PRESIDENT BUSH: Please Tell The Truth About ISLAM -

[Guest guest]

Thats heavy offensive, why they write this: "...throw them in with the Branch Davidians and the Hare Krishna for their absurd behavior...."

 

 

Riots still ongoing?

by Bobby Lepak

http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/23/43fe6f10dbb8e

February 23, 2006

 

When I turned on my TV today I was surprised to see that the people of the Middle East are still doing their best imitation of South Central Los Angeles on April 29, 1992.

 

It has been a month since the protests of a Danish cartoon started throughout the Muslim world, and the mobs are still going strong.

 

Unlike many Americans, I have seen the cartoon, and have to say I can definitely understand how it is offensive to Muslims. The cartoon I saw is a drawing of Muhammed with a bomb-shaped turban on his head.

 

Of course, the cartoonist is making a statement about the link between Islam and terrorism, and, of course, Muslims around the world are furious. I can certainly see why.

 

It is my understanding that Muslims do not attempt to depict or draw Muhammed for many reasons. Muhammed is extremely sacred to Muslims, and this cartoon crossed the line not only for depicting Muhammed, but also for trying to link him to the horrible acts of terrorism that have scarred the world.

 

I have no problem with Muslims around the world being angry or offended by this cartoon, but I do have a problem with their ridiculous reaction to it.

 

I am absolutely dumbfounded by this. Rioting over a cartoon? Are you serious?

 

During these riots, 45 people have been killed. The Danish embassy in Beirut was burned down. A Pakastani cleric has offered a $1 million bounty for anyone that kills the cartoonist that drew Muhammed. And the riots are still going on.

 

Could you imagine if the rest of the world behaved this way when they were offended?

 

I get offended whenever newspaper columnists or cartoonists say something bad about the pope, but I’ve never resorted to violence.

 

I might write a letter to the editor, or maybe organize a boycott of that paper, but I’ve never stood outside of a newsroom with all of my Catholic buddies screaming “Hail Mary!” and burning effigies of the editor. That reaction just seems out of control.

 

When the extremely offensive “South Park” episode about Mormons ran, there were no mass riots in Utah calling for the deaths of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Rational people simply don’t do things like that.

 

And these people aren’t just rioting for days; it has been an entire month. How do you maintain a riot for a month? Are people taking shifts? Is there a set time and place that they meet to riot every day? We can’t even keep a “Boomer Sooner” chant going for longer than a minute at a football game, much less a month.

 

If any other religious group did this, the rest of the world would throw them in with the Branch Davidians and the Hare Krishna for their absurd behavior.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable and ridiculous that the Muslims of the world have been rioting over a cartoon for the last month, yet very few of those inside the religion are coming out against this behavior.

 

So my question is: Where is the moderate voice of Islam? Where is this tolerant side of Islam that I am always hearing about? Does that tolerance not extend to those that offend you?

 

If there is such a voice in Islam, I think now would be a great time to speak up; your extremist brethren are not only embarrassing themselves in front of the entire world with this childish behavior, but they are also perpetuating the image of the Middle East as a backwards part of the world where people riot in the streets over ridiculous things like cartoons.

 

Is this the true face of Islam?

 

If it isn’t, then I hope that some day I will get to see the true face. Rather than the out-of-control, flag-burning, “Death to America!” chanting, rioting for an entire month side of Islam, I would love to see the peaceful, devout, respectable side of this religion.

 

That is, assuming it exists.

 

— Bobby Lepak is an entrepreneurship sophomore. His column appears every other Friday, and he can be reached at opinion@oudaily.com.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sunnite and Shiite is actually the same as Ritviks against Non-ritviks. The split already occured right after Prophet Mohammed's departure and till today after hundreds of years there's no re-union. In fact only a tyrant like Saddam Hussain was able to rule that land with such power to keep those fighting kanisthas under control and not to kill each other everyday they do presently.

[krsna]

 

Amil Imani

 

 

The intention of this article is to provoke a much-needed debate on the nature of a phenomenon called "Islamic Terrorism." Most people in the United States assume that the phenomenon called "Islamic Terrorism" started after the 11 September . attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.

Actually, the world was in a deep coma about the nature of Islamic Terrorism before the events of 11 September. In some cases, people still refuse to accept that there is such reality called "Islamic Terrorism." However, this phenomenon did not start on or about 11 September .. This event was conceived and put into action fourteen hundred years earlier across the hot, sandy deserts of Arabia.

 

The word "Islam" means "submission." One may ask submission to what or whom? A Muslim is a person who is obedient to the will of "Allah." According to the words of the Prophet of Islam, Allah is the author of the holy book of Quran, thus a Muslim is a person who must do what the book says to do. If he or she does not follow the words of the Quran, then he or she is not considered to be a Muslim.

 

Muslims insist that the almighty Lord of all living thing is synonymous with what is known in Arabic as "Allah." Muslims confess that every word in the holy book of Quran is the word of Allah. It contains 114 Surahs (chapters) and more than 6,000 verses. Ironically, the greatest enemy of Islam is this very book, which Muslims vow to be free of errors.

 

Islamic scholars proudly state that the Quran is unrivalled in its recording and preservation. They proudly say that the holy book has remained unchanged to the letter -- even after fourteen hundred years.

 

However, they won't allow any one to question any part of the teaching. Questioning any part of the holy book will result in death. As we have witnessed, the Islamic zealots do not tolerate opinions contrary to their own.

 

Nowadays, we all hear from the Muslim apologists that the holy religion of Islam has been hijacked by the militant Muslims. Even some friends in the United States utter the same thing.

 

Muslims keep repeating that Islam means "peace," something my friends in the states say as well. In reality though, Islam means war. It is through so many wars that Islam established itself as another religion. It is through fear, intimidation, and indoctrination of innocent people that Islam has made its loyal follower to adhere to this ideology of hate. It is through sacrifices and the killing of innocent people that Islam has lasted as long as it has. It is with the sword of Islam that people became Muslims.

 

There is no such phenomenon called good Muslims or bad Muslims. Good Muslims are non-Muslims, the ones who have never read the holy book of Quran and do not understand or do not want to understand the nature of Islam. They merely were born into a Muslim family. Those who think Islam has been hijacked by the bad Muslims are not true Muslims. Bad Muslims are those who execute the words of Allah. Therefore, the bad Muslims are the true believers who follow the path of the prophet of Islam. In other words, the Islamic terrorists are the true sons and daughters of the Islamic faith.

 

Understanding what "Islamic Terrorism" is and identifying the signs or association those who are or may become Islamic terrorists, may help the society to detect and prevent or capture the terrorists before they commit crimes against the innocent civilians. A better understanding of the true nature of Islam will alarm people of the dangers of "Islamic Terrorism."

 

 

Islam rewards those who are willing to die for "Allah.Everybody hates death, fears death. Only those, the believers who know the life after death and the reward after death, would be the ones who would be seeking death.

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them.

Those who oppose the messenger and become unbelievers will go to hell.

Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom. The holy Quran.

Everyone eventually will face death. However, the destination after death is not the same. Those who believed in Allah --and followed what Allah's messenger said-- will be in paradise. In other words, those who commit crimes against humanity, murder the infidels, rape little girls or boys, burn the cities of disbelievers, hijack airplanes to fly them into buildings, and bringing down the towers and casting terror in the lives of people, will spend their eternal rest in heaven. To top it all off, 72 virgin women will greet them at the gate with a bottle of French wine.

 

For those who deviate from executing the words of Allah, an eternal blazing Fire (Hell) will be awaiting them. In other words, every good person, kind person, giving person and innocent person on earth will taste eternal fire.

 

Muslims still insist that "Allah" is the same as the Eternal God, Creator of the Universe, Lord of all lords, King of all kings, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, yet he needs blood and lots of it.

 

Since its inception fourteen hundred years ago, Islam has been at war with the people of this planet. Millions of people have been literary butchered with the sword of Islam. Some may argue that all religions at one point in time in have committed crimes against humanity. That may be so, but none of the existing world religions' foundations have been based upon shedding the blood of its innocent victims. Islam lives, breaths and grows on blood. Once we take away this red element from Islam, Islam will vanish completely. Islam cannot possibly live in the hearts and minds of its believers. Islam needs to shed the blood of the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. Islam is about world domination. It is utterly part of being Muslims.

 

Islam is worse than a plague, worse than leprosy, worse than hunger and famine, which cause bodily damage to humans. Islam slowly, like a canker, gnaws at the soul and the spirit. Islam stops your brain from thinking, and empties out your love and kindness for others. Islam will turn you into a killing machine. We may be able to cure the plague, leprosy and other diseases, but we are unable to deal with Islamists. We can't cure them with medical technology. We can't take them to a doctor to see where it hurts. Once you become an Islamist, no earthly medicines are able to cure you. True Muslims literary have turned into walking missiles.

 

You can't reason with people blinded by hate. You can't argue with people blinded by Islamic faith. Islam hates the power of the individual. Islam hates the achievements of women. Islam hates progress. Islam hates the religious freedom of others. Islam hates the pre-Islamic heritage of other nations. Islam hates the light of truth. Islam is against free-will and hates democracy, liberty and justice for all. Islam simply loves to eat you alive. That is what Islam does and that is what Islam is. Worshipping that? NEVER!

 

Citizens of the United States are slowly waking up from a long winter sleep on this issue. However, there are still millions who are extremely naïve about the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Those in the states are good people; they are sympathetic people; they are giving people; they like to see the goodness in human beings and for that, they unconsciously refuse to believe that in a faith -- teachings can make wild animals out of its believers.

 

The greatest threat facing the United States today is its own ignorance about Islam.

 

Until citizens of the United States understand the threat of Islam to its society and on its own soil -- people will continue to die in these sporadic attacks. Until there is a true understanding of this faith and a means to control it, we, along with other people will continue to die as a result of its teaching. The threat of Islam is real. Until the United States understands that all violent Islamic fundamentalist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hezbollah and others are true Muslims and wish to kill all non-believers, we will continue to be at their mercy.

 

No, Islam has not been hijacked by the Islamic militants. The cult of Islam has hijacked humanity for almost 14 centuries. Until we digest this and do something to circumvent the trend, our risk and exposure grows greater in between each attack.

 

[Guest guest]

The West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

 

Jihad (in Arabic, "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

 

[Guest guest]

What is Jihad

by Daniel Pipes

m

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

 

m

 

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

 

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

 

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

 

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

 

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:

 

The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;

Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;

Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;

Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and

Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

 

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

 

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

 

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:

 

An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);

"Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and

"Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).

It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

 

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

 

Unfortunately, such a process of redemption is not now under way; violent jihad will probably continue until it is crushed by a superior military force (Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, please take note). Only when jihad is defeated will moderate Muslims finally find their voice and truly begin the hard work of modernizing Islam.

 

[krsna]

 

Paolo Bassi

 

2006/02/27

 

In the quieter moments of the world-wide protests against the cartoons of Mohammad, first published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Muslims have argued that Islam has been insulted since no depiction of founder Mohammad is allowed. Islam claims that any picture or statute of Mohammad – in fact of any living thing – may encourage idolatry. Although this fear seems extreme on its face, given the pre-Islamic pagan past in Arabia, it may have been a real concern at Islam's beginnings and Islam is not alone in this (Sikhism for example rejects praying at shrines and tombs for fear of idolatry). Despite the religious feelings the cartoons have inflamed, it must not be forgotten that Islam's ban on depicting Mohammad does not nor should bind non-Muslims. Most significantly, in free secular societies neither are Muslims bound.

 

The real reason for the outrage over the Danish cartoons is not fear of idolatry of course but the feeling that Mohammad has been insulted and linked to terror. Muslims by tradition are used to referring to Mohammad only in purely hagiographic, laudatory terms. Any criticism of Mohammad is likely to result in a charge of blasphemy with severe consequences. Traditionally, Islam regards Mohammad as the mouthpiece of God and, although mortal, the most perfect of humans and therefore, the best example of Muslim morality. The Koran, although believed to be the literal word of God as revealed to Mohammad, alone does not regulate Muslim life. The gap is filled by Mohammad's life itself. Mohammad is so central to Islam that his sayings and acts or "hadith" form the basis of Islamic "sharia" law. Mohammad is quite simply the standard of conduct for Muslims, to be imitated and copied, even in matters as trivial as dyeing the hair a tawny orange color as Mohammad did. In this respect, Mohammad is far more dominant in the daily lives of Muslims than Jesus is to Christians.

 

It stands to reason then that if the West wants a more meaningful, honest relationship with Islam, it must seek to understand the moral basis of Islam – and for that the books must be opened on Islamic law and Mohammad himself. This is easier said than done for several reasons. Firstly, despite his centrality to Islam to the lives of over one billion people, little is known, or discussed in the West about Mohammad 's life. Secondly, there is a politically correct reluctance on the part of western scholars to offend Muslims, such that any critical evaluation is almost impossible under the current conditions. The contradiction is that western scholars and universities freely, and without fear, discuss and dissect every other faith and religious leader. If a religious text promoted slavery for example, we would have no problem in denouncing it as contrary to modern humanistic values. By the same standards, if the West is to promote an open relationship with Islam, Mohammad 's beliefs and actions as they pertain to tolerance, freedom and equality, as expressed in Islamic law, must be studied to see how they fit with modern democratic practices. The real Mohammad must be brought of his safe cocoon. Finally, since Islam is a political faith, and Islamists state their desire to spread Islam in the west, it must expect to be questioned about its real beliefs – just like anyone seeking political power. Whether the west has the intellectual and moral courage to engage with Islam in this way as western tradition demands is of course another matter.

 

[krsna]

The Devious Fight for Supremacy

 

 

 

Carl Jacoby

2006/03/01

 

Muslims are working around the clock to convert as many westerners as possible.

 

There is a growing confrontation between the Arab world and their Muslim proxies against the Western world. In history there have always been nations who longed greedily for supremacy and fought one another – the French versus the British; the Germans vs. the Russians; the Russians vs. the Americans, etc. Now the Arabs feel that their turn has come for supremacy.

 

This conflict will not be won with weapons alone. This will be a psychological war more than a military war. Much in the same way Muhammad had fought his enemies.

 

Here the Muslims have complete superiority because of the use devious rules which the West has not even has begun to comprehend. The Muslims are thinking centuries ahead while the West’s vision is limited to a fixation on tolerance, freedom and democracy in the present. This aspect alone makes the West completely vulnerable and inferior in the conflict.

 

Another handicap of the West is its belief that "if we are kind and just and open and play by the rules, then all others will do the same". The Muslims have no intention of playing by any rules. There is no issue of conscience and honor for Muslims before non Muslims as the Quran has absolved a Muslim from honoring his or her word or any agreement with a non Muslim.

 

The West is at a great disadvantage because of its social situation. The super-industrialization and advanced technology have reduced tremendously the contact and bonding between people. Human beings need one another’s company as much as air and water. Humans could not have survived without trust and reliance on one another. Being alone in the wilderness always meant certain death. Our genes are made to trigger depression when we are lonely. But suddenly so many of Westerners are extremely lonely, with no group to relate to and to bond with. There are millions of depressed people who long for camaraderie, warmth and attention. Depression brings anger. Being depressed comes with being angry at whatever real or imaginary injustice that caused depression. And here is where the Muslim camp taps on a resource as valuable as the oil in the Arab world. It should be no surprise that discontent and emotional vulnerability of many westerners is exploited very efficiently. It’s not a coincidence that there is an exponential growth of websites that target westerners to convert.

 

There are few things more satisfying to a sick mind than to have power over others. Whether you can get others to do what you tell them by threatening them with a gun or with a scripture the satisfaction is enormous. This is a side of religion that is subtle and confusing. Muslims (in the same way as Christians had done once) are taking great satisfaction from the power and the rush of converting the more technologically advanced Westerners. Visiting a website geared towards conversion I posed the question to my handler and said that I have doubts whether he is encouraging me to follow Islam because he thinks is the right thing or because he gets a satisfaction from getting me to submit (to God of course which happens to coincide with my handler’s ambition). The chat room was monitored by other “teachers” and the supervisor intervened as my handler could not find an answer right away. The answer was that it is a great joy to bring someone to the right path. In my view there is no escape from this aspect of proselytizing. But Islamic countries forbid other religions proselytizing within their countries. No church is allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia . Yet there are countless mosques in Europe and the Saudis have built one of the largest mosques in Rome .

 

The uneven approach of the West to the Arab Islamist ambitions will come at a heavy price in this conflict. It is as if the Western intellectual, mostly liberal, mindset has lost its ability to think straight. The most obvious example of that was a NPR (National Public Radio in the US ) show last year. Three young Muslims were invited to speak about Islam in the wake of the London bombings and the notion that the bombers were using (following?) instructions in the Quran. The complaint of the guests was that the media is vilifying Islam by saying that the suicide bombers were Muslims. They considered this great injustice and claimed that the suicide bombers were just criminals and media never calls a criminal or any other killer a Christian bomber or killer; that the media never calls

 

Hitler a Christian dictator yet Osama bin Laden is referred to as an Islamic terrorist. There was no one to counter this point of view. Hitler never quoted the bible when he indoctrinated his followers nor the criminals in the West follow any Christian quotes when they commit mass murder. Osama bin Laden is a devout Muslim and quotes the Quran as part the hart and soul of his struggle. One of the guests was making a point of the great friendship he had with someone he worked with even though “he was raised a Christian”. This is a very telling statement. It does not take a scholar to decipher what he meant. But it does take a bit of reading of how the proselytizing workers of Islam view other religions. What the guest meant was that his friend was raised a Christian implying that even though one is raised in another religion one can still revert to Islam. On the websites becoming a Muslim as referred to as “reverting” to the true religion since everyone is born a Muslim. There is no question that Christian missionaries also feel that other religions are misguided and that theirs is the right religions. The problem with the NPR scenario is that the guests were not Muslim missionaries but young and intellectuals (one was a Harvard medical student if I remember correctly). The second problem was that no counter opinions were expressed. And the third problem was that the host himself accepted these comments at face value.

 

This is only a minor but telling example of the state of the spirits in the clash of civilizations. The West lives in a bubble of illusions built on the false impression that wealth and military power are sufficient to overcome fanaticism.

 

[krsna]

 

Tom Glennon

 

 

I have been letting thoughts about Islam, Judaism and Christianity roam about the back recesses of my mind. In particular, comparisons between these three religious philosophies have been plaguing me of late. As a Christian, a Roman Catholic to be precise, as well as a lifetime student of history, I am trying to come to grips with some paradoxes that I cannot reconcile. The completely inappropriate response (at least in Western eyes), to the fairly innocuous cartoons of Islam's founder has given me pause to reflect on the response by different societies to perceived cultural ‘insensitivity’ and tolerance of religious diversity.

 

From a historical standpoint, I know that there have been periods in Christian history that should leave us less than proud. From a beginning as a new sect of Judaism, to the centuries when Christians were brutalized and demonized, Christianity ascended to the status of official religion of what would become the ‘Holy Roman Empire’. As the dominant religion, it was a short trip from being oppressed, to becoming the oppressor. Christianity became intolerant of other religions, particularly Judaism and Paganism. Institutionalized bigotry became accepted. With the rise of Islam in the 7th Century, this antipathy was extended to Moslems. However, because of the methods in which Islam was spread, primarily through conquest and forced conversion, there is arguably justification for this attitude. Later, during the Reformation, and the subsequent establishment of Protestant religions, hostility between the various Christian denominations became common, and is still with us today, although to a lesser extent.

 

What I find difficult to understand is the transition of the Christian and Jewish religions from intractable dogma to a more moderate stance of tolerance and understanding, while Islam seems to have taken the opposite course. All three religions are based on premises contained in the Old Testament, including the 5 Books of the Jewish Torah. Both Christianity and Judaism have kept the moral values contained in these tomes, but have disavowed the extremist positions on such items as adultery, diet, adherence to arcane rituals and restrictions, and many other areas of the Old Testament. No longer do Christians or Jews stone adulterers to death, imprison or execute ‘blasphemers’, or send people into exile for violating a dietary rule. In other words, the evolution of Western Society has allowed us to become more tolerant of both dissent and difference. Christianity and Judaism have espoused less violent methods of dealing with differences, and adopted the view that religion is both sacred, and personal.

 

Islam, on the other hand, appears to be regressing in its views. The rise of Wahhabism within the Muslim world has led to a more extremist, less tolerant attitude towards non Muslims. The use of the term “Infidel”, once rarely heard or understood by most Westerners, is now commonly understood as a point of reference to identify those of us who are now considered the enemies of Islam. What has made us a perceived enemy is not our attitudes toward Islam, nor our actions with regard to Islam. We have become the enemy simply because we are not Moslems.

“Infidel”” is an all encompassing term used by the extremist Moslem. It includes all Christians and Jews, Buddhists, polytheists such as Hindus, and the Animist and Traditional theologies such as those found in Africa, Australia and America in their native populations. Quite a broad spectrum to direct animosity towards.

 

While broadening the scope of the worlds people they consider enemies, Islam has also taken a giant step backward with regard to its interpretation of how God wants sinners or transgressors treated.

 

Islamic Law, as now practiced in a number of countries, includes stoning women for adultery, genital mutilation of female children, beheading for converting from Islam to another religion, imprisonment and torture for ‘disrespect’ toward Islam, and death by various means for blasphemy.

 

While publicly calling itself the ‘Religion of Peace’, many Moslem clerics are telling their congregants in Mosques that Jews are the sons of pigs and apes; Christians, as the children of whores, are not worthy of any place in society; and Polytheists are heretics that must be exterminated. A quick comparison of two similar events, and the reactions to them, will illustrate the difference between Islam, and most other theologies.

 

How many remember during the early stages of the Palestinian Intafada, when a large number of terrorist Palestinian gunmen invaded the sanctuary of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem? These thugs took over one of the holiest shrines in all of Christendom. They even shot at Israeli soldiers from within the Church, since they had taken their weapons with them. While inside, they abused and intimidated the clerics trapped within, and deliberately despoiled and debased the religious symbols revered at this site. Defecating and urinating on relics; defacing icons, statues and other religious artifacts brought only laughter from these men. After a lengthy standoff, safe passage to other countries was arranged for the terrorists, and they finally abandoned their occupation of this shrine. The Israeli defense forces never attacked the church, nor shot at the terrorists while they were near the building. In other words, the Israelis respected the Christian shrine, which the Moslems defiled. As part of this respect, the Israelis allowed known murderers and terrorists safe passage, to insure the safety of the Church which most Christians consider the birthplace of the Christ, and well as those held hostage within.

 

During all of this, there was no outcry for vengeance against Moslems from any Christian sect, although all of Christianity was insulted, belittled and disrespected by these events. Indeed, the reaction of Christians was primarily one of patience, and cooperation with the authorities to achieve a peaceful resolution. Many of the Moslem criminals went to predominantly Christian countries as part of the agreements ending the siege. To my knowledge, there has been no retribution brought on them by any Christians.

 

As a counterpoint, the false report of a Koran being mistreated at the detainee facility at Guantanamo triggered worldwide Muslim protests, arson, rioting, and deaths. With this response as an example of the extremist reactions by many adherents of Islam, the cartoon response should not have come as a surprise. The murders, rioting, looting, arson and calls for the beheading of the Danish cartoonists and editors who published the drawings stand in stark contrast to the response by the West for the violations of the Church of the Nativity. Indeed, the publications by a Danish newspaper have resulted in the deaths of Christians in Nigeria, and the burning of their churches. Yet, by no stretch of the imagination, are Christian Nigerians connected in any way to the publications that have inspired the Moslem reactions.

 

In another study in contrast, the terrorists and their enablers in Iraq have repeatedly used mosques to store weapons, train killers, assemble bombs, recruit new members, and launch attacks against American and other coalition troops. Indeed, they often fire at our troops from inside the mosque itself. Yet, American commanders continue to honor the sanctity of the mosques, avoiding collateral damage to the edifice even if this puts their troops at risk. If a mosque is threatened by coalition forces, the clerics vow that any action against a holy place will bring massive retribution. Yet terrorists, who claim to be the true followers of Islam, continue to kill fellow Moslems by the score, even going so far as to destroy Mosques. But these offenses have yet to inspire any significant or sustained outcry from the Moslem world.

 

At last count, of the 18 main areas of armed conflict in the world, 15 of them involved Moslems. I have not read the Koran, and have no intention of doing so. The contents of the Koran are not relevant to any of the issues that face us today, and there is a simple reason I say this. If the Koran authorizes the beheading and brutal murder of defenseless people, enslavement of those deemed unworthy, genocide against those of another religion, forced conversion of people to Islam, the rape and murder of children, and all the other horrors that are even now being committed by these monsters, then Islam cannot claim to be the religion of peace. In fact, it cannot be called a religion, but rather a cult like movement incapable of any rational tenets.

 

On the other hand, if these barbarous acts are being carried out by seemingly large numbers of Moslems in defiance of the teachings of the Koran, then the entire Moslem community shares responsibility for not stopping this insidious movement from spreading evil in the name of Islam. If they don’t vigorously and publicly take action against the beast within their faith, they have shown that they agree with the terrorists, their methods, and their goals. If that is the case, the Koran itself has become irrelevant, as the proponents of Islam are ignoring their own teachings.

 

I will be called intolerant for my thoughts. Many will say I am a bigot, a racist, or that I am Islamophobic. I can’t stop the name calling, and I won’t be drawn into debates with those who do not know history, and cannot see what is clearly happening. As my grandfather would say, I have been called worse names by better people. What I would say is where is a substantiated argument against what I have stated? And I am not referring to revisionist history, or what happened in the 12th century. I am talking about 2006, and what is occurring now. We cannot change the past (although some would rewrite it), but we do have control over the present, and can influence the future. So what say you, the sons and daughters of Islam? Are you an enabler of terrorists and their goals, or are you indeed part of the ‘Religion of Peace’? If the former, at least have the courage to say out loud what you mutter in the mosque. If the latter, where are the massive protests against the killers and the horrors they are bringing down on the innocent?

 

Again, where do you stand?

 

Tom Glennon recently retired as a Manager with an international bank. A Chicago native, he retired at the location of his last assignment, in the Des Moines, Iowa area. His 38 year career spanned numerous assignments with a major oil company, an international finance company, and lastly with a major banking company. Most of his working experience was with credit card operations and technology. He is an award winning speaker for the Volunteer Oil Industry Communications Effort, an industry advocacy group, and writes essays and opinion pieces for a variety of on-line and print publications. Tom has served on his County Republican Committee, as well as having served as the County Campaign Chair for Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). His volunteer work has covered a variety of community based efforts, including youth athletic organizations, Junior Achievement, Youth at Risk, and the Boy Scouts.

 

 

[krsna]

Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

MEMRI

 

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006.

 

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

 

[...]

 

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

 

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

 

[...]

 

Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

 

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

 

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

 

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

 

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

 

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

 

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

 

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

 

[...]

 

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

 

[...]

 

Wafa Sultan: The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

 

 

[krsna]

 

Introduction

 

 

 

Ladies and Gentleman:

 

This subject is far from easy, for both you, the audience, and for me, because of all the things going on at the current time. I have one of two choices—and the easier of the two is still difficult. Should I say what is considered politically correct? Or should I tell the truth? I have chosen the latter, believing in what the Lord Jesus Christ says: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”.

 

The time limitations we have for this program doesn’t make this job any easier, as it will be difficult to cover so much information or go into much depth in such a short time. But in the next few minutes I will do my best to address the issues of the "use of violence" and of "co-existence with other religions" in Islam.

 

Let me start by saying that God has given us free will to choose our own belief system. I am a strong believer in freedom of religion, and condemn no-one for believing something other than what I myself believe. I do not wish to offend Muslims by anything I say today, and I hope that you will accept my words in the spirit in which they are meant.

 

After the terrible events of September 11th, we have heard many Muslims saying what Islam does and does not teach with regard to violence towards others, and about the co-existence of Muslims with non-Muslims. Some say that Islam is a religion of peace, that it does not allow the killing of others, and that those who carried out the attacks are twisting the teachings of Islam by claiming to act in the name of Islam. Still others say that Islam does indeed allow the killing of others, and that it is even a noble aim. Who is right?

 

 

Obviously, we cannot judge any religion by just looking at those who claim to follow it. It would be all too easy to point a finger at the many Muslims who have perpetrated violence against Christians, Jews and others over the centuries and conclude that Islam preaches violence, or to point the finger at the many Christians who have perpetrated violence against Muslims, Jews and others and conclude that Christianity preaches violence. This would, however, be quite erroneous. Not all who claim to act in the name of a religion are true adherents to its teachings. To answer the question with which we are concerned today, then, it is necessary to go back to the sources of Islam to see what they have to say about violence and about co-existence with adherents of other faiths. I shall therefore first consider the Qur’an, Islam’s holy book, that Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad from God, and the Hadith, which are the collections of Muhammad’s sayings and actions. These are the first two sources of Islam[1] I shall go on to consider the actions of the prophet of Islam and his companions as they were the people that understood the Qur’an the best, and who are taken as role models by Muslims today.

 

 

 

Abrogation Within the Quran الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن

 

What do we mean by the term “abrogation”?

 

The Arabic words 'nasikh' and 'mansukh' are both derived from the same root word 'nasakha' which carries meanings such as 'to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate'.

 

The word nasikh (an active participle) means 'the abrogating', while mansukh (passive) means 'the abrogated'. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Qur'anic revelation, which have been 'abrogated' by others. The abrogated passage is the one called 'mansukh' while the abrogating one is called 'nasikh'. (Ahmad von Denver, Ulum Al-Quran)

 

Understanding the concept of abrogation is very important in order to understand Islam. Within the Qur'an itself are statements which contradict others.

 

For example, I have recently read an article by Karen Armstrong saying: “the only permissible war (in the Koran) is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2:190).”

 

 

 

Others quote verses from the Qur'an like:

 

 

“Let there be no compulsion in religion” 2:256

 

"لا إكراه في الدين"

 

“Therefore expound openly what thou art commanded, and turn away from those who join false gods with Allah” 15:94

 

" فَاصْدَعْ بِمَا تُؤْمَرُ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْمُشْرِكِين" الحجر 94:15

 

 

These verses seem to say clearly enough that the Qur’an teaches a peaceful response to those who oppose Islam. But there are other verses in the Qur’an which say quite the opposite. For example “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” 9:5 (we will have a closer look at this verse later on).

 

Which verse should Muslims follow? According to the doctrine of abrogation, the later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies, or they are said to “abrogate” the earlier texts. Therefore, a Muslim simply needs to know which verse came earlier, and which came later. The importance of the doctrine of abrogation cannot be understated. In a mosque in the city of Kufa, Ali b. Abi Talib once saw people gathering around the judge, Abdur-Rahman. The judge was confusing that which is permissible with that which is not. Ali asked him whether he could tell the abrogative verses from the abrogated; he said that he could not. Ali then grabbed the man's ear, twisted it, and said: "you perish, and you make others perish. Do not judge in our mosque anymore.''

 

That is how important it is; the person who doesn’t know abrogation shall “perish and make others perish”, according to Ali Ibn abi Talib.

 

Returning to the three verses I quoted above, we see that all three were abrogated, according to Muslim scholars.(تراجع كتب الناسخ والمنسوخ لـ ابن حزم، الكرمي، ابن الجوزي، المقري، قتاده،...) (for detailed information check books under titles like The Abrogative and the Abrogated by authors like Ibn Hazem, Al-Karmi, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Muqri, or Al-Nisabouri)

 

Suyuti in his book استنباط التنزيل (Istenbat al tanzeel) says: “Every thing in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5.” Al-Shawkani in his book السيل الجرار (Alsaylu Jarar 4:518-519) says: “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed. [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case.”

 

Please note that I am not telling Muslims which verses to follow and which not. As I said earlier, I believe 100% in an individual’s right to choose his or her beliefs. However, what I am saying is that according to the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, these verses are null and void. They are contradicted by later verses, and in Islam it is the later verses which must be followed today.

 

Let us now look at some of the Qur’an that was not written until later, in Madina

 

 

The Qur’an says:

 

 

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors”. 2:190

 

"قاتلوا في سبيل الله الذين يقاتلونكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين" البقرة 190:2

 

“And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” 2:191

 

" وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ" البقرة 191:2

 

“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression”. 2:193

 

" وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَانَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ" ابقرة 193:2

 

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not” 2:216

 

" كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ" البقرة 216:2

 

 

 

Here we see for the first time that war was permissible. Remember that in the earlier days of Islam, war was not allowed. But these verses abrogate the earlier verses, allowing war both in self-defense and against those who the Muslims did not have a treaty with. However, even these verses were in turn abrogated by these later verses:

 

 

 

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall we give him a reward of great (value)" 4:74

 

"فَلْيُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يَشْرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا بِالآخِرَةِ وَمَن يُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيُقْتَلْ أَو يَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا" النساء"74:4

 

“Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” 4:89

 

"وَدُّواْ لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُواْ فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاء فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء حَتَّىَ يُهَاجِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتَّمُوهُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلاَ نَصِيرًا" النساء 89:4

 

"Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home "4:95

 

"لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا" النساء 95:4

 

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" 8:60

 

"وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدْوَّ اللّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللّهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ وَمَا تُنفِقُواْ مِن شَيْءٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تُظْلَمُونَ" الأنفال 60:8

 

"O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding" 8:65

 

"يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ إِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ عِشْرُونَ صَابِرُونَ يَغْلِبُواْ مِئَتَيْنِ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّئَةٌ يَغْلِبُواْ أَلْفًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَفْقَهُونَ" الأنفال 65:8

 

"Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, and heal the breasts of the Believers" 9:14

 

"قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِين" التوبة 14:9

 

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" 9:29

 

"قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُون" التوبة 29:9

 

"Say: can you expect for us (and fate) other than one of two glorious things (martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his punishment (for not believing in Allah) from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you" 9:52

 

"قُلْ هَلْ تَرَبَّصُونَ بِنَا إِلاَّ إِحْدَى الْحُسْنَيَيْنِ وَنَحْنُ نَتَرَبَّصُ بِكُمْ أَن يُصِيبَكُمُ اللّهُ بِعَذَابٍ مِّنْ عِندِهِ أَوْ بِأَيْدِينَا فَتَرَبَّصُواْ إِنَّا مَعَكُم مُّتَرَبِّصُون" التوبة 52:4

 

 

 

Now, what we see here is this: the Quran orders Muslims to fight in order to establish Allah’s kingdom on earth (all of the earth) by any means. Most Islamic scholars say that one verse of the Quran (9:5) abrogates 124 verses, which are basically all the verses that talk about peace and forgiveness. This is the verse that says:

 

 

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” 9:5

 

"فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُاْ الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ" التوبة 5:9

 

As we see clearly in this verse (which is commonly called the verse of the sword) there is only one way out for pagans (or infidels) to be spared from being slain. They should repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, i.e. become Muslims. As for people of the book we read the verse in the same sura v. 29, which tells us the way out of being killed “until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

 

They have to pay protection money and accept to be subdued, i.e. second class citizens, even if they live in their homeland. We see this put into practice in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and all the Middle Eastern countries that were conquered by Muslims in the first 100 years of Islam. The ancestors of the Christians who live there now suffered a lot to stay Christian.

 

Now, there is a fiqhi rule that has to be taken into consideration when studying this:العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب, i.e. what is considered is the absoluteness of the utterance, not the specialization of the reason for the revelation. That is, they follow the letter, not the spirit of the law...

 

In other words Muslims scholars when they make a judgement they consider the Quran and Mohammad in the light of their meaning not in the light of reasons of revelation.

 

 

 

The Hadeeth

 

 

The Hadeeth are the sayings of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. They are the second source of Islamic doctrine. The Hadeeth completely agree with the Quran (concerning violence and co-existence). Hadeeth have the same concept of abrogation, and the same historical characteristics. That is, Muhammad’s teachings were very peace-loving at the beginning of Islam, but then came sayings such as:

 

Ibn Haban in his Sahih, vol. 14, p. 529, narrates: Muhammad said: “I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter.”

 

In his Musnad (vol. 2, p. 50) Imam Ahmed narrates by Ibn Omar: “the Prophet said: ‘I was sent by the sword proceeding the judgment day and my livelihood is in the shadow of my spear and humiliation and submission are on those who disobey me.’”

 

Omar Ibn al-Khatab said: “I heard the prophet of Allah saying: ‘I will cast Jews and Christians out of the peninsula and I won’t leave any one in it but Muslims.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, No. 28, from the Muhaddith program[2])

 

Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ibn al’Ashraf), “Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.” (El beddayah wa alnihaya – Ibn Katheer – vol. 4 – in the chapter on killing Ka’ab bin al’Ashraf)

 

 

 

1 Muhammad’s actions

 

Let us now look at the actions of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam, as the Quran says “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah” 33:21

 

"لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا" الأحزاب 21:33

 

 

 

Aisha (the beloved wife of Muhammad) said: “His (Muhammad's) character was the Qur’an” (narrated Muslim). Therefore the life of Mohammad reflects an accurate interpretation of the Qur’an.

 

When we read of the actions of the prophet of Islam, we see many cases of assassination. Most of these cases happened because someone criticized the prophet of Islam in speech only.

 

We read:

 

Ibn Ishak said: “The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa محيصة b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa حويصة was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.’” (El badyah wa alnihaya – Ibn Katheer – vol. 4 – in the chapter on killing Ka’ab bin al’Ashraf)

 

 

 

2 `Umayr’s Expedition To Kill Abu Afak

 

Mohammad once killed a man named (al-Harith b. Suwayd). When Abu Afak wrote a poem objecting to the murder, Muhammad said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. (Ibn Hisham – Dar el jeel Beirut – 1411 –Vol. 6 - UMAYR’S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK)

 

 

 

3 UMAYR B. 3adi JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN

 

 

 

After Abu Afak was murdered, Asma wrote a poem blaming Islam and its followers of killing their opponenets.

 

When Muhammad heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Ummayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people. Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma.

 

The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.”

 

(Ibn Katheer el bedayah wa alnehaya – vol. 5 – in the mention of the year 11 of hijrah also found in- Ibn Hisham – dar al jeel Beirut – vol. 6 UMAYR B. ADIYY’S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN)

 

(البداية والنهاية ـ ج 5 ـ في ذكر السنة 11 من الهجرة ـ(

 

 

 

4 Killing of a slave woman.

 

A blind man had a slave who he had taken a concubine, the mother of his children, who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop.

 

One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about this. He assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.” The man stood up. He sat before the Prophet and said: “Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet said: “Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.”

 

«اشهدوا أن دمها هدر» . ) نيل الأوطار للشوكاني _ دار الطباعة المنيرية ـ القاهرة ـ دون تاريخ ـ الجزء السابع. كتاب حد شارب الخمر. باب قتل من صَرّحَ بسب. النبي ـ و في سنن أبي داود ـ مركز الأبحاث والدراسات الثقافية ـ الجزء الثاني ـ باب الحكم فيمن سب النبي.)

 

(Naylu Al’wtar - Al-Shawkani – Al muneeriah pulishing – Cairo – Vol 7 – Book of Drinking – Chapter on Killing Of One who declared a warning to the prophet - also in Sunan Abi Daowd – Markaz Al’bhath wa aldersat althkafiah – Vol 2 – Chapter the judgment on one who swore to the prophet)

 

 

5 `Amr B Umayya EXPEDITION

 

Once Muhammad sent one of his followers named `Amr, to murder Muhammad’s enemy Abu Sufyan. However, the assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep and thereafter: ”as soon as the bedouin was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed.”

 

Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He relates.... ”He [Muhammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me.”

 

6 Umm Qirfa

 

Another example of Muhammad assassinating those who criticised him was when a woman named "Umm Qirfa" (Fatima) was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman. She used to mock Mohammad in speech and poems. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly, by tying a rope to each of her two legs and to two camels and driving the camels in opposite directions until they tore her in two. (Al ‘saba – Ibn Hagar – vol. 4, page 231)

 

 

 

 

 

Muhammad’s companions

 

قال الرسول: أصحابي كالنجوم،بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم “My companions are like stars, if you imitate any of them, you will, indeed, be guided” His companions were those who became Muslims and saw Mohammad while he was alive.

 

Yet reading the history of these companions we find some horrifying stories. Some of the incidents below would be considered war crimes nowadays.

 

 

Abu Bakr (the first caliph)

 

Waging war as the ultimate tool for propagating and defending Islam became a rule for who ever was in power and ruling the Islamic society. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, who took the lead after the death of Muhammad, even launched wars against Muslims to force them to pay dues to him that Muhammad used to collect for himself (as related in the Qur’an 9:103).

 

 

Omar ibn al-Khatab (the second caliph)

 

Abd Allah ibn Sa’ed (Omr ibn al-Khatab servant) said: “Arab Christians are not Christians, I am not leaving them until they become Muslims or I cut their throats.” (Kanzu ‘umal – al mutka al hindi – vol. 4, No. 11770)

 

 

Khalid ibn al-Walid (the unsheathed sword of Allah)

 

The letter of Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the people of Madain:

 

“From Khaled ibn al-Walid to Marazebah the people of Faris [Persian people] peace be to those who follow the guidance. Praise God that your servants left you and you lost your possession and have been weakened. Anyone who prayed our prayer and accepted our place of prayer to the East [Qiblah] and ate our sacrifice that would be a true Muslim who has the same privileges and duties as us. When you receive my letter send me the ransom for the hostage we hold and asked for a covenant, or in the name of the God who there is no other god like him I will send you people who love to die as you love to live."

 

"والله الذي لا إله إلا هو،لأرسلن لكم أقواماً يحرصون على الموت كما تحرصون على الحياة".

 

During the battle with the Persians, and it was very tough war, Khaled said: “O Allah, if you give us victory over them, I swear I won’t leave one of them alive and I will run their river with their blood.”

 

Then when Allah gave them victory, Khaled send people to call for capturing everyone and asking Muslims not to kill anyone except who refuses to submit. After they captured them, they (the Persians) were brought to the river and were beheaded. The Muslims did that for three days till they had killed 70000.

 

(أبو بكر الصديق لمحمد رشيد رضا ـ البداية والنهاية لابن كثير في ذكر سنة 12 من الهجرةـ عن برنامج المحدث)

 

(Abu Bakr – By Muhammad Rashid Rida – “Muhaddith Program”[2] – And Bedaya wa nehaya –Ibn Katheer – In the mention of year 12 of Hijrah “Muhaddith”)

 

 

Now

 

I recognize that the information above is too much for some people, but I have used only little of what can be found in the Qur’an, the Hadeeth, and Islamic history books.

 

We have seen what the Qur’an and the Hadeeth teach; we have seen the actions of the last prophet of Islam, and the understanding of these teachings by his companions.

 

The question now is how do Muslims reconcile all of this with what we hear many saying; namely, that Islam is a peace-loving religion and it teaches co-existence with all other religions. I would love to believe that Islam is indeed the peaceful religion as many say it is. But until someone gives me a credible and peaceful interpretation of the writings and events I have outlined, I’m afraid I cannot.

 

 

 

One final thing concerns me. Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller ( عمدة السالك ), translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

 

 

Ibn Shihab, another Muslim scholar said: “there were only three cases where lying was acceptable: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).” (More information is provided by William Muir’s “Life of Mahomet”, Volume I, footnote p.88) (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, No. 6303 – from the Alim program)

 

 

I hope Muslims can tell us why should we believe what they say about how peace-loving a religion Islam is, when we know that they are permitted to lie in order to achieve a noble goal, i.e. making Islam the dominant religion of mankind. (8:39,40)

 

 

These are questions of the utmost importance, and I still hope we will hear an answer one day—before its too late.

 

[Kulapavana]

Krsna das, you obsess over this stuff way too much. Take a break from pasting and chant a few rounds, for the sake of world peace /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

 

because other abrahamic faiths have come of age, muslims haven't. They are carrying their dark past over to the present and possibly into the future. And that's dangerous, don't you think?

do you realy believe in what you are saying? who came of age ? what do you say about what is hapening in Palestine , Iraq, afganistan ,shishan, sarayevo,bosnia,

read , read, you will know who has dark past.