The Koran: So what percentage is 'good' to non-Muslims ?

The elite and media-academic communities always claim – without offering proof - that Islam is peace and that all Muslims are of course sophisticated moderates. Few of these people making such claims knows much of anything of Islamic imperialism, expansion, its 1400 year jihad, nor have many of them read the 3 foundational works of the Meccan moon cult – the Sira or biography of the illiterate adventurer Mohammed, the Hadiths the supposed sayings of Mohammed scribbled down years after his death, or the Koran a supposed holy book.

Take a look at the Koran for example. Read it. Analyse it. Study it. What will you find ? What per-cent of this so-called 'holy book' is actually preaching a code of ethics, the derivatives of the Golden Rule, and the embracing of tolerance, compassion, gratitude, morality and love ? Almost none of it. In fact as I will illustrate below it is less than 2 % of all the words written.

In my own experience in reading the Koran over a number of years a few times, I can testify that the actual contact made with anything that might resemble the Book of Matthew is so scarce, that it stands out in stark juxtaposition and shocks the reader. In my mind the Book of Matthew is the seminal document in the New Testament, the one book that everyone should read. Its ethical program based on the teachings of a itinerant Jew carpenter and preacher from Galilee is the mainspring of civilized social interaction. It also the cultural basis for much of the attitudes which have helped create the modern world.

It is also a distinctly Jewish ideal, built up over a 2000 year period of Hebrew history, philosophy, debates and Old Testament learning. The Book of Matthew has many similarities to Zen Buddhism and Hindu cultural attitudes and there is little doubt that at its core Christianity is a religion in the sense and purpose of what a religion should offer. The natural outcome of Christian preaching and idolization of faith is the following: equality; emancipation of the female; charity; welfare systems; hospitals and of course pacifism. Gibbon was wrong when he blamed the Fall of Rome on the pacific and un-military nature of Christianity – but the description of the Christians being against war is valid. It was always thus, until the Muslim attacks from 650 AD to 1000 AD by necessity turned the Christian state into a more militant entity. Survival changes everything.

So in reading the Koran one must look for the Book of Matthew and the ethical program of the Sermon on the Mount. None of it of course exists. Mohammed was an illiterate – unlike Christ. He was a politician and warrior. He led 80 odd expeditions, murdered people, took and sold slaves, had sex with whomever he wanted, kept a score of sex slaves or concubines, enriched himself with booty, and was a dictator, who hated Jews and Christians. These are facts. He was most likely, like Hitler, rather insane. Why would one expect to find a gospel of religious compassion from such a founder ?

In the only scientific analysis of the Koran that I am aware of, scientist and theologian Bill Warner attempted to determine how much of the Koran was good to humanity as a whole. Most of the Koran is good to Muslims – especially male and Arab Muslims of course. But what about non-Muslims, what about people, what about the average person who is just a human living on earth ? As Warner relates:

“There are 4,108 words in the verses that seem to offer goodness to all of humanity (there are 153,207 words in the Koran, this varies upon which translation). Of course, this goodness is denied later in the chapter, but even at that, we have only 2.6% of the Koran that speaks well of humanity initially......

Even the 2.6% vanishes under the threatened violence if kaffirs don't accept Islam's offer of goodness. Violence and suffering are promised to 100% of those who do not believe in Mohammed...” (www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-good-in-the-koran/)

Warner's key point cannot be overstated. Even if the Koran says something nice about the non-Muslim it is usually conditional. Almost always a follow up sentence will contain, '..for Allah will bring them to account...' What the Koran is saying is two things. First, if you the Muslim are in an inferior position of power [for instance a minority in a Jew-Christian area], you can be nice to Jews and Christians since Allah will torture them in hell anyways, even though the infidels don't know it. But even these verses are quite few and far between. Second, and more often, you will read a verse in which the Muslim is instructed to be nice to the kaffir, only in the context of lying or deceiving the infidel to further the aims of Islam. This is called 'taqqiya' and deception to improve the position of Islam versus its enemies – which are all non-Muslims – is a fundamental doctrine of both Islam and Arab culture.

So Warner's appraisal that less than 3% of the Koran is kind to non-Muslims is optimistic. If one was to exclude Taqqiya, and the belief that when in a position of weakness you should show some considerations to the infidels since Allah will punish them anyways, it is valid to state that almost none of the Koran is kind to non-Muslims. This is in direct contrast to the Book of Matthew. No where in this book or in the New Testament can anyone find the same language, call to jihad, racism, supremacism or outright intolerance, one finds strewn on every page in the Koran.

This of course begs another question, never answered by the elite, the academics or the media drones. If the foundational text of Islam is irreligious and the opposite of what Christ taught, why then is Islam considered to be a religion ? Because people scream and yell that it is ? What rational intelligence accepts such a claim when the evidence of words, deeds and history spells out the opposite ? Isn't Islam just an Arabian political project, one designed to conquer the secular world in the name of the family moon cult deity of Mohammed, disguised as a 'faith'?

It is pretty clear from the Koran that Islam is not a theology of religion but an ideology of political power and control. That at least is what any sentient person reading the Koran and studying it would decide. Which is why one might suppose that the elitists in the educational systems, politics and media tell you the opposite. For these deniers of reality, Islam is part of the victimized non-Western world, and part of the travesty of Western imperialist history and slaughter. Therefore Islam is good because it is not Western. The ignorance of such a view is extreme in its absurdity, but sadly it is passed off as a cutlural fact embedded in the worship of the multi-cultural and relativist state.