Democracy World

THE MAD POPE

2006-09-23T02:29:00.000-07:00

It is with great dismay that we in the Muslim world read the extreme blasphemy under which Pope Benedict XVI hid to attack Islam. What is more outrageous is the pope's shameless display of arrant ignorance. Apparently, such fools are not supposed to be at the head of any religious institution. THe case of Pope Benedict XVI is worse. A former Nazi turned pope, the level of ignorance dispalyed by this supposedly learned fellow belies the very criteria used to select heads of the Catholic Church.

We warn the mad pope NEVER to attack Islam again, in any way or by any means. Otherwise, he will have lots of causes to regret.

FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD'S LETTER TO GEORGE W BUSH

2006-06-09T04:06:00.000-07:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
5/8/2006

Mr. George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,Feel obliged to respect human rights,Present liberalism as a civilization model,Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,Make “War on Terror” his slogan,And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,But at the same time,Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze.Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness?There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values. Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr. President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:-Many thousands were killed in the process.-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.-Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, townsand villages were destroyed. This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.Another big question asked by the people is “why is this regime being supported?” Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Moslem or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also asking “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr. President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies. It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well. Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations? You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr. President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear? The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings Of Christ and the tenets of human rights? The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr. President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies. All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?Some believe that the hype paved the way -- and was the justification --for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to finally believe -- and the ground set for an attack on Iraq. Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr. President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?” As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles? What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we mange to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?Did we intend to establish justice or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns,Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets -- or not?

Mr. President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?Do you think present policies can continue?If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world. The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)

Mr. President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.
“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “the Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”
“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins” “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors” “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful” “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness” “He is witness to the actions of His servants” “He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast” “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants” and “A good end and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. MariumService to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers. The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.
We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious”.
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man -- based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world -- that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President,
History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace. The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies. The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

BLASPHEMY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM

2006-02-03T00:01:00.000-08:00

It is with great dismay that we read news of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) being published, first by a crusader Danish newspaper, with apparent government complicity, and later throughout Europe. In Islam, it is absolutely forbidden to depict the Holy Prophet in images, however honourable or beautiful. But, these Crusaders went ahead to even depict him as a terrorist. This is completely unacceptable.

What is more unacceptable, however, is these Crusaders' claim that they were only exercising their freedom of expression, which they say is not available in Islam. But, we ask them. Why is this so-called 'freedom' not exercisable in the case of the Holocaust. It is a criminal offence in Israel and Austria, for instance, to deny, or even merely, doubt the Holocaust. Also, in all of Europe and America, Christianity is protected by law against blasphemy. Why then is this 'freedom' inapplicable in these instances.

We know your motives and targets. And, you shall surely fail.

Toyib Olawuyi,
PO Box 6386,
ilorin 240001,
Kwara State,
Nigeria.
toyibonline@yahoo.com
+2348053044093

JANUJARY 27: WHY NOT GENOCIDE DAY

2006-01-28T07:45:00.000-08:00

We must not fumble around about why January 27 is not called simply Genocide Memorial Day. Doing that will widen the scope of global condemnation against perpetrators of genocide in human history. For instance, countries like America (in Japan), Britain (Australasia and North America) Spain (Latin America), Italy (Libya), France (Algeria), Turkey (Armenia), Russia (Chechnya), Israel (Palestine), et cetera will also be condemned along with, and put in the same group as, Nazi Germany. That is why we will always have only Holocaust memorials, so that only Nazis will be condemed for a still doubtful genocide, while countries like America and Britain walk free.

Toyib Olawuyi,
PO Box 6386,
Ilorin 240001,
Kwara State,
Nigeria.
+2348053044093
toyibonline@yahoo.com

ON HAMAS' VICTORY

2006-01-26T02:31:00.000-08:00

We hereby heartily congratulate the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) on their parliamentary polls victory. This victory, which is also a major victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the new Islamic government in Baghdad, the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide and Islamists everywhere, clearly establishes one incontrovertible fact - Muslims CANNOT be sepatated from their religion. However hard the West tries to break Muslims from Islam, Muslims will always shout 'God is the Greatest'. Definitely, NOT THE WEST. NOT AMERICA. NOT CAPITALISM. NOT JESUS.

A further truth is that the West's war against Islam has always been strictly counterproductive. Iran turned Islamic at the height of Western de-Islamization activities through their agent, the ex-Shah. Iraq is now ruled by a staunchly Islamic party after the US invaded Baghdad to destroy the last traces of Islam there. Now, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Jordan are under significant pressure from immensely powerful Islamic movements. Any democratic opening of the political stages in these countries will certainly result in Islamist takeovers.

Now, the West and Israel are facing a new nightmare. The struggle for independent Palestine may take a more disciplined approach. Nonetheless, we pray fervently that the new HAMAS era will bring peace, stability, joy, freedom, democracy and independence to the people of Palestine, and the wider Middle East in general.

HAMAS, we are absolutely with you and your struggles.

Toyib Olawuyi,
PO Box 6386,
Ilorin 240001,
Kwara State,
Nigeria.
toyibonline@yahoo.com
+2348053044093

Press Statement

2006-01-24T00:52:00.000-08:00

I, Toyib Olawuyi, in my humble capacity as an international Islamic activist, member of the Universal Islamic Revolution as propounded by Imam Khomeini and operator of http://www.toyibonline.blogspot.com, an Islamist weblog, hereby declare my unreserved support for the Islamic Republic's courageous stance against the Western satans in their effort to permanently stop Iran's scientific and technological development. I strongly believe that their diabolic opposition to your peaceful nuclear programme is completely ideologically-motivated, and is designed mainly to end the Islamic Republic. But, they have always failed. And, by the Grace of Allah, they will, in the end, be totally and irremediably humiliated and Iran will become one of the world's next leading scientific, technological powers.

America, Britain, France, Germany and Norway literally built Israel's 250 nuclear bombs. But, for what? To destroy Muslims! They knew this fact when they were secretly building the bombs. Now, they are afraid of everyone. They think we are savage like them. They do not realize that we do not survive on the blood and tears of others. We do not rely on evil. We rely on God, and believe only in virtues. So, we will always survive because good never falls. But, for then, their evils will always haunt them. And,in the end, they will be destroyed by their own evil.

My message to the evil powers is this - the Islamic Republic is today our only hope against your oppressive imperialism and callous evangelism. It is a revolution against your jungle empire, and will lead to global peace, justice and piety, insha Allah. Whether you oppose it or not, the Islamic Republic WILL prevail. It is God's Revolution, and therefore unstoppable.

Toyib Olawuyi,
PO Box 6386,
Ilorin 240001,
Kwara State,
Nigeria.
+2348053044093
toyibonline@yahoo.com

Democracy World

2006-01-19T07:47:00.000-08:00

Press Statement

2006-01-19T07:19:00.000-08:00

THE BALKANS IN BAGHDAD: THE BREWING BLOT IN BABYLON

2005-12-01T03:26:00.000-08:00

THE BALKANS IN BAGHDAD: THE BREWING BLOT IN BABYLON

?And The Growing Resurrection of The Islamic Civil War

Background
� Toyib Olawuyi, March, 2005

Toyin Olawuyi is a human rights, Middle East and anti-nuclear activist, political and religious analyst and commentator on war, peace and international affairs, especially the growing cold war between Islam and the West.

?He is not one of us who proclaims the cause of Asabiyyah. He is not on eof us who fights for the cause of Asabiyyah. He is not one of us who dies for the cause of Asabiyyah?1.

?O men! Neither Arabs are superior to non-Arabs, nor the non-Arabs are superior to Arabs. You all are children of Adam?2.

?Nobody is a Believer, if his neighbour passes the night hungry while he has his stomach full?3.

?And surely this nation of yours is one nation, and I am your Lord, so fear Me. But they have divided their Religion into sects between themselves, and each party rejoices in what it has heedlessly?4.

All possibilities today head inn one direction ? the highly likely collapse of Iraq and a possible return of Black Days of Islam, anytime now.

When the Baathists invaded Iran and murdered thousands, what cause were they fighting for? The Arab cause. Asabiyyah. So, all those who, in anyway, were involved in the Iraqi aggression, unless they have repented, or had the opportunity to repent before they died, were, and are, not (good) Muslims. Muslims never fight for any form of sectarian cause ? not even for their religion ? but for justice. The Koran reads: ?And remember the Blessing of God upon you, and His promise to you and your commitment to worship Him alone, when you said, ?We hear and we obey?. And fear God, surely God knows the thoughts in the chests. O you who believe! Be constant for God as just witnesses, and do not let detestation of a people move you to be unfair, be equitable, that is closer to piety, and fear God, God is well aware of all that you do. God has promised those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, forgiveness and a great reward?5. In other words, Muslims have entered into a covenant with God, to worship Him and to be absolutely just always in exchange for His forgiveness and (great) reward. Worship and justice are absolutely equal and complementary. If you regularly and duly worship God, but you are unjust, definitely you are not a good Muslim. We are even made to believe in the verse that justice, rather than worship, is closer to piety. Therefore, a just man is a pious man. But, a religious man may not necessarily be one. In all however, anyone who is just, but not religious, is partly pious.

Since justice determines piety for every practicing Muslim, it is imperative to state here that Muslims will never do anything that is unjust in the thinking and perception of average human beings acting or reacting reasonably, sincerely and fairly. Anything Muslims do in the interest of justice is said, in Koranic terms, to have been done ?in the cause of God?. When Muslims take arms to defend their faith, their lives, their land or their properties, their action is not in the cause of God because Islam is involved; but because justice is. Since Muslim are part of the human community, the cover of justice also extent to them, just as it does to all other humans.

Muslims can take up arms and ammunitions to take justice to any oppressed people anywhere in the world. To qualify for such a huge benefit, the oppressed people only need to be humans, not necessarily Muslims. In fact, the verse lets us understand that it is imperative for Muslims to take, and do justice to all human beings ? plus, it is absolutely immaterial whether they are or are not Muslims or even that they hate Islam and Muslims!

Dr M.A.M. Shukri, a Sri Lankan Islamic expert, in his article ?Cultural Values in Islam?, writes: ?justice is perhaps the most important of the social values in Islam. In fact, the main purpose of the divine guidance and the task of the Prophets, who were sent by God for the guidance of mankind, has been to establish justice. Justice is the first principle of social life and it embraces all aspects governing human relationship, between the ruler and the ruled, rich and poor, husband and wife, and parents and children. According to Islam, justice is negation of wrong and injustice. It implies that there shall be no despotic oppression, no arbitrary violence done by man to man, nor any cruelty committed to another human being by virtue of mere power and authority, position and privilege. In all the dealings a Muslim is required to stand firmly for justice??6.

The chief purpose of Islam, and all other revealed faiths, is justice. Any religion that preaches any form or level of injustice is absolutely false. Probably in regard of this undeniable fact, the Koran issues this one commandment: ?O you who believe! Stand up firmly for justice as witnesses for God, even as against yourselves or your parent or your near of kin, whether it be against rich or poor. God can best protect them. So do not follow your lusts, lest you deviate, for if you twist or turn, then surely God is All-Aware of what you do?7. Therefore, justice is absolute and Muslims must always and in all circumstances do and propagate it. Otherwise, they lose their faith! You would notice that the verse is directed only at those who believe ? and only such people can be just. If you are unjust, you cannot validly have faith in God. Then, even if it will be contrary to your or your parents, relatives or friends? interests, or the interests of any rich or poor persons, the doing of justice is absolutely compulsory at all times and in all circumstances for every Muslim. So, what else do we need?

Was the Baathist invasion of Iran, solely to seize Arab-populated towns and cities just? Was the American and Arab support of the Baathists in that unjust endeavour just? If anything is done NOT to establish, propagate or defend justice, but simply for political, economic, strategic, ethnic, racist,, sectarian or absolutely any other divisive purpose, it is injustice. If the Iranians had been persecuting the Iranian the Arabs among them because of their cultural identity, the Baathists would have been just people. But, the Iranian Arabs are a fully integrated part of Iranian society, with absolutely no distinction or discrimination whatsoever between them or any other cultural nationality, on the part of the anyone. Moreover, they were happy for being Iranians and even fought to defend Iran both against the Shia and against the Baathists. However, the Baathists thought they should be part of an Arab state because they were Arabs. There was absolutely no other reason. Racism it was, and that makes it injustice. The Iranians were just in their defense. The Baathists were unjust. The Americans as well as their Arab puppets were also unjust for supporting injustice.

The same is true of Khartoum?s Arabization policies in Darfur, Syria?s occupation of Lebanon, Israel?s destruction of Palestine, India?s siege of Kashmir, Europe?s denial of religious practice freedom to Muslims and so on. The human brain naturally knows what is just, fair and equitable and what is not. There is no need giving lists to identify acts of injustice.

The US occupation of Iraqi in the second Gulf massacre, on false evidences (as they later turned out to be) is pure injustice and its continued existence is nothing but continued injustice. This injustice has in turn bred thousands of other kinds of injustice. The most potent one is the Sunni armed campaign against the Shias and the Shias military campaign against the Sunnis ? in Iraq. If the Shia government gives an order to the occupier forces to bomb the insurgents out of the Sunni Triangle, in the process murdering thousands while the insurgents go free, would that be an act of injustice or justice? It may be extremely difficult to answer now because many crucial facts are still to be discussed. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to examine the justice behind a Sunni bombardment of a Shii mosque and other similar cases.

Is the Sunni bombardment of a Shii mosque, now a prevalent culture in Iraq and Pakistan, ordinarily intended to promote justice? Certainly not. No justice can be achieved in the murder of innocent worshippers. It is equally unjust to bomb a church in Iraq simply because the Americans are oppressing Islam. That would be an act designed to achieve revenge, not justice. Similarly, the shia invasion of a Sunni mosque in late February (2005) in Sokoto, Northern Nigeria simply to avenge an alleged Sunni murder of a shia earlier is unjust. Justice is the most difficult thing to define. You would see tow groups or people doing diametrically opposing things an each side claiming to be on the side of justice.

The Koran says: ?And the recompense of an evil equal to it, but whoever forgives and seeks reconciliation, his reward is with God. Surely He does not love the evildoers?8. This verse can be rightly called the verse of justice. In the Koranic viewpoint, justice lies in making evildoers have a taste of exactly the evil(s) they do, in precisely the proportion in which they do so. Actually in Islam, justice is meant to serve several purposes. But, the chief ones are retribution (paying evil with evil), restitution (compensating the victim ? by the evildoer), reproach (punishing the evildoer, with imprisonment or thoughts). Apart from the fourth one, which basically is to correct the economic, social, cultural or other imbalance that is causing the evil in the first place (such as training an unskilled person in a marketable art or craft and finding him a good job thereafter to prevent him from further stealing), all the aims or purposes of justice are designed to deter people from doing evil. When a person himself is made to feel the agony of his own evils, as felt by his victims, he will learn to change. Others around will also learn from his experience.

However, this does not mean that when a person, for instance, steals, his own property must equally be stolen. No. That would not be retribution, but revenge ? an act which is not acceptable in Islam. You cannot punish or correct a crime with another crime. Actually, in the case of stealing, the stolen property would have to be returned first and foremost to its rightful owner, and where this is not possible its monetary worth plus depreciation (restitution), and depending on whether circumstances forced the thief to steal or not, he would be jailed (in addition to any other penalty) or re-integrated into viable social life. A fundamental point to note here is that the act of punishing or deterring must come through an organized (Islamic) legal infrastructure. Otherwise, it would be arbitrary; and in Islam, arbitrariness is injustice. Although, the Koran permits that the life of the murderer be taken as a way of making him suffer the same evil he inflicted on some other person, it must not therefore be arbitrary. It is only the exclusive right of the government to carry out this punishment (except probably during war when it becomes the duty of all to defend their country and their religion from evil forces). Any person who carries out the penalty of qisas (retribution) without legal authority has himself committed the crime he is allegedly fighting and is entitled to the same punishment he is implementing. A person who arbitrarily kills a murderer has himself committed murder; and it is the obligation of the authorities in his place to take his own life.

God does not love evildoers, says the verse. So, you too must not love them. You must not help them. If you do, in anyway or at any level, you will also be entitled to their punishment. A Muslim or any other human being must not defend, sympathize with support, aid or abet an evildoer. He must always fight them. Othewise, he is one of them. When Mohammed was alive, no one carried out any form of punishment without his sanction, being the Chief Judge of the State. Arbitrariness was thus out of the question. But, inline with the Koranic verse, forgiveness was often offered to criminals and ways to reconcile them and their victims were sought. The criminal was often given the chance to repent, correct his mistakes and then join civilized society. Where he abused this grace, then he would be mad to regret his evils.

If we look at the Sokoto tragedy, we will see that the Shii invasion and massacre were strong violations of justice. In the first place, it was arbitrary. Therefore, under Islamic law, the perpetrators of the evil should be arrested and made face the full wrath or the conciliatory grace of the law (depending on whether they show remorse or not). Secondly, they targeted people who were most likely not the actual murderers of their kinsman. Even where the tooth-for-tooth punishment is to be levied with due legal authority, absolutely no innocent life must avoidably suffer. The Shias violated this Islamic principle and murdered innocent souls! The Koran at some place reads, ?And if you retaliate, let your retaliation be to the extent that you were afflicted, but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient; and be patient, yet your patience is only with the help of God and do not sorrow for them, nor distress yourself at what they devise?9.

Patience is very, very important ? especially since the Shias were not sure those they wished to kill, even though in an arbitrary manner, had any hand in or supported in anyway or to any extent, the murder of their brother. Patience, the wish to forgive and the eagerness to enter into dialogue with the offending party to know the truth and to know the best line of action for them, or whether the offending party has any remorse or regret for committing the evil in the first place, or whether it was intentional, malicious or motivated by some unjust desires are crucial qualities demanded by the Koran of a victim or his family, relatives or kinsmen. This is the case even where the evildoer is known. In the Sokoto case, the shias had no evidence that those they murdered were the exact murderers of their kinsman or their supporters. The real perpetrator (if any) was not known. Yet, the shias exercised no patience, no sense of forgiveness, and no wish to dialogue with their innocent victims for a way out and no readiness to pursue justice through the organized judicial system (especially since Sokoto is a shariah state). The Shii action in the Sokoto mayhem was absolutely nothing but murder. Mass murder.

This is absolutely no attempt to justify the initial murder by a Sunni, if the Shia claim was true. The fact that the murder was arbitrary is enough to make it what it was, whatsoever the reason behind it. Much less, it was probably carried out because the victim was a shia ? sectarian killing! The worst crime in Islam! But, Muslims cannot get carried away with temperament when observing the tenets of Islam.

Omar, during his caliphate, was stabbed to death by a Zorostrian, Abu Lulu. This was evidently a breach of the trust he had in non-Muslims. Ordinarily, anyother person in his position, now on his deathbed through that stabbing, would have sought revenge. But, Omar did not. One of his last words was: Admonish whoever becomes a caliph after me concerning the fair treatment to non-Muslims. He must fulfil his pledge of protection towards them and should fight for their rights and should not take more work from them beyond their capacity?10. This was a man in his last breaths, courtesy of the treachery of a non-Muslim. Yet, justice, not temperaments, must prevail. Only the murderer and absolutely no one else, except where there is inconvertible evidence that he has supporters and helpers, must be killed ? and that by the State only in return for his crime of murder.

You would wonder ? do the Sunni and Shia murderers know all this? Of course, they do. The suicide bombers who drive car bombs into Shii jumat mosques know all this. The Shia government in Iraq that is ruthless by pursuing, encouraged and aided by the Americans and the Britons, revenge on Sunnis against Sadam?s, and other Sunni tyrants, atrocities know all this. All the terrorists who profess Islam and murder innocent souls in the name of religion also know all this. But their temperaments have defeated their sense of justice; and they take up their arms to fight the Koran.

For all Muslims who think there is anything good in those murders ? of Sunnis, Shias or non-Muslims ? remember the Koranic injunction: ?stand up firmly for justice as witnesses for God, even as against yourselves or your parents or your near of kin?11. It is your jihad. It is the reason for Islam, for jihad and for Muslims. No, Muslims no longer stand up firmly for justice in absolutely all circumstances and at absolutely all times, but for their temperament. Sunnis now support the murder of innocent shias without asking ? is it arbitrary? Is it just? The same applies to Shias against Sunnis, and Muslims against non-Muslims. So, all those killings are strictly unjust and tragic. But, there is even a more important side to the whole issue. The Sokoto conflict was a minor skirmish, involving only a few people. Yet, it had the honour of occupying VIP places in BBC world newscasts, sharing the high table with such emblem involving just a few dozens get sucha princely treatment while more brutal events, involving really armed men (men armed with live ammunition) escape the notice of Western media? The West have spotted that Muslims have forgotten their religion, and now relies on the Jahiliyah lines of thought to implement their lives. If Iraqi Muslims could invade and kill Iranian Muslims simply because the latter are not Arabs; if Algerian and Moroccan Muslims could kill one another over a territory that belongs to neither of them; if the Iraqi Arabs could massacre their Kurdish counterparts solely to take their land and oil; if Sudanese Arabs could kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims simply because they are black ? the noble teachings of Islam have definitely disappeared among us, and we now live on the shadows. All these were Arab practices before the advent of Islam, when human life had no value and justice no meaning. Exploiting the saddening situation, the West now enrage the anger of Muslims against one another, to divide Islam, expose its division and then destroy it.

During the active colonial era, the West used the policy of divide and rule to dominate the world. It would first create a line of division among the various groups in each of its colonies, then ally itself with one and reject the others - thereby deepening the division, then use its military power to oppress all others to turn them against its favourite. The favoured side would get all the favours of the colonial state while all the others would be made to suffer under their feet. This way, the colonial people would never unite; and so the occupation would never be threatened. In Iraq, they have adopted the same strategy. The Shia majority are the favoured while the Sunni Arabs are the crushed. The Shias are persistently reminded of their long suffering under successive Sunni tyrants, with the main aim of turning their wrath against the Sunnis and sharpening their sense of revenge. That revenge they have no problem carrying out. The American occupiers are their allies, and are extremely willing to destroy the Sunnis. And, the revenge began only days after the end of Saddam?s tragic reign.

The Sunni section of Iraq; society has been completely destroyed. In the initial stage, both Sunnis and Shias mounted a united insurgency against the Westernist forces. But, as time went on. The Shias saw that the occupation was a blessing for them and they had no reason fighting it. The Americans were willing to give them everything, and to defend them. So, they backed out and joined the Westernists in a fierce campaign of hate and revenge against the Sunnis. Typical divide and rule strategy you would say. The Sunnis, seeing enemies everywhere and sensing that they are going to be second-class citizens in the new Iraq turned their attacks against both Westernists and Shias alike.

The Shias, to the Iraq sunnis now, are persecutors and traitors. That is why what has never happened in the history of Islam now happens regularly ? Sunnis mounting terror attacks against shais. Further exploiting the sad situation, the Americans deliberately bomb the Sunnis indiscriminately, extensively and heavily, discriminate against them, persecute them, victimize them and marginzlie them to create a felling in the Shias that they are defending them t(the shias) and their new found freedom. The division deepens everyday.

Before the American invasion, the sunnis and shias were merely rivals. Today, they are arch-enemies. If the current trend of division and tension-building continues till the end of the occupation, the insurgency will certainly take the separatist gown. The insurgency is basically sunni-led; and since they see no hope for them in the emerging shia state, they are most surely likely to demand a separate sunni state immediately the westernist forces leave Iraq. Because of their immense power, they are most likely to turn the Shia state into a hell. In the end, Iraq may break up into the Kurdistan, North Iraq (Sunni) and South Iraq (Shia) ? three hostile neighbour states.

Since the Shias who now control Iraq are uncertain about what the coming Iraq civil war would bring to Baghdad, they will never allow the Americans to leave (completely). And, even if the Americans at last leave, the Shias will still always invite them to fight the growing sunni threat. The Americans will be the Shia?s guardians and protectors. They will always be relevant in a future Iraq. They will always be needed as long as Iraq never breaks up. And they will never allow Iraq to break up because it will not pay them. They need a country where there is a friend fighting an enemy. Then, the Western agenda would lift its wing successfully in Baghdad.

It is the most potent strategy in place. The Americans and their British puppies are still relevant in the wider Middle East because they favour the Israelis (a friend) against the Arabs (an enemy). They rule the Arab world because they faovur some Arab governments against some others. They rule the Muslim world because they favour countries like Saudi Arabia against countries like Iran. In Arab League and OIC summits, the divisions reflect and disrupt all movements towards unity and progress.

The future of Iraq remains uncertain due to growing divisions and tensions among the various stakeholders in its society. The same, however, could be said of the future of Islam in the world! The Westernists, especially the Americans, are really doing the best they can at the moment. In Iraq, the minor differences between Sunnis and Shias have been exploited and blown big ? to divide Iraqi society and to show to the world that Islam is not one. All actions that can make the Sunnis carry out more and more terror attacks against the Shias are relentlessly taken by the Americans. The man objective ? to always flare up sunni wrath and provoke them into retaliating again and again against shias.

Now, the reddening sunni-shia hate has already spread out of Iraq, into as far as Sokoto in Nigeria. Ordinarily, Sunnis and Shias see one another as brothers; and until Gulf Massacre II, there were virtually no attacks between the two sides on the basis of their identity. But, being over 80% of the world?s Muslim population, the Sunnis today only see their brothers and sisters in Iraq being tormented and victimized by their Shia neighbours. The Shias are no longer their brothers! The Shias are now collaborators in the Western campaign to kill as many Muslims as possible in order to intimate them.

Apart from Iran, there is virtually no other Muslim state happy about the shia take-over in Iraq. Most other Muslim states are apprehensive of the rise of a shii crescent from Iran to Lebanon, something that could give the shias more power than enough. So, they are most likely to support any sunni uprising against the shia state, especially now that they see their sunni brothers there as being persecuted and have developed sympathy and solidarity for them. The sunni-shia division is already causing problems on the international scene within the Islamic world.

With the current situation of things between sunnis and shias, all that the Americans would need to do to bring back the Islamic civil war is to set its Iraq against a Sunni state in war. All the Sunni states, except probably Egypt, would definitely help their Sunni brother while Iran might be forced to shoot its shahab-3 missiles into sunni territories in solidarity to its shii neighbour (claiming security reasons). A further escalation could end everything Islam has. Another scenario is a bloody civil war in Iraq following the rise of powerful secessionist movements in the much-traumatized sunni triangle. In their anger, the sunni fighters specially target shiism?s holiest shrines and temples for total destruction. Even if they don?t do it, the Americans can do it for them! It is like this ? the author never doubts that the Americans may be behind certain terror attacks in Iraq that are always arrogated to the Sunnis. G.W. Bush in his second-term speech spit fire on Syria and Iran; and all analyses showed that Syria was next on his hit list. Then, Rafique Hariri, Lebanon?s popular Prime Minister, was assassinated in a car bomb (dubiously claimed by a previously known ?Islamic? group). Then, the United States blamed it on Syria, and revived its demand for Syria?s withdrawal from Lebanon. For the first time, Washington believed an Islamic group was lying. It did not carry out the terrorist attack it claimed.

How are we to be sure that it was not the United States that built and controlled most of those ?Islamic? websites that claim responsibility for most of the terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere on behalf of ?previously unknown Islamic groups?? How are we to be sure that it was not the CIA to assassinate Hariri and claimed responsibility for his assassinated through another ?previously unknown Islamic group? simply to shift world attention on Syria, call it a bad name and prepare world opinion in favour of the necessity yet another regime change in the Middle East? The Americans know best how to do it ? to flare up tensions between Sunnis and Shias (through extremely sensitive falsely claimed terrorist attacks against both sides) and cause the second Islamic civil war. Quite contrary to the age-long strategy (of divide and rule), this can be called divide and destroy. Unless we are very, very, very careful, the Westernists could set Islam on fire (favouring the Shias on all fronts to perpetrate the tragedy) and then destroy it.

George Bush (snr) set the shias in southern Iraq against Saddam Hussein?s sunni-led government in a highly bloody, seriously tragic and wholly suicidal uprising. The aim was to make the Iraqi shias feel they were being persecuted by the Sunni minority. It worked. Now, his son is vigorously pursuing the warhead of the plan ? exploiting fully the Sunni-shia difference within Islam and making both groups declare (false) jihads against each other. Sunni intolerance would break the extreme gauge. Shia fundamentalism would reach mad levels. Fieing a massive onslaughter from the outside, in addition to the rapidly growing trends of anti-sunnism in shia countries and anti-shiism in sunni countries, Islam would nto be able to stand for long anymore.

The Westernists will continue to encourage the current shia uprising throughout the Muslim world. They will continue to support them, physically, morally, financially, diplomatically and militarily. They will also love greatly any event that highlights the Sunni-shia difference in Islam, such as their doctrinal, cultural and other differences and especially each side?s attacks on the other?s mosques, shrines, temples or worshippers for global publication. The aim will be to put would-be Muslim converts into serious dilemmas about which of Islam?s sects is right and whether Islam is truly one. Confusion and disillusionment are the best ways to chase a person away from anything. Lastly, the Westernists will never relent in strengthening the current Sunni-Shia hate turning it into a full escalation, and later into a terrible explosion. But, why have we allowed them to get to this stage in the first place?

If all Muslims had always stood firmly for justice, equity and fairness as the Koran commands, islam would NEVER have had any problems, as it does today, getting into the heart of human existence. If every Muslim has always regarded every human being simply and absolutely as human beings in all matters of justice, and not as Muslims, shias, Christians, Jews, etc, if a person?s status, in absolutely all sense of the word conferred on him absolutely no form of special treatment, positive or negative, in all matters of justice; if the law that whoever does evil shall suffer evil, and whoever does good shall enjoy good applied fully, literally and absolutely in all cases of justice, notwithstanding whosoever is involved; if the right of absolutely all innocent souls to kind, merciful and fair treatment in absolutely all circumstances and at absolutely all times were absolutely guaranteed; if everybody treated absolutely all human beings in absolutely exactly the same way he would like to be treated by any absolutely impartial and fair judge at absolutely all times and in absolutely all circumstances; and if the absolute sacredness of absolutely every individual human life (except those that have destroyed others) and the absolute inviolability of the humanity of absolutely every human being were absolutely respected, protected and defended, then Islam would have been said to have achieved its purpose among us.

A good Muslim is anyone who is ready to be absolutely impartial and equitable even in a case involving an anti-Islamic non-Muslim and his mother. If his mother slapped first without provocation, he is ready to slap her back as a punishment for the aggression if what he would have done to the non-Muslim, were he or she to be the aggressor, was slap him or her. If the punishment he would have given the non-Muslim were less severe, he would have applied absolutely the same punishment to his mother; and if it would have been more severe, such as death, his mother would have tasted absolutely the same punishment in favour of the anti-Islamic non-Muslim were she to be the transgressor. To a just Muslim, there is absolutely no difference between two human beings except for whether one is just and the other is wrong. Race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or absolutely any other status is absolutely irrelevant in his judgement of good and evil between absolutely any two human beings.

Were his country to have committed any act of injustice against any individual, group or state, a good Muslim would certainly condemn the injustice in the strongest of terms and would not care if he loses his life in the process. Mohammed had said: ?The best jihad is to say the truth in the presence of a tyrant ruler?. Doing that is even better than taking arms against the crusaders in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine. A true Muslim is even ready to quench his own country?s, or group?s injustice against others by armed force, if necessary.

Therefore, a good shia would have condemned the Shia?s campaign of revenge in all terms and even fought to stop it. A good sunni would have destroyed any of the Sunni car bombers or their collaborators or supporters if he saw them. There are human lives involved; and arbitrariness against or in favour of human lives is in itself grave injustice; much less, innocent lives are lost. Every sunni or shia, or Muslim or non-Muslim, would, in a just environment, have asked, if it was right to kill human beings who have not committed any act of murder (or injustice) simply because of their identity or status, or because someone with a similar identity or status, had earlier committed some atrocities. If it was not right to punish a person who has not committed any act of injustice for the injustice of another, then such a person would have stood firmly for justice against whosoever does it, whatever their relationship with him. Anyone who believes in God would have asked if he would like the acts of injustice of others to be punished on him in the name of retaliation, revenge or jihad before embarking on such a course of action or supporting it.

So, our problem in the Muslim world is our hypocrisy and injustice. Justice demands good to all good people and evil to all evil people. It is absolutely irrelevant whether they are ourselves, parents, kinsmen, friends, our own veins. Once we are able to overcome these two, and the purpose of Islam prevails among us, the enemies of Islam will crash against their own traps and its future will be secured. Moreover, God will begin to be the greatest in both the public and private affairs of all those who oppose Islam today in very near future.

The Westernist oppressors could possibly take a huge clue from Dr W.E.B. Du Bois in his ?Battle of Europe?: ?The civilization by which America insists on measuring us and to which we must conform our natural tastes and inclination is the daughter of that European civilization which is now rushing furiously to its doom. This civilization with its aeroplanes and submarines, its wireless and its ?big business? is no more static than that of those other civilizations in the rarest days of Greece and Rome. Behind all this gloss of culture and wealth and religion has been lurking the world ? old lust for bloodshed and power gained at the cost of honour?.

In the words of Dr Muhammad Hussein Haykal in his book, ?The Life of Muhammad?, the world will never know joy, peace and justice until the West recognises the right of other humans to be free and to be treated justly, equitably and fairly. ??The foundation upon which the dominant civilization is based is that of colonialism, and colonialism is in turn based upon the competition of one nationalism against another and upon domination of the weak by the strong. It is the right of the vanquished people, indeed their first duty, to seek to destroy the yoke of the tyrant. Consequently, colonialism has bred and nurtured the germs of rebellion and war. As long as colonialism is the rule, peace will never be established and wars will be continuous. Colonizing or colonized, the nations of the world will continue to regard one another with suspicion and, in fact, to lie in wait for one another. How then could there be peace? Peace will come to this world only when men everywhere change that which is within themselves; that is to say, when they begin to believe truly in peace, when they base their world views upon peace, and when they agree with one another to defend peace against every attempt at disturbing it.

?But all this will happen only when colonialism is no more than the basis for world orders, when the strong of the earth will regard it as their first duty to come to the assistance of the weak, when the affluent will give to the deprived, when the big will show mercy to the small, and when the more learned will teach the ignorant. Peace will indeed reign over the world when the dominant powers spread knowledge throughout the earth to the end of serving mankind rather than of exploiting them in the name of knowledge throughout the earth to the end of serving mankind rather than of exploiting them in the name of knowledge or industry or technology. When the whole world comes to believe in this principle and all men come to feel that the earth is their own homeland ? that they are all brothers of one another, each of them wishing for his brothers that which he wishes for himself ? then will clemency, tolerance and fellowship grow among them. Then will they address one another in a language different from that in which they speak today; they will trust one another though they may be separated by wide spaces. They will all do the good for the sake of God. Then and only then will hatred and resentment dissolve, truth be supreme, peace rule the world, and God be pleased with mankind, and mankind with Him?12.

Dr Haykal?s words capture the essence of the ideal human society Islam seeks to create. But, that revolution may never be possible. The Koran has given a condition that must be fulfilled before our world can change ? before God can come to our rescue. ?Surely God does not change the condition of a people unless they change what is in themselves?13. There must first be a complete reformation of all human individuals in favour of justice, equity, fairness, mercy and peace.

Each individual human being must effect an all-comprehensive revolution within himself strictly to enthrone absolute respect for the sacredness of the honour, dignity and humanity of absolutely each human individual, love, friendship and compassion for absolutely all just human beings, and the earnest wish to have humane, humanitarian human societies all over the world. But, this does not mean anyone should doubt the possibility of a forceful liberation of all oppressed people and lands, and the destruction of all forces of justice across the world in addition to and in concurrence with the private revolutions.

ENDNOTES

1. Prophet Mohammed in one of his popular sayings. Asabiyyah has a variety of meanings; but it can be defined chiefly as partisanship, sectarianism and supremacism, especially when these are pursued at the expense of justice, human equality and brotherhood, and freedom.
2. Prophet Mohammed in one of his popular traditions.
3. Ibid.
4. The Glorious Quran, Text and Translation, Dr Ahmed Zidan and Mrs Dina Zidan, islamic House for Publishing and Distribution, Cairo, Egypt, 1996, p. 345: Koran 23:52-53.
5. Ibid, p. 108: Koran 5:7-9
6. Dr M.A.M. Shukri, Cultural Values in Islam, The Muslim World League Journal, vol. 31, Dec,, 2003/Jan. 2004, Nos 10 & 11, The Muslim World League, Saudi Arabia, p. 42.
7. The Glorious qur?an, op. Cit. P. 100:Koran 4:135.
8. Ibid, p. 487, Koran 42:40
9. Ibid, p. 281: Koran 16:126-127
10. Quoted by Dr M.A.M. Shukri, op. Cit. P. 41
11. The Glorious Quran, op. Cit. P. 100; Koran 4:135.
12. Dr Muhammad Hussein Haykal, The Life of Mohammed, Shorouk International, London, Cairo and Beirut, 1983, pp 590-591.
13. The Glorious Qur?an, op. Cit. P. 250: Koran 13:11.

THE BALKANS IN BAGHDAD: THE BREWING BLOT IN BABYLON

2005-12-01T03:03:00.000-08:00

THE ISLAMIC UNION

2005-12-01T01:57:00.000-08:00

THE ISLAMIC UNION

Welcome to the Revolution

Background:

© Toyib Olawuyi, January, 2005.

Toyib Olawuyi is a human rights, Middle East and anti-nuclear activist, political and religious analyst and commentator on war, peace and international affairs, especially the growing Cold War between Islam and the West.

‘Indeed, these We relate to you are your nation of Islam, one nation for all time, and I am your Lord, so worship Me’1.

Islam is a religion that commands its followers to prevent war by preparing for war: that shows that it is a practical religion’2.

‘Not more than 500 years have passed when the Western world was still toiling with its Dark Ages and the Muslim Ummah was basking in the sunshine of enlightenment and glory. But then the position changed. The sun started rising on the Western world, bringing it political strength, economic power, and the capacity to rule “the seven seas”. Darkness engulfed the Muslims. They reeled under the growing impact of the West losing their former glory, political freedom and the capacity even to think for themselves3’.

The strength and power of Islam lie in its peace and unity, not in violence and extremism. The destiny of Muslims, today and tomorrow, also depends on whether they can find a common home in Medina. The truth is evident.

When Mohammed was envisaging a global state for Islam, based probably in Medina, he did not see the current structure of the Muslim world, although he prophesized it, in his plans. He wanted a single Islamic state, headquartered in his mosque, occupying all the seven continents of the earth. Of course, he did not expect this to come up suddenly. All he knew was as long as there is a free Muslim state, the influence and extraordinary appeal of Islam will spread into other territories, causing large-scale conversions and eventually upturning populations across the world in favour of Medina, leading to the rise of willing Medinite-loyal Islamic principles. He knew this would be very, very difficult. Nonetheless, he had assured his people that when Jesus Christ returns to the world in his second coming, he will perfectly do the job. A single, worldwide Koranic state under a just leader, with a lot of prosperity and progress. Then, the end would come.

The huge empire which the last Prophet of Islam founded is today about sixty deeply disunited, and to a good extent hostile, states, each with its own system and ambitions. Following the civil war shortly after the departure of Mohammed, the gulf between the various Muslim states, groups and individuals have tremendously widened. Mohammed left an absolutely united Islamic State. But, disputes over the seat of power after his departure resulted in bloodshed and chaos – creating and pitching two major Muslim factions against each other, each side regarding the other as coupists or rebels against the system of government left by Mohammed (and therefore deadly apostates and must be eradicated to save Islam from ruin), in terrible wars. The long civil war ended in the first ever balkanization of Muslim land, a trend that continued, at a rapidly ascending rate, since then till the First World War. The destruction of the Ottoman Empire marked the death blow to the Islamic State. It died with the rise of Ataturk and never rises again, not even after his death.

That was the grand finale, and what gave us most of what we have today. No united Muslim state to spell power and resistance to Western imperialism. The whole of Islam is under Western occupation, except in the instances of a few countries that have secured their independence. The West, knowing well that a united Islam will be too deadly for them, have also played a very serious part, in fact the dominant role, in the continued disunity of the Muslim world. Using the British-invented tactic of divide and rule, causing conflicts between two or more Muslim states (such as Iraq and Iran or Iraq and Kuwait), blocs (Arabs and Iranians) or groups (the Sunni Triangle against the Shia south in Iraq) and favouring one-side over the other, the West have succeeded in dividing the Muslim world beyond repair. Muslims have never, since the civil war, been able to take a united front on any issue. But even the situation would have been remediable if not for Western intervention. The West has taken virtually all Muslim leaders hostage and use its overwhelming economic and military power to fuel the discord and division between them. The prospects look bleak.

Imagine the monarchy in Riyadh suddenly declaring full-scale Islamist state in Saudi Arabia. You, of course, know what this would mean. A complete negation of all forms of foreign – including Western – domination or influence, political, economic, cultural, civil, and military. American troops and military chiefs would be kicked out of the peninsula, at least from its largest chunk. Saudi oil would get back into Saudi hands. The American oil thieves would equally be expelled. Western thoughts and ideas, especially the dominant portrayal of woman as a merchandize, useful only for decoration and for the satisfaction of men’s desires, would be completely erased from the soil. The Western man will tell you, you have absolutely no right to restrict another person’s freedom once nit does not harm you. This is his justification for the establishment of brothels in peaceful neighbourhood. ‘Does the existence of prostitutes or brothels affect your right or freedom in any way’, he will ask if you try to raise any objection. ‘Therefore, let them enjoy their freedom’. But when mosques are involved in any part of Western Europe and North America, the situation is always different. The neighbours of the proposed mosque must first agree to its existence before it can legally stand. If they reject it, which you will bet they normally do, no one must construct or even buy anything there. The question is – does the existence of Muslims and mosques, plain and harmless as they are, constitute any harm to the freedom of the Westerners? This treachery or ugly double standard would also be flushed out of Saudi Arabia.

If Western communities have the right to reject certain establishments, movies and books because they are threats to their morality, religion, conscience or provoke outrage in them, why not Muslims in their own countries? Why?

Saudi education would be de-westernized and Islamized. Indigenous professors would be supremely emphasized. Cinema, theatre, radio, television and the press in Saudi Arabia would don the Islamist gown and champion the cause of freedom of the Saudis from colonial rule. The West and its entire civilization would be demystified and devalued. Imitation of the West in anything would be a big crime. All forms and traces of cultural dependence on the West or any other region or power would be destroyed and Islamic culture should return to its cradle.

The use of assembly plants and the importation of agricultural and industrial products from the West or East would be seen, in Islamist Saudi Arabia, as very chronic backwardness. A fierce, determined and continuous effort would be mounted to build dozens of large industrial complexes, especially in aerospace and defense, high technology and machinery, every year and to cultivate all of Saudi Arabia’s arable land to an excess. Oil export might not be to the West and oil could be used as a source of leverage machinery to control Western madness across the world.

All efforts would be made by the Saudi authorities to develop to a fault their defense industry so that they could be free from dependence on the West. More over, all forms of Western or Eastern military presence on Saudi soil would become strictly unconstitutional. Saudi military personnel would no longer need expert advise or training from America or anywhere else. Crowning it all would be the transformation of Saudi security forces from oppressors to assistants of the oppressed, both within and without Saudi Arabia!

Saudi friendship or alliance or otherwise with any country in the world – any country in the world – would be based on the Islamic principle that Muslims must never be friends to, but must rather fight, oppressive or imperial cum colonial states. Mohammed even said such states, even if they claimed to be Islamic and were led by Muslims, must NOT be helped, even in the construction of mosques! In essence, Saudi relationship with the West, especially the US, would be based on whether the latter is not at that moment oppressing, dominating, subjugating or occupying another nation, Muslim or not and whether it is ready to stop the injustice. Not on economic considerations. Never. All forms of Western or Eastern plundering in Saudi Arabia would be resisted. The House of Saud’s depots and investments in the West could be withdrawn, to free Saudi leaders from Western hostage taking and blackmail, and poured into the agricultural and industrial development of the country. Above all, the wishes of ordinary Saudis would drive the country, rather than the interest of the West. Saudi leader would become truly the people’s slaves.

For that to be possible, Saudi would switch from a police state to a democratic state. The Islamic conditions that the Islamic leaders should be someone the people can legally disobey when he misrules and again who can be removed on any charge of misconduct or failure to consult with and seek the consent of the people in his policies must be supreme in the entire process. The citizenry must be well educated, with a strong emphasis on creating an informed and critical awareness of the issues and problems of the time. All issues must be subjected to thorough public debate, skepticism and judgement . All Saudis must have supreme constitutional interests in the governance, economy and social equality and justice of their dear state. There must be individual rights and freedoms. The state must be permissive. However, wherever the interests of either Islam or the public are affected, they prevail over individual rights and freedoms.

If that were the case, how then would the Saudis deal with dissidents? Today, there are several Islamic dissidents, frustrated by the long years of colonial rule in their country, in Saudi Arabia. If these people succeed and an Islamist government is established, how should they deal with other dissidents, capitalists, socialists, westernists, that may be operating in their land, considering that the interests of Islam are supreme and inviolate? Ordinarily, Islam tolerates dissent. When Mohammed was leader in Medina, there were Jewish dissidents who lived side by side with him – in his capital. As long as the dissidents operate within the law and are reasonable, they must be tolerated. But, once they become a threat to the peace and stability of the state, the government just has to crush them. In the case of Mohammed, rather than crushing some Jewish tribes when they allied themselves with the Meccans in armed conflict against the Muslims, he expelled them from Medina (that would considerably reduce their danger to his government) and left the innocent Jews with him. However, where the dissent is popular, there can be no question of crushing anybody because that would be tantamount to repression. The people’s voice is next only to Islam in an Islamic state. As long as their demands are not contrary to the interest of Islam, they are supreme and the Islamic leader has no other choice but to obey them.

Let’s image that all this has happened in Saudi Arabia. The people have also voted in a referendum in favour of the Islamist system to give it the legitimacy it needs to be valid. Then, Riyadh decides to enter into political, economic, cultural and military alliances with other Muslim states, including Iran. Then, the waves sweep across the Muslim world. All the states adopt entirely the new Saudi system and decide ultimately to form the Islamic Union, a political, economic, cultural and military union of all Muslim states!

Note. I wrote ‘union’. The Muslim world become a federation, a loose federation with headquarters in Medina. An Islam-wide ‘dinar’ zone is equally created. A free trade zone. Large-scale and extensive joint industrial and agricultural projects and programmes. A global (multi-lingual) Islamic television and radio network. A unified military, such that an attack on any member state means a direct military violation of the territorial integrity and governmental integrity of all Muslim states – and you will bet on what follows next in ordinary situations.

Has anyone ever pondered over why America is politically, economically, culturally and military invincible? It is simply because it is a federation of 52 large states. California alone is larger in population and resources than most countries in the world It is for instance more populous and has a larger economy than Iraq. When Saddam Hussein was fighting the Allied Forces in 2003, what he did not know was that he was actually fighting not a single enemy state, but 52 of such! If the argument is that even Iraq could manage to control more soldiers than those that invaded its territory to topple Saddam, what about the logistic strength of the invaders? The Apache helicopters. The bombers. The armaments. Everything came from all over the 52 states (or countries). So, it was an overwhelming force against the relatively defenseless Iraq guards. Saddam was in fact not fighting a single country, but a continent larger than Europe and more than twelve times more populous than his own country.

The strength of America, Russia, China and India is hidden in their ability to pool together tremendous economic, military and logistic resources from a wide variety of population and economic areas – in the case of the first two running into hundreds of millions of people and the latter two over a billion each. All world powers today are empires. Great empires. And that is the only secret behind their strength. If Iraq dared attack America, Baghdad would be sure it would be engaging more than fifty-two strong States at a time. That would be certainly be suicidal. The same situation will apply if several countries pool together their military resources toward off America aggression on any of them in unified defense.

If this is what union would achieve for the Islamic world in the defense circle, which is the most important, what then would it do to its various economies and societies? Islam would become world power – politically, economically and militarily. Its culture would also be safe from Western threats, which are normally enforced by military action. Islamic civilization would regain its vibrancy. An unavoidable revival of Islamic growth and glory would and possibly overthrown. Justice, fairness and equality would be supreme everywhere. Oppression in all its ramifications would be destroyed. Human intellect, through the activities of large Islamic missions, would be liberated from dogmatism, superstition, credulity and taken along the true path of civilization where paganism has absolutely no place. God would be reveled to the humanists, the hedonists, the nihilists, the materialists, the eroticists and the unversal journey would be to His throne.

There would indeed be a universal revolution. This revolution many Muslim activists and reformists have sought to achieve through their various theories – many calling for a unified caliphate or imamate, as the case may be, to cover the whole of the Islamic world. One state, one faith. A fortress union. Strictly militarist. Defending Islam at its home and taking its revolution abroad – the latter by full-scale missionary activities. Liberating people under-occupation, colonization, exploitation or repression and giving them the freedom and justice of God. Inviting them to truth. Leaving them with their choice. Just as the four caliphs did. All Islamists want a revival of the Islamic Empire that led the world in civilization and knowledge for more than ten centuries. A lofty idea that really is. But, the means propounded by the various reformists are nothing but over-zealous dreams.

A category has called for a willing unification of all Muslim states. They want one of them to stand as the capital and others swearing allegiance to it as its provinces. There are even some in this category who want a revival of the Ottoman Empire, as it was before The Great War, as the solution to Muslim problems. The problem with these people if that they are not pragmatic at all. They expect the various Arab palaces to willingly submit their times. Such things are no longer possible. At all!

The sacred category want the rise of several Islamic militants in the various countries, mounting fierce insurgencies against their governments, overthrowing them and then establishing an Islamic government in their place. When at last most of the insurgencies have succeed, then a merger of the states is planned by the various militants in power and then executed in such a way as to create a semblance of the Orthodox Islamic Empire. There are even radicals among these people who believe strongly in the military unification of all these states, Hitler-style, to achieve the union. Both views are common among many Islamists and are even inspirations behind certain attacks by some groups. Many militants even joined the movement for these purposes, whichever way. To be candid, neither way is Islamic.

In the first place, trying to unify Islam by violence, either way, would bring a lot of bloodshed, anarchy and chaos to the Islamic world. Already, the battle against repression, by mujaheddin, across the Muslim world has already caused much trouble for the tender Muslims. The anower to the problem colonism and repression, for instance in Saudi Arabia does not rest in overthrowing the monarchy, except in a popular revolution, but in forcing it to democratize according to Islamic precepts and to rid itself of foreign control or influence. Once the princes are ready to that, and to adopt a moderate and strictly progressive Islamist constitution, there will be no justification for violence. An argument may come that, as they are now, the princes of Saudi Arabia may stand in the way of the freedom and independence movements as machinistic mercenaries of the West, with very little probabilities of ever listening to their people’s voices or ever relenting in their repression of the innocent, defenceless people, what then should the Islamists do? Violence, in my opinion, cannot be the solution, although where the situation gets extreme, it may. Nonetheless, a non-violent, constitutional campaign can be mounted against the House of Saud, over the world’s independent mass media, the Internet, and through mass demonstrations and publications. The required pressure would be created in the long run and would get stronger as the monarchy’s repression grows. It is certain to end in success, although it may take dozens, or even hundreds of years – a feat a simple coup would have achieved in days, you might say. But, patience and perseverance are two keywords that are central to the total success of all efforts and are usually absent in violent struggles.

An important fact that must be clear to the violent Islamists is that if winning the power is almost an impossible task, then keeping it or maintaining order is absolutely impossible. And that would ruin the entire enterprise. If you can topple someone in a rebellion or coup but cannot keep the power, certainly any subsequent government will completely overthrow all your achievements and turn strictly against the Islamic movement. Violence mostly backfires. Toppling an established government, even if illegitimate, by force, except when the populace are involved, is a crime under international law and will only turn the honest international world against the Islamists. Everyone would see them as a threat to his own government, and the noble ideas of the struggle would be lost and dehumanized in a terrible worldwide campaign against it that may follow. The Western colonialists and their mercenaries would benefit in the long run, and they would grow bolder and stronger. Already, there would be a pretext to bomb everywhere, and the self-misled honest world would unknowingly back the slavemakers!

It is impossible to maintain the power, except where it is secured in a population revolution. The world devourers would come back, with full force, to seize what they lost and to completely dehumanize Islam. That would be a net loss to all of us. The best ways are to make our leaders see reason and to pray to God for their guidance.

Islamists cannot Islamize and unify the Islamic world by violence. It is a fact we all have to take. But, we also have to take, even more seriously, another fact. Whenever there is unity, fraternity and love in the Muslim world, Islam will definitely regain its glory, and its light will once again illumine our Dark World. What we need now are unity and union. Once we are able to secure those, it will be possible for us to plan and coordinate the systematic Islamization of the various states. But, where the Islamic movement becomes a serious threat in one of them, the others are most likely to fight it with all their strength wherever it may be – to kill the enemy before it is born. As this happens, the bridge between the states, with one accusing the other of allowing ‘terrorists’ entry into its borders or outrightly sponsoring or breeding them or with each closing its borders to others to avoid infiltration of terrorists into its territories, widens. The chances of ever-unifying them in Islam will grow dimmer and very much more unlikely. And the struggle would collapse.

The OIC has provided many with a false impression that Islam is at least united, if not unified. The OIC? Organization of the Islamic Conference? Decades after its foundation, this organization has proved to be nothing more than what it is called – a series of empty conferences. Summits after summits. Resolutions after resolutions. Yet, nothing is achieved. ‘A conference of Islamic leaders has just passed a resolution condemning in strong terms the Israeli occupation of Palestine’, the news media merely report. Then, after the condemnation, the world goes dead. If the European Union were to condemn in strong terms, for instance, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the next move, were the latter to be their brother-in-the-union and they are really serious about their condemnation (as the Muslim leaders often claim to do), would be a threat of economic sanctions against Damascus were it to fail to pull out before a certain date. If economic sanctions did not help, political and diplomatic sanctions would be next. Any further provocation to take action would see the EU troops expelling the Syrians by the force of bombs and bullets. In the case of the OIC, despite that Palestine is a member-state, and despite that Masjid Qods, the third holiest mosque in Islam is involved and may be lost forever, all the OIC summits have so far achieved are just a pack of useless resolutions with absolutely no effect.

The ugly situation is not unconnected with individual states’ dispositions and policies to certain issues and countries. A proposal of sanctions against the US, for instance, for backing the Zionist occupiers of Qods, will certainly be blocked by American mercenaries at the summit – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, mention them. Since an overwhelming majority of Muslim leaders, or rather rulers, are Western mercenaries. So, they often clash with the independent states during debates. And, because they control the OIC, the organization is essentially a western-dominated theatre arena. Toothless. Useless. Valueless.

It’s time for action. Rather than a group of seats making useless noise, we need a powerful Islamic super-state that can fully defend itself politically, economically, culturally and militarily, and that can put any country to justice. The world needs it to liberate the oppressed people from Western colonialism. Islam needs it to save it own future and its mission. We need an organization in which the ordinary Muslims rather than the Western mercenary rulers will make all decisions. The OIC is a completely failure, and we need a Medina-looking giant nthat will never fail or disappoint Islam. A truly Islamic activist super-state that caters about the freedom and progress of all Muslims, and all of humanity. We need the Islamic union.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It is not an empire state, Russian-style. It is a superstate. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines a super-state as ‘a very powerful state, especially one that is formed by several nations joining or working together4’. Therefore, like the US, it is a state of the union; a union or lat least close alliance of several states.

Because it is also a state, it has all the major characteristics of one. Constitution. National Flag. Citizenship. The list goes on and on. The Islamic Union also has it sown government. There is the Islamic Parliament, peopled by MPs directly elected by the citizens of the various member-states. Its laws are supreme throughout the Islamic Union. Before any state can join the Union, it must first pass a law within its own territory making all Islamic parliament’s law absolutely binding on its own government and citizens. This condition is very crucial to the success of the union.

It is the members of the Islamic Parliament that elect from among themselves all the members of the Islamic Cabinet. The executive arm. The Islamic cabinet executive plans, policies, programs, and projects for the whole of the Islamic Union. The cabinet is headed by a President, a shia and a Prime Minister, a Sunni. Both have absolutely equal executive powers and the activities of each are not constrained to any section of the Union. The President is not responsible only to the shias. No. Neitehr is the Prime Minister responsible only to the sunnis. There is need to pass over this obstacle.

One of the key obstacles to peace and unity in the Muslim world has been the Sunni – Shia discord. The sunni majority view the shias as heretics and unbelievers. Most even consider them to be worse than Jews and Christians. Many shia extremists also hold the sunnis ini similar views. That is tragic enough.

I was reading a book published in Saudi Arabia, and despite that I am a strictly Sunni Muslim, I was deeply scandalized by what I read about the Shias. ‘Among the sects that deviated from the straight path of Islam, although they claim tobe Muslims is one big sect derived from Shiah. The followers of this sect pretend to be Muslims, i.e. they pray, fast and perform Hajj. They claim that Jibril (peace be upon him) had committed dishonesty by conveying the message “Revealtion” to Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) while it was originally meant for Ali (May Allah be pleased with him).

‘One of their big slanders is their claim that the Quran had been tampered with, that there have been both addition to it and omissions from it. They curse the best Muslims after Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). They also curse Aisha Ommulmomineen (the mother of the Believers) “may Allah be pleased with her”.

‘The members of this sect seek help from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and from his sons and call them for assistance. They call themselves “shiah”, i.e. shiat Al-Albait (the adherents of the descendants of the House of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

‘It should be known that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and his sons were innocent from what the Shiah claim, because they considered them as partners to Allah. They lie therein and perverted the speech of Allth The Almighty’5.

For a well-informed Sunni like me, all this, except the claim that they curse Abu Bakr, Omar and Ayesha, is false propaganda. Although, there may exist among the Shias a few heretics, and extremely insignificant is their number, that believe in most of the contents of the quotation, mainstream shiism even fights anyone with such outrageous beliefs. The Batiniyahs, the Qadianis, the Hahais, the Ismailis, the Druzes are all no doubt heretical, no heresy. The Shias have a fault for cursing and hating pious men like Abu Bakr, Omar, and for rejecting holy like Abu Bakr, Omar and Ayesha are great sins in Islam. Their belief also in the unfallibility of Mohammed, Ali and the Shia imams is also questionable in Islam.

In the Koran, God addressed Mohammed as thus: ‘That God may forgive you your mistakes of the past and those to follow and to perfect His blessing upon you, and guide you to the straight path’6. Infallibility or inerrancy means never making mistakes. If Mohammed were infallible, in this sense, this verse would never have been necessary. God would not need to forgive any mistakes. In another chapter of the Koran, Mohammed was scolded by God for turning away unknowingly a blind man, Abdullah bin Umm-Maktum, who came to him for guidance while he was preaching to one or some of the Quraish chiefs. ‘He frowned and turned away: When these came to him a blind man; And how would you know? He might have sought to purify himself; Or he might have received admonition, and the admonition profit him? But to the one who shows that he is in no need of you. To him you gave all attention; yet it is no blame on you if he chooses to remain impure; but as to him who comes to you with eagerness; and with fear in his heart; to him you pay no heed’7. This was a clear mistake and Mohammed was corrected by God for it. If Mohammed, therefore, could make mistakes, there is no question of the infallibility or inerrancy of any other human, dead or alive. Infallibility and perfection belong only to God.

Here is a big lesson for Muslim leaders, all of them. Here was the man because of whom the entire universe was created being criticized and corrected. Even he was nto above the law of God. The King-never-erratitude was never in Islam. Our monarchs and oligarchs today cannot make mistake, and therefore must not be criticized. They are always right. Absolutely always right. Unlike Mohammed.

The Koran tells us Mohammed was a human being, a mortal, like anyone of us8. He was no other than a messenger of God9. Not a god. But, he has a privilege over all other human beings. When he was a child, some angels were sent by God to remove his ability to sin. Therefore, right from childhood, he could not sin. Sayyid Mujtaba Musari Lawi, a leading Shia cleric, writes: ‘It may appear that the Qur’an has attributed sins to some of the prophets. However, the sin must be carefully examined in each case to gain a proper understanding of the matter. The essence of true sin is to rebel against God, to disobey His commands, to plunge into the whirlpool of vice, all of these being acts for which a specific punishment has been decreed; in this sense, the prophets are completely free of all sin’10. The office of prophethood itself affords the impossible ability to resist the temptation of sin. Therefore, throughout the Koran and in the wider authentic Islamic doctrine, no prophet can be found to have sinned. They rather made mistakes. No doubt about that. The prophets of Islam did make innocent strictly innocent mistakes – however not in anyway in their various spiritual missions but in their social interactions. Apart from this privilege offered by the office of prophethood, Mohammed, apart from being a prophet, in fact the king of all prophets, also had the privilege of having his ability to sin removed. Therefore, there was no way he could have seen.

That was why even his most hostile enemies had to admit that he was never for once indulged in any act of misconduct sinc ehe was born – even in the presence of Heraclius, to whom they could have lied to win his support for a big crash on Medina. Lying, adultery, theft and the likes are sins, not mistakes. When the blind man came to Mohammed, he was preaching to principal Meccans who could influence things. Therefore, it was a critical mission. A very critical one. Yet, the blind could, due to his eye problem, have been persistently interrupting the critical mission to a point of making him angry. Then, Mohammed excused him. No man can call that a sin. It was a mistake, not a sin. And so God promised to forgive all his past and future mistakes”.

But, none of the Shia Imams had the privilege of prophethood, nor any of them removed from his ability to sin. Imamate is not equal to prophethood. If Mohammed was just a human being like any of us, of course you know what ‘human’ means, but was fortunate to have his sin capacity permanently and irreversibly disabled, unlike anyone of us, what about the Imams who are mere humans and are not as fortunate as him? Mohammed was not infallible when it comes to mistakes. But, he was in the case of sins. However, in both circles, no other human beings can claim to be like him. You might be open to mistakes. But, even you cannot have a one-millionth of his resistance. In the latter field, you absolutely cannot move near him, whatsoever you are, in a trillion years!

Even all these are minor arguments or disagreements that need not make either side reject and fight the other. To solve the problem, dialogue is needed, not confrontation. Rather than declare Shias Kuffar, the Sunni should try to explain things to him. Argument should not breed hatred, but expand love. Whichever side fails in his mission need not grow frustrated. Shias and Sunnis are absolute brothers. Both are absolutely right, especially in all the areas of Islam common to both. In those in which they differ, they should try to go into joint researches and engage in seriouis debates over them to make things clear to either side. ‘You have no right to curse any of the companions, wives or relatives of Mohammed’. ‘Tell me why’. You explain and let the centuries – long division or hatred end there. If the Shia stillpersist in his belief that Abu Bakr, for instance, should be cursed, leave him alone. Trying to force your own beliefs on him will only result in extremism and further hostility. And don’t let that spoil your relationship with, and love for, him.

As for the closed-minded shia, or even Sunni, who is not ready to share the knowledge of his brothers, the disease of bigot, fanatic, or extremist. The Korna at a place describes Muslims as those ‘who listen to speech and follow the best in it’. Therefore, Muslim minds cannot be closed to arguments about or examination of what he believes.

Dialogues between Shias and Sunnis should not be attempts to convert. If any wants converts, he should take his mission outside dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. That is the method of Islam. You cannot convert Muslims. There are billions of non-Muslims who need your message. Go to them. Do not let the minor differences between Sunnism and Shiism, basically about who should have succeeded Mohammed as leader of the Islamic state at his departure, cause any lack of focus in the Islamic mission.

If the Sunnis stop regarding the Shias as heretics and the Shias also returned in similar coins, if the Turkish sufists stop viewing the Saudi Wahabists as deviants, and the Saudi wahabists stop seeing all as infidels, if the world of Islam can rid itself of the ill feelings among its households and hold on firmly to the one rope of God, Islam will certainly regain its freedom, glory and conquest. All of these groups are just attempts to mve nearer to God. But, minor differences, about successorship to Mohammed, about the exact scope of polytheism and so on, which can no doubt be overcome by simple, open dialogues and researches, have made each intolerant of th eother and breed extremist on all sides. Extremism leads nowhere but to the dark world of the Stone Age. We should all believe we are all equally correct in our beliefs, and we are all absolutely one in faith. We should also believe that our minor differences are things we can settle with love and dialogue. We need to progress on our path to oneness. Ironically, until Islam is one, it can never again rise.

One of the main tasks of the Islamic Union would also be to fight fiercely the extreme versions of all these movements, not sects and promote their moderate, tolerant versions. Each of them is inherently noble. But when the extremists hold its torch, the world become a graveyard. Seize power from the extremists, fanatics and bigots, make them completely irrelevant and insignificant and save Islam. Neither of the four movements of Islam is superior to the other, and none should be, in the organization of the Islamic Union.

Ironically, both the sufists and the wahabists, mutually hostile to each other, claim to be members of the wider orthodox sunni movement. Therefore, the real battle is between Sunnism, in the light of these claims, and Shiism. With a shia president and a sunni prime minister, the gap is closed. The gap will be further closed by making sure the Islamic Parliament, is headed by two equal speaker, one a sunni, the other a Shia. Besides, wherever an office is occupied by a Sunni, his assistant(s) must be Shias and vice versa.

People might begin to worry about the representativeness of such a system. What we must put in mind is that each member state will have equal representation in the Islamic Parliament with all others. Being the overwhelming majority, it is natural that over 80% of all the MPs will be sunnis. Since the Islamic Parliament is expected to be sovereign throughout the Islam union, its laws will automatically be highly representative of the Sunni majority view in most cases. Can this affect its representativeness? No. But, a problem!

The Shias follow the Twelver Jafari school of fiqh. The Sunnis variously follow the Hanafi, Shaffi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools. All these schools are slightly different. Although, they all basically correspond with one another on most issues, there are minor ones where they disagree. Since the laws to be passed by the Islamic Parliament must reflect a particular school or group of schools, and will apply in both public and personal capacities, what is the guarantee that no school will be marginalized?

The Shias believe in temporary marriage, for instance. The Sunnis see it as prostitution or adultery, punishable under Islamic law with stoning. So, how do we reconcile these two views? In cases like this, each side must be allowed to go with its own view. If all the schools are reconcilable on an issue, the law passed applies to all the member states. But, where a particular school irreconciliably disagrees with others or a group against another, each school is allowed to go on with its own view and apply in a country or countries where it is official. Therefore, there can be no marginalization. It would not be right ot force it upon a Sunni Muslim that temporary marriage is halal or a Shia Muslim that it is haram. Therefore, let each side apply its own views on such issues as it cannot reconcile with others. By that, Islam would be saved a lot of trouble.

‘You talk of a sovereign Islamic Parliament. What happens to the various national legislatures?’ Someone might ask. The simple answer is – the member-states retain their national legislatures and whose laws are supreme within their terrirotiries. In fact, it is by virtue of their approval, through the passage of repealbe enabling law that the Islamic Parliament becomes relevant to the various member-states. The level of sovereignty enjoyed by the Islamic Parliament depends wholly on the type of law it can make.

If the Islamic Union constitution allows the Islamic Parliament to make laws that directly affect the citizens of the various member-states, then the situation becomes a little complicated. There will certainly be a conflict of laws, and envy on the part of the national legislatures could lead to the breakup of the Islamic Union. To avert tragedy in a case like this, members of the various national legislatures, especially theirspeakers, as well as government representatives in cases of countries without a parliament, could be constituted into a veto Review Council of the Islamic Parliament. To make the situation more soothing, each of these will have the veto power over any law passed by the Parliament. If he or she exercises this power within a stated period of time, the law becomes void and will have to be reviewed and re-passed by the Parliament. Initially, all the members of the Review Council will give their country’s views about the laws being considered on the floors of the Parliament. Therefore, the law would be highly representative whenever it is passed. Nobody would risk getting his law overturned because of unnecessary rigidity, if it should be called that.

An obvious advantage of this process is that both the peoples and governments of the Islamic Union will be unanimously and wholeheartedly making their laws, and such laws would be readily acceptable to all. It will also create a huge sense of inquiry and debate in the citizens of the Union. But, it is excessively open to difficulties and may repeatedly result in stagnation in the House.

A safer system would be the Islamic Parliament playing only the role of a general and universal guardian to all the member-states’ legislatures. It can, for instance, direct that all the member-states of the Islamic Union reform their national culture to meet Islamic standards, or simply to Islamize their legal system. This will give the various member-states great autonomy. In a situation where the Islamic Union directs that all member states must Islamize fully their legal systems, they will be only required to make Sharia the basic legal system of their states and to subject absolutely all their laws to Islamic criteria. This may, in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and so on, necessitate a total overhaul or critical review of all existing laws and a vast preparation for further Islamized laws. It will be a very tasking job. But, seriously rewarding.

The advantage of this system is that it simply commands reforms, political, economic, cultural, educational, civil, judicial, penal, financial, administrative, military. The execution of such commands and their manners, structures and formats are to be decided by the national legislatures. This wil lallow them to take into consideration the dominant or official Islamic school of fiqh in their countries in the drafting and passing of such reform laws. The Sunnis, the Shias – all will maintain their Islamic traditions in the reforms. Thus Sufism may be a crime in Saudi Arabia but officially encouraged in Turkey, Syria and North Africa. Yet, all will be Islamic.

Either of the two systems is recommendable. The basic aim is the all-comprehensive and coordinated (or synchronized) Islamization of the whole of the Islamic world. Doing this will require a lot of wisdom. The Islamic principles of rationalism and gradualism will be adopted and more thought will be given to the practicability of all reform proposals than anything else. It is going to be extremely difficult to get anything to violence. The Muslim rulers are there to suspect foul-play with the whole process and thus reject and vigorously oppose it. However, even if it takes centuries to materialize, these dreams about the Islamic Union, with the help of God and with the relentless efforts of the Islamic activists, will someday be reality. The universal transition to fully-fledged state Islam will finally come (true or) through.

The national character of the Islamic Union will define the shape of all its policies – internal and external. It is a super-state for Muslims. Therefore, the supreme focus will always be on the fully spiritual and material advancement of Muslim individuals, families, groups, towns and citizens, provinces and states. All that is needed for it success is the loyalty and honesty of today’s Muslim rulers and leaders to Mohammed and Islam. True Muslim union will benefit all of mankind. But there are extremely high chances that these same Muslim rulers will oppose it with all their power. However, the truth will always prevail, although in this case it may take centuries. Our mercenary rulers, loyal only to their Western slave-makers, will never allow Islam. Our rulers need to remember that only this world is for them and their (masters) interests. They will one day stand powerless, helpless in front of the real Owner of their thrones and dominions, to give account of how they betrayed Mohammed after his departure.

Saudi Arabia is home to all Muslims. This is why the author feels so much love for this innocent country. Any injustice and betrayal that thus happen on or in the name of this holy soil pain greatly the heart of the author, just like for all sincere Muslims. The biggest opposition to the very idea of the Islamc union is however expected from the House of Saud. You would be surprised. Sheikh Abdel-Aziz ben Abdullah ben Bas, the late great cleric of Saudi Arabia, in a treatise, wrote: ‘There are a number of ideologies and philosophies in our present time which contradict this true belief in every details. The followers of these ideologies and philosophies which were invented by Marx, Lenin and others who call to atheism and disbelief, give their beliefs different names, such as socialism, communism, and Ba’thism. These people are in essence disbelievers’12. These words, coming officially from the official leader of all clerics in the kingdom, are certainly supposed to be the official policy of the House of Saud. The fact that they claim to be the custodians of both the Kaabah and Masjid Nabi, the two holiest mosques in Islam, make them exceedingly indebted to the growth of Islam. Lastly, they are the chief propagators of a puritanical, and in most cases intolerant and extreme, version of Islam. What we should expect from them at all time, with relation to Islam and strict adherence to its precepts, are extremely high.

A good look at the statement of the late Sheikh would reveal that Baathism, along with such ideologies as socialism and communism (not including capitalism, the chief culprit) are Kufr or disbelief in Islam and that anyone who practices them is essentially a disbeliever. That is the Sheikh’s interpretation of Islam; Saudi Arabia’s official policy. Beautiful. So, people like Saddam Hussein were disbelievers before the fall of Baghdad to Allied occupation troops in 2003. He and his colleagues and comrades were all Baathist.Syria remains a Baathist state, and Arab countries like Egypt are still under intense Baathist influences. At least, ifi Riyadh could fight them, it should nto encourage or support them. But, during Baathist aggression against Iran throughout the 1980s, Saudi Arabia vigorously pumped financial and military aids into the Baathists’ frontline was that not a promotion of Baathism, and disbelief by the foremost Islamic regime? Was that not a shameless promotion of aggression despite the Koran’s condemnation of it in the most serious terms? A violation of the Koran and Islam precepts by an Islamic government?

The Koran specially says what a Muslim government must do in a situation like the Iraq-Iran war: ‘And if two parties of believers fight, make peace between them, then if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the transgressing one, until it reverts to the command of God. And if reverts, make peace between them fairly and be just. Surely, God loves those who are just’13. Rather than support the Baathists, as we can all see, an Islamic government will try to negotiate peace between both parties. In the first place, the Saudis did not believe the Baathists were Muslims, this made it a war, at least going by their beliefs, between Muslims and ‘infidels’, therefore, they should throw everything they had behind Tehran. Secondly, the Baathists were the aggressors and were not ready to stop their aggression, even using chemical weapons to keep it high (for about an entire decade!), therefore, the Saudis were in fact under obligation to physically engage the Baathists in full-scale military confrontations, in order to defend Islam and justice. So, whose interest could the Saudis be said to be serving in their collaboration with the Baathists in the latter’s war against Islamic Iran? Islam?

The truth is this. By their 1979 Islamic revolution, the Muslim people of Iran, as Dr Velayat Iran’s foreign affairs Minister at the 38th session of the UN General Assembly (on September 30, 1983), put it, ‘had committed an unpardonable ‘sin’. They had won back their freedom and independence, they refused the domination of the superpowers and they had decided to work for justice and truth throughout the world’14. And the West must punish this unimaginably huge crime by overthrowing the Islamic Republic system, which expelled them from Tehran in the first place. Many things were at stake. The freedom of Iran meant a lot of great loss to the Westerners, and a big failure for their (Western) agenda in a key strategic Muslim state. The revolution put death to trillions of dollars in Western potential loots in the extremely rich land of Persia and an old process that had already succeeded in creating millions of slaves for the West. All this must be regained. Such an enormous loss? Western avarice cannot tolerate that. The mercenary regime in Baghdad was raised up in a full-scale assault on the revolution. A big comeback by the West. The revolution continued.

In a staggering blitz-krieg, involving twelve well-equipped divisions, three thousand tanks and scores of bombers and helicopter gunships, the Baathists invaded and occupied parts of Iran just a year after the revolution. An open aggression and absolute violation of international law and human rights. But, instead of the UN Security Council issuing a resolution condemning the mad aggression and calling for the withdrawal of all Iraqi troops from Iran, its members, including of course the United States and France, merely, in the third executive paragraph of Resolution 479, called ‘upon all other states to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to a further escalation and widening of the conflict’. The UN did not see that Iran was under occupation and that its citizens were under relentless bombing. What it wanted was a non-inference of any nation in the conflict. Maybe the Iranians would collapse unaided.

You know the funniest thing – both the United States and France which participated in the passage of Resolution 479 in spite of it, did supply the Baathist aggressors with huge military and financial assistance. Probably, they thought doing that might not lead to any further escalation or widening of the conflict! A war that was supposed to die as soon as it started raged on ceaselessly for ten solid years because of relentless Iranian resistance. Supplies from the West wouldnever cease. The Iranians would never give up. Bloodshed continued sponsored.

If anyone can willingly violate a law to which he agreed before it is passed, such a person is everything but very treacherous and dangerous. In the first two years of the conflict, Iraq had the upper hand and effectively occupied Western Iran, threatening further attacks eastward. But, in 1983, the Baathists met serious and repeated defeats in the hands of the Iranian combatants. Until then, as supported by a UN Mission report, the Baathists had destroyed most of the towns and citis under their occupation on a ninety per cent scale, and in some cases, completely. In spite of all the massacres and destructions, the UN was silent. However, when the tides turned against Baghdad three years into the bloody war, the UN quickly demanded that both ‘belligerent’ parties evacuate all occupied territories! Iran had successfully expelled the aggressors from its soil and was pushing aggressively deep into Iraq for Baghdad. The UN could not come to the rescue of the defenseless Iranian populations for two whole years but was quick to save the belligerent regime in Baghdad. Iraq’s invasion was nothing but a normal disaster. But Iran’s counter-attack became, in the words of the UN, serious threat to world peace and security.

There was a massive Western conspiracy against the Islamic revolution in Iran. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states being puppies of the West, were therefore understandably in the frontline against Iran. Besides, the revolution was in itself serious danger to their very survival. A huge wave of Islamic revival swept through the Muslim world shortly after the revolution, leading to increased popular demands for democracy and liberty against the various mercenary regimes. Iran’s constitutional promise to support all freedom struggles in the world, in all manners, sent the ghastly regimes pissing in their pants. They were now sure that the longer the revolution survives, the more likely that they will soon be overthrown. Therefore, in a show of unflinching loyalty to the West, and as a way to murder the growing freedom movement in the Middle East, most of the Arab regimes as joined the offensive against Iran. In the end, however, the miracle of Badr happened again. The entirety of the Westernists and their cronies and puppies were completely defeated.

What all this points to is that there is a lot of treachery and hypocrisy in the world today and Muslim governments are not supposed to join them. For the various Muslims who are persistently deceived by the world conspiracy, it is time to open your eyes. The various Muslim regimes are also advised to remember that loyalty to America or money will never lead them to good. It is time to grant freedom and democracy to the Muslim peoples, and to let Islam breathe.

Sincerity and commitment to democracy, liberty and the triumph of Islam are desperately needed on the part of all Muslim leaders. All must be ready to accept Arabic, the language of the Koran, as a secondary language in their countries. All must be ready to incorporate the learning of Arabic and Islam in their national curricula – for all their elementary and secondary school classes – as core subjects. All must be ready to adopt the Hijra calendar as the official calendar of the state. All must be ready to grant full democracy and liberty, subject to Islamic criteria, to their peoples. All must be ready to criminalize all forms of torture for whatsoever reason, as provided for in article 38 of the Iranian constitution. All must be ready to adopt in full practice all the articles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that are not contrary to Islamic precepts. All must be absolutely ready to fully democratize, liberalize and Islamize their policies, economy, culture, law, judiciary and defense and security. In particular, all must be absolutely ready to adopt the Shariah in its entirety as the basic law of the state, to establish a sovereign parliament and an independent judiciary where none exists and to fully Islamize them and make all their activities immutably and eternally subject to Islamic criteria, where they exist or have been created. All must be ready to completely indigenize everything about their states, industries, agriculture, commerce, services and mineral extraction except where this is absolutely impossible. All must be ready to fully Islamize the entirety of their foreign policies. All must be ready to Islamize their entire television, radio, print (including the press) and internet industries, as well as its theatre and cinema. Most importantly, all must be ready to adopt absolutely the entirety of the Islamist ideology.

With all these established well before or during the formation of the Islamic Union, the stage will be set for the sweeping Islamic revolution.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

One important area whcihhas escaped mention all through is the judiciary of the Islamic Union. It has been deliberately delayed till this section because it stands for justice and liberty. These two will end this book here and now. They form the heart of the entire message and must be re-emphasized here to stamp them on the reader’s mind.

The judicial arm of the Islamic Union is the International Islamic Court of Justice. It can be constituted by a group of the highest judiciary authorities (one each) from the member-states. Its jurisdiction shall cover all disputes between the member-states or between member-states and non-member-states if the latter submit to its power. It shall also declare anylaw made by the Islamic Union or policy pursued by the Islamic cabinet null and void if it contravenes the precepts of the Shariah or is against the interests of Islam and Muslims. It shall judge on the general consensus of all its members, Sunni and Shia, on each individual case and the Koran and the Sunnah shall be its supreme guides.

It shall also declare all forms, teachings and manifestations of intolerance and extremism in the name of Islam, and the consideration of any of either the Sunni (including the Wahabis and the Sufists) and Shia movements of any element, group, teaching, etc of the other as inferior, wrong or un-Islamic or of calling their adherents heretics or unbelievers as detrimental to the interests of Islam and criminal of the culpable person, group or government. This might warrant serious sanctions from the Islamic Security Council.

Yeah, the Islamic Security Council! It is a coalition of all the military and other security forces within the Islamic Union under the collective command of all the supreme commanders of the armed forces of all the member-states. They vote on all issues brought before the, and once they decide to sanction the affected culprit, all measures, including a joint military action by all the armed forces (and where necessary, gendarmerie and police forces) are open for them to adopt. Their sanction could be political, economic or military, depending on the circumstances of each individual case.

They also mobilize forces from all over the Islamic Union for the defense of any member state whenever it is under attack from any enemy. In line with a verse of the Korna which calls for maximum preparation by Muslims for defense against any enemy, the Islamic Security Council shall, among other things, do everything possible to develop, and encourage the maximum development of the defense and aerospace industries of all member-states and the maximum development of their defense and security, such that they can effectively individually and collectively, destroy any enemy from whatever part of the world and with whatsoever it may be armed.

While all forms of belligerency and radicalism are prohibited, the Islamic Security Council shall undertake the full military liberation, if unavoidable, of all Muslim peoples under occupation, today or in the future. This may prove extremely challenging. However, all that is needed is that Muslim forces be armed with the weapons of their enemies. Islam will always triumph.

If all these were achieved, Islam would be free, safe and secure at home. It would then be time to export the revolution. No big deal. The Islamic Union simply establishes Islamic missions in all non-member states and these shall energetically take Islam to the doorsteps of all non-Muslims. Books, documentaries and other publications that irrefutably shows the truth and superiority of Islam to all civilizations and faiths will be distributed free of charge across the world. The internet, the satellite media and similar facilities will be optimally utilized for the triumph of Islam. All misconceptions, misunderstanding and misinterpretations about Islam will be completely cleared. The original teachings of Islam will be propagated, even among Muslims, sectarianism will be progressively destroyed. Love between Islam and the followers of all other religions will be created and progressively strengthened. Ultimately, what happened to Islam after the treaty of Hudaibiyah will insha Allah repeat itself in an unprecedented scale.

It was Sunday 16, January 2005. On a BBC program (while) examining Christian response to a television opera believed by most Christians to be blasphemous of Christ, an obviously Christian fanatic, answering the question why Christians had not reacted the way Dutch Muslims did a few weeks earlier to a similarly blasphemous opera about Islam (an unknown sniper shot its producer dead), said it was because Christianity does not teach violence. She did not say it though, it can no doubt be inferred from her statement that Islam teaches violence; and that was why the Dutch Muslim sniper resorted to violence to express his people’s protest. Well, she made a very good point: Christians did not resort to violence over a blasphemy about their god because their scripture does not teach them anything of sort. More over, any religion in which people readily resorts to violence to defend their faith definitely teaches it. These are facts deductible from the Christian fanatic’s answer.

If we however, examine history, we will see the hands of Christianity dripping with blood (it is time, the activities of evangelical colonizers are not considered) in the name of religion. Crusades have been mounted against Muslims since about a thousand years ago. Crusades were equally mounted against the various Christian ‘heretics’ by the church throughout the Christian history of Europe. The holocaust was designed to exterminate the Jews, just like the Spanish inquisition was organized to cleanse Spain of Muslims and Jews. Never forget also that Christian Rome relentlessly issued decrees ordering all within its boundaries to accept the state religion in its entirety or face death or expulsion. All these are historical facts; all establishing one irrefutably fact – Christians, in the name of their religion, are very, very murderous. Thus, Christianity must have lots of violent doctrines – at least, borrowing the logic of the BBC interviewee. If one considers this in line with the words of Jesus himself, as recorded in the Bible by both Matthew and Luke15 that he did not come to the world to set peace, but to ‘set fire on the earth and plant divisions in all aspects of human life, everything seems perfectly got right.

The problem with the Christian fanatic is that, just like most Christians today, she is a bigot that also nurses big prejudice against Islam. Bigotry and prejudice anywhere you find them are symptoms of chronic mental disorder. The bigot and the prejudiced never use their powers of reason and intellect in verifying the truth of what they believe and what others believe. Their belief is – they are absolutely right whatsoever their belief, and their belief is the best any human can have. Apparently, it is a very serious sickness. If all of humanity can completely rid themselves of bigotry and prejudice, and fully employ their reason and intellect to examine the correctness or otherwise of their various beliefs and to accept the result of their investigations, there will certainly be no sectarianism, fanaticism or extremism in all religions. There would be peace throughout the world.

At a seminar organized by world shiism to discuss the relationship of hajj to Muslim unity (in July, 1983) at Freetown, Sierra Leone, a Gambian participant made a very important point: ‘Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself declared in the last hajj he performed that Muslims are brothers to each other and emphasized on the unity among all Muslims. This sacred call for unity even affected the enemies. But unfortunately today, the Muslim world is divided by prejudice and minor differences. We must all cling to the Holy Quran and its redeeming and liberating teachings’16. He said Muslims are divided among themselves because of prejudice and minor differences. He is right.

All we need to do now is to try to destroy the prejudice within us against others and seek a way of reconciling or at least seriously weakening our minor differences. A good way to do this if for all Muslims to collectively launch an intellectual revolution against their political and religious authorities. Mauhmud Gunnar Erikson is a Muslim convert. According to him, ‘what especially appealed to him ‘in Islam was, and is, its rationalism. You are not asked to believe anything without reason; The Holy Qur’an gives us proofs of the existence of God that leave nothing further to be wished for’17. It is the only way to the truth. Whenever you are told anything, either by your rulers or clerics, that does not go with reason in yoru view, please challenge it and seek an alternative. Dogmatism, the chief source of tyranny and sectarianism among Muslims, is completely alien to Islam and must be destroyed.

In fact, any belief or act of worship, in Islam, that is not made or done in line with reason may not be accepted by the God for whom the Muslim is making or doing it. Mohammed said: ‘God has not created anything better than reason, the benefits which God give are on its account, and understanding is begotten of it’. On another occasion, he added: ‘verily, I tell you, a man may have performed prayers, fasts, charity, pilgrimage and all other good works, but he will not be rewarded but by the manner in which he has used and applied his reason’.

There are some among the Sunnis, the followers of Abu’l-Hassan Ash’ari, for instance, who believe that whatever God does is justice. Of course, they are right. But they also believe that if God decides to punish all good-doers on judgment day with eternal hell and the evil-doers with eternal paradise, it is still justice. Whatsoever the nature of God’s actions, they cannot be unjust even if they would be if done by a human. His followers believe this, and the extremists among them will call anyone who fail to do so an infidel, legitimate for their sword.

Of course, God promises in several areas in the Koran never to pay good with evil and vice versa, these people still believe that even if He does, there can be no blame for Him. Mohammed, in his last days, told a group of Medinites that came to him for guidance: ‘God has given to every man as a personal monitor, a conscience and as a guide, his reason; then use them in respect of all things and God’s blessing will ever guide you aright’. You know the problem with the Ash’aris? They do not use their conscience and reason the way Mohammed wanted. He said: ‘use them IN RESPECT OF ALL THINGS’. If you see Mauhmud Gunnar Erikson accepting Islam because the xistence and nature of God are better proved, to the satisfaction of his conscience and reason in the faith than in any other (and that is God) why then shouldn’t any other Muslim require strictly a similar treatment for absolutely anything he must believe?

Is it right, for instance, to consider the Ash’aris heretics simply because of their erroneous belief about the definition of divine justice? Absolutely, not. They have not denounced God and Mohammed. They still pray, fast, pay Zakat, go on hajj and do all other things required of a Muslim. The Korna commands all Muslims to preach the word of God with wisdom. Since there is no wisdom in arbitrarily naming other Muslims heretics, all Muslims should rise up against anyone who does that, whatsoever his status. A lay shai should ask his conscience and reason if it is right for him to curse people who laid down their lives at the most critical moment to prevent Islam from being destroyed on several occasions simply because immediately after the death of Mohammed, they rushed to a scene of terrible debate between the two main Muslim sides on the superiority of each’s right to succeed him, and quickly set things right? Ask your self, what would have happened if Abu Bakr and Omar were to stay with Ali on the Mohammed’s body and had left the disputing parties to continue? A civil war would have broken out immediately and most would have gone back their old ways because of lack of leadership. These people saved the future of Islam. Both disputing parties saw them as neutrals and elected Abu Bakr, who had already been appointed Imam by Mohammed (when he himself could no longer lead prayers due to failing health), as the most qualified candidate (at least Mohammed would never have appointed a lesser qualified person to take over his own place, the most sensitive in Islam, in the mosque, if there was anyone with better qualifications) for the caliphacy. Mohammed saw Ali and knew that he was his relative before he appointed Abu Bakr as Imam. Since Mohammed was head of mosque as well as head of state, it was natural to believe that he could not have given Abu Bakr the former without authority to become the latter after his departure. The Shia should thus subject this, and all other doctrines preached by his sayyids, to conscience and reason. Do not just accept anything without good research and reason any longer.

For those Muslims who believe the words of Muslim clerics who preach hatred against other Muslim movements and war on non-Muslims, ask yourselves – is that the way preached by the Koran as the way to correct or Islamize others. Where is the wisdom in their preachings? As have been established by all researches carried in that field, Islam is the only religion in the world which can unchallengeably claim that absolutely all its beliefs, doctrines and teachings of Islam is compatible with conscience, reason or if I may add knowledge, please publish it and therewith prove the falsity of Islam. The undeniable fact is, however – you can never. If therefore you ever see a Muslim behaving in a way that is repugnant to human conscience, reason or knowledge, in the latter’s name. And if you ever see any Muslim trying to defend or propagate his religion in a way that is contrary to wisdom, tell him he himself has deviated from it.

Therefore, the best way to fight ‘heresy’, if I may borrow the fanatic’s language, is not by the rejection or destruction of the ‘heretic’ (that would be unwise) but by showing great love for him and by engaging him in constructive debates over his beliefs, with his freedom of choice – over your arguments perfectly intact.

The Saudi Wahabists who also believe that Shias are heretics must remember that they are allowed ev en by their own government to participate in hajj and to visit Mecca and Medina which are statutorily exclusively reserved for Muslims (although the sincerity of the statute is deeply undermined by the fact that in the early 1980s, when Baathist aggression against Iran was strongest, the custodians of the two Holy Sanctuaries permitted Tariq Aziz, a top-level Baathist, who is also a Christian, to visit the two holy cities) every year. Officially, this means, Shiism is nto believed to be heresy by the Saudi officials, although they preach the exact opposite. This same regime calls the westerners infidels (who in extremist wahabist interpretation have no right of existence) and oppressors of Muslims. Yet, they are close allies and business partners to them. We all need to think, and think deep

What happens in Saudi Arabia is equally a culture in almost all Muslim states. Hypocrisy. It just cannot be called anything else. It also spells the very heart of western activities in Islamic land. These people nurse great prejudices against Islam and Muslims. Bertrand Russell says: ‘To us (westerners) it seems that West – European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view’18. They regard their race, religion and civilization as superior to all others, and are thus damned ready to impose them, with the force of tanks and bombers, on others in the name of civilizing them. But, they will always hide behind the noble banners of humanitarianism to perpetrate their evils. They also loot their economic resources under the guise of ‘helping them to develop their economies’. They also strictly Islamophobic, and yet don the garment of tolerance on world television screens.

Stereotypes need to be completely dropped. Love need to replace them. The West must absolutely accept the uneasy fact that Muslims already a civilization that is, at least, as great as Western civilization. It must also recognize the Muslims’ absolute right to determine their life and state in line with their own civilization, and with absolutely no interference from any power, region or organization. With all these fully established, the West should now ask what made great Napoleon Bonaparte say these words: ‘Moses has revealed the existence of God to his nation, Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammad to the old continent… Arabia was idolatrous when, six centuries after Jesus, Muhammad introduced the worship of the God of Abraham, of Ishmael, of Moses and of Jesus. The Ayrians and some other sects had disturbed the tranquility of the East by agitating the question of the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Muhammad declared that there was none but One God who had no father, no son, and that the Trinity imported the idea of idolatry… I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Qur’an which alone are true and whcih alone can lead men to happiness’19.

George Bernard Shaw also backed him, and definitely not without a good reason: ‘I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today’20.

THE ISLAMIC DREAM: CAPTURING EVERY INCH

2005-10-21T13:11:00.000-07:00

THE ISLAMIC DREAM: CAPTURING EVERY INCH

OF THE EARTH FOR GOD

In the end, the whole of humanity shall be Muslim

Background
© Toyib Olawuyi, January, 2005

Toyib Olawuyi is a human rights, Middle East and anti-nuclear activist, political and religious analyst and commentator on war, peace and international affairs, especially the growing cold war between Islam and the West.

‘Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued’1.

‘It is the… policy which was executed by the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) and his successor illustrious caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them). Arabia, where the Muslim state was founded, and was the first country which was subjugated and brought under the rule of Islam. Later, the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) sent invitations to other surrounding states to accept the faith and ideology of Islam. When the ruling classes of those countries declined to accept this invitation to adopt the true faith, the prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) resolved to take military action against them. The war of Tabuk was the first in the series of military actions’2.

‘Owing to misinterpretation by ill-informed persons, the inclusion of the question of Jihad in Islamic teachings has given rise to much hostile propaganda, so that the enemies began saying that Islam is a religion of the sword and force… McDonald, in his encyclopaedia, asserts that the propagation of Islam through sword and force is one of the religious duties of every Muslim. As the nature and aim of Jihad become clear, not only the hollowness of such criticism becomes obvious, but also the depth, purity and dynamism of the teachings of Islam and their capacity to serve the human society in varying circumstances becomes evident’3.

Is Islam truly a religion of the sword? Is the Islamic state truly a threat to the security and well being of neighboring non-Islamic states? Why are the Muslims seemingly at war with the Christians of Europe and America, the Hindus of India and the Buddhists of China and Thailand? Is it in order to eventually subjugate them for Islam? If not, what then are the doctrines of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam all about in the Muslim faith?

What are the real basis and purpose of Jihad in Islam?

Introduction
On September 11, 2001, a group of suicide terrorists set the whole of America ablaze. Thousands of innocent men, women and children, of various nationalities and faiths (including of course Muslims) were sent to their untimely graves for no crimes at all! Hopes were crushed. Dreams were murdered. For days, tears flooded the streets of the free world. Terrible earthquakes, breaking the Richter scale, horrible thunderstorms and heart-murdering gloom continuously shelled the entire planet for months, and it seemed the end had come. Uncertainly clouded over the future. A climate of fear descended everywhere. The attacks were no doubt horrible crimes that cannot be justified whatsoever the circumstances and against which all of humanity must rise and condemn in the worst of terms.

But, despite the extremely heartless nature of the attacks, all the streets between Rabat and Jakarta went agog with smiles in celebration of a great victory. An enemy of Islam had just been hit. Blood was still gushing in the West. Meanwhile, a storm of congrats cards and joyful embraces were sweeping over the East. And, the wise continued to look on. Definitely, on that day, human conscience chillingly put it – the third world war began that day! Thousands of days would die. Millions of Muslim lives would go. A wounded lion had been created and the entire forest would not sleep. ‘America is a peace-loving nation and will never attack first. But, where it is attacked without provocation, the assailants, their supporters and their sympathizers will never regret enough their crime’. As we can all see, everything is clearly turning out to be true.

What is more perplexing, perhaps, is that the attacks and their supporters and sympathizers were very happy and proud at the crimes they committed and even claimed that God would reward them abundantly for the attacks! God rewarding the massacring of innocent souls? What God? What kind of religion would produce people like the 9/11 hijackers?

Because, going by rough estimates, more than 80% of all terrorists in the world today are Muslims and they always claim that they will be generously reward by God for their acts of terrorism, most in the western hemisphere and in fact beyond now naturally think that Islam and terrorism share many values. There are even some hardliners who unrepentantly, and with their own reasons, declare that Islam is terrorism per excellence!

The question is – are they being fair enough to the religion?

Terrorism, to many scholars around the world, is an act of evil and cowardice, carried out with maximum levels of savagery and heartlessness against innocent targets. It normally involves direct attacks on civilian population by a small group of insurgents fighting either against an enemy government or its system. Terrorists always claim to be fighting for the liberation of the civilians from the tyranny or occupation of the ruling authorities. This is why some people mistake them for freedom fighters. Ironically, however, they often avoid direct combat with the enemy government. Rather, they attack the civilian populations (for whom they normally claim to be fighting) in order to put pressure on the enemy government. By creating a climate of fear, the enemy government is made to look incompetent to provide security for the people and completely helpless, and thus the best way out of the crisis, at least to save the lives of the people, is to capitulate to the terrorists’ demands.

Terror tactics include kidnapping, political and economic sabotage, and most especially the detonation of highly devastating explosives in population areas, either in the territories controlled by the enemy governments or their supporters, or in third-party states which have no connection with the crisis. The main objective is to draw world attention to the conflict and shape people’s views of the whole saga. Successful terrorists attacks often create a feeling of frustration in both the enemy government and among its citizens, and also put the entire nation in perpetual fear (credible or not) which, going by everyone’s belief, can only be removed by their submission. Where the enemy government refuses to be intimidated and resolutely defies the terrorists, the terrorists continuously step up the number and gravity of their attacks, for as long as – ever, to mount serious pressure on it. Sometimes, the situation is so tragic that governments collapse while the nation’s death rows still continue to explode exponentially every second.

Sometimes, however, the targets of terrorist attacks are people in the enemy government, especially the head of government, his family, relatives, friends or associates. This is an extreme case, and always puts the whole state on the brink. While such attacks cannot be said to be directly against innocent souls, they, like all others attacks on specific targets (all inherently terrorist), often involve the murder of several innocent souls to facilitate the capture or killing of the main targets. This kind of attacks is chiefly aimed at intimidating the enemy government, especially since the life of its leader or someone related to or associated with him is at stake. But, terrorists using this tactic normally have low chances of success.

An extremely chilling tactic, but equally improbable, is the seizure, purchase or manufacture of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons followed by a highly credible threat to use them against designated population centres if the enemy government does not surrender to certain demands. It is expedient not to dig further into it, but to shift the spotlight on the phenomenon of state terrorism. The use of state (military or police) power to intimate, bully or oppress other states or any legitimate (resistance) group, or to persecute harmless civilians is gross terrorism. Equally, the massive bombardment and destruction of a population area, in the name of pursuing insurgents or terrorists, but basically to shock and awe the residents and make them see the futility of resistance, whether or not there are deaths as a result, is terrorism at one of its highest orders. As global analysts have repeatedly put it, the occupation of any country without provocation and without UN authority, is the highest level of state terrorism.

Therefore, when the word terrorism is mentioned, we should always consider if the speaker really intends its real meaning. He could himself be the terrorist. For instance, an occupation government (the terrorist) will normally call members of the resistance (legitimate struggle) terrorists in order to win for itself the legitimacy that is non-existent. Similarly, an illegitimate government, especially a tight-sitting dictatorship, will certainly call even non-violent, peace-loving democrats terrorists! But where the true meaning of terrorism is intended, then we are talking about a very gruesome crime which must never be tolerated whatsoever the circumstances.

Then, it remains a big surprise why Muslims across the world were happy immediately the WTC and Pentagon attacks were launched. Definitely, their attitudes to such groups as Al Qaeda clearly show that most of them are in support of terrorism against the West and against Israel. But, should this be? Do they need to support the massacre of innocent civilians for any reason whatsoever? Do most of them believe that God will always reward them for committing the most grievous crime against humanity? Does Islam preach terrorism?

Obvioiusly, there is no where in the entirety of the Islamic religion where Muslims are advised, encouraged or ordered to use any of the above-mentioned terror tactics in their struggles against their enemies. Neither are they allowed to use any similar or related method. Mohammed, in one of his addresses to his armies before they proceeded to the battlefield, gave the following orders:

‘March in the name of God and seek His help. Fight for His sake and in accordance with His commands. Don’t practise deceit or fraud. Don’t embezzle the spoils of war. Don’t mutilate the body of an enemy after he is killed. Don’t harm the women, the children and the aged. Don’t interfere with the monks and hermits who live in monasteries and caves. Don’t unnecessarily cut down trees. Don’t burn the palm plantations of the enemy and don’t submerge them in water. Don’t destroy fruit-bearing trees and don’t set fire to the enemy’s crops. Don’t kill the useful animals except for your food. Don’t poison the enemy’s water. Don’t resort to trickery and don’t launch a surprise night assault’4.

You ask – who is this man? Can a person who said all this ever encourage or perpetrate any act of terrorism or any other crimes, however insignificant, especially with relation to his enemies? According to the book Rationality of Islam, ‘Islam forbids every resort to inhuman means of fighting such as night assault, biological warfare, burning of cattle, crops and gardens and killing and injuring unarmed personnel. In the rules prescribed for the Islamic battles, it is prohibited to shoot the first arrow and to launch the first attack. This means that the Muslim should not attack unless they are attacked. Their war should be defensive and not means that the Muslims should not attack unless they are attacked. Their war should be defensive and not offensive’5.

If this quotation is read along with the verse of Jihad itself in the Koran, definitely, the clean-minded reader would have a different view of the whole subject. ‘And fight in God’s cause those who fight you, and do not transgress, surely God does not love the transgressors’6. Transgression in this verse means attacking without provocation and attacking the enemy without regard to the rules of combat. Whosoever does either is clearly fighting the Koran itself and God does not love such people.

So, Islam is truly ‘the religion of peace’. It is not inherently aggressive and cruel as most westerners do think. Besides, provocation is not an excuse why Muslims must fight against the enemy until it is destroyed. In the words of the Koran, if the enemy desist from further fighting or persecution, then there should be no (more) hostility except to the evildoers’7. The condition of peace here is not that the enemy must accept Islam. ‘There is no compulsion in religion’8, says the Koran, ‘truth has become clear from error, therefore whoever disbelieves in satan and believes in God has taken a firm support that never gives way. And God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing’9. There is freedom of religion in Islam. Both the truth and falsehood are clear. Therefore, it is the sole decision of the human to choose whichever he wishes, without interference from anyone. The Koran told Mohammed, when he was alive to tell the unbelievers (or non-Muslims), ‘For you your belief, but I have my religion’10. So, in Islam, there cannot be any conflict about faith. There cannot be any question of forcing Islam on others. Mohammed, or any other Muslim, could only preach, but could not and must not force11’..

Therefore, if you ever see Muslims in armed action against non-Muslims, it is not about and completely has nothing with their religious differences. Rather, it is a clear proof that Islam has been physically attacked and Muslims are defending their faith, people and nation. Their mode of defense or resistance will definitely never go against any of the rules of war or combat and the principles of humanity. This indisputably rules out any option of terrorism in Islamic defense. Thus, wherever you see Muslims engaged in any act of terrorism, either in the name of Islam (which ironically forbids him from doing it) or for any other purpose, he is in fact acting against Islam at that very moment and should be resisted and destroyed. In Islam, a Muslim cannot pursue Islamic purposes through un-Islamic means. It is absolutely impossible. It is either both the purpose and means are Islamic i.e. defensive and humane or un-Islamic and savage. There cannot be any other options.

A friend was once asked how much he thought a living human being would be worth if offered for sale at an auction. ‘Human life?’ he was confused, ‘of course, you cant estimate its market worth. Look at this a dead human being is worth more than the aggregate price of the entire earth, and all the mineral and natural resources above, on and under its surface, sold at their market values. So, if that’s the case for a dead human being, what then would be that of a living human? Of course, you cant imagine its worth. It’s too great for the human brain, and that shows you the power of the human life’. Of course, not everyone will agree with him. But, what is important is that human life has at least some value which must be respected. In fact, a testimony to the high esteem in which human life is viewed by most of humanity is Article 3 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It succinctly says ‘Everyone has the right to life’. Thus, it is a basic right, and thereby human life cannot be illegally violated.

Many, especially in the Christian world are afraid of Islam because they feel Muslims have no respect for the most precious thing in existence – human life – and will try to kill you if you do not belong to their religion. It is probable that some will still not believe, in spite of the foregoing clarifications, that Islam is strictly against any inhuman treatment of human life, either in the name of war, religion or anything else. The Koran says: ‘whoever kills a soul, unless it be for retaliation (i.e.killing anyone who has unjustly killed another) or because of spreeading corruption on earth, it would be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves a life, it would be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’12. There has been no religion since humanity was founded that has so strictly discouraged the killing of human beings (not necessarily Muslims) and that has so strictly encouraged the saving of human lives. Ordinarily, everyone should feel safest being with a Muslim or living or trading in a Muslim state.

Mohammed himself made a lot of explanation about the subject. ‘After my death’, he once said, ‘do not become disbelievers, cutting off each other’s necks’13. The biggest of the great sins (in Islam)’, according to him, ‘are: to joint partners in worship with God, to murder a human being, to be undutifully to one’s parents and to make a false statement’14. As we can all see, killing of human beings (Muslim or not) is unjustly equal to shirk (polytheism) in Islam and automatically makes the killer a disbeliever! In fact, the Prophet of Islam himself said anyone who kills a non-Muslim under the protection of a Muslim government, such as the Christians, Jews and Zorostrians in Iran, ‘shall not smell the fragrance of paradise, even though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of travelling)’! So, the argument is sealed.

The allegations of intolerance, levied against Islam, as the probable cause of fundamentalism and extremism among Muslims today are also basically unfounded. There are many Western writers who assert that Islam classifies the world into dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, the former being the part already conquered by the faith, such as, in today’s example, the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and so on, and the latter the non-Islamic, and especially its aim of global domination, Muslims will, going by the teachings of their religion, be always at war until the people of dar al-harb accept Islam! As evidence, they will quote this verse from the Koran: ‘Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyahh with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued’15. So, their point – Muslims will never be friends to non-Muslims because they are always planning to subjugate and rule the latter. At least, if Islamic conquests are not done to convert the conquered populations, then they will certainly boost the economy of Islam because more Jizyah would be received. By inference, the reasons for Al Qaeda’s war with the West could be religious, political or economic. Beautiful!

To such scholars, the author says – please read this Koranic verse very closely. ‘All that is good and pure has today been permitted to you, and the food of the people of earlier scripture is permissible to you, and your food is permissible to them, and you are permitted to marry chaste believing women and chaste women from among the people who were given earlier scripture before you if you give them dowries in wedlock, not fornicating nor taking them for intimates in secret, and whoever rejects the faith his deeds are vain and in the Hereafter he shall be one of the losers’16. Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his book Muhammad The Prophet wrote: ‘How could a book which allows a man to have as his wife a woman following another religion say in the same breath that no friendly relations can be had with the followers of other religions? The loving relation of husband and wife is the friendliest of all relations and when this is expressly permitted, there is not the least reason to suppose that other friendly relations are forbidden’17. In short, Muslims, by virtue of their religious beliefs, do in fact have great love for Christians and Jews!

The Koran specifically lists out the people to whom Muslims must never befriends and against whom they must always fight. ‘God forbids you not with regard to those who have not fought you in the cause of Religion, nor expelled you from your homes, that you should be considerate and deal justly with them, surely God loves the just. Indeed, God forbids you only with regard to those who have fought you in the cause of religion, and expelled you from your homes, and have helped in expelling you, that you should take them for friends. And whoever takes them for friends, those, they are the evildoers’18. It should be clear by now that Muslims hate and fight only those who attack their religion or persecute Muslims, or expel Muslims from their ancestral lands or help in doing so. Ordinarily, no human being, no sane human being, will not fight their ancestral land for whatever reason. The Koran is especially particular about persecution. In one verse, it says, ‘persecuting people to stay them from God’s religion is graver than killing’19. For this reason, Islam will never persecute but will never allow its adherents to be persecuted.

The act of expelling people from their ancestral land is nothing but oppressions. Muslims will never do it. Moreover, they will never, if they can, allow themselves to be thus expelled. The Koran adds one other dimension to the whole subject in its chapter four. ‘Let those who sell this worldly life for the Hereafter, fight in the cause of God, and whoever fights in the cause of God then is killed or conquers, we shall reward him with a great reward; And how can you not fight in the cause of God and to save those men, women and children who have been oppressed and who pray, “Our Lord deliver us from this land whose people are oppressors, and make for us from You a protector, and make for us from You a helper”’20. The meaning of this passage is that God reward only those who resist aggression and persecution against Islam (i.e. fight in the cause of God), resist the expulsions of Muslims from their ancestral lands, and those who take up arms to liberate human beings, Muslim or not, under the occupation of an oppressive or exploitative system or regime. Obviously the passage does not include those who murder innocent souls in the name of God!

In the view of Islam, fighting to liberate human souls groaning under tyranny, oppression or exploitation is not aggression. It is in fact defensive, because the fighter would be defending the rights and liberties of others against invasion by a tyrannical, oppressive or exploitative regime or system. Most Islamic expeditions after the death of Mohammed fall into this category. That was why the liberated peoples often willingly accept Islam – the religion had brought them freedom. Before his departure, Mohammed did not fight a single war which was not defensive in the strict, modern sense of the word.

It’s now time for solemn reflections. Of all the categories of people Muslims can fight (remember, the classification is not based on religion, race or sex), to which ones do the Westerners, the Zionists, the Russians and the Indians, the governments of Uzbekistan, and many other Muslim states belong? Of course, the Zionists expel the Palestinians (who are Muslims, although this is immaterial in Islam) from their ancestral lands. The Westerners persecute Muslims across the world for rejecting Western culture in favour of Islam. This, absolutely, is an obvious fact. The Americans, the Britons, the Russians, the Indians and the Filippinos are in occupation of many Muslim lands, and are exploiting and oppressing the people there. The Americans inn particular are aiding the expulsion of Muslims from their ancestral lands in Palestine and in the Philippines. They also solidly back, protect and defend, politically, economically and militarily the ruthless dictators of the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and South Asia. Even if Muslims were not affected in these cases, Islam would still rise up to fight because it gives the greatest value to human life, its security and its liberty. But, Muslims are affected in all the cases and what do you want Islam to do?

But, in fighting to win for Muslims the freedom to practise their religion freely and fully, Islam does not want Muslims to use any dubious or cowardly methods. ‘And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion prescribed by God is fully established’21. But even in doing that, there is a warning. ‘When you encounter the unbelievers in battle, never turn away in desertion, and whoever turns away in desertion from them on such a day, unless it be for manouvering or removing to joint another host, he is laden with the burden of God’s wrath, and his abode is Hell, and an evil destination it is!’22 So, however hot the battlefield is, Muslim fighters must never flee the battle. In fact, there are many verses in the Koran which direct that Muslims must not lose will, courage and strength, whatsoever the situation, before during and after each battle23. Cowardice is a curse in Islam.

Guerilla warfare is permissible; but, absolutely not terrorism because of the inevitable threat it poses to innocent lives. It is desired, in Islam, to make point targets of all the leaders of the oppressive machinery, its entire force, its supporters, sympathizers and local agents, including Muslim apostates who work with them in a way that will help the purposes of the enemy. None of those is innocent, and are legitimate targets. Terrorism, if not for the fact that it also harms and kills others outside this group, would have been permissible’. However, since it is impossible to carry out acts of terrorism without taking innocent lives, and because it is purely a cowardly strategy, it has no place in the faith in Mohammed. If, for instance, the innocent deaths are unintentional and unforeseen, the story would have been different. But, a terrorist quite well knows that his action will negatively affect the life, security and liberty of innocent people, and may even specifically target them, before carrying it out.

Where the means is permissible in Islam, but the purpose is not, there is, in the view of Islam, oppression, which is an advanced level of terrorism. Also, where the purpose is Islamic (such as any of those established above) but the means is not permissible in Islamic warfare, definitely there is terrorism. But, a terrorist quite well knows that his action will negatively affect the life, security and liberty of innocent people, and may even specifically target them, before carrying it out.

Where the means is permissible in Islam, but the purpose is not, there is, in the view of Islam, oppression, which is an advanced level of terrorism. Also, where the purpose is Islamic (such as any of those established above) but the means is not permissible in Islamic warfare, definitely there is terrorism. But, once the purpose is established as Islamic, then this verse comes in. ‘And prepare for them with whatever force you can (combat aircraft, vehicles and ships, heavy, artillery, sophisticated missile systems and so on), not know, God knows them. And whatever you expend in the cause of God knows them. And whatever you expend in the cause of God you shall be repaid in full, and, you shall not be wronged in the least’24. Before a true Islamic army embarks on Jihad, it must have acquired for itself such devastating levels of firepower as to make the enemy fear its strength and power. That shows that Islam contemplates direct fire-for-fire combat between its forces and the enemy. Where a few hundreds, armed with AK-47 guns and a few obsolete surface-to-air missile launchers get themselves ready to confront an enemy force armed with Apache helicopters, tanks, artillery, bombers and thousands of fully protected troops, it is certain they are out on a suicide mission, and Islam does not like unnecessary deaths in the name of martyrdom. If the group or army’s firepower and strength are not enough to give the enemy serious concerns about a possible destruction of its troops, then they are not prepared yet for the Jihad of God. Terrorism cannot be an alternative to the military force required by Islam to repel, expel or crush the enemy in every act of Jihad. It can only intimidate, not repel, expel or crush.

But, the fact that a Muslim army has such power does not give it the license to bully or attack the enemy. If, as in the case of the Tabuk expedition, led by Mohammed, the enemy wants to attack a Muslim state and have made preparations thereto, but on seeing theMuslim strength the forced to have a rethink and thus drop the idea, the Muslims must not still go ahead to attack them. ‘But if they incline to peace, then incline to it, and trust in God, indeed He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing’25.

So, on aggression, no oppression, and no intolerance is allowed in the religion of Islam. There is an incident which has caught the fancy of even the most malicious critics of Islam for centuries. Mohammed had successfully converted most of Arabia through extensive preaching (there is no record whatsoever of using any other method) and was securely in control of the Peninsula. He had supreme power then throughout Arabia. There was one day he was sitting with his companions, not in a palace you would be surprised, but an open place just like a common peasant. A Jew, one of his own subjects, passed by and said ‘death be upon you’ in greeting to him. His companions were enraged at such a shameless level of impudence and asked him, ‘shall we kill him?’ If he said yes, nothing would happen as a result of the killing. Yet, he said, ‘no. When the people of the Book greet you, say “wa Alaikum’26” This shows that he did not only tolerate the Christians and Jews (people of the Book or scripture) and their religion but also their impudence and disrespect in spite of his power.

A repetition of the same impudence by a group of Jews at some other time shows that that particular act of impudence and ridicule was a culture among the Medinese Jews. The group came to Mohammed and asked permission to visit him. When they were admitted, they said ‘death be upon you’ in greeting to Mohammed. Aisha, a wife of the Prophet who was present at the scene was infuriated and retorted, ‘But death and the curse of Allah be upon you’. Mohammed said, ‘O Aisha! Allah is kind and likes kindness in all matters’. Aisha, a little confused, asked – ‘Didn’t you hear what they said?’ Mohammed replied, ‘I said (to them) Wa Alaikum (and upon you)’. And he did nothing more,27 this in spite that Jews played major roles in almost all the wars to annihilate Islam fought by the Arabs both before and after the bloodless conquest of Mecca and the willing conversion of Arabia to the faith.

If Jews were allowed to live in Medina along with Mohammed, in spite of their open hatred of islam, and were allowed total freedom to practise their faith then and there, what evidence do those who claim that Islam was propagated by the sword have? At least, those Jews should have been the first to be converted by the main man himself. Is there any historical fact which points out that a certain level of force, however little and insignificant, was involved in the conversion OF Arabia? Absolutely, there is none. There are some in the West who claim that whenever Islam establishes its rules, the non-Muslim subjects are often subject to exorbitant and oppressive tax rates, called Jizyah, in order to make them feel the economic advantage of becoming Muslims. Once they became Muslims, the Westerners would say, the Jizyah would be removed. But, what, if such people, came to realize that Jizyah is replaced in Islam by Zakat? Since Muslims pay their own tax as a religious obligation, it would be unfair to let the non-Muslims, just like their Muslim counterparts, enjoy state protection and still not pay anything to run the state. Since, such a tax rate may not exist as a religious obligation among non-Muslims, which means the state cannot guarantee its receipt, unlike they can with the Muslims, from them, Islam makes provisions for it. Also, to avoid mixing or confusing a religious from a civic obligation, the religion gives them different names. Moreover, the naming was devised to guarantee the freedom of religion of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Or, how would you feel to hear that non-Muslims are forced to pay Zakat (a religious obligation in Islam)? Yet, they have to pay some form of tax as responsible citizens of the state.

On the charge that Jizyah rates were exorbitant and oppressive to force the non-Muslims into Islam, the instructions given by Omar (the second caliph) to his would-be successor (Osman), after he was stabbed (by the terrorists of the time) and he was sure he could not escape death, as narrated by himself, will be cited here. ‘I urged him to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with the, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability’28.

So, do you still think Islam was, or is, spread by the force of the sword?

Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote: ‘The truth is that Islam spread not by the sword but in spite of the sword. No other religion has displayed such mettle. The sword fell on the faith from all sides but instead of destroying it, it helped as it were to extol it. Three successive attacks of increasing power were made on Medina, with a view to extirpating the religion. But what was the result? Was the power of Islam weakened in anyway? On the contrary, each time there was a considerable increase in the number of Muslims put in the field. At Badr the Muslim army consisted of barely 300, while a year later, at Uhud it rose to 700 and lastly at Ahzab, to 2,000’29. If Muslims did not do it then, why would they do it now?

From all indications, thus, the crisis between Islam and the West today has nothing to do with the former’s ambition to dominate the world (and thereby the latter resisting it). Like all other Abrahamic faith, Islam truly wants all of humanity to be Muslim. This is born out of the belief that Mohammed was sent by God to deliver the message of Islam to all of mankind. There are many Koranic verses to this effect. One of such reads, ‘And We did not send you but as a mercy to all beings’30. Another backs it up – ‘say, “O people, I am the Messenger of God to you all, to Whom belongs the Dominion of the heavens and the earth, there is no god but He, He bestows life and ordains death, so believe in God and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in God and His commandments, follow him that you may be guided”’31. But, if the message is to get to all, as evident in the tone and wording of these and other verses, it should not be through force; and it has never been.

Yet, the truth-seeking mind is perplexed by the statements of extremists among Muslim scholars, although they normally do have no Koranic or Prophetic evidence to support their claims, that all non-Muslims are Kafirs and their blood is a legitimate target for the mojaheddin. To them, as long as someone is not a Muslim, he has no protection whatsoever in Islam and a Muslim should kill him to reduce the strength of disbelief and to establish an Islamic government by force.

In an address delivered on Iqbal Day, April 13, 1939, at the Town Hall, Lahore, Abul A’la Maududi, said: ‘…it is imperative for the Muslim state for reasons of both general welfare of humanity and self-defense that it should not rest content with establishing the Islamic system of government in one territory alone, but to extend the sway of Islamic system all around as far as its resources can carry it. The Muslim state will inevitably extend invitation to the citizens of other countries to embrace the faith which holds promise of true salvation and genuine welfare for them. Even otherwise also, if the Muslim state commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic government and establish the power of Islamic government in their stead. It is the same policy which was executed by the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) and his successor illustrious caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them). Arabia, where the Muslim state was founded, was the first country which was subjugated and brought under the rule of Islam. Later the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) sent invitations to other surrounding states to accept the faith and ideology of Islam. When the ruling classes of those countries declined to accept this invitation to adopt the true faith, the Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) resolved to take military action against them. The war of Tabuk was the first in the series of military actions’32.

Reading this, any rational human being will most likely have a distorted view of the Islamic movement or Islamism. Islamism basically revolves around the objectives of Jihad, viz repelling all forms of aggression,, resisting anyone who wants to expel Muslims from their (ancestral) habitations and liberating people under tyranny, oppression or exploitation by the force of arms. But, apart from these, it wishes to Islamize all the over six billion population of the world. Mohammed did it. He did sent letters to the sovereigns of the great states of his time, inviting them to Islam. If Mohammed’s method is anything to go by, then Islamism, also in line with the Koran33 which commands dialogue in dealings with non-Muslims, is the movement to convert the whole world to Islam and to establish the Sharia through the world through peaceful, islamic means.

Islamic means definitely revolve around the conditions laid down by the Koran. As explained above, the Islamists must not be the aggressor, because using the Koranic _expression, Islam ‘does not like aggressors’34. Secondly, there must be the option of ‘inclining to peace’ on the part of the enemy. Where this is absent, there is no Islamic struggle, much like where the first condition is.

The basic significance of the above clarification is that Islam does not support the subjugation of any people for any reason whatsoever. Of course, if the mission of Islamists is to subjugate the world for Islam, then they will always be the aggressor, but the attacked, they will not envisage any peace agreement with the enemy. This is because they will actually want to subjugate the enemy, but have had no excuse. Now they are attacked and an opportunity has risen, they can proceed with their mission. In fact, where they are militarily superior, as envisaged by the Koran, they will even be more averse to any peace settlement to the extreme because it will jeopardize their mission. But, in perfectly that situation, the Koran says they must accept peace and leave the battlefield if the enemy offers it. Therefore, any question of subjugation by Islam or islamism is absolutely baseless.

If America, no minding its small population an relatively insignificant military power, invades its Islamic neighbour, Iran, to uproot Islam there, to persecute Muslims, to expel them or to exploit their resources by force, or even for any other reason, the Iranians, as a matter of religious obligation, must repel them with every force necessary, and even put the aggressors into their own borders. If the aggressors do not incline to peace, that means they are very determined, and are thus very, very dangerous to world peace and their leaders must be psychos who will stop at nothing in tyrannizing their own people. Then, it is the religious duty of Iran to topple its leadership and thus save Islam, the world and the Armenians, who although are Christians but God’s creatures. But, if Iran is about to destroy the American capital, and then the aggressors opt for peace, it is equally Iran’s religious obligations freedom to the Muslims of America. With all these done, Iran must withdraw its troops, and that is a perfect observance of the principles of Islamism.

Let us now imagine the Armenians decide to fight to the last drop of their blood, then Iran must topple its government and then establish a system that it believes will civilize the Armenians – the Islamic system. The sharia becomes state law. But, going by the Koran, except to those Christians and Jews who wish, otherwise the Sharia will not apply to all non-Muslims. ‘And We sent following in their footsteps, Jesus the son of Mary, confirming what was before him of the Torah, and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and confirming what was before it of the Torah, and a guidance and an admonition for the pious. So, let the people of Injeel rule according to what God has revealed in it, whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed, those are the deviators’35. The laws, to be followed by the Christian and Jewish communities must be strictly in accordance with their scripture. So, where is this element of subjugation in the whole of Islamism?

Another dimension is where the Armenians decide to extirpate Islam within their territories and start to persecute Muslims. It is the religious obligation of Iran, for instance, to invade it and topple the machinery of oppression. But, if in the course of invasion, the Armenians agree to stop the persecution in return for Iran’s withdrawal, Iran must withdraw. That is the Koranic command. But, the Armenians must never resume the persecution. Otherwise, Iran will be under obligation to completely topple their government without accepting any further proposals. That is the rule, and lessons can be learnt from the Quraish’s topple of the truce signed between them and Mohammed, eventually leading to the bloodless conquest of Mecca and the breach of the peace agreement between Mohammed and the Jews of Medina by the latter. Islam hates breaches of agreements, especially peace agreements concluded with Islam.

On the allegation by Maududi, and similar clerics, that Mohammed used to send letters of invitation (to Islam) to the leaders of the neighbouring non-Muslim states of his time; and that when they were rejected, then he would mount a military attack on the defiant states to topple their leadership. He claimed that the first of such wars was the war of Tabuk.

The questions here are – how many such invitations did Mohammed send; to whom; what was their contents and what were his responses to their rejection? There are historical facts confirming that he sent invitations to the Caesar in Rome, the Chosroes of Persia, the king of Egypt, the Negus of Abyssinia and certain Arab chiefs. This is the content of his letter to Heraclius, the emperor of the Byzantium then: ‘This letter is from Muhammad, the slave of God, and His Apostle, to Heraclius, the Ruler of the Byzantines. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam, embrace Islam and you will be safe reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation)’36. Nothing more, nothing less. Accept Islam to save yourself from doom in the Hereafter, and if you do not, you will be held responsible for the sins of your people. There is no threat of war or anything in the letter.

The original copy sent to Muqauqis, the then king of Egypt, has been discovered and preserved. Its wordings perfectly confirm the confirm the content of the above-quoted letter.

With regard to the responses of the various sovereigns, here is a quotation from Muhammad The Prophet: ‘Muqauqis, the king of Egypt, received the messenger with great honour and though he did not accept the faith sent presents to the Prophet. They included a mule on which the latter himself rode, and two maids of whom one, Mary, was married to the Prophet – thus raised from the state of a slave girl to the status of a queen. The other was married to Hassan, the poet.

‘Dihjah Kalbi was sent to the Caesar with an epistle. It so happened that at this time, Abu Sufyan was also in Syria, where he had taken a mercantile caravan. The Caesar summoned him to his court, and enquired of him about the Prophet. In reply to various questions, Abu Sufyan, though still in deadly hostility to Islam, testified to the righteousness of the latter. Muhammad came, he said, of a high family. His followers were daily growing in number. Never in his life time had an untruth embraced his faith, nothing could shake him. His teachings, in brief, were to worship but one God, not to associate other gods with Him, to say prayers, to lead a life of continence, to speak truth, and to do good relations, neighbours and fellow-men in general. The Caesar was much impressed with the account given by Abu Sufyan, an opponent of Islam. He had also seen a significant vision about the matter. So he called a conference of the prominent priests of his kingdom, and tried to win them over to his view of Islam, the adoption of which, he tried to persuade them, would promote their welfare. When, however, he found that they all disliked the idea of renouncing their old creed, he calmed their resentment by assuring them that he only wanted to test their constancy to their own faith. Obviously, he could ill-afford to set the whole of the Church against him.

‘The dispatch to the Chosroes was carried by Abd Allah ibn Hudhafah. It opened with the words: “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful”, followed by the words, “from Muhammad”. The Chosroes could not tolerate that anyone else in the world should have his name placed above his own. He was enraged at the word Muhammad put above his own name. He raved at the messenger, and force the letter to pieces. In his fit of anger, he sent order to the governor of Yemen to arrest the Prophet. Accordingly, the Governor, Bazan by name, sent two men to Medina for the purpose. The Arabs had little weight in the eyes of these people. It was a commonplace thing for soldiers to arrest any of the Arabs. These men, arising at Medina, delivered their word to the Prophet, who surprised them with the news that their king, the Chosroes, was himself, no more. They went back, and, to their surprise, they learnt that the very night the Prophet uttered these words the Chosroes had been assassinated by his own son. This event led to the conversion of the Governor. The Province of Yemen throw off the yoke of Persia which before long broke up.

The Negus of Abyssinia when he received the Prophet’s epistle readily accepted Islam at the hands of Jafar, a Muslim refugee who was still living there’37.

Where then did Maududi found his story of Mohammed fighting those who rejected his letter? There is absolutely no historical evidence to support his claim. On the other hand, the only war fought by Mohammed on account of one of the letters, was the war of Mutah. He, in his characteristic manner, sent a letter to one of the Arab chiefs, Shurahbil ibn Amr of Busra on the Syrian border. But, he killed, against all inter-tribal usage, the messenger, Harith ibn Umair. In Arab tradition, the action was a declaration of war on the Muslims. So, Mohammed needed not wait until Shurahbil attack him in Medina. He gathered an army of 3,000 strong to ward off the advance of Shurahbil'’ 100,000 strong army! Quite a suicidal mission you say. But, it was necessary avoid the butchery of Medina. The armies met at Mutah and both fought gallantly. You would be surprised that the Muslims, although they suffered severe injuries, were able to save their small army, and by extension Medina, from total destruction.

But, why did Mohammed send just 3,000 men to face a daunting army of 100,000? The simple answer is – he could not afford more. Islam was still very small and fragile at the time of the letters. As Maulana Muhammad Ali put it, ‘the Muslims were too weak to venture to go to Mecca to perform such an important religious duty as the pilgrimage. Non-Muslims were still in power, so much that they had just dictated terms to the Muslims. On all sides in Arabia, Islam was surrounded by enemies, and the sprinkling of Muslims here and there did not count much’38. If this was the situation, and of course it was, how would Mohammed ever have dreamt of sending threat letters to such powerful men as the emperors of the Byzantium and Persia? This was a man who could not gather enough men to put a stop to the persecution of his people stranded in Mecca. This was a man who had just been prevented from entering Mecca to perform a major obligation in his religion and he could do nothing. This was a man who could afford only 3,000 men to face an army of 100,000 strong, controlled by merely an Arab chief, who was nothing beside the military might of the Byzantium and Persia. How then could he have ever threatened to attack them if they rejected his invitation? How then could he have done so? Why on earth would he have attacked, even if he had the power, the king of Egypt who received his letter with great honour and even sent him gifts, including two maids? Would he have married one of the maids, even though the king did not accept Islam, if he planned to attack Egypt? Of course, the marriage was a declaration of love and tolerance to the king of Egypt.

Would he have dared either Byzantium or Persia? He should have attacked Persia right away because its emperor showed the greatest level of hatred, apart from Shurahbil, to his message. Why did the Governor of Yemen, which then was part of the Persian empire, accept Islam and seceded from the empire, inspite of the likely consequences, when he knew Mohammed? Was it out of fear that Mohammed would attack him? Who was more powerful between Mohammed and Persia?

Why would the Negus of Abyssinia accept Islam because he was under threat from soneone whose people he himself was protecting? Of course, he had no reason ot fear the Muslims, who could then not stand arm to arm with such a powerless state as Mecca. Besides, it was Jafar, who was still living under his protection who guided him to Islam.

So, where did Maudidi found his own wars? He particularly mentioned the war of Tabuk as the first in the series of those wars. To shed light on this particular war, an excerpt is given here: ‘The rise of Islam in the land of Arabia alarmed the neighbouring Christian empire. She viewed with a jealous eye its rapid growth. The sympathies of Muslims were always ranged on the side of Jews and Christians as opposed to idolators and fire-worshippers…

‘The Roman Empire, however, could not tolerate the growing power of Islam… Now that the news reached Syria that the whole of Arabia was giving allegiance to Islam, the religious jealousy of the Romans was aroused. They had cherished the hope of converting Arabia to their own faith. They thought that an attack upon the country would at least hamper the spread of Islam. Intelligence was received that the Caesar had assembled a large force to crush the power of Islam, and that all the Christian tribes in Arabia had joined hands with him… On the strength of this information, the Prophet directed the dispatch of an expedition to the border of Syria…

‘The best method of defense was to keep the enemy outside the boundaries of Arabia, hence the necessity of sending an expedition to the frontier…. But a number of obstacles stood in the way. The journey was long and the weather burning hot. Crops were ripe and ready for the sickle, and above all, fear of facing the well-disciplined and trained forces of the Roman Empire lurked in many hearts… An army 30,000 strong was equipped, and it marched out of Medina….

‘Midway between Medina and Damascus, at a distance of fourteen day’s journey from the former, lies the place known as Tabuk. Here the Muslim army encaped and awaited news of the enemy. It seems that available Muslim strength, coupled with a recollection of the daring of the three thousand facing a hundred thousand on a precious occasion at Mutah, damped the spirits of the tribes of Sassan, Lakhm, Jdham and others (the Christian tribes). The Caesar also dropped the idea of an attack. When the Prophet got to the border he found it quite peaceful. If conversion was to be secured, as alleged in season and out of season, at the point of the sword, could there have been a more promising opportunity…? Even if he had a passion for territorial aggrandizement, could there have been a more favourable opportunity?

He had undergone the hardships of a long and tedious journey in the trying climate of the Arabian summer. At last, he reached the very gates of the enemy’s country and found them unprepared for resistance. A dash onward into Syria lying before him, and a large tract of rich land was undoubtedly his. But his heart was as free from passion for territorial conquest as from that for conversion by force. Despite all the expense and trouble, when he felt satisfied after a halt of twenty days, that there was no cause for apprehension, he returned in accordance with the Quranic injunction: “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive”. The enemy did not want to fight. How could the Prophet fight with him? Accordingly agreements were concluded with a number of petty Christian states, and peace was secured on the border, after which the Prophet returned to Medina’39.

So, what connection at all does the war of Tabuk (which in fact was not fought) have with Mohammed’s invitations? The invitations were made before the conversion of Arabia while the Tabuk expedition occurred after it. Since, going by Maududi’s claims, he was going to attack the Byzantium for rejecting his invitation, why did he turn back when he realized that the enemy was unprepared to resist him? Why did he even conclude peace agreements with petty Christian states on the border, rather than conquering them, when they could not effectively resist his strength?

It is now clear that Maududi lied, and there are many like him who mislead others. There is absolutely no historical fact or evidence to the effect that Mohammed ever fought anybody or any state without provocation, and there is equally no such fact or evidence to show that he fought while his enemy wanted peace. The conversion of Arabia was absolutely bloodless and free. No historical fact can disprove this. As for expeditions by Abu Bakre, Omar, Osman and Ali after Mohammed’s departure, why do people rule out the possibility that they were threatened and therefore responded, or that Muslims were being persecuted in the target states, or that the people in those states were being oppressed, exploited and tyrannized and thus had to be liberated inline with Koranic injunction?

As a friend recently asked however, ‘why do most of the terrorists base the classification of their potential targets on whether they are Muslim or not?’ In his explanations, he said, ‘they always call all non-Muslims infidels and believe that infidels have no right of existence, and therefore all terrorist attacks against them are Islamically justified’. I though did not hear him very cleraly. So, I asked – ‘Do you mean Wahabically or Islamically? ‘In response, he quickly opened the Koran and showed me a verse: “And kill them whrever you come upon them and expel them from where they expelled you, as persecuting people to sway them from God’s religion is graver than killing. But do not fight them at the sacred mosque, unless they fight you, then kill them, this is the recompense of the unbelievers’40. ‘So’, he smiled, ‘it is Islamically.

This verse is actually an instruction about where the Muslim combatant can fight the enemy during war. In unequivocal terms, it says he can fight the enemy anywhere except within the precincts of the Kaabah. The preceding verse in the Koran already told us the kind of people the Muslim combatant can ‘kill’ or ‘fight’ (the same word in Arabic means both), ‘those who fight you, and do not transgress…41’. Therefore, he cannot kill or fight those who do not fight him (the innocent) because that is transgression, which God hates. He cannot just bomb anyone, but people who are physically at war with Islam.

The reason for giving this orders is that the Kaaba is sacred, and blood must not be shed around it. But, for all other places, wherever the Muslim combatant meets the enemy, he can fight it. On the second issue of expelling the enemy, such as the Zionists, from where they expelled Muslims (i.e. Palestinians), the explanation is given in one of the subsequent verses; ‘…for all prohibited things there is a law of retribution, if anyone commits aggression against you, then commit aggression against him to the like of his aggression, and fear God and know that God is with the pious’42. Consequently, if Muslims are expelled from their habitations, they can, wherever they get the power, as well expel the enemy not minding the consequences. It is the law of retribution. You get exactly what you do to others. So, if the enemy kills Muslims, why shouldn’t Muslims? And, in doing so, the enemy must not have any haven, says the Koran, except the Kaabah. There is even a proviso that if Muslims are attacked within the premises of the Kaaba, they must respond in similar terms.

‘You know the term used by the Koran’, my friend wanted to take me by surprise, “to the like of his aggression”, what if the enemy attack was a terrorist attack? Can Muslim combatants reply terrorism with terrorism?’ If for instance, the Americans, in their characteristic manner of terrorism, invade a Muslim state without provocation and bomb everywhere, murdering, in the process, dozens of innocent souls, including a couple during their wedding ceremony, can the Muslims, in view of the fact that America is several oceans away and it is impossible or absolutely suicidal to invade American soil and launch a similar attack on Americans, fasten a bomb to one of them so that he or she can detonate it in any area, whether within or without America, where there are many Americans? At least, the purpose is that of retribution and is permitted in Islam. And, since the Americans use a terrorist method, the Muslim method should also be terrorist to be the like of their aggression.

It is not clear whether the principle of Dorur, which permits doing certain things, which ordinarily are not permissible, because has no other choice. But what is important is that the principle applies only in cases where the Muslim is forced, for instance, to eat pork or consume alcohol. In such a case, if he knows that by refusing to eat pork or consume alcohol he would be killed or injured, he can surrender to the coercion of his attackers and do as they say. God, in Islamic theology, will forgive him if his intentions are clean and sincere. In the case of a terrorist who wants to bomb as many American civilians as possible as a retributive measure for the Americans’ murdering of innocent victims, one can say he was forced into it because the Americans must not go scot-free (especially when they are bent on committing more crimes) and there is no other reasonable way to punish them. But, on a closer look, one can say he was not because someone under force has practically no other choice but to do the act. However, a terrorist has the choice not to do the act.

These verses may help us out: ‘And the recompense of an evil is an evil equal to it, but whoever forgives and seeks reconciliation, his reward is with God. Surely He does not love the evildoers. And whoever helps and defends himself after he has been wronged, against them there is no blame. The blame is only against those who oppress the people, and are unjustly insolvent in the land, and for there awaits a severe chastisement. And whoever shows patience and forgiveness, surely that is true fortitude’43. Therefore, while he has an option to go ahead with his act, since his action will only cause harm to innocent souls, he should rather be patient and forgive, and seek peace and reconciliation between him and, as in the example, the American terrorists. If the Americans nonetheless insist on war and murder more innocent Muslims, then they have the full blame for anything that happens as a result of their actions. In that case, there would be no terrorism, but retribution. While terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstance, retribution can be in all circumstances, but sufficient patience and forgiveness must have been exercised, and the Muslim combatant must have sought peace and reconciliation under reasonable circumstances with the enemy.

Looking a little confident, my friend threw another question. ‘certain groups fight in reliance upon this verse. The verse reads ‘Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messengers have forbidden, and do not adopt the True Religion (Islam) from among the people of earlier scripture, until they pay the Jizyah (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. The simple interpretation is this – fight the Jews and Christians until you subjugate them and they pay tax in acknowledgement of your authority. If one looks at how Mohammed treated the Jews under his rule, the meaning would be clearer. He signed peace treaties with them, took them into consideration in drafting the constitution of Medina, and defended and protected them, their rights and liberties and their properties against any form of attack. He did not fight them.

The simple condition is this: As responsible citizens of the state, the fact that you are Jews or Christians does not exempt you from paying nothing to run the state. But, where you refuse to pay the Jizyah because you feel another religion imposes it on you, then you will need to face the full wrath of the state until you feel you have no other choice but to pay it if you must remain within the boundaries of the state. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines ‘subdue’, as ‘to bring somebody or something under control, especially by using force’44. Now linking this definition to the ‘subdued’ in the verse, it sounds like some people are refusing to pay the Jizyah or have risen in any other form of rebellion, and they are not Muslims, and thus need to be brought (back) under state control. If they were Muslims, they have no other choice but to pay their Zakat because it is part of their faith. Refusal to pay the Zakat is an open rebellion against God, and is tantamount to apostasy. But, there are very high probabilities that Christians and Jews would always refuse to pay the Jizyah since it is not part of their religious, but civic, obligations. If they owe no allegiance to the state, simply because it is not organized on the basis of their own faiths, or on the basis of a rival faith, then they will pay no Jizyah, and the Muslim government is hereby instructed to bring them (back) into the fold of the state by force, if necessary.

‘Now’, I said to my friend in an aggressively relaxed manner, ‘tell me: what percentage of Saudis are in Al Qaeda and other similar group?’ Of course, an overwhelming majority of those who blew off the WTC were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of all Muslim terrorists in the world today are either Saudis or people who have been influenced by the doctrines? All non-Muslims, irrespective of whether they are Jews, Christians or polytheists, are infidels. All people who profess Islam but do not live, worship and practise like Wahabis are infidels. All infidels have no right of existence and must be destroyed whenever, wherever and however the opportunity to do comes. For making life difficult for infidels, who among the Saudis are abominations to God, and for killing them (thus reducing their number), the Saudi-sponsored madrasas will tell you, you will be rewarded by God.

All the conditions laid down by Islam for taking up arms against anyone are irrelevant among the Wahabis. A typical Saudi has extreme reflex hatred for all non-Muslims and all non-Wahabis, thanks to work of those notorious madrasas. If you are not one of them, whoever you are, whatever you profess, you are an infidel and it is a way of serving God, in their belief, for them to eliminate you. This extremist misinterpretation of the lofty values of Islam even reflects in their translation and interpretation of the Koran.

Compare these two translations of the same verse. ‘And continue fighting them until there is no more persecution and God’s religion prevails, but if they cease, then there should be no hostility except to the evildoers’45. The other is – ‘And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrongdoers)’46. Obviously, the first translation is more liberal than the second. Can both be accurate?

The truth is that the words ‘Fitnah’ (meaning persecution) and Az-Zalimun (wrong or evildoers) have no connection whatsoever with the words ‘disbelief’ and ‘polytheism’. In Islam, however, persecution is regarded as unbelief, even if by a Muslim. But, whatever the case, the verse basically refers to the persecution of Muslims by non-Muslims and the need or obligation to repel them. Elements of Wahabism have crept into the second translation. You wouldn’t be surprised. It was made in Saudi Arabia.

Then, what is Wahabism? It is the official religion of Saudi Arabia. It started as a moderate puritan reformist movement, but has gradually evolved as a big wing of exremism. Extremely intolerant (of even non-Wahabite Muslims), Wahabism poses a serious threat to almost all religious groups. If you are not a Wahabi, either expressly or impliedly, then you are nothing else but an infidel, and your life is not safe. There are however still millions of moderate Wahabis, who in fact form the majority in the movement. While they believe in Wahabism by conversion, the extremists believe in Wahabizing the world by force.

Since Wahabi extremists and those influenced by their teachings constitute the majority of all ‘Muslim’ terirosts, it is thus logical to infer some link between Wahabi extremism and terrorism. The Sunni insurgents of Fallujah engaged in direct fire-for-fire combat with the American terrorists in Iraq. The Shia insurgent, led by Moqtada Sadr, against the American terrorists in southern Iraq adopted a similar method. But the Wahabi fighters of Arabia never fight the enemy directly. It has always been through cowardly methods, inevitably resulting in terror.

So, while Wahabism is not inherently bad or intolerant, its extreme version, as sponsored and propagated by the Riyadh authorities, is chiefly responsible for the misinterpretation of many verses of the Koran about Jihad, and inevitably their wrongful application in Muslim-non-Muslim relationships. The book Rationality of Islam concludes the whole argument – ‘Owing to misinterpretation by ill-informed persons, the inclusion of the question of Jihad in Islam teachings has given rise to much hostile propaganda, so that the enemies began saying that Islam is a religion of the sword and force… McDonald, in his encyclopaedia, asserts that the propagation of Islam through sword and force is one of the religious duties of every Muslim. As the nature and aim of Jihad come clear, not only the hollowness of such criticism becomes obvious, but also the depth, purity and dynamism of the teachings of Islam and their capacity to serve the human society in varying circumstances becomes evident’47.

Mohammed once said, ‘The most beloved religion to Allah is the tolerant monotheism’48. In another tradition, he said ‘Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, afternoons and during the last hours of the nights’49.

Allaho Akbar! Sound of the Revolution
‘Throughout history, all divine summons and movements have begun with the proclamation of divine unity and the exclusive lordship of God. No concept has ever occurred to man that is more productive of creative insights and more relevant to the various dimensions of human existence, or a more effective brake on human perversity, than the concept of divine unity’50.

‘O Prophet, strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe with them, and their abode is hell, the worst of all abodes’51.

If somebody does not accept Islam truly but does so by compulsion or for fear of being killed, (then that man is not a believer), according to the statementn of Allah: bedouins say: “We believe”. Say (O Muhammad), “You believe not”, but you can only say, ‘We have submitted (to you, O Muslims)” (49:14)52’.

‘By Him who has my soul in His hands, anyone of this community that comes to know about me and dies without believing in my message will dwell in Hell-fire, even if he is a Jew or Christian’53.

‘And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam (submission to God’s will) never shall it be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he shall be one of the losers’54.

‘Thus, a Jew or a Christian, who strives for salvation and wants to gain happiness in the hereafter, should embrace Islam and follow Muhammad the prophet of Islam, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. By embracing Islam, the Jew or the Chrsitian becomes, at the same time, a true follower of Jesus and Moses, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them, because, as it has been mentioned before, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and all messengers of Allah who had been sent before Muhammad, were Muslims and called people to Islam, the true religion of Allah’55.

‘Islam is a comprehensive system which deals with all aspects of life. It is a government and a nation. It is a morality and power. It is a culture and a law. It is material and wealth. It is an army and a cause. And finally, it is true belief and worship’56.

‘The goal of such an ell-embracing doctrine is naturally bound to be a world revolution’57.

Islam is truly a world revolution. But what kind of revolution? It wants to establish a worldwide kingdom of God. But through which mediums? Can any revolution be bloodless?

Every second of the day, the muezzin is alaysin one minarent, or the other in some part of the world calling Muslims to prayer. Of course when he does this, the non-Muslim has no business listening to him or even caring to ponder over his message. In each call to prayer, he repeats the _expression ‘Allaho akbar’ at least four times. But, when one examines the fact there are over 1.billion Muslims in the world and most of them repeat this _expression 95 times everyday in their prayers, bringing the total number of times the _expression is repeated to at least 100 billion times a day then one will certainly want to know the mystery behind this seemingly powerless statement. Undoubtedly, it is the most said statement on earth! For that reason alone, it is imperative to dig into it.

Simply, ‘Allaho akbar’ means ‘God is the Greatest’. There are many, even in the Muslim world, who wrongfully translate the _expression as ‘God is great. Kabir, meaning ‘great is absolutely different from ‘Akbar’, meaning ‘greatest’. The reason for the obviously deliberate mistranslation of the _expression is unknown’. But, whatever the case, Muslims will forever continue to utter it, with its original message in mind. God is the greatest indeed.

There are several Muslims and non-Muslims who wrongfully translate the mysterious _expression as ‘Allah is the greatest’. The mistake they make is believing Allah is the name of God among a certain religious grouping called Muslims. The simple truth is that ‘Allah’ is the Arabia translation of ‘God’ in English. Even in the Arabic Bible, the word Allah is used wherever the word ‘God’ exists in the English Bible. Thus, it is not a strange word, as it often sounds, whenever mentioned in the West. If you feel uncomfortable with it, you can replace it with the word ‘God’. You have absolutely not done anything wrong!

So, God is the greatest. In what sense? It is in the sense that whatever man does, he must always ask himself if God would be happy if he did anything he wants to do. For instance, if an American wants to publicize his personal opinions about such sensitive issues as lesbianism or war, he should first ask himself if God would be happy if he made public what is in his mind. Would God be happy with him if he supported lesbianism? Would God be happy if he supported the Zionist occupation of Palestine, their maltreatment of fellow human beings and their expulsion of the natives to other countries as refugees (for decades) for absolutely no crime at all? Would God be happy if the United States invaded an Arab state, among other things, to seize its oil? In short, absolutely everything is absolutely based on the absolute criterion of God’s wish.

Mohammed said: ‘Mould yourselves according to the Divine morlaity’58. Of course, the reform should not be restricted to yourself. First and foremost, you mold your entire life on the wishes of God. Then, you mold the lives of your immediate family, relatives and friends on the wishes of God. Then, you similarly mold those of your immediate environment, your state, and lastly the whole world and their systems. Anyone who tries to do this is called an Islamist, and the movement itself is called the Islamic movement, or simply Islamism.

There is always this belief in the minds of all those seeking God’s dominion of the earth that one day the whole of humanity will at last face that God to account for their deeds in this life. How then will they explain their support or practice of what God forbids? The ultimate goal of these people is the creation of a God-wary humanity, among whom the wishes of God are supreme, and inviolable. The movement seeks to enthrone God as the physical sovereign of the earth.

Sovereignty is the supreme power to govern a state. It basically deals with who makes the laws of the state without lawful challenge. Laws prevent anarchy, and the person or group that have the ultimate power of law-making or that are involved in its process constitute the sovereign of the state. Islamism seeks to establish the unchallenged sovereignty of God in all countries of the world.

‘Sovereignty and legislative power’, says the book Religion of Truth, ‘are exclusive rights of Allah. This is an immediate conclusion of monotheism. Nobody has the right to enact a law contrary to the law of Allah. A Muslim should never govern or judge by laws different from the laws of Allah, nor should he give his

******************** ******************* ******************

So, God is the greatest. In what sense? It is in the sense that whatever man does, he must always ask himself if God would be happy if he did anything he wants to do. For instance, if an American wants to publicize his personal opinions about such sensitive issues as lesbianism or war, he should first ask himself if God would he happy if he made public what is in his mind. Would God be happy with him if he supported lesbianism? Would God be happy with him if he supported the Zionists occupation of Palestine, their maltreatment of fellow human beings and their expulsion of the natives to other countries as refugees (for decades) for absolutely no crime at all? Would God be happy if the United States invaded an A Rab State, among other things, to seize its oil? In short, absolutely everything is absolutely based on the absolutely based on the absolute criterion of God’s wish.

Mohammed said: ‘Mould yourselves according to the Divine morality’58. Of course, the reform should not be restricted to yourself. First and foremost, you mold your entire life on the wishes of God. Then, you mold the lives of your immediate family, relatives and friends on the wishes of God. Then, you similarly mold those of your immediate environment, your state, and lastly the whole world and their systems. Anyone who tries to do this is called an Islamist, and the movement itself is called the Islamic movement, or simply Islamism.

There is always this belief in the minds of all those seekin gGod’s dominion of the earth that one day the whole of humanity will at last face the God to account for their deeds in this life. How then will they explain their support or practice of what God forbids? The ultimate goal of these people is the creation of a God-wary humanity, among whom the wishes of God are supreme, and inviolable. The movement seeks to enthrone God as the physical sovereign of the earth.

Sovereignty is the supreme power to govern a state. It basically deals with who makes the laws of the state without lawful challenge. Laws prevent anarchy, and the person or group that have the ultimate power of law making or that are involved in its process constitute the sovereign of the state. Islamism seeks to establish the unchallenged sovereignty of God in all countries of the world.

‘Sovereignty and legislative power’, says the book Religion of Truth6, are exclusive rights of Allah. This is an immediate conclusion of monotheism. Nobody has the right to enact a law contrary to the law of Allah. A Muslim should never govern or judge by laws different from the laws of Allah, nor should he give his consent to any form of judgement or government based on laws contrary to the laws of Allah. According to the Islamic faith, no one has the right to forbid what Allah has made legal, nor can he legalise what Allah has forbidden’59. Article 4 of the constitution of Iran reads: All civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fugaha (decisions) of the Guardian Council are judges in this manner’60. The earnest aspiration of all Islamists is to have a perfect replica of this article in all constitutions of the world. It is only then that the revolution will be complete.

In Islam, the world is divided into two. There are dar al harb (Home of Disbelief) and dar al-Islam (home of submission to God). When Mohammed was born, nowhere on the planet was under God’s direct rule. Religion in all parts of the world had been transferred under the wishes and caprices of the clerical and political circles to such an extent that it had been completely corrupted and had failed absolutely in its purpose. Worse still, most of the planet was under the powerful grip of paganism and superstition. Christianity, the latest religion at the time was itself no more. Sir William Muir, the famous critic of Islam, noted: ‘Moreover, the Christianity of the seventh century was itself decrepit and corrupt. It was disabled by contending schisms, and had substituted the puerilities of superstition for the pure and expansive faith of the early ages’61.

So, there was no religion to save humanity. Religion has always been the never of civility and civilization. Where it is dead, corruption and debauchery seize control and tyrannise the human race. J.H. Denison, who studied the different systems of religion and the civilizations that grew up thereform, wrote in his book Emotion as the Basis of Civilization: ‘In the fifth and sixth centuries, the civilized world stood on the verge of chaos. The old emotional cultures that had made civilization possible… had broken down and nothing had been found adequate to take their place… It seemed then that the great civilization that it had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration and that mankind was likely to return to that condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next, and law and order were unknown… The new sanctions created by Christianity were working division and destruction instead of unity and order… Civilization like a gigantic tree whose foliage had over-reached the world….stood tottering…rotted to the core… It was among these people that the man (Muhammad) was born who was to unite the whole known world of east and south’62.

When Mohammed was born, not an inch of the entire planet was under the physical control of God. Therefore, he was born into dar alharb, even at its nucleus where immorality, godlessness and violence were extremely prevalent. With the first ever call to prayer in Medina, the journey towards God began and the revolution recorded unimaginable success, within th etwinklingof an eye. Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui captures the images in though-provoking words: ‘Every man ought to be judged by what he does, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) accomplished within twenty years what centuries of the labours of other reformers could not accomplish, notwithstanding the temporary power at their back. He swept away centuries old idolatry, superstition, credulity (ignorance, prostitution, gambling, drinking, oppressioin of the reformer who wrought and complete at transformation on so large a scale within so short a time. Never was reform more hopeless than at the advent of Muhammad, and never was it more complete than when he departed’63.

By the time of his departure, the whole of Arabia had willingly submitted to the sovereignty of God. In other words, a dar al-Islam, as large as the Arabian peninsula had already been created, and it has since then been gradually expanding. Mohammed foresaw and earnestly longed for aday when it would encompass the entire earth. Then, the dream of Islam would have come true. Mankind would have been delivered unto God for disbelief. In truth, the voices of muezzins are audible already in almost all countries of the world and a big chunk of the earth has been successfully invited into dar al-Islam, most of humanity still live in dar al-harb and their lifestyle is not better, if not worse, than that of the pre-Islamic Arabs. The most important of these live in the Western Hemisphere. So, the revolution must get there faster than anywhere else.

The current world order is led and controlled by the West. Immediately after the second World War, Roosevelt said certain things about the emerging world state. ‘Considering the present chaotic situation, it cannot be recommended that the League of Nations be renewed, because its extensiveness would cause much opposition and indecision. There is no reason that the principle of guardianship which is applied in private affairs, could not be similarly applied in the international field. In every period there are a large number of children among nations of the world who have need for guardians. I am not opposed to the creation of a world community which would provide full possibilities for debate, on the condition that it be governed by the big powers’64.

And, of course, the world is governed by the big powers. The power of veto enjoyed by the five most powerful states in the world was created absolutely to serve that purpose. That is why in the UN, sovereignty does not lie with the vast hundreds of member states, but with each of the five big powers. If for instance, the entire world agree that prostitution should be criminalized in all countries, and relatively tiny state as France, courtesy of its tremendous military, especially nuclear, capability decides negatively its own decision automatically overrules that unanimously agreed upon by the entire world. About sixty million people defeating, in a system where the majority decision prevails, six billion people. What a good example of democracy!

In the UN Security Council, Westerners constitute the majority. They take almost all decisions there and enforce their decision through rtuthless military power. Since they are th eleaders in the global democratic movement, one may infer that they are silent about the UN system because it is democratic. The United States, the United Kingdom and France are particularly notorious for their zero tolerance of any undemocratic system in operation in any part or institution of the world. Definitely, if you ask them why they have relentlessly backed and defended the UN since its foundation, they will tell you it is because it is democratic and is the pivot of democracy and liberty all over the world.

A point of reflection here. Is there any difference between the UN Security Council and Iran’s Guardian Council? If the words of Roosevelt, at the establishment of the former were anything to go by, definitely there is no difference. Both guard some system they want to perpetrate forever. It is just like the role Turkey’s military play in maintaining its westernist outlook. The military in Ankara rule the entire nation, although there are civilians elected to fill certain posts. They have a defacto power of veto in all affairs of the state. If the West can tolerate such a state of things in Turkey and are even defending the strictly guardian system in the UN, it is hypocritical of them to say there is no democracy in Iran because there is a Guardian Council, in spite that elections are regularly held to elect MPs, and the president. In fact, the situation in Iran is better because the existence of the Guardian Council was supported by 98.2% of Iranians in a referendum conducted in 1979. Has any referendum ever been conducted with regards top the ugly situations in the UN and Turkey? Indisputably, they are imposed on the people and maintained on them by the hforce of tanks and bombs. This world is full of great wonders. Sometimes, you see coal calling snow a black stone.

Honestly, the West controls the conscience of all other regions of the world. If, today, it says lesbianism is wrong. The entire world will follow suit. If tomorrow it reverts the statement, the entire world will wrong equally do so. To be frank and sincere, the world blindly imitates the West and judge absolutely everything on the Western criteria. So, if the West, or the United States, whom all other countries in the West in turn imitate, decides to submit to the physical rule of God, there is a very high likelihood that most countries will follow it. Moreover, it is only the Islamic block that is still offering resistance to Western sweep-over. And for this reason, it is the Muslims that have been worst affected victims of the West’s relentless attempt to conquer the world. Rather than submitting to America, most Muslim countries have opted for the meaning of their faith – submission to God, and that has earned them millions of bomb explosions and billions of heart-piercing bullets.

But, Muslims will nonetheless never leave their God to submit to the West. So, the bombings are most likely to continue forever. The only Muslim hope lies in the conversion of the West to Islam. If they did so, the persecution would stop and most of humanity would join the Islamic camp. It was like the situation when Mohammed was alive.

Mecca was the centre of worship and pilgrimage throughout Arabia. Diodoros Siculus wrote: ‘There is in this country a temple greatly revered by all the Arabs’65. That temple was the Kaaba built by Abraham and Ishmael in the city. Sir William Muir commented; ‘Tradition represents the Kaaba as from time immemorial the scene of pilgrimage from all quarters of Arabia: from Yemen, Hadzramaut and the shores of the Persian Gulf, from the desert of Syria, and from the distant environs of Hira and Mesopotamia, men yearly flocked to Mecca. So extensive a homage must have had its beginning in an extremely remote age’66. That was the significance of Mecca.

Mohammed knew that if Meccaa converted to Islam, there would certainly be stormy effects on the whole of Arabia. But, the mission was very hopeless. It was in the heat of persecution and frustration of Islam in Mecca that God spoke assuringly to Mohammed: ‘When the victory granted by God and the conquest comes; And you see the people embracing the religion of God in throngs; Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and seek His forgiveness, for He is ever Relenting’67. The victory did come with the bloodless conquest of Mecca and the subsequent willing conversion of the city of Mecca to Islam. The whole of Arabia willingly followed the Meccans.

‘Mecca was conquered, but a far-greater conquest, and one beyond the reach of Muslim arms, was accomplished by the general amnesty granted to the dwellers of the town. It captivated the hearts of the people. Even enemies of Abu Sufyan’s bitterness had been impressed with Islamic morals. This final scene of Islamic magnamity disarmed all opposition. Meccans witnessed with their own eyes how all those Divine promises held out to the Muslims, while the latter were yet groaning under the tortures of their enemies, had last come true. The combined forces of opposition could do little harm to Islam. They furnished conclusive testimony to the righteousness of the cause and removed whatever doubt was still lurking in their hearts. In brief, all opposition vanished. The truth of Islam went deep into Meccans’ hearts. They entered the fold in flocks. The prophet seated himself on a spur of Mount Safa to receive them into the Muslim brotherhood. Males were followed by females, who also embraced the faith in large numbers. All these conversions were spontaneous. There was no a single of instance of conversion by force. There were some who did not accept Islam, but not the slightest molestation was caused to them on that account. They still clung to their own idolatrous creed, but Muslims treated them kindly. Friendly relations existed between them – so much so that they fought shoulder to shoulder with Muslims at the ensuing battle of Hurain’68.

Sir William Muir described the situation. ‘Although the city had cheerfully accepted his authority, all its inhabitants had not yet embraced the new religion, nor formally acknowledged his prophetical claim. Perhaps he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina and leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without compulsion’69.

‘Mecca was known as Umm al-Qura, or the “mother of towns”, and though it was not the temporal capital of the peninsula, it commanded the spiritual allegiance of the whole of Arabia. During the months of pilgrimage, people flocked to this city, year after year, from every part of the country. Naturally the people of Mecca had great influence upon the country which looked to the Quraish as leaders in the matter of faith. Formerly, when during the pilgrimage, the Prophet preached to a tribe, he invariably met with the reply that he should first convince his own people. Consequently, when after the fall of Mecca the inhabitants of the town joined the Muslim brotherhood in large numbers, it made a marvelous impression on the general populace of Arabia. Besides, they witnessed with their own eyes how the prophet, single-handed as he was and discarded on all hands, had at last triumphed in the teeth of all opposition. The truth became manifest with the result that people began to join Islam in large numbers…

‘By this time Islam had won general popularity throughout Arabia. News of its triumph spread far and wide to the distant corners of the country. The people were not altogether unaware of what had so long been passing between the Prophet and the Quraish. They had been eagerly watching the whole course of the struggle. They knew how the Quraish had tormented him and his followers for preaching virtue and the Oneness of God and how, after their flight to Medina, attempts had been made for eight long years to crush them. Those who attended the annual gatherings on the occasions of pilgrimage carried this news to all parts of the country. The people were also aware of the Prophet’s prophecy that all opposition to Islam would ultimately vanish. Hence, deputations began to pour into Medina from every part. The Prophet received them with great honour and taught them the principles of Islam with the utmost kindness. With those who embraced the faith, a teacher was sent in order to instruct them in the religion. Thus, in the first half of that very year, delegations from far off places like yemen, Hadramaut, Bahrein, Amman and the Syrian and Persian borders called at Medina…

‘In short, the period of warfare was over and people joined Islam in multitudes. In the course of some two years there was one and but one religion – Islam – throughout the vast Arabian Peninsula with a few Jewish and Christian exceptions here and there. The cry of Allahu Akbar resounded on all sides. A marvelous phenomenon! There was a time when the Prophet would, on occasions of pilgrimage, go around the various tribes inviting them to Islam, but nobody would listen to him. And now the same tribes sent in their deputations and regarded it a great honour to be admitted into the fold of Islam’70.

So came to pass the words of God. ‘When the victory granted by God and the conquest comes; And you see the people embracing the religion of God in throngs; ;then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and seek His forgiveness, for He is ever relenting’71. Certainly when God grants victory to his people, it often comes as great miracles. What the reader must note is that Mohammed did not have Arabia under his occupation when all this happened. Even if he wanted to do so, he did not have the resources, and if he did, venturing into such a very suicidal adventure could be unwise. But, Mohammed had no intention of putting anyone under his occupation so as to solicit conversions. According to the Koran, accepting Islam under compulsion or force is in itself disbelief72. Therefore, the only acceptable way in Islam to accept the faith is to willingly and cheerfully do so, and that was exactly what the people of Arabia did.

A complete revolution, completely changing the political, economic, social, cultural and military lives of an entire country succeeded almost effortlessly within as tiny a period as two years! No similar revolution had ever occurred before it and none has till today. What is more important is that it was absolutely bloodless, voluntary and willing. This unique feature alone makes it the most miraculous and unbeatable revolution in human history. The French, American and Russian revolutions gulped the blood of millions of people, directly and indirectly, and lasted several years. The Islamic Revolution of Iran, led by Imam Khomeini, lasted 25 years, gulped more than 60,000 lives and 100,000 wounded and disabled, and hundreds of millions of dollars in property destruction. A common feature of all these and other revolutions is that they are all violent. In the case of Mohammed, people came to him, almost on their knees, telling him to accept them into his revolution which he cheerfully did. This is the kind of Islamic revolution Islamists expect in the West and all over the world.

The sceptic may ask – if all they (the Islamists) want is a total return to God for all nations, why don’t they spare states that already have state religions, but which are other than Islam? Of course, if the Lord’s Resistance Army succeeded in overthrowing the government of Uganda, they would set up an extremely Christian fanatical state (that is their aim and ideology). Would it then be necessary to topple them since they serve (?) God, although through a non-Islamic mode? The simple answer is – yes.

A fact needs to be understood. In Islam, since the creation of the world, there has been only one religion till date – Islam. From Adam to the very baby being born at this moment, all humanity are born Muslim and all prophets of God preached the same message and faith – Islam. ‘Or do you say that Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christian?’ ask the Koran, ‘Are you moiré knowledgeable than God?’73 The question is –was there any of the so-called prophets in the Bible that unmistakably gave a name to the religion he preached? Absolutely none. Not even Jesus. So, no one can say what they preached was not Islam. What they preached was return and submission to God, and that is exactly what Islam means.

By contrast, none of the prophets could name the religion they preached because it was not yet completed. Until a process is complete, it cannot have a sovereign identity and structure. All the prophets were sent one by one, from Adam, to continually remind and teach humanity of God. If you read the Bible and see how, even before Moses’ death, the Jews have corrupted the faith he taught them and reverted top their old paganism, you would see the need for one prophet coming from God after another to lead people back to the Truth Faith, after they certainly must have deviated from it. Moreover, none of the prophets ever touched all aspects of life – political, social, economic, cultural and military – in their teachings. There are in fact the majority of them who preached nothing beyond how to worship alone. Therefore, they were all to come, remind people of God and return till Mohammed came to seal their collective message and give it a name. The last revealed verse of the Koran reads – ‘Today I have perfected for you your religion and completed my grace on you, I have chosen Islam for you as your religion’74. That was the verse that formally declared the mission of all the prophets from Adam to Mohammed, completed and successful and thus give the entire enterprise its name.

Here is a Koranic passage to back the point. ‘And they say, “Be Jews or Christians and you shall be guided”. Say to them, “But we follow the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he never was of the polytheists. Say “We believe in God and in what is revealed to us, and in that which was revealed to Abraham and Ismail and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and in that which was given to Moses, and Jesus, and in that which was given to the Prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them and to His will we submit. So, if they believe in what you believe, then they would be guided, but if they turn away they are averse to the Truth, and God is sufficient to deal with them, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. This is the religion of God, innate in all mankind, and who is better than God to ordain religion, and Him alone we worship’75.

Thus, Muslims believe in all the prohets, even by merely submitting to God in true monotheism because that is what they all preached. Someone once asked – if Muslims believe in Jesus, why don’t they believe in the Bible and its teachings?’ Of course there is a planet of differences between what the Bible is and what these prophets taught. Each of the most popular prophets of God received a revelation from God, containing the direct wording of God’s words as physically spoken to them by Him. The name of the scripture revealed to Moses was the Torah, and that of Jesus the Injeel. It must be noted that none of the two were written by either Moses or Jesus or any of their disciples or followers ‘inspired thoughts, but were records of God’s direct dictates. None of the two is available today.

The Bible was allegedly written by the prophets or their disciples or followers, from so-called ‘divinely inspired thoughts’. Derived from a Latin word, the word ‘Bible’ means ‘a collection of books’. Definitely, it is not the same Torah or Injeel revealed by God. In Islam, the scriptures were not books or collections of books written by different authors, many unknown, claiming divine inspirations. They were distinct revelations made by God to each individual prophet to guide him throughout his mission. This is why Muslims believe in the original Torah and Injeel, but not in the Bible.

Since the Koran is the complete and final compendium of all their teachings, it is normal for the Muslim to judge the truth or otherwise of any so-called scripture, the Bible or not, on whether it is compatible with the teachings and format of the Koran. Since none meets this standard, then the Koran is the only valid scripture a Muslim must believe and follow today. And since there has been only one religion since the creation of the universe, all the other creeds – paganism in short – must be discarded in any matter concerning God or morality. Islam is the only religion. All others, including of course, although painfully, Christianity and Judaism, and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Zorostrianism and so on, are all manifestations of paganism. This does not however rule out the fact that some of them were originally part of Islam as preached by the various prophets but later mixed with pagan superstitions, myths and legends and thus became invalid. Many of them are paganism per excellence. The proliferation of these and other pagan faiths clearly shows that satan has recorded huge successes – distorting God’s religion among many nations and creating purely pagan or polytheistic faiths among more others. This is why the sincere Islamist will not want any state to be organized on pagan religions. It is either the only true religion existent on earth (since Adam) or nothing else. Return to paganism is absolutely equal to return to disbelief, or rebellion against God.

The basic purpose of the revolution of God is to return people to God’s way. Absolutely, the entire enterprise will fail if the religion upon which the repenting and returning state is organized has no true divine origin. Dr W.Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Missions in the world, in his book Is The Bible The Word of God wrote: ‘Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of a zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men’76. Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, in his book The Call of the Minaret gave further testimonies. ‘Not so the New Testament (as opposed to the Koran)… There is condensation and editing; there is choice, reproduction and witness. The gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history’77. Here, let’s examine what their hands, then say, “this is from God”, to trade with it for apiitiful price! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn from it”.75

No one denies that the Bible contains some historical facts. Absolutely none. But, it is a record of the actions and words of many of the prophets of God by their followers (although there are ‘books’ in the Bible linked to the direct authorship of these prophets) – just like the Hadiths in Islam. They are historical records put on paper by various scribes – and there is absolutely no doubt that they cannot be fully accurate. Of course, such a congregation of books cannot substitute the for either the Torah, theZabur (revealed to David), or the Injeel. The former are historical records (which may not be accurate), the latter are revelations. Apart from the Koran, most other revelations, if not all, were not published at al land were thus lost in no time. But, their messages are retained in the Koran for anyone who cares. And looking at Islam’s attitude to books written by men (not physically dictated by God) and ascribed to God (for profit or any other purpose), it is better not to even bother to ever regard a Christian state as serving God or helping God’s revolution in an alternative way. Not all religious are true, the Islamist will tell you, and the kingdom of God must be organized on the religion of God which is no other than Islam.

‘Look, this is extreme bigotry’, someone might say, ‘sure to lead to the rise of maniacal Islamic demons, running from country to country with arms and ammunition extirpating all non-Islamic faiths, wiping away human souls in the name of God’. ‘Already, they are all over the place – Mujaheddin or Islamists’, ‘a holy war fought by Muslims against those who reject Islam’79. The honourable reader already knows much about Islamic jihad and cannot be deceived by such shameless display of ignorance. But, the Western dogmas will cling to it no matter what. ‘The demons will invade country after country, killing human beings because they (their victims) don’t want Islam – a more the Islamic demons will see as an obstruction of the efforts of God to establish His own kingdom and which they cannot tolerate whatsoever’. As a support, he may even quote this verse: ‘O Prophet, strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe with them, and their abode is Hell, the worst of all abodes’80. A sealer may then end everything – “strive hard against” is the Muslim terminology for “kill”, “the unbelievers and hypocrites” actually means all non-Muslims; and “be severe with them” tells the Muslim where he cannot kill the “unbeliever”, he should be cruel, all his life, to him. This clearly God-Islamic style – can look like has been experienced in Afghanistan under the mullahs. The demons returned the state to the stone age and strangulated all non-Islamic faiths within their territories. Is that what God would want for His creatures? The mullahs, just like the Saudis, were “severe with” non-Muslims under their control, resulting in miserable lives for them in God’s kingdom where all irrespective of race, sex or creed are supposed to be happy, and comfortable’.

A close examination of why the Koran lumps both the ‘unbelievers’ and the ‘hypocrites’ together, considering the nature of hypocrisy in Islam, along with the timing of the revelation of the verse, will definitely reveal the type of unbelievers the verse meant. Absolutely, all non-Muslims in Islam are unbelievers. But, at the time of the verse, Islam was under smothering attacks from the unbelievers of Arabia. The shells came from all sides. But, Islam was able to miraculously survive. ‘Distinct from all these’, wrote maulana Muhammad Ali, ‘and of a singular nature, another wave of opposition set in, within the camp, known in Islamic phraseology as hypocrites. These were the men who had not the pluck to come out into the open. So they joined the faith with the object of undermining it from within… One can keep on one’s guard against an open enemy but enemies disguised as friends are very dangerous and hard to deal with. They lull one into a sense of security by their friendly appearance, and when an opportunity comes they strike unexpectedly. They also have access to one’s inner thoughts, which renders them all the more dangerous. They keep in secret contact with one’s enemies, appraising them of all plans and movements. Islam was thus confronted with every conceivable form of opposition and intrigue. Its final triumph is therefore a concrete illustration of the fact that a plant tended by the hand of God Himself will survive the worst fury of storm’81. Thus, an hypocrite in Islam cannot be anything else but a fatal enemy of the faith. Although, a typical hypocrite professes Islam, he is no other than a desperate infiltrator determined to fell the faith from the within. While the non-Muslim enemies attack from without, the Muslim hypocrites attack from within. It is normal in all situations and circumstances to be severe with such people. Isn’t it?

Apart from the Koranic terminologies – unbeliever, although not in all cases, for the non-Muslim enemies of Islam and hypocrite, in all circumstances, for the infiltrators within Islam, there is also a third category – the apostates. ‘It is generally thought’, wrote Maulana Muhammad Ali, ‘that the Qur’an provides the death sentence for those who desert the religion of Islam. There is not the least ground for such a supposition. The Qur’an speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but never once does it say that they should be killed or punished: “And whoever of you turns back from his religion, then dies while an unbeliever – these it is whose works go for nothing in their world and the hereafter”. (The Quran 2:217). Again: “O you who believe, should anyone of you turn back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, whom He loves and who love Him”. (The Quran 5:54). And again: “Those who disbelieve after their believing, then increase in disbelief, their repentance is not accepted, and these are they that go astray” (The Quran :8, 9).

‘On the other hand, the Qur’an speaks of a plan of the Jews to adopt Islam first and then desert it, thus creating the impression that Islam was not a religion worth adopting (The Qur’an 3:17). Such a scheme could never have entered their heads while living at Medina where the government was Muslim if apostasy according to Quranic law were punishable with death. The misconception seems to have arisen from the fact that people, who, after becoming apostates, joined the enemy treated as enemies; or where an apostate took the apostate can be entitled to death, he must also have joined in enmity against Islam. Otherwise, he must be treated equally kindly as a Muslim would be.

A brief look at the nature of Jihad will sum up the whole argument. The verse of Jihad in the Koran says: ‘And fight in God’s cause those who fight you, and do not transgress, surely God does not love the transgressors83.’ In short, Muslims can only fight those who fight them, and they must not be the aggressors. A subsequent verse says that but if their aggressors or persecutor’s cease, they must also end all hostilities84. There is no question of fighting anyone for rejecting Islam at all. Detailed information about this aspect have been provided earlier in the study.

Even while going to meet the enemy in self-defense, Mohammed, more than 1, 400 years ago, gave some instructions that must guide the Muslim defense force so that the objects of Jihad will not be jeopardized. ‘March in the name of God and seek His help. Fight for His sake and in accordance with His commands. Don’t practise deceit or fraud. Don’t embezzle the spoils of war. Don’t mutilate the body of an enemy after he is killed. Don’t harm the women, the children and the aged. Don’t interfere with the monks and hermits who live in monasteries and caves. Don’t unnecessarily cut down trees. Don’t burn the palm plantations of the enemy and don’t submerge them in water. Don’t destroy fruit-bearing trees and don’t set fire to the enemy’s crops. Don’t kill the useful animals except for your food. Don’t poison the enemy’s water. Don’t resort to trickery and don’t launch a surprise night assault’85. From these words, do Muslim armies look like liberators or conquerors? Remember, conquerors, including modern day American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (using their bombs) normally sack the conquered territories destroying everywhere (and later calling for reconstruction) and seizing their national assets, especially oil.

If the enemy unfortunately refuses to offer or accept peace with Muslims until their territory is liberated by the victorious Muslim army, the Muslims are not allowed to set up an Islamic supremacist state there – which will stifle the existence of non-Muslims as the toppled regime in the liberated territory must have done to Islam. When Arabia converted to Islam and the Christian and Jewish minorities on the peninsula, mainly concentrated in Najran (in modern-day Saudi Arabia) and the neighbouring towns and cities, began to feel their end had come, Mohammed gave these instructions to his men who were controlling even the Christian and Jewish territories (you wont believe your eyes):

‘To (the Christians of) Najran and the neighbouring territories, the security of God and the pledge of His Prophet are extended to their lives, their religion and their property – to the present as well as the absent and others besides, there shall be no interference with their faith or their observances, nor any change in their rights or privileges; no bishop shall be removed from his bishopric; nor any monk from his monastery nor any priest from his priesthood and they shall continue to enjoy everything great and shall as before; no image nor cross shall be destroyed, they shall not oppress or be oppressed; they shall not practise the rights of blood vengeance as in the Days of Ignorance, no titles shall be levied from them nor shall they be required to furnish provisions for the troops86.

These are some of the principles of Islam. They no doubt are the hopes of the future. Mahmud Mahdi Istanbuly, in a tract, explains: “Islamic principles, if realized, are sure to establish an ideal society, having mutual love as its foundation, which is essential for building a strong society whose parts support one another. Such a society is not merely a dream; for history tells us that Islam could really establish an ideal society during the Middle Ages, when Europeans were immersed in ignorance and fanaticism. This ideal society remained for many centuries, during which its light shone all over the world, clearing away superstitious thoughts, and saving humanity from poverty, ignorance and disease, and ensuring knowledge and happiness for all.

‘Islam’s principles could, within less than a quarter of a century, change the Arab’s savage life into a highly civilized life, under whose influence Baghdad, Damascus and Moslem Spain flourished and prospered, and by whose effect the Muslim remained master of the world for about ten centuries’87.

Istanbuly, however, did not stop at that. ‘You may argue, if Islam has such progressive great principles, then why are its followers so backward? Well, we reply that the followers of Islam today are not really following its main instructions; they are very far from the spirit of Islam. The so-called Moslems are something quite different from Islam’88.

Therefore, if you see Muslims celebrating a terrorist attack by Islamic extremist, don’t be surprised – they are driven by ignorance. If you see Muslims killing in the name of religion, never forget, they are equally driven by ignorance. Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect in Urmia in 17th century Persia (later converted to Islam) wrote:

‘The very name “Muslim signifies literally “a maker of peace”. You can never find another human being more docile, hospitable, inoffensive and peaceful a citizen than a Muslim. But the moment his religion, honour, and property are attacked, the Muslim becomes a formidable foe. The Qur’an is very precise on this point: ‘Wala ta’tadu” – “And you must not transgress” (or take the offensive). The Holy Jihad is not a war of offence, but of self-defense. Though the robbers, the predatory tribes, the semi-barbarous nomad Muslims, may have some religious notions and believe in the existence of Allah, it is the lack of knowledge and of religions training which is the root-cause of their vice and depravity. They are an exception. One can never become a good Muslim without the religious training and education89’. And if I may add, one can never become a good Muslim with extreme Wahabized training and education.

So, the blame for Muslim misbehaviour today cannot be put on Islam but on their ignorance of the teaching of the faith. On the other hand, American or rather Christian and Zionist savagery in Muslim lands and other parts of the world may be directly linked to their faith. A passage from Deuteronomy in the Bible reads:

‘When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your God’90.

This verse, which must be very embarrassing to any sincere Christian or Jews, openly commands aggression, massacre, plundering and religious carnage. The armies of God are ordered to approach a city, without provocation, to destroy it simply because it is not within the fold of the Lord’s rule. The holy armies then offered it either the chance to survive as slaves, doing forced labour for the people of God, or the option of death. Naturally, any rational people will definitely turn down such an absurd proposal from an aggressor army and take up arms to defend their freedom. For doing exactly that, God in the Bible orders the Christian and Jewish holy armies to slaughter all the males (not just the combatants as in Islam)91 and plunder every other thing. As for the neighbouring pagan states, kill everything that breathes – males, females, children, the aged and animals! Absolutely everything! You must do this so that they will not teach you their paganism. I often wonder how the West would react if such verse were to be in the Koran!

The reader will not be surprised that such a war strategy can be commanded by God if he reads these statements of Jesus Christ about his own mission on earth: ‘I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law92’.

The world have seen the results in the crusades, the inquisition and all other Christian and Jewish ‘holy atrocities. I only wonder if a devout Christian decides to take the ‘mission’ of Christ to the whole world, leads a holy army of other devout Christians, just like the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, and using the strategy commanded by God enters a non-Christian state, for instance Saudi Arabia, and kills all humans and animals in it (so that they will not teach him and his men the Islamic faith), will he be rewarded by the Biblical God since he no doubt has served his interests in His ways?

Peace: The Triumph of Islam
‘And be a nation inviting to uprightness and enjoining right and forbidding wrong, those they are the successful’93.

‘And the believing men and the believing women, they are the friends of each other, they enjoin good and forbid evil, and establish prayers, and pay the alms, and obey God and His messenger, these, upon them God will have Mercy, indeed God is Almighty, All-Wise94’.

‘Surely We have granted you a manifest conquest. That God may forgive you your mistakes of the past and those to follow, and to perfect His blessing upon you, and guides you to the straight path’95.

‘No one can establish the rule of God except he who does not compromise (regarding his duties), does not seek to conform with others (at the cost of Islamic principles), and is not after ambitions and desires’96.

As long as Muslims are involved in hostilities against non-Muslims, especially the Westerners and the Russians, the revolution of Islam may never succeed! What is important is that Muslims must never give in to the West or compromise anything or relent in their resistance against Western, Russian and Zionists imperialism. But, at the same time, they must be relentlessly on the lookout for peace with them. Are you surprised?

Islam and the West have an extremely turbulent relationship. In the West, people are afraid of and deeply hate Islam. In the Muslim world, people are afraid of and have extreme hatred for the West, especially the United States and Israel. Since the crusades, there has never been a single second when both sides are not involved in combat. Victory has gone to and left either side several times. But, neither of the two could confidently claim that he is winning the war!

The source of concern about Islam in the West is that once the faith is established, especially considering both its revolutionary nature and its miraculous, lightning conquest of one-sixth of humanity, it could sweep away the religion and culture of the Westerners. Throughout history, wherever an azhan is allowed to sound, expect a powerful revolution there in the near future. The right-wing conservatives, who form a sizeable number of Westerners, and especially the religious institutions, who live and die on the incomes accruing to them because people are churchgoers, will never be happy with Islam conquering their lands, and possibly blocking the entries into their pockets! They are very afraid of the power and strength of the faith – and since they directly control the conscience of their congregations, fellows and followers, they make others to fear and hate the religion. When you hate a religion, until your impression is changed, no one can convert you to it – final!

The Muslims, on the other hand, see the West struggling vigorously to destroy their heritage and traditions and faith, and thereby push them into the Western, Christian culture. Moreover, the West’s greed cannot be controlled or regulated by its conscience – it can do anything to get whatever it wants. To win the second World War, two Japanese cities had to perished under nuclear bombs. To steal the land of the oppressed people of the Third World, millions have to die. To resettle the lands of America, entire races had to be wiped out. To steal the oil of Iraq, more than 500,000 children, and millions of others had to die of hunger! The list is endless. The West’s entire history is punctuated by barbarism, ruthless greed and savage attempts to ‘make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and of the Holy Spirit’97. Much of the earth has already been Westernized. Also, the largest religious grouping on earth today is Christianity, thanks to the vast armed conquests and inquisition-style conversions by holy empires, especially Rome, Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal. The average Muslim sees the Westernists as serious threats to his own civilization, and because of their ruthless nature, sees them as a dangerous specie that must be fought and destroyed.

The West launched the crusades to conquer Muslim lands for Christianity. But, they all failed. Seeing the futility of further crusades, the churches and their proxies launched the biggest ever propaganda war against Islam. ‘Muslims are murderers. They kill in the name of religion. They are very cruel. They will slaughter your entire race if you allow them to get near you’. This propaganda warfare has been closely supplemented with incessant occupation of Muslim lands. Of course, the Western mind has been so poisoned about Islam that the average Westerners will always see nothing good in Muslims and will always want, support or even campaign for war against them.

But, just like it did to the Mecca attackers, Islam has survived all attempts by the West, since 1095 (remember Christians persistently fought Islam even when Mohammed was alive), to extirpate it. Neither the crusades, nor colonization, nor propaganda warfare could do the magic. On the other hand, Islam has defiantly grown from strength to strength, and is even expected to overtake Christianity as the world’s largest religion by 2025! However, to a good extent, the westerners have succeeded in slowing down the lightning growth of Islam, keeping it almost dead within their territories and widely estranging Muslims from Islam. Possibly taking a cue from the Meccan’s war strategy against Islam, when they used infiltrators (called hypocrites by the Koran) to destroy Islam from within while they attack it from without, the westerners decided on a new strategy. Since it was not easy to destroy Islam by even the force of bombs and tanks, apostates and hypocritical Muslims, such as Mustafa Kamal in Turkey, and his successive counterparts in Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Uzbekistan and the Sha’s Iran, will be imposed on the Muslims and maintained in power by brute force, whatsoever the level of his repressiveness, solely for the purpose of destroying Islam from within. This strategy, sadly, has done the faith a lot of damage.

After more than a thousand years of intensive anti-Islamic propaganda by the churches and their successive rulers, hatred of Islam, in fact its extreme level, has almost permanently become a dominant feature of all Christian societies and civilizations. Beginning in the colonial age, after hundreds of years of the rule of Muslim states by Christian-imposed apostates and hypocrites, Muslims have been made strangers to their very religion. You wont believe that there are millions of Muslims, mainly in the ‘colonial’ part of the Muslim world, who are a powerful Islamic earthquake swept over the Western machinery there. 20 years later, the sharia, the Islamic, law, swept over the largest chunk of Nigerian territory. There have been other successes, especially in Pakistan and Indonesia.

There are however, a section of Muslim society which has so far successfully resisted and defeated all Western agendas on their life. This section are also very alert to the state of Islam on every inch of the earth. Their earnest wish is to see a devastating awakening restoring ‘God to the greatest’ position in both the private and public lives of the Muslim. They want strictly puritan, but immensely to tolerant and liberal, and other group! Never! The institutions of ijtihad, established by Islam to interpret Islamic principles in line with the prevailing conditions of each age provided nothing is compromised or bastardized, is enough evidence that Muslims are not expected to live the same way through the ages. Muslims are, to be compliant with the principles of Islam, to move along with the times. But! They must not imitate or copy others. ‘Whoever imitates a group is one of them’ is an extremely popular saying of Mohammed. The conscious section of the Islamic community are extra ready to risk even their lives to preserve and strengthen Islam in the Muslim world and promote it in the non-Muslim world. They are the Islamists, sometimes named as fundamentalists or extremists in the West.

These groups understand the purposes and rules of Jihad very well. Therefore, they fight only to ‘defend Islam against physical and non-physical attacks, to stop the persecution of Muslims or any restriction on their freedom of religion anywhere in the world, to liberate Muslim lands and peoples from oppression and exploitation, and to support any human group fighting for freedom in any part of the world’. They of course abhor violence and will only adopt it a genuinely mode of operation only when there is reasonably no other option. However, it is inevitable to fight extremist elements among them who would unreasonably kill and maim in the name of religion.

What those extremist elements, perhaps, do not understand is that they can achieve more than 1 million times within a few years of peace and love with the west, what they have achieved so far against them. For instance, the whole of the Christian world can be converted to Islam, and thus a permanent end can be put to the sufferings and tragedies of Muslims in their hands, if they are allowed to have good access to natural information about Islam. ‘It is only human not to appreciate the way of those against whom one harbours the slightest feelings of enmity’98. Soon as the gulf between Islam and the West is closed, and the Westerners are able to mingle freely with and learn, from the right sources, about Islam in its natural form, Islam is most likely to conquer the West – especially since the Westerners are very rational people.

When the Roman Empire feel and distinguished, few people ever thought it would ever come back again. Subsequent attempts by various European power monsters to unite Europe by force ended disastrously. Hitler’s attempt failed completely, and still ended in the loss of not less than fifty million lives! But, shortly after Hitler’s departure, thanks to the peace and love that ruled the people of Europe, the continent non-violently come together as one indivisible and inseparable entity under God. The European Union became the pride of most Europeans, and it became a matter of great honour for every European sate to federate, voluntarily, with others. This is exactly what Hitler failed to achieve. Wherever the sword fails, peace often conquers.

In the same way, although the basic cause of tension between Islam and the West is not because the Muslims want to convert the Westerners, if peace and love is achieved between both sides, definitely Islam’s conquest of the West will be much more hopeful. Americophobia, as taught in Saudi-sponsored madrassas, should be eradicated from Muslim lands, and replaced with Americophiia. Similarly, Muslims should try as much as possible to eradicate Islamophobia among Westerners in favour of Islamophilia. When this situation is achieved, then they should engage the Westerners in serious debates, as commanded by the Koran in any dealings with Jews and Christians99, about the noble teachings of Islam as compared with Biblical teachings and injunctions. They should also introduce them to Islam as practiced by Mohammed, and not as influenced by Wahabism and other extremist ideologies, today. They should strive their utmost to clear away all the malice, created by centuries of negative propaganda, against Islam in the minds of the Westerners. Doing this, they can be very hopeful that what God promised Mohammed when he secured the Truce of Hudaibiyah (to end all hostilities against Islam) is coming to them. ‘Surely, we have granted you a manifest conquest (with regard to the peace that was expected). That God may forgive you your mistakes of the past and those to follow, and to perfect His blessing upon you, and guide you to the straight path. And God will make you victorious with a mighty victory’100. Having secured the peace, God promised Mohammed a mighty victory, and within two to four years, everyone accepted his message. What is this verse all about?

Islam, right from its first day on earth (with Adam) has been ceaselessly under enemy fire. When Mohammed came to complete and perfect the message, its condition got much worse. There was not a single second when arrows were not thrown at Muslims. The very life of Mohammed was seriously threatened throughout his mission. Anyone who accepted his message, in the early days of Islam, was made to that life could be lifeless. The persecution in Mecca was so much that Mohammed has to order a part of his followership to flee across to Africa to seek sanctuary in Ethiopia. Nonetheless, the Meccan polytheists chased them there, but were defeated. Mohammed himself and his followers later fled Mecca to seek sanctuary in Medina, at the invitation of the people there.

The people of Medina, in strictly miraculous circumstances, readily invited, welcomed and accepted Mohammed. George Sala (died 1936), in his Translation of the Qur’an, published in 1850, wrote: ‘Before the hegira (Mohammed’s flight toMedina) there was not a house left without a Muslim in Medina’101. The book Islam and Christianity published by Waqf Ikhlas, commenting on Sala’s statement, says – ‘This is to say that, until that time, the people living in cities became Muslim without seeing any sword. They became Muslim because of seeing the greatness of Islam, its honesty and the eloquence of the Qur’an al-Karim’102. Therfore, within a very short period of time, Medina converted to Islam and became the first ever Islamic state, with the first ever written constitution in history. Islam became more powerful, an dmore dangerous to the idols of Mecca.

Idol worship had given Mecca the prime position it enjoyed among all the cities of Arabia, and had made the biggest Arabia centrte of pilgrimage and commerce. This made many Meccans excessively rich and created an incestuous aristocratic class that ruled the city of Mecca. Any harm to idol-worship in Mecca would jeopardized seriously the aristocrat’s power, influence and business. Everyone would be equal to them before the law, and human worth would no longer be measured in terms of wealth and God-wariness. Equally, since the aristocrats were the supreme guardians of the idols of Mecca, and by extension, Arabia, a situation that gave them great recognition, influence and wealth throughout Arabia, any rise of Islam above idol-worship would definitely topple them and their fortunes. Probably motivated more by economic rather religious concerns, the Meccan aristocrats became jittery of the progress of Islam in Medina, and they decided to exterminate it before it got out of hand. A large force of 1,000 fully equipped men was organized to march on Medina and destroy Islam.

Mohammed could only afford 313 ill-equipped and relatively poorly trained men .The two forces met at the place called Badr and a terrible battle ensued. Mohammed, quite miraculously, won the day with tremendous gains! The enemy was brutally wounded and its arrogance was effectively beaten down. But, the enemy would not get down easily. Islamophobia, just like today in the Wets, gripped Mecca.

‘The defeat at Badr was an ignominy which Quraishite (or better put Mecca) pride could not leave unavenged. The contemptible little band of ill-equipped heretics had inflicted a crushing blow on them. Revenge was therefore the watchword all over Mecca103.’ Twelve months later, a revenge army of 3,000 soldiers, ‘including two hundred calvary and seven hundred mail-clad veterans’104 was raised to destroy Medina. Mohammed managed to get just 700 men, armed only with their faith, to confront four times their number. The battle took place at the foot of Mount Uhud, Muslims suffered serious, heavy casualties, but they were eventually able to put the Meccans on their heels. It was a victory, but an extremely costly one.

The Uhud Battle brought within full view of the Arabs the unshakable resolve of the Meccans to butcher Islam. Being the defacto national and spiritual capital of Arabia, the Arabs were heavily influenced by the Mecca fight. Soon, the whole of Arabia hated and feared Islam, and turned fully against the faith. Islam fell into perfect insecurity. Small Arab tribes from all side each organized small expeditions to crush Islam and Muslims were killed almost everywhere. Mohammed was to engage one Arab expedition after the other almost ceaselessly. The fact that he succeeded in all in preserving Medina and thus Islam Arab rage against Islam above the extremes, and an all-out, full-scale pan-Arabian expedition against Medina was inevitable.

‘While the Prophet was engaged in suppressing mischiefs on the part of the Arab tribes in order to obviate war on a large scale’, Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote, ‘the Quraish were busy preparing for another campaign against Medina. The Jewish clans …were also allied with them in the common cause of the extirpation of Islam. They succeeded in raising the Bedouin tribes in the vicinity of Mecca so that they also joined the anti-Islamic alliance. Thus, Quraish (or Mecca), Jews and Bedouins all combined to deal a crushing blow to islam. A large army, estimated.. (at) twenty-four thousand, was brought together… Even the Jewish tribes within the walls of Medina turned false and joined hands at the last moment with the assailants. Humanly calculating, there was little chance for the Muslims to survive the onrush of these overwhelming hosts.

‘Intelligence of this impending attack on an unprecedented scale was brought to the Prophet, who immediately summoned his companions to take counsel as to how to meet the situation. On one side, the city had a natural barrier of rugged rocks; on the other, it was protected by the stone walls of houses, built compactly together in unbroken continuation, which constituted by themselves a strong fortification. There was thus only one side open to attack, and Salman, a Persian Muslim, suggested that the side should be fortified by a broad and deep ditch. The work of digging the ditch was at once undertaken…, (with Mohammed) himself participating like an ordinary labourer.

‘In the course of the digging operations they came upon a hard stone. All exerted themselves to the utmost but could not break it. The Prophet, who had marked out the limits with his own hands, was therefore asked to allow a slight deviation from the original plan. Taking up a pick-axe he addressed himself to the task at which others had failed. Getting down into the ditch, he struck hard at the stone which gave way emitting at the same time a spark of fire, on which followed by the companions, he raised the cry of Allahu-Akbar… and said that he saw in the spark that he had been awarded the keys of the palace of the Syrian king. A second aloud, the Prophet observing that he had been given the key sof the Persian kingdom. The third attempt broke the stone to pieces and the Prophet announced that he had seen the keys of Yemen coming into his possession. Then he explained that on the first occasion, he was shown the palace of the Caesar, on the second that of the Chosroes of Persia, and on the third, that of Sana, and that he had been informed that his followers would gain possession of all those countries. What a phenomenon! A huge force, 24,000 strong, was at the gates of Medina, determined to crush out Islam. The whole of Arabia was thirsting for Muslim blood. And in the midst of these dark clouds of misfortune, the Prophet’s eye perceived a distant ray of the future power of Islam. Was this not something passing the wildest stretch of human imagination? Who but the All-wise and All-knowing God could reveal such mysteries of the future at a juncture when Islam itself was threatened with utter extinction?’105

This was at a time Islam had no power. But, despite having seen these visions, during the expedition of Tabuk when Arabia was already converted and Islam was relatively powerful, when Syria was open for the prophet’s effortless conquest (if he had intensions of territorial aggrandizement or forced conversion) – when the Roman empire had backed out from a plan to attack Medina (after seeing its strength) and Syria, one of its provinces, completely de-militarized, as Maulana Muhammad Ali put it, ‘Adash onward into Syria lying before him, and a large tract of rich land was undoubtedly his’106 why did Mohammed withdrew back to Medina when he saw that the enemy was unprepared for him? At least, any other man could have claimed that the visions were enough justification for his ‘onward dash’ into Syria and then proclaimed prophecy fulfilled. Mohammed at last did not live to witness the liberation of Syria, and later the Middle East as a whole from Roman captivity – yet, Yemen had earlier (during his lifetime) accepted Islam.

Yes, the author used the word ‘liberation’ because there is a Koranic injunction which orders Muslims to go into any territory where the people are oppressed, tyrannized, maltreated or exploited, whether they are Muslims or not, or where the Muslims in the territory are being persecuted because of their faith or the growth of Islam is being deliberately frustrated, and liberate the people. ‘Let those who sell this worldly life for the Hereafter, fight in the cause of God, and whoever fights in the cause of God then is killed or conquers, We shall reward him with a great reward. And how can you not fight in the cause of God and to save those men, women and children who have been oppressed and who pray, “Our Lord, deliver us from this land whose people are oppressors, and make for us from You a protector, and make for us from You a helper’107”. Thus, liberating human beings, and even animals, from oppression and all other crimes against humanity is a religious obligation of all Muslims and they will be tremendously rewarded for it.

When Omar saw that people living under Roman tutelage were groaning under oppression, he raised a force and liberated those ones he could. Jerusalem was one of the fortunate cities. Chiefly because of its prime importance to Islam, he decided to honour the city by visiting it. Thus, they were happy to get rid of the heavy taxes, torture, trouble, oppression and cruelties of the Bizantine Empire, their own state. Soon they saw the justice and the mercy of Muslims, whom they believed to be barbarians. They understood that Islam was a religion which orders good actions and mercy, and a way which leads human beings to happiness either in this world or the hereafter. Without any oppression or intimidation by Muslims, they were converted to Islam in groups, in wards and in quarters of a town’108.

If the people of any state that has their religion as its official religion willingly and cheerfully welcome and accept the authority of another with a rival state religion, they definitely must have seen lots of hopes in the latter and lots of relief in its authority. This cannot be anything else but liberation. It is the same phenomenon that applied to most other Islamic conquests. The remaining others involved expeditions to liberated Islam from persecution.

Back to the devastating Pan-Arabia campaign against Medina. Mohammed saw those visions of a great future for Islam (which was in itself ordinarily hopeless because of the overwhelming military power of both Rome and Persia – both of which were involved in his foreseen Islamic conquests) when its present war absolutely hopeless. The clouds eventually fell. And the gates of heaven and earth rushed open in fight!

‘It was an hour of terrible consternation for the Muslims when the confederate hosts fell in full force upon Medina. The very foundations of the city were shaken’109. The Koran depicts the anguish and perplexity of the moment in these words: ‘When they came against you from above you and from below you and your eyes turned away and your hearts reached to your throats, and you imagined vain thoughts about God. In that place, the believers were tried and shaken most severely’110.

‘Notwithstanding the enormously overwhelming odds bent upon their destruction’, continued Maulana Muhammad Ali, ‘and their fears in the grim situation, Muslims perceived that this was the last desperate attempt of a dying enemy. This would break up the enemy’s power once for all and usher in the happy era of the triumph of Islam.

‘By way of precaution against a possible attack from without, or Jewish treachery from within, the females and children were removed to well-fortified places. The siege lasted for about a month, during which period the Muslims, including the Prophet, suffered a great deal from hunger. For days they received no food and tied stones on their stomachs to mitigate the pangs. But their spirit was not a whit-subdued… come what may, they would fight to the last man.

‘The Jews and hypocrites were on the look-out for an opportunity to rise from within, simultaneously with an attack from without. [T]he Quraish made a general attack in full force, but they could not press their way across the ditch. Their arrows and stones, however, came down in terrible showers, and had it not been for the well-disciplined steadfastness of the Muslims, the enemy would have won the day. Muslim firmness was at last crowned with success. The large army 24,000 strong, could not succeed in breaking through their defence and became exhausted. The siege became tiresome to them. Besides, they ran short of provisions. A storm which blew down their tents and overturned their cooking pots was the final straw… finding the very elements of nature against them, the Quraish and their confederates were over-awed. They took it as an evil omen. Loosing heart, they marched off the same night so that, to the great joy and thanksgiving of the Muslims, not one of them could be seen the following morning…

‘Thus ended in utter disappointment and dismay the moist powerfully organized expedition against Islam’111. Th eKoran says: ‘O you who believe! Call to mind God’s blessing upon you when there came against you host, then we sent against them a hurricane and forces which you did nto see. And God sees all that you do’112. This war was called the Battle of Ahzab, and gave name to a chapter in the Koran – Surat Al Ahzab (The Allies). It marked the beginning of the power of Islam.

But the whole story did not end there. About a year after the Battle of Ahzab, which saw just 2,000 Muslim fighters pitched against 24,000 desperate Arab and Jewish forces in a great effort to salvage Medina and Islam, Mohammed saw in a vision that he, with his companions, was performing the pilgrimage at the Kaaba. But, the most desperate enemies of Islam controlled Mecca at that moment. Nonetheless, Mohammed had no fears because, in Arab tradition, pilgrimage to the Kaaba was a privilege, never denied even to the worst of enemies. Since there was no reason why Mecca should deny him that universal privilege, he set out with 1,4000 of his companions on an Umra to Mecca. It was strictly forbidden to carry arms, lest they would be seen by the Meccans as an expedition force by the Meccans. Even though it was most improbable that anyone would dare invade a city as powerful and as important as Mecca with just 1,4000 comrades, all precautions had to be taken to avoid any misunderstanding. This was purely a worship mission Islam never invades others’ territories.

When the Meccans knew about them, they gathered a force to resist their entrance into Mecca. Mohammed quickly sent message to them that his was a pilgrimage, not a word. He also proposed entering into a peace accord with them for a certain period. Having sent his word, the Muslims halted at Hudaibiya, a day’s journey from Mecca. Peace between both parties greatly favoured the Arabs. Hostilities between them and the Muslims had already disrupted their trade. Their basic trade destination was Syria which lied northwards of the Arabian peninsula. Since Medina is situated at the north of Mecca, it was the latter’s route to Syria and was controlled by Muslims. So, peace would give them the golden opportunity of trading again with Syria, especially since Medina had proved extremely difficult to destroy. The Meccans accepted the peace proposal

What followed was an uneasy series of failed negotiations. At a time, when the Meccans detained Osman, the Muslims’ negotiator, and spread the rumour that they had killed him; the negotiations completely collapsed and almost resulted in war. The Muslims pledged to Mohammed that they would fight to the every last man if the situation came to that. Then, the Meccans who thought the Muslims would never fight back if attacked or provoked because they were practically unarmed and numerically weak, quickly came back to their sense. Bad memories of previous encounters probably flashed round their minds, and they quickly sent a negotiator, Suhail ibn Amr, to resume peace negotiations. At last, a truce, restoring a state of peace for a period of ten years between the parties, was drawn up. The following were its main clauses:

i. The Muslims shall this year return without performing the pilgrimage.

ii. Next year they may come but shall not stay at Mecca longer than three days.

iii. They shall not take with them any of the Muslims already living in Mecca, and, on the other hand, they shall not stand in the way of anyone from among themselves should he wish to remain behind at Mecca.

iv. Should any of the Meccans go over to Medina the Muslims shall hand over to the Meccans; but if any of the Medinite Muslims should rejoin the Meccans, the latter shall not restore him to the Muslims.

v. The Arab tribes shall be at liberty to enter into alliance with whichever party they choose113.

These terms were extremely distasteful to the Muslims. In the meantime, Abu Jandal, the son of Suhail, Mecca’s negotiator in the peace deal embraced Islam and was brutally tortured on that account. He managed to escape Mecca and came, seeking refuge in the Muslim camp at Hudaibiyah. But, the fourth clause must be abided by. It was a crucial test of the Muslims word of honour and they painfully respected it. Abu Jandal was thrust back into the mouth of persecution, and the whole of Islam could not help but weep at their helplessness to help him at this serious time of need.

Obviously, the peace agreement was wholly against Islam, much more that Omar asked Mohammed – ‘Why should we suffer so much humiliation in the matter of faith?’114 Of course, this was a matter that concerned their faith! Pilgrimage, the fifth pillar of Islam, had been put at the mercy of the Meccan pagans! A Muslim had just been denied refuge by his own brothers! Why so much humilitation?

Mohammed returned to Medina as the peace agreement demanded; and on getting to his base, God said something to him. ‘Surely we have granted you a manifest conquest. That God may forgive you your mistakes of the past and those to follow, and to perfect His blessing upon you, and guide you to the straight path. And God will make you victorious with a mighty victory’115. Ordinarily, the truce looked in no way like a victory, but rather a complete humiliation. But God is All-wise, All-knowing. He knows that the strength of Islam is peace (in fact that is its literal meaning), and that peace would make Islam victorious.

Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote this – ‘that the truce of Hudaibiyah.. turned out to be the triumph of Islam is borne out by the fact that on the occasion of his advance on Mecca about a year and a half later, the Prophet was accompanied by 10,000 comrades instead of the 1,400 which was the number at the time of the truce (Almost 1,000% increase in numerical strength). How to account for this remarkable rise in the number of Muslims? The fact is that the state of warfare which had so far prevailed between Muslims and non-Muslims had created a wide gulf between them. The general malice towards Islam would not permit Arabs to mix with Muslims. Hence, they had so far no opportunity of coming into contact with Muslims and becoming acquainted with their Islamic virtues. For the first time since the inception of the Islamic movement the gulf was bridged over for a considerable length of time by the truce of Hudaibiyah. This afforded non-Muslims an occasion calmly to ponder over the inherent virtues of this religion. They came to realize how all those who had been under the prophet’s moral influence were edified and raised to a higher plane. It is only human not to appreciate the way of those against whom one harbours the slightest feelings of enmity. The Arabs were bent upon the destruction of Islam. They were therefore not well-disposed to appreciate its teachings. Now that the barrier was removed and normal intercourse with Muslims had been resumed, they were in a position carefully to study the morals and manners of Muslims. The false impressions created by hostility concerning the Prophet al lvanished. They came to understand nfor themselves that he neither favoured cutting asunder blood-ties nor was he a mischief-monger as they had supposed. The nobility of his nature and the beauty of his morals were now revealed to them. They realized that they had been the dupes of misrepresentation and that his character was far above what had been depicted to them. Thus, impressed with the sub-limit of his ideals and the purity of his comrades’ lives, a large number of them joined the brotherhood of Islam’116.

When the Meccans saw that the peace was tremendously working for Mohammed and thought that if it was left for the agreed ten years, the whole of Arabia would have been converted, they, just a year and a half into the agreement, broke the agreement and completely overturned it. Considering Islam’s strict intolerance of breach of agreements, Mohammed led a 10,000 strong army in a bloodless conquest of Mecca. Considering that 24,000 Meccan men could not overturn Medina, and just 10,000 had taken over Mecca, one would see the hand of God in action. The Mecca pagans bit their fingers in regret when they saw, within just 2 years, the whole of Arabia – willingly and excitedly accepting Islam after the conquest of Mecca (or rather the chief source of malice against Islam). And God truly made Mohammed ‘victorious with a might victory’117.

So, dear Islamists, have you seen that peace, with love, is more powerful than even one trillion nuclear bombs? Keep up the legitimate struggle. Do not be terrorists, but Islamic workers and fighters. And seek peace, love and dialogue with your enemies (they will be your friends, and later brothers) at every slightest opportunity. Just like it worked in gloriously unifying Europe, a venture in which Hitler had to kill scores of millions and still failed, peace can work better for Islam, better than it had ever done in the past. ‘And God will make you victorious with a mighty victory’, even though you might today be the unfortunate victim of world arrogance and humiliation. The revolution is bound to occur, to take over from arrogance and oppression the human race and hand every one over to the true One God – but not through inhuman, un-Islamic methods and modes.

Freedom: Enemy or Champion – The Story of Islam
‘As a result the very persons who strive to secure freedoms, opportunities and means of welfare for their citizens in European countries in the name of human rights, they bomb and kill human beings in other countries by thousand. What does it mean? Does it mean anything other than this that in the view of the culture of domination which prevails over the world, human beings are divided into two categories: the human beings whose rights are to be defended, and the human beings who have no rights whatsoever and it is permissible to kill, destroy, enslave and subjugate them and to seize their belongings. This system is prevalent all over the world and the conception of human rights is also the product of such a culture’118.

‘Whenever there is a mention of terrorism, mostly that which comes to the minds of people is some desperate act of a youth, a victim of oppression fed up with life, from Palestine, or Lebanon, or some African or Latin American country, rather than the acts of such big powers as the US, the UK and the others’119.

‘Of course, we desire that Israel as a whole is set on fire, and God willing, we shall go and free all those people from under the Israeli yoke…120

‘The West considers the philosophy behind… freedom as the gratification of inclinations, wishes, and carnal and material desires… Islam believes that freedom is based on what necessitates the human development of man’121.

Islam restricts many freedoms (such as, for instance, the freedom to drink liquor or have free sex) and places very strict and tough penalties on the restrictions. Many Western scholars have thus theorized that Islam is the direct opposite freedom, just the purdah is to topless models, and in fact hates and fears it. Someone once said that wherever there is Islam (he probably judged on the examples of the ruthless Arab states) there cannot be freedom; and wherever freedom comes, Islam disappears. The question here is not whether he is right or not. Rather, it is all about the general assumption that either of Islam and Western culture is the determined champion of human freedom while the other is its fatal enemy. Which is exactly what between the two?

The conflict between Islam and Western culture is absolutely based on each side’s alleged struggle to free the world from the evil of the other. Basically, it is a clash of revolutions, each desiring to be the human cause. Western culture is seen in the Islamic world as the biggest obstacle to freedom and happiness in the modern world. By contrast, the West sees Islam as a demon, which they extremely fear and hate, and will not want its triumph even in the Muslim world, much less on its own territory. If Islam, for instance, were to conquer the West and assume the much-coveted position of official religion in all the states, all military might in the region would no doubt be directed against such unnatural phenomena like homosexuality, pornography, and prostitution among others. That, to most in the West, is a war on freedom that must be prevented by all means.

The general perception in the West of Islam as the chief enemy of freedom in modern history is not unconnected with its long history of war with the religion. The West has ever always wanted to take Islam for Christendom. But, all attempts have so far failed. The only aspect of the age-long campaign to eradicate Islam that has not yet failed completely is the propaganda war launched by the religious and aristocratic classes of the West. Islam is strictly anti-imperialist. Therefore, it will not pay them if Islam were to be allowed on Western territory. When Islam arrived Arabia, the aristocrats immediately disappeared and all became equal before God – whatsoever your race, creed or sex. The only criterion for determining who is better between any two human beings is God-wariness. The Koran says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely the most honourable of you in the sight of God is the most pious of you. Indeed, God is All-knowing, All-aware’122. This verse is not addressed to Muslims only, but to all of humanity. It clears all forms of racism or any other forms of discrimination or segregation among humans and put the supreme emphasis on man’s consciousness of God. This way, a race towards God would be created and the world would have heavenly states on earth. But, while Islam wants to build a godly world, based on the belief that one day all will return to God to give account of whatever they did on the earth, the West wants a godless earth, organized on the superstitions and dogmas of Christianity, and completely de-emphasizing God in all affairs. To the Westerners, freedom is to be free from divine instructions and to be servile to satan. To Islam, it is the other way round.

A striking feature of the above-quoted verse is the perfect equality of all, male and female. None is, by virtue of his sex, considered any better than either in the eyes of Islamic law or God. This thinking is the basic underlining ideology behind all laws in Islam. Obviously, it is absolutely different from what gave birth to human rights law in the West. A good examination of what the Western world means by ‘human’ rights will clearly reveal something quite shocking.

In ancient Greece, no man was considered ‘human’ except he was a Greek! All non-Greeks were regarded as barbarians and were traditionally slaves to the Greeks. ‘Plato, the initator of the divine philosophy of Greece, rather the West, thanked God for having been born a Greek, and no t a non-Greek. He expressed gratitude for having been born free and not a slave, for being man and not a woman’123. It was this Greek thought that made them call their civil law Jus-Jentume ‘human’ rights. Since the Greeks were the only recognized humans to them, the rights were available only to Greeks, obviously at the expense of other peoples who were regarded as slaves (and not humans) of the Greeks. The Jews also consider themselves to be the superior race while all other humans (called gentiles) are born to serve them! Therefore, just like the Westerners, their own perception of ‘human’ in the _expression ‘human right’ is most likely to be racist. Saint Ambrois (340-397AD) and Saint Augustin (354-430) also believed that people other than the Christians were not a part and parcel of human society’124. In their view, the divine human rights were only for Christians.

Therefore, whenever the Westernists and the Zionists think of ‘human’ rights, they always think of their own rights because, according to their philosophies, they are the only humans on the planet, just like the Greeks. The current spiritual Iranian leader in his inaugural address at a 1987 human rights conference held in Tehran seemed to provide an answer to lingering questions: ‘As a result the very persons who strive to secure freedoms, opportunities and means of welfare for their citizens in European countries in the name of human rights, they bomb and kill human beings in other countries by thousand. What does it mean? Does it mean anything other than this that in the view of the culture of domination which prevails over the world, human beings are divided into two categories: the human beings whose rights are to be defended, and the human beings who have no rights whatsoever and it is permissible to kill, destroy, enslave and subjugate them and to seize their belongings. This system is prevalent all over the world and the conception of human rights is also the products of such a culture’125. Is Ayatollah Seyyed Ali (he was not yet an ayatollah) wrong?

If he is, would the West have ever indulge themselves in the colonization peoples (now called the Third World) in extreme poverty up till this moment? What are neo-colonialism and global imperialism, or globalization, all about? Do the Zionists of Israel consider a Jewish and a Palestinian life to be equal? Of course, the Zionists do not regard their expulsion of the Palestinians from their ancestral lands, and their subsequent maltreatment and massacring of these unfortunate people as violations of ‘human’ rights; but, why are the Westernists closely behind them, to the extent of financing these crimes with a whooping $6billion every year? Are they nto defending human rights, considering that only people who believe in the Bible are considered ‘human’ by the West?

There is absolutely no doubting the fact that the Jewish religion unequivocally entrenches racism among the Jews. In Jewish belief, there are only two categories of human beings on earth – the Jews and the gentiles. The latter include all non-Jewish people, whatsoever their race or religion, even including Christians. Jews believe that they are a race and the gentiles are created by God to serve them. This goes down to say that Jews are the purpose of creation and all other creatures are their slaves. As far as Jews are concerned, they are the only humans.

A very big, embarrassing minus on the religion of Christianity is that while it does not, unlike Judaism, sponsor racism, its does virtually nothing to stop it. Even in the church, racial discrimnation is a dominant curse. Among the Christians, race supercedes anything else, even God! Since there are more white Christians than any other Christian race, white supremacist has almost part of Christian worship all over the world. The white Christian considers his black counterpart an inferior human being who has lesser rights than himself, as opposed to other religious groupings, especially the Muslims, whom both regard as having no rights at all! Therefore, it is normal to see two or more Christian armies engaged in bloody clashes purely on racial grounds. But, where Muslims or any other non-Biblical grouping are involved, it is always as combination of racism and religious fanaticism (just like the Turks have had serious difficulties joining the EU on account of both).

The West’s supremacist heritage ahs made them very arrogant. To them, they are the superior human race and must therefore control all other races – the inferior races. They equally see themselves as masters of the world, the owners of civilization and the custodians of knowledge and culture. Their race is the best. Their languages are the best. Their values are the best. Their ideologies, thoughts and attitudes are the best. Their modes of dressing, walking, sleeping and even blinking are all the best. Their religion, Christianity, is the best. Whatsoever they do is right, and whosoever they condemn, hate or oppose is wrong. They are the only civilized race, and the only way to move near their ‘perfection’ is to adopt their entire lifestyle, religion and conscience. Otherwise, you live outside the ‘civilized’ or ‘free’ world, in a benighted region of the rapidly ‘globalizing’ globe, and the tanks and missiles of the world arrogance may come to you anytime to bring light to your life.

Motivated by their ruthless arrogance, the need to take control of others’ lands and resources in order to use them to develop the West and their religious obligation of ‘baptising all human races in the name of the Father, and the son and of the Holy Spirit,’ the Westerners have invaded and ruled all countries of the world, and have succeeded in taking almost all humans to the West. They have recorded tremendous success in Christianizing most of humanity – where all deceptions and force could not achieve this, such as in the Americans, entire races were wiped out! Whatever the costs and crimes, Christianity is today the dominant religion in Europe and the Americas, and that’s what they wanted.

Our current world order is ruled by evangelical Christianity and ruthless Zionism. So much glamour has been lavished on anything Western or Zionist by the powerful and extremely influential Western media that the moral quality of every minute detail of life is judged by Western criteria. If capital punishment is right in the West, then it is right all over the world. Otherwise, the reverse will be the case. Refusal to adopt Western culture is seen by most humans as retrogression, whoever the person is. Westernization has already become synonymous with civilization and modernization. Western culture has become the world’s culture, and globalization is the movement to make it the culture of every unit of the human population.

When direct colonialism became very costly and unmanageable, it was replaced with neo-colonialism. Rather than invading a country to rule them and cart away their resources, the West now imposes or controls, through force or intimidation, its leaders through whom the Western agenda is vigorously pursued. That is very cheap and has proved highly effective. Where religion or culture of a people is a big obstacle to their being westernized, and they will not give it up easily, apostates and hypocrites are then sponsored into, and maintained in power by the Western overlords. This way, they gain political, economic, cultural and military control of those people. They thus lose all initiative in all aspects of their own life, becoming slaves to the Western gods.

Anytime the Western media and ‘human’ rights organizations report atrocities being committed by the rulers of the various ‘Islamic’ states, and tactfully linking those actions to Islam, I often wonder if they really know the essence of their reports. Apart from Iran and Malaysia, no other Muslim state is democratic in the honest sense. There are no freedoms in most, especially the Arab states. Democracy is the power of the ordinary citizens of the state to dictate the policies and steps of the state. The people of Iran voted in referendum to overwhelmingly approve of the Islamic Republic system as their political system. That makes it democratic because it reflects the wish of the common populace. In Malaysia, the citizens enjoy political, economic, cultural and civil freedoms. Both have strong parliaments that are duly elected inline with democratic requirements. The fact that Iran still maintains its Iranian heritage, and Malaysia its own heritage, in the organization of their politics, economy, national culture, civil life and military does not mean their freedom has been compromised. A democratic dispensation needs not be western-style, and needs not be even electoral! As long as the citizens are free, and approve of the political, economic, cultural, civil and military systems in their country, there is democracy. In Africa, almost all the states do vote. But, there is hardly any trace of democracy on the continent.

Most Arab states are client-states of the West, especially the dictatorial monarchies. The Westerners keep mercenaries on their thrones to promote the Western agenda, and whatever atrocities committed by them, they are immune from Western missiles. Actually, the atrocities often result from attempts by these mercenary states to put down popular struggles for freedom. If the Muslim people of Saudi Arabia rise up to demand of ran Islamic system of government, one based on the principles of the Koran, and their US-backed mercenary government decides to put down their demands by the force of arms and torture, who do we blame for the atrocities they might commit in the process? The Koran says, ‘And those who respond not their Lord and establish prayer, and who on matters other than those God has decreed, conduct them by mutual consultation, and who expend of what we have bestowed on them’126. This verse actually describes true believers in Islam. Among their quality is the key, apart from those issues already resolved in the Koran, conduct their political, economic, social, cultural, civil and military affairs by ‘mutual consultation’. In Islam, apart from strictly religious issues, which are left to the expertise of Islamic clerics, all other issues are to be discussed and debated thoroughly and carried out with the general consent of the populace before they can be legitimate. In other words, decrees and edicts in temporal matters are not permissible in Islam. Even in the religious circles, only edicts issued in ‘The first requirement is to break the Turk’s feeling of obedience, to extirpate their spiritual bonds, and to weaken their religious convictions. And the shortest way to this end is to accustom them to foreign ideas and behaviour that are repugnant to their national traditions and morality.

‘The very day their religious morality is broken, the Turk’s real power, which takes them to victory in front of forces that are in form much more powerful and numerous, and in appearance much greater, will waver, and, thus, it will be possible to crush them down by material superiority. For this reason, victories in warfare alone are not enough for the elimination of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, adhering to this approach only will invigorate the Turks’ sense of honour and dignity, which may cause them to further realize their essence.

‘The thing to do is to furtively aggravate the atrophy in their constitution without letting the Turks notice anything’128.

Every letter of this letter has been diligently followed by the Westerners. Today, the Ottoman Empire is gone. Turkish power is broken. And the Turks are perfect slaves of the Westerners. A complete break of their cultural independence has today done for the Westernists and the Zionists in Turkey what the force of arms could not do. Masih Muhajeri, a great Iranian scholar, wrote: ‘Of course, the Muslims who have been estranged from God and been corrupted, can easily be dominated and manipulated by any power as they were by the Europeans in Spain and the Middle East. The Zionists, despite being few in number, have also learned from their experience of the French and now have their roots firmly established in the heart of every Islamic country like a cancerous tumor. Similarly in Iran, one of the Pahlari regime’s important schemes for de-Islamization consisted of leading people away from the worship of God and obedience to His divine rules, the principal bases of Islamic culture, by making them addicted to western liberalism. All this was so that the colonizers would be able to achieve their ominous aims easily without facing any obstacles’129. By imposing mercenary kings and presidents on most Muslim states, the West have been able to tactically de-Islamize them and make them culturally dependent on them.

I asked my Westernized friend, ‘do you believe imperalism is the biggest threat to the freedom of people?’ He did not even wait to hear the whole question before he nodded, quite confidently, an affirmative answer. ‘What if you know’, I continued, ‘that the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary believe that modern imperialism basically involves taking control of among other things the economy and culture of another people? Will it make any difference if you know that forcing another identity on a people in the name of modernizing them is tantamount to forever taking away their freedom?’ They will be colonial subjects serving the citizens of the imperial power.

Most Muslim states, especially Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia and Pakistan, have mercenary militaries that are loyal to the West. It is the Turkish mercenary military that has repeatedly foiled all attempts by the Turkish populace to regain their Islamic identity. It is the Algerian mercenary military that toppled, without reason, an election overwhelmingly won by an Islamic party. Whose interests are these militaries serving? Whose interest did the Algerian military serve when they overturned a popular mandate? The people? Some colonizers?

If the Algerians had willingly elected a secular, strictly atheistic government and the military had upheld it, it would have been a different story. They would have been serving the people, and would have been right. But, how on earth do we explain this West’s ugly domination of the politics, economy, culture, civil life and military of these deprived and oppressed peoples to their own personal advantage and to promote the Western agenda? Are the Westerners promoting their freedom or enslavement?

On the question of the Saudis probably demanding for a Western-style or strictly atheistic system and if the Islamist should stop them – despite that they are willingly dropping their own identity, the old answer still holds. If the decision is absolutely based on the people’s free vote, however outrageous it is, it is their right, their absolute right as long as it does not harm the other states or cause suffering to themselves. But, what would Muslims want from Western values? What?

Have any idea who a Muslim is? He is someone who has completely submitted his entire life to God and has entered into a pledge with Him that he will never compromise the religion, however little, and he will, with his life and everything else he has, defend it with his utmost power. That is a Muslim. ‘Of the believers’, the Koran says, ‘are men who have been true to their pledge to God, from them some have fulfilled their pledges, and some are still in hope of doing so, and they never change at heart’130. Here, Muslims who have gone since Adam, those that are alive today, and billions yet unborn are being described here. A provision is inserted – and they never change at heart. That is it. They never waver in their commitment and loyalty to God’s sovereignty.

If Muslims are to accept any system from anyone, it will definitely not be one that will make them violate their pledge with God. Western culture is one based on the Bible. If the Bible had divine origin, at least to Muslims, they would have been better disposed to accept Western culture. But, even if it does, the Koran sounds a note of warning to all Muslims – ‘Today I have perfected for you your religion’131. Therefore, Islam is already perfect, and ther ewill be no need imitating the way of life of anyone, even if it has divine origin. Much less, it doesn’t.

Do not forget that Islam believes there has been only one religion preached since Adam and it was not completely, perfected and (divinely) named except during Mohammed’s mission. The reason there are many religions today is that the devil, along the way, corrupted the monotheistic beliefs of those professing early Islam and inflate it with pagan superstitions, myths and mysteries. You see an umbilical connection the Trinity of the pagan religion of ancient Egypt, involving Isis (the equivalent of Mary); Osiris, her brother and consort (Christian God) and Horus, their son (or baby Jesus), and that of Christendom. Just like Mary is regarded in Christendom as the ‘Mother of God’, and often represented in statutes and pictures of a woman carrying a baby, the statutes ofEgypt’s pagans gods, Isis and Horus, and Rome’s Mater Matuta depict a mother god carrying a son god. What a coincidence! When you consider that the twelve months of the Christian calendar had pagan origins, as well as the Christian days, you will doubt if there is any difference between Christianity and paganism. January is named after Janus, the Roman god of doorways and archways, entrances, travel and the dawn. As the Guinness Book of Answers says, ‘The first recorded New Year’s Festival is that constituted by Numa in 713BC and dedicated to Janus’132. Yet, Christians still worship Janus today!

February is named after Februa (Roman festival of purification). March for Mars (Roman god of war and agriculture); April for Aphrodite (the Greek’s god-equivalent of Roman goddess Venus), May for Maia (an obscure goddess in charge of fertility; June for Juno (Roman goddess of marriage, children and light; July for Julius Caesar and August for Augustus Caesar. The remaining months are just the Roman words for certain numbers.133

Christian days are also named after pagan gods and goddesses. Sunday is ‘Sun’s Day’, dedicated to the worship of the sun; Monday for ‘Moon’s Day’, dedicated to the worship of the Moon; Tuesday for ‘Tiu’s Day, dedicated to the worship of Tiu, the pagan English god of war; Wednesday for ‘Woden’s Day’, dedicated to the worship of Woden, a chief god among the Nordic people; Thursday for ‘Thor’s Day’, dedicated to the worship of Thor, the Nordic god of thunder, and the sky and crops; Friday for Freyja’s Day, dedicated to the worship of Saturn, the Roman god of the vine and working men.134

Even key Christian festivals are of pagan origin. You would be surprised that ‘Easter was originally a pagan festival honouring Eostre, a Teutonic (Germanic) goddess of light and spring’.135 At least, that was a quotation from nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, loyally backed by entries in Guinness Book of Answers and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Christmas itself is no exception. The December 25 date for Christmas in the Roman world wsa the Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of the ‘Unconquerable Sun’, in honour of Mithras, a Persian deity. Moreover, .’north European tribes celebrated their pagan festival of Yule to mark the rebirth of the sun as the giver of light and warmth. It is from that Yule fstival that the word Yuletide was derived’136. Encyclopaedia Americana says December 25 was chosen not because Jesus was born on that day, but to make the celebration coincide with pagan customs137. Even, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica Christmas carols are ‘a popular song with pagan associations’138.

Did you know that the wedding ring used by Christians is pagan in origin. It was used in the 7th century BC as a symbol of marriage among the ancient Egyptians. The Europress Family Encyclopaedia says, ‘Interestingly, Christianity rejected and condemned the wedding ring as a pagan accessory for several centuries. Only gradually did the church adopt it, ultimately making it an essential part of its conjugal rites and a symbol of the sanctity of marriage’139. The wedding cake ‘first appeared among the (pagan) Romans, where it was used only at the nuptials of the upper class, the Patricians’140.

The book Mankind’s Search for God published by the Jehovah Witness say: ‘Whether people are aware of it or not, many things that they do are linked with superstitious practices or beliefs, some having to do with deities or spirits. For example, did you know that birthday observance has its origin in astrology, which attaches great importance toone’s exact birth date? What about the birthday cake? It appears to be related to the Greek goddess Artemis, whose birthday was celebrated with moon-shaped honey cakes topped with candles. Or did you know that wearing black at funerals was originally a ruse to escape the attention of evil spirits said to be lurking on such occasions?’141

Even St Valentine’s Day, All Fools’ Day and other Christian festival are inherently pagan and mystic. What of many Christian names? Apollo (Greek god of prophecy, music and medicine),Diana (Roman goddess of fertility and hunting), May (Maia: Roman goddess of fertility), June (Juno: Roman goddess of marriage, light and children), Flora (Roman goddess of fruitfulness and flowers), and Silvanus (Roman god of trees and forests), Hilary (Hilaria: Roman nature goddess), Victoria (Roman goddess of victory), Julius, Anthony and Augustus (pagan Romans) are very popular Christian names. So, what is Christianity? What is Western culture? What is paganism?

If you asked any practicing Christian or Jew, ‘who wrote Deuteronomy? He would tell you ‘Moses’ at the inspiration of God. Of course, Christians do not believe in verbal inspiration as Muslims do. Therefore, the words in the Bible are the ‘holy’ thoughts of men of God. Dr W.Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, even said about his holy scripture: ‘Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of a zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men’142. So, Deuteronomy, like all other biblical books, was written by a man, in this case Moses.

In the last chapter of Deuteronomy, this passage can be read. ‘So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab… and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Bethpeor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died… And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days…’143 Do you still believe Moses wrote Deuteronomy? If no, and the answer is definitely no )look at the tenses), who did? This is further evidence that the verbally inspired Torah mentioned in the Koran is absolutely NOT the Penta teuch of the Bible. Absolutely, no, equally, since the New Testament in its entirety does not contain a single letter verbally dictated by God to Jesus (as was the case with the Koran), and even contains stories of happenings after the death of Christ, it cannot be the Injeel revealed to him during his lifetime to help his mission. So, from the Koranic point of view, the Bible has no divine origin.

The Koran itself gives a test to which any scripture must be subjected to ascertain or reject its divinity. ‘Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, had it been from other than God, they would surely have found in it many inconsistencies’144. For any scripture to be true, there must not be a single inconsistency in it. Of course, if it had not met this test, the Koran would not have put it forward anyway. That is a serious challenge to th eWest. This could be why Mohammed often claim that the Koran is the great miracle of Islam. Harry Gaylord Dorman, a Christian, seems to confirm this in his book Towards Understanding Islam: It (Quran) is a literal revelation of God, dictated to Muhammad by Gabriel, perfect in every letter. It is an ever-present miracle witnessing to itself and to Muhammad, the Prophet of God. Its miraculous quality resides partly in its style, so perfect and lofty that neither men nor jinn could produce a single chapter to compare with its briefest chapter, and partly in its content of teachings, prophecies about the future and amazingly accurate information such as the illiterate Muhammad could never have gathered of his own accord’145. Whao! If a Christian could be this fascinated by the Koran, it is really what Mohammed called it – a miracle. It is highly miraculous that a Christian can ever write that!

If the Koran is free, what then about the Bible? II Chronicles 36:9 of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible reads: ‘Jehoachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem’146. A clear historical fact! Eight years old. That sounds quite too young to be king. Here is the shocker. Reporting about the very same person in perfectly the same circumstances, II Kings 25:8 made a mistake: ‘Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem147. The question is – how really old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem? Eight? Eighteen?

II Chronicles, 9:25 reads: ‘And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem’148. It’s just like saying 4,000 armored vehicles and 12,000 mobile troops. That is also a fact, a historical one! I Kings 4:26 also stated a perfectly accurate historical fact, when, reporting on perfectly the same issue, it says: ‘Solomon also had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen’149. What is the explanation for these ‘divinely inspired’ inconsistencies?

Some ‘glib’ evangelist might want to cover up the mess by claiming that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a one before 8 in the first case, and a zero to 4,000 in the second case. Therefore, it is an error put there by human innocence and can thus be removed. No hassles. Mr Ahmed Deadat in his Is The Bible God’s Word? gave some destabilizing explanation. ‘The Jews in the time of Solomon knew nothing about the zero – “O”! It was the Arabs who introduced the zero to the Middle East (and you know that? More than half a millennium after Christ!) and to Europe centuries later. The Jews spelt out their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in numerals’150. So, that was exactly how those figures were ‘divinely’ inspired. No scribe or copyist made any mistake!

We will not delve into more inconsistencies because this is not a missionary work. We leave that to the missionaries. Nonetheless, if these two were the only inconsistencies in the Bible, going by the ‘Koranic’ standard, it could never have had any divine origin. The sad news is – there are tens of thousands more! Even the Jehovah Witness’ Awake! magazine (September 8, 1957) says there are, according to ‘modern students of the Bible, ‘probably 50,000 errors’ in the Judeo-Christian scripture! That’s quite tremendous! 50,000? Ranging from perfect obscenities to literary theft to impossible facts to inconsitent inspirations! Genesis 38 gives humanity the story of how the Jewish race started. Judah slept, in a purely adulterous intercourse (he thought he was engaging a sex worker), with Tamar, his daughter-in-law and had a set of twins, Perez and Zerah, who according to Matthew 1:3 are part of the genealogy of Christ. So, God blessed Judah for this incestuous crime by making him, and of course the illegitimate twins, the biological ancestors of His son! What moral lesson do we give our innocent children by reading them this passage?

Again, Genesis 19 verse 30 to the end tells us how Lot, a prophet of God,slept with his two daughters! Mr Deedat takes over here: ‘Out of this another incestuous relationship come to the “Ammonites” and the “Moabites”, for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have a special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Ammonites and the Moabites are not to be “distressed” or “meddled” with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy, 2:19)151. Another good lesson – incests do produce men of God, and even prophets of God ‘performed it!

Professor Cumpsty, Head of the Department of Theology at the University of Cape Town many years ago said: ‘Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible’152. Quite a confident confession. In other words, no two inspired authors could have written exactly the same words since God does not ‘dictate’ in Chrisianity, but merely gives the basic ideas. If your child is fond of copying the works of his mates and you want to advise him to be original and he comes up with a claim that even ‘inspired’ anothers did copy one another’s works, showing you II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 (the whole chapter of each) as evidence, what will you do? The truth is –these two chapters are a perfect example of 100% plagiarism! If Christians believed in verbal inspiration, the excuse would have been that God absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice. But, since they don’t, what is then responsible for this perfect plagiarism?

God? The answer is probably in these passages: ‘Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah” so that the king said to Joab and the commanders of the army, who were with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people”. But Joab said to the King, “May the Lord your God add to the people a hundred times as many as they are, while the eyes of my lord the king still see it; but why does my lord the king delight in this thing?” But the king’s word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army. So Joab and the commanders of the army went out from the presence of the king to number the peple of Israel… And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand…(I)n the morning, the word of the Lord came to the Prophet God, David’s seer, saying, “Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, Three things I offer you; choose one of them, that I may do it to you’.” So God came to David and told him, and said to him, “shall three years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days, pestilence in yoru land? Now consider, and decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me”153. This passage teaches a very important lesson – that the biblical God can set peple up and still punish them for the sins thereby committed. Here, God (the word ‘he’ in the very first sentence refers to nobody else, contextually, except the biblical God. The bible does not use ‘He’, ‘His’, or ‘Him’ for God, but their conventional forms) incites David, a prophet king, to carry out a census of his kingdom (are censes grave sins?) and thereafter offers him a choice among three terrible catastrophes in punishment – three years famine, defeat and pursuit by enemy forces or three days’ pestilence. What a horrible situation! The other passage is right below here.

‘Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel. So, David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Go, number Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan, and bring me a report that I may know their number.” But, Joab said, “May the Lord add to his people a hundred times as many as they are! Are they not, my lord the king, all of them my lord’s servants? Why then should my lord requires this?… But the King’s word prevailed over Joab. So Joab departed and went throughout all Israel, and came back to Jerusalem… In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand whodrew the sword. But he did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab… And the Lord spoke to God, David’s seen, saying, “God and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, three things I offer you; choose one of them, that I may do it to you’”. So God came to David and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days of the sword of the Lord, pestilence upon the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel’. Now decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me”154’.

There are many questions about these passages. What is the exact population of Israel? 800,000 or 1.1 million/ What is the population of Judah? 5000,000 or 470,000? Whether Joab included Levi and Benjamin in the first passage or not is completely out of the question. He reported about the census to David only once. Therefore, he could not have included them in one and dropped them in the other. It is either he included them in both passages or never at all. There would have been no problem with the God-delivered choices if not for an entry at the word ‘three’ (years) in the first passage in the first passage in the Revised Standard Version which indicates that the real word, in both the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, is ‘seven’, not ‘three’, but the change had to be made so that the passage could conform with the version in the second passage! Therefore, there are very high probabilities that other Bibles, especially those that are still loyal to the Greek and Hebrew texts, still retain the error letter and word! How do we then explain this? Which is correct – the Greek and Hebrew or the RSV? In, for instance, where the King James Versions (Black Heritage Edition) the word is ‘seven’ (‘shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?’155 which of the two passages (three or seven) should we believe?

The simple truth is this – both cannot be right and both can be wrong. So, who could have been responsible for this and all other confusions? The worst catastrophe, however, is that in the first passage, it was God who incited David into counting his people; in the latter, it was Satan. What does this mean? Mr Ahmad Deedat asked a very expensive question: ‘How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory “INSPIRATIONS?” Is it God or is it satan! In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with God!’156 These passages clearly show us something. If the same being inspired David to ‘count’ and in one report he is said to be God and in the other satan (and since Christians and Jews do strongly claim that every letter, comma and full stop of the Bible is absolutely correct – meaning both passages are right), then the both God and satan, in Christianity and Judaism must be the same person. Or, could they be the two persons that make up the Head-God in the Trinity, one representing the good side and the other the evil side – thus making a perfect balance? What is Christianity? What is Western culture? Paganism? Satanism? Dualism?

If Muslims accept Western culture and reject the western religion, they will certainly be adopting a culture built on Roman, Greek and Egyptian paganism. If they accept the religion and reject the culture, they will be heading into the innumerable confusions created by satan (or God in the Bible), leading them off their pledge with the Islamic God. But, why are the Westerners desperately bent on evangelizing Islam, or at least corrupt their religion and hand over their pagan culture to Mecca? The Koran concludes: And never will the Jews or the Christians be content with you until you follow their creed, say, “surely God’s guidance is the True Guidance”. And if you follow their desires after that which came to you of the knowledge you will have none to help or protect you from God’157. In a subsequent verse, it says: ‘And fear a Day when no soul will stand in stead for another, nor will reparation be accepted from it, nor will intercession benefit it, nor will they be helped’158.

M. Legenhausen, in his article The Catastrophe of Western Morals tells us the reason the Americans toppled the 1992 victory of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria: ‘Liberals claim that whatever force they use is for the sake of preserving individual liberties, but this presupposes the intrinsic superior worth of individual liberties over the worth of the rights of communities to determine their own destinies. Hence, in Algeria when the community unambiguously expressed its will to preserve its Islamic character, liberals quickly suspended the constitution justifying their action with the claim that Muslims would have weakened the protection of individual liberties. Liberalism is not neutral with respect to values, and specifically it is not neutral with respect to religious views, although it pretends to be the defender of religious freedom, for it is only willing to defend those the rights of individuals to choose their own values and religious views when these values and religious views are limited to the realm of the personal. If one’s religious faith prescribes a moral vision for the society at large, the liberal will view this faith as a threat’159.

In short, there is a concept called individual liberty and it is all about the absolute right of each individual to determine all of his own values, metaphysics and theology absolutely on his own and his duty absolutely not to interfere in the others’ determination of their own values, metaphysics and theology. Since the Islamists would definitely impose certain restrictions, such as banning public consumption of alcohol and destroying brothels, on individual rights (which the liberals consider to be absolute), toppling them was the best option to save individual liberty. The government, to them, should not tell the public that alcohol consumption or prostitution is right or wrong. The individual should tell himself. If he says prostitution, for instance, is bad, no one must force or try to force him to believe that it is good. But, he too must not force or try to force others to hold his belief. He equally has no right to stop even his only son or daughters from visiting or working at a brothel. That is what he or she believes and he must leave him or her alone. If on the other hand, the individual believes that prostitution is good, and the government makes a law criminalizing prostitution and demolishing brothels, to the liberal, the latter has violated his individual liberty and must be charged for stepping on a fundamental right. This is because the individual would have been prevented from enjoying what he believes.

If a person believes in atheism and someone now imposes an Islamic government upon him, would that, to the liberal, be a major violation of human rights. In an Islamic state, the validity or otherwise is based on the criteria of the Koran. In a liberal state, it is based on the belief that all should be absolutely free to adopt his own values, metaphysics and theology with absolutely no interference from either the government or any other human being. If this is the true meaning of liberalism, then the toppling of the 1992 victory is a violation of the individual rights of millions of people. A terrible crime indeed!

Let’s think this way. What if the individual decides to adopt the Islamic values, metaphysics and theology absolutely as his or hers? In the area of theology, what if he makes a pledge with God, a being the liberals do not believe (instead they either believe in Jesus or satan), to submit himself to whatever laws and punishments He makes? Going by the principle of democracy where the voice of the majority (however slight) prevails, what if more than 98% of the populace have adopted Islamic values, metaphysics and theology and are ready to submit to the sovereignty of the God they believe in (in liberalism, human beliefs are sacred)? What if each individual believes the Islamic system of government is best (of course no one has the right to interfere with his belief) and it is discovered that most individuals freely believe so? What if they express this belief in a democratic election and a group of mercenary generals topple their sacred belief?

By contrast, is the imposition of Western values, metaphysic and )to some failed extent) theology on the individuals of Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on not a total breach of their absolute right to free choice? If a Turkish girl believes the hijab is good for her at all times, should the Ataturkic government tell her ‘look, this thing is not good for you and you must not wear it in our schools and universities and on TV! Is that not a violation of personal liberty? The West is silent about Ataturk’s imposition of Western criminal and civil laws, lifestyles and culture on the people of Turkey, in the name of taking them to the West, because it favours the Western agenda. If on the other hand, Turkey were a Christian country and its government in the name of taking them to the East imported Malaysian laws, lifestyles and cultures into the country and imposed them on the people, what would the West say?

The answer is apparent. The West has its own definition of liberty. To them, liberty is to be free from all other humans and God and to be servile to the West. Declaring independence from Western domination and influences by a Muslim state is to them a return to barbarism. Such a nation is barbaric because it has disrupted the natural order of things, at least according to Western thinking, where the white race (the superior humans) rule the other races (the inferior humans). It has also, by doing that, violated ‘human’ right – to rule. It has equally launched an incursion into ‘human’ rights. Only whites (humans) have the right to be free from complete domination, and the ‘humans’ will never tolerate any form of ‘sub-human’ rule over ‘humans’.

In a word, since anything white (and by extension Christian or Jewish) is superior to any other thing from any other race, the whites have a moral obligation, in Western thinking, to impose their superior values, metaphysic and theology on the lesser races and they are helping humanity thereby. At least, to them, they are making the sub-humans more human. Sometimes, however, one sees one ‘super-human’ race dominating another, who now in turn rule the lesser races. A good example was the British rule of the Indian Brahmins (the superior human race in Hinduism – they are Aryans) who in turn served as gods for the other Hindus. This could give us a better idea of what western supremacism is all about. The westerners do not care how you see yourself or how others see you, as long as you are not one of them, you have no right to be free from their rule, but non-whites have no right to rule you. In other words, freedom or liberty resides only in being servile to the West and its culture, values, metaphysics and theology. Otherwise, you are not ‘free’ and your rebellion will be crushed.

Personal liberty in the Western concept is to have absolute individual freedom to adopt Western values, metaphysics and theology. But, the arrogant West needs to understand what Muslims feel about rights and liberties before making any assessment of their states. They need to be absolutely objective – dropping all malices and prejudices – and thinking like equal partners to all other humans, however dark, however uncivilized. Mr Masih Muhajeri probably helped them out in his Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nations: ‘the word “liberalism” like the word “colonization” has been trapped in a sinister destiny which had been planned for it by the westerners. It is for this reason that there is a great difference between “western liberalism” and the real meaning of liberalism. Just as the word “colonization” actually means development and civilization, the colonizers under this beautiful name are plundering and pillaging the regions colonized by them. The word “liberalism” means liberty from the ideological point of view; the word “liberal” is applied to a person who is in search of liberty; but since this word has become trapped in the maze of colonialism and become a colonizer’s toy, it has developed as a tool for neo-colonization. Consequently, the word connotes freedom from all human and divine responsibilities and obligations and submission to the restrictions and limitations imposed by neo-colonialization…. From the Islamic point of view man is so valuable and free that he should not put himself, his thoughts, his understanding, will-power or choice at anyone’s disposal apart from God’s. This means the negation of all material chains which may enslave the human being. This, in fact, corresponds to the true meaning of “liberalism”…

‘What is today considered liberal by the West and those in the Third World infatuated with the West is man’s freedom from divine orders and his servitude to materialism. In the name of science, a western liberal in fact proclaims man’s escape from his Godly nature and his seeking refuge in animal qualities. Western liberalism is a channel in which vices are deceitfully mounted in false frames and displayed as great human values, the word ‘liberty’ being the only word which, with its magical power, justifies those frames. Consequently western liberalism is a slaughterhouse in which freedom is sacrificed for the desires of the satanic nature of the profiteering, laveivious individuals and those who turn away from God’160.

The true face, by now, of the slave-makers must have been well exposed. Muslims believe that all human beings are absolute equal, and no human being has the right to determine the destinyof another. Imam Ali, the fourth Caliphin Islam, said: ‘Do not make yourself a slave of anyone when God has made you free’161. In Islam, only God has the right to rule over all humans; no human has the right to play master over fellow humans. No! In Western ideology, it is the West, rather than God because they are the master race. Whenever a Westerner tells you ‘all human beings are equal’, and says nothing more, he must have then decided to utter the other part of the sentence in his heart – ‘but some are more equal than others’.

To the West, ‘human’ rights apply only to Westerners; and to be eligible for those rights, a non-Westerner has to adopt everything of the ‘superior race’. Otherwise, he remains a slave forever. For all those who claim that Islam restricts the personal freedoms of individual Muslims, the fairest name to call them is ‘complete ignoramuses’. How can anyone on earth tell the author, who, being a Muslim, have completely adopted Islamic values, metaphysics and theology (including of course the prohibition NOT to consume any intoxicants) in a due exercise of his personal liberty that Islam is restricting his freedom to consume intoxicants? Already, he himself does not, as a mater of personal value, consider intoxicants good for him and even regards them as thing he must never touch throughout his life. Secondly, he, as a matter of personal liberty again by them. Therefore, any imposition of Islamic law on him is a fulfillment, never in anyway a violation, of his personal liberty. That is what his personal liberty wants and what it is given. A denial of the author’s liberty to choose to be absolutely governed by Islamic laws is a gross violation of his fundamental human rights.

It would have been a different story if he (God forbid) chooses to break his pledge to submission and worship to God and adopt another creed, or even resort to outright atheism. In such case, he definitely would have changed his values, metaphysics and theology in line with his new beliefs. Therefore, his beliefs about intoxicants and Islamic law might have changed. Forcing him not to consume intoxicants when he actually believes it is compulsory for him, for instance, might be a real catastrophe for human rights. However, if his exercise of his personal liberty harms the wishes of the majority of the people in his legislative constituency – 51% believe in Islamic law and want it applied on them as a matter of state duty – there will be absolutely no breach of liberty. Democracy guarantees freedom, but yet believes in the supremacy of majority decision. Its principles, in the interest of justice and freedom, must be strictly observed in any affair. Otherwise, there will be chaos. The most conservative westerner, even, cannot deny this-!

If you see a Muslim objecting to Islamic values, metaphysics and theology, despite his pledge with God, it is absolutely because he is intellectually dependent on the West. Once he is able to re-gain his intellectual independent and learns more about Islam, he will change his words – for certain.

Islam believes in the establishment of certain political, economic, cultural, civil and military institutions to guarantee freedom, equality, fairness, justice and happiness for all. It wants the whole of humanity to be equal slaves under One Supreme God. It wants to rid the world of confusion, idolatry, superstition, credulity, ignorance, prostitution, gambling, drinking, oppression, war and millions of other evils threatening human intellectual development and the welfare of society. The charge of barbarism leveled on this book by Westerners is either a result of their indepth ignorance about Islam or their own club-footed perception of what true civilization and justice is.

Deutch, a tolerant Christian, wrote: ‘The Koran is a book is a book by the aid of which the Arabs conquered a world greater than that of Alexander the Great; greater than that of Rome, in as many tens of years as the latter had hundreds to accomplish her conquests; by the aid of which they came to Europe as kings to hold up the light to humanity, while darkness lay around, to raise up the wisdom and knowledge of Hellas from the death, to teach philosophy, medicine, astronomy and the golden art of song to the West as to the East, to stand at the cradle of modern science, and to make us later-comers for ever weep over the day when Granada fell’162.

Islam came to the West when it had no civilization and brought knowledge and development there. Its strictly intolerant attitude to monasticism, celibacy, aristocracy, indoctrination and suppressed thoughts within its own realm eventually led to the big revolution that rocked Europe throughout the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries and liberated European conscience from the captivity of the Popes. But, as a counter-response to their long suffering in the hands of Christianity, Europe rose in a terrible rage against religion and officially returned to pagan Greek and Roman civilizations (see all reliable documents about the Renaissance) as a way to get freedom. Christianity is strictly personal, and apart from a few ethics and etiquettes, it has practically no public aspect. This seriously frustrated its rise into any significant power. When it eventually succeeded in toppling the emperors of Rome, with power passing into the hands of the popes, it brought Europe under a black theocratic dictatorship that ended in the death of civilization. The powers and wealth of the popes soon grew tremendously. To feel the vacuum created by the absence of public laws and systems in Christianity, the popes issues edict in the name of God and the poor people’s loyalty was continuously maintained by indiscriminate threats of God’s instant destruction of anyone who rose in rebellion against the church. If the church said ‘don’t eat for ten years’ and you ate on the tenth day, God would destroy you, either or both in this world or the hereafter. There was absolutely no room to question papal edicts because it was nothing but rebellion against God, even if the popes were apparently unreasonable. There was absolutely nofree thought. And when inspired by the institutions of free thought and individual interpretaion of divine decrees present in neighbouring Islam, Europe rose, out of frustration, against God toppling the popes and winning for themselves the freedom to think freely about God and anything associated with Him, it turned towards its pre-Christian civilization for salvation. Christian rule had nothing else to offer them other than black repression, oppression and suppression. But, even pagan Greek and Roman civilizations, especially the former, to some extent, allow more freedom and more happiness than Christianity. So, Europe neutralized Christianity’s cruelty with pagan, and in some cases, outrightly atheistic values, metaphysics and theology. Today, a typical Christian is equally a practicing pagan, and in considerably many cases, and unsuspecting agnostic.

But, paganism or even outright atheism (the December 2004 You Gov survey found out that only 44% of Britons now believe in God! What about the others? If this were the case for those who believed in God, including of course Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and other religious communities, what about the church-goers who are traditionally a miserable minority among Christian believers?) may not be the way out of the crisis. Judging all religions by the cruelty, confusion and inconsistency of one may be an utterly unscientific mistake SP. Scott, although a Christian, revealed in his classic History of the Moorish Empire in Europe that Islam is the perfect alternative the Europeans were, and are, still looking for:

‘The Koran commands relief of the oppressed, protection of the defenseless, mercy to the orphan, and kindness to animals. It enjoins the strict performance of engagements, even though entered into with members of a hostile creed; in humiliating contrast with infidels. It denounces awful penalties against the murderer and the suicide. In its pages the profound deference that usually attacks to aristocratic birth and distinguished station is ignored; titled insolvence is not permitted to assert superiority over the unpretending worshippers, and the monarch and the beggar meet as brethren before the throne of Almighty God. The right of private judgement is repeatedly and authoritatively declared to be the privilege of every believer; the humblest Moslem may place his own interpretation on the texts of the alleged revelation; and his conception of their meaning and application is entirely independent of the edicts of priests or the suspicious decision of the synod and councils’163.

On the controversial topic of women’s right, Dr Annie Besant, in her book The Life and Teachings of Muhammad wrote: ‘I often think that woman is more free in Islam than in Christianity. Woman is more respected by Islam than by the fith whch preaches monogamy. In Al-Koran the law about women is more just and liberal. It is only in the last 20 years that Christian England has recognized the right of women to property while Islam has allowed this right from all times. It is a slander to say that Islam preaches that women have no souls’164. Dr R. Roberts probably backed her point: ‘Mohammed gave women the right to inherit, possess and acquire property in a way which is not enjoyed even by many modern women’165.

Muhammad Azizullah commented on the institution of purdah in Islam: ‘The present purdah system has mostly been copied from the Rajputs and Mahrattas. It is also of Zoroastrian, Persian and Christian Byzantinian origin’166. In other words, it has absolutely no Islamic origin! He went further to clarify the situation: ‘It is appropriate to explain here that the purdah system that is prevalent in India and Pakistan is neither Islamic nor of Arabian origin’167.

De Lacy O’ Leavy wrote about a highly controversial issue today in America: ‘History makes it clear…that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon the conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repetaed’168. O. Houdas in La Grande Encyclopaedia wrote: ‘The jihad was not really obligatory except against peoples who had no revealed religion (people of pagan beliefs) or menaced the existence of Islam Jihad to be waged to defend Islam against aggressions. Once the war was terminated the Muslim always displayed a great tolerance towards the conquered peoples leaving them their legislation and religious beliefs’169. E. Alexander Powell ends it all: ‘In their wars of conquest, however, the Muslims exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame’170.

Islam law has always been an object of criticism in the West. But Edmund Burke, in his impeachment of Warren Hastings wrote: ‘The Muhammadan law which is binding on all, from the crowned head to the meanest subject (perfect rule of law), is a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned, and the most enlightened jurispudence that ever existed in the world’171.

You would know Burke was right only after reading this pact which Mohammed unilaterally entered into with all Christians, from Adam to the last human being that will be created. ‘I, Muhammad had this article written to give my promise concerning all non-Muslims. Whoever acts against this promise, either the leader of the Islamic state or someone else, will be deemed to have revolted against God, and to have mocked his own religion. Such a person is entitled to the curse of God (see how Mohammed defended non-Mulsims against his own men!)

‘If a Christian priest or a traveler is fasting as an act of worship in a mountain, in a valley, in a desert, on green lands, in low places, or in sand, I, together with my friends, my assistants, and all of my nation, have abrogated all sorts of obligations on them. I show respect towards them and they are under my guardianship. I have exempted them from all taxes that they have to pay in accordance with the treaty we have established with other Christians. Let them be exempt from paying any tribute, or only pay as much as they desire.

‘Do not use force or compulsion on them. Do not dismiss their religious leaders from their posts. Do not force them out of their places of worship. Do not prevent them from traveling. Do not damage any part of their churches or monasteries. Any property taken from their churches should not be used in the mosques. Whoever acts improperly towards these words will be deemed to be against the word of God and His Prophet, and will have committed a sin.

‘Do not collect taxes, such as jizyah and garamet from those who are always busy with worshipping and never trade. On sea or land, in the West or the East, I keep their debts. They are under my guardianship. I have given them a guarantee. Do not collect tribute and tithe from the crops of those living on the mountains who are busy with worshipping. Do not take any part out of their crops for the treasury of the state. This is because agriculture is only for feeding themselves, not for trade.

‘if you need men for holy wars, do not call them. If it is necessary to collect jizyah from them, do not take more than twelve dirham (gram) a year, no matter how rich they are or how much property they have. They are not to be imposed with any trouble or hardship. If you have to negotiate with them, they should be treated kindly, mercifully and compassionately. Keep them always under your merciful and compassionate wings.

‘Wherever they may be, do not treat harshly those Christian women married with Muslim men. Do not prevent them from going to their churches and worshipping according to their religion. Whoever does not obey this order or acts against it, will be deemed to have revolted against the orders of God and His Prophet.

‘They must be helped when repairing their churches.

‘This promise will be valid until the Day of Judgement and will remain unchanged until the end of the world and no one should act against it’172. What you just read are the exact words of Mohammed. If liberalism, in its true sense, is the measure of nobility for any civilization, definitely no civilization in the whole of human history can claim to be as noble as Islam. If tolerance is the measure of nobility for all civilizations, no civilization throughout history, and even today, can claim to be as noble and tolerant as Islam.

Islam definitely hates crime, immorality, debauchery and pornography. Yet, it is ready to tolerate Christianity. Despite the holy incest and prostitutions of the Bible, despite its naked pornography, Islam is still ready to allow it survive. If any publication, audio, video or any other thing is capable of being x-rated on accounts of its pornographic content, strict sharia states like Saudi Arabia and Iran will definitely not allow it into their territory. This is because it can corrupt the social fabric of the nation and destroy the conscience of its yet unborn generations. In a word, it can permanently damage its future. Despite its strictly pornographic content, however, because Islam guarantees religious freedom, such states as Saudi Arabia and Iran will allow it into their territory, for absolute use by anyone who cares.

The Plain Truth, an American-based Christian journal, in 1977: ‘reading Bible stories to children can also open up all sorts of opportunities to discuss the morality of sex. An unexpurgated Bible might get an x-rating from some censors’173. Apart from Hinduism which is inherently pornographic, such that sex organs are objects of worship among Hindus, Christianity is probably the most pornographic religion in the world. Apart from the fact that its god has very doubtful, and perfectly incestuous genealogies, everyone still considers it to be worthy of being called a religion. There are only two records of his genealogy in the whole Bible, one by Matthew and the other by Luke. An outstanding feature of both is that they are completely different lineages. While Matthew wrote that Joseph’s (the father of Jesus’) ancestry is directly traceable, in a series of biological fathers and sons, to Solomon, the most famous among the sons of David. To Luke, Solomon is absolutely irrelevant here because Joseph’s lineage was actually founded by Nathan, another son, apparently less famous, of David. The question is – who founded Joseph the carpenter’s lineage – Solomon or Nathan?

Or, can a son have two biological father/ Matthew and Luke gave perfectly different lineages (with all the names completely different) for Joseph and call their ‘God-inspired’ lists the genealogies of Christ. If anyone says that those genealogies are not biological to Christ, What about Joseph? At least, the gospels claim that the different lineages are biological genealogies of at least Joseph the carpenter. This undoubtedly means that Joseph had two biological fathers. Only one of them can be right; or both are wrong. Confusion is everywhere in the Bible. Dr Joseph Parker in an enthusiastic eulogy said: ‘What a book is the Bible in the matter of variety of contents!… Whole pages are taken up with obscure names, and more is told of a genealogy than of the Day of Judgement. Stories are half-told, and the night falls before we can tell where victory lay. Where is there anything to correspond with this?174’ Of course, there is none!

That notorious Christian journal, The Plain Truth, again (in 1975) commented: ‘some claim and rightly so, that Biblical passages have been continuously misused and misappropriated to justify almost every evil known to man’175. A very great achievement indeed! Deuteronomy 20:10-18, for instance, can be used to justify the nuclear massacres of the Second World War! The problem with the journal’s choice of words is that this time it failed to tell the plain truth! The real words are ‘used’ and ‘appropriated’, not ‘misused’ and ‘misappropriated’.

Mr Ahmed Deedat paid homage to the unique inventiveness of Christianity. ‘Christianity has been most prolific of spawning isms, Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to?176’ All these denominations and movements are honourable members of the wider Christian family. What this means is that Christniaty has done so much damage to the conscience and ideology of the Christian world. He went further: ‘How much more permanent damage the rapes and murders, incest and beastialities of the “Holy Bible” has done to the children of Christendom, can be measured from reports in our daily newspapers. If such is the source of Western morality, it is no little wonder, then, that Methodists and Roman Catholics have already solemnized marriages between homosexuals in their “Houses of God”177. Deedat could nto wait to see the Anglicans join the band wagon.

The Bible is a such a serious threat to the moral sanity of any nation that George Bernard Shaw, the legendary Christian writer called for its outright ban! Acording to him, it is ‘the most dangerous book on earth’178. A priceless advice to all humanity – ‘keep it under lock and key’179. But, in strictly Islamic states like Iran and Malaysia, the Bible is given its due respect and honoured as a very important book (because of its religious status), inspite of its wildly corrupting nature! What other freedom, religions freedom would anyone want? Despite that it is of extremely doubtful origin, it is still a huge threat to the moral survival of any Muslim state. Yet, no Muslim individual or state has ever called for its ban. Apparently taking very great risks, Mohammed still went ahead to fully respect and honour it and its people – the Jews and the Christians.

If liberalism, according to Western thought, is the replacement of God by the Western man, who now has the absolute right to dominate and exploit the resources of the other human races because he is of the white or Aryan type, then freedom may never be anywhere on earth. If it is the right of certain people to rule over others, then it is nothing but slavery. If it is the ruthless promotion of Roosevelt’s ‘guardianship’ principle or the Westernists western Agenda, then the world is a new Egypt, where the cruel Pharaoh is the West and the Hebrews are the other human races. But, if it is the absolute equality of all humans, where the Aryans of Iran (in fact, Iran got its name from the name of its dominant race – the Aryans) are absolutely equal to the black pigmies and bushmen of Africa, and all are equal servants under One Supreme God, then Islam is the only path to the true freedom of humanity. It is equally the path to true civilization and salvation.

CONCLUSION
‘When we survey the Muslim world today, we see a confused and troubled picture in which political instability plays a major role. In spite of the Islamic requirement of a leader elected from among the people who consults with them in the conduct of affairs, in very few countries of the Muslim world today are there governments elected by the people and responsive to their needs, or capable of providing leadership and stability to their countries; rather there are, by and large, the rulers and the ruled’180.

‘They see many Muslim rulers apparently reduced to puppets in the hands of foreign powers. This generates a general feeling or resentment of all non-Muslim foreigners and suspicion of everything foreign, including modern knowledge – irrespective of the guilt or otherwise of the foreigners concerned or the usefulness of the knowledge to Muslims. They are all labeled as Kuffar and all their works as “Kufr”181.

‘Americans are asking, “why do they hate us?” They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms182.

‘Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and wil do that… I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it’183.

‘This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people’s lands, or other people’s honour’184.

This is the moment of truth. Americans claim Muslims hate democracy and freedom, and that that is why they are attacking Westerners and othe rnon-Muslims. Islamists are struggling to overthrow the illegitimate and terribly repressive regimes in favour of a democratically elected government that is slave to the populace, in line with the Islamic principle of government-people mutual consultation, in their various countries. The Americans call this a war against freedom, because the Islamists are fighting US-mercenary regimes – a clear violation of the West’s divine right to rule over all other human races, directly or indirectly.

What does Bin Laden mean when he said the Americans attack other people’s lands and honour? Honour is measured by how worthy a human is considered to be. If he is considered as a man of his honour, his freedoms, rights and privileges will be fully respected and he will be treated as a partner in progress, not a party to be dominated or exploited. An American who considers a Muslim to be a man of his honour will never insist, much less by the use of force, that the latter must adopt his own values metaphysics and theology – simply because he has no right to retain his own Islamic ones. By doing so, to the Westerner, he would be restricting his own freedom – to live and die like a Westerner – even if he ardently wants to be fully Islamic, out of his own free choice, throughout his life. When Bin Laden said America attacks other people’s lands, he meant Washington seize other nation’s resources and unduly exploit them to develop its own economy, causing extreme poverty, disease ignorance, squalor and disasters in other lands. When he said Washington attacks other people’s honour, he meant it attacks their freedom to choose whatever they like as best for themselves. In other words, the Americans attack other people’s freedom. For what? For the Jews. For Christ. For their resources. For the white cause.

The problem here is – who really is the enemy of a democratically elected government between the Americans and the Muslims? What brought tears to America on 9/11 and smiles to the faces of the Muslim world? When evil befalls one’s main oppressor, it is natural that one will feel happy, and will smile. But the smiles of 9/11 have resulted in more oppression – more than one hundred times its original level – and a level of naked persecution unprecedented in human history. Those smiles, which absolutely are against the teachings of Islam, have proved to be very foolish and regretful. But, even the message of the whole saga must not be forgotten. False beliefs of a big bang on the oppressor’s, and persecutor’s, tremendous strength, and an impending freedom of the world due to its likely collapse therefrom gave birth to the ugly smiles. Although natural and human, this reaction to a tragedy affecting thousands of human souls (even if only a single life is involved or just a minor bruise is caused to a single person) is total foolishness.

But, the painful question still remains – when will all these peoples get their freedom?

In his 2001 historic address to Congress, George W. Bush made a very important observation n- In the Muslim world, there are no democratically elected governments. For once in his lifetime, the American warlord was honest. Muslim governments are not democratically election. The word ‘democratically’ which he added makes all the difference. In his honesty, he meant governments that come into power because its people want them to be there and ones that can fall anytime the peple are angry or not satisfied with them. The Muslim world does not just need elected governments. There could be either Eurocratically (one sponsored into power by, and strictly controlled, by the West) or democratically elected governments. The former is one of the biggest challenges the democratization process, not only in the Muslim world but throughout the non-Western world. Rather than being the champions of democracy and freedom, the Western governments are themselves the most serious threats to democracy and genuine freedom in the world. However, when a nation walks to full self-determination and popular rule, with absolutely no interference or blockage from the West, then the world is better for it.

The most undemocratic, and equally the most repressive regime in the Middle East, and possibly with an exception to Uzbekistan, the most corrupt regime in the Muslim world is the monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer. Yet, there is poverty and unemployment in the rotten kingdom. The House of Saud have trillions of dollars – again trillions of dollars – in investments and savings in the United Sates (they own a whopping 6% of the world’s largest economy!185) while their subjects back at home wallop in frustration. I often wonder what Saudi Arabia would look like if just $1 trillion of the money is pumped into the development of the country’s heavy and hi-tech industries. If these tyrants cannot give the country back its money, at least, they can invest it and recoup ‘their’ money when it has revolutionized the way of Arabia in the ways desired by its peple. But, they will never. They also envisage a day when the Judgement of God will pass upon them and their Westerner supporters, just like it happened to be ex-Sha in Iran, and the entire machinery of slavery and exploitation in Saudi Arabia will be blown off. If this happens, and it will, if they do not give power back to the Saudi people at the right time, they will have some things to fall on, either to launch a devastating military assault to retake ‘their’ oil fields or to enjoy the rest of their lives. In their continued exploitation and repression of the Saudis, they have a very helpful ally – the United States.

The House of Saud supplies America with most of its oil needs. Saudi oil is very essential to the survival of the American, and the wider Western, economy. Some analysts have even called it the nerve of the American economy. Any disturbance with oil supplies from the Persian Gulf could end up in a crashdown of the West! This is why the Westerners are particularly enthusiastic about having the Middle East under their political, cultural, economic and military occupation. Any attempt by any Arab or Muslim government to fight Western supremacist and colonialist policies in the defenseless Third World with oil power could quickly be crushed and the government immediately overthrown in favour of a more subservient mercenary regime. Because the House of Saud has been very, very co-operative with the Americans and the Zionists, the Americans see them as a very, very valuable asset that must never be lost. Already, they are not popular at home and their government is illegitimate under international law. Therefore, it would be very easy to overthrow them and their defeat would even be welcome within Saudi Arabia itself, if they make any mistake. Since their hold on power is not strong enough, and is increasingly loosening up because of the rising strength of the Islamic resurgence (by those who, out of frustration with the existing mischief, decide to seek an Islamic alternative) the American’s defacto offer of protection against the frustrated Islamic nationalists in exchange for unstoppable flow of oil to Washington sounds appealing to them. As long as they supply the American oil, their fight against the Islamists would be blindly and unswervingly backed, physically, financially and morally, by the Americans. A regime change in Saudi Arabia at this time or at any other time since the beginning of the Saudi-American alliance, could be a very big catastrophe for America. Most Saudis already see the Americans as the only obstacle to their freedom and thereby hate them, and with the hatred tremendously strengthened by the extreme version of Wahabism propagated by the House of Saud itself (a way of directing public rage against the miseries in the land at foreigners and a strategic way of creating anti-Western paranoia among the populace so as to completely divert public attention away from the ugly realities at home) future Saudi government could even launch an outright way against the West. From pro- to anti-Western. All attempts at reconciliation, considering that America, and the West in general, still oppress and persecute other Muslims, and other human nations, throughout the world, may never work. Islam says Muslims and their governments must never ally themselves with or be friends to oppressive peoples and states.

The only solution to the confusion that may result is a Western invasion of Islam’s holiest land to destroy and pillage. A possible bombardment of the Kaaba or the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina could lead to just anything! Anything. To avoid that anything and a possible disruption of Western economy, the House of Saudi must be maintained in power at any cost. They are sure never to assert themselves in the face of American control. The Western agenda is already doing well, very well in that country. Democracy or not, repression or not, the Western agenda comes first. As long as it benefits, the status quo remains, whatsoever the opposition and whatsoever it takes to stay it.

Therefore, in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria (you would be surprised), Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria (especially), Turkey, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, to mention just a few, Muslim activists and fighters, struggling to destroy the repression and oppression in the land and bring freedom to their people face America and other Western states in political, economic and military opposition to their legitimate struggle. In Palestine, for instance, the Nazi Zionists would long have been defeated, if not for America’s dominant-gun role. The mistake these people probably make is that they sometimes forget their wars upon the repressive occupiers of their lands are direct wars against the US. The Saudi, Filipino, Uzbek, Israeli, Egyptian, Turkish, Algerian, etc governments are paid mercenaries loyal and servile to the US government. Fighting any of them is fighting the US government. What this translates into is that Washington is the free world’s only problem today.

‘The US,’ Abu Umar Al-Faruqi a Nigerian author, writes, ‘has though various covert activities subverted attempt by any Muslim nation to be militarily capable and independent of foreign control. Those who do not submit are then subjected to psychological and physical attacks…. This is not peculiar to Muslim countries alone, all communities of people that have refused to recognized the supremacy of the US are… subjected to similar attacks’186. This is for countries that have decided to shift their loyalty away from Washington backed to their peoples. This is what such countries as Iran and Malaysia have suffered. Unparalleled persecution and psychological torture. All for deciding to be free!

In the Muslim states that are still slave to the West, what is the situat like for the freedom fighters? ‘When we survey the Muslim world today’,s says Suzanna Haneef, ‘we see a confused and troubled picture in which political instability plays a major role. In spite of the Islamic requirement of a leader elected from among the people who consults with them in the conduct of affairs, in very few countries of the Muslim world today are there governments elected by the people and responsive to their needs, or capable of providing leadership and stability to their countries; rather there are, by and large, the rulers and the ruled. And although in most cases they professed Islam and often made a public show of piety, among the rulers of the Muslim world in recent years have been many who were dictators and oppressors of the most vicious sort. They stifled all criticism and dissent in their societies, whether by individuals, groups or the press, by sadistically oppressive means, making ruthless use of highly-trained secret police and intelligence services to suppress anyone they considered a threat to their unbridled power; they filled the prisons of their “Muslim” countries to overflowing with tens of thousands of sincere and committed Muslims, many belonging to the intelligentsia, who were trying to call for a revival of Islam in their societies or to question the policies or actions of the ruler. Hair-raising Nazi-style tortures were applied to countless numbers of them under which many died, and some of the best among them were executed for fabricated “crimes” in order to silence the voice of truth so the ruler might continue unimpeded in his relentless drive for absolute power.

‘Country after country in the Muslim world has seen rulers of this kind during the past half century or more, men who, although often “Muslims” themselves, hated and feared the very name of Islam because it constituted the only real challenge to their unchecked power and ambition, and who threw all their energies into trying to suppress it by oppressing Muslims. The Islamic requirement and demand of the people themselves for basic human freedoms, social justice and good rule were systematically and ruthlessly stifled. Any incident occurring under such conditions was blamed on Islam and “Muslim fanaticism”, as if one had to be either a Muslim or a fanatic to want freedom and justice; indeed incident expressly manufactured by the government for the purpose of discrediting Muslims have not been unknown. But since Islam, which is deep within the lifeblood of Muslims even though they may be indifferent to its requirements, could not be so easily dismissed, such rulers attempted to reduce it to mere piety and acts of worship lest it emerge as a strong, dynamic movement in which each individual feels a keen sense of responsibility for how the country is governed, what happens to its resources which belong to all the people, the morals and behaviuors of its officials, and the entire host of matters over which governments have jurisdiction, which Almighty God has made the concern of every Muslim individual as a member of his society as well’187.

Please re-read the last two sentences again. Now, start the entire quotation all over the again .What you see is exactly the situation throughout North Africa, the Middle (except Iran), Central and South Asia and the Southeast Asia. Islamists have had to face a terrible war against Islam by ‘Muslim’ rulers themselves and a yet more terrible war from their Western masters. They know for certain they can secure their own freedom, albeit by force of arm, from the ruthless feudalists who occupy their land, such as the dynasties in Arabia, the life presidents of North Africa and Asia in general, and the Zionists, the Indians, and the Filipinos in various Muslim territories; but for American sponsorship and military support of these slave-makers. East, West, North, South – wherever the Islamic activists turn to seek freedom, Western tanks and missiles are always on the way to stop and kill them. Frustrated beyond compare, completely hopeless at the prospect of ever defeating the tragic despots, or better put ever getting Western opposition out of their way, some of them turn extremists and terrorists. There you see car bombs and suicide bombers everywhere, specially targeting Westerners and anyone who works with them. But in some critical cases, certain objectives are targeted and any or all lives can be lost.

The current Muslim anger against the West, as some would like to believe has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that either the Westerners or the Zionists are non-Muslims. Even Muslim despots and traitors are not spared. It is rather a struggle for freedom which the West should wholly support rather than frustrate. Ike Okonta, a Nigerian Christian, in a classic article published in September 2001, by the ThisDay newspaper, caught the true view of the crisis: ‘The Middle East is not exactly peopled by saints, but it is not crawling with villains either. The bulk of the inhabitants of the area are plain ordinary folk who just want to get on with life like their counterparts in other parts of the world. However, American policy in the Middle East these past decades, ranging from its support for the thieving and murderous shah Reza Palehvi of Iran to propping up corrupt feudal potentates in Saudi Arabia to ignoring the desperate plea of Palestinians for self-determination, has sired and a new generation of Arabs whose sole purpose in life now is to strike out at the American “enemy”188. Those attacks and counter-attacks are simply to pass a message to the Westerners – leave us alone and let us be free, in our ownway, like you are, in your own.

Free in their own way? That is a lot of question. In the West, democracy has meant freedom to vote, but not to contest and influence public policy, for most. Top posts are for an aristocratic class. Only the aristocrats can afford the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to get to the top. What is left with over 98% of the West is the right to vote. Since capitalism is congenitally based on a dog-eat-dog race for money, most of those who succeed in it are terribly dangerous people. The road to success and power is ruthless, and oceans of sweat and cold blood must be crossed before any dreams can come true. These people, the capitalists, are often those who can afford the expenses of politicking in the West, and are most often the holders of power.

The dominant direction of each Western country’s domestic and foreign policies is often determined among other things by the idiosyncrasies and interests of its ruling oligarchy and its religious convictions. If, for instance, the ruler is a die-hard capitalist, like George Bush, he is most likely to invade other nations to extent his own personal business empire. If he happens to be more evangelical than capitalist, his belligerence becomes more horrific. Blaise Pascal (1623-62) said: ‘Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction’. If he was right, then the current wars being carried out by the West’s No. 1 warlord today, G.W. Bush, a Methodist evangelical who believes in armed conquest of the entire world, especially the Middle East (because of its religious importance), in preparation for Jesus’ second coming, are the most determined in US history. Although, he might be flanked by homosexuals and atheists (who are anyway members of the innumerable sects that emerged out of Christianity as a result of confusions and schisms within the church and its bruising confrontation with science and modernity, one that is still raging furiously today), Bush’s motives for his self-proclaimed ‘crusades’ in the Muslim world are congenitally evangelical and Westernist. They are strictly personal to the warlord extraordinaire and are equally matters of state policy.

State policy? This man has probably forgotten that the West in general and America in particular are strictly secular, such that most in the world think we are anti-religious. We cannot be evangelical. If the argument about Westernism is right, that about evangelism is outrightly wrong.

Whenever I remember this extremely popular English case189 which in clear, unequivocal terms, say that the commonlaw, which is the legal system being operated in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is absolutely Christian, I often wonder what an Englishman will tell an Iranian, for instance, to convince him that adopting the Saturday (Jewish) and Sunday (Christian) Sabbaths is a strictly secular move for any Christian or Jewish majority state. I wonder what the Australian will say to prove that adopting the Gregorian calendar, with its days, weeks, months, and festivals, including the Christmas and New Year Celebrations, Easter Day and so on, is not a mot towards State Christianity. Although genetically pagan, the Gregorian calendar was founded by Pope Gregory, a religious ruler. Just like the Hegira calendar is part of Islam, the Gregorian calendar is part of Christianity, and its adoption automatically establishes state christianity.

In Nigeria, our government fools us that Christmas, New Year celebration, Easter and all other Gregorian festivals are national festivals, not in anyway peculiar to any religious or ethnic grouping. Nice. But, during these festivals, Christians songs and films take over the entire media and we are constantly reminded on television and radio that ‘Jesus is the reason for the season’. Only Christian marriages are recognized under state law. The national TV at one time and the other cover live long church services. And, still the nosie is –Nigeria is a secular state. Of course, the real truth is obvious. Before the Islamic revolution of 1999-2000 in Northern Nigeria, Islamic law was subject to Christian law. Ordinarily Christian law applied in any litigation. But where the litigants wanted Islamic law, only its private aspect as available, and even any of its provisions must not go against the provisions must not go against the provisions of Christian law. The revolution has however, in Northern Nigeria, swept away all that. Islamic law and Christian laws are not equal partners in that era. Nigeria is not a secular state. It is rather a multi-religious state – although the reality in its south proves otherwise. Christianity rules the south, despite that about half of all southerners are Muslims.

The hypocrisy in calling state Christianity secularism is the same as applied in calling white supremacism freedom. Thomas Jefferson, one of the major architects of America’s liberal constitution, really explained to us what freedom is meant to its Western champions. He was a liberty and freedom fighters. So, you should know the what is there. Jefferson wanted his white children to inherit his black children as slaves! America, too, his creation is free today – the world is also ‘free’ today – as result of his actions.

To be very frank, Westernism is evangelism par excellence! Western civilization is a product of the several ups and downs of Christianity; and whatever it is, it is Christian. A typical Westerner is a Christian. Trying to mold Muslims, among others, into Westerners as a way to ‘civilize’ them is absolutely nothing but evangelism. And it is the official policy, although never admitted, of all Western states.

What do you think is the dominant ideology of the West – liberalism or evangelism? Liberalism is all based on the belief that the individual should have the freedom to behave in anyway that he or she think will make him free, provided he or she is not doing or causing harm to others. With this in mind, let us now ask what the driving force behind the general prohibition of polygamy throughout Christendom is. Why is polygamy illegal in the West? Simply because it is not allowed in Christianity. Finish.

If the meaning of liberalism is anything to go by, then the individual belief that his or her marriage should be polygamous so that he or she can be free in his or her own ways, and at least no harm is caused to anybody, should prevail. Every Westerner should have the freedom to either be monogamous or polygamous. It all depends on the mutual consent of the parties and their resolve to be free in their own way. Therefore, if Western ideology and the criteria for all its laws is liberalism, polygamy and even polyandry (from the non-Koranic perspective), should be allowed. But, if it is Christianity, a terrible war, as it is, will be launched on polygamy, but polyandry will enjoy some breath.

It is therefore where the interests and beliefs of individual capitalists, imperialists and crusaders like G.W. Bush end that those of the Western region-state government. Both sides work together, each giving strength to the other and causing havoc all over the globe. Western tanks and helmets flow in unbroken succession into other lands to loot, pillage and plunder their resources, make them subject dependants (ruling them directly or especially through mercenary kings and presidents) and ultimately baptize them in the name of the Trinity. The overwhelming approval given by Americans in November, 2004 to G.W. Bush’s tight-arm crusades in the Muslim world clearly proves that the West, led by America itself, is fast becoming our age’s 666 – an unimaginably extremist missionary block. The factor of racism is yet another problem. Where is the world’s salvation?

Islam has its own versions of democracy and freedom. In Islam, there cannot be a leader by birth? Dynasty is absolutely un-Islamic. In fact, it is very detrimental to the interests of Islam. Mohammed was widely known to have said he feared that soon as he left the earth, caliphs would turn themselves kings, establish dynasties and thus become tyrants as a way to maintain their illegitimate hold on power! Today in the Muslim world, there is not a single caliph but dozes of kings, terribly repressive kings. Truly, a prophecy comes true. The best ways to determine whether a person’s control of a Muslim nation is legitimate or not is to examine whether he was elected, yes elected by the people (as was Abu Bakr), or named as successor by his immediate predecessor, on account of his ability, knowledge, analytical power, progressiveness and religiosity, (here is no mention of birth or nobility) and whether he can be removed by the people on account of any misconduct or rebellion against divine orders or not. The second condition is immensely important. He must be someone his people can, without violence, removed. The last one, which is the best of the best is whether he seeks the advice and consent of his people before he takes any step or makes any law (this last condition is repeatedly emphasized in the Koran)190.

To sum it all up, the leader must get to power by the consent of the people, he must remain in power because his people want him to and he must get them completely involved, and even give their decisions absolute supremacy, in anything he does. Mohammed once said: ‘The leader of a people is their slave’. Therefore, the kings of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the Persian Gulf States and other Muslim States, as well as all Muslim presidents and prime ministers are supposed to be their people’s slaves. But, which of them is? Which of them even satisfy any of the three Islamic conditions for legitimate leadership at all? Since there is an overriding principle that the leader must come from the ordinary folks, those rulers that emerge as a result of the dynasty in their land are inherently tyrants (worse still, they rule by decrees). But, the ugly situation can be remedied by making truly Islamic reform. There will be full democracy, Muslim-style, and freedom, Muslim-style (all humans are absolutely equal before God and none should be subservient to the other; but all should be subservient to God). We don’t need the Western concepts of these terms (governed by the principle that anything Western is supreme and must be accepted by all other human races). We want to be free in our own way.

These are the legitimate demands of all Islamists – demands which western tanks and missiles have frustrated for centuries. The ruling oligarchy in the West should understand this. Muslims want to be free in their own way, NOT NEVER in the Western way. Let them have their freedom. You also need to let your own people have a say in their own governments. True, the West gives the freedom to express personal opinions on virtually anything. As M. Legenhausen defines American freedom of _expression: it is the ‘freedom to speak in a context which almost guarantees that one will not be heard’191. This was evident in the chaotic run to the Second Gulf Massacre. The entire world, including most of America, voiced their anger against the impending massacre. But, G.W. Bush, bent on taking the cross deeper into the Middle East and seizing Iraqi oil, still went on within his massacre. According to several reliable estimates, he has so far killed and wounded over 150,000 innocent Iraqis. Much still, he has succeeded tremendously in brainwashing the hitherto tolerant Americans into joining in his desperate push for the Holy Land. The American, and the wider Western, right wing has expanded exponentially since the second Gulf Massacre and the ‘holy’ aggression as well as the ‘holy’ defense is bound to continue and even get more tragic into the foreseeable future. Everything is bleak.

We don’t want the type of democracy and freedom, laid by people like Jefferson and Roosevelt, in the Muslim world. We want our own freedom. We want our own democracy. Let the Westerners stop their support of the thieving and murderous regimes of the Muslim world and see what will happen. They will certainly make quick reforms to avoid being toppled by the awe-inspiring strength of public anger. The Islamic Revolution of Iran occurred because the Sha then was openly anti-Islamic, anti-democratic and Western-subservient in all his policies. If the West had not propped him up, he would not have been so sure that his regime would survive all popular opposition and thus turn the deaf ear on their pleas. He would have feared public outrage and would have listened to his people. It is only frustration that can lead to revolution, popular revolution and it did in Iran. The masses turned against their government and secured their freedom by force. Not even the world’s greatest powers then could save or restore him. Iran secured its freedom and secured it completely, and permanently. Other Muslim states, such as Malaysia and (more recently) Indonesia secured their own freedom rather peacefully. Indonesia is gradually moving into state Islam. May the path be easy! Just let the freedom come first and see how Islam will express itself.

This is what the West has been struggling very vigorously never to see happen; Islam gaining freedom. The treaty of Hudaibiyah, which gave Islam its first ever freedom and thus resulted in its unprecedented success, has taught the world of Kufr a very serious lesson. Don’t ever be deceived by the Western rhetoric. Dr M. Legenhausen writes: ‘Western man has forgotten the meaning of words like “justice”, “right” and “responsibility”; although each attaches his own meaning to them and uses them to argue against his opponents192’. Demand and fight for your freedom from the Westerners and their mercenary regimes. Never relent. The revolution will certainly come one day and falsehood and evil shall be destroyed.

There is a long poem I wrote long, long ago. Whenever I read it, I feel tears on my eyes. It is a prayer for the heroes of Badr who defended Islam at the most critical stage, with nothing but their life and faith, and saved it from destruction. May God grant us the victory of Badr and set the Muslim world and Islam itself free from the West and its mercenaries and machineries.

This is a God’s people

Killed, maimed, bereaved, dispossessed, expelled

For what they chose to be

Freeing themselves from all human servitudes

Idolatry, superstition, credulity, evil

And taking the flag for human equality and freedom

And for the Absolute Unity of the Greatest

Thou shall not fight

Their rule was

But beyond the walls when

Pushed by the swords of the dark

Permission to protect their lives

Was issued from Above

On the very city refuge in which they sought

A big force of one thousand blood-dripping legends

Fully armed, well-trained, deeply experienced

Hundreds of horses and shields

Marched from the Wild, Wild South

To destroy the small, fragile, defenseless

Nation of God

Just three hundred and thirteen

No weapons, no experience, no home

Caught up in the middle of

Roman, Persian, Arab rage

Believing in God and good

Certain of empires after life

Yet their enemy’s strength

Their faith, courage did not shake

On to Badr, the mouth of Medina, they marched

To meet force with force

The impossible happened

Shattered a planet of concrete darkness

By the faintest of all glimmers of life

They went, they met, they conquered

Evil was impossibly put to flight

Victory belongs to God

Time for reflections

Were they to cow or flee

The battlefield at the daunt of Mecca

Will Islam exist today?

Three hundred and thirteen laid down

Their lives, hopes and dreams

Everything they had

In spite of their hopeless chances

And here we are today

Over one and a half billion

Courtesy of that one day’s courage and sacrifice

What shall we tell God

When the Hour comes

That we have done to save Islam

For the centuries to come after us.

Oh God, make the heroes

Of Badr the nucleus of your Favour and Pleasure

Bless the souls of their successors and

Help those of their descendants today

Struggling life and death to keep

Islam pure and victorious

Together make them the Princes of Paradise

On the Day when all faces will be in tears.

ENDNOTES

Koran 9:29
S. Abul A’la Maududi, Jihad in Islam, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, Salimiah = - Kuwait, pp 23-24.
Rationality of Islam, Islamic Seminary Publications, 19th Ed., 1990 pp 100-101
Ibid, p. 106
Ibid
The Glorious Qur’an, Text and Translations, Dr Ahmad Zidan and Mrs Dina Zidan, Islamic Inc. Publishing & Distribution, 1996, p. 29: Koran 2:190
Ibid, p. 30: Koran 2:193
Ibid, p. 42: Koran 2:256
Ibid
Ibid, p. 603: Koran 109:6

The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 113:Koran 5:32
Salih Al-Bukhari, Arabia-English, vol. IX, 1st Edition, 1976, p. 4
Ibid, p. 5
Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’anin the English Language, Darusalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 15th Revised Edition, 1996, p. 349: Koran 9:29
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit. p. 107:Koran 5:5
Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad The Prophet, Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at Islam, Lahore, Fourth (Revised) Edition, 1972, p. 189.
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit p. 550: Koran 60:8 and 9
Ibid, p. 30:Koran 2:191
Ibid. p. 90: Koran 4:74 and 75
Ibid. p. 181: Koran 8:39
Ibid p. 178: Koran 8:15 and 16
Koran 8:45, 47:4, 4:104, 3:146, 3:139, 3:160, 2:@49, 3:140 and 8:46
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit. p. 184: Koran 8:60
Ibid, p. 184:Koran 8:61
Sahih Al-Bukhari, op. cit, vol. IX p. 48
Ibid.
Ibid, vol. IV, Da al Arabia, Beirut, Lebanon, 1985, p. 182
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit, 143-144
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 331:Koran 21:107
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 170:Koran 7:158
S. Abul A’la Maududi, op. cit 23-24
Koran 3:64
Koran 2:190. This is an alternative translation given by some translators.
the Glorious Qur’an, op. cit. p. 116:Koran 5:46 and 47
Sahih Al-Bukhari, op. cit, vol. IV p. 121
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit. pp.155-157
Ibid, p. 158.
Ibid, pp. 174 – 177
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 30:Koran 2:191
Ibid, p. 29: Koran 2:190
Ibid, p. 30: Koran 2:194
Ibid p. 487:Koran 42:40-43
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Special Price Edition 2001 (4th impression, 2002) Oxford University Press, pp. 1194
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 30:Koran 2:193. The _expression ‘if they desist from unbelief’ is here changed to ‘if they cease’ because the latter is the correct, accurate translation of the _expression in the Koranic text in Arabia. The phrase ‘from unbelief’, is absolutely not there.
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 67:Koran 2:193
Rationality of Islam, op. cit. p. 100-101
Salih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1, Chapter 30
Ibid, p. 34, Hadith 38
Sayyid Mujtaba Musari Lari, God and His Attributes, Islamic Education Centre, 1989, p. 97
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit. p. 199:Koran 9:73
Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1 chapter 19
Words of Mohammed, quoted in The Religion of Truth by Abdul Rahman Ben Hammad. Al-Omar, 1995, p. 74
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 61:Koran 3:85
The Religion of Truth, op. cit. 30.
Al-Shahid Hassan Al-Banna, quoted in Islamic Banking to the Rescue, The Fountain, a quarterly publication of the Organization of Tadhamunul-Muslimeen (OTM), December 2001 – February, 2004, vol. 1, No. 3, p. 7
S. Abu A’la Maududi, op. cit. p. 22
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Propagation Organization, 1990, p. 19
The Religion of Truth, op. cit. 44
Iranian Constitution, op. cit, p. 28
Quoted from his book Life of Muhammad by Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit. p. 21
Ibid
Mualana Muhammad Ali, op. cit, p. 9 (quoted from the preface)
Human Rights in Islam, Islamic Propagation Organization, 1989, p. 195
Quoted in Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit, p. 16
Ibid, p. 16-17
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 603:Koran 110:1-3
Maulana Muhammad Ali,op. cit pp. 171-185
Koran 49:14
Ibid, p. 21:Koran2:140
Ibid, p. 107:Koran 5:3
Ibid, p. 21: Koran 2:135-138
Dr W. Graham Scroggie, Is The Bible The Word of God? P. 17, quoted in Ahmed Deedat’s Is the Bible God’s Word?
Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minarent, p. 277, quoted in Ahmed Deedat’s Is The Bible God’s Word?
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 12:Koran 2:79
Oxford Advanced learnr’s Dictionary, op. cit, p. 642
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 199:Koran 9:73
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit pp. 177-178
Ibid, p. 190
Koran 2:192
Rationality of Islam, op. cit p. 106
A. Ali, Spirit of Islam, p. 271
Mahmud Mahdi Istabuly, Have You Asked About The Most Interesting Thing in the East, The Islamic Civilization Society, p. 6
Ibid, p. 14
Abdu’l-Ahad Dawud, formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., Muhammed In The Old Testament, Presidency of Shariyah Courts and Religious Affairs in Qatar – Arabian Gulf, 1980, p. 125
The Bible, Revised Standard Version, Deuteronomy 20:10-18
‘Islam forbids every resort to inhuman means of fighting such as night assault, biological warfare, burning of cattle, crops and gardens and killing and injuring unarmed personnel’ – Rationality of Islam, op. cit. p. 107
The Bible, op. cit, Luke 12:49-53
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 63:Koran 3:104
Ibid, p. 198:Koran 9:71
Ibid. p. 511: Koran 48:1-3
Nahj al-Balaghah, Hikam, No. 110
Words of Jesus, The Bible, op. cit, Matthew 28:19
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit p. 150
Koran 3:64
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 511:Koran 48:1-3
Islam and Christianity, Waqf Ikhlas Publications, Hakikat Kitaberi, Istanbul, Turkey, 1989, p. 182
Ibid
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit. p.114
Ibid
Ibid pp. 130-133
Ibid, p. 176
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 89-90:Koran 4:74-75
Islam and Christianity, op. cit. p. 201
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit. p. 133
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 419:Koran 33:10-11
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit pp. 133-135
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 419:Koran 33:9
Maulana Muhammad Ali, p. 147
Ibid, p. 148
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 511:Koran 48:1-3
Maulana Muhammad Ali, op. cit. pp. 149-150
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 511:Koran 48:3
Hujjatul-Islam Seyed ‘Ali Khamenei in his Inaugural Address at the 5th Islamic Thought Conference, held in 1987 in Tehran, Iran, published by the Islamic Propagation Organization, Tehran, 1989 in the book Human Rights in Islam, pp. 25-26.
Ibid.
Imam Khomeini in a meeting with members of the Mahlis (Parliament) on November 5, 1983, reported in Message of Revolution, a magazine published by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (I.R.GC), Tehran, Iran, November 1983, p. 9
Human Rights in Islam, op. cit pp. 74-75 (Hujjatul-islam Abbas Ali Amid Zanjani)
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 517:Koran 49:13
1Hujjatul-Islam Seyed Muhammad Khamenei, “Human Rights for Woman in Islam and in other laws”, Human Rights in Islam, op. cit. p. 262
Ibid, p. 263
Ibid, p. 25-26
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 487:Koran 42:38
Islam and Christianity, op. cit. pp. 38-39
Ibid, p. 39
Masih Muhajeri, Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nations, 2nd ed., Jihad-e-Sazandagi, 1983, p. 23-24.
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 421:Koran 33:23
Ibid, p. 107: Koran 5:3
13Quoted by Muslim Abdul-Ghaffar, Ancient Feasts and Modern Festivals, Al-Faaiz Projects, March, 2003, p. 9
Ibid, pp. 12-13
Ibid, p. 14
Ibid, p. 19
Ibid, p. 23
Ibid
Ibid, p. 26
Ibid, p. 53
Ibid, p. 56
Mankind’s search for God, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1990, p. 70
Dr W. Graham Scroggie, op. cit.
The Bible, op. cit. p. 158
The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 91:Koran 4:82
Quoted in Glimpses of the Holy Qur’an by Muhammad Azizullah, The Crescent Publications, 2nd edition, p. 110
The Bible, op. cit. p. 375: II Chronicles 36:9
Ibid, II Kings 25:8
146. Ibid, II Chronicles, 9:25
147. Ibid, I Kings 4:26
148. Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? p. 44
149. Ibid, p. 50
150. Ibid, p. 33
151. The Bible, op. cit. 259-260: II Samuel 24:1-13
152. Ibid, p. 334: I Chronicles 21:1
153. The Holy Bible, Black Heritage Edition, King James Version, Today, Inc. 1976, p. 255:2. Samuel 24:13
154. Ahmed Deedat, o. cit. p. 35
155. The Glorious Qur’an, op. cit, p. 19:Koran 2:120
156. Ibd, p. Koran 2:123
157. Echo of Islam, Islamic Thought Foundation, No. 135 September 1995, p. 32
158. Masih Muhajeri, op. cit. pp. 19-23
159. Nahj al-balaghah, Kutub, No. 31
160. Glimpses of the Holy Qur’an op. cit. p. 106
161. Ibid, p. 114-115
162. Ibid, p. 58
163. Ibid, p. 56
164. Ibid, p. 62
165. Ibid, 60
166. Ibid, p. 52
167. Ibid, p. 51-52
168. Ibid, p. 52
169. Ibid, p. 59
170. Islam and Christianity, op. cit. 199-200
171. Ahmed Deedat, op. cit. p. 50
172. Ibid, p. 30
173. Ibid, p. 35
174. Ibid.
175. Ibid, p. 47
176. Ibid, p. 49
177. Ibid.
178. Suzanne Haneef, What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims, Library of Islam, 1985, p. 124
179. B. Aisha Lemu, Laxity, Moderation and Extremism in Islam, Islamic Education Trust, Minna, Nigeria, 1991, p. 16-17
180. George Bush in his address to Congress a week after 9/11
181. Ariel Sharon talking in a fit of anger, during an Israel cabinet meeting (October, 2001), to Shimon Peres.
182. Bin Laden. May, 1998 in an interview with reporter John Miller of ABC.
183. See Michael Moore’s Fahreineit 9/11, a video documentary on the Bush administration.
184. Abu Umar Al-Faruq, Will Anyone Dare Ask Why America Why? Salsabil Associates, January 2002, p. vi
185. Suzanne Haneef, op. cit. pp. 124-125
186. Ike Okonta, Shall We Tell President Bush? ThisDay Newspaper, Sunday, September 16 and 23, 2001.
187. Bowman v. Secular Society
188. Koran 42:38 and Koran 3:159
189. Echo of Islam, op. cit. p. 31
190. Ibid.