A Remarkable Life Story – Escaping The Islamic Republic

From the description below the video:

The Glazov Gang
Published on Oct 24, 2017
The Illinois Family Institute (IFI), Chicago, IL graciously hosted Aynaz Anni Cyrus and others at “The Danger of Islam” seminar on Oct. 08, 2017. Anni Cyrus of the Glazov Gang. A child bride in her home country of Iran, abused and imprisoned as a teen, she escaped to America and now advocates for women and girls, suffering under Sharia. Her mission is to bring hope and healing to women and girls who have been unfortunate enough to be exposed to the plague of Islamic ideology. She experienced, first hand, the horrors of living under Islamic theocracy in Iran.
—————————————————————–

Keep her story in mind when you hear folks advocating for Sharia Law…

Oh, and realize she now will have a death sentence on her head. The Koran states that those to whom the Koran has been revealed who then reject it are to be killed… Should you wish to read Sura 4, there are online copies, and if you read it in translation I suppose you could then claim to have never read the “True Quran” as in theory it can only be understood in Arabic… (A claim I do not accept, but it’s good cover for folks claiming the translations are not accurate). Perhaps that would keep you safe from the death sentence…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A Remarkable Life Story – Escaping The Islamic Republic

  1. H.R. says:

    That was 19 minutes well spent.

    Twenty times a day, a Muslim will repeat that Jews and Christians and Atheists and Agnostics and Buddhists and, and and… are cursed so the should be either converted, subjugated, or killed.

    Ah yes. The religion of peace, and while you’re at it, make a little scratch on the side selling your female progeny at age nine, according to the Profit.

    I’m underwhelmed by Islam.

  2. Sera says:

    I heard that Momo was Assyrian, so that would make the first Koran written in syriac?

  3. E.M.Smith says:

    Mohammad was illiterate. He “preached” from a copy of the Bible (pre-Catholic edits and purges – Nestorian? Something like that, whatever…) It included some of the books removed in the Roman Emperor driven edit.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

    Then it got eaten by a goat…

    This is the reason the Muslims are so dead set on banning Bibles, because in their POV they are NOT the valid Bible. The only valid Bible was lost down a goat’s gullet… So Mohammad ran around preaching what he remembered (with, um… “embellishments” when questions came up…) as he was a “Profit” so could do that.

    Some 30ish years after his death, the Koran was compiled by someone else (the name is known but I’ve never been good at remembering names and especially Arabic ones…) and then was published. The creation of the Koran involved collecting scraps on which folks had written some bit they remembered, and gathering folks who had learned stories (it means “recitation” after all) from Mohammad. As the bits were in no particular order, they were arranged in size order, with exceptions, in the Koran. IIRC, longest in the front, shortest in the rear. More details here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surahs_in_the_Quran

    This accidentally causes some time ordering as more recent things were less lost…

    So it was originally written in Arabic. Not the highest literary Arabic of the time, but a special kind of Koranic Arabic… which leads to even more arguments over what parts of it mean than just the lack of vowel markings (so each word could have several different meanings depending on what vowels you choose – but an experienced speaker is supposed to just know what to choose… recent modern copies have vowels marked based on the best “scholarship” possible by the religious leadership…) Some of this is the basis of the assertion that you can not translate it (as some of the dual+ meanings get lost when you pick some vowels) but as much western literature that was lost (read “burned by the Muslims” ) was recovered from Arabic translations of it, I find that a non-credible claim.

    Despite claims that there is only one version, there are in fact a few variations known to exist. Seems early on some powerful folks had any versions they didn’t like burned too… leaving only a small set of “accepted” versions. Occasionally an exceptionally old copy that escaped the fire is found. If it survives being found, it can provide insight to that old period of time…

    There’s a lot more interesting history of the Koran and how it came to be created and turned into the current accepted uniform version, but treating it as anything other than a divine gift from God perfect in every way and immutable gets you in trouble… despite there being written records from the early days attesting to the facts from folks who are generally honored in Islam.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    More here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

    According to Muslim belief and Islamic scholarly accounts, the revelation of the Quran began in 610 C.E. when the angel Gabriel (Arabic: جبريل, Jibrīl or جبرائيل, Jibrāʾīl) appeared to Muhammad in the cave Hira near Mecca, reciting to him the first verses of Sura Iqra (al-`Alaq). Throughout his life, Muhammad continued to have revelations until before his death in 632. The Quran as it is known in the present, was first compiled into book format by Zayd ibn Thabit and other scribes under the third caliph Uthman (r. 644–56). For this reason, the Quran as it exists today is also known as the Uthmanic codex.[citation needed] According to Professor Francis Edward Peters (1927), what was done to the Quran in the process seems to have been extremely conservative and the content was formed in a mechanical fashion to avoid redactional bias.
    […]
    Muslim scholars believe that Muhammad was illiterate, as mentioned in the Quran itself,

    “Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them……”Quran 7:157.

    […]
    Shia scholars are unanimous that Ali ibn Abu Talib possessed a personal transcript of the Quran, which he collected six months after Muhammad’s death, and that this was the first compilation of the Quran. The unique aspect about this version is that it was collected in the order it was sent, which mainstream Shi’ism hold is the only difference between the Quran we have today and Ali’s.

    A few Shia scholars argue that Ali presented his Quran to the community, but they refused to acknowledge his copy. One report states, “he had brought the complete Book [of God], comprising the interpretation and the revelation, the precise and ambiguous verses, the abrogating and the abrogated verses; nothing was missing from it, [not even] a letter alif, nor lam. But they did not accept it from him” They also believe that Ali’s version of the Quran contained verses that are not seen in the Uthmanic codex we have today. They believe changes in the order of verses and suras did take place and that there were variant readings, tabdil, exchange of words such as umma to imma, rearrangement of words and deletion of words pertaining to the right of Ali being the first caliph.
    […]
    Abu Bakr

    According to Sunni scholars, during the life of Muhammad parts of the Quran, though written, were scattered among his companions, much of it as private possession. The amount of Scribes was 43 companions. And there were many people who though were not scribes also were complete memorizers. After Muhammad’s death, Abu Bakr initially exercised a policy of laissez faire as well. This policy was reversed after the Battle of Yamama in 633. During the battle, 700 Muslims who had memorized the Quran were killed. The death of Salim, however, was most significant, as he was one of the very few who had been entrusted by Muhammad to teach the Quran. Consequently, upon Umar’s insistence, Abu Bakr ordered the collection of the hitherto scattered pieces of the Quran into one copy.

    Zayd ibn Thabit, Muhammad’s primary scribe, was assigned the duty of gathering all of the Quranic text. He gives an insight into what happened during the meeting between Abu Bakr, Umar, and himself:
    […]

    You can see there some of the schism between Sunni and Shia as they have differing versions of the history of the Koran…

    Then there’s this problem:

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/31/oldest-koran-destabilises-islamic-history-carbon-dating-says-it-pre-dates-mohammed/

    It ignores that parchment was scarce and expensive so often reused… but still:

    Fragments of an early Koran found in a Birmingham library may rewrite Islamic history after carbon dating revealed they could be older than Mohammed.

    Scientists at the University of Oxford had already revealed that the parchment was among the oldest known Koranic texts in the world, but now several historians say it could be so old that it pre-dates the Muslim prophet, thus contradicting traditional accounts of his life and radically altering “the edifice of Islamic tradition.”

    The dating reveals the text to have been written between AD568 and 645, while the dates of Mohammed’s life are traditionally given as AD570 to 632. This means that at the very latest it was written before the first formal texts were supposed to have been collated, and at the earliest it was written before or shortly after Mohammed was born.
    […]
    Dr Keith Small, a Koranic manuscript consultant at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, admits the carbon dating applies to the parchment, not the ink, while the calligraphy is characteristic of a later style.

    Nevertheless, he believes the dates are probably correct and could raise serious questions for Islam.

    “If the [carbon] dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — pre-dates Muhammad, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.

    “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.

    I think they will find the ink, like the calligraphy, is newer…

  5. Sandy MCCLINTOCK says:

    I tried to make a comment but it was rejected – there was nothing offensive ;)

  6. Sandy MCCLINTOCK says:

    I had a look at Surah 1 and 4 and don’t see exactly what Anni says about them (Please, if you spot a verse that looks like what she is talking about, then do let me know.
    Surah 1.7 says “7. The path of those You have blessed, not of those against whom there is anger, nor of those who are misguided.” “Misguided” is not the same as “Cursed”. I wonder if the English translations have been ‘edited’.
    I looked at the other translations of Surah 1.7 using this:-
    quranexplorer dot com/Quran/

    Surah 4 is long and, so far, I have not spotted the bits that Anni mentions.

  7. Larry Ledwick says:

    Depends on the translation. You also have to deal with “understood meanings” idiomatic interpretations of concepts like what does it really mean to a Muslim when you talk about people going astray? To go astray as I understand it is in this phrase refers to those who do not fully adhere to the strict teachings, but also to those non-believers who have not found the faith yet. I seems they see those much like the Spanish conquistadors saw the heathen indians as ignorant of the right path (as the Catholic Spaniards saw it) and thus that they should be persuaded gently at first and then if necessary forcibly converted “for their own good”.

    The Quran translation and commentary by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan with Parallel Arabic Text translates the last verse Surah 1.7 as:

    the path of those You have blessed; not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray.

    This English translation is supposed to be highly regarded and is even recommended by Islamic teachers to English speakers.

    In “The Meaning of the Glorious Quran THE GLORIOUS QURAN, Translation by Yusuf Ali Sura 1.7 is translated as:

    The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

    To really get a feel of the Muslim doctrine you should get a copy of the book:
    “Catastrophic Failure blindfolding America in the face of jihad” by Stephen Coughlin.

    In the above translations “incurred Your Wrath” and ;”those whose (portion) is not wrath” are idiomatically interpreted as cursed by Allah and is where she draws that conclusion.

    Then you throw in the concept of abrogation where one sura gets abrogated by a later sura, so you cannot read just one sura and get the actual meaning unless you know about later sura which have replaced or updated the earlier sura.

    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/verses.htm

  8. Larry Ledwick says:

    Further commentary on the meaning of that phrase. You can spend days chasing links on the web and reading various translations trying to pin down such issues, which is precisely why they assert that you cannot understand Islam without a life time of study. The modern Quran is intentionally written out of chronological order to make it more difficult to understand.

    https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q1_7.htm

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    Remember too that according to the Koran it is just fine to lie to the infidel and that the True Believers say the Koran only reveals the real truth in the Arabic. (“Can not be translated”). Taken together these hint to translations being muted perhaps for effect… So I’ll take the word of an ex-Muslim who’s Mom taught the Koran over some random English translation where the goals of the translator may well be to “pretty it up” for the English…

    Besides, the number of times it says “Death to the Infidel” and “Slaughter the Jews” and “Kill them where you find them” is not small… I’ve read it and it’s pretty much throughout.

Comments are closed.