Readers’ Responses to Our Question (39)

astrography drawnet muscadine liveried insorb atmiatry sergeant cryptographically
Toddler Learning Games
http://www0.uejtaxylj.net/8i
Hazelnut Cookie Recipe
http://www1.qvnpvz.net/fi
Nissan X-terra Accessories
http://www4.uejtaxylj.net/4t
Smith Station High School
http://www2.qfoifxz.net/1ly
Rock Paper Scissors Shirt
http://www4.uejtaxylj.net/129
File State Taxes Online
http://www5.qfoifxz.net/xa
Moorpark Civil War
http://www1.uejtaxylj.net/1as
Dodge Grand Caravan Es
http://www4.uejtaxylj.net/vf
Rating Picture Sites
http://www0.qfoifxz.net/1ez
Anne Mccaffrey Bio
http://www4.qfoifxz.net/17g

rockery magic preamalgamation cytogenous coated wellsite actinomycin ecphorable
Patterson Video
http://www.wambdi.bia.edu/

hydronitric tentwort foremost picketeer rewelcome superscandal macracanthrorhynchiasis epimorphosis
Mandolin Lessons
http://www.angelfire.com/qmejhxmh/1ccl.html

Even secularism coerced from the barrel of a gun?
the AKP has finally allowed women in the parliament- something the secularists didnt.
which constitutes progressive behavior?

i am more than amazed at the lack of knowledhge of history on these boards.

just above me is an example-

yes, the turkish alphabet was replaced by the roman one- and in the process centuries of literature is now incomprehensible to turks-

this is a good thing?
the militarist secularists have decreed the religious expression (which we have the freedom of in this democracy) be oppressed.

this is good?

turkey is a country with a 99% muslim population who have made their voice known with their votes.

the father of the turks, kemal, was a drunkard, a womanizer and a sabbetaist.(do a google)
his intention was to wipe islam out of turkey-

and at the end of a gun barrel almost did-

but the PEOPLE of turkey have decided they want the freedom to practice their religion.

what would people say if we had a president who tore down the churches and synogogues, outlawed stars of davids and crosses- ripped the head coverings off orthodox jewish women?

would we call that a democracy?

I wonder why people shun secularism for religious fundamentalism. (To me this seems akin to preferring Hell over Heaven.) Because, under the latter, ‘center of power’ gets ‘irreversibly’ occupied by a few so-called 'religious heads' leaving the general population at its margins (and their mercy). And, that, this regressive religious phenomenon is predominantly prevalent in Islamic world should not come as a shocker to anyone.

Turkey, as a nation, which could keep itself away from mindless display of religious extremism so far, should retain its sense of secularism as resorting to religious fundamentalism – however ‘soft’ it might seem at the onset – will drag it down towards destabilization and subsequent inevitable degeneration.

Moreover, Turkey will also lose its long standing battle over its ‘legitimate’ rights to a place in the EU and, which would spell doom for its future growth as a country.

Even if we opine that ‘religion is the opium of the masses’ it should be ‘consumed’ with control, otherwise, as with overindulgence in opium, it too would get converted into a ‘poison’ for Turkey’s masses.

Asim,

This forum sways off subject quite often. A question is asked but the posts follow a lively path and it looks like PG is fine with it. Your post left me with some questions that I’ll ask hoping to get an answer from your capable pen.

You start with a small sample of the atrocities against the Moslems. I do not understand your purpose. I’m sure we both agree that all of the Hitler’s killings of the Jews does not justify killing of one innocent Palestinian by the Israelis. I also believe that you do not mean to say we are all human and make mistakes and that you are not arguing that Mohamad’s act was a lesser atrocity compare to what has been done to Moslems. It leaves me with your accusation of malice intend to hurt Islam by recycling 1400 year old incident when fresh atrocities are happening every day. This makes it personal! I was the first one who mentioned this incident on this forum in response to “Disgusted” about a month ago. It was on subject and part of an argument about knowing your religion before following it. Further more, I’m neither a jew nor a Christian! So I respectfully reject your argument.

Your argument on Medina being a city/state and the killing being done according to the state laws tries to solve one problem but starts many others. Let me explain. As we both know, there were 3 Jewish tribes being accused. Mohamad made the first tribe leave taking all their belongings with them, ejected the second tribe making them leave their belongings, and it was only then (when Jews were outnumbered) that he attacked them. After a siege that left them with no access to food and water, mediation was arranged and then again we both agree on what followed. This was clever statesmanship on the part of Mohamad. But Mohamad matters after 14 centuries because he was a holly man. Many better statesmen have come and gone and they are not relevant anymore. The problem with this incident is that it is done by a holy man that is held to much higher standard.

What Mohamad did after moving to Medina including attacks on the merchant caravans heading to Mecca and also this incident is the start of Jihad doctrine. That is why it is relevant and it is in that view that I expect your capable pen to challenge me!

to
AMviennaVA :
hello again
Thnk for understanding my point of philosophy of resistance by the oppressed people.Now question is why the struggle of Iraqi people considered as the act of terrorism and relate it with islam?who has given the authority to foreighn power to topple the goverment of a goverment and placed the country on path of anarchy? if resisting and fighting with arm against the occupier of the nation then the american independence war led by george washington against the british should be termed as the first act of terrorism .
On point of international enquiry why you not advocating?Vcause all western people know that this was not act of al-qaeda but the western conspiracy to defame islam and labelled on islam the tag of terrorism so the west can be save from peacful islamic march through conversation.other hand if al-qaeda palnned the world trade centre attack then i will say he is the most foolish person of the world and not a far sighted person and cannot be leader of such organisation which presented by american as the force a reckown in hiding.vcause for islamist the reconstruction of islamic power in arae of afghanistan and central asia needed time and what he was working on that.The islamist could not attack on america and asked american to destroy the main aim of these islamist what they always project in islamic world.during the process of reconstruction of islamic power in this area could not encourage islamic power to do such heinous crime against humanity.and if they did then i can say that they are bunch of fools who making fool to islamic world.
to you my advice is that we are all human being and brother and sister.we always look reason for any thing.we love and respect to each other.that is lesson og religion and humanism.we do justice for that even we have to loos life and honour.we denounce violene at any cost and put all lover of vilence in sideline of society.we donot glorify the violence from our side the heroic and from other the terrorism.
Thank

sorry for the multiple messages. it is sunday and there is traffic on the internet. i considered that messages didnt reach but they have.

religions are not a matter of identification any more. and they are not subjects to argue on.

MArie Anthoniette, the french queen, known with the "no bread then sweet bread". the french revolution was not approved because it was a matter of language. so the secularism is subject to reconsideration.

thymuse gland under the throat, the center of harmony and health, is known with beautiful scent, music, ring, sweet bread, wine, holy grail, "your voice" spoken within "Body".

and prophet "peygamber" in persian is maybe "peyk-i amber", "who follows the beautiful scent". amber is from pine tree and whale liver.

could you please concentrate on Spirit but not on religions, and the language of spirit.

Religions are fruits of Spirit. so we should care for the TREE. the base of arguments may be on the tree, but later on the fruits.

in case you take the website below into consideration about secularism, then we can have an idea about secularism, religions and the language of IDRIS HERMES THOT ANDREAS,

http://www.crystalinks.com/stgermain.html

could you please concentrate on Spirit but not on religions, and the language of spirit.

Religions are fruits of Spirit. so we should care for the TREE. so the base of arguments may be on the tree, but later on the fruits.

could you please concentrate on Spirit but not on religions, anf the language of spirit.

Religions are fruits of Spirit. so we should care for the TREE. so the base of arguments may be on the tree, but later on the fruits.

Syed K. Mirza,

This is not your real name and your post is a clever fabrication to make it look like authentic "Islamic" documented sources.

Jews...Jews..and Jews...but the subject is the recent Turkish elections and not the 1400 years story of the treacharous jewish tribe of Ban Quraizah...if it is not the recyceled story of the holocaust,then it's Ban Quraizah. All the same this the true story of this tribe.

But before some of the posters here go back 1400 years to talk about the justice administered to treacherous Jewish tribe of Banu Qurizah in Medina, they should look at the recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia, Lebanon and the on going genocide of course in Palestine:

Eight thousand Bosnian Muslim boys and men were handcuffed, blindfolded and led by Serb Orthodox Christians and with full knowledge of the UN Dutch military unit (Protestant and Catholic Christians) to a forest in Bosnia just outside Sbrerenicha : they were murdered in cold blood, en masse genocide-summary executions; thou those innocent victims were European Slavs and citizens of ex-Yugoslavia, their only crime was that they were Muslim. This did not happen 1400 years ago, it happened in 1991.The total number of Muslims murdered by the Christian Serbs in that war exceeded 250,000 including mass rape of children and women in the heart of and while “Civilized Christian Europe” looked on. The number would have been much higher were not for the intervention of USA to protect whatever remained of Muslim population.

So who is violent?

During the reign of the Prophet in the city/state of Medina early 7th century, every one was a full citizen with full civic and religious rights: the new Muslims, Christians, the Jews and the Pagans of Arabia. The Quran states unequivocally that” No Compulsion in Religion).The Prophet who just established the first Islamic city/state in Medina, had signed a treaty with-among others-the Jewish tribe of Banu Qorizah-to defend the new state and where the treaty stipulated that the members of this tribe being citizens of the new Islamic city-state agreed never to ally themselves with the enemies of the infant Islamic state nor to carry arms against it in exchange for granting them-the Jewish tribe- the aforementioned full citizenship rights including guarantying their protection and security. However the Jewish tribe conspired with enemies of the Islamic state and committed treason, treachery and violated the treaty. The Islamic state, lead by the Prophet defatted the aggressors on the battlefield; thereafter the Prophet and the leaders of the Jewish tribe mutually agreed to appointing an acceptable and neutral arbitrator/Judge to rule on the violation of the treaty which the Jewish tribe violated and the Judge ruled that the Jewish tribe was guilty of both joint military aggression with the enemies of the infant state as well as treason as they were citizen of Islamic state. The judge ordered the death penalty to be carried out against the treacherous members of the tribe who committed treason and aggression-as any state would do in self-defense. The numbers of those deserving the death penalty is exaggerated by Jewish sources as usual.

Compare the genocide of 250,000 European Bosnian Muslims –including the mass murder of the 8,000 Muslim boys and men-for no reason other than being Muslim to the death penalty administered against Jewish citizens of an Islamic infant state because they committed treason and aggression and violated a treaty-not because they were Jewish.

How about 1200 Lebanese civilians bombed to death by Israel last July as well as the destruction of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure?

How about the holocaust and Apartheid imposed on the tormented Palestinians by Israel for past 60 years in refugee camps outside Palestine and in a big Concentration Camp called Gaza? Just during the last couple of years Israel slaughtered over 700 seven hundred Palestinians most of them children and women.

What about half of the Muslim population of Chechenya which perished on their forced exile marsh by Stalin to Siberia in harsh Russian winters during WW11 and the atrocities are still going on under Putin.

So who is just and fair?
The debate on this and other WP forums is always hijacked by radicals and Islam bashers and diverted from the presented topic to a smear campaign against Islam.And jumping from Turkish elections to jews in Arabia 1400 years ago is a concrete example of abusing this froum.

AM

The Saudis that attacked the world trade center (planned by Bin Laden) have a complaint WITH the Saudi government as well as the US. Al Qaeda considers the Saudi government corrupt and impious. In addition, the Saudis are aligned with the US, and of course, the US is the major supporter of Israel. Al Qaeda has attacked Saudi Arabia in the past.

You reap what you sow, and the Saudis adhere to a fundamentalist Islamic philosophy. It is not surprising that some of their (more radical) population sees them as part of the problem and wants to overthrow the Monarchy. It's even less surprising that they attacked the US. I would not term Wahhabism as "moderate" Islam.

When the Shiites were marching in celebration ("...on foot to Karbala to honor Mohammed's grandson Hussein..."), suicide bombers killed over a hundred marchers. It turns out that the bombers were Saudis. I also mentioned in a previous post that nearly one half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.

It may not be so surprising to you that the Saudis offered the peace initiative, but they risk a further radicalization of their population by giving full recognition to Israel. For that reason, I applaud their efforts.

mohammad allam : Hello again. I will try to respond.

I agree that the terms liberal, conservative, radical and fundamentalist are recent. But the Pope did NOT bless Bush. As a matter of fact, as with almost ALL of Europe, he criticized the invasion of Irak. Even the majority of Britons opposed it, despite Blair.

Secondly, it is true that the Ottomans were friendly to the Jews at a time when Europe was not. But today's Israel is not the result of the Ottomans or Turks. Balfour made his declaration in response to pressure from the Zionists (based in Britain) while the British were still fighting the Ottomans for control of Palestine. I always thought that it was kind of him to give away someone else's property. Based on that declaration, while Palestine was under British occupation, there was considerable migration of Jews to Palestine. They were established with help from the British, who used them to balance the Arabs, and the corruption of the Arab leaders who were (and still are) more interested to line their pockets with money than the welfare of their people.

I do agree that ANY oppressed or occupied people has the right to revolt. I also maintain that NOTHING they do is terrorism. It is resistance. If the act of resistance is distasteful to some, then they should end the occupation or oppression.

Lastly, I am not sure what you are saying about the World Trade Center. I only stated the obvious: the attackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia. I do not understand that, because if they have a complaint, they should have addressed it with the Saudi government. I agree that it is oppressive, but it has been in power for a very long time, and obviously most of the people tolerate it, or agree with it. It is not for outsiders to replace it.

Tom Wonacott : Hello again, and thank you for your response.

A comment on the Saudis: 'madrass' in Arabic means school. Nothing more and nothing less. I know that in the US many complain about the Muslim religious schools, but noone complain about the schools that Israel maintains that preach that Israel extends from the Nile all the way to half of Irak. There is a double standard there.

I was not surprised about eh Saudi peace initiative. I do on occasion however ask people what they think of the Israeli peace initiative. I have not yet received a response, even though there is none ;)

To
AMviennaVA :
Here is answer of all your reply.
point 1.First you study the European history.how much the word liberal,conservative,radical and fundamentalist used after the French revolution.would you find any such word in islam during this time?
In european countries if fundamentalist is not effective then why have a pop.finsihed this institution like khilafat of islam .Mr bush destroyed muslim countries and went to get blessing from italian pop.Even some of european countries are not passing legislation regarding marriage of gays,clonining etc.And the head of pop alwys accused the past ISlamic kings.why?
point 2.regarding non muslim then read history of turkey again.Jews got their golden period during this time when european countries led the persecution against them.poland,spain all asked the jews to vacat europe.Turkey ruler gave them shelter and high post.ask any jews who founded israel that how much modern israel is product of ottoman ruler.
why you christian revolted against ottoman vcause this was muslim rule.is not a fundamental thinking.so why not muslim challenged the right of rule of imperialist power on muslim countries?

point 3 about the attack of world trad centre and involvment of saudi them my reply is that led first an international enquiry comprising the top man of all countries and on that finding led the action against culprit.you america always ask the Uno led enquiry about any happeneing in islamic world and do not accept islami c finding for example rafiq harai case,locker bi case.then why not Uno led enquiry commission in this matter.first you prove then you aks muslim people to react.if saudis will involve certainly we all muslim will hang all those terrorist .
if you are a true lover of justice you will accept this suggesstion.we want a world based on mutual respect not based on west led invasion of west world on islamic countries.
Thank

AM

In 2001, I was surprised that most of the hijackers were Saudis, but in 2007, I'm no longer surprised.

As you know, the Saudis export (finance Madrases world-wide) and adhere to a fundamentalist Islamic philosophy (Wahhabism). Their society is very oppressive. The Saudis were one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban and nearly one half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.

Given all that, the Arab Peace Initiative is remarkable. Whereas the war in Iraq has created more "terrorist" or extremist, normal diplomatic relations with Israel would have the same result - especially in Saudi Arabia where many in the population will never accept Israel located in the heartland of Muslim countries.

I agree with your answer to Mohammad Allam.

This is for Islamists who think Islam is a religion of peace!!!

What really happened to Banu Qurayza Jews?

According to “Sirat-a-Rasul” (page 464) by Ibn Ishaq the story goes as follows:
Gist: After the Battle of the Ditch, when the coalition force of Quraish left the battle field, Prophet Muhammad attacked the last of the large Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qurayza. After a 25 days siege, they (Jews) surrender unconditionally. In the end, all 600-700 males of the tribe were killed and the women and children sold into slavery.
Story in details:
The Banu Quraiza Jewish tribe was attacked for not supporting Prophet Muhammad when the Quraish’s coalition force from Mecca attacked Medina (The battle of trench). After the withdrawal of the coalition force the Jews were isolated. Hazrat Ali (ra) sworn that he would never stop until he either storms their garrisons or be killed. As per sahi hadiths (Buchari)—when the Prophet returned from the battle of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade and asked, “ You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet and I have just come from pursuing the enemy. 'God commands you, Muhammad, to go to Banu Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold (to terrorize Jews). So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them. Below is one master piece Sahi hadith proving the story:
Muslim: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 444:
Narrated by Anas:
“As if I am just now looking at the dust rising in the street of Banu Ghanm (in Medina) because of the marching of Gabriel's regiment when Allah's Apostle set out to Banu Quraiza (to attack them).”
After a continuous siege of 25 days, the Banu Qurayza Jews surrendered to Prophet Muhammad unconditionally. Muhammad ordered that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging the Prophet to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.
Sa’d bin Mu’adh was the leader of a large Medinan tribe, the Aws (or Aus), some of whom favored old alliances with the Jews. The leader was an elderly man who was seriously wounded in the battle of trench (Source: Ibn Ishaq, p. 462; Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 188-89; 214-17). Sa’d gave the verdict that, "that all the able-bodied (adult) male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters." Compassionate Prophet Muhammad answers in endorsement of this: “You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens...”, (Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 463-64; Tabari vol. 8, p. 34).
To separate adult men from the pre-pubescent boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them (Abu Dawud; see Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)..
Sunan Abu-Dawud-Book 38, No. 4390
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
“I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”
The apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar.
Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still the market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief, and they were brought with their hands bound to their neck by a rope. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he did not only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the text states that HE sent for them and STRUCK OFF their heads. Prophet Muhammad also had had huge spoils (Maal-E-Ganimat) from this "final solution" of this richest Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza.
This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed.
Book 14, Number 2665:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: “ No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.” (Abu Dawud)
The following narrative says that Prophet Muhammad took one beautiful woman for himself.
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)
Banu Qurayza’s Massacre supported by Merciful Allah:

Evidences from Quranic verses are very clear and surprisingly emphatic. Allah actually celebrated this slaughter and enslavement of Banu Qurayza Jews. That these verses were received during/after the Banu Qurayza incident were supported by most Quranic translators like Maoulana A. Yousuf Ali, Hazrat Maulana mufti Muhammad Shafi, Maulana Muhiuddin Khan etc, and of course, by the most famous Islamic scholar Ibn Ishaq. Merciful Allah promptly sent Qur’anic verses during that period of Banu Qurayza war to justify the cruelty of Prophet Muhammad. Here are some Quranic gems which speak the entire truth about Banu Qurayza massacre:
Quran-33:25- “Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty.”
Quran-33:26- “And He brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive)”
Quran-33:27- “And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.” [Merciful Allah asked Prophet Muhammad to confiscate entire properties of surrendered Jews]
Quran-8:67—“It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land….” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia.”
Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)

These above Quranic verses revealed some unpleasant truths:
The verses: 33:25-27 were revealed to describe Banu Qurayza incident and clearly talking about the unbelievers (Quresh pagans, and their allies Jews of Banu Quraiza).
The verse 33:25 told about the retreat of the great force of unbelievers without any success; verse-26 told about how later the traitor Jewish tribe banu Quraiza was raided and seized and Jewish people were terrorized by Muhammad’s army; and verse-33: 27 told—how by the judgement of Sa’d ibn Muaz all the men were slaughtered and women and children were captivated. And Jewish land and property were taken as Booty….Sa’d delivered his justice according to Bible; hence Muhammad said—“your judgenet was like God.”
Allah permited the enslavement and beheading of Jews, so any Muslim familiar with the background of this verse knows that beheading as such has been assimilated into the Quran. The word q-t-l in verse-33:26 means slaughter. What is so troubling about the verse is that it seems Allah (Himself) celebrated the "terror" that He threw into the Jews’ hearts. Indeed, when Abu Lubabah the mediator approached the Jews during negotiations, the women and children were crying. Allah of course heavily terrorized them. What a Merciful Allah always resided inside the sleeve of Prophet Muhammad!
The Prophet Muhammad had expelled two other Jewish tribes (Qaynuqa and Nadir) from Medina, so he could have done the same with the Qurayza—as indeed Banu Quryza Jews begged for mercy and requested to let them leave Medina. But the prophet for humanity (?) declined this merciful and humane option.
Quranic Tafsir supported Banu Qurayza massacre:

Maulana A. Yousuf Ali stated: “The men of the Quraiza were slain; the women were sold as captives of war (booty); and their lands and properties were distributed or divided among the Muhajirs (Yousuf Ali’s tafsir for Sura Ahzab)”.

Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi) writes: “Allah ordered Prophet not to keep any war prisoners until entire land is occupied; because by killing enemy prisoners will crush morals of unvbelievers. Some disciples such as Siddique Akbar (ra) suggested tom keep war prisoners to earn ransoms; but Hazrat Omar ibn Khattab (ra) and Hazrat s’aad ibn muaaz (ra) suggested to kill all able-bodied war prisonesrs (In sura A’nfal (#8): Tafsir by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi).”

Also please read Koranic Tafsir of Sura Ahzab by Maulana Muhiuddin Khan (Saudi aided Bengali translation of Koran)

What Hadiths says about Banu Qurayza massacre?
That Prophet Muhammad systematically eradicated Jews (who actually welcomed him when he fled to Medina from Mecca) from Medina. He beheaded the men and the pubescent boys and enslaved the women and children. In doing this, he wiped out several Jewish tribes "off the map" just the way Iranian Islamic president Ahmdijannbad desires to do same with present day Jews in Israel. These Islamic cruelties were recorded by various sahi hadiths as follows:
Sahi Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443:
Narrated 'Aisha:
When the Prophet returned from the battle of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet), “you have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.
Book 019, Number 4368:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said: The people of Banu Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Sa'd b. Mu'adh about them. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent for Sa'd who came to him riding a donkey. When he approached the mosque, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to the Ansar: Stand up to receive your chieftain. Then he said (to Sa'd): These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He (Sa'd) said: “You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children.” (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: “You have adjudged by the command of God.”
Sahi Bukhari: Book 019, Number 4370:
It has been narrated on the authority of A'isha who said: Sa'd was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. A man from the Quraish called Ibn al-Ariqah shot at him an arrow which pierced the artery in the middle of his forearm. The Messenger of Allah (may peacce be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and he was removing dust from his hair (as if he had just returned from the battle). The latter said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven't (yet) laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked: Where? He pointed to Banu Quraiza. So the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) fought against them. They surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), but he referred the decision about them to Sa'd who said: “I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed (among the Muslims).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."
What else we need to authenticate Banu Qurayza massacre? We have scores of Quranic verses, sahi hadiths along with Islamic historical accounts recorded by the most famous and oldest biographer like Ibn Ishaq which are very strong and unambiguous evidences supporting this heinous act of Prophet Muhammad. How in the world any sane human being can deny such clear evidences from the very nucleus (Quran, sahi Hadisths and biographies) of Islam?
Merciful Allah’s reward (Booty) for Jihadis:

Allah repeatedly promised bountiful rewards for the believers both in this life and afterlife. But Allah never told believers to work hard to get it or to establish industries or business; neither anything which could make economy better, nor any lucrative rewards dropped from the sky! But then, what was the ultimate source of promised bounty for the believers during 7th century period? Answer is, it was BOOTY (spoils) sanctioned by Allah in the holy Quran. Booty was the most cruel and immoral provision practiced by Islamic jihadis, which not even any known ancient invaders (Alexander the Great, Romans, Persians or Assyrians etc.) did practice. Allah’s techniques of making Muslims (believers) richer were simple burglary, plundering and highway robbery (after sudden attack/invading) of Arab’s business caravans, neighboring tribes or sovereign nations. Allah of Islam emphatically encouraged and gave Muslims license to invade, subdue or kill all non-Muslim men and to take their women, children and all properties of the prisoners as booty (Ganimatter Maal). He (Allah) made booty (Ganimater Maal) Halal (lawful) for Muslim warriors. One can find all those tempting verses of Sura Anf’al from Allah inviting Muslims to enjoy booty sanctioned for them. Below are some examples how Quran openly supported Islamic jihadi’s immoral acts:
Quran-8:69—“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war (booty), lawful and good; but fear God…” (Allah encouraging Muslims to accept booty spoils of war “Maal-E-Ganimat”)
Quran-8:1— “They ask thee concerning (things taken as) spoils of war (booty). Say: "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger: So fear Allah, and keep straight the relations between yourselves: Obey Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe."

Quran-8:41— “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.”

One may think that Islamic Allah was (actually) enslaved by Prophet Muhammad. Otherwise how in the world any divine God could allow such cruelest and highly immoral things to happen! Allah readily permitted Prophet Muhammad to take the Jewish clan’s property on the basis of conquest and his possession of all things (Quran-33:27). This is a dubious revelation and reasoning Allah speaks, and this benefits Muhammad materially and politically. This happened too often in Prophet Muhammad’s life. In fact, this “Booty” provision was the most dynamic and lucrative lure or attraction for amassing Arab have-nots (slaves, poor, vagabonds, unemployed destitute) in the Prophet Muhammad’s jihadi cult—in order to become rich by quick method in this life and also enjoy unlimited heavenly pleasures in afterlife!
What really happened to Jews in Khaybar?
Merciful prophet of Islam in his campaign of eradicating all the Jewish tribes (who were most prosperous and rich) from around Medina, he conquered Jewish tribe of Khaybar in May, 628CE. This was a preemptive surprise attack (Gazzowa) or a sudden and unprovoked assault on the Jews of Khaybar. This was a decisive victory for Muslims. The Jews lost ninety-three (93) men while the loss on the Muslim side was only nineteen (19) men. Muhammad took some Khaybar Jews as captives, including Safiyyah bt. Huyayy b. Akhtab, an exquisitely pretty young newly married bride of Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqayq. She was the daughter of B. Nadir chief, Huayy b. Akhtab who was beheaded by Muhammad during the slaughtering of B. Qurayzah. Kinanah had recently married Safiyyah, the young, vivacious and pouted daughter of Huyayy and had received a good treasure trove as gift. Muhammad also took two daughters of Safiyaah's paternal uncle.
What sahi Bukhari says about Khaybar episode?
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated by Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'. Muhammad was sixty (60) when he married Safiyyahh, a young girl of seventeen. She became his eighth wife.
Distribution of war booty in Khaybar:
Sahi Buchari Hadiths #143, page-700: Sulaiman Ibne Harb…Aannas Ibne Malek (ra) narrated, “in the war of Khayber after the inhabitants of Banu Nadir were surrendered, Allah’s apostle killed all the able/adult men, and he (prophet) took all women and children as captives (Ghani mateer maal).. Among the captives Safiyya Bint Huyy Akhtab was taken by Allah’s Apostle as booty whom He married after freeing her and her freedom was her Mahr.”
At first Dihyah al-Kalbi, a Muslim Jihadist asked for Safiyyah. But when Muhammad saw the unparallel beauty of her, he chosen her for himself and gave her two cousin sisters to Dihyah.
Lascivious story supported by sahi hadiths:
(a) Sahi Buchari Hadiths (#149, page-704): Ahmed Ibne Saleh…Annas Ibne Malek narrated, “….when we told Apostle of Allah about the paragon beauty of Safiya Bint Huyay (who was newly wed and the husband was killed in the battle), then Allah’s Apostle sanctioned her for himself…”
(b) Sunan Abu Dawud: Kitab al-Kharaj
Book 19; number 2992
Anas said: Captives were gathered at Khaybar. Dihyah (a jihadi fighter) came and said: “Apostle of Allah, give me a slave-girl from the captives.” He said : Go and take a slave-girl. He took Safiyaah daughter of Huyayy. A man then came to the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and said: “You gave Safiyaah daughter of Huyayy, chief lady of Quraizah and al-Nadir to Dihyah?” This is according to the version of Ya'qub. Then the version goes: “She is worthy of you.” He said: “Call him along with her.” When the Prophet (may peace be upon him) looked at her, he said to him: “Take another slave-girl from the captives. The Prophet (May peace be upon him) then set her free and married her.

(c) Tabari writes: "After the Messenger of God conquered al-Qamus, the fortress of Ibn Abi al-Huqyaq, Safiyyah bt. Huyayy b. Akhtab was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal, who was the one who brought them, led them pat some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When the Messenger of God saw her, he said, "Take this she-devil away from me!" she commanded that Safiyyah should be kept behind him and that the Messenger of God had chosen her for himself."
Recovering (booty) hidden gold treasures:
Prophet Muhammad accused Safiyyah's husband, Kinanah and his cousin of hiding some of their properties in contravention of the terms of surrender. He was especially angered that Kinanah had hidden the wealth (worth about ten thousad Dinars; i.e, US$ 500,000, approximately) that he received from his marriage to a B. Nadir girl (i.e. Safiyyah). A renegade Jew divulged the secret of Kinanah's hidden gold treasures. That Jew went and fetched the hidden treasures. Kinanah and his cousin were promptly arrested by the Muslims. Then Kinanah b. al-Rabi, Safiyyah's husband was brought to Muhammad. Muhammad charged him of hiding his wealth in some underground storage. When Kinanah denied this allegation, Muhammad ordered to inflict torture on him. He was tormented by branding his chest with a heated stake and then he was beheaded in Islamic style.
Sourcing Ibn Ishak, Tabari writes:
'Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqyaq who had the treasure of B. Nadir was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him; but he denied knowing where it was. Then the messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, "I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning." The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: "What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you." "All right," he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it; so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, saying, "torture him until you root out what he has." Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah."' Muir writes that then the heads of the two chiefs (Kinana and his cousin) were severed off. Because of the so-called treachery by the Jews for allegedly hiding their treasures, Muhammad now allowed the Muslim Jihadists to take possession of the women and children of the Jews of Khaybar
Allah’s Messenger occupied Jewish land:
Sahih Muslim writes:
Book 010, Number 3759:
Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) handed over the land of Khaibar (on the condition) of the share of produce of fruits and harvest, and he also gave to his wives every year one hundred wasqs: eighty wasqs of dates and twenty wasqs of barley. When 'Umar became the caliph he distributed the (lands and trees) of Khaibar, and gave option to the wives of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) to earmark for themselves the land and water or stick to the wasqs (that they got) every year. They differed in this matter. Some of them opted for land and water, and some of them opted for wasqs every year. 'A'isha and Hafsa were among those who opted for land and water.
Enjoying special Booty (Gani-maater-maal):
After securing paragon beautiful Safiyaah daughter of Huyayy Prophet Muhammad has had sex with this young Safiyya in the tent, on their way back to Medina on the same night. Here is the precarious story: Merciful Prophet asked Bilal, the Negro crier of prayer to fetch Safiyyah to his (Muhammad's) camp. Bilal brought Safiyyah and her cousin straight across the battlefield strewn with dead and close by the corpses of Kinana and his cousin. The two cousin sisters of Safiyyah shrieked in terror when they witnessed the grotesque scene of the slain dead bodies of their dearest relatives that they had to cross over. They tremulously begged a stone-hearted Bilal for mercy but to no avail. When they were brought to Muhammad, he cursed the panic-stricken cousins as devilish and cast his mantle around Safiyyah indicating that she was to be his own. Muhammad consoled a frustrated Dhiya by giving him Safiyyah's cousin sisters. According to Ibn Sa'd Prophet Muhammad purchased Safiyyah from Dhiyah for seven camels (around US$ 2,450). On the same night (during the day her husband and all relatives were slaughtered) that Muhammad took possession of Safiyyah, he hastened to his tent to sleep with her. This was of course a holy character of Prophet of Islam!
Here is what Ibn Sa'd writes: "-.when it was night, he entered a tent and she entered with him. Abu Ayyub came there and passed the night by the tent with a sword keeping his head at the tent. When it was morning and the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him.” To hide the lascivious character of Muhammad, Muslim biographers often mention that he married Safiyyahh before he slept with her. But they forget to mention that Muhammad did not follow the rule of waiting period (three monthly periods) to sleep with Safiyyahh. He slept with her in the same day she was captured.
Above stories out of Sahi Hadiths clearly and undoubtedly have confirmed at least two things: (1) Prophet killed all those surrendered unarmed Jews in cold blood, (2) Prophet was attracted by Safiyya’s alluring beauty and he had sex with her (I really don’t care after marriage or before marriage) in a period when that poor Safiyya was in terrible grief by loosing her father, brother, husband and relatives and before the bloods of her relatives was even dry. By what yardstick can we measure the mercifulness and compassionateness of our Prophet? Could any Islamist tell me why Prophet of Islam had to set this terrible example?
Islamic intolerance:

Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.” [This single sahi hadiths tells everything about Islamic intolerance]
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders one of them was to Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
Conclusion:
This article has delved with the most sensitive historical incidents happened more than 1400 years ago. Naturally, for correct history, we must depend upon the related sources: Quran, Hadisths and Islamic history recorded by famous biographers. In this article I have used authentic information from the above sources most scrupulously. I have used verses from holy Quran, number of related hadiths as found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim; and from the life of Prophet Muhammad recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his word Sirat Rasul Allah available in the abridged edition of Ibn Hisham, and translated by A. Guillaume under the title The Life of Muhammad. This is by far the oldest (written) account of Prophet Muhammad's life in regard to the date of its first composition.
I could not find any alternate or different/contradictory information about this extermination of Jews from Arabia. Scores of sahi hadiths continuously bragged (shamelessly) without any shred of remorse about how heroically (?) the most compassionate Prophet of Islam eliminated all scoundrel Jews from Medina.
For 1400 years all the above Quranic verses and sahi hadiths that I have used were respected and believed by every Muslim faithful believer without any question. No pious Muslims, respected Mullahs, Maoulanas and most famous Islamic scholars had ever questioned their authenticity or validity; nor did they have any doubt or disbelief on the authenticity of Islamic historical record produced by most famous and revered Islamic scholars like: Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Buchari or Sunan Abu-Dawud in Islam; rather they readily believed them. In fact, these above Islamic scholars had been the oldest/original source of Islamic history on the basis of which tens of thousands of Islamic books have been compiled by various modern Islamic scholars around the world.
Now that some Islamic critics like me started to point out these utterly immoral and heinous acts of Prophet Muhammad, some western educated hypocritical Islamists started to disown or distort these sahi hadiths and shamelessly questioning the authenticity of well-accepted Islamic histories—only to do damage-control by their futile efforts. They forget that the very ridiculous techniques that they use to distort or to find fault with these sahi hadiths can also be used (by same formulas) to find fault with all the available thousands of hadiths—because, all hadiths were recorded about 200 years after Prophet’s demise. I wonder what they can do to those Quranic verses that I have used in this article. Surprisingly, they remain silent about Quranic verses. This is of course, a pure intellectual bankruptcy on their part.
If anyone is looking for a down-to-earth reason for Prophet Muhammad’s attack on all the affluent Jewish tribes such as Qurayza and Khaybar (instead of "Gabriel’s leadership"), then he does not need to look any further than verse- 33:27. After all, the Meccans and their allies withdrew (from seize of Medina at the battle of trench) without allowing Muslims to take their wealth. So how was Muhammad going to reward his 3,000 jihadists? He needed booty (wealth) to reward his jihadis. The prophet confiscated wealth of Jews to satisfy his greedy jihadis. He was following a bad custom of winner-take-all in seventh-century Arabia. It is a pity and shame that he could not rise above this, as the prophet for all of the world, the last and the best of all the prophets!

Literatures:

1. The Holy Qur’an, Translated by A. Yousuf Ali, Published by Amana Corporation, Brentwood, Maryland, 1983
2. Buchari Sharif, Bengali Translation by Maulana Muhammad Mustafizur Rahman, Sulemani Printers and Publishers, Dhaka, Second edition-1999
3. W. M. Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford UP, 1961, pp. 130-31; 148-51; 166-67.
4. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (Life of Muhammad), trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, pp. 363-64; 437-45.
5. Muhammad at Medina, Oxfored UP, 1956; Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 3.
6. Tabari, The Foundation of the Community, trans. M.V. McDonald and annotated by W. M. Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 85-87; 156-61.
7. Ibn Ishaq; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, trans. M. Fishbein, vol. 8, (1997), pp. 6-7.
8. The Root of Terrorism a la Islamic style; Chapter 13: Terror Fifty-two; by Abul Kasem

Thanks

SKM

No, religion and business should not mix in modern society. This is more depressing than the Christian stuff Bush slings about, but his beliefs are relatively harmless. And no, no form of Islam would be acceptable until these countries scream loudly in disgust at the exremists. One way would be to reform their religion, and declare a hellish afterlife for the violent terrorists.

Of course, all these heaven and hell things are mere figments of our imaginations, but if they are gullible enough to believe in these things, use it wisely!

A Moderate Turkish party with Islamic ties gaining power in a country with solid secular constitution is not an adequate example of how a “moderate” Islamic regime will behave. Imagine a communist party wining office in a West European country. With the constitution intact, such a party might be able to move the country to the left but no one should consider it as an example of communism rule. In order to have an Islamic government with any degree of moderation, first there needs to be an Islamic constitution. Based on Islamic principles, such a constitution can not be in harmony with the western democratic principles the same way that communism never is. So, the moderate Islamic governance is a fallacy unless by moderation we mean keeping an empty shell of Islamic principles to accommodate the religiosity of the populace while practicing sound economical and democratic principles that often contradict Islamic teachings (this has been tried before, it doesn’t work!) To make policy based on this fallacy can facilitate further sinking of the Middle Eastern countries into a religious whirlpool.

mohammad allam @August 2, 2007 6:02 AM: I believe that much of the post is based on frustration, rather than fact:

1. You posted 'The question of moderate and extremism is west word for dividing islamic unity.'. I must disagree. The difference, is based on the acceptance, and especially toleration, of differences. Extremists do not tolerate, obviously. In fanatical Islam, we have even today a refusal to accept people of a different faith. Also, to respond to your comment, in Christianity there are liberal Protestants and fundamentalist Orthodox. But the fundamentalists are not allowed to make and enforce the laws based on religious grounds.

2. You also wonder 'what the turkey got by leaving Isalmic world leadership.'. Greece revolted against the Ottomans 100 years before the end of that empire. The empire fell because it was corrupt and ineffective. It was also extremely oppressive to its non-Muslim population. So the Christians revolted and gained their freedom, and the Muslims also saw no reason to support the corruption that was the Ottoman empire. So all that was left is Turkey. The 'powers' had no contribution to that, other than divide what left.

Like you, I am uncomfortable with the labeling of Muslims, specifically Arabs. In part it is a rationalization in the US for the blind, unconditional support of Israel. But it is also based on the acts of fanatics. Anticipating an objection, I differentiate between resistance to occupation and massacres. There are too many massacres of civilians by people in the name of Islam, and great silence on the part of Muslim countries. For example, on 9/11/2001 the US was attacked primarily by Saudis, not Palestinians. I could understand the act if Palestinians had done it. But not Saudis.

turkey is not an officially religious country. AKP or AK party is not islamic rooted party but it is liberal party. as a turkish citizen living in my home country, i am very happy and proud that AKP won the elcetion and my country will have stronger economy as the last 4 years time.

PG

This is an interesting question, especially the second part of the question.

The Islamist party of Turkey is not a threat (at this point in time) to the secularist state. There are certain protections in place to guard Turkish secularism. In addition, the basic philosophy of the AKP, which is to promote Islam, is contrary to the extremist agenda of radical Islam. Women’s rights have improved considerably while the AKP has been in power.

1. The Turkish military is the official guardian of the secular state. They are standing by to insure the Islamist do not push their agenda too far and have threatened to intervene (although the military‘s role is contrary to democratic rule).

2. They were elected by less than a majority (47%), and based more on their economic achievements than their Islamist agenda, and therefore, there is no mandate to gut the constitution and impose Sharia law etc.

3. The opposition parties consist of the People’s Republican Party (CHP - secular) and a nationalist party (that has a similar agenda to the military) - both are opposed to the Islamist agenda. Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated against the selection of an Islamist for President this last spring.

Based on their electoral system the Islamist party was selected to govern in Turkey by a landslide. They are a moderate Islamic party that may be the future of Islamic states attempting to mix Islam and democracy. Other Islamic countries will watch with interest on how this “experiment” unfolds.

Regarding the second part of the question, moderate Islamist have very little in common (agenda) with fundamental Islamist, at least that is the hope. Fundamentalist like Bin Laden base their philosophy on the early conquest of Islam (jihad) beginning in the seventh century. They want to reinstate all Muslim lands “under the Caliphate” governed by strict Sharia law similar to the Taliban. They are at war with moderate Islam as well as the infidels. No one (in their right mind) can compare the Taliban system of government with Turkey under the control of the AKP, however, the AKP must prove that their agenda is for the good of ALL people of Turkey. What are the long term goals of the AKP?

Many will try to compare the election of Hamas to the election of the AKP. There is absolutely NO comparison. Hamas is a violent, radical Islamist organization that is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist Salafist organization founded in the early twentieth century that wishes to return Islamic states to medieval type governments (does the Taliban ring a bell?). The Muslim Brotherhood generally works within the system, and changes society at an incremental pace.

If Hamas has a “true” fundamentalist Islamic agenda, then their philosophy precludes the acceptance of Israel because Israel was founded on “Muslim soil“. While Hamas is not opposed to democratic elections to gain power, their philosophy is at odds with democracy (especially separation of church and state), and ultimately, true democracy will never be tolerated.

I tend to be pessimistic about this situation. See my post on On Faith which is the newsweek/washpost site to be found by the postglobal button on the Wash. Post site. In brief, we have Turkey backsliding in a world where we need to have political states in the world which are not only capable of religious diversity, but are trying to get at the difficult problem of envisioning and creating political states beyond this or that religion--trying to separate state from church decisively--if such a thing is possible. But if such a thing is not possible--it is not possible to be purely scientific and atheistic--then obviously we must have a world of really only one religion or all religions watered down into something or there will be conflict. See my post on On Faith on the question of the Hindu chaplain recently having made a prayer in the U.S. senate for further reflections. I certainly see nothing positive for Europe in Turkey becoming more Islamic. In general all these half this half that nations are unstable. We need a severe discussion as to what exactly growth and development politically amounts to--some sort of insight into future states of human development and how to get there. All these arguments as to how much of religion, how many religions, how secular, etc. are ultimately self-defeating. We need some clarity as to human growth and development.

There is no use Turkey be a moderate islamic country. Turkey must remain secular and modern country. Because the founder of it is the greatest stateman of the world Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

This result of election is shown that Turkey might go to the radical islamism in the course of time. In fact It should be seen the strong secularism is a guaranee of the democracy and the life of western style.

But, unfortunately especially the USA and EU want for Turkey to be moderate islam state. This is very wrong viewpoint for them. And with time this will rise as a problem, because it will turn into a radical islamism. In my view, no one should be happy that the AKP-islamist-rooted party won the election second time. Turkey wants to remain as a modern country as the member of modern world.

Here is not a question of modernization of Turkey but question is whether Turkey wants islam or not?The question of moderate and extremism is west word for dividing islamic unity.so the people of islam can buther each other and the west see the destruction.why not there is protestant liberal and fundamentalist orthodox christian in christian world?
Other hand what the turkey got by leaving Isalmic world leadership.Turkey lost all the Arab world territory which captured by the england and france.Greek revolted and even west led the encouragement of Balkan countries to revolt against the Turkey ruler and lastly ready to destroy the complete Turkey in the name of secular and fundamentalist.Tell me what Turkey got after leaving islamic leadership?just the slavery of america,pseudo friendship of israel and humialation in kurd nationalism.Turkey life line is islam .Turkey prestige lies in islam .Do not think that American led west will spare Turkey.Egypt,saudia Arabia and Iran.they are just want that led islam should be divided into fundamental and secular,liberal muslim.and Hunt the muslim by declaring one group of muslim the extremist with help of other and then other with own power.The declration of muslim as terrorist having logic to destroy all the emerging centre of islamic powers of the world,capture muslim resources and target muslim brain in the name of terrorism.The case of Haneef shows how the west waging crusade and destroying muslim powers and targetting muslim youth.
here the question is not that what sort of muslim in Turkey is there but question is what sort of relation Turkey wants to have with islam?

What I would really like to understand is the way Iran will react if Turkey continues to aggressively battle the Kurds inside Iraq, especially if Turkey does so openly. The new Musudan-ri missile Iran got from NK is capable, yes, or hitting Rome, and London from northern Iran, but it's more likely to be aimed at Turkey.

It's my estimate that Iran is likely to become more aggressive as it sees Iraq slipping away and the current political leadership in Teheran see itself slipping with it. The prospect of Turkish hegemony over (a future) Kurdistan may be enough to tear it away from its diplomatic approaches and into real fighting.

The whole question is a classic example of double standards.

Before coming to Turkey I present a question that when in India the extreme relegious party BJP came to power. what happen to India or when the socialist parties came in power in the heart of Europe do they break away from NATO or signed peace treaties with soviet union.

This is a fact that large number of peoples living in Europe and USA became touchy with religion and specially Islam. The current trend of campaigning the religion for all evil and praising modernisation or liberalisation is in fact becoming counter productive and turning more younger minds to study Islam in depth and accept radical version easily.

Democracy is the only tool by which we can communicate with different ideas. Difference of opinion, contradiction of ideas are the beuty of planet earth where all humans think differently. We should not put the barricades on the belief of people and should accept the will of people whole heartedly.

Turkey is a modern and liberal country. Any democrately elected government can not go against the will of people.

If afterdecades of milatery rule and restricting religion the new generation still aware of its religious identity and choose a government which supports their view point then why not give them a chance.

If by the use of the force the religions can be eleminated then we did not find many religions still existing in this planet.

Thirty years before I was working on an Ethipian flag ship . where many christian misionaries disbrituing their pamphelets.

On that ship first time I read Bible word by word and in one magazine I find one golden line which I want to share.

"The survival of any relegion depend on the truth in its message. In fact truth never dies".

It is neither the religion nor the reaction against the military meddling in politics. It is about the economy and about the fact that there is no opposition that constitutes an alternative. The opposition parties in Turkey have no serious plans to present to the electorate about how they will govern, they just oppose the AKP. It was pitiful to see parties in the right and left of the political spectrum devise tricky schemes to give the public the impression of uniting, where in fact they continued with their personality cults and struggles. I don't want to see Turkey in the hands of the AKP and the hard won secularism at risk. But look at the opposition. Turks are not stupid.

Aer you so ignorant of Turkish history that you think "Islamic Moderates" just won? The Turkish military took over, has taken over (!!!), the government several times recently to ward off Islamic radicalism taking control of that country. The whole undercurrent of Turkish politics is rife with it! And never forget, just as a large number of Russia citizens pine for the days when the Soviet Union stood astride the world, there is an enormous cultural tide in Turkey - pining for the days of the Ottoman Empire when *they* controlled virtually all of the Middle East and a large part of Europe.

The apparent rejection of EU membership has simply strengthened this dormant movement in Turkey. In the future we will see increasing influence by Fundimentalist Islam on Turkish politcis, culture, and attitudes. Given Turkey's past, the Armenian and Kurdish atrocities ought to come to mind, along with Turkish occupation of most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Southern Italy, Greece, and even parts of Austria and France, this ought to concern every Western country. This is exaserbated by the large numbers of Turkish immigrants in Germany, Austria, France, and elsewhere. Germany is witnessing open cultural warfare where the Turkish immigrants in Cologne want to build a mosque over the objections of the local government. In France, a large part of the recent riots were perpetuated by Turkish immmigrants living in the Paris suburbs. You are simply being delusional if you think "moderate forces" will prevail in Turkey or in any Islamic country.

fırstly ı wantto say that ı'am so unhappy about the results.because ewerybody knows that akp has ıslamıc aıms and they are tryıng to fulfıll ıt.we sholudn't trıck ourselfs we should see what ıs happenıng around us.akp wants to change the constıtutıon and they wannto have an ıslamıc constıtutıon.but army won't let them ı hope .abd and other countrıes support ıslamıc partıes sınce1960 for theır aım on the mıddle east.that conutrıes want turkey tobe leader of muslım conurtıes and work for them.

Modernization is itself, a false god. Gadgetry will never rule the world, values will. "Modern" holds the promise of some type of Utopian society, when there is no evidence, anywhere in the world, that this is true. Turkey may not be a "Muslim" nation in the strict sense, but as is the case in every country the US seeks to control, Islam is deeply embedded in the hearts of individuals.Eventually, that latent faith will surface a little at a time, as it did in the recent elections. Its a process, but an undeniable one.Turkey IS Muslim! Its just a matter of time.

We should be careful about looking for "silver bullets" as we consider Western relations with predominantly Muslim countries.

Turkey is certainly one of these, but recent political developments there have unfolded in a specifically Turkish context. I can understand why Westerners looking to get along with everyone (and Arabs or Pakistanis wishing to dissociate Islamism from terrorism) would be tempted to proclaim that moderate Islamism works in Turkey and will therefore work everywhere. That, however, is more -- much more -- than we know.

Recall that some thirty and forty years ago many predominantly Muslim countries had government flush with enthusiasm for leftist ideas and Soviet-oriented foreign policies, all of which Turkey resisted in spite of its government's rigorous secularism. Why would Turkey have taken a different view of the Soviet role in predominantly Muslim countries than, say, Nasser's Egypt or (later) Qaddafi's Libya? Simply because Turkey was not Egypt or Libya.

The reverse is obviously also true. What appears to work in Turkey today is not necessarily what we could expect to arise in a country like Egypt, or Syria, or Iraq in which the West encouraged "moderate Islamism." The idea that this ill-defined concept is a kind of vaccine against extremism is more a product of what its supporters wish were true than anything we know really is true in the Muslim countries we are most concerned with.

The old adage, 'it's not the religion, stupid,' applies here. AKP received more votes than all others combined! And you can't blame that on Islam. AKP is fast becoming a mainstream party!

How AKP and its 'leaders,' handle this 'mandate,' and what they choose to do with it becomes ever more important, especially given the fact that a 'moderate' Islam may not exist within a 'perceived' Islam.

Maybe Islam is suffering from the 'Hyundai' crisis. No matter how much they try to introduce a luxury line for the elite demographic within their customer base, it is after all still a Hyundai.

Maybe a name change is necessary in this case for a new start. Of the 'real' Islam by any other name will be the 'religion' that we all believe in.

It's time for the 'moderates' to rise up against fundamentalism. And AKP is proof (so far) that fears of radicalism spreading its ills using democracy as its cover up is unfounded!

www.TalkTurkey.us

The question is posed on Turkey's election results and then expanded to cover Moslem nations. The measure of success of Islamic politicking in Turkey is a gauge to evaluate the speed that this country can safely move towards modernization. With the correct speed maintained the movement is always going to be toward modernization and away from extremism.

Second part of your question puts "Moslem nations" in a single category with regards to
moderation. This is too simplistic of an approach to yield any meaningful conclusion. "Moslem Nations" and Moslems in general cover a vast array of cultures and security concerns. The tide of extremism that rose in the Middle East during the second part of last century has local characteristics. In India and the Far Eastern Moslem nations, the separation of church (Mosque)and state is the norm and extremism does not present a real threat. So, there is no need to inject
moderate Islamism to avoid extremism.

Rise of the Islamic Extremism in the Middle East is caused by Security threats (Israel), Push for
Modernization with total disregard for the Populus sensitivities (Iran), and governmental
corruption. These are local concerns in the Middle East, not universal problems and since the
majority of Moslems do not live in the Middle East, extending the question to include "Islamic
Nations" hinders correct response.

The above mentioned problems in the Middle East will always be resisted by the Populus.
Nationalism was the first conduit of choice for this resistance (Iran, Egypt, Iraq). When it failed (Western influence was blamed), religion was the only alternative left. Religious Extremism can be defeated but it will not stop the resistance. As long as the above concerns in the Middle East are not solved to the satisfaction of its Populus, the inherent resistance will cause problems. So far this has been accepted as "cost of doing business" in the Middle East and sometimes even manipulated in plots to consolidate power.

Extremism (Islamic or otherwise) will always exist, but to defeat the rise of Islamic Extremism a long term plan needs to be adapted to first brake the taboo of intelligently evaluating Islamic beliefs. That is how the Christian Inquisition ended and Christianity became free to evolve. In the case of Islam, the fundamentalists have harshly punished the doubtful souls and through generations of brainwashing have made any scrutiny of religious matters, a sacrilege. This has to change. If the taboo is broken, extremism will lose its support structure. The problem with the Moderate Islamism is that it keeps the taboo safely in place.

A moderate Islamist party would be considered positively, if it would take an official position against any form of violence in the name of Allah.
This approach was not experienced in any Moslem country and within the Moslem minorities in the Western countries. In fact, even if individually we could hear that violence is rejected, we also hear that there is 'some justification' to such actions. Whilst, islamic extremists voice their joy to such acts.
Right now, South Korea is experiencing an atrocious situation. Talibans in Afghanistan have kidnapped 23 Korean charity workers. Blackmailing the Afghan authorities to release Talibans made prisoners, they have already murdered cold bloodedly two Koreans and promise to continue until their prisoners are released.
Where are the voices of the moderate islamists around the world?
Now to answer your question. Kemal Ataturk's Turkish Republic constitution has imposed that:

- the country must be secular - separating the government and the religious institutions
- the alphabet be written in latin letters
- the male citizens must not wear a red fez and the female citizens must not wear a veil
- the country turn toward western values

yet, we see the wives of the prime minister and the foreign minister wearing veils.

The prime minister, after winning a landslide victory, declared that he would defend the republic and laicity. If this would be the real intentions of the government, it should be given a chance.
But the government should arrest the instigators of terrorist acts and find the killer of the armenian journalist.