1.Today, the Europeans and Americans are trying to escape jihad by stating politically correctly, that «there is nothing in common between Islam and terror.» This stated, in particular, the Pope, as well as many other politicians (and the present pope proved that he is a highly politicized spiritual leader). France, as a measure against the Jihad, took up arms against the burqa, and other countries — against other external manifestations of Muslim religiosity, against the Sharia courts, against the construction of mosques, etc.

All this more than strange activity leads to a directly opposite result, namely: encourages Muslims to jihad.

Burka is not to blame for the seizure of Europe by Muslims with the help of traditional Islamic demographic aggression, neither for terrorist attacks, nor the expansion of petrodollars.

Not Burka inspired anti-Semites to support the campaign to destroy Israel, as a manifestation of «solidarity» with Muslims. Simply, anti-Semites try to unite with jihadists, on the basis of common values. And the only common value of jihadists and anti-Semitic «liberals» is enmity towards the Jewish state. The unity of the World Village is being built on the basis of the image of a «common enemy», the role of which is assigned to Israel.

By the way, there is no ban on any clothes and hats in Israel. Ten years ago, half of the girl students of the University of Haifa wore burqa in the premises of the university. And today few people wear traditional clothes. Simply, the customs of the rural inhabitants of Galilee are gradually changing. This is also noticeable in the clothes of visitors to shopping centers, clinics, restaurants, children’s attractions, workplaces and in all other public places.

For many decades, Muslim religious judges, qadi, have been operating in Israel. They judge on the basis of the laws of the state, and take into account the traditions of the Sharia. They receive a salary from the government. And there are no conflicts or enmity.

In fact, all of us, non-Muslims and Muslims, must believe, that most Muslims are honest and respectable people, but unfortunately they have the wrong religion …  Muhammad deceived Muslims. And this means that Islam needs a deep reform.

Instead of prohibiting the outward manifestations of Islamic religiosity, a democratic society, and the entire world village, must unequivocally demand that Muslims reform the Islamic doctrine, adapting it to the requirements of living together in this close World Village.

Reform does not have to be based on the Muslims’ transition to a «Western» or «modern» way of life. In the dispute between civilizations between Muslims and the West, the truth is not always on the side of the West. Islamic critics of the «Western way of life» are right in many respects. Truth must be sought in dialogue and discussion both within Islamic communities and in inter-communal dialogue.

By the way, the participation of Christians and Jews in the «refinement» of Islamic doctrine does not contradict Qur’an. Muhammad himself stated in the Qur’an that among Christians, and even among Jews, there is «a part of God-fearing people worthy of respect.» He also called on all believers to study earlier versions of scripture, the Torah and the Gospel. Some Muslims, for example Nusayrites, fulfill this call and read the gospels, along with the Qur’an. The Iranian ayatollahs consider the Nusayrites heretics.

2.Today’s unreformed Islam is simply bad, how can one allow its spread? The present Islam is harmful for humanity and for Muslims themselves, primarily because of the lack of a generally accepted Islamic moral code. Instead of universal morality, Muslims are guided by the personality of Muhammad as an example of allegedly sinless behavior. Therefore, the main goal of the reform should be the development of a new moral code that will correspond to universal morality and the conditions of life in the World Village.Real actions of Muhammad often differed from what all of us, instinctively or due to education, consider fair. There are many examples, but I will focus on one, perhaps, the most relevant today.

This will refer to the attitude of Muhammad to the Jews of the Yathrib oasis (Medina), where Muhammad laid his new Islamic state. There was a century-long war for power and taxes in this oasis, between the aborigine Jews and two tribes (of Yemenite origin): Aws and Khazraj.  Hijrah of Muslims and of Muhammad became part of this war. Local Jewish tribes submitted to the Awsitic pagans and paid tribute, but the Khazraj aliens, who professed Judaism, did not obey. Muhammad was invited to Medina by the Aws and Khazraj tribes in order to ensure unity between them and become a common leader. Both tribes adopted Islam and recognized the supremacy of Muhammad.

But the success of Muhammad on the part of the converting of the Medinites to Islam stalled. The Jews made alliances with Muhammad, then they quarreled, but anyway remained with their faith. To be more precise, it was Muhammad who did not want to live in peace with the Jews, and he had a reason.

While Muhammad treated Jews positively in Mecca, especially with regard to Jewish kings, prophets and patriarchs, whom he called «Muslims», then in Medina he encountered rejection and criticism from the Jews. Most likely, he was reproached with ignorance of the text of the Torah and illiteracy.

Then Muhammad made a 180 degree turn, announced that the Jews «moved the sheets» in the Torah, and that he, Muhammad, received the «true» text of the Scripture directly from Allah. And he tried to get rid of Jews in general. He used for this purpose the greed of the Ansar-Aws, their desire to seize fields and houses from local Jews. The Aws eagerly responded to the call of Muhammad. He tempted them with «trophies» during their lifetime and paradisiacal pleasures after death:

 003-25 «Allah is All-Powerful, Mighty.

  1. He brought from the fortresses those people the Scriptures that helped them (the allies), and instilled fear into their hearts. One of them you killed, and the other was taken prisoner.
  2. He gave you a legacy of their land, their homes, their property and land, to which you did not even walk. Allah is Able to do all things».

Muhammad had to admonish the Ansara, so that the latters did not abuse jihad for the purpose of robbery:

004-94. «O you who believe! When you are in the path of Allah, then make sure and do not say to the one who welcomes you: «You are an unbeliever,» seeking to obtain the corruptible benefits of worldly life».

This way originated the notion of «martyrs» and awards to those who perish in the path of Allah. Most likely, Muhammad created Surah «Trophies” at the request of the Ansar, interested in matter of sharing the stolen property. Whereas Surah «Jihad», about which Muhammad was asked by «Muslims», he did not create at all. The pressure from the Ansar and the requests to create ayahs and surahs on the topics, actual  for them, clearly, took place, but Muhammad did not like it, he wanted to be the master of the situation.

And on the other hand, Muhammad exerted pressure on the Ansar Khazraj, formerly Jews, who stood up for their Jewish relatives. Muhammad called them «hypocrites», threatening them with torments in hell.

Thus, in the 624th year of the Christian era, Muhammad drove the Jewish tribe Banu Kaynuk from Medina, then in 625th the tribe of Banu Nadir, and in 627 destroyed the last Jews in the Medina, the Banu Qurayz tribe. To sum up: at the arrival of Muhammad in Yathrib (Medina) , the oasis had a Jewish majority, and there was only one pagan Aws tribe. Then ten years later there were no Jews left, while the Gentiles Aws and the Khazraj Jews accepted Islam. The oasis Yathrib became, I would say, «judenfrei».

These actions against the Jews clearly contradicted the position of Muhammad himself, who stated that «there is no coercion in the faith.» To justify this contradiction, Muhammad tried to blame the responsibility for the massacre of the remnants of the Jews against his ally, the Aws leader, Sa’d ibn Muadh.

The guilt of the Qurayza Jews was that during the siege of Medina by the army of Mecca Qurayza tribe launched negotiations with the Meccans and did not actively support the actions of Muhammad. They, I would say, «sat on the fence.»  You could understand them: just before that, Muhammad expelled and robbed their relatives, the Jewish clans of Qaynuqa and Nadir. And they were in danger too, because of their unwillingness to betray the Moses’ faith.

Nevertheless, after hesitation, the Qurayza broke their agreement with Mecca. After which the Meccans retreated from Medina with nothing. But the Qurayza saved Muhammad for their misfortune. Immediately after the retreat of the Meccans, Muhammad turned his army against the Qurayza and besieged their fortress. In the negotiations, Muhammad promised to keep the Qurayza alive, while the last  gave to Muhammad their homes and fields, and have to leave Medina.

Such conditions were arranged by the soldiers of Muhammad, the Ansar, whose purpose was only the appropriation of other people’s property. But, as it turned out, Muhammad had a different goal. When the Qurayza soldiers surrendered at the mercy of the victor and surrendered their weapons, Muhammad changed his word. He caused the leader of the Aws Sa’d ibn Muadh, seriously wounded in the battle, to decide solely on the fate of the Qurayza.

The deadly wounded leader of the Aws (he died shortly afterwards) took a decision contrary to custom and contrary to his tribe’s opinion: to kill all the men and adolescents of the Qurayza. This meant the total elimination of the tribe, because the surviving women, children and old people, deprived of their homes and fields, were doomed to die in the desert. The best solution in this situation would be to enslave those who survived. Why did Muhammad did so? I suppose, this way he prevented  the possibility that the Qurayza will take refuge at Khaibar oasis, joining and enforcing their Jewish brethren Nadir and Qaynuqa. Probably, Muhammad planned further pursue of the Jews at Khaibar.

It is clear that the deadly wounded leader of Aws wanted to avenge cruelly his suffering and the impending death. That’s why Muhammad instructed him to become a «judge». In the eyes of his followers and in the eyes of his enemies, Muhammad did not absolve himself of responsibility for the violation of the word and the massacre of unarmed soldiers, who were tied before cutting off their heads.

It is clear that in this case Muhammad acted unworthy of the title of Prophet of Allah. Perhaps, Allah punished him for this, depriving descendants, sons, whom the Prophet  wanted very much, but did not receive from any of his numerous wives and concubines.

3.»New Islam» can honor the Prophet Muhammad, but must abandon the idea that Muhammad was sinless. Moreover, the predecessors of Muhammad, Moses and Jesus, each of whom advanced his own teaching and moral code, also violated moral precepts, including their own. Today, no one demands that Jews repeat all that Moses did. For example, he beat the first-borns in Egypt. And it is unlikely that many will agree to substitute the insolent aggressors for the second cheek, as Jesus commanded. The Muslims did not agree with the opinion of Christians that Jesus was the son of God, etc.

Religion, which elevates such immoral and cruel acts, is not worth spreading, or imposing on all humankind, through jihad.

Meanwhile, the politically correct elite of the West decided to take advantage of this particular, immoral and anti-Semitic, side of Islam. The first to do this was Hitler, who brought the spiritual leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, close to him, (incidentally, also the Iraqi nationalist officer Rashid al-Ghailani,). After Hitler, the same Amin al-Husseini became cozy with British rulers of the Middle East.

Well, the de-legitimization of the Jewish state has become today a “good manner” for the world media, the UN, politicians, judges and tycoons. All this political pack, following Hitler, is looking for an alliance with jihadists based on the «built-in» Islamic anti-Semitism,  and on massive anti-Semitic lies, which Palestinians distribute to the whole World.

From the Muslims’ point of view, this treacherous self-abasement of anti-Semitic «elites» only confirms that they are all cowards, that can and must be terrorized, subjugated and won through comprehensive jihad.  Just the immoral anti-Semitic position of politically correct elites serves an invitation to the «World Caliphate». Thanks to their position, the World Caliphate is real like never before.

This position also strikes a blow at those Muslims who seek to correct Islamic doctrine by introducing in it an universal morality. If a politically correct West confirms that Muhammad’s persecution of Jews was OK, then this is an argument in favor of jihadists and against pacifists among Muslims.

4.Let’s sum up all the above.

The deeds of Muhammad, for all his genius and authority, cannot always serve a model for the behavior of individuals and the entire Islamic «Ummah.» Muhammad was a politician and conqueror, he acted in a certain environment, which often forced him to violate the principles of universal morality. I do not presume to condemn him, others in his place were worse. Moreover, the predecessors of Muhammad Moses and Jesus also violated the norms of ordinary human morality.

I state, that the followers of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad do not always have the right to act identically to their prophets. Let these followers believe that Allah gave his Messengers a special permission to sin when necessary. We, the ordinary mortals, must be guided by reason and conscience.

Islamic morality is built on imitation of Muhammad’s actions, because Muhammad himself did not formulate his own moral code. Consequently, New Muslims must develop a new moral code of Islam, and convince most Muslims to follow this code. References to the fact that Muhammad or the Quran speak otherwise should be swept aside. Muhammad and the Quran are not always right (just like Moses and the Torah, Jesus and the Gospels did). Or maybe the believers did not understand the plan of Allah. Therefore, the conscience must replace the Qur’an when it is incomprehensible or clearly contrary to conscience. Other Muslim traditions, for example Sunnah, should also be interpreted in favor of conscience.

In the reform of Islam, we all must turn to those of the Muslims who seek to make Islam a progressive teaching. Such Muslims exist, but they are too passive, or rather intimidated. Politically correct world betrayed them, and they are afraid of pressure and terror from Islamic retrogrades.  Just  this part of Muslims should be brought to the real reform of Islam.

It is also impossible to delay the discussion on the reform of Islam to infinity, it is necessary to give Muslims a time frame when they have to accept an agreed version of Islam that will be acceptable in the modern world. And until this is done, the whole of mankind must unite in the struggle against jihad and the World Caliphate, and say the decisive «no» to the jihad.

Only a revised version of Islam will be allowed for distribution («jihad») and teaching in Muslim schools.  Freedom of conscience must be proclaimed, anti-Semitism and a disdainful attitude towards dissenters, gentiles and atheists must be condemned. Instead of Jihad, the principle «there is no compulsion in faith» should become the main operating principle of Islam.