It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


From Mecca to 9/11

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:15 PM
I found this article interesting even I didn't totally agree. If you don't like the author point of view, please give comment. Thanks.

From Mecca to 9/11
A short history of Islam and its impact on your life.
Umrat ul Qadha (The Pilgrim of Retaliation)

By Ali Sina

By February 629 C.E. it was almost one year since the Hudaibiyah and Muhammad and his men looked forward to enter that town according to the stipulated agreement. This year the number of the pilgrims swelled to two thousands. They each carried their swords, in accordance to the clauses of the treaty. But Muhammad was a treacherous man and he judged everyone else based on his own standards. So fearing treachery from the Meccans he secretly brought along a large reserve of armor and lances separately by another route. Muhammad ibn Maslama, with one hundred horsemen marched one stage ahead of the Pilgrims. The sacrificial animals with their ceremonial red collars were also driven in front. Muhammad called this Umrat ul Qadha (complementary pilgrimage or the pilgrim of retaliation) because it was performed “in lieu” of the previous one that was not fulfilled.

When they reached Marr al Dhahran, one stage from Mecca , Muhammad left behind the caravan carrying the armor in the valley outside the sacred precinct guarded by two hundred armed soldiers and the rest of the Pilgrims advanced to Ka’ba.

To avoid confrontation, the Meccans deserted the town; some of them climbing on the nearby hills watched the proceeding. The cavalcade of the Muslims emerged from the northern valley with Muhammad at its head while one of his men walked in front of him holding the bridle of his camel al Kaswa and around him were his chief companions. This majestic and triumphant entry must have been a vindication for a man who escaped this town seven years ago fearing his life. When they reached Ka’ba they shouted Labbeik Labbeik (I am here, I am here, oh God at your service), the customary words that Arabs used to mutter or cry out loud when they went to pilgrimage.

The circumvallation of the Ka’ba started and Muhammad bid his followers to run faster than usual so not to give the Meccans who were watching the whole procession, the impression of being fatigued. This point is so insignificant that really does not merit any mention, yet the Islamic traditions have laid so much emphasis on it that seems to have been important order. In fact running the first three rounds faster has become a sunna (tradition). What is important to us is the fact that Muhammad was a master of manipulations and histrionics. What he lacked in logics and arguments he made up with theatrics. The primitive minded Arabs of his time were not also interested in logical arguments and proofs. They too were an impressionable folk who believed in him simply because others had done so. In fact I dare say that logics had never entered Arabian Peninsula and these people, unlike the Greeks for example, were not familiar with the whole concept. Therefore it was not Muhammad’s logical arguments that brought him success; he presented none; but rather it was his success that brought him more success.

A cursory look at Islamic da’wah (propaganda) Internet sites makes this point clear. After 1400 years of history and over a billion followers, and despite the emergence of innumerable Islamic scholars of high caliber, there is no logical argument presented in defense of Islam or as the proof of the claim of Muhammad’s prophethood. There is also no scriptural proof to support that claim. The adherence to Islam grew and still keeps growing, only through theatrics and impressionisms. The arguments presented to prove Islam, are all subjective and they all boil down to one thing: “If others are converting to Islam, then it must be true.” In a publication an Islamic organization of North America addressing its members wrote: "In a non-Muslim land, he [The Muslim] must openly demonstrate his applying Islam in order to be a caller to Islam in both word and action." Muslims are demonstrative of their devotion to Islam through the way they dress and act. This is for them a way to promote their religion. Logical arguments are scarce but theatrics abound.

These theatrics and show of majesty accompanied by the profession of devotion of the Muslims to their master had its effects on many diehard enemies of Islam and several of them joined his army and converted to his religion.

After circumvallating the Ka’ba and touching the black stone, he sent Bilal on the top of Ka’ba to chant the call to prayer and he himself entered the building and stayed there for several hours. The group that had stayed behind with the arms was replaced and they too performed their pilgrimage.

After the pilgrimage he was offered Meimuna as the bride. She was already the third wife he married in this year. Meimuna was a widow and not very young. This is one case where Muhammad must have married not just for lust but to win the heart of his enemies. Meimuna was the sister of the wife of Abbas and the aunt of Khalid ibn Walid, the warrior of the Quraish who had turned the tide against the Muslims during the battle of Uhud.

The marriage had its desired political effect, for Khalid soon after that repaired to Medina and pledged his adhesion to Islam. Two others also followed suit; one was Amru ibn al Aas who had often annoyed Muhammad with his poetries and who was a prominent member of the Quraish, and the other was Othman ibn Talha. All these men, especially the first two, made valuable conquests for Islam is subsequent years. Othman was the son of Taha, an important chief and a custodian of the Ka’ba.

The reason these men joined Islam was not that they found Islam to be a true religion. No such proof was ever given nor was asked. They were attracted to Islam because of its success and its rapid pace of growth. They were young ambitious men who found Islam to be a perfect vehicle for their own climb to power. So not being able to defeat the enemy, they opted to join it and the payoff was immense. If they managed to stay alive, they were enriched beyond their wildest dreams. This of course does not discount the zealotry and fanaticism instilled in them through Muhammad’s promises of afterlife and heavenly rewards. The fear of pain and the lure of pleasure are two powerful incentives. These, rather crude methods of persuasion were employed to its full extend. Those who believed received worldly compensations and were promised otherworldly recompenses as well; and those who did not believe were punished brutally, lost their belongings, their wives, their children as well as their lives and were furthermore condemned to eternal damnation and a dreadful tortuous Hell.

The treaty allowed Muhammad three days to complete his pilgrimage. He was already in his forth day and was planning a sumptuous wedding in Mecca when Soheil and Huweitib, the chiefs of Quraish appeared before him and reminded him that he had overstayed his welcome already by one day and that he should leave. Muhammad in an attempt to win their affection responded, “And what harm if you let me to remain and celebrate my nuptials and make you a feast at which you might all sit down and be merry?" "No thanks!” Roughly answered the chiefs, “We have no need of your viands: The time has expired! Depart from us!'!”

Muhammad gave orders for departure and consummated his marriage with Meimuna on that very night outside the Mecca . Early next morning the cortege resumed the march and returned to Medina .

Meimuna is said to have been fifty one years old when she married to Muhammad. That is only ten years younger than him. But Muhammad was jealous even of his elderly wives. There is an anecdote that says: “A young man, Ziad, nephew to Meimuna, went to see his aunt. Muhammad coming suddenly into the house was disconcerted at the sight: his visage showed marks of wrath, and he turned to go away. "It is only my sister's son," cried Meimuna after him. So he returned.”

The conversion of Khalid, Amru and Othman was a huge success for Muhammad. This added to his prestige and strengthened his position in Mecca greatly. The rest started wavering and all it was needed, was a little push for the entire city to come under Islam. Many others of lesser name also followed these leaders and offered their allegiance to the new cause. Islam was on the rise and its success was the magnet for more success.

The citizens of Mecca were weary of constant wars and bloodshed. On the other hand the followers of the thriving new movement were feisty, aggressive and relentless. Mecca lacked a charismatic leader. The Muslims had a cause while the Meccans had no cause. They simply wanted to live in peace. The advocates of peace and compromise were growing in numbers and influence. Many had already deserted the town and had joined the rank of Islam. Those who stayed behind were tired and ready to capitulate. A rapid and bold stroke of policy was all it needed to bring the city down and make it surrender to Islam. Many citizens were ready for that, if it meant that the hostilities would end and peace would be restored. Humans’ tolerance for hardship is not infinite. Under duress we all relent. We give in, even to evil, to be left alone and to be able to live in peace. Even though we know that peace may not be long-lived.

Perhaps in this there is a lesson for us all. 1400 years later, the world is again facing the same feisty, vicious and unrelenting Islam. Islam has come back. Islamic terrorism is the same Islam brought by Muhammad. It is the same belief, the same fanaticism, the same fierceness and the same mindless savagery. The policies are the same, the only thing that is changed are the tactics. Today’s Jihadis are far more deadly than their ancestors, who where merely a bunch of savages wielding their swords and shouting Allahu-Akbar from their horseback. Our military might and sophisticated warfare are powerless in front of a handful of technologically savvy terrorists. Just imagine how a few terrorists in Spain managed to overthrow a government by blowing a few passenger trains and killing a few hundred people. It did not cost them much to do that. Think of how a few terrorists, have succeeded to make the entire country of Philippines to capitulate and comply with their demand. All they had to do was to kidnap one of their citizens and threaten to kill him. How much it cost them to do that? Angelo dela Cruz, the Philippine hostage, even thanks his captors for his good treatment. He is not to be blamed. We would all do that under similar situations. This is part of human psyche. We become grateful to those who have spared our lives once the prospect of dying comes to haunt us. It is not uncommon for hostages released in this way to convert to Islam. Only a psychologist can explain this phenomenon. After 9/11 several people sitting on the edged converted to Islam at once.

Just like Spain and Philippines , the world will capitulate, one country at a time. The good people of the world will become weary of war and resistance. They will give in to the demands of the Muslims fighters, one demand at the time. They will have to; they will have no options; resistance would be futile; surrender is inevitable.

The world will comply gradually. Not because they would want to, but because they would have to. There would be no choice. Unable to defeat the enemy, more and more people will try to be appeasers and will not criticize Islam and its associated evil to avoid hurting the “sensibilities” of the Muslims. They will give up their freedoms, one political correctness at a time. The politicians will remain silent, for the fear of provoking the Muslims. To avoid unrest they will pass laws that will curtail the freedom of their citizens to criticize “religion” but in reality the intent is to stop the criticism of Islam. Other religions are accustomed to criticisms and have defended themselves fairly well. They are not asking for censorship; it is the Muslims that are asking it. Writers will find themselves facing lawsuits and even go to Jail for disparaging Islam and violating “the anti hate” laws. Criticizing Islam, which is but an ideology, will be equated as bashing its adherents and condemned. India is not a Muslim country, but it banned Salman Rushdie’s book, the Satanic Verses to appease her Muslim citizens. Indians can’t criticize Islam openly. The writers, the journalists, the publishers in the civilized world, or what would be left of it, will not dare to speak out their minds for the fear of being branded as “racists” and “xenophobes”. Those daredevils who defy the public opinion and disregard the etiquettes of political correctness will be forced to shut up for the fear of being assassinated or their children harmed. Women will be obliged “voluntarily” to cover themselves with Hijab to save their faces from acids being thrown at them. This kind of violence has already started in many cities in Europe , where European women are molested and harassed if they walk unaccompanied and without Islamic attire in the neighborhood of the Muslims. The world will recoil while the enemy will remain completely hidden and undefeatable. This will embolden the Muslims. They will be invigorated in their zeal to take over the world.

These setbacks will only add to the Muslims resolve and they’ll increase the pressure. With each concession, they will be re-energized and will demand more power. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. It is an inebriating enticer that will attract many, especially the young and the inexperienced, not just of Muslim birth, but also of non-Muslim parents. These youths will be driven to Islam to be part of its success. The societies in non-Islamic countries will be torn in their loyalties. The stupidity and irrationality of Islam would be obvious to many, but they would be under pressure from two other fronts. On one hand many of their own children and loved ones who have joined Islam, denounce them as unbelievers and have cut their ties with them; on the other, they would be weary of the continuous threat of terrorism and violence. Their economies would be in shamble, their lives in danger, their loyalties torn asunder, they will be too weak to hold to the truth and stand for righteousness. They’ll be worn out and crave for peace. But the only peace available to them is through surrender.

Terrorism will target their office buildings, their schools, their shopping centers, their water and power supplies, and will literally bring their lives to a halt. Their industries will be crippled, their economies will fall apart. The dark years of depression will cast its shadow over the horizons. Hope will vanish and fear will take over. And Muhammad’s cry of “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” (8:12) will resonate in their ears.

While, the Muslim terrorists will continue to wreak havoc, the other wing of Islamic expansionism, i.e. the Muslim apologists and the so called Muslim “moderates” will be hard at work. They will inseminate lies and contaminate the minds of their victims with deception and false promises. Their prophet said, "War is a game of deception". They’ll continue presenting Islam as a religion of peace and they’ll continue seducing people and bringing them to their camp. These propagandas will lessen the fear of Islam and make it more palatable and even appealing. The intent is to weaken the resistance and create a fifth column within the dar al Harb (the non Islamic world). This fifth column; partly made of the Muslim immigrants and partly of the converts, will strive to bring chaos, destabilize the governments and hasten their fall.

The fifth column will be assisted by the appeasers. The appeasers will side with the enemy and lash out at those who try to fight them. They have already given up. They are tired of fighting and want peace. And they want others to do the same. The appeasers are not evil; they are just fools. They want peace, they abhor war. But sadly, they are willing to pay any price for that peace, even their freedom. Little they know that what they will get, will not be peace but only submission.

No one wants curfew, but citizens demand it when chaos wreaks havoc and they lose their security. If the choice is between freedom and security, we all would chose security. When Muslims render the world a living hell, the world will beg them to take over and restore the peace.

At this stage, all it takes is a push and the world will fall under the sway of Islam and the banner of Allahu Akbar will be hoisted in every country of the world. Once one country succumbs, it will have a domino effect and one by one all of them will succumb.

Then Islam will take over the world; the civilization will die away; science will be demeaned; arts will be banned; women will be subjugated; non-Muslims will be subdued, dissenters will be executed, and the world will plunge into the 7th century darkness once again, perhaps unable to recover for many millennia.

The old Abu Afak, warned the citizens of Medina and especially the Jews of Muhammad. They did not listen and they paid for their heedlessness with their lives. Woe to humanity, if we do not take these warnings seriously and dismiss them as mere fear mongering.

Stirred by patriotism, after reading this piece, one of my readers quoted Churchill who wrote:

“We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender”

Although I admire her love for freedom and her defiance and resolve, I am afraid she is very much mistaken. This war is not being fought on the seas and oceans, on the beaches, fields, streets or hills. This war is, and continues to be fought from within. The enemy is an insider enemy and the method is very unconventional. He is not wearing a uniform. He looks very much like you and your neighbor. He does not stand in front of you, but rather stabs you from the back. Innocent people will continue to be kidnapped everywhere and beheaded one after the other, bombs will blast and shatter the bodies of more and more people, full advantage from nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction will be taken, we keep dying and remain helpless to fight back. How can you fight an enemy who is invisible? Eventually fear will overcome the resolve and people will capitulate. They will continue to be killed until they surrender and if they don’t, they will be killed to the last person. This was the sunna of the Prophet and this is the way of the Muslim warrior.

We can topple the terrorist governments, but can we stop terrorism? Do the terrorists need the support of any government? For terrorists to thrive all they need is the support of the masses and the Muslim terrorists have all the support they need. They also have any number of ready-to-die recruits available to them.

This war cannot be won militarily. Since the 9/11 the terrorists have killed thousands of us, while we have not but been able to capture or kill but a handful of them. This war has cost them little, while it cost us billions of dollars. All they need to win is to be lucky once, when we need to be lucky all the times. It does not take a genius to see that humanity is losing and barbarity is winning. Failing to see this will cost our freedom and our lives.

This war can be fought and won only in one way. We have to uproot the tree of Islam. Period! To paraphrase Taslima Nasrin “Islamic terrorism is a poisonous branch that stems from the trunk of Islam. Until you uproot the whole tree, that poisonous branch will keep shooting up."

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:50 PM
That religion of peace
What a joke!

Killing innocent people in the name of God... raping innocent women and children in the name of God... forcing people into servitude and diminishing their liberties in the name of God... force feeding a belief system that is founded in nothing more than the killing and conquering of other peoples in the name of God??? What kind of religion is this? What kind of God do these people worship?

I just wonder how these terrorist react when they awake from their martyrdom only to be greeted by the fires of Hell and a handshake from Satan?

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:00 PM
This is Islamic law called Sharia:

adultery: stoning to death;
fornication: a hundred lashes;
false accusation of adultery against a married person: eighty lashes;
apostasy: death;
drinking wine: eighty lashes;
theft: the cutting off of the right hand;
robbery: the loss of hands and feet;

You could see how brutal the law is. Terrorism is just one aspect of Islam.
Wait until the country come under Islamic Law.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:21 PM
I dunno.

I certainly empathize with the attitude of the article. I have lived in the M.E., and I have to say that there is some truth behind it.

Part of me feels like we are witnessing the clash of civilizations, that Islam and the West are implaccable enemies, and that it will continue until one is destroyed.

I hate that, and don't want to believe it.

Part of me, not a part I spend a lot of time with, feels like Bush is sickeningly soft on Islam, saying that "we are at war with terrorists, not with a religion." They sure don't see it that way. They speak in their own newspapers of their holy duty to crush the West, and how every muslim who disagrees is a traitor to God.


There is a flip side to this coin, though. It was developed by a friend of mine in the early 90's. He, an African-American, felt that whites are inherently violent, more so than the other peoples of the earth. I had to admit there was a certain truth to that argument. I was living in Lebanon when NFL football was broadcast for the first time in Israel. (lots of muslims used to watch Israel TV.) They, Muslims and Jews, were sickened by a bloody sport where you must wear body armor to play, where the players are often bloody, and where certain people are supposed to knock each other down. They also could not believe an early Tyson match (forget which) could be broadcast on TV.

My friend developed the hypothesis that Islam was the superior culture in 1000 AD. They had better steel, better bows, better swords, and far more people than the west. Add to that their knowledge of Algebra (Al Jabiri) and it feeding armies becomes possible; and you can see why they would dominate the West militarily.

In fact, the muslims at one time invaded italy and came within a hundred miles of Rome. They conquered most of Spain, and reached into Europe from the East, all the way to Vienna.

My friend decided that what turned the tide was Caucasian ferocity. He says that men like Vlad the impaler were so brutal that even the muslim armies refused to invade such territory. He claims most of the 'civilized' and 'peaceful' Christians were conquered when Byzantium fell. It was the Barbarians that kept the west Alive.

Indeed Vlad the little dragon (dracula) skewered so many muslim warriors on stakes to mark the boundaries of his territory that the invaders bypassed his land on the way to Vienna. And they couldn't hold their conquests with a live enemy in the rear.

I'm not sure I agree with Nate, but I have to admit that the argument is kind of compelling. Democracies might have trouble standing up to Islam; I'm not so certain that totalitarians would succumb so easily. So we may be headed for an age of violence and totalitarianism in the west, as an antidote to islam.

Sounds like the twilight of history, doesn't it?

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:26 PM
I kept using Vlad the impaler in the above posts, but think of the other leaders who responded to Islam (with more or less success)

El Cid
Richard Lionheart
Pope Gregory IX
The Templars
The Teutonic Knights
Henry Barbarosa
The Knights of the Hospital

All of them were lauded as courageous heros by their sycophants. "modern" historians call them butchers.

Maybe they were both.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

El Cid
Richard Lionheart
Pope Gregory IX
The Templars
The Teutonic Knights
Henry Barbarosa
The Knights of the Hospital

All of them were lauded as courageous heros by their sycophants. "modern" historians call them butchers.

Maybe they were both.

You missed Jan Sobieski.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:40 PM
Islam is no different than Christianity. Each religion has committed their fare share of despicable acts. Bush kills in the name of God, as he said so himself, and yet some people think its ok because he is a "Christian"( I put this in quotes to denote that what he has done in not very "christian-ly"). Christians killed off Pagan religions, and slaughtered thousands in the process, started the Inquisition, witch trials (both Europe and America), kill Native Americans because they want their land, torture hostages post-9/11, and the list goes on.

Each religion has their share of madmen. How easy it is to forget the horrific events that have been done in the name of Christianity.

kozmo....why do you tend to block out these things. Im getting the feeling that not only are you pro-Bush, but anti-Muslim completely. Please get your history straight before you accuse Muslims of terrible acts that Christians have committed as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Jazzerman
kozmo....why do you tend to block out these things. Im getting the feeling that not only are you pro-Bush, but anti-Muslim completely. Please get your history straight before you accuse Muslims of terrible acts that Christians have committed as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christianity grew up. Islam still hasn't. You need not be pro-Bush to recognize the dangers of Islam. The moslems started the holy war against the Christians. Islam is an inherently imperialistic religion. Only apologists will refuse to acknowledge that.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:10 PM
Christianity grew up?

Where have you been for the last 200 years?

Who was opposed to Civil Rights, gender discrimination, gay marriage, hate crimes (based on religion, race, gender, etc.) and a slew of other issues.....oh, thats right....the Christian fundamentalists.....hmm........

...and yes, they will and often have killed for what they believe in.

You can think what you want, but Christianity has not grown up any more than what Islam has. Both have fundamentalist sects, and this is where the danger lies.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Jazzerman]

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Jazzerman

You can think what you want, but Christianity has not grown up any more than what Islam has. Both have fundamentalist sects, and this is where the danger lies.

Is this a joke? It's not just a matter of if any extremists exist in a given group, it's a matter of how many and how widespread they are. In the west, when some wacko bombs an abortion clinic, there's a police hunt, they guy's captured, and his ass is almost always thrown in jail for a long time. They don't happen very often. People who support such actions are exposed, derided, and given the cold shoulder. We here in the West make it quite clear we don't accept their ways. Show me the systematic and authentic reciprocal response in the moslem world. For crying out loud, show me a christian theocracy. Show me a western nation which supports the establishment of a christian theocracy worldwide.

Admit that moslem fundamentalists exist in great numbers, thousands of time more numerous than any christian fundamentalists, who , if they were moslems, would be considered rather moderate in their religious zeal. Count up all the recent terrorist acts, count up their death tolls, and tell me where christian fundamentalists square up with the moslems.

When you can come up with an honest answer, then you can spout of nonsense about how "Christianity has not grown up any more than what Islam has."

All religions are equally false, but not all are equally destructive.

[edit on 7/22/2004 by Eastern_Diamondback]

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
So we may be headed for an age of violence and totalitarianism in the west, as an antidote to islam.

Sounds like the twilight of history, doesn't it?

Great post.

Nothing to add except I'm sometimes in awe of the culture that ended the Dark Ages.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Islam is no different than Christianity.

When many Muslims are being treated well in the western countries, their Islamic attitute still hostile to anything non-Islam.

The following is excerpted from 'Answers to common questions to new Muslims' (Published 1993 by the Islamic Assembly of North America).

Question: I live in an area in which most of the residents are from our brethren Christians. We eat and drink with some of them. Is my prayer not valid and my living with them not allowed?

Answer: Before responding to the question, I would like to comment on something that I hope you said unintentionally. This is your statement, "Our brethren Christians". There is never any brotherhood between Muslims and Christians. Brotherhood must be based on faith. As Allah says: "Verily the believers are but a brotherhood" (al-Hujurat 49:10). If blood relationships come to an end because of differences in religion, how can brotherhood be confirmed for people of different religions and no blood relations?

The Ruling About Mixing with the Disbelievers

Question: What is the ruling concerning mixing with the disbelievers and being soft and gentle with them in hopes that they will embrace Islam?

Answer: There is no doubt that a Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allah and be free of them. This was the way of the messengers and their followers. Allah says, "Indeed, there is an excellent example for you in Abraham and those with him. when they said to their people, 'Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred forever - until you believe in Allah alone"' (al-Mumtahana 60 :4). Allah has also said, "You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kin. For such He has written faith in their hearts and strengthened them with proofs from Himself " (al-Mujadalah 58:22).

Based on these, a Muslim is not allowed to have love and compassion in his heart for the enemies of Allah who are in reality his own enemies. Allah has stated, "O believers! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the Truth". (al-Mumtahana 60: 1). But there is no harm for a Muslim treating them with kindness and gentleness in hopes that they become Muslim. This is a type of reconciling their hearts to Islam. However, if one despairs in their becoming Muslim, then one may treat them in the way that they may be treated. And this is dealt with in detail in the law books, in particular ibn al-Qayyim's Ahkam ahl al-Dhimmah.

Ruling Concerning Greeting a Disbeliever

Question: How shall we respond to a disbeliever if he greets us?

Answer: It is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said. ."Do not be the first to greet a Jew or Christian with peace. And if you come across them in the walkway, force them to the edges." Muslim recorded this in his Sahih. He (peace be upon him) also said, .'If the People of the Book greet you with peace. say, 'Wa alaikum (and unto you).'" This was recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim. The People of the Book are the Jews and Christians. The ruling concerning the other disbelievers is the same as the ruling of the Jews and Christians in this matter since there is no evidence to show otherwise. In general, one does not first greet a disbeliever. However, if he starts the greeting, then one must respond by our statement, "And upon you", in accord with the order from the Messenger (peace be upon him). There is no prohibition to say after that, something like, "How are you? How are your children?" Some of the scholars, including ibn Taimiya, has said that this is permissible. This is especially acceptable if there is some Islamically sanctioned reason for that, such as hoping the person will become Muslim or making him susceptible to your calling him to Islam. Allah has stated, "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom (of the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better" (al-Nahl 16: 125). Allah has also said, ."And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) unless it be in a way that is better, except with such of them as do wrong" (al-Ankabut 29:46).'

Question: Is it permissible to give charity to non-Muslims?

Response: It is not permissible to give zakat to the non-Muslims. Furthermore, it is disliked to give voluntary charity to the non-Muslims because, in so doing, you are supporting them in their disbelief Allah says in the Quran, "But do not help one another in sin and transgression" (al-Maidah 5:2). However, if you hope for someone to be Muslim. then there is no harm in giving him some charity in the hope that it might encourage him to become Muslim. If you fear that someone is about to die, it is permissible to save him from death in order to let him know about the beauty of lslam.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:30 PM
Perhaps Jazzerman is right

Perhaps Christianity is just as full of cross-eyed neanderthals as Islam is.

But there's a big difference, isn't there?

Christianity has fostered ideas like personal liberty (the outgrowth of a philosophy of personal salvation), Limited authority for governors (Romans 13), and freedom of thought in the practice of of religion (Romans 14). As well as the concept of mercy (Matthew 5, Luke 10:27)

However poorly these ideas have been acted out in our history, they were still there, driving abolitionists like John Brown to rebel against slavery; driving people like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to question the inherent authority of kings. Driving CHRISTIANS like MLK, Jr. to stand up peacefully against oppression. (funny how the left always calls him "Doctor King" instead of "Reverend King," forgetting that his doctorate was in ministry.)

Jazzerman may feel that Christians are out to steal his liberty. At least with them he has a chance to defend himself using laws and the courts. Muslims don't accept the rulings of these institutions, and their extremists wouldn't hesitate to use vigilantism to reach their goals.

Have Christians asked congress to install a cross on top of the dome on the Capitol building in Washington? of course not. But Muslim groups have petitioned to have a crescent erected there, as a sign of America's "acceptance and goodwill" toward true religion.

* * * *

Christianity has shaped the West to an immense degree. It helped create the very institutions which are now driving it out of the marketplace of ideas. As much as conservatives may proclaim that america is a christian nation, it is still illegal to say Christian prayers in unison in school. No religious leader has made a serious bid for national public office since William Jennings Bryan.

Now compare all of that with islam. Look at Lebanon, which was recently (1988) a democratic state, with the open worship in 3 religions. Now, it's a puppet of Syria, and Christians are regularly butchered or expelled from the Bakaah valley. The UN is completely silent, not wanting to offend our muslim 'brethren.'

Or look at bosnia. Tens of thousands of croats and serbs backed a communist toad like Slobovic. Why? because he was the only one who promised to stem the invasion of foreign muslim 'freedom fighters' and iraqi weapons imported by muslim splinter groups into the former Yugoslavia. And the west sent in troops to back up the Muslims! Would Iran ever send troops to support beleagured CHRISTIAN militants in the Sudan????

So there is a difference between Christianity and Islam. Christians still want to watch VH-1 and eat their poptarts and drink coffee. Strict Islam demands a total return to the culture of 7th Century Arabia. Under Islam, everyone's role in society is strictly defined, and no innovations are allowed.

It is sad that liberals (I mean liberals in the enlightenment sense, anti-religion, pro-reason, pro-democracy) are so certain that Christianity is the father of all evil that they cannot admit that another religion could perhaps be even more dangerous.


I used to be liberal (in ALL senses of the word). But as they say, a conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged.

With Islam being such a growth religion in America, liberals may soon be and endangered species, in ways they'd never guessed.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:08 AM
Yes Jazzerman, Christianity has grown up! EVERY group has it's extremists and as one poster pointed out, it is not whether or not they have them, rather it is a factor of how widespread, pervasive and societally accepted the extremists are. In Christianity, mainstream Christians often denounce the likes of the Born-Agains, Jehovas and devout Baptists as being too extreme. That being said, which of those three groups of extremists advocate the killing of non-believers? Um, NONE! In Islam, Sharia often dictates violence towards non-believers.

Ever hear the story of Ignatius Loyola? During the crusades, Loyola was a hired mercenary soldier for the Romans. He was a great warrior hired to conquer non-Christians and force the religion upon them (A very dark period in Christian history indeed). However, one night while sleeping God appeared unto Loyola and taught him that the way to a man's spirit and soul was through their mind; by teaching man the tools of logic and reason which would invariably lead him down the path of spirituality. Thus was born the Jesuit Order and the age of enlightenment for Christians. No such age exists in Islam. They are continuing on their moral crusades through violence and the goal to conquer. Today Christianity is about tolerance.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link make very intriguing points. I wont totally say that you have convinced me, but your points are well thought out, I have to give you credit for that.

One thing that does bug me about your thinking though, is that I think your perception of Islam may be a little distorted. Regular everyday Muslims just like regular everyday Christians are not the problem. As you state, and myself as well, its the extremists of both sides. Both would get caught up in the fervor of the times, just as we saw after 9/11...Christians were all "kill Islam" and Muslims were all "kill Christians". Now, I agree that Muslims do it more than most Christians, but that is also what the media wants you to think. That is what makes a good story.

The media, ie...books, magazines, TV, radio, etc....want hard hitting stories so there is nothing better than tracking a small group of rebels and hearing their cries of "Death to America". Most of Islam, like America, is sick of war and hate but their voices will never be heard because that is not the "big story" that the media wants, just as their media is biased against us by only showing how we are "evil" and "materialistic". Both sides have distorted views of each other...thats all there is to it!

Again, I think you get my point.

Personally I am not a Christain, nor a Muslim. I just think both sides have been mislead by those in charge who seemingly utter "God told me to....", which I agree is more prevalent in Muslim nations.

dr_strangecraft....about the Muslim crescent being raised as opposed to the Christian cross you mentioned. Have you ever thought that the only differece here is that some Muslim fundamentalists are in larger positions of power than many Christian fundamentalists? If we had our extremists run the country I'm nearly certain that they would try to do the same thing with the Cross. However, many are not (except GWB & Co.) and that is the main difference. Their leaders are usually fundamentalists who get positions of power because of family wealth, not politics. It is the same with our leaders, but many of them suppress their desires, to become more moderate and appealing to the population. Thus, it becomes an issue of politics, and not religion in both cultures.

Now, you can dislike their political system as much as you want, but their religion is no different. I for one, cannot say that Democracy is the be all end all of political machines, but yes, it is better than what Muslim countries have.

PS- There is a term called ethnocentrism....dont be guilty of it. Just because their culture is different than our and their experiences are different than ours we cannot judge them on our terms. Some of these people have lived in nothing but war-state countries all their lives. If I lived in this state, under the constant threat of war, with the US govt. breathing down my neck to change, I would be like "who do you think you are to tell me how to behave, I have seen terrors you could only dream of!"

Im tired of writing on this subject, so I think your getting where I am going...

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:17 AM
Has anybody here heard of the crusades? You should be ashamed of yourselves, claiming that Muslims began the fight against the West and its Christian majority. The Islamic Empire was the only flourishing civilization of the middle ages, full of literature, scholarly learning and discovery, and plenty of international trade.
It is odd that most of you forget that subjugation of women and everything that is not a rich white male is the way of much of what you consider "the civilized world". Though I am sure you believe this is a very developed way to treat people and create a successful society, it is in fact nothing short of barbaric. There is nothing an ounce more violent in the Koran or other teachings of Islam than there is in the teachings of Christianity. The God of the Old Testament is famously a vengeful diety that seeks to punish rather than teach, a method made famous by his expulsion of Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The Islamic God, on the other hand, never seems to approve of keeping his people stupid.
This claims of this author are so preposterous I burst out laughing plenty of times. Are you trying to validate the Bible's stories as being true? Unfortunately, you have no sources nor evidence to prove this. Religions are based on faith, not tangible proof: this is the same for Islam, Chrisitanity, Judaism, and the rest of them. There is nothing more ridiculous than to try to deny the verity of one religion while upholding another because none of them have a credible, evidence-based foundation. Furthermore, evoking the religion clash yet again is such a novel idea, really, it is, excluding the fact that practically every war has been fought because of religious disagreements.
Does this author believe their argument is logical? Unless they are a chimpanzee with an IQ below 20, even they can easily see their article holds about as much merit in the topic being discussed as my table lamp does. Of course people must realize that ideological clashes exist between people on every possible issue, most notably, religious faith. People must learn to live with each other's differences not by denouncing or exterminating each other. Instead, let us all learn from each other for the purpose of enriching ourselves and our societies. It is certain that tolerance is harder to practice than to propose. Nevertheless, peace, progress, and civilization depends on cooperation and understanding we can all achieve through tolerance.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:53 AM

Killing innocent people in the name of God... raping innocent women and children in the name of God... forcing people into servitude and diminishing their liberties in the name of God... force feeding a belief system that is founded in nothing more than the killing and conquering of other peoples in the name of God??? What kind of religion is this? What kind of God do these people worship?

Just as a counterpoint...ALL of the above would also describe the Christian religion during the Crusades, the Inquisition, even modern evangelism in 3rd world nations (where people must sit through a Christian sermon before being fed, schooled, etc.)...
Not taking any sides here, but those who live in glass houses....

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:05 AM
I think you make several valid points, as well.

As I stated in my very first post. I don't really want to subscribe to the "them against us, to the death" mentality. It goes against my values.

You also make a cogent point regarding ethnocentrism. I definitely don't want to force the world into the briefcase carrying, necktie wearing, chainsmoking western model.

On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge the profound differences in our cultures. What this means for the topic at hand is that Islam rejects many values that have become part and parcel of western civilization.

If you read the Hadith, the commentaries on the Qur'an, you cannot miss the point that Islam is about community; the individual's personal belief matters much less than in Christianity (and the West). I was shocked to discover that for the average muslim, whether you love God is immaterial; all that matters is that you are submissive in your behavior, and conform to community standards. God is not a personal deity one has a relationship with, but a ruler to be obeyed. This is why forced conversion at gunpoint is acceptable. Muslims expect you to acknowledge God, whether you love him is your own problem.

Another example is the gulf between the faithful and infidels. Non-believers are considered sub-human. The only reason God lets them live is so that the faithful can demonstrate their obedience by either converting or destroying them.

The only culture that matters is Muslim/Arabic culture. Pre-muslim archaeology is absolutely forbidden by the Qur'an; what hell-destined infidels believed before the light of the prophet came to humanity is totally irrelevant. For example, the Egyptian government is currently facing demands that the Pyramids be destroyed and dissassembled, because they are pre-Islamic.

Every aspect of a person's life must show submission. The famous example is of course, the ruling by the Afghani Taleban that cheering was forbidden at soccer matches. I think even applause was outlawed, as idolatry. The only acceptable outburst is "Alahu Akhbar!" (God is Greater!).

I guess what I am saying is that Islam is totalitarianism. I think that the West has trouble coming to grips with that.

Just like we did with Hitler. Personally, I believe the Nazis were trying to found a new, non-western civilization. But that's another thread. One of the reasons the rest of Europe and America were so slow to stop Hitler was their inability to see that Hitler did not share their values.

They assumed that all nations want peace. That if there is a groundswell of militarism/extremism in a country, it is because the people are being oppressed (sound familiar?) and that if they are get what they want, they will eventually begin to compromise.

The British and French honestly believed that if they gave the Sudetenland to Germany, Hitler would stop threatening to invade his neighbors. They thought he would lose support within Germany! Of course, Hitler wanted the Sudeten so that he could invade all of Czechoslovakia and get his hands on their tank factories . . .

My point is that Hitler prayed on their sense of compromise, on their desire for peace, and on their belief that he wanted the same things they wanted.


I guess the other thing I dissagree with Jazzerman about is that I think most Muslims, even the 'moderates,' tacitly support the goals of the extremists. I was studying the international press on 9/11 and the days that followed. Muslims around the world danced in the streets and congratulated themselves. Was there any Arab newspaper or leader that denounced the attacks? I'll have to google, but I remember the SAUDI government saying we 'deserved it.'

If Some Christian extremists attacked Islam, they'd be vilified throughout the west. If someone crashed an airliner into the Qaaba, church leaders would fall over themselves to denounce the militants. I'm sure our governments would rush to arrest as many as they could of the people who supported the plot. Compare that with Sa'ud, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq after 9-11.


I dunno, Jazzerman. I look back over what I've just written and it sucks. But I cannot say that I think any of it is incorrect.

It saddens me, but you cannot extend mercy to people who interpret mercy as weakness. We keep having to learn that lesson over and over again.

And as I've said, my fear is that the only response that will work against Islam is for us to embrace totalitarianism too. I think we did that for the duration of WWII.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Ruscat
Has anybody here heard of the crusades? You should be ashamed of yourselves, claiming that Muslims began the fight against the West and its Christian majority. The Islamic Empire was the only flourishing civilization of the middle ages, full of literature, scholarly learning and discovery, and plenty of international trade.

Excuse me, ye illiterate of history. Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, and parts of Syria were all a part of the Christian Byzantine Empire when they were taken by force in the 7th Century by Arab Moslem armies on a campaign to spread Islam around the world. In case you didn't know, there are substantial Christian minorities in all these countries, and they aren't there because of some later missionaries who brought the faith, the Christian communities predate the Islamic invasion. Lebanon was even a MAJORITY Christian country in the 1930's until Moslem birthrates exploded.

Christian Spain was invaded in the early 8th Century by Arab and North African conquerors who wanted to spread the word of Allah by sword. They reached as far north as As Tours, France where they retreated thanks to the heroic stand made by Charles Martel and his Frankish warriors.

Does everyone seem to forget why the First Crusade was launched? It was to be a counterattack against the imperialist ambitions of the Moslems into Christian lands, most notably that of the Turks. After the success of the initial Crusade, the subsequent crusades would be miserable failures, and within a few centuries, the moslem Turks destroyed the Byzantine empire by capturing Constantinople, which is to this very day occupied by Turks.

And throughout the Middle Ages, the Moslems were hardly the only ones civilizing agent in the world. The Franks had the Carolingian rebirth, Parliamentary development in England, the Byzantine Empire carrying on the legacy of the Romans.

And while we're in a self-confessing mood, I'll make one confession too. I was born Protestant, attended Catholic schools (unfortunately), and declared myself atheist at 17, and have remained so now for half my life.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:39 PM
Thank for all the posts. However, I would like to stress that Islam, NOT Muslim, is inherently evil. Islam has terrorism in its very core. As long as Muslims didn't aware of it, Muslims are just as normal as everybody else.

Islam is not a religion. It's a theocratic ideology from jurisprudence to politics, covers all aspects of Muslim's life. It defines how to eat, how to dress, how to pray ... Even how to use bathroom
. Most of Muslims just follow parts of those rules and always felt guilty about not being a "good" Muslim. We meet this type of Muslim most of the time.

As soon as a Muslim try to become "good" Muslim, they turn completely into a monster. He's willing to use violence mean to handle dispute. Why did they chop the hand of petty theft ? Why did they stone adultery people ? Why did they mutilate death body ? Why did they put to death who insult Mohammad ? They just follow Islamic law.

Islamic scholars are very well respected in Islam. In Muslim community, they are the ruler, the judge and everything that Muslim look up to. This is one of the most famous Islamic site: Ask Imam. Mufti Ebrahim Desai, former head of the Darul Ifta deparment at Jamiatul Ulama (KZN, South Africa) and currently at the Madrassah In'aamiyyah (Camperdown, South Africa). He answered several questions regarding about Sharia law applied for Muslim. Just search words as slave, apostate, theft ... and find the answer for yourself. Below are some Q/A from that site.

Can someone imagine Islamic ruling still sanction for slavery ?

Q: What does the Islam say regarding intercourse with slave girls? In my opinion Zina or sex with any women is forbidden in Islam

A: A man may have intimate relations with his wife or slave girl. This applies
no matter how many slave girls one may possess. He may not have intimate
relations with his servant. A slave is one whom one physically owns. Since
slavery is not in vogue nowadays, this does not apply today.

Refer attached, 'Slavery'

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

The Islamic law condemn to death who leave Islam. It's against Article 18 of Universal Human Right. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Q: How come an apostate is killed in Islamic Shariah but there's no compulsion upon other non-Muslims in the State? Why isn't he/she allowed to follow whatever religion they want? Jazakum'Allahu khairun.

A: There are two categories of people mentioned: an apostate and an original non-Muslim. The injunctions of the Shari’ah as supported by the Qur’aan and Hadith that is applicable to both of them differs. In other words, both of them do not fall under the same category.

The first one is an apostate or renegade, i.e. a Muslim person who has turned away from Islam and the second are those who are non-Muslims originally. The law for the first group of people, i.e. renegade is that firstly Islam will be presented once again to him and if he has any doubts or queries then these should be cleared out and he will be given a respite of 3 days. If he accepts Islam again, then fine otherwise he will be killed. This is substantiated by the noble Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) wherein he explicitly mentions, ‘Whosoever changes his Deen, then kill him’. This only apply to the males. A female renegade will not be killed, rather kept imprisoned until she accepts Islam.

As for the second group, when the Muslims conquer a non-Muslim land, they will first invite those people to Islam because of the narration of ibn Abbaas (Radhiallaahu Anhu), ‘No nation should be fought with until they are called to Islam.’ If the accept, then Muslims will not fight with them. And if they refuse, then they will be asked to pay Jizya (tax), if they refuse, this, then only will the Muslims fight them. This is also substantiated by Qur’aan, ‘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 (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.’ (Surah Tawbah Aayat29).

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Judge for yourself. Don't base on Chistian or any religion value. Just base on common sense and be human.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in