.  Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion.  To me, mine."

The Truth:

Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam.  In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination.  Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude.

What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination.  The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims.  They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission.

Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation.  They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya).  They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector’s requirements.

For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks.

It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many religious minorities converted to Islam over the centuries.  Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism.

For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority.  The Quran tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.”  The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam).

Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, and displaced or forcibly converted millions more over the last thousand years.  Islamists in Somalia behead Christians.  In Iran, they are jailed.

One of the great ironies of Islam is that non-Muslims are to be treated according to the very standards by which Muslims themselves would claim the right to violent self-defense were the shoe on the other foot.  Islam is its own justification.  Most Muslims therefore feel no need to explain the ingrained arrogance and double standard.

There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief.  There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.

As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims.  At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others.  By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam.  In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109.

If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not.  But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun.

 

Islam and the “Golden Age” of Scientific Discovery

The Myth:

Muslims often claim that their religion fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.  On this topic, they usually refer to the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was acquiring new populations and culture through violent conquest.

The Truth:

Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was relatively more advanced during this period than the “Christian” world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion).  In fact, the religion tends to discourages knowledge outside of itself, which is why the most prolific Muslim scholars are usually students of religion rather than science.

[Note that the country of Spain alone translates more learning material and literature into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century.  As the Saudi Grand Mufti bluntly put it in 2010, "The Quran with its stories and knowledge are sufficient for us... we don't need the Torah, or Gospels, or any other book].

The many fundamentalists and other devotees who dress as Muhammad did and adopt 7th century lifestyles to some degree or another underscore the importance of tradition in Islam.  The religion is highly conservative and resistant to change, which is viewed with suspicion.  As scholar Bernard Lewis points out, in Islam an innovation is presumed to be bad unless it can be proven to be good.

Beyond this, there are four basic reasons why Islam has little true claim to scientific achievement:

First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences, which were translated for them by dhimmi Christians and Jews.  To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Europeans of the time, and this became the foundation for their own knowledge.  (One large reason for this, however, was that access by Christians to this part of their world was cut off by Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period).

Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims.  The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam when, in fact, it was a Hindu discovery that was merely introduced to the West by Muslims.

In truth, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude).  The Muslim concentration within a population is proportional to the decline of scientific achievement.  It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 800 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize.

Third, even accomplished Muslim scientists and cultural icons were often considered heretics in their day, sometimes with good reason.  One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Persian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi.  His impressive works are often held up today as “proof” of Muslim accomplishment.  But what the apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam.

Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic.  There is the 'invention' of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir (and assassin, by the way), but not much else that survives in modern technology which is of practical significance.  Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation.

As an example, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee - in the sense that they popularized existing knowledge of Africans who were caught up in the Arab slave trade.  However, it is also true that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America.  It is extremely unlikely that the West would not have stumbled across coffee by now.

In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement.  One often doesn't hear about the dismal fate of original accomplishments either.  Those who brag about the great observatory of Taqi al-Din in [freshly conquered] Istanbul, for example, often neglect to mention that it was quickly destroyed by the caliphate.

At the end of the day, the record of scientific, medical and technological accomplishment is not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a contest with the Christian world.  Today’s Islamic innovators are primarily known for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder.

To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator.  The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam.  Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether.

 

Islam is Opposed to Slavery

The Myth:

Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings.  The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.

The Truth:

There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Quran.  In fact, the “holy” book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras.  Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch.

The very presence of these rules condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery.  Adding to this is the fact that Muhammad was an avid slave trader.  After providing ample evidence of his activities according to the most reliable Muslim biographers, the Center of the Study of Political Islam summarizes its findings as such:

    Muhammad captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and used slaves for work.  The Sira is exquisitely clear on the issue of slavery. (Muhammad and the Unbelievers: a Political Life)

Even the very pulpit from which Muhammad preached Islam was built by slave labor on his command!

The Quran tells Muslims to emulate the example of Muhammad, who has the most "exalted character".  As such, the deeply dehumanizing horror of slavery has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam for 14 centuries, including the modern plight of non-Muslim slaves in the Sudan, Mali, Niger, Mauritania, and other parts of the Muslim world.

There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement).  The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law.

Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West.  The absence of a guilty Muslim conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam - when it is actually indicative of the explicit tolerance the religion has for the practice

So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, along with their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude.

Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam.  Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery.  Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period in the 1500-1600's.  In India, 200,000 Hindus were captured and transported to Iranian slave markets in just a two year span (1619-1620) by one of the kinder Muslim rulers.

African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters.  Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery.  The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers.

There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity.  When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself.  But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of divinely-sanctioned slavery, is the best that Islam can offer in the way of an abolitionist, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant.


 

Islam is Incompatible with Terrorism

The Myth:

Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism.  It is against Islam to kill innocent people.

The Truth:

Islam does prohibit killing innocent people.  Unfortunately, you don't qualify.

Even though many Muslims earnestly believe that their religion prohibits the killing of innocent people by acts of terrorism, the truth is certainly more complicated.  This is why Muslims on both sides of the terror debate accuse the other of hijacking Islam while insisting that they are the true believers.  It is also why organizations that commit horrible atrocities in the name of Allah, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, receive a significant amount of moral and financial support from the mainstream.

In fact, the definition of "terrorism" in Islam is ambiguous at best. And the definition of an “innocent person” in Islam isn't something that Muslim apologists advertise when they say that such persons aren't to be harmed.  The reason for this is that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent according to Islamic teaching.

Consider that a great deal of the Quran is devoted to describing the horrible punishment that awaits those who refuse to become Muslim.  How then can Muslims say that the subjects of divine wrath are innocent people?

The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.”  Specifically , these would be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the jizya (tribute to Muslims).  Yet, the word “dhimmi” is derived from an Arabic root that means “guilt” or "blame."  ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy" Amitav Ghosh, "In an Antique Land"].

So, if even the dhimma have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah’s full truth), how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay the jizya be considered “innocent?”

Even within the Islamic community there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt – greater, even, than the average non-believer.  These are the hypocrites, or “Munafiqin,” whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms.  A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only.  They are distinguished from true Muslims, according to the 9th Sura, by an unwillingness to wage (v.81, 86) or fund (v.121) holy war.  True believers fight and are harsh to unbelievers (v.123).

The Muslim terrorists who frequently kill "other Muslims" in the name of Allah do so believing that their victims are Munafiqin or kafir (unbelievers).  This is a part of Sharia known as takfir, in which a Muslim can be declared an apostate and then executed for their role in hindering the expansion of Islamic authority.  (A true Muslim would go to paradise anyway, in which case he or she could hardly be expected to nurse a grudge amidst the orgy of sex and wine).

In addition to the murky definition of innocence, there is also the problem of distinguishing terrorism from holy war.  Islamic terrorists rarely refer to themselves as terrorists, but usually say that they are holy warriors (Mujahideen, Shahid, or Fedayeen).  They consider their acts to be a form of Jihad.

Holy war is commanded in the Quran and Hadith.  In Sura 9:29, Muhammad establishes the principle that unbelievers should be fought until they either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic subjugation.  This is confirmed in the Hadith by both Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.

In many places, the prophet of Islam says that Jihad is the ideal path for a Muslim, and that believers should “fight in the way of Allah.”  There are dozens of open-ended passages in the Quran that exhort killing and fighting – far more than there are of peace and tolerance.  It is somewhat naïve to think that their inclusion in this "eternal discourse between God and Man" was of historical value only and not intended to be relevant to present-day believers, particularly when there is little to nothing within the text to distinguish them in such fashion.

Combine the Quran's exhortation to holy war with the ambiguity of innocence and a monumental problem develops that cannot be patched over by mere semantics.  Not only is there a deep tolerance for violence in Islam, but also a sharp disagreement and lack of clarity over the conditions that justify this violence - and just whom the targets may be.

Even many of those Muslims who claim to be against terrorism still support the “insurgency” in Iraq, for example, and often entertain the allegation that there is a broader “war against Islam.”  Although American troops in Iraq were trying to protect innocent life and help the country rebuild, Muslims around the world and in the West believe that it was legitimate for true believers to try and kill them.

Enjoying the sanction of holy war, the Mujahid thus reasoned that it is permissible to attack fellow Iraqis – the ones helping the Americans - even if they are part of a democratically-elected Iraqi government.  These non-combatants and combatants alike are believed to be the “Munafiqin” or "Takfir" assisting the enemy “Crusaders.”

Although we use Iraq as an example here, this is the same rationale that is ultimately behind all Islamic terror, from the Philippines to Thailand.  Wherever the Muslim religion is a minority, there are always radicals who believe that violence is justified in bringing Islam to dominance - just as Muhammad taught and set by example in Mecca and other places, such as the land of al-Harith.

And what of the so-called “innocents” who suffer from the bombings and shootings?  Even in Muhammad’s time they were unavoidable.  The much-touted hadith in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women, for example, also indicates that there were such casualties in his attacks on other tribes.

If there is any doubt that he believed that the forbidden is sometimes necessary, it should be put to rest by an incident in which Muhammad's men warned him that a planned night raid against an enemy camp would mean that women and children would be killed.  He merely replied “they are of them,” meaning the men.

This is the slippery slope opened by the sanction of holy war.  What starts out as the perception of a noble cause of self-defense against a supposed threat gradually devolves into a "let Allah sort them out" campaign through a series of logical steps that are ultimately justified by the sublime goal of Islamic rule.

Islam is not intended to co-exist as an equal with other religions.  It is to be the dominant religion with Sharia as the supreme law.  Islamic rule is to be extended to the ends of the earth and resistance is to be dealt with by any means necessary.

Apologists in the West often shrug off the Quran's many verses of violence by saying that they are relevant only in a “time of war.”

To this, Islamic terrorists would agree.  They are at war.

 

Islam is a Democracy

The Myth:

Islam is compatible with democratic principles.  The religion itself is a democracy.

The Truth:

A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender.  The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other.  The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.

Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights.  The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less.  Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim.  In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah.  A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political.  The people are never to be placed above the Quran and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.

It is somewhat debatable as to whether there are any states in the Muslim world that qualify as actual democracies.  There is no denying, however, that the tiny handful that are often held up as democratic nations are ones in which deep tension exists between the government and religious leaders, as the latter often complain that democracy is an idolatrous system imposed on them.

Islam does not facilitate democracy.


 

The Quran is the Muslim Counterpart to the Bible

The Myth:

The Quran is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians (and the Torah to Jews).

The Truth:

The Quran only contains what is presented as the literal words of Allah - as relayed by Muhammad.  It can be compared to a manufactured text that includes only the words of Jesus (the so-called "red-letter" verses) extracted from their New Testament historical context and then randomly mixed together (the chapters of the Quran are arranged by size and themes are rarely consistent even within each chapter).

By contrast, the Bible contains history and biographical detail.  For example, there is nothing in the Quran that details Muhammad's life, whereas the Bible contains four books that present all that is known about the biography of Jesus.  Another distinction is that when the Bible commands violence - as it does in a handful of Old Testament verses - the intended target is explicitly defined within the passage, leaving little doubt that it is a recounting of history and not an open-ended command for anyone else to do the same.

Despite the rhapsody with which Muslims sing the Quran's praises, there is an obvious reason why only a minority have actually bothered to delve deeper than an occasional sporadic perusal through its pages.  The random arrangement of verses and near absence of context makes it difficult to understand.  For this reason the Quran is rarely printed without the incorporation of voluminous commentary (that usually expresses the personal preferences of the translator).

In fact, the Muslim counterpart to the Bible is the Quran, Hadith and Sira combined.

The Hadith is a collection of anecdotes and historical snippets of Muhammad's life based on the relayed narrations of those who lived with him. Unfortunately, authenticity varies.  But the most dependable compilers are agreed by Muslims scholars to be Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, followed by Abu Dawud. It is on the Hadith that Islamic law (Sharia) is based.

The Sira is the biography of Muhammad's life. Again, there are reliability issues which would appear somewhat bewildering to Christians, given that the gospels were well in place within the first few centuries following the crucifixion - which preceded Muslim history by over 600 years.  Still, the most reliable biography of Muhammad was compiled by Ibn Ishaq, who wrote about 150 years after his death.  His original work survives only in what was "edited" by a later translator (Ibn Hisham, who admitted that he filtered out several accounts that were of a distasteful nature).

A failure to recognize that the Bible is only comparable to the Quran, Hadith and Sira together often leads to faulty accusation and misplaced analysis.

TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

©2007 - 2015 Site developed by TheReligionofPeace.com (used with permission)


Interview with Mr. Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch:


Mr. Spencer, you thankfully agreed for an interview. I am positive your input is much needed over here.


Robert Gollwitzer: You are the director of Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org) and author of many books. Can you explain to us what your organization is all about?


Robert Spencer: Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. By shedding as much light as possible on these matters, we hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.


RG: What you are doing is certainly not "politically correct" and as such labeled as "islamophobic" or "racist". What do you answer those who try to make things simple by putting the adversary in a radical corner?


RS: Islam is not a race. Nor is the jihad massacre of innocent civilians. “Islamophobia” is a smear propaganda term designed to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror. To oppose jihad terror and Sharia supremacism is simple common sense for anyone who values pluralistic and secular societies.

RG: Why do we need an organization like Jihad Watch?


RS: Because there is a massive effort at disinformation and misinformation about the nature and magnitude of the threat. Jihad Watch aims to expose those lies and tell the truth.


RG: The West seems to be incredibly naive when it comes to Islam. Politicians, churches, schools, media etc. see it as a religion like any other. Do you agree?


RS: Yes, they do. There is no recognition of the fact that Islam has and has always had a core political component.


RG: "But not every Muslim is a radical!" is the standard answer when it comes to discussing Islam. Is the problem radical or not radical or is it Islam itself?


RS: The problem is rooted in the texts and teachings of Islam that jihadis cite to justify acts of violence and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims.


RG: You are not against Muslims, but against Islam - most of all radical Islam. Why the distinction?


RS: Islamic teaching is one thing, and how any given Muslim puts it into practice — if he does at all — is quite another. Human nature is everywhere the same. The ideology is the problem, not the people who may or may not fervently hold to that ideology.


RG: How do you feel about Donald Trump becoming the next President of the USA? Is that good news for you?


RS: It is very good news because he promises to address the jihad problem realistically, which neither Bush nor Obama did.


RG: Many young people leave Christian churches and convert to Islam. Why do you think this is the case?


RS: Because it presents an alternative to the prevailing relativism, and taps into the anti-Western sentiment that is now taught everywhere in the West.


RG: People like you, Pamela Geller or Geert Wilders are being shunned by everyone as radical fundamentalists. "Hate preachers". Why do you think people act like that?


RS: Herd mentality. The elites tell them it is so and most people don’t look into the question themselves to discover whether or not the charges are true.


RG: What do you think about the rise of right-wing parties in Europe?


RS: This is a reaction to the leftist elites’ refusal to address the legitimate concerns of their citizens.


RG: What should everyone know about Islam and what should politicians, churches and simple people do?


RS: Islam has a doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. All informed people in the West should be working to inform others about this.


RG: What role does Israel play when it comes to Islam?


RS: Israel is on the front lines of the global jihad.


RG: What message do you have for regular Muslims?


RS: Renounce the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with Western freedoms of principles of human rights, and you will be welcome here.


RG: Last question: I am sure you are being attacked, insulted and put down on a regular basis. What gives you the strength to hold on through?


RS: I know that what I am saying is true.


RG: Mr. Spencer, thank you very much for this interview. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and your family!


Robert Gollwitzer

www.robert-gollwitzer.com


"Blasphemy with Breakfast" Dr. Scott Hahn

The Origins of Quran (To Know Islam) - Robert Spencer

Spiritual Warfare - So, is it life or death for us in these days? There is a way that seems right to each man but if that way leads to death, how shall it profit a man? Whose death can profit the faithful? Which way is right before God? Can Muslims, Christians and Jews agree on any issue!? Do the Children of Abraham not ALL want to please God? Each one wants to please God and bring about God’s will in the world and Lovelaw explains just how this can all come about!

Why Aren't All Muslims Jihadists?

The Victims of Islam

Islamophobia or Fear of Islam?

Mohammedans and Mohammedanism

Deception in Political Islam

The Political Side of Hijabs

"Rechtspopulistisch" - wohl eines der Lieblings-Wörter liberaler Medien und deren fehlgeleiteter Mitläufer. Kaum einer weiß wirklich, was das bedeuten soll. In der Regel benützt man es wohl, um das Wort "Nazis" zu vermeiden, aber doch eine Art "Nazi light" damit zu meinen. Nehmen wir Geert Wilders, der gerade auf einer Kundgebung in Deutschland sprach und natürlich wieder von den Medien und den Stammtisch-Politikern, die kritiklos alles an- und übernehmen, niedergemacht wurde. Nicht ein Einziger jedoch lieferte Belege für die wilden Behauptungen,die da über Pegida-Anhänger, Mitglieder und Herrn Wilders selbst gemacht wurden. Ich kann jedem nur wärmstens dessen Buch "Marked for Death" empfehlen. Im Gegensatz zu vielen seiner Kritiker hat dieser Mann nämlich eine detaillierte Ahnung von dem, was er spricht - und musste dafür zusammen mit seiner Familie einen hohen Preis zahlen. Ich habe bereits einen Teildavon gelesen und kann nur sagen, bisher kann ich jeden Satz aus vollem Herzen mit unterschreiben - im Gegensatz zu dem Müll, den ich da täglich als Medienberichterstattung und "Journalismus" präsentiert  bekomme.

Sharia and the Virtue of Hate

Verletzt Kritik am Islam die Religionsfreiheit, die Menschenwürde oder den Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz?

Ich kann nicht für andere sprechen, wohl aber für mich – und es ärgert mich, wenn jemand derartige „Argumente“ ins Feld führt. Haben diese Menschen keine Argumente für ihre Sache, dass sie auf so etwas Billiges zurückgreifen müssen?

Oft wird Kritik am Islam auch mit „Rechtspopulismus“ gleichgesetzt. Argumente von Islam-Gegnern gelten als „Einschüchterungsstrategien“ oder ganz einfach als „Parolen“. Nochmals: Wer keine eigenen Argumente hat, muss offenbar Andersdenkende ganz einfach schlecht machen, um selber besser da zu stehen.

Derartiges beinhaltet, dass jegliche Kritik am Islam moralisch abzulehnen ist – und mit ihr die Menschen, die so denken. Gegenfrage: was ist „moralisch“ an einer solchen Haltung?
Auf meiner Homepage habe ich mich intensiv mit dem Islam auseinander gesetzt. Du findest hier viele Quellen und einiges an Material, so dass man mir wohl kaum Oberflächlichkeit oder „Rechtspopulismus“ unterstellen kann.

Ich halte es für eine irrige Auffassung, zu meinen, wer eine Religion kritisiert, verletze damit die Religionsfreiheit. Ich bin Christ und als solcher glaube ich, dass Gott jedem Menschen die Freiheit der Wahl schenkt – eine Wahl mit Konsequenzen jedoch. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass ich nicht das, was ich an anderen Glaubensrichtungen falsch oder gar gefährlich halte, nicht kritisieren dürfte – im Gegenteil. Auch bedeutet Dialog oder Ökumene nicht, dass wir uns alle zusammensetzen, Händchen halten und Liedchen singen. Es bedeutet vielmehr, sich zusammenzusetzen und auch die Unterschiede klar auf den Tisch zu bringen sowie Missstände anzuprangern. Es verletzt die Menschenwürde, wenn so getan wird, als würde es diese Missstände nicht geben – ein Schlag ins Gesicht der Opfer!

Auch verletze ich als Christ mit Sicherheit nicht den Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz, wenn ich den Islam – insbesondere den radikalen Islam – kritisiere. Für mich – und vor Gott! - sind alle Menschen gleich, was man aber vom Islam bzw. von islamischen Ländern nicht so ohne weiteres behaupten kann.

Wer Argumente, die der eigenen Auffassung widersprechen, pauschal als „Parolen“ bezeichnet, stellt sich in meinen Augen selbst ein Armutszeugnis aus. Wie schwach muss da die eigene Position sein, wenn man es nötig hat, andere derart zu verunglimpfen und ihnen von vorneherein zu unterstellen, sie könnten ja gar keine vernünftigen, sachlichen und logischen Aussagen zustande bringen?

Auch denke ich, dass manche viel zu naiv sind, was den Islam angeht. Meist hört man Aussagen wie „Der Islam an sich ist friedfertig. Schließlich bedeutet „Islam“ ja „Friede“. Nur ein geringer Teil der Moslems ist gewalttätig“. Natürlich ist nicht jeder Moslem ein Terrorist und ich bin fest überzeugt, dass viele Moslems versuchen, aufrichtig an etwas zu glauben. Diese Menschen respektiere ich wie ich alle Menschen respektiere. Jedoch bedeutet „Friede“ im Islam nicht was wir in unserer christlich geprägten Kultur darunter verstehen, sondern vielmehr die bedingungslose Unterordnung eines Sklaven unter den Willen seines Meisters. Auch ist der Islam an sich nicht einfach nur eine andere Art und Weise, an Gott zu glauben, und schon gar nicht Privatsache, sondern mit öffentlich zum Tragen kommenden Konsequenzen. Ich sehe den Islam an sich keineswegs als eine friedliche Religion, sondern eher als eine politische Ideologie, die meinem christlichen Glauben und den damit verbundenen Werten zutiefst widerspricht. Wenn der Islam so harmlos und friedlich ist, warum gibt es dann kein einziges islamisches Land, das dem entspricht und eine Religionsfreiheit vergleichbar mit der unseren hat? Warum gibt es keinen massenhaften Aufschrei von Moslems, wenn im Namen des Islam Terror-Akte begangen werden?

Manchmal werden friedliche Verse des Koran zitiert. Wenige aber kennen das Prinzip der „Abrogation“ im Islam, bei dem bei zwei Aussagen, die einander widersprüchlich gegenüber stehen, die jüngeren Datums gilt. Vor diesem Hintergrund müssen einzelne Suren genau geprüft werden. Auch scheint so einiges erlaubt zu sein, wenn es nur dem Wohl des Islams entspricht - was ich als Christ zutiefst ablehne. Schließlich sehe ich die Entstehungsgeschichte und Entwicklung des Islam sowie dessen Bestrebung, überall die Scharia einzuführen, mit sehr kritischen Augen. Wer vor diesem Hintergrund glaubt, dass Glaube ja eh nur Privatsache ist und es somit auch zweitrangig ist, ob die Mehrheit in einem Land nun christlich oder muslimisch ist (selbst wenn die Mehrheit in Deutschland muslimisch wäre, würde unsere Demokratie ja dieselbe bleiben), ist entweder sehr naiv, oder unwissend –oder er lügt mit voller Absicht.
Wer bestimmt denn eigentlich, was der „wahre“ Islam ist? Man kann ja nun wohl kaum behaupten, dass es nur wenige seien, die radikal sind. Es gibt ganze islamische Länder, deren Grundsätze ich als radikal bezeichnen würde bzw. deren unmenschlichen Akte ich zutiefst ablehne. Es ist nicht nur der radikale Islam, den ich ablehne, sondern der Islam an sich. Dazu stehe ich und dabei bleibe nicht. Dies tue ich nicht, weil ich die Menschen, die sich als „Moslems“ bezeichnen, ablehne. Im Gegenteil – ich tue dies, weil sie mir am Herzen liegen.
Für Christen ist es nicht egal, was man glaubt und das Gebot, dass Jesus jedem Christen aufgetragen hat, ist hinauszugehen, Menschen zu taufen und zu Seinen Jüngern zu machen. Er hat uns weiterhin aufgetragen, an Seinen Lehren festzuhalten – egal was da kommt.

Nichts anderes will ich tun.

Robert

Dawa: Hamas' Brainwashing Strategy

Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know

Brigitte Gabriel gives FANTASTIC answer to Muslim woman claiming all Muslims are portrayed badly »

2. Deutscher Israelkongress - Mosab Hassan Yousef

Man kann von PEGIDA halten, was man will. Fairerweise sollte man doch aber zumindest aus ihrem Munde hören, was sie zu sagen haben und wofür sie stehen.

Rede von Michael Stürzenberger zur Islamisierung Deutschland

Understanding Radical Islam

Geert Wilders: Europas Bedrohung durch die Islamisierung