Anzeige

The trick behind the apparent inconsistency of the Quran and why the radical Muslims are always correct: Like no other holy book among the world religions, the Quran contains an abundance of contradictory expressions. What is forbidden in one place is expressly demanded in another, and vice versa. However, the contradictory quality of the Quran is only an apparent one. It falls apart abruptly when one recognizes the very carefully protected secret hidden within the architecture of the Quran. For the Quranic Suras (chapters) are not arranged chronologically, but rather according to their length – and the newer Suras (from Muhammad’s violent later phase when he was in Medina) override the older ones from his era in Mecca that were comparatively more peaceful. However, this secret is guarded by Islamic scholars very closely as if it were a holy grail – and is aired only on particular occasions.

(An Essay from Michael Mannheimer, Germany, March 23, 2010 / Translation: Anders Denken)

1. INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS

The plainly crucial question: Is Islam peaceful or dangerous?

In spite of the fact that almost all international terror acts of the last decade have been carried out by Muslims, Islamic scholars insist that Islam is a “religion of peace.” As the underpinning for their thesis, they cite Quran verses somewhate like Sura 5 verse 32, according to which the one who “kills a person,” shall be “like one who has murdered the whole of mankind“ (Islamic clerics, however, hide from their faithful followers that in this verse, Muhammad cited commandments from the Jews’ Talmud [Sanhedrin 4:1, 22a]). Critics of Islam confront Muslims about this with Suras that demand the opposite: namely the murder of infidels. Thus in Sura 47 verse 4, it says somewhat like: “And if you meet the infidels, then off with their head until you have spread a massacre among them.”

Almost every media report about Islam, nearly all talk shows with and about Muslims and their faith revolve around the central question of whether Islam is a religion of peace or of terror. And most of the reports and talk shows consistently finish the same way: the mostly uninformed viewer is exactly as knowledgeable as before. For the defenders of Islam cite ostensibly peaceful Quran verses while their critics point to the countless terrorist acts of violence that are carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. Like with communism once upon a time, nowadays the Muslim advocates also answer with the remark that those violent acts have nothing to do with Islam. And like the communists back then, most Muslims today also regularly suppress the reports of the thousands of atrocities and human rights offenses – committed in the countries of Islam and the countries of “infidels” – in their debates and in contrast point to the alleged guilt of the West, to its colonization and capitalism as the real cause for that terror. As communists did in their time, Muslims and their Western apologists assert today that the worldwide terror acts have to do with the “understandable” and desperate condition of the the poorest in the face of the dominance and humiliation from the West, and in reality have nothing to do with Islam.

However, the facts speak a totally different language. In the Index of Christian Persecution by Open Doors that lists the 50 worst countries for persecution of Christians, 40 places are occupied by Islamic states – in the highest position. And in the Anticorruption Index of the UN, Islamic states consistently show as the most corrupt power structures on our planet. And the majority of applicants for asylum in Western lands originate from Islamic countries in which almost all human rights are systematically denied (in Holland, some nine out of ten applicants are from Islamic countries).

Since the first days of their religion, Muslims have shown themselves incapable of searching out possible causes for their disaster. Islam’s complete incapability of exercising self-criticism and self-examination one side, and the pathological, broad encompassing, self-loathing of the West on the other, form fruitful ideological Humus, and on this fertile ground Islam is currently spreading with a historically unmatched speed in the countries of the West, and has become the historically greatest danger for cultural and ideological survival in Western culture as well.

Islam is neither anticapitalist nor anticolonialist, nor does it aim for the equality of all people.

For Islam deals neither with the abolition of capitalism nor with the abolition of colonialism, and especially not with the abolition of human and individual equality. Islam is, and has always been, capitalistically structured: from the very beginning it has supported itself less by production and more by trade. With its international trade practices, Muslim marketers have acquired much influence and affluence by the most inexpensive purchase possible of undesired products and then the subsequent sale of those products in other places for maximum Islamic clerics, however, hide from their faithful followers that in this verse, Muhammad cited commandments from the Jews’ Talmud [Sanhedrin 4:1, 22a] profit. According to Marxist terminology, such trade, that appropriates the surplus value of the poor but value-determining proletariat (for the earlier era of Islam, they were day workers and poor plantation workers) without letting them participate in the profit, is termed “capitalism” as defined by Marx and Lenin.

And from the very beginning, Muslims have fallen upon foreign people, colonized them, and where possible Islamized them, and and preyed upon their productivity in the form of taxes. Islamic imperialism already existed long before Western imperialism, whether in North African states (that were primarily Christian and Jewish), or in Spain (Cordoba Islam), or in the conquest and imperial assimilation of the early-Jewish-Christian Middle East, or by the attack and partial conquest of India costing millions of Hindus their lives and nearly wiping out the peacefully minded Buddhists who had no defence against the murderous attacks of the Arabs. Also the Ottoman kingdom was an Islamic empire, long before Spaniards, Portuguese and English colonized foreign peoples. However, in politically correct fashion, the imperialistic aspect of Islam has been and is to this day completely ignored by sociologists, political scientists, Islam scientists and historians.

Moreover, Islam is totally uninterested in the equality of individuals and people. Much less is there any equality of man and woman within Islam (Islam is without question the largest and longest lasting Sex-Apartheid in world history) – and Islam tolerates other religions as equal persuasions just as little. On the contrary, the main objective of Islam is the capture of world domination (dar al-Islam), and every means is justified and allowed on the way there: even to the point of destruction and annihilation of every “infidel,” so titled by Muslims – being oriented by the declarations of the Quran and Muhammad – for all those of a different faith. Hence, Islam classifies individuals intwo two classes: the class of believers, and that of the “infidels.” The former are Muslims and will go to Paradise. The latter are non-Muslims, and therefore individuals having no value (regarding this subject, the Imam of London, Sheikh Omar al-Bakri Muhammad, said recently: “We make no distinction between civilians and non-civilians, between innocent and guilty – only between Muslims and infidels. And the life of the infidel is rubbish!” Source: “Publica,” Portugal. April 20, 2004), that will go to Hell, and they may be, indeed must be tortured, fought against and killed (or so in Sura 2, Verse 216: “Battle is mandatory for you, though it may be disgusting to you!”), since they are the ones standing in the way of the world domination by Islam.

This is class hostility and racism, pure and simple. The German political scientist Matthias Küntzel brings this fact to the point like this:

“Islam has substituted the biological racism of the Nazis with a form of theocratic racism without dependence on racial superiority and a program of euthanasia, nevertheless it seeks to annihilate Jews as the presumed root of all the world’s ills.”

That the critics of that kind of religious racism, of all people, are yet defamed as racists on the part of the mainstream media (for example, the Süddeutsche Zeitung) is the height of willful ignorance and lack of knowledge that prevails in broad parts of Western intellectualism.

Read the full Essay “The Principle of Abrogation in the Quran” here (in PDF)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • Google Buzz

22 COMMENTS

  1. You are talking rubbish! Michael Mannheimer is stupidly talking nonsense. Who is he trying to fool?

  2. WHERE IS WHAT IS PROHIBITED IN ONE PLACE IS DEMANDED IN THE OTHER? GIVE EXAMPLES!

    UTTERLY RUBBISH.

    GOD CAN ESTABLISH AND ABROGATE WHATEVER HE WISHES. JUST AS A DOCTOR CAN ALTER THE DOSE OF THE MEDICINE WHENEVER HE FEELS SUITABLE TO DO (AFTER ASSESSING THE NEEDS OF THE PATIENT).

    BUT PLEASE SHOW CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QUR'AN. IF YOU CANNOT, THEN YOU ARE A LIAR!

    • The Creator of the universe is perfect. So why should He contradict Himself? And… What need does he have of men to exercise His judgment, as the Quran presents it? This is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam: Islam says be converted or die. Christianity says convert and have eternal life.

      Also, a god doesn't need to be named after one of his creatures, as was the case with Muhammad.

        • Because pigs as well as bacteria and scavengers are integral parts of the whole. When looking at pigs, you are looking at just one thing. God's creation is complex beyond our imagination — as we already well know. To consider it all would blow our mind because it is all the imaginations of an infinite God.

          • That's exactly right. And it also raises another point. Mahound didn't know about bacteria and virii. You'd think allah would have told him. Mahound even swam in a pond or well where they threw dead dogs and menstrual rags. And he claimed the water was pure!!!

    • All Right. Then Islam is a Religion of Violence and Hate. And at that Point you're right, there is no Contradictions. Liar is you who accept Things like Taqyyia. And please, read Koran and there won't be the Need for Another to show you Things: you'll see them by yourself.

  3. @ Burqa Vendor Your the liar .. GIVE PEACE 008.061. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
    GIVE NO PEACE Qur'an:047.033 "Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand."
    Ishaq:365 Tabari VII:94 "Muhammad bin Maslamah said, 'O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.' 'Say what you like,' Muhammad replied. 'You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.'"
    WHERE ARE ALLAHS DAUGHTERS they have disappeared from the quran: your book is a total fake and should be banned in western society

  4. Patrick Sookhdeo's book is an unusually honest, authoritative and courageous appraisal of what he regards as the challenge of Islam to the Christian Church and its mission. The language he uses deserves an award for plain English.

    Sookhdeo presents us with a book that should be compulsory reading for every politician and minister of religion, to say nothing of all who care for the cultural future of the countries of the Western world. Its essential message stands in stark contrast to so much of what is claimed for Islam by our political leaders, the leaders of the Christian Churches and Muslim authorities. For instance, when Westerners speak of Islam as a 'religion of peace' they have a very different understanding of peace than peace as defined in Islam. In addressing further fundamental issues he returns frequently to other areas of linguistic confusion, a prime example being the contrast between the meaning of love in Christian terms and love as it is expressed in Islam.

    There is then the question of the integration of Muslims in even a nominally Christian society. Sookhdeo claims, very persuasively, that this is just not possible. It is prohibited by the teachings of the Qur'an and the ministry of Muhammad. In these the Muslim is always regarded as superior to the non-Muslim.

    Perhaps even more startling is the author's assertion that whilst Christianity is all about the inner transformation of those who would follow Christ, in Islam appearance is all important. To pray and to fast at the right times; to say the right things; to observe the necessary rituals: these are paramount. The inner life of the individual is a secondary concern.
    http://barnabasfund.org/UK/News/Articles-research

    • The USA is particularly vulnerable to hostile takeover. Its constitution is wonderful, but only as long as it was applied to the people who had a direct link to it – that is they identified with it, as it was the output of their faith and culture.

      But with Islam growing rapidly in America, I don't see how Muslims can have any but a false (Taqqiya) allegiance to the constitution. They owe their allegiance to the koran and Sharia, not the US constitution.

      In addition, Americans have been so enamoured with their own liberalism, that they have elected Barak Hussein Obama to validate their sense of moral superiority. Good grief.

      Thankfully, many Americans are realising the mistake they have made, and are righting themselves. I hope it is not too late, as Obama and his Lefty/communist allies are busy putting in place facts on the ground, which will be very difficult to reverse.

      • Based on the comments on the American political blogs I read (chiefly breibart.com, frontpagmag.com, newsrealblog.com and weaselzippers.us), most Americans are waiting for the Senate and Congress elections later this year. The hope is that the Dhimmicrats will lose their majority and thus can't pass any more bills to suit O'Bummer'a agenda.

        Still, that leaves 2 years worth of damage to clean up.

Comments are closed.