* If islam is good and islamism is islam, then fear of islamism is islamismophobia. However, if islamism (incl. Afghanistan, Bangladesh , Pakistan, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Malaysia, Indonesia, Yemen, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, etc infidel hating Sharia states) isn't "true" islam, then the only true islam is the one found among politically correct non-muslims in non-muslim countries.
Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, considered Egypt's highest religious authority: 'An extremist and bloody group such as Islamic State poses a danger to islam and muslims, tarnishing its image as well as shedding blood and spreading corruption.
Klevius question: How could IS possibly pose a danger to islam if it has nothing to do with islam? Or has it after all...?!
Background
On the walls of the Dome of the Rock is an inscription in a mosaic frieze that includes the following words from Quran (19:33–35), which are considered blasphemy to Christianity:
33. "So peace is upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!" 34. Such is Jesus, son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they doubt. 35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
Gerd Puin, who has analyzed the Sana Koranic texts(some 100 years after Muhammad and his muslim bandit gang moved to Medina were they slaughtered all the Jews): My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.
The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.
Acknowledgement
Klevius sometimes gets a feeling that he is dismissed as some random thinker with strange ideas. However, nothing could be further from the truth. And the reason for this is that Klevius scientific approach is precisely to hunt down scientific/logical bias/error. This is why Klevius pops up on the most controversial of global issues, such as, for example, origin of humans, consciousness, Human Rights, sex segregation/apartheid and the origin of islam (the worst crime ever against humanity). To this you may add Klevius qualifications which easily dwarfs his wanna-be critics:
1 An extremely high IQ that puts him among very few humans alive*. Don't blame Klevius but his parents, please. Klevius calls himself 'mentally impaired' because he often feels like an elephant in a porcelain shop when talking to half intelligent people (approx between 100-170 IQ) whom he doesn't want to hurt or confuse by being too fast and witty (it often seems that those with moderately high IQ are more sensitive than those around average). A tricky task that sometimes leaves Klevius quite serious or even silent (but he might unlock his fat brain gun if the other guy turns too cocky, though). And as Klevius uses to tell his pals, no matter how hard it is for you right now to assess Klevius thoughts - you have all the time in the world to later check it up and shame him - if you can. Not a single "professor" of islamic "studies" comes even close to Klevius intelligence - simply because with that amount of IQ you simply cannot digest such utter "intellectual" crap.
2 Not religious, yet more moral** than religious people, i.e. in accordance with Universal Human Rights (no religion fully qualifies for Human Rights - however, islam, who the least fits the bill, is also the only one to openly reject Human Rights via OIC and UN)
3 "Extremely normal" in his life experience. Klevius fits in most surroundings. Physically and intellectually. Klevius loves people.
4 Not academically, politically or financially biased/dependent, yet very academic in knowledge and studies
5 Extremely well informed. A famous Finnish professor in neuroscience described Klevius thinking as 'ilmavan suurpiirteinen ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs'. If some of you, dear readers, don't master Finnish (btw, containing some of the world's oldest words) then here's a poor translation that doesn't reflect the full power of the original words (or what do you think dear Finnish reader): Flexible/spacious generalizations yet simultaneously cogently vigorous.
6 No mental or other personal issues whatsoever but a relentless belief in a global view that we are all equal humans. A view that shouldn't be harder to get than that we are all equal in traffic as well. A belief in an "Allah" shouldn't give you the right to drive against red light nor should you be protected from being criticized about it. There would be a huge difference between Sharia and Human Rights traffic rules. Whereas the formed would discriminate women and "infidels", the latter would see all as equals.
How many of your sources tick all these boxes?! Can you really afford not to listen to Klevius?! It's for free mate!
* Human intelligence probably peaked som 45,000 years ago in the Altai region of Siberia. However, since then, when truly modern humans begun spreading out of Siberia they met with and diluted their intelligence with archaic moderns who got their intelligence improved. But the successful new brain led to population inflation and due stop to further evolutionary triggered intelligence. So today we are all dumber than before (culturally assisted in this dumbness by biased academias, religion etc) yet we have entangled us in a never ending technological evolution instead.Which is fine but has nothing to do with intelligence anymore.
** 'Moral' as a concept needs more space to explain. But if you ask via comments then Klevius will kindly explain it to you.
There was no Muhammad nor Koran during "Muhammad's time"!
This is self evident even without specific historical evidence because the Koran itself, as well as its followers behavior throughout islam's history and today, give us the true formula anyway.However, for those interested, Klevius has compiled a short early islam history for the ignorant based on historical evidence. For Klevius is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
It won't hurt anyone, right? Especially not the "believers" because for them facts don't matter.
Iraq was attacked already in "Muhammad's time". The "wars against apostates" (ridda) were just pillaging and/or forceful heavy taxation combined with humiliation (i.e. dhimmi racism)
Futūḥ (ridda) were the early Arab-muslim "conquests" (i.e. more or less synonymous with what Islamic State does today) which facilitated the violent spread of islam. The so called ridda wars have in muslim mythology been described as wars against apostates when they in fact were wars against infidels following these simple (but evil) instructions of Abu Bakr:Seek the tribes which are your objectives. Call the Azaan (call for submission). If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack. Those who submit will not be attacked. Those who do not answer to the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by the sword. All apostates who have killed muslims will be killed.
The ridda wars in Iraq occured during the alleged Muhammad's lifetime, which fact is evident because the main source connect them to historically well known persons and their activities outside the islamic realm. A fact that is quite hidden for ordinary people under all the muslim mythology noise on the web and elsewhere.
Origin of islam
'Muslims' in the following is synonymous with those Arab bandits to which later islamic constructions are referred. During "Muhammad's time" and many decades after it these muslims didn't have a Koran nor a Muhammad.PERF 558 is the oldest surviving Arabic papyrus, found in Heracleopolis in Egypt, and is also the oldest dated Arabic text during the islamic era. It is a bilingual Arabic-Greek fragment, consisting of a tax receipt, or as it puts it 'Document concerning the delivery of sheep to the Magarites and other people who arrived, as a down-payment of the taxes of the first indiction. It's dated to the month of Jumādā which is the first in the year 22 after "Muhammad's" arrival to Medina, i.e. 643.
It includes:
The first well-attested use of the disambiguating dots in the still developing Arabic alphabet;
It begins with the Greek formula "ev onomati tou teou" (In the Name of God) after a Sign of the Cross
It records the date both in the islamic calendar (Jumada I, year 22) and in the Alexandrian calendar (30 Pharmouthi, 1st indiction), corresponding with 25 April 643 in the Julian calendar.
In Greek, it calls the Arabs "Magaritae", a term, believed to be related to the Arabic "muhajir" often used in the earliest non-islamic sources. It also calls them "Saracens".
Muslim mafia occupy Medina and eventually slaughter all Jews there
The numbers of the muslims in Medina grew thanks to the tolerance of the Jews and their error in giving the immigrants a safe haven. Jews did not foresee that the muslims to whom they gave asylum would turn against them and eventually slaughter them all.
After the incident of Badr when muslims ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought the booty, they got the upper hand in Medina. They were enriched by the stolen booty, and the popularity of becoming muslim grew. They were promised wealth and slave girls to those who took part in armed robberies, and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who got killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist.
Islam is a hate crime when profiled against Human Rights and islam's history
Islamic hate is not only abundant in the Koran but more importantly, a handy way of covering up immoral racism and sexism as "the will of Allah".
Islam's evil origin is what makes it so evil even today - i.e. its rigid and fascistic discipline of its orthodoxy that was the basis for submission.
Islamic history falsification
Today we would call it history falsification when Malik, long after the alleged Mohammed's death, made murdering, terrorism, looting, slavery, rapetivism etc a "religion".
Islam, i.e the historical phenomenon, was rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired Christianity) MHMD (anointed) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or submitted/enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror conquest.
It was islam's brainwashing of infidel racism into the minds of its illiterate jihadists that made it easy to loot, rape and terrorize, i.e. what is usually called "islamic conquest" in history but "islamism" in our own time.
Islam is an ideology originating in human slave parasitism. Islamic finance started with slaves as the main currency and capital. The Wall Street of islam was the slave market by the mosque. For the purpose of defending this immorality, a Jewish* ideology (all the wealthy people in Mohammed's Arabia were Jews incl. those Jews believing in Jesus and called Christian Arabs) was first radically contrasted against Vagina Judaism (matrilinealism changed to patrilineal Penis Judaism, i.e. islam), and then, much later, roughly "fine tuned" by Malik's invention of Mohammed and the final "Koran" in the interface between the new mafia ideology and the old Book".
A "religious" system (rapetivism under sex apartheid) based on the reproduction of as many muslims as possible via the Penis instead of the Jewish Vagina, spiced with apostasy ban and the ban on muslim women not to marry non-muslim men, and financed by the world's most elaborate and widespread slave finance Sharia, now mainly fueled by Western oil and aid money. Whatever you see in muslim Mideast, it has all come about via oil/gas money from the West - not from islam.
Facts vs muslim mythology
According to muslim mythology the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all muslims in or around 624 A.D. The intention was to fulfill his and the Hagarene’s birthright by taking back the land of Abraham, or Palestine. Caliph Abd al-Malik built this structure as the center-piece of islam. When Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) built the dome on the rock in Jerusalem, he proclaimed the prophetic mission of Muhammad, and placed it over the temple rock itself.
According to muslim mythology, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik. This fact alone, reveals that there was still confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the alleged Muhammad’s death) taking on the role as the religious center of islam. It is in this light one may see why Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques. It's probably also from this time that the Qiblas were aligned towards Mecca. However, this completely contradicts the Koran which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad.
Yehuda Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule a monotheistic creed. However, this creed is demonstrably not islam, but a creed from which islam may have developed.
The first occurrence of what Nevo calls the “Triple Confession of Faith,” including the Tawhid (that Allah is one), the phrase, Muhammad rasul Allah (that Muhammad is his prophet), and the human nature of Jesus (rasul Allah wa- abduhu), is found in Abd al-Malik’s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, dated 691 A.D.. Before this inscription the muslim confession of faith cannot be attested at all.
The religious content within the rock inscriptions do not become pronounced until after 661 A.D. However, though they bear religious texts, they never mention the prophet or the Muhammadan formula. The official Arab religious confession simply did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formula in its repertoire of set phrases at this time, many decades after the death of Muhammad. What they did contain was a monotheistic form of belief, belonging to a sectarian literature with developed Judaeo-Christian conceptions in a particular literary style, but one which contained no features specific to any known monotheistic religion. This points to a pragmatic and random, use of Jewish-Christian texts, copied and changed to fit the purpose. A mishmash still reflected in the Koran.
These inscriptions also show that when the Muhammadan formula is introduced, during the Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), it is carried out almost overnight. Suddenly it became the state’s only form of official religious declaration, and was used exclusively in formal documents and inscriptions, such as the papyrus “protocols”.
Although the Dome of the Rock does attest to the existence, at the end of the seventh century, of materials recognizable as Koranic, the quotations from the Koran on both the coins and the Dome of the Rock differ in details from that which is in the Koran of today. The Dome of the Rock inscriptions, inscriptions contain variant verbal forms, extensive deviances, as well as omissions from the text of today. If these inscriptions had been derived from the Koran, with the variants which they contain, then how could the Koran have been canonized prior to the late seventh century?
The sources we have reveal that the Koran was put together rather hurriedly. It is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can be argued that the Koran is the product of the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions. Because of the imperfection of the editing, the emergence of the Koran must have been a sudden and late event.
There was no Koranic documentation in existence in the mid-late seventh century. The earliest reference from outside muslim literary traditions to the Koran occurs in the early to mid-eighth century between an Arab and a monk of Bet Hale , but no-one knows whether it may have differed considerably in content from the Koran of today.
It was under the governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 A.D. that we have a logical historical context in which the “Koran” (or a nascent body of literature which would later become the Koran) could have been compiled as Muhammad’s scripture. In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor Hajjaj is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others “according to his own taste, and disseminated them everywhere among [his] nation". It was during this period that the Koran began its evolution, possibly beginning to be written down, until it was finally canonized in the mid to late eighth century as the Koran which we now know.
The non-existing Muhammad
Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) alleged Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever nor any form of religious pronouncement”! This is a sensational statement when weighed against muslim mythology. And there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss Hugh Kennedy on this point. He is probably the best authority on early muslim "conquest". Moreover, he is extremely apologetic in his presentation of his research. Not at all like Klevius.
Yehuda Nevo (compare Hugh Kennedy above) also found that “in all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani period [661-684 A.D.] there is a complete absence of any reference to Muhammad.” In fact neither the name Muhammad itself nor any Muhammadan formula (that he is the prophet of Allah) appears in any inscription dated before the year 691 A.D..
The first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of God) is found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. Abdallah from the year 690 A.D., which was struck in Damascus.
Muhammad (who definitely didn't exist as presented in muslim mythology) couldn't have died 632 because that would mean he was alive during the so called ridda (apostasy) wars against Iraq. Everything hence points to postfacto islamization.
The Arab conquest started precisely when the Sasanians and Parthians were engaged in internecine warfare over who was to succeed the Sasanid throne.
Early muslims were simply organized bandits who managed to create a strong mafia like system. Interestingly the muslims slaughtering of the Jews in Medina started one or two years before the conquest of Iraq. And we do know that some sort of struggle for power started at this time in Medina, later on leading to the genocide of all the Jews there. This power struggle marks the only historically attested (a date on a commercial transaction) resemblance with muslim storytelling, albeit the muslims got the wrong year 622 instead of 621.
There is a well known problem between the sira (Muhammad myths) and the Koran. Narrative was developed to "explain" the context of the "revelations", i.e. not as a historical account. This would fit a picture where Mohammad mythology/"examples" is added to an existing tradition that lacked any description of Mohammad.
The name Muhammad is mentioned only four times in the Koran:
Aal Imraan 3: 144; Did you suppose that you would enter Paradise before Allah has proved the men who fought for Him and endured with fortitude? You used to wish for death before you met it, and now you have seen what is it like. Muhammad is no more than an apostle: other apostles have passed away before him. If he die or be slain, will you recant? He that recants will do no harm to Allah. But Allah will recompense the thankful.
Al-Ahzaab 33: 40; – Muhammad is the father of no man among you. He is the Apostle of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.
Muhammad 47: 2; – Allah will bring to nothing the deeds of those who disbelieve and debar others from His path. As for the faithful who do good works and believe in what has beeen revealed to Muhammad – which is the Truth form their Lord – He will forgive them their sins and ennoble their state.
Al-Fatah 48: 29 – Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. You see them worshipping on their knees, seeking grace of Allah and His good will. Their makes are on their faces, the traces of their prostrations Thus are they described in the Torah and in the Gospel: they are like the seed which puts forth its shoot and strengthens it, so that it rises stout and firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers. Through them He seeks to enrage the unbelievers. Yet to those of them who will embrace the Faith and do good works Allah has promised forgiveness and a rich recompense.
Jesus is mentioned 26 times in the Koran
According to the evidence of Arab coinage, and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late 7th century, with the letters MHMT and the term Muhammad meaning "the revered" or "the praiseworthy" and the Dome's bearing Christian symbols such as crosses, it may be suggested that the term Muhammad was a Christian honorific title referring to Jesus.
Arab (and other) muslims support Islamic State's atrocities against the Yazidis
The only possible path forward is Human Rights. However, every true muslim on the planet is against the most basic of Human Rights (quite often even without being aware of it themselves due to a total lack of education on this most important point).
And saying this undeniable truth is called "islamophobia" while the real problem is islamismophobia, i.e. denying that islamism is true islam.
Islam demands that foreign forces be kicked out of Islamic lands
the true motivation of the jihadis is an ideology of relentless conquest.
Clare Lopez (CIA) believes regimes such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey play all sides of the jihadi game and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.” Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.
“The CIA has proved it is completely incapable of operating in this environment,” she said. “But I’m not on the inside, and can’t be sure what they are telling him. What we do know is what we see.”
As an example, she described how U.S. special forces were sent to Jordan to train people who turned out to be jihadis, even though it was reported they “vetted everybody.”
“They vetted them and asked, ‘Did you ever belong to al-Qaida?’ and they said ‘Oh, no – not me!’ But did they ever ask them what their ideology was? They’re not allowed to. We’re not allowed to define our enemy so how can we even identify our enemy? So, we fall into things like this where we actually train future ISIS jihadis, according to the Jordanian security officials.”
No comments:
Post a Comment