Religion of peace?

One wonders about this film and why it was made.

We all have our views on Islam and in my case, there’s a folder full of things that Islamists and the Arabs have caused. To me, an “insult” is only so if it is wrong and to publish something essentially factually wrong is against site policy here.

What is it then if it is not nice, if it offends but is still essentially the truth?

What becomes apparent when exploring this topic is that a distinction has to be made between the Koran, Mohammed, Islam as a religion, Islam as a socio-political mechanism, the fanatics versus the average Muslim and the Arabs in themselves.

It’s tempting to say it’s the Arabs who are the problem but if you go to South-East Asia and see the atrocities there [e.g. Bali], then it is clearly not so much the Arabs but the system which sends these people so out of their brains.

And don’t forget the western agents-provocateurs – Them – and their 911 and 7/7, plus the ridiculous beheadings with an upside down Koran being read in the background. There are people who want the match set to the powder keg ASAP.

However, against that, look at Gary Brecher’s article on Algeria. Not only are those people insane but they’ve also, by their own admission, gone over to Satan [their own words, not mine] – and everyone knows of the Satanic Verses and what they did for Salman Rushdie. Bombs on Mohammed’s turban also don’t seem to go down well.

There is something seriously sick about this too:

Essentially, what devotees are holding up as an example to follow in the case of Jesus of Nazareth [peace be upon Him] is at worst [in Roman eyes] a minor troublemaker who got his and at most, he’s the Son of Man and the Way. He preached genuine peace [let not the sun go down on your wrath, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour as thyself etc.].

The best which can be said about Mohammed [peace be upon him] is that he is the last prophet of Allah, plus the things said in the apology below. At worst, many maintain he was a paedophilic, bloodthirsty warmonger whose idea of persuasion, lovingly copied through the centuries by fanatical devotees , was to throatslit, mutilate and bomb until people agreed with them.

Douglas Adams [peace be upon him] ran the allegory of Krikkit:

“Overnight,” said Slartibartfast, “the whole population of Krikkit was transformed from being charming, delightful, intelligent …”

“… if whimsical …” interpolated Arthur.

“… ordinary people,” said Slartibartfast, “into charming, delightful, intelligent …”

“… whimsical …”

“… manic xenophobes. The idea of a Universe didn’t fit into their world picture, so to speak. They simply couldn’t cope with it. And so, charmingly, delightfully, intelligently, whimsically if you like, they decided to destroy it.

In the case of Islamists, it isn’t to destroy the world but to take it over which is The Grand Plan. Such a pity because Them also have a Grand Plan, sometimes called The Great Work of Ages and the means is Moriah Conquering Wind.

So it’s more a three way contest between Them, Islam and the ordinary mortals such as you and me, including a subset called Christians. Some would call it a four-cornered contest, adding Zionism but I’d include that under Them.

Some would make China the fourth element but that’s just another nation trying to exercise its muscle.

Back to Mohammed [peace be upon him]. With such bad press in the west, what is the truth about this man and his religion? In four parts, I’ve tried to explore what the Muslims say and what their detractors say.

It’s not a narrative, it doesn’t hang together neatly. Rather, it’s a disjointed collection of quotes and history, from which the reader can make up his own mind. Attack it for veracity by all means, as long as it gives counter-evidence and is not just “being insulted” by truth and a vow to slit my throat.

In defence of Islam and Mohammed

Iftekhar A. Hai [director of interfaith relations for United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance]:

“Islam is a peaceful, loving religion. The cheering and celebration over the destruction of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was just the release of pent up emotions from the dispossessed in Palestine. All true Muslims are absolutely appalled at the violence committed by a few fringe radicals”.

“It is true that Mohammed used the concept of just wars as a last resort to establishing peace among the various tribes of Arabia. But the concept of just war (jihad) was backed up with love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Citing examples from the Koran to say that Mohammed was either more or less violent than other Biblical figures is meaningless and anachronistic. We live today by the standards of a modern civilized world; it is not fair to judge Mohammed, who lived 1420 years ago, by today’s standards.”

More on this peaceloving man:

# Mohammed used to pray, “O Allah! I am but a man. If I hurt any one in any manner, then forgive me and do not punish me.” (Ahmed, Musnad, Vol. 6 pg. 103)

# He always received people with courtesy and showed respect to older people and stated: “To honour an old man is to show respect to Allah.”

He was always the first to greet another and would not withdraw his hand from a handshake till the other man withdrew his. If one wanted to say something in his ears, he would not turn away till one had finished (Abu Dawud, Tirmizi).

He did not like people to get up for him and used to say, “Let him who likes people to stand up in his honour, he should seek a place in hell.” (Abu Dawud, Kitabul Adab, Muhammadi Press, Delhi).

# He would himself, however, stand up when any dignitary came to him. He avoided sitting at a prominent place in a gathering, so much so that people coming in had difficulty in spotting him and had to ask which was the Prophet. (Abu Dawud Kitabul Atama).

# He used to visit the poorest of ailing persons and exhorted all Muslims to do likewise (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Chapter “Attendance on ailing persons”).

# He would sit with the humblest of persons, saying that righteousness alone was the criterion of one’s superiority over another. He invariably invited people, be they slaves, servants or the poorest believers, to partake with him of his scanty meals (Tirmizi, Sunan Tirmizi).

# Whenever he visited a person he would first greet him and then take his permission to enter the house. He advised the people to follow this etiquette and not to get annoyed if anyone declined to give permission, for it was quite likely the person concerned was busy otherwise and did not mean any disrespect (Ibid).

# Noble Verse 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” The Holy Quran prohibits Muslims to force any person into Islam. They must leave people to decide for themselves because the “Truth stands out clear from error” (2:256)

OK and in the tradition of exonerating oneself by pointing out the faults of others:

On November 11, 2001, at a panel presentation on the campus of the University of North Carolina, in Chapel Hill, several panel members each had the opportunity to take 15 minutes and give their thoughts on September 11.

A Muslim imam from Durham stated that he would feel morally obligated to stop a person defacing or vandalising a Christian church. Most delegates accepted this.

The Roman Catholic religion has a well-documented history of inquisition, crusade and general persecution, as well as widespread ecclesiastical and popular support for fascist regimes such as those in Germany, Italy, Spain, Croatia, and elsewhere in the era of World War II.

The more benign eastern Orthodox systems raised no voice against the anti-Jewish pogroms. The Hindus, past and present, have a history of persecuting dissenters from the Brahmin slave-caste system, from their 5th century near-annihilation of the indigenous Buddhist culture of Nepal and later genocide against the Nagas of eastern India, to their continued violence against Dalits, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists in India today.

The Buddhists, for their part, have a record of violent persecution against Christians and others, past and present, in Sri Lanka, southeast Asia, and China. The Emperor-worshipping Japanese Shintoists beheaded or shot millions of Chinese in their attempts to extend the sway of their “Divine Lord” on the earth.

Where Islam goes further than the other religious systems is that its Holy texts command and commend violence against unbelievers. The Qur‘an and the hadith support and encourage the faithful to press jihad against non-Muslims.

Muslims will point to Surah 2:190-193 as proof that Islam teaches only defensive warfare but eschews offense.

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them.

Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.”

These verses admonish Muslims only to fight against those who oppress or persecute them and only until the offenders have stopped oppressing them.

However, the Qur’an also teaches Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, to pursue the adoption of Islam and to view any indigenous reaction to that as oppression and persecution against Islam, thereby requiring Jihad against these infidels.

“Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them asylum and aid- these are all friends and protectors, one of another.

As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And remember Allah seeth all that ye do. The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, protect each other, there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief.” (Surah 8:72-73)

In this passage, “adopted exile” is translated from the root form hjr, which has as its primary meaning the ideas of containment or confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or compartmentalised.

The idea garnered from this verse seems to be as follows: adopt exile in a foreign land, voluntarily confining yourself in a non-Muslim society. Eschew assimilation into the culture and way of life of the host country, and instead agitate for Islam. When opposition arises, join together and give aid and fight for Allah against the unbelievers, since unrighteous persecution has now arisen! Thus, defense changes to offense.

There are numerous other, more straight-forward quotes from the Qur’an which exhort the followers of Mohammed to war:

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Surah 9:5)

This passage is found in a portion of the Qur’an dealing with the making and breaking of treaties with pagans (unbelievers). In context, it is condoned for Muslims to break treaties with pagans if it is to their advantage to do so, UNLESS those pagans have been completely faithful in the discharge of their treaty obligations.

But, after the terms of the treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to make war. The historical context is that in ancient times, both in Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off.

Groups which had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each other without any loss of honour for either side. Hence, the Qur’an tells Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war.

Likewise, in Surah 9:73, Mohammed is commanded to press hard war against unbelievers:

“O Prophet! strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”

“O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.” (Surah 9:123)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (religion tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Surah 9:29)

Many Muslims argue that these verses in the Qur’an are being taken out of context. What then do the Muslim scholars actually say?

One of the earliest great Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (839-923 AD), explained Surah 9:5 as commanding the death of infidels if they would not embrace Islam, lest they should enter Mecca [1]. Al-Mahili (d. 1486 AD) also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5

“The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed.” [2]

Another of the most historically influential of Muslim jurists and Quranic exegetes, al-Baydawi (d. 1276 AD), gives a fairly typical understanding of the doctrine, commenting on Surah 9:29:

“Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation.” [3]

The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), stated:

“In the Muslim community, the Holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same.” [4]

Other noteworthy Islamic jurists and philosophers promoted the same offensive strategy for jihad. Ibn Kathir (d. 1372) reiterated Mohammed’s famous quote that “no two religions are to exist on the Arab peninsula”, and asserted that Surah 9:5, seen above, abrogated any covenant which might have been made between Muslims and infidels [5].

Ibn Hazm (994-1064) provides some interesting commentary concerning that verse, Surah 2:256 (“Let there be no compulsion in religion….”), where he demonstrates the purpose of the ayah

“The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith.” [6]

Thus, compulsion certainly was to be applied to any non-Muslims who were not Christians or Jews. These latter two groups were given the third, apparently non-compulsive, choice of submitting to pay the jizyah poll-tax and live out their lives as a permanent underclass.

Modern Muslim scholars, historians, and exegetes have taken similar stances on jihad. Al-Buti reveals for us the following:

“The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam understand it) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars” [7]

He likewise states:

“You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace Islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses?

How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?” [8].


“This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a Holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack … It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mindset of the European man has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?” [9]

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur’an for the justification of offensive holy war:

“God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of Islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace Islam first, as the Qur’an says. ‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong, Almighty”’ (Surah Iron 57:25).” [10]

In the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam. Qutb, in a chapter entitled “Jihaad in the Cause of God”, says this about those who believe that jihad is to be a defensive war only:

“They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom. Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.” [11]

Thus, while admitting “freedom of individual conscience”, Qutb appears to espouse the right of the “Islamic community” to take control of the political authority, which would seem to hearken back to what was seen earlier with Surah 8:72-73.

Qutb was executed by Egypt’s Nasser government for attempting to overthrow the secular regime. Fattah adds:

“Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab Peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them.” [12]

Pakistani Islamic authorities stand with their brethren on this issue. Fazlur Rahman notes the abundant discussion of jihad in the Qur’an, and rejects the modern interpretation of jihad as defensive war only [13]. Maududi, likewise, rejects attempts to make a distinction between offensive and defensive jihad and views jihad as the means by which to overthrow all non-Islamic systems and replace them with submission to Allah. [14]

The Ahadith

The Qur’an is not the only source for the jihad doctrine. The ahadith also contain much regarding jihad, which is seen as the second best deed which could be performed in Islam, second only to believing in Allah and his prophet, Mohammed [15]. To those who participate in jihad come either the spoils of war if he lives or paradise if he is killed.

“The Prophet said:

“The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr).” [16]

Other portions of the ahadith also confirm the rights of jihadis to the spoils of those they kill in Holy war [17] and their automatic entry into paradise if they die as martyrs in the cause of Allah [18,19]. Participation in Holy war earns Muslims many benefits and blessings from Allah. Mohammed said:

“He who reared a horse for the sole intention of using it in a Jehad, then he will be rewarded one virtue for each grain he gave the horse as a feed.” [20]

A man who participates in jihad only for so long as it takes to milk a she-camel is still entitled to paradise because of the blessedness of his endeavour [21]. Then, in the next passage : a man who dies in Holy war has the right to intercede before Allah in paradise for the entry of seventy other men of his choosing, which Allah then is required to allow into paradise [22].

The importance of Holy war in Islamic teaching takes precedence over other religious activities. Mohammed taught that acting as a soldier of Allah for one night is better than 2,000 years of saying prayers back home [23].

While Islamic teachers in the West state, however, that the Muslim duty of zakat, the giving of alms to the poor, the ahadith teach that giving of your wealth to support jihad earns you even greater rewards. Mohammed stated:

“Whatever one spends to facilitate Jehad, Allah shall give him a reward which will exceed his contribution 700 times.” [24]

One statement in the ahadith is:

“He who murders another, property of the murdered becomes property of the murderer.” [25]

This directly contradicts the Christian teaching, admittedly more often stated than observed:

“..thou shalt not kill….thou shalt no steal….thou shalt not covet…” (Exodus 20:13,15,17)

The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria cannot be properly laid at the feet of Islam (actually, it was dealt the decisive blow, accidentally, by Julius Caesar’s invading army six centuries earlier), Islam has been culpable with regards to the destruction of “infidel” knowledge.

Muslim historiographer Ibn Khaldun (1332-1395 AD), mentions the destruction of the Persian State Llibrary that occurred with the capture of the capital, Ctesiphon, in 637 AD:

“Umar wrote [to the local Muslim commander who had requested permission to distribute these books to his troops as booty] : ‘Throw them into the water. If what they contain is right guidance, God has given us better guidance. If it is error, God has protected us against it.’” [26].

Muslim invaders destroyed the Sanskrit college of Vishaldev, Gujarat, India in 1196 AD, and levelled the Buddhist University at Nalanda in 1200 AD.

The aforementioned Caliph Umar I attained to the leadership of Islam in 634, two years after the death of Mohammed. In his short time as caliph, he led Islamic armies in the conquest of Syria (636 AD), Iraq (637 AD), Palestine and the Transjordan (638 AD), Egypt (642 AD), and Persia (642 AD). Umar was quite brutal and to this day, Iranians celebrate with festivities the anniversary of his death.

“Muslims started arriving in India, around 632 AD. Mahmoud Ghazni , in 1018, burned the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors did more: 103 temples in the Holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its temples destroyed, its palaces wrecked.” [27]

India was repeatedly subjected to wave after wave after wave of Muslim invaders whose modus operandi was killing, raping or burning down that which wouldn’t fit into their packs. Of course, the Spanish conquistadors and the British Imperialists can have charges equally levelled at them.

The Muslims of India and Pakistan (which is traditionally an Indian cultural area) are descendants of those Indians who converted to avoid the massacres and the religion tax.

The Assassins were a group of Muslims derived from to the Ismailite sect of Islam. Founded in 1090, this group kept much of the Middle East in fear with their daring, cold-blooded assassinations of all kinds of personages, even up to the caliphs themselves.

This group believed that killing was a religious duty, and would often assassinate leaders they felt to be too weak or too compromising to continue the spread of Islam. Much of their effort was also made against Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, both Frankish and Byzantine.

The name for this group derives from hashish, which they would often smoke so as to induce ecstatic states in preparation for their killings. This group was ultimately destroyed by the Mongol invader Hulagu Khan who razed their mountaintop fortress of Alamut in 1296 [28].

In the later middle ages, the expansion of Islam by jihad was carried forward by the Ottoman Turkish empire. The Turks, over the course of three centuries, pushed their way out of Asia Minor, conquering Constantinople in 1453, and moving further up into the Balkans and Central Europe until finally being turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

During their time of domination over the Balkan peoples, the Turks laid very heavy oppression upon these conquered subjects. One practice was that of taking “infidel” children from their parents as slaves. Once every five years, the Turks would take Orthodox and Catholic children and bring them as slaves to the Sultan.

The girls usually served as concubines in the harems of Turkish leaders. The boys were converted to Islam and Turkish nationalism. After their “education” was finished, these were then highly trained as warrior-slaves, known as janissaries. The Janissaries served as the Sultan’s police force throughout the Empire, many of them enforcing his decrees back in the very homelands from which they had been stolen [29].

Albanians and Bosnians are both Muslim groups whose ancestors originally converted to avoid child-conscription and religious tax. The Serbs and Croats hate the Bosnians and Albanians with a passion because of historical remembrance of the atrocities which the Turkish overlords perpetrated against their Slavic underlings. The emnity today between the Greeks and Turks derives from the Muslim rule in Greece and the Turkish attempts to put down the Greek war of independence (1821-1827).

In 1894, Sultan Abdul Hamid II instituted a pogrom against Orthodox Armenians who refused to abide by a 100% increase in the rents which the Turkish government charged them. Between 1894-1896, over 150,000 Armenians were killed by either the sword or starvation, another 100,000 driven into exile, and 40,000 escaped by conversion to Islam [30].

Between 1915 and 1918, the Turks attacked the Armenians. Families were separated, the men taken out and shot, and the women and children then marched until they died of exhaustion or starvation [31]. Of course, the British and Australian prisoners of war suffered similar treatment at the hands of the Japanese in World War 2. The Muslims certainly do not have a monopoly on such inhumanity to man.

During this time, a quarter of a million Armenians were able to escape to Russia, while another 200,000 saved themselves by converting to Islam. However, the best estimates say that more than one and a half million Armenians were killed by this Muslim act. Turkish Armenia ceased to exist.

The Greeks also had their holocaust at the hands of the Muslims in the early part of the 20th century. In an effort to complete the Islamisation of Turkish dominions, efforts to destroy or drive out the mostly Orthodox Greek populations were begun in 1913. That year, 16,000 Greeks were murdered in Eastern Thrace (on the European side of the Dardanelles). In 1914, Greeks were ordered to vacate the city of Pergamum, and were massacred in Erythrea and Phocaia.

That year, 400,000 Greeks died from malnourishment and mistreatment in forced-labour battalions, and 120,000 Greeks were driven from their homes in Eastern Thrace, fleeing as refugees to the Kingdom of Greece. In 1917, 23,000 Greeks were deported from Cydoniae, and in 1918, another 8,000 Greek families were expelled from southwestern Asia Minor.

In 1922, 300,000 more Greeks were forced out of Eastern Thrace, and at Smyrna, 150,000 Greeks and Armenians were massacred by Turkish forces 32. These areas mentioned: Eastern Thrace, the Ionian isles, and southwestern Asia Minor, were all traditionally Greek cultural areas, dating back to the Mycenaean period over 1000 years before Christ.

The Islamisation of these areas by the removal of the Greeks is therefore jihad, the conquest of territory for Islam. Muslims today claim that these actions were not Muslim, but secular, since Enver Pasha and other Turkish leaders who ordered these things were secular.

This “secularity” can be judged by the actions of the new Young Turk regime which “resumed the teaching of Islamic religion in the public schools, opened state schools for the training of religious functionaries and took such measures for the promotion of religion as putting Qur’anic programs on the state radio.” [33]

In 1947, after the splitting of the Indian Muslims instituted a Holy War against minorities in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). People were killed, property was confiscated, refugees left homeless and Hindu women were given to Muslim men for polygamy.

In 1950, half a million Hindus were killed and in 1971, during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan, Pakistani soldiers killed 3 million Hindus and other religious minorities.

In 1972, Islamic Holy warriors, part of a group called Fatah (Yassa Arafat’s organisation) killed 11 hostages at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany.

In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus and waged war on the Greeks again, who were ostensibly Turkey’s NATO ally. Pakistani Mujahedeen bombers sought to force the Indians out of Kashmir and unite that province with Pakistan. Muslims in East Timor killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics before the UN intervened with Australian troops.

In Mindanao, Muslims are executing infidel Roman Catholics and Christians. In 1981, Muslims rioted in Cairo against the Coptic Christian population, ‘executing’ over 100 individuals.

These actions earned for Islam the acronym standing for “Intolerance, Slaughter, Loot, Arson and Molestation”. [34]
In 1981, after gaining control of Iran, the Islamist revolutionaries under the Ayatollah Khomeini started systematic suppression of Iran’s Bahai minority.

In the 90’s, Sudanese Muslims were waging a war of jihad against Christians and animists in the southern part of that country enslaving them. In Mauritania, thousands of black Africans were killed or expelled by Islamist radicals who instituted sharia in that nation. Over 90,000 people are still reported to be living in slavery [35]. Muslims in northern Nigeria continue to establish sharia over non-Muslims.

Earlier this year the Egyptian television station IQRAA, financed by Saudi Arabia, sent a program to the Arab world which was hosted by the TV journalist Doua Amer.

That “journalist” asked a three year old girl: “Do you know who the Jews are?”

The little girl answered: “Yes, the Jews are pigs and apes who wanted to poison the wife of our prophet.”

Why are countless millions of Muslims worldwide so disaffected, why so many young and eager to give their lives in the cause of Allah? Many well-educated Muslims, in the Middle East and in the West, have grasped the intellectual cause of Islamism and support this jihad wholeheartedly.

It seems evident that in every place in which Muslims make up a significant portion of the population, efforts are made to subjugate or drive out non-Muslims.

What is the Christian principle on these matters?

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.)” (II Corinthians 10:3-4)

A Christian’s struggle is with the spiritual forces of evil. Their warfare is fought on the spiritual plane, against the machinations of Satan and his demons. It is fought with prayer and supplication. It is fought by witnessing and preaching the truth to lost sinners in this dying world.

End Notes
(1) – Al-Tabari, Commentary on the Holy Qur’an, pp. 206-207
(2) – Al-Mahili, Al-Jalalan, p.153
(3) – Al-Baydawi, The Lights of Revelation, p. 252
(4) – Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah, Vol. I, p.473
(5) – Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, p.336
(6) – Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal, Vol. VIII, part 11, p. 196
(7) – M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti, The Jurisprudence of the Biography, pp. 323-324
(8) – M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti, Jurisprudence of the Biography, pp. 266-267
(9) – M. Sai’d Ramadan Al-Buti, Jurisprudence of the Biography, pp. 266
(10) – M. al-Amin, The Methodology of Islamic Law, p. 17
(11) – S. Qutb, Milestones, Ch. 4
(12) – A. Abdul-Fattah, The Spirit of Islamic Religion, p. 382
(13) – F. Rahman, Islam, p.37
(14) – see S. Abul Ala Maududi, Jihad in Islam, pp. 9,19,24, etc.
(15) – Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 1, no. 25
(16) – Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 1, no. 35
(17) – Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 4, no. 370
(18) – Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 4, no. 386
(19) – Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 9, no. 555
(20) – Ibn-e-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 172
(21) – Ibn-e-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 173
(22) – Ibn-e-Majah, vol. 2, p. 174
(23) – Ibn-e-Majah, vol. 2, p. 166
(24) – Sahih Tirmzi, vol. 1, p. 697
(25) – Ibn-e-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 183
(26) – Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah,Vol. I, p. 373
(27) – A. Danielou, History of India, p. 222
(28) – S.N. Fisher The Middle East, A History, p. 108

(29) – R.E. Burns, Wrath of Allah, Chap. 4
(30) – R.E. Burns, Wrath of Allah, Chap. 4
(31) – C.J. Walker, Armenia: Survival of a Nation, p. 203
(32) – R.E. Burns, Wrath of Allah, Chap. 4
(33) – P.N. Siegel, The Meek and the Militant, p. 186
(34) – S.K. Bhattacharyya, Genocide in East Pakistan/Bangladesh
(35) – World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2001 edition, p. 821


At the beginning of this post, I stated that if anything was factually wrong, that that went against the site rules and it would be removed henceforth. Please show me where any of those numbered Surahs and hadiths did not say what they did.

Please show me where the events of Mohammed’s life [peace be upon him] were factually incorrect, i.e. the events did not occur at all.

Please show me where the things I’ve included are factually wrong. Not biased, not hostile – but wrong.

I am not exhorting anyone to adopt the tactics described in these first two parts because, as a Christian, I am not permitted to exhort violence, let alone condone it.

Nor am I denying that most Muslim people might be like most people in the UK and US – good people, not all that religious, no more inclined to hurt you than Mother Theresa.

I know many Muslims and would be horrified if, as a result of this series, any people were threatened or hurt. This series is not against people, it is for them. It is not for you to turn your wrath upon any person in this country on the basis of his or her religion. He or she has every right to practise whatever faith he likes, free from intimidation or scorn.

He or she is a human being.

The religion itself though and it’s top man are fair game, just as the Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth are fair game. Analyse each of those in detail in your own post – it’s called free speech.

This series of posts is to show the reality, the truth about Islam and Mohammed [peace be upon him]. If you still wish to be under the rule of such a system, I’m not suggesting you don’t.

Peace be upon you all.


Part 2 will appear tomorrow, if something hasn’t happened in the meantime. This post will not be amended for content – added to or removed – but will be tweaked for grammar and layout in the next few hours and might have a few pics inserted.

14 comments for “Religion of peace?

  1. September 13, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Mr Higham I may not agree with you on everything but you are certainly correct when you state that the ideology of Islam needs to be challenged but the individuals should be left alone. That is very much my point of view. The ideology of Islam would be much easier to challenge if those who interact with it at a governmental and local political community level were less naive about its expansionism.

  2. richard
    September 14, 2012 at 1:23 am

    Very interesting. All I can add is the fact that the three or four times I have had dealings with Muslims I have received politeness and consideration at least, and once some surprising kindness and hospitality. If these were typical responses to an infidel then, no matter what bits of their book might say, the overall product is admirable if these men were typical exponents of Islam.

  3. Voice of Reason
    September 14, 2012 at 1:25 am

    As always, a few comments:
    1. Taking slaves was a common practice, especially from ‘the other side’, in that period. The reason why the Janissaries were so important is that they were loyal to the Sultan, rather than to any particular faction.
    2. There is a lot of evidence that Islam was radicalized by the early Crusades. Michener’s ‘The Source’ is a decent history of the area.
    3. Before the destruction of the Library at Alexandria, a lot of Greek mathematics and other knowledge was kept alive in the Islamic world, and lost by Christian Europe.
    4. I lived in Cyprus from 1969-1971. There was an uneasy peace between the mostly Turkish North and mostly Greek South, enforced by the U.N. The Greeks overthrew the government, and tried to form a union with Greece (hundreds of miles away). The Turks, only 40 miles away, reacted.

  4. September 14, 2012 at 1:43 am

    2. Yet there is archaeological evidence that it was radicalized long before, especially along the shores of the Mediterranean. They’d in fact been at it from the earliest times and it was partly this which motivated the nation states to move on them in the name of God.

  5. Greg Tingey
    September 14, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Islam is a religion, and we are currently in the year 1390 (2012-622).
    Now, think of how christianity was behaving, or had recently behaved at that time (i.e. CE 1390).
    Oh dear.

    Isalm is a religion, and I should NOT have to repeat it, but I’m going to have to:
    1. God is not detectable (even if that “god” exists)
    2. All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and superstition.
    Corollary: 2a ] Marxism is a religion.
    3. Prayer has no effect on third parties.
    Corollary: 3a ] There is no such thing as “Psi”.
    4. All religions kill, or enslave, or torture.
    Corollary: 4a ] The bigots are the true believers.
    5. All religions have been made by men.

    Oh dear.

    And you get the results we see.

    Remember, it is only 129 years since the Stromeferry Riot.
    Wehere the christian ministers deliberately inflamed local Sabbatarian opinions to the point where the raliway authorities had to call on police & troops to enable … trains of fresh fish to be loaded (!)

    Oh dear.

    This sort of stupidity & bigotry is endemic in ANY religion, and it is unfair to blame islam only.

    What is relevant is that, at present, islam, and much more dangerous Islamicists, are exploiting this gullibilty of their brain-washed followers.
    Much as Arnaud Amoury & St Dominic did, back in CE 1209 & 1213, in other words.
    Oh dear, how embarassing!

    • September 14, 2012 at 10:45 am

      You mention issues from the past, the problem is the present. You also mention individual cases, which go against Christian scripture, James make the case that Islamic ‘bigotry’ is Quranically permitted. All in all you’ve just thrown up a massive strawman reply to a serious issue.

      • Greg Tingey
        September 15, 2012 at 9:18 am

        Christian bigotry is also permitted.
        There are passages in the NT (I forget where) that specifically state that christians should have no dealings with unbelievers.
        Then there’s: “Thou shalt not permit a witch to live”, and one or two other nice little gems.
        Or the practice of the RC church of murdering victims who disagreed with it …..
        Your “No true Scotsman” argument is the strawman!

        • September 15, 2012 at 9:45 am

          The only restriction Christians have is to not eat food that has been offered to idols. The rest of your fallacious reasoning is Old testament, not new. The fact that Christians can go against their religion is not new and they face criticism over it. Muslims when they kill their victims are not going against their religion.
          You clearly haven’t got a clue about either religion.

          • Greg Tingey
            September 16, 2012 at 9:48 am

            From the “39 Articles of religion” ….
            From article VI
            In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

            and from article VII
            The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind ….

            So Quiet Man, as is usual with believers, you know less about your own religion than antheist like me.
            I helps, of course, that I used to be brought up evangelical anglican, & I know all the bullshit.

    • Voice of Reason
      September 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Given your comments here, you should enjoy: , which contains the quote “But among all the world’s great religions, only Islam is susceptible to the dangerous and, as we have seen, murderous type of distortion and manipulation that results in the deaths of ambassadors, soldiers and civilians on their way to an uneventful day of work. That’s at least the case in this enlightened age; the Crusades happened centuries ago.”

      I intend to write to her, and remind her of some more recent history than the Crusades..

      • Voice of Reason
        September 14, 2012 at 3:23 pm

        Here is my reply:

        Perhaps Ms. Flowers should read a little history of Christianity. For a few choice items:

        Columbus’ men torturing and killing natives in Hispaniola to celebrate Easter.

        The Spanish Inquisition, which targeted Jews whose grandparents had converted to Christianity.

        Martin Luther, who advocated that Jews should be locked in their houses, which should then be set afire.

        The 30 Years’ War, which practically destroyed Germany, as the Protestants and Catholics killed each other.

        The witch trials of Europe and the U.S., and those which are conducted by Christians in Africa right now.

        The Southern Baptists, who were formed because of their support of slavery.

        U.S. Marshalls in the 1800’s, ordered to gun down Mormon families in Kansas City.

        The KKK, who chose the cross as their symbol.

        Adolf Hitler, who wrote in ‘Mein Kampf’ that persecuting Jews was doing God’s work.

        In short, there is no political or religious belief system which cannot and has not been perverted to extreme ends.

  6. September 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Columbus’ men torturing and killing natives in Hispaniola to celebrate Easter.

    The Spanish Inquisition, which targeted Jews whose grandparents had converted to Christianity.

    What on earth does that have to do with Christianity? Or the KKK or the Southern Baptists? You never learn, VofR because you don’t want to learn. You don’t want to acknowledge that these people are about as Christian as you are. Have you never heard of CINOs?

    Now I’m waiting for one example of gospel following Christians committing some atrocity. And I’ll be waiting a long time.

    And you seriously put forward Adolf Hitler as a Christian? Get a grip, man.

    • Voice of Reason
      September 15, 2012 at 1:26 am

      James – the problem with the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy (disavowing people who do these things) is that the remaining list is rather short. It also belies the evidence – slavery, the witch trials and Inquisition were all done with the full support of the hierarchy and congregations, and those involved were buried with full Christian honours.

      As for Hitler, he repeatedly said that he was a Christian, including in the Concordat with the Vatican. His speeches and writings were full of support for Christianity, and SS soldiers celebrated Christmas, and were given Christian burials. Read Elie Wiesel’s moving account of hearing the church bells from the concentration camps.

    • Greg Tingey
      September 15, 2012 at 9:26 am

      You are the one needing to get a grip!
      Adolf very publicly proclaimed his christianity, & there is planty of evidence of it, including photographic.
      I suggest you start HERE:
      & here too:
      Both deeply unpleasant, and very educational – & I think you need it.

      And, I would remind you that the inquisition (not just the Spanish version) was entirely staffed by members of OSD – so it might, just, have a little bit to do with christianity, mightn’t it?

      As for “gospel-following christians” that is a very selective reverse “No true Scotsman” argument – I saw you palm that card!

Comments are closed.