A Critical Analysis of ‘Real Islam’. Its People, Culture, Philosophy, and Practices
Yesterday and Today.
‘Real Islam’ from the Religious Texts
The Doctrine of Abrogation
Chronology and Abrogation in the QUR’AN
‘JIHAD’, the Real Meaning
The Qur’an and Jihad
The Diary of Muhammad
by: Vernon Richards (Sept 19, 2005)
Comments and suggestions may be directed to
Actions of the four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs
Early History of Peaceful Islam
Chronology of early Islam
Non-Muslim Christian Violence
Chapter 7A valuable sourcebook to the destructive activities of radical Muslims, and the Islamic texts they
use to justify their actions and gain recruits in the Islamic world." -- Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad
Watch and author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers" (Regnery) and "Islam Unveiled"
An Introduction to Real Islam
The View from Outside
The Issue at Hand: Survival
The Emperors Raiment
The Enemy at the Gates
Muhammad’s Actions, Speaking Louder than Words
The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslims
Muslims who Leave Islam
Islamic Honesty and Honor
The Battle of Badr
The American Muslim
Worldwide Islam Today, by Country
Todays News from Peaceful Islam
Real Islam; a Case Study
Islamic Psychology 101
Islamic Politics 101
Islamic Economics 101
The Women of Islam
The Infidel POW
Beslan, Russia & Islam
Persia-Egypt and Islam
Islamic Aid (Jizya)
Spin …The Art of Ignoring the Obvious
The Gathering Storm
Seeds of Armageddon
Roots of Today’s Campaign
Hard Options in Israel
Islamic Contradictions and Hypocrisies
Never-Ending Islamic Conspiracies
The Final Analysis on Real Islam
The Path Ahead
About the Author
Appendix A – Jihad Passages
Appendix B – Diary of Muhammad
Appendix C – Current News
Links to other Articles/Papers
Entropy and Democracy Unholy Alliance, Struggling with Reality
Religion in America Islamic Tools of War
Oil and Jihad Consequences of Nuking Mecca
Adult Cognitive Processes Zarqawi, a True Muslim
There are always many different ways to view any event, any
individual life, or any movement in history. Though various perspectives may yield very different
conclusions, all can be correct from the vantage point of different observers. For example, the world looks
very stark and hostile from the viewpoint of a rabbit in the pot just placed over the fire, but hungry
children looking at the simmering stew are likely to see a brighter day ahead. Both viewpoints are perfectly
reasonable and sound.
Viewing Muhammad from 'inside' the benefits and social
structures of Islam yields a very appealing magnanimous character whose company his friends sought and
relished. On the other hand, the viewpoint of those looking in from 'outside' Islam has always been very
different. Muhammad had two faces that he showed to others, with the difference between the countenances, to
put it mildly, quite profound. Which face Muhammad revealed to you depended on whether you were a believer
It must first be noted that this work will concentrate on
the life and personality of Muhammad from the outside-looking-in perspective,
essentially from someone who does not believe that the man was a representative of God. As such, this view of
the man is bound to be unpalatable to 'insiders' who justify his every word and act as infallible, divine,
and unimpeachable. For any Muslim reading this, consider that this study is made strictly from facts
extracted from Islamic texts, but without the usual Islamic excuse-making or divine-justifications. This
evaluation will make an attempt to be complete, logical, fair, with any judgment compared only to universal
standards of human civil behavior now considered acceptable to modern societies. Essentially what will be
done is to hold up a looking-glass to Islam, so that it can see the face that has (and is) being shown to
Westerners. The vast majority of data evaluated herein is sourced from inside sacred Islamic works and
well-known irrefutable historical facts, in an attempt present an image that is both accurate and
undistorted. Of course it would be patently unfair to blame the holder of the mirror for the clear reflected
image. If Islam is concerned about this objectification, and the growing number of other works documenting
the face which Islam shows infidels, then this particular mirror-holder suggests that Islam work to change
that projection, instead of issuing ever more fatwas, which only serve to deepen the distrust of
There is an abundance of work generated from 'within' Islam
that characterizes who Muhammad was and his relationship with fellow Muslims, which will not be repeated in
great detail here. That being said, we will do a quick review of Muhammad from the 'inside' Muslim
perspective, for the sole purpose of illustrating the dramatic difference in viewpoints between insiders and
The following favorable summary of the chief character
traits of Muhammad comes from 'THE LIFE OF MAHOMET', by WILLIAM MUIR Vol. II. p.28. [Smith, Elder, & Co.,
This picture and representation of the man, beloved and
worshiped by Muslims worldwide, sounds like the kind of person anyone would want as a friend or neighbor.
Unfortunately this is the side reserved for believers only, and would not be offered to anyone who did not accept his claim of prophethood. But keep this image in
mind, as the contrast between this pleasant personality, and the face he offered non-believers, will be the
focus of the remainder of this work.
The war we are engaged in, we are told, is a war against
'terror'. But terror is an emotion, and terrorism deployed against a people is a tactic, like blockade,
blitzkrieg, ambush, or siege. As such, terrorism is not an enemy per se, but simply a tactical method
deployed by unsavory characters. The term ‘terror’ does not describe the
philosophical, social, or political motivations of a people adopting terrorist methods, and is an entirely
inadequate term to describe the current worldwide conflict. Though such vague nomenclature may be reassuring
to our society obsessed with political correctness, it is unnecessarily nebulous. Such poor precision is
deception because it prevents rational evaluation of the true threat behind the terrorist weapon deployed
against us. Those who limit their thinking to the constraints of the politically-correct 'thought police' seem content to believe that we are not really fighting individuals or nations,
but rather some kind of abstraction, … as if somewhere there are soldiers with "Republic of Terror"
embroidered on their uniforms marching lock-step to attack us. Terrorist acts are simply the weapon of choice
deployed by actual enemies of flesh and blood to accomplish some objective. As will be shown, the terrible
agenda behind such methods are even broader and more insidious than the individual terror acts they
In reality, we are no more in a war against ‘terrorism’
than we were ever engaged fighting the scourge of Machine guns in WWI, the plague of Zeros or German Tanks in
WWII, or the threat of Nuclear weapons in the Cold War. In wartime, it is not machine guns, kamikaze zeros,
tanks, bombs, and bullets which by themselves are responsible for killing people; … it is actual real people,
acting on some nationalistic, political, or religious ideology which pull the trigger and are responsible for
all causalities. In fact, all potentially lethal weapons are just inanimate objects, perfectly content to
remain safely in storage, until some ideologist chooses to pick it up and use it to advance some personal,
nationalistic, or religious cause. Ultimately it is not only the foot soldiers, but the leadership, and in
particular the ideology itself, which is responsible for all acts of war committed in its name, by
whatever weapon. Contrary to popular nomenclature, ours is not a war against
"evildoers," a creaky tag that conjures faceless entities lurking in the dark. Terrorism may be the method
employed, but Jihad in support of Islam is the ideology all these militant movements share. That simple fact
remains difficult to express because of the inferences that naturally follow. It remains unacceptable to draw
any conclusions implying that; to effectively ward off Jihadist aggression, we may need to also combat an
ideology born of a religion. In the formerly Judeo-Christian (currently relativist-hedonist) West, such a
thought triggers near panic: How can religious worship inspire anything but goodwill among men, aren't
terrorist tactics opposed by all but a statistically invisible Islamic fringe? Instead of identifying the
real enemy, and discrediting the dangerous ideology inciting them, we courageously fight ‘terrorism’, and determinedly target ‘evildoers’. Like the
well-intentioned and noble Don Quixote, we slash at windmills. All the while, actual real terrorists with
steely determination and considerable support, plot their next massacre.
Most Americans have a benignly positive attitude toward
religion, but this partiality allied with political correctness is blinding us, keeping us from asking
reasonable questions upon which the survival of our civilization may well depend. Does our culture, obsessed
with tolerance, render us incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions about Islam’s core values and designs?
The general reluctance to criticize any non-Christian religion, and the almost universal public ignorance
about Islam, make for a dangerous and potentially lethal mix. The gentle reader should be forewarned that
this work delves much deeper into the cultural, spiritual, and religious roots of the current conflict than
others dare to go. This is not for the faint hearted, but is presented for the benefit and enlightenment of
all lovers of truth, knowledge, and freedom. Unfortunately there are large numbers of Americans leaning one
direction or the other on the issue of the ‘war’ based solely on popular opinion, because they lack either
specific knowledge, or the deep moral convictions and strong values that our society has traditionally
depended on for its strength and prosperity. Those lacking knowledge or with no convictions are dangerous
because, with no moral compass of their own, they can be easily manipulated through misinformation and spin.
Stalin referred to these as "the convenient masses".
There are two very practical pieces of advice upon which
one can base fair judgment of other people, religions, and governments. In fact those who fail to embrace
this advice completely are destined to remain forever as lost as 'old' Europe is today. I believe my source
is a good one. The first litmus test to use in judgment is … "Only through a mans works is his true nature
exposed". The other is "By this we can know if man has truly repented … he will confess and forsake the bad
behavior". By these two pieces of advice, one can fairly judge the value of individual and groups actions,
and also gauge the progression if and when they realize their actions lead to bad fruit, and make claim to be
reformed. Until then, it would be stupid to call the kettle anything other than 'black', even when speaking
from a pot that is less than white.
It seems inevitable that this work is likely to be tagged
by some as Islamophobic or racist. It may appear (and some will undoubtedly charge) that the facts and views
presented herein are extreme. But the data is in fact genuine, accurate, as is the context in which it is
presented. It seems inevitable these days that perspectives based on traditional values are quickly tagged as
politically 'incorrect', and often judged as coming from the extreme far right. The author admits only to
ascribing to a political and social philosophy centered much more on personal responsibility and
social/cultural accountability than is currently interpreted as 'politically correct' by the far-left. There
is Far-Left, Left, Middle, Right, and Far-Right. Be careful not to limit and ascribe correct thinking and
judgment to any one political philosophy. Within all these leanings are valuable perspectives, truth, and
sometimes even wisdom. The trick is sorting through the mountains of propaganda necessary to get to any
information of true value. Whatever our political affiliation, continued prosperity, as well as our very
survival, now dictates that this people put aside their differences and concentrate on the values we share,
and the threat common to all of us.
This work will explain exactly why the West waits in vain
for Islam to take full responsibility for the vile acts being produced in her name by a myriad of groups.
Hopes will remain unfulfilled that majority peaceful Islam, out of a sense of principal and humanity, will
actually doing something to reform itself, without having to be pressured by others. Until such a day we must
be realistic and realize that what we can expect is more of the same …a little 'hand wringing' is probably
all we will ever see from their regional and world leaders, along with more finger pointing at Israel and the
West. The reasons for such pessimism will become clear later. In the mean time, until we see effective action
and hear convincingly from this supposed vast silent majority of peace-loving Muslims, it is expedient for
the rest of the world to take off the blinders and begin to live with both eyes wide open. From knowledge
comes wisdom, from wisdom comes power, and from power comes safety. The only thing that springs from
ignorance is error, weakness, and sometimes …mortal peril. This is one of those times.
Once upon a time, there was a grand Emperor who enjoyed
elaborate clothing and fine robes as ornate and decorated as any great leader of vast kingdoms. Seeking to be
the greatest of all he sought ever finer raiment so that others might see outwardly the greatness and power
of his office and influence. He had the finest clothes and trappings commensurate with his desires, but a
great tailor and wizard from another land came and whispered in his ear that he could create an adornment so
beautiful, grand, and powerful that all who saw it would naturally worship the wearer as the greatest of all
leaders. He claimed the material to be used possessed the unique quality of being visible only to the truly
enlightened and intelligent, but would be invisible to stupid infidels. Work commenced and soon the great one
was on proud display with his new robe for the entire world to see. ‘The Emperor's New Clothes’ by
Hans Christian Andersen should be studied carefully as it seems more applicable
today than any other time in history. Today many view plainly the works of Islam yet continue to issue the
usual politically correct euphemisms of how beautiful and perfect the new robes appear (i.e. how peaceful the
great religion is). The simple innocence and honesty of an unafraid, unsophisticated child is called for to
give the rest of us the courage to state the obvious. Who are the modern-day weavers of the emperor’s new
clothes today? Islamic apologists, the myopic liberal media, academic elitists, as well as an unusual
conflagration of fascists, communists, European socialists, anarchists, and many other far-left and far-right
organizations throughout the world. But then even President Bush regularly defends and praises the "great,
peaceful world religion", giving it blanket legitimacy irrespective of the inaction and failure of the worlds
‘best’ religion to put a lid on terrorist acts committed in its name. You can call me stupid, I just don’t
see it. The reader is hereby promised that if you study without bias the facts herein in their entirety, the
robes will also become invisible to you. The spectacle of ‘Islam Undressed’ is neither benign nor pleasing,
and is likely to invoke embarrassment or horror from the on-looker, but should also result in a healthy dose
of apprehension and accompanying survivalist thinking. Survival is the first order of the day, once secure,
we can return to debating the niceties of various political and cultural differences and resurrect more
sensitive approaches to handling differences in religion and culture. Difficult social issues relating to our
hyper delicate racial, sexual, and gender sensibilities can be debated again later. For now, the sight of
this self-described great emperor needs to be dealt with, particularly his intentions with respect to the
sword of Jihad in his right hand already dripping in blood.
On September 11, 2001, self-described devout Muslims
carried out an act of brutal terrorism and murdered some 3000 people in America and caused over 100 billion
in property damage. They hijacked 4 planes, slit the throats of stewardesses, and destroyed the World Trade
Center and part of the Pentagon. Remaining Americans were impacted by the trillion dollars in capital and
millions of jobs lost. The victims of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crashing airliners were
not armed and did not fall in pitched battle. Of the three thousand dead, none expected their fate, but were
nonetheless combat casualties of self-described religious warriors. On March 11, 2004 hundreds in Madrid,
Spain experienced the same fate, at the same hands, for the same reasons, with thousands left wounded and
maimed. The Israelis know intimately the nature and intents of Islam, while the children of Beslan had their
up-close and personal introduction to ‘real Islam’ Sept 2004. Londoners received their bitter taste of
reality on 7/7/05. Today, many not directly affected by these attacks seek to forget those terrible days, to
push it out of relevance, but the orphans of those causalities, and children of orphans not yet born, can
America and other nations responded and went after culpable
Muslim terrorist groups in Afghanistan, with a follow-on campaign against a major sponsor of terror in Iraq.
Elsewhere in the world, some governments arrested men associated with Islamic extremist groups. Those
arrested were members of organizations participating in terrorism, but whether convicted or not, they always
claimed to be good devout Muslims badly treated and misunderstood. As it turns out, various terrorist cells,
networks, and organizations stretch far and wide. The enemy we pursue has proved to be adept at using false
identities and cloaks of privacy to hide. To conceal themselves, their efforts, and their plans, they also
make use of our own freedoms of speech, movement, and religion, along with the seemingly always available
grass-root support from fellow Muslims.
Following September 11th, many Muslims living in the West
defended Islam, stating that it is a religion of peace. At the same time there were many other Muslims in
Islamic lands, and even some in America (living in predominately Muslim communities as well as Muslim
students on American campuses) who openly celebrated the deaths and destruction. Many throughout the Islamic
world were observed rejoicing and calling for the continuing destruction of America chanting "Death to America", and "America is the Great Satan". Huge numbers openly
or quietly rejoiced, with the absence of sincere and coherent outrage palpable. In the West, Muslim spokesmen
were much more muted; some proclaimed that "the Muslim terrorists have hijacked our faith" and that real
Islam is a kind, tolerant religion not associated with terrorist individuals or events. A claim oft repeated
in defense of Islam was that "Islam' is a word which literally means 'Peace'". In response it was pointed out
that the Arabic word for peace is salaam, and that Islam is Arabic for surrender or
submission, quite a different concept than peace, and that even Muslim means one who submits. Now the official
line from Islam is that "Islam' means Peace through submission to Allah's will", but the opposite camp points
out that the newly created definition is illusory in that it does not mention what 'Allah's will' is with
respect to Jihad and its role in the advancement of Islam. The two camps often seem to completely contradict
each other. Obviously, they both cannot be correct. Those in the West are left to divine, what's the bottom
line according to real Islam? Out of an overabundance of prudence, it would be wise to first fortify
ourselves with knowledge. If we fail to thoroughly investigate what Islam is truly all about, there is a
danger we might inadvertently invite even more horrific sequels to the disasters that have already been
perpetrated upon us.
Since that dastardly attack the topic of Islam seems always
in the news, and there has been much more discussion about terms like "Jihad". One question commonly asked is
"why are so many associated with this religion so violent?" Giving the benefit of the doubt to a poorly
understood religion, and to secure the support of the Islamic world, the American political machine has gone
out of its way to stress that America and her allies are not fighting Islam, but rather, they are fighting
terrorists who have perverted the true teachings of Islam. On the other hand, other voices have raised
concerns that indeed there is a violent component within the religion, and that Islam itself is part of the
problem. Thus far those expressing concerns about fundamental Islam have been largely muted, out of an excess
of political correctness. But this overwhelming desire to view the Islamic world through rose-colored glasses
has resulted in significant resistance to critical analysis of Islamic writings, practice, and
In addition, there is the problem that most Americans are
generally a busy people caught up in various pursuits, who have little time nor inclination to dive into a
foreign religious philosophy filled with strange new words. Most of us are too lazy or distracted to learn
even our own religious heritage in any depth, let alone one that is as different as Islam. Indeed, almost
half of Americans have no interest in religion at all, if not an aversion to studying or understanding any
religious culture or philosophy. Of the rest who consider themselves religious, few study with the intent of
understanding the details and nuances of a doctrine. Most are content to read their sacred texts
occasionally, learn a few key concepts, listen to their appointed leaders, and then go home after church to
catch the football/basketball game. The average American needs to understand quickly is that the benefits for
non-believers to understand Islam in some detail are tremendous, especially if there are Muslims making Jihad
headed your way. Unfortunately many might not be able to appreciate that warning, because many of us have a
convoluted perception of what Jihad means.
For us to truly understand
"Jihad" and Islamic violence in today's time frame, we must start by examining the revered Islamic texts in
some detail. A sixty-second sound byte from some "expert" (be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise) is
not sufficient. To gain a knowledge base sufficient for fair judgment one must more deeply investigate the
three sources of religious philosophy related to Islam in their holy texts … the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.
These texts form the foundation of Islamic beliefs and philosophy. But quoting verse is not enough, we will
also have to acquaint ourselves with other sources of history surrounding the period to understand the
context, background, scope, and applicability of the various passages related to Jihad and violence in Islam.
Otherwise, one would be left with many passages that seemingly contradict each other, and be no closer to
truly understanding "Jihad", and the application of Islamic violence today. A complete picture must be drawn.
A mere phrase such as "Islam means peace", or "Jihad is an internal struggle against internal, sinful
desires" or, "Islam is violent", has little support if one does not know the actual teachings of
Since the death of thousands of Americans has occurred at
the hands of self-proclaimed devout Muslims, and since scores of similarly disposed Muslims have vowed to
continue to murder Americans, be they men, women, or children, it is incumbent upon us to examine the
fundamental teachings of Muhammad, found in the afore mentioned texts, to see how they are being applied or
misapplied today. This investigation and study has become all the more urgent because of what is at stake. It
is not just American lives (and way of life), which may be at risk, but the lives of anyone living in free,
democratic societies, all non-Muslim peoples are at issue. Therefore, readers should understand that when
"America", or "American" is referenced, we are also including Britons, Mexicans, French, Germans, Japanese,
Brazilians, Russians, Poles, Chinese, Australians, Canadians, and so forth.
For a start, the sometimes-elusive Islamic concept of Jihad
must be clearly understood. In particular, we need to determine exactly how it is understood, accepted and
supported by a majority (or a large minority) of Muslims today. If it is accepted as it is practiced by the
many militants, then by western standards it would really be incorrect to call Islam a religion at all;
rather it would represent more a military, political and cultural threat. These hard questions need to be
asked to know if the actions of the many devoted murderous Muslims in various organizations and lands today
can be identified as truly Islamic and if their violent acts are done in the spirit of real Islam, or if they
(and their active and passive supporters) represent a fringe minority. Many prefer to believe that the threat
to America comes not from Islam itself, but from an extremist form of the religion espoused by a few
terrorists and their small but vocal band of supporters. If they are a tiny insignificant minority, they may
be manageable by typical diplomatic, military, and law enforcement methods designed to marginalize, isolate,
discredit, and destroy. But a majority (or even a large minority) from a population of about 2 billion is
still a huge number of people virtually impossible to manage by those methods, because if millions or
billions intend to kill and destroy a particular people or nation, there is very little that society can do
to protect itself short of extreme protective self-defensive and even offensive measures. Now, by observation
of various Muslim and Western scholars, up to 50% of all Muslims worldwide sympathize with the Jihadist
message, …if this is accurate were talking many hundreds of millions of people, a number much too large to
monitor and impossible to police.
The task of critically analyzing Islam is not a
particularly difficult task, as the writings and history of the 1400 year Islamic movement are quite
extensive and prolific. The difficulty arises when anyone identifies any possible fault or point of critics
whatsoever. You see Muslims are what you would call hyper-sensitive to any criticism or observation that does
not glorify and honor their ‘best’ religion and in particular their prophet, ‘Muhammad’. Whereas all other
religions seem to be able to survive all sorts of arguments and disparaging comments, Islam tolerates no such
dissent or discussion of any kind. In Islamic lands the punishment for insulting the prophet is the same as
it has always been …death. This sort of intimidation has proven to be very effective in lands which are fully
Islamic. Muslims yesterday and today are terrified of the response by Islamic fanatics should they
accidentally disrespect the Qur’an or say something negative about the prophet or accepted teachings. You can
criticize leaders and lay alike only by saying they are not Islamic enough, but suggest that the theology is
flawed or needs reforming, and be prepared to be dispatched to hell very quickly. Non-Muslims have also
suffered at the hands of ‘believers’ by making ‘insensitive’ comments about the religion or their prophet.
The first documented violent acts of the religion were when Muhammad attacked and killed several of his
critics, which seems to provide Muslims today all the justification they need to continue that practice.
Though potentially dangerous, we are keenly interested in cutting through all fog and spin to ascertain what
is genuine, authentic, and indisputable. It is much more dangerous to continue to give the religion and its
fanatic followers cover through our fear and silence. This book will be completely frank, with no deference
given to any group’s delicate sensibilities. For the future of our families and country, we need clear
understanding and honest answers to the following three questions: #1 - What are
the correct scriptural teachings of Islam with respect to the application of violence to further its cause
both yesterday and today? #2 - Is real Islam behind and does it condone the Sept
11th attack (and others claimed in its name), or were those terrorists doing
something outside Muhammad’s religion? And… #3 - What does the future hold for
Islam and America (and all other non-Islamic countries)?
"Real Islam" is the way of living the ‘Messenger of Allah’
(Muhammad) practiced and taught, as it is understood by the majority of Muslims today. To understand how
Muslims think and what they really believe today, we need to look carefully at the material they have been
taught from. One can also look at the history of the different sects within Islam, but all real Islamic
philosophy is fully contained in its recognized scripture. By Muslim belief and understanding, no prophet can
or will follow Muhammad, and so no further scripture will ever be offered to challenge or replace the
existing works. Within several centuries of Muhammad’s death, Muslim theologians and jurists, Sunni
(including all four main schools of jurisprudence), Shiite, and Sufi (both Sunni and Shiite), constructed
from Qur’anic verses, the hadith collections, and the sacred biographies of Muhammad (the Sira). These
foundational texts of Islam contain Muhammad’s words and deeds over a 23-year period, the Qur’an being
dominant in Islamic theology. But even the Qur’anic suras are not given equal weight. As will be shown, the
most applicable part of Islamic theology is based more heavily upon Muhammad’s final teachings and deeds than
earlier writings. This work endeavors to uncover these most important final teachings, exactly as recorded in
the Qur’an, using chronology and context identified by the Hadith (the traditions and sayings of Muhammad),
and the biographical material in the Sira.
In studying the scripts, it needs to be remembered that
many of his words are understood to apply only to a specific people for a specific time or event. It appears
that as Muhammad’s circumstances changed, his words, teachings, commands, and attitudes also sometimes
changed. Thus, as situations changed over time, Muhammad’s words and teachings morphed to accommodate them,
and so real Islam also changed over time. In the end, at Muhammad’s death, the philosophy and conduct of
Islam and its followers solidified to a more stable and recognizable form. Therefore, to determine what real
Islam teaches regarding Jihad and violence, we must examine these text’s chronology, context, scope, and
applicability. It is either mistaken or dishonest to take one passage out of context and apply it to a set of
circumstances for which it was not meant.
What we are going to do is examine a number of Qur’anic
passages related to Jihad and violence. Citations obtained from related Islamic texts (the Hadith and Sira)
are also presented to provide background, context, and chronology. Additionally, various references and
commentary from early Islamic scholars’ (tafsir) will be
presented. When appropriate, quotations will be presented by other historians, scholars or experts on Islam,
be they Muslim, Christian, or secular.
After this, we are going to go a step further. We are also
going to examine Muhammad’s actions. Actions ever speak louder than words; therefore, let us lend an ear to
hear what it is that his deeds speak about the man. A wise sage said, "A man is defined by what he does."
Thus, Muhammad’s works must be thoroughly scrutinized, for surely they truly portray his heart and show us
who he was, and what he truly believed. This is all the more important in our study because Muslims
relationship with the God they worship is by and through the words and example of their beloved prophet. The
absolute truth accepted by all Muslims is that Muhammad was the ‘seal’ of the prophets, or the last and final
representative of God. Essentially, they believe that God completed his delivery of all revelation and
instruction to men by the words and example of His final ‘Messenger’, and that new revelations or prophets
are no longer possible. So the works mentioned, which contain the teachings and example of Muhammad, is all
there is for Muslims to follow and pattern their lies after.
We will also briefly review what Muhammad’s closest
"companions" understood to be his final wishes, which direction they believed were the commands of God to His
messenger or apostle. We will refer to the four "rightly guided" Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali.
These four hold a special place in Islamic theology and history. If anyone knew what Muhammad truly wanted,
they did. Following Muhammad’s death, they continued to fulfill and obey his commands, as they understood his
final clear directions and wishes. They loved Muhammad, obeyed his commands, and put their lives on the line
for him time and again. Hence, we can safely assume that their actions accurately depict their understanding
of how Muhammad wanted them to carry on Islam (i.e. real Islam).
Now then, if Muhammad’s calls to violence found within the
texts were only for a specific period, against a specific people, for an understandable cause such as
self-defense, or to alleviate the persecution of an oppressed people, then the critics of Islam could not
honestly say that Islam is a religion that condones aggressive violence and terrorism. On the other hand, if
it can be shown that Muhammad’s final intentions for Islam were to attack, conquer, and rule all other
peoples, and that the use of violence in various forms, including terrorism, are justified to install Islam
as the dominant power, and that philosophy is being extended today by a significant number of believers, then
it would be deliberate deception to call Islam a religion of Peace.
In light of the long, often-violent history of Islam’s
expansion, and the many more recent terrorist attacks in the world, it would be foolish to rely on carefully
crafted statements, in English, from prominent Muslims regarding the true nature of Islam. Westerners are
inclined to believe religious leaders are normally honest and pious, and we want desperately to believe that
all Muslim clerics and imams are similarly disposed, but that is an assumption fraught with peril.
Unfortunately, as will be shown, practicing dishonesty and deception towards non-believers is also a part of
accepted Islamic doctrine, and success at such deliveries in the advance of Islam is celebrated and
So, let us start our study of official Islamic
Statements from Islamic theologians profess that the Qur’an
is the immutable and unalterable word of Allah, but such statements should not be taken literally, as what is
really meant (and understood by Muslims) is; "passages that have not been abrogated in
the Qur’an are the immutable and unalterable word of Allah". Understanding the application of Abrogation
as it is used in interpreting the Qur’an is critical to this study. This unusual application is an important
principal and facet of Islamic studies. We must start with the Qur’an because it is one of the foundations of
Islam. Islam is built upon the Qur’an and "Sunnah", or lifestyle of Muhammad. Many Western readers will
probably be inclined to apply traditional methods of logic and study of Biblical scriptures to their study of
the Qur’an. They will be tempted to take various Qur’anic verses at face value, mistakenly thinking that all
the verses in the Qur’an have equal weight and are equally applicable today. They may reason that since the
Qur’an in one place says, "there is no compulsion in religion"; it must mean that Muslims are not to force
people into Islam. This approach, however, is erroneous. One of the odd facets of the Qur’an is that some
verses "abrogate" other verses, or in other words, they cancel them, rendering them null and void and no
"Abrogation" means the canceling or replacement of one
Qur’anic passage by another. It seems that as circumstances changed during the 23-year period that Muhammad
dictated the Qur’an, the directions and precepts found therein sometimes changed to accommodate new and
changing political and military realities, sometimes quite dramatically. Thus, the Qur’an abrogates or
cancels itself in various passages and presents seemingly conflicting statements. Muslims do not view this
sort of abrogation as a contradiction, but rather, as improvements to better suit varying circumstances or
needs, or to fit Muhammad’s religious concepts. For example, many Islamic scholars consider that the verse
reference above "there is no compulsion in religion", found in 2:256, has been abrogated by the passage found
in 9:5, (more on this later). This is widely understood because the more tolerant verse in chapter 2 was
spoken about 7 - 8 years earlier than the one spoken in Chapter 9.
The "Dictionary of Qur’anic Terms and Concepts", pages 5
and 6  state: "Qur’anic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has
happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery,
(q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Qur’an shows first, that only a limited number of Qur’anic verses
have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to
matters of doctrine and belief."
In "Islam: Muhammad and His Religion", page
66, the great Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote: "The Qur’an is unique
among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the
Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which
verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur’anic science known as "Nasikh wa Mansukh", i.e.: "the
Abrogators and the Abrogated"."
The Encyclopedia of Islam, , states on abrogation:
Therefore, because of the changing circumstances in
Muhammad’s time, various Qur’anic passages are recognized as having been abrogated, and it is normal that
some Islamic doctrine changes over time. As such, rules that were once correctly applied to one set of
circumstances, may not necessarily apply to a different reality at a later date. This concept is unusual by
Western religious standards in its scope, and there are even minor disagreements within Islam regarding which
teaching or doctrine abrogates another. In general, Muslims recognize more recent passages and writings as
the most applicable, abrogating earlier references on the same subject matter. Therefore, when discussing
Islam and Jihad, what must be considered most applicable are Muhammad’s final
teachings and commands, especially what his last wishes and instructions were regarding Jihad and violence.
From the viewpoint of the non-Muslim world, we must know which Qur’anic passages
are still in force today for the Muslim community, and which are not. Earlier statements related to peace may
or may not have been abrogated by later statements related to violence, or visa versa. We must carefully
examine the context of the texts to know which Jihadic directions are acceptable and in force
The revered work "al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh" (The Abrogator and
the Abrogated) deals in great detail with many subject matters addressed in the Qur’an wherein there appears
to be some conflict or contradiction. The book goes through every sura (chapter), pointing out in full detail
every verse which has been canceled, and the verse(s) which replace it. The author notes that out of 114
suras, there are only 43 which were not affected by this concept. As an example of the scope of abrogation in
the Qur’an: there are 125 versus that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced
by sura 9:5: "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)....." and sura 5:33:
"For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is . . . execution or
crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the
[See: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986
Muslim activists universally fail to reveal to Westerners
this major doctrine, hiding the fact that earlier conciliatory passages have been rendered null and void for
over 1300 years. When Westerners discover it on their own they complain we misinterpret such writings or
misapply their impact. Muslim promoters prefer to polish Islam's image by quoting the earlier abrogated
Meccan passages that call for patience and forbearance. Spokespersons hide or omit Medinan passages that
clearly call for killing and maiming. When hearing people explain Islam claiming the earlier more peaceful
verses are dominant in Islamic philosophy, one must judge between two options; Either the presenter is
completely ignorant of genuine Islamic doctrine, or he is practicing officially sanctioned Islamic
Because opinions with regard to proper conduct between
believers and non-believers varies widely, the question of which Qur’anic verses are ‘alive’ and being
applied today, is critical to understanding ‘Real Islam’, and potentially to our own survival. Ibn Warraq
summarizes the Muslim concept of abrogation as follows:
We will next review the general chronology of the Qur’anic
listings, with respect to their violent Jihadic passages. As stated earlier, we must explore both the context
and chronology of the Qur’anic passages. This is challenging because the Qur’an is not arranged
chronologically and in fact, no one knows for certain its complete chronology. There is no standard
chronological agreement among scholars, be they Muslim, Christian, or secular, as to when chapters or even
portions of chapters were revealed during Muhammad’s life. Some of Muhammad’s words, spoken as the Qur’an
near the end of his life, were folded into passages he spoke near the beginning of his declared prophet-hood.
Therefore, the Qur’an is a jumbled chronological hodgepodge. In and of itself, the Qur’an is practically
worthless when it comes to determining its chronology. The only corroborating references that are able to
provide us a guide as to when certain passages were spoken are the Sira and Hadith. Sometimes they provide
chronological details behind the Qur’an’s verses. However, as a whole, scholars are unable to completely
determine the Qur’an’s chronology. Consequently, they only offer their best, educated, opinions. In our
study, we are most interested in the opinions accepted by the majority of Muslims today.
A Qur’anic chronology is very important because what
Muhammad said earlier in his life did not necessarily apply to later events (due to "abrogation" mentioned
previously). By any standard of evaluation, it appears he was always prepared to change his mind, vows, and
rules. (See the selection of Hadiths from Sahih Muslim, book 15, #s 4044 –
4062). If we are to understand true Islamic Jihad as it is understood and taught today, then we need to
establish his final position with respect to Jihad and aggression. Hence, the last few chronological passages
of the Qur’an are of great importance, as are the subsequent actions of his closest companions as they
followed that direction.
Note that the majority of various Qur’anic passages
relative to "Jihad" or violence come from chapter nine. Most scholars agree that chapter nine is from a very
late period - near the end of Muhammad’s life. The great Muslim historian Tabari, in volume 8, (who wrote a
39 volume Islamic history and an extensive commentary on the Qur’an), shows
that the conquest of Mecca occurred in 630. Ibn Ishaq documented, in a work which is the most authentic
biographical material available today, "Sirat Rasulallah", page 617, that
the main Jihad section of chapter 9 was revealed in AH 9 (i.e. 631). Muhammad died in 632. Therefore, chapter
9 was revealed during Muhammad’s last two years, if not in the last year. Chapter 5 is usually thought to be
the last chronological chapter, but it does not have many references to Jihad.
The following is a quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam, op
cit, with respect to the problems of Qur’anic chronology. At the end of the quote are its chronological lists
taken from several different scholars of Islam:
The Egyptian standard edition gives the following
chronological order of the Suras, with the verses said to date from a different period given in
The Encyclopedia of Islam, op cit, also details three
Western Islamic scholars chronology of the Qur’an. (Noldeke was one of the greatest Qur’anic scholars from
the West). This is the chronological order of the last Medinan Suras listed in their work:
[NOTE: Traditional Western dating breaks the chronological order of the Qur’an up into 3
or 4 groups. The last group (sometimes called "late Medinan") is presented above. There are earlier suras in
both lists above, however, for space’s sake, and editing time, only the last sura grouping is presented. Note
that sura 9 is the second to last in all these three scholar’s groupings.]
Canon Sell in "The Historical Development of the Qur’an",
page 204, , details that Jalalu-d-Din as-Syuti (a great Muslim Qur’anic
scholar) lists chapter 9 second to last, and Sir William Muir (a great Western Islamic scholar) lists chapter
9 as last. All of the above-mentioned references also list chapter 5 near the chronological end, if not at
the very end.
The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, volume 6, book 60, # 129 (or
5.59.650), , Hadith states: "The last Sura that was revealed was Bara’a…" So
Sura 9 was considered by him to be one of the last, if not the last revealed chapters of the
Therefore, the works of six top scholars, (3 Muslim, 3
Western), all agree that chapter 9 is either the last or second to last chapter to be spoken or revealed by
Muhammad. Consequently, since this chapter contains the largest amount of violent passages, this is our
focus. In classical exegesis then, as a result of being the last Chapter revealed, Sura 9 would dominate, or
abrogate, conflicting Qur’anic passages from earlier periods.
In "Milestones, Ideologue of Fundamentalist Islam in
Egypt", Syed Qutb argues strongly for Jihad from select Qur’anic verses (4:74-76; 8:38-40; 9:29-32). These
passages alone, he states, suffice to justify the universal and permanent dimensions of Jihad (pp. 53-76).
All this being said, to be thorough and fair, we will also review other relevant earlier passages on Islamic
violence and Jihad found in the Qur’an.
'Jehad' (Jihad) is an Arabic word that literally means
'endeavor'. In the literal historical context, this Islamic doctrine clearly implies physically fighting in the
way of the Arabic God ‘Allah’ to establish supremacy over unbelievers, until they relinquish their faith and
become Muslims, or acknowledge their subordination by paying the ‘Jaziya’ (or Jizya) humiliation tax. As will be
shown in subsequent chapters, Jihad historically has been a perpetual war against infidels (Buddhists, Hindus,
Deists, Pagans, Atheists, Skeptics, Jews, Christians, etc). The 5 pillars (obligations) of Islam include
Shahadah (the witness), Salat (mandatory daily prayers), Zakat (mandatory alms), Sawm or Siyam (fasting during
Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). As a practical matter (so as not to alert or advertise its
methods and intents to potential adversaries), Jihad narrowly missed becoming a ‘declared’ pillar of Islam.
Although not a declared pillar, amongst a majority of Muslims Jihad enjoys at least sympathy and support, if not
active participation. It follows that Jihad then, in practice, serves as a functional pillar (obligation) of
official Islamic theology. Indeed, any preview of Islamic written theology in relation to Jihad reveals that the
practice is at least as important to the salvation of Muslims as are the other pillars. In many verses, the
importance, and the promised benefits of Jihad (in both this life and the next) appear much larger than the more
spiritual benefits associated with the other 5 pillars mentioned.
In the correct context of the Islamic sacred texts,
‘Jihad’ means literally ‘holy war’, but today there is an
effort in some quarters to extend or redefine its meaning and scope. To some it essentially means,
"struggle", and to those there are two types or divisions in Jihad: greater and lesser. "Greater Jihad," is
the struggle within the soul of a person to be better, more righteous -- the fight against the devil within.
"Lesser Jihad" is the fight against the devil without, the military struggle against those who subjugate
Muslims or frustrate her aims. For those Muslims who ascribe to this differentiation, the struggle against
the external oppressor waxes and wanes, but the fight to suppress the evil inclinations within is perpetual.
When asked which is more important to Islam, greater Jihad or lesser Jihad, many ‘moderate’ Muslims tell
infidels something like; "They don't call it greater Jihad for nothing". Unfortunatly, the rather small
effort within some communities of Islam to redefine/reform Islam to exclude ‘physical violence against
non-believers’ from the concept of Jihad, …is losing.
Amongst mullahs from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to points
across the globe, a somewhat different definition of the Greater and Lesser Jihad is now offered;
"They are of equal importance", say even Moderate Muslims. "Jihad against the oppressor of Muslims is an absolute duty. Islam is a religion that defends
itself." The newer emphasis and message resonating now is as was described by a Pakistani Cleric
interviewed in 2002; "Both the Jihads have their importance. In one, we struggle to
amend our inner self, and in another, we defend our religion. Islam is a religion of limits, except for
Jihad, where there is no compromise. Jihad must be fought without limits". This new emphasis places Jihad
against ‘the devil without’ as more applicable today. Jihad against outside devils, in particular against the
‘Great Satan America’, is waxing strong, assuming a permanent place of overriding
importance. This is very disturbing with grave implications because once a Jihad has been declared and
accepted by the followers of Muhammad, they tend to see it through to the end, even if that effort involves
huge sacrifice and spans decades.
What follows are several classical definitions of Jihad.
Thereafter we will examine passages from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira related to Jihad and violence in Islam.
"Jihad" or other forms of the word occur in the Qur’an about 35 times. Additionally throughout the Qur’an
there are other words used for various other forms of violence. References to all these terms (fighting, war,
attack, Jihad, slay, kill, etc) are almost continuous.
From the "Concordance of the Qur’an", 1983 comes a definition, probably the simplest most straightforward found. Kassis essentially
derived it from the Qur’anic context of the word:
The following is a more detailed definition of Jihad from
the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, page 89:
Many Westerners have wondered in amazement at the number of
men leaving safe and relatively comfortable lands to undertake a perilous journey and face death to fight
superior forces in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq. Clearly, those who do so, do it out of a strong sense of
religious duty, fully expecting to be rewarded for their sacrifice. The "Dictionary of the Qur’an", op cit,
defines Jihad as;
Regarding Jihad, the "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir", volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse
The classic manual of Islamic sacred law, "Reliance of the Traveler" , is one of the more respected,
classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200 page voluminous book on Sharia contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by "the great 13th century
Hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Iman Nawawi, and
others. This work was not written with a Western audience in mind. Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic
law that was precise and accurate, one that taught true Islamic values. There are additional statements
regarding the rules of Jihad found in "Reliance of the Traveler", but we quote only one relevant statement
that portrays Jihad’s scope and application, from page 599:
Scholarly consensus by all reputable Islamic experts is
sourced by scriptural basis for Jihad from such Qur'anic verses as: "Fighting is prescribed for you" (2:216),
"Slay them wherever you find them" (4:89), "Fight the idolaters utterly" (9:36), and such Hadiths as the one
related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:
A Hadith report by Muslim confirms this
Finally, from Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadis #0033, and Sahih
Bukhari, volume 1, Book 8, Hadis #387, comes a telling insight on the true meaning and scope of
According to Muslim doctrine, to deny Allah and Muhammad's
exclusive right to be believed in and adored is a terrible crime. Having established the ‘best religion’ that
abrogates all others, the Prophet undeniably prescribed that the correct course of action against
non-believers is to fight them. Since the biggest crime any person or nation can commit is denial of Islam,
it is quite clear the true solution to the problem has been dictated to be perpetual war (Jihad) against such
renegades. Based upon Islamic scholars’ writings, it appears undeniable that violent Jihad is permitted in
Islam for both offensive and defensive purposes. It was commanded by, and praised by Muhammad as being one of
the greatest forms of true Islamic spirituality. Further, some of the final direction from Muhammad was that
that Jihad is to continue until all people are subjected to Islamic rule. Offensive aggression toward
non-Muslims is clearly and unashamedly allowed, but prior to attacking, the Muslims are to offer them a
choice: 1- Become Muslim; 2- do not become Muslim but pay the extortion (Jizya) tax; 3- defend yourself unto
Jihad embodies both an ideology and a jurisdiction,
formally conceived by Muslim legal experts and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on
their interpretation of Qur’anic verses and long chapters in the Traditions (the hadith). The consensus on
the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and
Shafi’i) is clear:
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (Maliki),
Ibn Taymiyya (Hanbali)
From (primarily) the Hanafi school, as given in the
These consenting opinions are all in complete harmony. In
the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad and dhimmitude were firmly
established by the 8th century. Perhaps the preeminent Islamic scholar in history was Ibn Khaldun, a renowned
philosopher, historian, and sociologist. In his writings in 1406, he summarized these opinions and five
centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of Jihad:
The simple terrible fact is that Jihad does not represent a
mere excess or defect of Islam, but rather is an integral part of its timeless core. According to Muslim
scholar Bassam Tibi,
World peace, according to his Islamic teaching,
"is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam." So by
Tibi’s logic, when Muslims wage jihad, they are performing pious acts of worship to bring about the peace of
universal Islam. So it is, by this convoluted logic, that when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent
means it is not war (harb), but rather a sacred act of "opening" the world to Islam. In other words, by
simply existing, the entire non-Islamic world is always responsible for any and all Jihadic acts against
All this official Islamic scripture and sacred writings
shows that the official meaning, purpose, and scope of Jihad is in fact quite clear and unambiguous. Further
evidence will be outlined in subsequent chapters and appendix laying out carefully and chronically both the
permanent basis for violent Jihad today, and its application by Muhammad , his ‘rightly guided Caliphs’ who
followed him, and all subsequent followers of Islam throughout history.
Bat Ye'or wrote in The Decline of Eastern Christianity
"Jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfill; it is Islam’s
‘normal’ path to expansion". It must now be noted that there is a deliberate effort underway by Islamists and
their apologists to present the term Jihad differently. Some of these efforts may be genuine attempts to
soften the religion and perhaps cause less military Jihad, but it seems most representations are simply
propaganda efforts intended to disseminate misinformation for political purposes. The relatively new
phraseology and interpretation is offered mainly to westerners, with the real meaning still taught in the
vast majority of Islamic institutions around the world as it has always been. Obviously Islam does not want
to alarm the intended audience with the truth, especially the Americans who have been acting badly of
In Jihad: How Academics Have
Camouflaged Its Real Meaning (by Daniel Pipes Ph.D. in history and director of the
Middle East Forum) Mr. Pipes states there is nearly universal falsification on the meaning of jihad
amongst elitists. He cites an intellectual scandal wherein even scholars at American universities issue
public statements that avoid or whitewash the primary meaning of Jihad in Islamic law and Muslim history. The
result is obfuscation as we try to make sense of the Jihad declared on us and discover who the enemy is and
what his goals are. Such apologists are dangerous because even people who think they know that jihad means
holy war are susceptible to the combined efforts of scholars and Islamists brandishing notions suggesting
Jihad means ‘resisting apartheid’ or ‘working for women's rights’. To quote his article:
Pipes got it right, pointing out that the argument and
issue is really a moot point. In fact it does not matter what propagandists, our educated elitists, Pipes, or
all Islamic apologists claim Jihad means. What really matters is how millions of self-described devout
Muslims understand it today and how they intend to act on their belief. What it has meant in the past (up to
and including today) has already been fully defined by all previous actions of Muslim Militants in their
conduct toward non-believers, and further debate to clarify or change that historical reality is just plain
silly. Any honest review of Islamic history from 610 to 2004 answers the question of Jihadic definition quite
convincingly, a portion of which will be reviewed in subsequent chapters. As far as majority Muslim
understanding and use of the Jihad term goes, nothing much has changed through the last 1400 years. The
lesser Jihad cannot be separated out from the greater Jihad and ignored; it appears they are both a part of
unalterable core Islam. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either being deceitful …or has been deceived. The
basic Islamic worldview sees all lands as either as Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam), or Dar al-Harb (the
abode of war). All those countries and societies not currently dominated by Islamic supremacy are by default
the abode of war, where Jihad (and deception) is always fully justified. Those who contend that jihad war is
not a main tenet of traditional Islam do so either deceitfully or in blissful ignorance.
The writings of two contemporary Muslim scholars of jihad,
the late Majid Khadduri, and Bassam Tibi, confirm that Islam in our age is still in uniform compliance with
the earlier sacred writings. The uniquely Islamic conception of "House of War" (Dar ul-Harb) and "House of
Islam" (Dar ul-Islam) was a consensus formulation from the early classical period of Muslim
Majid Khadduri’s 1955 treatise on jihad remains one of the
most respected analyses of this institution, summarizing the consensus views of these previous Islamic
experts as follows:
And in 1996, Bassam Tibi wrote this:
Finally, as author Ram Swarup observed in Understanding Islam through Hadis: "Jihad is a divinely ordained institution in Islam. By many
authorities it is counted as one of the pillars of Islam. Theologically, it is an intolerant idea: a tribal
god, Allah, trying to be universal through conquest. Historically, it was an imperialist urge masked in
Recent Muslim Views on Islam and Jihad
Several more modern Muslim leaders have put forward their
reasoning describing when waging war is justified and allowed. From "The Qur’anic Concept of War", by
Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, it says (in the preface):
That Muslim writer, from our ally Pakistan, states that
those who reject Islam are viewed as a cancerous growth to be violently removed (i.e. murdered). Note that
the writer basically agrees with "Western Scholars" observations that Islam is indeed "in a state of
perpetual war" with non-Muslims. Indeed, reviewing conflicts worldwide today, it is Islamic militancy which
is causing more death and despair in the world than any other religious or political ideology. Review the
following news release from an Egyptian party newspaper issued after Sept 11th.
A small collection of passages is compiled in
Appendix A regarding Jihad and fighting which make clear the specific nature of this combative
ideology in Islamic scripture. The reading is somewhat labored, but well worth the insights, particularly if
the reader has never been exposed to authentic Islamic ‘holy writings’. For Westerners, who have not been
raised on Islamic scripture, it is important to personally study the texts to decide with authority if
Islamic spokespersons are shooting strait in their claims …or those who warn otherwise. If you don’t discover
for yourself, you risk becoming a pawn, played like a harp blindingly supporting someone else’s
The passages outlined in Appendix A show how important Jihad and fighting are in Islamic scripture and history. Historically,
Muhammad and his movement did not initially use force to induce the Jews, Christians and pagans to accept
Islam, however force was justified for defense. Later, when he began to gather an army to himself and was
able to go on the offensive, he did so. Appendix A shows that scripturally, Jihad is highly commendable, and those that fight are rated high
in Allah's eyes, with constant promises that fighters will be greatly rewarded. They also show clearly the
aggressive nature of Jihad. Muslims were allowed to attack non-Muslims and plunder their
A chronological review of the Qur’an's verses reveal that
they widen in scope and offensive aggression. Muhammad's actions described therein show what could only be
described as an ever broadening trail of blood conquest. Passage also clearly call for compulsion to Islam,
it appears claims otherwise are just plain dishonest. There in nothing in the Qur’an that ever tells
Muhammad’s followers to stop attacking and subjecting non-Muslims, rather the direction is to continue until
all the world is under Islam’s rule. Please review the material in the afore mentioned appendix at this time,
or at least read (and verify if necessary) until you are thoroughly convinced that you have sufficient
knowledge such that you can no one can ever deceive you because of inexperience and ignorance of true Islamic
Click here to preview Appendix B where there is a very griping and comprehensive diary of many of the recorded
military/banditry exploits of Muhammad. It was written by Abul Kasem, an intellectual and former Muslim who
managed to escape the intellectual/spiritual/moral bondage of Islamic theology. Abul wrote it using only
authentic Islamic scripture and other sanctioned, sacred, and revered writings. As is shown therein, the
great Islamic ‘Seal of the Prophets’ followed his own advice in 9:73 "Prophet, make war
on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home". It
documents that Muhammad's career of warring in the name of Allah began as soon as it became a viable option,
and then did not cease. Those defeated by Muhammad’s military actions were offered protection if they would submit to the dictates of Islam and pay tribute. Those that refused those options had
no "choice" but to be put to death or, if Muhammad was feeling particularly merciful, banished after giving
up all their worldly possessions (including their young women). Non-Muslims were Dhimmis (the people of obligation) and, as such, were to be "utterly
subdued". Such a recipe guaranteed the expansion of Islam in all lands and with all peoples who were not
able to withstand Jihad.
Probably few Muslims today understand that that many of
their recent or distant ancestors entered Islam at sword point. As Arab dominance gripped cities and nations,
many undoubtedly embraced Islam not only to survive, but to avoid payment of Poll Tax (Jaziya) and escape the
humiliation reserved for the Zimmies (non-Muslims living under their Arab rulers). Except for those who
joined for personal gain, probably most people were forced to join, accepting Islam solely for the purpose of
survival for themselves and their children. Undoubtedly nearly all of those so forced hoped and longed for
the opportunity to escape the grip of Islam at the time of their induction, but the grip of Islam on
families, neighborhoods, and nations is very tight. Dreams of freedom became sad resignation, and after a
generation or two none remember or recite the old hopes and dreams. It’s interesting to take note that much
of Islam today is made up from what essentially is a conscripted army. Islamic efforts to make that army tow
the official line and become more responsive and obedient warriors (Jihadists)
continue to this day. Calls to arms and Jihad seem constantly issued from various sources, and there seems to
be a new crop of recently indoctrinated energetic young people ready to answer the call to prove their
devotion, and to make teachers and family proud. Those who respond are also enthralled by the promise of
glory, luxuries, and virgins in the next life. Properly incited, they depart on their dangerous journeys
knowing nothing of the root causes and circumstances of their ancestral parents forced conversions. Their
father’s father’s father, an entire previous lineage of many peoples, cry from the dust lamenting the choices
of their progeny, but are unable to speak to hearts now filled with the same hatred and blood-lust that first
drove them into bondage. It is a huge tragedy and travesty spanning generations, with little hope of
Because of its extensive and through sourcing, and its
absolute accuracy in context and chronology, Abul’s treatise cannot be refuted by any Islamic apologist no
matter how slick and smooth. If you ever need to have complete picture of the life and heart of the great
Muslim prophet, then Abul’s article paints the most accurate, complete picture available. Next please read
the following synopsis to Abul Kasem’s article, then go to Appendix B and study it (or whatever portion you can stomach):
This article (Appendix B) investigates the application of terror as a tactic that was used some fourteen hundred
years ago by the very first Jihadists of Islam, to gain booty and become rich-quick through plunder. The main
purpose of this essay is to probe whether a direct link exists among the Modus
Operandi of the Jihadists (read Islamic Terrorists) of Muhammad’s time and their
counterparts operating today. In all, one hundred (100) cases of armed conflicts
were investigated for their cause, timing, venue and the principal actor/s involved. The finding of this
detail investigation is quite disturbing, …mind numbing, one may say. This exercise establishes, without any
doubt whatsoever, that uncanny similarities exist between those Islamic fighters of Muhammad’s time, and
their counterparts operating today. We also find that, except for two or three cases, all armed conflicts
were principally aggressive terrorist acts committed by the Muslim perpetrators. It was invariably the
Islamic Jihadists who usually initiated the conflict, in many cases without any plausible reason/s and/or
without or slightest provocation. As will be shown, the Muslim participants engaged in terror tactics with
unbound savagery that often included gratuitous murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, revenge killings,
political assassinations, and in many cases, simply plain plunder and armed robbery. Muhammad followed this
path of terror and pillage to reward his followers with easy and handsome booty, land, other goods and
material benefits. The exercise of terror and its concomitant gain made the early Jihadists rich,
self-supporting and this was crucial in the establishment of the authority of Islam in the entire Arabian
Peninsula. Please make no mistake about it.
Most biographers of Muhammad have dealt at length with a handful of well-known wars fought
between Muslim soldiers and the infidels’ trained army. These major war-like combats number around thirteen
in all and are well documented by many historians. Nonetheless, it is the so-called minor or smaller-scale
skirmishes that stand out as the most important events to expose the true scale of savagery, cruelty,
barbarism, unbound greed, treachery, guile and lasciviousness of the early converts of Islam-this, truly is a
surprise discovery and is the well-kept secret amongst Islamists. It is rather sad to note that very few
biographers/historians have attempted to investigate in detail these ‘smaller less-significant’ acts of
terror. Many cruel Sha’ria or Islamic laws were formulated based on the examples set by Muhammad and his
followers during all these violent armed conflicts/terror campaigns. Plenty Qur’anic verses also relate to
these combative events.
This prolix article is based on information culled mainly from impeccable Islamic sources.
We must first of all, realize that all these sources of ‘immaculate’ information were of course, carefully
censored, filtered, cleaned, sanitized and any ‘bad’ and/or the ‘horrendous’ elements surgically removed
before they were made public. Even then, we find enough mind-boggling, terrible, barbaric and utterly
indigestible events/information buried deep inside those authentic Islamic books. If true freedom of
information was practiced and no Islamic censorship was in place, imagine what would have been the content of
un-sanitized, un-censored version of these Holy resources! A really worrying find of this study is that the
latest English translated versions of the compilation of Sahih Ahadith have been
organized by ‘clinically’ removing those ‘bad,’ ‘terrible’ and ‘horrendous’ sections of the Ahadith that make Islam look indeed, like a religion of terror and Bedouin barbarism. To gather the
truth one must refer to the original Sahih Ahadith and their original translated
versions. This latest attempt of ‘surgery,’ truly, is a clever ploy by the modern ‘doctors’ of Islam, to fool
and beguile the world-now that everyone harbors absolute doubt that Islam is a religion of peace.
Finally, this study leads the author to the opinion that Islam and terrorism are
completely inseparable. The root of terror a la Islamic fashion is in the divine
command itself. It is deeply entrenched in the preachings, commands, injunctions, inspirations, practices and
the examples set by Muhammad and his contemporary followers, who lived by the sword (read terror) and used it
as a most potent weapon to subdue adversaries who happened to cross their path. If a Muslim follows ‘Real
Islam’-the unadulterated, pure Islam preached and practiced by Muhammad, he cannot be other than a terrorist,
…plain and simple. Appendix B
Now, from the Muslim perspective using their own writings,
let us examine in more detail some actions that Muhammad ordered. There are more incidents we could
reference, but for the sake of time and space we have to limit the amount of detailed information (see
Appendix B). This additional material is presented to facilitate honest evaluation and judgment of Muhammad
himself, because it is only by his actions that he can and should be judged.
While reading the incidents below, we should continue to
ask ourselves if real Islam, i.e. Muhammad’s Islam, allows aggressive violence and terrorism. The following
13 events and incidents (occurring in the last years of Muhammad’s life) will be examined:
1) The killing of Abu Afak.
2) The killing of Asma Marwan.
3) Attack upon the Banu Qaynuqa Jews.
4) The killing of Kab Ashraf.
5) The killing of Ibn Sunayna.
6) Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews.
7) The killing of the Shepherd.
8) Massacre of the Qurayza Jews.
9) The torture killing of Kinana.
10) The killing of a slave Wife and Mother.
11) The slaying of an old woman from Fazara.
12) The killing of Abdullah Khatal and his Daughter.
13) The attack upon Tabuk.
INCIDENT # 1 – The Murder of Abu
This occurred around 2 A.H. In this incident Muhammad
requested his men to kill an old Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years old. He was a man with
much experience and many years who probably became alarmed and concerned observing Muhammad and his
followers. It is chronicled that Abu Afak spoke out and urged his fellow Medinans to question Muhammad. Below
are the details from Muslim sources.
From "The Life of Muhammad, op cit., page 675,
"Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
"Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba" [NOTE: Tubba was a ruler from Yemen who invaded that part
of what is presently Saudi Arabia: the Qaylites resisted him]
You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad! (Muhammad)
By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
A "hanif" gave you a thrust in the night saying
"Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!"
Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).
Additional information is found in the Kitab al-Tabaqat
al-Kabir, (Book of the Major Classes) by Ibn Sa'd, Volume 2  page
From a contemporary Muslim scholar - Ali Dashti's "23
Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad"  page 100:
Prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had
ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97: "Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual
mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue
from the zakat tax." So here an aged man was apparently killed upon Muhammad's command. He was no apparent
physical threat to Muhammad, and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or his
followers. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, no dialogue with Abu Afak, simply an apparent
outright killing of one of Muhammad's weak and defenseless critics. The aged Abu Afak urged the people who
lived in Medina to doubt and question Muhammad's words and acts. Muhammad's sayings probably seemed strange
and dictatorial to the old man, and he chided the Arabs that put their faith in Muhammad with satirical
verses. But apparently when Muhammad heard of this he viewed the 120-year-old man as a threat, not , not to
his life, but to his credibility. Nowhere does it say that Abu Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm
Muhammad. Yet for creatively speaking his mind for the benefit of his friends, this man was killed. Further
understanding can be gleaned from the last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya's verse: "Though I knew whether it
was man or jinn …who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)."
This statement displays that Muhammad's henchmen knew
exactly what they were doing. They knew it was cold-blooded murder they were committing at Muhammad's
request. They also intended to keep it secret, to hide their deeds from the populace at large, which is why
Umama said he wouldn't reveal who murdered Abu Afak.
INCIDENT # 2 – The Murder of Asma Marwan
This incident immediately followed the murder of Abu Afak
around 2 A.H.. The incident involves Muhammad's request for his men to murder a women named Asma b. Marwan.
(Quoting from Guillaume, op cit, pages 675, 676)
"I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
and Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
One not of Murad or Madhhij. [Note: Two tribes of Yamani origin]
Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"
Hassan b. Thabit answered her:
"Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma
Are inferior to B. al-Khazraj.
When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
For death is coming.
She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
Noble in his going out and in his coming in.
Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
And incurred no guilt thereby."
And now lets look at another quote, this time from Ibn
Sa'd's, "Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" [op cit] volume 2, page 31:
Now to sum this up and put it in perspective; Muhammad had
al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit killed. This upset Abu Afak, so he spoke out against it. So, likewise, Muhammad
had Abu Afak eliminated. This offended Asma b. Marwan, and she spoke out against that deed she deemed evil.
She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against Muhammad. When Muhammad heard of what she had
said, he had her killed also.
Further note Hassan Thabit's poem as a response to her:
"Before midnight he dyed her in her blood and incurred no guilt thereby." Even here his closest followers
were fully aware of Muhammad's methods and understood that murder was allowed for Islam. There is nothing to
refute that they had been murdering people all along, and Thabit rightly knew the she would be on Muhammad's
hit list quite shortly. And, true to form, Muhammad dispatched his followers to kill her.
Now, at first glance, this order to kill Asma might seem
justifiable to some. Asma was calling for someone to do away with Muhammad. But then, after all, he had been
murdering her friends. But from Muhammad's viewpoint it is understandable that he might be troubled by her
call. It is obvious that peaceful folks who are no threat to their neighbors normally have no reason to fear,
but Muhammad's followers were practicing a hard-ball form of religion with no room for dissent or opposition.
Today gang leaders, organized mobsters, drug cartels, and other criminal elements are similarly upset by
those that expose and speak out against their murderous activities.
So let's look deeper at the event and examine the context
of Asma's views, relationship to her tribe, and the threat she posed to Muhammad;
1. First, Asma had seen Muhammad in action. She had personal
knowledge of several apparent cold-blooded murders. Of course, it seems reasonable by western standards that
she should speak out against them.
2. Second, her tribe was not under Muhammad's rule. Perhaps they
had a treaty with Muhammad, perhaps not. Either way, this woman was apparently free by local laws and norms
to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and she was out of line, Muhammad could have complained to her
tribe's leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent or dealt with the situation.
3. What's more noteworthy about this event is that after she was
murdered, Muhammad said; "Two goats won't butt their head about her", meaning no one will care about her
death. Obviously at a minimum her children, her family, and her friends felt differently, but that did not
register as important to Muhammad any more than the value of her life as an unbeliever. Also note, that there
were already people from her tribe who had become Muslims. Certainly these people were not going to listen to
The summary of these three points is this: if no one of
significance really cared about her being murdered, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Her
people also knew about Muhammad having Abu Afak murdered, and they didn't care about that either. In that
light, it seems unlikely anyone would take her seriously enough to respond to her urgings to murder Muhammad,
who was the leader of a powerful group of people. None of her own people were willing to put their lives on
the line for her words. Although her stand seemed justified and principled, it had insufficient local
support, which Muhammad perceived.
The bottom line is that Asma b. Marwan was not a legitimate
threat to Muhammad. She was not a leader of her tribe and had little or no influence. As such she was neither
a physical threat nor wielded power to command followers. She was little more than a nuisance, yet Muhammad
had her murdered in premeditated cold blood anyway. It appears that both Asma and Abu Afak were killed simply
because they rejected Muhammad, and their deaths chronicled to serve as examples in order to dissuade other
would be critics. In our day, how would a society based on law and individual rights react to an organized
group who murder sleeping civilians for the reasons and purposes just outlined, and what would happen to the
leadership of that group?
INCIDENT # 3 – Muhammad’s Attack upon the
Jews of Banu Qaynuqa
Shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina he had conflict
with the Jews. There were a number of large and small tribes of Jews in and around Medina. The Banu Qaynuqa
Jews were one of the larger tribes. Muhammad desperately wanted the Jews to believe in him, but almost to the
man they refused. The more learned Jews perceived immediately that Muhammad’s claim of being a prophet did
not jibe with their traditions and earlier teachings of the prophets, and they quickly rejected him. Their
rejection undermined Muhammad's credibility because they had the "Scriptures" (i.e. Torah or Old Testament).
Thus, they were a threat to Muhammad and the theology he was in the process of establishing. From early on
there were very ill feelings between the Jews and Muhammad. As Muhammad's power grew he began to confront the
Tabari places this incident with the Banu Qaynuqa as
occurring in 2 AH. To set the stage, we will start with a quote from the esteemed collection of Hadith by
Imam Muslim. The name "Abu'l-Qasim" is another of Muhammad's names. To quote Sahih Muslim, op cit, Book 019,
Number 4363: [NOTE: words in parenthesis are from the translator - Ahmad
Muhammad wanted them to submit to him. Note that the Jews
rejected him and then how he threatened them: O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe
Notice how Muhammad’s declaration – "You should know that
the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle,". So now Muhammad believed he co-owned the entire world with God.
Some might say that his ego had already gotten the better of him. Also note that his intentions were well
known with them – "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should
expel you from this land." The enmity between them had grown and Muhammad was looking for a way to rid
himself of those disbelieving Jews that he considered a threat to his credibility.
The Banu Qaynuqa Jews were primarily goldsmiths, tradesman,
and craftsman. They were on his bad side and he waited for an opportunity to deal with them. He did not have
to wait long. His opportunity arose following a problem between some Muslims and Jews. There are a lot of
details surrounding this incident, but for length’s sake we will limit our presentation. This incident in and
of itself is a worthy subject for a separate in-depth investigation. However, what is important here is to
display yet another facet of Muhammad’s inclination to violence. Even at this stage of his ascent to power,
attacking and killing numerous innocent people seems well within his character. In the eyes of the devout
then and now, those that opposed or disagreed with Muhammad also opposed and disagreed with God, and thus
faced God’s wrath, expressed through Muhammad.
The entire set of details is not presented, save only those
that pertain to the point. However, the source references from which those interested may look them up for
study are; Sahih Muslim #4363, Guillaume, page 260, 364, 365, Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 32
The summary of the incident is as follows:
First, …Muhammad and the Qaynuqa were already at odds. They had rejected Muhammad and
resisted his demand that they acknowledge his prophethood. Instead they made fun of him and vexed him. They
treated him as some a false, ridiculous, egotistical man who claimed greatness and prophethood. Naturally,
Muhammad could not long tolerate them.
Then, …after Muhammad’s victory at Badr, he called the Qaynuqa Jews together and demanded
that they now acknowledge his prophethood, or, they would end up like the defeated Meccans (see the Sahih
Muslim quote above). The Jews still refused him, and stated they were ready to fight him if that was what he
wanted. Their fate was set with this refusal.
Shortly thereafter, an incident occurred in a market place
providing the convenient pretext for what was to follow. A Qaynuqa Jew played a bad joke upon a Muslim lady
leading to her humiliation. Her male companion killed the Jew. His friends in turn killed the Muslim. This
led to a confrontation between Muhammad and the Qaynuqa. Muhammad made no attempt to work things out with the
Jews. Rather he received a visitation from a spirit named "Gabriel" - the same spirit that visited him for
the first time in a cave (which caused Muhammad to attempt suicide). The timely "revelation" concerning those
Jews can be reviewed in Sura 3: 12, 13. During this visitation, the ever reliable Gabriel provided the
revelation Muhammad needed to avenge his rejection. The details come from the "Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir", op
cit, vol 2, page 32:
With the altercation in the market place and the script
from heaven, Muhammad now had full justification and divine permission from Allah to attack the Qaynuqa . He
therefore didn't feel the need to engage in any kind of negotiations to work out the problems with the Jews,
rather he immediately moved to rid himself of them. Muhammad besieged them for about fifteen days, and then
the Qaynuqa surrendered. Another key piece of additional piece of information is provided by Ibn
Another critical set of details, relative to my argument is provided from Guillaume, pages
There are a number of issues to be dealt with in relation
to this incident. As a side note it is interesting to look at the "pact/treaty" that the Muslim writers claim
to have existed between the various Jewish tribes and Muhammad. An analysis of this so-called "Charter of
Medina", or "treaty", done by A. Wensinch, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina"  page 70, reveals that this "treaty" was really more of an edict issued by Muhammad upon the
Jews, rather than what might today be considered a "treaty". Muhammad laid a burden of regulation upon the
Jews, which they had to accommodate, and with which they were apparently in full compliance. What is
important is that Muhammad was at odds with the Jews because they had rejected him, and after his victory at
Badr, Muhammad now felt confident that he could threaten, and then move against them, despite the earlier
assurances in the Charter made at a time when Muhammad's forces were less dominant.
Accordingly, one of the more questionable and ugly actions
committed by Muhammad against the Jews then occurred. The Jews shut themselves up in their fortress, then
succumbed to the siege and submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah and agreed that their property
would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them. They were undoubtedly
unhappy with both the earlier terms and the new surrender terms issued, but they resigned themselves to
follow the dictates of this man with his powerful forces arrayed against them.
The Jews surrendered to Muhammad expecting to be expelled
taking their families with them. However, as they surrendered, Muhammad ordered that their hands be tied
behind their backs. Muhammad was preparing to massacre the males! It seems that they surrendered expecting
acceptable terms, but now, when they were defenseless, Muhammad tied them up in preparation for wholesale
slaughter. Then, an interesting exchange takes place, which seems a blot to Muhammad's claim of
infallibility. A pagan confronts Muhammad and demands that the Jews not be massacred. Muhammad was challenged
by a pagan to not commit the evil act, and in response Muhammad grew angered to the point where it was
evident to all "shadows appeared upon his face". Tabari records:
So, we see a pagan apparently shaming Muhammad, a religious
man, to not carry out his brutal plan to murder 700 Jewish males. On this event alone, it could be argued
that the pagan had more human compassion and a stronger sense of right and wrong, which is to say that his
morality was superior to Muhammad's by any standard. Islam considers that when a young boy begins puberty,
that he is an adult, so these males were probably aged from 14 on up. Abd Allah was apparently a warlord or
mercenary who for political, military, and/or economic reasons allied himself with Muhammad's forces for this
campaign. It should be noted here that for whatever reason the pagan later wisely counted himself amongst the
'believers' (as apparently all who survived the march of Islam in those days did in order to survive and
prosper). His share of booty was undoubtedly increased in this and subsequent actions after his 'miraculous'
Another similar minor incident occurred between Ubayy and
Ubada Samit. From Sir William Muir's work "The Life of Muhammad"  chapter
13, we read:
Samit Ubada had an alliance with the Qaynuqa Jews. They had
stood together at one time, and shed blood to defend Ubada and his tribe, but, because of the conflict
between the Muslims and the Jews, Samit broke his alliance with the Jews. And, accordingly, there was yet
another "revelation" for Muhammad justifying and supporting this, which will be further addressed.
This incident is documented so readers do not think that
Muhammad only had a few people occasionally murdered. The record demonstrates that Muhammad was prepared to
eliminate anyone, individuals or entire tribes, who in Muhammad's mind opposed him. All that was needed was a
convenient event or any statement of opposition and the requisite revelation was generated to justify pulling
These events, chronicled as they are, leads to legitimate
1) If Muhammad and his followers were about peace, why didn't he try to
work things out between himself and the Jews? There was no diplomacy as it progressed from an incident, to a
"revelation," to an attack. Many nations and movements throughout history have suffered opposition from other
nations without going straight to war; rather the norm is to try to work out misunderstandings. If Muhammad
is an example for all mankind as claimed, why are his patience and peace making skills so terribly
2) Was it really necessary to eradicate an entire tribe of people over
an incident in which one Muslim was victimized after killing another? Is it reasonable that the most
prominent members of a ‘peaceful’ religion destroyed an entire tribe of people?
INCIDENT #4 – The Murder of Kab
Muhammad continued to have problems with various people
around Medina who refused to acknowledge his claim to prophethood. Kab Ashraf was a prominent local who made
it known that he did not believe in Muhammad. Kab never lifted a weapon against Muhammad (or any Muslim) he
only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and allegedly made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women.
Muhammad saw him as a threat, and therefore had him killed in the night. Tabari states that this murder took
place in 3 A.H.
The following is from Bukhari, op cit, volume 5 #369:
[Note, this is a very long Hadith, the actual killer is named Muhammad bin Maslama, but here we refer to him
simply as Maslama
Now to repeat the story, this time as told by Ibn Ishaq, op
cit, page 365;
Further note: On page 442 there is a descriptive poem part
of which deals with Kab’s murder. A Muslim composes the poem, which in part says:
"…By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by
Kab’s brother, to go to Kab
He beguiled him and brought him down with guile"
Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir provides us with yet
another interesting artifact related to this story. From the Tabaqat, vol 2, page 37: "Then they cut his head
and took it with them. ... they cast his head before him [Muhammad]. He (the prophet) praised Allah on his
Note what happened here. Ka'b encouraged Muhammad's
enemies, and made up some poems about Muslim women. Muhammad didn't like it, and had him murdered. To
accomplish their action against Kab, Muhammad allowed them to lie to Kab in order to get him to lower his
defenses and trust them. After they kill Ka'b, they behead him and brought the severed head to Muhammad. When
Muhammad sees his head, Muhammad praises God for Ka'b being slain! Some obvious questions come to
1) Did Muhammad abide by the treaty he had with the
Jews? Was it lawful to dispatch men to commit the murder of one of their leaders under cover of night using
deceit and cunning, or is no other law binding against the cause of Islam? If Kab were a real criminal,
couldn't Muhammad have dealt with him according to the local law or agreements he had with the
2) What are the implications for societies today? In
effect, do Muslims believe they can ignore local law and still murder in the night those who oppose them or
3) Are deceit and lies, when deployed against
non-believers in the violent advancement of Islam, still acceptable behavior today?
INCIDENT # 5 – The Murder of Ibn
Muhammad's problems with the various Jews were not over.
They had rejected him, which he could not tolerate. His animosity towards them seemed to be ever increasing.
Just after the murder of Kab Ashraf, and before the battle of Uhud (3 A.H.), Muhammad ordered his followers
to "kill any Jew that comes under your power". Anti-Semitism is defined as; "an intense dislike for and
prejudice against Jewish people". By that standard, Muhammad could be considered Islam's original
From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:
This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud
 Book 19, Number 2996:
Yet another murder committed upon Muhammad's command. Note
that Muhayyisa would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Here Muhammad’s ‘revelation’ and
directions are clear and unambiguous, ordering all his followers to wantonly murder any and all Jewish people
they may encounter. Hitler also did this, but in the name of Arian purity rather than in the name of a
‘religion of peace’.
A quote from an Islamic scholar – Wensinck, op cit, writes
in, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina", page 113:
Whether this is a display of the elastic conscience of a
loving, merciful, and forgiving God, or simply a display of the elasticity of Muhammad’s conscience is
certainly debatable. Without question though, there is indeed something unique about Muhammad’s conscience,
as was the case with so many other leaders in history who engaged in wholesale killings to advance a cause.
This incident shows that Muhammad had unsuspecting people, even those who had good relations with Muslims,
murdered in cold blood simply because they were Jewish. There was no other apparent justification to murder
these Jews other than they had chosen not to be Muhammad's followers. Undeniably the actions in this incident
were the work of Muhammad's executioner committing murder at his explicit instruction.
Perhaps the reader might wonder the about the purpose of
this incident being chronicled in the Islamic Holy works. The nature of the slaying, jumping upon an
employer, an apparent innocent man whose only sin was being a Jewish, after being explicitly incited by
Muhammad’s instructions appears particularly barbaric and cruel. But to Muslims this incident serves to
portray the conversion of the previously non-believing older brother, Huwayyisah. This story was archived not
to document this brutal murder per se, but because it serves as a powerful example of the correct treatment
of Jews. Apparently this is what passes for Islamic spirituality, implying that for some the path to
conversion comes after following Muhammad’s directions to kill unbelievers. One Muslim scholar I had an
exchange with on the matter made it very clear he believes the story is not so much a tale of the death of a
hapless Jew, but the wonderful conversion story of a brother which verifies to him that Allah is God. Of
course, Huwayyisah may have converted out of fear and respect for raw power, since at that time apparently it
was possible to kill non-believers indiscriminately, his brother having just mentioned he was prepared to do
INCIDENT # 6 – The Attack against the Banu
Similar to the attack on the Qaynuqa, the attack on the
Banu Nadir Jews arose from Muhammad's desire for an opportunity to move against those that rejected his
authority. Tabari states the attack occurred during year 4 from the Hijrah. This event, like the attack upon
the Qaynuqa has a large amount of detail, but we will only document the relevant portions for the argument at
hand. However, the following references are provided should the reader wish to review the entire
References: Tabari volume 7, page 156 ; Sahih Muslim, # 4324, 4347; Sunan of Abu Dawud, #
2676; Ibn Ishaq "Sirat Rasulallah" (translated by A. Guillaume) "The Life of Muhammad", pages 265 & 437 ;
Ibn Sa'd's, "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", Volume 2, pages 68-71;
"The Life of Muhammad", by Muir, found:
The Jews said this because previously Muhammad had told his
men that they were not to destroy food trees. But here, the Jews saw that Muhammad contradicted himself and
went against his own teachings. As a response, Muhammad has yet another timely revelation:
Tabari, op cit, volume 7, page 158 provides more
And an interesting verse is now revealed from The Sunan of
Abu Dawud, op cit, Book 14, Number 2676. Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
In "The Qur’an and Its Interpreters"  volume 1, pages 252- 256, by Muhammad Ayoub, there are several differing Tafsir presented on
this verse. Ayoub presents Wahidi's tafsir. Wahidi relates on the authority of Sa'id ibn Jubayr, who related
it on the authority of Ibn Abbas:
While Ayoub presents other tafsir on this verse, some of
them supporting the concept that people are not to be forced into Islam, the only Hadith from a Sahih
collection that I've found is the one above. And that context has nothing to do with not forcing people into
Islam; rather, it allows captured Jews some limited family options. There will be more on this
INCIDENT # 7 - The Murder of the
From Guillaume, op cit, page 673 an incident is detailed as
occurring in 4 A.H. It involves another Muslim man named Amr Umayya, who was sent out by Muhammad to murder
Muhammad's enemy Abu Sufyan. However, their 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:
So, Muhammad blessed one of his men who brutally murdered a
one-eyed shepherd while he slept. This shepherd did not assail Muhammad, but he did not believe in him. The
shepherd did not invoke war against Muhammad. However, he wanted the freedom to choose his own faith and way,
and he rejected Muhammad. Apparently Umayya was determined not to return empty handed following his failure
to murder the individual Muhammad targeted, and his selection of the handicapped Shepherd appears to be a
random accident. So we see another person who didn't want to follow Muhammad, and another justified murder -
simply for casually mentioning without malice that he did not intend to follow Muhammad. Muhammad's trail of
blood continued to grow, a pattern very familiar to all who followed him then and now.
Although with the citations in Appendix A and these descriptions we have covered a lot, we have not covered all of the Qur’an’s
verses related to Jihad, nor have we covered all of Muhammad's violent actions. However, it should be obvious
that shortly after Muhammad's arrival in Medina, the concept of shedding the blood of those that opposed or
refused Muhammad's rule was justified and ordained. Thus as soon as Muhammad had military power to force his
will on others he began to put it to use, to spread his domination by any and all means available to
So far we've seen that Muhammad had people murdered, and
that he even had whole tribes eliminated. Mothers, old men, friendly non-Muslim businessmen, handicapped
shepherds, critics, all fell to his sword. He even would have massacred the adult males of an entire tribe of
Jews, had not a pagan stopped him. Likewise he told another tribe (Banu Nadir) that they had ten days to
leave or they would be beheaded. He allowed his followers to lie and deceive his enemies to murder them.
We've seen him destroy the financial wealth of a tribe in order to defeat them. And those that followed
Muhammad betrayed and broke former allegiances with friends and tribes in order to act against
After reading thus far, what should we think? Is it
becoming clearer why there are so many devout Muslims who also espouse violent methods against non-brothers?
Is it also becoming obvious why most Muslim peoples and nations are so feeble in their efforts to stop the
extremists amongst them? In fact, the fastest and perhaps only way for Muslim terrorists in our day to be
truly defeated, would be for them to first lose their grass-root local support, and then to be turned upon by
'peaceful' Islam, … but it appears that would be contrary to the teachings and philosophies of Muhammad.
Unfortunately, if true Islam deep down actually supports the twisted rationalization behind terrorism, then
our hope for effective help from the Muslim community in the war on terror is not likely to be realized. The
sad fact is that many ‘moderate’ true believers are content to support others to sacrifice themselves in
Jihad and hope that their tactic support is sufficient to earn themselves a ticket to paradise riding the
coattails of the martyrs. Additionally, to oppose Jihadist warriors is to guarantee a very unpleasant ticket
to a fiery Muslim Hell, and out of fear few Muslims are willing to take that risk.
Now we continue our review of Muhammad’s actions. Talk is
very cheap, lets review more of what Muhammad actually did as he came into power?
INCIDENT #8 - Muhammad's Massacre of the
Muhammad lived among various Jewish tribes. He had issued
an injunction or edict towards them where he expected them to fulfill certain conditions related to living in
Medina. One of these was that the Jews were not to help Muhammad's enemies.
During A.H. 5, (i.e. 626, 627 A.D.), an important siege /
battle took place, "The Battle of the Trench". During this time, Muhammad's enemies (Meccans and their
allies), negotiated with the Jews of the tribe of Banu Qurayza to aid them against Muhammad. In the end the
Jews did not betray Muhammad and did not allow the Quraysh to use their land to launch an attack, and they
did not participate in any attack against Muhammad. Certainly they were not Muhammad's best friends, having
seen the brutalities and murders he had carried out against so many of their own people, but they obviously
feared the political/military realities after the Quraysh army departed, and did not want to be Muhamads
The Quraysh eventually lifted the siege and returned to
their homes. Following that, Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel came to him and ordered him to attack
the Banu Qurayza. (Notice that it is this spirit "Gabriel" at work again, motivating Muhammad to attack). By
this point in time the Muslims were aware that the Qurayza negotiated with the Quraysh. Though the
negotiations did not result in the feared alliance, still they were of great concern to the Muslims and
incited hatred towards the Jews, so refusal of the Quraysh to participate in action against Muhammad was
about to be rewarded Islamic style. Sa'd Muadh, one of Muhammad's top lieutenants, who was severely wounded
during the Battle of the Trench, proclaimed that he did not want to die until he had seen the Jews destroyed.
As the confrontation began, a Muslim who was on good terms with the Qurayza told them that Muhammad intended
to massacre the Jews.
Eventually, the Jews could not hold out and they
surrendered, probably assuming their non aggressive stand during the battle of the Trench would prevent them
from receiving a fate worse than previous cities he had conquered. By the time they realized their peril, it
was too late, they were without weapons and their hands were bound behind their backs. Muhammad picked out
one of his men to judge their fate: the very same Sa'd Muadh, who had made the previously mentioned death
declaration, of which undoubtedly Muhammad was aware. Sa'd proclaimed that the adult males (any teenage boy
who had started puberty) were to be beheaded, and, the woman and children enslaved. Thus Muhammad massacred
800 prisoners of war and enslaved their women and children.
The Sirat Rasulallah, op cit, page 464, records what one of
the Jewish leaders said:
Muhammad massacred 800 men, not for making war upon him,
not for aiding his enemies, but only because they were a threat to his further aims. They had rejected
Muhammad and Islam, and they would not follow him as a prophet. Consequently, they would have to be removed.
At this point in time, there were no more pagan leaders to plead for these Jews (as Ubayy had done for the
Qaynuqa). There were no more Jewish tribes or allies nearby to lend them a hand, (they had all been
expelled). Now Muhammad was free to do what appears he intended from the beginning: massacre those who
threatened him and/or refused to become his followers.
Apparently some of these Jews were given the option of
becoming Muslims but they refused. From the only records available, only four Jews are recorded as having
converted - obviously to save their own lives. The Jews believed Muhammad was a false prophet, hence their
leader accepted their massacre instead of yielding to him.
Edward Gibbon, in his classic history, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" described the aftermath of the assault:
Gibbon was a respected historian and not some Zionist. But
even the Arab's own historians make no pretensions about their military conquests. There was no benevolence
or spreading enlightenment as a motivation. It was all about rape and plunder. The History of Al-Tabari (pg.
166, 175), written in the 10th century clearly outlines the slaughter and pillaging and rapacious motivations
of these forces. Even in recent history, the Arab tribes under the direction of Lawrence of Arabia weren't
motivated to attack the Turks for anything other than simple plunder and gold.
INCIDENT #9 - The Torture and Death of
Previously we learned that Muhammad attacked the Jewish
settlement of Khaibar following the treaty of Hudaybiyya. One particularly heinous incident among several
stand out. Here is the material.
On page 515 of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", (The Life of
the Prophet of God), the events of the conquest of Khaibar are detailed. This event occurred about 3 years
before Muhammad's death due to poisoning. Khaibar was a large Jewish settlement about 95 miles north of
Medina. The Jews there were primarily farmers. Khaibar was known to have some of the best date palms in the
region. The Jews there were well to do because they had worked hard and earned it. They had good relations
with the surrounding tribes of pagans, Christians, and Jews.
Prior to Muhammad's conquest of Khaibar, the Meccans had
just stopped him from performing a pilgrimage to Mecca. Outside of Mecca, he also signed a humiliating treaty
with the Meccans - a treaty that a number of his leading followers didn't like. This humiliated and
embarrassed Muhammad and his followers, who then sought redemption in a different course of action.
Apparently to placate his men, Muhammad claimed to have a "revelation" that God would give them the
possessions of the Jews of Khaibar. Six weeks later he marched on Khaibar with the intent to conquer and
Many might find Muhammad's orders to torture Kinana to
obtain "buried treasure" similar to what criminals do to obtain people's money or possessions. It is not
difficult to picture organized crime figures beating some one or torturing them to make them talk. "Talk!,
tell us where the money is!, or we'll make your pain even worse!". Finally, when he is near death, Muhammad
has his head cut off. It appears that Muhammad's greed drove him to torture and then murder, for the sole
purpose to obtain money.
Think about Muhammad's statement, "Torture him until you
extract what he has". This is the prophet of Islam in action when he now has the power of the sword with no
threat of external consequence. What kind of a man is this prophet of Islam, and what does this say about the
people who choose to follow him, as all who do must also choose to justify and support all his deeds.
Millions have gone to their death unwilling to risk their eternity on the man, but an even greater number
have hitched their wagons to his destiny. It's an age-old dilemma and choice still being forced on many
throughout the world today.
INCIDENT #10 - The Murder of a Slave Wife
This incident involves a Muslim man who murdered his own
slave wife and mother of his children. From the Hadith of Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348: Narrated Abdullah
To continue to quote from Abu Dawud. Note #3800
We see that Muhammad allowed people to murder others simply
for insulting him. Here, a slave woman, who was used as a concubine by her Muslim master, paid for her
criticism of Muhammad with her life. The man murdered the mother of two of his children apparently in the
presence of his young, and when the prophet hears of it he makes a special effort to sanction and justify the
brutal act. It seems the opportunity to establish fear in the hearts of all should they disparage Muhammad
simply could not be passed up.
Now then, was that slave a threat? Were Muslims going to
leave Islam because of a slave women's criticism? Of course not, she was only an irritant to her husband. But
Muhammad could not long tolerate any personal criticism. His ego could not allow his credibility undermined
by anyone, no matter how insignificant and powerless, so he allowed and encouraged his followers to murder
anyone who expressed different views. This incident also shows that Muhammad allowed his followers to even
murder members of their own families.
INCIDENT #11 - The Murder of the Old Woman
The incident involves the actions of Muslims who were sent
out by Muhammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Muslims were initially defeated in their first
encounter with the Fazara. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and
attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account from Guillaume, op cit, and
Here, Muhammad's companions went out and attacked people,
took some prisoners, then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These men were so
destitute of basic human values, that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! One wonders how many
Muslims are intimately acquainted with the record of brutal killings Muhammad himself did or explicitly
ordered, sanctioned, and justified. Muhammad and his followers seemed every bit as brutal as the worst
humanity has ever produced.
INCIDENT #12 - The Murder of Abdullah
Khatal and his Daughter
The incident involves another slave woman who was murdered,
upon Muhammad's command because she had mocked Muhammad some time earlier. From Guillaume, op cit, page 550,
Let's pause and examine this paragraph. Muhammad ordered
that an apostate man and his two slave girls to be killed. Khatal was ordered killed, not because he killed
his Muslim male slave, but because he apostatized. Islamic law does not allow a Muslim man to be put to death
for killing a slave. Muhammad also ordered two slave girls to be killed for singing satirical songs about
him. They sung satirical songs about Muhammad probably at least a year or more earlier. Now, after Muhammad
conquered Mecca, it was his time to pay those slave girls back. These slave girls were not threats to Islam,
or to the new Islamic State, they were only simple slave girls. They were ordered executed only because they
sang a silly song about Muhammad. Page 551 finishes the story of the slave girls:
Needless to say, if the second slave girl did not ask for
immunity, Muhammad would have had her murdered also. Muhammad had her sister killed just for poking a little
fun of him in song. A sense of humor was apparently not one of Muhammad's strong suits.
INCIDENT #13 - Muhammad's Attack upon
There are many, many, violent incidents that could be drawn
from. We conclude the incidents section with this event because it shows Muhammad's beliefs regarding Jihad
and his mission of conquest for Islam. In one of his latest acts, it seems clear that Muhammad had no
intention of living peacefully, side by side with non-Muslims, even with those who were far from his
community's borders. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that non-Muslims were his enemies because they
had rejected him. As recorded in the Qur’an, non-Muslims had these options: become Muslim, pay extortion tax,
or fight and die.
Muhammad heard the Romans were going to attack him. He
marshaled 30,000 of his troops and they went north to the town of Tabuk to do battle with the Romans.
However, upon arriving, they found that there was no threat at all. Instead, Muhammad sent a detachment to
Ayla, to give them the aforementioned options: convert, pay the Jizya extortion tax, or die. The Christian
leader there decided to pay tribute. Details of the incident can be reviewed at
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap28.htm, from which the following is extracted:
Think about what exactly is being said here; Do what me and
my associates tell you, give us your finest merchandise, If my men are happy, I'm happy, pay me the money and
you'll be protected, upset me or them and your family will not be safe. Frankly, Muhammad's words to John ibn
Rabah read like a script strait from The Godfather.
Summary of these 13 actions by Muhammad:
We see how Muhammad's attack upon these people demonstrate
his commitment to the teachings in Sura 9; "Make war upon the Christians and Jews, unless they convert or pay
the extortion." Real Islam, Muhammad's Islam, is clearly taught in the Qur’an, and demonstrated by Muhammad's
actions. Muhammad's actions speak loudly here. Committed near the end of his life, they clearly portray what
he wanted his followers to continue to do: attack and conquer non-Muslim people. The vast majority of Islamic
theologians today understand amongst themselves that these final acts and teachings abrogate all earlier more
conciliatory verses. The fear of many is that the earlier more tolerant versus are repeated for western
consumption only, so that the frog might not notice how hot the pot is becoming until it is too
Documentation shows many more people suffered a similar
fate, but here is a summary of the 9 individual murders committed upon Muhammad's requests or efforts just
1) Abu Afak, a 120-year-old man, murdered while he slept.
2) Asma Marwan, mother of five, murdered while she slept.
3) A slave women and mother of two, murdered while she slept.
4) A one-eyed shepherd, murdered while he slept.
5) A very old women, ripped in half by Muslims who captured her on a raid.
6) A slave girl, who was murdered because she poked fun at Muhammad.
7) Murder of Kab Ashraf, a prominent local who did not believe in Muhammad.
8) Murder of Ibn Sunayna (Jewish merchant on good social/business terms with
9) The torture and death of Kinana, to extract money.
If these descriptions shock the reader, consider that we
can present these stories from the only source available … the 'Islamic friendly'
written history of the events. Now there are always two sides to every story, but the victims' side of these
incidents is simply not available, so the full story can never be known. One can only imagine just how far
the truth may have been massaged to make the official record more palatable, or what additional important
information has been omitted. The only thing that is certain is that the official account was never at risk
of being challenged … dead people generally don't talk very much. No one knows what other factors were at
play beyond the data presented by those who wrote such history, but if we had the power to interview the
victims and get their perspective on the events, they could easily turn out to be even more deplorable,
gross, and inhumane. Even so, to most reasonable people, no further information is needed to deplore the
actions of Muhammad and his followers in relation to these events.
One is also left wondering how many completely undocumented
events may have not quite made it into the official record for reasons unknown. The question naturally
arises, did all war-like and murderous actions of Muhammad and his close lieutenants get chronicled in the
sacred works? Certainly we do not have an hour by hour accounting of the all Jihadic actions of the man and
his people, and considering the ‘inspirational’ events that were chronicled, one can only imagine how many
and what manner of horrific events occurred but were never documented. A study of more recent Islamic Jihadic
relationships with her neighbors may help fill in the holes left by the Islamic writers.
History is written from the vantage point of the dominant
victorious culture, and revisionist history seems a favorite pastime of Islamic scholars. Of course, most
Muslims would be terribly offended at the suggestion that Islamic history may be slanted, but before you
dismiss the possibility out of hand, consider Muslim revisionist history being written today. Amongst Muslims
today there is a widespread belief that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy exists whose goal is to dominate the
world, the outgoing Malaysian prime minister just stated that and received the applause of Muslim leaders
worldwide. A book long since exposed plainly as pure fiction, Protocols of the Elders
of Zion was initially spread by the intelligence services of the Russian czar in 1895. Leaders and lay
alike in the Muslim world believe the work contains the actual minutes of conspiratorial meetings among
Jewish leaders, who were plotting to take over the world. The book is gospel truth to these people, and no
amount of logic or rational argument can steer those who believe this type of nonsense away from it. Even
three years after 9/11, most in the Muslim Middle East, including the most educated and most intelligent,
actually believe that Mossad (Israel's intelligence service) carried out the September 11 attacks on America.
Then there is Monsieur Meysson who wrote a bestseller in France that claims no
airplane crashed into the Pentagon, because no debris from the crash was ever found. To his mind, it was all
a plot by the CIA and the U.S. military, who used an U.S. Air Force cruise missile to murder Americans in a
conspiracy to justify a new Middle East war. Arab countries also regularly host conferences where Holocaust
deniers masquerading as historians claim to be able to "prove" there was no massacre of Jews by the Nazis
during World War II. Many Muslims worldwide praise Hitler for his services, yet almost in the same breath
deny the Holocaust as "a big illusion of the Jews". Despite a history printing articles denouncing the
holocaust as a farce, the second most influential Egyptian daily newspaper, Al-Akhbar, printed on April 18,
2001: "Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the
Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the
fact that the vengeance was insufficient". Spin and violence seem the chief export of Islam, and simple
reverse extrapolation using this kind of empirical data supports the suggestion there was much more murder
and mayhem committed by Muhammad and his followers than Islamic scripture documents.
Previously it was mentioned we would review the actions of
some of Muhammad’s closest companions, particularly the four known as the "rightly guided" caliphs. Following
Muhammad’s death these men reigned over the Islamic empire, each one after the death of the previous one.
These men are: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (Muhammad’s son-in-law). Below is a brief timeline of some of
their actions and conquests. We can not detail all their military actions here, as they are much too
numerous. They ruled during a period of great Islamic expansion over other peoples and lands, and their
writings describing the conflicts and glorious conquest are the quite prolific. This information is drawn
from various volumes of the History of Tabari, op cit, the "History of Islam", by Robert Payne
, and "Jihad", by Paul Fregosi . These
books will provide a more complete account of the Caliphs Islamic crusades. Of important significance it
should be noted that all these conquests were not defensive in nature, but offensive. These men were
conquering the world for Islam – exactly as Muhammad instructed. We should also add that during Ali’s reign
Islamic conquest paused slightly. The Islamic empire experienced its first civil wars during Ali’s reign. All
this occurred within a generation of Muhammad’s death.
Note that these men are correctly called ‘rightly guided’,
as opposed to ‘wrongly guided’. This is because of the universal recognition that they always acted in full
compliance of true Islam as guided by Muhammad’s final clear teachings and example. A review of history
reveals conclusively that they followed their prophets’ instructions to the letter in advancing Islam through
military conquest …through Jihad.
ABU BAKR’S REIGN
During Ali’s reign there were two civil wars. The first
Islamic civil war occurred between Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, and Aisha, Abu Bakr’s daughter (a child
Muhammad consummated a marriage with when she was 9 years old). 13,000 Muslims died killing each other as Ali
defeated Aisha. Not long thereafter Ali fought Muwawiyya, Abu Sufyan’s son. Muwawiyya was appointed governor
of Damascus / Syria, and moved against Ali to take power. In the end, Ali won out as the two sides negotiated
a peace of some sorts. Not long afterwards, Ali was murdered by Muslims, as was Uthman prior to him, and also
Umar who was killed by a slave. In any case, after the ‘rightly guided Caliphs had all met untimely violent
deaths through murder and assassination, Muwawiyya then assumed power as Caliph.
As you can tell from that brief chronological summary, the
Caliphs made war as aggressively as any conquering nation or people in human history. They went on conquest
after conquest. The message the rightly guided leaders imposed with the sword at their hands was the same as
Muhammad’s: convert, pay extortion taxes, or die. Islam, real Islam, their Islam, was a religion of war,
oppression, and conquest.
Below are Hadith dealing with the conquests and subjections of the Caliphs.
Bukhari 4.386: Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0029:
A Banquet of Hadith (which deals
with Jihad and aggressive Islamic violence). We’ve examined many verses from the Qur’an, and associated
context from Sira and Hadith, along with commentary from Islamic scholars regarding violence and Jihad. We
also put together a list of violent incidents that demonstrate various facets of Islamic Jihad. Below is a
selection of Hadiths regarding violence and Jihad to widen the reader’s understanding of Islamic Jihad and
violence. In some cases the Hadith is not quoted in full because of the length. Most of these hadith are
available on the Internet and can be downloaded for further review. [NOTE. Most of
these Hadith come from the collections of Bukhari and Muslim. These two collections are regarded as
absolutely reliable and truthful to the Sunni branch of Islam (85% of the Islamic world is Sunni). The
collection of Abu Dawud is also held is high esteem, but not as highly as the other two].
Sahih Muslim, Book 7, Number 3200:
Sahih Bukhari, 4.175: Narrated Khalid bin Madan:
Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:
The following deals with the permissibility of killing
women and children in the night raids (provided it is not deliberate):
Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321:
Bukhari 4.256: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4645:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4646:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4681:
Bukhari, 4.266A: Narrated Salim Abu An-Nadr:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4597:
Bukhari 4. 79: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4626:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4652:
Bukhari 4.177: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Bukhari 4.180: Narrated Abu Huraira:
(The text note says these people are the Turks).
Bukhari 4.355: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari:
Bukhari 4. 41: Narrated Abdullah bin Masud:
Bukhari 4.792: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Bukhari 1.387: Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635: Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
Bukhari 5.568: Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
Bukhari 5.641: Narrated Jarir:
Bukhari 5.716: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2478: Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2493: Narrated Abu Malik al-Ash'ari:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2496: Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2506: Narrated Abu Ayyub:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2631: Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2632: Narrated Salamah ibn al-Akwa':
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664: Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
Islamic leaders and politicians constantly tell us in
English that "Islam is a peaceful religion", but one can’t help wondering if they would say it quite so often
if they were absolutely sure it was true.
massacres in Muslim history: Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified on
December 30, 1066 by an Arab mob, who then proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its
5,000 inhabitants. Apparently, Muslim preachers objecting
angrily to what they saw was inordinate Jewish political power, so they incited the riot. Similarly, in 1465,
Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a
Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout
Morocco. Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole
communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads
either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered
hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where
more than three hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.
Decrees were issued and ordering the destruction of
synagogues in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Jews were
forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465, 1790-92) and Baghdad
(1333, 1344). Some escaped, but the Jews of Arabia who remained were pretty much completely wiped out.
Islamic revisionists claim they were killed because they were literally asking for it, is their apologetic
rubbish propaganda. These Islamic revisionists (Islamaniacs) claim that the Jews demanded it as per their own
law. I mean, that’s like the Nazis claiming they were only accommodating the Jews demand to get warm by the
ovens. Like Goebbels said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is for others to believe it.
Between 1894-96, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000
(dhimmi) Christian Armenians, followed by the first formal genocide of the 20th century, in 1915, at which
time they slaughtered an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians. Contemporary accounts from European
diplomats confirm that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal Jihad against the
Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy.
Regarding the 1894-96 massacres, the Turkish-speaking interpreter of the British embassy reported:
The scholar Bat Ye’or confirms this reasoning, noting that
the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their "legal status," which involved a "contract" (i.e., with
their Muslim Turkish rulers).
Jihad was a key aspect of pre-modern (pre
20th century) Muslim life. According to one calculation, Muhammad himself
engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the
prophet's death, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Though such a
dramatic single expansion was never again to be repeated, important victories in subsequent centuries
included the seventeen Indian campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazna (998-1030), the battle of Manzikert opening
Anatolia (1071), the conquest of Constantinople (1453), and the triumphs of Uthman dan Fodio in West Africa
(1804-1817). In brief, jihad as a doctrine and practice was fully integrated into pre-modern Muslim life. The
decisive turning point in the Western Europe’s long struggle against pre-modern Islamic conquerors came on
the afternoon of Sept. 12, 1683, during the last Turkish siege of Vienna. The ever-heroic Poles marched to
save Vienna while the French (surprise!) and other Europeans looked away. Louis XIV
and his Frenchmen had cut a deal with the sultan, because in their view humbling the rival Habsburgs trumped
the fate of Western civilization (sound familiar?). But led by the valiant King Jan
Sobieski, severely outnumbered Polish hussars - the finest cavalry Europe ever produced - charged into the
massed Ottoman ranks with lowered lances and a wild battle cry. On that fateful afternoon, the Polish cavalry
struck the Turkish lines with such force that 2,000 lances shattered. The charge stunned the Ottoman army,
and a hundred thousand Turks ran for the Danube. No massed army from the Islamic world has since posed such
an organized threat to the West. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna, over a
millennium of jihad had transpired. These tremendous military successes spawned many triumphant Islamic
literary writings exalting Jihadic crusades. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels
slain or enslaved, the cities and villages which were pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods
seized. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), as well as Hebrew sources, and even the
scant Hindu and Buddhist writings that survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate
this narrative and complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the
non-Muslim victims of jihad wars.
In the following chronology, note how closely Islam’s
inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 major military conflicts
involving the Muslims…. Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace, but all historical facts seem to
discredit that claim rather convincingly.
570 – Birth of Muhammad in Mecca.
577 – Muhammad’s mother dies.
595 – Muhammad marries, starts to have children.
605 – Placement of Black Stone in Ka’aba.
610 – Mohammed, in a cave, hears an angel tell him that Allah is the only true
613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few
615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha.
620 – Institution of five daily prayers.
622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, gets more converts.
623 – Battle of Waddan.
623 – Battle of Safwan.
623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir.
624 – Raids on caravans to fund the movement begin.
624 – Zakat becomes mandatory.
624 – Battle of Badr (see chapter on Badr).
624 – Battle of Bani Salim.
624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr & Zakat-ul-Fitr.
624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’.
624 – Battle of Sawiq.
624 – Battle of Ghatfan.
624 – Battle of Bahran.
625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.
625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad.
625 – Battle of Banu Nudair.
625 – Battle of Dhatur-Riqa.
626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra.
626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal.
626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah.
627 – Battle of the Trench.
627 – Battle of Ahzab.
627 – Battle of Bani Quraiza.
627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan.
627 – Battle of Ghaiba.
627 – Battle of Khaibar.
628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quarish. (The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement was signed for a period of 10 years, which became
the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims. The agreement was broken after 18 months when Muhammad’s
army conquered Mecca)
630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca (Quarish).
630 – Battle of Hunsin.
630 – Battle of Tabuk.
632 – Muhammad dies. …The reign of the Caliphs begins.
632 – Abu-Bakr (Muhammad’s father-in-law) along with Umar, begin a military move to
enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 – Battle at Oman.
633 – Battle at Hadramaut.
633 – Battle of Kazima.
633 – Battle of Walaja.
633 – Battle of Ulleis.
633 – Battle of Anbar.
634 – Battle of Basra.
634 – Battle of Damascus.
634 – Battle of Ajnadin.
634 – Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 – Battle of Namaraq.
634 – Battle of Saqatia.
635 – Battle of Bridge.
635 – Battle of Buwaib.
635 – Conquest of Damascus.
635 – Battle of Fahl.
636 – Battle of Yermuk.
636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 – Conquest of Madain.
637 – Battle of Jalula.
638 – Battle of Yarmouk.
638 – The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 – Conquest of Jazirah.
639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 – Battle of Nihawand.
642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia.
643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan.
644 – Conquest of Fars.
644 – Conquest of Kharan.
644 – Umar is murdered. Othman becomes Caliph.
647 – Conquest of Cypress island.
644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 – Byzantine campaign begins.
651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.
654 – Islam spreads into North Africa.
656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali becomes Caliph.
658 – Battle of Nahrawan.
659 – Conquest of Egypt.
661 – Ali is murdered.
662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims.
677 – Siege of Constantinople.
687 – Battle of Kufa.
691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq.
700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.
700 – Military campaigns in North Africa.
702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira.
711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar.
711 – Conquest of Spain.
713 – Conquest of Multan.
716 – Invasion of Constantinople.
732 – Battle of Tours in France.
740 – Battle of the Nobles.
741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa.
744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha.
748 – Battle of Rayy.
749 – Battle of lsfahan.
749 – Battle of Nihawand.
750 – Battle of Zab.
772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa.
777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain.
As this chronology shows, in the 7th century A.D.
Muhammad’s Bedouins defeated the Persian and eastern Roman empires, and conquered the Middle East, North
Africa, and Spain. This period, referred to as Islam’s ‘golden years’, is what many Muslims aspire to be
restored. The invaders eventually were stopped in the east in 718 at the city walls of Constantinople, and in
the west in 732 some 200 miles from Paris. There followed another thousand years of seesaw wars on sea and
land before the last Middle Eastern attack on a major European city, Vienna, which was repulsed in 1683.
Those who expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam’s founding
in the 7th century, expect them to jettison core values of their faith - something for which there is no
precedent in Islamic history. Although nowadays nothing seems less tolerated than pessimism, yet in relation
to Islam this attitude is in fact simply just realism. While Muslims in the West live in peace, prosperity
and religious liberty, Christians and other Infidels in Muslim lands have been, are now, and will continue to
be persecuted, driven out, killed, or forced to convert and call themselves Muslims.
Undeniably, Christians have in the past also committed
despicable acts in the name of their religion, and in recent history the Serbia conflicts and the
Protestant-Catholic Northern-Ireland clashes stand out as examples. Detractors will continue to try to
deflect criticism by pointing out such hatred and violence conducted in the name of Christianity. Though it
is true that there has been many atrocities committed by misguided Christians (Spanish Inquisition, the Salem
witch-hunts, and others), do not lose focus on the problem at hand today. Remember all those atrocities are
diametrically opposed with Christian scripture and philosophy where the greatest commandment was affirmed by
Christ to be:
So the basic tenet of the Christian faith is that people
are the children of God, created in His image, and are all of value to Him. The basic tenet of Islam is that
some people are chosen by God to be Muslim, but the rest are -not- the people of
God, and that a Muslims duty is to expedite Allah’s plan for non-believers to be converted …or dispatched to
hell! There are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between Christian crimes and the
acts committed in Islam’s name. The first difference is that the unfortunate events
were limited in both time and scope …they had an end. The second distinction is
that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation its scriptural
teaching (the words and example of Christ), not in fulfillment of it, as in Muhammad’s Islam. The
third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist
acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes.
Shortly after Mohammed's death, the warriors of Islam
struck out against Christians with enormous energy. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt -- once the most heavily
Christian areas in the world -- quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of
Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern
Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The Byzantine Empire was reduced to little more
than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe
asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. The ‘Crusades’ were the response to that desperate
Due to disinterest, ignorance, and the tendency of Western
societies toward excessive self-criticism, misconceptions about the Crusades remain common. Generally
portrayed as a series of unprovoked holy wars against Islam, they are supposed to have been the epitome of
self-righteousness and intolerance -- a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and
Western Christian civilization in general. Since September 11, variations of this theme have been used to
explain -- even justify -- Muslim terror against the West. Former president Bill Clinton himself, in a speech
at Georgetown University, fingered Muslim anger at the Crusades as the "root cause" of the present
But the truth is that the Crusades were not religiously
inspired unprovoked aggressions intended to forcibly convert the non-Christian world. In A Concise History of the Crusades, by renowned medieval historian Thomas F. Madden, the record is
set straight. The Crusades, he shows, were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope, nor were they inspired by
opportunistic, cold-blooded plundering knights. What they were was a much delayed response to more than four
centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two thirds of what was the old Christian world.
At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The
Crusades were that defense. The story of the Crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances -- they
were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.
The Crusades did not accomplish their objectives, and
unfortunately the end of the medieval Crusades and withdrawal of the Christian forces did not bring an end to
Muslim Jihad. Islamic states like Mamluk Egypt continued to expand in size and power, and the Ottoman Turks
built the largest and most awesome state in Muslim history. The Ottoman Turks proceeded to not only conquered
their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing
Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. Under Suleiman the Magnificent the Turks came within a
hair's breadth of capturing Vienna, which would have left all of Germany at their mercy. At that point
Crusades were no longer waged to rescue Jerusalem, but Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were
no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of
Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its
aim of conquering the entire Christian world. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not
for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery,
it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city.
It is often asserted that Crusaders were merely mercenaries
and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a far away land. Recent
scholarship has demolished that contrivance. The truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder.
A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing. It is also often assumed that a central
goal of the Crusades was the forced conversion of the Muslim world to Christianity, but nothing could be
further from the truth. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their
property and livelihood, and always their religion. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans
began conversion efforts among Muslims, but those efforts were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In
any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.
Although there were undoubtedly opportunist bad-apples in
the barrel, the typical Crusade soldier was motivated by the same spirit that drives the US today, the spirit
of freedom and self-determination, the desire to live free of the horrors faced by non-Muslims in Muslim
lands. They were defending their families, communities, and friends under siege as are we. Whether we admire
the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts.
Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into
"When accusing the West of imperialism, Muslims are obsessed with the Christian Crusades
but have forgotten their own, much grander Jihad. In fact, they often denounce the Crusades as the cause and
starting point of the antagonism between Christianity and Islam. They are putting the cart before the horse.
The Jihad is more than four hundred years older than the Crusades". – Paul Fregosi, Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the
The Qur’an’s View toward Christians and Jews:
Muhammad’s actions against the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, the
Banu Nadir Jews, the Qurayza Jews, and several individuals identified as Jewish in the Qur’an have been
previously chronicled and will not be repeated here.
An important principal in the Qur’an holds that humanity is
divided according to a strict hierarchy of worth. The "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) come in
behind all other Muslims, including Women and slaves, but they do come in slightly ahead of Pagans,
Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists and others who are regarded as worthless and having no soul. In fact
Muslims are forbidden to even have Jewish or Christian friends, which will be further studied in the chapter
"The Psychology of Jihad".
With quotes referencing Christians and Jews from the Qur’an
like: – "Worst of Creatures, Perverse, and Friends of Satan", it seems impossible
to characterize Islam as tolerant and harmless. By one widely accepted definition of a ‘Religion’
("An organization dedicated to raising the spiritual awareness, the moral standards,
the civil conduct and actions of its members, and in improving peaceful relationships with all others"),
Islam seems to fall well short of qualifying. Clearly early Islam was neither harmless nor tolerant of
non-believers. Intolerance seems the cruel norm in Islamic societies throughout history, while tolerance,
charity and kindness towards different cultures and religions is glaringly absent. The fruits of orthodox
Islam are bitter indeed, and it is by their fruits that they can and should be judged.
Christians and Jews then and now hold a special place in
Islamic theology. In the end, they were regarded with contempt by Muhammad, and were presented in a hateful
manner in the Qur’an and in modern Islamic theology today. The final direction appears to be this; When
Muslims have the upper hand, they are not to seek peace, instead they are expected to be ruthless in the
continued destruction of all their enemies.
The final words reported from the mouth of the dying
Muhammad were a curse on the favored ‘People of the Book’. From Ibn Sa'd page 322: When the last moment of
the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his
face and said: "Allah's damnation be on the Jews and the
Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship."
His appetite to do violence to non-Muslims remained
unquenchable his whole life, the final words coming from his mouth a curse on those he had spent his life
destroying. Despite his victories and the multitudes he had murdered, he left this world bitter he could not
have done more, with instructions to his followers to carry on in that effort. The bitterness of this final
utterance from their beloved prophet, as he died a painful death at the hands of a Jewish girl, obviously
still weighs heavy on the minds and hearts of all of Islam. With revenge a
glorified mandate for Muslims, it seems unlikely they will ever collectively ‘get over it’.
In its attitudes toward Jews today, the Muslim world
resembles Germany in the 1930s. That was a time when state-sponsored insults, cartoons, conspiracy theories,
revisionist history, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the wholesale mass murder that was to follow.
Outside Israel, violence against Jews is also persistent: Jewish buildings blown up in Argentina, France, and
elsewhere, Daniel Pearl's murder in Pakistan and other Jews targeted for stabbings worldwide. The essential
training of their young to vilify Jews and Westerners continues to serve as the psychological preparation for
this kind of murder and mayhem against Jews, and now against Americans, and tomorrow against Japanese,
Chinese, Australians, New Zealanders, Vietnamese, etc etc etc, …and on and on, …until the vision of the whole
world as Islamic is achieved. To decide if Islam promotes bigotry and racism, the rules governing killing of
non-Muslims should always be compared to the following Islamic rule governing the killing of brothers
enshrined in the Qur’an:
The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslim Family
Earlier it was pointed out that Muslims broke ties of
allegiance and friendship with allied tribes and near family members. The Qur’an takes this a step further.
Sura 58:22 shows that family blood ties are broken. Islam has an anti-family element, causing Muslims to
fight and kill relatives if they reject Muhammad’s rule. The principals (and purpose) governing Muslim
conduct with non-believing relatives will be further studied in the chapter "The Psychology of
Just as Christians organizing against the core belief in
Jesus Christ are no longer considered Christians, Muslims who actively oppose Muhammad’s declarations and
example of jihad would have ceased to be Muslims. But Islam goes well beyond that concept of losing
fellowship. Sharia (Islamic law) is based on the Qur’an, the example of Muhammad (sunna) and the consensus (idjmaa). Under this law, anyone falling away
from faith in Islam commits an "unforgivable sin". Such "apostates" must be taken into custody by force, and
called on to repent. Anyone so confronted and who does not immediately repent and turn back to Islam has
forfeited his life, and is to be put to death by the state. While this is not carried out on a regular basis
in the many Islamic lands practicing Sharia, the threat is ever present. Sudan, and Mauritania address the
issue of apostasy in their penal codes. In the Sudanese Penal Code of 1991, article 126. 2, we read: "Whoever
is guilty of apostasy is invited to repent over a period to be determined by the tribunal. If he persists in
his apostasy and was not recently converted to Islam, he will be put to death." The Penal Code of Mauritania
of 1984, article 306 reads: "…All Muslims guilty of apostasy, either spoken or by overt action will be asked
to repent during a period of three days. If he does not repent during this period, he is condemned to death
as an apostate, and his belongings confiscated by the State Treasury".
In the Hadith there are many references demanding the death
penalty for apostasy. According to Ibn Abbas the Prophet said, "Kill him who changes his religion", or
"behead him". The only serious argument is as to the method and timing of death penalty implementation. There
is a logical reason why Muhammad dictated that apostasy rank so high an offence as to be worthy of the death
penalty. Muhammads Islam was largely a military movement in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, so he saw
apostasy as a defection to the enemy. Traitors in military campaigns were always executed by military
organizations of that region and others, and Islam was and is a warrior’s faith designed to support military
campaigns. One of Islam’s most respected theologians and prolific writers in the last century, Pakistani
Abu’l Ala Mawdudi, insists that both Qur’an and Hadith demand an apostate’s execution. He quotes the Qur’an
(9:11-12) and the canonized Hadith: "Any person, i.e. Muslim, who has changed his religion, kill him"
(Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 45). The Islamic scholar, Majid Khadduri, agrees that Qur’anic commentaries say a
believer who turns back from his religion must be killed if he persists in disbelief (p. 150).
Muhammad was not content to conquer by force, or kill those
that merely opposed him physically or verbally; he also taught that Muslims who leave the Islamic faith are
to be murdered. Here are some more quotes from Bukhari's collection of Hadith. Remember, Bukhari's Hadith is
the second most important writing in Islam, following the Qur’an.
Bukhari, volume 9, #17
Bukhari volume 9, #57
Bukhari volume 9, #64
Not only did Muhammad teach that Muslims are to murder
those that have left Islam, "wherever you find them", he further taught that a Muslim who commits this type
of murder of fellow Muslims will also be doing God's service and will be rewarded. It is in this spirit that
so many ‘honor killings’ continue to occur in Muslim communities. The following is a news release of one such
killing that just happened to be recorded, whereas thousands of other incidents have occurred with no record
(there are many such dark secrets to for Islam to hide).
November 1989 - St. Louis, Missouri -
The FBI inadvertently tape-recorded the entire episode of a teenage girl being killed by her Palestinian
father and Brazilian mother (the Feds were looking for evidence of terrorism, which they also found).
Apparently their daughter had not lived according to their view of Islam. In a ghastly eight-minute sequence,
Zein Isa stabbed his daughter Palestina thirteen times with a butcher's knife as his wife held the girl down
and responded to Palestina's pleas for help with a brutal "Shut up!" The killing ends with Zein screaming;
"Die! Die quickly! Die quickly! … Quiet, little one! … Die, my daughter, die!" By this time, she is dead. The
1989 killing in St. Louis was captured on a court-approved FBI telephone tap of a Palestinian, Zein Isa, who
was suspected of supporting terrorist causes. Agents were not listening as the killing took place. The FBI
ultimately handed over the tape, which was used to help convict the couple of murder. An egregious example of
a family honor killing, permitted in some Islamic cultures, the murderous couple killed their daughter to
insure she did not expose their terrorist plans and affiliations.
The problem with attempting any real political reform in
Muslim lands or with Muslim law is that anyone desiring change must first find fault with the ‘perfect’
Islamic government and judicial system. This usually leads to charges of blasphemy, which quickly puts the
‘quash’ on dissenters and their supporters. To document this dilemma, we look to our partner in the War on
Terror. Those accused of blasphemy under Article 295/C of the Pakistan Penal Code may not obtain bail and are
held until trial. If pronounced guilty, they face a mandatory death sentence. For those acquitted, the
temptation to kill them anyway (and obtain the promised reward promised by Muhammad) seems too great for the
‘innocent’ to safely remain in the country, so survival dictates they escape to Europe. Many victims of the
Pakistani blasphemy laws have failed to even survive prison, and even a number of those tried and then
acquitted have been murdered following their release. As recently as July 2002, Mohammed Yousaf was shot dead
inside the Central Gaol in Lahore while awaiting his appeal. On 7th February 2003, Mushtaq Zafar, a 55
year-old accused of blasphemy was shot dead on his way home from the High Court. And in June 2003, Naseem
Bibi, a victim of a gang rape by police, was charged with blasphemy and murdered in prison before her trial
could begin. Fundamentalists have also intimidated defense lawyers, and even a High Court judge was murdered
after acquitting an accused man. In the city of Multan in Pakistan, Ayub Masih (Christian), who had
previously been accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad under the "Blasphemy Law", is being held in
solitary confinement in a 4x6 foot cell. He also faces the death penalty with well over 100 others similarly
accused as of this writing. Pakistan’s infamous blasphemy laws are widely abused with devastating
effectiveness to make false accusations against Christians and Ahmadis, as well as business rivals and
political opponents. And Pakistan is a US ally with a relatively moderate government; one can only imagine
the abuses that are occurring in more fundamentalist lands.
The Associated Press - Nov. 7, 2002 TEHRAN, Iran — A prominent reformist scholar has been sentenced to death on charges of insulting
Islam's prophet and questioning the hard-line clergy's interpretation of Islam. A court in Hamedan in western
Iran sentenced university professor Hashem Aghajari to death, Saleh Nikbakht told The Associated Press.
Aghajari was detained in August after a closed hearing in Hamedan where he made a speech in June questioning
the hard-line interpretations of the ruling clerics. Nikbakht said Aghajari, a top member of the reformist
political party, Islamic Revolution Mujahedeen Organization, was also sentenced to 74 lashes, banned from
teaching for 10 years and exiled to three remote Iranian cities for eight years. Iranian courts often impose
such multiple sentences in cases where it wants to make an example of the accused. In cases where the death
sentence is imposed, the others are not carried out. Nikbakht insisted his client had not said anything that
insulted the Prophet Muhammad, as the charges alleged. "There has never been a word insulting the prophet in
Aghajari's speech. This verdict is nothing but a rule against Iran's national interests," Nikbakht said. In
his speech, Aghajari had said clerics' teachings on Islam were considered sacred simply because they were
part of history, and he questioned why clerics were the only ones authorized to interpret Islam. Later, he
was charged with insulting Islamic sanctities and the court described his speech as blasphemous.
The Herald - Jan 20, 2005 UK - Hizbollah threatens UK suicide
attacks - HIZBOLLAH, the hardline religious group, yesterday threatened to carry out suicide attacks in
London in an attempt to kill a UK-based Iranian exile television presenter said to have made insulting
comments about Islam. Manouchehr Fouladvand, on the US-based Farsi language MA-TV, has been accused of
mocking Mohammed and the Koran. There have been demands in Iran for the broadcaster's death. Mojtaba Bigdeli,
spokesman for Iran's Hizbollah group, warned the British government must ban the satellite channel, run by
Iranian exiles, within 30 days or face the consequences. "After one month, our commandos will carry out
suicide attacks in London against the shameless presenter of the channel. He has crossed our red lines by
insulting our prophet and Islamic values." Mr Bigdeli said Hizbollah had the approval of leading clerics to
kill him. The case echoes the Iranian fatwa against the author, Salman Rushdie.
This should help explain the realities faced by good
Muslims wanting reforms, justice, democracy, and other freedoms we take for granted. It should also help us
understand that, although there are no real reform movements in staunchly Islamic lands, this does not mean
that the people are content with their system of governance, or even with their Religion (which is the same
thing). The lack of visible opposition is a reflection of the simple fact that the totalitarian control
system in play is very very effective.
The Associated Press - April 23 2002 HEBRON, West Bank - Palestinian militiamen killed three suspected collaborators in Hebron Tuesday
... A mob strung up two of the battered, bullet-punctured bodies, and some brought their children to see the
gruesome act of revenge. Hooded vigilantes shot the three alleged informers and dumped their bound and gagged
bodies on the same spot where a missile from an Israel helicopter gunship killed Marwan Zalloum, a commander
of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militia, in a targeted attack just hours before. The militia is linked to
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. "The fate of all collaborators will be like this," one of
the masked men told reporters as he and the others sped away in a car. A similar action occurred in Ramallah
on Monday, the public shooting of three alleged collaborators on the main square of Ramallah, while a large
crowd watched as they lay on the ground, withering in pain. Bystanders tried to block approaching ambulances,
but the three were eventually taken to a city hospital where one later died. … several dozen alleged
informers have been killed by fellow Palestinians in the past 19 months of fighting with Israel. In Hebron, a
large crowd quickly gathered around the corpses lying in Salam Street. One of the bodies was strung up by one
leg from an electricity pylon and stripped by the crowd down to his green underwear, his blood-soaked shirt
pulled over his head to reveal deep cuts and bruises. Another body was strung up from a lamppost. People
stuffed burning cigarettes in the bullet holes in the torso. Some kicked, spat and threw rocks at the
The three men suffered multiple gunshot wounds in the head and body, with their hands tied
behind their backs. Their limbs also appeared broken, though it was not clear whether the injuries were
inflicted before or after they died. Seven men in a car, all wearing woolen hoods or keffiyehs wrapped around
their faces, claimed responsibility. The driver of the car, wearing a headband of the Al Aqsa Martyrs
Brigade, told a reporter that the killings were in revenge for Zalloum's death (Zalloum and his bodyguard
were killed in an Israeli missile attack). Thousands of people paraded past the bodies until a white
municipal pickup truck came to take them away 3 hours later. As each body was thrown into the back of the
truck, the crowd clapped, cheered, whistled, and chanted "Allahu akbar," or God is great. Some men lifted
small children in the air for a better look. Others climbed up the stairs of a nearby mosque or onto rooftops
for an unobstructed view. No one in the crowd objected to the violence. Many were smiling. Men whistled their
approval on the street and women yelled from rooftops. Young children wandered past the sticky pool of blood
on the ground and stared. "No problem," said a 16-year-old boy standing nearby. "They deserved it. They
talked to Israel." But a 20-year-old woman who walked quickly past the crowd disapproved. "What will the
world think when they see this?" she asked.
The Associated Press - Aug 7, 2003 West
Bank, Israel - Palestinian militants executed a suspected collaborator with
Israeli intelligence in the central square of the West Bank town of Ramallah. The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades,
linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, carried out the summary execution not far from
Arafat's office. Witnesses said three gunmen pulled the man into a car and drove to the center of town. Then
one of the gunmen pulled the man from the car and shouted, "In the name of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, we
carry out the sentence of death," and shot him. He was identified as Samer Sharour, in his early 20s. Doctors
said he was hit by six bullets in the head and chest. During the past decade, Palestinian militants have
executed dozens of suspected collaborators, sometimes hanging their bodies in public squares, drawing
criticism from human rights groups. The Palestinian Authority also has publicly executed several such
suspects after quick trials.
Reuters – Aug 7, 2003 - Srinagar, India - Muslim separatist guerrillas in Indian Kashmir beheaded
two people, one of them a teacher, in the latest violence in the disputed Himalayan region, police said. The
teacher was abducted in the Anantnag district, south of Kashmir's main city Srinagar, and later beheaded
because the rebels suspected he was an informer for the security forces. "Militants abducted and later
beheaded Abdul Ahad Sheikh and his son," a police official said. The killings took place in Baramulla
district in northern Kashmir. Militants also beheaded a villager in a neighboring district, also because he
was suspected of being an informer, he said.
The Associated Press - Jul 12, 2004 Sringar, India - (Muslim) Militants Mutilate a Girl in Kashmir; Guerrillas chopped off the ears,
nose and tongue of a teenage girl they suspected of helping police Monday, while other violence in
Indian-controlled Kashmir left at least eight people dead, authorities said. The girl was held captive for
eight days before the rebels abandoned her in a field outside the village of Manoh, about 200 miles southwest
of Srinagar, the capital of India's Jammu-Kashmir state, a police statement said.
Reuters - Jul 26, 2004 Jammu, India - Separatist (Muslim) rebels decapitated a 55-year-old man
and his two children in Indian Kashmir because they suspected them of being informers for security forces,
police said on Monday. A group of nine militants barged into the home of Mohammed Shafi in a remote village
in Rajouri district and beheaded him, a police officer said. They also killed his 22-year-old son and
15-year-old daughter, the officer said. "The militants thought he worked for security forces in the area," he
said. The village, in the rugged mountains of southern Jammu and Kashmir, is a five hour trek from the
nearest road. Militants fighting Indian rule in Kashmir have in the past killed men and women they believe to
be working for the Indian army, along with their families, to deter others. In another incident, separatists
aimed a grenade at soldiers visiting a hospital in northern Kashmir, wounding 26 civilians and two soldiers.
"Militants lobbed a grenade near the outpatient department of a government hospital in Baramulla, where some
Border Security Force personnel had come for treatment," a police officer said.
The Islamic exploitation of even believers has is well demonstrated by an incident in
Pakistan the middle of April 1994:
With regard to honesty and lying, Islam has some semblance
to other religions. There are sections in the Qur’an where honesty is praised as a virtue, and in a general
sense lying is forbidden. The Qur’an says, "Truly, Allah does not guide one who
transgresses and lies."[Surah 40:28]. In the Hadith, Mohammed was quoted as saying: "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood
because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell." This approach to communication and ethics
is laudable, but unfortunately for many in the world, that direction appears to be intended as a standard
limited to Muslim-to-Muslim relations, and does not necessarily apply to non-believers, whom the Islamic God
'does not love'. Unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions
under which lying is not only tolerated, but actually encouraged. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to
lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. The book "The
spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah
Outlined in the Qur’an and other Islamic sacred works is a
description of the murder of one "Kab Ashraf" (see Chapter 4, Incident #4) . In
this carefully chronicled event we learn that the Prophet Muhammad specifically sanctioned the use of deceit
and lies to kill a troublesome opponent. For some time after his arrival in Medina, Muhammad continued to
have problems with various people who refused to acknowledge his claim to prophethood, and had several
critics murdered prior to this Kab Ashraf. Kab, a prominent local, made it known that he did not believe in
Muhammad, yet never lifted a weapon against any Muslim. He only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and
allegedly made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women. Muhammad saw him as a threat, and had him killed in
the night. When Kab’s volunteer assassins sought permission from the Prophet to speak falsely to gain the
trust of their victim, Muhammad replied: "Yes. … You may say it." Ibn Ishaq quoted
Him as answering, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter".
There are other events in the life of Mohammed where he
lied and instructed his followers to do the same, rationalizing that the prospect of success in missions to
extend Islam's influence overrode Allah's initial prohibitions against lying. An example similar to the
assassination of Kab Ashraf just referenced can be found in the story of the killing of Shaaban Ibn Khalid
al-Hazly. It was rumored that Shaaban was gathering an army to wage war on Mohammed. Mohammed retaliated by
ordering Abdullah Ibn Anis to kill Shaaban. Again, the would-be assassin asked the prophet's permission to
lie. Mohammed agreed and then even told Abdullah exactly what lie to tell. He instructed him to lie by
stating that he was a member of the Khazaa clan. So when Shaaban saw Abdullah coming, he asked him, "From
what tribe are you?" Abdullah answered, "From Khazaa … I have heard that you are gathering an army to fight
Mohammed and I came to join you." Abdullah then started walking with Shaaban telling him how Mohammed came to
them with the heretical teachings of Islam, and complained how Mohammed badmouthed the Arab patriarchs and
ruined the Arab's hopes. They continued in conversation until they arrived at Shaaban's tent. Shaaban's
companions departed and Shaaban invited Abdullah to come inside and rest. Abdullah sat there until the
atmosphere was quiet and he sensed that everyone was asleep. Abdullah severed Shaaban's head and carried it
to Mohammed as a trophy. When Mohammed sighted Abdullah, he jubilantly shouted, "Your face has been
triumphant (Aflaha al- wajho)." Abdullah returned the greeting by saying, "It is your face, Apostle of Allah,
who has been triumphant. (Aflaha wajhoka, ye rasoul Allah)."
Most Muslims are familiar with the principles and concepts
of Islam that justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Principals taught by Muhammad
such as "War is deception", "The necessities justify the
forbidden", and, "If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two", are
derived from passages in the Qur’an and the Hadith. But when confronted with writings of their own revered
scholars on the subject of dishonesty, Muslims hold true to form and in the spirit of what they know is
allowed, will lie about lying. An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the
passages of the Qur’an from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are
peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully
aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he
migrated to Medina. Another example is in the conduct of Saudi Arabia in the war on terror. Words of support
and promises of reform flow easily to Americans, but actions to date demonstrate they are only words, meant
for our consumption only.
Unfortunately, passages from the Qur’an clearly reveal that
lying is permitted, particularly in reference to non-believers in conflict with Muslims. It is also clear
that if forced to do so, Muslims may lie under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they
maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. In the Qur’an, Allah says: "Allah
will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts;
and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225. The principal also has support in the Qur’an 3:28
In the Hadith, Mohammed emphasizes the same concept. From
"Ehiaa Oloum al-Din," by the famous Islamic scholar al-Ghazali, Vol. 3: PP.284-287:
One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: "The
sons of Adam are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring reconciliation between Muslims."
The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying.
"The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war
because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife."
Considering that Islam has been in a perpetual state of war with non-believers, it appears there is neither
accountability nor any practical limitation to deceiving non-Muslims.
The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard
against. The principle of Al-taqiyya (also called taqiah, Al-takeyya, Al-taqiyah, or kitman) conveys the
understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's
self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they
perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts.
Al-taqiyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend
infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and even display false adherence with their unbelief to
prevent them from harming Muslims. Under this concept of Taqiyya, if under the threat of force, it is
legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The devout are taught that in such circumstances the
following actions are acceptable: Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages, abandoning prayers, skipping fasting
during Ramadan, renouncing belief in Allah and Muhammad, kneeling in homage to a deity other than Allah, and
uttering insincere oaths and covenants.
Al-taqiyya and dissimulation refer to the practice of
Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims, but the principal goes beyond mere lying for propaganda purposes. In
accordance with this license to deceive, during time of weakness the Qur’an allows Muslims to have both a
declared agenda and a secret agenda. The theological principle of Taqiyya means hiding one's true beliefs and
intentions to confuse ones adversaries and enable mujahedeen to operate freely amongst enemies. The word
comes from a root meaning "to guard against, to keep (oneself)". From the verb Ittaqu, it means linguistically to 'dodge the threat'. In this vein, a Muslim, if necessary, may
eat pork, drink alcohol, and even verbally deny the Islamic faith, as long as it is with the tongue only, and
he does not "mean it in his heart". A believer is taught he can make any statement as long as the 'heart is
comfortable'. If the end result of the lie is perceived by the Muslim to be good for Islam or useful to
bringing someone to "submission" to Allah, then pretty much any lie or act can be sanctioned. Indeed it is
common practice for Muslims, especially leaders, to lie about any war or conflict involving Muslims vs.
non-Muslims. Muslims reverting to deceptive tactics unashamedly do so with full knowledge they are adhering
to Mohammed's words and example, so they operate without conscience believing they are absolved from any
negative divine consequence. Even the Islamic God, Allah himself, is described in the Qur’an in the most
literal translation from Arabic as; "the best of deceivers." [Surah 8:30] Another English translation goes;
"They schemed - but God also schemed. God is most profound in His machinations". So it appears that the deity
Muslims worship is a God of deception, or at least to non-believers. This Sura relates that when
non-believers deceived and schemed, planning evil against Muslims, that Allah also schemed, and his
deceptions were superior. If you can wrap your mind around the concept of a perfect lie, you can understand
better the Muslim God.
In state-to-state relations Al-taqiyya political version is
known as Kitman. Politically it means to project whatever image is necessary and advantageous in order to
gain concessions from an adversary. The accepted principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears
grave implications in the sphere of international politics. The usual method of civilized diplomacy and
negotiations might normally culminate in state treaties or other articles of agreement, but must be based on
honesty, trust, and honored by both parties. But this principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam
implies that true lasting negotiated settlements may not be possible, as Muslims today seem to be taking ever
greater liberty in expanding the parameters and scope of circumstances under which they are permitted to lie
or use deceptive tactics. Knowing this, can non-Muslims expect anything more than deception and double-speak
from Muslim leaders? Will nation-to-nation treaties with Islamic states yield the hoped for peace and
benefits to the non-Muslim participants to such agreements? Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one
must keep in mind the implications of the principle of taqiyya, in that Muslims can communicate something
with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have in their hearts the opposite agenda. In AD 628 –
Muhammad ongoing military conquests were not going well, and so for tactical purposes he signed a treaty with
the Meccan Quarish tribe. (The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement between the Prophet and the Quarish was signed for a
period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims).
The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement was broken just 18 months later when Mohammed’s army advanced and conquered
Mecca. Arafat’s signatures all had about the same value.
Have you noticed that every time militant Arab Muslim
groups find themselves in a losing position in conflicts they initiated, they immediately proclaim they are
ready to suspend hostilities and begin negotiations? They suddenly become concerned with victims, saying
"Peace" so often it becomes meaningless, yet Westerners fall for it every time. Arab Muslims have an
insidious habit of negotiating falsely, a tactic that is all too easy to pass off to ignorant Westerners
longing for peace. Terrorists who rise up and kill (Saddam Hussein in his time, Yasser Arafat, Osama Bin
Laden, the Janjaweed in Darfur, and now Iraqi terrorists Moqtada Sadr and al-Zarqawi) never stop or sue for
peace when finding success. But when hit hard and causalities mount, they immediately plead for negotiations,
only to start attacking again after resting and regrouping. In most prior wars involving nation states,
Islamic countries howl for international intervention only when they start to lose battles they started.
Nations need to start learning these rather transparent lessons of history. When they say they want to
negotiate a fair ending to the conflict, it's a trick to call for a truce breather - called a "hudna".
Perhaps it's forgivable for Western governments to make one or two mistakes in negotiations with Islamists,
but when the same mistake is made time and again - then it is no longer mere error, its pure stupidity.
Arafat frequently used this trick, relying upon the ignorance of the West. On May 10, 1994, 10 days after
signing the First Gaza-Jericho agreement, Arafat spoke in English at a Johannesburg mosque explaining to his
people why he was returning to the Peace table. He was unknowingly recorded to say; "This agreement, I am not
considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh..." To
his own people in Arabic, Arafat had often repeated this illusion to the Hudaibiya Treaty. Although obscure
to us, Palestinians understood perfectly well what he meant. Under the promise of peaceful 'accommodation' or
'truce', Arafat had made and broken many agreements over time. When Arafat's terrorists were stalking around
the streets of Amman, Jordan in the 1960s, he made 26 separate agreements with King Hussein, breaking every
single one. He went too far when he put out a contract on the King's brother, wherein the King finally
declared war in September 1970 and slaughtered 7,000 of Arafat's Terrorists. Palestinians call that purge
"Black September", often naming Terror attacks after it. To Israel and Westerners, the Oslo accords were
supposed to provide the foundation for peace, but to Islamists they were never more than a temporary "hudna"
intended to be broken from the beginning. Even after violating one cease-file, when the situation on the
ground proves too dangerous for them, it is all too easy to follow it with another truce. This kind of "Bait
& Switch" tactic harks back to Mohammed when he made the previously mentioned treaty with the Quarish he
could not conquer, while he gathered a much stronger Muslim army and broke it 1 years later. Because of the
difficulty he had subduing them, after they surrendered Mohammed had all 600 men from the city slaughtered,
and sold the women and children into slavery. This tactic is a template still in use because Muslims have
enjoyed so much success with it.
As Muslims are instructed by the eminent Islamic scholar
Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali (Al-Ghazali), who is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all
time: "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." (The Reliance of the Traveler,
sec r8.2, pg 745) By this logic, the praiseworthy, permissible goal of
"making the whole world Islamic by Jihad" sanctifies any dishonest statement made to any non-Muslim opposing
that effort. Muhammad said, "War is deception" and demonstrated this principal in
his numerous Jihadic campaigns. Like Muhammad, it appears that a majority of Muslims consider the act of
lying to non-Muslims in the advance of Islam to be a good work. This right to lie is not immoral in Muslim
minds for the same reasons that give them the right to murder, rape and enslave infidels under the holy
banner of Jihad. Amir Taheri, an Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam, said regarding taqiyya, "Muslims have every right to lie and to deceive
their adversaries, and a promise made to a non-Muslim can be broken whenever necessary." . Yasser Arafat was a master in the art of duplicity, and was respected by his fellows in
part because he has enjoyed so many propaganda victories in his battle against the truth.
In a book of Arabic maxims, novelist Ayako Sono cites
proverbs and truisms describing commonly understood principals of the Arabic culture. The innate principals reduced to familiar sayings are hard for non-Muslims to comprehend,
but are simply common sense for Arab Muslims. For instance, one popular saying goes, ''A man lacking in cunning is like an empty matchbox.'' Another says, ''A
well-told lie is better than an unbelievable truth.'' Such guidelines and advice flow easily from a
culture illuminated only by the Qur’an. This convenient morality is why few Muslims blink when they hear a
spokesperson deceiving ignorant infidels claiming Islam is peaceful and tolerant. Westerners, accustomed to
religious leaders and spokespersons that strive for accuracy and honesty, are inclined to assume pious Muslim
representatives are similarly predisposed. Muslim representatives are aware of this inclination and delighted
their task of verbally twisting Islam into a form acceptable to Americans is so easy. Although quite willing
to take advantage of liberal sensibilities, behind our backs they are amused at our overall ignorance and
poor awareness of Islam’s mainstream goals and methods.
In mathematics, if A=B, and B=C, and C=D, then it is
logical and correct to conclude that A=D. Now we know that Jihad is integral to Islam, and that war has
always been a part of Jihad. We also know that for Muhammad and his followers ‘War is deception’. Although
not generally true in Muslim-Muslim relations, for non-believers the following same simple logic should
always be kept in mind when dealing with Islamists.
Islam = Jihad, Jihad=War, War=Deception …therefore; Islam = Deception.
It is often difficult to differentiate between "extremist"
and "moderate" Muslims core values, as indeed it often appears to be more a matter of form than sustenance.
But by listening carefully to their spokespersons, some conclusions can be inferred. The "extremists" tell
the truth about the teachings of Islam, and have considerable, indeed overwhelming, textual authority on
their side in the Qur'an, Hadith, and the Sira. The "moderates", so eagerly repeated and invoked, are
actually more ill-defined, under-analyzed, and poorly understood, and have almost no textual authority on
their side. The timidity of the supposed larger Muslim community has its roots in acute self-awareness that
they are, to the degree that they disavow Jihad, incomplete or bad Muslims. As such this supposed majority,
so weak in both foundation and conviction, can be nothing but inept at moderating the much more powerful and
authoritive extremist elements amongst them. Most remain silent out of embarrassment, timidity, piety, fear,
reverence, or sometimes a desire to support the deliberate religiously-sanctioned Islamic deception machine.
More often than they care to admit, Muslims know all about what is expected of them by their religion, and
much of what we hear from the Muslim mainstream is simple Taqiyya. After all, to go against true Islam is a
death sentence in this life and the next. Although most Muslims will not participate in religiously
sanctioned violence and treachery against their own country and neighbors, most are perfectly content to ride
the coat tails of those willing to bloody their hands doing the dirty work of the God they worship, as taught
by the word and example of His Messenger, Muhammad. Former Muslims often state that the idea of Moderate
Islam is a myth, nothing more than a western illusion as such an idea presupposes rejection of some or all
core tenants of Islam. Anyone who rejects, or wishes to reform even one single teaching of the Qur’an is
considered to be a renegade and an apostate. Should we count on moderate Muslims coming to our rescue in
sufficient numbers and strength? Survival dictates we not throw all our eggs in that basket until it becomes
something more than an Arabian mirage.
Historically, Jihadic deception was a formidable weapon,
even more powerful than Western methods. This is because it has a civilization/global dimensions versus the
narrow State interest in classical Western methods of intelligence gathering and subversive tactics deployed
on a much smaller scale. The original Fatah refers to the Arab-Islamic invasion and conquest of the upper
Middle East and the outside world. In the early years of the Islamic conquest of the Arabian Peninsula, the
concept of Al-taqiyya was devised to achieve success against the enemy (non-Muslims). Accordingly, Muslims
were granted the right to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums,
and to plant the seeds of discord and sedition. Such agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at
war, and therefore were not considered to be lying against or denouncing tenants of Islam, but were
considered "legitimate" mujahedeen, whose mission was to undermine the enemy's resistance and level of
mobilization. One of the major objectives of these early agents of sedition was to cause a split among the
enemy's camp while downplaying any issues related to Islam. In many instances, they convinced their targeted
audiences that the Jihad is not aimed at them. The indigenous people were more than happy to hear that they
were not targeted. Local Muslims convinced many Jews that they will be protected from conniving Christians,
and they convinced many Christians that Jews were the mortal enemies, because they killed Issa (Jesus). They
convinced the Aramaics, Copts, and Hebrews that the enemy is Greece, and signed peace agreements with the
Byzantines Greeks at the expense of Maronite Aramaics. Meanwhile the (allegedly) "un-Islamic" Muslims
continued their attacks on the target's property and life. About the same period, they convinced the knitted
diversity of India to degrade into civil war by introduction of a variant Buddhist/Mystical Islam called
Sufism. Decried by most as "deviant Islam", it served a practical purpose to ease the transition of new
recruits from local communities in India, resulting in divisions along Muslim/non-Muslim lines, and
eventually fomenting unrest and chaos in the land. The net effect was to prepare the region for waves of
armed Islamic invaders by Mohammad bin Qasim, Mahmud Ghaznavi, and others. This Jihadic method of deception
and subversion was one of the most fascinating and efficient arms of the early Islamic conquests. As a
result, in less than four decades, the Middle East fell to Arab-Islamic rule.
Al-taqiyya is still in use and widely practiced today. In
the West, Arab-Islamic missionaries continue to succeed converting the uneducated, weak, disillusioned, and
criminal elements by feeding them a Western "moderate" version of Islam, while at the same time denouncing
the actions of militant Muslims in the rest of the world as 'un-Islamic'. This is done to prevent the new
converts from seeing the real face of Islam, or at least until their faith or mental conditioning is strong
enough to turn them against their own country, people, and even family. Today taqiyya and the Left have
formed an unholy alliance, and are winning massively because of widespread ignorance of the nature of 'true
Islam' amongst Westerners, both secular and religious. The dark family secret of the American far-Left is
that its followers share one powerful trait with Osama bin Laden: They need to look down on others, to feel
superior and just. The Left complain and threaten claiming its racist or Islamophobic to hold the religion or
its violent expansive civilization accountable for its own failures and the horrors it inflicts on others.
Our domestic Left, and its representative media organizations, self-righteously shout and point to the
excesses of a few renegade guards at Abu Ghraib prison, remaining completely silent on the industrial-scale
massacres by Saddam Hussein, the government of Sudan, and so many active other terrorist regimes and
organizations. Our liberal self-appointed "voices of conscience" fail to speak out against the beheading of
Paul Johnson Jr. or Nick Berg, or the hundreds of Iraqi doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators brutally
killed trying to build a humane government for themselves and their compatriots. Nor is there any mention of
the countless Iraqi civilians killed by car bombs. For that matter, elites would prefer we forget all about
the victims of 9/11. To them the only individuals worthy of sympathy and compassion are the downtrodden and
oppressed terrorists themselves. In their minds, the terrorists’ grievances and right to violent
self-expression trump any victims’ right to life and liberty. So now, to the weak-minded and easily
manipulated, right has become wrong, good is evil, black is white, and the earth has become completely flat!
To these morally challenged no amount of pain, death and loss will help them to see the truth about the
theology determined to destroy the freedoms they use to spew such propaganda. These people will only see the
light when they are personally faced with the ‘convert or die’ choice, and to save their own skins will
likely be the first to declare; "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet
The very famous Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322 BC)
made a simple observation that: "Liars when they speak the truth are not believed".
He may have been influenced by Aesop, the Greek fabulist (620-560 BC) who said; "A liar
will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth", or he may have simply repeated what his mother told
him as a child after catching him in an adolescent fib. Either way, the advice is sound in any age, and tells
us essentially that if an individual is known to practice deception, everything he/she states or claims is
suspect. To continue to operate, all con-artists need first to be trusted. There has to be some degree of
anonymity for a deceptive entity to continue to produce new victims. To successfully end the current Jihad
declared against it, it is important that the non-Muslim world stop playing the gullible, willing victim
quite so well. Islamic apologists, particularly the left-leaning mass media, need to re-access their agenda
and decide if they want to continue advocating for a totalitarianism system masquerading as a religion
aspiring to control freedom of religion, political affiliation, free speech, and the free press. Peter
Jennings had been the sole anchor on ABC's World News Tonight since 1983. He, Ted
Koppel, Dan Rather, and all the rest of the talking heads should make inquiries at Al-Jazeera as to positions
available to independent journalists not willing to vilify Jews, Christians, Americans, and Infidels. These
guys should be smart enough to connect the dots, draw the lines, infer the obvious, and then re-evaluate
The Battle of Badr
(Revised from an original article by
Anwar Shaikh a renowned Indian Islamic scholar and historian)
The Battle of Badr is a tiny event by any stretch of the
imagination, yet it has significantly influenced the course of human history. A deeper study of the March 624
event reveals that it served as the first successful exhibition of the Islamic doctrine known as Jihad.
Emboldened by this small success, Jihad gained permanent foothold as a pillar of Islam, inspiring perpetual
war against infidels ever since. Jihad served as the practical foundation of the Muhammad’s Arabic Empire,
and as a fundamental pillar of his Spiritual Empire, which sprang from the ashes of the Jihadic combat which
first established his political Empire. Muhammad succeeded in transforming the concept of Allah into a new
principal of Holy War, but this author claims that Jihad was ordained primarily for the purpose of
establishing his vision of Islamic-Arab Cultural Imperialism. To establish if this is true, we must first
look into the geographical and political background of Arabia, because the physical conditions of a land play
a major role in determining its habits and culture.
At the time of Muhammad, the economic plight of Arabia
created a pastoral society which had developed into two groups: firstly, the majority, known as the Bedouins,
who had not only to keep wandering in search of pastures but also supplement their meager livelihood by
resorting to brigandage, which meant raiding other tribes and commercial caravans. Though it was sheer
looting, it assured them solace, security and survival, and so was not looked down upon as sinful but a
source of power, pleasure and prestige. This institution of brigandage known as ghazwa (razzia) had existed
long before the advent of Muhammad. The Umayyad poet al-Qutami has alluded to this custom in his two verses:
"Our business is to make raids on the enemy, on our neighbor and on our own brother, in case we find none to
raid but a brother."
It appears that even before Muhammad’s time, robbing others
was a compulsive trait of the Arab national character, considered more an act of honor and manliness than
immorality. Realizing its significance, the Prophet converted this institution into a religious doctrine
called 'Jihad', renaming it the Holy War against infidels, but in fact was just one mans effort to build an
Empire. The Arab Empire built thereby was in essence exactly like any other empire, except in appearance it
was designed to look godly. The doctrine of Jihad, then, is a derivative concept incorporating the Arab
custom of 'razzia' (raiding for booty), and seeks ascendancy of Arabia and annihilation of non-Arabs in the
name of Allah, the Most Merciful. What is really stunning is not the application of the doctrine to dominate
and subjugate others, but that those so engaged believe in a man who told them God sanctifies murder,
slavery, lying, rape, arson, and thievery against other human beings (non-Muslims) as acts of great piety to
Though we have already studied the nature of Jihad, in view
of its complexity and emotional appeal, it is necessary to be repetitive for elucidating this bloodthirsty
war mechanism. The first principle of Jihad is that a person loses his free will and becomes a slave of Allah
"Verily Allah has purchased the believers their lives and their properties; For theirs
(in return) is paradise. They fight in His (Allah's) cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a
promise in truth which is binding on Him." (9:3). Now we know that Paradise is a place of luxury
abounding in beautiful virgins and boys, where everything is available free and where toil, sickness, ageing
and death are unknown. Moreover, we have learned that Allah's ‘cause’ is simply killing infidels. We read in
The Disputer 58:20 ; "Those (unbelievers) are Satan's party;
why Satan's party, surely, they are the losers! Surely, those who oppose God and His Messenger, those are
among the most abject. God has written 'I shall assuredly be the Victor, I and My Messenger...." We have
also already quoted Repentance 9:25 where Muslims get the specific command to wage a war against Christians
and Jews "until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled".
And what is Allah's cause? With regard to infidels, the
cause of Allah is to convert or simply to kill them. And what is an infidel? He or she is someone who denies
Muhammad; it does not matter a jot if he/she is a lover of God! So fond is Allah of murdering the unbelievers
to glorify Himself and Muhammad that He has permanently divided humanity into two perpetually hostile groups.
In a nutshell, it means that Muslims are God's party because they do not love their closest relations if they
happen to be infidels. Owing to their belief, they are destined to be victorious against the unbelievers (who
are Satan's party). The justification for Jihad has been constant for 1400 years; …denying Muhammad is
sufficient cause for a Muslim state to raid and subjugate non-Muslim territories. The Qur’an is specific in
commanding the faithful to wage a war against non-Muslims. They must be fought until survivors surrender and
pay tribute as a sign of their humiliation. Receiving tribute from unbelievers in the name of Allah is then
the true purpose of Islam.
One can clearly see in this doctrine the Arab roots and
custom of brigandage, newly sanctified in the guise of Muhammad’s new religion. A religion wherein looting,
murder and rape are no longer wicked acts attracting retribution, but instead made a pinnacle of piety
deserving the highest reward that Allah can bestow. The Prophet made sure that brigandage no longer remained
a low and haphazard affair, but a highly respected and disciplined process, now stamped with divine approval.
Thus the battle of Badr served as a major inspirational source of this new Spiritual Arab Imperialism, which
has been steadily rising in magnitude for the last fourteen centuries.
Throughout history many others have inspired the worship of
men to fight others with the sword for gain. Muhammad's genius lay not only in sanctifying the sword but also
finding the beneficial use for it with a view to magnetizing his own person for gathering crowds of followers
around himself. An overwhelming majority of those who acknowledged him as their spiritual guide were hungry,
haggard and hounded men; they would do anything to improve their economic plight and take revenge from their
Meccan oppressors, who had forced them to leave their homes to seek refuge in Medina. This migration from
Mecca to Medina had been necessitated by Muhammad's aggressive preaching of his faith, which annoyed
unbelievers to the hilt. Bitterness of the refugees had been further aggravated by the fact that they had to
rely on the local Muslim believers of Medina (Ansaars) for their sustenance. Though these refugees
appreciated their brotherly hospitality, they resented their dependence, which custom held as a sign of
disrespect, derision and degradation. Realizing his followers despondency, the Prophet turned it into a rage
for vengeance, which then sought to plunder and persuade those who had inflicted torture on them and cast
them out. However, these would-be predators did not have to bear the blemish of impiety like other brigands
and assassins because they were told that although their acts might look putrid, they had been rendered pure,
pious and perfect by the Almighty because He categorized them as Holy War against infidels.
This commandment of holy loot also served as an effective
way of boosting their moral sky-high because they believed that they were doing all this to please Allah and
not line their own pockets. Therefore, a soldier of God had to be at least twice as brave, boisterous and
bullish as an ordinary fighter. Thus the Prophet revealed Allah's pleasure:
Note Allah's promise to help the Muslims in taking revenge
from those who had wronged them. What is surprising is the fact that here vengeance means helping Allah! It
smells of divine stratagem, which as we shall see, lays down the principle of looting and murdering
non-Muslims as the righteous way of life; the Battle of Badr is the first precedent to this effect. Though
small in size, it became a major event, which exerted an important influence in determining the course of
history. It is therefore, interesting to know the details:
Muhammad's effort in spreading Islam had not borne much
fruit until the summer of 621 A.D. when twelve men from Medina, visiting Mecca to perform the annual Hajj
ceremony, embraced the faith that he preached. They undertook to propagate it among the fellow Medinites.
Next year, in June, 622, a party of seventy-five pilgrims, including two women, came from Medina; they all
had embraced Islam. Driven by the zeal of their new gospel, they invited the Prophet to come and live among
them to avoid persecution. Muhammad, who had become safety-conscious, asked them if they would defend him as
if he were one of their own. Their answer, though positively enthusiastic, was conditional: "What shall we
get in return, if we suffer damage or death in the process?" "Paradise, of course," answered the
These private meetings known as the two Pledges of
al-Alaqba, encouraged the Prophet to persuade his Meccan followers to emigrate to Medina in small groups.
When about seventy of them had done so, Muhammad himself quietly undertook the highly dangerous journey
because his Meccan enemies had taken the oath of killing him before he could escape. Making use of the
unfrequented paths, Muhammad reached his destination on September 24, 622. This flight is called HIJRAH and
ranks as the traditional starting point of Islamic history, though the Islamic era begins on the first day of
the Arabic year in which the HIJRAH or the flight took place i.e. July 16, 622. However, the significance of
this date is believed to lie not in the act of emigration but "the belief that this day marks severance of
kinship ties and announces unity of all Muslims, no matter where they come from."
To understand its background, one must realize that
Muhammad belonged to the Quresh of Mecca whereas the people of Medina had their blood ties with other tribes.
Thus, accepting common denominator of Islam, they all, including Muhammad, lost their tribal
This understanding of the act of HIJRAH, though looks
golden at first sight, becomes murky when subjected to investigation because when Muhammad grew strong, he
declared emphatically that the right to rule belongs to the Quresh i.e. the people of his own tribe! This is
the reason that all Arab caliphs both in the east and the west belonged to Muhammad's clan i.e the
It took the Meccan emigrants eighteen months to settle in
Medina. Muhammad was given a piece of land to build a house for himself. As he gathered power, he became a
polygamist after the death of his first wife, Khadija, who also happened to be his employer. Around this
house, eventually, were built several apartments to accommodate his nine wives and concubines.. As his
followers met in his home to offer prayers, it came to be known as the Mosque of Medina.
Muhammad's followers, both the emigrants and Medinites
expected rewards for embracing Islam, "the only true and exalted faith of Allah." The believers quite rightly
expected favors from God at the expense of the Kafirs (unbelievers). The All-knowing Allah, responding to the
prayers of the devotees revealed through Muhammad, the doctrine of Jihad i.e. murdering non-Muslims for
possessing their wealth, property and women.
In essence, there was nothing new in it because the Arabs
were customarily used to plundering the commercial caravans. To exploit this vice, Islam cleverly renamed
brigandage and killing as Jihad, which was to be carried out to glorify Allah, the Great. By reshaping common
robbery into a Divine pursuit, it inspired the lust for plunder with the spirit of untold devotion,
discipline and desire that turned the looters into crusaders, who carried out their atrocities with greatly
enhanced enthusiasm; in fact, they became ferocious robots who thought of pillage as piety and equated murder
The Quresh of Mecca were a trading community. In autumn,
their commercial caravans proceeded to the Yemen and Abyssinia, and during spring to Syria. Among their
merchandize were frankincense, gems, precious metals and leather. The last item was their major export, which
had a high demand in Syria and Persia; it commanded high prices. These Meccan entrepreneurs exchanged them
for piece-goods, silk and other items of luxury at Gaza and other marts. By the old standards, these caravans
were really huge because they might consist of as many as 2,000 camels whose cargo could excel the value of
50,000 dinars or mithkals; the latter was a golden coin having the worth of a Byzantine Aureus, roughly equal
to two-thirds of a pound sterling. Fourteen centuries ago, 50,000 dinars represented the same value which
millions of dollars do today.
The special trait of these caravans was that they
constituted the economic life of the Meccans because they were financed not only by the rich people of the
community but also the small men, who might have saved a dinar or two, and wanted to profit, which usually
amounted to 50%. These caravans represented communal investment, and because of their high value, were often
the target of highway robbers. Therefore, they had to be accompanied by an 'army of defenders', whose size
corresponded with the value of the goods. These commercial caravans had a good deal in common with the
seafaring joint stock companies of old England, whose venture capital was contributed by many participants,
entitled to profit according to their size of stake.
The successful journey of these caravans was a matter of
special delight for the shareholders, but whenever, it succumbed to the attack of the plundering mafia, it
created highly heart-rending scenes of women, beating their breasts, pulling hair and singing mournful songs
to express their loss, that might also include the death of some defenders.
Enunciation of the doctrine of Jihad struck terror into the
hearts of the Meccan traders, who were alarmed about their trade with the north because its route passed
between Medina and the sea coast. It is baffling to realize that the Prophet, who prescribed hand-cutting as
the punishment for stealing, personally led the Ghazawats i.e. pillage-expeditions (razzias) against the
Meccan caravans in 623. Though he failed in all three attempts, in January, 624, he succeeded in robbing a
caravan returning from Yemen as it reached Nakhlah near Mecca.
Failure of the Prophet's third razzia is actually a part of
the famous battle of Badr. Abu Sufyan led a caravan to Syria in October, 623 A.D. (A.H.II). It carried huge
loads of the Arab products demanded in the Syrian market. The Prophet asked for volunteers to join this
predatory expedition. About 200 men came forward. They had only 30 camels, which they rode in turn. The plan
was to attack the caravan at Osheira on its way to Yenbo, but it had passed this point by the time the holy
plunderers reached there.
These rich cargoes were very important to the Muslims, who
had hardly any effective equipment to fight the unbelievers for spreading Islam. So, Muhammad tried to
enhance his influence in the territory of Osheira to make the caravan trade more hazardous for the Meccans.
His efforts did bear fruit and a number of tribes living in the area entered into alliance with them. The
initial escape of the caravan seems to have disturbed the apostolic plan and he became determined to waylay
Abu Sufyan on his return journey. During the espionage activities, the Prophet found his son-in-law, Ali,
asleep "on the dusty ground under the shade of a palm grove". Seeing his face soiled , the Prophet, in a
pleasantry, said, "Sit up, O, Abu Turab", and he sprang up immediately, conscious of his neglect. This became
his sobriquet during the rest of his life. This is why he is called "Ali, Abu Turab".
So alarming was the Prophet's resolve to rob the caravan
that his Medinite opponents warned Abu Sufyan's people at Mecca of the impending danger. Damdam, a swift and
efficient courier, was immediately sent to Mecca with the bad news.
As a reconnaissance, Muhammad dispatched two scouts, in
early January, to the caravan station at Al-Haura. They were well received by the chief of the Juheina tribe,
who took suitable measures to protect their identity. His services were thought so valuable that after the
battle of Badr, he was rewarded with the grant of Yenbo.
It was Sunday, the 12th of Ramadan, when realizing the
significance of the caravan, the Prophet set out on the predatory exercise without waiting for the return of
his two spies, who were to brief him on the situation. It seems that the impatience to possess all that the
caravan was carrying, played heavily on the minds of the Muslims. Hearing tales of the expected rich booty,
even some non-Muslim citizens of Medina tried to join the expedition. Having noticed a couple of them, the
Prophet called them to his camel that he rode and asked them about the nature of their business. They told
him that they were heathen but as their city had extended protection to him, he ranked as their kinsman and
they wanted to join him for plunder. The Prophet replied that it was meant for the believers only, and the
unbelievers were not allowed to participate in such ventures. He emphasized in no uncertain terms: "Believe
and fight". Since this was the only way to share the loot, they confessed that Muhammad was the Prophet of
God. It is then that they got the permission to join his party.
His army, after necessary adjustments, contained 315 men;
amongst them eighty were Refugees i.e. who had emigrated from Mecca with the Prophet, and of the remainder
"about one-fourth belonged to the Aus, and the rest to the Khazraj". They had two horses and thirty camels
which they rode in turns to overcome tediousness of the long hard journey. In terms of size and equipment, it
may not be called an army, but in effectiveness, even the mighty hosts may not be compared with it because it
had no equal in fervor, ferocity and fortitude. Their newly acquired faith was a novel specimen of moral
justice and piety; being based on Jihad, it did not condemn but commended rapine, rape and ruination of
unbelievers and held it as the way to secular success in this life and paradisiac comfort in the next world.
The fervor of such a faith, which obliterated all thoughts of loss, defeat and sin, goaded Allah's warriors
with an unequal zeal to march, seek and rob the precious cargoes that lawfully belonged to the
For a couple of days, the holy warriors took a direct route
to Mecca but reaching As-Safra, they moved in the direction of Badr, a resting station on the road to Syria.
Through local gossip, Muhammad's spies came to know that Abu Sufyan's caravan was about to appear there any
time. The report was correct but Abu Sufyan was a shrewd fellow. Realizing immediate danger, he at once
dispatched a courier to Mecca asking for a strong defending force.
The Meccans having suffered losses at Nakhla were not
prepared to see the repetition of similar humiliation. Again, it was the caravan of the year because the
cargo it carried was worth more than 50,000 golden pieces. Its loss might render the whole community
bankrupt. A mixed current of fear and fervor swept the Meccan society and every household contributed a
warrior to the defense of the caravan according to the size of its stake. Soon an army of 800 men was raised,
accompanied by a band of women, who specialized in singing war songs, which lent a lion's heart to a bleating
lamb. Their battle-melodies accompanied by the sounds of their tabrets and footwork excited the Meccan
soldiers to die for the honor of their city and ancestors.
As the army reached Al-Johfa, the envoy of Abu Sufyan
appeared. He told Abu Jahl, the head of the army that Abu Sufyan had succeeded escaping Muhammad through
stealth and rapid marches, and all was well. They heaved a sigh of relief, but the question arose if they
should return without an engagement. A passionate debate took place among the chiefs of the army. One party
argued that, since no harm had been done, there was no cause for a deadly contest. Moreover, it was argued
that the people on the other side were their close relations: killing them would constantly torture their
conscience. It was not only wise but also desirable to return home peacefully.
Abu Jahl, the head of the Makhzum clan, on the other hand,
advocated a fight to the bitter end. He advocated that their return would be interpreted as a sign of their
cowardice, and it was also politic to nip evil in the bud; otherwise, the specter of Muhammad would grow in
potential threat all the time. His persuasion won the argument, and they passed three days making merry by
On the other hand, Muhammad had also been advancing toward
Badr. When he reached Al-Ruha, he heard that the Quresh, being aware of the danger, were marching on him.
This necessitated a council of war. Unlike the Meccans, the Muslims showed contempt for blood ties and
expressed a strong desire for an immediate contest.
Here the charisma of Muhammad's personality and political
sagacity deserves mention. He had emigrated to Medina on the promise of his Medinite followers that they
would defend him with their blood while he would be amongst them. Addressing the war council, and
particularly to the men from Medina, he declared that their pledge neither induced his defense in any
aggressive action nor had it any connection with the events that took place away from the city (Medina).
Therefore, they were at liberty to leave him if they so wished.
Of course, a political mind would interpret this occasion
differently but to the faithful this declaration conveyed a message of the Prophet's holiness, greatness and
moral dignity hitherto unknown in the Medinite annals. How they were moved by this speech is expressed by
their spokesman Sa'd Bin Moadh. He said, "Prophet of the Lord! march where you desire; encamp where you may
choose; make war or conclude peace with whom you will. For I swear by Him (Allah) who has sent you with the
truth, that if you were to march till our camels fell down dead, we would go forward with you to the world's
end. Not one of us will be left behind."
It should also be noted that at the end of the meeting, the
Prophet who claimed to be "Mercy of God to All Mankind", invoked Divine curse on the infidels, and prayed, "O
lord, let not Abu Jahl, the Pharaoh of his people, escape. Let not Zama'a escape; rather let the eyes of his
father run sore for him weeping and become blind".
This curse of the Prophet had a psychological purpose.
Being fewer in numbers than the infidels, it made his followers believe that they already possessed the power
to inflict death on their enemies. To the sincere believers of Muhammad, who had their own unbelieving
parents and brethren as a sign of respect to the Apostle, it was unimaginable that his supplication against
the unbelievers could go astray. Reinforced by this belief, they became even more determined to deliver them
a dose of violence blended with the worst pillage.
Badr was chosen as the place of battle by the Prophet. It
vouched for his martial skill as well as seriousness of purpose i.e. he wanted the battle to be decisive;
neither party must escape lightly. He knew that the courage of his followers, which emanated from their
religious convictions, was far more forceful than the strength that the superiority of numbers bestowed upon
his enemy. A decimating blow to the unbelievers would lay the foundation of the Islamic Empire.
Badr is situated close to Medina, 'the City of the
Prophet'. It is a valley which consists of a plain, having steep hills to the north and east; on the southern
side is a low rocky range, and the west is closely dotted with sandy hillocks. A small stream also ran
through it breaking into springs here and there. The Prophet chose the most useful reservoir for his army and
destroyed the rest. This was a wise military maneuver, which assured him mastery of the water sources of the
The day before the engagement took place, Muhammad had
placed the banner of the refugees (the emigrants) in the hands of Mus'ah; ensign of the Khazrajite was given
to al-Hobab and the flag of Aus was handed to Sa'd Bin Moadh.
Here one again sees the tactical wisdom of Muhammad in
choosing the fighting spot. As the Quresh army, comprising a thousand men advanced toward Muhammad, the
glaring rays of the Arabian sun struck their eyes, making their movements troublesome. Also, the vastly
numerical superiority of the enemy was hidden by the fall of the ground behind. Knowing the gravity of the
situation, the Prophet again resorted to the device of praying to Allah for harnessing the superstitious
energies of his followers' belief into a combating force. Raising his hands upward, he solicited the Maker,
"O Allah, accomplish for me what Thou hast promised me. O Allah, bring about what Thou
has promised to me. O Allah, if this small band of Muslims is destroyed, Thou wilt not be worshipped on this
earth". (Muslim, Vol. 3, 4360)
The historian may find it strange that a man is telling his
Creator what will happen if He does not listen to him, and the Almighty agrees to his suggestion for fear of
losing worshippers, but his followers intoxicated by the promises of heavenly virgins and boys had no such
qualms. They believed that Allah is directed by Muhammad and, therefore, the battle shall end in a resounding
victory for them.
It was customary among the Arabs to enter single combats
before starting the battle. As Sheiba, his brother Otba and Al-Walid (son of Otba) moved forward to challenge
for single duels, three Citizens (the natives of Medina as distinct from the Emigrants) came out from the
Muhammadan ranks to encounter them.
Here we notice the tribal tendencies of the Prophet, who
did not want the honor of starting the contest go to anyone but his own kith and kin. Calling them back, he
turned to the fellow Emigrants and shouted "you sons of Hashim, arise and fight, according to your
However, this pro-Quresh leaning of the Prophet is well
balanced by the choice of his combatants. Out came three warriors, known for their valor, courage and
fighting skills. They were Ali (the Prophet's adopted son and son-in-law), Hamza (the Prophet's uncle) and
Obeida. As the infidels saw their heroes become sacrificial lambs at the Muslim altar, their spirits began to
sink. Even more daunting was the bravery displayed by the Prophet, who recited verses from the Koran, and
brandishing his sword stood by his followers like a lofty granite and assured them that paradise was the
reward for martyrdom.
The story of Omeir, a sixteen-year-old Muslim boy, who was
allowed to participate in this battle, is worthy of note. He was hungry and eating dates, when he heard the
prophet associate paradise with martyrdom. Looking at the dates scornfully, "is it these", he cries ruefully
"that hold me back from paradise? Verily, I shall taste no more of them until I meet my Lord". Motivated by
the force of belief, he rushed upon the enemy and tasted the wine of martyrdom loathed by many and loved by a
Yet another story worthy of narration is that of Moadh, who
slew Abu Jahl, and was attacked by his son Ikrima. In this catastrophic action, Moadh's arm was nearly
severed from his shoulder. Martyrdom was also his goal, which he coveted, and believed that a second rate
action was not compatible with the dignity of such a heavenly prize. Since his best performance was being
checked by his dangling arm, he put his foot on it, and ripping it off with the courage of a divine knight,
he attacked the enemy to achieve his most cherished aim.
Was it the valor of his followers that won the day? Of
course, it was a great factor in securing the field, but the inspiration that the Prophet provided was the
paramount reason of success. Though he is considered 'illiterate' by his followers, he was the master of mob
psychology and excelled in operating this mechanism.
The day, i.e. 17 Ramadan, the second year of Hijrah (623
A.D.) when the battle took place, was punctuated with sharp gales. As the first violent blast swept across
the valley, the Prophet told his followers that the Angel Gabriel had arrived with one thousand angels to
help the Muslim cause. The following two piercing blasts were interpreted by him as the arrival of the angel
Michael and the angel Israpheel, each heading a reinforcement of 1,000 angels to fight on the side of the
Nobody stopped to think why were they not visible to the
crusaders, but to Muhammad only? Again, the angels must be very weak creatures if three thousand of them were
required to fight just 1,000 Meccans. The Koran testifies to this event:
By this statement Muhammad secured the entire credit for
his Prophethood, which had been honored by Allah with a reinforcement of 3,000 heavenly fighters, and a
promise of 5,000 belligerent angels in any future engagement against the infidels.
One ought to know the attitude of the Prophet toward his
chief adversary, Abu Jahl, who was presented to him when he was about to breathe his last. As he lay at his
feet, the Prophet looked at him and said, "it is more acceptable to me than the choicest camel in
Now, we come to booty, the goal of the Islamic warfare,
which Allah Himself sanctioned to strike terror in the hearts of those who refuse to bow before the Islamic
Imperialism and claim their right to human dignity.
By modern standards the booty acquired from the Battle of
Badr may look trivial but by then prevailing economic conditions of Arabia, its psychological effects, and
the part it played in building the Arab Empire, was simply terrific; "the loot consisted of 115 camels, 14
horses, a great store of vestments and carpets, articles of leather, with much equipage and armor". The
famous sword of Abu Jahl, known as 'Dhul-Fikr' fell to the share of the Prophet.
The Battle of Badr was fought on the doctrine of Jihad,
which essentially means building the Arab Empire by denying non-Muslims all rights except the right to serve
their Arab masters, which servitude is perpetual humiliation of non-Muslims through a system of subjugation
and payment of tribute (i.e. imperialism). When we delve deeper into this doctrine, it transpires that its
tentacles equally spread to the non-Arab Muslims, who are converted to Islam with the force of arms; they
are, of course, exempted from the payment of Jaziya i.e. poll tax, but are treated as second-class citizens
and may be exploited economically as well as psychologically through the hegemony of faith, which favors the
Arab Muslims against the non-Arab Muslims. I shall return to this point later.
To further explain the novelty of Jihad as the Doctrine of
Struggle against the infidels, the following point should be made: A Muslim nation requires no particular
reason to attack a non-Muslim country. It is in itself a heinous crime not to acknowledge Muhammad as the
last Prophet of God. According to the Koran all religions are false except Islam. Thus Allah is the enemy of
non-Muslims, who are regarded as the worst kind of beasts under the sun. It is a myth that the Jews and
Christians being 'People of the Book' are exempt from this restriction. Having abrogated all other religions,
the Prophet prescribes the course of action against them as Jihad. Muhammad’s solution for the problem of any
person or nation denying Islam is a perpetual war against them until the infidels are killed or
All previously imperial nations, as they became civilized
and conscious of human dignity, realized that it is morally wrong to maim, mutilate and murder other people
for personal or collective gain and abandoned imperialism tendencies. In fact, gradually, they upheld human
rights through a code of justice and economic improvement and the concept applied to all people irrespective
of race and color. Today, we live in a world where murder, rape, robbery, denial of justice and usurpation of
rights are considered the greatest moral vices, …but this standard of morality is utter nonsense in the world
of Islam because denial of Islam is considered a serious crime justifying stripping of human rights and
subjecting them to perpetual abuse until he/she acknowledges the Prophethood of Muhammad. Faith in Islam is
considered the only true virtue. This is the reason that a Muslim, no matter how wicked, shall go to
paradise, whereas a highly righteous non-Muslim irrespective of his piety, shall be thrown into hell!
Practicing this sort of discrimination is a basis of Islamic culture, so small wonder that Jihad is a
fundamental Islamic doctrine. Jihad teaches that murder, rape, and plunder are considered the loftiest of
virtues which increases a Muslim's piety, and which is also a sure guarantee of paradise. However, its
prominent attraction is booty, which acts as the greatest predatory motive and which is considered by all
other accomplished cultures and advanced civilizations as highly impious. This ruinous man-hating Islamic
philosophy is deeply ingrained in the Battle of Badr which still serves today as a guiding precedent for all
Muslims. The obvious contradiction between Islamic doctrines and universally accepted principals of human
rights, dignity, and equality are not lost on Muslims, they are just simply ignored. To them, Islamic
doctrine simply abrogates all contradicting principals and virtues not based on Muhammad’s words and
The Arabs have never treated non-Arab Muslims as equals in
their countries. For example, no Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim holds an important ministerial or
administrative post in any Arab country. Their practical status is equivalent to that of infidels: when
non-Muslim subjects broke chains of the Arab domination, they became free, and even their superior, over a
period of time, but the non-Arab Muslims even when they are politically independent, remain spiritual and
psychological slaves of Arabia. This is the specialty of the Arab Imperialism, which vouches for the
patriotism and wisdom of Muhammad. This is not a fiction but a fact because Islam is essentially the
ambassador of Arab national interest, seeking to perpetuate it as Arab Imperialism in the guise of religion.
One cannot help applauding the genius of the Prophet, who made his own country the center of Divine reverence
and then persuaded his followers all over the world, under the threat of hell, to prostrate toward Mecca to
qualify for paradise!
Look at the underlying stratagem for yourself. The Prophet
God, the Creator of the world had Kaaba (Mecca, the center of Arabia) built as
His own House by Adam, and then rebuilt by Abraham. Thus the land of Arabia, being the Home of
Allah, is superior to all other lands.
On death, the body of a Muslim must be buried facing Mecca (to show his
devotion to Arabia), otherwise, he shall not be admitted into paradise.
So sacred is Mecca (the birth-place of Muhammad) that nobody must defecate
facing this City. He who does so, is an infidel and shall go to hell.
Arabic is not only the language of the Koran but also of Allah. So all Muslims
must learn and speak Arabic to be godly.
The hadith no. 5751 (Mishkat, Vol. 3) reports the Prophet saying: "Love the
Arabs for three reasons because (1) I am an Arab (2) the Holy Koran is in Arabic, and (3) the
tongue of the dwellers of paradise shall also be Arabic.
Every Muslim, no matter where he lives, must come to Mecca for pilgrimage a
least once in a life-time, if he has the means to do so. This religious duty of the Muslims has
been an important economic artery of (Saudi) Arabia for centuries and serves as a substitute for
the tribute that the Prophet laid on non-Muslims to glorify the Arab Imperialism.
What really proves Islam to be the ambassador of Arab
Imperialism is the fact that it demands non-Arab Muslims to follow the Arab cultural and moral lead blindly.
How is it done? This impossible goal has been made possible by the Divine Command that states Allah has made
Muhammad the model of Behavior for every believer, which he must follow to avoid the fire of hell and qualify
for the luxuries of paradise:
In Islam, the 'Last Day' is the Day of Judgment when a
person's fate shall be decided in terms of heaven and hell: the basis of verdict shall be whether or not he
or she has followed the Prophet as the Model of Behavior. In simple language, paradise is meant only for
those who believe, feel, think, walk, talk, sleep, eat and drink as Muhammad did. We all know that Muhammad
was a great Arab patriot and practiced the Arab culture. Therefore, every non-Arab Muslim must adore Arabia
like Muhammad and adopt all Arab cultural, moral and spiritual values.
This is not a wishful interpretation, but is actually
happening in all countries that lie within the pale of Islam: this principle is the foundation of the Arab
Imperialism, and it perpetuates itself through the force of faith irrespective of whether the Arabs are
politically ascendant or not!
Again, Islamic Arab Imperialism is different from Roman,
Iranian, Turkish, Japanese, or British Imperialism because it is not based on political or economic power,
but exploitation of human weakness, emanating from instinctive fear of uncertainty, which makes man feel that
he is drowning and must clutch at a straw to survive, irrespective of how irrational this act might be. By
imposing dictatorship of faith on its followers, Islam has crucified their rational and inventive faculties,
leading to the degradation of their national cultures; this has become the major cause of their backwardness,
and all the evils that spring from it.
To assess the significance of the Battle of Badr, one must
realize that had the Prophet lost it, the doctrine of Islam would have been laid to rest along with the
bodies of its crusaders. This little event, in fact, proved to be a vigorous seed, whose branches spread into
both the east and west. However, the west checked its growth in the Battle of Tours. At this pivotal event a
great contribution was made by brave and outnumbered Polish freedom fighters, which insured the survival and
advancement of western civilization against the murderous onslaught and momentum of the Islamic crusades.
Westerners owe a great debt of gratitude to those great men and their descendents.
Note: Ali Sina, an Islamic scholar and intellectual, further illuminates the dynamics of
this pivotal event in his article ‘The examples of Muhammad’
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaawa40621.htm). The following is from that article:
This battle marks the begging of Muhammad’s rise to power,
the Meccans lost 49-70 men, with about the same number taken hostage. How Muhammad dealt with the injured and
the captives in this and other battles set the tone for subsequent Islamic savagery, which has lasted to this
day. It’s only by knowing these personal accounts of Muhammad that we can understand terrorist obsessions to
cut off the heads of their victims, and why Muslim mobs cry out "Allah is great" while in the very act of
committing gruesome murder. They do this because of the numerous examples by the Prophet himself.
Among the people who were slain was Aba Hakam (Abu Jahl, as
derogatorily he came to be called by Muslims). Aba Hakam was severely wounded but still alive when Abdullah,
the servant, of Muhammad, ran up, put his foot on Aba Hakam’s neck, got hold of his beard and started
insulting the fatally wounded man whom his own people had named the father of wisdom. Abdullah cut off Aba
Hakam’s head and carried it to his master. "The head of the enemy of God!"
exclaimed Muhammad joyously; ---- "God! There is none other God but he!" - "Yea
There is no other!" responded Abdullah, as he cast the severed head at the Prophet’s feet. "It is more acceptable to me;" cried Mohammad, hardly able to contain his joy, "than the choicest camel in all Arabia".
According to some historians, Muhammad is said to have
given orders for Aba Hakam’s body to be mutilated and disfigured. (Waqidi, p. 85) Another man who fell in
Badr and whose body was mutilated was Umaiya bin Khalaf. The reference to his mutilation can be found in the
Book of Bukhari (Volume 5, Book 58, Number 193). These were men with whom Muhammad had personal enmity.
According to one Hadith, Muhammad had vowed to kill Umaiya long time before the battle of Badr. (Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 826, and Volume 5, Book 59, Number 286). After three days the bodies of the slain
were dragged and dumped in a well. Muhammad stood by the well and looked on triumphantly, as the bodies were
brought up and cast in. Abu Bakr stood by, and examining their features, called aloud their names. Unable to
contain his joy Muhammad started calling them by name and bragged to the corpses about his victory. The
following account can be found in Sahih Muslim Book 040, Number 6869:
The "promise" that Muhammad was talking about was a curse
that the vindictive prophet had laid on these men when he was in Mecca and they had derided him when someone
dumped the manure of camel on his back. On that occasion Muhammad said: "O Allah!
Punish Abu Jahl, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, and 'Uqba bin Al
Mu'it. (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 241)
The following story can cast more light on the revengeful
and implacable character of Muhammad. Among the captives was Abul Bokhtari. He had shown kindness to Muhammad
and was especially instrumental in procuring his and his followers release from the quarters of Abu Talib, in
a time that the Quraish had boycotted him and his family and they were living in a state of self-imposed
house-arrest, Muhammad, mindful of this favor, proclaimed that he should not be harmed. However, Abul
Bokhtari had a companion whom Muhammad did not want to let go. He pleaded for his friend’s life but Muhammad
would not budge. So he exclaimed: "The women of Mecca; shall never say that I abandoned
my comrade through love of life. Do thy work upon us both." Thus, feeling released from all moral
obligations, Muhammad killed both of them. Here we see a man not only murdering prisoners of war, but also
killing someone to whom he owed a personal favor simply because he could not let go of the pleasure of taking
revenge on a personal enemy.
On their way back to Medina from the raid at Badr, one of
the prisoners put to death was a devoted father named Uqbah bin abi Muait. Before his execution the man
pleaded with Mohammed saying, "Who, then, will take care of my little girl?"
Mohammed’s ‘merciful’ answer: "Hell-fire."
So who exactly was this Muhammad, the man hundreds of
millions are striving to emulate? As has been shown, the face he showed his enemies was not nearly so
beautiful and pleasing as the face shone to believers. Muhammad was a man of war who sent out or went out on
at least 74 expeditions and raids in only a ten year period (622-632), and who personally conducted 24 major
military campaigns. His carnal lusts for young flesh (wives, sex-slaves, and even children) are legendary,
but it was through violence and murder where he gained power and wealth. He was wounded in battle (Battle of
the Trench) and undoubtedly personally slew victims. By promising virgins and bounty in this life and the
next, he inspired men to his self-serving cause. Through Jihadic war he unified the Arab tribes, further
consolidating his power through personally ordered assassinations of individual opponents as well as murder,
exile, or enslavement of all defeated peoples.
Tabari (AD 839-923) was an early Muslim historian
considered largely reliable by scholars today. Tabari lists Muhammad’s assets at his death (horses, camels,
milch sheep, and so on), including his weapons. In fact Tabari records the nicknames Muhammad’s had lovingly
given those instruments which were such a large part of his life. Muhammad nicknamed three swords that he
took from the Qaynuqa Jewish tribe after banishing them from Medina: “Pluck Out,” “Very Sharp,” and “Death”.
Two other swords from elsewhere are named: “Sharp” and “That is wont to sink” (presumably into human flesh).
After his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned a sword called “Having the vertebrae of
the back.” which he collected as booty from his victory at the Battle of Badr. Muhammad also named bows:
“Most conducive to ease, or wide,” “white,” and “of nab wood”. The name of a coat of mail implies “ampleness”
or “redundant portions,” probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans.
Guillaume, p. 383). Finally, Muhammad himself had a few nicknames. After Tabari lists several positive ones,
he matter-of-factly provides one that is particularily telling: “The obliterator”. (Tabari; Volume 9, pp. 153-55, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala.; University of New York Press)
In the face of sure outcry, we now must ask the question:
‘What about Muslims living with us here in America’? Of course, not many Muslims here have inclinations to
commit terrorist acts. Undoubtedly the majority of Muslims living in America are nominal citizens living
without the essential political dimensions of orthodox Islam, and are certainly (or hopefully) not bent on
terrorist actions. Many are content to continue to raise their families and prosper with the rest of us and
do not want violence, being people with a better moral code than the militants and their view (right or
wrong) of what Muhammad expects today. They try to follow a path dictated by personal conscience as
exemplified by Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer and human-rights fighter who was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize. Ebadi insists that no one, least of all the mullahs, has the right to tell others how to live and
practice their faith. "There are no priests and no church in Islam," she repeats. "As Muslims we are alone
responsible for our deeds and shall face Divine Judgment as individuals. Because we are not robots no one
could programme us with his version of religion. … All human beings are of equal worth simply by existing".
That kind of statement, of course, is in direct opposition to the basic principles and articles of Islam,
which hold that humanity is divided according to the strict hierarchy of worth outlined in ‘The Psychology of
Jihad’ chapter. Additionally, Ebadi is a woman, and as such is regarded by Iran’s Khatami and other mullahs
as, at best, half of a human being.
There are many moderates like Ebadi who say they are
Muslims, but in fact the Qur’an condemns them all as Muslim-wanna-bes, hypocrites, and pretenders who do not
obey the commands of their god and his messenger. The Qur’an commands Muslims to kill infidels if they wish
to join the faithful in Paradise: 47:4-6, "When ye encounter the infidels, strike off
their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, . . . And whoso fight for the cause of God . . .
he will bring them into the Paradise". The fundamental, orthodox, true Muslims will continue to teach and
pressure nominal Muslims like Ebadi towards obeying Muhammad’s commands to establish the rule of Islam, if
necessary through the use of violence. Nominal Muslims in America and elsewhere only need to awaken to the
actual call of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, to perhaps transform their faith and begin to use violence for
Islam’s sake. It appears more and more that they are awakening, as evidenced by the fact that their violence
is increasing along with the number of Muslims involved in violent activities. Shiite Muslims in Iraq are
currently coming under violent pressure to join foreign and Sunni jihadiats against the elected government
and the Americans.
The hope that a everlastingly peaceful form of Islam might
take permanent root in any country is wishful thinking. The gravitational pull of the Qur’an towards
fundamentalism is like the force from a ‘black-hole’ and will eventually swallow-up every effort to reform
her. Remember the Qur’an is ‘perfect’ and cannot be re-interpreted, re-written, nor reformed. As far as the
Qur’an is concerned, literalists are Muslims and all Muslims are literalists. Even minor deviation from the
Qur’an would in fact invalidate the entire faith. As such, any local or regional successes at ignoring
Islamic fundamentals are destined to be temporary.
Although the vast majority of Muslims in America are not
terrorists, and many even abhor the actions of their Muslim brethren around the world …still, since Islam
teaches world domination these moderate Muslims rarely raise their voices in protest to their own brethren.
If the Israelis bomb Hezbollah camps in Lebanon or Hamas camps in Syria, Muslims in New York, Detroit, and
Los Angeles will organize a mass demonstration. But getting Muslims to condemn the terrorist actions of a
brother … say of those in Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently in Turkey… is like
pulling teeth. While the Muslims worldwide continually condemn Israel, few Muslims have ever raised their
voices in protest over Palestinian homicide bombers or Saddam Hussein's genocidal war upon the Kurds. None
ask why Bin Laden failed to help the Kurds (reports now indicate that he was working with Saddam Hussein to
There are very few Muslims in the Syracuse, NY area
compared to many cities in the country, only about 5000. Yet since 9/11 several negative incidents have
occurred including an arson case at a Jewish Synagogue involving two Muslim men, raids centering on
Muslim-owned stores selling counterfeit DVDs, and a high profile case involving an Iraqi doctor accused of
illegally funneling funds to Iraq thru his charity. The latter two in particular resulted in claims of
profiling and bigotry from the Muslim populace. Rather than working to foster an atmosphere of trust, this
tiny Muslim community acts in such a way as to only cause further mistrust. Then there is an organization
called the Syracuse Peace Council. These left-wing activists attempt to cover their anti-American agenda by
claiming to be advocates for world peace. However they have rightfully earned the nickname "The Syracuse Hate
Council" by witnesses of their demonstrations against the American government several times this year. This
angry organization of social malcontents calling for radical Socialist change within America happens to draw
support from the likes of Magda Bayoumi of the Islamic Society of CNY. Ms. Bayoumi is not a strong supporter
of the war on terror, but since she is against the destruction of terrorists, then is it unreasonable to
expect her to be nice enough to persuade her fellow Muslims to stop trying to kill us instead of trying to
bring down our government? Just recently Magda Bayoumi penned a letter to the editor of the Syracuse Post
Standard to complain about what she perceived as discriminatory and bigoted reporting concerning a Post
Standard article. The article discussed an investigation on whether Islamic Society of CNY may be illegally
channeling funds to Iraq for other than the claimed Bam Iranian earthquake relief, possibly to support
terrorism. This defensive attitude, crying foul and pretending to be a victim over every perceived injustice
and slight, does not help the Muslim cause in America today. As we face new terror alerts American citizens
continue to wonder whether Muslims in America are with us or against us. After reading this book one must
accept the fact that within their very secretive society radical elements exist that wish to cause America
great harm. It's not Christians or Jews who are releasing audiotapes weekly calling for Jihad; it's the
radical followers of Islam. The American Muslim community could choose to be a great asset in this fight, as
surely they would be able to easily identify the radicals living amongst them. But alas, to the degree that
they have assimilated the Qur’an is the degree to which they will continue to support Jihad against
Although virtually all terrorists working to destroy
Americans are in their own minds devout Muslims, it needs to be re-emphasized that hopefully not many Muslims
in America are terrorists. Most of them are undoubtedly good people, but the seeds of terrorism are planted
deep within the theology of Islam. This theology, when free to grow and blossom, shows itself in the actions
normal Muslims take when they feel that Islam is challenged. Mob attacks in Pakistan, and the attacks by
Muslim mobs in Nigeria and Indonesia, are examples of Islamic violence and mob mentality from ‘peaceful’
moderate Muslims. And as was demonstrated in "Not Without My Daughter", who knows when a peaceful, liberal or
moderate Muslim will be persuaded, enticed, or incited to turn to fundamentalism and embrace the violence of
Stephen Schwartz stated in his June 2003 testimony to the
U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security:
Representative Peter T. King said publicly while promoting
his book "Vale of Tears" that he estimates 80-85% of the Muslim leadership in America supports "Islamic
fundamentalism". Indeed, there have been increasing instances where Wahhabi Muslims have successfully
penetrated key U.S. institutions, such as the military and our prison system. As recent media reports have
noted, the two groups that accredit and recommend Muslim chaplains to the military have long been suspected
of links to terrorist organizations by the federal government (The Graduate School of Islamic and Social
Sciences and an organization under the umbrella of the American Muslim Foundation). Recently, one of the key
architects of the U.S. military’s chaplain program, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was arrested and charged with an
illegal relationship with Libya, long a state sponsor of terror. Federal investigators also have detained
Captain James Yee (a Muslim clergymen), once stationed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who is being investigated
for potential ties to al Qaeda. A ‘moderate’ Muslim employed by the FBI even refused to take part in a
surveillance of a suspected Al-Qaeda operative because he said, "Muslims do not spy on Muslims".
The Graduate School and ‘The Islamic Society of North
America’, another group with ties to Islamic extremists, also refer Muslim clerics to the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons. The New York State prison system promoted a Muslim cleric to a position that allowed him to
supervise the hiring and firing of all prison chaplains. He was later removed from his job when officials
discovered he was an al Qaeda sympathizer who incited prisoners against America. Jose Padilla, a terrorist
accused of trying to build a "dirty bomb" to unleash in the United States, was exposed to radical Islam in
the U.S. prison system. Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber", was converted to fundamentalist Islam
while serving time in a British prison.
A Senate subcommittee has been formed and an inquiry is
underway to analyze and scrutinize (for terror-related activities) the procedures used by the military and
prison system to recruit Muslims clerics. The senators are looking into whether the instances of Wahhabi
infiltration at key U.S. institutions may be part of a larger pattern. In response, many pundits have been
quick to accuse investigators of Muslim bias. These same Muslim organizations and their supporters (the
‘convenient masses’) are falsely charging "bigotry".
Muslim groups in America such as the Muslim Public Affairs
Council, CAIR and the AMC let it be known in the 2004 election that they intend to vote as a bloc for any
Democrat in order to defeat President Bush. They fawned over Dennis Kucinich because he was the only Democrat
to call for the immediate abandonment of Iraq by U.S. troops. This attitude speaks volumes concerning the
Muslim population in America and its laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism. Instead of stepping up to the
plate and doing more to help us protect the country that has welcomed them with open arms, they whine about
being profiled. Said Omar Ahmed, chairman of the Board of CAIR in a speech to California Muslims;
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The
Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth"
Militant Islamists continue plotting and carrying out acts
of terror with renewed vigor despite Western military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is because
militant Islam is an ideology, not an individual, and remains largely unchallenged. Now ideologies do not
fall out of the sky contaminating men by accident, rather they are pushed and taught by its devoted
followers. The chief place where Islam is taught is in mosques. The method of instruction is by self anointed
indoctrination experts through 'sermons' sourced from authentic Islamic script contained in the Qur'an, the
Sira and the Hadith. These motivation experts are adept at crowd psychology and emotional manipulation. If we
want to avoid new domestic terror attacks, radical mosques all need to be monitored. Imams and clerics
espousing anything close to treason and terror against -any- nation or individual will need to be identified
and expelled. It is sheer folly that even after all that has happened, and all we know about the history and
theology of Islam, mosques remain safe havens due to a overabundance of political correctness enforced by the
suicidal left along with groups like the ACLU. All the while radical mosques remain the center of radical
Islamic indoctrination, serve as the center for terrorist recruitment, a hub for paramilitary and explosives
training, and of course collection points for terrorist financing.
Years ago in New York City, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task
Force began monitoring some men attending the Brooklyn Farooq Mosque. Agents watched in 1989 as men converged
on the mosque in the early morning, loaded up their cars, and traveled to Calverton, Long Island, pausing
only for prayer breaks. Once there, they would spend hours shooting handguns and AK-47s at targets on a
range. These men included Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammed Salameh and Nidal Ayyad, an Egyptian and two
Palestinians who went on to bomb the World Trade Center three years later. Another participant of this cell
was Egyptian Sayyid Nosair, who would later murder Rabbi Meir Kahane at a New York City hotel. Fortunately,
Nosair was captured after attempting to murder a federal police officer and a 70-year-old man, but he would
later help plan the WTC attack from his jail cell. An excerpt from Nosair's notebook, written three years
before his jihad cell carried out the first WTC attack, demonstrates the imperative to monitor
Another player in the Farooq jihad gang included an
American named Clement Hampton-El (a.k.a. "Doctor Rasheed"), who, like Mahmud Abouhalima, was a veteran of
the Afghanistan jihad. Clement would later conspire with other mosque associates - Egyptians, Sudanese, and a
Palestinian - in a failed plot to bomb the United Nations complex, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and the
FBI's Manhattan headquarters.
No one at the time monitored sermons delivered on Fridays
or their mosque planning meetings, but they themselves saved some reports to their chosen imam, Sheikh Omar
Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric and leader of Egypt's deadly Islamic Group, 'Gamaat al Islamia'. Sheikh Omar
would later relocate to the United States in mid-1990 and take up preaching in Farooq and other mosques in
New York and New Jersey. These sermons by the Blind Sheikh and other radical imams were sometimes recorded
and distributed for recruitment and fundraising purposes. Typical of such motivational sermons was the one
Sheikh Omar gave just a few weeks prior to the first WTC bombing, where after explaining to his followers
that "God has obliged us to perform jihad", he elaborated that "[if]
those who have the right [to jihad] are terrorists, then we
are terrorists. And we welcome being terrorists. And we do not deny this charge to ourselves. The Qur'an
makes it among the means to perform jihad for the sake of Allah, which is to terrorize the enemies of God and
our enemies too. ... Then we must be terrorists, and we must terrorize the enemies of Islam, and frighten
them, and disturb them, and shake the earth under their feet".
We simply cannot afford to continue ignoring such clear and
present potentially lethal threats to our infrastructure and citizenry. Experts tell us that 80-90% of even
US mosques are at varying stages of radicalization, but even monitoring a hundred mosques to identify and
expel a single radical imam inciting jihad would likely save US lives and be well worth the effort. Expelling
a handful of radical clerics would also force the rest to at least tone-down overt public incitement. By such
proactive actions we could prevent 100's to 1000's of otherwise nominal US Muslims from becoming Jihadists.
Removing the Jihadist imperative from a young man is much more difficult than preventing the brainwashing
process in the first place.
Despite an ever-growing body of evidence, many individuals,
groups, and nations continue to function as a propaganda machine deceiving much of the American public,
academia, and even our government. The stakes are becoming too great to continue our nave and gullible
habits. A tolerant, welcoming nation has given Islam the benefit of the doubt, but too many have already
proven unworthy of that hope and confidence. Many of those spewing the incorrect or incomplete propaganda are
aware they are not telling the whole truth about Muhammad and Islam, knowing the purpose of the
misinformation is to weaken our resolve and keep us from instigating effective counter-measures. Despite the
continuing rivers of blood flowing all over the world, they want to calm our fears that Islam is not a
violent religion and that Muhammad was not a terrorist, proclaiming he was a lover of peace. But history
(recent and distant) speaks for itself, and it would be unwise for any to welcome the kind of peace that
Muhammad and his modern day followers seek. Those that defend Islam, or try to portray it in only a positive
light, are deliberately or ignorantly misleading us and causing us to be inadequately prepared for their next
deadly strike. Even the Muslim terrorists who flew the planes into the NY towers would undoubtedly have
declared that Islam was a religion of peace, and Muhammad was a benevolent, merciful leader. Someone saying
something is true does not make it true, and that cause is not helped if a million or even a billion repeat
the lie. Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning!
After Pearl Harbor and the tragic internment of
Japanese-Americans, those same persecuted people sent their Sons in large numbers to join the fight in Europe
against Hitler. Those volunteers were amongst the fiercest, bravest, and most loyal patriots to join the
conflict, and none today question their (or their parents) loyalties. Through such contributions and actions
they proved that the suspicion and paranoia was unjustly heaped upon the Japanese Americans. The jury is
still out on whether the religious convictions and political leanings of the many large American Muslim
communities justify the hope and brotherhood they have been offered in contrast. When we see the vast
majority of American Muslim communities sacrificing for this country in like manner, then we should welcome
those communities in full faith and welcome Islam into the great melting pot that is our nation. Think of
what these individuals could accomplish in terms of penetrating and to bring down terrorist groups and all
their supporters. I hereby render the invitation and challenge to American Muslims to become full partners in
this war. An effective on-site intelligence section and a division or two of properly equipped, fierce,
devoted, patriotic Muslim American men with social and language skills from the region would quickly
penetrate and make short work of the kind of terrorists we are currently facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But
alas, I fear that is a dream based on pure fantasy. Please American Muslims, prove me wrong!
MSNBC Oct 23, 2003 — On Wednesday, NBC News reported on a man who helped the Pentagon
develop the Islamic chaplains program for the U.S. armed forces, a man who was later stopped with hundreds of
thousands of dollars in his possession — and some serious questions about his background. Now there is more,
and if federal prosecutors are right, this is a man who moved from the shadowy world of terrorism to the
centers of power in Washington and back again. Federal Prosecutors have indicted the founder of the Islamic
chaplain program on charges he illegally dealt with Libya and laundered money. But there are even more
serious allegations about him in some new documents. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a consultant to the Pentagon on the
chaplain program for more than a decade, is now accused of helping Osama bin Laden and Hamas. Court documents
filed late Wednesday night claim Alamoudi has provided "financial support to Hamas" and "financial support to
fronts for al-Qaeda."
One of the groups allegedly tied to Alamoudi is a charity that gave a Virginia post office
as its address. Alamoudi was the charity’s vice president. Who founded it? Abdullah bin Laden, Osama bin
Laden’s nephew. Also ringing alarms: Alamoudi’s Palm Pilot, which the government claims included the names
and numbers of six designated global terrorists. Terrorism expert and NBC News analyst Steve Emerson
said, "The public face of Mr. Alamoudi was 180 degrees different from the private face. And the private face
clearly showed that he was involved or directed fund-raising for Hamas, fund-raising for other terrorist
groups." The government also alleges Alamoudi had a Swiss bank account and $2.2 million in unreported income,
on which he failed to pay taxes. …in an audiotape of a conversation obtained by NBC News, Alamoudi seems to
embrace violence and suggests al-Qaida should choose better targets: (Translated) "I prefer to hit a Zionist
target in America or Europe or elsewhere." Alamoudi’s lawyer said her client doesn’t remember saying such a
thing and questioned the tape’s authenticity.
Over the years, Alamoudi has been a familiar face in Washington. Among other activities;
the Pentagon chose him to help select Muslim chaplains. He met with President Clinton. He made six trips to
Muslim nations as a goodwill ambassador for the State Department and even met with presidential candidate
George W. Bush. Last year, FBI Director Robert Mueller even spoke to an organization founded by Alamoudi,
over the objections of some agents. "Alamoudi himself was able not only to insinuate
himself, but he put other people in place", according to Steve Emerson. These new allegations are
contained in court documents arguing that Alamoudi should be held without bond until he goes on trial. There
are already at least three investigations of the chaplain program Alamoudi helped develop that are under way.
Some individual Muslim chaplains also are under scrutiny…
Reuters - Jun 25, 2004 SEATTLE - A National Guard soldier
captured on videotape telling undercover agents posing as Muslim extremists how to cripple U.S. battle tanks
declined to enter a plea at his arraignment on treason charges on Friday, the Army said. Specialist Ryan
Anderson, a 26-year-old Muslim convert and gun rights advocate who was arrested last February as his unit
prepared to ship out to Iraq, faces a court-martial beginning Aug. 16 at Ft. Lewis near Tacoma, Washington,
where his unit is based. Anderson's charges -- attempting to give intelligence and other aid to two men he
thought were al Qaeda operatives -- carry a maximum penalty of death, though Army officials said earlier this
week they will not seek a death sentence in the case. Several accused al Qaeda abettors have been released in
recent months for lack of evidence, including Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer and Muslim convert jailed
for two weeks in May while officials tried to tie him to train bombings in Madrid, on March 11,which killed
191 people. Muslim Army chaplain Capt. James Yee, also based at Ft. Lewis, was accused of spying, mutiny,
sedition, and aiding the enemy at Guantanamo, Cuba, but the Army dropped those charges in May.
Unfortunately, even long recent centuries of
social/economic/military failures have not removed the jihadist imperative from the souls of Muslims. Far
from having fallen into remission, jihad remains an ever-present threat, the default mode of operation
whenever Muslims find themselves in close and sustained proximity with non-believers. All over the world
today, there are many stories to be found detailing Muslim terrorists, operating for Islam's sake, attacking,
bombing, and murdering those they feel inhibit their aims. Islamists are attacking non-Muslims along a vast
arc extending from Nigeria to Indonesia. Violence occurs between Muslims and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans,
Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. It is no accident that
from its inception, Islam has always had bloody borders, as violence has always been integral to Islam. How
can it possibly be otherwise with Quranic direction like sura 9: 73,122-123 "Prophet,
make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an
evil fate" … "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly
with them. Know that God is with the righteous". It appears a majority of Muslims in the world today may
indeed view America as the last great wall preventing the natural advance of Islam. In their mind, America
must be destroyed or brought down, by any means necessary, to facilitate the end goal of all true Islamists,
the total domination of all people and places. This is what motivated Sheik Rahman to try and blow up the New
York towers. This is what motivates many Muslims throughout America to speak of a day when America will fall
to Islam's power.
The Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group linked to al Qaeda,
took credit for the Nov 2003 Istanbul, Turkey synagogue attacks stating: "The remaining
operations are coming, God willing, and by God, Jews around the world will regret that their ancestors even
thought about occupying the land of Muslims." Does the God of Islam urge his people to kill other people
who are gathered to worship? If not, we would hear Muslims speaking out clearly stating that the God of Islam
does not urge the children of Ishmael to murder the children of Isaac, and not just Islamic politicians
issuing statements to westerners, but clerics, imams, teachers, ayatollahs, and common lay members who
regularly drop to their prayer rugs and fill mosques for worship.
Many Muslims might be peace loving and thoroughly disgusted
with the acts of Islamic terrorism, but it is a sad fact that most of them are afraid to do anything about
it. They know better than anyone the number, strength, and probable consequences of opposing the extremists.
Also, it should be pointed out that many Muslims do not know in any detail the historical facts surrounding
their own prophet. But in contrast, Muslim terrorists are usually very well educated in Islamic history,
doctrine, and theology. They are the pious members of the ‘religion’ … spiritual leaders, and they operate
with full confidence knowing they are following the example of their prophet. So often we hear of the
fire-breathing clerics, even in this country, spewing hateful sermons inciting followers to act against many
perceived enemies. The western expectation is that ‘moderate’ Muslims sanction them and appoint/elect better
teachers and representatives, but to hope for such is nave. To become a pious leader in Islam is to become
fully acquainted with the real Muhammad and real Jihad. There are in reality relatively few religious leaders
who teach a doctrine different than the one taught by Muhammad, and those are rightly considered apostate or
corrupt teachers by most Islamic bodies in the world. In most parts of the Muslim world, there are the
fire-breathing types of leaders who make no bones about their violent leanings, and then there are the more
savvy diplomatic types who speak conciliatory tones when non-Muslims are near. But to their own people and in
their native tongues, often those same diplomats can be heard praising all terrorists who act in Islam’s name
calling them Heroes and Martyrs. Remember that lying and deceiving non-brothers is explicitly allowed by
Islamic doctrine set down by Muhammad himself.
Recent Islamic Terrorism Actions, by Country
ALGERIA - Approximately 130,000 people
have been killed in Algeria during the last 9 years or so. The incidents are too numerous to report in any
detail, and continue today. Below is one story from one of the survivors of an Islamic terrorist attack. The
Muslim terrorists are not responsible for all the deaths; the Algerian police and Army have also killed many.
However, the Muslim terrorists frequently target civilians, children, and those that are unable to defend
themselves. By one account Muslim terrorists stabbed to death 4 French nuns.
ARGENTINA - In March 1992, Muslim
terrorists blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 people. On July 18, 1994 a car bomb blew up
the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association, killing nearly one hundred people.
BANGLADESH - Islamists in this 83 % Muslim country aspire to
establish a true "Islamic Republic" much like the Taliban. Members of minority religions have been under
constant attack for decades. Some reports indicate Buddhists and Christians were blinded, had fingers cut
off, or had hands amputated, while others had iron rods nailed through their legs or abdomen. Women and
children have been gang-raped, often in front of their fathers or husbands. Pakistani Muslim soldiers raped
250,000 Bangali women in 1971 after massacring 3 million unarmed civilians. Hundreds of temples were
desecrated and statues destroyed with thousands of homes and businesses looted and/or burned. The human
rights organization ‘Freedom House’ reports native Hindus have been subject to "rape, torture and killing
with the destruction of their cultural and religious identity at the hands of Muslims."
CHINA - Uighur Muslim separatist terrorists are active in
Western China's Xinjiang Province. It is known that bombings and attacks have taken numerous lives, but the
Communist regime suppresses most news and reports.
EGYPT - In Sept 1991, in Imbaba, a
district of Cairo, hundreds of Muslims attacked the minority Christians there, burning down a church with a
Pastor's wife inside. Other churches were attacked, and Christians were beaten. The government had to send in
3000 troops to stop Muslims from continuing to attack Christians. For years on-end in Egypt, Muslims have
murdered hundreds of Coptic Christians. Muslims welding automatic weapons have even sprayed worshippers in
church with bullets. In the deadliest attack on tourists in 1997, it was reported that at least 60 people
were killed, including children, when unidentified gunmen opened fire at the world famous temple site of
Luxor in southern Egypt. Islamist gunmen opened fire indiscriminately on tourists after the tourists got off
a bus and were about to enter a temple in the morning. They were machine-gunned down by men shouting,
'Allahu-Akbar'. According to one eye-witness, two kids were holding down to their mothers' skirts when
brutally torn into pieces with bullets. After the killing, the Islamists boarded a bus and prayed at a nearby
mosque. Tourists from Egypt, Switzerland, Germany and Japan were among those killed in the attack. State
television issued a brief statement saying "attackers hit a number of foreigners, Egyptians, and policemen
who exchanged fire with them…" and the statement added that six attackers were killed in the shoot-out with
police. Prior to the event, attacks by Muslim militants had killed 34 international tourists in the past five
years. 34 people were killed in attacks on two Sinai resorts at Taba and Ras Shitan Oct 2004. July 23, 2005
terrorists set off multiple bombs that killed at least 88 in the SHARM EL-SHEIK Red Sea resort packed with
Jew, European, and Arab vacationers.
ENGLAND - In August 1994 two car bombs
blew up in London, one at the Israeli Embassy and another at a Jewish charity shop. An Iranian expatriate by
the name of Manoucher Motamer indicated that Iran was responsible for the bombings. London’s 9/11 awakening
occurred 7/7/05 in the underground and on a signature double-decker bus. The investigations into the 7/7/05
tube/bus terrorist bombings, with the failed attempt 2 weeks later by 4 more would be homicide bombers,
continues as of this date.
FRANCE - Several years ago, Muslim terrorist began bombing
innocent French civilians. Here is one article:
These attacks were similar to bombings carried out by
Muslim terrorists in France in 1986, in which dozens of people were killed. On August 26, 1995, a militant
Islamic group led by a twenty-four-year-old French Muslim named Khaled Kelkal attempted to blow one of
France's high-speed trains off its rails. Luckily, the bomb's detonator failed. Later that fall, other bombs
would go off: two in double-decked metro rail cars in suburban Paris, one in a trash can along the very
bourgeois Avenue de Friedland, another in a Parisian open-air market, and one more in a provincial Jewish
school. In all there were nine attacks in three months, which killed ten people and wounded 114. Nearly 100
anti-Semitic incidents were reported in France in 2000, including the fire-bombing of a Paris synagogue and a
Jewish shop in Toulon, and a near-fatal stabbing of a religious man on a bus in London. The bus victim, a
young man wearing a yarmulka, was stabbed at least 17 times in the face, neck and chest by a 27-year-old man
from Algeria. There were 135 physical acts -- vandalism, arson, assault, and attacks or attempted attacks --
against Jews in the first half of 2004, compared to 127 for all of 2003, according to statistics. The growing
attacks and anti-Semitism led Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in July 2004 to call for all Jews to flee
France and repatriate in Israel.
INDIA - The scale of ‘loss of life’ and ‘social upheaval’ caused
by militant Islam may be worse in India than any other land, simply by virtue of the number of individuals
involved. By some estimates, over 60 million have died in conflicts with Muslims over the centuries.
Jihadists have destroyed all native Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist communities from five of India's provinces
(including North Kashmir, now called Pakistan and Bangladesh). Islam first came into India as a Military
force in the year 715 C.E., in the Province of Sindh, but it made inroads into the country proper between
1020 and 1194 after which Mohammedan power became dominant in north India. The people of Kerala had their
violent introduction to Islam in the 18th century, when Tipu Sultan, the usurper of the Mysore Principality
marched into Kerala attacking the Zamorin Raja of Calicut and began ‘converting’ people to Islam. Tipu went
about with a Koran in one hand and a sword in the other giving the subject people of Kerala a choice of
accepting Islam or death. Doing this, he marched from Calicut up to Alwaye where he was forced to retreat
because of stiff resistance. In 1669 Aurangzeb issued a general order for the destruction of Hindu temples,
and it is estimated that about 3000 temples were destroyed and converted into Mosques in the 750 years of
Muslim rule in India. During the sultanate and later under Aurangzeb, many hundreds of thousands of Hindus
were forcibly converted to Islam. The sentences of criminals and prisoners of war were ruthlessly executed
with mercy and allowances only available to individuals embracing Islam. The Jaziya tax was both a heavy
financial -burden and a badge of inferiority borne by the Hindu, which also stimulated conversions to Islam.
In the 1860s a Muslim cleric in the Punjab region of India launched a murderous jihad initially against
Sikhs, and then against all non-Muslim groups. In South India in 1921, jihadists carried out massacres, the
forced conversion of Hindus, and the desecration of Hindu temples. The number of casualties over the
centuries are at least and order of magnitude greater than suffered by the Jews in the holocaust, and the
ongoing conflicts have been key to the economic and social disadvantages of Indian society. Although Indians
are an industrious and educated people, the social, political, and economic costs of the ongoing conflicts
are the cause of its poor economic performance compared to other industrialized nations.
INDONESIA - The Voice of the Martyrs Magazine writes that,
"around 280 churches have been burned, demolished, stoned, attached and closed since 1991 in Indonesia (Sept
1996 issue). [That number is up to around 500 churches today.] The article continues, "The June 9, 1996
attack in Surabaya, the second largest city in the country was the worst yet as 10 churches were
simultaneously razed by Muslim mobs." The article further records that 5,000 Muslims took part in the riots.
Again, these actions are not the work of a few select terrorists, they are the work of normal Muslims who
know what Islam expects of them, and as Muslims they exercised their faith to attack and destroy Churches in
Jihad for Allah. Since the country is majority Muslim and has been for decades, no one knows the extent of
the killings, rapes, and beatings. The peaceful Buddhists who previously occupied the region would have many
stories to tell. Buddhist cultures seem particularly at risk to Islamic methods of conquest, and the appetite
for violence for those performing the genocide is seemingly never quenched. Although 99% Muslim, non-Muslims
are hit again and again. In August 2003 a blast at the JW Marriott hotel in Jakarta killed 12, and again with
a suicide car bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta in 2004 which killed 10 people. One of
Indonesia's islands is Bali where most of million inhabitants are Hindu. Jemaah Islamiah, is the name of the
terrorist Islamic flavor preferred by devout Muslims in that region. In 2002, the bombing of two nightclubs
on that resort island of Bali killed 202 people, most of them foreign tourists (the infidel targets). It was,
at the time, the worst terrorist attack anywhere in the world since Sept 11, 2001.
ISRAEL - Muslim actions against the Jews of Israel would fill
volumes. I mention only one series of incidents here of particular significance. In 1921, the first British
High Commissioner of Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, appointed one Haj Amin al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem (1921-1937), in an attempt to appease Arab nationalism. After a series of violent riots against
Jews, the Arab Hebron riots in 1929 resulted in the rape and massacre of most of that Jewish community, the
chief instigator being the very same Haj Amin Al-Husseni. The Jews of Hebron were nearly all exterminated,
with men's testicles cut off, women raped, their breasts cut off, and babies slashed to death. Following his
early release from a British prison in connection with the Hebron massacres, Husseni started issuing fatwas
against all Jews. In 1937, the Grand Mufti's violence reached such a crescendo that he had to escape from
Palestine. He found sanctuary in Lebanon, where he was welcomed by the French (surprise!). In 1941 he helped
organize a revolt of the Arabs in Iraq against the British with the encouragement of the Germans. When that
failed, the Grand Mufti made his way to Berlin, where he remained from 1941 until the end of World War II as
the guest of Adolf Hitler. While in Berlin he broadcast propaganda on behalf of the Nazis to the entire
Middle East. He organized the Moslems in Albania and Kosovo (including the SS Khanzar Muslim division) for
the German war effort on the Eastern Front and against the Jews. He constantly encouraged the Nazi death
machine to exterminate the Jews of Europe at a faster pace. The Mufti surpassed even Adolf Hitler in his
hatred for Jews. At the 1946/47 Nurenberg War Trials, Adolf Hitler's deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, testified that
"the Mufti was one of the instigators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a
collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan." The Grand Mufti became an
international figure and a rallying point for the Arabs of the Middle East and fascists around the world. At
that point in time he had a valid claim to have been instrumental in killing more Jews than anyone else.
Yasser Arafat was known as Mufti's relative, and was seen by many Arabs as his spiritual heir.
ITALY - A Muslim stabbed, but failed to kill, Ettore Capriolo,
the man who translated "The Satanic Verses" into Italian. The attack occurred in Milan Italy. A bomb blast
Feb 26, 2002 damaged parked cars and shattered windows near the Interior Ministry in downtown Rome.
Investigators believe the bomb was planted on a moped around the corner from the ministry, the headquarters
of Italy's national police and security services. The attack, while largely symbolic, reflected a rising tide
of Islamic terrorism that seems to be focused on Italy. Only days earlier the police uncovered a tunnel that
suspected Muslim terrorists were digging in the vicinity the U.S. embassy in Rome, apparently intending to
carry out a chemical attack or blow it up.
JAPAN - In July 1991, a Muslim murdered Hitoshi Igarashi, the
Japanese man who translated "The Satan Verses" into Japanese. He was stabbed to death in Tokyo. A Muslim
living in Britain - Abdul Quddus, who is a senior vice president of Britain's Muslim league, said, "The
attacks are justified because people translating the book are also insulting the faith."
NIGERIA - In Oct. 1991, thousands of Muslims attacked Christian
churches, businesses, and homes in Kano, Nigeria. Kano is in northern Nigeria, which is predominately Muslim.
It was estimated that 300 Christians were murdered by Muslim mobs. Muslims were upset because Christian
evangelists had been converting Muslims in the region to Christianity.
In northern Kaduna state, more than 400 people were killed
in rioting instigated by Muslim religious leaders who recently committed themselves to peace and
reconciliation, and hundreds of homes and businesses, and at least six Anglican churches were destroyed by
arson. Enraged after a Nigerian newspaper ran an article claiming Muhammad would probably have married one of
the contestants of the Miss World contest, Muslims burnt down the newspaper offices. Rioters chanting "Allahu
Akbar" barricaded streets with burning tires, and began looting and burning homes and businesses. Christian
citizens were stabbed, beaten to death and even burnt alive. At the height of the riots Muslim youths
operated roadblocks, checking the religious identity of motorists and viciously attacking any Christians they
found." Our people are being shot, butchered and roasted," Bishop Josiah Fearon of the Diocese of Kaduna
reported to a friend. Bishop Josiah believes the ‘Miss World’ article merely provided an excuse for the
violence, which in reality was instigated for more sinister political reasons. Across North and Middle Belt
Nigeria Muslim activists have successfully lobbied for the expansion of Shari’ah. Eleven states have now
adopted full Shari’ah to the detriment of their non-Muslim minorities who have begun to see their freedoms
eroded. However in Kaduna state, where Muslims and Christians are roughly equal in numbers, Governor Alhaji
Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi has resisted the demands for full Shari’ah instead allowing for a more limited
expansion applying it only in Muslim-majority areas. This has infuriated Islamic religious leaders who are
trying to oust him from office. The article provided Muslim leaders with just the excuse they needed. By
unleashing terrible violence against Christians they hope to instigate a crisis which will result in the
In Dec. 2003 a student-led Islamic sect (Al Sunna Wal
Jamma) launched an armed uprising with the aim of setting up a Taliban-style Muslim state in northern
Nigeria. The group attacked the police stations in Kanamma and nearby Geidam, killing two policemen,
stripping the buildings of guns and ammunition and burning them to the ground. They then retreated to a
primary school in Kanamma where they hoisted the Taliban flag of Afghanistan. At least 18 people were
PAKISTAN - When the Muslims in Pakistan found a torn up Qur’an in a mosque, 30,000 Muslims attacked
the only majority Christian town (Shanti Nagar) in Pakistan and destroyed over half of it in 1996. Churches
were burned, businesses were destroyed, and women and girls were raped. The army had to come in to stop the
Muslims. A worldwide outcry against the action prompted Pakistan's Prime Minister to help re-build the
Christian homes, churches, and businesses that were destroyed.
[Note: This action was not the work of an organized terrorist group; rather it was a
display of pure, real Islam as the majority of average simple Muslims in the region understood it. There was
no Bin Laden leading the effort, no Hamas or Hezbollah orchestrating the action, it was ordinary Muslims,
30,000 of them, attacking a Christian village, because they thought that some Christian had torn up a
PHILIPPINES - In the Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf specializes in
kidnappings and beheadings of hostages in their terrorist campaign against the predominantly Catholic central
government. In mid-1972, partisan political violence was generally divided along religious lines and gripped
all of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago. In 1973-75, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) fielded some
30,000 armed fighters. Destruction and casualties, both military and civilian, were heavy; an estimated
50,000 people were killed. Talks between the government and the Moros began in late 1976 under the auspices
of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to which the Moros looked for support. The talks led to an
agreement between the government and the MNLF signed in Tripoli. After a lull in the fighting, the truce
broke down in 1977 amid Moro charges that the government's autonomy plan allowed only token self-rule.
Conflict between the autonomous south and government has been on-again, off-again ever since, characterized
by military defeats, followed by signed truces, then after a short period the breaking of the agreements by
the southern Muslims on some pretext. On Jan 4th, 2004 a bomb killed over 10
people at a gymnasium in the southern Philippines, with up to 30 hurt. The target of the attack on the
southern island of Mindanao was Vivencio Bataga, the Christian mayor of the largely Muslim town of Parang,
who had survived several attempts on his life. Mindanao has been racked by more than three decades of
violence as Muslim rebels battle to establish an Islamic state in the south of this overwhelmingly Roman
The Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF), an offshoot of the MNLF, continues to seek Muslim self-rule through Jihad (murder and terrorism).
Nearly two decades after the government in Manila created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, its five
provinces remain among the poorest in the country as its population remains focused on war versus
development. The rebellion in the south has killed more than 120,000 people since the late 1960s and stunted
development of an area rich in minerals, rice and other natural resources.
RUSSIA - Many more recent attacks are chronicled in Appendix C.
What could collectively be described as Russia’s Sept 11th occurred late Aug,
2004, when homicide bombers brought down two commercial airliners, followed a week later by a bloody hostage
incident at a school killing hundreds of women and children. The incident at Beslan, Russia is so significant
that a special chapter has been dedicated to its description. A notable fact is that the community targeted
in the town of Beslan is a predominately Christian enclave in the mostly Muslim south Caucasus
SPAIN - Spain’s 9/11 occurred on March 11, 2004 when militant
Islamists bombed several commuter trains, causing widespread death and injury, just prior to national
elections. The people of Spain, in a state of shock, voted for appeasement and withdrew support forces from
Iraq, as demanded by the militants. Spanish white hands raised in surrender brought great satisfaction to
Islamic groups worldwide. But neither Islamic nor Western peoples feel respect for Spain’s capitulation, as
the eventual destiny of any nation not willing to fight militant Islam is more speedy servitude to the
Islamic masters manipulating them.
SUDAN - Separate from the earlier Christian and animist purges
in the South, the Darfur genocide has recently left an estimated additional 30,000 people dead and 1.4
million displaced in Sudan and Chad. A State Department report, based on interviews with 1,136 refugees in
neighboring Chad, said 67 percent of refugees reported witnessing aerial bombardment by (Islamic) Sudanese
government aircraft; 61 percent reported the killing of a family member; 16 percent reported rape; and 33
percent reported hearing racial epithets. In months of interviews across Darfur, scores of Sudanese have
described horrific atrocities committed by Janjaweed and Sudanese soldiers, including systematic gang rapes,
summary executions, and male children being thrown into burning huts or onto pyres. The abuses seemed
designed to erase the collective identity of the mostly Muslim black Africans, survivors said. Survivors
testify that they often called the victims ‘slaves’, before raping women to create `Arab babies' and
castrating the men. The Janjaweed killed male babies, apparently to wipe out future generations, the
THAILAND - Four soldiers were killed Jan. 4, 2004 during the
armory raid in Narathiwat province and more than 300 weapons were stolen. Over 20 schools were torched in
what officials believe was a diversionary tactic. Two days later 2 monks, aged 65 and 13, were attacked with
machetes and killed by four men on two motorcycles as they left a temple in Yala, about 1,000 km south of
Bangkok. Since the armory raid, a series of hit-and-run assaults have killed at least 43 people in the
Muslim-dominated southernmost provinces in this Buddhist majority country. Government officials blame the
violence on Muslim separatists with possible links to terror networks like al-Qaeda. Most of the victims have
been police officers, soldiers, Buddhist monks and village leaders, with at least 60 police killed in 2002
and 2003. A bloody struggle was waged in the 1970s and 1980s by violent Islamic separatist groups, some
seeking reunification with Malaysia, costing thousands of lives. Muslims fighting for a separate Islamic
nation are suspected of countless bombings, arson attacks, shootings and other assaults during the past
several years in southern Thailand, in a bid to destabilize Bangkok's grip and allow Islamic "Sharia" law to
dominate. Relentless arson attacks on government schools in the south during the past decade, has been blamed
on Muslims who want to cripple the official education system so more Muslim children end up in local Islamic
schools or fundamentalist institutions in the Middle East.
Mohammed’s faithful followers also wiped out the Syrian and
Moroccan cultures, Christianity in Turkey, Jewish cultures in Syria and the rest of Middle East, the
Zoroastrian Faith in Iran, Buddhism in Afghanistan and Indonesia. This section is by no means a complete list
of Islamic conflict with current or past nations, and some may feel slighted to discover their countries
conflict and struggle with Islamic militants is not represented here. Please forgive me if I have misplaced
emphasis or omitted important events and struggles other innocent societies have had with Islam. My intent is
to cite sufficient history to establish reality firmly and permanently into the minds of cognizant, honest
adults. All history, news, and data would simply be overwhelming, and much too numerous to cite in a single
chapter, book, or even in many volumes of works.
In previewing Islam’s domino-like conquests worldwide, the
modus operandi appears to be triggered when they establish a "critical mass" of about 10 percent of a given
population. At about that point Muslim leaders and politicians begin to become bellicose and intimidating in
their demands. The Jihadist arm in unison actively foments violence, revolt, murder, kidnappings, and other
criminal activities. This in-turn cowers peace loving peoples and many leave for safer regions, further
accelerating Islam’s demographic conquest. Absent strong National leadership and will, no individual or
neighborhood can withstand such onslaught for long. Europe should be terribly worried, by 2020 Muslims will
account for 10% of its overall population. In population Islam is exploding, while the West is
Muslims could easily prove to the world that Islamic
nations are willing to fight against supposedly misguided Muslims practicing terror and genocide, by forming
a united military force and using it to stop the genocide against South Sudanese Christians and black Muslims
in Darfur sponsored by the Sudanese Muslim government. Will Peace-loving Muslim nations come forward to stand
with infidels against Islamic murderers, or will we get more of the same old tired English only lip service
when expediency calls for it, while their Imams and Clerics in Arabic inspire ever more young zealots to join
jihads against Israel, the USA, Russia, India, Philippines, and elsewhere. With notable exceptions like the
action Musharraf government is taking against Arabs in Eastern Pakistan, what will be seen is the usual
active and passive support for various Islamic militant groups, the families of their ‘martyrs’, and, of
course, playing the US/Israel blame game at the UN.
It is a curiosity to repeatedly hear of incidents when
Muslims go on violent murderous rampages immediately after religious services on their Sabbath. In stark
contrast to genuinely peaceful religions, young men stream out of Mosques going strait to work taking
vengeance against some perceived slight or injustice. When Muhammad got offended, he murdered.... today,
Muslims get offended, they murder. It is motivated by one and the same spirit and philosophy - the same
malevolent spirit that appeared to Muhammad which caused him to attempt suicide, then talked him out of it,
and started him on a path of violence. The same spirit that had him massacre 800 Jewish men and adolescent
boys, then enslave their women and children (those Jews had never clashed swords with
Muhammad or his followers until he attacked them). The spirit that drove Muhammad and his followers had a
thirst for conquest, and during Muhammad's last 10 years of life the blood flowed freely.
Not only have Muslims attacked non-Muslims in Pakistan, but
also the religious strife between Sunni and Shia Muslims has taken the lives of hundreds during the last few
years. Bombings of each other's mosques and gunfights outside of Mosques have taken place. Even inside of the
Mosques, people have been shot. It is probably safe to assume that even if Islam succeeded in conquered the
whole world, the bloody peace of Muhammad would continue unabated between nations and tribes. Islam seems
capable of justifying violence and war against anyone, anywhere, anytime, for almost any reason.
Though the devout continue to kill to bring about a day
when the entire world is under the thumb of Islam, it is certain that wars and conflict would not end if that
day were to ever arrive. Since the Islamic prescription for any hearsay, sacrilege, or misstep is violence, a
world full of Muslims would undoubtedly be a world of continual tribal, regional, or economic war.
Interactions between various Islamic peoples and sects today have demonstrated that conclusively. All Islamic
visions of peace and utopia are unrealistic, nothing more than the unrealizable inventions of infantile
The near and far history of a people and culture is
certainly telling, but the acts and behavior of its members today are inescapably revealing. Through this
chapter and its associated Appendex C, we will attempt to identify exactly that, ‘true Islam’, as it
is being practiced by large numbers of its devoted followers today. Not 1400 years ago, not a few hundred years ago, not fifty years ago, not even a decade
ago, but right now. Even as you read this, ever more newsworthy events are being played out somewhere in the
world, probably in several places simultaneously. Undoubtedly many many smaller-scale events and actions are
also at play, in places nearby and in remote lands which none of us will ever hear about. Because of the
prolific, abundant material in this chapter, due to the extraordinary energy and efforts of Islamic
extremists worldwide, the actual citations are separated out into Appendex C. The amount of source material is overwhelming and mind numbing, as is the material
presented regarding the actions of Islamists throughout all history. As the reader reviews the material here,
there is one question he/she should keep in mind. If Islam were truly a religion guided by compassion, mercy,
patience, balance and peace as claimed, could the acts recorded in this chapter and Appendex Chave taken place?
There is constant bloodshed with Jihad disseminating death
and terror. In Southern Sudan alone, Jihad has caused the death of some two million people and generated an
even larger number of refugees. The Arab government in Khartoum, Sudan has for decades been conducting a
genocidal campaign against the Christian and animist blacks in the south -- a campaign that includes mass
starvation, the bombing of hospitals, and slavery. Tens of thousands have been sold into slavery. The Muslim
Government of Sudan in February 1998 imposed a veto on humanitarian aid flights to the southern predominantly
Christian province of Bahr el-Ghazal, and up to 60,000 men, women and children died of starvation in a matter
of weeks. On July 14, 1999 it repeated the ban, leaving 200,000 people starving and trapped without food.
Some claim that the Muslim King of Libya, Moamar Ghadafi, is paying Billions of Dollars to Sudan and other
African Countries, to kill Christians and make Africa an all Muslim Continent.
In 2003 armed Islamists, some from Pakistan, have been
infiltrating the Indonesian isle of Sulawesi. Coinciding with the anniversary of the 2002 Bali bombing, they
have attacked five villages, burning churches and homes. The Muslim regional chief of police, brigadier
general Taufik Ridha, claims that he does not know the motive of these crimes, even though the attackers
separated out Christians (including a six year old girl) and then shot them in the head or hacked them to
death; and despite the fact that many of the weapons used were the same as those used by the Laskar Jihad
group, responsible for the massacres of Christians in 2000. The Laskar Jihad, under pressure from the Islamic
government responding to American demands, claims to have disbanded, which really now seems to be a new
Islamic euphemism for ‘reorganizing under a new Jihadic banner’.
This culture of hate has multiple heads from Algeria to
Afghanistan, to Indonesia, via Gaza and the West Bank, Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum, Teheran, Turkey, and
Karachi. It scatters the seeds of terrorism from one end of the earth to the other. Muslims in Indonesia
slaughtered at least 200,000 Christians in East Timor (a former Portuguese colony
annexed by Indonesia in 1975) and another 100,000 Christians have been killed in Indonesia proper. Moslem
fighters returning from fighting the Russians in Afghanistan murdered over 100,000 in Algeria in the ‘90s.
Christians have been pursued, and massacred, and their churches burned down by Jihadists in the Moluccas and
other Indonesian islands. The additional death toll in those violent attacks is over 10,000, while an
additional 8,000 Christians have been forcibly converted to Islam. Atrocities are also being committed by
Jihadists in both the Philippines, and some northern Nigerian states. Hundreds of innocent people died when
Jihad struck at the Jewish Community Center of Buenos Aires in Argentina, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania. In Egypt, Jihadists have massacred Copts (native Egyptians) in their churches and villages, and
murdered European tourists. Christians in Pakistan and in Iran live in terror of accusations of blasphemy,
which, if "proven", can yield a death sentence. And a cataclysmic act of Jihadic terror resulted in the
slaughter of 3,000 innocent civilians of multiple faiths and nationalities in New York, on September 11. As
in all offensive Jihadist acts, none of those victims were guilty of any crime. They were murdered and
mutilated out of hatred inspired by a destructive and ambitious religious/political philosophy (AKA ‘Radical
Realize that the news releases outined in Appendex C in no way represent the entire scope of current Jihadists acts against those they target
worldwide. Most activities are generally never reported or suppressed by a media who normally prefer to not
mention the religious motivations or affiliations behind the stories. Rather these postings are cited to
demonstrate the general trend of ongoing activities in support of ‘pure Islam’ for the benefit of those who
do not always follow world events closely. Even those who try to keep up with news and trends will learn from
this linear presentation of various events all following the same general topic. This first entry separated
out has special significance to Americans, as it is regarding an icon of the US Democratic Party, which
should always be remembered. Subsequent entries represent some of the major stories starting in Algeria in
1997, with more space given to the more recent activities, up to the date of this writing. Please take the
time to review the material in Appendex C, at least until you are thoroughly convinced of the facts of much of mainstream core
US History - Jun 5, 1968 Los
Angeles, California – Robert Francis Kennedy (Attorney General of the United
States, U.S. Senator – Presidential Candidate), was shot dead in 1968 at Los Angeles’ Ambassador Hotel by
Sirhan Sirhan. At the time, Kennedy was a Democratic senator and presidential candidate. A Palestinian Arab,
Sirhan Sirhan, stepped forward and fired a .22-caliber revolver at Senator Kennedy. Although he was quickly
tackled, Kennedy and five others were wounded. Sirhan Sirhan was arrested at the scene and later convicted of
first-degree murder and given a life sentence. Senator Robert F. Kennedy died the next day. Sirhan Bishara
Sirhan is a 25-year-old Palestinian Muslim immigrant who said he felt betrayed by Kennedy’s support for
Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. As Yitzhak Rabin wrote in his memoirs: "The American people were so dazed by
what they perceived as the senseless act of a madman that they could not begin to fathom its political
significance." What was its political significance? According to a report made by a special counsel to the
L.A. County District Attorney's office, Sirhan shot Kennedy for his support of Israel, and had been planning
the assassination for months. In an outburst during his trial, he confessed, "I killed Robert Kennedy
willfully, premeditatedly, and with twenty years of malice aforethought." (Twenty years, of course, date back
to Israel's declaration of nationhood in 1948). When Yasser Arafat's Black September terrorist stormed the
Saudi Embassy in Khartoum in March of 1973 and took US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Charge d'Affaires George Curtis
Moore, and others hostage, Sirhan's release was one of their main demands. On March 2, 1973, after Nixon
rejected that demand, Arafat was overheard and recorded by Israeli intelligence and the U.S. National
Security Agency giving the code words for the execution of Noel, Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, who
were shot to death. James Welsh, a Palestinian analyst for the N.S.A., went public with charges of a cover-up
of Arafat's key role in the planning and execution of these kidnappings and murders. (There is no statute of
limitations on murder.) If Sirhan had acted independently of the PLO, why were they willing to kill Americans
to try to gain his freedom?
The information and data presented thus far is
overwhelming, to the point of desensitizing a reader deluged with it over a relatively short period. The
process of reading leaves insufficient time for contemplation and normal human emotion. So much has happened;
so many lives have been forever altered or snuffed-out as a result of Islamic Jihadic actions throughout the
world. It is simply impossible to digest and properly consider on a personal human level the full impact of
Islam’s deeds yesterday and today. The reader is encouraged in this section to put him/her self into the
shoes of someone and thus more intimately consider the personal impact of the violent acts performed against
them by the energetic Muslim militants. A personal case study is given from the perspective of one victim and
witness in Indonesia, which gives us the true human context to the many historical and current-news accounts
cited herein. The pain, trauma, confusion, terror, and sorrow felt by this victim is representative of all
victims of zealous Islamic militants acting on their religious convictions. In the end it doesn’t matter if
the victim dies from beating, having their throat slashed, shot, stabbed, burned, blown up, run down, or
forced to jump off a burning sky scraper, the terror is the same, and the feelings and experiences of both
the victim and victimizer are roughly identical. What matters is that just before the attack the victims were
largely at peace with their attackers, having no designs to harm them in any way, and that the perpetrators
carry out their acts feeling absolutely no empathy towards their victims.
Joel-News-International: 21 June, 1998 Jakarta, Indonesia – ‘CHINESE GIRLS RAPED’
(reported by a missionary to Indonesia, Bill Hekman: "Here I submit a victim’s account of being raped during
the May riots here in Jakarta".) Reference to Huaran Bulletin Board June 12, 1998.
"My name is Vivian, and I am 18 years old. I have a little
sister and brother. As a family we live in what is supposed to be a "secure" apartment. At 9.15 am, May
14th, 1998 a huge crowd had gathered around our apartment. They screamed,
"Let’s butcher the Chinese!", "Let’s eat pigs!", "Let’s have a party!" We live of the 7th floor and we got a call from a family on the 3rd floor saying
that the crowd had reached the 2nd floor. They even chased some occupants
upstairs. We were all very frightened. In our fright we prayed and left everything in God’s
Afterward we left our room and went upstairs to the top floor, as it was impossible
to go downstairs and escape. We got to the 15th floor and stayed with some friends.
Not long afterwards we were surprised because some of the crowd coming out of the elevators right before we entered
the room. We hurried into the room and locked the door tightly. At that time we heard them knock at the other rooms
loudly and there were some screams from women and girls. Our room was filled with fear.
We realized that they would come to us. So we spread throughout the room hiding in
the corners. We could hear girls of 10 to 12 years old screaming, That time I didn’t know that these little girls
were being raped. After about half an hour the noise diminished and we had some guts to go out and check. It was
indescribable. A lot, some of them young girls, were lying on the floor. "Oh my God, what has happened?" Seeing all
of this we screamed and my little sister Fenny, screamed hysterically and hugged her father.
Tears started coming down from my eyes. With our friends, a newlywed couple, we
started going downstairs. Reaching the 10th floor, we heard a scream for help. The
scream was very clear and we decided to go down and see. But as we turned we saw a lot of people. I saw a woman in
her 20s being raped by 4 men. She tried to fight back but she was held down tightly.
Realizing the danger we ran as hard as we could. But unfortunately the mob caught
Fenny. We tried to rescue her, but could not do anything. There were about 60 of them. They tied us up with ripped
sheets, myself, my father, my mother Fenny, Donny, Uncle Dodi and my Aunt Vera. They led us to a room. Uncle Dodi
asked what they wanted, but they did not reply.
They looked evil and savage. One of them grabbed Fenny roughly and dragged her to a
sofa. At that time I knew she was in great danger. I screamed loudly but one of the mob slapped me in my face. My
father who also screamed was hit with a piece of wood and he fainted. My mother has fainted when Fenny was dragged
to the sofa. I could only pray and pray that disaster would not befall us.
Uncle Dodi kept trying to stop them by offering money. His efforts were fruitless.
And in the end 5 people raped Fenny. Before beginning with the raping they always said "Allahu Akbar" (an Islamic phrase in Arabic meaning "God is great"). They were
ferocious and brutal.
Not long afterward, around 9 men came to the room and dragged me. I also saw them
forcing and dragging my Aunt Vera. But at that time I passed out and everything went blank. I became conscious at
around 5 or 6 pm. My head hurted and I realized I had no clothing on my body. I cried and realized my family was
still there. My father was hugging my mother and little bother Doni. I also saw uncle Dodi lying on the floor and
Aunt Vera was crying over his body. I felt so weak and fainted again.
The next day I was in the Pluit hospital. My father and mother were beside me. With
all the pains on my body I asked, "Mom, why Fenny …Mom?" I felt a stinging pain as I said these words. My cheeks
were swollen. My mother cried again and couldn’t speak any words, while my father, holding back his tears, managed
to smile at me. After 4 days in treatment, my condition has improved. With a sad look, my father told me then what
had happened. After I fainted 7 people raped me. At that time my father still couldn’t see well after being hit
with a piece of wood.
They raped me repeatedly. Then my father said "Vivian, Fenny is gone…" I was
confused and cried out, "Why Dad?" My father couldn’t answer. He told me to rest and went out of the room. I cried
over and over again, feeling that my life had no meaning any more. A week ago, after I was released from the
hospital I was told everything that had happened.
When Fenny was raped she kept on fighting and so she was repeatedly slapped by her
rapists. The last time she fought Fenny spitted on one of them. Offended, the man grabbed a knife and stabbed
Fenny’s stomach over and over again. Finally she died with blood over her whole body.
My father told me that uncle Dodi had the same fate watched by aunt Vera who was
also raped. "God…why should all of this happen? Where are you God? Are you still alive?" My aunt Vera now stays
with her parents. She is in shock. Her face is blank and she refuses to eat. Almost every hour my mother and I cry
over all these happenings. I can never forget. These mobs of people are monsters."
Additional comments from Bill Hekman:
This is one of many victims. Hundreds of women and children were raped, mutilated and killed by Muslim mobs.
Some had their vaginas ripped apart, their bodies cut into pieces. Over 5000 of the Chinese Indonesian’s
shops were looted and burned down. A few days ago another 63 shops were burned in Tegal, Central Java. The
city of Solo is burned down. There is no protection and no justice in this country any more. Yesterday I was
in the Kelapa Gading area and that area was spared from destruction. The police and military had guarded all
the entry roads. The people there had collected large sums of money from door to door and paid for their
protection. A similar situation took place in the Pondok Indah area. For the people who cannot pay millions
to the armed forces there is no protection. Right now the hundreds of thousands of thugs, robbers, rapists,
and killers live all around us. They are our neighbors. There is no punishment for the criminals and no
justice for the victims. Yet, all Indonesians call themselves believers in God almighty. Some Christians are
putting signs on their shops "Owned by Muslim".
The next article attempts to describe the indescribable. It
delves into the spirit and mentality and family support structure that is the force behind homicide bombers.
All involved are completely void of empathy, a key characteristic of a certain personality dysfunction better
known by its technical term ‘narcissistic personality disorder’.
The killing mantra (Washington Post
6/21/2002) by Diana West --- And Palestinian mothers? … The sickening fact is, the
strongest desire of certain Palestinian parents is for their children to die, killing as many Jews as
possible, from infants to old people, in the process. Take Mariam Farhat. When she got word her 19-year-old
son, Mohammed, had been shot dead after murdering five Israeli teens and wounding 23 others, she told the
Saudi-owned daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "I began to cry, 'Allah is the greatest,' and prayed and thanked Allah
for the success of the operation. I began to utter cries of joy and we declared that we were happy. . . . I
encouraged all my sons to die a martyr's death." (Translation by Middle East Media Research
The maternal death wish may seem freakish, but Mrs. Farhat is not alone. "May every bullet hit its target and may
God give you martyrdom," Naima el Abed tells her son, Mahmoud, on a video released by Hamas that records the
23-year-old college student's preparations for a rampage against Israel. "This," she says, "is the best day of my
Almost as good, no doubt, as the day of her son's funeral. This came after Mrs. el Abed's little terrorist was shot
dead attempting to infiltrate a Jewish community, killing two Israeli soldiers. Consider the Palestinian scene of
bereavement that followed: "All around her were women, clapping and celebrating his death, while his father Hassan
quietly received congratulations," the Associated Press reported. "Several of their nine other children handed out
candy to visitors. 'I wish all my children would be like him and carry out operations like that,' Naima el Abed
said." Chances are excellent that they will —and not just to please mom. The Palestinian Authority may blindly
blame Israel for creating a generation of suicidal maniacs, but it is the PA itself that has helped nurture—if such
a word applies—such taboo-breaking evil through its relentless propaganda machine.
With subtitled clips from Palestinian-controlled television (available through WorldNetDaily.com), MSNBC's Alan
Keyes this week gave American viewers an eye-popping look at the pernicious role the PA plays in teaching young
people to kill and be killed. It starts with state-sponsored sing-alongs for the romper-room set—ditties about
blood-drenched soil and warriors of Jihad. It continues with shows featuring girls in party dresses delivering
bloodthirsty harangues: "When I wander into the entrance of Jerusalem, I'll turn into a suicide warrior! I'll turn
into a suicide warrior! In battle-dress! In battle-dress! In battle-dress!" And it goes on through the seemingly
continuous loop of government-broadcast sermons. From one tele-imam comes, "Bless those who wired themselves,
putting the belt around his waist or his sons, and who enter deeply in the Jewish community and say, 'Allah is
great.' " Or: "Wherever you are, kill these Jews and these Americans who are like them and support
Mr. Keyes pointed out a young boy in one congregation. Can a child thus indoctrinated ever
make peace? This same boy is probably now caught up in the latest Palestinian craze — trading charms,
Pokemon-style, that feature the faces of suicide bombers. Maybe he'll go on to Al-Najah University in Nablus,
alma mater of this week's bus bomber, Mohammed "How beautiful it is to kill and be killed" al-Ghoul.
Al-Najah, it must be noted, was the scene of last fall's commemoration of the Sbarro pizza-parlor attack,
complete with fake pizza slices, plastic body parts and play explosions. …That PA sure teaches its children
As an experiment, every Internet savvy individual should go
to Yahoo or Google and do searches (in any language) of sites containing the word "Muslim" or "Islam", and
which also must contain one of the following words; "violence, attack, terrorism, militant, murder, bombing,
or riot. Make note of the number of hits, and preview some of the writings, then repeat the experiment using
the other major religions of the world, Hindu, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, and any others you care to explore.
This sort of quantitative macro research does not reveal the details of the nearly innumerable postings, but
it is a good indicator of the past, and extrapolations into the future may be inferred thereby. The only
predictions into the future that can be counted on are ones based solidly on the past.
This body of evidence is sickening, overwhelming, and
undeniable. Can a thinking man deliberate on these facts and come to any kind of reassuring conclusion other
than Islam has not quite finished its bloody conquests? Unfortunately, even electing a pacifist President and
locking the door will not protect our children from the designs Islam has upon this people. Buddhism, a
peaceful religion and pacifist way of life, was once the dominate religion and culture in Afghanistan and
Indonesia, but today it is near impossible to find even artifacts of the culture now completely conquered by
Islam. Pacifism operates on the assumption that non-threatening postures will eventually be recognized and
not be attacked or destroyed. Sadly, such assumptions have not (and will not) work against Islamic militants
who throughout history have demonstrated little empathy and less tolerance towards others. Whether the
perceived opponents are pacifist or openly oppositional makes no difference, Islamic Jihad has shown little
or no deference in its actions, conduct, and options presented to all types of peoples and cultures.
Islamists prefer pacifists, they are much less trouble to kill, enslave, and/or convert. If you want to help
the Islamist cause, then by all means, be a pacifist.