Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

660

Date: July 10, 2005 at 18:26:19
From: Joe, [pool-70-104-16-248.dllstx.fios.verizon.net]
Subject: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Bombing in London ?
I am a born Muslim and I confess that, there is no intelligent MUSLIM. Because a human in this century should be absolutely dumb to believe in Islam. Islam is religion of devil, and Mohamad is the devil prophet. To observe this fact you need to remember that: God is love, Fear of god is a crime against love. when and if you leave your fear behind then read the Koran, it makes you throw up. Islamic ideology is so vicious and dirty, if and when one believe in it, he is ignorant and vicious even if one has ten university degrees. Muslim means ignorant and devil worshiper... A religion which is all about killing has nothing to do to god of love. The reason for misery in Muslim country is not west or east, it is their worship of a evil philosophy. I need to remind you that sophism and other mystic religion are ancient Persian mysticism path which had to pretend in being Islamic, to survive, their beauty is from old Persian philosophy and they have hardly any thing in common with vicious Koran and Mohamad’s nightmares.
After I watched latest changes in Iranian government, take over of the Parliament and presidency, specially forced election of a terrorist as new president, I expected the new killing and bombing to restart in the world. Mr. Khameneie coop to purify his surrounding from opponents and possible whistle blowers and replacing them with hard liners who can kill human faster than wild hungry cats and a gang of ignorant who think they need to kill the opponents to protect their powerful ( weak ?) God And their evil prophet. In Iran some people call the new government as the government of revenge, and known to be here to clear all of the opponents of Islam from all over the world.
Can western politician understand or match Iranian mullahs in trickery and deception? Iranian mullahs are more vicious and complicated than any human alive ( proof is the last 26 vicious years). The Mullahs survived For the last 1400 without ever working by trickery and deception in the name of their prophet and by learning how to control people and money supply by deception in name of their worthless god. Islam believers are deep in the darkness. Unfortunately college education and even, living in the western countries could not open their Muslim frightened conscious to the light , truth, and oneness of humanity. It is so because MOHAMAD words in koran, in the name of his god take all securities away from the followers and therefore remove possibility of thinking away from them. According to koran ( Mohamad) the god is always watching and is aware of everything and he is vicious in his punishments. These repeated threats can and has caused survival of this evil religion. If Muslim take one hour of their time , remove all their false pride, and all their fear of god then fill themselves with belief in love and brotherhood with whole humanity , and then read their holy book, they will end up throwing it as a worthless piece of junk in the trash. The only thing the college degree gave to educated muslim is more false pride and belief that they as muslim are the best thing which has happened to humanity, therefore as their prophet has requested, the whole humanity will join them in their dark path towards ignorance and pain or they all deserve to be burned.. Fear that Mohamad has injected in his followers made them blind to the truth and love and un-curable and even death won’t accept them. They do not understand that fear of god is one of the biggest crime against God and his kingdom, and fear is opposite of love and it is only used by evil mind who likes to control others ( like Mohamad and friends).
Mullahs have been causing chaos in the world for 26 years without being caught. It is very interesting that rich smart Iranian religious leaders are using their money to hire arabic terrorists ( indirectly) to bomb and destroy in the name of Islam and hate but even the individual terrorist does not know his employer is Iranian government. Therefore even if the whole group is arrested no one knows the real force behind the scene and there is not even one Iranian in whole operation.. Most of the money in the hand of terrorist comes from Khameneie ( head of Iranian government) through some trusted channel but even the head of terror organization does not know and does not care where the money is coming from.
Iranian people are wiser than rest of middle east although they are trapped by an Islamic government. What makes me more worried is people in Pakistan, which are more religious and are deeper in the Islamic ignorance and darkness. Muslim should know that the cause of their misery is not the east or the west, it is the philosophy they believe in, they are worshiping devil and devil only bring darkness and pain, please do not try to spread it to the rest of the world. Best example is Iranian people who always were rich and powerful until evil of Mohamad hit them and his ignorance consume their conscious and fear of god made them blind to the truth.

Are we heading towards a possible atomic wars?
I wish there was no ignorance, no weapon, no aggression no war, but... And I know the solution is education but Is there opportunity for that?... Islam is the devil religion and it is rising and looking for blood and death.... Although all the Muslims misery is caused by their belief in evil Islam but... They only point at others as its cause... and other’s destruction as the solution.
If the whole world ( including Russia and China ) do not take drastic measure in removal of trouble makers with any price specifically the pride and joy of hateful Islamic movement, Iranian religious government, I need to say that, Unfortunately we are heading to a atomic war. Even if the whole western world leave middle east and its oil for ever, Muslim viciousness would not end, Mohamad the evil is arabs pride and joy, The whole world should join his dark and forceful belief or whole world should say good bye. China and Russia may think they are safe by befriending them but... Evil knows no friend and their turn will come a bit later.
Muslim have upper hand in their possible attack and destruction for the following reasons:
1- They act as and when they wish, there is no control no heeding to any force because they think they are defending their god. Since their whole Islamic belief is based on fear, the only factor they respond to is fear therefore if they know they can hit and hide or hit and destroy completely they will go for it. Western government has to go through hundreds of watch dogs organization to take an action. Western Politicians needs to make all the peace movement organizations and other peace lovers happy before they can act.
2- While the anger and hate in middle east and Islamic country started boiling and is seeking to flow and consume west, in the west the number of peace lovers organization is increasing, in other word we are getting neutral to aggression while they are preparing to hit us with everything they can get hold of.
3- Most of Muslim living in western countries are like time bombs which pretend they are pro west and will be known better when things fall apart, they will be vicious towards non muslim because they really think they are serving a better god. And their way is the best.
Present condition in the world remind me of fall of Iranian empire about 14000 years ago. It was the ugliest event which ever happened to humanity and caused expansion of dark Islam all over the globe. These are the condition in Iran at that point and cause of that tragic failure:
1- Iran was re-coping from 20 years of war with Rome, People were unhappy from the taxes and pressure of the war.
2- Start of peace movement and formation of many spiritual sects, like monism, Mazdaism and many other spiritual peace loving organization opposing war, like Present Sophism , Darvishism (which now they are known as muslim pride but in reality they have nothing even close to forceful Islam, they are old Iranian Mysticism which like whole Iranian culture was destroyed or was absorbed as Islamic culture by some change and based on fear of sword) .
3- Death of Old King and assignment of new 14 years young boy without any experience and over an exhausted country.
But the worse factors which caused the Muslims success was exhaustion of country, and peace movement by different groups and betrayal of some people in high places. What is interesting is that, at the time that Iranian were becoming peace lovers Islam was becoming vicious and ready to kill and expand and loot, just like now. All Iranian who never believed in slavery ended up as slaves of the most wicked , ignorant men alive. Is that going to be repeated for west?
Possible solution or first step:
I would like to tell western people that, they have not too much choice in their problem with muslims. Even if they leave the whole middle east and... decide to accept the dark Islam as their religion the game is not over, Islam is based on ignorance and needs occasional blood to satisfy the muslims’s egos and now it is that time and they are full of hate towards westerner. Even your muslims neighbor that you see daily will cut your head off if and when he see it convenient. Now that you have no chance for peace,, then decide wisely and survive.
Arrest all the time bombs ( Muslims) indifference to their statue as citizen or not and send them back to their mother land and tell them go and enjoy your beloved ( evil) Islam there.
Get ready and be the first in the future fire work... To save the world from dark future, Tehran and Pakistan and some other section of Muslims world need to be Neutron-ized.. I speak vicious because I see the doom and my practicality can dwarf it and make it endurable... But who can take that responsibility?... China and Russia the new capitalist need to become involve or they would not enjoy all the money they are collecting for too long. Islam is coming with a new sword... it is called “big bang”.

We wait and see

Responses:
[1291] [1259] [878] [1601] [1614] [863] [869] [952] [954] [953] [851] [852] [804] [1048] [1049] [801] [802] [794] [796] [797] [799] [1487] [758] [1602] [1613] [936] [761] [773] [767] [762] [765] [941] [759] [768] [740] [743] [662] [1604] [1615] [938] [947] [741] [742] [1493] [1499] [1495] [792] [836] [862] [901] [868] [870] [871] [1603] [939] [1801]

1291

Date: August 11, 2007 at 18:30:11
From: N.s, [host86-137-4-93.range86-137.btcentralplus.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

hello,
I dont believe you were born in a muslim family. Well if you were obviously you did not get enough Islamic knowledge.The first thing all muslims do is begin everything with the name of Allah. who is the most merciful and beneficient.Muslims seek protection from the cursed devil so why would they be devil worshippers?
Qur'an 33:35
Lo! men who surrender unto Allah, and women who surrender,
And men who believe and women who believe,
And men who obey and women who obey,
And men who speak the truth and women who speak the truth,
And men who persevere (in righteousness) and women who persevere,
And men who are humble and women who are humble,
And men who give alms and women who give alms,
And men who fast and women who fast,
And men who guard their modesty and women who guard (their modesty),
And men who remember Allah much and women who remember--
Allah hath prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward.
Muslims believe this world is a testing place and we will be either punished or rewarded according to our efforts. This is a just God!
Qur'an 4:116
Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods (partners) with Him:
but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this:
one who joins other gods (partners) with Allah hath strayed far far away (from the right path)..
Muslims are not ignorant..Most of modern scientific contributions are because of muslims. Helping others is a part of Muslim Faith.
Qur'an 2:219
...They ask thee how much they are to spend (in charity);
say: "What is beyond your needs."
Thus doth Allah make clear to you His Signs: in order that ye may consider.
Allah: Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God ('Eloh-im' in Hebrew; 'Allaha' in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.'
Qur'an 49:13 Surah Al-Hujurat (The Inner Apartments)
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
Qur'an 10:57-60 Surah Yunus (Jonah)
O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts and for those who believe a Guidance and a Mercy.
Say: "In the Bounty of Allah and in His Mercy in that let them rejoice": that is better than the (wealth) they hoard.
Say: "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say: "Hath Allah indeed permitted you or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah?"
And what think those who invent lies against Allah of the Day of Judgment? Verily Allah is full of Bounty to mankind but most of them are ungrateful.
Qur'an 4:174-175 Surah An-Nisaa (The Women)
O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: for We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest.
Then those who believe in Allah and hold fast to Him soon will He admit them to Mercy and Grace from Him and guide them to Himself by a straight Way.
Qur'an 2:21-24 Surah Al-Baqarah (The Heifer)
O ye people! adore your Guardian-Lord who created you and those who came before you that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness.
Who has made the earth your couch and the heaven your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens; and brought forth therewith fruits for your sustenance; then set not up rivals unto Allah when ye know (the truth).
And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.
But if ye cannot and of a surety ye cannot then fear the fire whose fuel is Men and Stones which is prepared for those who reject Faith.
Qur'an 4:132-134 Surah An-Nisaa (The Women)
Yea unto Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth and enough is Allah to carry through all affairs.
If it were His will He could destroy you O mankind and create another race: for He hath power this to do.
If anyone desires a reward in this life in Allah's (gift) is the reward (both) of this life and of the Hereafter: for Allah is He that heareth and seeth (all things).
Your message did not contain anything for peace but war and hatred for muslims.
Qur'an 35:3-7 Surah Fatir
O men! call to mind the grace of Allah unto you! Is there a Creator other than Allah to give you Sustenance from heaven or earth? There is no god but He: how then are ye deluded away from the Truth?
And if they reject thee so were apostles rejected before thee: to Allah go back for decision all affairs.
O men! certainly the promise of Allah is true. Let not then this present life deceive you nor let the Chief Deceiver deceive you about Allah.
Verily Satan is an enemy to you: so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his adherents that they may become Companions of the Blazing Fire.
For those who reject Allah is a terrible Penalty: but for those who believe and work righteous deeds is Forgiveness and a magnificent Reward.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a mercy for mankind.He taught the muslims to believe in Jesus(pbuh) when his own nation i.e the jews rejected him. Why do you hate him for this?

Responses:
None

1259

Date: July 03, 2007 at 13:35:25
From: tERK, [ip68-227-246-148.ph.ph.cox.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

fINALLY SOMEONE SAYS THE TRUTH

Responses:
None

878

Date: March 05, 2006 at 03:54:56
From: Patrick, [172-235.dynamic.visi.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

I was searching for added knowledge of Islam. I read two listed voices. Joe at #680, and then Badam at #863.

Joe, thanks for letting me know just what I have thought for a decade. I have been locked and loaded since 9/11. I have broadcasted that to all I come in contact with. I would like to add that I am a very active person, and I have many contacts, and they are starting to see the light. I am not a religious preacher in any way.

As far as the note I read from Badam(goofy name) at #863. Your nuts. You best turn your will and your life over to Jesus Christ. He was here on earth about 750 yrs before your goofball had some crazy evil dream. Our bible mentions that evil will be against God in many ways. Lets go man, one on one! You will need to say goodbye to your mother.

Responses:
[1601] [1614]

1601

Date: December 29, 2008 at 14:04:49
From: Seriously?, []
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Since the dawn of man, there has been religious wars. Any Christian can not find pride in the Christian Crusades or the Witch Hunts. However, the viciousness and brutality shown with the Islamic faith is astonishing, as it has never waivered and has never diminished. There has not been a flare up throughout the years, but a constant seeking for blood and revenge towards anyone who even thinks in the privacy of his own mind that Mohammad was a magic mushroom muncher sitting in a cave.

Yet, people insist that this religion is a loving and peacful religion, while it state that death is to com to infidels and a forced belief in Islam or death to Christans and Jews. They somehow have been brainwashed enough to tell any of us that this is peaceful and blissful and that its not the religion or the child molesting prophet, but it is the extremists who we see bombing innocent people.

When Joe said that a friendly muslim would decapitate you without hesitation, I belive him to be correct. When it comes down to it, in the end, we will all have to make a choice, and that goes for the people of Islam. I believe that most are merely suckers in a losing game, unaware of what they believe and choosing what they will, all the while ignoring the evilness of who founded the religion and also what the religion stands for.

At the end of the day, when the light is turned off for a final time, we will all make a choice, and I can only hope for those muslims out there who are bath in evil as a whore in patchuli at midnight, that you find the right way, not fear in God, not faith that all others are so infinatly wrong that they actually need to die. No, that God is a loving God and would condemn anyone who follows such heinous crimes being done towards him.

Rememeber, above all else, that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all follow the same God, and when I hear a Muslim on this forum say that anyone who does not believ in Allah will perish, it makes me realize just how ignorant they really are and I feel sorry for them because they are insinuating that Christians and Jews do not follow God, G-d or Allah, but are pagan loving followers.

Responses:
[1614]

1614

Date: January 14, 2009 at 15:01:47
From: Anne, []
Subject: Where is the Love

Seriously, there is so much predjudice in your posting it is hard to know where to begin. Put very simply though, there are passages of hate in the Bible as well, but the vast majority of Christians have the intelligence and understanding to know that this is not the premise of their religion - so is it with the vast majority of Muslims.

When you mention that a friendly Muslim will decapitate you without hesitation, it makes me almost physically sick. I have many friends who happen to be Muslim, who are better people than I might ever hope to be, and who I trust with my own life and those of people dear to me. It is statements such as your own that sow hate, and feed in to the radical ideas of the minority. They are not the way to peace.

Responses:
None

863

Date: February 11, 2006 at 15:30:43
From: Badam, [kepos.plus.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Its unbeleivable that many people are so ignorant, it seems as though you have been conned by someone as ignorant as you and read a fake Qur'aan, of which you can find many on the internet. What you simply DO NOT understand is that Islam is the most peaceful religion in the world, proven by the fact that it is the fastest growing religion today, which is what scares you people to ignorance! This is proved by the fact that you claim that the Qur'aan constantly threatens Muslims?!? Seriously which website did you buy this fake e-book from??? Even in the times of the prophet(saw) people like you, i.e the ignorant used to put him through so much however he never ever uttered a bad word against them, yet here you are claiming to be peaceful and taking the piss out of this religion of which you have no understanding. Fact is that no one can be like the Last prophet of Allah, no one has the heart, mind or even the patience. People who cause violence are not true muslims, because Islam is about peace which you would know if you had actually read the Qur'aan. May Allah guide you to the right path, that is all i can say.

Responses:
[869] [952] [954] [953]

869

Date: February 17, 2006 at 00:20:57
From: Cali, [c-67-174-63-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Muhammad broke every one of the 10 commandments making him a wicked sinner

1st Commandment: HAVE NO OTHER GODS

Exodus 20: 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Muhammad worshipped Allah a false God from one of the 360 deities of the Ka'ba

2nd Commandment: DO NOT MAKE IDOLS

Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Muhammad invented Allah a God of his imagination and said that he is in heaven above when clearly Allah cannot reveal himself since he does not exist. Muhammad also had the Muslims bow towards Mecca (a sign of worship) and kiss a stone called Hujra Aswat in the middle of the Ka'ba.

3rd Commandment: DO NOT TAKE THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN

Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

‘ilaah (God/god) was used in various forms as a noun (common name or title) to either refer to the Qur'anic-deity or to other deities

‘ilaah was used as a generic name for both the Bible-deity and the other deities as well. Under several forms it was used as synonym for ‘el, ‘elohiym, ‘eloah, ‘Leah and theos, in the same way the English translations, for example, used god and God.
Whilst allaah (Allah) was always uniquely used for the Qur'anic-God and always as his very personal name (noun proper masculine singular).

Koran Interpretation, by Hamdi Yazir of Elmali (Religious Affairs Directory, Vol.1, p.24-25)

The word ALLAH has never been applied to any other than ALLAH, neither in proper form nor in common. Take the names such as "ilah" and "huda," for example; none of them is a proper name as "Allah." They imply a concept of "god" or "lord." It has been said "gods" as the plural form of "god," "lords" as for "lord," etc. Unlike, it has never been said "Allahs" and can never be so… So, the common name God is not synonymous for the proper noun "Allah," and is not an equivalent for "Allah." "God" is a very common name! Therefore one should never translate the name "Allah" as "God."

Muhammad did not know the name of the one true God and perverted the true name of God by calling it Allah which is foreign name to YHVH. Muhammad is guilty of perverting the true name since he was in contact with Jews and Christians and deliberately chose to create a new God.

4th Commandment: KEEP THE SABBATH DAY

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Muhammad changed the Sabbath by calling Friday holy and failed to keep the Sabbath because the Jews refused to accept him so he changed his day from the Jewish Sabbath.

5th Commandment: HONOR YOUR PARENTS

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Muhammad dishonoured his mother and father by the acts that he did, he lied, he robbed and pillaged innocent people.

6th Commandment: DO NOT MURDER

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not murder

Muhammad had his opponents murdered one by one. Asma bint Marwan spoke out against Muhammad for having another man murdered named Abu Afak who was 120 years old. In his displeasure towards her, Muhammad asked his followers to murder her as well. She was killed while she slept. Abu Afak did not fare well, Asma bint Marwan was the second person who fared the same fate for criticising Muhammad. Their crime was that both were poets and writing poetry against Muhammad.

From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, page 31.

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

Another case:

Another case of beheading took place with a Jewish chief called Kinana in Khaibar of the tribe of Banu Nadir.

"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head [beheaded him], in revenge for his brother Mahmud." (Life of Muhammad page 515).

Note that Allah was helpless in telling Muhammad where the treasure was so he had to resort to human intervention to torturing this guy. Also note in the above when Kinana is asked about what will happen to him, he knew fully well that he would be killed as this was common practice in Islam of torturing people for it's own end. Muhammad did not have any mercy on Kinana and for the sake of money and greed extracted his revenge on this innocent person.

Kinana's wife Saffiya who was very beautiful fell in lot to Dahiya another Muslim but he was persuaded by Muhammad after some negotiation with money to part with her so Muhammad could marry her which he later did adding her to his harem of wives. She became Muhammad's tenth wife. Clearly the precedent is set and the chief of this Jewish tribe was swiftly executed after extracting the treasure from this so called infidel according to Islamic traditions. [ref: Muslim II, P 237, quoted by Margolieuth P 363.]

In the Kinana's case alone Muhammad broke about six commandments. Anybody who still thinks that this person is a prophet has got to be kidding.

7th Commandment: DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Muhammad married his adopted son's wife Zainab because he lusted after her, Zaid bin Thabit divorced his wife to allow Muhammad to marry her. Muhammad slept with his slaves who were married claiming he had a religious right by justifying his behaviour by the Qur'an. He also forced himself on women his followers captured.

8th Commandment: DO NOT STEAL

Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

Muhammad robbed and pillaged, he stole from the Quraish tribe by conducting 29 of the 69 raids against the passing Quraish caravans in the desert stealing their money.

9th Commandment: DO NOT FALSELY ACCUSE

Exodus 20: 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Muhammad bore false testimony against the Jewish tribes in Medina to drive them out of Arabia by saying they helped the Quraish tribe when in fact they did not.

All three tribes of the Jews were eliminated one by one.

Banu Qainuqa - Expelled

Banu Nader - Expelled

Banu Qurayza - All the men beheaded

In the battle of the Ditch (AD 627), Banu Qurayza was said to have sided with the Meccans against the Muslims, which were victorious (they actually refused to help the Meccans because of what had happened to one of the other Jewish tribes). As a result, the 400 to 600 hundred male Jews were beheaded, while their children and women became slaves. The judgment was given by Sad, and Muhammad commended him for this judgment:

10th Commandment: DO NOT COVET

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Muhammad coveted his adopted son's wife and he coveted his Jewish neighbours properties and money going out to steal their wealth and driving them out of Arabia to the point of beheading and killing them.

In Sura 33:37 Muhammad found justification to marry Zainab bint Jaash after she got divorced from his adopted son Zaid because this was supposively Allah's wish also.

Narrated Anas:
Zaid bin Haritha came to the Prophet complaining about his wife. The Prophet kept on saying (to him), "Be afraid of Allah and keep your wife." Aisha said, "If Allah's Apostle were to conceal anything (of the Quran he would have concealed this Verse." Zainab used to boast before the wives of the Prophet and used to say, "You were given in marriage by your families, while I was married (to the Prophet) by Allah from over seven Heavens." And Thabit recited, "The Verse:-- 'But (O Muhammad) you did hide in your heart that which Allah was about to make manifest, you did fear the people,' (33.37) was revealed in connection with Zainab and Zaid bin Haritha." (Sahih Bukhari 9.516)

After this event Muhammad banned adoption as an outcry by some of the Arabs at this behaviour.

Note Muhammad hid the lustful thoughts in his heart thus also breaking the 7th commandment of committing adultery as the Lord Jesus specified, it is the intent now not the act in Messiah's law.

It's very dangerous to say Allah is God because attributing a false god with the real God can have serious consequences.

Responses:
[952] [954] [953]

952

Date: April 17, 2006 at 03:41:09
From: Lydia, [66-42-13-43.oak.dslextreme.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

I respect you beliefs and you have the freedom of speech, but haven't you ever heard the phrase "If you have nothing good to say don't say it at all." One thing that you may be getting confused about is that "Allah" means "God" in Arabic. I am a non-muslim but I have been reading about Islam and many other religion and I would never put another religion down. One of my parents is Catholic converted to Christian and another is Jehoviah Wittness so I have seen and experience many religions and their beliefs. I hope you take my words to heart.

Responses:
[954] [953]

954

Date: April 17, 2006 at 21:56:33
From: Ignorance is bliss!, [c-67-174-63-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

"If you have nothing good to say don't say it at all." I once heard a wise statement taken from the Bible that is contradictory to this, "all it takes for evil to exist is for a good man to say nothing at all." If people took your statement to heart the following would occur:

Slavery would still exist

Women wouldn’t be able to vote-Which isn’t allowed in allowed in most Islamic countries. Nope, that’s wrong, the US bad mouthed Afghanistan and now women are starting to vote.

The evil empire of Russia might still be in existence-tens of millions were executed. Ops, can’t say nothing bad about this. Oh, just let it continue. Who cares!

The US might be speaking German or Japanese.

The Serbs would have been allowed to slaughter the Muslims in Yugoslavia

I could go on and on to infinite and beyond.

What’s going on in the world today that Mr. Hazem seems to ignore? Non-Muslims are constantly being discriminated against and killed in the name of Islam. Would you like a few examples? Here you go:

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

Sharia Law

Laws and Practices Under Sharia
[edit]
The penalty for theft
In accordance with the Qur'an and several ahadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, e.g. depending on the number of times it is committed.[1][2]
[edit]
Dietary laws
Main article: Islamic dietary laws
When eating meat sharia dictates that Muslims may only eat from meat that has been slaughtered in the name of God and meets stringent dietary requirements. Such meat is called halāl or "lawful" (acceptable). Islamic law prohibits a Muslim from eating pork, and meat that has been slaughtered in other than the name of God. Most juridical opinions also hold monkey, dog, cat, carnivores and several other types of animal as being prohibited, or harām. For the meat of an animal to be halāl it must be one of the declared halāl species, it must generally be slaughtered by a Muslim using the correct method, and it may not be killed by excessively cruel or painful means. The traditional means of slaughter is by slicing open the jugular veins at the neck, resulting in quick blood loss; a state of shock and unconsciousness is induced, and death soon follows through cardiac arrest.
According to the Qur'an, the animal does not have to be slaughtered by a Muslim, but may be slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian (People of the Book) as long as it meets their strict dietary laws (Al-Ma'ida 5: "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you.") Thus, most Muslims will accept kosher meat as halāl. (Qur'an 2:173, 6:121)
[edit]
The role of women under Sharia
Main article: women in Islam
Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of housekeeping and caring for the families of both parents. In theory, Islamic law allows husbands to divorce their wives at will, by clearly saying talaq ("I divorce you") three times in public. In practice divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary. In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. [7] Such a divorce, known as the "triple talaq" is not allowed in most Muslim states. Usually, the divorced wife keeps her dowry from when she was married, if there was one, and is given child support until the age of weaning, at which point the child may be returned to its father if it is deemed to be best.
In addition, women are generally not allowed to be clergy or religious scholars. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics and was a major authority on hadith.
A Muslim may not marry or remain married to an unbeliever of either sex (2:221, 60:10). A Muslim man may marry a woman of the People of the Book (5:5); traditionally, however, Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam.
See also ma malakat aymanukum.
[edit]
Dress codes
The Qur'an also places a dress code upon its followers. For women, it emphasizes modesty. Allah says in the Qur'an, "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment (interpreted as the hair and body-shape) except that which ordinarily appears thereof (interpreted as the face and hands) and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, . . . ." (surat an-Nur verse 31). All those in whose presence a woman is not obliged to practice the dress code are known to be her mahrams. Men have a dress code which is more relaxed: the loins must be covered from knee to waist. The rationale given for these rules is that men and women are not to be viewed as sexual objects.
Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has laws against these dress codes in schools and work places. After the declaration of the Republic in 1923, as part of revolutions brought by Atatürk, a modern dress code was encouraged. It is against the law to wear a head scarf while attending public school in Turkey, as well as France, where the recently enacted rule caused huge public controversy.
Some view Islamic women as being oppressed by the men in their communities because of the required dress codes. However, in more moderate nations, where these dress codes are not obligatory, there are still many Muslim women who practice it. Some choose to wear such clothes of their own free will because they believe it is the will of Allah, others due to community and social pressures.
One of the garments some women wear is the hijāb (of which the headscarf is one component). The word hijab is derived from the Arabic word hajaba which means 'to hide from sight or view', 'to conceal'. Hijāb means to cover the head as well as the body.
[edit]
Domestic punishments
According to most interpretations, authorization for the husband to physically beat disobedient wives is given in the Qur'an. First, admonishment is verbal, and secondly a period of refraining from intimate relations. Finally, if the husband deems the situation appropriate, he may hit her:
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (Qur'an 4:34 English translation: Yusuf Ali)
The medieval jurist ash-Shafi'i, founder of one of the main schools of fiqh, commented on this verse that "hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable."
The Arabic verse uses idribu¯hunna (from the root daraba ضرب), whose commonest meaning in Arabic has been rendered as "beat", "hit", "scourge", or "strike". Besides this verse, other meanings for daraba used in the Qur'an (though not with a human direct object) include 'to travel', 'to make a simile', 'to cover', 'to separate', and 'to go abroad', among others. For this reason — particularly in recent years (e.g. Ahmed Ali, Edip Yuksel) — some consider "hit" to be a misinterpretation, and believe it should be translated as "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and separate from them." Certain modern translations of the Qur'an in the English language accept the commoner translation of "beat" but tone down the wording with bracketed additions. Whatever idribu¯hunna is meant to convey in the Qur'an -- and multiple, complementary meanings are quite common in Islam's holy book -- the verb is directed, not at a single husband, but to the community as a whole.
Several Hadith urge strongly against beating one's wife, such as: "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her? (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43), "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)". However, some suggest that these Hadith were later abrogated, noting that in the Farewell Pilgrimage, he said:
Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner. (Narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir.) [8]
According to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research:
"If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury. Rather, this 'beating' should be of the kind the Prophet (peace be on him) once mentioned to a disobedient maid-servant, when he said 'If it were not for the fear of retaliation on the Day of Resurrection, I would have beaten you with this miswak (tooth-cleaning twig)' [as reported by Ibn Majah, by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and by Ibn Sa`d in his Tabaqat].[9] [10]
However, punishments are authorized by other passages in the Quran and Hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extramarital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rational for extra-legal punative action while others disagree (quotations provided by Syed Kamran Mirza):
Quran-24:2 "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."
Quran-17:32 "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."
Sahi Muslim No. 4206: "A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God's forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her."
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65: Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of an adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."

Critics of Islamic law have often pointed to "honor killing" as an illustration to the barbarity of Shariah law. While the practice of honor killing is common in many Muslim countries, some Islamic leaders and scholars condemn the practice of honor killing, and argue the practice is not based on religious doctrine. [11].
For a more detailed examination of the Islamic view of adultery, see Zina.
For a more detailed examination of "honor killing", see the Wikipedia entry.
[edit]
Circumcision
Male circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin and is customary in most Muslim communities. It is performed at different ages in different cultures.
Female circumcision is not part of mainstream Islam. It is not practiced in Maghreb countries and most of Asia, but is performed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike across East Africa and the Nile Valley, as well as parts of the Arabian peninsula and Southeast Asia. In both areas, the custom predates Islam. Many African Muslims believe that female circumcision is required by Islam, but a large number of Muslims believe this practice has no basis in Islam. Nevertheless it is justified on religious grounds both by Muslims and Christians who practice it, mostly in parts of Africa. [citation needed]
The Egyptian-born president of the 'European Council on Fatwa and Research', Yusuf al-Qaradawi, emphasises that this is not a religious obligation, but expresses his personal preference for removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, called clitoridotomy (Fatwa on islamonline.net.) The use of the term 'circumcision' is highly confusing, as the practice ranges from a mild superficial act that does not reduce any physiological function (the 'real' circumcision) to various forms of partial or even complete removal of female genital organs. In certain countries, this is accompanied by reducing the genital opening. These forms are, because of their brutal nature, also referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM). This term is most often used in official publications of the United Nations and World Health Organization.
[edit]
Muslim apostates
Main article: Apostasy in Islam
In most interpretations of Shariah, conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of shariah, the penalty for apostasy is death.
[edit]
Illegal sexual relations: Adultery, Fornication and Homosexuality
Main article: Zina
In most interpretations of Shariah, the death penalty is applied as penalty for homosexual acts. According to the opinions of scholars, acceptable means of performing the execution included burning, throwing from tall buildings, and stoning. [12]
Death by stoning is also the penalty for adultery where one or two married individual are involved, while lashing with 100 strips is usually the penalty legally applied for fornication when the guilty party is not married.
[edit]
Freedom of Speech
Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of the prophet Muhammad.
The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe -- the death penalty.[3]
In Egypt, public authorities annulled, without his consent, the marriage of Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd when he got in conflict with an orthodox Islamic cleric from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The cleric had condemned Abu Zayd's reading of the Qur'an as being against the orthodox interpretation and labelled him an apostate (seen as a non-believer and consequently not permitted to marry or stay married to a Muslim woman). Abu Zayd fled to the Netherlands, where he is now a professor at the university of Leiden.
see also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
[edit]
Sharia, democracy and human rights
In 1998 the Turkish Constitutional Court banned and dissolved Turkey's Refah Party on the grounds that the "rules of sharia", which Refah sought to introduce, "were incompatible with the democratic regime", pointing up that "Democracy is the antithesis of sharia". On appeal by Refah the European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy"[4][5] Refah's sharia based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy". It was further ruled that
[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.[6]
On the other side, legal scholar L. Ali Khan determines "that constitutional orders founded on the principles of Sharia are fully compatible with democracy, provided that religious minorities are protected and the incumbent Islamic leadership remains committed to the right to recall".[7] However, Christian Pippan argues, that this contradicts the political reality in most Islamic states. "While constitutional arrangements to ensure that political authority is exercised within the boundaries of Sharia vary greatly among those nations",[8] most existing models of political Islam have so far grossly failed to accept any meaningful political competition of the kind that Kahn himself has identified as essential for even a limited conception of democracy. Khan, writes Pippan, dismisses verdicts as from the European Court of Human Rights or the Turkish Constitutional Court "as an expression of purely national or regional preferences."[9]
Several major, predominantly Muslim countries criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Iran claimed that the UDHR was a "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. Therefore the Organization of the Islamic Conference adpted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which diverges from the UDHR substantially, affirming Sharia as the sole source of human rights. This Declaration became severly criticized by the International Commission of Jurists for allegedly gravely threatening the inter-cultural consensus, introducing intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women, the restrictive character in regard to fundamental rights and freedoms and attacking the integrity, and dignity of the human being.
see also Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Rituals
Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as was the ringing of bells or the trumpeting of shofars. According to one hadith, Muhammad said: “The bell is the devil’s pipe.”[16] Furthermore, dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers.
Places of worship
According to Islamic law, the permission for dhimmis to retain their places of worship and build new ones depended upon the circumstances in which the land fell under the Muslim rule. According to an Islamic jurist al-Nawawi, dhimmis could not use churches and synagogues if their land was conquered by attack. In such lands, as well as in towns founded after the conquest, or where inhabitants voluntarily converted wholesale to Islam, Islamic law does not allow dhimmis to build new churches and synagogues, or expand or repair existing ones, even if they fall into ruin. If the country submitted by capitulation, al-Nawawi wrote, dhimmis were permitted to build new houses of worship only if the capitulation treaty stated that dhimmis remained owners of their land. In observance of this prohibition, Abbasid caliphs al-Mutawakkil, al-Mahdi and Harun al-Rashid ordered the destruction, in their realms, of all churches and synagogues built after the Islamic conquest. In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim oversaw over the demolition of all churches and synagogues in Egypt, Syria and Palestine, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. However, al-Hakim subsequently allowed the rebuilding of the destroyed buildings. Nevertheless, dhimmis sometimes managed to expand churches and synagogues and even build new ones, albeit at the price of bribing local officials in order to get permissions.[17]
There was no consensus in Islamic jurisprudence as to whether it was permissible for dhimmis to repair churches and synagogues. The pact of Umar, as cited by ibn Kathir, puts an obligation on dhimmis not to “restore any place of worship that needs restoration” [4]. At the same time, al-Mawardi wrote in the 11th century that dhimmis “can restore ancient synagogues and churches that have fallen into ruin”. As in the case of building new houses of worship, the ability of dhimmi communities to repair churches and synagogues usually depended upon its relationship with local Muslim authorities and its ability to pay bribes.
Taxation
Main article: Jizya
Main article: Kharaj
Dhimmi communities were subjected to taxes known as jizya – a poll tax – and kharaj – a land tax. Early chronicles use these terms indiscriminately; only later did the kharaj emerge as a tax payable by a farmer regardless of his religion.[18] The resulting tax burden on dhimmis was higher than that on Muslims who paid zakat — mandatory alms.[19] According to Norman Stillman: “Jizya and kharaj were a crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry who eked out a bare living in a subsistence economy.”[20] Most Islamic scholars agree that jizya must be levied only upon adult males, and the 8th-century scholar Abu Ubayd advises that dhimmis must not be burdened above their capacity or caused to suffer.[21] The Shafi'i school however dissents, demanding “the poll tax to be paid by dying people, the old, … the blind, monks, workers, and the poor, incapable of practicing a trade.” The latter view was often applied in practice, as contemporary non-Muslim sources give witness of taxation even of dead persons, widows, and orphans. All taxes paid by Muslims were usually doubled for dhimmis.[22]
Sura 9:29 demands that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing a choice between conversion and death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid)[23]. Al-Nawawi however advocates that the unpaid amount of poll tax remain a debt to the dhimmi’s account until he becomes solvent.[24] In the Ottoman Empire, dhimmis had to carry a receipt certifying their payment of jizya at all times, upon pain of imprisonment.
Legal aspects
Prohibition on testimony
The testimony of dhimmis was not admissible in cases involving a Muslim; on the other hand, Muslims could testify against dhimmis.[25] This legal disability put dhimmis in a precarious position where they could not defend themselves against false accusations leveled by Muslims, except by hiring Muslim witnesses and bribing qadis. Apart from breeding corruption, the prohibition on non-Muslim testimony deepened the rift between communities, as dhimmis sought to reduce the possibility of conflict by limiting contact with Muslims.[26]
Punishment for murder of a dhimmi
In all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, except the Hanafi, the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth. The Hanafi school, however, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi.[27]
A peculiar practice developed in Yemen, where Arab tribes collected jizya from Jews, offering them protection. If a Muslim from one tribe killed a Jew protected by another tribe, then the other tribe could retaliate by killing a Jew protected by the tribe of the murderer. As a result, two Jews were murdered, while no direct sanctions were imposed on the Muslims.[28]
Social and psychological aspects
Humiliation of dhimmis
Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will. Bernard Lewis comments that
The Qur'an and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasement) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Mohammad, and in which they should be kept for so long as they persist in that rejection.[29]
Ibn Kathir wrote that dhimmis must feel “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they [dhimmis] are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated."[5] Echoing a saying attributed to Muhammad (Sahih Muslim, book 26, #5389), Hasan al-Kafrawi, an 18th century scholar, advises that “if you [Muslims] encounter one of them [dhimmis] on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot”.[6] European travelers to the Middle East describe humiliations and insults of Christians and Jews on the streets until the mid-19th century. As recommended by many Muslim scholars, most notably al-Zamakhshari and al-Nawawi, jizya was often collected in a humiliating procedure:
[T]he collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing..., his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel must place money on the scales, while the collector holds him by his beard and strikes him on both cheeks.[30]
This ritual stemmed from the traditional interpretation of Sura 9:29, being that jizya was not merely a tax, but also an expression of submission.[31] Abu Yusuf, however, advises against the mistreatment of dhimmis during jizya collection, saying that "they should be treated with leniency".[23] The procedure was not followed in the Ottoman Empire, where jizya was collected by representatives of the dhimmi communities themselves.[32]
Distinctive clothing
See also Yellow badge
For dhimmis to be clearly distinguishable from Muslims in public, Muslim rulers often prohibited dhimmis from wearing certain types of clothing, while forcing them to put on highly distinctive garments, usually of a bright color. To increase the debasement of non-Muslims, the clothes usually had to be made of rough fabrics and were often incongruous. Although distinctive clothing for non-Muslims was not spelled out in Islamic holy texts, Muslim scholars still agreed that dhimmis must not wear the same clothing as Muslims do; frequently, these scholars cited the Pact of Umar in which Christians supposedly took an obligation to "always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and ... bind the zunar [wide belt] round our waists". Al-Nawawi required dhimmis to wear a piece of yellow cloth and a belt, as well as a metallic ring, inside public baths.[33]
Regulations on dhimmi clothing varied frequently to please the whims of the ruler. Although the initiation of such regulations is usually attributed to Umar I, historical evidence suggests that it was the Abbasid caliphs who pioneered this practice. In 807, Harun al-Rashid ordered that Jews should wear high cone caps and yellow belts, the first prototypes of the yellow badge; Christians had to wear blue belts. These distinction marks became obsolete in 849 when al-Mutawakkil ordered dhimmis to put a yellow veil on their heads and shoulders and wear a wide belt. He also required them to wear small bells in public baths. In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim ordered Christians to put on half-meter wooden crosses and Jews to wear wooden calves around their necks. In the late 12th century, Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf ordered the Jews of the Maghreb to wear dark blue garments with long sleeves and saddle-like caps. His grandson Abdallah made a concession after appeals from the Jews, relaxing the required clothing to yellow garments and turbans. In the 16th century, Jews of the Maghreb could only wear sandals made of rushes and black turbans or caps with a red piece of garment on it.[34]
Ottoman sultans were similarly diligent and inventive in regulating the clothings of their non-Muslim subjects. In 1577, Murad III issued a firman forbidding Jews and Christians from wearing dresses, turbans, and sandals. In 1580, he changed his mind, restricting the previous prohibition to turbans and requiring dhimmis to wear black shoes; Jews and Christians also had to wear red and black hats, respectively. Observing in 1730 that some Muslims took to the habit of wearing caps similar to those of the Jews, Mahmud I ordered the hanging of the perpetrators. Mustafa III personally helped to enforce his decrees regarding clothes. In 1758, he was walking incognito in Istanbul and ordered to beheading of a Jew and an Armenian seen dressed in forbidden attire. The last Ottoman decree affirming the distinctive clothing for dhimmis was issued in 1837 by Mahmud II. Discriminatory clothing did not exist only in those Ottoman provinces where Christians were in majority, e.g. in Greece and the Balkans.[34]
Riding
Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels; they were only allowed to ride donkeys and only on packsaddles. The initiation of this prohibition is attributed alternatively to caliph Umar II or Umar ibn al-Khattab. In the 18th century, Damanhuri, rector of Al-Azhar University, summed up the consensus of Islamic jurists: “Neither Jew nor Christian should ride a horse, with or without saddle. They may ride asses with a packsaddle.” European travelers passing through the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries left ample evidence of the careful enforcement of prohibitions on horseback riding. Danish traveller Carsten Niebuhr wrote in 1761 that in Egypt, Jews and Christians were forced to alight while passing the houses of notable Muslims and when meeting such notables in the street.[35]
Marriage
Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man may marry a Muslim woman. As some scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. Even as dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so are dhimmi men not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry dhimmi women because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.[36]
Personal freedom
An exception to the right of personal freedom guaranteed by the dhimma was the practice of enslavement of young non-Muslim boys for the ruler’s slave army. The practice goes back to the Abbasids, who recruited such slave warriors mainly from non-Muslim Turkic populations; descendants of those slaves later formed the Mamluk dynasties.[37] The Ottoman Empire practiced a similar system, known as devshirmeh, by annually enslaving young boys from the Christian population of its Balkan provinces, to muster Janissary troops.
Shi'a ritual purity
Shi'a Islam devotes much attention to the the issues of ritual purity — tahara. Shi'a jurists have commonly deemed the Non-Muslims to be ritually unclean— najis — so that certain physical contact with them or things they touched with wet hands would require Shi'as to wash themselves before doing regular prayers. Opinions of modern Shi'a scholars range from Ruhollah Khomeini's view that all non-Muslims are unclean to the position held by Fazel Lankarani that Jews and Christians are clean.[7] In Persia, where Shi'ism is dominant, these beliefs brought about restrictions that aimed at limiting physical contact between Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis were not allowed to attend public baths with Muslims; they were also not allowed to go outside in rain or snow, ostensibly because some impurity could be washed from them upon a Muslim.[38]
Consequences of dhimma
Over the course of many centuries, dhimma gradually led to the conversion of most Zoroastrians and Christians to Islam, but had only a limited impact on the Jews. Zoroastrianism was the first to crumble after the Muslim conquest of Persia. Closely associated with the power structures of the Persian Empire, Zoroastrian clergy quickly declined after it was deprived of the state support.[39]
For Christians, the process of conversion was slower — it is possible that as late as at the time of the Crusades Christians still constituted a majority of the population — but no less inexorable. The switch from a dominant to an inferior position proved too difficult for many Christians and they converted to Islam in large numbers to avoid oppression. Christianity disappeared altogether in Central Asia, Yemen, and the Maghreb, where it was subjected to persecution by the Almohads. In Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, Christians fared better, but their numbers were still reduced from being the overwhelming majority to being a tiny minority. Bernard Lewis argues that the relative resiliency of Christians in those countries stemmed from their subordinated position in the Byzantine Empire, which made them more amenable to accepting Muslim supremacy; he suggests that many of them felt better under the early Muslim rule than under the Byzantines.[39]
Jews, on the other hand, were the least affected. Accustomed to survival in adverse circumstances after many centuries of Roman and Byzantine persecutions, Jews saw the Islamic conquests as a just another change of rulers; this time, not necessarily for the worse. Voluntary conversion among the Jews was rare, and they managed to preserve their religion all over the Muslim lands

This information is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude.

INTRODUCTION
In the December 1970 general election in Pakistan, Awami League won 167 of 169 seats and over 80 % of popular votes in East Pakistan. Numerically Awami League had an absolute majority of seats in the Pakistan National Assembly (167 of the total 313 seats)(1). Historically, East Pakistan was allocated only 36 % of the total resources and East Pakistanis occupied only 20 % of the positions in the federal government in the United Pakistan (2). The Pakistani government's apathy towards East Pakistan after a terrible cyclone in November 1970 in which over 250,000 people died, had alienated East Pakistani people. The solid outcome of the 1970 elections for Awami League created an alternative power center for an already alienated people. The differences between the East and West Pakistani politicians snowballed into a major international crisis. On March 25, 1971 Pakistani army on President Yahya Khan's orders initiated a campaign of terror which was to last till its final surrender to the Indian army on December 17, 1971. This terror campaign by Pak army resulted in 10 million Bangla Deshi refugees crossing over to India (per Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (3)) and 3 million killed (4,5) based on reports from most relief agencies and official Bangla Desh government estimate. However the religious mix of both the refugees and the dead is nowhere emphasized anywhere. This significant information has particularly been absent in the reports from Indian News Media. This selective news dissemination has kept a more sinister truth of Hindu genocide in East Pakistan hidden from the world in general and Indians in particular.

Posted: March 4, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
For more information, see the video, "Sudan: The Hidden Holocaust"
________________________________________
Sudan's militant Muslim regime is slaughtering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, according to the head of an aid group who recently returned from the African nation.
The forced conversions are just one aspect of the Khartoum government's self-declared jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south, Dennis Bennett, executive director of Seattle-based Servant's Heart told WorldNetDaily.
Villagers in several areas of the northeast Upper Nile region say that when women are captured by government forces they are asked: "Are you Christian or Muslim?"
Women who answer "Muslim" are set free, but typically soldiers gang-rape those who answer "Christian" then cut off their breasts and leave them to die as an example for others.
Bennett says these stories are corroborated by witnesses from several tribes in the region. Upon returning to the U.S., he wrote a letter to influential members of Congress and activists.
"After witnessing once again the situation on the ground there," Bennett wrote, "I must ask 'How long will the United States government allow the Government of Sudan to continue its jihad against the Black African Christians of South Sudan?'"
Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad, or holy war, on the south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 4.5 million have become refugees.
Sudan's holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.
"The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high," he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front, according to Sudan's official SUNA news agency. "We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs."
The U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution finding that Khartoum is "systematically committing genocide," but current legislation that would impose sanctions has been stalled. The Sudan Peace Act is opposed by both the White House and Wall Street.
Sanctions in the House version of the bill target oil revenues that Khartoum is using to fuel its war effort. Bennett, with 20 years experience in international risk management and banking, said he was the first to probe the link between oil and jihad that is now documented and publicized by human rights groups. His research began in 1996 when he asked: If you're the government of Sudan and you're broke, how are you paying for your war?
In his letter urging action by the U.S., he points out that Sudan's military continues to decorate and promote known war criminals such as Commander Taib Musba, who in the mid-1980s killed an estimated 15,000 unarmed, civilian, ethnic Uduk Christians.
In 1986, Musba entered the Uduk tribal capital of Chali and declared to its Christians: "You are all going to convert from Christianity to Islam today, because here is what's going to happen to you if you don't."
Musba then killed five church leaders in front of the gathered villagers. When they refused to convert, he began killing unarmed men, women and children. Some were herded at gunpoint into a hut then run over by a 50-ton, Soviet-made tank.
He also herded groups of about a dozen people into a hut, where he asked the first person "Do you renounce Jesus Christ?" Anyone who refused was killed by a three-inch nail driven into the top of the head.
The U.N. high commissioner for refugees granted the Uduks international refugee status in 1992 after investigating the atrocities, but almost as many died during the six years they waited for the declaration.
Islam also is forced on Sudanese in the Muslim north. Security police in Khartoum are pursuing a local convert to Christianity who went into hiding three weeks ago to escape arrest and possible death, the Compass Direct news service reports. Aladin Omer Agabni Mohammed, who left Islam 11 years ago to become a Christian, is subject to the death penalty under Sudanese criminal law for "apostasy." According to a church leader, two other converts face a similar situation.
Forced starvation
Bennett says that in addition to the more immediate, readily apparent atrocities taking place, there is a slower, less perceptive persecution that is equally deadly.
Forced starvation is one of the primary tools of the Khartoum regime, he says. When government forces attack a Christian village, they kill everyone they catch, but those who flee lose everything necessary for survival.
"The government comes in and burns the crops, burns grain stored if there was any excess, burns houses down," Bennett said. "Now you have only the clothes on your back, no tools, no cooking pots, no buckets for water, and you have to run two days through the bush in 115-degree temperatures in order to escape."
In the arid wilderness, escapees try to survive on tree leaves and stagnant, dysentery-infested water. If a women is breastfeeding, her milk dries up, Bennett said, and the baby starts dying. Small children, just weaned, also start dying.
"But all the family has to do is change their name to Muhammad or Ramadan, convert to Islam and walk the two days back to the government of Sudan who will care for them," he said.
Last year, the government of Sudan burned all the crops in the area where Bennett's group works.
"There wasn't anything to harvest," he said. "Literally we saw people eating roots and tree leaves. It's like eating the nutritional properties of cardboard. It's enough to put something in your stomach but not enough to feed you."
A food drop came from the U.N. World Food Program, he said, "but they never came in to do an assessment; they just dropped it from the air."
As the "hungry season" approaches – the rainy period of June, July and early August – emergency food supplies become critical. Servant's Heart believes it will need to feed 50,000 people in its area during that time.
Slavery as tool of terror
Slavery is another tool of the National Islamic Front regime, though Bennett says it is not known in the northeast Upper Nile region, mainly because of lack of transportation.
Western Bahr El Ghazal is one location where it persists because the railroad line allows captured men, women and children to be taken to slave markets in the north.
"If you want to end systematic slavery, blow up the train line and keep it blown up," Bennett said.
The ongoing controversy surrounding slave redemption – the practice of buying freedom promoted by some humanitarian groups – arose again in the past week when the Irish Times and Washington Post published exposes acknowledging the existence of slavery in Sudan but alleging that fake slave redemption is taking place.
Bennett respects the work of groups buying back the slaves, but he believes it is inevitable that some will be conned. Engaging in the practice is a matter of individual conscience, he says.
"Anytime you have tens of thousands of American dollars coming into an area you've got potential problems of corruption," Bennett said.
He says the "jury is still out" on whether it fuels the market by increasing demand.
"Slave-taking would still be happening even if nobody was buying back slaves," he said. "Maybe not to the full extent."
But he believes it's important to keep in mind that taking slaves is "just one more facet of the jihad against the civilian population" in southern Sudan. The methods may vary in different parts of the country, but the aim is the same.
"In the Uduk tribe, Taib Musba drove three-inch nails into people's heads," he said. "In northeast Upper Nile, they are gang-raping women and cutting off their breasts; in western Bahr El Ghazal, they are capturing women and selling them as slaves."
In March, 2004, King Fahd bin Abdulaziz formally endorsed the establishment of the National Human Rights Association. Saudi Arabia has signed agreements on religious freedom and enjoys a favorable status with Western nations. Despite all this, Saudi Arabia has one of the world's worst human rights records. Any person involved in evangelism or who converts a Muslim faces jail, expulsion or execution. Often false drug charges are used against those evangelizing. Even foreigners visiting are not allowed to gather for worship. Since 1992 there are more than 360 cases of Christian expatriates being arrested for participating in private worship. Despite this, the Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, told reporters in March 2003 that Christians are free to worship privately, but reiterated that no church buildings will be allowed. He said, "We are not against religions at all ... but there are no churches - not in the past, the present or future." With the death of King Fahd, persecution of believers has not improved, but has been on the rise under the new King Abdullah.
The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb
By Amir Taheri
(Filed: 16/04/2006)
Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.
According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".
Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.
In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.
Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.
The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.
While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.
Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.
At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"
His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."
• Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe
The following are excerpts from the texts posted on the children's website:
We Ask Allah to Give Our Brothers, the Mujahideen, Martyrdom for His Sake, and to Bring Victory to Islam
Among the postings for children on www.awladnaa.net are articles praising jihad. On the page titled "General Knowledge" appears an article titled "The Jihad-Waging Prophet," which states: "The Prophet waged jihad against the infidels and the hypocrites, and admonished them. Hell is their place of refuge, and how evil is their fate!" [1]
The site also posts articles praising the resistance in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In a review of various parts of the Muslim world, on the section titled "My Great Homeland," it states that Afghanistan is "currently under the oppressive American occupation that is now aspiring to control the Muslim world. [This occupation] began with Afghanistan, and then [moved on] to our beloved land Iraq; and lo, it now threatens Syria and so on. [U.S. President Bush] has declared a Crusade against the Muslim world, and our role is to prepare ourselves for jihad against the enemies of Allah." [2]
About Iraq, the site states: "Currently, the Iraqi resistance is the most beautiful example of the struggle for independence and the elimination of America's aggression. We ask Allah that its elimination will be at the hands of our mujahideen brothers, [and] that Allah will give them martyrdom for His sake, will bring victory to Islam and strengthen the Muslims, and will protect the blood of our brothers everywhere." [3]
The Jews Murdered Allah's Prophets, Murder Children, and Conspire Against the Islamic Countries
Along with postings praising jihad and the resistance, the site also features postings with antisemitic content. For example, the "General Knowledge" page features a posting on Jews along with postings on various other topics such as the Suez Canal, oranges, hummus, and apricots. Titled "Did You Know?" the posting reads:
"Did you know that the Jews murdered 25 of the Prophets of Allah, and that their black history is full of crimes of murder and corruption?
"Did you know that the criminal Jews frequently revile and curse our Lord? Among the things they have said is 'The hand of Allah is fettered [Koran 5:64].' [But] Allah is above this.
"Did you know that the Jews made several attempts to murder our beloved Prophet [Muhammad], but that Allah the Omnipotent saved him from their plot?
"Did you know that the corruption and deviance widespread in the world today are the result of activity and planning by the Jews, who are interested in leading people astray, away from the path of Allah?
"Did you know that the Jews who occupy our land and our holy places in beloved Palestine are planning to occupy the rest of the Muslim countries and to establish a Greater Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile, and that they are interested in excavating in the tomb of our beloved Prophet?
"Did you know that today the Jews are inciting the entire world against Islam and the Muslims, on the pretext of the war against terror, and that they are conspiring against the rest of the Muslim countries as they did against Iraq and Afghanistan?" [4]
Another antisemitic posting, in the "Members Participation" section, headlined "Murdering Children - Part of the Jewish Religion" by "Mahmoud Nabil," claims that it is possible "to collect evidence from the Torah about the Jewish concept of annihilating [others], which has reached the level of ritual." Examples are presented from the Book of Isaiah and Deuteronomy. [5]
Andalusia is Part of the Great Islamic Homeland
The "My Great Homeland" section depicts Seville and Andalusia as part of the Muslim homeland, along with Egypt, Damascus, the Al-Aqsa mosque, Istanbul, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Maldives. Under "Andalusia," it states: "There are now 700,000 Muslims in Spain. Of these, 200,000 were born [there] and have Spanish citizenship. Most of the Muslims live in the big cities, such as Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia. Spain has some 300 mosques and [Muslim] houses of worship, and a third of these are in the capital.
"The Islamic Cultural Center is considered the main source of authority for Muslims [in Spain] in most matters of religion. It provides many major services required by the Muslim in this country, which prospered for a long period under Islamic rule." [6]
New Jersey: an Islamic murder of Coptic Christians?
Was this family brutally murdered because they provoked Muslims in a chatroom? Were they slain because of the Islamic legal imperative to kill those who are deemed blasphemers? Note also that Sylvia's throat was slit, in line with Qur'an 47:4. "'Islamic Hate' Eyed in Slays," from the New York Post, with thanks to decknxf:
Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.
Armanious, an Egyptian Christian, was well known for expressing his Coptic beliefs and engaging in fiery back-and-forth with Muslims on the Web site paltalk.com.
He "had the reputation for being one of the most outspoken Egyptian Christians," said the source, who had close ties to the family.
The source, who had knowledge of the investigation, refused to specify the anti-Muslim statement. But he said cops told him they were looking into the exchanges as a possible motive.
The married father of two had recently been threatened by Muslim members of the Web site, said a fellow Copt and store clerk who uses the chat room.
"You'd better stop this bull---- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you," was the threat, said the clerk, who was online at the time and saw the exchange.
But Armanious refused to back down, according to two sources who use the Web site.
Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy would neither confirm nor deny that cops and prosecutors were looking into the religion motive, saying only that "nothing is being ruled out." But a relative of the mayor who answered the phone at Healy's home said there was information the murders were "religion-related."
"There are several theories we are looking into, but we are not commenting on any of them at this time," said Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Guy Gregory.
Armanious' fervor apparently rubbed off on his daughter, Sylvia — who would have turned 16 yesterday.
"She was very religious and very opinionated," said Jessica Cimino, 15, a fellow sophomore at Dickenson HS.
A family member who viewed photos of the bloodbath said Sylvia seemed to have taken the most savage punishment.
"When we saw the pictures, you could tell that they were hurt really, really bad in the face; especially Sylvia," said Milad Garas, the high-school sophomore's great-uncle.
The heartless killer not only slit Sylvia's throat, but also sliced a huge gash in her chest and stabbed her in the wrist, where she had a tattoo of a Coptic cross.
Also found murdered were the wife, Amal Garas, and the parents' other daughter, Monica.
Fred Ayed, the deacon at St. George and St. Shenouda Church, where the deeply religious family attended services, said he's worried that the murders could have a ripple effect.
"I am concerned for the safety of our community," said Ayed, who knew Hossam for 30 years. "People are scared because one family was slain like cows," said Moheb Ghabour, publisher of a local newspaper for the Coptic community.
Osama Hassan, director of the Islamic Center of Jersey City, described the relationship between Copts and Muslims as cooperative if not friendly.
"I think there might be people that can get into physical fights, but not to the point of murder," Hassan said.
Both the deacon and uncle poured cold water on the theory that the family were the victims of a robbery gone wrong.
"This is not a robbery, Ayed said. "We found all of the jewelry in the house. They didn't take anything."

Responses:
None

953

Date: April 17, 2006 at 21:04:00
From: Linguistics, [c-67-174-63-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Linguistics

Introduction:

There is a language gap in between Christians and Muslims in the use of theological terminology. That gap is causing misunderstanding and cross communication and confusion to both sides. In regard of bridging it, in this chapter (article), we are going to investigate and analyse the name Allah and compare it with other terms that are used to refer to the divine from a linguistic approach. We are to go beyond the scripts and sounds and focus instead on the linguistic technical aspects. We are to find out how each side think and what they exactly mean when they use those different terms and also how others receive and understand them. We have to draw a line between the similarities in regard of making a sound judgement about the use of Allah as name for God.

1. Contextual analysis and comparison of scriptures:

1.1. The Quran:

1.1.1. A look into English translation and the original terms with lexical application:

[1:1-3] In the name of Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) Most-Gracious, Most-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) the-Lord (rabbi) of the worlds, Most-Gracious, Most-Merciful.

Allah = allaah = n. (noun) pr. (proper), dei. (deity), Lord = rabb = n. m (masculine). s. (singular)

[2:26] Surely Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) is not ashamed to set forth any parable—a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their-Lord (rabbihim), and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) means by this parable…

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[2:163] Your-God (‘ilaahukum) is the only one-God (‘ilaahun); there is no god (‘ilaaha) but He…

God/god = ’ilaah = n. m. s.

[7:85] And to Madyan their brother Shu’aib. He said: O my people! Serve Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) you have no god (‘ilaahin) other than Him; clear proof indeed has come to you from your-Lord (rabbikum)…

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., god = ’ilaah = n. m. s., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[9:31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords (arbaaban) besides Allah, ( q_^||‘| ), and the Messiah son of Mariam and they were enjoined that they should serve God (‘ilaahan) only, there is no god (‘ilaaha) but He; far from His glory be what they set up.

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., lords = arbaab = n. m. pl., God/god = ’ilaah = n. m. s.

[11:53~56] They said, “O Hood, you did not show us any proof, and we are not abandoning our-gods (‘aalihatinaa) on account of what you say. We believe that some of our-gods (‘aalihatinaa) have afflicted you with a curse.” He said, “I bear witness before Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) and you bear witness as well, that I disown the idolaters… Surely I rely on Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) my-Lord (rabbiy) and your-Lord (rabbikum); there is no living creature but He holds it by its forelock; surely my-Lord (rabbiy) is on the right path.

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., gods = ’aalihat = n. m. pl., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[12:39~41] O my two mates of the prison! Are many lords (arbaabun) better or Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) the One, the Supreme?… "O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his-lord (rabbihi) to drink: as for the other, he will hang from the cross, and the birds will eat from off his head.

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., lords = arbaab = n. m. pl., lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[16:51] Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) has proclaimed: “Do not worship two-gods (‘ilaahayni); there is only one-God (‘ilaahun)…”

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., God = ’ilaah = n. m. s., gods = ’ilaahyn = n. m. du. (dual number)

[18:15] Here are our people setting up gods (‘aalihatan) beside Him… Who is more evil than the one who fabricates lies and attributes them to Allah, ( q_^||‘| )?

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., gods = ’aalihat = n. m. pl.

[21:22] If there had been in them any-gods (‘aalihatun) except Allah, ( q_^||‘| ), they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder; therefore glory be to Allah, ( q_^||‘| ), the-Lord (rabbu) of the dominion, above what they attribute.

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., gods = ‘aalihat = n. m. pl., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[22:34] For each congregation we have decreed rites whereby they com- memorate the name of Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) for providing them with the livestock. Your- god (‘ilaahukum) is one-God (‘ilaahun)…

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., God/god = ’ilaah = (indef.) n. m. s.

[29:46] … and our-God (‘ilaahunaa) and your-God (‘ilaahukum) is one…

God = ’ilaah = n. m. s.

[38:5] Did he make the-gods (al-‘aalihata) into one-god (‘ilaahan)?…

gods = ‘aalihat = n. m. pl., god = ’ilaah = n. m. s.

[40:28] A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'my-Lord (rabbiya) is Allah, ( q_^||‘| )?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear signs from your-Lord (rabbikum)? and if he be a liar, on him is his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the calamity of which he warns you: Truly Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) guides not one who transgresses and lies!

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[73:8-9] And remember the name of your-Lord (rabbika) and devote yourself to Him with devotion. The Lord (rabbu) of the East and the West—there is no god (‘ilaaha) but He—therefore take Him for a protector.

god = ‘ilaah = n. m. s., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[81:29] And you do not please except that Allah, ( q_^||‘| ) please, the-Lord (rabbu) of the worlds.

Allah = allaah = n. pr. dei., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

[114:1-3] Say: I seek refuge in the Lord (rabbi) of men, King of men, God (‘ilaahi) of men

God = ‘ilaah = n. m. s., Lord = rabb = n. m. s.

Remarks:

From the above Quranic examples and lexical contexts of terms used for deities, we notice that:

allaah (Allah) was used uniquely for the Quran-God and always as his very personal name (noun proper masculine singular).

‘ilaah (God/god) was used in various forms as a noun (common name or title) to either refer to the Quran-deity or to other deities.

rabb (Lord/lord) was used in various forms as a noun (common name or tittle) to either refer to Quran-deity or other deities or even men (i.e. Pharaoh).

‘ilaah nor rabb, as singular nouns, have never been used once with the definite article al (the) in the original Arabic.

For reference and extra verification, check the recognised English translations of the Quran, i.e. the versions of Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthall, Shakir, Zohurul Hoque, Taqiuddin Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan.

1.1.2. A Look into different translations of the Quran:

* allaah (Q.1:1):

Arabic: bismi allaahi arrahmaani arrahiymi.

Turkish: Rahman ve Rahim olan Allah'in Adiyla

English: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

French: Au nom d'Allah, le Tout Miséricordieux, le Très Miséricordieux.

German: Im Namen Allahs, des Gnädigen, des Barmherzigen.

Spanish: En el nombre de Alá, el Compasivo, el Misericordioso!

* ‘ilaah (Q.2:163):

Arabic: wa ‘ilaahukum ‘ilaahun waa7idun laa ‘ilaaha ‘illaa huwa

Turkish: Sizin ilahiniz tek bir ilahtir; O'ndan baska ilah yoktur;

English: And your-God is One God. There is no god but He,

French: Et votre-Dieu est un dieu unique. Pas de dieu à part lui,

German: Und euer-Gott ist ein Einiger Gott; es ist kein Gott außer Ihm,

Spanish: Vuestro-Dios es un Dios Uno. No hay más dios que Él,

* rabb (Q.37:126):

Arabic: allaaha rabbakum wa rabba ‘aabaa’ikumu al’awwaliyna.

Turkish: Allah ki, sizin de Rabbiniz, önceki atalarinizin da Rabbidir.

English: Allah your-Lord and the Lord of your fathers of old.

French : Allah, votre-Seigneur et le Seigneur de vos plus anciens ancêtres?

German: Allah, euren-Herrn und den Herrn eurer Vorväter?

Spanish: a Alá, Señor-vuestro y Señor de vuestros antepasados?

Remarks:

From the above examples of the various translations of the Quran into different languages we notice that:

allaah was never translated into common/generic names of deities but simply transliterated (i.e. Allah or Alá).

‘ilaah in its various forms was always translated into the respective synonyms or common names of deities in those other languages. When the synonyms for ‘ilah referred to the Quran-deity they were capitalised (i.e. God or Dios), but when they were used to refer to other deities they were not capitalised (i.e. god or dios).

rabb in its various forms is always translated into the respective synonyms or titles in those other languages. When the synonyms for rabb referred to the Quran-deity they were capitalised (i.e. Lord or Herrn), but when they were used to refer to other deities they were not capitalised (i.e. lord or herrn).

1.2. The Bible:

1.2.1. A look into Arabic translation (romanized) and the original terms with lexical application:

* Old Testament:

[Gen.1:1] fee al-bad'i khalaqa allaahu ( ‘elohiym ) as-samaawaati wa al-arda.

allaah = ‘elohiym = n. m.

[Gen.2:4] hada wasfun mabda’iyyun li assamaawaati wa al’arda yawma khalaqahaa arrabbu ( YHWH ) al’ilaahu ( ‘elohiym )

al’ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Gen.14:19] wa baaraka abraam qaa’ilan: li takun 3alayka ya abraamu barakatu allaahi ( ‘el ) al3aliyyi maaliku assamaawati wa al’ardi."

allaah = ‘el = n. m. s.

[Gen.41:38] wa qaala fir3awnu li3abiydihi: “hal najidu nadhiyra hada rajulan fiyhi rou7u allaahi ( ‘elohiym )?”

allaah = ‘elohiym = n. m. pl.

[Exo.20:2-3] ‘anaa arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahukum ( ‘elohiym ) alladiy ‘akhrajakum min misra min bayti al3uboudiyyat. laa yakun lakum ‘aalihatun ( ‘elohiym ) ‘ukhraa ‘amaamiy.

‘aalihat = ‘elohiym = n. m. pl., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Exo.3:14-15] fa'ajaabahu allaahu ( ‘elohiym ): ’ahyah alladhi ‘ahyah ( hayah-hayah ) {wa ma3naahaa alkaa’in alladiy kaa’in} wa adaafa: "hakada taqoulu libani ‘isra'ela: yahwah ( YHWH ) howa alladi arsalani ilaykum." Wa qaala aydan limousaa: "haakadaa taqoulu lil’isra’eila: alkaa’inu ( hayah ), ‘ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) ‘aabaa’ikum, ‘ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) ‘ibraahiyma wa ‘ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) ‘is7aaqa wa ‘ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) ya3qouba qad ‘arsalani ‘ilaykum. hadaa huwa al’ismu alladi ‘ud3aa bihi min jiylin ‘ilaa jiylin”

allaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., yahwah = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Exo.6:3] wa qad dhahartu li-‘ibraahiyma wa ‘is7aaqa wa ya3qouba ‘ilaahan ( ‘el ) qadiyran 3alaa kulli shay’in. ‘ammaa bi-‘ismiy yahwah ( YHWH ) falam ‘u3raf 3indahum.

’ilaah = ‘el = n. m. s., yahwah = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Exo.15:3-4] arrabbu ( yahh ) quwwatiy wa nashiydiy wa qad saara khalaasiy. haadaa ‘ilaahiy ( ‘el ) fa’umajjiduhu. ‘ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) abiy fa’uraffi3uhu. arrabbu ( YHWH ) rajulu al7arbi. arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ismuhu

‘ilaah = ‘el = n. m. s., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Exo.18:11-12] "al’aana a3lamu ‘anna arrabba ( YHWH ) huwa ‘a3dhamu min jamiy3i al’aalihati ( ‘elohiym ), li’annahu 3aamalahum bimithli maa baghou bihi." wa qaddama yathrounu 7amou mousa mu7raqan wa dhabaa’i7a li-‘ilahi ( ‘elohiym ) wa ja’a harounu wa jamiy3u shuyoukhi ‘isra’ila liya’kulou ta3aaman ma3a 7amiy mousa fi 7adhrati allaahi ( ‘elohiym ).

al’aalihat = ‘elohiym = n. m. pl., allaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Exo.34:6] fanazala arrabbu ( YHWH ) fi assa7aabi. fawaqafa 3indahu hunaaka wa naadaa bismi arrabbi ( YHWH ). fa’jtaaza arrabbu ( YHWH ) quddaamahu wa naadaa: “arrabbu ( YHWH ) arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahun ( ‘el ) ra7iymun wa ra’oufun batiy’u alghadabi wa kathiyru al’i7saani wa alwafaa’i.

‘ilaah = ‘el = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Deu.6:4-5] isma3ou ya baniy ‘israa’iyla: arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahunaa ( ‘elohiym ) arrabbu ( YHWH ) waa7idun. Fa’a7ibbou arrabba ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahakum ( ‘elohiym ) min kulli quloubikum wa nufousikum wa quwwatikum.

‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Deu.10:17] li’anna arrabba ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahukum ( ‘elohiym ) huwa ‘ilaahu al‘aalihati ( ‘elohiym ‘elohiym ) wa rabbu al’arbaabi ( ‘adown ‘adown ) al’ilaahu ( ‘el ) aljabbaaru almahiybu alladhiy la yu7aabiy wajha ‘a7adin, wa la yartashiy.

al’ilaah/’ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., al’aalihat = ‘elohiym = n. m. pl.,

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., rabb = ‘adown = n. m., al’arbaab = n. m. pl.

[Deu.18:15~21] yuqiymu laka arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahuka ( ‘elohiym ) nabiyyan min wasatika min ‘ikhwatika mithliy lahu tasma3ouna… wa ‘ammaa ‘annabiyyu alladiy yutghiy fayatakallamu bi-‘ismiy kalaaman lam ‘uwsihi ‘an yatakallama bihi ‘awi alladiy yatakallamu bi-‘ismi ‘aalihatin ( ‘elohiym ) ‘ukhraa fayamuwto dhalika annabiyyu. wa ‘in qulta fiy qalbika kayfa na3rifu alkalaama alladhiy lam yatakallam bihi arrabbu ( YHWH ). Famaa takallama bihi annabiyyu bi-‘ismiy arrabbi ( YHWH ) wa lam ya7duth wa lam yasir fahuwa alkalaamu alladhiy lam yatakallam bihi arrabbu ( YHWH ) bal bitughyaanin takallam bihi annabiyyu fala takhaf minhu.

‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., ‘aalihat = ‘elohiym = n. m. pl., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[1Sam.12:22] li’annahu laa yatruku arrabbu ( YHWH ) sha3bahu min ‘ajli ‘ismihi al3dhiymi.

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Psa.110:1] qaala arrabbu ( YHWH ) li-rabbiy ( ‘adonay ) ijlis 3an yamiyniy 7attaa ‘adha3a ‘a3daa’aka mawti’an liqadamayka.

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., rabb = ‘adown = n. m. s.

[Psa.115:18] laysa al’amwaatu yusabbi7ouna arrabba ( yahh ) wa la man yan7adiru ‘ilaa ‘ardhi assukouti. ammaa na7nu fanubaariku arrabba ( yahh ) mina al’aani wa ‘ilaa addahri. hallilou-yaah ( yahh )

arrabb = yahh = n. pr. dei.

[Jer.10:10-11] ‘ammaa arrabbu ( YHWH ) fahuwa al’ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) al7aqqu al’ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) al7ayyu, wa almaliku assarmadiyyu… wa hadaa maa taqoulounahu lahum: "’inna al’aalihata ( ‘elaahh ) allatiy lam tasna3i assamaawaati wa al’arda…"

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., al’ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., al’aalihat = ‘elaahh = n. m. pl.

[Isa.12:2] huwa dhaa allaahu ( ‘el ) khalaasiy fa’atma’innu wa la ‘arta3ibu li’anna yaaha ( yahh ) yahwaha ( YHWH ) quwwatiy wa tarniymatiy wa qad saara liy khalaasan

allaah = ‘el = n. m. s., yaah/yahwah = yahh/YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Isa.26:4] tawakkalou 3ala arrabbi ( YHWH ) ‘ila al’abadi li’anna fiy yaaha ( yahh ) arrabbi ( YHWH ) sakhra adduhouri

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., yaah = yahh = n. pr. dei.

[Dan.6:20] falammaa danaa minhu naadaa daaniy’ala bisawtin 7aziynin qaa’ilan: "yaa daaniy’alu, 3abdu allaahi ( ‘elaahh ) alhayyi, hal ‘ilaahuka ( ‘elaahh ) alladi ta3buduhu da’iman istataa3a ‘an yunajjiyka mina al’usoudi?"

allaah = ‘elaahh = n. m. s., ‘ilaah = ‘elaahh = n. m. s.

[Dan.9:3-4] fattajahtu binafsiy ‘ilaa allaahi ( ‘elohiym ) arrabbi ( ‘adonay ) ‘abtahilu ‘ilayhi bissalaati was attadharru3aati wa assawmi wa irtidaa’i almas7I wa atta3affuri bi arramaadi. wa sallaytu ‘ilaa arrabbi ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahiy ( ‘elohiym ) wa i3taraftu qaa’ilan: ‘ayyuhaa arrabbu ( ‘adonay ) al’ilaahu ( ‘el ) al3adhiymu almahoubu, 7afidhu al3ahdi wa arra7mati limu7ibbiyhi wa 3amiliy wasaayaahu.

al’ilaah = ‘el = n. m. s., allaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. m., arrabb = ‘adonay = n. m. s.

[Hos.13:4] ‘anaa huwa arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahuka ( ‘elohiym ) mundu ‘an kunta fi diyar misra, wa lasta ta3rifu ‘ilaahan ( ‘elohiym ) ghayriy, wa laa munqida laka siwaaya.

arrabbu = YHWH = n. pr. dei., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m.

[Mic.4:5] li’anna jamiy3a asshu3oubi yaslikouna kullu waa7idin bismi ‘ilaahihi ( ‘elohiym ) wa na7nu nasliku bismi arrabbi ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahinaa ( ‘elohiym ) ‘ilaa alddahri wa al’abadi.

Arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m. s.

[Mal.2:16] wa yaqoulu arrabbu ( YHWH ) ‘ilaahu ( ‘elohiym ) ‘isra’ila: ‘inniy ‘amqutu attalaaqa wa ‘amqutu ‘an yughattiya arrajulu zawjatahu bijawrihi kamaa yughatti huwa bithawbihi…”

‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

* New Testament:

[Mat.4:7] fatal lahu yasou3: wa qad Kayaba ‘aydhan: la tujarribi arrabba ( Kurios : YHWH ) ‘ilaahaka ( Theos : ’elohiym ) [in reference to Deu.6:16]

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. pr. m.

[Mat.22:37] fa’ajaabahu: ’a7ibba arrabba ( Kurios : YHWH ) ‘ilaahuka ( Theos : ‘elohiym ) bikulli qalbika wa kulli nafsika wa kulli fikrika. [in reference to Deu.6:5]

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., ‘ilaah = ‘elohiym = n. m.

[Mat.22:44] qaala arrabbu ( Kurios : YHWH ) li rabbiy ( Kurios : ’adown ): “ijlis 3an yamiyniy 7attaa adha3a ‘a3dhaa’aka mawtinan liqadamayka.” [in reference to Psa.110:1]

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei., rabb = ‘adown = n. m. s.

[Mat.23:39] fa’inni ‘aqoulu lakum ‘innakum lan tarawniy mina al’aana, 7atta taqoulou: mubaarakun al’aatiy bi’ism arrabbi ( Kurios : YHWH ) [in reference to Psa.118:26]

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Luk.1:30-32] fa qaala lahaa almalaaku: “laa takhaafee, yaa maryam, li-annaki qad wajadti ni3matan 3inda allaahi ( Theos ) wa haa ‘anti sata7baliyna wa talidiyna ibnan wa tusammiyhi yasou3a. ‘innahu yakounu 3adhiyman ibnu al3aliyyi yud3aa wa yamna7uhu arrabbu ( Kurios ) al’ilaahu ( Theos ) 3arsha daawuda ‘abiyhi.”

al’ilaah = theos = n. m. s., allaah = theos = n. m. s., arrabb = kurios = n. m. s.

[Luk.6:5] thumma qaala lahum: “li’anna ibna al’insaani huwa rabbu ( Kurios ) assabti.”

rabb = kurios = n. m. s.

[Joh.10:34-36] …fa qaala lahum yasuo3u: "’alaysa maktoubn fi shariy3atikum: ‘anaa qultu innakum ‘aalihatun ( theos : ’elohiym )? fa’idaa kaanati ashshariy3atu tad3ou ‘uolaa’ika alladiyna nazalat ‘ilayhum kalimatu allaahi ( Theos ) ‘aalihatan ( theos ) a alkitaabu laa yumkinu ‘an yunqada fahal taquolouna liman qaddasahu al’abu wa ba3athahu ‘ilaa al3aalami: ‘anta tujaddifu, li’annaniy qultu: ‘anaa ‘ibnu allaahi ( Theos )?… [see Psa.82:6]

‘aalihat = ‘elohiym/theos = n. m. pl., allaah = theos = n. m. s.

[Joh.20:28] fahatafa toumaa: “rabbiy ( kurios ) wa ‘ilaahiy ( Theos )”

‘ilaah = theos = n. m. s., rabb = kurios = n. m. s.

[Act.2:21] wa yakuwnu kullu man yad3ou bi’ismi arrabbi ( Kurios : YHWH ) yakhlusu. [in reference to Joe.2:32]

arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Act.17:23-24] …wajadtu ma3badan maktouban 3alayhi: “li-’ilaahin ( theos ) almajhoulin” fabihaadaa al’ilaahi ( theos ) alladiy ta3budounahu wa laa ta3rifounahu, ‘anaa ‘ubasshirukum. ‘innahu allaahu ( theos ) alladiy khalaqa alkawna wa kulla maa fiyhi. huwa rabbu ( kurios ) assamaawaati wal’ardi…

al’ilaah/’ilaah = theos = n. m., allaah = theos = n. m. s., rabb = kurios = n. m. s.

[1Cor.8:4-6] na7nu na3lamu ‘anna assanama laysa bi ’ilaahin ( theos ) mawjoudin fi alkawni, wa ‘annahu la wujouda illaa li ‘ilaahin ( theos ) waa7idin. 7attaa law kaanati al’aalihatu ( theos ) almaz3oumatu mawjoudatun fi assamaa’i ‘aw 3alaa al’ardi wa maa akthara tilka al’aalihata ( theos ) wa al’arbaabi! falaysa 3indanaa na7nu ‘illaa ‘ilaahun ( Theos ) wa7idun huwa al’abu alladiy minhu kullu shay’in, wa na7nu lahu, rabbun waa7idun huwa yasuo3u almasiy7u alladiy bihi kullu shay’in wa na7nu bihi… ‘illaa ‘anna atta3aama laa yuqarribunaa ‘ilaa allaahi ( Theos )

al‘aalihat = theos = n. m. pl., ‘ilaah/allaah = theos = n. m. s.,

[1Cor.10:26] fi’inna al’arda wa kulla maa fiyhaa li-rrabbi ( Kurios )

arrabb = kurios = n. m. s.

[Rev.4:8] …quddousun quddousun arrabbu ( Kurios : YHWH ) al’ilaahu ( Theos : ‘el ) alqaadiru alladiy kaan wa alkaa’inu ( ho on : hayah ) wa alladiy ‘aatiy. [in reference to Exo.3:15 & 6:3]

al’ilaah = theos/’el = n. m. s., arrabb = YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Rev.11:17] na7maduka ‘ayyuhaa al’ilaahu ( Theos : ‘el ) alqadiyru alkaa’inu wa alladiy kaana ( ho on kai en : hayah hayah ), li’annaka al’aana qad taqalladta quwwataka al3udhmaa wa baasharta mulkaka.[in reference to Exo.3:14 & 6:3]

al’ilaah = theos/‘el = n. m. s.

[Rev.19:5-6] wa kharaja mina al3arshi sawtun yaqoulu: "sabbi7ou ‘ilaahanaa ( Theos : ‘el ) yajamiy3a 3ibaadihi alladhina yattaqounahu sigharan wa kibaaran!”... hallilou-yaah ( allelu-ia : hallel-yahh ) fa’inna arrabba ( Kurios : YHWH ) al’ilaaha ( Theos : ‘el ) alqadiyra 3alaa kulli shay’in qad malaka, [see Psa.150 & Exo.6:3]

al’ilaah/’ilaah = theos/’el = n. m. s., yaah/arrabb = yahh/YHWH = n. pr. dei.

[Rev.19:16] wa qad kutiba 3alaa thawbihi wa 3alaa fakhdhihi: maliku almulouki wa rabbu alarbaabi ( Kurios kurios : ‘adown ‘adown ) [see Deu.10:17]

rabb = kurios/‘adown = n. m., alarbaab = kurios/’adown = n. m. pl.

Remarks:

From the above examples of the Arabic translation of the Bible and original lexical contexts of terms used for deities, we notice that:

‘ilaah was used as a generic name for both the Bible-deity and the other deities as well. Under several forms it was used as synonym for ‘el, ‘elohiym, ‘eloah, ‘Leah and theos, in the same way the English translations, for example, used god and God.

for some “convenience” purposes, allaah was used as a variation of al-‘ilaah. Both allaah and al’ilaah were used as common nouns or generic names or titles for the Bible-divine.

in no circumstance allaah was used in the Arabic Bible as personal name for the Divine, as synonym for YHWH.

at least in two occasions, Gen.41:38 and Act.17:24, allaah was used in a context which could refer either to the Bible-deity (God) or to false-deities (gods). The same comment can be made about al’ilaah in Act.17:23-24.

rabb was used as an attribute (descriptive name) for both the Bible-deity and other deities. Under several forms it was used as synonym for ‘adown, ‘adonay and kurios, in the same way the English translations, for example, used lord and Lord.

arrabb as a defined singular noun was used only for: 1- God the Father and as a substitute/render for His pronoun and covenant name, YHWH (Jehovah). 2- Jesus as His title.

YHWH is the only proper name the Bible-deity has, which is unique to Him and which the Bible does not attribute to any other being or thing.

For reference and extra examination, check the Van Dyke and the Book of Life Arab translations of the Bible.

1.2.2. A look into different translations of the Bible:

* YHWH the name (Exo.6:3):

Hebrew: ra’ah ‘abraham yitschaq ya3qob ‘el shadday shem YHWH yada3

Greek: kai ofthen pros Abraham kai Isaak kai Iakob Theos on ayton kai to onoma mon YHWH ( Kurios )…

Latin: qui apparui Abraham Isaac et Iacob in Deo omnipotente et nomen meum Adonai (YHWH) non indicavi eis

English: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah…

French: Je suis apparu à Abraham, à Isaac et à Jacob comme le Dieu Tout-Puissant, mais mon nom de Yahvé…

German: Ich bin Abraham, Isaak und Jakob erschienen als Gott, der Allmächtige; aber mit meinem Namen Jahwe…

Spanish: Y aparecí á Abraham, á Isaac y á Jacob bajo el nombre de Dios Omnipotente, mas en mi nombre Jehova…

Arabic: dhahartu… ‘ilaahan qadiyran 3alaa kulli shay’in. ‘ammaa bi-‘ismiy yahwah falam ‘u3raf 3indahum.

* YHWH (‘adonay) - ‘adown (Mat.22:44):

Hebrew: YHWH ( ‘adonay ) na’um ‘adown yashab yamiyn shiyth ‘oyeb ladom regel

Greek: YHWH ( Kurios ) epo mou-kurios kathemai ek mou delixios…

Latin: dixit Iehovae ( Dominus ) Domino-meo sede a dextris meis donec…

English: Jehovah ( the-LORD ) said unto my-Lord, Sit thou on my right hand…

French: le-Segneur ( Yahvé ) a dit à mon-Seigneur Siège à ma droite…

German: Der-Herr ( Jahwe ) sprach zu meinem-Herrn Setze dich zu meiner Rechten…

Spanish: Dijo el-Señor ( Jehova ) á mi-Señor Siéntate á mi diestra…

Turkish: Rab Rabbime dedi ki, Ben düþmanlarýný senin…

Arabic: qaala arrabb ( yahwah ) li rabbiy: ijlis 3an yamiyniy…

* YHWH (’adonay) ‘elohiym (Deu.6:5 & Mat.22:37)

Hebrew: ‘ahab YHWH ‘elohiym lebab nephesh ma3od

Greek: agapao Kurios ( YHWH ) sou-Theos en holos sou kardia kai en holos sou psuche kai en hols sou dianoia

Latin: Diliges Dominum Deum-tuum ex toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua

English: Thou shalt love the-LORD ( Jehovah ) thy-God with all thy heart, and with all thy sou…

French: Tu aimeras le-Seigneur ( Yahvé ) ton-Dieu de tout ton cœur, de toute ton âme et de tout ton esprit

German: Du sollst den-Herrn ( Jahwe ), deinen-Gott, lieben mit deinem ganzen Herzen…

Spanish: Amarás al-Señor ( Jehova ) tu-Dios de todo tu corazón, y de toda tu alma, y de toda tu mente.

Turkish: Tanrýn olan Rabbi bütün yüreðinle, bütün canýnla ve bütün aklýnla sev.

Arabic: ’a7ibba arrabba ( yahwah ) ‘ilaahuka bikulli qalbika wa kulli nafsika wa kulli fikrika.

* ‘elaahh (Dan.6:20):

Hebrew: … daniy’el 3abad chay ‘elaahh ‘elaahh palach tadiyra’…

Greek: …Daniel o doulos tou theou tou zoulos o theos-sou o su latreuis endelechos…

Latin: …Daniel serve Dei viventis, Deus tuus, cui tu servis semper…

English: …O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy-God, whom thou servest continually…

French: …Daniel, serviteur du Dieu vivant, ton-Dieu que tu sers avec persévérance…

German: …Daniel, Knecht des lebendigen Gottes, hat dein-Gott, dem du ohne Unterlaß dienst…

Spanish: …Daniel, siervo del Dios viviente, el-Dios-tuyo, á quien tú continuamente sirves…

Arabic:…yaa daaniy’alu, 3abdu allaahi alhayyi, hal ‘ilaahuka alladi ta3buduhu da’iman…

Remarks:

God’s proper name:

Hebrew Tetragrammaton, YHWH, is the personal name of the God of the Hebrews. It is also called the covenant name of the Divine Almighty. Only the God of Israel can have it but no one else.

Latin Jehovah is a hybrid name, combining the vowels of ‘adonay with the consonants of YHWH. The people who produced this name were medireview Christian Hebrew scholars.

In the old translations YHWH is either kept intact or transliterated, but rarely substituted with the attributes, synonym to Lord.

Hebrew 'adown and its plural ‘adonay, mean one possessed of absolute control, majesty, owner(s) or ruler(s). From a superstitious reverence for the name YHWH, the Jews, in reading their Scriptures, whenever that name occurred, always pronounced it 'adonay as a verbal substitute.

Greek kurios, which means supreme master, is invariably used for YHWH and 'adonay in the Septuagint (LXX.) The New Testament writers also followed on it. However, in some as early Septuagint manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton YHWH have been kept intact in Hebrew. The only difference is that when readers come across it they read kurios instead and therefore follow the Jewish tradition.

For language convenience purposes in addition to the tradition, YHWH and Jehovah has been rendered in the new English Bible LORD. ‘adown, ‘adonay and kurios have been translated into Lord. However, those titles are never meant to officially replace the Divine name. When a Christian or Jew use one of those titles, in his mind He knows that he is referring to YHWH and the same is for his Christian or Jewish audience

Arabic rabb (arrabb) is the translation/synonym of lord, kurios, ‘adown. The definite article al plays a similar role as the capitalisation in Roman scripts so that it can be distinguishable as Lord and LORD. In other words, arrabb is used as a substitute for YHWH only out of tradition purposes. It is never meant to be a synonym of YHWH.

In new translations, the form YHWH (Jehovah) is often retained in Ex. 6:3, Psa.83:18, Isa.12:2 and Isa.26:4 so that God’s name won’t be undermined. The Arabic bible translators have kept that principle too.

God’s common names (titles):

Hebrew ‘el, ‘eloah and ‘elohiym are common names for the divine. They might be derive from the same Semitic root ‘el, which means power or might. The three forms are used both for YHWH and for idols of paganism.

Aramaic ‘elaahh is probably a derivation form ‘el or more likely the transliteration of ‘eolith. It is used also for both YHWH and idols.

Out of the four terms, ‘elohiym is used the most in the Old Testament as noun referring to YHWH. ‘elohiym is a plural noun. Some Bible scholars (Christians) argue that the reason for using this plural form gives a strong hint about the Trinity. Others (Jews) argue that the plurality is simply a form of plural majesty that isn’t literally to be taken as referring to more than one person.

Greek theos, which means deity or supreme divinity, is invariably used for ‘el, ‘eolith, ‘elohiym and 'elaahh in the Septuagint (LXX.) The New Testament writers also followed on that principle.

When Paul visited Athens and preached to the Areopagus, he purposely used theos as term for the Divine, which was a common noun for all the deities, but avoided to use Zeus, which was considered as the name of highest peculiar deity among the Greek. Zeus was never used in the New Testament.

Those common names of the Bible-deity have been translated to deus-Deus (Latin), dieu-Dieu (French) gott-Gott (German), god-God (English), tanri-Tanri (Turkish), etc.

In the Arabic versions of the Bible, ‘ilaah, which mean the worshipped one or deity, have been used as translation for God and idols common names and as a synonym for ‘el or god. Meanwhile, al-‘ilaah has been purposely used as a synonym for ‘eolith/God to distinguish between the true God and false gods, and ‘elohiym/allaah as a synonym for GOD to emphasise the majesty of God. There was another factor involved as well and that has to do with the grammars and where each of those terms can technically fit the best. It is more of a matter of convenience more than anything else.

The first time the name allaah was canonised by the Church as name for YHWH was during the 8th century AD when Christians in Muslim occupied territories (i.e. Egypt and Syria) were forced to use Arabic as official language and allaah as name as well.

Using allaah as name for God in the Bible and Church is becoming the more a controversial matter in Arab and Muslim countries. For example, Persian Christians are now shifting to khouda, Turkish to tenri and Malay to tuhan rather than allaah.

Additional notes:

Before the “revelation” of the Quran and the victory of Islam, Allah was a familiar deity’s name among the Arabs and one of his main attributes rabbu al-bayti (lord of the house/kaaba), which was preserved in the Quran (Q.106:3). Allah, the lord of the Kaaba, was also known by the name of Hubal.

The reason why Muhammad picked up Allah as name for his “God” is because he noticed that the monotheists in Arabia used it commonly as name for their highest deity(s). He also promoted it from a common name to the personal name of his god, which became the official name of him in the Quran.

God’s biblical unique personal name, YHWH (the covenant name) has never been mentioned in the Quran, although Muhammad claimed to have received his “revelation” from Him and to “confirm” the Bible. In fact, one of the main reasons why the Jews and Christians refused to support Muhammad’s message is because he failed to mention or know the proper name of the divine, YHWH, which is one of the essential requirement for a true prophet to know and use (Deu.13:1-3, 18:20-22). Instead, he kept insisting that Allah is the name, which contradicts the Bible.

Christians, who translated the Bible into Arabic, used Allah as generic name for Jehovah based on the pre-Islamic context of its use and tradition of Christians and Jews who were living in Arabia before the rise of Islam. In other terms, they use it in its pagan (Jahiliya) context not its Islamic one, which prevailed and almost destroyed the oldest meaning.

In the Bible, God’s names are divided into three categories:

Generic names or titles: 1-‘el, ‘elohiym, ‘eolith, ‘elaahh and theos, which are variable and translatable and can be used for any other deity. Their Arabic synonym is [al]‘ilaah. Those titles are family or category titles, i.e. Man, Animal, Tree, Aeroplane, State… 2- ‘adown, ba3l (in early Hebrew) and kurios, which are also variable and translatable and can be used as titles for other deities or men. Their Arabic synonym is [al]rabb. Those are titles of honour, i.e. Sir, Excellence, Majesty…

Attributes: shaddai / Almighty / qadiyr, qadush / Holy / qudduws, ‘ab /Father / ’ab, rachuwm /gracious / ra7iym, channuwn / compassionate / ra’uwf, etc., which are variable and translatable and can be used for other deities or men. Those are terms, which express/portray the character and nature of the Divine.

Personal name or the-Name: YHWH (the tetragrammaton), which is sacred and unique and fix. Its abbreviation (in compound names) and poetic form is Yahh. YHWH can only be transliterated but it can’t be literally translated. In Arabic YHWH is transliterated as YHWH (unchanged) and pronounced yahwah. The closest translation of it can be something like al-kaa’in (the One who Is forever) or al-khaalid (the-Eternal) or al-khaaliq (the-Creator). Those translations though are only to help us to understand the original meaning of the word YHWH but not to replace it. In the Bible only the Creator is referred to with such name. Here are some Forms of YHWH in different languages: Awabakal – Yehóa, Bugotu – Jihova, Cantonese – Yehwowah, Danish – Jehova, Dutch – Jehovah, English – Jehovah, Fijian – Jiova, Finnish – Jehova, French – Yahvé, German – Jehova, Hungarian – Jehova, Mandarin – Yehohwa, Maori – Ihowa, Motu – Iehova, Nembe – Jihova, Polish – Jehowa, Portuguese – Jeová, Sotho – Jehova, Spanish – Jehová, Swahili – Yehova, Swedish – Jehova, Tagalog – Jehova, Venda – Yehova, Zulu – uJehova.

It is important to notice that Allah was used in the Arabic Bible translation as a second category name or title, a fact that Muslims ignore or try to avoid and undermine, because there is where their grave is dig!

1.3. Allah according to Muslims:

1.3.1. The Orthodox view:

Muslims see Allah as the unique and proper name of the Quran-deity. It is very sacred to them and it should not be used for any other deities. For Muslims, Allah occupies the same place as the Tetragrammaton YHWH (Jehovah) occupies among the Jews and Christians. The only reason why Muslims allow Christians and Jews to use Allah as name for the Bible-deity is because they believe that Muhammad preached to them a message from the same divine being (Q.29:46). However, only as long as the Bible Believers would not contradict what Muslims believe about their Allah as Muhammad proclaimed it in his Quran. According to Islamic laws, if a Bible Believer would state that Allah is a father or that he has a son in contradiction to Quran (i.e. Surat 112), he can be executed for “blaspheming” Allah. Muslims would never allow someone like a Buddhist or a Hindu to use Allah as name for his supreme deities. From the Islamic view, it is impossible that there are two distinct Allahs (Q.16:51). Only their deity can have such “privilege” name (Q.3:2 & 18).

The following are two orthodox Muslim definitions of Allah, which emphasise the most common understanding:

"Who is Allah?" World Assembly of Muslim Youth (III&E Brochure Series, no.2)

It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god, which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Arabic. Allah is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him.

Another Muslim statement copied from a Muslims web site

According to Islam, the personal name of God is the Arabic word Allah. Personal name means that it is the name, which refers only to Him, and to Him rather than to any particular quality that He possesses. The word Allah denotes that God is the One who possesses all the perfect attributes. The Quran itself gives this meaning when it says: "Allah has the most excellent names (or qualities)." (Q.7:180). The names of God in other languages, such as God in English, or Khuda in Urdu, only convey some particular attribute of the Divine Being, and they are also used for those other than God (as in god, gods, goddess, etc.). Allah, however, has only ever been applied to God (of Islam) Himself.

The following are two other examples of statements by Orthodox Muslims, which try to explain clearer and in detail why Allah can’t be used in any other context or defined rather than the personal name of their Quran-deity:

Muhammad’s Allah: ALLAH is not a GOD, by Ahmad Hulusi

It is "ALLAH," not "God!" Yet, it is never a name for a god!… There is no god to be worshipped, there is only ALLAH! This statement also reveals that: "ALLAH is not a GOD…" Nobody can comprehend what the "Religion of Islam" is about and why it has ever come, unless one fully understood the difference in meaning between a concept of "god" and the name "ALLAH" signified. Due to this, one can keep misinterpreting the matter of religion (Islam)!… I have tried to make it clear that any idea that the word "god" implies is completely different in meaning than the name "ALLAH" implies. These are two different words with completely different meanings... The word "god" is a common adjective, yet "ALLAH" is a proper noun for a unique essence… The original Religion of Islam" in effect is fully based on the meaning implied by the name "ALLAH."

Koran Interpretation, by Hamdi Yazir of Elmali (Religious Affairs Directory, Vol.1, p.24-25)

The word ALLAH has never been applied to any other than ALLAH, neither in proper form nor in common. Take the names such as "ilah" and "huda," for example; none of them is a proper name as "Allah." They imply a concept of "god" or "lord." It has been said "gods" as the plural form of "god," "lords" as for "lord," etc. Unlike, it has never been said "Allahs" and can never be so… So, the common name God is not synonymous for the proper noun "Allah," and is not an equivalent for "Allah." "God" is a very common name! Therefore one should never translate the name "Allah" as "God."

In all the contexts of application of the term allaah, it is always used as a proper name for the Muslims deity. There is not even one Quranic example where it was used as a common noun. Meanwhile the term ‘ilaah is the term that was always applied for common nouns for all deities. Despite the fact that the Bible clearly states that God’s name is Yahweh, orthodox Muslims insist that only Allah is the valid and personal name for the Divine as the Quran and Muhammad claimed. Yahweh is not even accepted as one of Allah’s names. It doesn’t figure out among the 99 Muslim names for Allah. Furthermore, when a person converts to Islam and no matter what language would be his, he should make the confession of faith in Arabic and states that there is no god but Allah. It is out of question to replace it by any other name and most of all by Yahweh.

1.3.2. The radical view:

When Muslims started targeting the West and trying to islamise it, they were compelled to review their orthodox concepts and make some compromises so that their message would be heard and be received. One of the major changes they had to make is concerning the definition of Allah. They needed to westernise it and to make it conform the maximum possible with the biblical teachings and terminology for the Divine.

The following example is a Muslim propagandist’s argument where he attempts to prove that Allah is the same as Yahweh (God) and where he also tries to undermine the orthodox view:

Submission.org, the word “ALLAH” by Abu Iman Robert Squires

The linguistic breakdown of Allah is "The/Al God/Lah"… I've come across some Arab brothers who insist in using only the word "Allah". Most of the translations and writings done back in the 1940's and 1950's used the word "God", which is a perfectly good translation of the word Allah in Arabic. M.M. Pickthall being the main exception, since he seemed to have used "Allah" in all of the translations that I've seen. The change came, I believe, as a result of Nasserite Arab Nationalism. Many Arabs I know over here still don't know the difference between Islam and Arab Nationalism! They seem more interesting in defending their pride heritage than really spreading the message. But this is in no way limited to Arabs, I've dealt with Pakistanis, Malaysians, Turks and Afghanis that have the same hangup.

Nevertheless, only for tactical and political reasons this type of Muslims they preach such sermons… When it comes to conversions, they will act in the same way as the orthodox and wouldn’t accept any other name but Allah from the new convert. Theologically, they are obligated to have the convert recite the confession in Arabic and use Allah as name. Only a Muslim who knows nothing about Islam and who belongs to a radical cult would dare to take such risk, i.e. a member of the Nation of Islam or the Ahmadia sect.

1.3.3. The orthodox reaction to the radicals:

No matter what excuse propagandists use to justify their tactics in regard to the name Allah, the orthodox Muslims, even the non-Arab ones, are not quiet happy with those changes, but they re-insist that Allah’s name can never be interchanged with any other name. They go as far as sharply condemning such radical propagandists and their "Islamically" heretical claims and teachings, as in the following statement:

Muhammad’s Allah: ALLAH is not a GOD, by Ahmad Hulusi

A group of people who deliver theories about the "Religion" based on their hearsay and false information, have been employing the word "GOD" instead of the name "ALLAH," being unaware of the mater and thinking that these words both carry the same meaning, and also relating it with their patriotism according to their whims…

Note: Both, Helusi and Yazir are Turks and are in agreement with the Turkish Religious Affairs, which is one of the very authoritative non-Arab Islamic organisms and who have a long Islamic heritage. The Muslim Turks are not very pro-Arabs or supporters of Arab nationalism. Instead, they are against such movements and they are generally very resentful toward the Arabs and their culture. However, they insist that the name Allah can’t be translated to any other common name, including their national Turkish noun for deity, Tanri. If Allah is only a common noun in Islam as Squire claim, those Turks would have been among the first Muslims to translate it into Turkish and encourage non-Arabs to do the same, and according to their respective languages. They oppose its translation, because they believe that it is the very personal name of their deity, the deity of Islam.

1.3.4. The secular view:

In the Arabic dictionaries and encyclopaedias the word allaah is defined as the personal and unique name of the Divine. Meanwhile al-‘ilaah is defined as a synonym of the term deity or god. In the other hand, the name YHWH, which is the biblical personal name of the Divine is often or perhaps never mentioned at all. Not only that, but even the closest Arabic translations of Yahweh, i.e. alkaa’in or addaa’im or alkhaalid or al’azaliy are never used to refer to the name.

The following are extracts from al-munjid, one of the most famous and recognised Arabic dictionaries in the whole Arab world:

Al-munjid fi allugha wali3laam, p.16, p.243

allaah (q_^||‘|): ‘ismu addhaat alwaajib alwujoud. [1]

al-ilaah (q_\| ,||‘|): alma3boud mutlaqan. [2]

arrabb: assayyid, almaalik, min asmaa’i allahi ta3aalaa. [3]

(Translation: [1] The name of the physic and the obligatory presence of the divine or the absolute name of the divine. [2] The supremely deified or the-god or God. [3] The master, the king, one of the almighty Allah’s names.)

In al-munjid dictionary YHWH is not even mentioned once and arrabb is viewed only as one of a title attributed for the Divine. It says nothing about why and how Christians use it as a substitute for YHWH. In other words, the name allaah is somehow technically regarded as an equal term for Yahweh, but not as a synonym of ‘elohiym or God!

1.4. Allah according to Christians:

To the majority of Christians the name Allah is no more than a “special” common name or title for the Divine in Arabic. It is not sacred or inapplicable for other deities. For more detail about the three different main Christian approaches about Allah, see the former chapter, “What Christians believe about Allah.”

1.5. Exposing the gap of misunderstanding:

Very often both Muslims and Christians do not see and understand the difference in context (definition) and application of the term Allah, which is really important and crucial. Here is an example, which shows that the Muslim apologist is either totally confused or purposely playing a crafty and deceitful tactic:

The Word ALLAH in the Arabic Bible, by Abu Iman Robert Squires

The images below, with the exception of the first image, were taken directly from a translation of The Holy Bible in Arabic. Referred to in Arabic as "al-Kitaab al-Muqaddas," this is the scripture, which is used by Arabic-speaking Christians (of which there are still about 15 to 20 million in the Middle East). So that those unfamiliar with Arabic script have something to compare these images with, the first image below is a verse from the Qur'an - which is the Muslim scripture. In the images, the Arabic word "Allah" is underlined in red so that it can be easily identified. Upon comparing the images, one should be able to clearly see that the word "Allah" appears in both the Qur'anic verses and Bible verses. Indeed, the word "Allah" appears throughout Arabic translations of the Bible, since it is simply the Arabic name for Almighty God. The examples below will help quell the doubts of those who have been duped into believing that "Muslims worship a different god" - either by the hostile media or by Christian missionary propaganda. We hope that this serves as enough documentation for those who still have doubts about this. We could think of no other way to prove this point, except to encourage everyone to do further critical and open-minded research on their own.

[Gen.1:1] "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth . . . "

"Fee al-badi' khalaqa Allahu q_^||‘| as-Samaawaat wa al-Ard . . . "

[Joh.3:16] "For God so loved the world, that He gave . . . "

"Li-annhu haakadha ahabba Allahu q_^||‘| al-'Aalama hataa badhala . . . "

[Luke 1:30] " . . . Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God."

" ...Laa takhaafee, yaa Maryam, li-annaki qad wajadti ni'amat(an) 'inda Allahi q_^||‘|."

[Luk.3:38] " . . . the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

" . . . bini Anoosha, bini Sheeti, bini Aaadama, abni Allahi q_^||‘|."

[Mat.19:17] " . . . there is none good but One, that is, God"

" . . . laysa ahadun Saalihaan illa waahidun wa huwa Allahu q_^||‘|"

[Q.1:1] "In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the Compassionate"

"Bismi Allahi q_^||‘| ar-Rahmani, ar-Raheem"

This argument above is displayed in several Muslim web sites (i.e. submission.org) and often used by internet Muslim propagandists in their attempt to convince Western Christians to believe that Allah and Yahweh are basically the same God, since Arab Christians use the term Allah in the Arabic Bible.

Now lets read a portion of the rebuttal of those claims by a Christian who is probably very familiar with those kind of Muslim arguments, based on twisting words and contexts:

Answering-Islam site, a response to Abu Iman, by Andrew Vergo

Abu Iman 'Abd ar-Rahmaan Robert Squires attempt to convince us, for reasons unknown, that the God of the Bible and Qur'an are the same since both Muslims and Arab Christians use the word "Allah" to address God. This is partially true. In Arabic, the word Allah (or the (al) - God (`ilah)) is the masculine form of the noun for the name of God. The feminine form is al-`ilat. The noun "Allah" predates Islam and comes to the Arabic language from Syriac… Our Arab Christian brothers and sisters use the name "Allah" for the God of the Bible. Once again, Allah is simply the Arab word for god. In the Arabic Bible, the Word Elohim (Hebrew for God) or Theos (Greek for God) is always translated as Allah. Incidentally, the Arab Christians called God "Allah" LONG BEFORE THE BIRTH OF MUHAMMAD AND ISLAM! The author is confusing terms and concepts. There is no doubt, or argument, that the Arabic word "Allah" means God! Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs referred to Pagan deities, such as Hubal (the major god of the Kaa'bah and the city of Mecca), as "allah". Hubul, however, WAS NOT the same "Allah" preached by Muhammad. Likewise, the English term "god" can refer to the God of the Bible or to other deities such as Brahma, Osiris, Shiva, or Krishna who ARE NOT the same as the God of the Bible. The problem raised by this discussion is that the God (or Allah) of the Bible has radically different attributes and gives mankind a completely different message than the God (or Allah) of Islam. Therefore, in spite of a common name, they cannot be the same! The God (or Allah) of the Bible revealed His message of salvation and love, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to humankind and, as it is often said, God knows best!

From this response we can clearly notice that the Christian concept of the term Allah among Christians has a different meaning then the Muslims, both theologically and linguistically. The Muslim apologist above failed to notice that God’s personal name, Yahweh, in that same Arabic translation he used for his argument has never been translated or substituted with Allah. He and his friends must have no clue regarding the different types of names that the Bible-deity has, unless if they are deliberately using that as a snare of deception! Nevertheless, both sides seem to agree on at least one point, and that is allaah and al-‘ilaah are basically the same word. Unfortunately that is not linguistically and etymologically correct. It is a trap where the majority from both sides stumble and fall and miss two key points:

When Islam rose it didn’t only revolutionised religious believes in Arabia but the whole language.

allaah and al’ilaah are simply homonyms but not synonyms.

Those two key points will be explored and in detail later on in this analysis.

1.6. The source of the Muslim Christian differences:

1.6.1. Divine origin:

In their main approach, Muslims put all their emphasis on the Islamic theology/doctrine for defining Allah without caring much about the secular approaches except when they suit them and serve their interests. For them, Allah is a name, which was given by “Divine” to Himself and which was revealed by Him to men. They consider it as a name of heavenly origin. The followings are the main arguments on which they usually base their claim that Allah is the proper name of “God”:

The Quran (i.e. Surat al-faatihah or al-'ikhlaas),

The opening verse (basmalah): “In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate.”

The creed of confession (shahadah): “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.”

Whenever a rational approach and no matter how correct it might be contradicts their claims, they simply reject it and turn to the Quran as “proof” to undermine it. Often Muslims refuse to admit that Allah’s name goes back to the Arab age of ignorance (Jahiliya) and that Muhammad hired it from the pagans. Even when Arab tradition tells us that Muhammad’s own father’s name was Abdu-Allah (slave of Allah) they still deny it. In other words, Muslims put truth after claims of the Quran and Islamic traditions and refuse it whenever it goes against those claims or challenge them.

1.6.2. Human origin:

Christians base their definition of Allah on secular/rational means, i.e. linguistics, etymology and archaeology. But the main problem, there is a lack of evidence to accurately trace back the original root of the word Allah. That lack of strong evidence pushes Christians to often turn toward developing speculative theories, which very often lead them to contradict each other’s views. However, they all agree that basing Allah‘s definition only on what the Quran and Muslims claim is not authoritative enough and is in violation of some foundational biblical principles and history. They simply see Allah as a name or title which men developed and then assigned for the Divine, a mere name of earthly origin.

Partly because of the bold claims by the Muslims and the weak and controversial secular arguments by Christians that the Muslims approach prevailed and almost totally undermined the Christians, especially among the Muslims. As we already shown, even in Lebanon (a 50-50% Muslim-Christian nation), where al-munjid was produced, we notice that the Muslims approach had the last word!

2. Analysing the speculations:

2.1. A technical note regarding transliteration:

For technical reasons and clearer accuracy in this linguistic chapter, we use an uncommon method of transliteration, but which is closer to the reality of the Arabic scripts and sounds.

2.1.1. Characters:

a: fatha (a: short vowel)

i: kasra (i: short vowel)

o/u: damma (o: short vowel)

aa: fatha with alif (a: extended vowel) <=> \

iy: kasra with ya (i: extended vowel)

ou/ow: damma with waw (o: extended vowel)

e: sukoun (soudless/quite)

E: alif (A: consonant) <=> |

E': alif with hamzah (A: consonant) <=> ‘|

L: lam (L: consonant) <=> _|

Ll: lam with stress (LL: double consonant) <=> ^|

H: Ha (H: consonant) <=> q or o

T: Ta (T: consonant) <=> ”q or ._”.

2.1.2. Transliteration of key words:

Romanisation Arabic

Allah : al-laah [sound] and E’aL-LlaaH - ELLH [script] <=> q_^||‘|

Allat : al-laat [sound] and E’aL-LlaaT - ELLT [script] <=> ._”. ^\||‘|

Al-Ilah : al-'i-laah [sound] and E’aL-E'i-LaaH - ELE'LH [script] <=> q_\| ,||‘|

Al-Ilahat : al-'i-laahat [sound] and E’aL-E'i-LaaHaT - ELE'LHT [script] <=> ”q o_\| ,||‘|

Alaha : alaha [sound] and E’aLaHa - ELH [script] <=> q_|‘|

(NB: Arabic scripts are written and read from right to left.)

2.2. Speculations based on semantics: allaah (q_^||‘|) verses al’ilaah (q_\| ,||‘|) and ‘alaha (q_|‘|)

2.2.1. allaah is the contraction of al-‘ilaah:

Most Christian and secular sources, in their definition of allaah, refer to it as being the contraction of al‘ilaah. Here are a few examples from dictionaries and encyclopaedias:

Dictionary.com, Allah

Al·lah n. God, especially in Islam. Arabic Alla

h : al, the + ’ila

h, god.

Sierra's Reference Encyclopaedia

ALLAH, the name of the Supreme Being in the Islamic religion. The word is a contraction of the Arabic al-ilah ("the God")…

Encyclopaedia Mythica, Allah

Allah: The exclusive monotheistic deity in Islam. The name is derived from 'al-ilah', which literally means "the god". The Prophet Muhammad declared him the one and only god (of the Islam) in the 7th century CE. In pre-Islamic times, Allah was the supreme creator-god of the Arabs. The goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza were considered to be his daughters.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Volume I, R. Butin

Allah is the name of God in Arabic. It is a compound word from the article, 'al, and ilah, divinity, and signifies "the-god" par excellence.

There are two theories how al-‘ilaah might have been contracted into allaah.

Theory 1:

Answering-Islam site, Andrew Vergo

In Arabic, the word Allah [or the (al) - God (`ilah)] is the masculine form of the noun for the name of God. The feminine form is al-`ilat.

Such theory is totally foreign to the Arabic language. Here are some solid arguments, which definitely rule out such speculation and it must be rejected as a possibility:

The spelling and pronunciation of allaah and al-‘ilaah are more complicated and different than the popular romanisation makes them look. If we accurately romanise them, the correct transliterations can be something similar to Ea-LLlaaH for allaah and Ea-LeE'i-LaaH for al-‘ilaah. The common transliterations of those two words (ALLAH - ALILAH) are not correct and should not be used in any linguistic analysis or argument. Notice the difference between the original differences in the Arabic forms and the romanized ones:

Romanisation Sound Transliteration Arabic

Allah al-lláh E’aLLlaaH q_^||‘|

Alilah al-i-láh E’aLE’iLaaH q_\| ,||‘|

There are no capital letters and small letters in Arabic scripts, there are no A and a or I and i or B and b. The alif ( ‘i : | ) in ‘ilaah is a capital consonant ( E : | ), not a vowel. As a matter of fact, it is one of the three consonants ( alif, lam, ha : q _| | ) that compose the root verb ‘alaha (E'a-LaHa : q_|‘|) from which the noun ‘ilaah (E'i-LaaH : q_\| ,| ) derives and is formed. Altering one of those consonants will definitely change the whole word and its meaning. If we alter the first consonant (alif : | ) from ‘ilaah, the meaning of the word will be totally lost. There is absolutely no word or prefix such as laah (LaaH : q_\| ) in the whole Arabic vocabulary.

This method of contracting has never been applied to any other word in the whole Arabic vocabulary. Several scholars totally reject it (as bellow) and the rest who accept it admit that it is only a possibility but not a fact.

Answering-Islam site, Christopher Heger

It seems unlikely that the name Allah comes from al-ilaah "the God"… The etymological derivation of "Allah" as a contraction of "al-ilaah" is "popular" etymology and surely not historic. It would be rather strange that especially the "i" should have been disappeared due to neglect of the speakers, since the syllable "il" is the most important in "al-ilah": "il" or "el" is the Semitic word for God since times immemorial. Instead, the word "Allah", as a lot of other words, especially words of the religious sphere, was imported…

Claiming that ALLAH q_^||‘| is the contraction of AL-ILAH q_\| ,||‘| can be compared in English to:

Arguing that BAR is the contraction of BEAR or HOLY is the contraction of HOLLY

Contracting THE-GOD into THEODD or THE-LIFT into THEFT

As such two types of examples are to be considered as non-sense in English so does the claim that ALLAH is the contraction of AL-ILAH in Arabic. Any person who makes such assumptions proves that he has no solid knowledge of Arabic or Islam or both!

When Muslims feel the heat regarding the negative effects of linking allaah to al-‘ilaah and when it doesn’t suit their plans, they immediately reject the contraction theory as in this example:

Answering-Christianity site, “GOD” in Arabic and Aramaic sound the same, Yishan Jufu

…the use of such statement as "The God" (al-ilah) is to denote the fact that "Allah" is The Only True God The Creator, and not to mean literally "The God".

Yet, such excuse does not spare them but just make them sink deeper in their heresies and contradiction of the Bible Scripture.

Theory 2:

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hartman, I:302, Gibb, I:406, Schacht, II:1093

By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry.

There are two main problems with this theory:

Having both allaah and al’ilaah used simultaneously does not necessarily mean or approve that they are the same word. This will be discussed later in more detail in this chapter.

Arabic language and literature scholars like Dr. Taha Hussein doubted the validity of the so-called pre-Islamic poetry. There are several evidences that such poetry was a fabrication of post-Islamic era, which main goal was to protect the so-called “miraculeousness” of the Quran.

The Arabic used today is a language, which grammar and vocabulary were developed after the Quran and not the classical tribal dialects.

Terminology depends on the factor of time and geography. What a word may have meant centuries ago in a community, may not remain necessarily the same forever. For example, Mercedes used to be a Latin name, now it is universally known as the brand name of a famous German car. Since it was used for humans in the past so should we know declare that car a human being? That makes no sense!

Therefore, this theory can not be considered as historically genuine fact or etymologically valid assumption, on which a person can relay and build a definition and make conclusions. Trying to separate the meaning of Allah from the Quran and Islam’s definition of it is unthinkable and unacceptable, mostly to a Muslim, as in this argument:

Muhammad’s Allah: ALLAH is not a GOD, by Ahmad Hulusi

…These are two different words with completely different meanings... The word "god" is a common adjective, yet "ALLAH" is a proper noun for a unique essence… The original Religion of Islam" in effect is fully based on the meaning implied by the name "ALLAH."

2.2.2. allaah is a derivation from the root verb ‘alaha ( to adore / to deify ):

This theory makes a little bit more sense than the former one, but the problem is, it doesn't flow or fit with the grammatical rule of derivation in Arabic, known as wazn alfi3l (verb-scale). Often in Arabic and Semitic languages in general, nouns derive from root verbs. For example:

The proper name of God, YHWH in Hebrew, derives from the verb HaYaH (to be).

The word for book in Arabic is kitaab, it derives from the root verb kataba (to write).

In regard for the EaLLlaaH (allaah) to be validated as a derivation of E’aLaHa (‘alaha), it must conform to one of the verb (Fa3aLa) streams. Unfortunately, EaLLlaaH does not match with any of the verb Fa3aLa derivations. There is no stream such as EaLF3aaL or Fa333aaL. Therefore, EaLLlaaH can not possibly be a derivation of E’aLaHa, but a term from another root or even probably an imported one. Moreover, when someone claims that allaah mean in Arabic “he who is worshipped/deified” he is totally in mistake for two reason: 1- allaah does not derive from ‘alaha, 2- the correct term for “the one who is deified” and according to the verb stream must be almu’allah (EaLMaE’LlaH).

Meanwhile, when applying the same method to EaLE’iLaaH (al-‘ilaah : q_\| ,||‘|) it works perfectly, which confirms that EaLE’iLaaH is a derivation of EaLaHa (alaha : q_|‘|) and consequently proves that it is an Arabic word of an Arabic origin.

Important note:

There is a further proof why allaah can't be linguistically related to neither the noun al‘ilaah nor the verb ‘alaha. The feminine form of allaah and without any argument is allaat ( EaLLlaaT : ._”. ^\||‘| ). The problem though is the fact that such form of feminine is an exception, which does not conform to the general rule. Such rule suggest that the feminine form of allaah must be allaahat ( EaLLlaaHaT : ”q_o_^||‘| ) not allaat ( EaLLlaaT : ._”. ^\||‘| ). This also backs up the theory that allaah may not even be an original Arabic term.

Meanwhile, the feminine form of al-‘ilaah is al’ilaahat ( EaLE’iLaaHaT : ”q_o_\| ,||‘| ), which conforms to the feminisation rule in Arabic and smoothly flows with the verb streams and therefore prove that al-‘ilaah is an authentic Arabic word and derivation from an Arabic verb. Claiming that allaat ( EaLLlaaT : ._”. ^\||‘| ) is the contraction of al-‘ilaahat ( EaLE’iLaaHaT : ”q_o_\| ,||‘| ) is just another non-sense theory, which can be compared to arguing that SUN is the contraction of SATURNE!

2.2.3. Resolving the puzzle:

The reason why most of people, mostly non-native Arabic speakers, fall into these "booby traps" is because the name allaah and the noun al-‘ilaah are a very unique kind of homonyms (homonyms are words, which are pronounced and spelled very closely but are semantically different).

What makes allaah and al-’ilaah so special is the fact that both share in common meaning, yet are still lexically different because one is inclusive while the other is exclusive. When we read or hear the name allaah, we can confidently say, allaah is ‘ilaah (god) or al-‘ilaah (the-god). But when we hear or read al-‘ilaah, that can be either allaah or some other deity. It can be Jehovah, Buddha, Brahman, Zeus, Baal, Ra or Mammon. Technically we can say al-‘ilaahu allaahu, al-‘ilaahu yahwah or al-‘ilaahu ba3lu, but we can never say, allaahu zousu, allaahu brahmaanu or allaah yahwah. That sounds weird, like saying I have a Mercedes Mazda or I was born in Monaco Morocco or I have a Dinar Dollar… That makes absolutely no sense!

To clarify it better we decided to include the following example of English homonyms GAY verses GUY: a- GAY, which has become a proper name and a title for male homosexuals, b- GUY, which is commonly use as a synonym of man. When we hear or read the name GAY we automatically know that he is GUY (man). But when we hear or read the word GUY we can't say for sure if he is a GAY or even think about it! It is that simple in Arabic with the terms allaah and al-‘ilaah, ALLAH (allaah : q_^||‘|) can be lexically portrayed as a parallel of GAY (a homosexual), while ALILAH (al-‘ilaah : q_\| ,||‘|) can be lexically portrayed as a parallel of GUY (a man)!

This is the other reason why the Muslims approach has been the prevailing one! Technically and from the Arabic prospective, allaah can not be a common noun, but only a proper name only. This is not to be seen though as a victory for the Muslims. Instead it is the source of great troubles for them, as we will demonstrate later.

2.3. Speculations based on linguistic comparisons of biblical languages:

2.3.1. The Arabic al in allaah is the same as the Semitic-Hebrew ‘el :

Encyclopaedia.com, Allah

Allah [Arab.,=the God]. Derived from an old Semitic root referring to the Divine and used in the Canaanite El, the Mesopotamian ilu, and the Biblical Elohim,

This theory can not be support even within Hebrew, since scholars cannot confirm if 'elohiym truly derive from ‘el.

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NIV), OT Lexical Aids p.1504

466. ‘elohiym : God, god. The most common Hebrew word translated God… Scholars are divided on whether ‘elohiym has an etymological connection with ‘el (446).

If such theory is not workable for sure in Hebrew, so how can we apply it to link Hebrew terminology to Arabic? There are other concerns, which discredit such theory as well, as follow:

The al in allaah doesn’t even sound the same as 'el (god in Hebrew). The al sounds like AL in Alexander (a name) and 'el sounds like English EEL (a kind of fish).

Arabic allaah’s only logical and appropriate application is as a personal name. Meanwhile, Hebrew ‘el has seven different applications and definitions depending on the pronunciation and context. Only in one context ‘el refers to God or gods.

If Arabic al (EaL) stands for Hebrew ‘el (EeeL), so what is the implication of laah (LlaaH)? Is it a prefix or what and what it means?

al (E’aL) in Arabic is a definite article and has no other application. Meanwhile, al (EaL) in Hebrew and Aramaic also can be used as a negative adverb (no, not) or a definite article (the).

Although Aramaic and Hebrew are very close languages and were both used to write the Scriptures, ‘el in Aramaic is used as a pronoun demonstrative plural (these) only and never as a term which refers to deities.

If this theory is valid and logical then we should consider each word, which start with AL or EL as a derivation from the Semitic-Hebrew ‘el (god) and therefore we should add it to God’s names! Since it is not even applicable within Hebrew and Aramaic, which are languages used to write the original Scriptures, then it can’t be applicable to link allaah to ‘el. Otherwise, we should also assume and conclude that Toyota is Toshiba, Armenia is Arabia and Allah is Allegation!

2.3.2. Arabic allaah (al-‘ilaah), Hebrew ‘eloahh and Aramaic ‘elaahh are the same word:

What is His Name? Ahmed Deedat (p.25)

The suffix "IM" of the word "ELOHIM" is a plural of respect in Hebrew. Hence ELOHIM = ELOH + IM. El in Hebrew means god, and Elah or Eloh also stands for the same name - god… El, Elah and Elohim are not three distinctly different words. They all represent the single Arabic word Allah. This is not my wishful thinking. Please see below. It is a photostatic reproduction of a page from the English Bible, edited by Rev. C. I. Scofield D.D., with his Bible Commentary This Doctor of Divinity is well respected among the Bible Scholars of the Christian world… Please note that in their comment No. 1 below left, they concur that - "Elohim, (sometimes El or Elah meaning God)" and alternatively spelled "Alah."

In his effort, the famous Muslim apologist committed several ironies, which only a blind and a deaf can be justified for committing, unless he was purposely using his usual “gift” of deception! Lets look at those ironies one by one:

allaah is not a contraction of al-‘ilaah. As a Muslim “scholar” who knows Arabic very well, he must have been well aware of the difference between those two terms in accordance with the Quran and Islamic teachings.

‘ilaah (E’iLaaH) is not a transliteration of Aramaic ‘elaahh or Hebrew ‘eolith, but a derivation from the Arabic root verb ‘alaha (to deify).

If ‘ilaah (E’iLaaH) is the same word as Hebrew ‘elaah (EeeLaaH) or ‘alaah (EaaLaaH) then Arabic ‘ilaah is in trouble! ‘elaah (oak) and ‘alaah (oath/curse) have never been used in the Bible as term for neither false gods nor God. Note also that ‘al (EaL) in Hebrew is the negative adverb (no or not).

Dr. C.I. Scofield made a huge mistake in his note in the footnote of “The Scofield Reference KJV Bible,” under Genesis 1:1. He cited that ‘el was combined with ‘alah to give the name of God, yet the two words do not contract into ‘elohiym! Deedat picked up Scorfield’s mistake (a quicksand ground) and build on it a doctrine (holy shrine)!

Allah Divine or Demonic, Steven Van Nattan (p.90)

Dr. Scofield says that "EL" is combined with "ALAH" (sic) to give the name of God, which is bizarre, since the two words do not contract into Elohim, as any primary student can see! "ALAH" supposedly gives the concept of an oath to the name of God. First, "ALAH" is a plain Hebrew word, not a contraction as with "Allah" of Islam, which comes from "AL ILah," and thus the double "LL." So, "ALAH" in Hebrew has no relationship linguistically to the Allah of Arabic and the Koran. Second, there is no record in the history of the Hebrew language that "ALAH" is part of the concept of "EL" or "Elohim." This is why the revised edition of the Scofield Reference Bible omitted the note on "ALAH." Ahmed Deedat has been very helpful to use Schofield's erroneous note…

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NIV), OT Lexical Aids p.1504

466. ‘elohiym: God, god. The most common Hebrew word translated God… Scholars are divided on whether ‘elohiym has an etymological connection with ‘el (446). There is an apparent relationship between ‘elohay (a form not found in the OT) and ‘eloah (468), a singular word for God or a god, but its exact nature is not clear. Some scholars regard ‘elohiym (466) as a derivative of ‘eloah (468) while others reverse the connection. 468. ‘eloah: a god, God. Most of its occurrences appear in poetry. Since it occurs only in the singular, some scholars have concluded that it is the implied singular of ‘elohiym (466) God, god, but the exact relationship between the two words is uncertain.

(NB: For further references check page 1905, strong 440-468 and page 2035, strong 10031-10034.)

The only case where allaah can biblically be considered as a proper name is if we identify it with ‘elaah (Elah : EeeLaaH) a man’s name i.e. Esau’s son (Gen.36:41) or with a valley in ancient Israel (1Sam.17:19). Is Deedat and his guru’s god named after a man or a valley? That is what his argument proves anyway!

If we disregard all of the above and trust that Deedat was genuine and honest in his attempt to link Arabic allaah to the Bible, then it must actually be translated to either: god-oak, god-curse, no-oath, not-god... but never to ‘elohiym or God.

allaah and ‘eloah and ‘elaah are not so close as Deedat assumes. Lets look at the accurate transliterations and sounds:

EeeLaaHh e lá hh (Aram.)

EaLllaaH al llá h (Arab.)

EeLaWHh e lo a hh (Heb.)

Deedat and his friends need to go learn how to transliterate correctly from Hebrew to Roman alphabets. The way he spelled Elah, Alah, Eloh are wrong and misleading. He simply tried to take advantage of the limitation of Roman scripts and make them fit his theories. What he did can be compared to transliterating English myth and meat to Arabic mayyit (dead) or English at and French et to Arabic ’eth (hair)! Instead of proving that Allah is biblically God’s name, Deedat and those who follow his path ended up proving that their god named after a man, a valley or an oak.

2.3.3. allaah is the same as the Aramaic ‘eloi or ‘eli:

What Is His Name? Ahmed Deedat

Please memorise the words - "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani." (Eli - pronounced like L and I in English) Utter the words - ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI; ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI, to your Christian friends and neighbours and ask them whether these words - "Eli, Eli," sounds like "Jehovah, Jehovah!" to them? No! is the answer if they are not deaf. Ask further, whether "Eli, Eli," sounds like "Abba, Abba!" (meaning father, father! in Hebrew) to them! Again the reply will be "No!" if they are not deaf. Can't they see that the cry is to Allah? "Eli, Eli - Elah, Elah, Allah, Allah!" Let them hear these words from your lips and watch their reactions… Unbiased Christians will not fail to recognise Allah as none other than his - El, Eli, Alle, Elah, Alah, Allah.

Allah in The Bible? by Ishaq Zahid

ALLAH - for Muslims the greatest and most inclusive of the Names of God, an Arabic word of rich and varied meaning, denoting the one who is adored in worship, who creates all that exists, who had priority over all creation, who is lofty and hidden, who confounds all human understanding. It is exactly the same word that the Jews, in Hebrew, use for God (eloh), the word, which Jesus Christ used in Aramaic when he prayed to God.

This word play only gets more ludicrous as Mr. Deedat does and his students try to have Jesus saying the name of their god. Before, refuting this other insane invention, lets look at what Jesus really said and from where in the Scripture He was quoting and how it was translated in the Arabic version of the Bible?

Blue Letter Bible, Mark 15:34

[Mar.15:34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi (1682) Eloi (1682), lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [in reference to Psa.22:1]

[Psa.22:1] My-God (0410) my-God (0410), why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

* Lexicon for Strong Number 1682 (Greek)

1682 ‘eloi [ELWI] of Aramaic origin, 0426 with pronominal stuff.; n m

AV - Eloi 2; 2; Eloi = "my-God"; 1) Aramaic for the phrase "my-God"

* Lexicon for Strong Number 0410 (Hebrew)

0410 'eli [EeeLi] TWOT - 93a; n m

AV - God 213, god 16, power 4, mighty 5, goodly 1, great 1, 240; 1) god, god-like one, mighty one 1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes 1b) angels 1c) god, false god, 1d) God 2) mighty things in nature 3) strength, power

Remark: The New Testament was partly written and partly preserved in Greek, however it points out that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic language.

Kitaabu Al-Hayaat (Arabic Translation of the Bible)

[Mar.15:34] wa fi assaa3ati atthaalitati, sarakha yasou3 bisawtin 3adhiymin: ‘alowiy ‘alowiy, lamaa shabaqtaniy? ‘ay: ‘ilaahiy ‘ilaahiy, limaadhaa taraktaniy?

[Psa.22:1] ‘ilaahiy ‘ilaahiy, limaadhaa taraktaniy? limaadhaa tabaa3adta 3an khalaasiy wa 3an samaa3i sawti tanahhudaatiy?

Remark: Even though those who translated the Bible into Arabic and used allaah as a term for God, did not translate Eloi and ‘eli into allaah but respectively used ‘elowiy and ‘ilaahiy.

Contrarily to what Deedat tried to make the readers believe and to persuade them to agree with him, the reality is that no matter how we spell Eloi or ‘eli, they can never sound or appear like allaah or ‘elaah. Even if they might have been coming from the same root and have the same meaning they will still be spelled and pronounced differently. Only somebody who might have some serious damages in his ears and eyes and maybe brain as well or perhaps an illiterate naïve farmer or a brain washed Muslim fanatic would honestly accept his argument.

Because of the weakness of his argument and his total awareness of it, instead of presenting a rational explanation based on linguistics and by presenting some references, he chose to gamble and play on a very different note. Notice how the above attempt of his is totally based on using psychological tactics, in which he uses manipulation, intimidation and insults for anyone who may try to oppose his view or argue with him. In other words, he relayed on the old preaching methods of the fanatical Imams and Mullah.

If Deedat and his team would try to persuade Hawaiians to believe that aloha originally meant allaah, before it was turned into a form of greeting (i.e. hello), there is no need to be surprised! Yet, we would like also to ask them to consider showing us how allude, allusion, elude, elusion, illusion and ill are all deriving from the same source Allah!

Furthermore, when Mr. Zahid states that allaah is God’s greatest name and then he equals it with ‘el, first, he contradicts himself and second he exposes his poor knowledge of the Bible’s terminology for the Divine, since ‘el, ‘eli and ‘eloi are common titles. Some Muslims are very similar to parrots, they just pick up what their gurus claim and repeat them without verification.

2.3.4. allaah is found in halleluya:

What Is His Name? Ahmed Deedat

Then what is Alleluya! The last syllable "YA" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Arabic and Hebrew meaning "OH!" In other words YA = OH, (the vocative); and YA = (!), a note of exclamation, or an exclamatory particle, or as is more commonly known an exclamation mark. The Semite, both Arab and Jew, begin with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark. The Westerner, in his language ends with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark, e.g. Stop! Go! Fire! Bang! Let us repeat the above Tasbih (words of praise) as an Arab or a Jew: ALLE-LU-YA will be YA-ALLE-LU because, as explained above, YA is always at the beginning in both Arabic and Hebrew. YA ALLE LU would be YA ALLA HU: Meaning, "OH ALLAH!" (You are the Only Being Who deserves worship and Praise).

In his disparate attempts to prove that Allah is in the Bible, “Dr. Deedat” invented the most ever ridiculous and silly argument that even a lunatic can come with. No wonder that some people claim that between wisdom and foolishness there is only a hair dividing line! The guy deserves to receive a D. D. (Doctorate in Dumbness) for the above argument, since in all his knowledge, cleverness and craftiness, he ended up disclosing the extremeness of his folly. Lets explore how many stupid and monstrous errors he has made and how many basic logical principles he has violated in the following remarks:

Alleluia or Alleluyah or Alleljah is the transliteration of Hebrew hallelu-yahh. It is a compound term or statement: a- hallel is a verb, which stands for praise and adoration; b- yahh is the poetic form of YHWH (Yahweh), the personal name of the Almighty.

Deedat didn’t explain how the H in Hallelu disappeared and the E has been converted to A and the third L has been converted to an H? Lets bear in mind that hallel in Hebrew and hallil in Arabic are both verbs, which have an similar meaning, therefore, no need to claim that the Quran hired the statement and transliterated it from Greek or Latin rather than Hebrew. That would only be another foolishness and a cord around Muslims neck! Anyway, this particular irony prove that the guy either suffers from a serious dyslexia or simply a manipulative liar and a mocker of people and linguistics.

ya is not an exclamatory prefix, whether in Hebrew or in Arabic. There is no meaningful term ya in Hebrew and ya or yaa in Arabic is an interjection similar to hey in English. Deedat didn’t prove to us only his ignorance of Hebrew but also of Arabic, the “authoritative” and original language of his “holy Quran” which he must know f he is truly to be considered as a Muslim scholar.

ya-‘allaah and according to Deedat’s own principles should be identified with Hebrew ya’alaah, which as a proper name is a woman’s name and as a noun means an animal, either a goat or an ibex or a deer.

If ya-allaah’s definition is “You are the Only Being Who deserves worship and Praise” as he claims, so what is the root verb of allaah? Deedat didn’t give any explanation or reference to backup his claim. Bean in mind, that in Arabic “to worship” and “to praise” are two different verbs respectively 3abada and hallala. To our knowledge there is no Arabic verb, which combines them together.

Before making such irresponsible assumptions, Deedat should have at least checked dictionaries and made sure that they go along with his claims and that he is not contradicting linguistic rules and logical principals. Instead of proving anything beneficial for his Allah, unexpectedly, he ended up in the other direction by dishonouring the name of his god and even proving through his methods that Allah, most probably and from a medical point of view suffers from hallucination more than anything else! In other words, it was Deedat’s hallucination and illusion that lead him to come out with such ridiculous argument and expect that Christians would naively accept them and convert to his hallucinated master’s religion. Lets not forget also that based on the mistake of a mere man, a certain Dr. Scofield, Deedat and his disciples built doctrines to link their Quranic-Allah with the Biblical-Yahweh.

2.3.5. allaah is hired from the Syriac word, 'alaha (god-the):

Answering-Islam site, Christopher Heger

It seems unlikely that the name Allah comes from al-ilah "the God", but rather from the Aramaic Syriac alaha, meaning 'God' or 'the God'. The final 'a' in the name alaha was originally the definite article 'the' and is regularly dropped when Syriac words and names are borrowed into Arabic. Middle-eastern Christianity used 'alah' and 'alaha' frequently, and it would have often been heard. But in the Aramaic Syriac language there are two different 'a' vowels, one rather like the 'a' in English 'hat' and the other more like the vowel in 'ought'. In the case of 'alah', the first vowel was like 'hat' and the second like 'ought'. Arabic does not have a vowel like the one in 'ought', but it seems to have BORROWED this vowel along with the word 'alah'. If you know Arabic, then you know that the second vowel in 'allah' is unique; it occurs only in that one word in Arabic… the word "Allah", as a lot of other words, especially words of the religious sphere, was imported from the Syriac (Aramaic) language: "alaha" - with three long a - vowels, is the Aramaic word for the (Christian) unique God. The last (long) "a" characterises the status absolutus in the Aramaic language and was duly omitted by the Arabs like case endings in the Arabic vernacular, whereas the understanding of the first syllable of "alaha" as an article was a common misunderstanding like for instance in "al-Iskandar" from Greek "Alexandros" etc. The doubling of the "l" is irrelevant, since the doubling sign is a very late invention of Arabic orthography, centuries after Muhammad."

Although Dr. Heger’s argument appears to be rational and the closest to linguistically link Allah to the Biblical-God, it is just another speculation, which ignores certain basic principles and ethics, as we will disclose:

Heger’s transliteration method is not accurate and misleading. A correct transliteration and pronunciation reveals that Syriac ‘alaha and Arabic allaah have several spelling and utterance differences as follow:

(Syr.) EaLaaHa a lá há |_o_\|‘|

(Arab.) EaLLlaaH al llá h q_^||‘|

The two terms actually appear and sound much more different than what Heger claim.

The stress in the middle of allaah is very significant in Arabic and should never be neglected. Dropping or adding it into a word changes the whole meaning and lexicon as well, i.e. BaTaLun = hero (a noun) and BaTtaLa = to cancel (a verb) or in English but = instead (a conjunction) and butt = end (a noun).

Long before the invention of Arabic articulations (vowels and stress) Arabs were able to correctly read Arabic writings without the help of those symbols. In fact, up to this day most of native Arabic speakers do not use those symbols in their daily writings. Having the stress on the second L of allaah or not having it is irrelevant and although the symbol was added later to the scripts that doesn’t mean that stressing alphabets was not in use earlier.

Syriac alaha transliterated to Arabic it turns into ‘alaha the verb (to deify), which has no relation with allaah. Besides, it is illogical to compare a noun in a language with a verb in another language and assume that they must be the same term since they simply sound alike. This also proves that Heger’s method of comparison is a fraud.

The Arabic vocabulary has already its word for deity, 'ilaah, which derives from an Arabic root verb ‘alaha. So why would the Arabs import a foreign word to replace a word that they already have in their local language?

Syriac is not a Bible language. Those who translated the Scriptures into Syriac were common clerics. Even if they might have used allaah as title for the Biblical-God, their terminology is not authoritative and therefore it cannot be used as a measuring rule or evidence.

Today’s Arabic is based on the Quran and allaah in it is a personal name unlike ‘alaaha, which is only a common noun.

Therefore, Mr. Heger’s attempt to link allaah to alaaha is nothing but another failure. Furthermore, if his theory is somehow a sound one than we should start making crazy statements such as the French verb MANGER (to eat) is the same as the English noun MANGER (a box) or the French adjective FOU (crazy) is the same as the Chinese noun FU (father)…!

3. What are the closest term to allaah and al’ilaah in the Bible?

If we would like to trust and relay on the linguistic comparative method that those different “advocates of Allah” use for their arguments, logically, we must start looking for the closest matching terms and not just pick up what sounds fitting with our ideas. If we want to be honest, we need to make our ideas conform to the reality and not the opposite. Thus, we should look for biblical term(s) that appear and sound the closest possible to both allaah (ELLH : EaLLlaaH : al llá h) and al’ilaah (ELELH : EaLE‘iLaaH : al i lá h).

3.1. allaah (Allah)

3.1.1. allaah in the Bible and Hebrew means oak tree:

While checking the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, we came across the verse below, which uses a term very close to Allah, the name that the Quran uses as personal name for its “author” who claims to be the same author as of the Bible:

Blue Letter Bible, Joshua 24:26

Hebrew: Yahowshuwa` kathab dabar cepher towrah 'elohiym laqach gadowl 'eben quwm 'allaah miqdash YHWH.

English : And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there

under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of Jehovah.

* Lexicon for Strong Number 0427 (Hebrew)

0427 'allaah (ELH - EaLlaaH); variation of 0424; TWOT - 100a; n m

AV - oak 1; 1; 1) oak 2) terebinth (poll)

The closest term to Arabic allaah (ELLH : EaLLlaaH : al llá h) is Hebrew ‘allaah (ELH : EaLlaaH : a llá h). Both terms are pronounced identically and the only difference they have is in an extra L in the Arabic. Hebrew ‘allaah though is not only a noun but also a feminine one and it means oak (a tree). Notice also that in the same verse two other terms are used to refer to the Divine, the title ‘elohiym and the name YHWH. Meanwhile, in Aramaic there is no biblical term, close to allaah.

Why those “Allah’s advocates” could miss such detail? Or is it just because it doesn’t fit into their agendas they preferred to ignore it? How could they dare to neglect such crystal clear evidence and yet eagerly seek to use manipulation to make the Bible terminology fit with their arguments? Any apologist who want to linguistically link Allah with the Scriptures terminology for the divine, he should first stop by this case and ponder on it before moving on to any other term.

3.1.2. allaah is evidence against Islam:

What is more interesting is that Muhammad, who claimed to have received his “eternal” Quran from Allah and that his Allah is the same author who revealed the Scriptures, actually proved himself to be an ignorant and a liar when he said that Allah is the Biblical-God and he is his messenger. Here are evidences which prove his falsehood and of his god:

If Allah (allaah) is all knowing, so how could he forget that ‘allaah in Hebrew means oak? Or is it that both Allah and his messenger are ignorant of Hebrew and the Bible?

If Allah is transcendent in time and he is the Divine, who sent his word to the prophets, so why didn’t he command them not to misuse the name ‘allaah by using it for a tree rather than him? Or is it that Allah didn’t exist or wasn’t around when the OT was written?

If Muhammad as he claimed to have come to “rectify” the Scriptures, so why Allah didn’t refute that verse in Joshua and add to the Jews accusations that they misused his name for a tree? Or is it that Muhammad came to make foolish mistakes and cause confusion rather than clarity?

Why would the Divine tell the Hebrews that His name is YHWH and forbade them to pray to oaks (‘allaah) then later on go to the Arabs and tell them to worship him by using that very term? Or is it that both Muhammad and his god are mere deceivers and authors of confusion?

If Allah is the name of the Author of the Bible and is it supposedly eternal, so why it is never used in the Scriptures once for the Divine? Why the Bible uses a variety of terms ‘el, ‘elohiym, ‘eolith, ‘elaahh and theos and yet only as titles? Or is it that Allah has nothing to do with the Bible and the Creator?

The simple answer to all these questions and wonderings is the fact that the term allaah is an evidence against the case of Islam and prove that its inventor is no more than ignorant and a liar, who made some huge claims, which he couldn’t backup with facts. One of those major failures lays on this fact that the author of Islam picked up a wrong term to be the most sacred name in his invented religion.

3.2. al‘ilaah (the-deity):

It is irrelevant to consider the first two letters (E and L) because they are simply a prefix, the definite article (i.e. the). The focus will be limited to ELH (‘ilaah).

3.2.1. ELH in Hebrew:

Blue Letter Bible (Online Bible Software)

[Eze.6:13] Then shall ye know that I am Jehovah, when their slain men shall be among their idols round about their altars, upon every high hill, in all the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every thick oak [0424], the place where they did offer sweet savour to all their idols.

[Has.4:13] They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms [0424], because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.

* Lexicon for Strong Number 0424 (Hebrew)

0424 'elaah (ELH - EeeLaaH); TWOT - 45h; n f;

AV - oak 11, elm 1, teil tree 1, 13; 1) terebinth (poll), terebinth tree

The closest term to Arabic ‘ilaah (ELH : E’iLaaH : i lá h) is Hebrew ‘elaah (ELH : EeeLaaH : é lá h). Both terms are spelled identically. The only difference they have is in the pronunciation. Hebrew ‘elaah is: 1- a feminine noun, which means oak, tree or post, 2- a proper name for persons or locations.

Despite the fact that ‘ilaah and ‘elaah are almost identical in pronunciation and spelling, they have two distinct meanings. From one hand, there is no link in Arabic between ‘ilaah and any term for oak, tree or post and from the other there is no link in Hebrew between ‘elaah and any term for deity.

3.2.2. ELH in Aramaic:

Blue Letter Bible

[Ezr.5:1] Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God [0426] of Israel, unto them.

[Dan.2:47] The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God [0426] is a God [0426] of gods [0426], and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

* Lexicon for Strong Number 0426 (Aramaic)

0426 'elaahh (EeLaaHh) corresponding to 0433; TWOT - 2576; n m

AV - God 79, god 16; 95; 1) god, God 1a) god, heathen deity 1b) God [of Israel]

The closest term to Arabic ‘ilaah (ELH : E’iLaaH : i lá h) is Aramaic ‘elaahh (ELH : EeLaaHh : e lá hh). Both terms are spelled the same, but have a slight different pronunciation at the beginning and the end. Both are masculine nouns and both have a similar meaning, which refers to deity. However, ‘ilaah is a derivation from the verb ‘alaha, therefore, it is not a transliteration or derivation from ‘elaahh. The similarities are more likely a matter of chance. ‘ilaah and ‘elaah are synonyms, but still not the same word.

(Note: For further checking of references see NIV “The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible;” p.1905, strong: 440~468; p.2035, strong: 10031~10034.)

3.3. Putting up with reality:

From the above examples of comparison of Arabic (Islamic) terms to Hebrew and Aramaic (biblical) terms, it becomes more obvious and clear that the method of linguistic comparison based on scripts and sounds does not prove anything, especially in favour of Allah’s advocates. Such method is unscientific and useless. It is barely a tactic, which depends primarily on luck, the same as gambling. Those who relay in their apologetics, in defence of Allah, on such tactic should reconsider their calculations and perhaps forget about their crafty manipulations and face the truth.

Allah is not a biblical name of the Divine but a name, which belongs to paganism and which should be approached only as an unbiblical term like any other terms in other languages. Otherwise, these advocates would have to face the accurate linguistic challenge and put up with the fact that Allah is either an oak tree, a man or a valley before they come up with any ideas or speculations in support of their claims.

4. The dilemmas of the Muslims:

4.1. Allah is the proper name of the Divine:

When Muslims insist that Allah is the very personal and unique name of the Creator, they automatically contradict the very basic and foundational teachings of the Bible rather than confirm it as they assume and their religion claim. If their Quran-deity would have been indeed the true Creator, the same being as the Biblical-God, they would have never claimed that Allah is His proper name. They would never have used Allah in the basmalah and shahadah but YHWH (yahwah) as the name. According to the Scriptures, only YHWH can be considered as the Creator’s personal, holy, universal and everlasting name, which is to be used for Him alone and the only name by which a prophet can speak on His behalf, as the following verses testify:

[Exo.3:14-15] And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is My memorial name to all generations.

[Exo.15:3] YHWH is a man of battle; YHWH is His name.

[Exo.20:2~7] I am YHWH your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me…you shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain, for YHWH will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

[Deu.18:20-22] But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word, which YHWH hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of YHWH, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the YHWH hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

[Psa.83:16] Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O YHWH.

[Micah 4:1~7] But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of YHWH shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of YHWH, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem… for the mouth of YHWH of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of YHWH our God for ever and ever. In that day, saith YHWH, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and YHWH shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

[Mar.12:29] And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel; YHWH our God, YHWH is One.’” [in reference to Deu.6:4]

Therefore, those “orthodox” Muslims, who make such statements, put themselves in a dilemma and confirm the fact that Allah is just another foreign god. No matter how “great” and famous his name might have become, he remains a deity of a pagan nation, a false god and a pretender.

* Refuting the latest allegations of the Muslims in defence of Allah as the Divine’s proper name:

In an attempt to turn the situation around, the Muslim “apologist” and webmaster of Answering-Christianity’s web site, posted an article called: “But Allah sounds different than the Hebrew Yahweh!” However and usually as his gurus, he repeated their old manipulations. In the following rebuttal we will expose point by point his deceptive tactics and let the truth shine and speak of itself:

Ossama: One thing that many non-Hebrew speaking Jews and Christians mistake about is the name of GOD Almighty in the Bible. "Yahweh" in Hebrew means "The LORD" or the "The GOD". It is not a name.

Al-Gharib: 1- Hebrew Yahweh is a derivation from the verb hayah, which means to be. Meanwhile, LORD is an equivalent of ‘adown / ‘adonay, and GOD is an equivalent ‘el,‘elohiym,’eloah,’elaahh and theos. It’s only because of Jewish tradition and for language convenience that translators have rendered the Divine’s name LORD. The capitalisation is merely a matter of translation technique to distinguish between the reference to YHWH and the translation of ‘adonay and Kurios, Lord. Both GOD and God stand for the same thing, the common name of the Divine. Contrary to what Ossama claims, Yahweh does not mean “The LORD” or “The GOD.” His view actually reflects his poor knowledge of the Bible translators’ terminology and technicalities. For reference and more detail, see, for example: 1- The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible (NIV), page 1504~1540, strong 446, 466, 468, 2118, 3378 and 6610. 2- The New Open Bible – Study Edition NASB, p.70, 675, 1028, 1478.

2- The Bible clearly states that YHWH is the Divine’s personal name. We already have shown in the verses above a series of examples, which clearly state that YHWH is the personal name of the Divine. Furthermore, the Jews and according to the Scriptures and their tradition and still to this day use ha-shem (The-Name) as term besides ‘adonay to verbally refer YHWH (the Tetragrammaton). Here again Ossama exposes his own lack of biblical knowledge and his confusion. He is the poor guy in error and who needs to be corrected and taught, not the Christians and non-Hebrew Jews.

Let us look at the following quotations from Christian and Jewish resources: "Judaism teaches that while God's name exists in written form, it is too holy to be pronounced. The result has been that, over the last 2000 years, the correct pronunciation has been lost." (Mankind's Search for GOD, p. 225). Here we clearly see that the pronunciation for the original name for GOD Almighty had been lost, and the Jews have no idea what the exact pronunciation is from their Holy Scriptures and resources.

1- The resource Ossama uses is a Jehovah Witnesses (Watchtower) material. Apparently, he does not know that Jehovah Witnesses are a separate sect, whom both Christians and Jews do not recognise as part of their bodies or he is purposely using deception. Furthermore, the Jehovah Witnesses, whom he and many Muslims love to quote from, reject Allah under any form as a name for the Divine. In both cases Ossama is the only loser. If he doesn’t know the difference between those groups, he proves his ignorance and if he is simply playing ignorance he exposes himself as being a deceiver, who is following the Devil’s path of craftiness.

2- Not all Christians and Jews nor even all of the JWs agree that the Divine’s name have been lost. The real situation is whether there is a controversy over which pronunciation is the correct and the identical one to the original. Yet most of those parties agree that there is no magic behind the probable accurate vocalisation of YHWH, except some mystics, i.e. the Kabalistic Jews, who are fanatical about it. Although the pronunciation is controversial, the name is still the same and preserved as it was written on the stone tablets that the Divine passed to Moses. Furthermore, all the Bible believers, whether they might be Christians, Jews or radical sects (i.e. JW, Mormons, Kabala), agree that the Divine’s name is indisputably the tetragrammaton: Y-H-W-H and that the vocalisation is ‘adonay.

"About 3,500 years ago, God spoke to Moses, saying: 'Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The LORD [Hebrew: YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, this My appellation for all eternity.' (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 135:13)" (Mankind's Search for GOD, p.225). "....the four Hebrew consonants YHWH (Yahweh) that in their Latinized form have come to be known over the centuries in English as JEHOVAH." (Mankind's Search for GOD, p.225). So the word "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" is not the ORIGINAL name, but the appellation (title) for the Almighty GOD.

1- All Bible believers, mostly the scholars, know and agree that JEHOVAH is a hybrid name, combining the vowels of ‘adonay with the consonants of the tetragrammaton YHWH into YeHoVaH and then JeHoVaH. The original use of this hybrid name though was meant to guide the readers to say the word ‘adonay aloud while reading the Scriptures in synagogues and passing by the tetragrammaton YHWH. That tradition passed later to Latin and then to English and other languages. Meanwhile, Yahweh is one of the possible forms of pronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH. The main point that Ossama neglected is the fact that no matter how YHWH is pronounced and written, i.e. Yahweh, Yehovah, Jehovah, Iehovah, or even LORD, the audience and readers alike are always aware that the word refers specifically to the personal name of the Divine, YHWH acceding to the Scriptures.

2- If YHWH, Yahweh and Jehovah is simply the appellation or title of the Divine, so what is the original name, which was used in the Scriptures uniquely to refer to Him? There is absolutely no other term, which can compete with YHWH. Even if we consider the Arabic translation of the Bible, only YHWH pass the test while Allah, Ossama’s “promoted” term fails, at least twice, in Genesis 41:38 and Acts17:24. Therefore, Ossama, instead of justifying anything he just made his argument worst and a statement against himself.

This is perfectly fine, because Jews, Christians and Muslims call on to GOD Almighty as "The LORD" or "The GOD", which means "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in Hebrew and "Al-Rab" in Arabic. "Al-Rab" in Arabic and "Yahweh" in Hebrew and the other translations in all other languages are indeed GOD Almighty's title. But they are NOT His original Name!

1- As we already explained, LORD is not a synonym or equivalent of Yahweh, but merely a man’s invention and a term, which used in translations to refer to the Divines name, YHWH. GOD has no direct or indirect technical connection with YHWH. It is always used as a common name or noun, which refers to the Divine. Ossama is totally confused and showed his failure to distinguish between the different types of terms used for the Divine.

2- Al-Rab (arrabb) is the Arabic equivalent of ‘adonay and plays the same role in the Arabic translation of the Bible as the English LORD. In other words, it is not a translation of Yahweh or YHWH. Moreover, Al-Rab (ism 3alam) was never used in the Quran. The Quran uses Rab, which is a non-defined noun (ismu nakirat) and in the context of master or lord. In other word Al-Rab and Rab have two different definitions and applications, which Ossama overlooked, since they contradict his claim. There is absolutely no example in the Quran and the Hadith, which links Rab to Yahweh, unlike in the Greek New Testament where we find verses from the Old testament that indicate that YHWH have been rendered Kurios, i.e. Mark 12:29 verses Deuteronomy 6:4 and Acts 2:21 verses Joel 2:32.

3- Yahweh is not a Hebrew translation of the Divine’s name, but a vocalised Latin-Hebrew transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. YHWH’s closest translation is alkaa’in in Arabic and I AM in English. Ossama succeeded again in proving his poor knowledge of Arabic/Hebrew/English vocabulary and ignorance of basic linguistics.

4- Ossama needs to carefully read and do a little Bible study of Exodus 6:2-3 and check its terminology and lexicon:

And God [0430] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD* [03068]: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God [0410] Almighty [07706], but by My name [08034] JEHOVAH [03068] was I not known to them.

Lexical and Vocabulary Aid: (Blue Letter Bible Online – Strong Search)

0410 'el: n m; God, god, power, mighty, goodly, great, idols, might, strong

0430 'elohiym: n m p; GOD, God, god, judge, goddess, great, mighty, angels, exceeding, godly

03068 YHWH: n pr dei; LORD, JEHOVAH; Jehovah = "the existing One", the proper name of the one true God, unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of ‘adonay.

07706 shadday: n m dei; Almighty

08034 shem: n m; name, the Name (as designation of God), renown, fame, famous, named, memorial, monument

Footnote: (The New Open Bible – NASB – Study Edition, page 72.)

* Heb., YHWH, usually rendered LORD.

From the above example and references, we can easily see that Ossama is totally lost and mixed up to a degree where everything looks backward to him. Notice also that there is no “allaah” in the statement. In other words, none of the patriarchs knew the Divine by the name Allah as Muslims claim about Abraham.

Let us look at what Exodus 3:15 and Psalm 135:13 from the NIV Bible say: "God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD [Notice that they didn't write Jehovah. "The LORD" in only a title], the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 3:15)" "Your name, O LORD, endures forever, your renown, O LORD, through all generations. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 135:13)" So as we clearly see from the above Verses from the NIV Bible, the original name for GOD Almighty is not "Yahweh". The title "The LORD" is only a title and a nick name (if you will) that we give to GOD Almighty. But "Yahweh" is definitely NOT THE ORIGINAL NAME for GOD Almighty.

1- NIV is only one of various English translations of the Bible. It is not accurate and many Christians, mostly native English speakers do no use it for several reasons, one of them is the huge amount of inaccuracies. NIV is not an authoritative translation and as any translation is not inspired Scriptures. Nevertheless, some editions of the NIV, in their commentaries, they offer an explanation why they used LORD and point out that it is not the Divine’s name, but simply a technical term and substitute. For reference, see The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV, footnotes in page 71~74 and the OT lexical aid no.3378, p.1520.

2- In the Hebrew (original language of the OT) Masoretic Text and in the early Septuagint (translation to Greek), the name of the Divine was kept intact, the Tetragrammaton, in its original Hebrew. In other words, if we return back to those early Texts, which are the closest and perhaps 99.9% replicas of the original OT, the words used for the Divine in Exo.3:15 and 135:13 are the Tetragrammaton, Hebrew YHWH, and not the late 17th Century invention LORD. Ossama didn’t dare to dig enough and go back to the roots and deal with the matter in honesty and for the sake of truth. He has shown that he has no concern for truth, except when it suits his own convictions.

3- In a last attempt, Ossama tries to convince the readers that since LORD is originally a title from a semantic point of view, then Yahweh must be a title also. The mathematical rule, if A=Z and B=Z then A=B, that he applied to his final argument, is not always valid and applicable, especially in linguistics and terminology. According to the way he used it, he turned it into manipulative tactic, which is well known as a common logical fallacy, which Muslims often use in their apologetics. In other words, the guy analogy is similar to the analogy of sugar verses honey, as follow:

The analogy of sugar verses honey:

A sugar dealer may argue that since sugar is sweet and honey is sweet, then sugar and honey are the same product. He can use the mathematical rule of three (if A=Z and B=Z then A=B) to prove his argument or even go as far as melting his sugar and turning it to look like honey. Every person, who have never been familiar with the pure honey and knowledgeable about how it is produced, could be easily fooled by that dishonest dealer and not only believe him but also buy his sugar and even at the price of honey. When a dealer of honey comes along and exposes the swindler and shows people the real honey, how would the dishonest dealer react? He will try every possible deception to keep selling his sugar. He will put a lot of emphasis on the “99.9%” sweetness of his sugar and make sugar looks greater than honey if that would be possible. Like drogue dealers, he might even take the risk to distribute his sugar for free in hope that his consumers would get adapted and addicted to his sugar and be blinded by its sweetness and forget once about honey and its nutritious and healthy qualities. The sad thing, the majority of those consumers won’t wake up from the deception till they find themselves struck with diabetes and face to face struggling with death. And if someone comes along and asks for honey, the dishonest dealer, out of fear and insecurity, will do all he can to prevent such thing from happening. He may go as far as denying that honey exist or ever existed and go back to exalt his sugar and claiming that it is the only “real” sweet food that can be obtained!

Like that dishonest trader, Ossama and his associates, are doing all they can to get their deity promoted under every possible label that might attract the consumers, but not based on truth, because the truth can only be one and it is not at their side. Since the truth/facts says that YaHoWaH is the Divine’s proper name, so they simply reject and deny it and replay the same old scenarios about Allah and his name.

"Allah" on the other hand is a name. It is the name of GOD Almighty. Below, you will see ample proofs from the Aramaic language that the name of GOD Almighty was indeed "Allah".

1- Yes, Allah is indeed a name, but not of the Creator’s. From a historical point of view, Allah can only be the name of a pagan deity and from a biblical terminology point of view, it can only be an oak or a man or a valley.

2- The fact that Allah is the name of the chief/supreme deity of the pagan Arabs, doesn’t make it necessarily the name of the true Deity. From one hand and according to Ossama’s “theological” reasoning, every chief pagan deity should be identified with Allah. Therefore, Zeus of the Greek, Buddha of the Buddhists, Brahman of the Hindu, Baal of the Canaanites and Huw of the Egyptians are all the same deity as Allah. Even according to Islam’s orthodoxy this is heresy, which may cost Ossama his head. From the other hand according to his “linguistic” reasoning, Allah is a common name and therefore he contradicts what he tries to prove all along.

3- In Aramaic, the term ELLH / Allah / allaah / alláh does not exist at all. Even if allaah is the transliteration of ‘elaahh, it is to be considered simply as a common name for the Divine and it was used also for false gods, i.e. in Daniel 2:47. Therefore and after his long argument and manipulation, Ossama ended up contradicting what he wanted to approve and worst proving that Allah is a man made word, which doesn’t even come from Arabic, the language which the Quran claims to be divine and eternal. His final accomplishment then is proving that the “revealer” of the Quran was actually a copier from men and a liar.

4- For more detail regarding this speculation, get back to sections 2.3. and 3.2.

Since Muslims claim that their prophet came to “confirm and correct and restore what was supposedly lost” in the Scriptures and if the Divine’s name or its pronunciation were lost, so wouldn’t it have been one of Muhammad’s primary duties; the restoration of the Divine’s name and its correct pronunciation? This is another dilemma that Ossama successfully has created for himself and his religion’s claims. He gave evidence that Muhammad was a liar and false prophet, who couldn’t fulfil what he claimed to come to accomplish. If Muhammad had no knowledge about the Divine’s name YHWH and the controversy regarding its pronunciation among the Jews and Christians, which dates from before his era, how can any Bible believer accept his message when he failed to “fix” that important and basic detail? That simple failure is a huge piece of conviction against him and Islam. Finally, Ossama and his team deserve some praise for their amazing contribution in exposing their religion’s frauds and controversies: THANK YOU and CONGATULLATIONS!

4.2. Allah is the common name of God in Arabic:

When some Muslims argue that Allah is the common name of the Divine in Arabic, and in their attempt to escape the orthodox Muslims dilemmas, they trap themselves into another dilemma, which might be worst. They leave their god without a personal name and therefore without a proper identity. They prove that he is a myth, which lives only in their minds under different labels. When they pretend that his name is Yahweh, on one hand, they contradict their Quran, the basic Islamic teaching and trample on the Arabic language and its grammars. On the other hand, they can’t provide any solid argument to back that up, either etymologically or thelogocally.

4.3. Allah is the Divine’s name in Arabic while Yahweh is His name in Hebrew:

When some other Muslims claims that Allah is the Arabic name of the Divine, the equivalent or synonym of Yahweh, they simply prove that they have no solid knowledge of Arabic and the Quran nor Hebrew and the Bible. Any attempt they may try to justify their argument would lead them to fall into one of the dilemmas above and at worst cause them to be ex-communicated by both Muslims and Bible believers. Instead of having both, they end up having none at all.

4.4. God doesn’t need to have a name:

When still some Muslims simply try to deny that the Divine has a personal name to possibly avoid any confrontation and rebuttal, they lead themselves toward another type of dilemma. To justify their position, they have to relay on notions based on Greek mythology and as the former group they end up having none.

4.5. The dilemma of dilemmas:

No matter what argument and invention the Muslims can come with, their greatest dilemma is the fact that the case of their religion was over some 13 centuries ago. When Muhammad claimed that he was sent by the God of the Jews and Christians and yet failed to know and use His name, YHWH, according to the Law and the Divine’s terms and conditions for prophets (i.e. Deu.18:20-22), he could only possibly belong to the category of false prophets. Furthermore, and even if Muhammad may have known Yahweh’s name, he didn’t perform any miracles and the worst he made many heretical statements about the Divine, in both the Quran and the Hadith. In other words, the Biblicial-God and the god of Muhammad are unreconciliable and it is the second who claims to be the first and never vise versa, which prove that he is the fake one and the pretender.

5. Summary (II):

The name Allah is used in two contexts. The Quran and Most of Muslims use Allah in the context of the personal name of their god, a name, which can belong only to him, a name of heavenly origin. In Arabic and among the majority Muslim Arabs, it is also regarded as a proper name. Muslims and Arabic base their use on the context of the Quran. Meanwhile, Christians and in their Arabic translation of the Bible use Allah simply as a translation of God’s common names or Arabic title, which can be applied to both the true God and false god, a name of earthly origin, which was developed by men. Christians base their use on the pre-Islamic probable etymological context and origin.

Muslims generally believe that since Christians use Allah as a term to refer to the Biblical-God, that isn't enough proof that they believe in the same God. This actually prove that those Muslims have no clue about the difference between types of names that the Bible uses for God and do not know that only YHWH (Jehovah) is valid as God’s proper name. They probably never notice that YHWH (Jehovah), the personal name of God is never translated to Allah but either kept intact or rendered arrabb (the-Lord).

allaah and al-ilaah are a unique and tricky type of homonyms. By failing to notice that detail, Christians trapped themselves in a series of erroneous speculations, on which they try to linguistically link Allah to the Semitic Biblical common names of God and consider it as Arabic transliteration or derivation of those tittles.

Muslim propagandists took advantage of the Christian ironical speculations and build on them deceitful arguments in favour of their god and religion and used them to deceive Christians and make them believe that Allah is the same deity as YHWH. However, a careful analysis of their crafty arguments would easily turn the situation upside down and put them in a series of dilemma and prove that their god is indeed not what they claim and desperately want him to be. Therefore, as Christians we should be very thorough in checking every little detail regarding what those propagandists claim, not only from a Biblical prospective but also from the Islamic prospective and expose their deceptions and manipulations.

From a grammatical-lexical point of view, allaah doesn’t comply with the rules and its root still remains mysterious and unidentifiable, while, al-ilaah conforms perfectly with the rules and its root verb ‘alaha means to deify. Therefore al-ilaah is the accurate common name of the divine and Arabic translation of ‘eloah, ho-theos and God. The only option where Allah could be used is if it was a translation or synonym of either YHWH or ‘adonay. All the odds go against such possibility and rule out the option.

Up until now, the meaning of Allah is still a mystery! We have been able to understand why technically it is not a valid name for the Divine, either as a proper name or a tittle, yet its origin and root are still undisclosed. The next article will be dedicated to the search of the possible and real meaning and origin of the name Allah.

Responses:
None

851

Date: February 06, 2006 at 05:04:49
From: JON THATS ALL UR GETIN, [cache-los-ad05.proxy.aol.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

ISLAMS ARE NOT FIT TO BE CALLED HUMANS
I DONT KNOW WHO I WOULD TERMINATE FIRST ISLAMS OR
LESBIANS AND GAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL VERY DISTURBED
SICK FREAKS WHO DONT SERV THIS WORLD ANY GOOD.

Responses:
[852]

852

Date: February 06, 2006 at 10:43:05
From: Anne, [ool-457a08b7.dyn.optonline.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

So we can be happy then that you're not controlling things. I'm not certain what ideology you operate under but the golden rule - love thy neighbor as thyself - is part of nearly every faith and culture on earth. What do you stand for besides hate?

Responses:
None

804

Date: November 30, 2005 at 12:59:36
From: freedom, [acc6d83e.ipt.aol.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.

Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)

Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.

I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. We're acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.

This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands.

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)

As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence.

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.

America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.

We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.

May God bless you.

Responses:
[1048] [1049]

1048

Date: August 30, 2006 at 08:01:29
From: Amdeo, [82.145.215.45]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Are we talking about peace in here or Islam.

if you have Islamophobia sickness take a tour visit
middle east,east asia africa,etc. when you come back to your home town you will feel good.i assure you all.

Reagan,bushs butt ,condi,s rear all they are for you.

your congress,your dick, is your congress not mine.

stay at home and don,t butttttttt other nations affairs. USA is just a corporate and your politicans want to find jobs for you.

is that enough .

peace.
Amadeo.

Responses:
[1049]

1049

Date: August 31, 2006 at 00:08:07
From: 80 million islamophobs, [c-71-197-92-113.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Mr Asim, You need to read your indian history to realize the genocide of hindus carried out by muslims invaders and kings. It was by far the worst in recorded history.

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans. Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

Responses:
None

801

Date: November 24, 2005 at 00:21:39
From: Truth, [c-67-174-58-200.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Truth Seekers

This is a good site to visit on propaganda in the Isreali/Palestinian conflict: http://seconddraft.org/movies.php

Responses:
[802]

802

Date: November 25, 2005 at 11:45:04
From: Leigh, [ool-18b9649f.dyn.optonline.net]
Subject: The truth is a painful one

The sad truth is that over 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis have been killed since the beginning of the second Intifad. According to B'tselem*, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Terrotories, as of Nov 15, 2005, 3,307 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis, including 670 minors, while 713 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians, including 307 soldiers and 118 minors. That's over 4,000 families that have been lost loved ones, and your attempt to paint the reality and pain of these losses as propoganda does a disservice to us all.

* B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. B'Tselem has attained a prominent place among human rights organizations. In December, 1989 it received the Carter-Menil Award for Human Rights. Its reports have gained B'Tselem a reputation for accuracy, and the Israeli authorities relate to them seriously. B'Tselem ensures the reliability of information it publishes by conducting its own fieldwork and research, whose results are thoroughly cross-checked with relevant documents, official government sources, and information from other sources, among them Israeli, Palestinian, and other human rights organizations

Responses:
None

794

Date: November 22, 2005 at 20:40:51
From: Calibigdawg, [c-67-174-58-200.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Offensive War to Spread Islam

Muhammad and his successors initiated offensive wars against peaceful countries in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance of these lands. Their objective was to capture women and children and to put an end to the poverty and hunger from which Arab Muslims suffered. So, Islam was imposed upon Syria, Jordan, Palestine (Jerusalem), Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, all of North Africa, some parts of India and China, and later Spain.

Undoubtedly, the concept of an offensive war to spread the faith is a genuine Islamic concept; it is known as a Holy War for the sake of God. We will see what Muslim scholars have explicitly determined that this is the essence of Islam. They also indicate that if sufficient military power is available to Islamic countries, they ought to attack all other countries in order to force them to embrace Islam, or pay the poll tax and be subject to Islamic rule. Muhammad (as well as all the Caliphs who succeeded him) called for holy wars . All scholars and lawyers acknowledge that.

Those who say that the Islamic wars were always defensive do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history. It should be evident that offensive wars to spread Islam are the heart of the entire religion of Islam. They embody the meaning of "Striving for the cause of God"—holy war to make the Word of God supreme over the whole world. Our study will be filled with objective quotes from the statements of scholars, along with a throng of true stories.

The Sayings and Deeds of Muhammad and His Companions

One of Muhammad’s popular claims is that God commanded him to fight people until they become Muslims and carry out the ordinances of Islam. All Muslim scholars without exception agree on this. Muhammad said:

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

Scholars understood this claim to mean the waging of offensive wars against unbelievers in order to force them to embrace Islam as individuals or communities. This is exactly what Muhammad himself did in carrying out God’s commandment to him.

Azhar’s Scholars in Egypt

In his book, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography", the Azhar scholar, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti says the following (page 134, 7th edition):

"The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ..."’

Dr. Buti deduces from Muhammad’s statement that this is the concept of offensive war—this is Holy War as it is known in Islamic jurisprudence. Notice by his statement also that this matter is a duty incumbent on every Muslim in every age. The time will come when East and West, as well as politicians and military personnel all over the world will realize that the real military danger is the Islamic community. When the needed military power becomes available to them, they will wage wars and invade other countries !

Saudi Scholars In his book, "The Method of Islamic Law", Dr. Muhammad al-Amin clearly indicates:

"No infidel [unbeliever] should be left on his land as it is denoted from Muhammad’s statement: ‘I was commanded to fight the people¼ ’"

This claim by Muhammad and its generally-accepted meaning are recorded not only by these contemporary scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but are also quoted in the following sources:

° The Sahih of al-Bukhari, part I, p. 13.

° The Sahih of Muslim, part I, p. 267 (The Interpretation of the Nawawi).

° The Commentary of Ibn Kathir, p. 336

° The Muhalla (the Sweetened), Vol. 4, p. 317

° "The Ordinances of the Qur’an" by al-Shafi’i, p. 51, part II (on the authority of Abu Huraira).

° Mishkat of al-Masabih, part 1, p. 9.

Almost all major Islamic references have quoted this statement because it is one of the most famous sayings of Muhammad which he followed and which he commanded his followers to implement.

Many provocative and painful events were inflicted on individuals and tribes in the course of Muhammad’s life. Muhammad, as we will see, used to exhort his followers:

"Invitation first (that is, call them first to embrace Islam). If they refuse, then war."

In other words, he told his followers not to kill anybody unless you first invite him to embrace Islam. Only if he rejects it, must he be killed. This is evident in the story of Abu Sufyan:

When Muhammad and his followers were about to attack Mecca to subjugate it to Islam, his adherents arrested Abu Sufyan, one of Mecca’s inhabitants. They brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad told him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I do believe that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The ’Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim.

There are many sources which record this story:

° Ibn Hisham, part 4, p. 11 ("Biography of the Prophet’)

° "The Chronicle of the Tabari", part 2, p. 157

° Ibn Kathir, "The Prophetic Biography", part 3, p. 549, and "The Beginning and the End"

° Ibn Khaldun, the rest of part 2, p. 43 and on

° Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3. p. 18

° Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 90, by Al Sohaily

It is also mentioned and attested to by contemporary scholars such as Dr. Buti in his book, "The Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", p. 277. He repeated it on page 287 because such stories incite the admiration of the Buti and bring him joy. Yet Dr. Buti feels that some people will protest, especially liberals and the civilized international society, who believe that faith in a certain creed ought not to be imposed by the threat of death. Therefore, he said (p. 287) the following:

"It may be said, ‘What is the value of a faith in Islam which is a result of a threat? Abu Sufyan, one moment ago, was not a believer, then he believed after he was threatened by death.’ We say to those who question: ‘What is required of an infidel or the one who confuses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and to subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later."’

This is God in Islam, my dear friends—a God who is satisfied with the testimony of the tongue of a person who is under the threat of death. But "the heartfelt faith" will come later! The important thing is to increase the number of Muslims either by threat or by propagation!

Dr. Buti was more than frank, and we would like to thank him for that, yet we would like to tell him that Christianity rejects the testimony of the mouth if it does not stem from faith that is rooted in the heart first. In Christianity, a person has sufficient time to think quietly before he makes his decision, as the Gospel says:

"Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5).

God reveals His attitude in the Bible when He says:

"My son, give me your heart" (Prov. 23:26).

When the Ethiopian eunuch expressed his desire to be baptized, the evangelist Philip told him:

"If you believe with all your heart, you may" (Acts 8:37).

God even rebukes the people of Israel and says:

"These people draw near to Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me" (Isa. 29:13).

The story of Abu Sufyan reveals clearly that Muhammad does not care much about the faith of the heart, especially at the beginning, as Dr. Buti suggests. What is really important is that professing faith is a natural response to the threat of death. The threat is very clear: Testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God or you will be beheaded. The story concludes: Abu Sufyan professed the testimony of "truth" immediately!

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):

"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’ (refer to page 134, and also see Al Road Al Anf, part 4, pp. 217, 218. You will find the same incident).

We see in this story the main Islamic concept: First, an invitation to accept Islam, then war against those who refuse to do so. This was Muhammad’s order to Khalid Ibn al-Walid. It is also noteworthy to examine Ibn Hisham’s statement that "they entered Islam by force." Muhammad himself told them later: "Had you rejected Islam, I would have beheaded you and cast your heads under your feet." This was an undisputed threat: Either they accepted Islam or they would have been beheaded.

The brutal irony is that he uttered these words with ruthlessness and relentlessness instead of congratulating them on their new faith! What a strange man who failed to show any love or genuine compassion. His act was an act of a first-class terrorist. He did not congratulate them because he knew that they entered Islam by force. Is this man really the prophet of freedom, compassion, and human rights? Listen carefully! These oppressive attitudes and actions are as clear as the sun on a bright summer day. Muhammad’s words are self-explanatory:

"Had you not accepted Islam I would have beheaded you and cast your heads under your feet!"

What human rights! What compassionate, kind, meek and noble characters! Undoubtedly, this alone is enough to uncover the dreadful dark side of Muhammad’s character and his religion.

Azhar scholar Dr. Buti adds on p. 263 of his book:

"The apostle of God started to send military detachments from among his followers to the various Arab tribes which were scattered in the Arab Peninsula to carry out the task of calling (these tribes) to accept Islam If they did not respond, they would kill them. That was during the 7th Higira year. The number of the detachments amounted to ten."

Would God’s help be sought, Oh Muhammad, to fight peaceful tribes whose only crime was that they could not believe that you are an apostle of God? Satan (not God) assists wicked people to commit these things!

No wonder all these tribes so quickly became apostate and relinquished Islam after the death of Muhammad. Abu Bakr Al Sadiq waged the aforementioned wars to force them to re-embrace Islam. Dr. Buti states this in chapter six of his book, under the title, "New Phase of the Mission". He quotes a statement made by Muhammad which proves that those wars were offensive wars. Muhammad said, "From now on, they will not invade you, but you will invade them."

Now let us see what Muhammad’s followers did who implemented the same principle:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib

In his book, "The Biography of the Prophet" (part 3, p. 113), Ibn Hisham relates this episode:

"Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called ’Umru and told him, ‘I indeed invite you to Islam.’ ’Umru said, ‘I do not need that.’ ’Ali said, ‘Then I call you to fight.’ (This was the same policy Muhammad used with those who rejected his invitation.) ’Umru answered him, ‘What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you.’ ’Ali said, ‘But, by God, I love to kill you"’ (see Al Road Al Anf part 3, p. 263).

It is obvious from the dialogue that ’Umru does not like fighting because he does not want to kill ’Ali while he is defending himself. He wonders, "What for? I do not want to embrace Islam." But ’Ali says to him, "By God I love to kill you," and he did kill him.

We would like to conclude these stories by relating another moving episode which the Muslim Chroniclers recorded, among them, Isma’il Ibn Kathir in his book, "The Prophetic Biography" (part 3, p. 596). Ibn Kathir says that Muhammad’s followers met a man and asked him to become a Muslim. He asked them, "What is Islam?" They explained that to him. He said, "What if I refuse it? What would you do to me?" They answered, "We would kill you." Despite that, he refused to become a Muslim and they killed the poor man after he went and bade his wife farewell. She continued to weep over his corpse for days until she died of grief over her slain beloved who was killed for no reason.

Dr. ’Afifi Abdul-Fattah

On the cover of his famous book, "The Spirit of Islamic Religion," which was reprinted more than nine times, it says the following, "It has been revised by the committee of Azhar scholars with introductions made by the greatest Muslim professors and judges of Islamic legal courts."

On page 382 Dr. ’Afifi says:

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

On page 384, we read the following:

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

Dr. ’Afifi (along with the Azhar scholars who revised his book) boasts that the prophet never fought anybody before he called them to Islam first! Those people fail to realize that human rights emphasize that when you call people to embrace any religion and they refuse to do so, you must leave them alone! You are not to fight them in order to force them to accept the new religion as Muhammad and his followers did.

We did not say that Muhammad did not call them to believe in Islam first. We acknowledge that, but we blame him because whenever they rejected his invitation, he fought and killed them Are these the human rights? Don’t you understand, Dr. ’Afifi? Do Muhammad’s teachings make you so blind that you fail to see the simplest principles of human rights? Do you not respect man’s freedom to believe in whatever he wants? Muhammad had the right to call people to embrace Islam and to commission Khalid along with his followers to carry out this task; but he did not have the right to kill them if they refused to accept Islam.

Dr. ’Afifi says that eight kings and princes declined to accept Muhammad’s mission; thus it was incumbent on the Muslims to fight them. We ask him: Why it was incumbent on them to fight those kings and princes? Is their refusal to accept Islam a reason for the Muslims to fight them? "Yes!" This is what all Muslim scholars say, without exception.

Let the people of the West and of the East ponder these events which took place in the course of Islamic history and during the life of Muhammad and after his death. Beware, nations of the world, for any strong Islamic country would implement the same policy of war to obey God’s order and his messenger! !

The Saudi Scholars

In his book, "The Methodology of Islamic Law", Dr. Muhammad al-Amin says (page 17):

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

Thus, God’s words are, "We sent down iron, which has powerful might", followed His saying, "We have sent our apostles with signs." This denotes that if the signs and books fail, then unleash the sword against them, as the Muslim poet said, "The Book (Qur’an) offers guidance, and he who does not turn away (from evil) by the guidance of the book, He will be kept straight by the squadrons."

The reader may be confused and want to inquire about Muhammad’s policy in spreading his mission. They may question his orders to his generals and his explicit attitude towards Abu Sufyan and say, "These attitudes prove to us that Islam forces people to accept it. The case is not limited to ignoring people’s freedom and confiscating their properties only or sentencing the apostate to death, but it also calls for slaying whoever rejects Islam. What is the opinion of the scholar about that? Is force used as compulsion in accepting this religion?"

The Muslim scholars say, "Yes." There is compulsion used in accepting Islam, but this applies only to pagans and those who are irreligious. For Christians and Jews, the orders are to fight them and subject them to the ordinances of Islam, making them pay a poll-tax. In this case, they are spared death and are allowed to keep their faith. They are not forced to embrace Islam because they have three options—become Muslims, fight, or pay the poll-tax. The irreligious have two options only: death or Islam. This is what the Muslim scholars say, and the Qur’an itself teaches the same.

Ibn Hazm and al-Baydawi

In volume 8, part 11, on page 196 Ibn Hazm remarks decisively,

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

"When the sacred months elapse, kill those who associate other gods with God, wherever you find them" (Surah 9:5).

The Imam al-Baydawi offers us (page 58 of his commentary) exactly the same interpretation.

Abu Bakr El Sadiq

In Al Road Al Anf (part 4, p. 240), Ibn Hisham indicates that Abu Bakr (the daily companion of Muhammad and among the first who believed in him) used to converse with Ibn Abu Rafi al-Ta’i and to say to him:

"God—to whom belong the might and exaltation—has sent Muhammad with this religion for which he fought until people entered this religion by hook or by crook."

This phrase, I believe, is self-explanatory—"by crook" !

The Imam al-Shafi’i

In his famous book, "The Ordinances of Qur’an" (page 50 of the second part), the Shafi’i says:

"The apostle of God defeated the people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook."

Again we have this clear declaration—"by crook". This is what actually happened.

The Qur’an Exposes the Aggressive Nature of Islam

The Qur’anic verses reveal to us the aggressive, hostile nature of the Islamic mission and of Muhammad. The Qur’an includes verses pertaining to fighting against infidels, as well as other verses related to Holy War against Christians and Jews.

Pertaining to the Infidels

"But when the sacred months elapse, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them and seize them, besiege them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Surah 9:5).

How did Muslim scholars and chroniclers interpret this verse in order to understand what Muhammad did after the conquest of Mecca and its occupation?

The Jalalan

In this commentary, which was published by the Azhar in 1983 (page 153), the authors say decisively,

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

As you see, this verse was inspired in order to free Muhammad (and God) from any peaceful and protective covenant which Muhammad made with the people of Mecca, as if the covenant were shameful behavior from which Muhammad (and his God) must free themselves. Nothing remains after that, except the pledge of war and massacre, as Ibn Hisham says later.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:

"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels."

This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people.

Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily

In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text:

"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."

Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words:

"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).

Ibn Kathir, Al-Baydawi-al-Tabari (The Pillars of Islam)

Isma’il Ibn Kathir reiterates the above interpretation on page 336 of his commentary. He also asserts that this verse (9:5) is the verse of the sword which abrogated any previous covenant between the prophet and the infidels. On pp. 246 and 247, the Baydawi borrows Ibn Kathir’s explanation and indicates to us the four months which were Shawal, Dhu al-Qu’da, Dhu al-Hijja and Muharram. The Baydawi adds that after the elapse of these four months, the infidels must be taken as prisoners lest they enter Mecca. In this case, they don’t have any choice except either to embrace Islam or to be killed. Al Tabari said the same words and the same explanation on p. 206, 207 of his commentary dar-el-Sheroq.

Dr. Muhammad Sa’id al-Buti

We would like to conclude our discussion about this verse by referring to the opinion of one of the most eminent scholars of Azhar and the Islamic world. In his book, "The Jurisprudence of the Biography", he says,

"The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars" (pp. 323, 324).

Dr. Sa’id, I wish that Westerners would actually believe your statement! I wish that Western people would drop any notion that Holy war is a defensive war! You really astonish me, though, because you regard the offensive war designed to spread the faith to be legal as if you had never heard of an agency in New York called the United Nations or of human rights. You even say that offensive war is "the apex and the most honorable Holy War" among all wars!

Pertaining to the People of the Book

Explicitly and shamelessly, the Qur’an declares (Chapter of Repentance, 9:29),

"Fight against those who have been given the scripture but believe not in Allah nor the last day, and who forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His messenger, and who follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute willingly, being brought into submission" (p. 182, English copy by Saudi Arabian scholars).

Muslim scholars have agreed on the interpretation of this transparent verse by which all the Muslim warriors were guided in their offensive, violent wars against peaceful people.

The Baydawi

In his book, "The Lights of Revelation", a commentary on the Qur’an, he remarks,

"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth, namely Islam, which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax with submission and humiliation" (page 252).

The Tabari

On page 210, the Tabari declares in his commentary that this verse is referring in particular to the people of the Book and has direct relation to the preceding verse (9:28). He said that the reason for the revelation of this verse (9:29) was that God had prohibited infidels from coming to the mosque for pilgrimage any more. They used to come with food and to trade. Muslims said, "Then, where we can get food?" They were afraid of poverty; thus God gave this verse so that they could collect money (the poll-tax)from the people of the Book.

This same interpretation is also found in the "Biography of the Apostle" by Ibn Hisham (p. 104 in part 4), and in the Jalalan. The rest of the scholars agree upon this interpretation. I would like to quote here the text of the two verses (9:28-29) because they really complement each other. The Qur’an says:

"O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not approach the sacred Mosque after this year, and if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you (if He wills) out of His bounty for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise ... fight against the people of the Book ...." (to the end of verse 29).

The Tabari adds:

"The meaning of the Qur’anic statement: ‘... until they pay the poll-tax with submission and humiliation’ (literally: to pay by hand and with forced submission) is that the Muslim will receive the tax imposed on Christians and Jews while he is sitting and they are standing. He will take it from their own hands since the Christian or the Jew should not send the money with a messenger but come himself and stand to pay it to the Muslim who will be sitting. The saying, ‘with forced submission’, also means with humiliation" (page 210).

The Jalalan (Al Suyti and ’Al Mahally)

On page 156, we find the same words and interpretation stated by the Tabari. Then he adds:

"The order to fight the people of the Book is because they do not prohibit what the apostle had forbidden such as wine."

Then he explains the humiliating procedure by which Christians have to pay the poll-tax—exactly as the Tabari described it.

Ibn Hisham Al Sohaily

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle" (Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 201), Ibn Hisham repeats the above-mentioned quotation and adds,

"The poll-tax is to be paid by the Christian or the Jew forcibly and submissively. It is to spare their lives; that is, they pay it in lieu of being killed because if they did not pay it, they would be killed unless they intended to become Muslims, then they would be exempted from paying it."

The Shafi’i:

Lastly, we would like to refer to the Shafi’i’s statement in his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an" (part 2, p. 50),

"The apostle of God killed and captured (many) of the people of the Book until some of them embraced Islam, and he imposed the poll-tax on some others."

For God’s sake, Muhammad! You killed and captured Jews and Christians, who believe in one God—the followers of Moses and Jesus—and forced them either to embrace Islam or to pay the poll-tax!

In the same book and part, the Shafi’i summarizes the entire situation, whether in relation to infidels or to the people of the Book. He says,

"From idolaters and those who associate other gods with God, the poll-tax is not to be accepted. Either they believe in Islam or be killed, but the people of the Book can pay the poll-tax with submission and humiliation whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs" (pp. 52,53).

The Shafi’i adds in the same source (pp. 62-64) saying,

"When the people of Islam became strong enough, God revealed the chapter of Repentance and ordained the fight against the people of the book until they pay the poll-tax."

If the reader wonders why, I would remind him of what the Tabari and Ibn Hisham said—Muslims were afraid of poverty and they wanted to acquire properties and bounties. Thus the Qur’an explained, "If you fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty...Fight... the people of the Book... until they pay the poll-tax."

Isn’t this the same as crimes committed by bandits and pirates? Yet, this is exactly what Muhammad used to do. On various occasions, Muhammad himself attacked the caravans (or he would order his followers to do so) to plunder them.

In short, Islamic law calls for the death penalty for apostates and forces peaceful infidels (unbelievers)either to accept Islam or be killed. If they are the people of the Book, they have a choice either to be killed, to become Muslims, or to pay the poll-tax in humiliation.

Where are human rights? Where is respect for the individual’s freedom to choose the faith he wants?

Contemporary Muslim Scholars Concur on the Principle of Offensive War

In addition to the foregoing quotations, I would like to add some statements which may have more bearing for international readers. I will include many other declarations quoted from publications of the Liberation Party in Jerusalem as made by another Muslim scholar.

"The Jurisprudence of the Biography" by al-Buti (7th ed.) published by the Azhar in Egypt

This book was revised by Al Azhar, so it is accepted by all Muslims and is well-known all over the Islamic world. It deals with Muhammad’s biography, interprets it and comments on the most famous events of his life. The author states (page 324) that the offensive war is legal. He literally uses these words,

"The concept of Holy War in Islam does not take into consideration whether (the war is) a defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of God and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case it is the apex, the most noble Holy War. It is legal to carry on a Holy War."

The implications are plain enough—there is no need for comment. Then he adds on p. 242,

"Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission which the prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase; that is, calling all people to embrace Islam so that nothing less would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God than that they embrace Islam. Also, nothing would be acceptable from the people of the Book except conversion to Islam or being subjugated to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight anyone who attempts to stand in its way. Now, after the domination of Islamic rule is in place, and its mission complete, it is meaningless (in regard to Holy War) to (talk about) defensive wars, as some of the researchers do. Otherwise, what does Muhammad’s statement mean (as it is related by the Bukhari), ‘They would not invade you, but you invade them ’?"

It is obvious that defensive warfare was a temporary phase in Muhammad’s strategy. After that, a second phase followed which was offensive war, a legal tool for holy war. In this phase, people were not left to enjoy their status quo, but were invaded and they suffered the horrors of the war, though they did not attempt to start a war or to invade the Muslims. It is as Muhammad said: "They will not invade you, but you are those who will invade them." Why? Is it an order to impose Islam on infidels or to kill them? Or (as is the case with the people of the Book) are they either to accept Islam, fight a war, or surrender and pay the poll-tax with humiliation?

This is an explicit declaration and Dr. Buti does not hide the truth. To the contrary, he boasts of it and asserts that it is wrong to regard Islamic wars as defensive wars. He insists that this is a false concept which some researchers have reiterated along with Western nations in order to halt the Islamic march.

Let the entire world listen to the opinion of one of the most famous Muslim scholars from the Azhar University as he demands the resumption of war to conquer the world. He says (pages 265 and 266),

"The concept by which the mission directed itself from the beginning of Muhammad’s migration to Medina to the Hudaybiyya treaty, was simply a defensive phase of the plan. During this stage, the prophet did not initiate an attack or start an invasion, but after the treaty of Hudaybiyya, the prophet intended to enter a new, essential phase in accordance with Islamic law. This was the phase of fighting those who heard the message but arrogantly rejected it. This phase, by the act of Muhammad and his word, has become a legal decree, according to Muslims in every age until the day of resurrection!"

I wonder, "Why should Muhammad fight them? Is it because they rejected his faith that he should fight with them?" The Azhari scholar answers, "Yes, because they arrogantly refused to believe in him, so he added that this new stage of war; that is, the phase of fighting unbelievers. This came after the completion of the defensive period which followed the treaty of Hudaybiyya. It has become (according to Muslims) legal in every age until the day of resurrection."

Dr. Buti continues:

"...This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack" (page 266).

Many have thought as much, but it is obvious from this statement that defensive warfare is an attempt made by Western thinkers to hide from the eyes of Muslims the reality of offensive warfare. If we wonder why Western thinkers do that, Dr. Buti answers this question on the same page 266 saying,

"It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?"

Have European, American and Eastern people—as well as the governments of the World—read these obvious words? We have been led to believe that Muhammad and his followers only waged defensive wars. Yet here they declare that defensive warfare was a temporary strategy at the beginning of Islam. Six years after Muhammad’s departure from Mecca to

Medina, a new phase has begun; namely, offensive warfare. Muslims are concerned that the popular notion that Islamic wars were nothing more than defensive wars is a deception invented by the people of the West to divert Muslims away from allowing the dream of Holy War to be revived in their hearts. The West is afraid that the Islamic dream would set off a holy, offensive war in order to establish God’s state on Earth (an Islamic government) and to make God’s word supreme. Then Western civilization would collapse.

There is no need to comment further on these statements, but I would like to tell Dr. Buti something: If the mind set of the European man is potentially ready to embrace Islam, it is because he is not exposed to the reality of Islam or who Muhammad really was. Only such books as ours will remove the Islamic deceptive veils. If real Islam is truly exposed, it will be eradicated not only in Europe, America, Asia and Africa, but also in Arab countries as well. People will re-examine the reality of this religion and the prophethood of this Arabic man called Muhammad.

We tell you, Dr. Buti, that powerful foreign countries are not afraid of Arab countries and Islamic states which do not have modern technology because one strong foreign country can annihilate all these countries. If the state of Israel alone is able to exhaust all the Arab countries, how much more can other powerful foreign countries do so? If foreign countries claim that Islamic wars were defensive wars, that is because they have been deluded and have believed the deception, but praise be to God for people like you who expose the ugly truth to them.

You have demonstrated to them that holy war in Islam is a continuing ideal which will last to the day of resurrection. It is a plan in which it is incumbent on all Muslims to fight (in the cause of God) those who reject Islam. This concept started in the sixth year of the Hegira and continues to the present.

As Dr. Buti endeavors to justify the principle of offensive warfare, he remarks that offensive war is the most noble of all wars and the verses (chapter 9:29 and 9:5) do not leave any room in the imagination for defensive warfare. He addresses his readers,

"You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace Islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?" (pages 266 and 267).

I would like to ask you, Dr. Sa’id El Buti, you who are a contemporary scholar at the Azhar University: How can people of the twentieth century understand and accept your logic of imposing a certain religion on a person with the death penalty as the only alternative? Would it not be more reasonable for Muslims to understand and accept the concept of human rights and the freedom to embrace the creed a person wishes to believe, in accordance with his conviction? We take into consideration your circumstances and we understand that you would be likely to defend Islam and the Qur’an. You would be likely to defend Muhammad’s behavior, sayings and all that his companions and successors did, but let me tell you that twentieth century thinking rejects your attitude.

On the other hand, who told you that the state and its rulers have the right to impose regulations and systems on their citizens as they wish? Don’t you know that the people of modern countries in Europe and America vote on the constitution they feel is appropriate for them? They even elect their rulers as well as the people’s assemblies, such as parliament. The people in these democratic countries have the authority to remove the leaders of the state if they fail to act in accordance with their constitutions which were established by free elections and public vote.

Maybe you are comparing yourself to the governments of underdeveloped countries (like most of the Arab and Islamic countries) which are characterized by the rule of one individual, tyranny, terrorism and the neglect of human rights. Woe to the one who opposes the ruler or dares to change his Islamic religion! Some Islamic countries subject him to Islamic law, and carry out the orders of Muhammad and his successors by sentencing him to death immediately. Other countries are content to put him in jail and torment him for a while.

Dr. Sa’id, what makes you think that God’s character is similar to the character of the rulers of these tyrannical states? We pray that the time will come when there is freedom for evangelism and the preaching of the Gospel in the Arab world for the benefit of the Arab people—first and last. We also pray that the rulers of the Arab countries will become like Gorbachev, the former ruler of Russia, who guaranteed religious freedom and opened wide the door of human rights and individual freedom.

God (the only eternal, true God) is not the one who exists in your mind or the one about whom Muhammad preached, but He is the God of love and freedom. He is the God of Christian revelation. The true God is not a God who demands that a poll-tax be paid to Muhammad, or a God of capturing women and children, or of slaughtering the men of peaceful towns if they do not become Muslims Yours is an imaginary God who does not exist. The true God says,

"Let the one who thirsts, come. And the one who desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22: 17).

He also says,

"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, "Come, buy and eat ... let your soul delight itself in abundance" (Isa. 55:1-2).

Arab Scholars in Jerusalem

"The Book of the Islamic State" by Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahan was published in 1953. It encapsulates the entire issue in simple, plain style and in explicitly few words. It will suffice to quote four self-explanatory paragraphs which need no comment because they are obvious.

On pages 112, 113, and 117, Taqiy al-Din says,

"The foreign policy of Islamic states must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of holy war. This process has been established through the course of the ages from the time the apostle settled down until the end of the last Islamic state which was ruled by Islamic law. This process has never been changed at all. The apostle Muhammad, from the time he founded the state in the city Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam.

"He subdued the tribe of Quraysh as a body, along with other similar groups until Islam prevailed all over the Arabian peninsula. Then the Islamic state started to knock at the doors of other states to spread Islam. Whenever it found that the nature of the existing system in these states was a barrier which prevented the spread of the mission, they saw it as inevitable that the system be removed. So holy war continued as a means of spreading Islam. Thus by holy war, countries and regions were conquered. By holy war, kingdoms and states were removed and Islam ruled the nations and peoples.

"The glorious Qur’an has revealed to Muslims the reasons for fighting and the ordinance of holy war and it declares that it is to carry the message of Islam to the entire world. There are several verses which command the Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam. Therefore, carrying the Islamic mission is the basis on which the Islamic state was established, the Islamic army was founded, and holy war was ordained. All the conquests were achieved accordingly. Fulfilling the Islamic mission will restore the Islamic state to the Muslims."

Then he adds on pages 113, 114, and 115,

"If holy war is the established, unchangeable means of spreading Islam, then political activities become a necessity before initiating the fight. If we besiege the infidels, we would call them to embrace Islam first. If they accept Islam, they become part of the Islamic community, but if they reject Islam, they have to pay the poll-tax. If they pay it, they spare their blood and properties, but if they refuse to pay the poll-tax, then fighting them becomes lawful."

Readers, please note that these same words and principles are confirmed by all the Muslim scholars who are well acquainted with the saying and deeds of Muhammad and his successors.

On pages 115 and 116 Taqiy al-Din indicates again this historical statement,

"The Islamic system is a universal system, thus it was natural that it would spread, and natural that countries would be conquered. Here the apostle is receiving from Muslims the pledge of ’aqaba the Second, making a pact with him to fight all people. Those Muslims were the core of the army of the Islamic state whose military task was to carry the Islamic mission. The apostle of God had designed the plan of conquest before his death, then after him, his successors undertook the responsibility of implementing this plan when they started conquering the countries. Later, the Islamic conquests followed successively on this basis. People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people in all countries."

Let the reader ponder these words and judge for himself. "People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because Islam is for all people"; namely, by force, conquest, and war.

But I would like to state here that Christianity is also a universal system, and it is for all people. Christ said,

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..." (Mark 16:15).

Anyone who believes will be saved and whoever does not believe, God will judge. Christ did not say, "Go into the world and preach. Whoever believes becomes one of us, and whoever does not believe should pay the poll-tax to the Christian army or be put to death." He did not say that! This is a crucial difference, my dear reader, between Christ and Muhammad, between Christianity and Islam.

The Bloody History of Islam

Having surveyed the incidents which took place during the life of Muhammad, it is appropriate to mention the events which occurred after his death and how the Caliphs who succeeded him carried out the same Muhammadic principle and the Qur’anic instructions The history of Islam talks to us with two bloodied hands—first is the blood of peaceful people who safely inhabited the land until they were invaded by the Muslim armies which marched from the Arab Peninsula after the death of Muhammad. In the name of spreading the religion, they killed millions of people, and in the name of exalting the word of God, they plundered properties and divided the "booty" of women and children among themselves, the same as Muhammad did in the course of his campaigns. These Arab Islamic armies obeyed Muhammad’s orders and the Qur’anic commands. They believed that spreading Islam and taking the material abundance came from God. The Qur’an explicitly says,

"Allah promises you much booty (spoils of war) that you will capture" (Chapter 48:20).

Muslim scholars do not negate these historically confirmed facts, but rather they brag about them, and their books (both old and modern) are filled with the details of these events. They mention them with pride, and they are glad to explain and demonstrate how the Arab Islamic armies attacked all the Persian lands and part of the Byzantine territories and occupied them. They could tell you how these armies took over Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and, of course, Libya and all of Africa until the Muslim army reached the borders of China and the regions of Iran. Even Spain had fallen into their hands for hundreds of years. They proceeded then toward France, but they were stopped in the battle of Tours at the hands of Charles Martel. These wars were offensive wars of the first degree. Islam dominated these countries. Nowadays, all Muslim countries belong to the under-developed third world.

Before we let the Muslim chroniclers narrate to us what happened, it is fit here to clarify a very significant issue about which many people inquire.

The Cross Denounces the Crusades

These were bitter wars led by the princes of Europe for a period of time without any justification except ruthlessness of the heart and faithlessness of those leaders, who (despite their claims that they were attempting to deliver the Christians in the Islamic East from the persecution of the Muslims) were not true believers in Christ or in His teachings. Where in the Gospel do we find any call for war? In this study, we compare Christ with Muhammad, the Gospel with the Qur’an, the sublime teaching of Christianity with the clear teachings of Islam.

Did Christ lead any war to spread the faith, to divide the booty and to capture women to enslave them for himself and for his followers?
Did Christ order His followers to do so?
Did he order Peter to sheath his sword when he unsheathed it and struck the servant of the Jewish high priest when Christ’s enemies hastened to arrest him?
Did Christ’s successors and disciples wage wars and march into battle to take poll-taxes and to spread Christianity?
These are the conclusive questions which reveal the difference between Christ and Muhammad, between Christianity and Islam. If some Christians came after hundreds of years had elapsed and committed such detestable things, Christ and Christianity would certainly denounce such deeds. On the other hand, the Islamic wars were waged by Muhammad himself, then by his relatives and companions who lived with him day after day and to whom he promised paradise.

The other important thing is that they were executing the unequivocal teachings of both Muhammad and the Qur’an which we mentioned previously in this chapter. We have many books which all talk thoroughly and in detail about the offensive wars. The most famous of these books is "The Chronicles of Al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir" and "The History of the Caliphs" by the Suyuti. The entire Islamic world relies on these books.

Among the contemporary scholars who rely on these sources and quote from them is Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi, professor of civilization at the Azhar University. His respected book, "al-Khulafa’ al-Rashidun" The Rightly Guided Caliphs", or successors) from which we quoted when we discussed the wars of apostasy, examines these things. We have selected a few quotations from these sources and references because they almost all repeat each other. These events are well-known and confirmed by all Muslims. They are taught in the public schools in all the Islamic countries, especially in the Arab world.

"The Rightly Guided Caliphs" by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi

Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi discusses the Islamic wars which were initiated by the four caliphs who succeeded Muhammad and who, at the same time, are his favored relatives. These caliphs are: Abu Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthman and ’Ali. Muhammad married ’Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, and Hafesa, daughter of ’Umar. ’Uthman married Ruqayya, the daughter of Muhammad, then after her death, he married her sister Um Kalthum. ’Ali was married to Muhammad’s youngest daughter, Fatima al-Zahra.

On pages 35-38, Dr. Abu Zayd remarks,

"Muhammad had prepared an army to invade the borders of Syria. When Muhammad died Abu Bakr sent an army headed by Usama Ibn Zayd and ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab. The army marched towards southern Palestine and invaded some parts of the land, frightened the people and captured some booty."

At the beginning of page 70, Dr. Abu Zayd talks about the Islamic conquests and indicates that at the inception of the year 12 of Hajira, Abu Bakr ordered Khalid Ibn al-Walid to invade Persian lands and to seize the ports near Iraq. Khalid marched with the army, but before he started the war, he sent his famous message to Hermez, one of the Iraqi generals, "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax, or fight." The Hermez declined to accept any of these terms but war. The Persians were defeated in this battle and Khalid seized the booty and sent Abu Bakr one-fifth of the spoils of war, exactly as they were accustomed to send to Muhammad. One-fifth of the booty belonged to God and to Muhammad.

Abu Bakr presented Khalid with the Hermez’s tiara which was inlaid with gems. Dr. Abu Zayd says the value of the gems amounted to 100,000 dirham (p. 73). After that, the successful, savage invasions continued against other countries which could not repel the forces of Islam. This Azhar scholar tells us that in the battle of Alees which took place on the border of Iraq, Khalid killed 70,000 people! He was so brutal in his attack that the nearby river was mixed with their blood (p. 75).

On p. 77, Dr. Abu Zayd mentions another country which surrendered to Khalid. Khalid demanded that they pay 190,000 dirhams. When he attacked Ayn al-Tamr in Iraq, its people took shelter in one of the fortresses. Khalid laid siege to the fortress and forced them to come out. He killed all of them mercilessly. They had done nothing against him or against the Muslims except that they refused to embrace Islam and to recognize Muhammad as an apostle of God. The Muslims seized all that they found in the fortress along with forty young men who were studying the Gospel. Khalid captured them and divided them among the Muslims (refer to p. 81).

It is well-known that Khalid Ibn al-Walid was a very brutal, vicious man. His relentlessness made ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab ask Abu Bakr to kill him or at least to depose him because he killed another Muslim in order to marry his wife! Abu Bakr did not listen, but when ’Umar became the second caliph, he deposed him immediately This was ’Umar’s opinion about Khalid. Yet, to Muhammad, the prophet of Muslims, Khalid was one of the best among his relatives and warriors.

On page 134, Abu Zayd relates that when Khalid besieged another town called Qinnasrin which belonged to the Byzantine Empire, its people were so afraid that they hid themselves from him. He sent them a message in which he said: "Even if you hide in the cloud, God will lift us up to you or He will lower you down to us." They asked for a peace treaty, but he refused and killed them all. Then he eradicated the town. These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd which we faithfully relay to you.

Dr. Abu Zayd continues to list the names of the towns and the regions which the Islamic army invaded after the fall of ’Ain al-Tamr. He says:

"By the end of the year 12, Hajira Abu Bakr became interested in Syria (Al Sham). He issued orders to four of his great generals and designated for each one of them a country which he was given to invade. He assigned Damascus to Yazid, Jordan to Sharhabil, Homs to Abu ’Ubayda and Palestine to ’Umru Ibn al-’As.

We wonder: Are these wars defensive wars or are they definitely offensive wars and unjustified military invasions? Abu Bakr’s era ends during the famous battle of Yarmick in which tens of thousands were slain for no reason except to impose religion by force, capturing women and plundering the properties. Muslims claim that Abu Bakr died from eating poisoned food a few months before.

When ’Umar was elected to the Caliphate, he deposed Khalid Ibn al-Walid and replaced him immediately with Abu ’Ubayda.

The Caliphate (ruling period) of ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab

The Invasion of Persia

’Umar Ibn al-Khattab sent Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas to invade Persia. He camped in al-Qaddisia near the river Euphrates. Dr. Abu Zayd narrates for us a very important incident (pages 117-118) which we would like to examine. The author says:

"Sa’d sent some of his followers (among them the Mu’man Ibn Maqrin to Yazdagird, one of the Persian generals) who asked him, ‘What enticed you and brought you to invade us?’ (Ibn Maqrin) said to him, ‘Choose for yourself either Islam or the poll-tax or the sword.’ The Persian general became very angry and said to him, ‘Had it not been (the custom that messengers should not be killed), I would have killed you. Go; you have nothing to do with me."’

Ibn Khaldun confirms this incident in the end of the second volume of his famous history book (pages 94-96). He says,

"Rustan, the Persian general, said to one of Sa’d’s messengers, ‘You were poor and we used to provide you with plenty of food. Why do you invade us now?"’

It was obvious that the Persians had never thought to invade the Arabs, but they used to send them plenty of food because of the poverty of the Arab peninsula. Never-the-less, the Arabs seized the opportunity to invade Persia after they realized that the Persians had been weakened by its wars with the Byzantine Empire and their own internal problems. Thus, they repaid compassion with wickedness and goodness with evil. The question which the Persian general Sa’d asked was a logical one, "Why do you attack us? Did we mistreat you?" The answer was also very clear, "You have three options!" Dr. Abu Zayd says on in p. 123:

"Sa’d seized (after the battle of Qadisiyya) all that was in the treasury of Khusro of money and treasure. It was so plentiful that each Arab horseman received 12,000 dirham."

The Invasion of Damascus

On pages 131 and 132 of the same book, "The Rightly Guided Caliphs," the author indicates,

"Abu ’Ubayda marched towards Damascus and besieged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance. Then Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of people. (They were forced) to ask for a peace treaty. Abu ’Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and ordered him to invade the neighboring (cities). He attacked Sidon, Beirut, and others."

The Attack on Jerusalem

On pages 136 and 137, we read about the attack of ’Umru Ibn al-’as on Jerusalem. He besieged it for four months. Then its Christian inhabitants agreed to pay the poll-tax and to surrender to ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the caliph. ’Umar made the trip to Jerusalem and laid the foundation of the mosque. With that, the conquest of Syria was accomplished, but as the pestilence (plague) raged, many of the high-ranking generals of the Islamic army died, among them Abu Ubayda, Yazid and Sharahbil.

The Invasion of Wealthy Egypt

On pages 141 and 142, the author narrates how the invasion and occupation of Egypt were accomplished. Among the justifications which ’Umru Ibn al-’As presented to ’Umar which convinced him to allow ’Umru to attack Egypt were the following:

"Egypt’s abundance and yields are plentiful. The conquest of Egypt would gain for the Muslims a foothold in Syria and make it easier for them to invade Africa to spread Islam."

It is important to mark ’Umru’s statement that "Egypt’s abundance and yields are plentiful." Eventually Egypt and Africa were both conquered.

On pages 145 and 146, the professor of civilization at the Azhar relates how ’Umru besieged the Fortress of Babylon (south of ancient Egypt) for a full month, and that he said to the messengers of the Muqawqis, the governor of Egypt,

"There is nothing between us and you except three things:

(1) Embrace Islam, become our brethren and you will have what we have and you will be subjected to what we are subjected (in this case they would pay alms to the treasury of the state).

(2) If you refuse that, you are obligated to pay tribute with humiliation.

(3) War.

"The Muqawqis attempted to offer them something different, but they rejected it. At last, after a fight, he accepted the second condition, namely to pay tribute and to be subjugated to Islamic rule. The Muslims entered Egypt. "

On page 147 and 148 Abu Zayd describes the conquest of Alexandria and denies that the Muslims burned the famous library of Alexandria. Yet he admits that many chroniclers have mentioned that ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab ordered ’Umru to burn it entirely.

After the conquest and the occupation of Egypt, the author says (page 151) that ’Umru wanted to secure this conquest from the west by conquering Tripoli of Libya, and from the south by seizing Ethiopia. Thus at the close of the year 21 H. as Ibn Khaldun and Yaqut al-Kindi remarked (that is in the first half of the year 643 A.D. as Ibn al Athir and other chroniclers said), "’Umru marched on with his horsemen towards Tripoli."

On page 153 he adds:

"’Umru besieged Tripoli for a month. It was a well-fortified city. At last a group of Muslims infiltrated the city and fought some of the Byzantines who soon fled. ’Umar entered the city and captured all that was in it, then he assailed the city of Sabra without warning and conquered it by force. He seized all that could be seized from it. Then he sent his army to Ethiopia, but he failed to enter it and suffered great losses. The skirmishes continued until a peace treaty was signed during the time of ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan."

Are these wars considered defensive? What is an offensive war then?

During the Caliphate of ’ Uthman Ibn ’Affan

On pages 167 and 168, the book tells us:

"’Uthman ordered ’Abdalla Ibn Abi al-Sarh to invade Africa, then he sent Abdalla Ibn al-Zubayr. They slaughtered thousands of the people among them their king, Jayan, and they captured booty."

These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd in his famous book, "The Rightly Guided Caliphs". We have quoted him word for word. Let the reader ponder these words and judge for himself. What is the crime of these people, whether in Africa or Syria or Egypt or in other countries? Muslims say—That was for the exaltation of God’s word. God the compassionate, the Merciful!

The Wars to spread Islam

On pages 66 and 67 Dr. Abu Zayd confesses clearly,

"The thing which compelled Abu Bakr to invade Persia and the Byzantine Empire was not to seize their abundance, but rather to spread Islam. This claim is based on evidence that the generals of the Islamic armies used to call the countries to embrace Islam before they started fighting them. Khalid Ibn al-Walid sent a message to the princes of Persia saying:

"After all, accept Islam and you will be safe, or pay the tribute; otherwise I will come to you with a people who desire death as you desire drinking wine."

Yes and no, Dr. Abu Zayd! Yes, we accept your confession that the war was to spread Islam. We agree that spreading Islam was an essential incentive for war. We are content with your unequivocal confession in regard to this matter. We have written these pages in order to denote these facts and nothing more—to prove that Islam was spread by sword and that the Islamic wars were offensive wars. Your confirmation and faithful narration of history in "The Rightly Guided Caliphs" have helped us to prove this fact. Thank you.

Yet, we disagree with you when you claim that material abundance was not another reason for these wars. We will not allow you to conceal this obvious fact because you yourself have unintentionally alluded to it when you listed the reasons for the invasion of Egypt—among them were "the abundance of Egypt and its yields". More than that, ponder what the Qur’an says in Chapter 48 :20:

"Allah (God) promises you much booty that you will capture" (Qur’an).

Or let us listen to Muhammad’s explicit statement in which he (after exhorting his warriors to fight bravely) promised the plunder of the country. Did you forget, Dr. Abu Zayd, what Muhammad said? Let me remind you. Muhammad said,

"You see, God will soon make you inherit their land, their treasures and make you sleep with their women" (Lit: make their women’s beds for you).

These plain, disgraceful words are recorded by Ibn Hisham on page 182 Vol. II, of his famous book, "Al Rod Al Anf", which all the researchers regard as a reliable reference. Thus, when Muslims invaded a certain land incited by the desire to possess the land, treasures, and women, they were actually fulfilling God’s promise as it was stated in the Qur’an and in Muhammad’s pledge.

"The Beginning and the End," by Ibn Kathir (vol. 7)

We would like to quote a few incidents from this book by Ibn Kathir who is one of the ancient Muslim scholars and chroniclers and a reliable source for all students of Islamic history. On page 2, we read the following,

"At the inception of the year 13 of the Hajira, Abu Bakr was determined to draft soldiers to send them to Syria in compliance with the words of the Qur’an: Fight... those who were given the Scripture (Chapter 9:9); and also follow the example of the apostle of God who gathered the Muslims together to invade Syria before his death."

He also adds on page 9:

"When Abu Bakr sent Khalid to Iraq, Abu Hurayra, who was one of Muhammad’s companions, he used to exhort Muslims to fight by telling them: ‘Hasten to the Houris’ (fair, black-eyed women)."

Those Houris are the nymphs of paradise who are particularly designated for the enjoyment of Muslims.

"‘The Blood of the Byzantine is more delicious’, Khalid said!"

On page 10, Ibn Khathir tells us that when the Byzantine leaders rejected Islam or paying tribute, Khalid told them,

"We are people who drink blood. We were told that there is no blood that is more delicious than the blood of the Byzantines."

Such words well suit people like Khalid, Muhammad’s beloved friend and relative.

On page 13 we read the following,

"Gregorius, one of the great princes of the Byzantines, said to Khalid: ‘What do you call us for?’ Khalid answered him: ‘That you testify that there is no God but the only God and that Muhammad is His messenger and apostle, and to acknowledge all that Muhammad received from God (namely pilgrimage, fasting of Ramadan, etc.).’ Gregorius said to him: ‘And if these are not accepted?’ Khalid responded, ‘Then pay the tribute.’ Gregorius said to him: ‘If we do not give the tribute?’ Khalid said: ‘Then war!"’

Ibn Kathir acknowledges (on page 21) that when the Muslims conquered Damascus, they seized St. John’s church and converted it into the largest mosque in Damascus today (The Umayyad Mosque). On page 55, we read also about the invasion of Jerusalem. On page 123, he states,

"Umar Ibn al-Khattab wrote to Abdil-Rahman Ibn Rabi’a ordering him to invade the Turks (Turkey today)."

The Second Invasion of Africa

In page 165 Ibn Kathir records for us that:

"The second invasion of Africa was accomplished because its people broke their pledge. That was in year 33 of the Hajira (The Moslem Calendar)."

Of course, the people of Africa broke the pledge because that pledge was imposed on them by force in lieu of death. Yet Muslims killed thousands of them. Ibn Kathir already mentioned in page 151 that,

"’Uthman Ibn ’Affan ordered ’Abdalla Ibn Sa’d to invade Africa. [He told him] ‘If you conquer it take 1/25 of its booty.’ ’Abdalla Ibn Sa’d marched towards it at the head of an army of 20,000 soldiers. He conquered it and killed multitudes of people from among its inhabitants until the remnant were converted to Islam and became subject to the Arabs. ’Abdalla took his portion of the booty as ’Uthman told him, then he divided the rest."

How unfortunate were the African people! They were invaded by the Arabs who killed thousands of them, divided the booty, and forced the remnant to embrace Islam. When they broke the pact, the Muslims attacked them again. But are the black African people the only unfortunate people? Or are all the people of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, all the Arab tribes, Spain, even the people of China and India, Cyprus and the Kurds, all the unfortunate peoples? All of these are unfortunate nations who became the victims of Islamic Law which detests human rights and persistently ignores their freedom.

The Invasion of Cyprus and the Kurds

Ibn Kathir tells us that in the year 28 of the Hajira, the conquest of Cyprus was accomplished after ’Abdulla Ibn al-Zubayr slaughtered a multitude of people—as usual. Ibn Khaldun also tells the story of the Kurds. In page 124 of Vol. II, he says,

"Muslims met a number of Kurds. They called them to embrace Islam or pay the tribute. When they refused to do so they killed them and captured their women and children, then divided the booty."

As we see, Ibn Khaldun along with Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari and other chroniclers, ancient and contemporary such as Dr. Abu Zayd, recorded all the Islamic historical events in detail. Moreover, on every occasion Arab newspapers allude boastfully to these memorial episodes of Islamic history and shed light on these savage, wild offensive wars. For instance, we read in the prestigious Ahram newspaper which is published in Egypt, the following,

"During the era of the Caliph ’Umar Ibn ’Abdul-’Aziz, Ibn Qutayba in the year 88H, he invaded some of the neighboring countries of Iran such as Bukhara, and Samarq and marched close to the Chinese border" (refer to the Ahram, Mary 26, 1986, p. 13).

In his book, "The Beginning and the End" (part 9), Ibn Kathir narrates in detail the history of this belligerent general, Ibn Qutayba. He records the story of his campaigns and refers to his biography.

We would like to conclude this chapter with a brief summary which Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahani presents in his book, "The Islamic State" (pp. 121 and 122). He summarizes the history of Islamic offensive wars against the neighboring peaceful countries by saying,

"Muhammad had begun to send troops and initiate campaigns against the Syrian borders such as the campaign of Mu’ta and Tabuk. Then the rightly guided caliphs ruled after him and the conquest continued. (The Arabs) conquered Iraq, Persia, and Syria whose faith was Christianity and which were inhabited by the Syrians, Armenians, some Jews and some Byzantines. Then Egypt and North Africa were conquered. When the Umayyad took over after the rightly guided caliphs, they conquered the Sind, Khawarizm, and Samarqand. They annexed them to the lands of the Islamic state."

According to all Muslim chroniclers, it is well documented that Armenia and Morocco were conquered during the era of ’Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan. When his son, al-Walid, assumed the throne, he invaded India and Andalusia.

Also, Dr. ’Afifi Abdul-Fattah, the Muslim scholar, encapsulates the whole principle in a few explicit, straightforward words, as he says (page 382 of his famous book "The Spirit of the Islamic Religion"),

"Islam has acknowledged war in order to exalt the word of God. This is a fight for God’s cause."

He also adds in p. 390,

"Before the Islamic state declares war against another state, it should give (the other state) the choice between Islam, tribute or war."

We need not say anything more than that. Maybe this is what Muslims mean when they say, "We believe in human freedom and man’s right to choose according to his own will! We present him with three options, and he has the right to choose as he wishes — either to become a Muslim and pay alms to the Caliph of the Muslims, or pay the tribute and submit to Islamic rule, or we kill him."

Let the reader ponder the Muslim contradiction that a man has the right to choose whatever he wants within the Islamic context of individual freedom.

Conclusion

These are the Islamic offensive wars, my dear reader. We have already surveyed the Qur’anic verses which were expounded by both the great ancient and the contemporary Muslim scholars. We also alluded to the sayings of Muhammad, his own deeds and his orders to his companions, relatives and successors. We witnessed the bloody events of Islamic history narrating for us what Muslims did after the death of Muhammad and how they carried out his orders and the commandments of the Qur’an—how they fought with the People of the Book, the Jew and the Christian, until they paid tribute with humiliation and defeat. We have witnessed how they plundered the lands, killed the unfortunate, and captured women and children for no reason.

Moreover, we have already discussed all the matters pertaining to the death penalty of an apostate who dares to relinquish the Islamic faith and to embrace another religion, or to become an atheist. We also referred to an abundance of evidences and interpretations of Muslim scholars along with the deeds and sayings of Muhammad in this respect. He himself gave orders to kill anyone who is an apostate from Islam such as Umm Mirwan as the Azhar and all the Chroniclers denoted, and all those apostates who fled to Mecca.

Regarding offensive wars or imposing the Islamic religion on people by war, Muhammad said: "I was commanded to fight people until they say there is no God but the only God, and Muhammad is the apostle of God, and they perform all the Islamic ordinances and rituals."

We also examined Muhammad’s attitude towards the apostate. He made it clear that the apostate must be sentenced to death. He said about those who relinquish Islam: "Whoever changes his faith...kill him!"

Muhammad indicated that is it unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: Unbelief after belief, adultery after integrity (or being married) and killing a soul without any right. The first case refers to the death penalty of the apostate and the oppression of his freedom and right to embrace any religion other than Islam Those are the clear claims of the Islamic religion as well as of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, who always uttered at the beginning of every prayer or sermon, the following phrase,

"In the name of Allah—the Compassionate, the Merciful!"

We talked about individual freedom and human rights! This is the prophet of freedom, mercy, tolerance and human dignity!

Responses:
[796] [797] [799] [1487]

796

Date: November 23, 2005 at 00:16:30
From: Leigh, [ool-18b9649f.dyn.optonline.net]
Subject: Fear Builds Walls...

I can't help but wonder if you, and in fact all of the people who post messages on this board against Islam and Muslims, know any Muslims personally. I have to think no because, if you did, then I don't see how you could write the things you do. Like Christians and Jews, Buddhists and agnostics as well as those from all, Muslims come in all shapes and sizes, with varying thoughts on a world of issues, including on Islam itself. The article below, from the Daily Star newspaper of Lebanon, speaks to the differening perceptions of the role of Islam and religion throughout various countries in the Middle East. Of course, you can continue to post messages about your belief that Islam is a corrupt religion founded by the evil prophet Mohammed. More beneficial to all of us though would be to look at the commonalities in all people, and the ways to create peace. As I recently saw written in Bethlehem, on the inside of the 'security wall' separating Israel from the Palestinians, "Fear Builds Walls - Hope Builds Bridges!"
-------------------------------
Arab opinion is not monolithic when it comes to religion

Rami G. Khouri

Beirut - The role of religion in public, personal and political life in the Arab world has become a common issue of discussion at gatherings looking at regional trends. Unfortunately, the subject is usually discussed with such intense passion and ideological bias that useful analysis is hard to achieve.

That is why the discussion on religion in business, education and politics in the region that took place a few days ago at the annual meeting of the Arab Business Council in Bahrain was useful and important. Instead of heated argument, a tempered, probing discussion took place, based on empirical data from a new poll of six Arab countries by the leading pollsters Zogby International. The poll, based on face-to-face interviews in Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) during October, asked citizens and residents for their views on education, business and the importance of Sharia (Islamic) law.

Three important overall results struck me (and many others) as significant, suggesting that the issue of religion in public life is more nuanced and less frightening than it is often made out to be by many people both in the Middle East and beyond. The three are that, first, Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East hold a very wide range of views on religion's role in their lives and do not share monolithic perspectives; second, religion is an important part of people's identities and therefore should apply to business and governance in a manner that raises the quality of life; and third, people should continue to interpret religious law and its everyday applications.

The first point has always been clear to citizens and residents in the Middle East, but has been heavily obfuscated or ignored by a growing Western tendency to paint Arabs, Islam and Muslims in a single color. The poll confirmed yet again that Arabs hold a very wide range of views on the role of religion in their public lives, reflecting, for example, the same sort of lively debates on abortion, evolution or prayer in public school that defines American culture. There is no such thing as "an Arab view" on Islamic governance or applying Sharia law. There are many different and often conflicting views, within countries as well as across the region.

The second point is that Arabs tend to be very comfortable with religion's playing a public role in their societies, but they want the impact to produce positive results, in terms of good government, honest business practices and quality education that improves their children's life prospects.

A majority of respondents, except in Lebanon and Jordan, want to apply Islamic Sharia law to business operations (82 percent in Saudi Arabia, 69 percent in the U.A.E., 58 percent in Morocco and 50 percent in Egypt). In Jordan, just 39 percent favor this, and in Lebanon majorities of both the Muslim and Christian populations soundly reject applying Sharia.

The third and perhaps most significant point is that while a majority of citizens polled said Sharia law should be applied to businesses, they also believe that further interpretation is needed to allow businesses in the Muslim world to integrate into the global economy. In other words, most Muslims see Islam and the laws derived from it as living, evolving phenomena that are inspired or dictated by the divine, but that also require constant human reinterpretation to best serve temporal needs like education, business and governance.

Majorities or pluralities in every nation said that further interpretation of Islamic law is needed (78 percent in the U.A.E., 60 percent in Morocco, small majorities in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and just two-fifths of the populations in Egypt and Jordan).

One important issue that keeps many analysts and politicians busy in the region these days is the prospect of Islamist movements - Hamas, Hizbullah, the Muslim Brotherhood - winning democratic elections and coming to power peacefully. The citizens polled across the Arab world "differed substantially on whether they would trust a popularly elected Islamic government to abide by the rules of a democracy," the survey analysts concluded.

Asked whether they would trust an elected Islamic government to follow democratic rules, 72 percent of Saudis and 70 percent of U.A.E. residents said yes, while just 36 percent in Lebanon agreed. Skepticism was highest among Christians in Lebanon - just one in five believes an Islamic government would abide by the laws of democracy. People in Morocco, Egypt and Jordan were more lukewarm to this idea, which is supported by pluralities ranging from 39 percent to 46 percent.

The survey also documented "a striking split between various Arab states on the quality of their education systems." Just 15 percent of Egyptians believe their system prepared young people for successful careers in today's global economy, while 56 percent of Saudis and U.A.E. residents held this view.

The Arabs polled also had very different outlooks on the influence of religion on education in their states. Majorities in Egypt and Lebanon believed religion held too little sway on education and preparing youth for the future (although in Lebanon, this was a majority viewpoint only among Christians). A 54 percent majority in the U.A.E. believed religion was too powerful an influence, though in all other polled countries just 30 percent or less shared this view. In Saudi Arabia, 45 percent believed religion's influence on education was about right and 24 percent thought it too little.

There is much food for thought in these poll results for those who would like to analyze the reality of an Arab-Islamic region that is both differentiated and nuanced in its views on religion and public life. The results certainly show the region is not that imagined Arab world where all people are believed to think the same.

###

* Rami G. Khouri is senior writer for the Daily Star.

Source: Daily Star, November 16, 2005

Visit the website at www.dailystar.com.lb

Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.

Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

Responses:
[797] [799] [1487]

797

Date: November 23, 2005 at 19:02:34
From: Calibigdawg, [lgl04dhammond.cdss.dss.ca.gov]
Subject: Re: Fear Builds Walls...

I really don't hate anybody. Your opinion of me at best is ignorant and ignorance breeds fear. Just because someone dislikes Nazism, it doesn’t mean that they hate Germans. They just find the message from Nazism to be a bit troublesome. The sources that were used in the article are from the Koran, hadiths and reputable scholars within the Muslim community. There are numerous atrocities that have been committed by the practitioners of Islam that for some reason have become lost over time. Here are but a few:

It is estimated that the 8 century long Islamic rule witnessed the massacre of 80 million Hindus26

The “secular” Muslim Mughal ruler of India, Akbar –oh, he had a policy of killing anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 Hindu Rajputs any given day

Hindu Kush mountains are translated into English as “Hindu Slaughter,” “Hindu Killer,” or “ Killing of Hindus

THE BLOODIEST STORY IN HISTORY”
Will Durant in his The Story of Civilisations, describes the Muslim invasion of India as “probably the bloodiest story in history.” The North Western region of India is called the Hindu Kush (“the slaughter of the Hindu”) as a reminder of the vast number of Hindu slaves who died while being marched across the Afghan Mountains to the Muslim slave markets in Central Asia. The Buddhists were also targeted for destruction. In AD 1193 Muhammad Khilji burned to the ground their famous library and the Buddhist stronghold of Bihar.
Shah Jahan is remembered as the builder of the Taj Mahal. What few Westerners know is that the builder of the Taj Mahal launched 48 military campaigns against non-Muslims in just 30 years. In AD 1628 he killed all his male relatives. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem but also indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters. In just one town, Banares, Jahan destroyed 76 Hindu temples. He also demolished Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. When he captured Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, he had 10,000 inhabitants “blown up with powder, drowned in water or burned by fire.” Another 4,000 were enslaved and offered Islam or death. Those who refused to convert were killed.

SPAIN UNDER THE MOORS
Neither was Spain under the Muslim Moors the jewel of Islamic tolerance that it is often purported to be. In AD 920 all the inhabitants of Muez were put to the sword. Cordova, Zarajoza and Merida were burned to the ground, with all adult males executed and all women and children enslaved. In AD 1066 all the Jews of Grenada were slaughtered. In AD 1126, all the Christians of Grenada were deported to Morocco.
In AD 1009, Kalif Hakem of Egypt ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all Christian places of worship in Jerusalem. Christians were persecuted cruelly and pilgrims were attacked.
CARNAGE IN CONSTANTINOPLE
Under Mehmet II the Turks conquered the great Byzantine capital, Constantinople. On 29 May, AD 1453, waves of Turkish soldiers swept into Constantinople, the greatest city in the world at that time, and put it to the sword. Priceless libraries and irreplaceable works of art were burned, the population slaughtered, even in the Hagia Sophia, the greatest Christian church in the world at that time.
For centuries the Turks demanded an annual “blood levy” of Christian boys. Parents were forced to hand over one out of every five Christian boys for service in the Sultan’s army as janissaries.
THE FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUSTS
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam documents hundreds of massacres of Christian populations by Muslim rulers. For example: In 1860 over 12,000 Christians were slaughtered in Lebanon. In 1876 14,700 Bulgarians were murdered by the Turks. 200,000 Armenian Christians were slaughtered by the Turks in Bayazid in 1877. And in 1915 the Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. As recently as September 1922 the Turkish army destroyed the ancient city of Smyrna with its 300,000 Christian population

The mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 vie with the annihilation of the Soviet POWs, the holocaust against the Jews, and the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century. In an attempt to crush forces seeking independence for East Pakistan, the West Pakistani military regime unleashed a systematic campaign of mass murder which aimed at killing millions of Bengalis, and likely succeeded in doing so.

In Southern Sudan, jihad has caused the death of some two million people, generated an even larger number of refugees, lead to the enslavement of tens of thousands, and produced deadly famines.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner-Arafat

As Arafat expanded his control over Christian and Muslim Lebanese, they too became part of the conflict that became a 12-year Civil War, killing 100,000 Christian and Muslim Lebanese.

Lebanon had once been called the Paris of the Middle East, the Garden of Eden spot for vacationing Arabs, with a Banking Center for the Arab world - but all that was destroyed. The Christians and Muslims had worked out a ‘peaceful, political accommodation’ to run Lebanon and, particularly, Beirut. Arafat had stirred them up, so now they were bitter enemies, attacking each other and fighting Arafat’s Palestinian Mini-State of Terror. The killings went on day and night, with whole villages massacred, with a retaliatory massacre soon after. Arafat turned the various Arab refugee camps into his bases of operation. Weapons and explosives were stored in apartment building, hospitals and schools, using the civilians as human shields.

Arafat’s gunman roamed the streets with modified pick-up trucks, manned with 30-50 caliber guns mounted in back. They were looking for various factions of Christian militia to gun down, but Muslims were also shot dead - as were any of the few Jews who still lived in Lebanon. (By that time, the Arab/Muslim nations had ejected almost all of their Jews (approximately 800,000) and had confiscated all their property and assets - personal and community. In effect, this was a replay of Hitler and Europe’s confiscation of all that their Jews owned

In 1982 when the Israeli soldiers entered the hospitals in Lebanon, they found Lebanese Christians’ bodies stacked like cordwood in the hallways. Their blood had been totally drained for transfusions into Arafat’s wounded, ‘more worthy’ fighters (on Arafat’s orders).

Arafat’s men often used a special torture and death on captured prisoners. Copying the Roman technique of drawing and quartering captured prisoners for the amusements of the crowds, Arafat used four cars to slowly pull a man apart by driving in four different directions. Here, too, the mob of Arafatian Arabs found this to be exciting and cheered. This ‘mind-set’ is endemic in most Arab nations; we recall the two Americans in Mosul, Iraq, being shot, pulled from their car, having their throats slit, and being mutilated. Then the mob moved in to crush their heads with cement blocks, and to stamp on the two doomed soldiers.(3) The surrounding mobs cheered delightedly.

This, in turn, was similar to the lynching the Arab Palestinians committed against the two Israeli soldiers who made a wrong turn into Ram’Allah,(4 ) and the frequent lynching of their own people who they accuse of being ‘collaborators’.(5)

Then, there was the matter of the village leaders in Lebanon (the mukhtars of the village) paying baksheesh, a.k.a. protection money, to keep his own village protected from Arafat’s murdering marauders. One mukhtar refused to pay protection money. So, Arafat’s collectors kidnaped the mukhtar’s teen-age daughter, raped her, cut off her breasts and delivered her back to the mukhtar’s doorstep in a gunny sack.(1) No tax collector of a mini-state could have been more convincing.

There were thousands of these examples, photographed, catalogued, books

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895-July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim religious leader. A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council.
Known as the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", he received this title in 1921 after the death of his father (the Mufti of Jerusalem) under the auspices of the then High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel.
He played a major role in Arab resistance to Zionist political ambitions in the British Mandate of Palestine and recruiting Muslims to fight in the German army during World War II. Al-Husayni was very close to many leading Nazis and conducted radio broadcasts and recruitment operations on their behalf during the war.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Early life
• 2 Palestinian nationalism
• 3 Nazi ties and World War II
o 3.1 Pre-war
o 3.2 In Nazi-occupied Europe
 3.2.1 Recruitment
o 3.3 The Holocaust
• 4 Post-war activities
• 5 Mufti's influence
• 6 Footnotes
• 7 References
• 8 See also
• 9 External links

[edit]
Early life
Amin al-Husayni was born in Jerusalem in 1895 (some sources say 1893). He attended al-Azhar University in Cairo (where he founded an anti-Zionist society) and studied Islamic Law for about one year. In 1913 at the age of 18, al-Husayni made the pilgrimage to Mecca and received the honorific of Hajj. Prior to World War I, al-Husayni studied at the School of Administration in Istanbul.
With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husayni joined the Ottoman Turkish army, received a commission as an artillery officer and was assigned to the Forty-Seventh Brigade stationed in and around the predominately Greek Christian city of Smyrna. In November 1916, al-Husayni left the Ottoman army on a three month disability leave and returned to Jerusalem where he remained for the duration of the war. In 1916 he took part in the Arab Revolt and became an acknowledged leader of Palestinian nationalism. He was employed as a clerk in the British military administration in the Department of Public Safety.
In 1919, al-Husayni attended the Pan-Syrian Congress held in Damascus where he supported Emir Faisal for King of Syria. That year, al-Husayni joined (perhaps founded) the Arab secret society El-Nadi al-Arabi (The Arab Club) in Jerusalem and wrote articles for the first new newspaper to be established in Palestine, Suriyya al-Janubiyya (Southern Syria). The paper was published in Jerusalem beginning in September 1919 by the lawyer Muhammad Hasan al-Budayri, and edited by 'Arif al-'Arif, both were prominent members of al-Nadi al-Arabi.
Until late 1921, al-Husayni focused his efforts on Pan-Arabism and Greater Syria in particular with Palestine being a southern province of an Arab state with its capital in Damascus. Greater Syria was to include territory now occupied by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. The struggle for Greater Syria collapsed after Britain ceded control over present day Syria and Lebanon to France in July 1920 in accord with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The French army entered Damascus at that time, overthrew King Faisal and dissolved Greater Syria.
After this, al-Husayni turned from a Damascus oriented Pan-Arabism to a specifically Palestinian ideology centered on Jerusalem and expelling the Jews and foreigners from the British Mandate of Palestine thus restoring it to Dar al-Islam.
[edit]
Palestinian nationalism
Viewing the Balfour Declaration as a betrayal of the Arabs by the British, al-Husayni organized violent anti-Zionist demonstrations in Jerusalem in 1920. His speeches called for unity with Syria, as he had not yet adopted the Palestinian nationalism for which he would become known a few years later.
One such demonstration, in April, 1920, turned into violent attacks against Jews, and in the ensuing riots 5 Jews and 4 Arabs were killed. Several Jews and Arabs were sentenced to prison terms for their parts in the riots, with al-Husayni being sentenced to ten years imprisonment in absentia, since he had already fled to Damascus by way of Trans-Jordan.
In 1921, the British military administration of Palestine was replaced by a civilian one, as a mandate under the League of Nations. The first High Commissioner Herbert Samuel decided to pardon al-Husayni and appointed him Mufti of Jerusalem, a position that had been held by his brother Kamil and the al-Husayni clan for more than a century. The following year Samuel "appointed" him as President of the newly formed Supreme Muslim Council, which controlled the Waqf funds worth annually tens of thousands of pounds, the orphan funds, worth annually about 50,000 pounds, besides controlling the Shariah courts, the Islamic religious court in Palestine. These courts, among other duties, appointed teachers and preachers.
This method of appointment was actually in consonance with tradition (some have said Al-Husayni seized power). For years under Ottoman rule, Muslim clerics would nominate three clerics and the secular temporal leader, the Caliph, would choose among the three who would become the Mufti. After the British took over Palestine, the secular temporal leader was the High Commissioner. This led to the extraordinary situation of a Jew, Herbert Samuel, choosing who would actually become Mufti. The only difference was that in this instance five candidates were nominated instead of three.
Al-Husseini launched an international Muslim campaign to improve and restore the mosque known as the Dome of the Rock. Indeed, the current landscape of the Temple Mount was directly affected by al-Husseini's fundraising activities. He raised the vast sums necessary to plate the Dome of the Rock with gold.
On 19 April 1936, an Arab rebellion broke out in Palestine. Soon the rebellion had spread across the country, openly and officially led by the Mufti and his Arab Higher Committee, founded a week after the rebellion had started. The Committee, presided by the Mufti, proclaimed an Arab general strike and called for nonpayment of taxes, shutting down of municipal governments and demanded an end to Jewish immigration, a ban on land sales to Jews, and national independence. Jewish colonies, kibbutzim and quarters in towns, became the targets for Arab sniping, bombing and other terrorist activities.
The British removed the leaders of his rivalling clan, the Nashashibis (Jerusalem's other most prominent clan, which tended to be more moderate and accommodating than strongly anti-British Husaynis) from influental positions. During most of the period of the British mandate, bickering between these two families seriously weakened the effectiveness of Arab efforts. In 1936 they achieved a measure of unity when all the Palestinian groups joined to create a permanent executive organ known as the Arab High Committee under al-Husayni's chairmanship.
In July 1937, British police were sent to arrest al-Husayni for his part in the Arab rebellion, but he was tipped off and escaped to the Haram where the British thought it inadvisable to touch him. In September he was removed from the presidency of the Muslim Supreme Council and the Arab Higher Committee was declared illegal. In October, he fled to Lebanon, where he reconstituted the committee under his domination. Al-Husayni retained the support of most Palestinian Arabs and used his power to punish the Nashashabis. He remained in Lebanon for two years, but his deteriorating relationship with the French and Syrian authories lead to him escaping to Iraq in Ocotober 1939.
The rebellion lasted until 1939 when it was quelled by the British troops. It forced Britain to make substantial concessions to Arab demands. The British abandoned the idea of establishing Palestine as a Jewish state and, while Jewish immigration was to continue for another five years (allowing a total of 75,000 Jews to immigrate), the immigration was thereafter to depend on Arab consent. Al-Husayni, however, felt that the concessions did not go far enough, and he repudiated the new policy. See also Peel Commission, White Paper of 1939.
[edit]
Nazi ties and World War II
[edit]
Pre-war
In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, al-Husayni sent a telegram to Berlin addressed to the German Consul-General in the British Mandate of Palestine saying he looked forward to spreading their ideology in the Middle East, especially in Palestine and offered his services. Al-Husayni's offer was rejected at first out of concern for disrupting Anglo-German relations by allying with an anti-British leader. But one month later, Al-Husayni secretly met the German Consul-General Karl Wolff near the Dead Sea and expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked him not to send any Jews to Palestine. Later that year, the Mufti's assistants approached Wolff, seeking his help in establishing a National Socialist Arab party in Palestine. Wolff and his superiors disapproved because they didn't want to become involved in a British sphere of influence, the Nazis desired further Jewish immigration to Palestine, and because at the time the Nazi party was restricted to German speaking "Aryans" only.
On 21 July 1937, Al-Husayni paid a visit to the new German Consul-General, Hans Döhle, in Palestine. He repeated his former support for Germany and "wanted to know to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews." He later sent an agent and personal representative to Berlin for discussions with Nazi leaders. From August 1938, Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.
In 1938, though Anglo-German relations were a concern, Al-Husayni's offer was accepted. Al-Husayni's links to the Nazi regime grew very close. From Berlin, al-Husayni would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.
In May 1940, the British Foreign Office declined a proposal from the chairman of the Vaad Leumi (Jewish National Council in Palestine) that they assassinate al-Husayni, but in November of that year Winston Churchill approved such a plan. In May 1941, several members of the Irgun including its former leader David Raziel were released from prison and flown to Iraq on a secret mission which, according to British sources, included to "capture or kill" the Mufti. The Irgun version is that they were approached by the British for a sabotage mission and added a plan to capture the Mufti as a condition of their cooperation. The mission was abandoned when Raziel was killed by a German plane[1].
In April 1941 the "Golden Square" pro-German Iraqi army officers, led by General Rashid Ali, forced the Iraqi Prime Minister, the pro-British Nuri Said Pasha, to resign. In May he declared jihad against Britain. In a few months British troops occupied the country and the Mufti went to Germany, via Iran, Turkey and Mussolini's office in Rome. See Farhud for more details of the events in Iraq.
[edit]
In Nazi-occupied Europe

al-Husayni and Adolf Hitler (1941)
Upon al-Husayni's arrival in Europe, he met the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop on November 20, 1941 and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941 in Berlin. He asked Hitler for a public declaration that "recognized and sympathized with the Arab struggles for independence and liberation, and that it would support the elimination of a national Jewish homeland". Hitler refused to make such a public announcement, but "made the following declaration, requesting the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart:
1. He (the Führer) would carry on the fight until the last traces of the Jewish-Communist European hegemony had been obliterated.
2. In the course of this fight, the German army would - at a time that could not yet be specified, but in any case in the clearly foreseeable future - gain the southern exit of Caucasus.
3. As soon as this breakthrough was made, the Führer would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the Vernichtung des...Judentums ['destruction of the Jewish element', sometimes taken to be a euphemism for 'annihilation of the Jews'] living under British protection in Arab lands.." [2]
The Mufti established close contacts with Bosnian and Albanian Muslim leaders and spent the remainder of the war conducting the following activities:
• Radio propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany
• Espionage and the fifth column activities in Muslim regions of Europe and the Middle East
• The formation of Muslim Waffen SS units in the Balkans
• The formation of schools and training centers for Muslim imams and mullahs who would accompany the Muslim SS and Wehrmacht units.

[edit]
Recruitment

Al-Husayni inspects Waffen SS recruits
Beginning in 1943, al-Husayni was involved in the organization and formation of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. According to Chris Bishop, "Himmler convinced himself that Balkan Muslims were neither Slavs nor Turks, but were really Aryans who had adopted Islam."[3]
The largest was the 13th "Handschar" division of 21,065 men (sometimes spelled Hanjar: the word "scimitar" in Turkish, Arabic Khanjar خنجر), which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944. In fact the 13th SS "Handschar" was made up of at least 10% Catholic Croats. This was done out of compromise as the Croat fascists, the Ustashe, had objected to the recruitment of the Bosnian Muslims, since they were worried about possible independence and considered the Muslim areas part of their "Independent State of Croatia".

Bosnian/Croat soldiers

Al-Husayni salutes the recruits on the cover of magazine "Vienna Illustrated"
The uniform worn by the division was regular SS issue, with a divisional collar patch showing an arm, holding a Scimitar, over a Swastika. On the left arm was a Croatian armshield (red-white chessboard). Headgear was the Fez, in field grey (normal service) or red ("walking out"), with the SS eagle and the SS skull emblazoned. Non-Muslim members could opt to wear the regular SS mountain cap. The oval mountain troop Edelweiss patch was worn on the right arm. The division also had Muslim imams.
The "Handschar" division was entirely commanded by German officers and was sent to France for training where a small number of Communist sympathizers staged a mutiny on September 17-18, 1943. A few were killed during the mutiny and later 12 others were executed by the Germans. The division later completed training in Germany.
It was responsible for a number of atrocities against civilians, mostly committed during its anti-partisan operations, which it was specifically raised for. Towards the end of the war, however, many of its members deserted the division, sometimes with their weapons, as many of the Muslims decided to return to Bosnia to protect their homes and families or defected to Josip Broz Tito's partisans. The division was essentially disbanded by November 1944, although some sources allege a small number continued to fight until being captured or killed by 1945.
The 21st "Kama" division (3,793 men) did not reach divisional operations strength and was disbanded after five months; its personnel being transferred to other units. Additional units included a Muslim SS self-defense regiment in the Raška (Sandžak) region of Serbia, the Ostmusselmanische SS-Regiment.
[edit]
The Holocaust

November 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti: "In the recognition of this enemy (the world Jewry) and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world."
When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Adolf Eichmann in a trade prisoner-of-war exchange involving the freeing of German citizens in exchange for 5,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and the exchange was cancelled.
Among the sabotage al-Husayni organized was an attempted chemical warfare assault on the second largest and predominantly Jewish city in Palestine, Tel Aviv. Five parachutists were sent with a toxin to dump into the water system. The police caught the infiltrators in a cave near Jericho, and according to Jericho district police commander Fayiz Bey Idrissi, "The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers."[4]
[edit]
Post-war activities
After the war, al-Husayni fled to Switzerland, was detained and put under house arrest in France, but escaped and was given asylum in Egypt. Zionist groups petitioned the British to have him indicted as a war criminal. The British declined, partly because they considered the evidence indecisive but also because such a move would have added to their growing problems in Egypt and Palestine, where al-Husayni was still popular. Yugoslavia also unsuccessfully sought his extradition.
From Egypt al-Husayni was among the sponsors of the 1948 war against the new State of Israel. The Jordanian monarch, King Abdullah, gave the position of Grand Mufti of the Jordanian part of divided Jerusalem to someone else, and Haj Amin al-Husayni was in contact with the Arab conspirators of King Abdullah's assassination in 1951, while still living in exile in Egypt. King Tallal followed Abdullah as king of Jordan, and he refused to give permission to Amin al-Husayni to enter Jerusalem. After one year, King Tallal was declared incompetent; the new King Hussein also refused to give al-Husayni permission to enter the City.
In 1948 al-Husayni declared the president of the All-Palestine government in the Gaza Strip. On October 1, an independent Palestinian state in all of Palestine was declared, with Jerusalem as its capital. This government was recognised by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, but not by Jordan or any non-Arab country. His government was totally dependent on Egypt. Egypt annulled the All-Palestine government by decree in 1959. The failure of this venture and al-Husayni's lack of credibility because of his collaboration with the Axis powers during World War II did much to weaken Palestinian Arab Nationalism in the 1950s.
Al-Husayni served as president of the World Islamic Congress, which he had founded in 1931.
Al-Husayni died in Beirut, Lebanon in 1974. He wished to be buried in Jerusalem, but the Israeli government refused this request.
[edit]
Mufti's influence
Yasser Arafat's interview with the London-based Arabic language newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat was reprinted by a leading Palestinian daily Al Quds (August 2, 2002):
Interviewer: I have heard voices from within the Palestinian Authority in the past few weeks, saying that the reforms are coordinated according to American whims...
Arafat: We are not Afghanistan. We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini?... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and
participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops."
According to John Marlowe, "The dominant figure in Palestine during the Mandate years was neither an Englishman nor a Jew, but an Arab — Haj Amin Muhammed Effendi al Husaini... Able, ambitious, ruthless, humourless, and incorruptible, he was of the authentic stuff of which dictators are made."

Indonesian police increased patrols on Sunday in the Poso area, plagued by sectarian violence for years, after assailants in black beheaded three teenage Christian girls.

By Julia Duin, an assistant national editor at the Washington Times
January 2, 2002 9:15 a.m.

first became aware of central Indonesia eleven years ago, when I bought a map in an airport shop in Cebu, in the middle of the Philippines. A portion of this 17,000-mile archipelago was taken up by a huge island shaped like a pinwheel: Sulawesi. In 1999, horrific stories about Christian persecution in that part of the world started to leak out. A radical Islamic group called Laskar Jihad was terrorizing Christians in a group of islands called the Moluccas, just east of Sulawesi. Christians who refused to convert to Islam were killed; those who did convert were then separated from their families, given Muslim names, and forcibly circumcised — without anaesthetic, and with dirty instruments. Scissors were used on the adults. They were then told to wash in the sea to disinfect their wounds. The women underwent female genital circumcision.
Why, I wondered, weren't journalists reporting on this tragedy? It turns out that getting a journalist's visa to enter that part of the country is next to impossible. One has to first go to Jakarta to state the purpose of one's trip, and then wait for approval. But there are planes or ferryboats to these islands daily, so a truly dedicated reporter could slip in. One gets the impression that, when it's Christians being murdered or tortured, the international press isn't really interested. That's how Joanna Milosz — a member of the London-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide who recently traveled around the Moluccas — sees it: "The whole Moluccas conflict has been fraught with misinformation from the beginning," she says. "The Western press goes overboard in being sensitive to the Muslim community. They do not want to be Islamophobic, so they ignore the realities of the situation. What has been so astounding is how few other Indonesians know what the actual situation is. The Bacan-Seram islands are where people have faced forced conversions and circumcisions. Christians are subject to especially severe circumcisions. I've heard reports of them doing it to girls as young as 2."

I e-mailed a journalist in Jakarta who works for a respected international magazine, asking her about the refugee camps that ring the area. At least 5,000 people have died in the fighting between Muslims and Christians, and nearly half a million have been driven from their homes. Many of them are in refugee camps; the camp in Manado, a mainly Christian city on the northeastern tip of Sulawesi, alone numbers 50,000.
"I've been to many refugee camps in Manado and surrounding areas," she wrote me back. "The government does as little as they can. It's a diabolical situation that does not get much attention."
I kept on reading horror stories — mostly from Christian mission organizations monitoring the area, as they seemed to be the only ones brave enough to venture into the region. One Washington, D.C.-based group, International Christian Concern, interviewed a woman with a horribly disfigured face who had been attacked in Duma, a Moluccan village on the island of Halmahera.
"When I saw the jihad warriors approaching," the woman told the interviewer, "I cried out, 'Lord help me.' Then a jihad warrior came up to me and said, 'I'll show you how God helps you,' and then placed the pistol in my mouth and pulled the trigger."
The same interviewer met a twelve-year-old boy named Noledy on the same island. The boy had seen his parents hacked with machetes, then buried alive by jihadists. He managed to escape into the jungles, where he wandered for about a week before encountering other Christian refugees. Indonesian Christians on other islands have made cloak-and-dagger missions to these islands by boat to rescue such people; to date, about 2,700 have benefited from the boat rescues. Another 6,000 still need help.
Why have journalists ignored a group that equals the Taliban in cruelty? Laskar Jihad even have their own website, where they blame "Christian priests" for carrying out mission activities against their Muslim brethren. Their propaganda tells of Muslims who have been attacked and tortured by Christians. The Islamist group is involved in importing warriors into various trouble spots around the Indonesian islands. They had already made Ambon, an island in the southern Moluccas, a living hell for Christians, and starting a few months ago, they aimed their sights farther north. Their goal: Sulawesi.
Sulawesi is 1,000 miles east of Jakarta, Indonesia's capital. As for the government sending in its own military to keep the peace, the Indonesian military is not known for its fairness and impartiality — as the world saw in East Timor's fight for independence. The navy and air force are trustworthy, but the army — which leans heavily to the side of the Muslims — is fearsome to Christians.
Eighty-seven percent (174 million) of Indonesia's 201 million people are Muslim — the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. The goal of Laskar Jihad and like-minded radicals is to make Islam the country's official religion, and to impose sharia law. It already exists in Ternate, a small island-city just off of Halmahera. Christian pastors unfortunate enough to be discovered in the area simply get beheaded.
Steven Snyder of International Christian Concern and Dr. David Harding, a Maryland physician, recently visited Sulawesi to examine the situation there. They came back nine days later with a horror story: 7,000 jihad warriors were amassing to attack Christians in central Sulawesi, specifically Tentena, a lakeside city of 63,000 — about 28,000 of them refugees from around the island. Like the Israelites defending Jerusalem's walls during the time of the prophet Nehemiah, the men of the city were posted about city limits with whatever weapons they could scrounge up, while the women and children had gathered their belongings for a possible flight into the jungle. The 35 policemen in town had a total of three rifles.
The two men, plus an Australian translator who knows the island intimately, got through to Tentena with the help of an eight-man military escort. The worst part was the 70-mile drive from Poso, a larger city on the coast, south into Tentena. Along the way they saw burned-out Christian villages, and roadblocks with signs that read "jihad post." The men lounging by them carried AK-47s.
"Our police escorts were petrified," Mr. Snyder says. "We stopped at one jihad post and offered them coffee if we could take photos. They didn't know what to make of us; all these white guys emerging from behind a car with tinted windows." Somehow they got through, only to discover legions of sick and homeless in Tentena.
"Dr. Harding saw a seven-month-old baby that looked about three weeks old. She had only been fed with sugar water," Mr. Snyder says. "The pharmacy there was pretty pathetic, too."
They stayed for several days, interviewing residents and police, who told them that a boatload of 1,000 Laskar Jihad had arrived on the island just before they came — and that another was due the following week. The Indonesian Islamists have direct links to international Islamic extremists, including those in Afghanistan and in Osama bin Laden's network. Six Afghani and Pakistani "visitors" had been seen in the area when Harding and Snyder were there. Indonesian mujahedeen had fought in Afghanistan during the 1980s, and the jihad posts had bin Laden's picture on them. An Australian magazine, Tempo, reported in October that trainers from Bosnia as well as Afghanistan were working with Laskar Jihad.
In addition, Baroness Carolyn Cox, Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords, who heads up Christian Solidarity Worldwide, met up with some Afghan jihadists when she visited Ambon two months ago.
"They weren't there for a picnic," she said. The head of Laskar Jihad, Jafar Umar Thalib, is said to be a disciple of bin Laden's.
Now back in the United States, Mr. Snyder is pressing for some response from the American government in the matter of Tentena's beleaguered Christians. Megawati Sukarnoputri was one of the first foreign leaders to visit the United States after the terrorist attacks, and she was rewarded with a $130 million aid package. An additional $10 million was given to her by President Bush for assisting refugees, particularly in the Moluccas. And, with congressional approval, another $10 million will go for police training.
But to what end? The police almost always take the side of the Muslim majority in these conflicts, and have apparently helped arm groups like Laskar Jihad. Furthermore, they have stood by while Russian arms shipments purchased through Philippine channels have arrived at various island depots.
Not all Indonesian Muslims embrace Laskar Jihad. In Tentena, 31 Muslim families live in peace with their neighbors. But Indonesia's radical Muslims elicit little more than a yawn from most quarters. At a reception for journalists, held in December at the vice president's mansion, I asked Dick Cheney if he was aware of the problem. No, he was not. "Forgive me for being cynical," my journalist contact in Jakarta wrote me, "but stories on Muslim radicals in Indonesia are a dime a dozen."
But the tortured and persecuted are not a dime a dozen. By mid-December, some government forces, ranging from 2,000-4,000 troops, had flooded the Poso-Tentena reason, making it impossible for Laskar Jihad to achieve their goal of domination of central Sulawesi by the end of Ramadan on Dec. 16. So Laskar Jihad will simply wait. They've been at this for several years now, and their supreme commander, Jafar Umar Thalib, remains at large. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of refugees are sick and homeless because evil will happen, as the saying goes, if good men are content to do nothing.
"We were able to board our plane and depart in safety," Mr. Snyder says, "but our hearts cried out for our dear brothers and sisters trapped in the district of Poso. Many are simple peasants, farmers, fishermen and villagers. They are defenseless, weaponless and confused. They know nothing of all the political, religious or financial manipulations going on. Their only hope is that God will intervene."

On 23 February 1915, more than sixty Assyrian notables were taken from the French mission and shot by Turkish troops. Among these was Mar Dinkha, a bishop of the Assyrian Church. "Here, then, in the ancient city of Tebarma, the scene of many previous martyrdoms, an Assyrian bishop is being led to be executed. He was not alone. He had a large company of his Christian brethren with him. What Mar Shimun Bar Sabaee, the first Assyrian Patriarch had done, during the persecution of Shapur the Magi, in the fourth century, was now to be gloriously repeated by another bishop of his church in the twentieth century. The Moslems had established a rule in asking of their victims to deny Christ and embrace Islam in order to save their lives. But weaker men and women than this body of prisoners had already chosen to be burned alive, and to be cut to pieces with aces, then deny their Redeemer! "Be brave, take courage, be patient, falter not, be firm and look up. In a few moments we will be with Christ!" With such words he encouraged his companions in bonds, till they reached the end of their fatal journey, where they were all shot to death. (The Flickering Light of Asia, pp.49-51.)

But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Aouliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them" (Surat An-Nisa 4:88,89).

The first is Salman Rushdie. Salman Rushdie was born to a Muslim family in Bombay, India, but has spent much of his life in London, England. He wrote a book entitled The Satanic Verses. Muslims thought this book was an insult to the Prophet Muhammad and Islam so Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini issued an order to assassinate Rushdie and promised $5 million to the one whom would kill him. Khomeini, Iran's spiritual leader at that time, said in a statement read for him on the radio in 1989: "Anyone who died attempting to kill Rushdie, he promised, would go straight to paradise."

The second is Dr. Farag Foda, the great author who was assassinated in Cairo, Egypt in 1993 because he wrote many books exposing the true face of Islam and Islamic society. He was accused of being an apostate Muslim and was shot and killed in front of his son.

The third is Professor Nasr Hamid Abu Zeid, who was accused of being an apostate Muslim because of his books about the Koran. The court in Egypt ruled that he must divorce his wife, Ibtihal Younes. He fled from Egypt and is now living with his wife in Holland.

The fourth is the well-known Egyptian writer Naguib Mahfouz, who became the first Egyptian to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. Muslims stabbed him in front of his house in an attempt to kill him. The man is over 80 years old. They wanted to kill him because they thought that he insulted Muhammad in his novel, "The Children of Gabalawi."

The imposition of sharia oppresses the Christians that make up half of the population.
by Obed Minchakpu
MAIKUNKELE, Nigeria, November 15 (Compass) – For Ishaya Kpotun Shaba of Niger state in north-central Nigeria, the past four years have been a jumble of tears and pain. He has not set his eyes on his daughter, Saratu, since she was abducted in December 2001 at age 19 by extremists bent on converting and marrying her to a Muslim.
When Shaba reported the kidnapping to the Maikunkele town police, officials showed no interest in rescuing his daughter. Instead, to Shaba’s shock and disbelief, he was summoned to appear before an Islamic court in Minna on January 9, 2002. The Upper Area Court judge informed him in the summons that his daughter had requested that he allow her to “embrace the religion of her choice.”
Shaba showed up at court but never saw his daughter. Instead, the judge called him into his chambers and told him that his daughter was now a Muslim, and that therefore he was summoned to an Islamic court.
“I protested this and told him that I was a Christian and should not have been summoned to appear before the Islamic court,” Shaba told Compass. He demanded that the court release his daughter – “wherever she may be” – but the judge refused.
Later, he heard that his daughter was forced to marry a Muslim man in Minna, the state capital.
“Isa Gwamna, a friend of mine who works with the Niger state government, told me that the marriage was conducted on the orders of the Islamic court,” Shaba said. “He witnessed the marriage, which was held in one of the government’s offices.”
Gwamna told Shaba that his daughter cried throughout the marriage ceremony, refusing to recite the Quranic passages she was asked to read; she also refused to declare a dowry amount.
“This clearly shows that not only was our daughter forcefully abducted, kept in seclusion, and forced into marrying a man she does not love, but also she was forced to marry a man who is not of her religion,” Shaba said. “My friend said that when my daughter refused to say how much should be paid as her dowry, she was forced to receive 5,000 naira [$381].”
Four years later, neither the court nor the police have advised Shaba of her whereabouts; they no longer know where she is, he said.
So far this year, nine cases of forceful conversions of Christian girls below the age of 14 were reported to the office of the state chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), according to the Rev. Samuel Ayuba Shaba, CAN state secretary. Many other cases go unreported.
For many years, Rev. Shaba said, the palace of the Muslim leader of Bida town, the Etsu Nupe, has been used as a base for hiding abducted Christian girls. Once there, they are forcefully converted to Islam and married off to Muslim men.
Cruelties Large and Small
In Niger state, where Christians slightly outnumber Muslims, such a tactic is just one means extremists use in a quest for a dominant Islamic population, according to experts on religious movements. Increasingly, the extremists also target Christian widows as part of this effort.
Sharia (Islamic law) was implemented in Niger state in 2001. A first-time visitor to Minna does not need to be told that Islam now dominates the city. In every street, signposts bearing Quranic inscriptions have been planted in intervals of 100 meters. “Allahu-Akbar” (God is great) reads one of the signposts; “La’illa a-illala Muhammad rasu lillah” (There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger) reads another.
For the Christians who make up just over 50 percent of the 2.4 million population, life is full of seemingly unending cruelties. Besides forced marriages, Rev. Shaba and attorney Bob James say Islamic officials in the state deny Christians basic rights by imposing sharia, forcing conversions, seizing property, and discriminating against Christians in the public sector.
Rev. Shaba, 49, pastor of Harvesters for Christ Ministries in Minna, said sharia has made persecution a lifestyle. It is no longer news to hear of arbitrary arraignment of Christians in Niger state.
“Initially we were told that sharia was meant to serve only Muslims,” Rev. Shabas said, “but we are now living witnesses to the fact that it was meant to harass Christians and to combat Christianity.”
Muslim leaders in the state are deliberately trying to eliminate Christianity, he said. “It is a systematic and deliberate approach to oppress, deny, and frustrate Christianity.”
James, an attorney for the Justice Mission in Minna, noted that parts of sharia directly violate the Nigerian constitution. “The constitution says that one cannot use the machinery of government to promote any religion,” James said.
Cutting off the hands of those guilty of theft is clearly a doctrine of Islam, he said. A government that adopts the practice is promoting a religion, he said, and adopting Islam as a state religion contravenes the constitution.
Niger is one of 12 states (along with Kano, Kaduna, Katsina, Jigawa, Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Yobe, Borno, Bauchi, and Gombe) implementing sharia in northern Nigeria. Islamic officials have claimed that the Nigerian constitution allows them to enact laws that would bring about good governance, which they have employed as a check against rampant moral laxity and corruption, as well as to restore political stability.
But James responded, “The same constitution says any laws enacted by any state are subject to the constitutional principles on which the Nigerian government is based.” Any other course, he said, will result only in anarchy.
“If there are fundamental human rights that have been agreed upon, the right of a state to make laws is subject to those fundamental rights,” he said. “You cannot violate them.”
So far this year, James’ office has filed 10 lawsuits on behalf of Christians who have been arbitrarily jailed by Islamic courts. Since 2001, his office has handled 30 such cases.
“If not for the maturity that Christians in this state have exhibited,” he said, “all the atrocities would be enough to stir up an uprising.”
Christians Need Not Apply
Christians working in the public sector have been wrongfully denied promotions or even sacked because of their faith, sources said.
Most affected are Christian women, who are forced to wear hijab (Islamic head covering). Christian women who dare to show up at work without the head covering are beaten by Islamic Police (Hisba) recruited by the state government.
Before the introduction of sharia, Christians in the state frequently were appointed as commissioners, permanent secretaries, directors, and principals of schools, Rev. Shaba said.
“But today, Christians have only one commissioner to the 10 commissioners who are Muslims,” he said. “The same applies to positions of permanent secretaries – we have only one.”
Christians are denied positions, Rev. Shaba said, even when they are the educated and have relevant experience.
“Muslims who are not educated are the ones getting appointed into positions of power,” he said. “There are even situations where Christians are retired from public service to pave the way for Muslims to be appointed into these offices.”
Suppressing the Truth
Increasingly, Rev. Shaba said, Christians find it difficult to obtain land for churches.
State authorities are finding pretexts to force even existing churches to relocate out of their towns. Rev. Shaba said this problem is “very common” in New Bussa, Sabon Wuse, Bida, Kontagora, and Dokko.
Efforts to force all churches from town, Rev. Shaba said, are designed to create the impression that there are no Christians in the state and to shield Muslims from the gospel.
Suppression of the gospel also shows up in the schools. In a state where Christian schoolchildren are required to wear uniforms distinct from their Muslim counterparts – presumably so that they will be easily distinguished in the event of religious violence – it is perhaps no surprise that students receive no instruction on Christianity.
Islam, on the other hand, is taught in the state’s 142 public schools.
The same government that refuses to permit teaching on Christianity has built six Islamic schools across the state, Rev. Shaba said. The state-built Islamic schools are the College of Arts and Islamic Studies, in Tudun Fulani; the College of Arts and Islamic Legal Studies, in Minna; and four campuses of the Women’s Islamic College, in Dikko, Kacha, Babana-Wawa, and Borgu.
How We Got Here
Attorney James and other Christian leaders in Niger state filed a lawsuit against the enactment of sharia in 2001. But while the case was being heard, he said, the government of President Olusegun Obasanjo pressured them into withdrawing the case.
Obasanjo, a Christian, was working toward re-election at that time, James said, and felt the legal tussle could mar his political chances. Additionally, Obasanjo believed that a legal war pitching Muslims against Christians would polarize the nation’s judiciary.
The legal battle that would have decided the constitutionality of implementing sharia thus ground to a halt.
Religious liberty is enshrined in the nation’s constitution, and Nigeria is a country of many diverse religions, Rev. Shaba said. “That makes it a more urgent task for the federal government to stop the implementation of the Islamic law.”
That is not likely in a country where religious tensions have already cost thousands of lives and displaced more than 60,000 people. And for Ishaya Kpotun Shaba, sharia has already cost him his daughter.
A retired civil servant who worked for the Niger state government for 26 years, Shaba is stunned at how he has been treated.
“I know of Christians whose daughters have also been forcefully married to Muslim men,” he said. “I know of Christians who have been jailed for no just cause. We can do nothing, except to take our burdens before Jesus, the Christ. This is what it means to a Christian in Niger state.”
Copyright 2005 Compass Direct

BANGKOK – By permitting judges to arm themselves in the southern provinces, Thailand has conceded that it faces a daunting task in trying to control violence in the region, which now seems to have taken a turn for the worse.
This week's decision by the Office of the Judiciary for court officers to be armed comes in the wake of a provincial judge being killed by insurgents in the predominantly Muslim province of Pattanti on Friday.
The 37-year-old Rapin Ruangkeow became the highest-ranking official to have been murdered since violence erupted in Thailand's south in January this year. Rapin, say newspaper reports, was shot seven times in the head and body by three gunmen on a motorcycle while he was in his car. His wife and daughter witnessed the killing.
Provincial judges with guns will become the latest in a growing number of civilians who are being encouraged to bear weapons to defend themselves – an indication that, at least in southern Thailand, the state cannot fulfill its role of protecting its citizens.
In June, teachers in high schools were given the nod to arm themselves in the wake of attacks by insurgents on the halls of learning. And since then, the army has helped train civilians in villages that are vulnerable to attacks.
Such measures towards self-defense arise from the high civilian death toll, a number that could increase with the targeting of high-profile civilians like provincial judges, say analysts.
"The shooting of the judge this month marks the beginning of a new trend," Panitan Wattanayagorn, a national security expert at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, said in an interview.
"The armed groups have been forced to switch tactics with the police and the army is better protected and going after them," he added. "They will turn to high-value targets, now that time is running out for them."
According to Panitan, there has been over 500 attacks against the security forces, government officials, civilians and symbols of the state in the south over the past eight months.
The death toll has reached 210, he added.
Of that, civilians have been the worst hit – with 114 deaths – followed by the police, with 38 killed. Thirty-five local officials have also been killed and the army, so far, has suffered 23 deaths.
And a spate of recent arrests has helped the government point a finger at some of the people behind these attacks – men belonging to Thailand's Malay-Muslim minority in the volatile region.
But Bangkok's attempt to bring the Muslims' under its wing through a show of force is provoking rage. The regular assaults mounted by security forces on an import symbol of the Malay-Muslim culture – the Islamic schools – are a case in point.
On Tuesday, the Bangkok Post accused the army of being heavy-handed in its raids on the pondoks, as the religious schools are known. "The raids were violent and insensitive," it argued in an editorial, adding further that since these crackdowns began, "authorities have yet to report the capture of any terrorist mastermind or weapons."
Further, human rights groups have already expressed concern about the deaths and disappearances of Muslim civilians since martial law was imposed at the beginning of this year.
The rage among sections of the Muslim youth towards the political climate in the South was witnessed on April 28, when scores of them, armed with mostly knives, machetes and some guns, attacked 10 police stations and security check points in the provinces of Yala, Songkhla and Pattani.
One hundred and seven of them were killed, including 32 Muslim militants who had taken refuge in a mosque of historic significance.
Some Muslim academics doubt that the government can curtail the bloodletting due to the increasingly heavy-handed military approach that Bangkok is embracing as a strategy.
"When you respond with violence towards culturally sensitive symbols like the pondoks, you risk pulling the phenomenon of violence to another level," Chaiwat Sath-Anand, director of the Peace Information Center at Bangkok's Thammasat University, told IPS.
Yet at the same time Chaiwat, a member of Thailand's Muslim minority, is disturbed by the way the assailants have targeted civilians. "It is quite different from the attacks against the state, which we have witnessed before."
Some of the victims who have been targeted, such as Buddhist monks, reveal a new form of hostility in the South, he asserted. "It is unprecedented in several ways. I have not seen it in all my years as an academic."
The Malay-Muslims accounts for 2.3 million people of Thailand's 63 million population, the vast majority of whom are Buddhists. The Muslim minority lives in five southern provinces, four of which share a border with Malaysia.
In the early 1970s, Muslim rebels launched a separatist struggle to restore a once independent Muslim kingdom of Pattani, which was annexed by Bangkok in 1902.
Such a struggle was a reaction to the attempts by military dictators who ruled Thailand, at the time, – when they tried to force Malay-Muslims to assimilate into the Thai nation. And although the rebellion was quelled by the early 1980s, the region has witnessed outbursts of violence since the early 1990s, with average attacks since 1993 being between 40 to 70 a year.
That Bangkok is far from immediate success in the current spate of violence was brought home over the weekend, when it announced that it would be sending nine more battalions to strengthen the 10 military battalions stationed in the south.
"Sending more troops to the area is good if it helps to crackdown on those who are breaking the law," Nimu Makaje, vice president of the Islamic Council in the southern province of Yala, told IPS. "Anything illegal has to be stopped."
But just as important, he cautioned, is the way the new troops will perform. "They have to have an understanding about what is going on in the South. They have to know who the people are."
"If not," he added, "they can make the situation worse."

Headless bodies found in Thailand's restive south BANGKOK, June 18 (AFP) - The headless bodies of a man and woman have been found near a school in the latest violence in Thailand's Muslim majority south, police said Saturday. The find brings to four the number of beheadings in Thailand's southernmost provinces bordering Malaysia in 11 days, and the third in the same district since Tuesday.(Posted @ 22:40 PST)

And I’m just starting to touch on this subject! Are you starting to see the problem? You can go through life blind, or you can start looking at the facts.

I can go on for days about atrocities that occur in Muslim dominated societies-from past to current times. You seem to blame me for the hate-mongering because I pointed out a few facts. This isn’t Buddhism that we’re dealing with. This is a religions that advocates violence towards nonbelievers from its origins up until now. The question is: how do we approach the subject without pissing off over a billion believers? And/or how to soften its message/messengers from pushing this religion to its extreme limits?

Responses:
[799] [1487]

799

Date: November 23, 2005 at 23:50:58
From: Leigh, [ool-18b9649f.dyn.optonline.net]
Subject: Re: Fear Builds Walls...

Forgive my ignorance then, but you'll need to give me something to build a better opinion of you. Please, tell me, what is the point of your messages here? There are numerous atrocities that have been commited by Christians over time - shall we name these here as well? Very plainly, what are you trying to say? What are your ideas for creating peace?

Responses:
[1487]

1487

Date: April 05, 2008 at 12:08:40
From: Annalisa, []
Subject: Re: Fear Builds Walls...

This is in response to Leigh. Yes Leigh, christians have committed atrocities that are horrible in every way. However, All Christians will condemn this, past and present. But do you think that All Muslims condemn all the bad things they they have done, as guided by their beliefs? No, some of them are really nice normal peace loving people who have no intentions of supporting death and war in any way. However, in the same room, you'll find a muslim who agrees with war/forcing islam unto others. If you can find me a Christian, living or dead who boasts about the crusades/about missionary work that were doing in the New World (eg. CHRISTIANS would drag Native Americans, through the dirt, for hours, until they converted. Christ Died for our Sins, But he didn't eradicate it. We all sin, everyday. We've strive to not do so. It is how we are, we are not robots, or machines. If God did not Love us, he would have just Physically killed Adam (not spiritually, and cut him off from paradise), and just started all over!!! He can do that!!! He would never have let the forty days ended in the desert. He would not have suffered for us. He would not have warned Noah. Don't you see. people aren't posting the things they want on this forum for the sake of condemning islam. They have a passion for what they believe in. God said to spread the Gospel. He also said to be aware of false prohets. Some of us aren't gifted with eloquence, but standing up against this misguided religion?..it's not wrong. people will do it with different speaches of various lenghts.

I can do it with this truth:

My brother had Cancer.
Our mother is Hindu.
My father is Presbyterian.
The kindergarten we went to was Pentecostal.
The primary school we attended was muslim funded.
The secondary school he went to was Baptist Secondary School.
We only went to church for special occasions.
When our mom asked us if we want to get christened as Hindus, we said no. Our mother never forced anything on us.
My brother never read the Bible. He probably only knew a few verses, the most common ones.
But in the weeks before he died, he asked to be baptised.
He was never forced. He wasn't told. But when he was going through his treatment, and he was in pain...he called out to God, just God.
When your emoations are running high, and ur heart aches, the devil doesn't want you. It's God who comes to dry ur tears. The devil will turn his back. God will hold you in his arms. God answered my brothers prayers. See my brother is with Jesus now. he has no pain. His limbs are straight, he walks side by side with Jesus. He doesn't need to have my dad carry him up a flight of stair he spent 15 years of his life running up and down. He was 17.

See Leigh, people are trying to spread messages about the love of Christ and the false teaching of Mohammad, not out of hate OR IGNORANCE, but because when you truly open urself up to God, and God alone. You find the right path, and u help the peron still at the crossroads.

Responses:
None

758

Date: October 07, 2005 at 07:04:19
From: pissed off -reader, [195.144.131.12]
Subject: what has joe been smoking?

my predecessor to this message is clearly mindless in his accusations. Mind numbing Slander is continuosly repeated of the ' evil islam' and the ' devil muhammed'without evidance. Firstly islam is accused of being a religion of fear rather than love. I ask him if they do overlap.
I am a muslim. A real muslim. Not some second-rate beliver who abandones his faith due to the crimes of mislead kufrs. No real muslim would murder the innocent. Islam only allows defence -not offence. Reurnig to my point on fear and love. We do not fear Allah but his punishment and we love our lord due to the blessings he has given. Look at parenthood. We love our parents but fear them due to punishment. If a teenager has missed curfew than they fear to be grounded than the are afraid but that mistake does not mean we do not love our parents but that we are human and bound to commit mistakes. It is the same with God.We love God but fear hell.

Now ask yourself ' is this true ' or am i bantering on about senselessly. Ask yourself also if joe is really a muslim or is a person who to avoid persicution from hit peers is only claming to be to solodify his somewhat pointless message. If people think he is a muslim than they perhaps may allow him to speak against islam without evidance as he is a muslim. In my opinion he clearly is not and never was. No one joe ( probably a sydonym ) is born a muslim. One chooses to accept islam in maturity. It is chosen not inherited. A parent teaches about islam but it is up to the child in the end.

Now think. Why has islam been put in the corner? why has islam been subjigated to this hatred and verbal torture
Many would say because the muslims are terrorists. That is a lie. No where in the koran it says any thing about about killing the innocent or helpless. In fact it created many rules of war. Such as not harming the innocenr, women and children and the disabled way before europe grasped these ideas. Islam was the first religion to give a women rights. Not rob them like christianity. Early christianity.
As the point on the iranian government. If they are responsible for the terroists then the are not true belivers. Islam DOES NOT ALLOW THE KILLING OF THE INNOCENT. Unlike America with countless bombims on muslim countries. Innocent countries. Such as the afghanistan bombing after 9/11 searching for Bin laden.
5 thousand were killed in new york. 50,000 ( in total ) in afghanistan. Which is worse. Do two wrongs make a right...no.

People who kill in the name of islam are not real muslims. In the case of george W. bush: not a real christian.

People should think before speaking and never accuse without evidance. Well , some may accept my words. Others may ignore it.
Tha is up to you. Freedom of speech is a priveledge and not a right. A right given originally by islam.

Responses:
[1602] [1613] [936] [761] [773] [767] [762] [765] [941] [759] [768]

1602

Date: December 29, 2008 at 14:16:34
From: Seriously?, []
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

When I see pictures of men, hundreds of thousands of men, wearing white and stading with their baby boys, hitting themselves and their boys in the head with a stick to bleed so that someone can come and touch their head, I think, are you are real Muslim like that? Or are you a real Muslim like the ones who send bombs over into Israel because they were able to take their land back? Or are you a real Muslim like the one I know at my university who studies and studies, is kind and prays five times a day?

I have to say that there is not one religion in the world that has so many sects which are so extremly brutal and animalistic.

I do know a man who is Muslim and his family. Are they nice people? Yes they are. But I do believe them to be completely mislead and I wonder why they are here often as their ideals do not fit in western culture.

I still think the religion was based on and is to its very core, evil. I am not sure there is another who kills in the name of God, yet are killing God's very followers.

Responses:
[1613]

1613

Date: January 14, 2009 at 14:44:36
From: Voices for Peace, []
Subject: With hopes that this gives you some pause for thought, Seriously

URL: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/22/opinion/edkasim.php

A little respect
By Abubakar N. Kasim

Monday, December 22, 2008
TORONTO:

If Santa Claus were ever to pay me a visit and grant me a wish, I would reply with one word: respect.

I would wish that society at large would show some respect toward me and my faith.

I am judged negatively whenever someone of my faith is accused of committing a crime.

I am viewed as an enemy within, a home-grown fanatic whom everyone should guard against.

I am harassed at the boarding gate when I leave the country, as if I was going to an Al Qaeda convention.

I am also bullied by the customs and immigration officers when I come back home, as if I don't belong here.

I am pulled aside for extra inspections, as if I was carrying instructions on making weapons of mass destruction.

I am told repeatedly to tell the real truth about what I am bringing with me that I have not declared.

When a crime occurs where a Muslim is the primary suspect, I am asked to issue a statement in the strongest possible terms against terrorism and to dissociate myself from the crime. Whatever language I use in my denunciation, I am told is not enough and I must do more.

On the day after the crime, the headline reads: "Moderate Muslims Fail To Speak Up," even though I have spoken and have condemned the crime.

When I try to access my own money, the bank teller reminds me of the seriousness of money laundering.

A bank supervisor recently alleged that my signature did not match the signature they had in my file. I emptied my wallet and showed all my identifications, to no avail.

Although I have lived in Canada for more than a decade and have been working hard to pay taxes and make ends meet, I am still viewed as a foreigner who belongs somewhere else.

A colleague at the airport where I work asked me recently, "Why did you choose Canada, a Christian country, and did not go to your own people instead?"

Another coworker said the other day that she cannot tolerate seeing Muslim women covering up. "I feel the urge to remove the piece of rag by force," she said. "Why in the world would she hide her beauty?" she added.

Another airline employee suggested that we should stop Muslim women from entering the country if they choose to wear the hijab.

I cried like a child when a friend said that the only way the world can solve the problem of terrorism is to nuke the Muslim world. Only then will the planet live in real peace, he said.

It is deeply troubling to see how Muslims are treated in society. While I was having dinner at work, my colleagues next to me were discussing the shooting death right after the Sept. 11 tragedy of a Sikh man in the United States who was thought to be a Muslim. One of the people involved in the conversation blamed the murderer for not doing his homework in making sure that the person he was targeting was a real Muslim. The people in the cafeteria did not find the statement troubling and they all laughed approvingly.

We are reminded - again and again - that freedom of expression has limits. But when the same freedom involves the dehumanization of Muslims, it has no limit.

I don't think I am asking too much if I expect some respect from my fellow countrymen.

I might have some lunatics in my midst but who doesn't? If Christians are not held responsible for the death and destruction their co-religionist George W. Bush caused in Iraq, why should I be held responsible for the acts of a few mad men who might create mayhem in the name of my faith?

----------------------------------------------------------

Abubakar N. Kasim is a freelance writer based in Toronto, working as a customer service representative for a major airline.

Responses:
None

936

Date: April 11, 2006 at 02:43:44
From: robbie, [cache0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

you are filthy Evil trashlike all muslims.. you follow Evil Mad Dog Muhammad, who was a pervert, murderer, child molester and a little wimp of a warlord.

you are a joke

Responses:
None

761

Date: October 12, 2005 at 03:58:25
From: Joe, [host114.phenolchemie.com]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

You better go back and read the quran. It is full of murder,rape and hate for anyone that is not muslim.To be a true muslim, you have to hate all infidels. Black is to white as muslims are to christians

Responses:
[773] [767] [762] [765] [941]

773

Date: October 30, 2005 at 15:12:18
From: joon, [65-103-158-10.spkn.qwest.net]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

The Qu'ran is not full of murder and rape, and if it is, SO IS THE BIBLE.

Responses:
None

767

Date: October 15, 2005 at 14:38:26
From: Cardinal Fang, [user-7446.l5.c3.dsl.pol.co.uk]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

And the Bible and the Torah are models of peace and love?

There is a reason the Bible is the best selling book of all time - its just loaded with sex and violence.

CF

Responses:
None

762

Date: October 12, 2005 at 16:28:08
From: Get Smart, [192.231.160.252]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

I'm sure you know perfect Arabic and have read the Quran in full in the original context and have discussed the meanings, context, and interpretations of passages with Muslim clerics and such?

Sure there are some things that sound really bad in their scriptures, but there are just as many things that sound bad in the Bible. A lot of it is about context and proper translation.

Learn your facts, then tell people where they are wrong.

Responses:
[765] [941]

765

Date: October 14, 2005 at 23:06:24
From: Mr and Mrs G L P jr., [cache-mtc-ad03.proxy.aol.com]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

Joe in that one idiotic statement you managed to insult a whole group of religious followers and to insult the black population . as well as the white poputlation that is intelligent enough to know that neither of your statements are true. How can you critisize what you call the violence and intolerance in the Quran and turn around and make your own hateful and elitest statement against Muslims and Blacks.

Responses:
[941]

941

Date: April 11, 2006 at 02:58:45
From: Vincentia, [cache1.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net]
Subject: Re: what has joe been smoking?

Joe said what we all know. That Islam is an EVIL vile filthy Cult.

Islam is a Cult that was started by an EVIL false prophet, the Mentally disturbed Murderer Muhammad.

Muhammad will go down in history as the Must Evil person that ever lived and the followers of the Islamic Cult are proving just how EVIL their Cult is, by Beheading, Murderer, Burning Churches, Burning and Bombing Mosques, suicide Bombing etc etc etc

Even their Clerics and imans openly say that any person who tries to leave their Cult must be KILLED. A true sign the Islam is a Cult NOT a Religion...

Responses:
None

759

Date: October 07, 2005 at 17:58:30
From: Freedom Rider, [cache-rtc-ad03.proxy.aol.com]
Subject: Too much time and full of hate

This guy obviously has a problem with Muslims for other reasons. He outlined for me the problem with all types of religions. Religion is the downfall of western society. Christianity is struggling to become a state sanctioned belief system, fringe zealots seek to demonize alternative life styles, supress Judaism, outlaw atheism, and yes ultimately arrest and deport Muslims, be they Americans or not. This guy sounds like a neighbor of mine who is pro life. He said he cannot stand by while women abort future white races. This is the mindset of some these people. For me it's simple. I believe in god, but its ok if you don't, as long as you believe in peace. Faith in god, nature, the cosmos or whatever, cannot and will not exist side by side with hate and war mongering. If you believe in god, you should not support war of any kind. End of story.

Responses:
[768]

768

Date: October 15, 2005 at 14:39:14
From: Ping, [user-7446.l5.c3.dsl.pol.co.uk]
Subject: Re: Too much time and full of hate

Follow the Flying Spagetti Monster!

Responses:
None

740

Date: September 21, 2005 at 11:04:42
From: benjamin, [81.22.88.164]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

islam is part of the axis of evil THAT IS AN ANTICHRIST.very soon the glory of kedar shall fail and its worriors will be diminished in death.the pride of islam going before its fall will witness great misery and torment.the blood of the innocent victims are crying against this dark religion.islam will not go unpunished for its crime against humanity.when islam is brought down; mulims will know that they are serve a deceitful god in allah with his lone prophet of deception in mohammed.the promises to muslims in the koran will never be achieved because ISLAM IS A LIE

Responses:
[743]

743

Date: September 22, 2005 at 18:34:41
From: nicholas, [ool-44c2c7cb.dyn.optonline.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

where do you get this crap? what are you afraid of? who brain washed you?

Responses:
None

662

Date: July 11, 2005 at 13:27:21
From: Bassem, [cache-rtc-ad03.proxy.aol.com]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Dear Friend,

It is very unfortunate that you speak in such a manner towards a community and a lifestyle that you do not know anything about eventhough you say you were born a Muslim. It is obvious that you are speaking from anger, hate and clear bias. I only pray that the logical peaceful minded people of this world will clearly see through your misrepresentation of a rich and historically influential religion.

I am surprised you used your hatred and misrepresentation to speak on a site that speaks for peace and understanding. As a practicing Muslim, I am not offended that you have chosen such accusations and inaccuracies to portray your image of Islam and Muslims. What I am offended by is your ignorance and attempt to bring division between law abiding, peaceful people and the individuals who know them for who they truly are. I am saddened that you are using your insecurity to cause harm to people that you have no knowledge of who they are and what they truly stand for.

With one and a half billion Muslims living on this earth, it is hard to believe that each and every one of them has the intention to kill their neighbors as you state. For if the case was true, the whole world would seize to exist. Your hate and ignorance is very much evident and I pray that the good people of this world will see through your lies and animosity.

I am also surprised that you talk of education as the only solution, when you have none yourself about Islam and the Muslim world. The tragic events that are taking place around the world are truly an image of what some people are capable of doing without any remorse.

Another tragedy lurks in the midst of our own societies as well. It is the unfortunate elements of misinformation and wrongful blame that takes place every day from people who manipulate the elements of their power and feed it to unsuspecting citizens who only mimic any thing and every thing that comes out of the TV screen. The average citizen does not question or dig deeper in the problems of the world except when it affects him/her.

I am saddened to read from you on how nothing we do or say will ever satisfy anyone. It is impossible for us to justify any of the actions of some fanatical individuals who are using and abusing their influence for their personal gain. Just as easily as they manipulate lost soles in their societies, they have successfully used everyone else by establishing division and ignorance in the rest of the world, and your are part of that process.

We can sit here for years and years trying to justify all the atrocious acts that have been done in the name of religion by evil and manipulating individuals. We can talk about the Crusades, the Holocaust, the KKK, Sept. 11th, Oklahoma City, WWI and II, suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, genocide, etc, etc. All such acts where committed by self proclaimed Christians, Jews and Muslims.

I don't know about you, but the people behind such acts are not representing their faith. They are representing a diverted sense of understanding and focus. I wish you can find the courage to read for yourself from a viable source the true teachings of Islam, true Christianity and Judaism and you will see how much in common we really need to value.

I ask God to bless you with the wisdom to see things for what they are and not what they seem to be to you.

I would be more than happy to talk to you about your accusation in a civilized manner and hope others will be able to attend such a meeting.

Responses:
[1604] [1615] [938] [947] [741] [742] [1493] [1499] [1495] [792] [836] [862] [901] [868] [870] [871] [1603] [939] [1801]

1604

Date: December 29, 2008 at 14:30:54
From: Seriously?, []
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Please, tell me which other religion practices regularly the raping, pillaging and killing of innocents because they have what they want or because they are considered a second rate citizan? Are humans not humans no matter what gender or social status they hail from?

And please tell me why are there so many muslims in the world killing in the name of God, while there are not others on such a global scale?

Peace be with you...

Responses:
[1615]

1615

Date: January 14, 2009 at 15:40:40
From: Anne, []
Subject: Peace be with all the world

You have to know, Seriously, that every conflict in the world that involves people who happen to be Muslim is not a religious war. As Olivier Roy and Justin Vaisse wrote in an article, "How to Win Islam Over" (NY Times, Dec 21):

"...Whether we're talking about civil war in Iraq, insurgency in Afghanistan, unrest in Kashmir, conflict in Israel-Palestine, nuclear ambitions in Iran, rebellion in the Philippines or the urban violence in France, people routinely - but wrongly - single out Islam as the explanation, rather than nationalism or separatism, political ambitions or social ills."

The world is a complex one and if we are to solve our differences it is important to be aware of all the angles and issues. To do otherwise perpetuates myths that are easy to fall back on but get us no where.

Let there be peace, and let it begin with each and every one of us. Beginning with how we all speak of others who may hold different religious views to our own. Because first and foremost, as you say, aren't we all humans?

Responses:
None

938

Date: April 11, 2006 at 02:46:55
From: robbie, [cache5.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

you are filthy Evil trash like all muslims.. you follow Evil Mad Dog Muhammad, a false prophet who was a pervert, murderer, child molester and a little wimp of a warlord.

you are a joke

Responses:
[947]