PENA DI MORTE tribunale speciale militare contro salafiti SHARIA

A QUESTI SATANISTI ed ai loro complici, BISOGNA COMMINARE LA PENA DI MORTE! Ultima frontiera del sacrilegio: mostra con ostie consacrate per formare la parola “pedofilia”. Migliaia i fedeli per la Messa di riparazione convocata dal vescovo di Pamplona. Miguel Cuartero Samperi/Aleteia. 28 novembre 2015. Niente eucaristia per paUra di sacrilegio. Nella terra di San Francesco Saverio, mercoledì 25 novembre, circa 5mila fedeli provenienti da tutta la regione e centinaia di sacerdoti della Navarra si sono stretti in preghiera nella Cattedrale di Pamplona, guidati dall’arcivescovo mons. Francisco Pérez. La celebrazione è stata indetta dal vescovo in risposta all’opera profanatoria esposta nei locali del Comune che, nei giorni scorsi, ha scosso l’opinione pubblica di tutta la Navarra. Un artista locale ha infatti inserito nella sua mostra, istallata nel Municipio, un opera sacrilega intitolata “Amén”, che offende in maniera violenta tutti i cristiani colpendo ciò che hanno di più caro: il corpo di Cristo. L’artista – in passato arrestato per atti osceni e prostituzione – non è nuovo a certe provocazioni a sfondo religioso e morale: la sua arte sovversiva è condita essenzialmente di violenza, pornografia, mutilazioni fisiche, odio verso le religioni, ecc. Ma questa volta la sua sfida ha oltrepassato ogni limite provocando uno sdegno generale anche tra i non cattolici. Il presunto artista ha esposto delle fotografie dove allineava sul pavimento diverse particole (ostie) in modo da formare la parola “pederastia” (pedofilia) precisando che si tratta di 242 ostie consacrate, da lui stesso prelevate durante diverse Messe a cui avrebbe partecipato nelle parrocchie di Madrid e Pamplona. Le stesse Ostie sono state “esposte” in un piatto all’interno della mostra. Il tutto corredato di foto che lo ritrae nell’atto di prendere la comunione durante una celebrazione, fingendo di assumere l’ostia consacrata che poi avrebbe conservato per fini “artistici”. “Non ho fatto nulla di illegale andando in Chiesa e mettendomi le ostie in tasca” ha affermato senza tentennamenti, l’autore della mostra, che ha definito l’Opus Dei “una banda terroristica all’interno della Chiesa” e si è riferito alle Messe di riparazione come eventi “in onore al golpismo franchista”. Nell’intenzione e nell’opera di questo giovane artista, il cui nome – come disse il Cervantes – non vogliamo ricordare, c’è tutto il peggio che può abitare l’anima umana: presunzione, superbia, arroganza, sacrilegio, vilipendio religioso, cattiveria, furto, ostentazione, odio religioso… Ma ciò che ha ferito più intimamente i fedeli è stata l’offesa alla Santa Eucarestia, che per i cristiani è il corpo di Cristo. L’ostia consacrata, infatti, non rappresenta Cristo, non lo significa, non lo simbolizza, ma lo è a tutti gli effetti: l’ostia consacrata è Cristo stesso, il Verbo incarnato, in altre parole: l’ostia è Dio. Inutile dire che le polemiche hanno sortito l’effetto desiderato dall’artista: la popolarità. Il nome di questo giovane signore impazza sui media locali e internazionali e sul web: su Twitter i suoi followers sono aumentati esponenzialmente (mille nuovi followers in 24 ore) e non c’è giornale locale o sito religioso che non parli di lui e della sua esposizione. Per tutta risposta, l’autore del misfatto si gongola per la popolarità mentre si mostra come una vittima dell’ultra fondamentalismo e terrorismo religioso che mina la sua libertà di espressione.
Dal punto di vista politico le condanne sono arrivate solo dagli esponenti del centro destra (UPN e Partido Popular), mentre il governo regionale e tutte le altre formazioni politiche hanno rifiutato ogni censura difendendo la “libertà di espressione” dell’artista a prescindere dai contenuti offensivi. Le proteste dei fedeli (in realtà spontanee e prive di connotazioni politiche) sono state considerate dai politici e dalla stampa locale come una campagna politica frutto del fondamentalismo degli attivisti cattolici di estrema destra (definiti “ultraderecha católica”). I cattolici non sono invece rimasti con le mani in mano ed hanno alzato la voce contro l’affronto riuscendo a far ritirare il piatto Ostie consacrate (secondo fonti del Comune) mentre il resto della mostra (comprese le foto con la scritta incriminata) è rimasto aperto al pubblico. Il municipio di Pamplona ha infatti rifiutato la proposta di chiudere la mostra sacrilega lasciando la decisione allo stesso artista. Una mobilitazione promossa dall’Associazione di Avvocati Cattolici, ha denunciato l’artista per “profanazione” e ha raccolto in pochissime ore più di 100mila firme per chiedere di annullare l’evento; numerose le manifestazioni in piazza per protestate contro l’infame esposizione. Di particolare rilevanza la veglia di preghiera di fronte ai locali che ospitano l’esposizione: centinaia di fedeli si sono inginocchiati, in adorazione, innanzi il Cristo oltraggiato e calpestato all’interno della mostra, per pregare assieme il Rosario.
L’evento più importante è stato, senza dubbio, la celebrazione eucaristica di “riparazione” indetta dall’arcivescovo di Pamplona mons. Francisco Pérez per mercoledì 25 novembre. La cattedrale di Pamplona ha accolto migliaia di fedeli “come non si era mai visto da anni”, ha affermato un testimone. Nei giorni scorsi la diocesi di Pamplona emetteva, a nome dell’arcivescovo, un comunicato stampa intitolato “Profanare Gesù Eucarestia è un sacrilegio gravissimo”. Il comunicato parla di un “fatto che offende profondamente la fede e i sentimenti cattolici”, un “attentato contro la libertà religiosa” mentre ricorda che “Un cattolico che commette un fatto simile, incorre nella scomunica immediata riservata alla Sede Apostolica, secondo ciò che è indicato nel Codice di diritto Canonico, nel canone 1367, che stabilisce che ‘chi profana le specie consacrate, oppure le asporta o le conserva a scopo sacrilego, incorre nella scomunica latae sententiae riservata alla Sede Apostolica’”.
Nell’omelia della Messa di riparazione, mons. Pérez ha sottolineato la centralità del Santissimo Sacramento dell’Eucarestia (“ciò che è più sacro per i cristiani cattolici”) ribadendo che la libertà di espressione non coincide con la libertà di offesa: “Come arcivescovo della Sede Episcopale di Pamplona, come successore degli Apostoli in questa Diocesi, raccogliendo il sentimento del popolo cristiano, non solo locale ma di tutto il mondo, mi vedo obbligato ad affermare che la vera libertà d’espressione non prevede il presunto diritto all’offesa o  il disprezzo a ciò che c’è di più sacro”. Inoltre ha invitato i fedeli a difendere con vigore e senza tentennamenti i principi non negoziabili, attaccati e contrastati nell’odierna società: “Faccio un appello alla coscienza umana e cristiana di tutti noi affinché siamo sensibili ai problemi della nostra società. Per favore, difendiamo il diritto alla vita, al matrimonio, alla famiglia, l’educazione dei nostri bambini e giovani, il servizio al bene comune, ai più deboli e bisognosi, la vera cultura del lavoro, la pace tra le nazioni…” Infine il l’arcivescovo si è rivolto ai giovani con parole di incoraggiamento: “Siete molti che in questi giorni vi siete sentiti commossi dalla necessità di riparare questa offesa e vi siete interrogati sul senso di questi avvenimenti. Forse vi siete interrogati anche sul senso della vostra vita: Che ha fatto Cristo per me? Cosa devo fare per Cristo e per i miei fratelli? Non è tempo di buttarsi sul divano e guardare la vita da lontano. Dio vi chiama, ha bisogno di voi per cambiare il mondo.”
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH9 ore fa
Referendum contro le trivelle. Per Pedicini (M5S) serve maggiore mobilitazione ] PERCHé CI VOLETE INDEBITARE SEMPRE DI PIù CON GLI ISLAMICI? LORO SI STANNO COMPRANDO anche le NOSTRE ANIME! NOI DOBBIAMO CONFISCARE TUTTE LE LORO PROPRIETà E DOBBIAMO DICHIARARE GUERRA ALLA LEGA ARABA PERCHé SONO UN NAZISMO senza speranza, nessuno comprende la minaccia del nazismo della LEGA ARABA? soltanto io? pugliain@gmail.com
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH9 ore fa
questo articolo esprime tutta la tragedia dell'aspetto nazista, e senza futuro, e senza reciprocità, per la democrazia e i diritti umani di una TURCHIA che chiede di entrare in Europa per finire di distreggerla! ] QUESTI AMMAZZANO I VESCOVI E I PRETI CHE NOI MANDIAMO IN TURCHIA, PERCHé NON HANNO PIù CRISTIANI TURCHI DA PORTER UCCIDERE, INFATTI POCHE MIGLIAIA, SOPRAVVIVONO NASCOSTI NELLA PAURA! [ In Turchia per ritrovare il futuro della Chiesa ] Dopo cinque anni arriva in Anatolia il successore di mons. Luigi Padovese. Bizzeti: "Se c'è pace in Medio Oriente, c'è pace in tutto il mondo" 29 novembre 2015. E’ in festa la Chiesa cattolica dell’Anatolia: dopo cinque anni, [ DOPO 5 ANNI? SI VEDE CHE NON ESISTE UNA CHIESA IN TURCHIA! ] un nuovo vescovo torna a guidare il territorio della Turchia che comprende i luoghi della predicazione instancabile di san Paolo e Barnaba, Tarso dove nacque l’apostolo delle genti, Antiochia dove i cristiani furono chiamati così per la prima volta. Luoghi che mons. Paolo Bizzeti, 67 anni, gesuita di origini fiorentine, conosce bene perché da biblista appassionato li ha percorsi ripetutamente accompagnando nel corso di 35 anni numerosi gruppi di pellegrini a conoscere i luoghi nei quali la comunità cristiana si è sviluppata mettendo le radici che l’avrebbero portata ad espandersi in tutto il mondo. Bizzeti succede a mons. Luigi Padovese, il cappuccino scomparso tragicamente il 3 giugno 2010, assassinato dal suo autista. Una vicenda che ha segnato in profondità la comunità “e i cui effetti si avvertono ancora in modo visibile” dice mons. Bizzeti ad Aleteia nel giardino del complesso di Iskenderun dove ha sede l’episcopio, il convento dei frati minori francescani e il Centro per il dialogo interreligioso dedicato a un altro martire Turco, don Andrea Santoro.
Qual è oggi il volto della Chiesa di Anatolia? Bizzeti: Piccole comunità di persone molto attaccate alla loro fede e alle loro chiese in un contesto che presenta non poche difficoltà perché non è semplice essere minoranza.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
Alien +KingxKingdom Unius REI watch my real channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLDyyNNaUYLa0Ppk8IKah5g
lorenzoALLAH [ SAID ] +Alien vattene stupida! IO NON SO COSA POSSO FARMENE DI UN FALLITO COME TE!
 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi9nY3Evnnj_BDzAgZZP-yA/discussion?lc=z12uxxdpbr3fzfwxl04civaadmyzyhz5mz40k&google_view_type=&google_comment_id=z12uxxdpbr3fzfwxl04civaadmyzyhz5mz40k#gpluscomments
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
ISLAM ON TRIAL: THE PROSECUTION’S CASE. Amber Pawlik. This publication is protected under the US Copyright Act of 1976. All rights are reserved. First edition 2010. For ease of use for the reader, digital rights are not being applied to this document. Feel free to use this
document on whatever computer, handheld device, etc., that you find most easy to use, but please do not offer a free copy to any other person. Please send requests to reprint this material to amber@amberpawlik.com. Updated contact information can be found at www.amberpawlik.com. The author is open to discussing reprint of the material for classroom or circulatory use (provided it is done in a constructive manner) but written permission is required before use. Islam on Trial September 11, 2001 changed the world. Islamic terrorists hijacked American airplanes and flew them into several major, symbolic buildings of hers, causing thousands to fall, crash, or burn to their early death. The terrorists
who did it did not do it for land or money: they did it fully, openly, and proudly in the name of their religion, Islam, being promised 72 virgins in their so-called heaven. It thrust unto us Middle Eastern politics, Islam, and a new enemy. Islam itself has come into the forefront of public debate. Or at least, it should have. The majority of us have at least a crude knowledge of Islam and what Islamic countries are like. We know that the majority of common people live in abject poverty. We know that their progress is slim to none. We know that they still publicly stone and hang alleged criminals. We know that they cover their women head-to-toe and often deny them education. We know that they defy just about all Western ideals.
One would think that, especially after September 11, 2001, there would be criticism of Islam coming from every which way. Feminists, Christians, capitalists, secularists, human rights activists, hell even animal rights activists should have something to say about Islam. We are, after all, a country with free speech aren’t we? Yet, even after September 11, there has been nothing but haunting silence. In the current state of the world, Muslims are involved in almost every war or battle. It was Muslim terrorists who bombed a train in Madrid Spain; Muslim terrorists who held a school hostage in Russia, killing children; Muslim terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center. The past 1400 years of Islamic history has been riddled with terrorism, from the days of Muhammad to Al-Zarqawi. But, for whatever reason, Islam is above any kind of critical look or debate. It is given a holy status. People don’t just avoid criticism of it; they are quick to defend it. Those who criticize Islam do so at the risk of political suicide. The defenses given for Islam are so hysterical; you would think you just insulted their mothers. “Islam is not the problem,” we keep getting told. The terrorists, they assure us, had the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran and are not true Muslims. We have watched Islamic terrorists behead innocent civilians. We have been told that this is completely and totally against Islam. From The Koran: when thy Lord spake unto the angels, “I will be with you: therefore stablish ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels.” Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger tip. (8.12; emphasis mine) We have watched Islamic terrorists commit “jihad” against the West. Under no circumstances, we are lectured, does the Koran tell its followers to attack nonbelievers.
From The Koran: Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. (9:29) We know that the Islamic terrorists envision a world that is entirely Muslim. Surely this has nothing to do with the Islamic religion. From The Koran:
Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's. If they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do. (8.38-39; emphasis mine) It is interesting the responses I usually get when I start quoting the Koran directly. The responses are usually:
 That I must not be quoting from the Koran but another book that quotes the Koran, which must be wrong.
 That Muslims believe that some parts of the Koran were written by Satan (and it must be these bad quotes that I gave them).
 That what I quoted to them was only one or two verses and I must take into consideration the whole book (which I happily will).
 That the translation I am reading is wrong, and the original Koran is much gentler and nicer.
It is really rather obvious: quoting what the Koran actually says is too much for their ears. Shut if off: let them see and hear no evil.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
From The Koran: Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's. If they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do. (8.38-39; emphasis mine) It is interesting the responses I usually get when I start quoting the Koran directly. The responses are usually:
 That I must not be quoting from the Koran but another book that quotes the Koran, which must be wrong.
 That Muslims believe that some parts of the Koran were written by Satan (and it must be these bad quotes that I gave them).
 That what I quoted to them was only one or two verses and I must take into consideration the whole book (which I happily will).
 That the translation I am reading is wrong, and the original Koran is much gentler and nicer.
It is really rather obvious: quoting what the Koran actually says is too much for their ears. Shut if off: let them see and hear no evil.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH Today, our unwillingness to identify the enemy is so bad that producers of movies are completely unwilling to make a movie in which the enemies are Islamic terrorists. Not only will we not create new fiction, we won’t even report the facts. The bloody history of Islam is whitewashed in regular history books and courses. In fact, the more violent Islam gets, it seems, the more excuses and protection it gets. Islam was not called a “Religion of Peace” before 9/11. It did not get that moniker until 3,000 people were killed in its name.
Perhaps it should be our new slogan: Ignorance is Strength; Freedom is Slavery; Islam is Peace.
September 11, 2001 changed world politics forever. The oppression, mass murder, and terrorism that marked the Middle East for 1400 years hurled itself unto Western society. Yet no one is willing to identify the enemy, scared, not for fear of political persecution or assassination but of becoming unpopular. When something so obvious and so horrible becomes so wrong to talk about, that is when you know it is time to talk about it.
Ladies and Gentleman, this is the prosecution’s case against Islam. I am charging it with creating and promoting oppression, poverty, slavery, rape, and terrorism.
The Case against Islam
When it comes to the connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism, it is our ability to reason—in this case the ability to read the Koran—that is so often under attack. Therefore, let us begin by reviewing our fundamentals: our philosophical fundamentals.
When reading a book, the two fundamentals involved are what is involved for all of man’s interaction with reality: existence and consciousness. Existence is what exists and consciousness is awareness of what exists. A person’s views on existence and consciousness, which is their views on metaphysics and epistemology, is the foundation of their philosophical beliefs and will affect every other aspect of their worldly views. Is existence firm and absolute or an ever-moldable flux? Can human consciousness understand existence or are humans doomed to be in a blind stupor, never able to understand the reality around them?
Please note that reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data and categorizes it in his mind as to understand it. Therefore reason is only possible if existence is absolute and
man’s consciousness is potent enough to understand existence. It is the philosophy of objectivism that maintains that reality is what it is and man is capable of understanding it.
When reading a book, what exists is the text and the degree to which you are conscious of what it says is the degree to which you focus your mind on it. The purpose is to study the text so that you can develop an understanding of it, i.e., discover its identity. You do not re-invent what you are reading or come to your own arbitrary conclusion regarding what the text says: your goal is to come to a clear, precise understanding of what the text means. The ability to do this is called reading comprehension.
You do not typically have an “interpretation” of a text. “Interpretations” are only necessary when some aspect of reality is confusing, vague, or hard to understand. For instance, an interpreter is needed to translate one language to another for people, as the foreign language is otherwise incomprehensible to those people. “Interpretations,” therefore, also imply that only a person with an advanced or specialized knowledge can interpret something—it is not open to a lay person. Interpretations, such as the interpretation of the law or the interpretation of someone’s behavior, are also generally regarded as only someone’s opinion—only quasi-based on fact—apt to be right or wrong.
It is revealing that those who discuss Islam always refer to human understanding of the Koran as a mere “interpretation.” By identifying human understanding of the Koran as an “interpretation,” it automatically establishes the text as fluid, subjective, and moldable—as an incomprehensible text that anyone can take any different way.
There may perhaps be parts of the Koran that are confusing and contradictory and indeed need an interpreter. But if so, one must point out what text is confusing or contradictory and what the different “interpretations” thereof might be, especially, given their claims, as it pertains to terrorism. This would open the debate up to human reason. But those who defend Islam do not do this. Instead they typically make a broad, generic statement that people make the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran. Broad statements such as this are not indicative of a confusing or contradictory text but of an assault on objectivity itself.
Notice this author’s defense of not being able to understand a “real Islam.” This is an article entitled, “What is Real Islam?” by M.A. Hussain from a website called humiliateamerica.com:
It is impossible to tell what Islam is objectively and what Islam is not. There are several problems of interpretation of religious scriptures which are insurmountable such that there cannot be “real Islam” or real Christianity”. The interpretation of religious scripture whether by a nonbeliever or of any believer is a subjective process. The religious scriptures belong to history and history is nothing but a point of view. The "objective history" or "objective historical process" is not accessible whatever methodology you adopt, you can never give an objective account of history. (Emphasis mine; incorrect punctuation and grammar the author’s)
Not even history, according to the author, is objectively determinable. This is not just an attack on the ability to understand Islam but reality itself.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH I propose that the arguments about the inability to interpret the Koran are not meant to emphasize the confusing nature of the Koran but to exempt it from the Law of Identity. They want you to regard what is written in front of you in plain language as not being what it is but that it can be anything at all. Up can mean down; black can be white; or any A can be any other non-A.
This same attack on objectivity does not just happen with the study of the Koran. It has infiltrated all of the major humanities and even some of the hard sciences. For instance, indeed in history, the new breed of historians (known as revisionists) will tell you that there is no objective history; that it is, of course, “open to interpretation.” In political science, new supposed scholars tell us that The Constitution is more of a suggestion than a hard set of rules, and, of course, “open to interpretation.” (The Constitution was designed to be living but this means it can be amended not re-“interpreted.”)
Why do they do this? So they can do the interpreting. History, The Constitution, and reality get in the way of their ideologies. When reality gets in your way, doubt reality.
If you notice, despite the fact that these scholars believe that reality can never be objectively deciphered, they never become skeptics. One would think if reality is such a foggy haze that humans can never objectively decipher, we would be forever unsure and doubtful of the world around us. Instead, such new scholars charge right on, asserting absolute knowledge—“interpreting” history, law, and reality for you.
Notice that they don’t become skeptics over what the interpretation of the Koran is. Even though interpretations are generally regarded as not right or wrong, and they insist that the Koran is too “profound” to understand, they say that the terrorists most definitely had the “wrong interpretation,” and that Islam is actually a religion of peace. The Koran is mostly incomprehensible, but apparently they have the magical ability to understand its true meaning and dictate it to us.
This is a game that has been being played for decades. This attack on objectivity stems from the root, from the philosophical level of our ideas on existence and consciousness. The ideas that have permeated academia for decades have been the notion that reality isn’t real and that reason is impotent in understanding reality. This philosophical foundation was formalized into an official philosophical system by Immanuel Kant. Kant attacked reason (and, therefore, reality) from the inside: by re-defining it. Allow me to re-emphasize the definitions of some terms. Reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data and uses it to understand the world around him. Logic is the method by which man processes that knowledge in order to make accurate, i.e., non-contradictory, identifications of reality. Mysticism is to develop a conclusion or understanding of the world through some non-sensory means.
Kant said that reason was “a priori,” that is to say “without experience.” How can man have any knowledge, understanding, or enlightenment while void of reality? Kant made the most offensive attack on reason possible: smearing it by defining reason as mysticism, i.e., to develop knowledge with no sensory data.
This is why academic elites are unabashed in dismissing reality, history, and the obvious in front of your eyes in favor of their bizarre ideologies. Attacking reality doesn’t seem awkward or illogical to them: it seems sophisticated—the very definition of reason. Reality is an ever changing and contradictory flux, apt to be whatever they say it is. Everything is considered moldable today, from history to human nature itself. Kant laid the groundwork for full-scale, institutionalized propaganda.
This is the same game being played with the Koran. It comes utterly natural to them to portray the Koran as being subjective, fluid, and totally incomprehensible—outside the realm of the human mind. They wield manipulation as effectively as a knight with his sword.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH There is one thing in the way of their schemes: your rational mind. While thwarting everyone’s eyes away from the obvious, their enemy is that one person who insists on facts and demands evidence. Therefore, they need to make you doubt your own mind, i.e., your ability to reason. In the case of the Koran, this means your ability to read a book correctly.
Therefore they need to infuse waves of doubt and confusion over anyone trying to read or understand the Koran. “You are no Islamic scholar!” they will shout at you. “The Koran is so profound!” they cry. “It has so many commentaries and notes!” Don’t even bother to read it; you will not understand it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Koran is not hard to read or understand. These are merely the hysterics of intellectual snobs trying to create an inferiority complex in you.
Notice that there is a double standard. If someone says the Koran is peaceful, it is taken as a plain, simple fact, regardless that said person has usually never even read the Koran. But the person who challenges Islam is held to the most excruciating of standards to prove themselves and their ability to judge the Koran. Unless you read the Koran in its original language, under a renowned scholar in Mecca, they will tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, it is usually people who have never read the Koran who are the most hysterical in these kinds of accusations.
When these methods don’t work, they can always resort to ad hominem attacks: calling you an “idiot,” “moron,” etc., simply for having the “incorrect” view. However, they don’t even have to do this anymore. Today, it is not just limited to a select few who want to insult you. It is popularly accepted to call anyone who questions Islam a “bigot” or “ignorant.” People have been “educated” from birth to believe that to challenge Islam—a religion, which, like other religions, has its problems and should be looked at critically—is evil. Nothing could be more anti-enlightened.
Islam apologists, including Muslims themselves, have gotten very good at thwarting people from reading and understanding the Koran. They do so in the most effective way possible: by appealing to your respect for intelligence. Whenever you cite a verse in the Koran, without skipping a beat, they will cry that you, “Took the verse out of context.” This appeals to people’s sense of wanting a full conceptual understanding of any given thing. If you notice though, they never actually put the verse in context. This is not an appeal to conceptual understanding, as it seems to be, but is used to make you believe that somehow, someway, the other verses around a particular verse will change said verse’s identity.
They will also tell you whenever you quote a verse from the Koran that you have the “wrong translation.” On some level this appeals to people’s respect for those who take the time to learn another language. But it is utterly ridiculous to think that only those people who speak Arabic can judge the Koran. There are many, many translations of the Koran, all of which say essentially the same things. These are nothing but silly, awkward, and for some unknown reason—often effective—methods of controlling information as to control thought.
One would think if Muslims were so proud of their religion, they would be encouraging people to read their holy text to prove its righteousness, not thwarting people away from it at every step. People who are just want nothing more than for others to take a good, hard look at them—not generalizing them with others or brushing them aside. An innocent person being charged with murder will want and demand that all of the facts of the case to come out, to shine as much light on the case as possible, and to be allowed to take the stand to make his or her case. The unjust person seeks to manipulate and deceive others, always trying to stop people from taking too hard of a look at them. So let’s do just that: shine light onto the Koran to see what it is. We are going to give Islam what it frankly does not deserve: the nicety of a trial.
In order to judge Islam, I did what most Islam apologists and most Muslims (many of whom are illiterate) did not do: I read the Koran.
I find it interesting that interest in the Koran skyrocketed after 9/11. But there are hardly any commentaries describing what is actually in the Koran.
Anyone who has ever sat down to read the Koran has my deepest sympathies. It is an extremely boring, mind-numbing, and repetitive book
The Koran is considered the written word of Muhammad’s teachings, who was inspired by the angel Gabriel. According to the introduction to the Koran I read (print version), Muhammad was born into a poor family but lived in a wealthy city. He grew up without a father and ended up marrying a rich widow (and then went on to have many different wives, including at least one six-year-old girl). The Koran was written down by others as he could not read or write.
The Koran is broken up into “Suras,” which are like books in the Bible or chapters in a book. There are 114 Suras and over 6,100 verses. The Suras range in size from as small as 4 verses to as many as 286. For the most part, the larger Suras are at the beginning and they get progressively smaller until the very short Suras at the end.
This is how the very beginning of the Koran starts out.
Sura 2.4-7, which falls on the first page of the Koran:
And who believe in what hath been sent down to thee, and in what hath been sent down before thee, and full faith have they in the life to come:
These are guided by their Lord; and with these it shall be well.
As to the infidels, alike is it to them whether thou warn them or warm them not—they will not believe: Their hearts and their ears hath God sealed up; and over their eyes is a covering. For them, a severe chastisement!
The very beginning of the Koran starts out with stating that nonbelievers are wrong, wrong, wrong and believers are good, good, good. It doesn’t say what the believers should do—there are no principles, values, or morals laid out—just that believers are good and non-believers are wrong.
It didn’t take long for me to be utterly shocked at what I read in The Koran:
O our Lord! punish us not if we forget, or fall into sin; O our Lord! and lay not on us a load like that which thou has laid on those who have been before us; O our Lord! and lay not on us that for which we have not strength: but blot out our sins and forgive us, and have pity on us. Thou art our protector: give us victory therefore over the infidel nations. (2.286; emphasis mine)
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH ISLAM è SENZA SPERANZA DI RECIPROCITà E PLURALISMO: è UN COLORE MONOTEMATICO, LA FINE DELLA MOLTEPLICITà! This, quite frankly … is it! The Koran is nothing but one long vitriolic speech aimed at infidels: claiming that they are dumb, blind, stupid, thankless, and liars; that they will have boiling water poured on them; that they will be sent to hell where they will be choked with food and without any friends; that Allah hates them; and also loves those who fights against them. I wanted to be able to give you, my reader, some kind of percentage estimate of just how much of the Koran deals with nothing but infidels. I could give you an eyeballed estimation of how much of it is nothing but hatred at infidels, but I would not expect you to take my word for it. Going through the Koran and summing up every single verse to get a percentage would be way too cumbersome. However, I thought of a way to get across to you, my reader, a warranted
percentage. I could take a random sampling of verses from the Koran and make projections from there.
Now this is not some sort of literary review, not that the Koran is complex enough to warrant a literary review. I performed the study I did, at first, solely to get an accurate percentage to present.
I originally did a small study. I wanted at least 30 samples because, statistically, so as long as there are 30 samples, the central limit theorem applies, i.e., the sampling is large enough to be statistically significant. I tried to think of a fair way to pick samples. Had I gone through and just pointed to verses, I likely would have been accused of cherry picking. So I took verse 10 from randomly chosen Suras. I did this to show I was not picking one verse over another. I ended up with 34 verses. You can read the verses I took along with commentary regarding what context the verse is in, why I assigned it to the category I did, and the calculations of my confidence interval here.
I was really quite pleased with the results. I felt they provided a nice broad overview of the Koran and even captured one good verse! It also hit some of the bigger but smaller aspects of the Koran—the fact that it mentions Noah's Ark many times (where it gleefully describes how the infidels drowned); that it thinks infidels are utterly thankless; that Allah actually makes nonbelievers not believe, etc. These were the results:
 18/34 (52.9%)—over half—of these random verses is vitriol aimed at infidels.
 6/34 (17.6%) deal with Allah.
 5/34 (14.7%) deal with believers.
 4/34 (11.8%) deal with Day of Judgment or Day of Doom.
 1/34 (3.4%) is a good verse. Do not steal from the poor / Give to the poor.
However, upon some contemplation, I decided that my study could be done better. I took the verses from an online Koran (it was easier to cut and paste quotes from an online source), and it was an anti-Islamic site so perhaps there was some bias. (It turns out there was not; the same translation is used by some pro-Islamic sites). I also felt there was at least one major theme that was ignored in my sampling: how Islam treats women. The confidence interval I ended up with was that one could be 95% confident that the percentage of hatred of infidels in the Koran was between 36.1% and 69.7%. That really is not very tight.
So I did a bigger study. This time I took it from a pro-Islamic site. I wanted to have at least 200 samples. I tried to think of the most diplomatic way to take random verses. I could go in and take every 30th verse, giving me approximately 200 verses. But that would skip over several Suras as many of them only have 5-9 verses in them. So I decided to give the verses a representation similar to the way our founding fathers set up our Congress: every Sura (just like every state) would be given a certain minimum representation and then larger Suras (just like larger states) would also have some kind of larger representation. So I took one verse from each Sura, thereby representing each Sura. I took the verse right in the middle. That gave me 114 verses. I wanted about 86 more. So then I went through and took every 70th verse. This naturally gave the larger Suras more of a representation. I ended up with 201 verses.
And, after hours of work, the results are in: they are exactly the same as my first study. For the percentage I was most interested in, how much of the Koran is hatred at infidels, it was exactly 53%. I was also quite happy that this sampling captured several verses about women. The confidence interval was also much better this time. With 95% confidence, we can say that
the percentage of the Koran that deals with hatred aimed at infidels is somewhere between 45.8% and 59.6%. You can read the verses I took, my commentaries, and the calculation of the confidence interval here.
Here are the results of my larger study:
106/201 (52.7%) is hatred aimed at infidels, defined as:
 Threats towards infidels either in the afterlife or this life.
 Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid, blind, deaf, liars, thankless, etc.
 Calls to fight against them.
 Verses that say "except the believers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were counted as hatred since avoiding death is not a positive to believers.
 The threat or insult can be aimed at infidels in general or any specific infidel.
50/201 (24.9%) deals with believers, defined as:
 Mentioning them.
 Saying they are righteous.
 Saying they will get good things.
 Any mentions of one of the prophets was put into this category too.
23/201 (11.4%) deal with Allah:
 Who he is.
 That he is almighty.
 Any of his creations.
10/201 (5%) deal with the Day of Doom or the Day of Judgment:
 The Day of Doom is when destruction is sent on the earth.
 The Day of Judgment is when all are judged before Allah.
 Any message pertaining to how God records what men do was assigned this category.
4/201 (2%) are anti-woman:
 That it’s OK to beat a woman.
 Women and slaves get married off but have no choice in the matter and is very self-serving to Muhammad or men in general.
4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way
2/201 (1%) deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette, for instance:
 How to divorce your wife.
1/201 (0.5%) Disapproves of a man who murdered someone, for it was for the wrong reason to kill someone.
1/201 (0.5%) says it is OK for people to have their religion while Muslims have theirs.
Over 50% of the Koran deals with hatred aimed at infidels. You will notice Allah is mentioned a lot, as well as the goodness of believers and the Day of Doom/Judgment, the former being a day when the Koran gleefully exclaims that Allah will send destruction to the earth and destroy the infidels. Notice how much of the Koran deals with not just infidels but with the theme of believers versus nonbelievers, setting up believers as holy, righteous, almost perfect human beings and nonbelievers as not just wrong but as wretched scum. If you add up the number of verses that deal with infidels, believers, Allah, and the Day of Judgment/Doom, that percentage is a full 94%. This is really the only thing in the Koran, repeated over and over, as the Koran itself readily admits: "... This book is no other than a warning and a clear Koran, To warn whoever liveth; and, that against the Infidels sentence may be justly given." (36.69-70)
You may notice that details outlining Muslim customs and etiquette do not take up much room in the Koran. In fact, Ramadan, from what I can tell, is only mentioned once in the Koran. You can see how seriously Muslims take Ramadan. Now imagine how seriously they take 94% of the Koran.
There is no moral system outlined in the Koran—with the exception of allowing men to beat their wives, sleep with their slaves, and there is an occasional, “give to the poor.” There certainly is no unequivocal “Do not kill;” “Do not steal;” or “Do not lie,” let alone any other insight into how to behave properly as a human being. Most of the “moral” guidance given in the Koran is not a restraint on humans but permission to do what they want—mostly for men to do what they want.
The Koran is very self-serving to men and especially Muhammad when it comes to having access to women. It promises men young virgins in heaven with “supple breasts” and “large brown eyes,” but what about the women? Muhammad had up to fifteen wives at one time, but the rest of the believers were limited to four. Sura 66.1 shows not only the self-serving nature of the Koran for Muhammad but the entire purpose of the Koran itself:
Why, O Prophet! dost thou hold that to be FORBIDDEN which God hath made lawful to thee, from a desire to please thy wives, since God is Lenient, Merciful?
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH ALLAH è IL DEMONIO MECCA CABA, E NON HA NULLA IN COMUNE CON IL DIO DEGLI EBREI E DEI CRISTIANI!
Note 1 from Sura 66 further clarifies this verse: The first verses of this Sura were revealed on occasion of Muhammad's reviving affection for Mary, a Copt slave sent him by the governor of Egypt from whom he had recently sworn to his wife Hafsa to separate entirely. Hafsa, who had been greatly incensed at their amour, of which Muhammad had himself informed her, communicated the matter in confidence to Ayesha, from whose altered manner, probably, the prophet found that his secret had been betrayed. To free Muhammad from his obligation to Hafsa was the object of this chapter. (Print)
Muhammad had told his wife that he would stop having sex with a slave. However, he came back to tell her that he is allowed because Allah does not forbid it. Hence, to hell with her wishes!
Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with female slaves and their allotted four wives:
It is not permitted thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to change thy present wives for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves whom thy right hand shall possess. And God watcheth all things. (33.52)
I propose the purpose of the Koran is nothing but a rationalization: Muhammad’s rationalization to do whatever he wants in the name of “religion.”
Thus my charges against Islam of creating and promoting rape and slavery.
A verse in the Koran that needs no further comment:
And we said, “Take in thine hand a rod and strike with it, nor break thine oath.” Verily, we found him patient! (38.44)
Note 15 in Sura 38: Thy wife; - on whom he had sworn that he would inflict an hundred blows, because she had absented herself from him when in need of her assistance, or for her words (Job ii.9). The oath was kept, we are told, by his giving her one blow with a rod of a hundred stalks. This passage is often quoted by the Muslims as authorising any similar manner of release from an oath inconsiderately taken. (Print)
The only arguable good verses in the Koran are commandments to give to the poor, which according to the study I did accounts for about 2% of the Koran. Some may argue that giving to the poor is a good thing. Perhaps. But, in the Koran, it is couched inside commandments of not getting wealthy.
These are they who purchase this present life at the price of that which is to come: their torment shall not be lightened, neither shall they be helped. (2.86)
Let not prosperity in the land on part of those who believe not, deceive thee. Tis but a brief enjoyment. Then shall Hell be their abode, and wretched the bed! (3.196-197)
What! prefer ye the life of this world to the next? But the fruition of this mundane life, in respect of that which is to come, is but little. (9.38)
And if this isn’t malicious enough, the Koran’s wish for people who have wealth:
Let not, therefore, their riches or their children amaze thee. God is only minded to punish them by these, in this life present, and that their souls may depart while they are unbelievers. (9.55; emphasis mine)
The Koran is hostile to any kind of wealth, pleasure, or success on this earth. Even having children is considered a test from God of where a Muslim’s loyalties lie. Man is meant to remain humble with only modest earnings, pouring most of his earnings to the cause of Islam. How can business, technology, art, music, or any other form of wealth or happiness develop out of this? Those who “purchase this present life,” according to the teachings of Islam, have done so at the price of the afterlife. Given Muslims, Muslims who follow the Koran anyway, are forbidden any pleasure while on this earth, death must feel like liberation to them
Thus my charge against Islam of creating poverty.
What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam and the Koran is its belief in predestination, which you may notice in the study I performed. Allow me to introduce you to one of the biggest theological contradictions of all time. The Koran is filled with threat after threat
directed at nonbelievers. And yet the Koran says that it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe.
He whom God guideth is the guided, and they whom he misleadeth shall be the lost. (7.178) No soul can believe but by the permission of God: and he shall lay his wrath on those who will not understand. (10.100)
And they who believe not say, “Unless a sign be sent down to him from his Lord . . . ” SAY: God truly will mislead whom he will; and He will guide to Himself him who turneth to Him. (13.27)
Had God pleased, He could have made you one people: but He causeth whom He will to err, and whom He will He guideth: and ye shall assuredly be called to account for your doings. (16.93)
So, if God and God only can cause people to not believe, then why all of the threats? What good will they do? Whose fault is it that they are nonbelievers and why should they be punished for something out of their control? (I argued that the Koran had an identity, i.e., a specific meaning; I never promised it would make sense.)
Imagine you are a Muslim and want more than anything to be a good Muslim and to get into heaven. How do you know that Allah will pick you to be one that he will guide? Every person, according to Islam, has no control over his fate but rather is at the mercy of Allah’s whim.
This belief in predestination is not just mysticism; it is much worse. Not only do men gain knowledge through faith only; it is only some men (and the Koran says only a few men) are privy to such knowledge. And now the most pressing question: If all the world is to be Muslim, as the Koran commands, but people cannot be converted, how can that happen? There is only one way.
Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to relegating infidels to an inferior status. They are called blind, stupid, and ignorant. No proof is given of why they should believe; Muhammad performed no miracles for people. When some skeptics asked for proof, the response was:
And when ye said, “O Moses! we will not believe thee until we see God plainly;” the thunderbolt fell upon you while ye were looking on. (2.55)
Infidels are accused of being thankless. The Koran says infidels promise that they will believe in God if God relieves them of their affliction, but when God does, they forget him. Infidels mock the prophets when they come to give their message to them. All of this sets up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long battle cry against infidels.
I find it interesting that the Koran is not in chronological order. It was re-arranged, and most of the downright violent Suras were put at the beginning.
Is it not proved to those who inherit this land after its ancient occupants, that if we please we can smite them for their sins, and put a seal upon their hearts, that they hearken not? (7.100)
Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's. (8.38-39)
And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them
with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful. (9.5)
Yes, this is straight from the Holy Book of the religion that gets called a “Religion of Peace.” Muslims are commanded to fight. Only the weak are excused.
It shall be no crime on the part of the blind, the lame, or the sick, if they go not to the fight. But whoso shall obey God and His Apostle, He shall bring him into the gardens 'neath which the rivers flow: but whoso shall turn back, He will punish him with a sore punishment. (48.17) After fighting, believers have a right to the infidels’ houses.
And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things. (33.27)
Thus my charge against Islam of creating oppression.
The Koran is clear on when fighting can stop. Some may say that the Koran says fighting can stop once “peace” is made, which is how they spin the following:
Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are they your brethren in religion. We make clear our signs to those who understand. But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ring-leaders of infidelity—for no oaths are binding with them—that they may desist. (9.11-12)
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH ALLAH è IL DEMONIO MECCA CABA, E NON HA NULLA IN COMUNE CON IL DIO DEGLI EBREI E DEI CRISTIANI!
Note 1 from Sura 66 further clarifies this verse: The first verses of this Sura were revealed on occasion of Muhammad's reviving affection for Mary, a Copt slave sent him by the governor of Egypt from whom he had recently sworn to his wife Hafsa to separate entirely. Hafsa, who had been greatly incensed at their amour, of which Muhammad had himself informed her, communicated the matter in confidence to Ayesha, from whose altered manner, probably, the prophet found that his secret had been betrayed. To free Muhammad from his obligation to Hafsa was the object of this chapter. (Print)
Muhammad had told his wife that he would stop having sex with a slave. However, he came back to tell her that he is allowed because Allah does not forbid it. Hence, to hell with her wishes!
Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with female slaves and their allotted four wives:
It is not permitted thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to change thy present wives for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves whom thy right hand shall possess. And God watcheth all things. (33.52)
I propose the purpose of the Koran is nothing but a rationalization: Muhammad’s rationalization to do whatever he wants in the name of “religion.”
Thus my charges against Islam of creating and promoting rape and slavery.
A verse in the Koran that needs no further comment:
And we said, “Take in thine hand a rod and strike with it, nor break thine oath.” Verily, we found him patient! (38.44) Note 15 in Sura 38: Thy wife; - on whom he had sworn that he would inflict an hundred blows, because she had absented herself from him when in need of her assistance, or for her words (Job ii.9). The oath was kept, we are told, by his giving her one blow with a rod of a hundred stalks. This passage is often quoted by the Muslims as authorising any similar manner of release from an oath inconsiderately taken. (Print) The only arguable good verses in the Koran are commandments to give to the poor, which according to the study I did accounts for about 2% of the Koran. Some may argue that giving to the poor is a good thing. Perhaps. But, in the Koran, it is couched inside commandments of not getting wealthy.
These are they who purchase this present life at the price of that which is to come: their torment shall not be lightened, neither shall they be helped. (2.86)
Let not prosperity in the land on part of those who believe not, deceive thee. Tis but a brief enjoyment. Then shall Hell be their abode, and wretched the bed! (3.196-197)
What! prefer ye the life of this world to the next? But the fruition of this mundane life, in respect of that which is to come, is but little. (9.38)
And if this isn’t malicious enough, the Koran’s wish for people who have wealth:
Let not, therefore, their riches or their children amaze thee. God is only minded to punish them by these, in this life present, and that their souls may depart while they are unbelievers. (9.55; emphasis mine)
The Koran is hostile to any kind of wealth, pleasure, or success on this earth. Even having children is considered a test from God of where a Muslim’s loyalties lie. Man is meant to remain humble with only modest earnings, pouring most of his earnings to the cause of Islam. How can business, technology, art, music, or any other form of wealth or happiness develop out of this? Those who “purchase this present life,” according to the teachings of Islam, have done so at the price of the afterlife. Given Muslims, Muslims who follow the Koran anyway, are forbidden any pleasure while on this earth, death must feel like liberation to them
Thus my charge against Islam of creating poverty.
What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam and the Koran is its belief in predestination, which you may notice in the study I performed. Allow me to introduce you to one of the biggest theological contradictions of all time. The Koran is filled with threat after threat
directed at nonbelievers. And yet the Koran says that it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe.
He whom God guideth is the guided, and they whom he misleadeth shall be the lost. (7.178) No soul can believe but by the permission of God: and he shall lay his wrath on those who will not understand. (10.100) And they who believe not say, “Unless a sign be sent down to him from his Lord . . . ” SAY: God truly will mislead whom he will; and He will guide to Himself him who turneth to Him. (13.27)
Had God pleased, He could have made you one people: but He causeth whom He will to err, and whom He will He guideth: and ye shall assuredly be called to account for your doings. (16.93)
So, if God and God only can cause people to not believe, then why all of the threats? What good will they do? Whose fault is it that they are nonbelievers and why should they be punished for something out of their control? (I argued that the Koran had an identity, i.e., a specific meaning; I never promised it would make sense.)
Imagine you are a Muslim and want more than anything to be a good Muslim and to get into heaven. How do you know that Allah will pick you to be one that he will guide? Every person, according to Islam, has no control over his fate but rather is at the mercy of Allah’s whim. This belief in predestination is not just mysticism; it is much worse. Not only do men gain knowledge through faith only; it is only some men (and the Koran says only a few men) are privy to such knowledge. And now the most pressing question: If all the world is to be Muslim, as the Koran commands, but people cannot be converted, how can that happen? There is only one way.
Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to relegating infidels to an inferior status. They are called blind, stupid, and ignorant. No proof is given of why they should believe; Muhammad performed no miracles for people. When some skeptics asked for proof, the response was: And when ye said, “O Moses! we will not believe thee until we see God plainly;” the thunderbolt fell upon you while ye were looking on. (2.55)
Infidels are accused of being thankless. The Koran says infidels promise that they will believe in God if God relieves them of their affliction, but when God does, they forget him. Infidels mock the prophets when they come to give their message to them. All of this sets up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long battle cry against infidels.
I find it interesting that the Koran is not in chronological order. It was re-arranged, and most of the downright violent Suras were put at the beginning.
Is it not proved to those who inherit this land after its ancient occupants, that if we please we can smite them for their sins, and put a seal upon their hearts, that they hearken not? (7.100)
Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's. (8.38-39)
And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them
with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful. (9.5)
Yes, this is straight from the Holy Book of the religion that gets called a “Religion of Peace.”
Muslims are commanded to fight. Only the weak are excused.
It shall be no crime on the part of the blind, the lame, or the sick, if they go not to the fight. But whoso shall obey God and His Apostle, He shall bring him into the gardens 'neath which the rivers flow: but whoso shall turn back, He will punish him with a sore punishment. (48.17)
After fighting, believers have a right to the infidels’ houses.
And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things. (33.27)
Thus my charge against Islam of creating oppression.
The Koran is clear on when fighting can stop. Some may say that the Koran says fighting can stop once “peace” is made, which is how they spin the following:
Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are they your brethren in religion. We make clear our signs to those who understand. But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ring-leaders of infidelity—for no oaths are binding with them—that they may desist. (9.11-12)
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH CERTO ISLAM TI UCCIDERà! Please notice that this verse is 9.11. Muslims are taught to wage war on nonbelievers. It is written in plain language. Muslims are to fight until nonbelievers convert or pay taxes. All else are to be killed. Ladies and Gentlemen, thus my charge against Islam of terrorism.
Let me remind you of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Along with the Pentagon (and another plane which never made its destination of the White House as some courageous heroes took it down before it could get there), the Islamic terrorists targeted the twin towers of the World Trade Center, symbols of American wealth and prosperity.
And when we willed to destroy a city, to its affluent ones did we address our bidding: but when they acted criminally therein, just was its doom, and we destroyed it with an utter destruction. (17:16)
We will not burden a soul beyond its power: and with us is a book, which speaketh the truth; and they shall not be wronged: But as to this Book, their hearts are plunged in error, and their works are far other than those of Muslims, and they will work those works, Until when we lay hold on their affluent ones with punishment; lo! they cry for help. (23.62-64)
I will remind you the reason why the terrorists were willing to kill themselves to kill Americans: they were promised 72 virgins in heaven.
But, for the God-fearing is a blissful abode, Enclosed gardens and vineyards; And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age. (78.31-33)
But the pious shall be in a secure place, Amid gardens and fountains, Clothed in silk and richest robes, facing one another: Thus shall it be: and we will wed them to the virgins with large dark eyes. (44.51-54)
For being people who damn the riches of this life (which are earned through production), they are sure excited to get freebies and women in heaven.
The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did not do so in the name of their country or for any demand, such as money or land: they did it openly and proudly in the name of Islam. They were not misguided; they were in every way Islamic.
The very last Suras in the Koran are very short and riddled with cries about the evilness of infidels. Even as I read them, I could feel the burning hatred of infidels that one is meant to feel after reading them. These ending Suras can be considered chants—short, quick, hysterical chants—against infidels.
Some will insist that my quoted verses were totally lifted out of context. This argument does not have much merit. As you can tell from my study, the context of just about all verses in the Koran is a sea of hatred. It is in fact the Islam apologists who do not put things in context. Islam apologists comb the Koran for any and all good quotes and take it as proof that the Koran is peaceful. For instance, there is a quote in the Koran which says Muslims can have their religion and other people can have theirs. This may seem good until you realize that, in the Koran, it says other religions may exist with Muslims, but people from those other religions are to live as second class citizens, paying taxes to Muslims.
The other argument usually given is that the Koran does call for violence but only in self-defense. This is spin taken to new heights.
The Koran does not unequivocally say that your enemies are people who threaten your life. The enemies, according to the Koran, are the infidels, who, it argues, are by definition “transgressors”—thus any attack on an infidel, who by definition is a transgressor, is an act of self-defense.
And when ye go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime in you to cut short your prayers, if ye fear lest the infidels come upon you; Verily, the infidels are your undoubted enemies! (4.101; emphasis mine)
They [the polytheists] sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside from his way: evil is it that they do!
They regard not in a believer either ties of blood or faith; these are the transgressors! (9.9-10; emphasis mine)
I asked a Muslim once about Muhammad. Muhammad was a warlord—apparently the very first Islamic terrorist to hijack the Islam religion. This man I talked to insisted that that Islam was a religion that advocated violence only in self-defense. I asked him if Muhammad fought in self-defense or in aggression. He answered, “Both.” So I asked him why Muhammad fought in aggression—perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike against enemies about to strike. And, if it was a pre-emptive strike, I asked if Muhammad had significant intelligence data suggesting that enemy nations were about to attack. He told me that Allah “in his infinite wisdom” told Muhammad that these people were his enemies.
This is the problem with Islam and this is the problem with blind faith. There are no exacting standards for who is an enemy and who is not. Whoever is perceived to be an enemy is
an enemy. They regard any attack on Islam, not an attack on a person’s life, to be a justified reason for a retaliatory attack “in self-defense.” Just drawing a picture of Muhammad, forbidden by Islam, is enough to warrant death against infidels—infidels who do not even make the picture—as happened in 2005 when a Dutch newspaper published cartoon drawings of Muhammad. In retaliation, Muslims attacked Dutch embassies, resulting in 100 deaths.
All hate movements have argued that they fight only in self-defense. Every person in the world must feel like they are moral. A very basic moral rule—that is accepted by virtually all human beings—is that you do not hurt another person unless they have hurt you first. As such, for all hate movements, they need to be convinced that someone or several people hurt them first before they commit their heinous acts. The group they accuse of oppression is not specific people—that would require evidence. Instead they blame it on a broad, general group of people and play off of stereotypes and racial hatred to convince themselves that they are the victims. Hitler had the Jews. Communists had the bourgeois. Muslims have infidels.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH islam TI UCCIDERà! Everything about Islam prepares its people to be fighters. It riles them with hatred. It prods them to fight. Even the “holidays” in Islam trains fighters. Take for instance Ramadan. Instead of feasting and celebrating, Muslims are to sacrifice during the daylight hours for a month. I propose that this is an effective way to train its followers for war. Besides the practical ability to go without food for extended amounts of times, it trains people to accept a tough life. The only place you will see this kind of extreme behavior in America is for various types of military training.
This isn’t a matter of clamoring over a few verses or of deciding whether or not some verses contradict other verses in the Koran. This is about the fundamental theme of the Koran, which is burning hatred of infidels and wishes of death and destruction for them. Any Muslim who picks up the Koran and takes it seriously will at the very least believe infidels are evil and deserving of death. Islam is a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred for those who don’t believe as they do. But don’t take my word for it. Please, by all means, read the Koran for yourself.
Many people, naïve to Islam, will point to the fact that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them become terrorists. True, they do not. The problem is not the regular people but the leaders. Most people, anywhere, just accept the major philosophy or religion of their time and usually do not take it very seriously. Observe that it isn’t the poor or ignorant who typically become terrorists but the rich and educated. It is the Muslims who are capable of understanding the Koran (the educated) and have the means to implement what it says (the rich) who become terrorists. This is about what Islam is as an ideology and what the ramifications are when adopted.
Many others give other reasons for why terrorism is created. Typically, many assign the cause of terrorism to some pet cause that they have. Feminists blame the “patriarchy”. Socialists blame it on poverty. These are obviously grounded not in reality but ideology. They are not honest evaluations; they would rather continue grinding their axe against men, the wealthy, whoever it is they hate.
Blaming it on poverty is particularly sneaky. It is simply not true: most terrorists are middle class if not filthy rich. When the religious fundamentalists are poor, they do not have the means to fight. It is when they became wealthy, recently mostly from oil money, that they can launch bigger, more effective attacks. Blaming it on poverty suggests that the solution is to pour more money—more money to go to jihad—into their hands. Indeed, what we need is the exact opposite: we need to starve them of all resources, especially financial ones.
Some try to argue that Islam has produced scientific achievements in the past. Most people tend to attribute the invention of Algebra to Muslims. But it was not Muslims or even Arabs that discovered Algebra: it was the Iranians. The Iranians have a rich history of enlightenment and are more influenced by their heritage, which is one that emphasizes education and scholarship, than religion. Another person some point to is a man named Razi, who made advancements in medicine, as evidence of Muslim accomplishment. But Razi was not an Arab or a Muslim but again an Iranian. In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason and had to live as a heretic. To give credit of this achievement to Muslims, when Muslims made him live as a gypsy, is beyond outrageous. Razi was to the Muslim world what Galileo was to ours—except that the Muslims were much worse to him than Christians were to Galileo.
It should be obvious to Western people that faith, mysticism, and blind religion are antagonistic to science, reason, and progress. We can easily see how Christianity was responsible for The Dark Ages, but we refuse to see how Islam is responsible for the violence and primitive life in the Middle East. Islam cannot even uphold a decent society let alone a prosperous one. Progress is not some kind of gift from the heavens. If you look at all successful societies, you will see the influence of one man: Aristotle. Progress requires a commitment to reason. The only way for peace or stability to come to the Middle East is for Islam to leave and for Enlightenment to reign.
One would think that liberals would be the first to condemn Islam. It is the polar opposite of all of their stated values, and they have a tendency to think they are enlightened. But, eerily enough, they almost seem to side with Islam, although they go after Christianity with an unusual tenacity. This seems odd since Islam is by far a more faith-based and hateful religion than Christianity. And, while I disagree with Christianity, it upholds at least a decent, stable moral framework for people to co-exist peacefully. Islam does not. The fact that liberals speak out against Christianity, allegedly in the name of reason, but not Islam shows that the left is not anti-faith but anti-values. If you notice, liberals didn’t embrace Islam until they realized its potential for terrorism. This speaks volumes.
Even if we take down every cell of Islamic terrorism or every Islamic dictatorship that harbors and finances terrorists, so as long as this malignant ideology is around, it will inspire its followers to pick up and fight infidels. We attempted to fight communism militarily, fighting aggressive communist nations, to fail. For over a half of a century we refused to call communism itself evil. Then, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was willing to challenge communism ideologically. Communism came tumbling down with hardly a shot fired. Like with Islam, for decades we were told it was “bad people” running the communist countries that was the problem. It was not; like with Islam, the problem is not that bad people hijacked an otherwise peaceful ideology, the problem is the ideology. I am, however, more hopeful that people will call Islam evil, and sooner, as if people can see how communism, which comes in the package of equality and peace, is an evil ideology, they can certainly see how Islam is evil.
Never underestimate the power of a simple, consistent moral argument against the ideology of our enemies. If we are going to fight terrorism, we need to fight the ideology that inspires terrorism. As far as those hysterical people who say that challenging Islam is akin to starting a mass genocide: fighting—and winning—in the realm of ideas is a far more humane and peaceful way to end threats to our lives and nation. Most seem to believe that Islam needs to be “secularized” for peace and freedom to come to the Middle East. Frankly, this is just a politically correct way to say Islam is the problem. Whether you believe Islam has to be secularized or eradicated, the simple fact remains that Islam is the problem. Until we are willing to prosecute Islam as a violent religion, our war on terror will never end.
The jury is out. May all those with a rational mind judge accordingly.
Enjoy this article? Please consider leaving a review on amazon.
Works Cited
The Koran. Trans. J.M. Rodwell. New York: Dulton, 1977. Print.
The Koran. Trans. J.M. Rodwell. New York: Dulton, 1977. Online Quaran Project. Web. 22 May 2010.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
lorenzoALLAH islam TI UCCIDERà! Everything about Islam prepares its people to be fighters. It riles them with hatred. It prods them to fight. Even the “holidays” in Islam trains fighters. Take for instance Ramadan. Instead of feasting and celebrating, Muslims are to sacrifice during the daylight hours for a month. I propose that this is an effective way to train its followers for war. Besides the practical ability to go without food for extended amounts of times, it trains people to accept a tough life. The only place you will see this kind of extreme behavior in America is for various types of military training.
This isn’t a matter of clamoring over a few verses or of deciding whether or not some verses contradict other verses in the Koran. This is about the fundamental theme of the Koran, which is burning hatred of infidels and wishes of death and destruction for them. Any Muslim who picks up the Koran and takes it seriously will at the very least believe infidels are evil and deserving of death. Islam is a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred for those who don’t believe as they do. But don’t take my word for it. Please, by all means, read the Koran for yourself.
Many people, naïve to Islam, will point to the fact that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them become terrorists. True, they do not. The problem is not the regular people but the leaders. Most people, anywhere, just accept the major philosophy or religion of their time and usually do not take it very seriously. Observe that it isn’t the poor or ignorant who typically become terrorists but the rich and educated. It is the Muslims who are capable of understanding the Koran (the educated) and have the means to implement what it says (the rich) who become terrorists. This is about what Islam is as an ideology and what the ramifications are when adopted.
Many others give other reasons for why terrorism is created. Typically, many assign the cause of terrorism to some pet cause that they have. Feminists blame the “patriarchy”. Socialists blame it on poverty. These are obviously grounded not in reality but ideology. They are not honest evaluations; they would rather continue grinding their axe against men, the wealthy, whoever it is they hate.
Blaming it on poverty is particularly sneaky. It is simply not true: most terrorists are middle class if not filthy rich. When the religious fundamentalists are poor, they do not have the means to fight. It is when they became wealthy, recently mostly from oil money, that they can launch bigger, more effective attacks. Blaming it on poverty suggests that the solution is to pour more money—more money to go to jihad—into their hands. Indeed, what we need is the exact opposite: we need to starve them of all resources, especially financial ones.
Some try to argue that Islam has produced scientific achievements in the past. Most people tend to attribute the invention of Algebra to Muslims. But it was not Muslims or even Arabs that discovered Algebra: it was the Iranians. The Iranians have a rich history of enlightenment and are more influenced by their heritage, which is one that emphasizes education and scholarship, than religion. Another person some point to is a man named Razi, who made advancements in medicine, as evidence of Muslim accomplishment. But Razi was not an Arab or a Muslim but again an Iranian. In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason and had to live as a heretic. To give credit of this achievement to Muslims, when Muslims made him live as a gypsy, is beyond outrageous. Razi was to the Muslim world what Galileo was to ours—except that the Muslims were much worse to him than Christians were to Galileo.
It should be obvious to Western people that faith, mysticism, and blind religion are antagonistic to science, reason, and progress. We can easily see how Christianity was responsible for The Dark Ages, but we refuse to see how Islam is responsible for the violence and primitive life in the Middle East. Islam cannot even uphold a decent society let alone a prosperous one. Progress is not some kind of gift from the heavens. If you look at all successful societies, you will see the influence of one man: Aristotle. Progress requires a commitment to reason. The only way for peace or stability to come to the Middle East is for Islam to leave and for Enlightenment to reign.
One would think that liberals would be the first to condemn Islam. It is the polar opposite of all of their stated values, and they have a tendency to think they are enlightened. But, eerily enough, they almost seem to side with Islam, although they go after Christianity with an unusual tenacity. This seems odd since Islam is by far a more faith-based and hateful religion than Christianity. And, while I disagree with Christianity, it upholds at least a decent, stable moral framework for people to co-exist peacefully. Islam does not. The fact that liberals speak out against Christianity, allegedly in the name of reason, but not Islam shows that the left is not anti-faith but anti-values. If you notice, liberals didn’t embrace Islam until they realized its potential for terrorism. This speaks volumes.
Even if we take down every cell of Islamic terrorism or every Islamic dictatorship that harbors and finances terrorists, so as long as this malignant ideology is around, it will inspire its followers to pick up and fight infidels. We attempted to fight communism militarily, fighting aggressive communist nations, to fail. For over a half of a century we refused to call communism itself evil. Then, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was willing to challenge communism ideologically. Communism came tumbling down with hardly a shot fired. Like with Islam, for decades we were told it was “bad people” running the communist countries that was the problem. It was not; like with Islam, the problem is not that bad people hijacked an otherwise peaceful ideology, the problem is the ideology. I am, however, more hopeful that people will call Islam evil, and sooner, as if people can see how communism, which comes in the package of equality and peace, is an evil ideology, they can certainly see how Islam is evil.
Never underestimate the power of a simple, consistent moral argument against the ideology of our enemies. If we are going to fight terrorism, we need to fight the ideology that inspires terrorism. As far as those hysterical people who say that challenging Islam is akin to starting a mass genocide: fighting—and winning—in the realm of ideas is a far more humane and peaceful way to end threats to our lives and nation.
Most seem to believe that Islam needs to be “secularized” for peace and freedom to come to the Middle East. Frankly, this is just a politically correct way to say Islam is the problem.
Whether you believe Islam has to be secularized or eradicated, the simple fact remains that Islam is the problem. Until we are willing to prosecute Islam as a violent religion, our war on terror will never end.
The jury is out. May all those with a rational mind judge accordingly.
Enjoy this article? Please consider leaving a review on amazon.
Works Cited
The Koran. Trans. J.M. Rodwell. New York: Dulton, 1977. Print.
The Koran. Trans. J.M. Rodwell. New York: Dulton, 1977. Online Quaran Project. Web. 22 May 2010.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH10 ore fa
noi abbiamo gli zombies islamici del genocidio LEGA ARABA Salafiti, risuscitati dal Medio Evo della storia più brutale, [ da una parte ], e i farisei satanisti massoni GENDER Darwin Bildenberg e [ dall'altra ] LA SOCIETà EBRAICO CRISTIANA è DESTINATA A COLLASSARE SOTTO LA AZIONe DI QUESTI MOSTRI LA GUERRA MONDIALE NUCLEARE, CHE è UNA AGGRESSIONE ALLE NUOVE CIVILTà UMANISTICHE ISRAELE CINA E RUSSIA? INEVITABILE! ] questa strega, ha paura e parla a [ Nuovo commento sul tuo canale uniusrei2 ] perché lui ha messo minacciosi esorcismi in youtube, tra i video dei satanisti cannnibali, e molti son morti! [ Alien] said to [ +KingxKingdom Unius REI watch my real channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLDyyNNaUYLa0Ppk8IKah5g ] SIGNORA STREGA, IO NON SO COSA PUò ESSERE UTILE PER ME, DELLA SUA SVENTURATA AVVENTURA! IO NON SONO IL PADRONE DELLA METAFISICA, IO SONO SOLTANTO UN SUO STRUMENTO. NESSUNO DI VOI POTRà SOPRAVVIVERE AL MASSACRO IMMINENTE! PROPRIO LA VOSTRA ESISTENZA CONVINCE SALMAN SAUDITI SHARIA, CHE è GIUSTO GIOCARE LA CARTA, DEL TUTTO PER TUTTO, PER DISINTEGRARE EUROPA E UE: E OGNI ALTRA NAZIONE DEL MONDO, perché dal loro punto di vista nazista e omicida: la loro moralità è una civiltà superiore!! come ho fronteggiato ex-Direttore di youtube, con tutti i suoi canali, il sacerdote di satana 1. Mistafield poi, 2. synnek1, oggi:  3. 187AudioHostem, finché lui è stato licenziato da youtube. oggi il nuovo direttore di youtube è una strega, lei cerca il confronto contro me, con gli stessi metodi sleali! Ma quello che io odio, in tutto questo, è che loro parlano a me, ma, che non permettono a me, che io parli a loro, non solo, ma il mio canale KingxKingdom sembra essere l'unico mio canale non rappresentato sulla pagina di youtube. https://www.youtube.com/user/YouTube/discussion tutti i canali personali di questa strega sono:   truth my fake channels! i play show. i love just myself R.I.P close soon. 10 Years ago i'am a liar. Questo è il canale principale [ Alien ] Celight93, Nitro 1, Pandora, General, Genesis, Infinity, Semi. [ My fake channels! ] i play show. watch my comments session. Your hate my win R.I.P. Kio, Siesk, Lucifer, Monster, Storm, Star, Destroyer 1, Futire, My ex-main channel since 1.1.2013 January. My Real ex-main channel. 10 Years Cx comments war champion, Destiny: 7 video The Xies Luna corparation of the Blue light! im the Fate :) Destiny my way :) Metro clan member: Destiny, The Metro Federation www.uploadsociety.com    Cx talent bounjour au revoir codename: Fate D
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH17 ore fa
MI DISPIACE AVERE SEMPRE RAGIONE! ma, NOI DOBBIAMO STERMINARE LA LEGA ARABA E METTERE ALLE SPALLE, QUESTA MINACCIA ESTREMA, PER LA SOPRAVVIVENZA DEL GENERE UMANO, CHE è A SHARIA MORTALE CONTRO TUTTO IL GENERE UMANO! The meaning of “brother” in Islam. The word brother is used in two ways in Bukhari. The first meaning is an actual blood brother, sharing the same mother or father. The second meaning is another Muslim. There are a total of 209 hadiths that refer to the word “brother” and of these 96 refer to being a blood brother. This leaves 209 – 96 = 113 hadiths about spiritual brotherhood. This work is important since it means that pseudo-Golden Rule hadiths that say a Muslim is to love his brother does not apply to kafirs. Hence, the hadith is not a true Golden Rule, which is to treat ALL others as a brother. The kafir is outside the pseudo-Golden Rule. In Islam the Golden Rule is restricted to other Muslims.
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/meaning_of_brother.html
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH17 ore fa
The Sunna of Mohammed. MAOMETTO è UN PREDATORE ASSASSINO SPIETATO STUPRATORE PEDOFILO: IL PEGGIO DELLA FECCIA E DELL'ACCUMULO DI OGNI VIOLAZIONE DELLE LEGGI DELLA CIVILIZZAZIONE! The Number of Times the Koran Commands Muslims to Imitate Mohammed. The Koran demands 91 times that Muslims imitate Mohammed in every way. These commands take two types—historical and the other is a direct command. The Meccan Koran is filled with examples of the previous “prophet/messengers” who had to be obeyed or Allah punished them. Moses is a historical example. There are only 5 direct commands to follow Mohammed in Mecca. Then in Medina there are 86 verses with a direct command to obey and follow Mohammed. Why the increase? In Medina Mohammed was a political leader and needed total command in this world, not the next.
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/imitate_mohamed.html
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH17 ore fa
13 verses: ISLAM in 1400 anni si è sempre dimostrato genocidario il suo metodo di diffusione è la spada! ] [ 9:23 Oh, Believers, do not make friends of your fathers or your brothers if they love unbelief above Islam. He who makes them his friends does wrong. Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brothers, and your wives, and your kin-folks, and the wealth which you have gained, and the merchandise that you fear you will not sell, and the dwellings in which you delight—if all are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and efforts on His Path, then wait until Allah’s command comes to pass. Allah does not guide the impious.
3:28 Believers should not take unbelievers as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.
3:117 Believers! Do not become friends with anyone except your own people. The unbelievers will not rest until they have corrupted you. They wish nothing but your ruin. Their hatred of you is made clear by their words, but even greater hatred is hidden within their hearts. We have made Our signs clear to you. Therefore, do your best to comprehend them.
4:89 They would have you become unbelievers like them so you will all be the same. Therefore, do not take any of them as friends until they have abandoned their homes to fight for Allah’s cause. But if they turn back, find them and kill them wherever they are. Do not take any of them as a friend or a helper except those who seek asylum among your allies and those who come to you because their hearts have forbidden them from fighting against you or their own people. If it had been Allah’s will, He would have given them power over you so they would have certainly fought you. Therefore, if they leave you and do not wage war against you and seek peace with you, Allah commands you not to injure them.
4:138 Warn the hypocrites that torturous punishment awaits them. The hypocrites take unbelievers as friends rather than believers. Do they look for honor at their hands? Truly all honor belongs to Allah.
4:144 Believers! Do not take unbelievers as friends over fellow believers. Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish you?
60:1 Oh, you who believe, do not take My enemy and yours for friends by showing them kindness. They reject the truth that has come to you. They drive out the messengers and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord. If you continue to fight for Allah’s cause [jihad] and from a desire to please Me, would you show them kindness in private? I know best what you conceal and what you reveal. Whoever does this among you has already strayed from the right path.
60:13 Oh, Believers, do not enter into friendship with those against whom Allah is angered. They have despaired of the hereafter, even as the unbelievers despair of those who are in graves.
5:57 Oh, you who believe, do not take those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] before you, who have scoffed and jested at your religion, or who are unbelievers for your friends. Fear Allah if you are true believers. When you call to prayer, they make it a mockery and a joke. This is because they are a people who do not understand.
5:78 Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David and of Jesus, Son of Mary, because they were rebellious and persisted in excesses. They did not restrain. one another from the iniquity they committed. Their actions were detestable. You will see many of them make friends with the unbelievers. They have sent their evil works on before them. Allah is angry with them, and they will abide in torment forever. If they had believed in Allah, the Messenger, and the Koran that was revealed to him, they would not choose them for their friends, but most of them are rebellious wrongdoers.
58:14 Have you not taken notice of those who befriend the people with whom Allah is angry? They are neither a part of your group or theirs, and they knowingly swear a lie. Allah has prepared a dreadful punishment for them, for their actions are evil. A humiliating punishment awaits those [Jews who pretend to be Muslims] who use their faith as a disguise and turn others away from Allah’s path. Neither their wealth or their children will protect them from Allah. They will be prisoners of the Fire, where they will live forever.
5:55 Your protectors are Allah and His Messenger and those who believe, who observe regular prayer and regular charity, and who bow in worship. And whoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe for friends, they truly are the people of Allah and must be triumphant. Oh, you who believe, do not take those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] before you, who have scoffed and jested at your religion, or who are unbelievers for your friends. Fear Allah if you are true believers. When you call to prayer, they make it a mockery and a joke. This is because they are a people who do not understand.
5:51 Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you take them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers.
lorenzoALLAH
lorenzoALLAH17 ore fa
The Trilogy Project. islam è totalmente ipocrita! islam è totalmente omicida e criminale!  Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith. These texts have been analyzed using simple statistics. Here are some of the topics that have been studied:
The Relative Sizes of the Trilogy Texts
Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir
Amount of Sira Text Devoted to Topic
Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
Woman’s Status in the Koran
Woman’s Status in the Hadith
Greater Jihad
Lesser Jihad
The meaning of the word “brother” in Islam
The Sunna of Mohammed: The Number of Times the Koran Commands
Muslims to Imitate Mohammed
The 13 Verses that reveal that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Amount_of_Text_in_the_Sira_Devoted_to_Topic.html
lorenzoALLAH

Kafirs in the Trilogy. Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 37% of the text to Kafirs. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 51% of its content to the Kafir.
Reference  Word Count  Percentage
Jews                       57,563  8.9%
Jihad   132,315  21%
Christians   18,137  2.8%
Pagans    30,260  4.7%
Total Kafir in Hadith  238,275  36.9%
Hadith/Bukhari   645,745 
Sira (prophet)   274,838 
Koran    152,006 
Total Trilogy   1,072,589  
Meccan Koran   66,285  68.2%
Medinan Koran  31,287  57%
Total Koran   97,583  64%
Sira    221,343  81%
Hadith Kafir material  238,275  36.9%
Total Words   548,190  51%
Grand totals: Kafir / Trilogy = 548,190 / 1,072,589 = 51%
lorenzoALLAH

The Relative Sizes of the Trilogy Texts ] [ la pratica della schiavitù: ha varie fasi, e vari modelli oppressivi di obbligo alla minorità sociale fino all'omicidio e alla sottomissione, stupro, rapimento di ragazze. QUESTI MOSTRI DEVONO ESSERE SRADICATI DEFINITIVAMENTE DALLA STORIA DI QUESTO PIANETA, PERCHé LA SHARIA è PER NOI UNA MINACCIA MORTALE! Koran: 152,006 words. Note: this count will differ with each translation. Hadith: Bukhari has 645,745 words. Sira: the Sira has three divisions. There is Mohammed’s life as a prophet and auxiliary material that precedes his prophet-ship and events following his death. The third element is Hisham’s notes. We have a precise word count for Mohammed’s prophet-hood from a scanned version of Guillaume’s The Life of the Muhammad. It covers 579 pages and has a word count of 274,838 words. Since the material from his actual life as a prophet is Sunna, we only use the prophet material. Total of Koran, Sira  (without Sira extras) and Hadith: 1,072,589 words. As a technical note: if we include the auxiliary material and Hisham, the total word count is estimated to be: 379,700 words.
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/The_Relative_Sizes_of_the_Trilogy_Texts.html
lorenzoALLAH

Product Description. Political Islam. avere trasformato una religione, in un sistema geo politico significa ideologicamente e fattivamente condannare a genocidio tutto il genere umano! Political Islam has subjugated civilizations for 1,400 years. One of the great questions of the 21st century is: What is the true nature of Islam? The popular message is that Islam is one of the great world religions, a peaceful religion, a foundation of world civilization, its Golden Age was the highpoint of history, and it preserved Western thought while we were in the Dark Ages. The alternative message is that Islam is a brutal, backward, woman abusing, violent, intellectually narrow ideology that is out to annihilate civilization. Which side is right? How do we resolve this issue? Can it even be resolved?
http://www.politicalislam.com/product/afraid/ Why We Are Afraid is a lecture by Dr. Bill Warner with an accompanying PowerPoint Presentation. Its synopsis includes 1400 year history and the growth of Islam. The presentation includes a 79 slide powerpoint presentation with four (4) videos of historical battles, charts and and supporting statistical data.
lorenzoALLAH

Product Description. Mohammed and the Unbelievers [ ISLAM RACCHIUDE IN SE: TUTTI I DELITTI PIù ABERRANTI! IL NAZISMO PIù SPIETATO, LA NEGAZIONE ASSOLUTA DI OGNI DIRITTO UMANO! SOLTANTO I SACERDOTI DI SATANA USA NATO SPA BANCHE CENTRALI, FARISEI E MASSONI, POTEVANO VOLER FARE UN MALE COSì TANTO GRANDE CONTRO TUTTO IL GENERE UMANO! ] [ Knowing the life of Mohammed (the Sira) is the key to understanding Islam and the Koran. In one of the great stories of history, Mohammed went from being an orphan to the first ruler of all Arabia. Battles, raids, torture, deception, slavery, assassinations, heroes, secret agents, and religion all figure in his glorious triumph. Mohammed was the world’s supreme master of war. Poetry, passion, culture, immigration, history, sex, ethics, economics, Paradise and Hell were all used to define a new form of war-jihad. This is an epic story and sacred text and a part of the Islamic Trilogy Series. Islam is a political system, a culture and a religion based upon the Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Islamic Trilogy series integrates the three primary sources to give the entire Islamic political doctrine-the treatment of non-Muslims. The Trilogy is authoritative and fact-based. All statements can be confirmed by the use of reference numbers. The knowledge is integrated-all of the primary sources are used to give the complete picture of Islam’s political doctrine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_SJoh__itY
Why is Mohammed the perfect jihadist? Mohammed was a failure as a religious teacher. How did he become the first ruler of Arabia? https://youtu.be/h_SJoh__itY Why was Aisha Mohammed’s favorite wife? Mohammed was involved in a violent event every 6 weeks for how long? How many men did Mohammed kill with his own hands?
The Sira is an 800 page book that is very difficult reading. Mohammed and the Unbelievers makes the life of Mohammed easy to understand. Know the answers to every aspect of Mohammed’s life. SKU: 978-0978552893 Categories: Paperbacks, PDF Downloads, Primary Doctrine Books, Primary Doctrine Books Tags: Biography of Mohammed, Islamic Trilogy Series, Mohammed and the Unbelievers, Paperback, Politics of Mohammed, Primary Doctrine Books Series, The Life of Mohammed http://www.politicalislam.com/product/mohammed-and-the-unbelievers/
lorenzoALLAH

la minaccia del nazismo non è così grande, e non può essere confrontata alla minaccia dell'ISLAM! ISLAM sostituiste ogni civiltà, con il genocidio, ed impone un nazismo senza speranza! Politically Correct Jihad, Nov 15 2015 | by Bill Warner. Only a day after the November 13 jihad attacks in Paris we see the usual politically correct responses. Ironically Obama and Kerry had pronounced Islamic State “contained” and its “days are numbered” earlier in the day. Merkel of Germany says that the proper response to jihad is tolerance and European values. The politicians do not use the word jihad, but terror and terror networks. The left of center press says that the rhetoric of the right causes terror and that poor Muslims will suffer from being associated with terror. They should be worried about being associated with jihad. The professors still teach Islam without jihad. The press will not offend Muslims. Police do not study the doctrine of jihad. Politicians cry out for more Muslim refugees. We are losing a civilizational war because of political correctness. To win we must start using the language of Islam. We must start conversations that about the ideology and doctrine of political Islam. —— Политкорректный Джихад Уже на следующий день после джихадистского нападения 13 ноября в Париже, мы увидели обычные политкорректные ответы. По иронии судьбы, Обама и Керрри объявили исламское государство «разбитым», сказав в тот же день, что «дни его сочтены». Меркель из Германии говорит, что адекватным ответом на джихад является терпимость и европейские ценности. Политики не используют слово «джихад», а только «террор» и «террористические сети». Левые из прессцентра говорят, что риторика правых способствует террору, и что бедные мусульмане страдают от того, что их связывают с терроризмом. Они переживают, что их связывают с джихадом. Профессора по-прежнему преподают Ислам без джихада. Пресса не хочет оскорблять мусульман. Полиция не изучает идеологию джихада. Политики взывают к принятию еще больше мусульманских беженцев. Мы проигрываем войну цивилизаций из-за политической корректности. Чтобы выиграть, мы должны начать с использования языка Ислама. Мы должны начать разговор об идеологии и доктрине политического Ислама.
lorenzoALLAH

LA ORIGINE SATANICA nazista E GENOCIDARIA DELL'ISLAM, una brutale violazione di ogni diritto umano! CHE PER COLPA delle sinistre atee (ex-COMUNISTI OCCIDENTALI), DIVENTERà DI NUOVO UNA SFIDA letale, TRA LA VITA E LA MORTE, tra la civiltà e la barbaria! nulla rimarrà DELLA NOSTRA CIVILTà: come nulla è rimasto delle civiltà del nordafrica, e delle civiltà di sui ISLAM ha fatto il genocidio! LA NATURA DELL'ISLAM è QUELLA DI STERMINARE I NON ISLAMICI! TANTO LETALE AL SUO INTERNO, COME LETALE AL SUO ESTERNO: finché tutto e tutti diventino sottomissione a SALMAN! ] [ A 1400 Year Old Muslim Secret Exposed by Dr. Bill Warner. Dr. Bill Warner, has a PhD in math and physics from University of North Carolina. Dr. Warner had been intrigued by religion and its effects on world history and has studied the source texts for all major religions for many years. He had even predicted a war of Islam on the U.S. After 9-11 he he set upon the project of translating the unclear Islamic texts into easy-to-understand English. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Warner believes that we are losing a civilizational war with Islam because the modern western world doggedly promotes policial correctness and will not examine Islamic ideology. This video may be long, but it gives an in-depth description of how ancient and modern Islamic history molded world views and created a fear to touch upon the core of Islam.
A fascinating talk. We need world leaders to open their ears and eyes and look at the facts that lie behind the horrific events taking place today. Published: November 25, 2015. Pubblicato il 31 ago 2012 http://www.politicalislam.com More videos here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Uu4XnRS1hiz3JCpNFIuUg/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Uu4XnRS1hiz3JCpNFIuUg/featured
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-warner-islam-1400-years-fear-english-titles
The history of Islam in Europe and how it effects us to this day. This is a history based on numbers and facts that you may not see anywhere else and explains why we may be afraid to see Islam for what it is based on its own doctrine and practice. https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
lorenzoALLAH

C'è QUALCOSA DI CATTIVO NEL MONDO E C'è QUALCOSA DI BUONO NEL MONDO: TUTTO QUESTO DEGLI EBREI è L'AGO DELLA BILANCIA! CHI è CON ME? TUTTO PUò ANDARE VERSO IL BENE! CHI è CONTRO DI ME? TUTTO PUò ANDARE VERSO IL MALE! ] [ Vile Anti-Semitic Incidents Shock Australia. australia-antisemetic-attacks-530. Click here to watch: Two Vile Anti-Semitic Incidents Shock Australia. A Melbourne Rabbi has been forced to defend himself from a man screaming “go back to Israel” and “swear to Allah” outside a synagogue yesterday. The enraged man cornered the orthodox Jew and then slapped him outside the Adass Synagogue in Elsternwick and a video was posted to the IDF Training Facebook page. In the clip, an agitated man can be seen screaming at the Jewish man to “go back to Israel”. “I am from Australia,” the Jewish man responded. Tensions boil over when man in the red t-shirt tries to grab the other man around the neck and is tackled by a group of onlookers in religious dress. The group calmly hold the man down until police arrive. Witnesses say the man appeared to be on drugs or drunk. The man has charged and will appear in court on January 19, according to reports. In a separate anti-Semitic incident, a car used by a group of Jewish concert-goers has been covered in Nazi and ISIL references at the Strawberry Fields Music Festival near Tocumwal, NSW. “That’s just not on a funny thing to say in light of everything that’s happening at the moment,” concert goer Jemma said. “That’s not on. Not on,” she said Soon after the festival, Jemma posted the photos on the Strawberry Fields Facebook page which attracted more hateful comments, like "Maybe ISIS did it" and "I'm going to gas your family." Strawberry Fields organizers refused on-camera interviews and are yet to condemn the behavior. Source: 9News
lorenzoALLAH

QUì C'è QUALCOSA DI PERVERSO CHE RISALE TUTTA LA PIRAMIE MASSONICA, PER SCALARE LA PIRAMIDE BANCARIA, CHE GIUNGE ALL'OCCHIO DI LUCIFERO, CHE è L'OCCHIO DI ROTHSCIHLD IL DIO GUFO, QUESTO è IL NUOVO ORDINE MONDIALE: SONO TUTTI MINISTRI DI SATANA! HANNO VENDUTO L'ANIMA AL DEMONIO, ED HANNO RUBATO LA NOSTRA SOVRANITà MONETARIA! QUINDI LE NOSTRE ISTITUZIONI E RELIGONI ED I NOSTRI GOVERNI NON POTREBBERO MAI ESSERE FONDATI SULLA GIUSTIZIA! ] [ Avevamo già parlato dei meccanismi dei bail-out e bail-in, delle direttive europee e dell’esecutivo italiano che ha fatto propri i principi per cui non saranno più possibili salvataggi esterni con capitali pubblici delle banche in difficoltà. E i primi effetti si sono visti con il decreto “Salva-Banche”, una mossa del Governo per evitare il fallimento di quattro istituti popolari. Il caso simbolo è divenuto quella della Banca Etruria, dove il padre del Ministro per le Riforme Boschi ha ricoperto un ruolo apicale nei vertici bancari. L’istituto nato ad Arezzo nel 1882 conta oltre 60.000 soci e dal 22 novembre 2015 è in liquidazione coatta amministrativa. Dal giorno seguente, è stata scissa la “bad bank” (insieme dei crediti deteriorati e debiti) dalla “Good Bank”,  ovvero la “Nuova Banca Etruria”, ripulita dalle passività e ricostituita con un nuovo capitale sociale di 442 milioni di euro. Il novello istituto di credito non è più una popolare ma una Spa, e la vera novità dolente per i risparmiatori è insita nel fatto che hanno visto andare in fumo 300 milioni di euro di risparmi. FederConsumatori ha calcolato una perdita di 15-20.000 euro a cliente. Questo perché a rimetterci sono stati gli azionisti e gli obbligazionisti subordinati, per il momento, sono stati salvaguardati i correntisti anche se, con le nuove regole, per i depositi sopra i 100mila euro potranno rimetterci anch’essi.
lorenzoALLAH

Corbyn ha ragione! non c'è nessuna logica nel bombardare ISIS sharia, perché senza bombardare Turchia ed Arabia Saudita? voi vi stancherete prima voi a bombardare, che loro a mandare jihadisti con 1200 euro al mese!
lorenzoALLAH

Turchia, assassinato l’avvocato dei curdi. L’opposizione scende in piazza gridando all’omicidio di regime e il Partito democratico del popolo, per la prima volta in parlamento, denuncia «l’assassinio premeditato”. ] erdogan è uno spietato assassino, che non avrebbe nessuno scrupolo  commettere tutti i genocidi che ha già commesso in Siria! OGNI COSCIENZA LIBERALE E DEMOCRATICA HA RIPUGNANZA DI TUTTO QUELLO CHE HA FATTO ERDOGAN DI REPRESIONE NAZISTA contro OGNI DISSENSO INTERNO! MA, LUI RIMANE SEMPRE santo DI FRONTE AI GRANDI SACERDOTI DI SATANA DELLA CIA USA E NATO! [ La Turchia, già attraversata dalla crisi con la Russia, è un calderone in ebollizione. Tahir Elçi, conosciuto come l'avvocato filocurdo, a metà ottobre aveva dichiarato alla CNN: «Il Pkk non è un'organizzazione terroristica, anche se alcune sue azioni sono atti di terrorismo: è un gruppo politico, che rivendica i diritti dei curdi. Io condanno la violenza, ma le richieste politiche sono politiche». Immediatamente fu arrestato e poi rilasciato su cauzione per «apologia di terrorismo a mezzo stampa», un reato che in Turchia prevede fino a 7 anni di reclusione. Sabato mattina, prima di una conferenza stampa a Diyarbakir, città curda situata nel sud est della Turchia, ecco pronta l'imboscata, un taxi arriva all'improvviso, alcuni poliziotti sparano e l'avvocato Elci viene uccciso. Per il presidente Erdogan si tratta di «un incidente che mostra quanto sia nel giusto la Turchia nella sua lotta determinata contro il terrorismo» curdo. Ma nessuno ha dubbi: l'opposizione scende in piazza gridando all'omicidio di regime e il Partito democratico del popolo, per la prima volta in parlamento, denuncia «l'assassinio premeditato". Erdogan aveva fatto saltare il negoziato di pace con i curdi pochi mesi fa, per rinnovare lo scontro, creare allarme nel Paese e raccogliere più voti a destra. Elci era noto in Turchia per la sua difesa dei diritti umani, soprattutto per la denuncia delle condizioni in cui vive la minoranza curda. Era stato proprio lui a richiamare l'attenzione su episodi di cronaca gravi, come la lotta a Cizre, sempre nel Sud-Est della Turchia, fra Pkk e polizia e il coprifuoco imposto dallo Stato in altre località della stessa regione. Intanto, dal carcere di Istanbul è stata spedita una "lettera aperta" all'Unione europea. Dundar ed Erdem Gul, i due giornalisti arrestati per aver pubblicato le foto del traffico di armi con Daesh al confine siriano chiedono all'Europa di «non chiudere gli occhi sulle pratiche che violano i diritti umani e la libertà di stampa». Petrolio di ISIS in economia della Turchia: affari milionari di Erdogan jr su sangue curdi. Turchia, pugno duro di Erdogan contro curdi e mediA: http://it.sputniknews.com/mondo/20151130/1638977/Turchia-avvocato-curdi.html#ixzz3t0AXoBJl
lorenzoALLAH

LA NATO è IL POSTO GIUSTO PER ALLEVARE NAZISTI PRAVY SECTOR E TERRORISTI ISLAMICI DI OGNI TIPO! [ Vertice UE-Turchia, tra Tsipras e Davutoglu è “duello aereo” ] QUESTA è LA DIMOSTRAZIONE DI COME I TURCHI SONO INFAMI, TRADITORI E TERRORISTI ISLAMICI, IL LORO BULLISMO ARROGANZA è TALE CHE CALPESTANO ANCHE GLI ALLEATI! [ 30.11.2015 Al vertice UE-Turchia Alexis Tsipras ha riaperto un tema scottante, dichiarando che i piloti della Grecia “non sono così nervosi” come quelli turchi. Quello che sta accadendo nel mar Egeo “è assurdo e incomprensibile”, ha detto il premier greco. Nel corso del vertice UE-Turchia il primo ministro della Grecia Alexis Tsipras ha attirato l'attenzione del suo omologo turco Ahmet Davutoglu sulle numerose violazioni dello spazio aereo della Grecia da parte dell'aeronautica turca, scrive l'edizione online newsbeast.gr. "Tra Tsipras e Davutoglu è duello aereo. "Piloti turchi sono nervosi" e a Davutoglu saltano i nervi" titola l'articolo dedicato al vertice, nel corso del quale si è parlato soprattutto dell'adesione della Turchia all'UE e della crisi dei migranti. "Per fortuna i nostri piloti non sono così nervosi come i vostri contro i russi", — ha detto il premier greco di fronte ai leader dei 28 paesi dell'UE riuniti dal vertice che Turchia vorrebbe interpretare come un grande successo di Ankara. "Quello che sta accadendo nel mar Egeo è assurdo e incomprensibile. Stiamo spendendo miliardi di euro: voi per sconfinare, noi per contenervi. Abbiamo i più sofisticati sistemi aerei, ma in mare non riusciamo a rintracciare gli scafisti che fanno affogare persone innocenti", — ha detto Tsipras, riprendendo poi le sue stesse parole in ben quattro tweet. Davutoglu ci ha messo del tempo per rispondere e, a quanto pare, era parecchio irritato, osserva l'edizione. "I commenti di Tsipras sui piloti non corrispondono allo spirito di questa giornata. Alexis, concentriamoci sulla nostra agenda positiva", gli ha risposto su twitter il premier della Turchia. Il 24 novembre un caccia della Turchia ha abbattuto un Su-24 russo che partecipava all'operazione contro i terroristi dello Stato islamico. Ankara dice che il jet russo aveva violato lo spazio aereo della Turchia, ma i militari della Russia hanno replicato che l'aereo è stato abbattuto in Siria da un caccia turco che si trovava nello spazio aereo siriano. Il presidente Putin ha definito le azioni della Turchia "un colpo alle spalle" da parte dei complici dei terroristi.
http://www.newsbeast.gr/politiki/arthro/2046832/i-aeromachia-tsipra-ntavoutoglou-gia-tis-paraviasis-sto-egeo
lorenzoALLAH

non è uno scandalo che, unità militari si debbano osservare, ma questo gesto dei due sottomarini AI DANNI DELLA AMMIRAGLIA “Moskva", dai turchi stessi dichiarato, ha tutto il sapore di una ennesima pugnalata alle spalle A TRADIMENTO, nel caso in cui venisse abbattuto un caccia turco in Siria? e certamente indica le VERE intenzioni di Ankara: ESSERE IL NEMICO, che guarda alla Russia con atteggiamento ostile premeditato, ed infame! infatti Erdogan è un infame traditore! E SE LEGGETE I LIBRI DI STORIA QUESTO ATTEGGIAMENTO è COSTITUTIVO AI TURCHI. INFATTI LA PIRATERIA TURCA NELLA STORIA è STATA TANTO INFAME QUANTO CRIMINALE! 30.11.2015. La stampa della Turchia informa che l’incrociatore lanciamissili “Moskva”, che sta coprendo la base degli aerei russi a Latakia, è sorvegliato da almeno due sommergibili della marina turca. Secondo le informazioni pervenute all'agenzia Interfax, la parte orientale del Mediterraneo in questo momento è pattuglaita dai sommergibili S-352 "Dolunay" e S-359 "Burak Reis". "Dolunay" ha cominciato il pattugliamento l'11 novembre, "Burak Reis" quattro giorni prima. Dopo l'abbattimento del Su-24 Mosca ha adottato alcune misure di sicurezza. Nella base aerea di Hmeimim, a Latakia, sono stati dislocati dei missili S-300 "Favorit" e S-400 "Triumph" che sono in grado di colpire praticamente tutti i bersagli aerei. Alla sicurezza dei voli provvede anche l'incrociatore lanciamissili "Moskva", dotato del sistema contraereo "Fort", analogo ai missili S-300. Adesso tutti i bombardieri della Russia vengono scortati dai caccia. http://it.sputniknews.com/mondo/20151130/1637293/Siria-sommergibili-sorveglianza.html#ixzz3t06AI52W
lorenzoALLAH

Obama a Putin, Assad deve lasciare ] anche il volto di Assad è un volto terribile: è il volto di un uomo squarciato dal terrore, ma, che la sua dignità ed il suo onore, mantengono in piedi al suo posto! ASSAD NON è AGGRAPPATO AL POTERE PER UNA AMBIZIONE PERSONALE, ma lui è consapevole che tutto quello che, si è salvato al genocidio dei non sunniti in Siria, si deve soltanto a lui! LUI difende disperatamente la sua civiltà umanistica, che il sacerdote di satana di Obama vuole distruggere: nel genodio assoluto e diabolico! Assad ha difeso tutti i martiri cristiani che Obama invece ha ucciso, realizzando con i salafiti Erdogan e Salman il genocidio Allah Akbar di tutti gli infedeli non sunniti salafiti wahhabiti, cioè, tutti quelli che non erano: al-Nursa o ISIS sharia culto? sono morti tutti!
lorenzoALLAH
Obama a Putin, Assad deve lasciare ] il volto di Obama Hussein Imam sharia il nazismo (CHE di titoli satanisti ne avrebbe molti se consideriamo, anche, il sistema massonico e bancario), diventa graficamente, sempre più, di giorno in giorno, una maschera tragica, mentre, il suo equilibrio mentale è sempre più dissociato! I DELITTI DI CUI, QUELLO CHE RIMARE DI, QUESTO uomo, SI è MACCHIATO? SONO DELITTI CONTRO TUTTO IL GENRE UMANO! http://www.ansa.it/webimages/img_457x/2015/11/25/106389276f71e6b5117397a612344dcd.jpg
lorenzoALLAH

ovviamente, se la LEGA ARABA condannerà la sharia, Assad potrà lasciare, cioè, se il popolo siriano voterà in tal senso! NEW YORK, 30 NOV - Il presidente nazista americano, Barack Hussein Obama Gender, ha detto al presidente russo, Vladimir Putin, che Bashar al Assad deve lasciare il potere. Lo afferma - riporta l'agenzia Bloomberg - la Casa Bianca, riferendo della bilaterale fra i due leader a margine dei lavori del vertice sul clima a Parigi.
lorenzoALLAH

sono soltanto i civili salafiti di ERDOGAN e di SALMAN, perché i civili di tutti gli altri o sono nelle fosse comuni o sono fuggiti! ] non credo che questi criminali cannibali possano essere protetti dal termine di "civili" infatti sono tutti terroristi! [ 30 NOV - Sono "più di 4.000" i civili uccisi nei raid aerei anti-Isis in Iraq e Siria dall'anno scorso: lo sostiene un rapporto pubblicato da due organizzazioni per la tutela dei diritti umani tra cui il 'Minority Rights Group International'. La "maggior parte" delle vittime, più di 2.800, sono state causate "spesso da bombardamenti indiscriminati" compiuti dalle forze di sicurezza irachene. "Centinaia" di altri civili sono stati uccisi da raid della coalizione internazionale guidata dagli Usa.
lorenzoALLAH

la NATO ha concesso: al Cossovo, il genocidio di tutti i cristiani serbi e la distruzione di tutte e 3000: Chiese, Monasteri e cimiteri, ed ora il bullismo degli islamici sharia, non può più essere fermato da nessuno, infatti anche, Hitler Erdogan non riuscì a fermare le sue truppe assetate di sangue e conquiste, durante la seconda guerra mondiale! PRISTINA, 30 NOV - I deputati dell'opposizione in Kosovo sono stati sospesi dal prosieguo dei lavori parlamentari, dopo l'ennesimo incidente in aula dove sono stati nuovamente lanciati gas lacrimogeni. Si tratta di una forma estrema di protesta di blocco dei lavori che l'opposizione porta avanti da tre mesi per contestare un accordo del governo con Belgrado sulla creazione della nuova Associazione delle comunita' serbe in Kosovo, e un altro con Podgorica sulla demarcazione della frontiera con il Montenegro
lorenzoALLAH

i crimini della NATO ci stanno per portare a punto di non ritorno! ] ANCHE I TERRORISTI ISLAMICI COME ERDOGAN E NATO HANNO I LORO DOVERI: di ASSASSINI e BUGIARDI! [ Davutoglu: "Niente a scuse alla Russia, fatto il nostro dovere". Lo ha detto il premier turco oggi a Bruxelles, riferendosi al jet russo, dopo un incontro con il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg [ NATO Turkey meeting ] 1. IL SUO DOVERE è STATO DI RIEMPIERE DI TERRORISTI ISLAMICI SIRIA E IRAQ, e quindi di realizzare ogni genocidio, già compiuto in Siria prima che arrivasse ISIS. 2. IL SUO DOVERE è STATO FINANZIARE ISIS SHARIA CON IL COMMERCIARE PETROLIO! 3. IL SUO DOVERE è STATO FARE UN OMICIDIO CALCOLATO ( nessuno lo nega ) del caccia russo! 4. ed ora circonda la ammiraglia della flotta russa con due sommergibili!
lorenzoALLAH

USA, TURCHIA E TUTTI I LORO COMPLICI NELLA NATO LEGA ARABA DEVONO PAGARE PER I LORO CRIMINI CONTRO il genere Umano in SIRIA ] Il Giornale: in Siria è gioco sporco della Turchia. 28.11.2015. Ankara ha principalmente un obiettivo: affermarsi come potenza regionale e come Paese guida dell’islam sunnita, per questo è pronta a cooperare con i jihadisti e tradire i suoi alleati, scrive il quotidiano italiano online. Il presidente turco non ha nascosto il motivo dell'abbattimento dell'aereo russo: abbiamo agito così per difendere la nostra sicurezza e «i diritti dei nostri fratelli» in Siria. Di quali fratelli parla? Dei turcomanni sicuramente, ma anche delle organizzazioni terroristiche sostenute da Ankara, molte delle quali hanno giurato fedeltà allo Stato islamico, prosegue Il Giornale. Dopo 12 anni di potere assoluto Erdogan è riuscito a islamizzare il Paese e avviare una politica espansionista. Non nasconde di voler trasformare il Nord della Siria — tra Aleppo e Latakia — nella 82ma provincia della Turchia, gioicando la carta dei turcomanni che vivono nell'area, osserva il giornalista. Erdogan sta premendo per un intervento militare che gli consenta di neutralizzare l'asse sciita: Iran, Siria e Hezbollah. Da quatto anni la Turchia sta cercando di rovesciare Assad, per questo ha finanziato i terroristi e la guerriglia contro il regime di Damasco, ha riempito i suoi aeroporti di foreign fighters per farli passare in Siria e ha bombardato i curdi, nemici dell'ISIS, invece che lo Stato islamico. Ha comprato nel califfato petrolio di contrabbando a 15-20 dollari al barile e poi lo ha rivenduto al doppio del prezzo. Eppure, grazie all'asse sciita, ma soprattutto grazie all'intervento della Russia, che ha frantumato i sogni imperiali di Erdogan, Assad è ancora al potere. Ora, a quanto pare, Turchia sta cercando un casus belli, coinvolgendo anche la NATO, come ammoniva un anno fa il generale tedesco Harald Kujat, dicendo: "La Turchia vuole trascinare la NATO in questa situazione, perché il suo vero scopo è abbattere Assad".
UE-Turchia, Merkel rischia di firmare una condanna per l’Europa
Trieste, sequestrati 800 fucili diretti dalla Turchia al Belgio
Comando Aviazione Russia accusa Turchia: agguato contro bombardiere Su24
http://it.sputniknews.com/politica/20151128/1628927/Siria-Turchia-gioco.html#ixzz3sxtvF0DF
lorenzoALLAH

PENA DI MORTE per tribunale speciale militare contro i salafiti che sono i complici di pulizia etnica insieme con l'ESERCITO LIBERO SIRIANO! ] [  Siria, esercito di Assad occupa una collina strategica nei pressi di Salma. 30.11.2015. In Siria le truppe del presidente Assad, fiancheggiate dalle milizie, hanno preso sotto il loro controllo la collina 1122 nel Nord del paese, portando così a termine l’accerchiamento di Salma – città di importanza strategica in provincia di Latakia. "Abbiamo preso sotto il nostro controllo la collina 1122, completando praticamente l'accerchiamento di Salma", — ha detto il portavoce dell'esercito siriano, aggiungendo che negli ultimi giorni l'esercito ha occupato tutta una serie di centri abitati e punti strategici attorno a Salma. Il portavoce ha anche comunicato che prima della fase attiva delle operazioni dell'esercito nell'area in questione si trovavano circa 10000 combattenti. Adesso sono non più di 2000, gli altri sono stati uccisi o si sono ritirati. Tra i ribelli c'erano molte persone provenienti dalle regioni caucasiche della Russia e da vari paesi della Comunità di Stati Indipenenti (CSI), ha aggiunto il generale siriano.
Il giornale: in Siria è gioco sporco della Turchia
Siria, Peskov: Dopo intervento Usa aumentato territorio sotto controllo IS
Assad: per successi esercito sarà più forte sostegno Paesi nemici Siria a terroristi: http://it.sputniknews.com/mondo/20151130/1634145/siria-esercito-operazioni.html#ixzz3sxt9pgwT