Asking the Wrong Question

TO4A18 U cool ))

TO4A18 U cool ))

well, exactly- its a repository of islamic information-
i have a brand new computer, and new peograms and i am not very good at navigating in these new programs- i think some things have to be set up-
possibly it is my own ineptness-
there is a search, just put slavery or anything you care to-

but unequivicolly no- absolutely in no way can there be any doubt- robbery? that is an absolutely repeelent idea.

There is alot of information about slavery, Muhammad(pbuh) exhorted people many times to manumit slaves.

so, anyway- that site will answer any questions- im afraid today, until my husband shows me how to use this new system better- im not able to copy anything.
peace

Dear Victoria,
I visited your site but it is just a repository of Islamic things. I don't think it answers my questions.

I would like to know where in that site of yours it says Muhammad did not kill anybody or make anyone into a slave or rob anyone.

was i unclear? no, i wasnt.
i dont think you are interested in learning, but looking for opportunities to defame islam.
dont believe me, you have a link- ask the questions and see the proof-

Thank you Victoria,
So you're telling me Mr Mahomet never ordered the killing of anyone?

Are you telling me Mr Mahomet never made anyone into a slave?

Are you telling me Mr Mahomet never committed robbery?

for instance- the two leading quotes from matthew and luke- in both Jesus(ata) states he did not come to bring peace-

do you think because of those statements i fail to recognize the overwhelming message of forgiveness and forebearance by Jesus(ata)?

of course i dont.

there you have it

please dont be misled anna-
you dont see muslims here making excuses on these venomous diatribes against our Prophet(pbuh)

there are many here who use arabic names- but are virulently anti-muslim.

i dont know where you see these muslims, but now you see a muslim telling you everything posted by mr matthias was absolutely and definitively lies. period.

so now youve seen a muslim who said that-
id be doubly wary of any who calls themselve ex-muslim or has an arabic name and "admits" any such slander.

why would a muslim be offended by lies?
we know its not true- it is offensive to see such hatefulness directed at one so undeserving, but what makes you think muslims are offended by peace??

i can only assume you did not utilize the link, or you wouldnt continue to labor under these misapprehensions
peace

Thank you Victoria,
Unfortunately I don't see Muslims telling me that those actions were never done by your prophet. Instead, I see Muslims fully admit that your prophet did those things. What I see are Muslims making excuses/giving reasons for why those things were done. In other words, it was war, cultural practices etc.

Perhaps I'm colored by my Christian upbringing where my Savior was utterly free of blemish.

Therefore I have a hard time believing any prophet of a true god would do what Mahomet did, no matter the reason. I cannot believe that a true prophet of a true god would make war to spread his religion. That to me just doesn't sit right with my conscience. Sorry if my belief offends Muslims but my pacifist ideals mean just that. Otherwise, we're basically saying it is all right to kill our enemies. That might be true for mortal political leaders, but I'm sure a true prophet should show higher ideals than that.

anna- you should have a hard tie believing what you are reading as it is unbelievable.

if these claims were anything but what they are, which are paranoid and fear based lies propagated by some who are discussing what they dont know.

of course no sane person would adhere to such insanity- especially not the 1.5billion muslims in the word today, or the millions for 1470 some years.

Our Prophet(pbuh) was the most honorable and trustworthy of men, and of course, a prophet of god.

i will in the next few days come bakc and elaborate, but obviously, it is better to get information about any faith from those who have knowledge, like pamela- and back it up -

here is one website where you can aske questions and receive answers-

http://www.islamicity.com/

peace

Pamela,
I'm new to this site and am shocked to read about what your prophet is supposed to have done. Can you please explain to me whether it's true or not? I have a hard time believing what I'm reading.

My question is did Mohamet do what Joseph Matthias claims?

If so, how can you believe in Islam?

anonymous- ive been on these boards since they started- i guess 5 months ago-

in that time i have posted long and logical and source based responses-

answered questions specifically and reanswered and elaborated when they were misunderstood-

the ones posting the same questions or remarks over and over again are the same people who have been answered at length in the past-

and have dealt with at length and extensively this question in particular-

and answered the same ones who keep reposting the same questions patiently and politely-

to be answered with insults and sometimes downright malice-

some people use these boards to repeat endlessly their own set in stone prejudices and to air them

so - there isnt one i havent tried to communicate with- but it is foolish to argue with fools-

if someone has the real desire to learn, they dont accuse with their questions-

and it is really easy to google any query and find some background-

also its really rude to overtake the boards with long posts and im happy to provide links to answers to past questions so i dont take up all the space

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" using a peaceful tone in dealing with the aggressive nature of the questions"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this is kind of really stretching to look for criticism-

your point is that i should not only respond peacefully to aggressively toned questions,(which i do) but also go to the lengths to provide answers to people whose hearts are not inclined to receptivity, and are actively antipatheitc to what i say?

how about this instead-

i respect myself and dont respond to rudeness-

if i dont accept such behavior in a child, who may not know better-
i certainly dont accept it in adults- who clearly DO know better and are intentionally confrontational and aggressive.

if a child throws a tantrum and demands something- i dont reward bad behavior by responsiveness-

should i do this with adults?
no, if people are mean or impolite- they will be ignored by me,for one, and not affect or control my own dialogue.

and no one has been ignored by me here unless they were truly malicious and insulting to me personally-

but i always forgive them after a bit- i put some names down of those this has happened with, but gossip is so distasteful.

i guess youll have to take my word for it, or pay attention when it happens-

did you have an actual question? or just critique of our mesmerizing politeness?

Is calling Muhammad a murderer because he killed people an irrational emotion?

Is calling Muhammad a sex slaving lecher because he took sex slaves from among the people he annihilated an overt aggression?

Is calling Muhammad a thief because he raided caravans and villages, taking 20% of the booty for himself an irrational emotion?

Is calling Muhammad a polygamist because he took 13+ wives and concubines an overt aggression?

Is calling Muhammad a war monger because he instigated war against his neighbors for the sole reason that they don't believe in his self-proclaimed prophethood an irrational emotion?

Boo hoo hoo, kafirs are such irrational aggressive people for pointing out the behavior of your prophet. Please excuse me while I slink off and weep for you.

Some in the name of political correctness are being taken in. Others are mesmerised by the wit and politeness. But not all. Those are the ones asking the questions over and over again because they have not been answered.

Jihadist & Victoria

Non-Muslims are trying to figure out if the violence done in the name of Islam today has any origin in the tenets of the religion, or from the founder of the religion itself.

The questions are legitimate even if the tone in asking them may be wrong.

Giving witty answers circumventing the questions, or using a peaceful tone in dealing with the aggressive nature of the questions while carefully avoiding the serious issues raised, are everyone supposed to be taken in with that?

Except when the source, i.e. Stephen Pelletiere, has been proven to be wrong. In any case, we see that the US could not have been implicit in the gassing of the Kurds, regardless of whether Iran or Iraq committed the crime.

No evidence has ever been provided that the US provided Saddam with mustard and sarin gasses - all we have are unevidenced claims. Why would the US provide these gasses? The Iraqis can produce the gasses themselves from simple chemical precursors. An examination of the sources of potential chemical precursors to Iraq shows that the US is not one of the major suppliers - so why blame the US? Singapore provided the most chemical precursors - but I don't see anyone blaming Singapore for the gassing of the Kurds.

But the most absurd thing is to claim on the one hand that the US was somehow responsible for the gassing of the Kurds, and on the other hand also claim that Iran was responsible.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Darla

as mr mark commented, sources provided help to solidify and validate a point-

as i did with the world courts conviction of the united states as the only terrorist nation in the world

Mr Mark,
It was the State Department for political reasons who instructed the various US government agencies to blame Iran for the gassing. Pelletiere was caught up in this.

The final evidence was provided during the recent trials of Saddam and his cronies when a 1987 memo to Saddam for permission to gas the Kurds was presented in evidence in the court.

But since we will never know for sure whether it was Iran or Iraq I think it is unfair for anyone to blame the US for this heinous crime. If we don't know who did it why blame America?

Let me put it this way:
If Iran did it - then America cannot be blamed for the gassing.

If Iraq did it - then America also cannot be blamed since we did not order or give permission for the gassing.

As another poster has already shown - sarin and mustard gas can easily be produced from chemical precursors - their formulae are known. If you look at which countries supplied these precursors you'd see that the USA is not one of the major suppliers. Many other countries also supplied chemical precursors - so WHY BLAME AMERICA and not the others?

anonymous, the difference is your fear?

muslims comprise the most diverse population of any grouping on the planet, yet people still persist in believing fox news perceptions-

id say the proof is in te pudding-

witness the very apparent examples on these boards-

where do you see angry and abusive muslims here?

do you see muslims namecalling and castigating others?
acting impolitely, judging others, slandering others?

id say there is a disproportiante amount of reasonable response to overt aggression here-

and yet it doesnt strike anyone as indicative of islamic manners and behavior?

while i see a preponderance of verbal violence against muslims-

is this verbal violence and abuse answered back in reciprocal manner?

there are even those who mislead others by using arabic names, and then propagating outright hatred and vitriol-

has anyone seen a corollary malice in return?

or even anger?

if islam is filled with out of control emotional and anger filled adherents, why dont we see any evidence of it here?

people respond with outright irrational emotions controlling their every word- but the muslims remain reasoned.

it is a phenomenon that certainly deserves mention and attention.

peace all

"But no one asks, "Is Christianity a violent religion?"

Umm, yes they do -- all of the time. I've discussed it with neighbors of all varying faiths. And we can discuss and debate without worry that someone in the group will feel the need to kill the rest of us for our disagreements.

Can the same discussion regarding Islam -- with the same free and open debate -- occur within the Muslim world? I don't know -- but I wouldn't want to risk my life to try it.

That is the difference.

apparently 2 is the limit -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

theres the missing link- hah hah

i always give weightier validity to posts when they are accomapanied by supporting links and references-

for instance, the united states, in 1986 is the only country in the world convicted by the World Court in the Hague to be a terrorist nation.

the U>S> simply ignored this conviction, and ignored the reparations it was to pay.(to nicaragua)

as a matter of fact- they stepped up their aggressions when this ruling came down.

but simply saying this isnt enough- it must be backed up-

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20020530.htm

now if this is not to your satisfaction, there is more-

now personally, i find little value in wikipedia in general- as it is so subjective and slanted in the information it gives (hence the disclaimers)

but others seem to find it valid-

now heres another-

http://hrw.org/wr2k2/us.html

this is the international human rights watch group

3 is the limit of links i can give, or they wont let this post get through

Darla -

Thanks for the additional comments, but I would still appreciate links to articles etc that back up your assertions.

As far as Pelletiere saying that Iran gassed the Kurds - that was the position of our State Dept. More importantly, Pelletiere's NY Times article of 1/31/2003 makes clearer why he says that one cannot state categorically that "Saddam gassed his own people." That article points out that:

1. Both Iraq & Iran used poison gas during that conflict

2. Reporting done *at the time of the massacre* stated that the civilians were not in any way the object of the gas attack as Iranians were occupying the town at the time. Whoever used the gas used it as part of a battle of armies against armies, not a government against civilians. The civilians were unfortunate collateral damage.

3. The main reason that Iran was suspected as having "gassed the Kurds" by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (which investigated and produced a classified report that said it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds) was that, "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time." I do note, however, that Pelletiere seems to have moved off his 1990 position where he stated, "to begin with there were never any victims produced." In 2003, he speaks of the "condition of the dead Kurds' bodies" and states that it looks like "they had been killed with a blood agent."

I'd like to know what made him change his position on bodies being produced between 1990 & 2003. Maybe it's two different things: victims are living people and bodies are dead people???

BTW - I don't consider myself anti-American, though I maintain a healthy skepticism of goverment and am virulently anti-George Bush.

I'll stop now and consider that we're making progress as you at least avoided calling me anti-American in your last post.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated.

Thanks for the link. Not that anyone specifically cares what I think but I always thought it was parable versus historic fact.

The idea was one there are 'violent' passages in all religions and it is about understanding and interpretation.

Well, what can I say when Pelletiere keeps on making anti-American claims which are subsequently debunked? Did you know that he claimed that it was Iran who gassed the Kurds? That was shown to be false too.

The US government employs many people - some of whom acquire chips on their shoulders when they leave or are forced to leave government employment. Beware the disgruntled ex-employee.

As you know we do have quite a bit of freedom in evil ole US of A where Uncle Sam is surprisingly tolerant of criticisms by ex-employees. Not all of them can be true since they're often contradictory. In fact, many are shown to be untrue so it is fallacious to employ an ad verecundiam just because the source used to be ex-government.

As for the helicopter excuse - I think it is fair to state that there is no evidence that the US helicopters sold to Iraq to ferry officials around (i.e. for civilian use) were ever used in the Halabja attack. Even if it were it would be like blaming General Motors for drive-by shootings.

Lastly, I think I have debunked the helicopter and biological weapons issues already - please re-read my posts.

Darla

Darla -

Thanks for your comments.

I'm willing to learn about this subject, and you could be helpful in helping me to learn by providing links to counter arguments, rather than stating, "this has been debunked," and leaving it at that. OK, if that's true, provide a link. You'll pardon me for asking you to provide proof above and beyond your word. I tend to recoil from people who accuse me of being anti-American. I understand that many Americans were genuinely pissed when Borat sang that Khazakstani national anthem at the rodeo, but let's set that aside for purposes of this discussion.

The article that I posted that mentioned the helcopters was written in 2002 and published by - why, lookie there, Newsweek...the outfit that owns the blog we're conversing on this very minute. Who knew that Newsweek was busy spewing "the lies of our enemies?" Thanks for clearing that up. If you have something post-2002 that debunks the Newsweek article, I'd like to read it. Thanks in advance for providing a link.

Also - thanks for pointing out that Mr. Pelletiere of the US Army War College "is an anti-American propagandist who's been proven false many times." I did not know that. Is he still at the College, or has he been sent packing? Could you please provide sources where he's been proven wrong? Thanks in advance.

Mr Mark,
Pelletiere is an anti-American propagandist who's been proven false many times.

How can we give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait? Are you for real?

The reason why so many Iraqis died during the UN sanction - please don't blame the US for this - is that Saddam diverted the funds for his own use. He built 20+ lavish palaces while his people starved. He spent billions on the military while his people starved.

The Oil for Food program should have ensured the people of Iraq were fed - but due to Saddam's and the UN's corruption funds were diverted from this to other means.

So, please don't blame the US for the UN sanctions and for Saddam's use of the funds. We did not starve the Iraqis - Saddam did.

As for the rest of your accusations - e.g. the helicopters and biological weapons - those have been debunked already.

Your 'we supplied the helicopters used in the gassing so we're culpable' reasoning is absurd. It's like blaming General Motors for a drive by shooting.

Correction:
Iraq was a client state of the Soviets.

Mr Mark,
You're getting yourself in more confusion the more you type.

First of all, you confuse biological agents and chemical weapons. They are not the same thing. The weapons used at Halabja against the Kurds were chemical weapons.

Secondly, you have no evidence whatsoever that we Americans sold Iraq biological weapons. You've fallen for the lies of our enemies and either suspended your credulity in your self-loathing of America or you don't know the facts.

If you've read the accusations you'd see that the 'so-called evidence' are export licenses of common industrial/scientific biological agents such as E.coli and B. antracis. However, these are common everyday scientific exports. The CIA is not so stupid as to apply for an export license for military weapons grade biological agents. If you have any knowledge of the export of biological agents you'd see that the USA is the No. 1 exporter of biological agents for industrial and scientific purposes - that is because you have the world's most advanced scientific institutions.

Thirdly, if you read the order of battle (i.e. the military equipment list) of the Iraqi military you'd see that we did not supply any helicopters or aircraft to Iraq. Iraq's military was almost entirely Soviet, German and French. The US did not supply Iraq with any military hardware since Iraq was a client state of the US. When we fought Saddam our tanks fought Soviet T-72, T-62 and T-55 tanks.

Our airforce downed Mig29s and Mig25s and Su22s - all Soviet aircraft.

In 1997 two men were convicted to trying to sell US-made civilian 34 Bell OH-58 helicopters to Iraq in defiance of the 1991 UN arms embargo. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DB133BF931A15754C0A961958260

Fourthly, you insist that we 'helped' him gas the Kurds. Hey, even if we sold him military equipment (which we didn't) how does that make us culpable? Are we culpable for every tinpot dictator we sell arms to? Why do you not go after the Soviets, the Germans and the French who certainly sold military equipment to Saddam? It is only your anti-Americanism that makes you accuse us Americas of every evil deed of every tin-pot dictator.

It is clear you've fallen for our enemies' lies that we sold Saddam military equipment.

I suggest you check out the facts before posting again.

So for the last time let me make this clear:
1. We did not supply chemical weapons to Saddam.
2. We did not supply the chemical precursors to make chemical weapons to Saddam.
3. We did not supply any military equipment used during the gassing of the Kurds.
4. We did not supply any biological weapons to Saddam.

Darla

There are two forms of Jihad - the internal peaceful form and the external violent form.

We don't care about the internal form since it does not concern us. You Muslims can internally jihad yourself till the cows come home and we won't even know.

What we're concerned with, and what we really mean when we use the term Jihad, is the other form - the violent form since it is the form that applies to us.

Surah 9 uses the term Jihad exclusively to mean violence. When the Quran uses the term jihad in relation to non-believers it is always violent.

Thus, I think you've committed a red herring here, obfuscating the meaning of Jihad as it applies to non-Muslims.

So by all means jihad yourself internally. But don't jihad us ever. Please. We don't like it.

Qasim

As per contemporary OT scholarship, God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The OT is basically embellished myths written to keep the Jewish peasants in line and to keep the temple coffers filled. See http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

You did a good job of dissecting an unjust question.

When I became a Muslim, Iranians were holding Americans hostage. There was talk of jihad. I wanted to know what jihad really meant, so I convinced my professor to let me write my dissertation on this topic.

Literally, jihad means struggle. There is, first of all, the internal struggle within each person to do what is right. In my dissertation, though, I concentrated on military jihad.

There are many restrictions--no killing of civilians, especially women and children; no unnecessary destruction of property; no poisoning of wells, etc.; no killing by fire; no hoarding of booty; proper treatment of prisoners of war. The Muslim soldier must obey a single leader, and he must maintain his religious observances such as prayer (with some allowances) during war. He must stay focused on the reason for fighting--not for personal gain or anger, but to oppose oppression. These are some of the Islamic requirements, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, for jihad.

Of course, there are many examples where "Muslims" don't follow these, just as there are examples in every society of the people going against their own laws. This disobedience reflects on the individual, not on Islam as a whole.

I am a peace loving person. I won't bore you with my resume, but I have worked for peace for the last thirty years. I would not have stayed with any religion calling for the senseless spilling of blood. I am a Muslim because I know there is a message beyond the headlines. The message is peace. Those who wish to find the peace will see it.

Bismillah Hir Rehman Nir Rahim

Assalamu 'Alaikum,

I believe you have done our community a great disservice by taking a victim-stance instead of responding to what is a very legitimate question given our world today and has nothing to do with bigotry or racism. It is a question that could easily be made of Judaism or Christianity or even to the Abrahamic faiths as a whole given our history and current events. We need to educate not defend.

For what is there to defend? We know that the hate preached by radicals is not Islam nor are they true believers of the faith.

While there will be those who do not except any explanation which differs from their personal world view and prejudices, we can't let that guide us. We need to respond intelligently for those whose minds are open to the truth. And even if all minds are closed, it is still our obligation to the truth which must guide us. Not emotional and frankly, irrational responses to imagined slights.

Avoiding the question does more harm than good.

Wa'Alaikum Assalam,

Anthony

Pamela.

I understand your position that this is an offensive question. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they meant the question to provide discussion so we get a better understanding of what people really think and why.

But perhaps a better phrasing of the question is “Why do so many people think Islam is a violent religion”. Or “how do we communicate that Islam is not a violent religion” or how do come to an understanding that Islam is not a violent religion”. Would the phrasing make any difference to you?

The difference between intention and perception can still cause miscommunication.

Pamela I did like your post. It provided a very good cross section of scriptures that seem violent in many religions. After all did not God himself destroy Sodom and Gomorrah; seems violent to me. All religious texts have something violent in them.

People let’s get over the arguments of who’s religion is better or worse. It is all subjective and up to personal interpretation. If you do not believe that then don’t we at least need to recognize that is how people use it. What works for one, does not work for another.

Hopefully we all meet in the same place in the end.

Darla writes:

"Now, please explain to us how we sold Saddam World War I technology that every university trained chemist knows how to produce?

"Then tell us how we sold him the gas that IRAN used on the Kurds."

I'll try to type slowly so you'll understand:

1. Read my post above. The explanation (rationalization?) for why we sold SH biological agents is contained therein.

2. I never said that we sold SH gas that was used by Iran.

Here's the deal: if SH developed and used gas on the Kurds, he did it with biological agents that were supplied to him by the USA, and he delivered that gas to his victims using helicopters that we also supplied to him. The USA hardly comes out of such a scenario smelling good.

On the other hand, if Saddam DIDN'T gas the Kurds, then it was done by Iran (which is what our own State Dept claimed in 1988). In that case, neither the USA nor SH supplied the Iranians with the gas or the agents to produce the gas. In this scenario, the USA also looks bad because, if true, it means that we have been officially lying about who gassed the Kurds for a couple of decades.

My point in all of previous posts was simple: if SH did gas the Kurds, we helped him to do so; if Iran gassed the Kurds, then why have we been putting the blame on SH for 25 years?

Darla -

What's worse, falling for the lies of our enemies, or falling for the lies of our own government?

Consider:

1. The claim that Saddam gassed the Kurds has never been proven conclusively. In fact, before we gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, a study was done by Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. That 1990 study concluded:

"Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

2. The US Army War College reported that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians died as a result of US/UN-imposed sanctions, which is 3,000 times more than the number of Kurds who supposedly died of gassing at the hands of Saddam.

3. The 1993 Human Rights Watch report, “Genocide in Iraq,” claims that 50,000 - 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered by Saddam during the Iraq/Iran War (most by firing squads, not gas attacks), a war in which the Reagan administration clearly favored Saddam. The *conclusions drawn* in HRW's report stand in stark contrast to the USAWC report - both reports are based almost entirely on eyewitness reports, not hard evidence (HRW enumerates SH's gas attacks here: http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/APPENDIXC.htm )

So, who ya gonna believe? According to your logic, we must ignore the findings of a "self-loathing, American-hating" agent of our own government (USAWC) while embracing those of some independent international organization (HRW) that's never been a friend of America's imperialistic tendencies. What's a true patriot to do?

4. Did the US government give chemical weapons to Saddam? According to Newsweek, the answer is, yes:

How the U.S. Helped Create Saddam Hussein
By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
Newsweek | MSNBC.com
Week of September 23, 2002

"But Saddam had to be rescued first. The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand. After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal-American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers.

"According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."

You were saying?

American:

There were no Muslim-Americans involved in 9-11 and 9-11 was not a religious massacre.

In response to an attack by a clandestine organization (Al-Qaeda), the US government killed more than half a million (non-American) Muslims and destroyed 100 times what was destroyed in 9-11.

Tolerance?...well I guess when innocent people demand their right to be treated as such, it is called tolerance!

Your government already drove to death more than the number of victims of 9-11 from its own soldiers. You must be proud of that too? death of others is a source of pride to some.

God bless?? You call this disastrous war a blessing?

Sorry, sure it was Sept 11, 2001. My mistake - typed too fast.

God Bless

American,

What happened on Sept 9, 2001? Are you sure you don't mean Sept 11, 2001 (i.e., 9-11 in the month-day-year order)? Or was it Oct. 9, 2001 (i.e., 9-11-01 in the day-month-year order)?

"We will never forget." (Unless we forget.)

To produce mustard gas - the chemical widely believed to have been used at Halabja against the Kurds - one adds ethylene and chlorine - both simple chemical compounds one can buy from a hardware shop. You can get ethylene for welding or as a precursor compound for plastics manufacture, and you can get chlorine from your swimming pool shop.

I'm sure they have plastics manufacturing plants and do welding in Iraq, and they probably also have swimming pools.

So it would be no surprise that they could produce mustard gas.

But please keep this a secret - we don't want this chemical warfare technology falling into the wrong hands.

The formula for mustard gas (WWI), sarin and tabun gases (WWII) and VX gas are readily available on the internet and readily manufactured from simple chemical precursors by anyone with decent chemical engineering expertise.

The Iraqis have been known to employ their own method of producing VX. The precursors used by Iraqis to produce chemical weapons came from Singapore, Netherlands, Egypt, India and West Germany.

I, too, can produce VX gas if given the right equipment and chemicals. All of my fellow chemical engineering colleagues can do the same. It is no big secret.

Here is the relevant formulae:
Mustard gas Cl-CH2-CH2-S-CH2-CH2-Cl

Sarin C4H10FO2P

Tabun C5H11N2O2P

VX CH3CH20-P(O)(CH3)-SCH2CH2N(C3H7)2

Not exactly secret, is it?

The last time a religious massacre happened it was on Sept 9, 2001. I don't recall too many Muslims being killed that day. Or after. In fact, the tolerance shown by the good people of the United States of America towards Muslims was quite astounding. I'm proud to be an American for that fact. God Bless America and Allah be damned.

Pamela K. Taylor:

I couldn't agree with you anymore, this question borders on bigotry.

The only time the media will stop playing these dangerous games is when some horrific massacre of Muslims happen in America.

In the mean time, they are content with the growing invisible prejudice and intolerance that many Muslims face in America on a daily basis.

Victoria,

As with most "liberal" Muslims, you "duck" the fundamental issues of violent Islam and its foundations. It all stems from the hallucinations of Mohammed after he spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave. When he exited said cave, he thought he had talked to God via a "Hittite pretty wingy thingy". These hallucinations resulted in the violent Islam we know today and have witnessed since the plundering and looting agenda was first articulated. Why do you have a problem addressing this critical issue??

Have you ever truly fasted for thirty days with little sleep? Hallucinations actually start in less than two days. Check with the fellows who have been through the US military's escape and evasion courses. The Ramadan fast is not fasting i.e. fast all day and eat and party all night.

As noted many times, hallucinations are also quite prevalent in the OT and NT if you read them literally e.g. Jesus' forty day fast followed by "talking" to an "ugly wingy thingy".

It's self-loathing when you fall for the lies of our enemies. In fact, you trip over them in your haste to denigrate your fellow Americans. Spare us your diatribe against your fellow Americans. Spare us your naked hatred against your country.

If you were self-critical or just being critical fair enough. But you present lies and RED HERRINGS. Yes, the rest of your post is nothing but a red herring.

Now, please explain to us how we sold Saddam World War I technology that every university trained chemist knows how to produce?

Then tell us how we sold him the gas that IRAN used on the Kurds.

How are we Americans made responsible for the actions of every tin-pot dictator? You tried to implicate America in Saddam's gassing of the Kurds by claiming that we sold him the gas. Heck, even if we did we didn't force him to use it on the Kurds.

Then you tried to defend our enemy by claiming that Iran gassed the Kurds - i.e. you were trying to besmirch America by making out Saddam's innocence.

More self-analysis is in order, buddy, and less self-loathing (in this I mean you loath America and your fellow Americans) to the point that you accept without reservation every lie that our enemies say about us.

Have a nice day,
Darla

The only people talking about an Islamic caliphate now are some posters here and some Muslim terrorist groups. Even the terrorist groups are realists and focussed on local issues. It is like talking about the Holy Roman Empire of yore.

Over 53 sovereign states with Muslim majorities and not one is talking of merging with another Muslim state, nor do their citizens want so. Nationalism do matter, from Jordanians to Indonesians, never mind they are co-religionists. I don't see Jordan merging with Syria or Saudi Arabia. Nor do I see Indonesia merging with Malaysia and Brunei. Even Pakistan became two countries - Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Of course, some would take that as Muslims being unable to unite and to constantly fight one another :)

Peace be with you.

mr mark- honest critique is what it is-

i dont have a guilty conscience and it would never occur to me that you are referring to me as a fellow american in a derogatory fashion-

so speak on brother- its called freedom of speech-

it can only be self loathing if you yourself feel somehow complicit in the acts you are describing-

as an american, you are speaking for me also-

that anti-american nonsense i guess is supposed to silence your voice-

but i say, censoring someones opinion by insult or veiled mild threats to your americanism (remeber mcarthyism when anti-ameircan meant you lost your job and reputation?)

today, with our civil liberties eroded so greatly pandering to fear and paranoia- accusations like anti-american can rob one of their actual liberty-

dissent IS an AMERICAN VALUE

and people like me will be around to back up your right to have a free opinion

Darla wrote:
"Mr Mark,
By all means be critical but when you commit self-loathing as an American you're denigrating your fellow Americans. Some of us don't like that - especially when you get your facts or reasoning screwed up."

Can you admit that self-loathing is in the eye of the beholder? One could just as easily claim that self-loathing is self awareness and that a lack of what you call self loathing is politically motivated delusion.

In our age of disinformation, facts are annoying things. Our government defended the "facts" surrounding Pat Tillman's death for years, and certain people in our government (Dick Cheney) still insist that Saddam had WMD even though the facts on that lie have been pretty well revealed.

Since reasoning is usually based on factual evidence (except in the case of religion and the Bush administration), one could charitably allow that those of us who base our reasoning on a healthy skepticism of offical "facts" are hardly self-loathing or anti-American. What is anti-American about holding our government to the same standard of truth that we would expect from our children? Where is the self-loathing in concluding that an obvious lie is an obvious lie, whether said lie comes from the mouths of our children...or from the a-holes in our government?

Thanks for the dialogue.

Mavaddat:
Anonymous, Posted April 20, 2007 4:28 PM:

Uh, dude, there's no "Susan" here. To whom are you writing?

Sorry...I got my panelists confused. I meant Pamela.

Mumin Salih provides a very concise political history of the Islamic Khilafat and makes an important point about the nostalgia of Muslims for past glories. But from my conversations with Muslims, I think he misses where the nostalgia comes from. At one point, the Khilafat was a great power with progress in arts, sciences and culture. Most people lived in relative peace and prosperity. Compared to today, it was a time of glory and triumph for Islam. That comparison is the cause of the nostalgia.

But what many Muslims don't want to accept is that you can't turn the clock back. Trying to recreate the Khilafat won't work. It's time is past. What can be done is to study the past, take the best features of the old structures as 'building blocks' in a new structure suited to this time and place.

Mr Mark,
By all means be critical but when you commit self-loathing as an American you're denigrating your fellow Americans. Some of us don't like that - especially when you get your facts or reasoning screwed up.

Darla

Mumin Salih provides a very concise political history of the Islamic Khilafat and makes an important point about the nostalgia of Muslims for past glories. But from my conversations with Muslims, I think he misses where the nostalgia comes from. At one point, the Khilafat was a great power with progress in arts, sciences and culture. Most people lived in relative peace and prosperity. Compared to today, it was a time of glory and triumph for Islam. That comparison is the cause of the nostalgia.

But what many Muslims don't want to accept is that you can't turn the clock back. Trying to recreate the Khilafat won't work. It's time is past. What can be done is to study the past, take the best features of the old structures as 'building blocks' in a new structure suited to this time and place.

Darla -

Thanks for your comment in which you wrote, "It is one of the commonest canards used by unthinking anti-American critics to pass the blame on to us."

My comments were not aimed at putting the blame on Americans. Neither were they aimed at somehow equating atrocities committed by Americans to those committed by SH. They were offered as a counter to a post that offered absolutely no perspective on people who commit bad deeds. American hands are not clean in this regard, especially in Iraq.

As far as calling me an "unthinking anti-American critic," maybe you could tell this American what degree of criticism IS allowable before it's considered to have crossed the line into anti-Americanism?

And, as long as you're about the business of putting limits on my right to free speech, you may as well get about the business of going through my other posts and identifiying other anti-American posts I've made. There could be other lines I've crossed and other rights that need limiting in my case. I'll get you started with a freebie: I'm an atheist.

Have fun.

Mr Mark,
The US knew all along that it was Saddam Hussain who gassed the Kurds. He used them against the Iranians in the 1980 Iran-Iraq War.

Both sides use mustard gas and other chemical agents and while some people (e.g. Stephen Pelletiere) think that the Iranians used mustard gas against the Kurds, this has not be proven to be the case.

And no - we did not sell him the gas. It was old technology from World War I. Any University trained chemist knows how to produce it.

It is one of the commonest canards used by unthinking anti-American critics to pass the blame on to us.

So I ask you this:
Who sold him the gas?

On the one hand we sold him the mustard gas but on the other hand it was Iran who used that gas we sold to Saddam Hussain.

Huh? How illogical can you be.

As for the rapes - rapes are criminal offenses according to US law - not so according to Saddam's law if used against his enemies. See the difference?

What nonsense are you talking about, Islam Denounces Violence?

1. The Constitution / Charter / Treaty of Medina did not exist except in Ibn Ishaq's mind. It is not mentioned by Muhammad or any of his companions or the Tabi'in in any of the thousands of hadiths. Not a single reference direct or oblique.

If it was real the Caliphs would have mentioned it - but no - not one single writing mentions it except for Ibn Ishaq.

2. Safiya was not free to marry Muhammad - she was a sex slave Muhammad bought from the booty after he slaughtered and enslaved her people.

3. Rayhanna was another Jewess he made into a sex slave after slaughtering and enslaving her people.

4. Muslims 'protect Jews' only as dhimmis, as sub-humans to oppress and persecute. It was no easy matter being a Jew dhimmi - don't make it seem as if the Muslims were 'protecting' the Jews - they were persecuting them. Maimonides the Jew wrote about the Jews being oppressed by Muslims in Spain.

5. The fact that some Jews willingly converted to Islam does not make Muhammad a true prophet or Islam a true religion. If Islam is so true you should allow free apostacy and should not convert by the sword. But you use force to convert thousands/millions thus proving your religion is fake.

Ahmed Hussain

In the Name of Allah the Merciful the Compassionate

Islam Denounces Violence

Islam: Legacy of Peace

Wisdom (Al-Hikmah)
Qur'anic Mis-Interpreted Verses

By Faysal Burhan, Edited by Michael D. Berdine

Islam Denounce Violence -- Freedom of Belief, no Compulsion in Islam
Islam does not Command Muslims to Kill Westerner, Christians or Jews
The Constitution of Medina -- Other Historical Accounts

Introduction
America is the land of opportunity, where people of different ethnicity and nationality together share a common land. Muslims and Jews have a chance here for better understanding of one another and for participating in activities that would bring mutual benefits to both communities.
Unlike the popular, Islam is not a hostile religion. Acceptance, kindness, respect and cooperation are divine Islamic principles revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, (p) for conducting his affairs with the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians). These principles have led to the establishment of the constitution of the first pluralistic community known in history, in the City of Medina, in the Arabian Peninsula, in the year 622 CE. The Constitution of Medina is the first written civil and political law spelling out the freedom of worship, trade and speech, community defense against its enemy, promotion of justice and goodness, and the fighting of evil.
The city of Medina is where people of different faiths and nationalities, including Jews, Muslims, Ethiopians and Persians lived together in cooperation, peace and harmony.
This article addresses certain Jewish and Muslim historical events and Islamic principles relevant to the mutual benefits for both Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, the divine laws and the historical events are proofs that Muslim's relation with the People of the Book is based on acceptance, consideration and collaboration.
Although the subject of this book is about the Prophet of Islam and the Jews, Christians and other ethnic groups are treated in the same manner. A beautiful work made by Dr. William Baker, a Christian Scholar and archaeologist, in his latest book, More in Common than you Think, Bridge Between Islam and Christianity, I strongly recommend not only Christians to read, but every man and women of any faith.
Although, some hostilities and differences between the Muslims and the Jews occurred during and after the life of the Prophet (p), the causes were not that Islam changed its standards, but rather the breaking of covenants such as that of the tribe of Quraythah with the Prophet, as we will see later under the title: "Harmony is the Goal of Every Muslim." Recreantly, hostility between the Jews and Muslims is about the conflict in Palestine. As President William Clinton, Palestinian Authority Leader Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu and others, are moving toward peace in the region, we hope that justice and peace will return to that part of the world.
Next is a focus on some of the universal Islamic principles relevant to the topic and which include Christians and others.

Conviction not Compulsion
Compulsion in religion is incompatible with the spirit of faith. This is certainly true in the Islamic Faith. Religious belief must depend on people's free-will and choice. Islam establishes that people's belief must come by conviction. A believer is one who willingly, through the signs of God in the universe and in himself, and through inner-self satisfaction, accepts the faith of Islam. The Holy Qur'an is plentiful of verses and examples on this subject. Since belief by conviction is not our topic here we will not discuss any of these relevant verses. Confirming the "no compulsion-in-religion" Islamic principle, however, the following Qur'anic quotations are considered:

"If it had been the Lord's Will, they would all have believed- all who are on earth: will you then (Muhammad) compel mankind, against their will, to believe?" Qur'an, 10: 99.

Another Qur'anic verse states:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error." Qur'an, 2: 256.

The two verses above basically establish the no-force, or pressure to be used or applied to force people, including Christians and Jews to be Muslims. This principle is clearly reflected in the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad, and is reflected in the Constitution of Medina which guarantees the freedom of worship for all.

Qur'an Teaches Peaceful Dialogue
A Muslim is encouraged to carry out an intellectual dialogue with the People of the Book to establish and improve relations. Following are two examples:

"Say O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God. If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)." Qur'an, 3:64.

"Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another." Qur'an, 3:84.

After all, it is an integral part of Muslim's faith to honor Prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all other prophets of God, and follow their teachings.

Acceptance and Understanding
Islam teaches the Muslim to be kind, tolerant and understanding, and to establish fraternity among all people. The Qur'an tells us that God has made people into nations and tribes in order to know and deal with each other in kindness, and that the best of us is he who is more pious than others.

"O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware." Qur'an, 49:13.

Thus, Islam bases people's relational conduct on kindness. Hence, it condemns intolerance, prejudice and bigotry, and rejects discrimination based on color, creed, national origin or religion.

The Muslim acceptance applies to all elements of life and must reflect in all of the Muslim's affairs. The teaching of Islam towards proper behavior, anger control, patience, treatment of spouse, parent, neighbor, the young and the old, the friend, the enemy, the environment and specifically the People of the Book are evident in the Holy Qur'an and the life and example of the Prophet Muhammad (p).
In calling people to the Islamic Faith, for example, a Muslim must be wise, sensitive, humble and considerate. The Qur'an teaches:

"Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and discuss with them in ways that are best and most gracious." Qur'an, 16:25.

The Muslim's acceptance of the Jews and Christians, is even more intense and specifically addresses the Muslims to prevent any communication or approach that would lead to dispute, anger or negative implication between the two parties. Allah instructs the Muslims:

"And dispute not with People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury." Qur'an, 29:46.

The Prophet (p) also said:

"Let it be known, if any one (Muslim) commits injustice, insults, aggravates, mistreats or abuses a person of the People of the Book (protected, by the state or an agreement), he will have to answer me (for his immoral action) on the Day of Judgment." Izzeddin Blaque, Minhaj Alsaliheen, Page 106.

Thus, the lack of tolerance towards the non-Muslims under Islamic rule is a grave offense.

Does Islam Approve Terrorism?
Absolutely not. The human sole is sacred and highly protected in Islam. As discussed earlier God created people and made them nations and tribes to deal with each other in kindness and that God's criterion of differentiation among people is piety. Islam does not tolerate bloodshed, prejudice or discriminatory actions. God tells us in the Holy Qur'an:

"If any one kill a person, it would be as if he kill the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole people." Qur'an, 5:32.

What could be stronger condemnation for assassination of an individual than equating it with slaying all of human kind, and a greater reward for saving a life than equating it with saving the lives of all people? The indiscriminate killing of people is prohibited in the Islamic Faith irrespective of the mechanism used for killing. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:

"Whoever fights under an erratic irrational banner, buffs up angry for a particular (irrational) group or promotes (irrational) group, or supports (irrational) group and died in that cause, he died as a disbeliever, and whoever indiscriminately attacks my people killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those with whom is a covenant (such as Jews and Christians "People of Book" and other ), and not fulfilling the promises made with those who have been given a pledge of a security--he belongs not to me and I belong not to him." Muslim, Tradition # 3436.

As an extension of saving the human soul from accidental death, and to promote a healthy community, this verse lays out the rule of safety in all domains of life. Islam promotes safety regulations in traffic and public places, calls for providing safety measures for children such as providing medicine in child-proof-bottles, institutes safety measures in all industrial, agricultural and commercial initiatives as well as in public and private undertaking, such as streets, housings, and dams. Indirectly, this safety rule protects the ecological system and promotes cleaner and healthier environment for all the creations of God.

Does the Islamic Faith order Muslims to kill Westerners or Christians and Jews?
Absolutely not, this is a myth. Islam does not in any way approve of the killing of innocent people, weather they are Christians, Jews or of any faith or philosophy. Prophet Muhammad said:

"Whoever kills a person of the People of Covenant (such as Jews, and Christian or people of others creeds or philosophy) with whom there is a covenant between them and Muslims, he or she will not enter Paradise." Bukhari, Tradition # 2930.

This myth about Muslims entering Paradise by killing Christians or Jews or Westerners, may have been a misinterpretation of the saying of Prophet Muhammad "All those who die today will enter Paradise," during the Battle of Badr. Let me shed some lights surrounding this matter.
The Battle of Badr was the first battle to take place between the Muslims and the Pagans. The battle took place in the first year after the Prophet migrated to Medina, 623 AD, escaping the torture and execution of Muslims by the Pagan Quraysh tribes. In Medina, the Prophet joined his followers, who were similarly driven out of Mecca leaving behind their families, homes, and belongings, much of which was confiscated by Quraysh. The Muslims learned about a caravan of goods belonging to Quraysh coming from Syria into Mecca. The Prophet and his companions decided to intercept the caravan and disallow it to reach Quraysh. The Prophet and three hundred of his people left the city to intercept the caravan. The Prophet had no intention to enter into a battle of any kind. The Meccans learned about the Muslim's intention of intercepting the caravan, summoned themselves and made an army of one thousand people to go and save the caravan from the Muslims. Meanwhile, the leader of the caravan, Abu Sufian learned of the Muslim's move, therefore changed the route of the caravan and escaped the Muslims into Mecca safely. Quraysh with its might force of one thousand men and women refused to return to Mecca before they fight the Muslims and parish them.

It was here, where Muslims were few and were not equipped to go into war, the Prophet said: "All those who die today will enter Paradise." Although, the saying can take several different interpretations, but none of them can be interpreted as saying, "if you kill a Christian or a Jew or a Westerner you will enter Paradise."
First, the Prophet was facing the Pagans of Mecca, not Christians or Jews or Westerners. Second, the Prophet's word "today" limits the act of entering Paradise by dyeing to those who would die that day only. Thirdly, the words of the Prophet are in defense, not for attack. The Prophet said: "All those who die (in self defense) will enter Paradise." He did not say , 'all those who kill will enter Paradise'. This is in line with the philosophy of Islam regarding prevention of bloodshed and war.
How can this quotation of the Prophet be twisted to mean the killing of Westerners? On the contrary, the Muslims and the Jews joined each other few months earlier and formed an alliance to defend the city of Medina against the Pagans. Furthermore, prior to this, Prophet Muhammad had sent his followers to Abyssinia, escaping Quraysh's execution and to be protected by its Christian King, Negus. Nine years before this Battle and for many more years to come, the Muslims and Christians were allied. This was and still is the policy of Islam regarding the People of the Book, Christians and Jews.
Second, the Islamic philosophy of martyrdom entering paradise is no different than the concept of martyrdom in Christianity. This philosophy too cannot be interpreted as a permission to kill Christians, Jews, Westerners or any human being.

The Constitution of Medina
The Constitution of Medina is a magnificent historical document, authored and dictated by Prophet Muhammad (p) as the law of a land inhabited by different ethnic groups and nationalities. This document constituted the law to ever govern unified Jews and Muslims in a single state. This historical manifestation established, political rights, citizen obligations, freedom of belief, freedom of speech and trade, the sanctity of life, the prohibition of bloodshed and crime, and the laws of municipalities and justice. The document also secured and promoted cooperation and fraternity among all people of any creed, color, ethnicity, and lineage, and sets out the criterion of righteousness as the base of distinction.

In the year 622 CE, Prophet Muhammad (p) migrated from Mecca to Medina ending a 13 years of strive calling the people of Quraysh (a large governing tribe in Mecca) to Islam, and escaping their latest plot to assassinate him. Here in the city of Medina, where he had already made many supporters some of whom had migrated earlier from Mecca (the Emigrants) and others who received Islam and accepted it in Medina (the Helpers).
The city of Medina and its surrounding area was home to many Jewish and Arabian tribes. Resident in the city were also people of different national origins including Romans, Persians and Ethiopians. This community of multi-religious beliefs and nationalities was subjected to a new pluralistic law.
During his first year in Medina, Prophet Muhammad (p) laid out the principles of a pluralistic constitution that ruled the city of Medina for the next decade and later extended to Arabia and the Islamic Empire. The new constitution established the unity and brotherhood between the Emigrants and the Helpers, instituted the rights and equality of every citizen before the law, and freedom of religion, trade and speech. The constitution also spelled out the political rights and duties of both the Jews and Muslims to protect each other and their city from their enemies and to uphold justice and promote ethical conduct.

Note: Similar to local city and county governments in the west today, the pre Islamic tribal structure was that each tribe constituted a local autonomy. Each tribe had a leader that kept agreements with other tribes, set and enforced the law in its territory. Note also that all the parties to this document endorsed it, including the eleven Jewish tribes that were resident in the area. The text of this translation is copied as a hole from the book, Sunshine at Madinah, published by Islamic Publication International. Also see Minhaj Alsaliheen, Page 777, and Albidayah wa Alnihayah, Volume 3, Page 177.
The following is an English translation of the Constitution of Medina, as recorded by Ibn Hisham. No attempt is made to follow literally the lay-out of the original. On the contrary, we have, in places, deliberately departed from the original paragraphing, and added numeral prefixes to the main paragraphs of the translation, for the purposes of easy reference and understanding:

"The Messenger of God wrote document (Stipulating the relationship) between Immigrants and Helpers, in which he made peace with the Jews and pledged himself to them that they will be established in security regarding their religion, wealth and property. He pledged to honor certain rights for them and demanded that they fulfill certain obligations." The Constitution of Medina reads:

1. In the name of Allah the Compassionate the Most Merciful. This is a document dictated by Muhammad the Prophet (p) (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims from Quraysh and Yathrib (Medina), and those who followed and joined them and strove with them. They are one nation, distinct from all nations. The Immigrants from Quraysh, according to their established customs are bound together and shall ransom their prisoners in the kindness and justice common among believers.
2. The Banu 'Awf (a Jewish tribe), according to their established customs, are bound together as before, each group shall ransom their prisoners in the kindness and justice common among believers. The Banu Sa'idah, the Banu al-Harith, The Banu Jushm and the Banu an-Najjar (Jewish tribes) are likewise.
3. The Banu 'Amr ibn 'Awf, the Banu an-Nabeet, and the Banu al-Aws (Jewish tribes) likewise.
4. Believers shall not leave anyone among them in destitution by failing to give for him redemption money or blood-wit in kindness.
5. A believer shall not take as an ally a freed man of another believer against him.
6. The God-fearing believers shall be against who ever rebels or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or aggression or spread enmity between believers; the hands of everyone of them shall be together against him, even if he be a son of one of them.
7. A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.
8. The bond of God is one, the least of them (believers) may give protection (to a stranger) on behalf of them. Believers are protectors one of another, to the exclusion of outsiders.
9. The Jew who follows us is surely entitled to our support and the same equal rights as any one of us. He shall not be wronged nor his enemy be assisted.
10. The peace of believers is one and indivisible; no believer shall make a separate peace without other believers, when they are engaged in war in the way of God, except when conditions are deemed fair and equitable to all.
11. In every foray, a rider must take another behind him. The believers must avenge the blood of one another, if anyone of them fails fighting in the cause of God. The God-fearing believers follow the best and most upright guidance.
12. No polytheist shall take the property or person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene on their behalf against a believer.
13. Whoever is convicted of deliberately killing a believer without legitimate cause, shall be liable to retaliation, unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood money). The believers shall all be against him, and they are bound to keep him under their custody (until either the next of kin is satisfied or retaliation takes place).
14. It shall not be lawful to a believer who has accepted this document as binding, and who believes in God and the last day, to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the Day of Resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.
15. Whenever you have a disagreement amongst you, it must be referred to God and Muhammad.
16. The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war, so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
17. The Jews of Banu 'Awf are one nation with the Muslims; the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs, their freedmen and their persons shall be protected except those who behave unjustly or sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families. The same applies to the Jews of Banu an-Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha'labah, and the Jafnah, clan of the Tha'labah and Banu al-Shua'ibah. Doing good deeds is a protection against sinfulness. The freedmen of Tha'labah are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.
18. None of them shall go out to war, save with the permission of Muhammad. But none shall be prevented from taking revenge for a wound inflicted upon him. Whoever kills a man, kills himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God would accept that.
19. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims bear theirs. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. Their condition must be one of mutual advice, consultation and charity rather than harm and aggression.
20. No man is liable for a crime committed by his ally. Support must be given to him who is wronged. The Jews must spend of their wealth, along with the believers, so long as fighting continues.
21. Yathrib (Medina) shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. A stranger under protection shall be as his protecting host, unharmed and committing no crime. A woman shall not be given protection without the consent of her family.
22. If any dispute likely to cause trouble should arise among the people of this document, it must be referred to God, and to Muhammad.
23. God approves and is pleased with the piety and goodness in this document.
24. Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.
25. The people of this document are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib. If they are called to make peace and maintain it, they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims, it must be carried out except with one who insists on fighting against their religion.
26. To every small group belongs the share which is their due as members of the larger group which is party to this covenant. The Jews of the Aws and their clients, are entitled to the same rights as any other party to this document, together with the goodness and charity from all parties to it. Charity and good deeds exclude sinfulness and wrongdoing.
27. There is no responsibility except for one's own deeds.
28. God approves of such truth and goodness as is included in this document.
29. This document shall not constitute any protection for the unjust or the wrongdoers.
30. Whoever goes out to fight or stays at home is safe in the city, unless he has committed an injustice or a crime. God is the protector of whoever honors his commitment to this document, and is God-fearing and so is Muhammad, the Messenger of God.

Other Historical Accounts
Looking into the early Islamic and later history, one runs across many examples of Islamic and Jewish acceptance and collaboration. Following are some of these examples.

A - The Prophet (p) Stands up in Respect for a Jew's Funeral
Historians (see Sahih Bukhari, Tradition Number 1311) report that as a funeral of a Jew passed before Prophet Muhammad (p), as a sign of respect he stood up. In doing this, he showed respect and shared in the feeling of sorrow with Jewish family and community. "Why did you stand up for a Jewish funeral?" he was asked. The Prophet replied: "Is it not a human soul?"

B - The Prophet (p) Visits his Jewish Sick Neighbor
Upon learning of the sickness of his Jewish neighbor, Prophet Muhammad (p) paid him a visit. During the visit the Prophet asked the young man to accept Islam. The young man looked at his father for a permission. The father assented and the young man accepted Islam. (see Sahih Bukhari, Tradition Number 1356).

C - The Prophet's (p) Marriage to a Jewish Lady
Getting closer to others, and making your enemy your friend is the way of Prophet Muhammad (p). To accomplish this, Prophet Muhammad (p) utilized the traditional Arabian way of making alliance through marriage. Any time a person marries from a clan outside of his own, he becomes honored by every member of the clan, and protected by the entire tribe of the bride. To show his nearness and trustworthiness to the Jews, he married one of their own. Her name was Sufiah Bint Alnudair, the daughter of the leader of the Nudair tribe.

D - Harmony is a Goal for Every Muslim
In the year 627 CE, Quraysh of Mecca marched with thousands of men and women of Quraysh along with many other Arabian tribes to attack the Prophet Muhammad in Medina and wipe out the Muslims for good. As you have seen earlier, the Muslims and the Jewish tribes had agreed to protect their city against Quraysh.

Learning about Quraysh preparation to attack their city, the Muslims decided to dig a trench around the city to slow and confuse the enemy. After Quraysh and its allies arrived and camped outside Medina, they sent one of their tribal leaders, Huyay bin Akhtab Alnudairy to the Jewish tribe of Qurathah to entice them to break their agreement with the Muhammad and to join them in attacking the Muslims. Knowing Quraysh's intention, the Jewish tribe of Quraythah closed their castle gates and did not allow Huyay to enter the castle. Calling the tribe leader, Ka'ab bin Asad from outside the walls of the castle and insisting to speak to him proved to be another failure. Determined to speak to Ka'ab over the next several days, Huyay was finally permitted to enter into the castle. The tribe leader Ka'ib, however, told him" You are a cursed man, and I have an agreement with Muhammad that I am not breaking. I have not seen of him any thing other than trustworthiness and fulfillment of promise". Upon this Huyay had left disappointed.
It was reported , however that Huyay was not contended by this, but insisted on returning to Ka'ab with lucrative proposals and protection from Quraysh against Muhammad, until he changed his mind. See Ibn Katheer, Albidayah Wa Alnihayah, Volum 4, page 84.
Although it is unfortunate that Ka'ab broke the truce with Prophet Muhammad (p), this example is a proof of the extent of cooperation and good relation that took place between the Muslims and the Jews during this early period. Furthermore, this example is representative of the good relation, not hostility that both the Jews and Muslims experienced during this period of the rise of Islam.

E - Natural Feeling of a Jew Towards the Prophecy of Muhammad (p)
For several days, at the outskirts of Medina, awaiting eagerly the arrival of Prophet Muhammad (p) and his companion from Mecca, was a small group of Muslims. Also near by was a Jew, Abdullah Bin Salaam, picking dates off a palm tree with his aunt on the ground assisting him. Abdullah was in a better position to spot the incoming from a far distance. Therefore, he was the first to see the Prophet and his companion coming. Upon this, he became overwhelmed with excitement, calling loudly, "Muhammad has arrived, God is great!" Upon this, his aunt told him to quiet down saying, "If he was Moses son of Imran, you would not have shouted as loud." Abdullah responded, "Oh my aunt by Allah, he is (only) the brother of Moses, son of Imran and is on his faith." She asked, "Is he the expected Prophet we have been told about (in the Torah)?" He said, "Yes."
This historical event is only a natural reflection of what is in the inner-hearts of many of the true believers in God. Abdullah and other Jewish leaders and individuals accepted Islam along with many Arabian tribes resident in the city of Medina. -(see A. Alhalabi, Alsirah Alhalabiyah, Volum 2, page 121).

F - Protectors of the Jews
Jewish communities in Anatolia flourished and continued to prosper throughout the Ottomans anconquest. When the Ottomans captured Busra in 1324 and made it their capital, they found a Jewish community oppressed under Byzantine rule. The Jews welcomed the ottomans as saviors. Sultan Orhan gave them permission to build the Etz ha-Hayyim (Tree of Life) synagogue which remained in service until 50 years ago.
Early in the 14th century, when the Ottomans had established their capital at Edirne, Jews from Europe, including Karaites, migrated there.-(Mark Allen Epstein, The Ottoman Jewish Communities and their Role in the 15th and 16th Centuries.) Similarly, Jews expelled from Hungary in 1376, from France by Charles VI in September 1394, and from Sicily early in the 15th century found refuge in the Ottoman Empire. In the 1420s, Jews from Salonika then under Venetian control fled to Edirne. -(Josef Nehama, Histoire des Israeliies de Salonique.)
Ottoman rule was much kinder than Byzantine rule had been. In fact, from the early 15th century on, the Ottomans actively encouraged Jewish immigration. A letter sent by Rabbi Yitzhak Safati (from Edirne) to Jewish communities in Europe in the first part of the century "invited his coreligionists to leave the torments they were enduring in Christendom and to seek safety and prosperity in Turkey." -(Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam.)
When Mehmet II "the Conqueror" took Constantinople in 1453, he encountered an oppressed Romaniot (Byzantine) Jewish community which welcomed him with enthusiasm. Sultan Mehmet II issued a proclamation to all Jews " to ascend the site of the Imperial Throne, to dwell in the best of the land, each beneath his Dine and his fig tree, with silver and with gold, with wealth and with cattle…." -( Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 16 page1532.) In 1470, Jews expelled from Bavaria by Ludvig X found refuge in the Ottoman Empire. -(Avram Galante, Histiore des Juifs d'Istanbul, Volume 2.)
On the midnight of August 2nd 1492, when Columbus embarked on what would become his most famous expedition to the New World, his fleet departed from the relatively unknown seaport of Palos because the shipping lanes of Cadiz and Seville were clogged with Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain by the Edict of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain.

Sultan Bayazid II's offer of refuge gave new hope to the persecuted Sephardim. In 1492, the Sultan ordered the governors of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire "not to refuse the Jews entry or cause them difficulties, but to receive them cordially." -(Abraham Danon, in the Review Yossef Daath No.4.) According to Bernard Lewis, "the Jews were not just permitted to settle in the Ottoman lands, but were encouraged, assisted and sometimes even compelled."

Immanual Abobab attributes to Bayazid II the famous remark that "the Catholic monarch Ferdinand was wrongly considered as wise, since he impoverished Spain by the expulsion of the Jews, and enriched Turkey." -(Immanual Abobab, A Consolacam as Tribulacoes de Israel, III Israel.)
Over the centuries an increasing number of European Jews, escaping persecution in their native countries, settled in the Ottoman Empire. In 1537 the Jews expelled from Apulia (Italy) after the city fell under Papal control and, in 1542 those expelled from Bohemia by King Ferdinand found a safe haven in the Ottoman Empire. -(H. Graetz, History of the Jews.) In March of 1556, Sultan Sulayman "the Magnificent" wrote a letter to Pope Paul IV asking for immediate release of the Acona Marranos, whom he declared to be Ottoman citizens. The Pope had no alternative but to release them, the Ottoman Empire being the "Superpower" of that time.

In his book, More in Common than you Think, Bridge Between Islam and Christianity, Dr. William Baker elaborates about the fact that Muslims view the Torah and the New Testament as inspired revelations of God and that Islam neither targeted the Jews nor Judaism. He said, "It is a fact of history that when the Jews were being persecuted in Europe during the middle ages they found peace, harmony, and acceptance among the Muslim people of Spain. In fact, this was the era of Jewish history that they themselves refer to as "the golden age." In the famous treaties by Rabbi Minken, he says of this era:

"It was Muslim Spain, the only land the Jew knew in nearly a thousand years of the dispersion, which made the genius of physician Moses Maimonides possible."

G - Rabbi Speaking at the First International Islamic Unity Conference
Perhaps, even in the 20th century, where there has been a lot of hostilities between the Muslims and Jews over Palestine, there are many Jewish people who call for fraternity and "unity with diversity". It was Rabbi Allen Bennett of San Francisco, in the interfaith session, at the Islamic Unity Conference, held in Los Angeles California, August 1996, who admittedly thought that he had received the wrong call to speak at an Islamic conference. Yet at the Conference, Rabbi Bennett expressed his enjoyment and unique experience with the Muslims' hospitalities and manners. After he spoke about some Muslim and Jewish similarities, and the possibility of Muslim/Jewish peaceful coexistence, Rabbi Bennett further said:

"The Jews in this country, who are such a small minority, have a tremendous obligation to make the Muslims feel welcome. It is a joy for me to go home not with a renewed respect, but with increased respect, not with new hope but with more hope, and I have a big job to do; I have to become a marketing agent for Islam."

It is only here in America do we have this opportunity to hear people share their thoughts and hopes, and to bring the religious communities closer together.

Final Remarks
In conclusion, The Muslims and Jews co-existed in harmony during the rise of Islam and beyond. Islam is a friendly religion to all "It was Muslim Spain, the only land the Jew knew in nearly a thousand years of the dispersion, which made the genius of physician Moses Maimonides possible". Acceptance and virtue are indivisible parts of the Muslim's faith. "The Jews of Banu 'Awf are one nation with the Muslims; the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs". These principles and historical events should draw the pace for better relations and more peaceful future for both Jewish and Muslim Communities.

Jihadist video shows boy beheading man

By ABDUL SATTAR, Associated Press Writer Fri Apr 20, 2:24 PM ET

KILI FAQIRAN, Pakistan - The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an American spy. Then he hacks off the captive's head to cries of "God is great!" and hoists it in triumph by the hair.

A video circulating in Pakistan records the grisly death of Ghulam Nabi, a Pakistani militant accused of betraying a top Taliban official who was killed in a December airstrike in Afghanistan.

An Associated Press reporter confirmed Nabi's identity by visiting his family in Kili Faqiran, their remote village in southwestern Pakistan.

The video, which was obtained by AP Television News in the border city of Peshawar on Tuesday, appears authentic and is unprecedented in jihadist propaganda because of the youth of the executioner.

Captions mention Mullah Dadullah, the Taliban's current top commander in southern Afghanistan, although he does not appear in the video. The soundtrack features songs praising Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar and "Sheikh Osama" — an apparent reference to Osama bin Laden, who is suspected of hiding along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The footage shows Nabi making what is described as a confession, being blindfolded with a checkered scarf.

"He is an American spy. Those who do this kind of thing will get this kind of fate," says his baby-faced executioner, who is not identified.

A continuous 2 1/2-minute shot then shows the victim lying on his side on a patch of rubble-strewn ground. A man holds Nabi by his beard while the boy, wearing a camouflage military jacket and oversized white sneakers, cuts into the throat. Other men and boys call out "Allahu akbar!" — "God is great!" — as blood spurts from the wound.

The film, overlain with jihadi songs, then shows the boy hacking and slashing at the man's neck until the head is severed.

A Pashto-language voiceover in the video identifies Nabi and his home village of Kili Faqiran in Baluchistan province, which lies about two hours' drive from the Afghan border.

A reporter went to the village, and Nabi's distraught and angry father, Ghulam Sakhi, confirmed his son's identity from a still picture that AP made from the footage. He said neighbors had told him the video is available at the village bazaar, but he had no wish to see it.

Sakhi said his son had been a loyal Taliban member who fought in Afghanistan and sheltered the hard-line Afghan group's leaders in the family's mud-walled compound.

He blames the Taliban and wants to avenge his son's death.

"The Taliban are not mujahedeen. They are not fighting for the cause of Islam," the 70-year-old said. "If I got my hands on them I would kill them and even tear their flesh with my own teeth."

Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, who claims to speak for the Taliban, told AP he had no information about Nabi or the video. None of the group's commanders he contacted could confirm the execution, he said.

The method of Nabi's death was not unusual for Pakistan's lawless tribal regions. Suspected informers are regularly found beheaded and dumped along the side of the road in the lawless, mountainous regions along the Afghan-Pakistani border where al-Qaida and Taliban militants find sanctuary.

But such al-Qaida-style killings are rarely featured in the Taliban's increasingly frequent propaganda videos. The use of a child to conduct the beheading stands out even among those filmed by militants in Iraq.

"This is outright barbarism," Iqbal Haider, secretary-general of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said after viewing the video. "Whosoever has committed this, whether they are Taliban or anybody else or any Afghan or al-Qaida or anybody, they are enemy No. 1 of the Muslims."

The video accuses Nabi of responsibility for a U.S. airstrike that killed Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, who was regarded as one of the top three associates of Omar, the Taliban supreme leader. He was hit while traveling by car in Afghanistan's Helmand province Dec. 19.

Osmani was the highest-ranking Taliban leader to die since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that ousted the hard-line regime in late 2001 for refusing to hand over bin Laden following the Sept. 11 terror attack on the United States.

The U.S. military said at the time that Osmani's death was a serious blow to militant operations, and NATO commanders said this week that a feared spring offensive had yet to materialize.

Sakhi, a retired mosque preacher with a long gray beard, spoke unashamedly of his son's Taliban affiliation and wept twice during an interview in his simple home at the foot of a mountain valley in Baluchistan province.

He said Nabi fought against the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance that helped U.S. forces to victory in Afghanistan.

After returning to Pakistan, Nabi ran a religious school in the Baluchistan capital of Quetta and had regularly sheltered both Osmani and Dadullah at the family compound, the father said.

He said Nabi also bought weapons for Taliban fighters and organized medical treatment for those injured during fighting in Afghanistan.

Some days after Osmani's death, Nabi went to Peshawar and then to Wana, a tribal town considered a militant stronghold, to collect money from Taliban officials to buy guns and food for militants in Afghanistan, Sakhi said.

He said his son called at the end of January to reveal that a tribal council had sentenced him to death on charges of tipping off U.S. forces about Osmani's movements, despite his denials.

His son passed the phone to Dadullah, but the militant leader ignored his pleas for clemency, Sakhi said.

"I talked to him and said you visited us and my son was a close friend so why are you going to hang him? He just said, 'How are you?', and switched off the phone," Sakhi said.

"They are the enemies of Islam," he said of the Taliban. "They are behaving like savages."

Sam Zarifi, Asia research director for Human Rights Watch, said the use of a child to commit such an act constituted a war crime and was a "new low" in the conflict in Afghanistan.

He noted the Taliban had teenage combatants but they were not recruited on a large scale because of the availability of adult fighters. He said he had seen children in the background of some jihadist videos but none in which they were directly involved in violence.

"I don't know why they would do this," Zarifi said. "The Taliban have to some extent tried to play to the public in Afghanistan and have not engaged in the complete sowing of mayhem that we have seen in Iraq. But this kind of act is really egregious. It's off the charts."

The full story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_child_executioner_1

Character and nature of islam are violence,hate,fear and drainwash.

Violence,
So choose not friends from them(disbeliever,non-muslim) till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah,but if they turn back,then seize them and kill them wherever you find them 4.89
Is it 'harmonious coexistence'??

Hate,
Those who reject Faith(that means only islam) and die rejecting,on them is the curse of Allah.Cow chapter 161.
Is it compassion?

Fear,
I(Allah) will cast Fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.Therefore strike off their heads 8.12
Is it mercy?

Brainwash,
Muslim must worship in arabic language 150 times in a month.
Isnt it brainwash?

Please,face the truth.
Dont run away from the reality.

Reading all the hatred, fear, gleeful bigotry and repeated postings of the same misinformation and illogic makes me pray: "God, isn't it time for You to Speak in a voice that all people will have to hear. Isn't it way past time to break Your silence?"

Pamela wrote:
"This question is exceptionally offensive and borders on religious bigotry."

I agree that the question may offend. I agree that such questions may be motivated by bigotry or ignorance. But I don't agree that such questions should not be asked.

As Pamela correctly pointed out, the scriptures of Christianity Judaism and Islam all have their violent aspects. They should all be questioned. Such questions should not be taboo. Our survival depends on people asking questions like that.

The fact that scriptures advocate violence proves that either God is not the loving merciful entity that people claim, or the scriptures are works of fiction made up by their authors. There are no other alternatives.

There are objectionable verses in many scriptures. Most people have the good sense to ignore them, but they don't have the good sense to realize that scriptures are the work of people, not gods.

Non-religious people and religious people alike are starting to realize that automatically giving respect to religious beliefs no matter how bizarre, no matter how harmful is not sensible.

I would like to encourage people to ask embarrassing questions about other people's religions and especially their own, and not to be afraid of the answers.

Anonymous wrote:
"Mark,

"I guess it's all a matter of perspective. And neither of us has the perspective of:

*Kurds killed by gas

Didn't we sell Saddam that gas? I also remember that when this atrocity was discovered, the US government took the position that the Iranians gassed the Kurds, not SH. SH was our buddy back then, Iran was our enemy.

*Civilians killed by scud missles

As opposed to civilians killed by American air sorties

*Women systematically raped in rape rooms

As opposed to Iraqi women raped for fun by US troops (at least we've covicted those troops of their crimes. I'll give us that)? Did I mention Abu Grahb?

*Family members who disappeard in the night

Check Gitmo.

I don't see what is so offensive about this question at all. Many people have concluded that Islam is a violent religion. It's a common theme in a lot of discussions in the media, in everyday life and certainly on On Faith. Your defensive article suggests that the question was in fact worded "Islam is definitely a violent religion, discuss". I'm certain that Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn expect a "No", and a well-argued one, from many of the panelists here, to help dispel just the sort of common misunderstandings you've assumed they exemplify.

Your response gives good reason to believe that Islam is at least not markedly more violent than any other religion around, or that reasons commonly given to prove the "violence of Islam" are faulty. It does not, however, give good reason to shut down the question itself. A lot less people rant about the inherent violence of Buddhism here than they do Islam - so this should be a great opportunity to educate, not an opportunity to get defensively riled up at the questioners.

Anonymous, Posted April 20, 2007 4:28 PM:

Uh, dude, there's no "Susan" here. To whom are you writing?

Mark,

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. And neither of us has the perspective of:

*Kurds killed by gas
*Civilians killed by scud missles
*Women systematically raped in rape rooms
*Family members who disappeard in the night
*Saudi's killed during an invasion by Iraq

They would maybe tell us a different story about life if Sadaam was still in power.

Pamela,

As with most Muslims on this blog, you talk in exhaustive generalities. Below are some specific questions regarding Islamic terrorism in the contemporary world. I also submitted the same questions to Dr. Mattson.

Do you condemn the 24/7 blood bath of the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq?

Do you believe American troops are in Iraq to help quell the civil war there?

Do you believe that American troops would leave Iraq if the civil war ceased?

Do you believe Iran is a supportor of international terror in order to further the Shiite/Islamic cause?

Do you renounce all of the militaristic and anti-female passages of the Koran?

Do you believe that Mohammed and his henchmen's main agenda was the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers?

The OT and NT have been "Crossanized" and cleansed to remove myths and embellishments. Do you believe the Koran needs a similar bath to remove the many myths that Islamic terrorists use to justify their cause?

Anonymous wrote:

"Mark,

"Who murdered the civilians in Iraq? You know the answer, regardless of how you want to push your political views. It wasn't US/UN forces...it was islamic suicide bombers. Face reality."

A simple fact: had Bush not illegally invaded Iraq to have his little oil war, Saddam would still be in power (or not), his aggressive tendencies fully contained by the US and the UN as they were in 2003, and his civilian population would be living in the suicide-bomber-free environment they enjoyed under Saddam's brutal reign.

It's quite obvious that the Iraqis and the world were better off when Saddam was in power, just as the world was better off before Bush assumed power.

You asked the question, but your question can't be answered without acknowledging the root causes of the slaughter that is happening in today's Iraq, and the root cause of the slaughter in today's Iraq is the situation that was created by Bush, not by the brutality of Saddam and not by the beliefs of any religion. It is Bush who has created the situation and has unleashed the suicide bombers in Iraq. He - and we as a nation - bear a large part of the responsibility for the slaughter going on in Iraq today.

And that's a reality that is as plain as the nose on your face.

And Mark...if you refuse to face reality. You're the stupid one.

Mark,

Who murdered the civilians in Iraq? You know the answer, regardless of how you want to push your political views. It wasn't US/UN forces...it was islamic suicide bombers. Face reality.

Susan,

You are very articulate. However, the proof is in the pudding. All you have to do is look at video footage on the news, youtube, etc of thousands of muslims in the street shouting hate, calling for death, suggesting beheadings, etc to know where the truth lies. I don't see ANY other religions doing this. To deny it, is to deny reality.

Thank you, Ms Taylor.

As I posted elsewhere on this question (with one slight modification this time 'round):

The timing of this question - just days after a mass killing and a DAY after hundreds of civilians were murdered in Iraq - has me fuming at the utter insensitivity and - I'll say it if no one else will - blatant STUPIDITY of Mr Meecham & Ms Quinn. It is the blogging equivalent of throwing gasoline on a fire; it is a WILLFUL and PREMEDITATED effort to inflame passions at a time that the country and the world are grieving the senseless deaths of innocents.

Surely, in a week when violence has dominated our headlines and worn raw our national psyche, the people who run this site can do better than to equate violence with a specific religion by posing a question that not only does disservice to the WP, but a question that demeans both columnists and bloggers of On Faith by dragging us through the intolerant mud of this mind-boggling "question." This is guilt by association, inartfully delivered as a bludgeon wrapped in the silk glove of polite discussion.

Shame on you, Mr Meecham and Ms Quinn. I am in total shock at your insensitivity and bigotry. You owe us all an apology, and you should withdraw this racist and bigotted question immediately.

As one of the more-vocal atheists on this board, I feel that I must rise to the defense not only of Islam but any religion - in fact, any group of people - to protest the bigotry contained in this ill-timed and overtly biased question.

Again, shame on you, Mr Meecham & Ms Quinn.

TU QUOQUE:

"Translation:
"You, also" or "You're another", Latin

Type:
-Argumentum ad Hominem
-Two Wrongs Make a Right

Exposition:

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

If other faiths are bad, that doesn't make Islam good.

As mentioned in an earlier post:

Jesus wasn't talking about using literal swords in dealing with conflict in families in practising the Christian faith. If using sword were meant literally, He would not simultaneously teach that one should love one's enemies and turn the other cheek.

Tamil Tigers are fighting a political battle, not a religious one. They happen to be Hindus, just as most members of the US military are most likely Christians and do not represent Christianity when they fight for American causes.

Dear Ms Taylor

Please consider the following:

On Buddha and Buddhism:

Buddha left the luxuries of his palace and married life and went in search of answers to human suffering.

He attained enlightenment after spending many years in hard ascetic practice, living in solitude exposed to the elements of nature.

After his enlightenment, he was keen to help everyone attain the same liberation that he did. He spent the next forty years of his life, living a celibate life, and walked all over India to share his enlightenment with others to help them find the way.

Non-violence occupied a very high place in his teaching, including non-violence to animals.

Have you read the Dammapada? Do you find any teaching on violence in it? Is there anything in the life of Buddha after enlightenment that supports violence?

One of the most powerful converts to Buddhism was the Indian Emperor Ashoka, who gave up his violent life as a ruler as a result of the teachings of Buddhism. Ashoka is credited with spreading Buddhism far and wide by PEACEFUL means.

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

On Christianity:

Have you read the Ten Commandments given by God in the time of Moses? “Thou shalt NOT KILL!” is one of them.
Have you read the New Testament, especially the Sermon on the Mount which sums up the teaching of Jesus Christ?
Does any teaching of Jesus Christ or His Apostles call for violence?
Does the life Jesus lived give any indication that He advocated violence?
Did Jesus practice violence?
Did Jesus instruct His disciples to use violence?
Do you remember the incident on Mount Olives when He healed the ear of the man whose ears had been cut off by one of the disciples in anger for coming to arrest Jesus? What did Jesus say to His disciple who used the sword to defend Him?

“Take up your cross and follow me,” is what Jesus taught, NOT, “take up your swords and follow me!”

On Hinduism:

Scripture in Hinduism comes from sages who went in search of God forsaking all worldly luxury, and spent all of their lives in meditation, out in the wild all their lives.

The Hindu sages and saints were not rulers and did not lead armies. The rulers belonged to a lower caste than priests and any battle fought by the rulers were in the context of gaining worldly power.

The gods and goddesses of Hinduism are mythological figures, not historical ones.

Can you think of even one instance when Hinduism was spread by the sword? Do you know that India from time immemorial has had many religions living peacefully together and India gave birth to several religions, and that would not have been possible if the Hindus were intolerant of other faiths? Do you know that none of the other religions were persecuted by Hindus? Do you know that Hindu India accepted all who were persecuted, the Jews and the Parsis a long time ago, and more recently the Tibetans for example?

In all instances of violence committed by anyone belonging to Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism, they have done it without any Scriptural basis.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

When you talk of Ramayana. You basically going back nearly 10,000 years.

The battle is to establish Dharrna. The rule of law, for human race.

Rama never robbed the people or started any war to enrich himself. It is part of history of the Aryan or first human race. It never says that if you don’t believe in me you will go to hell or force people to convert.

“Think about the 2000 Muslim killed in Gujarat?” I would say think about the people burned alive by the Moslems, women and children. The train doors locked from the outside. Do you expect people to stay calm. Moslems have killed, raped, sold men and women in slavery; millions of Hindu over the past 1000 years. Have the Hindu declared Holly war on Islam or marched on Mecca or taken revenge? It is the Moslems who marched into India to impose their barbaric culture . Read some books on the conquest of the Sind.

When did the Moslems become protector of the Sikhs? Think of how many Sikhs were butchered in Partition of India and how many women raped by the Moslem. Social problem will always be there. Hindu and Sikhs pray[even today] at each other places of worship. They have a Sikh PM and head of the arms forces; President who is Moslem and Christian as the head of the Congress party. What has Islam has to answer. Oh yes! Convert or kill the minorties.
. You Moslem cannot tolerate one another. How can you point a finger at a society that is willing to be faire to the minority! Any example in the Moslem’s world? No! Unlike Sunni and Shiite who butchering each other for the last 1000 year and it seems nothing has changed.

Tamil tigers? You should also include IRA. The big difference is; they are fighting for their rights [Dharma]. I don’t recall they declared war on the world to convert the world to their ways of thinking or to their religion. Have they? But you[Moslems] have to kill, murder people to convert the world to your Arabs and backward religion.

Have the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists ever fought each other to convert. No!. Have they declared to march into the world and destroy Mecca and Rome and convert the people .No! Moslem kill each other every day for what?.

Islam is a reaction to Christianity and Judaism[the Jews] of his[Mo’s] time.Christians and the Jews would taunt the Moslems that they[Moslems] believe in many gods and we only believe in one god. It is this reaction that created Islam and not some God inspirations.

Christ , Buddha, never hurt anyone. They never created armies to march on other nations. But Mo was a butcher and a rapist who believed in violence to convert the entire the world.

If some passage are taken out of context, that does not make Christ and Buddha like Mo. There are lot of passages in the Koran, the Moslem don’t understand but accept them as true. Sixty percentage of the Koran deals with war and other inhuman acts.

If you want to talk about Buddhism and Hinduism. First read the Veda and Upanishads and the Gita.

Buddhism , Hinduism are called Sanathan Dharma. Which means the ancient rules set out by the creator for human at the beging. Do your duty to all human being regardless of creed or colour. The world is one big family, so say the Veda.

If Islam is religion of peace and perfect. How come the entire Moslem world is in a mess; killing each other every day. I don’t see Christian and other religion killing each other.

Since Islam is suppose to be the last word and the perfect word of so called god, and Mo suppose to be the last prophet[who never prophesied nothing]. Why do you need other’s people religion to defend your religion. Does not God stand on truth alone?
The truth[for muslems] as I have mentioned earlier. You[Islam] can only exist by reacting to other’s faiths and not by any so called word of god.

Its a religion of reaction and not of God.

Pamela,
You misrepresent the Kalachakra Tantra as violence. It is a prophesy, not an instruction to Buddhists to commit violence. There is nothing in the Buddha's teachings or example that one may construe to be violent. He was a totally non-violent person.

The Kalachakra Tantra is actually Buddha's teaching AGAINST violence of war. You have twisted the tantra.

I know many ignorant people equate the Kalachakra Tantra with Islamic teaching on violence. However, the tantra is a search for the shamballa - it is a dream world - that of one's soul, quite unlike Mohammad's real example of warfare and teachings to commit warfare.

Please repent and seek forgiveness.

Lopsang Rinpoche

"Is Islam a violent religion?"

I suppose it depends on how you define "violent"...

If, by violent, you mean that it either promotes the genocide of atheists, apostates and polytheists OR in the name of avoiding self-criticism enables the genocide of atheists, apostates and polytheists...then the answer is YES!

I suppose it depends on how you define "violent"...

I'm kafir and I'm here - Get used to it!

Victoria said:
>>"as it is such an offensive- in the line of this one- have you stopped beating your wife?"

No, that would be "Why is Islam violent?"

This question is instead "Do you think that man beats his wife?"

It's not MUCH better, but it does allow for a "no" answer, instead of invalidating the whole question if it's not true.

However, I applaud your resolve not to react offensively about muslims. After 9/11 and the years of Iraq, it was easy to see this stupid stereotype was going to be a problem, and viewed as 'patriotic' (a word I find terrifying). The prejudice is widespread and definitely exists, and you're right - it bears no relation at all to the actions of 99% of the muslims in the US or UK.

The question is still a valid one, though - while there is plenty in Islam about non-violence and love, does it also have violence built into its texts, beliefs and history? These are the things which say whether violence is in the 'religion', not just the actions of today's Muslims.

And if the answer is yes, do the texts and history of Christianity have the same violent elements when you compare them?

as a matter of fact, i watched on PBS last night, a new series called america at the crossroads-
it is ostensibly about muslims.

as a documentary, it is filled with "re-enactments"

it portrayed sneaky looking arabic men sitting in a dank dark apartment watching al-qaeda propoganda and responding with shameful glee

squatting on disheveled mattresses on the floor.
in london no less!
i said to my husband, "why do they always portray muslims without any furniture?"
and there were also many clips of american soldiers lamenting how the iraqis they were trying to 'help' were all liars and terrorists and how can you help such people?

i spent all day watching PBS on sunday, and it was all jewish all day- and all highly and clearly favorable- not a whiff of a mention of israel exept showing american schoolgirls ,torah scroll in hand, happily singing and dancing and spreading the love.

i watch it to learn and to be tolerant and to try and see the positions and reasoning- to understand.

every ramadan i search in vain for any reference to our holiday- and it lasts 30 days!

this whole question further reinforces the idea that prejudice and slander against muslims is acceptable,even patriotic.

well, its not.

as it is such an offensive- in the line of this one- have you stopped beating your wife?

how does one respond to an offense without curling up into defensive mode?

the journalistic integrity of the ms quinn and mr meachem is severely compromised by this kind of leading question with an implicit answer contained within it.

and it seems deliberately fanning the fires when it is posted right after passions have been inflamed from the VT incident.

like there is a conscious effort to create drama and hostility especially in light of the symposium on islam in the US today.
gearing up the islamophobes to attack.
most irresponsible.

because we muslims are getting so used to being blamed and attacked, a lady i know (whose not even muslim) said to me, "thank god it wasnt a muslim student".

even non-muslims recognize the backlash that is lobbied at muslims.

i refuse to be defensive -

but i also refuse to become offensive-
(as the best defense is an offense- it keeps people from looking at your flaws when you concentrate on attacking another)

i found it strange that the blog owners posted a question on discrimination against catholics-
but dont address the very real and pervasive discrimination against muslims.

then follow up with a question about how the media treats religion

now this.

there is an obvious prejudiced conclusion that ms quinn and mr meachem are trying to lead the conversations here-

and its a smelly yellow kind of journalism

Pamela-

I agreed that this question is grossly offensive. Christians who scream bloody murder when someone quotes scripture out of context will delightedly quote the Qur'an out of context all day long.

Thirty-three people were killed at VT and the whole nation mourns; on the same day over 180 people were killed in Iraq. Who cries for them?

The parochialism of some Muslims is equally answered by those in the supposed "civilized" West.

Can't we all just get along?

It is all about the founders of Islam.

A brief summary:

Mohammed was illiterate.

Ref.: See Karen Armstrong's books on world religions. Karen is an On-Faith Panelist.
"Karen Armstrong
Prominent author on religious history
Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. Since September 11, 2001, she has been a frequent contributor to conferences, panels, newspapers, periodicals and broadcast media on the subject of Islam.

Mohammed hallucinated-

i.e. he talked to angels ("pretty wingy thingies). We all know angels are mythical creatures blended into the OT, NT and Koran by scribes familiar with ancient extinct religions.
Refs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel and http://www.likeacat.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1
"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "
"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

Mohammed's scribal henchmen and fellow founders of Islam had militaristic agendas of looting/plundering the lands of non-believers.

Refs: Common sense and any world history book. Angels did not reveal god's word since angels don't exist so scribe(s) had to write the militant passages of the Koran but that might be letting ole Mohammed off the hook as a dictator of not only Arabic tribes but also of many disturbing words and ideas. The looting and plundering of the lands of non-believers is history. The history continues with the contemporary Sunni/Shiite bloodletting and the statements by Bin Laden, Islamic clerics throughout the Mideast and the leaders of Iran."
Professor JD Crossan "crossanized" the NT to bring it into the realm of the real world. He should now "crossanize" the Koran to remove its militant and anti-female rhetoric.

When Moslems accept this contemporary and realistic view of Mohammed and the other founders of Islam and renounce all the militaristic and anti-female messages of the Koran then I will accept that Islam is not a violent religion.

And Pamela, the NT passages you quoted are about the difficulty of living a good life. No where does it say you should kill those who do not follow your way of life unlike the many of the passages of the Koran.

I recommend reading Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus before making any more quotes from the NT.

You're absolutely right to say the question is offensive. I can see why it was asked - it's a legitimate topic in the events of the modern world. Had we just been comparing religions abstractly on the basis of their texts, it would extremely offensive to single one out.

Instead, the question should be "Is it easy for fundamentalists to pervert (insert religion here) to violence?" And as you point out, the answer is yes, for every single major faith.

Or we could go the comedy route and take the quiz on LandoverBaptist (parody site) on whether the Christian or Muslim God condones more violence, and personally carried out more violence:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/godswrathquiz.html
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1001/viciousgodquiz.html

You are right to be insulted by the question and the singling out of Islam as a violent religion. Your reply is right on the mark. I would like to propose another question related to the evil of violence perpetrated on behalf of a religion or anation.

Question: Is the United States of American a violent country??

Who in his right mind would answer this question with a NO after the leadership of our country made war with Iraq under false pretenses, accused the American public of being unpatriotic if they did not support this war and finally is continuing the was after the country is no longer supportive of this effort.

Who in his right mind could say NO after thirty three people were killed at Virginia Tech?

We Americans tend to think that what we love and believe in is wonderful and beyond reproach. But we are only as good as our leaders, just as religions are only as good as their leaders and followers. ALL religions suffer under the same problem that our nation suffers under!! Violence is the way of the world! The time for change is needed! At least in the US we voters can take things into our own hands.

Fortunately, my life is more than three-quarters over, so maybe I can survive the onslaught of violence that seems to surround me without my seeking it -- tv, movies, government actions, individual random violence -- VIOLENCE is everwhere. Just wish I could believe in a place waiting for me after my death; maybe that would made it more tolerable.

You are right to be insulted by the question and the singling out of Islam as a violent religion. Your reply is right on the mark. I would like to propose another question related to the evil of violence perpetrated on behalf of a religion or anation.

Question: Is the United States of American a violent country??

Who in his right mind would answer this question with a NO after the leadership of our country made war with Iraq under false pretenses, accused the American public of being unpatriotic if they did not support this war and finally is continuing the was after the country is no longer supportive of this effort.

Who in his right mind could say NO after thirty three people were killed at Virginia Tech?

We Americans tend to think that what we love and believe in is wonderful and beyond reproach. But we are only as good as our leaders, just as religions are only as good as their leaders and followers. ALL religions suffer under the same problem that our nation suffers under!! Violence is the way of the world! The time for change is needed! At least in the US we voters can take things into our own hands.

Fortunately, my life is more than three-quarters over, so maybe I can survive the onslaught of violence that seems to surround me without my seeking it -- tv, movies, government actions, individual random violence -- VIOLENCE is everwhere. Just wish I could believe in a place waiting for me after my death; maybe that would made it more tolerable.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/mary_concubine.htm

----- Source: Quasim Omar

Unfortunately there is no agreement even among Muslims how many wives Muhammad had. It all depends on the source. Some say he had 9 wives. Some say he had as many as 20, but the consensus seems to be about 13 or more.
However, having said that, he is generally regarded as having two sex slaves, maybe more. But the two are the FAMOUS ones. Every Muslim should know about Rayhanna and Mariah the Copt.
The Historian Ali Dashti does a good job in collating the number of wives according to Islamic hadiths and sira. Here is a weblink that uses Ali Dashti's work.

http://www.muslimhope.com/WhyDidMohammedGetSoManyWives.htm

http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/r5405et8.htm

According to the light-of-life source, Muhammad married Rayhana in 6AH which was a year after he made her his sex slave.

According to some Islamic sources, Muhammad had four concubines, i.e. sex slaves.
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
Abu ‘Ubaydah said: HE HAD FOUR (CONCUBINES): MARIYAH, who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave woman whom he acquired as a prisoner of war; and a slave woman who was given to him by Zaynab bint Jahsh.
Zaad al-Ma’aad, 1/114

Besides these, he had two concubines. The first was Mariyah, the Coptic (an Egyptian Christian), a present gift from Al-Muqauqis, vicegerent of Egypt - she gave birth to his son Ibrâhim, who died in Madinah while still a little child, on the 28th or 29th of Shawwal in the year 10 A.H., i.e. 27th January, 632 A.D. The second one was Raihanah bint Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah, a captive from Bani Quraiza. Some people say she was one of his wives. However, Ibn Al-Qaiyim gives more weight to the first version. Abu 'Ubaidah spoke of two more concubines, Jameelah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 1/29] (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR) Biography of the Noble Prophet, Saif-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition 1995], "The Prophetic Household", p. 485; online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)

------------------------------------

Source: Quasim Omar

Muslims in general exhibit a special nostalgia of what they like to call the Golden Era of Islam. Generations of Muslims had spent their lives dreaming that one day they will bring back the glory of the early years of Islam. The result is that the ambition to establish an Islamic World has become an obsession to all Muslim who believe a true Islamic World will solve for good all their problems.

This never-ending fantasy of an Islamic Khilafa is deep rooted and difficult to cure. Even the fact that we already have some Islamic governments in control of some Islamic countries is not good enough to bring Muslims back to the world of reality. When you point to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan, which all have been turned into icons of corruption and backwardness by their Islamic governments, they say that is not proper implementation of Islam. When you remind them with the deposed Taliban regime of Afghanistan that implemented pure Islamic teachings regardless of any other influence, they say that was too strict to fit our time! The Talibans do not represent real Islam!

So what do Muslims aspire to?

Officially, the Islamic state, or khilafa, only disappeared less than a century ago when Mustafa Kamal Ataturk started his modernization program in Turkey after centuries of stagnation and corruption brought about by the Ottoman’s khilafa. The majority of Muslims are aware of the corruption and intellectual decline associated with the Ottoman’s rule, but they still prefer it to other non-Islamic governments, just because it carries an Islamic title.

Muslims in general hold a higher regard to the other dynasties that preceded the Ottomans, like the Umayyads and the Abbassids. They like to live in the distant past and hanker to associate these dynasties with impressive military successes. Nevertheless, they become defenceless once confronted with the historical details. The vast majority of today’s Muslims either read history through modern books, which present a biased and adulterated version or they do not read it at all, and accept whatever they are told by their imams.

The Umayyad dynasty was established in 661 AD. It achieved territorial expansion of the Islamic state and mass conversions to Islam. However, the whole dynasty was essentially an anti Caliphate rebellion movement, because it came to existence by undermining the authority of the fourth legal Caliph Ali. Many of the Umayyad Caliphs were sinners and openly corrupt; some of them involved in vicious power struggle to eliminate each other. Today’s Muslims in general think of the Umayyads as good but far from perfect.

The Abbassids dynasty was founded in 750 AD after a revolt against the Umayyads. Its first Caliph was Abdulla Alsaffah (Arabic for Abdulla the Butcher!) , which describes his ruthlessness in dealing with his opposition. After seizing power and establishing full control of the country, he invited the remaining members of the Umayyad clan to a dinner party, and then ordered the killing of all of them. Ethnic tensions and civil unrest plagued the dynasty to its last day, not to mention the power struggle between the Caliphs themselves. In the year 813 AD, a civil war broke out between the two brothers: Al Amin and Al Mamoun resulting in the death of Al Amin who was the legal Caliph. During most of the time, the Abbassid Caliphs maintained only a feeble authority, which they eventually lost completely to the emerging rulers who formed their own independent mini states. Today’s Muslims do not think of the Abbassids any better than the Umayyads.

The above discussion already covered fourteen hundreds years of Islamic history without a single glorious year. So what golden age Muslims are talking about?

When Muslims think of an ideal Islamic state, they have something else in mind. They think of Islam as was implemented by what they like to call the four Rightly Guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali who ruled after Mohammed. The four Caliphs were all close friends of Mohammed, who testified for them to have guaranteed places in paradise. Sunni Muslims do not fault those Caliphs and believe all of them truly followed the footsteps of Mohammed and consider their time, which only lasted thirty-one years, as the golden era of Islam.

The only problem is: Muslims do not read their history very well! For a start, with the exception of Abu Bakr, who died of natural causes, all the other three Caliphs were murdered in the most cruel and inhuman manner. Just imagine, if a country’s leaders are murdered in two thirds of the time!

Now, let us have a closer look at those thirty-one years of what Muslims describe as the glorious history of Islam. My main reference is Ibn Saad’s Al-Tabakat Alkubra, but other history books generally agree on the described events. It is also worth noting that the article only presents the Sunni point of view.

The issue of succession

Immediately after Mohammed’s death in 632 AD, a number of prominent Muslims attended an urgent meeting to discuss the issue of succession. The Arabs of Medina, better known as Al-Ansar (Arabic for supporters) who welcomed Mohammed and his companions in their city and made it possible for Islam to survive, were hoping to be rewarded at last by choosing a leader from them. Having a leader from Al-Ansar was simply unacceptable to the Meccan Arabs, known as Al-Muhajeroon (Arabic for immigrants) who regarded themselves to be naturally superior because they all came from the Quraysh tribe, just like Mohammed. Al-Ansar’s hopes vanished quickly when Omar stepped forward and nominated Abu Bakr and chose him as a Caliph (successor) by shaking hands with him. The rest of Al-Muhajeroon followed suit one by one. The spineless Al-Ansar were never a match to Al-Muhajeroon and would rather bend backwards to accommodate their demands than have a confrontation with them. They quickly gave up their initial demand and accepted Abu Bakr as a Caliph. By doing so, Al-Ansar did not only loose their bid for the leadership, but they also lost their place in the subsequent Islamic history. This was virtually the end for them.

Al-Muhajeroon managed to show a united front and emerged as the clear winner in that initial power struggle. However, that meeting has proved to be the most divisive in the entire history of Islam, with millions of Muslims loosing their lives because of the decisions taken. Ali, who was Mohammed’s cousin, did not attend the meeting and was reluctant to recognise Abu Bakr as a legitimate Caliph. His wife, Fatima, was also not happy with the appointment of Abu Bakr as the Caliph. A substantial proportion of Muslims, now called Shia Muslims, believe that Ali’s reluctance in accepting Abu Bakr was based on religious grounds, which is outside the topic of this article. What matters to us here is that Islam became a severely divided religion immediately after Mohammed’s death.

A Blood bath in Arabia

Abu Bakr reigned from 632 to 634 AD. His first task was to deal with the emerging crisis in Arabia when many tribes refused to pay the zakat (Islamic tax) on the basis that zakat was supposed to be payable only to the prophet, who was then dead. Abu Bakr’s response was to wage a full-scale war against those tribes, accusing them of abandoning Islam or ridda (Arabic for apostasy). He assigned Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed to be in charge of the army to suppress the defiant tribes. There were many fierce battles but in the end, the rebellious tribes were defeated. The success of Khalid during the ridda wars came at a very high price with tens of thousands killed on both sides. That scale of bloodshed was never seen in Arabia before, but it helped to secure the Islamic state and to subdue the rest of Arabia.

Muslims like to remember Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed as the sword of Allah, as Mohammed once described him. Islamic history describes Khalid as a talented general with unmatched skills and experience, but between the lines one can also read description of a tyrant personality that is more suitable to a gang leader. Islamic history is full of stories of that nature but Muslims prefer not to read too much in it.
Here is one such story:

Malik Ibn Nuwayra was the highly respected chief of the tribe of Bani Tamim, He was defeated after a fierce battle. Malik was married to Layla Bint Al Manhal who was generally considered as one of the most beautiful women in Arabia. Malik was captured with some of his men and brought to Khalid. The captured leader noticed the way Khalid was looking at his beautiful wife and knew what was in Khalid’s mind. Malik remarked that his wife’s beauty would bring about his death. Khalid, the sword of Allah, did not wait too long and ordered the killing of Malik then took his wife for himself on that same night!

Please note that it was not Malik or his men who told the above story of murder and rape, because they were killed. The story was told by Khalid’s side; by his men and admirers. Even more astonishing was the response of Abu Bakr, the first Rightly Guided Caliph of Islam, when the incident was reported to him. Abu Bakr did not endorse Khalid’d behaviour, but that is about it! No dismissal or a single day in jail. In fact Khalid was back again and was in charge of the Islamic army heading to the north. It is ironic to note that Abu Bakr waged a full-scale war against Malik Ibn Nuwayra just because he did not pay the zakat, and pardoned Khalid with charges like rape and murder.

Apparently, Khalid did not do anything outrageous in Islamic standards. His behaviour was a good reminder of similar atrocities committed by Mohammed when the later attacked the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadeer. Mohammed killed the chief of the tribe and raped his wife who had just lost her husband, father, and many of her relatives.

The Fitna (civil war)

Uthman was the third Rightly Guided Caliph and reigned from 644 to 656 AD. Uthman came from the wealthy and influential tribe of Bani Umayya. He was a rich and generous man and a close friend of Mohammed, who knew how to use Uthman’s wealth and generosity to his advantage. During his rule, Uthman appointed many of his relatives as governors in the expanding Islamic state provoking accusations of being biased towards his clan. One of the main accusers was Aysha, Mohammed’s widow, who campaigned for his removal or even his death.

A group of Muslims, headed by the son of Abu Bakr, the first Rightly Guided Caliph, revolted against Uthman, sparking what later came to be known as the greatest fitna. The rioters surrounded Uthman’s house, in effect, putting the head of state under siege for over two weeks and no one in sight came to help! Eventually, the angry Muslims climbed the walls and stormed the house and killed Uthman while he was reading the Quran.

One would expect a state funeral for the head of state. Unfortunately, this did not happen in the case of Uthman. On the contrary, the body of the Caliph was denied a decent burial for a number of days until his family managed to burry him secretly! This happened is in a society where it is traditional to burry the dead in the same day.
After Uthman’s murder, Ali, the prominent leader in the waiting, was chosen as a Caliph. He reigned for five years, from 656 to 661 AD. One would expect some form of unity under the new charismatic leader whose election is welcomed by both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Unfortunately, the winds of war started to blow again from all directions. Ali was accused of being too soft in dealing with Uthman’s murderers. Surprisingly, the accusations came from Aysha, that same woman who earlier called Muslims to kill Uthman. Aysha may have hated Uthman, but she hated Ali even more. She started to campaign against the new Caliph and managed to gather enough supporters to form a fighting battalion against the Caliph. A bloody war broke out between the rival factions with the loss of thousands of lives in the battle of the Camel. Ali won the battle and crushed Aysha’s army, but that was not the end of his troubles.

Muaweya Ibn Abu Sufyan was the powerful governor of Syria and refused to recognize Ali as a Caliph, again taking Uthman’s murder as an excuse. War broke out between the two factions in the battle of Siffin, but the dispute between the two men ended only when fellow Muslims assassinated Ali in the year 661 AD.

That was the golden era of Islam! The glorious thirty-one years of perfect implementation of Islam were full with wars, corruption, rape, and murder and power struggles. That is apparently the best Islam could offer, and that what today’s confused Muslims are dying for.