A Voice in the
Wilderness

site navigation

free newsletter

- October 13, 2001
Re: Islam

There are some overlooked facts in the current Middle East situation. This is a little collection of things: Some of these were compiled by a Christian university professor, and forwarded to VW by a regular subscriber, and posted here as received. Some other things are from other sources.



CRASH COURSE ON the ARAB ISRAELI CONFLICT

HERE'S THE BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY....
It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew it doesn't matter.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two
thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion
over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land
for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more
than 22 years. 

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital.

Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity Even when
the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their
capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy

Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem. 

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem. 

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged
to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.


10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab
brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be
around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated
to be the same. 

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the
Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the
100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in
the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples'
lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no
larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by eight separate
nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation.
The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself
each time and won. 

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with
weapons. 

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews
were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and
Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all
faiths. 

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429
  
18. The U. N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by
the Jordanians. 

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like
policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western
Wall.


THE KORAN ON JEWS

 "3.112" : Abasement is made to cleave to them (the Jews) wherever they are
found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men, and they
have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave
to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and
slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the
limits. 

"5.51" : O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them
for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people.

"5.82" : Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for
those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are ΠpolytheistsΠ, and
you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to
be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and
monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

 "9.30" : And the Jews say: ΠUzairΠ is the son of Allah; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of
their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may
Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! From the ΠHadithΠ, a body of
traditions relating to Mohammed and now supplemental to the Koran: He (Abu Œ
HurayahΠ) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not
come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that
Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say,
O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.
The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the
Jews. SahihŒ  of Muslim , quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Œ QuranŒ
by Ali Akbar, ΠBismiΠ Publishers 1992, p.44) (Palestinian Media Watch in
Israel  reported in July 2001 that  at least four times in recent months
Palestinian religious leaders had taught publicly that this Œ HadithŒ
(Islamic traditions attributed to Mohammed) is an authoritative directive of
Islam today, expressing Allah¹s will that obedient Muslims kill Jews). (In
the terminology of Islam, unbelievers  are Jews and Christians)


THE KORAN ON CHRISTIANS

"4.156-158" : And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Œ
MariumΠ a grievous calumny. And their saying: Surely we have killed the
Messiah, Isa son of ΠMariumΠ, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill
him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most
surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no
knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him
not for sure. Nay! +Z&- Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty,
Wise. 

4.171" : O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion,
and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah,
Isa son of ΠMariumΠ is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He
communicated to ΠMariumΠ and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah
and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is
only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever
is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is
sufficient for a Protector.

 "5.14" : And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but
they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited
among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will
inform them of what they did.

"5.18" : And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and
His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay,
you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He
pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the
heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual
coming.

 5.51" : O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them
for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people. 

"5.69" : Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Œ SabiansŒ
and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good
they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

"5.72" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah,
son of ΠMariumΠand the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my
Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then
Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there
shall be no helpers for the unjust.

"5.73" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third
(person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they
desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those
among them who disbelieve.

"5.82" : Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for
those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are ΠpolytheistsΠ, and
you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to
be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and
monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

 "9.30" : And the Jews say: ΠUzairΠ is the son of Allah; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of
their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may
Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

"17.111" : And say: (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has not taken a son
and Who has not a partner in the kingdom, and Who has not a helper to save
Him from disgrace; and proclaim His greatness magnifying (Him).

18.1-5" : (All) praise is due to Allah, Who revealed the Book to His servant
and did not make in it any crookedness. Rightly directing, that he might
give warning of severe punishment from Him and give good news to the
believers who do good that they shall have a goodly reward, Staying in it
for ever; And warn those who say: Allah has taken a son. They have no
knowledge of it, nor had their fathers; a grievous word it is that comes out
of their mouths;they speak nothing but a lie. .C*1

"19.88-92" : And they say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son.
Certainly you have made an abominable assertion. The heavens may almost be
rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in
pieces, that they ascribe a son to the Beneficent God. And it is not worthy
of the Beneficent God that He should take (to Himself) a son.


THE KORAN ON JIHAD

"5.33" : The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle
and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be
murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on
opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for
them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous
chastisement, 

"8.38" : Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past
shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the
ancients has already passed.

"8.39" : And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion
should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what
they do. 

"9.5" : So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters
wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in
wait for them in every ambush,then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay
the poor-rate, leave their way free to them;surely Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful. 

"9.29" : Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor
do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the
religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay
the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of
subjection. 

"9.30" : And the Jews say: ΠUzairΠ is the son of Allah; and the Christians
say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths;
they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy
them; how they are turned away!

"9.36" : Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's
ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these
four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to
yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheistsΠ all together as they
fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against
evil). 

"9.73" : O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites
and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the
destination.

 "9.123" : O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to
you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who
guard (against evil).

Quotations from the Koran are from M. H. ΠShakirΠ's translation of the
Holy Œ Qur'anŒ , as published by Œ TahrikeŒ , P'/ TarsileŒ Qur'anŒ , Inc., Œ
P.O.Π Box 1115, Elmhurst, New York 11373 @<2 (Internet electronic version).
The references give chapter and verse. A good translation is also The
Meaning of the Glorious Koran  by Marmaduke ΠPickthallΠ (Dorset Press, New
York) ISBN 0-88029-209-1 @`2 !

Koran misc. quotes re: Violence/killing, Israel, Jesus/prophet, Keeping/breaking promises, etc

The Women section:
[4.34] and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

[4.88] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.

[4.101] And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. surely Allah has prepared a disgraceful chastisement for the unbelievers. [4.103] Then when you have finished the prayer, remember Allah standing and sitting and reclining; but when you are secure (from danger) keep up prayer; surely prayer is a timed ordinance for the believers. [4.104] And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain, and you hope from Allah what they do not hope; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

The Dinner Table section:
[5.17] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth?

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

The Accessions:
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8.13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire. [8.15] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. [8.16] And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be. [8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

[8.29] O you who believe! If you are careful of (your duty to) Allah, He will grant you a distinction and do away with your evils and forgive you; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[8.55] Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve

[8.59] And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape. [8.60] And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.

*(This next section is very interesting, since this was on papers that they found from at least one of the hijackers from 9-11.)

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand. [8.66] For the present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by Allah's permission, and Allah is with the patient. [8.67] It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. [8.68] Were it not for an ordinance from Allah that had already gone forth, surely there would have befallen you a great chastisement for what you had taken to. [8.69] Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The Immunity section:
[9.3] ..and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve. [9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.20] Those who believed and fled (their homes), and strove hard in Allah's way with their property and their souls, are much higher in rank with Allah; and those are they who are the achievers (of their objects).

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. {Islamic faith} [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him). [9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.

[9.63] Do they not know that whoever acts in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, he shall surely have the fire of hell to abide in it? That is the grievous abasement.

[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

The Children of Israel section:
[17.16] And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction. [17.17] And how many of the generations did We destroy after Nuh! and your Lord is sufficient as Knowing and Seeing with regard to His servants' faults.

[17.22] Do not associate with Allah any other god, lest you sit down despised, neglected.

[17.33] And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause

About God not having a Son:
[19:88] Those who say the Lord of mercy has begotten a Son preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a Son to the merciful, when it did not become Him to beget one.




JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ON THE FRONT LINE

As most will be aware, during August the BBC aired a number of programmes
focussing on Islam both in its history and in contemporary scene. There is
no doubt that these were superbly presented. The impression generally given
was that Islam, both historically and today, was a peaceful religion which
has given huge benefits to human history since its birth and which today
promises to benefit British society.

While it is true that there have been times when Christians and Jews have
lived more or less harmoniously within a Moslem society, and while it is
also true that there are today kind and thoughtful Muslims who do seek to
live peaceably with their non-Muslim neighbours, this is not the basic
fundamental nature of Islam. The fact is that intolerance with non-Muslims
is one of the basic tenets of Islam, and that whenever Islam seeks to return
to its foundational primitive framework, it returns at the same time to
intolerance and, using its own word, Jihad.

There are two aspects of contemporary Islam of which it will be good for
Christians today to be reminded.


THE DUTY OF JIHAD

One of the important features of Islam is that of Jihad, that is the
obligation to wage a holy war on 'unbelievers', mainly Jews and Christians.
This is plainly stated in various place in the Koran, and is a statement of
the militaristic aspect of Islam which was manifest in the years after
Muhammad,. The five 'pillars' or duties of Islam, are faith, prayer, zakah
(setting aside a proportion for those in need), fasting, and the Hajj
(pilgrimage to Mecca), Nevertheless, these pillars of Islam are not an end
in themselves but are explained to be the means to prepare and equip the
Muslim for Islam's ultimate purpose which is Jihad.

"The ultimate objective of Islam is to abolish the lordship of man over man
and bring him under the rule of the one God (Allah). To stake everything you
have - including your lives - to achieve this purpose is called Jihad.
Prayer, fasting, alms giving and pilgrimage, all prepare you for Jihad."
(Let us be Muslims Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, The Islamic Foundation
(Leicester) 1985 page 285)

"If you believe Islam to be true, you have no alternative but to exert your
uttermost strength to make it prevail on earth: you either establish it or
give your lives in this struggle." (ibid)

One hundred years after the death of Muhammad the Islamic armies had pushed
as far as Poitiers in France, but were there beaten and turned back across
the Pyrenees. Despite this setback, within two centuries of Muhammad's death
Islam dominated the great sweep of territory from southern Spain to northern
India. The Muslims remained dominant in Spain for another seven centuries.
In contrast to other world religions, Islam is not only a religious system,
but also a social, political and legal system, and in its original form (a
form re-emerging today) demands from its followers total conformity in all
these areas. 

For the orthodox Muslim Arab, Islam's history came to an end in 1258 with
the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols; in 1492 with the fall of Grenada and the
end of Moslem Spain; and in 1517 when the Turks conquered Egypt. Islam went
into a dark age in which it would stagnate for more than four centuries.
Certainly during this period Islam appeared to be a moderate religious
force, and indeed Jews, for example, enjoyed a reasonably secure existence
in Islamic countries.

The slumbering giant awoke in the early 1970s as a result of the 1973?74
oil?embargo, and has since resumed its inherent militant nature. One has
only to look at the behaviour of Islam, not only in the Middle-East where it
is manifesting an extreme fundamentalist nature through Hamas and other
factions, but also in North Africa where the Christians of Egypt (the Copts)
have been suffering extreme persecution, Sudan where countless thousands
have been brutally murdered, and other countries where similar difficulties
exist. Even in our own country we see a militant Islam on the move with the
building of mosques and an aggressive political attitude - unless it is
expedient to show an accommodating face. Thus, the Muslims are seeking to
build a huge mosque in the East End of London to be the largest in Europe.
The Islamic authorities have said that they want every house within a one
mile radius to be occupied by Muslims so that they can bring the whole area
under Islamic rule, despite th e fact that it includes some thriving
churches and the homes of many Christians. (Reported in PWM News Letter,
July 2001) 

According to Islam the world is divided into two, the House of Islam and the
House of War. According to this scenario the Islamic world is committed to
wage war against those outside it until it submits to Islam. Such warfare
may be not only military but also political and religious. To Islam the word
"peace" means not our Western/Judeo-Christian idea of peace, that is
cooperative coexistence, but rather subjugation to Islam, and to lie and
deceive is a legitimate means to that end - despite the 'official'
explanation of Islam given for western consumption which says that "Islam is
the religion of peace: its meaning is peace.... If non-Muslims are peaceful
with the Muslims or even indifferent to Islam, there can be no justification
to interfere in their affairs or declare war on them. There is no religion
or constitution that guarantees peaceful freedom of religion and forbids
compulsion in religion except Islam." (Introducing Islam)

At a conference in 1968 at the influential al-Azhar University in Cairo,
Sheikh Abdullah Ghoshah, Supreme Judge of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,
in presenting a paper on Jihad, made some significant revelations: "Jihad is
legislated in order to be one of the means of propagating Islam.

Consequently non-Muslims ought to embrace Islam either willingly or through
wisdom and good advice, or unwillingly through fight and Jihad. Scholars lay
the foundation of the foreign policy of the Islamic states on the following
bases: 

1.    It is unlawful to give up Jihad and adopt peace and weakness, unless
the purpose of giving up is for preparation, whenever there is something
weak among Muslims and their opponents are strong.

2.    War is the basis of the relationship between Muslims and their
opponents unless there are justifiable reasons for peace such as adopting
Islam or making an agreement with them to keep peaceful.

3.    The abode of Islam is the homeland which is subject to the rules of
Islam... The abode of war is the nation which is not subject to the rules of
Islam... 

4.    Muslims are free to break their covenant with enemies if they are
uneasy lest the enemies should betray them ...
The Sheikh quoted two traditional authorities on Islam. From Al Tabarani:
"Lies are sins except when they are told for the welfare of a Moslem or for
saving him from disaster." From Ibn Al Arabi: Telling lies in war is
permitted so as to comfort the Muslims when they are in need of it as in the
time of fighting." 

Sheikh Ghoshah concluded his address with an observation on arrogance:
"Allah, the Almighty, loves the Muslim to be arrogant when he is fighting as
it manifests that he is indifferent to his enemy and that he determines to
vanquish him." (Conference proceedings published by the Egyptian Government
Printing Office in 1970, in Arabic and English; quoted by John Laffin in The
Dagger of Islam, Sphere Books Ltd, London 1979, pp 54-55)

Thus, a peaceful moderate Islam is an historical anomaly and its true nature
is a militaristic conquering religion committed to the subjugation of all
other faiths, most particularly that of Jews and Christians.
'FIRST THE JEW, AND THEN THE CHRISTIAN'

It has become commonplace to equate Judaism Christianity and Islam by
referring to them as the three great monotheistic religions. The implication
then follows that all three are equally valid ways to God so that dialogue
between two of the three, or sometimes all three together, will lead to a
greater understanding of God's love for and way of life for men and women.
However, one of the key tenets of Islam is its denial of Jesus as the Son of
God, and indeed as God himself. The holiest site on earth is arguably the
Temple Mount in Jerusalem where possibly Abraham offered up Isaac, which
David purchased, and which ultimately became the site of the Second Temple,
and in a geographical sense the place where Jesus was crucified and buried.
Nevertheless inscribed on the Dome of the Rock, standing where it is
believed Abraham offered up Isaac (Ishmael according to the Koran), are
inscriptions seven hundred and thirty-four feet long in all, amongst the
lengthiest inscriptions in the world, including passages from the Koran
which all deny the sonship of Jesus. One of these says: "Do not say 'three'
and it will be better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His
glory that he should have a son." This can almost be called the ultimate
example of blasphemy, and a focal point for Islam's opposition to the God of
Israel and His Messiah.

Contrary to the way the secular media generally portrays the Arab/Israeli
conflict, it is essentially a religious conflict which in fact has been
preached long before the current violence began. This preaching is not a
reaction to present violence but rather the motivating force behind it. The
Palestinian authority's religious world-view sees agreements with Israel as
inherently temporary, and war against Jews as an expression of Allah's will.
"Regrettably, the Christian world has not yet come to grips with the fact
that Israel is on the front line against a rapidly expanding wave of radical
Islamic fundamentalism which is in danger of engulfing the world. Militant
radical Islam views the Jewish state as a primal challenge to their religion
and vaunted manhood. It has been suggested that Israel and the Jews are
being used by Moslem leaders as the emotional short fuse to build up their
fighting courage and war-making capabilities. Predictably, if they achieve
their current goals of destroying Israel they will continue on against the
bastion of Christianity - Europe and America. For radical Islamists, this
will be their final battle but, in the interim, they invite Christian
nations to join them in their war against the Jews.

"Muslims have a saying: 'First the Saturday People; then the Sunday People'.
This two tiered war is already in motion as Arabs under the banner of Islam
have hurled themselves against Israel in six wars and continual terrorism,
alongside their attacking Christians in almost all Arab and/or Muslim lands.

*    Coptic Christians in Egypt - the largest Christian community in the
Middle East - are being systematically eliminated.

*    Sudanese Christians and animists are being annihilated. The policy of
Khartoum against the mostly Christian seven million Southern Sudanese is
increasing in violence and scope.

*    Christian Lebanese have been massacred in previous years by Arafat's
PLO. This broadening of oppression, which started in the early 1990s, has
reached an apex this past year with the resuming of abduction, torture and
jailing of hundreds Lebanese Christians and non-Christians, accused of being
either anti-Syrians or pro-Israeli.

*    In Iran, the Mullah regime, despite the leadership of pragmatic
President Khatemi, still maintains a religious apartheid system against the
non-Muslims, particularly the Christians and the Bahais. (MECHRIC:
Escalation of Oppression against Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq 3 July
2001) 

*    Even Arab Christians in Bethlehem are being driven out or remain under
siege. 

"Israel is the front line, defying Islam by thwarting their first goal of
eliminating Jews and their religion.

"The Christian world, in their own foremost interests, ought to be
vigorously supportive of the Jewish State of Israel as their best outer
defence barrier against an ongoing attack by the Muslims against themselves.

Instead, the Western nations passively or otherwise support the Muslims
against Israel by their defence of the Palestinian cause and their failure
to properly convey the reality of Israel's position.

"Perhaps there will be a great awakening across the entire Christian world
that in fact the Jews stand as defenders at the gates of civilisation."
(Radical Islam vs. Israel, Emanuel A.Winston, M.E Analyst & Commentator,
Arutz 7, 16 June 2001; MECHRIC: Escalation of Oppression against Christians
in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq 3 July 2001)  Derek White
All the above posted here as received from a regular VW subscriber


Christians in Islamic Countries Being Targeted & Persecuted
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekend News Today
Lead: faith
Source: NewsMax.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wed Oct 17,2001 -- The situation of Christians has deteriorated rapidly in many Islamic countries since the terrorist attacks on the U.S. and the subsequent U.S.-British raids on Afghanistan, according to Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom. A prominent U.S. imam Monday publicly assailed as un-Islamic the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries ranging from Indonesia to Nigeria. "The Koran enjoins Muslims to treat everybody with dignity and compassion," claimed Muzzamil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, Calif., when asked about the rapid rise in murder threats, violence, forced conversions, incarceration and discrimination some Christians are being subjected to. Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, praised Siddiqi's remarks as a wonderful statement. "We need more of this. We need Muslim groups in the U.S. to raise their voices on behalf of Christians in predominantly Muslim areas." Knip pers pointed out that "U.S. churches were quick to speak up on behalf of Moslems in our society. They rightly encouraged all America to treat them with respect.

But, at the same time the churches should speak up when Christians in Muslim areas are in jeopardy." The National Council of Churches' news service also condemned the persecution of Christians Monday. Marshall, an internationally recognized authority on religious rights, said Christians were in peril in a long belt of Muslim nations stretching from the eastern parts of Indonesia all the way to West Africa.

In an interview with United Press International, Marshall drew a grim picture for Christians, country by country:

  • Indonesia: In the eastern islands of this largest Muslim nation in the world, white-uniformed militiamen of Laskar Jihad are forcibly converting Christians to Islam. Marshall said this caused considerable embarrassment to the government, which did not condone such actions. This campaign has so far cost the lives of 5,000 to 6,000 people, the British-born scholar related. "There are links between Laskar Jihad and top terrorist Osama bin Laden," he said.

  • Bangladesh: Small radical groups supporting Osama bin Laden have bombed or burned down churches.

  • Pakistan: Christians depend on the protection of the government as several Muslim leaders have issued fatwas (religious decrees) to kill 2 Pakistani Christians for every Afghan Muslim who dies in the Anglo-American air raids. There have also been attacks on Christians along the Afghan border, Marshall told UPI.

  • Egypt: The government discriminates against Christianity by financing the construction of mosques, while denying permits for the reconstruction of Christian sanctuaries, according to Marshall.

  • Saudi-Arabia: In the last 2 months, 15 Christian expatriates have been jailed for worshiping in private homes, and three have been tortured, according to the religious rights organization International Christian Concern. An information officer at the Saudi embassy in Washington, who declined to give his name, denied this Tuesday: "As far as we know this is not true. We are not aware of any in jail at this time," he said. But, no religion other than Islam is allowed in the kingdom, and there is no church. When asked about this, Abdullah M. Khouj, rector of the Islamic Center in Washington, replied, "This is a matter to be negotiated between governments."

  • Sudan: Some 2 million people, chiefly Christians, have been killed in a civil war fought by the radical Islamic regime in the north of the country against non-Arab population in the south, according to several sources including Marshall and Diane Knippers' Institute on Religion and Democracy. For several years now, international religious rights organizations have been reporting what is going on: that Christians are being raped, tortured to death and crucified.

  • Somalia: Anybody found out to be a Christian will quickly be beheaded by Muslim vigilantes, Marshall said.

  • Nigeria: In 12 states, versions of Shari'a law, the Islamic penal code, have been imposed - in violation of the constitution of that African federal republic. After the imposition of Islamic law, riots ensued killing 5,000 in the city of Kaduna alone, said Marshall. Other reports put the death toll at around 1,000.

  • In other Muslim countries: (such as Algeria, etc.) Islamic radicals opposed to the government are killing other Muslims, primarily women and children although they have also murdered priests, nuns and even a bishop, Marshall explained. Others, such as the once-tolerant, formerly republican African nation of Mauritania are now taking tougher measures against Christians, Marshall continued. "If you arrive with a Bible, they'll take it off you. And it's illegal to preach Christianity to the locals."
And becoming a Christian in many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan can mean that one loses one's job, one's ability to be educated, one's family, and even one's life, Wendy Norvell of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board told UPI.


The Fraud of Islam; How the Conspiracy Thrives
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekend News Today
Lead: faith
Source: Christian News Today
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue May 28,2002 --
"We should have no illusions about the matter: no
part of the world will be excluded. Now that Islam has national,
military, and economic power, it will attempt to extend its religion
everywhere, including the British Commonwealth and the United
States..." - So wrote French Protestant theologian Jacques Ellul in his
1985 book, "The Dhimmi", a methodical study of the treatment of
non-Moslems by Islam, both throughout history as well as in our own
times. Since then, Ellul's foresight has been fulfilled in a striking
and dramatic manner that quite possibly even he did not envision.
Saturated in billions of oil dollars, the world fundamentalist Moslem
movement is headed and financed primarily by Saudi Arabia, with the
support of other Arab countries.

The Saudi government, with its allies and offshoot organizations,
so-called "charities" and businesses, has been bankrolling the
worldwide terrorist coalition of terrorist organizations, religiously
bound to expand Fundamentalist Islam everywhere. Special targets are 
the United States, Europe and almost every other developed country. All 
this is done blatantly, under the tender cover of democratic law and 
idealism. By now we all know about Osama Bin Laden, where he came from 
and from where his support and financing were mostly obtained. What we 
tend to forget is that Bin Laden is not alone, that many other "Bin 
Ladens" are still out there, awaiting their "moment of glory". Not all 
of them are directly involved in bombings and murder. Most of them 
support the Islamic cause by lavish media presentations, interviews and 
"presentations" of Arab "dignitaries" and so-called religious figures. 
The pro- Islamic misinformation, to which we are now exposed, contains 
a great number of blatantly deceiving statements. They come along with 
a fascinating collection of barefaced falsifications and outright lies 
about the real meaning and purposes of Islam.

WHAT IS THE REAL ISLAM? "Islam is not a new religion," - says the 
Moslem misinformation purveyors - "but the same truth that God revealed 
through all His prophets to every people". They omit to mention, 
however, the fact that Moslems believe their religion came to TOTALLY 
REPLACE the Bible, as well as both Judaism and Christianity, with 
everything associated with them or born of them. And that is simply and 
precisely what Islam teaches! According to the Koran (the Moslem holy 
book), not all men are born equal. Moslems consider themselves the 
master race of "the prophet" and look down at others as inferior. 
Indeed, their religious texts vilify Christians and Jews (jointly 
called "peoples of the Book") as "apes" and "pigs". Such passages, 
however, are found only in the original Arabic. They are seldom found 
in translations into other languages, especially not in Western 
tongues.

As noted in this booklet, the term "Islam" is Arabic stands not for 
"peace" but for for "submission". and includes a play-on- words to the 
similarly-sounding Hebrew "Shalom", which does mean "peace". The 
Islamic view of "peace" ("salem") with an adversary or "infidel" 
(non-Moslem) does not signify coexistence or cooperation. The Islamic 
definition of "peace" is the conquest, or "submission" of the enemy.

ISLAM VERSUS THE WORLD Moslems divide the world into two irreconcilable 
camps, the first is "dar al-Islam", or "house of Islam", which includes 
all countries where Islam currently prevails, and the second is "dar 
al-harb", or "house of war", which includes everywhere else. The object 
of Islam and its followers is to expand their faith (and power) until 
the whole world is within their realm. It is a global vision, similar 
to that used in the last century by Communism, but much more powerful, 
being a religion as well as a political ideology.

THE HOLY WAR The vehicle for Islamic expansion is the concept of 
"jihad" or "holy war". In translation, they misrepresent "jihad" as 
"struggle" and sometimes "self defense". In reality, the Koran 
instructs that "jihad" is a "sacred duty", incumbent on "every Moslem". 
There is also a schedule of rewards for those who "dispose of" infidels 
(which include any non-Moslem, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others). 
The same rewards are bestowed also upon all those who die while 
participating in holy-war campaigns. As the Yussuf Ali English 
translation of the Koran states: "Allah hath conferred on those who 
fight [for him] with their wealth and their lives a rank above those 
who tarry."

In addition, "he who has not taken part, or at least considered taking 
part, in a campaign of jihad until [he reaches] the end of his life, 
meets his death holding a branch of hypocrisy." Millions of Moslems who 
believe these writings to be divine have died due to their 
participation in Islamic so-called holy wars. Many terrorist atrocities 
are committed by groups that utilize the word "jihad", whether in their 
names or in their goal. Contrary to affirmations which Moslem leaders 
continuously feed Western listener, killing innocent civilian 
"infidels" is far from disobeying Islamic precepts. Indeed such actions 
are equel to killing soldiers or other religions' leaders.

A "STRANGE" FAITH !?! The Moslem apologists state that Islam seems 
strange to Westerners because the West is highly secularized. "Moslems 
have religion always uppermost in their minds," they say, implying that 
others do not. The simple truth is that Islam seems strange because it 
is the pure reverse to any other faith - that is, completely contrary 
to the Western concept of what a religion should stand for - especially 
to those Westerners who are heirs of the Biblical, Christian tradition. 
It is a religion which considers war to be holy, has no concept of 
peace at all, which is considered pointless and hollow. Nor does it 
recognize the concept of co-existence or toleration.

Islam is a religion which teaches that the way to heaven and salvation 
leads through murder. It also promotes slavery as a sacred practice and 
considers the bondage and humiliation of all women, including their own 
mothers, as a divine order. It is a faith which seeks the destruction 
of all other religions (especially those based on the Bible, which is 
regarded as a fake and a satanic book) and the subjugation of all 
nations as its sanctified goal - indeed, such a creed may well seem 
strange to the Western mind. This, however, is precisely what Islam is.

Today, in the modern Western societies, police power are never used for 
religious ends, and the government does not favor one religious group 
over another. This concept is entirely foreign to Islam. Islam makes no 
distinction between religion and state. It enforces the Islamic code as 
the sole law of the land, both religious and secular, thereby in fact 
putting anyone who is not a Moslem outside the protection of the law. 
In practical terms, Islam mandates a theocracy, which amounts to the 
dictatorial rule of the Moslem nobility and clergy. That is why 
democracies are unknown in the Islamic world and why Moslems show such 
hostility to free societies. To a fundamentalist Moslem, the very idea 
of democracy is heresy.

ORIGINS The Moslems claim that Judaism (and, by extension, 
Christianity) share with Islam a common origin in the patriarch 
Abraham. They believe it was Abraham who "established the settlement 
which today is the city of Mekkah [or Mecca] and built the Ka'a'ba, 
towards which all Moslems turn when they pray." However, the Biblical 
records indicate that Abraham never visited the Arabian Peninsula. 
Muhammad maintained that the Christians and the Jews - as agents of 
Satan, of course - "forged" or "falsified" the Bible. He therefore 
altered the Biblical story and cast Ishmael (Abraham first son and 
traditional father of all Arabs) as the heir of God's promise, instead 
of Isaac - as the Bible explicitly stated many centuries before the 
writing of the Koran.

ISLAM AND JESUS CHRIST As for Jesus Christ, Islam portrays him as a 
minor prophet, certainly not as the Son of God, nor as the Messiah and 
definitely not as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. 
Moslems still offer animal sacrifices and at recent ceremonies in Mecca 
slaughter a staggering 500,000 animals. Christianity centers on the 
ideas of the incarnation and of salvation by faith, both of which are 
rank heresy and blasphemy to a Moslem. In Islam, salvation is by works, 
not by faith. Further, Islamic "good deeds" are not necessarily 
charitable, humanitarian acts of kindness, but may also be the 
assassination of "non-believers". Especially targeted are "the People 
of the Bible", the Islamic euphemism for all Christians and Jews.

THE FOUNDER The minute, basic chronology of Muhammad in the Moslem 
tradition and story is superficially accurate, but non- Moslem 
historians are far from approving that he was "of a deeply religious 
nature", known for "truthfulness, generosity, and sincerity", or "calm 
and meditative". In fact, very little is known about Muhammad, but it 
seems clear that he was the illiterate son of a nomadic "traveling 
merchant" Arab tribe sub- chieftain. This is the Arab way of referring 
to the traditional occupation of the Bedouin nomads of the Southern 
Arabia Peninsula. The commodity in which they "traded" was mostly human 
slaves. This would account for both his grotesque distortions of the 
Biblical account - which he likely got from some tribesmen, which he 
met on the trail - and for his sanctification of slavery as a way of 
life. Since the stories told around the tribal campfire in the Arabian 
Desert related only the biblical heroes and their stories -- and lacked 
mention of any meaningful biblical teachings -- Muhammad had no concept 
of the morality and ethics of the Bible. The teachings and values of 
the Bible are therefore missing from Islam. The cruelty and rigidity of 
Muhammad's ancient Arabian paganism is the core of Islam's creed.

ISLAM -- REVERSAL OF CHRISTIANITY When Muhammad and his followers 
returned to Mecca from Medina, he did not, as the Moslems state to 
westerners, "forgive his enemies". In Islamic tradition the very 
concept of "forgiveness" is unknown and unrecognized. Instead, the rule 
of "blood revenge" is mandatory. While in exile, Muhammad had gathered 
a band of marauding warriors and given them a religious sanction for 
their activities. They were called "The Mystic Fighters" and scored 
stunning victories, to the point that the superstitious, pagan populace 
believed them to be divinely inspired. Those who did not join were 
promptly executed.

In theological terms, Muhammad was less of a religious figure than a 
war-chieftain, a soldier and a tyrant. In contradiction to Biblical 
prophets, and as a total contrast to Jesus Christ, his kingdom was 
purely of this earth and largely political-military in nature. In sum, 
Islam dogmatized the spiritual and secular realms in a rigid theocracy, 
which admits no deviation. It was for this reason that 19th-century 
scholar Ernest Renan called Islam "the heaviest chains which have ever 
shackled humanity".

ISLAMIC "EVANGELISM" - THE "SWORD OF ISLAM" Perhaps the boldest 
falsehood in the representation of Islam and the Moslems is the 
contention that the spread of the new faith was "rapid and peaceful". 
It was indeed rapid, but far from peaceful. Its most prominent symbol 
is the "Seif-el-Islam" - The Sword of Islam". Indeed, the most 
important symbol of Islam is, appropriately enough, the sword (or the 
saber) and the sword was the primary instrument of Islamic 
expansionism. In most cases the conquered were given only two choices - 
an immediate conversion or speedy cut throat.

Since in Islam the concepts of "peace" and "submission" are synonymous, 
"peace" can be achieved only by total submission to Islam. No other 
form of peace is conceivable to a Moslem. Therefore, when Muhammad's 
"mystic fighters" subdued a nation, they believed that "peace" had 
prevailed. Likewise today, "peace" to a Moslem means only one thing -- 
a total capitulation of all humanity to Islam. Violence and militarism 
did not end with Moslem conquests. Islamic factions, each claiming to 
represent the "one true faith", have been at each other's throats for 
centuries. As the scholar David Pryce-Jones masterfully demonstrated in 
"The Closed Circle": An Interpretation of the Arabs, conspiracy, 
intrigue, and assassination have been the rule rather than the 
exception in the Islamic world."

ISLAMIC "TOLERATION" "It is one function of Islamic law," says Moslem 
proponents "to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is 
why non-Moslem places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic 
world." Here we leave the realm of exaggeration and distortion and 
enter the realm of outright pristine lies. For the most part, churches 
and synagogues have been destroyed, vandalized, or completely outlawed. 
In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to open or maintain a church. In 
"moderate" countries such as Egypt, Christians have not been able to 
get permission to repair their churches or build new ones for decades.

Saudi Arabia is not the only Moslem country which has obliterated every 
trace of Judaism and Christianity and outlawed all non-Moslem religious 
practices, even among foreigners who live there and bring that country 
their wealth. In particular, however, Saudi Arabia has done all this 
with little or no outcry from the West. Moreover, there exists not a 
single case in the entire Islamic world in which non-Moslems have been 
given equal civil rights and/or freedom of worship. While the Moslems 
freely evangelize in America and enjoy the Western tradition of civil 
rights, such activities are forbidden under Islam, which considers 
apostasy a capital crime.

In Islam, Christians and Jews are Dhimmi - second-class citizens - are 
subject to discriminatory laws, double standards, repressive taxation, 
and humiliating public ceremonies of submission. Impressive and 
conclusive documentation for these realities exist aplenty and are 
available to all who cares to find them. To the Moslems claim that 
"many examples of Moslem tolerance toward other faiths" there is only 
one example given: Omar's conquest of Jerusalem in 634, not an event 
that is fresh in the minds of many. The claim is that Omar declared 
freedom of worship to all, a statement which must be accepted on faith 
alone, since there is no proof of it in writing and anyway it was at no 
time been followed in practice by Omar or any of his successors.

WOMEN IN ISLAM The Islamic spokesmen claim that a Moslem woman is "an 
individual in her own right", hardly a great concession. In any case, 
the Moslem's claim is certainly not confirmed in the writings of the 
Koran, Islamic law (the Sha'ri'ia) or the treatment of women in Moslem 
countries. Moslems generally avoids discussing the topic of women with 
"infidels", with good reason. In Islamic societies, women are regarded 
and treated as beasts of burden, or merely childbearing machines, with 
no rights whatsoever. Saudi Arabia and the late unlamented Taliban's 
Afghanistan, both good examples for Moslem regimes, forbid women to 
drive and restrict them to certain menial occupations. Further, women 
must be veiled in public. The claim that "no Moslem girl can be forced 
to marry against her will" is simply false. In patriarchal Islamic 
society, the father - not the bride - chooses the husband; no one ever 
considers that the bride's opinion has any merit. As noted in the 
British documentary, Death of a Princess, the Moslems have executed 
women who marry against the will of their fathers.

The Moslems concedes the obvious, that Islam permits men to have more 
than one wife. Moslem women, however, are not permitted to have more 
than one husband, and any sexual deviation on their part is severely 
punished, often by public flogging or death, in a ceremony held every 
Friday in every public square. Many Islamic countries also feature 
mut'a, or "the law of desire". This system of "temporary marriage" is 
akin to legalized prostitution. Under this law, a Moslem man may hire a 
"temporary wife" for a fixed amount of money. All the benefits in this 
system belong to the man, who may hire as many temporary wives as he 
please. All children from a "temporary wife" belong to the man. Of 
course, a Moslem woman cannot hire a temporary husband. Islamic clergy 
support the practice of "temporary wives" and hail its "Koranic roots". 
This symbolizes the larger truth that, in Islam, the entire system of 
the suppression and brutalization of women is seen as of divine origin 
and bearing divine approval.

HUMAN RIGHTS The Moslems maintain that Islam "guarantee human rights?" 
The real question is whether Islam allows, or even recognize the 
concept of any human right whatsoever. The evidence confirms that Islam 
is decidedly hostile to the very concept of human rights. A Moslem Arab 
delegate to the United Nations once asserted on record: "the concept of 
human rights is a degenerate Western imperialist notion". An Amnesty 
International report specifies massive and systematic violations of 
human rights in virtually all-Islamic countries. They include: torture, 
arrest and detention without charge, cruel and unusual punishment, 
amputation of body parts, capital punishment for political and 
religious dissent, sexual abuse and mass violence against minorities 
Nowhere in the Islamic world is there freedom of speech, freedom of 
worship, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and association, or 
even true freedom of enterprise. Without these precious freedoms, any 
concept of human rights is meaningless.

SLAVERY AND RACISM The defenders of Islam avoid the fact that the 
Koran, and the Moslem religious law called the "Sha'ri'ia," not only 
permits but in fact perpetuates and sanctifies slavery. In fact, they 
command that children of slave women remain slaves from birth to death. 
No Islamic country can accept Islam as the state religion and the Koran 
and the "Sha'ri'ia" as the law-of-the-land, as does Saudi Arabia, and 
abolish slavery at the same time. The institution of slavery is too 
ingrained in Islamic law. This is why slavery is common in almost all 
Moslem countries, although officially the fact is vehemently denied. 
Saudi Arabia announced its intention to abolish slavery in the 
mid-1960s, a full century after the rest of the world. There is 
overwhelming evidence, however, that this announcement was only a 
public relations gesture, and Saudi slavery continues unabated.

As professor Murray Gordon convincingly shows in his book "Slavery in 
the Islamic World", the Arabs were the chief slave masters and traders 
for centuries, concentrating their efforts in black Africa. They still 
are. In fact, in spoken Arabic, the words "black" and "slave" are the 
same. Women were also prime targets and enslaved for use as sexual 
objects, and not only in the harems of wealthy Arabs and Islamic 
royalty. In all cases, non-Moslems were prime candidates for slavery 
because Islam considers them inferior. It should be stressed that this 
is not only a matter of history but of ongoing practice today. Recent 
reports show how the Islamic dictatorship of Sudan - as part of its 
brutal campaigns against the Christians Sudanese in the south - were 
enslaving the children of the Dinka tribe and other Christian 
communities. Unfortunately, the world press has showed little interest 
in the story.

ISLAMIC LAW According to the Moslems public relation campaign, Islam 
"believes that the Divine Law, the "Sha'ri'ia", should be taken very 
seriously". This is true and constitutes a primary reason why Islam 
clashes so strongly with Western society. When they are dealing with a 
Western audience, the Moslems purposely neglect to mention what this 
supposedly divine law mandates. The "Sha'ri'ia" is a belch from the 
Dark Ages, a rigid, barbaric code that calls for beheadings, 
dismemberments, and public flogging for a number of crimes, some rather 
petty. The "Sha'ri'ia" contains no presumption of innocence, allows no 
right for counsel or appeal and permits no trial by a jury of one's 
peers. In practical terms, the accused is at the mercy of Islamic 
clerics. In this system, Moslem and non- Moslem alike can expect no 
justice. Hence, it should come as no surprise that under Islam public 
executions constitute a kind of spectator sport, especially in Saudi 
Arabia. Sometimes the executioner cuts the prisoner to draw blood 
before performing the sentence, an act of needless cruelty. An 
assistant then pokes the victim in the ribs with a stick so that he 
jerks his head upward to meet the falling sword or ax. The blood flows 
and the crowds of spectators cheer. The Moslems claim that in Islamic 
societies minorities have the right to their own courts. This is an 
outright lie. The "Sha'ri'ia" is imposed on non-Moslem minorities in 
places such as the Sudan and Egypt.

PRIMORDIAL EVIL RELIGION? In modern times Moslems became attuned to the 
kind of thing Westerners want to hear. For example, they write that 
Islam considers itself the "primordial religion," which "seeks to 
return man to his original, true nature, in which he is in harmony with 
creation, inspired to do good, and confirming the Oneness of God". They 
even includes a tale in which a man's sins were forgiven because he 
gave water to a dog. This sort of spiritual pabulum is much more 
palatable to trendy Westerners than the stark reality of the legalized 
bloodshed of the "Sha'ri'ia" or the religious hatred of the jihad. In 
practice, Islam's respect for God's creation is very much in doubt. 
They say that Islam's rules of warfare supposedly include "prohibitions 
against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees, and 
livestock". This is another barefaced lie. No such prohibition has ever 
existed in Islam.

The fact is that Islamic terrorism against America, Israel and other 
nations has integrated all of these in abundance. Moslem terrorists 
have murdered thousands of helpless, unarmed civilians, with the Twin 
Towers in New York not the only - although it is (as of now) the 
largest and most spectacular case. Islamic Iraq has killed thousands of 
defenseless Kurds with poison gas, which did not spare women, children 
and even the victims' livestock. It is also hard to understand how the 
sacrificial slaughter of a half million animals in Saudi Arabia squares 
with respect for life. Islam never had any respect for life, any form 
of life, including the life of its own believers (see article "suicide 
bombers"...

SUMMARY In the final analysis, our vision of Islam - armed with slick, 
effective propaganda - is very nearly the reverse of the truth. 
Contrary to the claims of Moslem propagandists, Islam is a relatively 
new religion, adapted largely from longstanding custom and neo-pagan 
practices on the Arabian Peninsula. It is not inclusive but exclusive 
and sectarian. It is not peaceful but glorifies war and conquest. It is 
not tolerant but considers all other religions inferior and ultimately 
aims to eliminate them. It is not liberating but enslaving, in both the 
spiritual and the physical senses. Islam does not respect human rights 
but is hostile to the very concept. Islam is inherently repressive and 
theocratic and cannot accommodate democratic thought or action.

Islamic imperialism is on the rise. Hence, there is indeed a great need 
for Christians and Jews to understand Islam and the Moslems. For that 
one must avoid the devious advertising of billionaire sheikhs. Instead, 
Christians must avidly seek the truth about today's most dangerous
threat to Western, Judeo- Christian civilization.


How the Vatican Created Islam

VW Disclaimer: Posting of this section is not to suggest that VW's editor assumes everything in it is true. I don't know, and have no way of verifying. It was forwarded by a subscriber, and it is offered here for your interest and discernment, while little details may vary slightly, from source to source, its basic thrust seems to be corroborated by other sources such as tuppersaussy.com, and others I have read from time to time.

It is offered because its claims are so out-of-the-mainstream understanding of history. And yet, when a person reads it, and observes current events, it begins to make sense; much in the same way a person might wonder about a life-time of a relative's aberrant behavior, and then one day to be told some little bit of information about some event that happened in that person's life that seems initially to be so outlandish as to be unbelievable...but when a person considers with a calm/rational mind, that little bit of information becomes the "key" to understanding that person's entire life.

Consider how Islam is so (supposedly) "anti-christian" as to persecute and martyr Christians around the world, and yet, terrorist Arafat has made pilgrimages to the Vatican, and when the pope visited the Holy Land a few years ago, his primary message was in support of the plight of the downtrodden so-called "palestinians". For being such a staunch "muslim" and fighing "Jihad" (Islamic holy war), Arafat has been seen attending (catholic) masses; and has made public statements about how their Jihad has not sought to destroy catholicism's icons and shrines, that he would "never" do such a thing...even proclaiming a certain veneration for the "virgin Mary" and her statues.

As we have been seeing this seemingly "strange bed-fellow" relationship between the vatican and Islam, and we see -two- interrelated "beasts" in Revelation ch13, it would do us good to read the following, and keep its data in our minds as we continue observing world events unfold.

So...here it is...

From "The Prophet": http://www.choosinglife.net/Islam.htm (click the "Islam" link)

The Prophet, Muhammad
This information came from Alberto Rivera, former Jesuit priest after his conversion to Protestant Christianity. It is excerpted from "The Prophet," published by Chick Publications, PO Box 662, Chino CA 91708.

Since its publication, after several unsuccessful attempts on his life, he died suddenly from food poisoning. His testimony should not be silenced. Dr. Rivera speaks to us still...

What I'm going to tell you is what I learned in secret briefings in the Vatican when I was a Jesuit priest, under oath and induction.

A Jesuit cardinal named Augustine Bea showed us how desperately the Roman Catholics wanted Jerusalem at the end of the third century. Because of its religious history and its strategic location, the Holy City was considered a priceless treasure. A scheme had to be developed to make Jerusalem a Roman Catholic city.

The great untapped source of manpower that could do this job was the children of Ishmael. The poor Arabs fell victim to one of the most clever plans ever devised by the powers of darkness.

Early Christians went everywhere with the gospel setting up small churches, but they met heavy opposition. Both the Jews and the Roman government persecuted the believers in Christ to stop their spread.

But the Jews rebelled against Rome, and in 70 AD, Roman armies under General Titus smashed Jerusalem and destroyed the great Jewish temple which was the heart of Jewish worship_in fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24:2. On this holy placed today where the temple once stood, the Dome of the Rock Mosque stands as Islam's second most holy place.

Sweeping changes were in the wind. Corruption, apathy, greed, cruelty, perversion and rebellion were eating at the Roman Empire, and it was ready to collapse. The persecution against Christians was useless as they continued to lay down their lives for the gospel of Christ.

The only way Satan could stop this thrust was to create a counterfeit "Christian" religion to destroy the work of God. The solution was in Rome. Their religion had come from ancient Babylon and all it needed was a face-lift. This didn't happen overnight, but began in the writings of the "early church fathers."

It was through their writings that a new religion would take shape. The statue of Jupiter in Rome was eventually called St. Peter, and the statue of Venus was changed to the Virgin Mary. The site chosen for its headquarters was on one of the seven hills called "Vaticanus," the place of diving serpent where the Satanic temple of Janus stood.

The great counterfeit religion was Roman Catholicism, called "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth." Revelation 17:5. She was raised up to block the gospel, slaughter the believers in Christ, establish religions, create wars and make the nations drunk with the wine of her fornication as we will see.

Three major religions have one thing in common - each has a holy place where they look for guidance. Roman Catholicism looks to the Vatican as the Holy City. The Jews look to the wailing wall in Jerusalem, and the Muslims look to Mecca as their Holy City. Each group believes that they receive certain types of blessings for the rest of their lives for visiting their holy place.

In the beginning, Arab visitors would bring gifts to the "House of God," and the keepers of the Kaaba were gracious to all who came. Some brought their idols and, not wanting to offend these people, their idols were placed inside the sanctuary. It is said that the Jews looked upon the Kaaba as an outlying tabernacle of the Lord with veneration until it became polluted with idols.

In a tribal contention over a well (Zamzam) the treasure of the Kaaba and the offerings that pilgrims had given were dumped down the well and it was filled with sand - it disappeared. Many years later Adb Al-Muttalib was given visions telling him where to find the well and its treasure. He became the hero of Mecca, and he was destined to become the grandfather of Muhammad.

Before this time, Augustine became the bishop of North Africa and was effective in winning Arabs to Roman Catholicism, including whole tribes. It was among these Arab converts to Catholicism that the concept of looking for an Arab prophet developed.

Muhammad's father died from illness and sons born to great Arab families in places like Mecca were sent into the desert to be suckled and weaned and spend some of their childhood with Bedouin tribes for training and to avoid the plagues in the cities. After his mother and grandfather also died, Muhammad was with his uncle when a Roman Catholic monk learned of his identity and said, "Take your brother's son back to his country and guard him against the Jews, for by god, if they see him and know of him that which I know, they will construe evil against him. Great things are in store for this brother's son of yours."

The Roman Catholic monk had fanned the flames for future Jewish persecutions at the hands of the followers of Muhammad. The Vatican desperately wanted Jerusalem because of its religious significance, but was blocked by the Jews.

Another problem was the true Christians in North Africa who preached the gospel. Roman Catholicism was growing in power, but would not tolerate opposition. Somehow the Vatican had to create a weapon to eliminate both the Jews and the true Christian believers who refused to accept Roman Catholicism. Lookng to North Africa, they saw the multitudes of Arabs as a source of manpower to do their dirty work.

Some Arabs had become Roman Catholic, and could be used in reporting information to leaders in Rome. Others were used in an underground spy network to carry out Rome's master plan to control the great multitudes of Arabs who rejected Catholicism. When "St Augustine" appeared on the scene, he knew what was going on. His monasteries served as bases to seek out and destroy Bible manuscripts owned by the true Christians.

The Vatican wanted to create a messiah for the Arabs, someone they could raise up as a great leader, a man with charisma whom they could train, and eventually unite all the non-Catholic Arabs behind him, creating a mighty army that would ultimately capture Jerusalem for the pope. In the Vatican briefing, Cardinal Bea told us this story:

A wealthy Arabian lady who was a faithful follower of the pope played a tremendous part in this drama. She was a widow named Khadijah. She gave her wealth to the church and retired to a convent, but was given an assignment. She was to find a brilliant young man who could be used by the Vatican to create a new religion and become the messiah for the children of Ishmael. Khadijah had a cousin named Waraquah,, who was also a very faithful Roman Catholic and the Vatican placed him in a critical role as Muhammad's advisor. He had tremendous influence on Muhammad.

Teachers were sent to young Muhammad and he had intensive training. Muhammad studied the works of St. Augustine which prepared him for his "great calling." The Vatican had Catholic Arabs across North Africa spread the story of a great one who was about to rise up among the people and be the chosen one of their God. While Muhammad was being prepared, he was told that his enemies were the Jews and that the only true Christians were Roman Catholic. He was taught that others calling themselves Christians were actually wicked impostors and should be destroyed. Many Muslims believe this.

Muhammad began receiving "divine revelations" and his wife's Catholic cousin Waraquah helped interpret them. From this came the Koran. In the fifth year of Muhammad's mission, persecution came against his followers because they refused to worship the idols in the Kaaba.

Muhammad instructed some of them to flee to Abysinnia where Negus, the Roman Catholic king accepted them because Muhammad's views on the virgin Mary were so close to Roman Catholic doctrine. These Muslims received protection from Catholic kings because of Muhammad's revelations.

Muhammad later conquered Mecca and the Kaaba was cleared of idols. History proves that before Islam came into existence, the Sabeans in Arabia worshiped the moon-god who was married to the sun-god. They gave birth to three goddesses who were worshipped throughout the Arab world as "Daughters of Allah" An idol excavated at Hazor in Palestine in 1950's shows Allah sitting on a throne with the crescent moon on his chest.

Muhammad claimed he had a vision from Allah and was told, "You are the messenger of Allah." This began his career as a prophet and he received many messages. By the time Muhammad died, the religion of Islam was exploding. The nomadic Arab tribes were joining forces in the name of Allah and his prophet, Muhammad.

Some of Muhammad's writings were placed in the Koran, others were never published. They are now in the hands of high ranking holy men (Ayatollahs) in the Islamic faith. When Cardinal Bea shared with us in the Vatican, he said, These writings are guarded because they contain information that links the Vatican to the creation of Islam.

Both sides have so much information on each other, that if exposed, it could create such a scandal that it would be a disaster for both religions.

In their "holy" book, the Koran, Christ is regarded as only a prophet. If the pope was His representative on earth, then he also must be a prophet of God. This caused the followers of Muhammad to fear and respect the pope as another "holy man."

The pope moved quickly and issued bulls granting the Arab generals permission to invade and conquer the nations of North Africa. The Vatican helped to finance the building of these massive Islamic armies in exchange for three favors:

  1. Eliminate the Jews and Christians (true believers, which they called infidels).
  2. Protect the Augustinian Monks and Roman Catholics.
  3. Conquer Jerusalem for "His Holiness" in the Vatican.
As time went by, the power of Islam became tremendous_Jews and true Christians were slaughtered, and Jerusalem fell into their hands. Roman Catholics were never attacked, nor were their shrines, during this time. But when the pope asked for Jerusalem, he was surprised at their denial! The Arab generals had such military success that they could not be intimidated by the pope_nothing could stand in the way of their own plan.

Under Waraquah's direction, Muhammad wrote that Abraham offered Ishmael as a sacrifice. The Bible says that Isaac was the sacrifice, but Muhammad removed Isaac's name and inserted Ishmael's name. As a result of this and Muhammad's vision, the faithful Muslims built a mosque, the Dome of the Rock, in Ishmael's honor on the site of the Jewish temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. This made Jerusalem the 2nd most holy place in the Islam faith. How could they give such a sacred shrine to the pope without causing a revolt?

The pope realized what they had created was out of control when he heard they were calling "His Holiness" an infidel. The Muslim generals were determined to conquer the world for Allah and now they turned toward Europe. Islamic ambassadors approached the pope and asked for papal bulls to give them permission to invade European countries. The Vatican was outraged; war was inevitable. Temporal power and control of the world was considered the basic right of the pope. He wouldn't think of sharing it with those whom he considered heathens.

The pope raised up his armies and called them crusades to hold back the children of Ishmael from grabbing Catholic Europe. The crusades lasted centuries and Jerusalem slipped out of the pope's hands. Turkey fell and Spain and Portugal were invaded by Islamic forces. In Portugal, they called a mountain village "Fatima" in honor of Muhammad's daughter, never dreaming it would become world famous.

Years later when the Muslim armies were poised on the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, to invade Italy, there was a serious problem. The Islamic generals realized they were too far extended. It was time for peace talks. One of the negotiators was Francis of Assisi. As a result, the Muslims were allowed to occupy Turkey in a "Christian" world, and the Catholics were allowed to occupy Lebanon in the Arab world. It was also agreed that the Muslims could build mosques in Catholic countries without interference as long as Roman Catholicism could flourish Arab countries.

Cardinal Bea told us in Vatican briefings that both the Muslims and Roman Catholics agreed to block and destroy the efforts of their common enemy, Bible-believing Christian missionaries. Through these concordats, Satan blocked the children of Ishmael from a knowledge of Scripture and the truth.

A light control was kept on Muslims from the Ayatollah down through the Islamic priests, nuns and monks. The Vatican also engineers a campaign of hatred between the Muslim Arabs and the Jews. Before this, they had co-existed peacefully. The Islamic community looks on the Bible-believing missionary as a devil who brings poison to the children of Allah. This explains years of ministry in those countries with little results.

The next plan was to control Islam. In 1910, Portugal was going Socialistic. Red flags were appearing and the Catholic Church was facing a major problem. Increasing numbers were against the church. The Jesuits wanted Russia involved, and the location of this vision at Fatima could play a key part in pulling Islam to the Mother Church. In 1917, the Virgin appeared in Fatima. "The Mother of God" was a smashing success, playing to overflow crowds. As a result, the Socialists of Portugal suffered a major defeat.

Roman Catholics world-wide began praying for the conversion of Russia and the Jesuits invented the Novenas to Fatima which they could perform throughout North Africa, spreading good public relations to the Muslim world. The Arabs thought they were honoring the daughter of Muhammad, which is what the Jesuits wanted them to believe.

As a result of the vision of Fatima, Pope Pius XII ordered his Nazi army to crush Russia and the Orthodox religion and make Russia Roman Catholic." A few years after he lost World war II, Pope Pius XII startled the world with his phoney dancing sun vision to keep Fatima in the news. It was great religious show biz and the world swallowed it. Not surprisingly, Pope Pius was the only one to see this vision.

As a result, a group of followers has grown into a Blue Army world-wide, totaling millions of faithful Roman Catholics ready to die for the blessed virgin. But we haven't seen anything yet. The Jesuits have their Virgin Mary scheduled to appear four or five times in China, Russia, and major appearance in the U.S.

What has this got to do with Islam? Note Bishop Sheen's statement:

"Our Lady's appearances at Fatima marked the turning point in the history of the world's 350 million Muslims. After the death of his daughter, Muhammad wrote that she "is the most holy of all women in Paradise, next to Mary." He believed that the Virgin Mary chose to be known as Our Lady of Fatima as a sign and a pledge that the Muslims who believe in Christ's virgin birth, will come to believe in His divinity.

Bishop Sheen pointed out that the pilgrim virgin statues of Our Lady of Fatima were enthusiastically received by Muslims in Africa, India, and elsewhere, and that many Muslims are now coming into the Roman Catholic Church."


CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

A subscriber forwarded this. I think it is worth reading. No names are given, but it agrees with what I have concluded over time.

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no.. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews .

Politically - no.. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual Leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, The great Satan.

Domestically - no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

    [vw: The Quran seems to have various translations, like the Bible does. One that I have (yusufali) includes "lightly"..."beat them [lightly]" Neither version I have (yusufali or shakir) include "scourge":]
Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no.. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to As Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 Excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.

The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. ...

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.

[vw: we already have a Muslim president. How much more "within" can they get! :]

VW NOTE:
Is it not possible that there are many not-real Muslims, just as there are many not-real Christians. In fact -most- [c]hristians are not [C]hristians. I wonder what the ratio might be in Islam? How many Muslims "relax" the Quran in their personal lives, as [c]hristians do the Bible?


Three Faiths: or One?

Islamic propaganda, claiming to compare Judaism, Christianity and Islam



Islam is a Peaceful Religion

From the mainstream press, scholars, and Muslim spokespersons who have 
access to the media, we have heard that Islam is the religion of peace. 
They point out that the three-letter root s-l-m is found both in Islam, 
which means surrender or submission (to Allah), and salam, which means 
peace, soundness, and safety. This etymology may be accurate, but it 
also serves merely as a positive advanced press release that covers up 
some problems. For more information on the incongruity of the Arabic 
root s-l-m and Islam being the religion of peace, see this short 
article:

In Semitic languages many words are created by inserting different 
vowels between the three root consonants, e.g. "iSLaM" and "SaLaM" are 
two derivations from SLM. Does that mean they are related in meaning 
also? 

In Romanic and Germanic languages it is not so much by vowel changes, 
but by adding prefix or suffix to the root word [i.e. before or after 
the root]. For example "love" can be seen as a ‘root word’, which then 
can be the base for several adjectives, like "loving" and "loveless", 
both of which come from the same root "love" but clearly they mean 
basically the opposite. "Typical" and "atypical" also come from the same 
root "type" but mean again the very opposite. Now, English is not the 
standard to which one has to measure Arabic, but this example has the 
purpose to make clearer the below article to those who do not speak 
Arabic. I hope it is helpful. 

Islam & Peace

Bassam Darwich


Muslim propagandists are nowadays making extraordinary efforts to change 
the image of Islam by reintroducing it to the Western society as a 
religion that calls for peace and rejects violence. One of the new 
theories that they are trying to sell is that the name of their religion 
Islam implies the meaning of ‘Peace’, which in Arabic is Salam. The 
grounds for their theory is that both words are derived from the same 
root in the Arabic language! 

While it may be possible to deceive those who do not speak Arabic or 
those who do not know much about Islam, propaganda like this does not 
fool someone who knows the Arabic language and the teaching of Islam, a 
religion that was established by violence and still believes in violence 
as a principal and as a way of life. The relationships between Muslims 
themselves and between them and all other nations have always been based 
on terror and still is. Islam and Salam are two incongruous words that 
share no common ground either in name or in substance. 

In order to find the meaning of a certain word in the Arabic dictionary, 
it is essential to search for the three letter infinitive verb which is 
called the root. Many words can be derived from the same root, but they 
don't necessarily have to have any similarity in their meaning. The word 
Islam, which means ‘submission’, is derived from the infinitive Salama. 
So is the word Salam which means ‘peace’ and so is the verb Salima which 
means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger’. One of the derivations of 
the infinitive Salama means ‘the stinging of a snake’ or ‘The tanning of 
the leather’. Hence, if the word Islam has something to do with the word 
Salam i.e. ‘Peace’, does that also mean that it must be related to the 
‘stinging of the snake’ or ‘tanning the leather’? 

Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the 
surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his 
authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always 
ended his letters with the following two words: "Aslim, Taslam!". 
Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama 
which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies 
the meaning of ‘peace’. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be 
safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. So where is the 
meaning of ‘Peace’ in such a religion that threatens to kill other 
people if they don't submit to it? 

On the other hand, the Qur'an and other Islamic books like Al-Hadith and 
Al-Sira, i.e. the life of Muhammad, are full of evidence which proves 
that had it not been for violence, Islam wouldn't have existed or 
wouldn't have survived until today. A good example to mention would be 
The Wars Of Al-Riddah, i.e. ‘the wars against the apostates’, that began 
immediately after the death of Muhammad. Feeling relieved by the 
disappearance of the strong fearful leader Muhammad, the tribes which 
have been forced to embrace Islam, revolted and began, one after 
another, to renegade and to refuse paying the taxes imposed on them by 
the Prophet's government. In response to the revolution, the first 
Caliph, Abu-Bakr, ordered his army to fight the apostates. It took him 
almost two years of fighting to force the tribes back into the fold of 
Islam. These wars were not ordered only by the first Caliph, but they 
were also instructed by Allah and his messenger Muhammad. The Qur'an 
states clearly that those who go back from Islam are to be punished by 
death: "But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever ye 
find them and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. 
Al-Nisaa 4:89." Muhammad also said, as narrated by Al-Bukhari, "If 
somebody - a Muslim - discards his religion, kill him." 

The Qur'an not only ordered the killing of those who embraced Islam and 
afterwards decided to renegade, but also commanded the followers to 
fight all nations until they either believe in it, pay the Jizya or face 
death: 

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that 
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor 
acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews 
and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and 
feel themselves subdued. Surat At-Tauba 9:29" 

And in the same Sura, verse 5, the Qur'an also states: "Fight and slay 
the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie 
in wait for them in every stratagem ..." Now doesn't the image of Islam 
as a religion of peace sound, after all, a little bit hard to believe? 
... 

Violence From the Qur'an

What does Islam teach as far as violence is concerned? Looking at the 
Qur'an, we see that quite a lot is said about this subject. Muslim 
apologists will often point to Surah2:190-193 as proof that Islam 
teaches only defensive warfare, but eschews offense.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress 
limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye 
catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for 
tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at 
the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight 
you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if 
they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on 
until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice 
and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except 
to those who practice oppression."

These verses, it is said, admonish Muslims only to fight against those 
who oppress or persecute Muslims, and only until the offenders have 
stopped oppressing Muslims. However, there is a catch to all this. The 
Qur'an also teaches for Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam 
is not the dominant force, and to stir up trouble, so that this 
persecution will come as the natives in those lands protect the 
integrity of their sovereignty and civilization.

"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with 
their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as 
those who gave them asylum and aid,- these are all friends and 
protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into 
exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; 
but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, 
except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. 
And remember Allah seeth all that ye do. The Unbelievers are protectors, 
one of another: Unless ye do this, protect each other, there would be 
tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief." (Surah 8:72-73)

In this passage, "adopted exile" is translated from the root form hjr, 
which has as its primary meaning the ideas of containment or 
confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or 
compartmentalized. The specific context refers to those Muslims (known 
as muhajirun) who had left Mecca during the early part of Mohammed's 
ministry, when the Muslims were coming under persecution, and fled to 
Medina. There, they joined with Medinan believers (ansari), eventually 
gathering enough power to be able to conquer Mecca. This exile, however, 
doesn't have to be in a friendly land. These verses can be understood 
through an extended application to be encouraging Muslims to adopt exile 
in a foreign land and voluntarily confine themselves in a non-Muslim 
society. Then, eschew assimilating into the culture and way of life of 
the host country, and instead agitate for Islam. When opposition arises, 
they join together and give aid and fight for Allah against the 
unbelievers, since voilà, persecution has arisen! Hence, what is touted 
as a defensive doctrine is in reality carried out in an offensive 
manner.

This interpretation is not merely theoretical. We can, in fact, see it 
being applied today in European countries that have become the hosts to 
large numbers of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, Turkey, and the 
Indian subcontinent. It is common for Muslims in these countries to 
cause trouble, whether through crime or through more organized forms of 
disorder, and they will not assimilate to the cultural norms and modes 
of their host countries. When the Europeans defend themselves, or even 
criticize what is being done by these "guests", the Muslims use this as 
an excuse to claim persecution and respond violently, often supported by 
their fellow Muslims in the Islamic world. Sweden has seen an epidemic 
of sexual assaults upon native-born Swedish women in what is being 
called the "rape jihad", yet the fault for this behavior always seems to 
be blamed on the Swedes themselves, for their "racism" and 
"Islamophobia". 

In France in the winter of 2005, two Muslim criminals who were fleeing 
from the police took refuge in an electrical substation and were 
electrocuted. The country was subsequently wracked by weeks of riots and 
arson by its large Muslim population, because the deaths of these two 
youths were "obviously" the fault of the racist, Islamophobic French 
police for trying to bring them to justice, and not the fault of the 
Muslim fugitives themselves for committing crimes. 

In Britain, the Bishop of Rochester complained that certain areas in 
British cities were virtual "no go" zones for non-Muslims. For pointing 
this out, the bishop has received numerous death threats, and Muslim 
commentators issue dire, thinly-veiled threats of "what might happen" if 
British society continues to be so racist and Islamophobic. 

Most recently, in Germany, a Moroccan immigrant attempted to rob a 
20-year old German, and was killed when the German (rightly) defended 
himself. As a result, Muslims in Germany have used this opportunity to 
condemn the racist, Islamophobic German society and to threaten violence 
and rioting, rather than condemning one of their own who attempted to 
commit a violent crime. These are just four examples of a much wider 
pattern of behavior exhibited by Muslim immigrants to European countries 
- failure to assimilate, the formation of religious enclaves that are 
actively hostile to the surrounding native populations, criminality and 
welfare exploitation, followed by threatened or actual violence and 
civil strife when the Muslims are "offended" by the native Europeans 
actually defending themselves. This is all shielded by cries of "racism" 
and "Islamophobia" that are designed to generate sympathy and the fear 
of lawsuits or legal prosecution by left-leaning governments against 
those who challenge this state of affairs.

In addition to this roundabout method, there are numerous other, more 
straight-forward passages in the Qur'an that exhort the followers of 
Mohammed to war:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans 
wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait 
for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish 
regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for 
them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)

This passage is found in a portion of the Qur'an dealing with the making 
and breaking of treaties with pagans (i.e. unbelievers). In context, it 
is condoned for Muslims to break treaties with pagans if it is to their 
advantage to do so, unless those pagans have been completely faithful in 
the discharge of their treaty obligations. But, after the terms of the 
treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to 
make war. The historical context is that in ancient times, both in 
Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods 
of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be 
completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the 
terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off. 
Groups that had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each 
other in the most vicious manner after the treaty time ended, without 
any loss of honor for either side. In our context, the Qur'an tells 
Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently 
have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war. The 
particular treaty that lies at the heart of this passage was merely 
temporary, lasting four months, and was interpreted, as we will see, by 
later Islamic scholars as nullifying any other treaties between Muslims 
and infidels - which would essentially mean that NO treaties are now to 
be considered binding. Indeed, as can be seen through the Islamic notion 
of hudna, radical Muslims do not feel themselves bound to respect any 
pact which they might sign with non-Muslims, and will break such 
agreements as soon as they feel it is to their advantage to do so.

Likewise, in Surah 9:73, Mohammed is commanded to press hard war against 
unbelievers,

"O Prophet! strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and 
be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."

Also,

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, 
and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those 
who keep their duty (unto Him). " (Surah 9:123, Pickthal translation)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that 
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor 
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of 
the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel 
themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

Each of these verses, in context, is dealing with waging offensive war 
against unbelievers for the purpose of spreading Islam. As with the 
previous verses which we saw, Muslims will often try to claim that these 
verses promote defensive warfare only, and that offensive war to 
propagate Islam is not quranical. They say this in the hopes that their 
audience, most likely non-Muslims, will not be conversant in the Qur'an, 
and hence will be unaware of the contextual environment in which these 
verses appear, nor with the history of interpretation pertaining to 
these verses. A straight-forward reading of the appropriate suwar and 
surrounding passages using a little common sense will contextually 
demonstrate the offensive nature of these verses to the unbiased reader.

What Muslim Scholars of the Qur'an Say About Violence

However, many Muslim apologists still attempt to argue that these verses 
in the Qur'an are being taken out of context. Because of this claim, we 
should investigate what orthodox Muslim expositors and scholars have to 
say on this, as their words were much less inhibited by concerns for 
presenting Islam in a positive light to Western audiences. One of the 
earliest great Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (838-923), explained 
that Surah 9:5 commanded the death of infidels if they would not embrace 
Islam, lest they should enter Mecca 1. Much later, Al-Mahili (d. 1486) 
also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5 offensively and 
aggressively,

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security 
which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant 
with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in 
order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It 
gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end 
of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill 
the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their 
castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be 
killed."2

Another of the most historically influential Muslim jurists and quranic 
exegetes, al-Baidawi (d. 1286), gives a fairly typical understanding of 
the doctrine, commenting onSurah 9:29,

"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their 
faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), 
which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the 
poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation."3

The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who was 
a jurist of the Maliki legal school affirmed the duty of Islam to gain 
power over other nations when he stated,

"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. Therefore, 
caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam, so that the person in 
charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same." 4

Other noteworthy Islamic jurists and philosophers promoted the same 
offensive strategy for jihad. Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) commented that 
Surah 9:5, seen above, abrogated any covenant which might have been made 
between Muslims and infidels, and that it stipulated that Muslims fight 
the infidels anywhere on earth, except for within "the sacred area" 
(i.e. the haram of Mecca)5. Ibn Hazm (994-1064) provides some 
interesting commentary concerning the so-called "tolerance" verse, Surah 
2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion...."), when he 
demonstrates the true purpose of the ayah,

"The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than 
Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith 
(or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to 
be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to 
embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can 
keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle 
of God that there is no compulsion in the faith." 6

Thus, compulsion certainly was to be applied to any non-Muslims who were 
not Christians or Jews. These latter two groups were given the third, 
apparently non-compulsive, choice of submitting to pay the jizyah 
poll-tax and live out their lives as a permanent underclass. This 
"non-compulsion" applies only to lands outside the Arabian Peninsula. 
For the peninsula itself, the traditions stipulate that no two religions 
could exist there, only Islam alone7.

Other medieval scholars arrived at the same general conclusions about 
jihad that are drawn from the Qur'an. The North African jurist 
al-Qayrawani (d. 996, of the Maliki school) drawing inspiration from 
9:29 wrote,

"Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain 
individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis 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."8

Al-Mawardi (972-1058), a scholar of the Shafi'i juridical tradition, 
said,

"The mushrikun 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....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...."9

The Hidayah, the classical manual of law for the Hanafite legal 
tradition prepared by al-Marghinani (1152-1197), says this about jihad, 
drawing again upon the command to impose jizyah in 9:29 as it relates to 
the "three choices" rule (convert, submit, or die),

"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."10

Peters provides the view of Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), the Hanbalite 
jurist who, as will be seen in the next chapter, was instrumental in 
establishing the extremely fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an 
and the traditions which stifled Islamic intellectual endeavors starting 
in the 13th century. Taymiyya wrote about jihad,

"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)."11

As we can see, prominent Islamic scholars of antiquity from each of the 
four major schools of jurisprudence in historical Islam (even the 
"liberal" Hanafites) clearly understood the quranic injunction to holy 
war. Even al-Ghazzali (1058-1111), a Sufi (who is yet considered 
"orthodox" by Sunni Islam) and therefore a representative of the 
mystical (and supposedly peaceful) side of Islam, supported doing 
whatever it takes to conquer and subdue "infidels",

"....one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once 
a year...one may use a catapult against them when they are in a 
fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to 
them and/or drown them....If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab is enslaved, 
his marriage is automatically revoked. A woman and her child taken into 
slavery should not be separated....One may cut down their trees....One 
must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever 
they decide....they may steal as much food as they need...."12

Modern Muslim scholars, historians, and exegetes have taken similar 
stances on jihad. Al-Buti reveals for us the following,

"The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about 
what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is 
demanded in islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students 
of Islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an 
offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars"13

He likewise states,

"You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their 
associates to embrace Islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth 
century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the 
wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its 
system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be 
reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to 
the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all 
does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to 
convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?" 14

And in further refutation of the "defensive war" theory,

"This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to 
conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is 
related to a holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare 
to repel an attack....It is no secret that the reason behind this 
deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and 
West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be 
revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of 
European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man 
has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message 
presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed 
by a Holy War?" 15

Hence, al-Buti is quite honest about the fact that the Qur'an commands 
offensive jihad for the purpose of converting infidels to Islam. Other 
modern Islamic scholars agree. In exegeting Surah 9:29, which commands 
the laying of the jizyah onto the infidels, Khan states,

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard 
(all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight 
against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures 
(Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the 
Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam 
and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing 
submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in the verse 
9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" 
against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them 
and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while 
they are strong and have the ability to fight against them.

"So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and 
after that it was made obligatory...."16

Thus, the teaching is that Muslims are to fight when they have 
sufficient strength to win, and that this fight is obligatory. When 
Muslims are not strong enough to fight their enemies, they are to lie 
low until such a time as they can fight, according to another prominent 
modern Muslim scholar. Quoting as-Suyuti, as-Saleh wrote,

"The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become 
strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be 
patient."17

Essentially, Muslim peacefulness all too often would be a deception that 
was waiting to be unmasked the moment the Muslims felt themselves strong 
enough to risk waging war. Saleh goes on to cite Zarkashi in a footnote 
saying,

"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition 
what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his 
followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak 
it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most 
high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the 
situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to 
pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. 
These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the 
strength or the weakness of the Muslims."18

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur'an for the 
justification of offensive holy war,

"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of 
Islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before 
extending the invitation to embrace islam first, as the Qur'an says. 'We 
verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the 
scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and 
he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that 
Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers, 'Allah is 
strong, Almighty' (Surah Iron 57:25)."19

Abdul-Fattah wrote,

"Islamic law demands that before Muslims start fighting infidels 
(unbelievers) they first deliver the message of Islam to them. It was 
proven that the prophet never fought people before he called them to 
embrace Islam first. He used to command his generals to do so also."20

Qutb, in a chapter entitled "Jihaad in the Cause of God", says this 
about those who believe that jihad is to be a defensive war only,

"They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that 
it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom....Thus wherever 
an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the 
Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step 
forward and take control of the political authority so that it may 
establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of 
belief to individual conscience."21

Thus, while touting "freedom of individual conscience", Qutb seems to be 
espousing the right of the "Islamic community" to take control of 
political authority, presumably even if that authority is the government 
of a foreign country in which Muslims reside, which would hearken back 
to what was seen earlier with Surah 8:72-73. Qutb's whole chapter 
consists of his arguments that Islam has a "right" to wage jihad to 
overthrow social and political systems which are not in accord with 
Islamic law, so that people are then "free to serve God", meaning that 
there will be no competitors to Islam, and hence people will choose 
Islam. Naturally, people who are already Muslims but who live in foreign 
countries where Islam is not the law of the land are considered doubly 
in need of "liberation" by having the non-Muslims systems under which 
they live overthrown and replaced by Islam. Hence, he perversely 
attributes the term "freedom" to a state of affairs where conquered 
peoples are given the choice of either converting to Islam, living as 
second-class citizens, or dying. Qutb, it should be noted, was executed 
by Egypt's Nasser government for attempting to overthrow the secular 
regime.

That Muslims, some "weak" and living in foreign lands and others 
"strong" and living in Dar es-Salaam, should help each other to 
overthrow these foreign systems which "oppress" Muslims is seen in 
Usmani's comment on 8:73,

"Between a Kafir and a Muslim neither there is real comradeship nor they 
can inherit each other. Of course, the Kafir is the comrade and heir of 
a Kafir (Unbeliever). In fact, all the Unbelievers in enmity against you 
are one. Wherever they will find the Muslims weak, they will tease and 
persecute them. So if the Muslims will not support and help each other, 
or the weak Muslims will not try to bring themselves under the support 
and protection of the free Muslims, a great Fitna and corruption will 
spread, i.e. the weak Muslims shall not be secure and their Eman will be 
in danger too."22

Fattah adds,

"Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is 
war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his 
ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab 
Peninsula to call them to embrace islam. They rejected his call. Thus, 
it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them." 23

In fact, if unbelievers resist the "call to Islam", then they themselves 
are responsible for the wars which Islam is then required to fight 
against them, at least in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalism. Tibi, 
himself a voice against Islamism and for reformation within Islam, 
describes the traditional understanding of warfare and authority in 
Islam,

"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, anddar 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”)."24

Modern Islamic authorities from the Indian subcontinent stand with their 
brethren on this issue. Fazlur Rahman notes the abundant discussion of 
jihad in the Qur'an, and rejects the modern interpretation of jihad as 
defensive war only25. Pirzada likewise states about the nature of 
Islamic jihad,

"The reasons stated in the verse for waging a war against the people of 
the Book clearly show that it is not for a defensive war, the command 
for a defensive war was given much earlier....The fact is that it is not 
correct to limit jihad within the circle of defensive war, nor is it 
correct to term it, what is today called, 'an aggressive war', because 
jihad is not a war that is fought for conquering land, national 
prejudices, material gains, and false ideologies, it is fought for the 
noble purpose of freeing the slaves of God from the lordship of the 
false gods, to end aggression and tyranny and to give them a pure and 
virtuous atmosphere. This war is synonymous with the act of surgery of 
the rotten part of the body to provide healthy life to humanity."26

Maududi as well rejects attempts to make a distinction between offensive 
and defensive jihad and views jihad as the means by which to overthrown 
all non-Islamic systems and replace them with submission to Allah. 
Speaking of Islam as a "revolutionary force", he says,

"The division of Islamic Jihad into "offensive" and "defensive" is not 
permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and 
the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim party attacks the rule 
of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is 
constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of 
Islam in space-time forces."27

Hence, "defense" is defined as destroying any system not in agreement 
with Islam. Under this ideology, "defense" then becomes not just an 
option, but an act of piety. Nu'mani demonstrates this redefinition in 
his justification of jihad as a noble and spotless act,

"Fighting, apparently a cruel act, was shorn of all sordid motives and 
raised to such level of sanctity and saintliness that this manifestation 
of the devil in man was sublimed into a pious act of highest godliness. 
It was now to aim at protecting the weak and oppressed against the 
highhandedness of the strong and cruel."28

Nu'mani then cites a number of quranic verses such as Suwar 5:39, 6:39, 
and 9:29 in support of his statement. "Protecting the weak and 
oppressed" means freeing them from the control of non-Islamic political 
and philosophical systems - without bothering to find out if they desire 
to be "freed", of course. He further exalts the "sanctity" of holy war,

"Jihad or the holy war was exalted into an act of piety not only in 
respect of its ultimate aim, but also in its external aspect....In 
short, was that once reflected the atrocious and barbaric side of human 
nature was now turned, through the teachings of Islam, into an 
institution for the glorification of Allah, establishment of peace, 
suppression of turbulence, and protection of the oppresses. What was 
more it was conducted as a service at a mosque or church with praises of 
Allah on the lips of the devotees."29

Because it is the duty of good Muslims to "liberate" the rest of the 
world from the tyranny and oppression of their native, non-Islamic 
political, religious, and philosophical systems, much is said by the 
commentators to this end. Daryabadi, commenting on Surah 9:123, says 
this about fighting infidels who are nearby,

"i.e. the neighbouring pagan states, for they claim your care in the 
first place, and their reclamation ought to be endeavoured first."30

Similarly, Zaheer cites the medieval commentator Ibn Kathir to explain 
that Surah 9:123 commands Muslims to keep fighting whoever next borders 
previously conquered territories, and notes that Ibn Kathir gave this as 
the explanation for why the Islamic faith spread to such an extent as it 
did31.

Violence is also the prescribed suggestion for dealing with "hypocrites" 
- those members of the Islamic community who are insufficiently Islamic 
in their approach to the religion. Surah 9:73, seen above, is sometimes 
interpreted by commentators as saying that the striving against 
hypocrites is to be done through words and arguments (though the 
striving against unbelievers still requires the sword). Daryabadi, for 
instance, presents this interpretation of 9:7332. This interpretation, 
however, is by no means universal. Zaheer notes that while some ancient 
commentators, such as Ibn Kathir, interpreted 9:73 more peacefully, 
others did not. He cites not only Ibn 'Abbas as saying that this verse 
requires fighting with the sword against unbelievers, but also 'Ali as 
saying that this verse calls for the use of the sword against 
hypocrites33. Usmani says that the sword may be used against hypocrites 
if their hypocrisy becomes "public clearly"34. Pirzada says about 9:73,

"That is; Now no quarters should be shown to the hypocrites, but they 
should be dealt with strictly and firmly, and if necessary force should 
be used against them to the extent that may be required."35

Essentially, whatever force is deemed necessary to induce Muslims who 
are insufficiently pious to get with the program may be used to coerce 
them into religious piety and at least outward conformity with the 
strictures of the shari'a law.

In relation to what was seen above about the imperative to spread holy 
war so as to "liberate" non-Muslim lands from their non-Muslim cultures 
and political systems, for those "People of the Book" who refuse to come 
around once they are conquered, Islam stipulates a set of coercive 
measures designed to induce conquered non-Muslims (called dhimmiyyun, or 
dhimmis) to convert to Islam. More will be said in the next chapter 
about the institution of dhimmitude itself, but we should note at this 
point the commandment of Surah 9:29 to fight non-Muslims until they "pay 
the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." The 
jizyah is a poll tax (often coupled with a land tax called the kharaj) 
levied on all able-bodied non-Muslim males in lands conquered by Islam. 
The purpose of this tax, aside from generating revenue for the Islamic 
state, is to emphasize to dhimmis their second-class status and 
subjugation to the Islamic religio-political system. Paying the jizyah 
is not optional - refusing to do so would result in death or expulsion 
from their own land. Usmani notes this in his commentary on 9:29,

"The Polytheists and Idolators were primarily aimed to be totally 
exterminated from the soil of Arabia, but so far as the Jews and 
Christians were concerned the main policy in the beginning was to 
shatter their power against Islam and its expansion. So permission was 
granted that if they accepted obedience and paid Jizyah they could live 
in the Islamic state and their life and property shall be safe. If they 
did not accept obedience they would be dealt with like the Polytheists, 
i.e. they would also be exiled or slain, because they do not also 
believe in God and the Messenger as must."36

As we will see in the following chapter, acceptance of the terms of 
dhimma, which include the submission and payment of the jizyah, did not 
in practice always guarantee the safety of life or property which Usmani 
suggests it did. Shafi likewise notes that the jizyah is essentially a 
payment of protection, a sort of medieval Mafioso-style extortion,

"Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the 
Shari'ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in 
lieu of killing." 37

The jizyah is meant to show the dhimmis that they are inferior, that 
their stubborn insistence on retaining their old ways places them in a 
position of submission and slavery to the Islamic system. Anwer Ali 
explains this to us in his comments on 9:29,

"The Jizyah is compensation for protection and security of the 
non-believers of the Islamic State. It is a symbol for subordination to 
the Islamic State. The wordAnn Yadin, i.e. pay by their hands 
[translated as "with willing submission" in Yusuf Ali's translation 
above], means that they should pay it of their own as a subordinate and 
the words Wahum Sagheroon mean that they should not have superiority 
over the land; the superiority should be for believers who are 
vice-regents of Allah on earth.

"Further, the idea underlying Jizyah is that each year they must think 
that to pay for remaining on the wrong, instead of getting on the 
Straight Path and paying the poor rate, is actually a most unfortunate 
complex in which they are involved."38

Hence, jizyah "proves" to the infidel the inferiority of his own belief 
system, and at the same time "encourages" him to convert to Islam. 
Maududi reiterates this in his comment on this ayah when he notes that 
the jizyah serves to remind Jews and Christians of their submission and 
the "price of following the ways of error."39

The examples given above are only a very small sampling of what could be 
said with regard to both the historical and modern orthodox Muslim 
positions on holy war and the forceful subjugation of non-Muslims. As we 
can see, the justification is often drawn directly from those verses 
that were quoted above, and that are said to be "defensive only" or 
"taken out of context" by Muslim apologists. Jeffrey observed,

"It is of course, easy to raise the objection that a Jihad in the old 
sense is impossible of realization in the modern world, for Islam is far 
too badly divided for anything like a general Jihad to be contemplated 
and far too weak in technical equipment for a Jihad to be successful 
even if started. This does not dispose of the fact, however, that the 
earlier conception of Jihad has left a deposit in Muslim thinking that 
is still to be reckoned with in the political relations of the Western 
world with Islam."40

Thus, it should certainly be seen that offensive war for the specific 
purpose of spreading the Islamic religion is very much a quranic 
practice. While the apologists tell us that jihad is "defensive", their 
own scholars past and present refute this lie.

Violence From the Ahadith

The Qur'an is not the only source for this jihad doctrine, however. The 
ahadith also say much about waging offensive war against the infidel. 
Jihad is touted as the second best deed which could be performed in 
Islam, next only to believing in Allah and his prophet Mohammed, and 
better even than performing the hajj41. To those who participate in 
jihad comes either the spoils of war if he lives or paradise if he is 
killed.

"The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in 
Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah 
and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or 
booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed 
in the battle as a martyr)." 42

Other portions of the ahadith also confirm the rights of jihadis to the 
spoils of those they kill in holy war 43 and their automatic entry into 
paradise if they die as martyrs in the cause of Allah 44. Participation 
in holy war earns Muslims many benefits and blessings from Allah, or so 
the writings teach. For instance, Mohammed is reported to have said,

"He who keeps a horse posted on the enemies' frontier in Allah's path, 
then manages himself (to feed it) with its fodder with his own hand, 
will earn a virtue for every grain (he feeds it)." 45

Right after this passage, it is then taught that a man who participates 
in jihad only for so long as the time spent between two milkings of a 
she-camel (I don't know much about camels, but the traditions suggest 
that this is only a single day's worth of daylight46) still is entitled 
to paradise because of the blessedness of his endeavor 47. The tradition 
also teaches that a man who dies in holy war has the right to intercede 
before Allah in paradise for the entry of seventy other persons from 
among his friends and family, which Allah then is required to allow into 
paradise 48. It pays to have friends, apparently!

The importance of holy war in Islamic teaching takes precedence over 
other religious activities, as well. Mohammed taught that acting as a 
soldier of Allah is as good as if one perpetually "observes fasts" and 
"stands in devotion" every night49. While Islamic teachers in the West 
will play up the Muslim duty of zakat, the giving of alms to the poor, 
the ahadith teach that giving of your wealth to support jihad earns you 
even greater rewards. The tradition states based upon an interpretation 
of Surah 2:261,

"He who supplies provisions (to mujahids) in Allah's path and stays at 
home is entitled to seven hundred dirhams for each dirham (spent in 
Allah's cause) and he who himself fights in Allah's path and spends 
(money) for the same cause, is entitled to get for every dirham (the 
reward of) seventy thousand dinars." 50

Perhaps one of the most decisive statements in all the ahadith which 
shows the driving force behind the expansion of Islam to be greed, and 
not any sort of "service" to a deity is this,

"'Ubada b. Samit (Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said 
that in the beginning, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be 
upon him) would promise to gift one-fourth of spoils (to Mujahids) and 
one-third of booty on repatriation.(note: "This involves the idea of 
holding a portion of the booty until the entire campaign is concluded, 
so as to encourage the mujahedeen to continue fighting to the end, this 
is what repatriation means") 51

Even more blunt is the tradition that says,

"He who kills (a person in jihad) is entitled to his belongings."52

Want something that a non-believer has? Just get out your sword (or 
AK-47), wage jihad, and take it! Never mind those laws of God like, 
"..thou shalt not kill....thou shalt no steal....thou shalt not 
covet..." (Exodus 20:13,15,17)

Hence, it should be seen and understood that the inclination of the 
teachings from the Muslim religious texts is toward violence and the 
propagation of the Islamic religion by war and the enticement of booty 
and eternal, carnal paradise. Let us now examine Islam's practice of 
violence, both historically and in a contemporary setting.

Historical Muslim Violence Toward Unbelievers

The toll in human life which Islam has wrought throughout history has 
been very great. According to the traditional historical accounts, the 
previously mentioned Caliph Umar I attained to the leadership of the 
Islamic Caliphate in 634 AD, two years after the death of Mohammed. In 
his short time as Caliph, so the traditional history says, he sent out 
Islamic armies for the conquest of Syria (636 AD), Iraq (637 AD), 
Palestine and the Transjordan (638 AD), Egypt (642 AD), and Persia (642 
AD). Umar was so brutal and despotic in his retaliation against the 
Persians (modern day Iranians) for opposing Islam's spread, that to this 
day Iran's Shi'ites will celebrate the anniversary of his death with 
great festivities. After Umar, Muslim armies continued the wars of 
conquest and conversion westward across North Africa where they 
destroyed Byzantine power before proceeding into Spain and defeating the 
Visigothic kingdoms. Muslim expansion into Europe was only finally 
halted by Charles Martel and his Franks at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 
AD, but it was to be centuries before the non-Muslim peoples of the 
Iberian peninsula were completely liberated from the yoke of Islamic 
bondage.

In the east, Muslim expansion continued into Central Asia and India. The 
Muslim conquest of India was similarly brutal to those conquests in the 
West, in its destruction of the indigenous civilization and subjugation 
of the native Indians.

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 712 AD, the history of 
India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, 
spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy 
war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have 
destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.....Mahmoud Ghazni was 
an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 the temples of 
Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of 
Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as 
Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the 
ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces 
wrecked." 53

India was repeatedly subjected to wave after wave after wave of Muslim 
invaders who would make a practice of killing or raping anyone in sight, 
and burning down anything they could not make off with in their packs. 
The Muslims of India and Pakistan (which is traditionally an Indian 
cultural area) are descendants of those Indians who converted to avoid 
the massacres and the religion tax imposed by their Muslim overlords.

Deserving of special mention is one sect of Islam whose legacy lives on 
today, in name if not in fact, which has given to the English language 
its word for callous, amoral murderers: The Assassins. The Assassins 
were a faction derived from to the Ismailite sect of Islam. Founded in 
1090, this group kept much of the Middle East in fear with their daring, 
cold-blooded assassinations of all kinds of personages, even up to the 
caliphs themselves. This group believed that killing was a religious 
duty, and would often assassinate leaders they felt to be too weak or 
too compromising to continue the spread of Islam. Much of their effort 
was also directed against Frankish and Byzantine Christians in the 
Middle East. The name for this group derives from hashish, which they 
would often smoke so as to induce ecstatic states in preparation for 
their killings. This group was ultimately destroyed by the Mongol 
invader Hulagu Khan who razed their mountaintop fortress of Alamut in 
125654.

In the later middle ages, the expansion of Islam by jihad was carried 
forward by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Turks, over the course of 
three centuries, pushed their way out of Asia Minor and into the 
Balkans, encircling and finally conquering Constantinople in 1453. Their 
conquest of Constantinople, the lone remaining bastion which had 
withstood their assaults in the Balkans, was one of the utmost brutality 
and viciousness. When the walls of the city were finally breached by 
Turkish cannon, the few defenders were overwhelmed as the Sultan's 
troops poured into the city. For three days, the troops were given free 
reign to murder, rape, and pillage, which they did with gusto. Men, 
women, children - young and old alike - who gathered in churches in that 
dark hour to pray for deliverance were mercilessly cut down by the 
Muslim invaders where they knelt. The Hagia Sophia, the Church of Holy 
Wisdom, the greatest work of religious architecture in Western 
Christendom, was defiled and converted to a mosque. An entire race of 
people, an entire civilization, were savaged, and the remnants brought 
into a slavery that was to last for centuries. Runciman records the 
death-knell of the Eastern Empire as such,

"On May the twenty-ninth, 1453, a civilization was wiped out 
irrevocably. It had left a glorious legacy in learning and in art; it 
had raised whole countries from barbarism and had given refinement to 
others; its strength and its intelligence for centuries had been the 
protection of Christendom. For eleven centuries, Constantinople had been 
the centre of the world of light. The quick brilliance, the interest and 
the aestheticism of the Greek, the proud stability and the 
administrative competence of the Roman, the transcendental intensity of 
the Christian from the East, welded together into a fluid, sensitive 
mass, were now put to sleep. Constantinople was become the seat of 
brutal force, of ignorance, of magnificent tastelessness."55

After this, the Turks moved further up into the Balkans and Central 
Europe until finally being turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683. 
During their time of domination over the Balkan peoples, the Turks laid 
many heavy oppressions upon these conquered peoples. One particularly 
despicable practice, known as devsirme, was that of taking "infidel" 
children from their parents as slaves. Once every five years, the Turks 
would take every Orthodox and Catholic child they could get their hands 
on from among the unconverted Balkan peoples, and bring them as slaves 
to the Sultan. The girls usually were destined to serve as concubines in 
the harems of Turkish leaders. The boys were forcibly converted to 
Islam, and then thoroughly indoctrinated in Muslim fanaticism and 
Turkish nationalism. After their "education" was finished, these were 
then highly trained in the arts of war and made into warrior-slaves, 
known as janissaries. The Janissaries served as the Sultan's police 
force and military elite throughout the Ottoman Empire, many of them 
enforcing his decrees back in the very homelands from which they had 
been stolen 56.

Muslim nastiness towards the conquered peoples of the Balkans still 
plays a role in the politics of that region today. The Albanians and 
Bosnians are both Muslim groups whose ancestors originally converted to 
avoid the child-conscription and religion tax. The Serbs and Croats hate 
the Bosnians and Albanians with a passion because of the historical 
legacy of the atrocities that the Turkish overlords perpetrated against 
their Slavic underlings. The enmity today between the Greeks and Turks 
derives from the brutality of Muslim rule in Greece, and the barbarity 
of the Turkish attempts to put down the Greek war for independence 
(1821-1827).

The Violence of Islam in the Modern Era

Muslim atrocities against non-Muslim conquered populations have 
continued into the modern era. In 1894, Sultan Abdul Hamid II instituted 
a pogrom against Orthodox Armenians who refused to abide by a massive 
increase in taxes that the Turkish government levied upon them. Between 
1894-1896, between 100-150,000 Armenians were killed by either the sword 
or starvation in a general massacre ordered by the Sultan in what is 
known as the Sassoun Massacre, and many more were driven into exile, or 
escaped only by converting to Islam 57. An attack upon the Ottoman Bank 
by Armenian resistors to the Sultan's genocidal attacks (an attack which 
was designed to bring Western attention to the Armenians' plight) was 
defused, and this was used as an excuse to murder another 8,000 
Armenians in Istanbul in a general slaughter. Yet again, between 
1915-1918 the Turks carried out genocide against the Armenians. Families 
were torn apart, the men being taken out and shot, and the women and 
children forced to march until they died of exhaustion or starvation 58. 
In this time, a quarter of a million Armenians were able to escape to 
Russia, while another 200,000 saved themselves by converting to Islam. 
However, the best estimates say that more than one and a half million 
Armenians were killed by this Muslim atrocity. Turkish Armenia ceased to 
exist.

The Greeks have also suffered holocaust at the hands of Muslims. In an 
effort to complete the Islamization of Turkish dominions, efforts to 
destroy or drive out the mostly Orthodox Greek populations were begun in 
1913. That year, 16,000 Greeks were murdered in Eastern Thrace (on the 
European side of the Dardanelles). In 1914, Greeks were ordered to 
vacate the city of Pergamum, and were massacred in Erythrea and Phocaia. 
That same year, 400,000 Greeks died from malnourishment and mistreatment 
in forced-labor battalions, and 120,000 Greeks were driven from their 
homes in Eastern Thrace, fleeing as refugees to the Kingdom of Greece. 
In 1917, 23,000 Greeks were deported from Cydoniae, and in 1918, another 
8,000 Greek families were expelled from southwestern Asia Minor. In 
1922, 300,000 more Greeks were forced out of Eastern Thrace, and at 
Smyrna, 150,000 Greeks and Armenians were massacred by Turkish forces 
59. It is important to keep in mind that all of these areas mentioned: 
Eastern Thrace, the Ionian isles, and southwestern Asia Minor, were all 
traditionally Greek cultural areas, dating back to the Mycenaean period 
over 1000 years before Christ. The Islamization of these areas by the 
removal of the Greeks can be clearly seen as an act of jihad, the 
conquest of territory for Islam. This policy of genocide continued all 
the way up to the fall of the Ottoman Turkish sultanate (which, during 
the War, issued an active call for jihad against the Allies) at the end 
of 1922. Further, even the secular Young Turk regime which replaced the 
Sultanate eventually succumbed to pressures to reinstitute the Islamic 
religion at an official level in Turkey. After World War II, the secular 
regime "resumed the teaching of Islamic religion in the public schools, 
opened state schools for the training of religious functionaries and 
taken such measures for the promotion of religion as putting religious 
programs on the state radio" 60. Turkish aggression against the Greeks 
was displayed once again in 1974, when Turkey invaded Cyprus and waged 
war on the Greeks, who were ostensibly Turkey's NATO ally.

Jihad is still alive and well today, and is not just the province of a 
few militant radicals. The forcible advancement of Islam, coupled with a 
contrived hatred for the Western world, appeals to the hearts and minds 
of millions of disaffected Muslims worldwide, many of them young and 
eager to give their lives in the cause of Allah. Many well-educated 
Muslims, in the Middle East and in the West, have taken hold of the 
intellectual cause of Islamism and support this jihad wholeheartedly. 
Witness the exultation of Muslims worldwide at the destruction of the 
World Trade Center towers...not only in Palestinian, Pakistani, and 
Egyptian villages and slums, but also in more well-to-do North African 
neighborhoods in France and on many college campuses in North America.

The fields of battle where radical Islam is instigating trouble range 
all across the globe. In Mindanao, the large southern island of the 
Philippine chain, Muslims are murdering Roman Catholics and Christians 
in an effort to establish an Islamic state on the island. Spearheaded by 
the terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf, Filipino Muslims have waged a 
terrorist war of shootings and bombings against both civilian and 
military targets. For example, one such attack was made against a 
shopping mall in Manila on 9 October, 2007 in which eight people were 
killed. Abu Sayyaf has also engaged in assassinations against Filipino 
leaders who oppose their movement. On 13 November, 2007, a bomb killed 
Wahab Akbar, a member of the Filipino Congress and former Muslim radical 
who turned from violence and began to lead the charge against Abu 
Sayyaf's violence. In all, over 400 civilians have been killed by Muslim 
terrorist violence in the Philippines since 2000 61.

Another place where Muslim terrorists have been using violence to kill 
infidels and establish a separatist state is in Thailand. Since the 
beginning of the concerted effort by Muslims in the southern provinces 
to break away, thousands have been killed in the violence. The violence, 
however, is disturbing because it does not just consist of attacks on 
the Thai military, or even simple indiscriminate bombings (though those 
happen as well62). In Thailand, Muslim terrorists have made a point of 
kidnapping and murdering civilians who are of the wrong religion - 
primarily Buddhists. For instance, on 24 July, 2007, two elderly Thais 
riding on a motorcycle were stopped by armed gunmen, doused with 
benzene, and lit on fire63. The murder of civilians by Muslim 
"separatists" in Thailand is commonplace, and the previous example is 
only one of hundreds that could be given. Many Muslims who work with or 
for the Thai government suffer as well, including one Muslim man who was 
crucified by the terrorists, while his two Buddhist companions were 
"merely" beheaded.

Indonesia, long viewed as a "moderate" and "tolerant" Muslim country, 
has seen Islamic extremist become more prevalent as well. Indonesia was 
the country where the infamous Bali bombings occurred, an attack 
directed against the country's premier tourist center on 12 October, 
2002. In the attack, 202 people were killed, including 164 Australian 
and other foreign vacationers. Bali was also the site of a second, less 
deadly attack on 12 October, 2005. The attacks were part of an ongoing 
campaign of violence by Jemaah Islamiyah, an Islamic terror group in 
Indonesia. In addition to these high profile bombings, Indonesia has 
also seen a string of violent attacks against the Christian minority in 
the country - attacks that have included the rape, murder, and 
beheadings of Christian schoolgirls. In East Timor, a country which 
obtained its independence from Portugal in 1975 only to be invaded and 
occupied by Muslim Indonesia later that same year, Muslim militias 
murdered and displaced hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics before 
the UN intervened with Australian troops.

Pakistani mujahedeen and terror bombers seek to force the Indians out of 
Kashmir and unite that province with Pakistan, and have killed tens of 
thousands in a campaign of violence that has lasted for decades. 
Violence by Muslims is also endemic within India proper64, and many 
Indians have been killed by bombings. In 1947, after the splitting of 
the Indian subcontinent between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, Muslims 
instituted a reign of terror against Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist 
minorities in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). People were killed, 
property was confiscated, refugees left penniless, and Hindu women were 
taken and given to Muslim men for the purposes of polygamy. The 
wickedness of the Muslim actions led one Indian observer, S.K. 
Bhattacharyya, to invent an acronym for Islam - "Intolerance, Slaughter, 
Loot, Arson and Molestation". In 1950, half a million more Hindus were 
butchered, and in 1971, during Bangladesh's war for independence from 
Pakistan, Pakistani soldiers murdered between 1.25 and 3 million Hindus 
and other religious minorities65.

Throughout the Middle East, Christians and others of all kinds of 
religions are persecuted and killed. In 1981, Muslim fanatics rioted in 
Cairo against the Coptic Christian population, murdering over 100 
people. Copts in Egypt suffer from a continual campaign of systematic 
discrimination, oppression, and violence by the Muslim majority. The 
Assyrian Christian population in Iraq endures daily violence and 
persecution from Islamic extremists. In areas controlled by the 
Palestinian Authority, the Islamic terrorist organizations such as Fatah 
and Islamic Jihad continue to perpetrate a systematic campaign of 
oppression and murder against the dwindling Christian population of 
Bethlehem and other towns scattered across the West Bank and the Gaza 
Strip. After gaining complete control of Iran, the Islamist 
revolutionaries under the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1981 began the 
systematic oppression of Iran's Ba'hai minority, murdering them and 
taking their property.

Presently, Sudanese Muslims are waging a war of jihad against Christians 
and animists in the southern part of that country, killing thousands, 
and taking thousands as slaves, who are then sold to the Arab Muslims of 
the north. Sudan was also the location of the recent "Teddy Bear Jihad", 
in which thousands of Sudanese Muslims rioted and called for the 
execution of a British teacher in Sudan - all for the crime of allowing 
some little children to name a teddy bear after Mohammed66. In 
Mauritania, over 70,000 "Afro-Mauritanians" have been murdered or 
expelled by Islamist radicals who have instituted shari'a law in that 
nation67, and Mauritania has the highest percentage of its population 
living in slavery of any nation on earth (close to 30%)68. Indeed, 
according to one source with whom Bales spoke, Mauritania is described 
as an "austere, almost medieval nation, powered by Islam, riven by 
racial hatred, and flayed by drought"69. Elsewhere in Africa, Muslims in 
northern Nigeria continue their effort to establishshari'a Islamic law 
over non-Muslims. In Algeria, thousands have died in an on-going 
insurgency by Muslim fundamentalists against the secular government.

Of course, there is also the continual intifada which the Palestinians 
continue to carry out. Thousands of Israelis have been killed or maimed 
through cowardly Palestinian terror bombings. Many of these bombs have 
been specifically targeted at children, as have rifle and mortar attacks 
on schools and homes in Israel. Perhaps the most notorious Arab crime 
against Israel was the murder of eleven Israeli athletes taken hostage 
by Fatah terrorists (Yassir Arafat's terror organization) at the 1972 
Olympics in Münich, Germany. Muslim jihad has also launched five wars 
against Israel, that have all failed to drive the Jews from the Holy 
Land.

These examples of Islamic behavior towards "infidels", even to this day, 
only constitutes a small percentage of what could be said about Islamic 
violence against non-Muslims. It seems evident that every place in which 
Muslims make up a significant portion of the population, efforts are 
made to subjugate or drive out non-Muslims. The conclusion pretty much 
has to be made that Islam is most certainly NOT the peaceful, tolerant, 
loving religion which its apologists claimed it is. More on the 
"tolerance" of Islam will be seen in the next chapter.

Please note what is written above should not be construed to say that 
every Muslim is a violent individual. Many Muslims are indeed peaceful 
people who get along well in non-Muslim societies. I have known several 
Muslims with whom I have worked (but who perhaps did not take the 
Islamic faith very seriously) and who were decent, kind individuals. 
Still, the record of Islam itself, as a religio-political system, on 
violence and forcible conversion is practically unrivaled in sheer 
magnitude, even by European medieval state-religionism with all of its 
inquisitions, conquistadors, and counter-reformations. The problem is 
not presented by individual Muslims themselves, but by the Islamic 
system, and especially its power to brainwash impressionable people into 
a structure which, when applied literally, encourages them into violence 
and hatred. Those Muslims who take their religious at its most literal 
have demonstrated time and again that they do not seek peaceful 
coexistence, but instead to put the quranic injunctions to violence and 
subjugation into practice. This shows us that the problem is with Islam 
itself, as a system of thought and action. Even when violence is not a 
practical option, orthodox Muslims still seek the subjugation of 
opposing belief systems. As a former Muslim tells us,

"Not every Muslim would agree that jihad requires spilling the blood of 
infidels, but the struggle for the victory of Islam is a factor in the 
life of every faithful Muslim."70

One is forced to wonder when Muslims will begin to put into practice 
that verse in the Qur'an which their apologists love to quote, "Let 
there be no compulsion in religion..." (Surah 2:256)

The Contrast of Bible Christianity

Often, foes of Bible Christianity and apologists for Islam will attempt 
to rebut criticism of Islam's violent nature by trying to turn the 
"violence argument" back onto Christianity. They will point to various 
passages in the Old Testament which advocate violence, particularly 
those involved with the establishment of Israel in the land of Canaan. 
What these people do not understand is that these particular passages, 
while instructive in a figurative sense to today's Christians in the 
desire of God for His children to keep themselves holy and free from 
wrong influences, are not directly applicable to Christians today as we 
do not live in the same dispensation as that of ancient Israel. A 
dispensation is simply a particular time frame in which God deals with 
man in a particular way. In the Old Testament, several dispensations are 
seen, as God progressively reveals Himself to man. Eventually, God 
begins to deal with man through the nation of Israel, whom He called out 
from among all nations. It was to Israel that the violent passages in 
the Old Testament were directed, because Israel was to be a theocratic 
nation which also had to deal with the practical realities of 
often-hostile neighboring states in the dangerous world of the ancient 
Near East, with all this would naturally imply71. God dealt with man 
differently in the New Testament. Instead of just dealing with Israel as 
a nation, God deals with people from all nations, and is calling His 
churches out from among every nation on earth.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, 
who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in 
the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants 
of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in 
Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of 
Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken 
down the middle wall of partition between us..." (Ephesians 2:11-14)

My purpose for this brief lesson in doctrine is to demonstrate that a 
right understanding of the Bible will include the understanding that 
many passages in the Old Testament dealing with the ceremonial laws, 
priestly rites, and political judgments in ancient Israel are 
instructive for teaching general principles of holiness to Christians 
today, but are not meant to be applied directly or literally in the 
lives of Christians - specifically because Christians in this 
dispensation are not Israel. In fact, many of the "ceremonial" laws 
given to Israel were didactic in nature. They were meant to teach and 
prepare Israel to receive her Messiah, and they found their fulfillment 
in Christ when He came to earth. With this fulfillment, these laws no 
longer are binding on believers, and trying to hold onto them would 
actually constitute a rejection of the sacrifice made by Christ. This is 
the generally understood position of what are termed "conservative", 
"evangelical", or "fundamentalist" Christians - those who take the Bible 
literally and attempt to live by it. While the Old Testament may contain 
a number of passages depicting violence and calling for the destruction 
of the Canaanites or Amalekites, these are not and have not been 
considered normative for Christian believers to follow.

Seeing that Christians today are not called by the Bible to drive out 
the unbelievers and put them to the sword, what then is the attitude 
which Christians ought to take?

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, 
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, 
against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For 
the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the 
pulling down of strongholds.)" (II Corinthians 10:3-4)

These passages both illustrate that a Christian's struggle is with the 
spiritual forces of evil. Our warfare is fought on the spiritual plane, 
against the machinations of Satan and his demons. It is fought with 
prayer and supplication. It is fought by witnessing and preaching the 
truth to lost sinners in this dying world. It is fought by living 
rightly and presenting a pure testimony of graceful, God-honoring living 
to the world at large, serving as a reproof to those who live in sin. A 
Bible Christian may be involved in politics, may have to fight in a war 
if called upon by his nation, may have to even serve on a jury and 
choose to recommend the death penalty for a vicious criminal who has 
broken a law worthy of death. But, the Bible Christian will not use 
force or coercion to spread the Gospel and win souls.

What is the behavior then of a Bible Christian living by the Bible? They 
will witness. They may hand out tracts. They may even make a lost person 
feel uncomfortable by talking about God or standing up and doing right 
or refusing to do wrong. They may vote against a candidate who supports 
abortion, and campaign for that person's opponent. But they will not use 
force to spread the Gospel. History bears this out as truth.

"Ah," the scoffer might say, "What about the crusades, or the 
inquisitions, or the conquistadors and the subjugations of natives all 
over the world, or even what about the abortion clinic violence?!" The 
simple answer is that not a single one of these has the least bit to do 
with Bible-believing Christianity. Above, it was shown that Islam is a 
violent religion because of the teachings of the Qur'an and the ahadith. 
The Muslims who perpetrate the acts of violence and terrorism which I 
have pointed out are those who take these texts the most literally, who 
try the most scrupulously to live by them. If we wish to examine whether 
Christians who take this same general approach to the Bible are guilty 
of the crimes attributed to "Christianity", then it is necessary to look 
at their behavior as they live their lives. Do fundamentalist or 
evangelical Christians commit terrorist bombings? No. Do they shoot 
infidels and wage holy war? No. Do they seek to oppress non-Christians 
and subjugate them? No. A Christian being true to the teachings and 
testimony of Jesus Christ simply does not do these sorts of things. As I 
said at the beginning of this chapter, you have to look at what the holy 
books of a religion actually say, and see how the "true believers" apply 
them, to best understand the character of a religion. Am I engaging in 
special pleading, in inventing self-serving definitions to get my own 
side off the hook? No, I am merely applying the same standard to those 
professing to be Christians as I did to Muslims - what does the holy 
book say, and what do its most literal adherents do with it?

So what of the many atrocities committed in the name of "Christianity"? 
Simply put, those who perpetrated them were not Christians. Not only in 
action, but also in theology, the religious groups that were responsible 
for the Crusades, the inquisitions, the witch-burnings, the persecutions 
of "heretics", were not Christian - regardless of the fact that they 
claimed the name. Any religious group which denies that salvation comes 
by grace alone through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and which 
believes in the efficacy of the mass or of confession to grant merit to 
the soul, and which seek to replace the local assembly of believers with 
a geographical hierarchy of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, 
metropolitans, and popes, is theologically opposed to the Bible, and is 
therefore not Biblical Christianity. Far from honoring and living by the 
Bible, the leaders of these religious organizations actually sought to 
keep the Bible from the common people. The fact that they spread their 
faiths by fire and sword, Crusade and inquisition, only serves to show 
that the fruit they bore was not that which Jesus desired for Christians 
to bring forth. These groups may have committed violence, especially 
during the Middle Ages, but this violence does not pertain to Bible 
Christianity and cannot honestly be laid at the feet of Bible-believing 
fundamental or evangelical Christians.

Some Words About the Crusades

Nevertheless, at this point we need to discuss the Crusades in some 
detail, for though they were not truly a Christian affair, they are an 
important series event, a knowledge of which is necessary for 
understanding the history of interaction between Islam and 
"Christendom". The Crusades were a series of military expeditions by 
medieval Europeans into the Middle East, and have become an object of 
fixation in the mind of Islam. They are the lens through which Muslims 
have come to view practically all of their dealings with the West. The 
Crusades, unfortunately, have also become somewhat mythologized by 
Muslims, who reinvent history to fit their own propagandistic purposes. 
Muslims will try to point to the Crusades as an example of "Christian" 
evil, and as a justification for their own jihad, but as we have seen 
above, there was nothing scriptural about the Crusades - they did not 
occur because of devotion to biblical religion.

Now let us deal with the serious deficiencies in the Muslim 
understanding of the Crusades. Though it is now in vogue among Muslims 
to portray the Crusades as savage offensives against peace-loving Muslim 
people in the Middle East, this view is historically inaccurate. Indeed, 
until around the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire's 
official position, taught to all Ottoman students in the schools, was 
that the Crusades were a great victory and triumph for Islam, which had 
defeated and expelled minor barbarian incursions from the west. The 
Muslims of the Middle East were hardly "peace-loving". Indeed, lest we 
forget, the very reason why the Middle East was in the hands of the 
Muslims in the first place was because of a series of offensive 
religious wars waged by Muslims against the various Christian peoples of 
Asia Minor, Palestine, and North Africa.

It is necessary to understand that fact if we are to understand why the 
Crusades occurred in the first place. The Crusades, first and foremost, 
were defensive wars. They were not fought by an expansionistic, 
imperialistic Christendom, but rather by a Christendom that was at that 
time shrinking, being slowly but surely overwhelmed by the advancing 
Islamic empires. As Thomas Madden has written,

"Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The 
crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated 
response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian 
world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth 
centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was 
defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the 
mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able 
to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was 
the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). 
The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of 
his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He 
got it. More than he wanted, in fact.

Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095. Despite modern laments 
about medieval colonialism, the crusade's real purpose was to turn back 
Muslim conquests and restore formerly Christian lands to Christian 
control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction 
to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the 
American invasion of Normandy. As it happened, the First Crusade was 
amazingly, almost miraculously, successful. The crusaders marched 
hundreds of miles deep into enemy territory and recaptured not only the 
lost cities of Nicaea and Antioch, but in 1099 Jerusalem itself."72

The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. If the Muslims had 
not waged offensive war and continued in their plans to conquer the 
known world, the Crusades would never have happened. In a sense, blame 
for the Crusades lies at the feet of the Muslims themselves. It is 
doubtful, lacking the impetus provided by Emperor Alexius' appeal and 
Pope Urban's oration, that it would ever have occurred to the petty 
feudal nobles of Western Europe to even go adventuring thousands of 
miles away from home in the first place. And what of the Muslim 
contention that the Bible was somehow an impetus for the Crusaders to go 
pillaging across the Levant? Well, there is no real evidence that the 
Crusaders or those calling for crusade relied on the Bible as 
justification. For example, when we look at the actual text73 of Pope 
Urban II's call for crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, we see 
exactly three references to passages from the Bible: two of them from 
the Gospel of Matthew, one of them from the Gospel of Luke, and none of 
them in any way used in the actual call to crusade - all are used to 
reprove the "Christians" for being blind and careless. There is nothing 
which in any way suggests that Urban pointed to the Bible to justify or 
encourage the crusading. Instead, he lays out the political situation as 
it existed at that time, and warns that unless the Muslim aggression is 
stopped, more "Christians" will be conquered and enslaved.

Muslim apologists will point to the barbaric behavior of the Crusaders 
when they took Jerusalem in 1099. And well they ought, for these 
European warlords were most definitely barbaric. But, so were the 
Muslims. It is common for Muslims to assert that when the Muslim army 
reconquered the cities which the Crusaders had taken, that they did not 
harm the civilian population. This claim is most certainly not true. The 
Muslims were just as savage and brutal in the fighting during the 
Crusades as were the Crusaders. For instance, when the Muslims retook 
Antioch, they slaughtered 16,000 people in the streets and sold another 
100,000 into slavery. Likewise, when the Crusader garrison at Caesaria, 
2000 men, surrendered to the Muslims on the sworn promise that they 
would be spared, the Muslims broke their promise and instead executed 
them all. Indeed, one of the series of events that lead to the Crusades 
and likely made the westerners amenable to aiding Byzantium in the first 
place was the maltreatment and murder of European pilgrims to sites in 
the Holy Land in the 1070s. For these apologists to claim that the 
Muslims retook territory without harming anyone, and their apparent 
attempts to portray Islam as a spotless and pure victim in the tawdry 
affair of the Crusades, is astounding in its mendacity. Islam bears as 
much complicity in the violence of the Crusades as the Europeans do, 
both in terms of methodology and in root cause. Indeed, Islam's march 
across the Middle East and North Africa in the centuries preceding the 
Crusades was drenched in the blood of thousands, possibly millions, of 
native peoples who were slaughtered and pillaged as the Arabs made their 
way from Egypt to Spain in the 8th century. Just as the Crusaders bear 
great reproach and responsibility for their conduct, so do the Muslims.

This point about the historic Muslim brutality and violence as they 
expanded out from the Levant in the 8th century and onward is important 
to remember. There is a good and strong argument to be made that the 
example of Islam's behavior in war and expansion was what taught the 
medieval Europeans about holy war. In other words, Islam was the 
schoolmaster in religiously motivated violence, and the Europeans the 
pupils absorbing the lesson from the masters. Jacques Ellul, a scholar 
who has studied the theologies of both Christianity and Islam, has noted 
the impetus which Islamic "holy war" gave to the rise of this concept in 
medieval Europe. As part of a more general argument concerning the 
influence which Muslim theology and philosophy had on the Western 
statecraft and religion in the early medieval period, Ellul notes the 
following about the rise of the "holy war" concept in Christendom,

"In tandem with this great importance of the political power there is, 
of course, the importance and glorification of war as a means of 
spreading the faith. Such war is a duty for all Muslims. Islam has to 
become universal. The true faith, not the power, has to be taken to 
every people by every means, including by military force. This makes the 
political power important, for it is warlike by nature. The two things 
are closely related. The political head wages war on behalf of the 
faith. He is thus the religious head, and as the sole representative of 
God he must fight to extend Islam. This enormous importance of war has 
been totally obliterated today in intellectual circles that admire Islam 
and want to take it afresh as a model. War is inherent in Islam. It is 
inscribed in its teaching. It is a fact of its civilization and also a 
religious fact; the two cannot be separated. It is coherent with its 
conception of the Dhar al ahrb, that the whole world is destined to 
become Muslim by Arab conquests. The proof of all this is not just 
theological; it is historical: hardly has the Islamic faith been 
preached when an immediate military conquest begins. From 632 to 651, in 
the twenty years after the death of the prophet, we have a lightning war 
of conquest with the invasion of Egypt and Cyrenaica to the west, Arabia 
in the center, Armenia, Syria, and Persia to the east. In the following 
century all North Africa and Spain are taken over, along with India and 
Turkey to the east. The conquests are not achieved by sanctity, but by 
war.

For three centuries Christianity spread by preaching, kindliness, 
example, morality, and encouragement of the poor. When the empire became 
Christian, war was hardly tolerated by the Christians. Even when waged 
by a Christian emperor it was a dubious business and was assessed 
unfavorably. It was often condemned. Christians were accused of 
undermining the political force and military might of the empire from 
within. In practice Christians would remain critical of war until the 
flamboyant image of the holy war came on the scene. In other words, no 
matter what atrocities have been committed in wars waged by so-called 
Christian nations, war has always been in essential contradiction to the 
gospel. Christians have always been more or less aware of this. They 
have judged war and questioned it.

In Islam, on the contrary, war was always just and constituted a sacred 
duty. The war that was meant to convert infidels was just and 
legitimate, for, as Muslim thinking repeats, Islam is the only religion 
that conforms perfectly to nature. In a natural state we would all be 
Muslims. If we are not, it is because we have been led astray and 
diverted from the true faith. In making war to force people to become 
Muslims the faithful are bringing them back to their true nature. Q.E.D. 
Furthermore, a war of this kind is a jihad, a holy war. Let us make no 
mistake, the word jihad has two complementary senses. It may denote a 
spiritual war that is moral and inward. Muslims have to wage this war 
within themselves in the fight against demons and evil forces, in the 
effort to achieve better obedience to God's will, in the struggle for 
perfect submission. But at the same time and in a wholly consistent way 
the jihad is also the war against external demons. To spread the faith, 
it is necessary to destroy false religions. This war, then, is always a 
religious war, a holy war."74

Hence, he recognizes that the Gospel of Christ and war are not 
complementary, and Ellul rightly notes that true Christians have always 
been at least skeptical about war, even while recognizing that a 
legitimate need on the part of the state may exist for armed conflict. 
Conversely, he also observes that the teachings of Islam are wholly 
consistent with a perpetual war state. The concept of "holy war" in 
medieval Europe rose as a result of the influence of Islamic 
philosophical and theological ideas, and from the direct example of the 
Muslims themselves, whose dealings in North Africa and Spain were 
readily observable to the Christendom of the day.

None of this should be interpreted as seeking to justify the Crusaders 
in their warfare or their atrocities - indeed, the Crusaders indulged in 
many great evils when they conducted their wars in the Levant. The point 
still needs to be understood, however, that without the input of Muslim 
aggression, Muslim atrocities, and Muslimtheological/philosophical 
ideas, the Crusades would not likely have occurred.

Another error in thinking which non-Christians often make and which 
needs to be addressed is this: There is not, nor has there ever been, 
such a thing as a "Christian nation". No nation has ever been governed 
solely (or even principally) by the dictates of the Bible, nor has any 
nation ever been made up solely or even with a large majority of truly 
Bible-believing born-again Christians. Given the implications of what 
the Bible has to say as far as commanding Christians to be submissive to 
the laws of their respective earthly nations insomuch as they can do so 
without violating Scripture and conscience (see Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 
2:11-17), and that Christians are to be "in the world, but not of the 
world" (see John 17:15-16), it must be understood that Christians cannot 
partake of forcing their authority, either political or religious, upon 
the unbelieving world beyond those realms (such as voting, in democratic 
nations) in which they are lawfully allowed a voice along with everyone 
else.

As such, since there is no such thing as a "Christian nation", it is not 
a valid argument to try to blame Christianity for the behavior of 
Western nations such as the United States, Great Britain or other 
countries that many in the Third World usually refer to as "Christian". 
Even a cursory glance at the laws and practices of Western nations, past 
and present, shows that these were not "Christian" in the sense of 
abiding by the strict dictates of the Bible, even if these nations did 
have large or influential Christian elements in their societies. Muslims 
err greatly in trying to apply their understanding of the ummah to the 
Western situation. In Muslim lands, Islam is supposed to form the 
complete sum total of all the community and society. Everything is to 
revolve around Islam, and Islam is to establish the sole deen, the way 
of living, in a nation ruled by the religion of Mohammed. Muslims apply 
this to the West, and therefore come to the erroneous conclusion that 
because the United States extirpated and quarantined the Native 
Americans, or because Britain sold smallpox-laden blankets to the 
Mohawks, or because the Dutch treated the natives in their Asian holding 
cruelly, that all of these crimes can be laid at the feet of 
Christianity, rather than just individual nations or people. This is an 
invalid argument because Christianity, as taught in the Bible, is a 
private and personal relationship between man and his Maker. There is no 
- can be no - Christian ummah to which a nation's actions can be 
attributed. While that concept may be attributable even to apostate 
state religionism (which teaches its own version of ummah through its 
belief that all people in a region are submitted to the hierarchical 
religious authorities and belong to the "state church"), it cannot be 
attributed to people who are being faithful to the Bible, which is the 
very definition of a "Bible-believing Christian".

In closing, when we contrast Islam and Christianity, we see that the 
former belief system promotes violence, while the latter does not. The 
difference lies in the holy books and other religious texts used by the 
two systems. The Qur'an and the ahadith provide ample and 
straightforward justification for violence against unbelievers. In 
contrast to this, the Bible brings a message of peace. Only those who 
try to take the Biblical message out of context and twist the scriptures 
will see in it a "justification" for violence against non-believers.


Links to more information


Return to 'Discernment Archives'