Founded Aug. 2006                                                                                          2 CHRONICLES 7:14
                                                             Remenant News & Views   


A Critical Analysis of ‘Real Islam’. Its People, Culture, Philosophy, and Practices Yesterday and Today.





Chapter 2


‘Real Islam’ from the Religious Texts


The Doctrine of Abrogation


Chronology and Abrogation in the QUR’AN


‘JIHAD’, the Real Meaning


Chapter 3


The Qur’an and Jihad


The Diary of Muhammad


by: Vernon Richards (Sept 19, 2005)


Comments and suggestions may be directed to








"Chapter 5


Actions of the four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs


Chapter 6


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" (Encounter).






An Introduction to Real Islam




The View from Outside


Chapter 1


The Issue at Hand: Survival


The Emperors Raiment


The Enemy at the Gates

Chapter 4


Muhammad’s Actions, Speaking Louder than Words



The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslims


Muslims who Leave Islam


Islamic Dissent


Suspected Collaborators


Chapter 8


Islamic Honesty and Honor


Chapter 9


The Battle of Badr


Chapter 10


The American Muslim


Chapter 11


Worldwide Islam Today, by Country


Chapter 12


Todays News from Peaceful Islam


Chapter 13


Real Islam; a Case Study


Chapter 14


Islamic Psychology 101


Chapter 15


Islamic Politics 101


Islamic Economics 101


The Women of Islam


Chapter 16


The Infidel POW


Chapter 17


Beslan, Russia & Islam


Chapter 18


Persia-Egypt and Islam


Chapter 19


Islamic Aid (Jizya)


Chapter 20


Spin …The Art of Ignoring the Obvious


Chapter 21


The Gathering Storm


Chapter 22


Seeds of Armageddon


Chapter 23


Roots of Today’s Campaign


Chapter 24


Liberty Threatened


Chapter 25


Hard Options in Israel


Chapter 26


Islamic Contradictions and Hypocrisies


Chapter 27


Never-Ending Islamic Conspiracies


Chapter 28


The Final Analysis on Real Islam


Islamic Culpability


Chapter 29


The Path Ahead




Dark Premonitions




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


The View from Outside


      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 …or not.


      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 outsiders.


      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 outsiders.


      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., London, 1861]


Personal appearance


Though advancing age may have somewhat relaxed the outlines of his countenance and affected the vigor of his carriage, yet his form, although little above the ordinary height, was stately and commanding. The depth of feeling in his dark black eye, and the winning expression of a face otherwise attractive, gained the confidence and love even of a stranger. His features often unbended into a smile full of grace and condescension. "He was," says an admiring follower, "the handsomest and bravest, the brightest-faced and most generous of men. It was as though the sun-light beamed in his countenance." Yet when anger kindled in his piercing glance, the object of his displeasure might well quail before it: his stern frown was the certain augury of death to many a trembling captive.


Simplicity of his life


A patriarchal simplicity pervaded his life. Custom was to do every thing for himself. If he gave alms he would place it with his own hand in that of the petitioner. He aided his wives in their household duties; he mended his own clothes; he tied up the goats; he even cobbled his sandals. His ordinary dress consisted of plain white cotton stuff; but on high and festive occasions, he wore garments of fine linen, striped or dyed in red. Mahomet, with his wives, lived in a row of low and homely cottages built of unbaked bricks … The Prophet must be addressed in subdued accents and in a reverential style. His word was absolute. His bidding was law.


Urbanity and kindness of disposition


A remarkable feature was the urbanity and consideration with which Mahomet treated even the most insignificant of his followers. Modesty and kindness, patience, self-denial, and generosity, pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. He disliked to say No; if unable to reply to a petitioner in the affirmative, he preferred to remain silent. "He was more bashful," says Ayesha, "than a veiled virgin; and if anything displeased him, it was rather from his face, than by his words, that we discovered it; he never smote any one but in the service of the Lord, not even a woman or a servant." … He possessed the rare faculty of making each individual in a company think that he was the most favored guest. When he met any one rejoicing he would seize him eagerly and cordially by the hand. With the bereaved and afflicted he sympathized tenderly. Gentle and unbending towards little children ... He shared his food, even in times of scarcity, with others; and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of every one about him. A kindly and benevolent disposition pervades all these illustrations of his character. Mahomet was also a faithful friend. …his affections were in no instance misplaced; they were ever reciprocated by a warm and self-sacrificing love.


Moderation and magnanimity


In the exercise at home of a power absolutely dictatorial, Mahomet was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies, when once they had cheerfully submitted to his claims…


Earnestness and honesty of Mahomet at Mecca


As he was himself the subject of convictions so deep and powerful, it will readily be conceived that the exhortations of Mahomet were distinguished by a corresponding strength and urgency. Being also a master in eloquence, his language was cast in the purest and most persuasive style of Arabian oratory. His fine poetical genius exhausted the imagery of nature in the illustration of spiritual truths; and a vivid imagination enabled him to bring before his auditory the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment, the joys of believers in Paradise, and the agonies of lost spirits in hell, as close and impending realities. In ordinary address, his speech was slow, distinct, and emphatic; but when he preached, "his eye would redden, his voice rise high and loud, and his whole frame become agitated with passion, even as if he were warning the people of an enemy about to fall on them the next morning or that very night." In this thorough earnestness lay the secret of his success. … His inspiration was essentially oracular. His mind and his lips were no more than a passive organ which received and transmitted the heavenly message.


Benefits of Mahometanism


And what have been the effects of the system which, established by such instrumentality, Mahomet has left behind him? We may freely concede that it banished for ever many of the darker elements of superstition which had for ages shrouded the Peninsula. Idolatry vanished before the battle-cry of Islam; the doctrine of the unity and infinite perfections of God, and of a special all-pervading Providence, became a living principle in the hearts and lives of the followers of Mahomet, even as it had in his own. An absolute surrender and submission to the divine will (the very name of Islam) was demanded as the first requirement of the religion. Nor are social virtues wanting. Brotherly love is inculcated within the circle of the faith; orphans are to be protected, and slaves treated with consideration; intoxicating drinks are prohibited, and Mahometanism may boast of a degree of temperance unknown to any other creed. (also: Alms are collected and distributed to the needy).


      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.



Chapter 1

The Issue at Hand: Survival


      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 employ.


      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.

The Emperors Raiment


      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.

The Enemy at the Gates


      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 never forget.


      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 history.


      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 Islam.


      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)?

Chapter 2

‘Real Islam’ from the Religious Texts


      "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 rewarded.


      So, let us start our study of official Islamic doctrine.

The Doctrine of Abrogation


      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 longer applicable.


      "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 [1] 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,[2] 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, [3], states on abrogation:


Rather than attempting to explain away the inconsistencies in passages giving regulations for the Muslim community, Kuran scholars and jurists came to acknowledge the differences, while arguing that the latest verse on any subject "abrogated" all earlier verses that contradicted it. A classic example involves the Kuranic teaching or regulation on drinking wine, where V, 90, which has a strong statement against the practice, came to be interpreted as a prohibition, abrogating II, 219, and IV, 43, which appear to allow it.


      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 today.


      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 land".


[See: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986 p.27]


      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 deceit.


      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:


"Contradictions do abound in the Koran, and the early Muslims were perfectly well aware of them; indeed they devised the science of abrogation to deal with them. It is a very convenient doctrine that, as one Christian unkindly put it, ‘fell in with that law of expediency which appears to be the salient feature in Muhammad’s prophetic career’. According to this doctrine, certain passages of the Koran are abrogated by verses revealed afterward, with a different or contrary meaning. This was supposedly taught by Muhammad himself, at Sura 2, verse 105: 'Whatever verses we cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' …Now we can see how useful and convenient the doctrine of abrogation is in bailing scholars out of difficulties- though, of course, it does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early suras), and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses are Medinan (i.e., later); ‘tolerance’ has been abrogated by ‘intolerance’. For, the famous Sword verse, Sura 9, verse 5, 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,' is claimed to have canceled 124 verses that promote tolerance and patience." [4]

Chronology and Abrogation in the QUR’AN


      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,[5] 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)[6], 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[7], 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 Kuran responds constantly and often explicitly to Muhammad's historical situation, giving encouragement in times of persecution, answering questions from his followers and opponents, commenting on current events, etc. Major doctrines and regulations for the Muslim community, which are never stated systematically in the Kuran, are introduced gradually and in stages that are not always clear. There are apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the presentation of both the beliefs and the regulations, and the latter are sometimes altered to fit new situations. Thus it is essential to know the approximate dates or historical settings of some passages, and at least the chronological order of others, if they are to be understood fully. This problem was recognized by early Muslim scholars who devoted much attention to it in the first few centuries, until a fairly rigid system of dating was established and given the imprimatur of orthodoxy. In modern times the study of the chronology of the Kuran has been almost exclusively a domain of Western scholars, who have not however been able to reach a consensus on a dating system, or even on the possibility of establishing one".


      The Egyptian standard edition gives the following chronological order of the Suras, with the verses said to date from a different period given in parentheses:


XCVI, LXVIII (17-33, 48-50 Med.), LXXIII (10 f., 20 Med.), LXXIV, I, CXI, LXXXI, LXXXVII, XCII, LXXXIX, XCIII, XCIV, CIII, C, CVIII, CII, CVII, CIX, CV, CXIII, CXIV, CXII, LIII, LXXX, XCVII, XCI, LXXXV, CVI, CI, LXXV, XCV, CIV, LXXVII (48 Med.), L (38 Med.), XC, LXXXVI, LIV (54-6 Med.), XXXVIII, VII (163-70 Med.), LXXII, XXXVI (45 Med.), XXV (68-70 Med.), XXXV, XIX (58, 71 Med.), XX (130 f. Med.), LVI (71 f. Med.), XXVI (197, 224-7 Med.),XXVII, XXVIII (52-5 Med., 85 during Hijrah), XVII (26, 32 f., 57, 73-80 Med.), X (40, 94-6 Med.), XI (12, 17, 114 Med.), XII (1-3, 7 Med.), XV, VI (20, 23, 91, 114, 141, 151-3 Med.), XXXVII, XXXI (27-9 Med.), XXXIV (6 Med.), XXXIX (52-4 Med.), XL (56 f. Med.), XLI, XLII (23-5, 27 Med.), XLIII (54 Med.), XLIV, XLV (14 Med.), XLVI (10, 15, 35 Med.), LI, LXXXVIII, XVIII (28, 83-101 Med.), XVI (126-8 Med.), LXXI, XIV (28 f. Med.), XXI, XXIII, XXXII (16-20 Med.), LII, LXVII, LXIX, LXX, LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXXII, LXXXIV, XXX (17 Med.), XXIX (1-11 Med.), LXXXIII Hijrah, II (281 later), VIII (30-6 Mec.), III, XXXIII, LX, IV, XCIX, LVII, XLVII (13 during Hijrah), XIII, LV, LXXVI, LXV, XCVIII, LIX, XXIV, XXII, LXIII, LVIII, XLIX, LXVI, LXIV, LXI, LXII, XLVIII, V, IX (128 f. Mec.), CX.


      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:


Weil: 2, 98, 62, 65, 22, 4, 8, 47, 57, 3, 59, 24, 63, 33, 48, 110, 61, 60, 58, 49, 66, 9, 5.


Noldeke and Blachere: 2, 98, 64, 62, 8, 47, 3, 61, 57, 4, 65, 59, 33, 63, 24, 58, 22, 48, 66, 60, 110, 49, 9, 5.


[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, [8], 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), [9], 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 Qur’an.


      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.

‘JIHAD’, the Real Meaning

  '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[10] comes a definition, probably the simplest most straightforward found. Kassis essentially derived it from the Qur’anic context of the word:


JIHAD = JAHADA (verb). To struggle, strive, fight for the faith.


      The following is a more detailed definition of Jihad from the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam[11], page 89:


DJIHAD, holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth "rukn", or fundamental duty, and is indeed still so regarded by the descendants of the Kharidjis. The position was reached gradually but quickly. In the Meccan Suras of the Kuran patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Medina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Traditions are explicit on the point; but the Kuranic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless. Still, the story of his writing to the powers around him shows that such a universal position was implicit in his mind, and it certainly developed immediately after his death, when the Muslim armies advanced out of Arabia. It is now a "fard ‘ala ‘l-kifaya, a duty in general on all male, free, adult Muslims, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Muslim army, yet not a duty necessarily incumbent on every individual but sufficiently performed when done by a certain number. So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam."


      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;


"The literal meaning of Jihad is "to strive". Technically, Jihad is any endeavor that is made to further the cause of God, whether the endeavor is positive (e.g. promoting good) or negative (e.g. eradicating evil) in character, takes the form of social action or private effort, involves monetary expenditure or physical struggle, or is made against the enemy without or the enemy within (i.e. against "the bidding self"). The reduction of Jihad to "war" is thus unjustified, though war is an important form of Jihad, and a number of Qur’anic verses about Jihad (e.g. 8:74, 75, 9:44) refer primarily to fighting. The comprehensive nature of Jihad is evidenced by such verses as 29:69: "Those who strive in Us (= Our way), We guide them to Our ways." When Jihad takes the form of war it is know as qital ("fighting").


Regarding Jihad, the "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir", volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191[12] states:


As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the disbelievers, and their avoidance of Allah’s path are far worse than killing. Thus Allah says, "And Fitnah is worse than killing." This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing.


      The classic manual of Islamic sacred law, "Reliance of the Traveler" [13], 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:


o9.0 JIHAD: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word "mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the less Jihad. As for the great Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.


      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:


"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah."


      A Hadith report by Muslim confirms this philosophy:


"To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it."


o9.1 OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD: Jihad is communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others. … and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has promised great good." Koran 4:95


o9.3 Jihad is also obligatory for everyone able to perform it, male or female, old or young when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims.


o9.8 The Caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax Jizya…in accordance with the word of Allah Most High: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." Qur’an 9:29 The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim….


      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 Jihad:


Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight against people until they say that "there is no god but Allah", that "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah", they pray, and pay religious taxes. If they do that, their lives and property are safe."


The Qur’an says Jihad receives the highest reward and is the surest way to paradise if the "fighter" dies: "Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead … they live … in the presence of their Lord" (Qur’an 3:169). "… To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah … soon shall we {God} give him a reward" (Qur’an 4:74).


      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 death.


      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),


Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis (one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence) maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them. [14]


      Ibn Taymiyya (Hanbali)


Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare). [15]


      From (primarily) the Hanafi school, as given in the Hidayah


It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do. [16]


      al-Mawardi (Shafi’i)


The mushrikun (infidels) of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…It is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…. [17]


      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:


In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. [18]


      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,


"Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. … Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them"


      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 them.


      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 late.


      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:


…through an examination of media statements by university-based specialists, they tend to portray the phenomenon of jihad in a remarkably similar fashion—only, the portrait happens to be false. … from the more than two dozen experts I surveyed, only four of them admit that jihad has any military component whatsoever, and even they, with but a single exception, insist that this component is purely defensive in nature. … To another half-dozen scholars in my survey, jihad may likewise include militarily defensive engagements, but this meaning is itself secondary to lofty notions of moral self-improvement. … But an even larger contingent—nine of those surveyed—deny that jihad has any military meaning whatsoever. The trouble with this accumulated wisdom of the scholars is simple to state. It suggests that Osama bin Laden had no idea what he was saying when he declared jihad on the United States several years ago and then repeatedly murdered Americans in Somalia, at the U.S. embassies in East Africa, in the port of Aden, and then on September 11, 2001. It implies that organizations with the word "jihad" in their titles, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's own "International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," are grossly misnamed. And what about all the Muslims waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at this very moment, in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not heard that jihad is a matter of controlling one's anger? But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists. More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history.


In the pre-20th century years (pre-modern times), jihad meant mainly one thing among Islamic majority Sunni Muslims. It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims. In this prevailing pre-modern view, the purpose of jihad is more political than religious. It aims first to extend sovereign Muslim power, and then by default to promote and spread the Islamic faith to those subjugated. The goal was boldly offensive, with its ultimate intent nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world. By winning territory and diminishing the size of areas ruled by non-Muslims, jihad accomplishes two goals: it manifests Islam's claim to replace other faiths, and it brings about the benefit of an Islamic ‘just’ world order. In 1955 (before political correctness conquered the universities), Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University wrote that jihad is "an instrument for both the universalization of (Islamic) religion and the establishment of an imperial world state."


As for the conditions under which jihad might be undertaken—when, by whom, against whom, with what sort of declaration of war, ending how, with what division of spoils, and so on—these are matters that Islamic religious scholars over the centuries worked out in excruciating detail. But about the basic meaning of jihad—warfare against unbelievers to extend Muslim domains—there was perfect consensus in pre-modern times. For example, the most important collection of Hadith (reports about the sayings and actions of Muhammad), called Sahih al-Bukhari, contains 199 references to jihad, and every one of them refers to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims. To quote the 1885 Dictionary of Islam, jihad is "an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the traditions (hadith) as a divine institution, and enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims." In the vast majority of pre-modern cases jihad signified one thing only: armed action against non-Muslims justified by both Allah and His messenger (Muhammad) as requisite for the advancement of Islam.


That said, jihad also had two variant meanings over the ages, one of them even more radical than the standard meaning and one quite pacific. The first, mainly associated with the thinker Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328), holds that born Muslims who fail to live up to the requirements of their faith are themselves to be considered unbelievers, and so legitimate targets of jihad. This tended to come in handy when (as was often the case) one Muslim ruler made war against another by portraying the enemy as not properly Muslim enough. The second variant, usually associated with Sufis, or Muslim mystics, was the doctrine customarily translated as "greater" or "higher" jihad. This Sufi variant invokes allegorical modes of interpretation to turn jihad's literal meaning of armed conflict upside-down, calling instead for a withdrawal from the world to struggle against one's baser instincts in pursuit of numinous awareness and spiritual depth. But as Rudolph Peters notes in his authoritative Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (1995), this interpretation was "hardly touched upon" in pre-modern legal writings on jihad. Jihad is a concept has caused and continues to cause discomfort and untold human suffering. In the words of Bat Ye'or (the Swiss Islamic specialist), Jihad is responsible for "war, dispossession, dhimmitude (subordination), slavery, and death." As Bat Ye'or points out, Muslims "have the right as Muslims to say that jihad is just and spiritual" if they so wish; but by the same token, any truly honest accounting would have to give voice to the countless "infidels who were and are the victims of jihad" and who, no less than the victims of Nazism or Communism, have "their own opinion of the jihad that targets them."


… some deny that jihad has any martial component whatsoever, instead redefining the idea into a purely spiritual or social activity. But unfortunately for the rest of the world, most Muslims in the world today largely reject these moves away from the old definition and purpose of jihad. Instead, the classic notion of jihad continues to resonate with vast numbers of them, as Alfred Morabia, a foremost French scholar of the topic, noted in 1993: "Offensive, bellicose jihad, the one codified by the specialists and theologians, has not ceased to awaken an echo in the Muslim consciousness, both individual and collective. . . . To be sure, contemporary apologists present a picture of this religious obligation that conforms well to the contemporary norms of human rights, . . . but the people are not convinced by this. . . . The overwhelming majority of Muslims remain under the spiritual sway of a law . . . whose key requirement is the demand, not to speak of the hope, to make the Word of God triumph everywhere in the world."


… For usage of the term in its plain meaning, we have to turn to Islamists not engaging in public relations. Such Islamists speak openly of jihad in its proper, martial sense. Here is Osama bin Laden: Allah "orders us to carry out the holy struggle, jihad, to raise the word of Allah above the words of the unbelievers." And here is Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former head of the Taliban regime, exhorting Muslim youth: "Head for jihad and have your guns ready."


      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 jurisprudence.


      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:


Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared "some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ." Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam (Islamic community) are permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military. [19]


      And in 1996, Bassam Tibi wrote this:


At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is ‘temporary truce’ (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of ‘temporary’).[20]


      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 religious phraseology."


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):


"But in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His Will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind."


"Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the above verses in the Qur’an to be able to contend that world of Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As to them it is a sufficient answer to make... that the defiance of God's authority by one who is His slaves exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and as such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be treated as a sort of that cancerous growth on that organism of humanity.... It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means, in order to save the rest of humanity."


      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.


The Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI)


Special Dispatch No. 280: Terror in America (Posted Oct 3 2001)


The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Sha'ab, the mouthpiece of the Egyptian Islamist Al-Amal (Labor) party, … in the cover story for the September 23, 2001 issue, which was dedicated to the attacks on N.Y. and D.C., by Dr. Muhammad Abbas Following are excerpts from his article:


"I would have liked… to add to the flood of crocodile tears flowing from the four corners of the earth, as an expression of sorrow for America's victims… but I have found that my reservoir of tears ran dry a hundred years ago… Perhaps in another hundred years the time will come for me to cry over five thousand or even fifty thousand slain Americans." "Did I say five thousand? Did I say fifty thousand? By Allah, this number is miniscule…" "The tyrants of the world and of history (i.e. the Americans) suddenly discovered that their leader too could be attacked, and that the white Christian man can scream, suffer pain, bleed, and die…" "Do you want me to cry, right this minute, over two or three buildings? By Allah, that's ridiculous. How can someone who knows how you destroyed countries and obliterated cities from the face of the earth be sorry about two buildings…" "Despite all this, I did not exult. Death has glory and majesty, even when it is a dog that dies, let alone five thousand souls. I sat in front of the television and tears filled my eyes. I admit, I did not cry out of sympathy [for the victims]; [I cried] out of fear of Allah the powerful, the precious, the victor, the avenger, the just; how he takes the tyrants just when they think they rule the Earth and are capable of confronting Him…" "Islam is alive and well. The hero martyrs in Palestine are the ones who showed the world the incredible potential of the martyr's body. Whoever the perpetrators of the act [in the U.S.] may be, Islam is their teacher and their professor…"

Chapter 3

The Qur’an and Jihad


      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 agenda.


      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 possessions.


      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 scripture.

The Diary of Muhammad


      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 redemption.


      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

Chapter 4

Muhammad’s Actions, Speaking Louder than Words


      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 # 1The Murder of Abu Afak


      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,




Abu Afak was one of the Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:


"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]


The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama Muzayriya said concerning that:


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 [21] page 32:


Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].


Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, "I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him.


      From a contemporary Muslim scholar - Ali Dashti's "23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad" [22] page 100:


"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammed. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."


      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)




"She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:


"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."


When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his people.


Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the "Reader", and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam."


      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:




Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She even composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).


      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 her.


      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 # 3Muhammad’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 Jews.


      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 Sidiqqi].


It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (God's Message to us). The Messenger of Allah said: I want this (i.e. you should admit that God's Message has been communicated to you), accept Islam and you would be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (Allah's Message). The Messenger of Allah said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind).


      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:


Then occurred the ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah against the Banu Qaynuqa on Saturday, in the middle of Shawwal, after the commencement of the twentieth month from the hijrah. These people were Jews and allies of Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi Ibn Salul. They were the bravest of Jews, and were goldsmiths. They had entered into a pact with the Prophet. When the battle of Badr took place they transgressed and showed jealousy and violated the pact and the covenant. Thereupon Allah the Blessed and the High revealed to His Prophet: "And if thou fears treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo! Allah loves not the treacherous". [Sura 8:58] The Apostle of Allah had said: 'I fear the Banu Quynuqa' but after this verse it is stated that he marched against them.


      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 Sa'd:


They shut themselves up in their fortress, so he (Prophet) strongly besieged them, till Allah cast fear in their hearts. They submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah, that their property would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them. Then under his orders their hands were tied behind their backs. The Apostle of Allah appointed al-Mudhir Ibn Qadamah al-Slimi, of the Banu al-Silm, the tribe of Sa'd Ibn Khaythamah to tie their hands behind their backs. Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi had a talk with the Apostle of Allah about them and entreated him (to release them). Thereupon he (Prophet) said: Leave them, may Allah curse them and curse him who is with them! He abandoned the idea of their killing and ordered them to be banished from Madinah.


Another critical set of details, relative to my argument is provided from Guillaume, pages 363, 364:


My father Ishaq b. Yasar told me from Ubada - …"when the B. Qaynuqa fought the apostle Abdullah b. Ubayy espoused their cause and defended them, and Ubada Samit who was one of the B. Auf, who had the same alliance with them as had Abdullah, went to the apostle and renounced all responsibility for them in favor of God and the apostle, saying, "O apostle of God, I take God and His apostle and the believers as my friends, and I renounce my agreement and friendship with these unbelievers: Concerning him and Abdullah b. Ubayy, this passage from the chapter of the Table came down [2 – Sura 5:56] "O you who believe, take not Jews and Christians as friends. They are friends of one another. Who of you takes them as friends is one of them. God will not guild the unjust people. You can see those in whose heart there is sickness, i.e. Abdullah b. Ubayy when he said, "I fear a change of circumstances." Acting hastily in regard to them they say we fear that change of circumstances may overtake us. Peradventure God will bring victory or an act from Him so that they will be sorry for their secret thought, and those who believe will say, "Are these those who swore by God their most binding oath?" [that they were with you], as far as God’s words, "Verily God and His apostle are your friends, and those who believe, who perform prayer, give alms and bow in homage," mentioning Ubada taking God and His apostle and the believers as friends, and renouncing his agreement and friendship with the B. Qaynuqa…


      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" [23] 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:


The Messenger of God besieged them until they surrendered at his discretion. Abd Allah b. Ubayy b. Salul rose up when God had put them in his power, and said, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well"; for they were the confederates of al-Khazraj. The Prophet delayed his answer, so Abd Allah repeated, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well." The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (the Messenger's) collar. The Messenger of God said, "Let me go!" - he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (that is, his face colored). Then he said, "Damn you, let me go!" He replied, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armor and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store." So the Messenger of God said, "They are yours."


      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' conversion.


      Another similar minor incident occurred between Ubayy and Ubada Samit. From Sir William Muir's work "The Life of Muhammad" [24] chapter 13, we read:


Abdallah upbraided Obada (they were both principals in the confederacy with the Cainucaa,) for the part he had taken in abandoning their allies, and aiding in their exile: -- "What! art thou free from the oath with which we ratified their alliance? Hast thou forgotten how they stood by us, and shed for us their blood, on such and such a day? "- and he began enumerating the engagements in which they had fought together. Obada cut him short with the decisive answer, -- "hearts have changed. Islam hath blotted all treaties out."


      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 the trigger.


      These events, chronicled as they are, leads to legitimate questions:


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 meager?


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 #4The Murder of Kab Ashraf


      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


"Narrated Jabir Abdullah: "Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka'b al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b). The prophet said, "You may say it."


Maslama went to Ka'b and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) [taxes] from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Ka'b said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." Ka'b said, "Yes, but you should mortgage something to me." Maslama and his companion said, What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so and so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you."


Maslama and his companion promised Ka'b that Maslama would return to him. He came to Ka'b at night along with Ka'b's foster brother, Abu Naila. Ka'b invited them to come into his fort and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Ka'b replied, "None but Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Naila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if blood is dropping from him." Ka'b said, "They are none but my brother Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed."
Maslama went with two men. So Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head."


Ka'b Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this." Ka'b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said "yes." Maslama smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said "Yes". When Maslama got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions) "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the prophet and informed him."




      Now to repeat the story, this time as told by Ibn Ishaq, op cit, page 365;


He [Maslama] said, "O apostle of god, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."


Thereupon he and Silkan [Abu Naila], and Abbad, and Harith, and Abu Abs Jabr conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka'b, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret." "Very well", he replied. He went on , "The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress. Ka'b answered, "By god, I kept telling you O Ibn Salama, that the things I warned you of would happen." Silkan said to him, 'I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter." He replied, "Will you give me your sons as a pledge?" He said, "You want to insult us. I have friends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you may sell to them and act generously, and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge." Silkan's object was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka'b answered, "Weapons are a good pledge."


Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what has happened, and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle."


Thaur told me the apostle walked with them as far as Gharqad. Then he sent them off, saying, "Go in God's name; O God help them." So saying, he returned to his house. Now it was a moonlight night and they journeyed on until they came to his castle, and Abu Naila called out to him. He had only recently married and he jumped up in the bedsheet, and his wife took hold of the end of it and said, "You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour." He replied, "It is Abu Naila. Had he found me sleeping he would not have woken me." She answered, "by god, I can feel evil in his voice." Ka'b answered, "Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it."


So he went down and talked to them for some time, while they conversed with him. then Abu Naila said, "Would you like to walk with us to Shib al-ajmuz, so that we can talk for the rest of the night?" "If you like", he answered, so they went off walking together; and after a time Abu Naila ran his hand through his hair. Then he smelt his hand, and said, "I have never smelt a scent finer than this." They walked on farther and he did the same so that Ka'b suspected no evil. Then after a space did it for the third time and cried, "Smite the enemy of God!" So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him with no effect. Maslama said, "I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of god had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground.


Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having stuck him. We went away, passing by the Umayya and then the Qurayza and then both until we went up the Harra of Urayd. Our friend Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle at the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us and we told him that we had killed god's enemy. He spat upon our comrade's wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack upon god's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Median who did not fear for his life.


      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 night


      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 being slain".


      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 mind:


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 Jews?


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 Islam?


3)      Are deceit and lies, when deployed against non-believers in the violent advancement of Islam, still acceptable behavior today?


INCIDENT # 5The Murder of Ibn Sunayna


      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 anti-Semite.


      From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:


"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"


      This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud [25] Book 19, Number 2996:


Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.


      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:


"It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad's most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and his attack upon Qurayzah. Allah's conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures."..... Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), "Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on."


      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 so…


INCIDENT # 6The Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews


      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 accounts.


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:


This event, detained to show one aspect of Jihad, also displays Muhammad's unusual rational for attacking the Nadir. The incident started when Muhammad visited the Nadir to ask them to pay bloodwit - i.e. financial compensation, for a man who was murdered by one of their tribe. The Nadir agreed. While there, it is claimed that some of the Jews decided to kill Muhammad, by dropping a large rock upon him, from the roof of a nearby building. According to the sources, not all of the Jews agreed to attempt to kill him. However, Muhammad was given a "warning from heaven", that they were going to try to kill him so he quickly left the Nadir's area. Following that, Muhammad attacked them. He laid siege to their fort. During the siege Muhammad ordered his men to burn down the Nadir's date palm trees. This palm grove was very large and provided food and finances for the Nadir. As Muhammad destroyed their grove, the Nadir challenged Muhammad.


The Jews took refuge in their forts and the apostle ordered that the palm trees should be cut down and burnt, and they called out to him, "Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why then are you cutting down and burning our palm trees?"


      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:


"Whatsoever palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave Qur’an 59:5.


      Tabari, op cit, volume 7, page 158 provides more details:


When the Messenger of God's companions returned they went to him and found him sitting in the mosque. They said, "O Messenger of God, we waited for you but you did not come back." "The Jews intended to kill me," he replied, "and God informed me of it. Call Muhammad b. Maslamah to me." When Muhammad b. Maslamah came, he was told to go to the Jews and say to them, "Leave my country and do not live with me. You have intended treachery." Muhammad b. Maslamah went to them and said, "The Messenger of God orders you to depart from his country." They said, "Muhammad, we never thought that a man of al-Aws would come to us with such a message." "Hearts have changed," he replied, "and Islam has wiped out the old covenants." "We will go," they said.


      And an interesting verse is now revealed from The Sunan of Abu Dawud, op cit, Book 14, Number 2676. Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:


When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error."


      In "The Qur’an and Its Interpreters" [26] 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:


"When the children of a woman of the Ansar all died in infancy, she vowed that if a child were to live, she would bring it up as a Jew. Thus when the Jewish tribe of al-Nadir was evicted from Medina [4/625], there were among them sons of the Ansar. The Ansar said, "O Apostle of God, what will become of our children!" Thus God sent down this verse." Sa'id ibn Jubayr said, "Therefore whoever wished to join them did so, and whoever wished to enter Islam did so likewise."


      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 later.


INCIDENT # 7 - The Murder of the Shepherd


      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:


"as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck."


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


      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 him.


      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 them.


      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 Qurayza Jews


      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 targets.


      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:


Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.


      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:


"Seven hundred Jews were dragged in chains to the market-place of the city; they descended alive into the grave prepared for their execution and burial and the apostle beheld with an inflexible eye the slaughter of his helpless victims. Their sheep and camels were inherited by the Musulmans: three hundred cuirasses, five hundred pikes, a thousand lances, composed the most useful portion of the spoil."


      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 Kinana


      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 plunder.


page 515 reads:


"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."


      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 and Mother.


      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 Ibn Abbas:


A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.


He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.


He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.


Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.


      To continue to quote from Abu Dawud. Note #3800 states:


"This shows that even if a Jew of any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet he will be killed. This is held by al-Laith, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Ishaq."


      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 from Fazara


      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 page 665:


"....and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdullah Masada were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly (Tabari, by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two.) "


      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, 551:


"Another [to be killed] was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him."


      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:


"As for Ibn Khatal's two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it to her."


      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 Tabuk


      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, from which the following is extracted:


"To John ibn Rabah and the Chiefs of Aylah. Peace be on you! I praise God for you, beside whom there is no Lord. I will not fight against you until I have written thus unto you. Believe, or else pay tribute. And be obedient unto the Lord and his Prophet, and the messengers of his Prophet. Honor them and clothe them with excellent vestments, not with inferior raiment. Specially clothe Zeid with excellent garments. As long as my messengers are pleased, so likewise am I. Ye know the tribute. If ye desire to have security by sea and by land, obey the Lord and his Apostle, and he will defend you from every claim, whether by Arab or foreigner, saving the claim of the Lord and his Apostle. But if ye oppose and displease them, I will not accept from you a single thing, until I have fought against you and taken captive your little ones and slain the elder.


      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 late…


      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 outlined.


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 Muslims).


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.

Chapter 5

Actions of the four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs


      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 [27], and "Jihad", by Paul Fregosi [28]. 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.




A.H. 11 (622, 623) Abu Bakr makes war upon the people of Yamana who wish to leave Islam.


A.H. 12 Muslim armies attack the Christians in Palestine.




A.H. 13 Conquest of Damascus, Syria.


A.H. 14 & 15 Syria and Palestine conquered.


A.H. 15 – 21 Iraq, Southern Persia, and Egypt conquered.




A.H. 24 Conquest in Northern Persia and Armenia.


A.H. 28 Attack on Cyprus.




      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:


'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."


      Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0029:


It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.


      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:


Sufyan b. Abd Zuhair reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Syria will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels. and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Yemen will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Iraq will be conquered and some people will go out of it along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it.


      Sahih Bukhari, 4.175: Narrated Khalid bin Madan:


That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."


      Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:


"It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them…."


      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:


It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.


      Bukhari 4.256: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:


The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." 


      Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4645:


It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him): Abu Sa'id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Muhammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa'id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!


      Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4646:


It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Qatada that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stood up among them (his Companions) to deliver his sermon in which he told them that Jihad in the way of Allah and belief in Allah (with all His Attributes) are the most meritorious of acts. A man stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, do you think that if I am killed in the way of Allah, my sins will be blotted out from me? The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Yes, in case you are killed in the way of Allah and you were patient and sincere and you always fought facing the enemy, never turning your back upon him.


      Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4681:


The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain.


      Bukhari, 4.266A: Narrated Salim Abu An-Nadr:


(the freed slave of 'Umar bin 'Ubaidullah) I was Umar's clerk. Once Abdullah bin Abi Aufa wrote a letter to 'Umar when he proceeded to Al-Haruriya. I read in it that Allah's Apostle in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and then he got up amongst the people saying O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords.", " Then he said, "O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them."


      Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4597:


It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: There is no Hijra now, but (only) Jihad (fighting for the cause of Islam) and sincerity of purpose (have great reward) ; when you are asked to set out (on an expedition undertaken for Islam) you should (readily) do so.


      Bukhari 4. 79: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:


On the day of the Conquest (of Mecca) the Prophet said, "There is no emigration after the Conquest but Jihad and intentions. When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately." (See Hadith No. 42)


      Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4626:


It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace upon him) said: Allah has undertaken to look after the affairs of one who goes out to fight in His way believing in Him and affirming the truth of His Apostles. He is committed to His care that He will either admit him to Paradise or bring him back to his home from where he set out with a reward or (his share of) booty. …By, the Being in Whose Hand is Muhammad's life, if it were not to be too hard upon the Muslims. I would not lag behind any expedition which is going to fight in the cause of Allah. But I do not have abundant means to provide them (the Mujahids) with riding beasts, nor have they (i. e. all of them) abundant means (to provide themselves with all the means of Jihad) so that they could he left behind. By the Being in Whose Hand is Muhammad, I love to fight in the way of Allah and be killed, to fight and again be killed and to fight again and be killed.


      Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4652:


It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that a man came to the Holy Prophet (may peace he upon him) and said: Who is the best of men? He replied: A man who fights in the way of Allah spending his wealth and staking his life. The man then asked: Who is next to him (in excellence)? He said: Next to him is a believer who lives in a mountain gorge worshipping hid Lord and sparing men from his mischief.


      Bukhari 4.177: Narrated Abu Huraira:


Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."


      Bukhari 4.180: Narrated Abu Huraira:


The Prophet said, "The Hour will not be established till you fight with people wearing shoes made of hair. And the Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose faces look like shields coated with leather. " (Abu Huraira added, "They will be small-eyed, flat nosed, and their faces will look like shields coated with leather.")


      (The text note says these people are the Turks).


      Bukhari 4.355: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari:


A Bedouin asked the Prophet, "A man may fight for the sake of booty, and another may fight so that he may be mentioned by the people, and a third may fight to show his position (i.e. bravery); which of these regarded as fighting in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights for Allah's Cause."


      Bukhari 4. 41: Narrated Abdullah bin Masud:


I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.


      Bukhari 4.792: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:


The Prophet said, "A time will come when the people will wage holy war, and it will be asked, 'Is there any amongst you who has enjoyed the company of Allah's Apostle?' They will say: 'Yes.' And then victory will be bestowed upon them. They will wage holy war again, and it will be asked: 'Is there any among you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of Allah's Apostle ?' They will say: 'Yes.' And then victory will be bestowed on them."


      Bukhari 1.387: Narrated Anas bin Malik:


Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635: Narrated Anas ibn Malik:


The Prophet said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.


      Bukhari 5.568: Narrated Usama bin Zaid:


Allah's Apostle sent us towards Al-Huruqa, and in the morning we attacked them and defeated them.


      Bukhari 5.641: Narrated Jarir:


In the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance there was a house called Dhu-l-Khalasa or Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya. The Prophet said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?" So I set out with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was present there. Then I came to the Prophet and informed him, and he invoked good upon us and Al-Ahmas (tribe).


      Bukhari 5.716: Narrated Ibn Abbas:


Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah's Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray." … Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the 'Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them".


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2478: Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:


The Prophet said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2493: Narrated Abu Malik al-Ash'ari:


Abu Malik heard the Apostle of Allah say: He who goes forth in Allah's path and dies or is killed is a martyr, or has his neck broken through being thrown by his horse or by his camel, or is stung by a poisonous creature, or dies on his bed by any kind of death Allah wishes is a martyr and will go to Paradise.


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2496: Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet saying:


He who dies without having fought or having felt fighting (against the infidels) to be his duty will die guilty of a kind of hypocrisy".


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2506: Narrated Abu Ayyub:


Abu Imran said: We went out on an expedition from Medina with the intention of (attacking) Constantinople. AbdurRahman ibn Khalid ibn al-Walid was the leader of the company. The Romans were just keeping their backs to the walls of the city. A man (suddenly) attacked the enemy. …


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2631: Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik:


When the Prophet intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception.


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2632: Narrated Salamah ibn al-Akwa':


The Apostle of Allah appointed Abu Bakr our commander and we fought with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night was "put to death; put to death." Salamah said: I killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging to seven houses.


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664: Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:


The Prophet said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.


      Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:


No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. The man took her and beheaded her. I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.

Chapter 6

Early History of Peaceful Islam


      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.


      Some recorded 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 perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the "rayah" [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians…"


      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).


This …breach…restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…


      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.

Chronology of early Islam


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 God.


613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.


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.

Non-Muslim Christian Violence


      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:


"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" [Matt. 22:37-40].


      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 cry.


      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 conflict.


      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 complete extinction.


"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 21st Centuries

Chapter 7

The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslims


      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".


58:19 Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!


4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).


      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.


47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.


48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


      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:


And whosoever killeth a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be Hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath shall be on him and His curse, and (there) is prepared for him a great torment (4:93)


      The Qur’an on Relations with Non-Muslim Family Members:


      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 Jihad".

Muslims who Leave Islam


      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


"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."


      Bukhari volume 9, #57


Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."


      Bukhari volume 9, #64


Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."


"Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment they turned renegades (reverted from Islam, irtada) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were caught and brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die".


      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.

Islamic Dissent


      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.

Suspected Collaborators


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 corpses.


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:


Hafiz Sajjad Tariq of Gujranwala in Pakistan accidentally dropped a copy of the Qur’an in a fireplace. As it caught fire, people of the locality became aflame with rage. Not caring that Sajjad was a pious Muslim devoted to exalt holiness of the Scripture (Qur’an), they alleged that he had desecrated the Word of God. As mullahs of the area heard of it, they instantly issued Fatwas of apostasy against Sajjad. Like hawks, the fundamentalists swooped down on him, each hoping that his blow would dispatch the victim to hell assuring him (the assailant) a seat in paradise. As they were hitting him, someone shouted that he was being dished out an un-Islamic punishment because he must be stoned to death. By then, they had broken his ribs and he was not able to walk. A gallant police officer intervened and locked him up with a view to saving him from mob-violence. As the news spread, a large crowd of frenzied Muslims appeared before the local police- station demanding his immediate release. The Police Inspector, instead of enforcing the law, fell for the temptation of establishing himself as the champion of Islam and handed Sajjad to the attackers. They started stoning him mercilessly and thereafter set his body on fire. If this were not enough, they tied his corpse to a powerful motorcycle and dragged it through the streets for two hours! After this pious show of Islamic morality, they felt that they had done enough to avenge the honor of the Prophet to whom the Qur’an had been revealed.



Chapter 8

Islamic Honesty and Honor


      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 stated:


"Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."


      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 and 16:106.


      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 of Mohammed's daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations: 1) For reconciliation among people. 2) In war. 3) Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.


      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:


"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28


      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[13]) 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." [29]. 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[30]. 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 of Allah".


      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 their alliances.

Chapter 9

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 be rewarded.


      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:


"Assuredly, God will defend those who believe, surely God loves not any traitor. Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged - surely God is able to help them - who were expelled from their habitations without right.... Assuredly God will help him who helps Him - surely God is All-strong, All-mighty." (The Pilgrimage: 22:38)


      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 Prophet.


      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 distinctions.


      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 Quresh.


      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 with melody.


      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 investors.


      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 the fountain.


      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 battlefield.


      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 right."


      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 few.


      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 Muslims!


      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:


"And Allah most surely helped you at Badr, when you were utterly abject. So fear Allah, and happily you will be thankful. When you saidst to the believers: 'Is it not enough for you that your Lord should reinforce you with three thousand angels sent down upon you, Yea: if you are patient and god fearing, and the foe come against you instantly, your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand swooping angels". (The House of Imran: III:120)


      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 Arabia".


      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 subdued.


      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 example.


      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 declared:

  • 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’ ( 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:


Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) let the dead bodies of the unbelievers who fought in Badr (lie unburied) for three days. He then came to them and sat by their side and called them and said: O Abu Jahl b. Hisham, O Umayya b. Khalaf, O Utba b. Rab'ila, O Shaiba b. Rabi'a, have you not found what your Lord had promised with you to be correct? As for me, I have found the promises of my Lord to be (perfectly) correct. Umar listened to the words of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, how do they listen and respond to you? They are dead and their bodies have decayed. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, what I am saying to them, even you cannot hear more distinctly than they, but they lack the power to reply. Then he commanded that they should be buried in the well of Badr.


      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)

Chapter 10

The American Muslim


      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 kill them).


      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 infidels.


      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 Islam?


      Stephen Schwartz stated in his June 2003 testimony to the U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security:


"Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques out of a total ranging between an official estimate of 1,200 and an unofficial figure of 4-6,000 are under Wahhabi control ... Wahhabi control over mosques means control of property, buildings, appointment of imams, training of imams, content of preaching including faxing of Friday sermons from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and of literature distributed in mosques and mosque bookstores, notices on bulletin boards, and organizational and charitable solicitation ... The main organizations that have carried out this campaign are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which originated in the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)."[31]


      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" [32]


      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 mosques:


Before announcing the establishing of the state of Abraham in our holy land[,] to break and to destroy the morale of the enemies of Allah. And this is by means of destroying the structure of their civilized pillars. Such as the touristic infrastructure which they are proud of, and their high world buildings which they are proud of, and their statues which they endear, and the buildings in which gather their leaders. And without any announcement of our responsibility as Muslims for what had been done. And therefore, the enemies of God will be busy in rebuilding their infrastructure and rebuilding their morale. And they will not care much about what goes on around them more than [they] care about rebuilding their morale; and therefore, the chance will be available for the Muslims to repossess their sacred lands from the enemies of God, the traitors and hypocrites who will be at this moment in a very psychological weakness from what they see around them. And this is because the forces on which they were depending were crushed into pieces and are in a tragic collapse.


      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.



Chapter 11

Worldwide Islam Today, by Country


      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.


BLIDA, Algeria - Islamic guerrillas hold captive brides hostage to terror by Martin Regg Cohn Toronto Star Middle East Bureau. In the dead of night, in the name of Islam, four terrorists burst into the home of 17-year-old Salima Amina Zenagui. Accusing her of loose morals, the Islamic fundamentalists ordered Zenagui to cover her auburn hair with a hijab head-scarf. Then they abducted her at gunpoint to their underground hideout, where the teenager was forced to marry a terrorist twice her age. After a religious wedding ceremony, he raped her - with a warning that any resistance would mean certain death. The bleeding didn't stop for 15 days. The mental torture, and the physical cruelty, continued for another five months. During the long nights and endless days, Zenagui slowly lost her sanity. And the will to live.


Zenagui is one of thousands of young women and teenage girls believed to have been kidnapped by fundamentalist terrorists during Algeria's five-year Islamic insurgency. Forced into so-called temporary marriages that are a religious license to rape, their screams are soon silenced. Most of the victims have their throats slit, their bodies dumped in wells like the one discovered last week in Bentalha, just outside Algiers. Police were drawn by the stench of death to the 40-metre-deep well, where they found about 30 badly decomposed corpses of women and girls believed to have been abducted and raped after a massacre in the area a month ago.


Known as "zawaj al mutaa", or "marriage of pleasure,'' the controversial practice is disdained by mainstream Muslims today. It dates from Islam's early years, when fighters in a holy war helped themselves to single women during periods of hardship or isolation. Zenagui believes her captors were fundamentalist terrorists from the GIA, who rationalize rape as a way of motivating their men to sacrifice themselves for Islam. Even as they mistreat their captive women, they worship their God. In their hideout, Zenagui watched them pray toward Mecca five times a day. They read the Koran, Islam's holy book, and often played inspirational cassette tapes about the Prophet Mohammed.


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:


TERROR Campaign widens; Bomb in Paris Subway - July 25, 1995 --At least four (4)people were killed and another 35 wounded in an afternoon terror attack that took place today in the Paris Saint-Michel underground station, near the Latin quarter. Police officials are investigating and wouldn't immediately comment, but French Prime Minister Alain Juppe is quoted by the Reuters News service as saying that he believes that "there is a very strong suspicion of a (terrorist) attack".


      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 governor’s removal.


      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 killed.


Guardian Unlimited UK – Jos, Nigeria - Feb 26, 2004 - At least 48 people have been killed in the latest outbreak of religious violence in Plateau state, central Nigeria, the police said to Reuters yesterday. They were hacked down on Tuesday when Muslim warriors attacked Yelwa town in the mainly Christian district of Shendam. The Plateau police commissioner, Ilozuoke, told reporters: "The victims were pursued to a church they ran to for refuge and were killed … forty-eight of them died instantly." Security sources said the attackers' guerrilla tactics suggested that they were hired mercenaries from Nigeria's northern neighbors, Chad and Niger. Mr Ilozuoke said troops and police had been sent to the area to try to contain the violence, but no arrests had yet been made. More than 100 people have been killed in clashes between Christians and Muslims in southern Plateau in the past two years: in 2001 more than 1,000 were killed. And about 10,000 have died in communal and religious violence in Nigeria since 15 years of military rule ended in 1999.


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 Qur’an.]


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 Catholic country.


      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 region.


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 survivors said.


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 dying.


      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 magical thinking.



Chapter 12

Todays News from Peaceful Islam


      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 Islam’).


      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 Islam today.


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?

Chapter 13

Real Islam; a Case Study


      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 hands.
      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 Institute.)
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 life."
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, 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 them."


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 well.




      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.





The Gross National Debt

The KING JAMES BIBLE is The Word Of God!

Fermented wine is a tool of the DEVIL

 A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.

Theodore Roosevelt  




Deter. Detect. Defend.






File:Star and Crescent.svg






baby killers

9.175 DEATHS
17.436 INJURED

"It is a poor sermon that gives no offense; that neither makes the hearer displeased with himself nor with the preacher" ~George whitefield


Colt®Smith & Wesson®Mossberg®

Rock River Arms



 What Every Christian Should Know About Internet Safety


Bookmark this page
Facebook Google Bookmarks Stumbleupon Livejournal






READ IT and Obey IT







Where in the BIBLE does the Lord tell us to vote for the less of two evils? Promoting A Mormon is no different than voting for the Devil himself yet many are convinced it's the LORDS will!







enemyfounding fathers
Front Sight Logo