Discourse 123 – The Prophet Mohammed, the Koran, the Bible and true Christianity.

Is it written in the Koran that unbelievers should be killed? / Nabil M. 00, 2016-10-27

The divine authenticity of the Koran.

The Arabs – a people blessed by God.

Who is the true messenger?

True biblical Christianity.

We live in an age of mass dumbing down. / Peter Scholl-Latour.

Summary conclusions.

Islamic expert Laila Mirzo on the true goals of Islam.

Is Islam a peaceful religion?    Discourse 36

(Texts in a black frame are quotations from visitors to this site or from other authors.)

Thank you for the dialog, and for your comments.

Just to get things out of the way at once, I am completely and totally in agreement with your critical remarks above about the state of our "Christian" society in Austria (fraud, corruption, homosexuality and so on), and can only point out that these people are not Christians any more than the people of IS (so-called Islamic State) can be Muslims

With reference to your discussion of what is stated in the Koran, I have again copied out for you here verse 33 of the 5th Surah. So you can see that my judgment that this Surah, above all, is an example of the aggressive nature of some parts of the Koran was wholly justified.

In the debate with Muslims, people generally raise the objection at this point that the Christian crusades were in no way better, and that it is a question of the pot calling the kettle black. This assertion is perfectly correct, but for a single detail – back then the people involved were not Christians, it was the Catholic church that was responsible. And the Catholic church – at least in those days – can quite justifiably be compared with the IS of today. These people, on both sides, are only concerned with power and influence, and conceal it under the cloak of a religious conversion.

And now I think I also know what you will say to me in response to the above critique of the Koran, namely: "Here, surely, it is only those people who wage war against Allah and his Messenger who are threatened with death or crucifixion." That too is correct, but in view of the fact that Allah is not tangible and Mohammed, the "Messenger", is long since dead, it is his adherents, the Muslims, who represent Islam today. And so, based on this statement in Surah 5:33, anyone who wages war against these Muslims must be killed or crucified.

And it is just these passages in the Koran to which the hate preachers of IS, under their Imams, repeatedly refer. The western allies are fighting against IS, so they are fighting against the Muslims, and therefore they are fighting against Allah and his Messenger and so they must be killed or beheaded.

Now of course you are also right when you say that everyone should look after their own problems and leave others in peace. But when these others, like IS, hold people prisoner against their will, torture them, kill them, rape women and prevent children from attending school – and all this in the name of Islam and the Koran – then it is actually these IS Muslims who are interfering in the lives of others – those, that is, whom they hold prisoner – and so (quite apart from the violation of fundamental human rights) are deserving of condemnation. These are the ones who should be focusing on their own problems and leaving other people in peace.

And I have also copied out Surah 9:29 for you. Quite apart from the fact that it states that Muslims must fight against non-Muslims, for a person who believes in God this statement is quite simply impious. This is because of the sentence referring to "what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden".

"What Allah has forbidden" is perfectly correct, if we understand by "Allah" the God of the Jews and the Christians. But the insertion of "and His Messenger" is simply unsupportable, if we believe in the one and only God. For Mohammed too was only a human being, but with this statement he arrogated to himself all possible rights to issue commandments and prohibitions from his own point of view. He puts himself on the same footing as God, and that would be a serious sin.

But with that we are already plunged into the debate on Islam’s authenticity. The author of the Koran – Mohammed, the ‘Messenger’ of God – claims to have personally received the revelations of the Koran from the Archangel Gabriel, acting on the instructions of the one and only God, in the years 610 to 632 AD, when he was meditating in a cave.

Now we know that at this time – in 610 AD, that is – the Jewish Torah (the five Books of Moses of the Old Testament) had already existed in written form for something like 1500 years, while the scriptures of the Christian New Testament had been extant for around 500 years. And if we study the Koran closely, we will also find that many statements it contains are almost identical in meaning with the Jewish, and even with the Christian scriptures. So for example the origin of the universally known commandment in the Koran about the washing of hands and feet before entering the mosque to pray is to be found in the Old Testament, in the Second Book of Moses (Exodus), chapter 30, verses 17-21:

When they enter the tent of meeting, they shall wash their hands and their feet with water.

Ex 30,17 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 30,18 "You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base of bronze, for washing; and you shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it. 30,19 "Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet from it; 30,20 when they enter the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water, so that they will not die; or when they approach the altar to minister, by offering up in smoke a fire sacrifice to the LORD. 30,21 "So they shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they will not die; and it shall be a perpetual statute for them, for Aaron and his descendants throughout their generations." Ex 30,17-21;

Of course Mohammed went on to "supplement" this biblical commandment a bit, since he declared it to be mandatory not just for priests (Aaron and his sons, among the Israelites) but for all Muslims, and said that the whole rigmarole must take place five times a day, along with the prayer facing Mecca (the Kaaba).

But Mohammed also borrowed stuff from the Catholic church. Thus the New Testament tells us that there is only an either/or. That is to say, either the person believes in Jesus Christ and his vicarious sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and then he is saved; or he doesn’t believe, and then he is lost and goes to damnation. And in both cases for eternity! (Jn 3:14-18).

(See also chapter 13: "The Resurrection of the faithful on Judgment Day / the Last Day")

But for the Catholic church this offered too little chance of profit. Such a doctrine wasn’t going to get congregations to put their hands in their pockets. And so it invented "Purgatory". Now reverend dignitaries could wallow in the sale of indulgences. "Fifty groats, and you’ll be let off two million years in Purgatory" – that was the kind of message. And they even put about an advertising slogan – "The moment the coin in the casket pings, The forgiven soul into heaven springs.".

The beginnings of this trade in indulgences go right back to late antiquity (around 300 AD). So Mohammed, in 610 AD, didn’t adopt the trade in indulgences exactly, but he did incorporate the unbiblical idea of punishment in hell for a limited period in his Koran.

And then we come to those famous 72 virgins, who supposedly wait in paradise for the Muslim martyr to come and deflower them. And in a "hadith of the prophet", Mohammed also promises that after being deflowered the virgins will recover their virginity again, and the martyr will have a constant erection (WikiIslam / English).

Mohammed’s ascension to heaven with his horse (woman ??) Buraq

Quite apart from the morally deplorable circumstance that this represents an attempt to seduce young men with sexual enticements, so that they will sacrifice their lives to further the power hunger of a self‒styled "prophet", and later on to extend the power of a false religion – it is these "promises" of the Koran, above all, that testify to the fact that Mohammed had absolutely no idea about life in eternity.

For as the Koran itself confirms, after the Resurrection eternity begins. The people who will live in eternity will naturally also live eternally. Now if people in eternity live eternally, no one is going to die any more and so people won’t need to go on being born either. It follows that in eternity there will not be any begetting of children, nor will there any longer be sexual intercourse. So people will not longer have sexual organs either, it will no longer be a matter of man and woman – they will all be like the angels, sexually neutral in other words.

So if Mohammed had read the New Testament more attentively, he would have found an explanation of these matters by the Son of God. The Jews of the day had asked him a trick question, telling him the famous biblical story of the seven brothers with the one wife:

In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.

Mt 22,23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 22,24 asking, "Teacher, Moses said, ‘if a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 22,25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 22,26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 22,27 "Last of all, the woman died. 22,28 "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her." 22,29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

22,30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. Mt 22,23-30;

As we can see, Mohammed fell into the same trap as the Jews back then. But whereas the Sadducees denied the Resurrection as such, Mohammed took over the Resurrection and eternal life from the New Testament, but overlooked the associated consequences – the fact that progeny will no longer be needed in future. And so he culpably promised "paradisal conditions" that he had invented himself, so as to persuade young people to go to their deaths for him.

The conclusion is clear: logic was not the strong point of the "prophet" back then, nor is it a conspicuous characteristic of his followers today.

Riots: Muslims demand radical Islamic laws

PS. For all those who haven’t yet got the point – anyone who tries to force democratic rights on the Moslems is always going to be shot down by them with the assertion that these are rights which have been invented by human beings, whereas the Sharia in the Koran is the law of God which was given to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.

Only one who can convincingly demonstrate that the Koran is a plagiarism of the Bible, and the rest was invented by Mohammed himself, can bring forward a watertight argument to show that the Koran is very far from representing divine justice, but is merely the well thought out political program of an Islamic ruler of the seventh century. Only in this way might it be possible to get a glimmer of attention from the Islamic world – even if only hesitantly, and only from the most intelligent.

e.g.: The Last Judgment.

In the Bible

Mt 25,34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.(…)
25,41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.

In the Quran

Surahh 90,17. And then being among those who believed and advised one another about patience and advised one another about compassion 80,18 Those are the companions of the right 90,19 But they who disbelieved in Our signs- those are the companions of the left 90,20 Over them will be fire closed in.

But of course our western politicians of today have no idea of the power of religious conviction and the loyalty to their faith of the vast majority of Moslems, and think that these people could be just as easily persuaded to abandon their religion as they themselves have fallen away from the Christian faith. Here they regrettably overlook the fact that by abolishing the Christian God from their modern and godless world, they have deprived themselves of any argument for convincing and converting people of another belief system.

Even if they may manage to integrate the Moslem refugees with society, they will never – without Christianity – be able to persuade them to adopt the west’s godless mainstream culture, and in the last resort both their politics and their own lives will come to grief between a false God and the true one.

The divine authenticity of the Koran.

Now there are two possible explanations for this textual reduplication. Either God found it necessary to reveal these texts, which he had already previously revealed to Moses and Jesus and his apostles, in conclusion to Mohammed as well. This would be the explanation of the Muslims – but for further details, see below.

The other explanation would be that Mohammed did not receive his revelations from the Archangel Gabriel (as the founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, likewise claimed to have received his revelations from the angel "Moroni"), but purely and simply copied these texts out of the Jewish Torah and the Christian New Testament, added a few remarks of his own and then passed them on as the "Koran" to his followers. Arguments in favor of this supposition are two circumstances in particular:

First of all we know, if we have studied the Koran, that Mohammed committed a grievous error in his estimate of Christian teaching. He confused the unbiblical "Mary", who was invented by the Catholic church at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), with the Holy Spirit, and interpreted her, along with God the Father and the Son of God, as the "Trinity" of the Christians. This error, we presume, can hardly be attributed to the Archangel Gabriel.

And secondly, we notice when we read this book that those texts which bear no resemblance whatever either with the Torah or with the New Testament – and so come from a third source, presumably from Mohammed himself – have a remarkable quantity of commandments and prohibitions which emphasize the ranking and the power of the "Messenger" among his followers. As for example in the verse quoted above (Surah 9:29):

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth‒ from among those who received the Scripture ‒until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly."

Here Mohammed has the audacity to claim divine authority, even though elsewhere he enjoins his adherents to preach about "submission to God" ("Islam" in Arabic). But even the following description of the Prophet in person, by Islamic specialists, apparently overlooks this instruction by Mohammed, addressed to his adherents, that they should fight against those who do not believe in Allah:

"The task assigned to the Prophet Mohammed was the same in relation to all his fellow human beings, whether they happened to be Jews, Christians or idol worshipers – namely, to pass on the message of God. He spoke about this commission to those with whom he came into contact in the light of their own religious ideas, and urged them to submit to the will of God. In so doing he extended great respect and human solidarity to his neighbor, and he also bore personal injury and persecution with great patience."

Islamisches Zentrum München [Munich Islamic Centre]

But it may be a matter of interest that these texts – both Surah 9:29 and the biography of Mohammed just quoted, refer to "those who received the Scripture", that is to say the "People of the Book", Jews and Christians. And although the biography tells us that Mohammed extended "great respect and human solidarity" to Jews and Christians, in Surah 9:29 we find him exhorting to fight against these "unbelievers".

Incidentally, it is incomprehensible that in this text Jews and Christians – who according to Mohammed’s own statements believe in the same one and only God as the Muslims – should be described by him as "unbelievers" and treated as such. This can only suggest the conclusion that he was not so much concerned with the question whether someone believed in this God, but more with whether they accepted him, Mohammed, as the "Messenger" of God and the Koran as Holy Scripture or not.

If in discussions on this subject we find it repeatedly asserted that the injunction to fight against unbelievers, or to kill them, only occurs in a single passage, this can be refuted just in the light of the two Surahs we have quoted here – even though they partially were chosen in a sense for other reasons, and yet they contain both. But what about the 66 wars, involving thousands of casualties, which Mohammed waged in order to convince his neighbors of his ideas? These testify to the fact that in his eyes, killing unbelievers was nothing out of the ordinary.

If we just take a look at the titles of pictures of Mohammed and relating to Mohammed, we can recognize that, by contrast with Jesus Christ, he did not bring the Holy Spirit down to earth, but rather disseminated the all too earthly spirit of hatred, murder and war.

o  Mohammed exhorting his family before the battle of Badr

o  Muhammad at the battle of Badr

o  Mohammed and his followers having a rendezvous with soldiers

o  Imam Ali and Hamza fighting idolaters at Badr

o   Ali bin Abu Taleb beheading Nasr bin al-Hareth (Nadr ibn al-Harith) in the presence of Mohammed and his companions

o  Mohammed (in green, lower left) marching to the Battle of Uhud

o  The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim army at the battle of Uhud

o  Mohammed (riding the horse) receiving the submission of the Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe he defeated at Medina

o  Mohammed enthroned in heaven

o  Mohammed (on the right, astride Buraq) and the Angel Gabriel (center) talk with Abraham (left) in Paradise

o  The ascent of Muhammad to heaven

o  Mohammed (upper right) visiting Paradise while riding Buraq, accompanied by the Angel Gabriel (upper left). Below them, riding camels, are some of the fabled houris of Paradise ‒ the "virgins" promised to heroes and martyrs. sEE Koran, Surah 9 Vers 111

o  Mohammed, along with Buraq and Gabriel, visit Hell, and see a demon punishing "shameless women" who had exposed their hair to strangers. For this crime of inciting lust in men, the women are strung up by their hair and burned for eternity

o  Mohammed and his followers travel to Mecca, accompanied by the archangels / angels of Islam: Gabriel (arab. Djibril), Michael (arab. Mika’il or Mikal), Israfil and Azrael (arab. Izra’il))

o  The Koran being revealed to Mohammed during a battle

(DAS ISLAM-PRINZIP [THE ISLAMIC PRINCIPLE])

But just as it is the case that many Christians have never picked up a Bible, let along studied it from cover to cover, and so actually have no idea what it contains, so too many Muslims have never read their Koran right through and are imperfectly acquainted with all that it says.

The Arabs – a people blessed by God.

And yet, in order to justify his activities Mohammed had absolutely no need to refer to the handover of "revelations" by any kind of angel. If he had wanted to, he would have been perfectly well able to appeal to the Bible, Genesis 17,20 – where God promises to Abraham a future rich in blessings for his firstborn son Ishmael, the brother of Isaac and progenitor of the Arabs.

Behold, I will bless Ismael, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly.

Gen 17,20 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. Gen 17,20;

These twelve princes then settled, after Ishmael’s death, to the east of Egypt. Today we see that Mohammed and the religion he founded extended to embrace not only the peoples of the Arabian peninsula, but also large parts of northern Africa. So Mohammed had the same right as the Israelites had to call on Abraham as their founding father and to avail themselves of this promise of blessing by the God of the Bible. But his problem was that he was unable to accept that Ishmael, though he was the firstborn, only played a secondary role. Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was Abraham’s secondary wife and a maidservant of Sarah, the first wife, who was barren to begin with, but then gave birth to Isaac, who had been promised to Abraham by God. (Gen 17:1-27)

Another reason perhaps why Mohammed was reluctant to refer to these promised blessings was the fact that he would then have had to appeal to the Torah of the Jews, the Old Testament of today, and would thus have exposed himself to the risk that some of his followers might hit upon the idea of reading the Bible for themselves and there finding out about God’s authentic promises. So Mohammed preferred to write his own "Bible" in the form of the Koran, where he could write down those commandments and prohibitions which he himself thought to be right and proper, and which strengthened and reinforced his position in the eyes of his adherents.

And here, incidentally, he was in good company. The Catholic church back then was equally concerned to keep its flock in line, while constantly adding to its own power, influence and wealth. And in the Catholic church too, "lying pens" (Jer 8:8) have written their own "Bible", namely the Catechism. And what is more, in order to ensure that no clever person would start to read the true Bible and unmask the Catholic church and its lies, in the year 1229 the Vatican actually put the Bible on its catalog of forbidden books – books that the faithful were not allowed to read.

Who is the true messenger?

When we come to Mohammed’s claim to be the Messenger of God (Surah 5,33), we do find an evident problem between Islam and Christianity. For Mohammed saw himself as the savior who came to save humanity from hell by obedience to the law (observation of the commandments = Islam). But here, in fact, he was hardly in any way different from the Mosaic religion of the Jews, apart from those "commandments" which he himself added to the Mosaic canon.

Now Jesus Christ, on the other hand, said about himself that he had been sent by God (Jn 5:24), to save humanity from hell through salvation by grace (faith in the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus on the cross = Christianity). This was a clear change of paradigm in relation to the Mosaic religion (Mk 2:21-22). And although Mohammed was evidently familiar with some of the New Testament scriptures, the deeper meaning of the symbolism of sacrifice escaped him.

Even if all the arguments advanced hitherto should not be sufficiently substantial to allow us to come to a final judgment about Mohammed, this one question – who is the true Messenger of God? – is actually a criterion that may be crucial in determining our view of the matter. The challenge, however, is this: how we can arrive at an objective judgment of the case, who is telling the truth and who is lying?

But perhaps this gives us the opportunity of learning something from the Old Testament – where King Solomon, famous for his wise decisions right up to the present day, found a completely unexpected solution in a similarly difficult situation.

This world-famous case, for which Solomon continues to be admired today, is that of the two women who both claimed to be the mother of a newborn child, and asked the king to judge between them in their dispute. Seeing that in those days there were no medical options available (DNA comparison etc.), Solomon had to find a different way of discovering which of the two women really was the mother of the child.

And the king solved this difficult problem in masterly fashion. He had a table brought in, and placed the infant on it. Then he drew his sword and said to the two women, if it were to prove impossible to establish the identity of the real mother, he would cut the child exactly in two, and each of the women would receive half as a just settlement of the matter.

And it turned out just as the king expected. One of the women screamed and yelled and begged the king in tears on no account to kill the child, saying she would rather give up the child than allow it to be killed. And so the king knew that this was the real mother, and gave her the child. The other woman was thrown into prison for false testimony.

And just this same method of King Solomon’s for discovering the truth can be applied here, in a slightly modified form, with a view to deciding our question and determining who actually came as the Messenger of God, to bring humanity to the true faith and save them from hell.

If we substitute the two Messengers for the two mothers in this example of King Solomon’s, then the child about whom they were at odds would in our case be humanity. Because human beings had fallen away from the right faith and were living in sin, God found them guilty and condemned them to death.

 So death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Rom 5,12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned‒ 5,13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 5,14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

5,15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 5,16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 5,17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

5,18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 5,19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 5,20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 5,21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5,12-21;

In the Mosaic faith, admittedly, God gave the Israelites the possibility in former times of having their sins forgiven by sacrificing animals on the altar of burnt offerings in Jerusalem – and only there! (Deut 12:13-14; 2Chr 7:19-21). But since both the temple and the altar of burnt offerings were destroyed by the Roman troops of Titus in the year 70 AD, the Jews too have been condemned to death (the second death) because they no longer have any possibility of obtaining forgiveness of their sins by means of animal sacrifice, and refuse to the present day to accept faith in the vicarious sacrifice of the Son of God for the forgiveness of their sins. And this was just what our Lord Jesus Christ said to them before his death::

You will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He (the Messiah), you will die in your sins..

Jn 8,21 Then He said again to them, "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come."8,22 So the Jewswere saying, "Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?" 8,23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 8,24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He (the Messiah), you will die in your sins." Jn 8,21-24;

In our comparison with the judgment of King Solomon, then, the threat to which humanity is here exposed is not the sword of the king but rather – both in accordance with the Bible and in accordance with the Koran – that of eternal damnation in hell (the second death). But similarly to King Solomon, God too offered an alternative: if someone should be found among humanity who leads a sinless life, and were then voluntarily to offer his life, himself innocent, as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of all humanity, then God would forgive all human beings.

King Solomon would probably have been equally successful if he had made the condition that one of the two women would have to sacrifice and kill herself, for the child to remain alive. And just as we can take it as certain that the true mother would have declared herself willing to die for the sake of her child, so we can also determine which of the two Messengers was prepared to undergo a vicarious death for all humanity as an innocent sacrifice. As we know, the "Messenger" Mohammed is not likely to have said, "Rather than have all humanity go to damnation, I will die for them in their place".

Quite on the contrary, Mohammed relied on the defense of his entire army and throughout his life added to his power and influence. In order to convert his neighbors to what was then a new faith, he waged 66 wars, with thousands of casualties. – Which incidentally does enable us to see that the violence of Islam is intrinsic to the system since its foundation.

(Muhammad’s ascent to heaven with his horse Buraq)               (The body of the man on the Turin Shroud)

(See also discourse 30: "Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?")

True biblical Christianity

It was not Mohammed, but Jesus Christ (the anointed – Greek Christos, Hebrew maschiach, Aramaic meschicha – the Messiah) – sent by God and prophesied by the Old Testament (Isa 11:1; Jn 4:25), who remained without sin and was crucified as a sacrifice pleasing to God for the sins of all humanity. In the Koran Mohammed did not say any more about this – for understandable reasons. But God confirmed it, when he said: "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" (Lk 9:35). 

And just so as to clarify this question of the identity of the Son of God once and for all, God the Father has handed over to the Son all power in heaven and on earth:

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. (Jn 3,35-36)

So the Son of God let himself be nailed to the cross as a vicarious sacrifice for all humanity. But even if the Son of God died for the sins of all human beings, this does not mean that this vicarious "redeeming sacrifice" has saved all humanity by a kind of automatic operation. De facto no single human being is saved, unless they personally accept this offer of God’s for themselves and actually believe that this sacrifice of the Son of God has been offered for their own sins as well. Then, and only then, can a human being see himself or herself as having been saved.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already.

Jn 3,17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 3,18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jn 3,17-18;

He who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Jn 6,35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. Jn 6,35;

He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water

Jn 7,38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’" 7,39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Jn 7,38-39;

I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.

Jn 11,25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 11,26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" Jn 11,25-26;

He who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do;

Jn 14,12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Jn 14,12;

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life;

no one comes to the Father but through Me." (Jn 14,6)

And this shows us, now, what is at stake: a completely new, and for us human beings somewhat unusual, mode of communication between human beings and God. When the God of the Bible sent his Son to this world, some two thousand years ago, a change of paradigm took place.

The Law and the Prophets (the Mosaic religion) were proclaimed until John;

Lk 16,16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Lk 16,16;

Whereas up to that point contact had been effected on the physical level, through priests and with masses, sacrifices and other ritual actions (dietary regulations, ritual washing etc.), from this time on all religious customs of this kind – as they have also been practiced, of course, in all the idolatrous religions of the world – have lost their meaning and their efficacy.

The one and only God not only let his Son die for us human beings, with the Son he also opened himself to humanity. From this time on there is no longer any need for external actions or rites if we want to approach God. As the Son has said, God is Spirit, and if we want to meet him we must do so in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:23-24). So we have left the age of illusion – where hypocritical and criminal "men of God" (priests, rabbis, imams, high priests, bishops, cardinals and popes) led people astray by claiming to represent the faithful in the eyes of God – and have entered the time of truth and grace.

(See also table 9: "God’s plan of salvation and its effects on Creation.")

We no longer need any "representatives" or "men of God" so called, nor do we need any special "houses of God" either. These pompous buildings (St. Peter’s in Rome, the Al-Aqsa mosque, Hagia Sophia, the Dome of the Rock and all other churches, mosques and temples) only serve for the self-glorification of false religions. The only place where the human individual can now meet God and speak to him is in the human spirit. For this you just need a quiet place without external distractions, a sincere inner need to get in touch with God and the willingness to permit nothing but the absolute truth to find a place in your thoughts during this encounter.

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

Jn 4,23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 4,24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Jn 4,23-24;

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret.

Mt 6,5 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6,6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 6,7 "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 6,8 "So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. Mt 6, 5- 8;

This is the biblical Christianity, this is the true Christian faith: Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is saved. The question what then becomes of belief in God has been answered by our Lord himself:

He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.

Jn 12,44 And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. 12,45 "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. Jn 12,44-45;

And as we can see, there is not a single religion in this world which has recognized this truth and teaches it. The Catholic church once had the opportunity of becoming a true Christian church. But then they could not resist temptation, and allowed power, wealth and influence to divert them from the right path, invented idols and lied to their congregations. Since then Catholicism has been a false and blasphemous religion, just as much as any of the other idolatrous religions of this world.

Human beings thus no longer have to die (the second death, the hell) for their sins, seeing that the Son of God died for them in their place. The individual only needs to believe this. In order to meet their God and talk to him (in prayer), people no longer need to enter "houses of God", take instructions from "men of God" in order to rattle off mindlessly in church any old "prayers" that they have learned by heart. God is willing to come to every human individual in person. If this person sincerely asks for it, and is willing to allow place in their thoughts only for the absolute truth, their God can visit them in spirit.

If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

Jn 14,18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 14,19 "After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. 14,20 "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 14,21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." 14,22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?" 14,23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 14,24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. Jn 14,18-24;

That is what counts! Nothing more! These are the words of the true Messenger. – The false messenger, Mohammed, who commanded "kill the unbelievers", is the mouthpiece of the deceiver, who thus steals from God not only people who might have come to the right faith in Jesus Christ later in their lives, but also billions of people whom he has seduced to the wrong faith. And this is quite plainly the language of the thief of men, of Satan and the devil. God has given us a brain – we should use it!

(Texts in a black frame are quotations from visitors to this site or from other authors.)

In the course of his life Peter Scholl-Latour has been involved as a journalist in many military conflicts of the world and has reported on them. He sees things in a realistic light, and his words inspire confidence. As correctly believing Christians, we are all the more inclined to feel confirmed in our views by his last statement quoted above:

"Europe today stands without any kind of religious awareness, in a world which is becoming more religious on all sides all the time – which is a weakness, in the face of this awakening of myth."

Summary conclusions

To come back, finally, to the Koran, we can summarize our conclusions as follows:

o  Those texts from the Koran which are comparable with the statements of the Bible (Old and New Testament) have most likely been adopted by Mohammed from those sources and are also binding from a Christian point of view.

o  Texts which have not stood up to this examination have in all probability been written by Mohammed himself, and so should be seen in the context of his times. Objectively speaking, they cannot any way be binding for Muslims either.

o  Based on the analysis given in this Discourse, from a Christian point of view Islam is not a religion itself but rather a code of behavior. This is just the reason why young people, who often find themselves lacking guidance and security in our morally "open" society, frequently feel attracted by it.

o  Both many Muslims, and also some young people coming from families with a Christian background, often derive their picture of Christianity from the dismal history of the Catholic church. From the crimes of the medieval popes, including the crusades, to their deception of congregations with falsification of the scriptures and false doctrines – not to mention the cheating that goes on in today’s Vatican, and the tens of thousands of cases of child abuse by Catholic "spirituals" worldwide – this church, which still blasphemously calls itself "Christian" today, has trampled the reputation of Christianity underfoot and over the centuries destroyed it completely.

o  For this reason the Catholic church cannot be described as a Christian church in any sense, nor can it offer any binding statements or models as the basis for a judgment of the true Christian faith. Young people who are really looking for spiritual guidance should first and foremost devote themselves to the study of the Bible, and in parallel to this, make use of sound secondary Christian literature to improve their understanding.

Islamic expert Laila Mirzo on the true goals of Islam.

Syrian born Islamic expert Laila Mirzo in an interview with the weekly journal "Wochenblick" about the real goals and actual effects of Islam in Europe. This interview has unfortunately only been recorded in German. The translated text you can read here below. INTERVIEW OF THE MAGAZINE "WOCHENBLICK" ["WEEKLY VIEW"] WITH ISLAM EXPERT LAILA MIRZO: We are talking today to Laila Mirzo. First of all our warmest thanks that you have been able to find time for us. No problem. You come from Syria, you are widely regarded as a connoisseur of Islam and you have been tirelessly warning us of the danger of Islamization. Why actually do you think we need a warning? I think that any half rational thinking person who takes an interest in Islam, who has read something of the Koran, would be inclined to warn of the danger. Above all when the Salafist ideology is penetrating Islamic societies at present like a cancerous growth, and gaining in influence all the time. Even moderate Muslims, who want to live in a modern Islam that conforms with European culture, are being placed under massive pressure. We can’t have Austrian children in schools being abused as pig eaters. We can’t have women without the headscarf being seen as free game. This is already enough to make me deeply concerned. Our society is based on humanism and on Christian values. Europe defines itself by democracy, by the rule of law, by equal rights between men and women, and all this is in massive collision with Islam. Islam wants the Sharia, it does not accept any laws made by human beings. People need to know that for the Islamic community the supreme goal is to spread Islam through the entire world. There aren’t any ifs and buts about it. And there isn’t any room for other religions or other models of society either. – This is already enough to justify a very critical view. And now above all, with the wave of refugees, where a million immigrants with a Muslim background have entered Europe, this can put enormous strains on social equilibrium. Many of these immigrants have a very backward philosophy of life, but at the same time Islamic associations are calling for increasing codetermination and political involvement. This makes me very worried. What does the concrete danger of Islamization represent, what could be the end result? Well, it isn’t hard to do the sums. Just in view of the number of immigrants with a Muslim background – above all when you count the families who come to join them – the Muslim percentage of the population is significantly on the increase. And of course it becomes controversial when you look at the number of children in these families. At the same time it is a fact that the birth rate in Europe is stagnant, or even negative – at present it’s around 1.5 children per head, per woman – and at the same time for many Muslim families it is a religious obligation to bring as many children into the world as possible. Just lately President Erdogan of Turkey urged his people to have as many children as they can. He spoke out against birth control, and even condemned it as un-Islamic. Salafist preachers too have long been arguing in favor of the "birth rate jihad". This means that the Muslims should overtake the Christians by sheer weight of numbers, and then conquer Europe just because they are more prolific. In view of the continuing influx of Muslim immigrants to Europe, it is not a question of whether Islam is going to change the picture of society, but of when it is going to happen. And here I am wondering what happens when they have parliamentary majorities – when they have been voted in quite legitimately, and can have an influence in shaping legislation. I see another danger of Islamization in the influence being exercised by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. These countries run their own kindergartens, mosques and cultural associations. Salafist ideas and foreign ideologies are being imported and encouraged. This constitutes a problem. And is Islam essentially missionizing, or is this just the interpretation of a handful of radicals? In the Koran it is written: "Fight the unbelievers until there is no more civil war and the whole world believes in Allah." For me, that is an unmistakable message. The goal of Islam is world dominion. There aren’t any ifs and buts. Radicals who believe in the Koran actually see peaceful coexistence between Muslims and unbelievers as undesirable. In the Koran it says that Muslims should not have friendships with Jews or Christians. This means their motto is: "Them or us, with us or against us". Islamic ideology is an apartheid system which divides humanity into the believers and the unbelievers. On one side we have the Muslim community – "the best congregation on earth", as the Koran says. And on the other side we have the unbelievers, who are described by the Koran as "worse than the beasts". And are you seeing an expansion of Islamic customs and rituals in Austria or in Europe? For example, you have published an article in our journal on the subject of female circumcision, and child marriage is also something you refer to frequently. Well, of course I’m not in a position to judge what is going on behind closed doors. In Austria there have hardly been any statistics or surveys on these issues. But the figures in Germany, on the other hand, are alarming – where child marriage is concerned above all. Just in July (2016) the records of the foreign nationals registration office showed 316 children under 14 years of age who were stated to be married. Can you imagine that! Female circumcision is of course another vastly controversial issue, where women’s and children’s rights are at stake. It is a massive bodily violation to which consent cannot be given, and it is being practiced here, in secret. Either the families find doctors, here in Europe or Austria, who are prepared to do it, or the girls are sent back to their home country, where the circumcision is carried out. Or again, the circumcisers are flown in to perform the operation. And of course all this should be subject to strict penal sanctions, and people should have to face the consequences – more than is the case today! What strikes me personally in the street is the fact that more and more women are wearing the headscarf. And that these women and girls are getting younger all the time. Islam actually dictates that girls do not have to veil themselves until they reach puberty. But now six-year-old girls are being forced to wear the headscarf. And what I find particularly absurd is that some niqab shops even sell headscarves for two-year-olds. It can be observed that more and more Islamic customs are penetrating our culture, and what is more are actually being tolerated. More and more concessions are being made to the Islamic associations and Islamic society. For instance, in kindergartens and schools pork has been taken off the menu. Violations of human rights are being accepted under the cloak of religious freedom – this is relevant to the circumcision of girls. The circumcision of boys is also dubious. This last week in Steiermark, at the Islamic sacrificial festival, we saw dozens of sheep illegally slaughtered in the fields without being stunned. These brutal rituals which violate the law, violate animal rights, violate our moral ideas, should simply be banned and subject to consistent penal sanctions. You have said that these things ought to be banned. Well, in fact it is the case that halal slaughter and child marriages are clearly forbidden by law in Europe. But there have been cases too where the Sharia has found its way into legislation. Can you tell us something about this? Well, if children are getting married in the anteroom of the mosque, this unfortunately is something we can’t control. Here the state is powerless. At the same time, we have increasing numbers of refugees’ children coming into the country who are married already. The question is, how does the legal system deal with it? And the authorities are very divided on this issue – on the one hand they want to protect the family as a unit, on the other the child bride too needs to be protected against the very much older husband. It may be stated here that girls are often sold to very old men, who pay money for the wedding. An absurd example of this was the recent judgment by the Bamberg Higher Regional Court in Germany, which found that the marriage between a 14-year-old Syrian girl and a cousin 7 years older was valid, because the marriage had taken place under civil law in Syria and so was legally effective. But I see a problem here, in that it makes the Sharia legally acceptable, allows it to infiltrate. Many of the terrorists in Germany and France did not act directly on the orders of IS. Admittedly IS claimed to have been responsible in retrospect, but all the same it would be fair to say that they were just individual perpetrators. The specific feature of political Islam is that it doesn’t have a clergy. Every Muslim prays directly to Allah and is guided by Allah. And the Koran explicitly orders them to engage in the jihad, that is the fight against the unbelievers. So I don’t need to have a big terrorist organization behind me, I don’t need a network. I can just read the Koran myself and follow Allah’s call. And IS actually puts across this message very effectively. Hollywood-style videos are being put online which show the heroic and glorious struggle with the unbelievers, and so motivate young men to go to war against the infidel. The next problem, then, is the imams who preach in the mosques. There are a great many hate preachers, most of whom have been shipped in from Turkey or Saudi Arabia of course, who proclaim the battle with the unbelievers and urge jihad. And here you don’t need to have a clear order from IS, from Syria or Iraq, any individual can just radicalize himself. We’ve seen it happen – the terrorists in France, for example, who cut the priest’s throat in the church. The Koran says: "When you meet unbelievers, smite off their heads and go on smiting until you have made a bloodbath of them." So radicalization happens of its own accord. The Koran is a manual of terror and intolerance. In your view, is there a connection between the increasing number of Islamic terrorist acts in Europe, and the current refugee crisis? To some extent. I think radical Islam has put itself out there through the creation of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It has established a monument to itself by founding this caliphate. Their self-confidence has increased, they are to some extent independent, and this means that an outstretched hand reaching towards Europe is just the logical consequence. And now with the refugee crisis, the chaos that prevails in Europe, these open borders, this decision-making vacuum, IS has just seized the chance to smuggle jihadists into Europe as well. We must also bear in mind that thousands of refugees – registered or unregistered – have quite simply gone underground. Of course not every single one of them is a terrorist. But Europe has definitely lost control, because it doesn’t know who is actually here. Another direct connection between the refugee crisis and the terror attacks in Europe consists in the fact that some of the perpetrators in France and in Bataclan actually came into Europe via the Balkans. A Syrian refugee blew himself up in Ansbach. And just this week, another three Syrian refugees have been arrested in Germany because they were planning terrorist attacks. Ironically enough, they were actually showpiece refugees. – So there is a direct connection certainly. And do you think that politicians in Austria, or for that matter in Europe, have been taking effective measures against terrorists or potential terrorists? Well, here in Austria we have been relatively lucky, in that we have been spared any major attacks. There was the incident in Graz, where a driver, a Muslim man who admitted his guilt, ran down three people with a vehicle and injured dozens, and his act was played down by politicians and the media – they said it was the isolated act of a person with psychological problems. It’s a different picture in Germany, Great Britain and France, however, where there have been really brutal attacks. In my opinion people there showed an excellent reaction in the circumstances, it was good crisis management, when I think how the police responded to the rogue sniper in Munich. But here in Austria I have to say that I feel an effective strategy of terror prevention is lacking. I think the government needs to take up a more definite position in order to give citizens better reassurance that they are protected. What would you like to see, in concrete terms, from Austrian or European politicians – what would need to be done if in the long term we want to be masters of the situation? I would like people finally to start calling a spade a spade. We have a problem. The Koran is a manual of terror and intolerance, and Islam is irreconcilable with democracy and human rights. And these things need to be talked about. Then we will be in a better position to try to find solutions. I am happy in this context to quote Wilhelm Busch, who said: "Tolerance is a good thing, but not tolerance of the intolerant." And here it would be a first step in the right direction to ban the "Lies" (read) campaign whereby the Koran in the Salafist version is being disseminated. Salafist ideas should not be tolerated any longer. We also need stricter laws. Anyone who comes here as an asylum seeker, as a refugee, must accept these laws. Those who violate them have no right to protection. In my view the Islamic associations and the mosques should be subject to more stringent controls. States need to know what is happening on their sovereign territory. We shouldn’t allow Turkey and Saudi Arabia to send over imams who popularize this kind of ideology. We need to know who is funding these operations. I would also call for better equipment and better working conditions for the police. Staffing levels should be significantly topped up. And the military, the federal armed forces, should no longer be pared down to the point of extinction. So here the government needs to take up a definite position, to give a signal in the direction of security and self-defense. Thank you so much for talking to us. My pleasure