“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”

Actual science over time

500 BC hindu philosophers regarded light as one of five fundamental elements. Empedocles suggests around 400 BC that light is produced within the eye. Around 300 BC the greek philosopher Euclid publishes Optica where he describes the law of reflection – and questions the idea that light originates in the eye.

Closer to the truth, the roman philosopher Lucretius suggested light was particles from the sun. He lived around 95 BC to 55 BC.

Stepping forward a thousand years, another contribution came from a muslim scholar, Ibn Sahl, who in 984 AD developed Snell’s law. This law is discovered multiple times later in Europe, first around 1602 by Thomas Harriot.

From this point onwards, the study and the theory of light developes massively over the centuries. Scientists like Descartes, Newton, Roemer, Huygens, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Einstein all make great progress in the understanding of light.

Yet, what made this progress possible was two vital ideas. First the application of something called the scientific method, i.e., test your hypotheses to try to make them fail – and if so – improve or discard your theory.

The second idea is the point of this article – from 1600 AD onwards they knew that their theories were at least incomplete – perhaps even wrong. They knew this because they were aware of facts which could not be explained by the current theory they had. The flaws in their theories even had names, like the Ultraviolet catastrophe.

They knew that their own theories were wrong, and thus they were actively looking for an improved  theory – an explanation – one that would explain all observations, not just a few.

In the end we got theories like Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) – apparently one of the most successful and accurate theories in science – a theory only matched by Darwin’s theory of evolution.

A dark history of terrorism

Dates seem to somehow stick to people’s memories. 9/11 is perhaps the most famous one today – when nearly 3000 people were slaughtered by muslim terrorists in New York. 11. March 2004 – Madrid bombings, July 7 2005 – London bombings.

The last year has also had its new dates to remember, January 7 2015 Paris attacks on Charlie Hebdo, February 14 Copenhagen attacks, and of course the November 13 Paris attacks, leaving 137 dead.

It’s disturbing to see the reactions to each of these attacks. The approach from most of the media is irrational, focusing always on the latest atrocity. When muslims slaughter the journalists of Charlie Hebdo (7. January) the debate is on freedom of speech – do we really need to “offend” muslims? When Lee Rigby was murdered it was discussed why we invaded Iraq and other places.

Every new muslim atrocity is discussed stand-alone – in isolation. Is the victim a member of the press, then he must have overstepped the boundaries of free speech, is the victim a soldier, then it’s all about our invasions, is the victim a rabbi or a jewish child, then it’s Israel’s fault and so on.

Yet – as with the theory of light – QED – we need an explanation – a theory – capable of explaining all facts at once, just not make one theory/explanation per event.

If we compare “explanations” towards each other, we can quickly dismiss many of them – if not all the “politically correct” ones. Let’s compare some dates and explanations.

7. January ‘15, Charlie Hebdo. Surely they abused freedom of speech? Compare March 2012, French soldiers and jews murdered. Nope, the second incident has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Scientifically we must now dismiss the idea that muslims kill because of freedom of speech “abuse”.

But then, why not reverse the comparison – surely the rabbi and jewish kids were murdered “because of Israel”? Yet this crashes with the Charlie Hebdo killings, which were unrelated to Israel – hence we must dismiss the idea “because of Israel” as well. In the same manner we can consider the murdered soldiers – killed because we invaded Iraq? But that doesn’t fit with the Charlie Hebdo or the murdered jews, so we are forced to dismiss this idea as well.

I guess most “theories” on why muslims commit atrocities against non-muslims must be dismissed using this simple approach.

Indeed – if we go a little more back in time we can find examples of muslim atrocities back as long as Islam has existed. One massacre in particular is of interest – the 1066 AD Granada massacre of the jews in that town – several thousands.

Briefly the incident went as follows, the ruler appointed a jew as general of his army, this army didn’t like the idea of being led by a jew, slaughtered the jewish general, his sons, and much of the jewish population of Granada.

At all times it has been convenient for rulers to appoint talented “outcasts” to high positions, because these despised outcasts cannot form a power base and overthrow the ruler. Eunuchs have been particularly popular in such positions.

(Liberal historians call this common practice tolerance – “look they employed Christians and jews so they must be tolerant”.)

This would be Al-Andalusia – at the “peak” of islamic “civilization”.

And what licensed these muslim soldiers to massacre the jewish infidels? 1066 AD is about 1000 years before the state of Israel is created, it is about 700 years before the US comes into existence, it’s about 500 years before European colonisation starts, and above all – it’s 30 years before the first Crusade.

So why did muslims kill “infidels” back then? Is there a general explanation which covers all atrocities, not just isolated ones?

Perhaps the answer can be found in Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, where he quotes a particular verse of the quran.

The Cairo speech

“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all of mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he saved all mankind.”

This is what Obama said in his Cairo speech, about 19 minutes into the speech.

Unfortunately, this verse and the next is far better used as an explanation as to why muslims can kill infidels (us) at will – and have done so for 1400 years.

First of all, it is an incorrect quote. The latest english translation, Muhsin Khan, supported by Saudi-Arabia, has this text for this verse, 5:32

“Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.”

The bold (and red) sections were not quoted by Obama. Had he included it, the quote would be as you see it – meaningless.

The scary part is, there are no less than two exceptions for killing people. One is the obvious, if someone kills someone, the death penalty has historically been deemed appropriate. The second reason though – is far more ominous.

“To spread mischief in the land”.

What on earth is this? It’s not murder, that’s been covered already – so it’s something else. “Mischief” – what is that? Insulting the prophet? Being richer than a muslim?

Far from being a “verse of peace” – the verse is in fact a license to kill anyone you think commits the vague and unspecified crime of “mischief” – a crime which specifically due to the wording of the verse is not murder! This dramatically contradicts Jewish, Greek, Roman, Western culture where (most of the time) the punishment must fit the crime, i.e., only murder can inflict a death penalty (while the old testament does have death penalty for other cases, rabbi teachings have over time simply rendered them unused).

So for muslims – other “crimes” than murder can invoke the death penalty. Which, as in the 1066 AD massacre, and the Charlie Hebdo murders, is clearly true.

Observe now – we have something – an explanation – which can be applied to almost anything, Charlie, soldiers, rabbi and jewish children – “mischief”.

This verse, 5:32, is quite amazing really. In several online debates I’ve seen, muslim apologetics quote this verse to show how “nice” Islam is.

What is absolutely insane is that ISIS and terrorists quote the very next verse to defend their atrocities.

The next verse (often on the same page in printed qurans, as in my Yusuf Ali version) is:

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

When you hear that Saudi-Arabia has executed someone and crucified their bodies afterwards, this is the verse they are following. And ISIS uses the verse to crucify people as well.

From someone watching this from “a distance” – it all looks like insanity in practice. The “moderate” muslims misquote 5:32 to show how “good” Islam is, and the terrorists quote the next verse from the very same page(!) to justify crucifying people.

Sura verses 5:32 and 5:33 together form a carte blanche to kill whoever you like – as long as you think they’ve committed “mischief”.

And such a vague formulation should fit very well with any non-muslim. Unless you keep your head down as a good dhimmi – you’ve committed “mischief” – and any muslim has the god-given right to kill you.

Well, it seems to fit as an explanation for all atrocities from 1066 AD until today. Widely accepted verses in the quran licenses the true believer to kill people at will – and for no particular (i.e., specific) reason.

And keep in mind, this is actually how both Arab states and ISIS interprets the text – they only disagree who to kill, not the “right” to kill.

Unstable materials

Alfred Nobel became rich by inventing dynamite – patented 1867. So what was this invention – the world already had explosive chemicals to blow holes in rock?

The answer is stability. The explosives available prior to dynamite, like nitroglycerine, were notoriously unstable. Some chemicals are so unstable they can explode if you breathe on them (these have their use in performance of magic, where the magician can just wave a paper with such a chemical on it – to make it spontaneously catch fire). Nobel invented an explosive which could be safely handled – and roughly handled – without exploding.

We can compare this instability to the strange “defense” of muslim attacks and murders we often read about. The typical defence is that scandinavians also commit crimes a, b, c and so on – so why this “unfair” focus on (muslim) immigrant crime?

The unfair focus is because it’s readily apparent that some immigrant groups have a considerably lower threshold for violent behavior than the mainstream population. And this is not linked to being “immigrants” because it does not apply to buddhists or hindus – it applies to people from North-Africa and Middle-Eastern cultures.

Judging from the millennia of violence from muslims against people of other faiths, like the 1066 AD massacre and up to the more recent ones, this one particular group of people seem to have difficulties in containing their anger. It is as if westerners, buddhists, hindus and others are like dynamite compared to nitroglycerine. Yes, we can all commit violence – explode, but one particular group of people seem to have a threshold for committing violence dangerously close to zero. Any perceived insult and violence erupts – and as per quranic text – anyone can be a victim.

I see this is commented on here, Fem skarpe til Marie Krarup (DF), and already in the first answer (a) the answer has the same mistake as I described above. Muslims commit violence because of the shock of coming to a new country and culture. Well, what about thai people? What about chinese people? What about filipinos? Many come to the West from a different culture and language – yet only one group reach to the top of negative statistics on violence.

(Interesting enough – I suspect buddhists and filipinos will score below the native westerners in crime.)

Cologne

I read this single-worded heading, and realise I don’t need to explain what this section is about. A single word is sadly enough.

As we all have become painfully aware, killing people for “mischief” is not the only gift from the arab-islamic “civilization”. The women and children among us are also at risk – although not from killing.

It is perhaps time to translate the meaning of certain words into english. Burka means “not available for sex” – implicitly anyone without one is free for the taking.

Think about that when you see a veiled woman – anyone else is a free prey in the muslim mind.

While other cultures do also have gangrape occasionally (in India’s caste system; and gangs of South-America), it seems only one group does not change when they move to Europe.

A religion which licenses its followers to kill anyone committing the vague act of “mischief”, an inherited culture with about zero threshold for committing violence, and a stone age view of women.

We can add an absolute non-existing respect for us infidels or our infidel police force.

And last year we brought millions from this religion and culture to Europe.

Dear Muslim

Perhaps you think you are like us – the infidels.

I think I can show through a thought experiment that this is not the case. Here it goes.

Let’s assume for simplicity that we have 2 billion muslims in the world, and 5 billion non-muslims.

Let’s do a challenge.

Why don’t you – as a muslim – go out from your group, and stand in front of 2 billion muslims. Before you you have 5 billion Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and so on.

This is the challenge: try to find one among these 5 billion non-muslims who want to kill you, and will kill you, for no other reason than that you’re a muslim. And I just don’t mean someone who dislikes you, yells at you or anything like that. I mean one person where you would need US marines as bodyguards to survive the meeting.

And again – we’re disregarding any type of vengeance, like Nigerians killing suspected Boko Haram supporters. It’s violence against a known innocent we’re looking for, think pakistani muslims killing their neighbouring Christians because on a continent away, in Florida, some man has burned a quran.

Among 5 billion today – I think it will be very hard to find even one.

For us – the 5 billion non-muslims – we don’t need to look. Politicians, journalists and artists need bodyguards, we need soldiers to guard our synagogues and churches. Apparently we have yet not figured out how to guard women and girls.

The sentence not written

After this wholly negative article about the quran and muslims, without any exceptions, it is perhaps time to make a another point.

A large group of people, many muslim, many non-muslim, will at this point feel a need to state an obvious – and meaningless statement. It would sound something like this:

In the 1930’s the majority of Germans wanted peace.

In Cambodia under Khmer Rouge the majority of people wanted peace.

The majority of people in Nigeria today wants peace.

What the majority of a group of people wants, or does, is of no importance when the outcome is dominated by the few.

Why should Europe accept a lower standard of decent behaviour from muslims compared to what behaviour we see – and expect – in christians, jews, buddhists, hindus? Is the time ripe to ask if muslims have a place in Europe? Or in the West at all?

After all – they have actually been violently at war with us for most of the last 1400 years. What has actually changed in their attitude towards us “dhimmis” over these years? Women in Cologne would say – nothing at all.

The inevitable comparison

Often critics will comment Christianity is just the same: would you judge Christianity by looking at a few sects as Jim Jones (of Guyana massacre fame), or David Koresh (of Waco tragedy fame)?

No.

The sects of Jones and Koresh have practically no support among Christians, their theology (if any) little support in the New Testament, and their acts have little support in the character of Jesus. Their numbers were such, at most measured in thousands. Historically, few Christians have behaved like them.

The sects of organisations like ISIS and others have hundreds of thousand of members, perhaps millions if not tens of millions of supporters, they have solid ground in the quran, they behave historically like muslims have done for 1400 years, and they have an excellent example in the character Muhammad and his actions.

There is a dramatic difference between Islam and all other religions today on this planet.

Hopefully people will come to realise that this single (major) religion on this planet is – and has always been – an enemy of mankind – and should be treated as such.