I used to think Yoruba muslims had some common sense unlike their counterparts in the North but im beginning to see that some of these radical folks have been completely Arabized.  They will soon start behaving like the Northern Sudanese and referring to themselves as Arabs. Useless vedaxcool, sweetnecta, lagosshia  and other radicals. I think some of these guys are on the payrolls of the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia and Shias in Iran (Petrodollars) because I don't understand how they have the time to respond to almost all these discussions around. I barely have time to keep up between work and maintaining my regular life activities.





Arabization (Arabic: تعريب Taʿrīb) describes a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture. It was most prominently achieved during the 7th century Arabian Muslim conquests which spread the Arabic language, culture, and—having been carried out by Arabian Muslims as opposed to Arabian Christians or Arabian Jews—the religion of Islam to the lands they conquered. The result: some elements of Arabian origin combined in various forms and degrees with elements taken from conquered civilizations and ultimately denominated "Arab", as opposed to "Arabian".

After the rise of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula, Arab culture and language spread through trade with African states, conquest, and intermarriage of the non-Arab local population with the Arabs, in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iraq and the Sudan. The peninsular Arabic language became common among these areas; dialects also formed. Also, though Yemen is traditionally held to be the homeland of Arabs, most[1] of the population did not speak Arabic (but instead South Semitic languages) prior to the spread of Islam.

The influence of Arabic has also been profound in many other countries whose cultures have been influenced by Islam. Arabic is a major source of vocabulary for languages as diverse as Berber, spoken Hindi, Indonesian, Kurdish, Malay, Maltese, Persian, Portuguese, Sindhi, Punjabi, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Turkish, Urdu, as well as other languages in countries where these languages are spoken. For example the Arabic word for book /kita:b/ is used in all the languages listed, apart from Malay and Indonesian (where it specifically means "religious book" and Portuguese and Spanish (which use the Latin-derived "livro" and "libro", respectively).

I believe the dialogue and discourse that we engage in challenges each others world views, ideas and makes us all understand each other a bit better.

Woooow, simply amazing. Thanks for sharing.
We have to get this d.amn country back on track!!!!

Ever wonder why all the major religions in the world are from Asia??

Hinduism - India
Buddism - India
Judaism - Middle East
Christianity - Middle East
Islam - Middle East


And the Middle Eastern ones are the most aggressive

All religious people are atheists/agnostics to all other religions, lol Just wonder why they can't see the bs in their backyard. SMH!

Wrong, Nigeria's economy (GDP) is equivalent to the size of 1 of the United States poorest states, Alabama. Put this in perspective, 150 Million people surviving on the economy of Alabama. Majority of Nigerians need reorientation for a modern economy and living. It is very unsettling to me when I bump into Nigerians from the elite political, educational and wealthy class who are still talking about contracts and the likes especially when they do not have the skills to deliver on the goods. This is not a sustainable path.

So since you are not in America/West why are you concerned about their census categories?

Why not worry about your superior Igboland and the innumerable problems in your community? Lack of pipe borne water,  corruption, roads, electricity, cultism, kidnappings, assasinations, health services, unemployment etc etc We are free people that were never "enslaved" and always lived in our land so why no development?? We even had our own country so we cant even complain that we were oppressed. All that you know is that you are "different" from the AAs.

I guess the numerous yahoo yahoo boys, traders, drug peddlers are the Igbo proletariats?

So with the new African category that you are demanding are you aware that many "Africans" arent comfortable with that label?

I am playing devils advocate to show you how ridiculous your argument is. The construct of your identity is very screwed up, start with identifying your self as a human being and not a tribe, religion or even race. These are superficial divisions.

I would hate to be descirbed as "black" since the term is synonymous with AAs.

Your responses are replete with degrading inferences. What is so great about you that you would hate to be referred to as an AA or Black?  Your s.illy butt is in America where African Americans (yes descendants of enslaved africans) fought the system of white supremacy and broke down barriers that allow your d.umb African behind to attend universities, get a job and hell the civil rights movement provided the impetus for independence of several African countries.

Ask Nnamdi azikwe what he thought of african Americans as he attended the great Lincoln University (an "African American University). Or Ask Kwame Nkrumah his thoughts on people he was inspired by such as  Marcus Garvey, W. E. B. Du Bois.

People are so blind to the realities of life, Please leave your tribal mindset where it belongs-  in the village. You are no better or worse than any group of people so stop with the generalization and perpetuation of stereotypes. Like I alluded to earlier if you want your own special category for your light brown Igbo African self please contact the US Census and see if they take your ignoramus self seriously.

PS I am Nigerian and recognize the struggles of descendands of African people around the globe. I challenge people who hold stereotypes of groups of ppl.

At the end of the day "black" ppl all over the globe have serious issues and it is absolutely no time to be degrading each other.

Saudi Constitution,


Chapter 1  General Principles

Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.


Article 2
The state's public holidays are Id al-Fitr and Id al-Adha.  Its calendar is the Hegira calendar.

Article 3
The state's flag shall be as follows:
(a) It shall be green.
(b) Its width shall be equal to two-thirds of it's length.
(c) The words "There is but one God and Mohammed is His Prophet" shall be inscribed in the center with a drawn sword under it.  The statute shall define the rules pertaining to it.

Article 4
The state's emblem shall consist of two crossed swords with a palm tree in the upper space between them.  The statute shall define the state's anthem and its medals.


Chapter 2  [Monarchy]

Article 5
(a) The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that of a monarchy.
(b) Rule passes to the sons of the founding King, Abd al-Aziz Bin Abd al-Rahman al-Faysal Al Sa'ud, and to their children's children.  The most upright among them is to receive allegiance in accordance with the principles of the Holy Koran and the Tradition of the Venerable Prophet.
(c) The King chooses the Heir Apparent and relieves him of his duties by Royal order.
(d) The Heir Apparent is to devote his time to his duties as an Heir Apparent and to whatever missions the King entrusts him with.
(e) The Heir Apparent takes over the powers of the King on the latter's death until the act of allegiance has been carried out.

Article 6
Citizens are to pay allegiance to the King in accordance with the holy Koran and the tradition of the Prophet, in submission and obedience, in times of ease and difficulty, fortune and adversity.

Article 7
Government in Saudi Arabia derives power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet's tradition.

Article 8  [Government Principles]
Government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on the premise of justice, consultation, and equality in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah.


Chapter 3  Features of the Saudi Family

Article 9
The family is the kernel of Saudi society, and its members shall be brought up on the basis of the Islamic faith, and loyalty and obedience to God, His Messenger, and to guardians; respect forand implementation of the law, and love of and pride in the homeland and its glorious history as the Islamic faith stipulates.

Article 10
The state will aspire to strengthen family ties, maintain its Arab and Islamic values and care for all its members, and to provide the right conditions for the growth of their resources and capabilities.

Article 11
Saudi society will be based on the principle of adherence to God's command, on mutual cooperation in good deeds and piety and mutual support and inseparability.

Article 12
The consolidation of national unity is a duty, and the state will prevent anything that may lead to disunity, sedition and separation.

Article 13
education will aim at instilling the Islamic faith in the younger generation, providing its members with knowledge and skills and preparing them to become useful members in the building of their society, members who love their homeland and are proud of its history

Shall I continue?

Thank you Martian, I love it when non Arab Muslims attempt to "explain" Islam to the Saudis or to the rest of us, a religion that their Saudi forefathers and culture created. Saudi Arabia is Islam! The Saudi constitution in based on the Koran and their Law is the Sharia.  Beheadings and limb amputations are recommended by the Koran and Sharia for stealing/Mischief etc. Stop trying to water down and sell your religion as moderate and progressive.

Islam and Sharia are an outdated moral framework from the 7th century desert tribes of Arabia. It may have worked for them then but it is definitely not a functional system for the 21st century. I wonder whether people would use a doctor, dentist, broker, lawyer from the 7th century? So then why a religious ideology/legal frame work from the bronze age?

I guess you can't read or comprehend the English Language.
I will reiterate: If you live in the United States and are from Sub Saharan Africa, the US census considers any person of AFRICAN ANCESTRY (including Igbos) African American/Black. It has nothing to do with slavery or being born in America but more with ones heritage being from Sub Saharan Africa.
If you have a problem with being referred to as one please take it up with the US Census Bureau and ask for another category.


Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

After seeing these I fully support the War on Terror, time to bring in the drones and cluster bombs.
Its time for the civilized world to unite and extinguish Radical Islamists on a global scale.


http://pointblanknews.com/Photonews/PhotoNewsos5205.html

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e35_1222711407

African American is defined as A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as 'Black, African Am., or Negro,' or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian."[12]
So stop with the bs!!! I really dislike bigoted Africans,

[flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIoKrL_8pt8[/flash]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIoKrL_8pt8

Classic case of how culture and relgion blind people and encourage irrational behaviour. Slicing an animals neck while reciting some prayer is inhumane and irrational especially when there are more humane and quicker methods to reduce the suffering of the animal. This process of slaughter is outdated and should no longer be encouraged in countries where butchers that can afford the equipment to stun the animals.

Skeptics sometimes frame the science versus religion debate as one of knowledge and enlightenment versus ignorance and superstition. This framing oversimplifies the problem in a number of ways. It leaves the impression that worldviews rejecting religion pose no danger to science. It also fails to make distinctions between religious approaches that are hostile to science and those that are not. Similar to the way this framing implicitly views religion as unitary, it implicitly views science as unitary—ignoring the varied disciplinary perspectives on the debate. Moreover, it often assumes that “science” refers to the physical and biological sciences, thereby omitting important evidence- and logic-based contributions from the social and behavioral sciences. And by implicitly treating the debate as essentially a philosophical one, it often overlooks important cultural information.

Varieties of Skeptical Experience

A series of books in recent years, including a number of best-sellers, has made a compelling intellectual case for skepticism about religion. Reading them, one is struck not only by the force of their arguments, but by how little substantive overlap exists among them. Perhaps this is because, in addition to bringing strong academic credentials, the authors come from different disciplinary backgrounds: biology (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion), journalism and literature (Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great), philosophy (Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell), neuroscience (Sam Harris, The End of Faith), and physics (Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis).

Following the spread of Islamic fundamentalism abroad and the religious right at home, these authors and others have highlighted the conflict between science and religion. In its simplest terms, the conflict is between two ways of understanding the world: evidence and logic versus unquestioned authoritative texts and faith. But to understand the conflict and its implications better, the definition needs to be expanded—from science versus religion to science versus ideology, with some forms of religion (especially those fundamentalisms currently on the rise) being a subset of the ideologies that conflict with science.

Some have claimed that there is no conflict. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, referred to the non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion, with the former describing reality—what is—and the latter dealing with values—how we ought to act. It’s true that you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is,” but critics of religion argue that knowledge of what the world is actually like better equips one to make moral judgments than do faith and dogma. On the other hand, theologians spend a lot of time considering issues of right and wrong and engaging in moral reasoning, and these must have the effect of sharpening their thinking. Still, reasoning from those faith-based premises which are at best unverifiable (e.g., God is everywhere) and at worst demonstrably false (e.g., the universe is only six-thousand years old), can only diminish the confidence we have in their conclusions. 

Science does offer the possibility of experimental ethics—using controlled studies and cross-cultural evidence to understand the sociocultural, psychological, and biological processes involved in moral reasoning, and to evaluate the empirical consequences of different values or systems of values. It is true that the results of any such investigations would have to be considered with reference to some independent criteria, so that values (or meta-values) can’t be kept out of the equation. However, nonbelievers would argue that our species evolved social tendencies—albeit tempered by widely varying cultural circumstances—that would prove adequate to the task, without added benefit from consulting religious authority. For example, the characteristically human traits of caring for children over many years and living with one another in social groups provide a sufficient explanation for viewing murder as wrong, without recourse to the Ten Commandments.

Insisting that the two magisteria are non-overlapping also would seem to imply that certain issues are off-limits for scientific investigation. This is a bad idea, since it’s quite possible that future research will have strong implications for the religious domain—for example, turning religious experiences on and off through brain stimulation or drugs (psychedelics have been known to produce the latter effect, albeit unreliably), or making people more or less moral (the latter is known to result from certain brain injuries and toxic states).

Scientists as Skeptics

Comparative studies of the religious beliefs among Americans in the various natural and social sciences have produced some variability in results, related to differences in methodologies and samples. In one study, psychology and biology had the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics (over 60 percent), while in a larger study it was biologists and physicists (over 70 percent). Still, the pattern of results is clear. The percentage of nonbelievers and doubters is highest among scientists with the strongest intellectual credentials (members of the National Academy of Sciences; professors at elite research universities), and diminishes—while still remaining high—as the distance from this peak increases. 

One might point to the differences in rates of disbelief among the sciences to ask whether the various disciplines differ in the degree to which they encourage an application of their professional skepticism to matters of religion. And since Americans are much more religious than Europeans, the percentage of atheists and agnostics among European scientists is probably significantly higher.

The different sciences provide differing reasons for skepticism about religion. For physicists, introducing God as a cause would interfere with or contradict their extremely powerful explanatory models that go all the way back to the Big slam. The view of God as the cause of the Big slam has many limitations in that it’s unverifiable and merely raises the further question of what caused God. In a similar way, for biologists, introducing God as a cause would interfere with or contradict their extremely powerful explanatory model of Darwinian evolution—as has been widely discussed in recent years. 

For psychologists, the evidence for religious belief comes from religious experience; and a pervasive finding from the scientific study of behavior is that subjective experience does not reliably correspond to reality. From perceptual illusions to false memories to socially influenced judgments, psychologists have learned to view people’s experiences as phenomena to be explained, and not to be taken at face value. Thus, intense and even life-altering religious experiences are viewed as interesting psychological phenomena, rather than as telling us something new about reality. Among the explanations available for any particular instance are: expectancy (including cultural expectations and norms), the placebo effect, suggestibility, and hypnosis; stress; grief; sleep deprivation; sensory deprivation; toxic and drug-induced states; a variety of infectious diseases, metabolic disorders, and other medical conditions; various neurological conditions, including epilepsy; and a variety of psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, many scientists have experiences of religious intensity—of natural or human-made beauty—and may even produce works of art, music, or literature. Certainly they value such experiences deeply—they just aren’t likely to attribute them to the existence of a reality that contradicts scientific evidence.

Given the general principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it’s not surprising that scientists—from whatever discipline—find that religious claims fail to meet the tests that they and their colleagues use in their everyday work. Anthropologists have provided detailed descriptions of hundreds of faithfully held, wildly different, and mutually contradictory systems of religious belief. These can’t all be true, and since they’re based on faith there can be no basis for deciding among them. These ethnographic studies foster what might be called “disbelief by exhaustion.” Furthermore, linguistic and other scientific analyses of religious texts, as well as comparative studies of religion, all point to the human origins of religious claims. For example, one study classified over 400 societies into six different types and examined their beliefs about God. A belief in a “Supreme Creator who is active and supports human morality” was found to be most characteristic of herding societies. One can easily see that herders who care for their flocks might view people as a flock under the care of a Supreme Herder. The ancient Hebrews were a Middle Eastern herding society, so their view that “The Lord is my shepherd” is more or less what one would expect from them.

Ideology versus Science

History shows that religions and their associated beliefs, like other cultural phenomena, change over time. The causes of such changes are diverse and often political (like military conquest or a ruler’s fiat), but it is difficult to think of a better reason than persuasion by scientific evidence. In the words of the Dalai Lama, “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” In contrast to fundamentalists, many believers and theologians from a variety of religions would have no problem agreeing with such a statement—substituting their own religion for Buddhism in the sentence.

Like religious fundamentalism, nonreligious and anti-religious political ideologies have also rejected scientific evidence when it conflicts with their tenets. Two prominent twentieth-century examples are Lysenkoism and the racist theories of Nazi Germany. Lysenkoism was a Soviet version of Lamarck’s eighteenth-century theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics; it rejected genetic findings that conflicted with the communist ideology of environmental determinism. The Nazi theory of Aryan superiority erroneously asserted biological reasons for group differences in culture and a biological justification for exterminating inferior cultures. Many scientists were imprisoned or perished under Stalin and Hitler, and many more buckled under pressure and committed acts of scientific dishonesty as the price of self-preservation.

More recently in the United States we have seen a rejection of Darwinian evolution and interference with stem cell research because of conflicts with some forms of Christianity, and distortions of and impediments to research on global climate change because they conflict with capitalist ideology and economic interests. While scientists haven’t been imprisoned, their employment and research funding have been threatened and there has been a chilling effect on scientists’ freedom of expression.

In other words, the key conflict is not between religion and science, but between ideology and science. As far as scientists are concerned, there are two key differences between religion, communism, fascism, capitalism, and other isms on the one hand, and science on the other. The first is that ideologies know the answer before you ask the question and require their adherents to agree; and the second, more problematic one is that they also require scientists to agree.

It is both fascinating and extremely difficult to try to understand the complex interactions of nature and nurture at the various levels of gene, organism, and ecosystem; of individual, society, and culture; of patterns at a given point in time and of changes over time on scales from nanoseconds to billions of years. It takes many years of hard work to gain the technical expertise to ask the relevant questions and chip away at finding answers. So it is easy to see that many scientists view it as hubris when religious people (many of whom lack the education or interest to inform themselves) dismiss their work out of hand because it conflicts with something in a book they consider holy.

Some claim that science itself is an ideology, dogma, or religion, and point to reigning scientific orthodoxies that have been and continue to be overturned. There is a big difference, however, between the use of evidence and logic to change scientific beliefs, and the use of power and unverifiable claims to change religious ones.

Scientists are human. They are products of their own society, culture, and epoch. They have their own strengths and weaknesses; ideals, foibles, and prejudices; and in their private lives may have strongly held religious or political beliefs. These may even influence the questions they investigate, or may create psychological blinders that lead them to misinterpret their findings. But science itself, with its emphasis on open discussion, skepticism, and testing alternative explanations, and its reliance on evidence and logic, contains a built-in corrective feedback mechanism that ideologies lack.

Religion, like other group identities, serves to create an us-versus-them division that can be used to further many ends. It unites a large group by convincing members that they share a common identity and interests, and disciplines wayward members. Ethnocentrism—viewing the world from the perspective of one’s group—is a key element in holding groups together, whether united by religion, political ideology, or other social identities such as race, class, or gender (or some combination of any of those factors). And when a group is internally united by its ideology and ethnocentrically opposed to outsiders, it is easy to see how it might want to impose its ideology on others—including both potential members, and opponents such as scientists.

It is this coercive power of ideologies that constitutes the real problem for science. 

And yet ideologies are extremely useful. Anyone who has tried to mobilize individuals to act knows how difficult it is; but governments need to do this on a massive scale. Dictatorships can use brute force, but democracies need ways to motivate the masses—to get people to want to do what their leaders want, without feeling that they are merely doing their bidding. Seneca recognized this nearly two thousand years ago when he wrote, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” During the Cold War, for example, when the Soviet Union suppressed religious expression, it was a useful tactic for the United States Government to contrast American religiosity with “godless Communism;” and the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. (Perhaps this tactic has outlived its usefulness. If we are now to be mobilized in a war against Islamic extremism, where religious conformity is forced on many people against their will, a secular state with individuals having the right to practice any religion or no religion would seem to have more appeal in the Muslim world than a Christian crusade pitting “our” religion against “theirs.”)

Even so, it’s understandable to ask, why now? Why are fundamentalist anti-scientific ideologies spreading rather than declining? 

The Contributions of Science to Anti-Science

During the nineteenth century, as the United States population advanced westward, displacing the indigenous peoples in its path, a religious movement known as the Ghost Dance spread among Native Americans of the Great Plains. In one version of the movement, the spiritual power of Ghost Shirts was said to protect their wearers from bullets—a claim demonstrated to be false when over 150 Lakota Sioux died at Wounded Knee. 

Revitalization movements like the Ghost Dance occur during periods of great change, when old social forms no longer enable people to satisfy their needs. Such movements are usually transient and can be seen as rear-guard actions, bound to fail (though perhaps at catastrophic cost) before the inevitable adjustment to the new realities of the natural and social environment. Calls for Islam (or other fundamentalisms) to “accommodate to modernity” recognize that some cultural beliefs—no matter how widespread or useful they may have been in the past—are no longer adequate to functioning in the twenty-first century. It is noteworthy that these revitalization movements are occurring in the West—especially the United States—and not just in the less-developed Muslim world.

Meanwhile, the rate of change appears to be—if anything—accelerating. Whether we speak of technological innovation and economic globalization, or of the population explosion, environmental devastation, depletion of natural resources, and climate change, not only does change take place on a breathtaking scale, but it is often for the worse. Under conditions of pervasive and continuous change, the future is unpredictable. This means that, while the old ideologies may have to change or disappear, there will be no stable social or natural environment in the foreseeable future to which new social forms can adapt. 

The best we can hope for is a world in which rapid and unpredictable change is understood to be normal, and cultural adaptation is seen as a rapidly evolving process, rather than the continuation of cherished traditions. Since cultural forms tend (almost by definition) toward self-perpetuation, one must be skeptical about this actually occurring. Furthermore, the fruits of science have helped people to live longer, and older people adapt to change less easily and often become more religious. Thus, both science-caused change and science-caused longevity may indirectly contribute to the rise in anti-science ideologies.

In summary, broadening the debate from science versus religion to science versus ideology, highlighting the differing contributions of the various sciences to the debate, and especially adding the knowledge and perspectives of the social and behavioral sciences to the mix create the context for a greater breadth and depth of understanding to the issues involved.

Jefferson M. Fish is a retired psychology professor and the author or editor of ten books dealing with social, cultural, and behavioral issues. His eleventh (in press) is titled The Concept of Race and Psychotherapy. He also writes a blog at Psychology Today.

So Allah could ban alcohol, adoption and the million other "harams" in 7th century Arabia but not slavery ( or sex with little girls for that matter) for fear of a revolt?? Very interesting.

The point of my posts are not to change the minds of the hardline Islamist (we have gbay, drones and us gov for that) but to impact objective members of civil society. These guys here are radicals and view the world through a different colored lens where murder is seen as justice/honor, offensive battles as defence and r.ape is marriage. They fail to realize that all ideologies have their shortcomings because Islam is "Peace", even though we have provided evidence that shows the contrary. They will use ad hominen attacks and twisted logic in an attempt  to refute their opponents. But I will continue to shine the light on another flawed totalitarian ideology.

Wow, so the Muslim apologists are attempting to deny Islams slave past and present? Muhammad owned and enslaved human beings so you apologists can continue to try to rewrite history. The last countries to abolish slavery were Muslim countries including Saudi (1960) and Mauritania (1980s).

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.


Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

[b]My Mujahadeen brother (Joke) that's incorrect, Mandela had power and could have easily expelled the whites/Boers from South Africa upon being elected and that would be a moral and just decision. He chose a path of truth and reconciliation something that many in his own party the ANC and supporters resisted. I am drawn to such exemplary acts of forgiveness and unity rather than war and mischief displayed by the prophet of Islam. Mandela displayed the true essence of pure humility and leadership. Lest not forget Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years and came out of jail and forgave real aggressive oppressors not  perceived ones. This is something that we all witnessed (not sure how old you are). [/b]So with examples like these I definitely have an affront for stories about some medievial figure being of exemplary character when I read about the opposite and witness the opposite in reality (terrorism in the name of Allah). Even though I don't consider myself a christian, the mythical stories of Jesus and buddha are so much better than big Mo' out of Arabia.  And before you jump the gun, I am aware that Mandela was considered a "terrorist" by the Afrikaans govt (which was illegitimate btw) but was instead a true freedom fighter.
Not everybody was raised to pick up the sword (or resort to violence) when they feel oppressed or maligned, there in lies the difference. Many are taught to outsmart your enemies with intelligence, love or dexterity not brute force. Haven't you heard the saying the pen is mightier than the sword
We are all human beings and whether or not we like it we all need to coexist on this planet. But unfortunately for the Islamists, the odds are stacked against them. The West and other civilized nations have the technological and economic might that orientalist could only fathom. Its Modern Miltaries with drones, satellites, B52s, cluster bombs vs. Ak 47s, IUDs, RPGs & suicide bombers (what a primitive bunch of losers)!

Disclaimer: I am not trying to get into back and forth rancor with any of the participants in this debate but I am providing evidence from my point of view that shows the violence inherent in the holy books, culture and doctrine of the religion of Islam. I do not hate muslims and see them as human beings like myself. However, it is the ideology that I am examining and critiquing.  I am not advocating christianity, judaism or atheism as an alternative to Islam just offering supporting evidence that inherently links the religion of islam to violence. Neither am I denying that other religions and ideologies have ccommittedviolent acts to humanity and unfortunately so has Islam and it is continuing to be a scourge in the modern age along with other problems that humanity faces.

That being said, the aformentioned quotes in my earlier posts are from The translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52:Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad).

Finally, in my opinion we should not hold men that ccommittedviolence in such moral high esteem except as maybe great warriors. There are several non violent people that moved humanity forward without lifting a violent finger to harm others including Ghandi, MLK etc. Others started with violence and put their arms  down and made change the peaceful way for eg Mandela.

More murder and mayheim

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?" He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, "This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity." Ka'b replied, "By Allah, you will get tired of him." Muhammad said to him, "We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair." Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him.

And the argument that christians, atheists and whatever non islamic ideology had killed killed more people than Muhammad does not in any way exonerate Muhammad of his murders?Killing hundreds of people is still mass murder.And no,it was not self defence.The mere act of Muhammad taking their wives,children & goods as war booty is proof that he was the aggressor.

Let me understand this, so slaughtering prisoners of war and enslaving their children and wives is just and legal? Ok, ok, I get your drift. I guess since the US is the most powerful country that mankind has ever known it must be from God and therefore they can slay the men and enslave the women and children of the nationals that are against them including the Pakistanis that harbored OBL and the Afghans, Sudanese and Yemenis that harbored Al Qaeda? What about the Somalis that dragged US soldiers through the streets that were simply providing Humanitarian assistance to them in 1991? In my humble opinion, No religion or ideology has the right to under any context to massacre and enslave people. 


Additionally, using your premise I guess the Israelis have the right to oppress the Palestinians since they are destabilizing the region and causing trouble.  Anyway back to the topic on why the Islamic Religion is linked with violence and terror. I will continue to provide scripture and stories of Muhamed that provide evidence of the violence, relgious bigotry and warfare that  is ingrained in the very doctrine of the religion and without reformation the ideology will continue to be violent.



Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Muhammed on his death bed commanding his followers to expel the pagans from Arabia:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
Narrated Said bin Jubair:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama."


Here are instructions from Muhammed to fight people of different civilizations for no apparent reason but them not being muslims:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175:
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 178:
Narrated 'Amr bin Taghlib:

The Prophet said, "One of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight with people wearing shoes made of hair; and one of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight with broad-faced people whose faces will look like shields coated with leather."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 180:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

More edicts to fight unbelievers
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 192:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad:

That he heard the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of Khaibar saying, "I will give the flag to a person at whose hands Allah will grant victory." So, the companions of the Prophet got up, wishing eagerly to see to whom the flag will be given, and everyone of them wished to be given the flag. But the Prophet asked for 'Ali. Someone informed him that he was suffering from eye-trouble. So, he ordered them to bring 'Ali in front of him. Then the Prophet spat in his eyes and his eyes were cured immediately as if he had never any eye-trouble. 'Ali said, "We will fight with them (i.e. infidels) till they become like us (i.e. Muslims)." The Prophet said, "Be patient, till you face them and invite them to Islam and inform them of what Allah has enjoined upon them. By Allah! If a single person embraces Islam at your hands (i.e. through you), that will be better for you than the red camels."

More Murder:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 286:
Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:

"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), 'Chase and kill him.' So, I killed him." The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy (in addition to his share of the war booty).


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Wow, impressive! The guy is a good role model for leadership in Nigeria.

Funny how the apologists are yet to to explain what happened to the Jews of Banu Qurayza (Medina) but have gone into another strawman argument about quotes on the greatness of Muhammed . Here's what people said about Hitler:

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.
David Lloyd George: Daily Express, September 17, 1936

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
Winston Churchill, "Hitler and His Choice" in The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
Winston Churchill, "Hitler and His Choice" in The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.
Carl Jung, The Symbolic Life, 1939


He was a warrior, a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations.
Knut Hamsun, upon hearing of Hitler's death

Adolf Hitler was a Jeanne d'Arc, a saint. He was a martyr. Like many martyrs, he held extreme views.
Ezra Pound, in an interview with Edd Johnson, published in The Chicago Sun (9 May 1945)[6]

People ask me who my heroes are. I admire Hitler because he pulled his country together when it was in a terrible state in the early thirties. But the situation here [Vietnam] is so desperate now that one man would not be enough. We need four or five Hitlers in Vietnam.
Nguyen Cao Ky, July, 1965 interview with the Daily Mirror

What about the Banu Qurayza in Yathrib (modern day Medina), such wickedness!!!!! This prophet of doom was a mass enslaver and genocidal maniac! Look at the leader of the religion and then you wonder why some members of the adherants are a bit looney!

The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بني قريظة; بنو قريظة‎ alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (presently known as Medina), until the 7th century, when their conflict with Muhammad led to their demise, after the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, took place in the Dhul Qa‘dah, 5 A.H i.e. in February/March, 627 AD.[1] The siege lasted 25 days, after which all male members of the tribe were beheaded, the Muslim jurist Tabari quotes 600-900 being executed.[2] The Sunni hadith do not give the number killed, but states that all male members were killed and 1 woman.[3]

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.[4][5] However, in 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance.[6] When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients[5][7] or allies[6] of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.[8]

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties.[4][9][10] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[8]

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into negotiations with the besiegers.[11] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[12][13] The Banu Qurayza were overtaken and most of the men, apart from those who surrendered (many of whom converted to Islam in order to save their lives), were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved.[12][12][13][13][14][15][16] Although there are early Islamic sources [such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim] account that only the Men warriors were killed while women and children were taken captives.[17][18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

The Crusades

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.


The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah

It is worth pointing out that both the two types of Jihad referred to above are at least as effective at spreading Islam as is warfare. Some Western commentators refer to these forms of Jihad as “stealth Jihad”, an apt description since both lead to the gradual acceptance of (elements of) Sharia Law as normative within a host society, generally without any fuss (or even awareness) on the part of the larger community, amongst whom it is passed off as “religious tolerance”, see examples above.

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif), or more simply, sword-jihad. According to Muslim Jurists this refers to “qital fee sabeeli Allahi.” This phrase means “fight[ing] in the way of Allah”. This is significant since it equates, depending on context, the Koranic phrase “jahadooona fee sabeeli Allahi” “strive hard [lit: make jihad] in the way of Allah” with “fight [qital]in the way of Allah”.Thus (again) jihad encompasses fighting and the “qital” verses in the Koran have to be considered in the light that to “fight in the way of Allah” is “jihad” – or (more precisely) a part thereof.The question that then arises is what forms of “war” are permitted. As already stated, the primary aim of sword-jihad is to expand the Islamic state. That, ipso facto, makes sword-jihad offensive in nature, rather than defensive and means that Muslims; or, more accurately, the Islamic state, thinks it has a god-given right to attack non-Muslim countries. Indeed, it goes beyond this: Jihad is declared an obligatory religious duty and thus the Islamic state has a duty (strictly) to attack its nearest non-Muslim neighbours (K9:123, 21:43-44) – except during a period of “hudna” or truce. Another duty placed on Muslims is to wage war on “oppressors” (K4:75). Islam regards as “oppressive” and “unjust” anything that interferes with the Islamic life. Thus from the Islamic point of view, any state that is not based on Sharia law is an “oppressive” state vis-a-vis any Muslim minority within its borders, no matter how liberal that state may be in fact(4).

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][b]The final element I wish to elucidate under this head is that of suicide bombing and whether or not this is permissible in Islam. On this, Islamic opinion itself is split, depending on the jurisprudential school to which you refer; so the short answer is both “yes” and “no”. Those that say “yes” refer to the verse K9:5 which includes the phrase “ lie in ambush for them in every stratagem of war”, claiming that the suicide bombing is encompassed within the “every stratagem” and “ambush” of the verse. They also refer to K9:111 which contains the phrase “they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed” claiming this is a description of a “suicide” attack. Those that say “no” point out that in Islam suicide is forbidden (as well as offering alternative exegesis of the verses involved). Thus there is no clear answer. What is clear, however, is that significant strands within Islam, namely Wahhabism and Salafism and their modern derivatives, do believe this technique is justified, much to the sorrow of the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. [/b] [/font]


This is what may be termed the “offensive jihad as defensive war” theory, outlined below.

[b]The polemicist starts out by making a case that Islam is (somehow) “oppressed” by the “kaffirs”(that’s non-Muslims) of the West. This is rather ironic in fact, since in many respects Muslims (especially if from a minority sect within their “home” Country) have more freedom to practice their religion in the West than they often do in their Country of origin. But nevertheless, the argument is made that since the west is not governed by the ‘god-given’ tenets of Sharia Law it is “oppressing” the Muslims within it(4). Argument 1.

They also make the claim that the west is “oppressing” Muslims by interfering in Islamic countries, though the exact nature of this interference and why it is “oppressive” is seldom elucidated – except in the manner of a conspiracy theory or argument 1. Argument 2

Their final polemical argument is that since the West invaded Iraq and Afghanistan the West is fighting against Islam and has killed “thousands of innocent Muslims” (I have even seen some polemicists claiming “millions” rather than thousands). Argument 3

- – - -

Side note:[/b]

This latter-most claim is risible, since the evidence from within the Islamic world is that it is overwhelmingly the Muslims themselves who are joyously slaughtering their co-religionists. [size=12pt]Indeed the Sunni-Shia fratricide has been part and parcel of the fabric of Islamic society since its earliest days and more recently the more “extreme elements” (who would be better called the more traditional and orthodox elements, or Islamists) in Sunni Islam (in particular) have also turned on their more liberal “brothers”, not to mention “sisters”. In particular Wahhabi and Salafi Sunni Islam has shown great willingness to carry out terrorist atrocities against its own in, for instance, Pakistan; which in 2010 suffered (in round terms) some 10,000 terrorist attacks which killed over 12,000 persons and injured many more, the vast majority of the victims being (naturally enough) Muslim. (Source BBC)

Pakistan is a largely Muslim Country that, with the passing of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, underwent a period of rapid Islamification that accelerated under Zia ul-Haq and which continues to this day.

Yet this Islamification has not been great enough nor fast enough for the Wahhabis in the Country and thus terror attacks are now commonplace in the Country which currently (2011) teeters on the brink of political and social collapse.

The most high-profile attack was the assassination of the Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) Presidential candidate in the 2007 election. The main motive for her assassination was the orthodox Islamic view that no woman may rule a Country or people, thus she gave great offence to the orthodox Muslims (and, according to them, broke god-given Laws) when she “dared” to stand for high office. She therefore “deserved” to be executed.

- – - -

Thus, goes the polemicist’s argument, the “West” has the blood of Muslims on its hands, which in turn means that it has “attacked Islam” and it is also oppressing Muslims both within the dar-ul-Islam (Islamic world) and the dar-ul-harb (literally “the world of war”, meaning here the non-Islamic world) and thus it is an obligatory duty on all Muslims to wage a defensive sword-jihad against the oppressors until all oppression of Muslims is stopped throughout the World and (in some views) all those involved in killing Muslims have themselves been killed (Sharia law admits only the death penalty for a non-Muslim who kills a Muslim).

Hence, it follows, that Muslims have the “right” to launch attacks on the kaffir west in order to “defend” themselves from “oppression” and revenge bloodshed.

To the Western mind these arguments are irrational since, taking our polemicist’s arguments in turn:

Muslims choose to immigrate to the West and no one is stopping them leave if they feel “oppressed”.
The oppression of Muslims in Islamic Countries is by their own dictatorial governments, rather than the West itself, hence the recent (2011) Mid. East unrest directed at those governments rather than the West.
a. [b]The vast majority of the Muslim casualties are Muslim on Muslim killings, bombings, honour killings, etc.
b. The West had suffered terror attacks at the hands of “Islam” for nearly fifty years prior to its major interventions in Muslim lands.

Setting aside this rather curious and convoluted polemical argument (the only real value of which is a matter of self-justification and obfuscation as to motive in killing people) we in the West are faced with the three facets of the Jihad doctrine that are aimed squarely at the non-Muslim.

Of these three sword-jihad is the least worrisome, at least in its current “terror attack” form.

That is not to minimise the trauma of its victims and their relatives. However, its impact on society is minor in terms of overall life loss or damage to the economy. (It is worth pointing out that even 9/11 with its ~3000 fatalities, the death-toll was less than 10% that of the annual loss of life on America’s roads, according to US government figures.)

Where it is effective, however, is in creating a certain level of fear that may well facilitate the other forms of jihad (“hand” and “tongue”) in terms of getting special treatment for Muslims and acceptance of elements of Sharia as normative within our non-Islamic societies.

And that is the danger.[/b]

Thoughts on Jihad[/b]5/21/2011

In the west we often interpret “jihad” as “waging war in the name of Allah”. This is not without justification, but it also annoys and upsets many Muslims who see jihad as a “supreme effort” to lead a “godly personal and social life”.

Thus Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that “The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between Islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living).”

[b]Again, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the term to describe the struggle to establish “a just moral-social order“.

Whilst these definitions seem utterly innocuous, it has to be remembered that in the eyes of Islam – and thus its scholars – “righteous living” and “a just moral-social order” can only be found when living in a society ordered by Sharia Law, thus for non-Muslims perhaps these definitions are not quite so harmless as they might at first appear.


Whilst many Muslim apologists would like us to believe that Jihad has only non-violent connotations, it is worth noting that from the word “Jihad” (root = jhd) we get words such as “Mujahid” and “Mujahideen” meaning (in practice at least) “fighter/soldier” and “band of fighters/soldiers” respectively, which rather belies the “peaceful only” interpretation of jihad.

Furthermore Muslim jurists explained that there are four kinds of jihad fi sabili Allahi (“jihad in the way of Allah”):

Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combating the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil, i.e. the “internal” jihad.
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue and the verbal defence of Islam.
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action, e.g. protest, demanding “special consideration” etc.
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabili Allahi ([armed] fighting in the way of Allah, or holy war), this is the most common usage by Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims and the most ancient. For example, Sahih Bukhari (the pre-eminent Hadith collection of Sunni Islam) has almost 200 references to jihad and every one of them refers to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims.

Thus whilst jihad is not only warfare, it most certainly encompasses warfare, as history comprehensively demonstrates.

Indeed, within classical Islamic jurisprudence jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Sharia law, and consists of wars against non-Muslims, apostates, rebels, dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam (i.e. heretics) and (curiously) highway robbers. Thus all war carried out by Muslims is (or should be) jihad(1).

It is also worth noting that the primary aim of sword-jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but the expansion of the Islamic state (K13:41) and its defence, as is well attested in history (e.g. the Eastern Christian, now part of the Islamic, world). This fact belies the “defence only” interpretation also used by some apologists.

That jihad is not primarily intended to convert needs a little further explanation. Whenever Islam conquered territory it generally allowed its subjugated peoples three choices:

To convert.
To accept the third-class status of dhimmi.
To face a merciless war of annihilation.
Strictly, the second choice is only available to “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) and, according to some authorities, Zoroastrians; but where a war of annihilation was not readily practicable it was extended to other peoples (e.g. the Hindus and Buddhists of the Indian sub-continent who’s numbers were too vast to be readily annihilated by the Muslim conquistadors).

A side note:

Many Muslims will thus claim that “Islam was not spread by the sword”, but this depends on precisely what is meant. In Europe, Arabia, Persia, the Levant, Anatolia, India and Africa jihad bis saif was used to conquer the lands, and the oppressive dhimmitude system was used to gradually convert their peoples, since (generally) one could not be a citizen without being Muslim and the dhimmi lived with great uncertainty and fear. (Let me state that this was not invariably so and history relates that in several periods of the Islamic hegemony non-Muslims -usually Jews or Christians- did indeed rise to prominence. Equally, there were also periods of pogrom and active persecution, which regrettably continue to today in some parts of the Dar-ul-Islam.)

[b]Thus, in general, Islam did not “convert by the sword” in the sense of offering the choice “become Muslim or I will kill you”, but it did do so in the sense that it used the “sword” to gain territory and then set up a system that so discriminated against the non-Muslim that gradual conversion under social, economic, legal and political pressures inevitably followed, albeit with various degrees of success worldwide.[/b]- – - -

From the point of the non-Muslim it is perhaps relevant to note that of the four forms of jihad, three are aimed at non-Muslims.


An amplification and (partial) exemplification of these forms follows:

Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but there is more involved in that (in essence) Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (see the doctrines of Taqiyya/Muda’rat and Kitman and also tayseer) to “spread Islam” either in terms of actually winning converts, or gaining acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the oft repeated statement that “Islam is a religion of peace” despite much evidence to the contrary from both its texts and its actions). It would also include attempting to silence criticism of Islam by labelling critics as “racists” or “Islamophobes” or any verbal means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.

[b]Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad). It is important to realise that “what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong” must be understood from the point of view of Sharia Law, which defines “right and wrong” by law (thus what is actually defined is “lawful” and “unlawful” which stands in place of the morality of right and wrong) and Sharia Law defines “injustice” as anything that interferes with or prevents muslims living their lives in a fully Sharia-compliant manner and the instruments of that “injustice” as “oppressive”.[/b]Thus hand-jihad would include demands for time off work for prayer; special washing facilities; Muslim or Muslim-women-only sessions in swimming baths, libraries and other Public facilities; that women doctors be available to treat Muslim women throughout the Healthcare system; that Halal food be supplied by default in public institutions; that Muslims be permitted not to handle “haram” things such as pork or alcohol in shops/businesses when all other employees would be required so to do; that Sharia Courts be set up for Muslims; that the Police show special care and consideration when entering muslims’ houses. Please note that the above are all things which have been demanded by UK Muslims and acquiesced to by UK governments, councils and, in the case of “special treatment of Muslim homes”, the Police Authorities (ACPO guidelines). That criticism of Islam be forbidden (see “vilification of religion” – U.N. resolution, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference) or at least heavily curtailed legally. It would also include staging (violent) protests against anything giving “offence” to Muslims – from Remembrance Day and returning troops to anything derogatory about Mohammed, the Koran, or Islam in general; e.g. books, cartoons, films etc. Another aspect of this (though it seems a mostly American one) is “lawfare”- legal warfare – where someone who makes “defamatory” comments about Islam (etc.) is sued in the Courts. This always has the effect of tying them up in legal matters and may also bankrupt them. Thus the threat of lawfare adds to the pressure to silence criticism. In Europe, things may be even worse. In several European Countries the State has taken over the job of “lawfare” against its own majority population. In these cases the criticism of Islam brings, not a civil law-suit, but criminal persecution (sorry, that’s “prosecution”) by the state – even if what is said is true. Examples include Geert Wilders (Holland), Lars Hedegaard (Denmark), Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria) to name three high-profile cases. And conviction has followed, thus proving that the truth and fact are no defence (a position perfectly consonant with Islamic Sharia, see conditions set in the “Pact of Umar”.).
A further element to this could involve something as simple as the building of large mosques, preferably on high-ground so that the building (or its minaret) symbolically “dominates” the surrounding landscape thus making sure that people have to “look up to Islam”. If this last sounds ridiculous, remember that in non-Muslim Countries the Christian Church (etc.) many not be higher than, nor built within a given radius of , a Mosque. Thus in Islamic Countries the relative heights of Church (or temple etc.) and Mosque are used to show the dominance of Islam.

And this is how this topic relates to us as Nigierians:

http://blueprintng.com/index/2011/06/boko-haram-we-have-lined-up-over-100-militants-for-suicide-bombings/



Boko Haram: We have lined up over 100 militants for suicide bombings
June 26th, 2011 | 1 Comment

The very first insight into the inner workings of Nigeria’s militant network


Mohammed Manga, smiling, bids goodbye to his colleagues as he sits in the car he would drive to Abuja for the suicide attack. He holds an AK-47 rifle between his thighs

Until recently, attacks by the Islamist group, Jama’atu Ahl-Sunnati Lil Da’awati wal Jihad, popularly known as the Boko Haram, against the Nigerian state were confined to Borno State only, especially in the capital city of Maiduguri. But on June 16, 2011, the militant sect showed that it was capable of hitting anywhere in the country when it detonated a bomb in Abuja. BLUEPRINT was able to obtain incredible details of how the group carried out the attack, using a suicide bomber called Mohammed Manga. Abu Zaid, the spokesman of the group, who made the informatioon and photographs available, spoke to our correspondent AHMAD SALKIDA on telephone in Maiduguri. In the interview, which was conducted in the Hausa language, Abu Zaid reveals that indeed the Boko Haram has foreign contacts and has other militants who are ready to carry out further suicide bombings in the country. He also dispels some of the key information issued by the police authorities, such as the type of car used in the Nigeria Police Force headquarters bombing, as well as a bit of the inner workings of the militant group.



How, when and where was your operation against the Nigeria Police Force headquarters conceived and executed?

Praise is to Allah. The planning of this attack is not different from the way and manner we plan other attacks around the country and in Maiduguri in particular. Although the Force headquarters was among the list of our targets, we made it a priority and acted quickly because of the empty threats of the Inspector-General of Police that he would eradicate us within two weeks.

Did you really set out for a suicide attack or was it a pre-timed explosive that went off inadvertently as is being speculated?

Of course, we planned it as a suicide attack right from the onset. The attacker left his will to his family and a message to Nigerians. We were together and he bid everyone farewell. He was calm and looked peaceful even when he had decided to give his life away; many brothers envied him and wished it was their turn to act. The bomber said he had sacrificed his life for Allah’s sake and urged other believers to do likewise. So far, we have screened nearly 100 persons for suicide attacks for this year alone in Nigeria, while more than this number are getting ready for next year.



Who was the attacker?

His name is Mohammed Manga, (but) he is popularly known as Alhaji Manga. He was from Adamawa State but he was born and brought up in Maiduguri. He was a businessman; in fact, a successful businessman, because he left over four million (naira) in his will for his two daughters and three sons.






Up in smoke: The Nigeria Police Force headquarters soon after the bomb attack


Would you describe Manga’s operation as a success?

Of course, it was a successful operation; the police and the world know that. Initially, people thought that we only attacked places where common people are, but this time around, we attacked a high profile target. That is why you are hearing a lot of noise because the attack affected those at the very top. Henceforth, we will begin to concentrate on high profile targets.



How many bombs were in that car and what kind of car was it?

(Laughs). I was surprised when the police said the car was a Mercedes ‘V-Boot’, it was never a Mercedes. The car used for the attack was an ash-coloured Honda 86. We are surprised as to the why the police are confused anytime we strike. The bomb we used was a ready-made bomb, which we acquired from abroad. And we are going to use several of them in future attacks.



What is likely to be your next target?

In a war situation, everything is done with planning and tact. We have a list of our targets; we may only shift to a certain place if people make the kind of statements the I.G. made about our group during his visit to Maiduguri. We are urging Nigerians not to under-estimate us. We are capable of doing more than what we did at the police headquarters in sha Allah.



Are you aware that innocent people died in the attack?

Many journalists always ask this question. As we have always said, for example, whoever went to the police headquarters did not heed our advice to stay away from government institutions and security agents. It is necessary for people to take our warnings seriously, but if they don’t that will not deter us from this Jihad because before this illegal government was established many lives were lost and it is possible that before you can overthrow it lives will also be lost.

Interestingly, Manga, despite the fact that he was wealthy and he was prominent amongst us, he decided to give his life to this cause. And if we give our lives for such operations we don’t have regrets for those that go to such places against our advice and die. But sincerely, we are not happy with the loss of innocent lives.





Mohammed Manga, dressed in military fatigues as a mujahideen, was said to be an active member of the military wing of the Boko Haram

There is a rumour that you will attack schools, mosques, markets and even hospitals. Is it true?

We are not mad men, we are not fighting the general public but rather we are in a state of war with government. Therefore, our targets are government institutions and government officials, especially the security agents and politicians. Sadly, our group has been associated with many attacks and crimes, like sometimes back in Kano and even some robbery incidents, some of which we were not aware of. We can only take what is lawful to us in Islam.



The Police Force has recently charged some of its officers to court over the extra-judicial killings of the late Mohammed Yusuf and others…

It is a lie! We have investigated the issue and found out it was a practical joke. Many journalists have confirmed that also. But let us assume that it is true, why are they bringing the issue now that our attack affects them directly? So, that means they are not doing it for the sake of justice and fairness. But even if the police men are prosecuted it will not bring back the dead or make us bring down our flag.



Do you have any links to Al-Qaeda or militant groups in Sudan and Somalia?

We started our teachings over eight years ago, and through the books we published and our numerous tapes and teachings, our doctrine is clear: we are the true followers of the Prophet, known as Kitabul Sunna. Our objective is to destroy Kufr (unbelief) and injustice in our land. Whoever has this as his objective anywhere in the world is with us and whatever happens to him affects us and what happens to us should affect them as well. That is our only link to them.


You have called for the implementation of Sharia in twelve states. Which are the states and what if Nigeria breaks up as a result?

We never made any of these statements. The person who said this was one Usman Al-Zawahiri and we don’t know him. He is not with us. In fact, our investigation revealed that he is an SSS (State Security Service operative) and was brought in by them to discredit us and give an impression that we are divided. So far, I am the only spokesman appointed by our Amir, Malam Abubakar Shekau; that is why I gave you this video and pictures of the suicide bomber, which clearly shows that I am the authentic spokesman for the group, with the name Abu Zaid. We urge the media to desist from talking to him and others, if not we will see them as part of the conspiracy to rubbish us. But what we are saying and demanding is that we want Sharia in the whole of Nigeria, not only in one part or region.



Why did you choose to give me the video last weekend and refuse to give other journalists even when we had finished last week’s production?

You were the first journalist who repeatedly wrote about us when we were not known to the world; you were the first journalist who reported when our brothers were shot at on their way to a funeral procession by members of a security outfit set up by the Borno State government, known as ‘Operation Flush.’ We see you as an objective writer who is never afraid to say the truth; that is why our leader approved the idea to give you the final evidence that we were solely behind the suicide attack at the police headquarters.



The leader of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Mr. Ralph Uwazurike, is reported to be considering adopting your method of armed struggle. Is he in contact with you?

What we are doing is purely religious. We don’t need money, we do not entertain any ethnic or regional sentiments. In our group we have Yoruba, Igbo, Nupe, Igala, Kanuri, etc. Maybe he likes what we are doing and wants to copy us to fight what even Christians see as an unjust and irresponsible government. If he kills our enemy, that is a welcome development to us.



The Federal Government wants to negotiate with you, using the carrot and stick approach. Would you negotiate? Is it the stick or the carrot – or both?

How can you say there will be dialogue, yet our members are being arrested and are currently being tortured in different police and military detention centres in Lagos, Abuja and elsewhere? At a time the government is talking about dialogue, they are buying and dispatching amoured tanks and getting ready to fight us. This government is trying to deceive Nigerians and create an impression that it is us that do not want peace. But they cannot deceive us.



There is a rumour going round that some people, in the name of your group, are to talking to some political leaders in Maiduguri to facilitate dialogue. Do you know them?

We don’t have any plans to talk to government on their own terms, and those people that claim to be talking on our behalf should at least call for a ceasefire to assert their authority while the so-called dialogue is on. You cannot be dialoguing while people are being killed. If they are with us we will suspend any attacks until the talks fails to yield any positive results.

We are not people that deceive others and we are not interested in money like the Niger Deltans. Even if it is Malam Shekau that decides to undermine this Jihad we shall not hesitate to kill him, let alone any other persons that we, as a group, did not authorise.



Are there factions in your group? Are Malam Shekau and Sheikh Mohammad Nur working together?

There is no faction within our group. We have never had problems with Nur; he is obedient to our leader, in the person of Malam Abubakar Shekau, and we have never heard of any problem. In fact, he is very active in this cause and we are hearing this information from you for the first time.



[b]Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims in the world, yet it is a secular state. Why is your group refusing to live under a secular state like Nigeria now, while during the life time of Mohammed Yusuf there was no objection to this rule?

Yes, it is so, but the Muslims there are not doing da’wah (preaching). Even the Prophet (Muhammad) stayed in Mecca when it was not an Islamic state, but what he was constantly doing was da’wah to the people that they should stop unbelief. And when they prevented him from practising his religious duties, he left and came back to fight them. We can subsist under such government like we did during the time of the late Mohammed Yusuf and practice our religion the way we want, but what happened was that we were prevented from practising our religion; we came under constant attacks and harassments, our mosque was destroyed and many were deprived of their livelihood and killed in cold blood. Then, we raised our flag for Jihad, and we will never bring it down. We shall continue to fight until we die.


What message do you have for the people of Nigeria?

Our message to Nigerians is that what we are doing is not politics, it is purely religious. We take our instructions from the Qur’an that urges us to fight oppression, injustice and corrupt leaders like the ones in Nigeria. We are, however, calling on the general public to cooperate with us and join this revolution to bring about change in our lives. If you cannot contribute physically, you should keep your mouth shut. And kindly desist from any act either by offering any advice or information about us to our enemies. If anyone is engaged in any activity against us, he should not blame us but he or she should blame himself.

[/b]

Play Video

TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:

Games Muslims Play



Given Islam's violent history and the unfavorable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age.  Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith.

This is a document (which we hope to improve on and expand over time) that exposes some of these games and helps truth-seekers find their way through the maze of disingenuous (often blatantly false) claims about Islam and its history.  



“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”

“Other religions kill, too.”

Muhammad preached 'no compulsion in religion' (Qur'an: 2:256)

The Crusades

“Muhammad never killed anyone.”

The Qur'an Teaches that all Life is Sacred (Qur'an 5:32)

"Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The million dollar wager that "Holy War" isn't in the Qur'an.

"Verses of violence are taken out of context."

"Islam must be true, because it is the world’s fastest growing religion."

"The Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic."





“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”

The Muslim Game:

Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion?  If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Muslims terrorists?

The Truth:

The same question can easily be turned around.  If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year?  Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane into a building while screaming praises to Allah?  Where’s the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs?

Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let's just say that the reason why most Muslims don't kill is that (regardless of what Islam may or may not teach) it's wrong to kill over religion.

Consider that many Muslims would not even think of amputating a thief's hand.  Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so?  Of course not!  In fact, this mandate is clearly found in one of the last verses in the Qur'an (5:38) and in the example of Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792).

Muslims may believe whatever they want to about what Islam says or doesn't say, but it doesn't change what Islam says about itself.  As an ideology, it exists independently of anyone's opinion.   As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.


The Qur'an plainly teaches that it is not just proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is actually a requirement.  Muslims who don't believe in killing over religion may be that way out of ignorance or because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts than they are to the details of Muhammad’s religion.  Those who put Islam first or know Islam best know otherwise.


In fact, few Muslims have ever read the Qur'an to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Muhammad, which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than with moral restraint.  The harsh rules that Muslim countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from critique also prevent it from being fully understood.  In the West, many Muslims, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Islam is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it means filtering evidence to the contrary.


It is no coincidence, however, that the purists of the faith – those most prone to abandoning themselves to Islam without moral preconception – are always the more dangerous and supremacist-minded.  They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are also the more literal and dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.



“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.  

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus.  His motives are very well documented through interviews and research.  God is never mentioned.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.  

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.



Muhammad preached “No compulsion in religion.”
(Qur’an, Verse 2:256)

The Muslim Game:

Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is.  The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…”

The Truth:

The Muslim who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period.  It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca.  They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish.  It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.

But Muslims today pray toward Mecca.  The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first.  In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur'an 2:106, 16:101).

Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity.  This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold.  Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a warning to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims.  Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah."  This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies a very different value and standard of treatment to both groups.

Though most Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword.  As he is recorded in many places as saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, "  (See Bukhari 2:24)


Muhammad put his words into practice.  When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by the Arabs for centuries.  By eliminating these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own.  Later, he ordered that Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam be expelled from Arabia.  Does forcing others to choose between their homes or their faith sound like "no compulsion in religion?"

According to Muslim historians, Muhammad eventually ordered people to attend prayers at the mosque to the point of burning alive those who didn't comply.  He also ordered that children who reached a certain age be beaten if they refused to pray.

Interestingly, even the same Muslims of today who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion.  These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death (or imprisonment, for females), and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.”  


Islamic law explicitly prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya.  Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death.  If this isn’t compulsion, then what is?




The Crusades


The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them.  To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”


The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie.  By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.


Here are some quick facts…

[b]The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.  

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death.  As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death.  In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and Desecrating an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. [/b]

[b]In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques.   Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered.  (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian.  They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.  Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims.  The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad.  In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam.  Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences.  Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority.  Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.[/b]


The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another.  This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders."  Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes.  Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.
For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war.  In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities.  In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel.  (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).  By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims.  Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.  

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred.  This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.  

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.



"Muhammad never killed anyone.”

The Muslim Game:

In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone.  By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention).  

The Truth:

[b]By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.

Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders.  In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.  

There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife.

Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad.  Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.[/b]


[b]“The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred”
(Qur’an, Verse 5:32)

The Muslim Game:

Many Westerners prefer to believe that all religion is either equally bad or equally good, and eagerly devour anything that seems to support this preconception.  The myth usually works to Islam’s advantage as well, since it either raises it to the level of others, or brings the others down to it.  To compete with Western religion, Muslims vigorously employ verse 5:32, which is the closest thing they have to the Old Testament command of ‘Thou shalt not kill.”  

It reads, in part:

"…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…"
(As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)

The Truth:

This fragment of verse 5:32 is what Muslim apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, rather than the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture.  But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears.  Remember all those ellipses?  There's something being left out.

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
First, notice the gaping loophole.  Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.”  Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?”  If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would.  But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means - with varying standards.  [/b]

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse.  It turns out that this isn’t a command to Muslims after all.  It’s a recounting of a rule that was handed down to the Jews.  It isn’t an admonition against killing.  It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them.  “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence.  Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively.  Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service - and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is.

Muslims also conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”.  It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”  

Together, verses 5:32-33 actually provide the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Islam.  Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as a justification for putting people to death for verbal crimes.

With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year.



[b]“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others.  The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca.  His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods.  There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least).  This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids.  The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims.  Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th.  The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured.  They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina.  But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing.  Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina.  They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings.  To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191).  This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others.  There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged.  All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned.  None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.  To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.  

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe.  They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent.  Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense.  They were about Jihad.

[/b]

"The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.”

The Muslim Game:

In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.”  Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam.

So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.”  Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).

The Truth:

In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Qur'an, such as the infamous Sura 9 (which includes the “Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text.  

So what’s the catch?

Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer.  You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war.  He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.”

And what about “Jihad?”  Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours).  "Jihad" is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”).

If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy.  It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat.  But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.”  Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer.

So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side.  (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way).

My, what a hollow victory this is!  One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is.

At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism.



[b]“Verses of violence are taken out of context.”

The Muslim Game:

Verses like, “Slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” were issued during times of war, according to the apologists.  They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).

The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise.  Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with violent Old Testament passages).

The Truth:

The truth, unfortunately, is just the opposite.  This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages.  Neophytes are encouraged to seek the "counseling" of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them" interpret what they read.[/b]

It is not the verses of violence that are rare, unfortunately, it is the ones of peace and tolerance (which were narrated earlier in Muhammad's life and superseded by later ones).  Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence at all obvious from the surrounding text (in most cases).  

In the Qur’an, constructs and topics often come from out of nowhere and merge randomly in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought.  But, with external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was “handed down from Allah,” and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time.  This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.”  They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as imperatives to present-day Muslims.

But “historical context” cuts both ways.  If any verse is a product of history, then they all are.  Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

This game of context is, in fact, one of the most popular and disingenuous in which Muslims are likely to engage.  Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there - such as when the bellicose 9th Sura of the Qur'an, which calls for the subjugation and death of unbelievers, is at issue.  They ignore context when it proves inconvenient.  An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered up as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

Islamic purists do not engage in such games.  Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.



"Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion"

The Muslim Game:

How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast?  Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it?

The Truth:

In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief.  Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet.  Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour.  Does this mean that the earth wasn’t doing these things up until people believed that it was?

Secondly, Islam is not "growing faster" than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West.  Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of accomplishment.

Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers.  Nearly all are really just people who had no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation.  In the West and other parts of the non-Muslim world in which all religions are allowed to compete equally such people experiencing a spiritual awakening are far more likely to turn to Christianity than to Islam.  

There are also some women who "marry into Islam" (a nominal change in official designation), but in terms of raw conversions, there is almost no comparison between Islam and Christianity.  It is estimated that thousands of Muslims convert to Christianity each day, while only a handful of non-Muslims actually adopt Islam.  

This leads to our final and most important point, which is that decent Muslims should feel a sense of embarrassment, rather than pride over the rules that they have to enforce in order to maintain Islam's status as the "fastest growing religion."  In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Muslims have in their own religion, and the banal immaturity that Islam has compared with other faiths.

Let’s say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy.  Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him.  One of the rules he decides on is that you aren’t allowed to make any moves on his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves on yours.  Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken.

Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed - is it really something in which he can truly take pride?  

The rules that Muslims impose on the “conversion game” are almost exactly like this chess analogy.  Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam’s own territory (ie. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Muslims are in others.  Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death.

Watching Muslims gloat over conversions to Islam or in being the “fastest growing religion” is no different than watching a child delude themselves into thinking that they are smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless.

Islam has been playing by its own rules since its inception.  It is unlikely that Muslims will soon develop the confidence in their own religion (or the required social maturity) to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field.  

As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has.  But when a religion has to be supported by double standards and death threats, there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity.

(Note: Our article does not take issue with the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, not because we necessarily believe it, but because others have done a better job of refuting it.  See Islam is not the Fastest Growing Religion in the World for an example.)



[b]"The Qur'an Can Only be Understood in Arabic"

The Muslim Game:

The Qur’an can only be fully understood in Arabic.  One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic.

The Truth:

Although Muslims often tell critics of Islam to "read the Qur'an," they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded.  An honest translation of Islam's holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion.  The fallback is to then claim that the Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic.

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent.  Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Qur’an and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that “one must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Qur’an are committing a logical fallacy.  Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic.  While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable?  More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all men in the only language that cannot be understood by all men – including all Muslims, since most do not speak Arabic?[/b]

Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism.  In fact, there is an astonishing correlation between the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Qur’anic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, intimate gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) and the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Qur’an!

No other world religion makes this claim about itself or its holy texts.  While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways.  On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the "perfect book" can't be translated and that Allah's perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters.  Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same "necessary" chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Qur’an-toting Osama bin Laden is a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims.  In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well.

At this point there is only one avenue of escape open to the beleaguered apologist, which is the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are - ironically enough - accused of taking the Qur'an 'too literally').  

Although it is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are such that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more.  Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn - and susceptible to such horrible "misinterpretation" on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn't hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates.  Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics.

Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that, for the first time, the information age is making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and it is highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock.  Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is a way of finding solace and saving face.



TheReligionofPeace.com