Charles Martel's Middle East Analysis

2006-11-15T10:37:00.000-08:00

A PRIMER ON ISLAM

by Barry L. Brumfield

Islam - meaning "the submission to God" is a monotheistic faith, and according to Muslim tradition, one of the Abrahamic religions. Islam is the World's second-largest religion.

Etymology of Islam

In Arabic, Islam from the root 'slm' (silm), to be in peaceful submission; to surrender; to obey; peace; Islam literally meaning "The active willful surrender, submission, obedience, in purity to the will of another (Allah) in complete peace." (understood as submission to God) and is described as a din, meaning "way of life" and/or "religion." Etymologically, it is derived from the same root as, for example, Salam meaning "peace" (also a common salutation). The word Muslim is also related to the word Islam and means one who "surrenders" or "submits" to God. Although both "Islam" and "Muslim" are often pronounced with z sounds, the s should be pronounced not as a z but as a s, like in bliss.

Beliefs

Followers of Islam known as Muslims, believe that God (or, in Arabic, Allah) revealed his direct word for mankind to Muhammad (c. 570-632) and other prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Muslims assert that the main written record of revelation to humankind is the Qur'an, which they believe to be flawless, immutable, and the final revelation of God. Muslims mistakenly believe that parts of the Gospels, Torah and Jewish prophetic books (though originally divine in their nature) have been forgotten, misinterpreted, or distorted by their followers and thus, their original message has been corrupted over time. With that perspective, Muslims view the Qur'an as a corrective of Jewish and Christian scriptures.

Muslims hold that Islam is essentially the same belief as that of all the messengers sent by God to mankind since Adam, with the Qur'an (the one definitive text of the Muslim faith) codifying the final revelation of God. Islamic teaching sees Judaism and Christianity as derivations of the teachings of certain of these prophets - notably Abraham - and therefore acknowledges their Abrahamic roots, whilst the Qur'an calls them People of the Book. Islam has three primary branches of belief, based largely on a historical disagreement over the succession of authority after Muhammad's death; these are known as Sunni, Shi'ite and Kharijite. The basis of Islamic belief is found in the shahadatan ("two testimonies"): la ilaha illa-llahu; muhammadur-rasulu-llahi - "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God." In order to become a Muslim, one needs to recite and believe in these statements. Sunnis further regard this as one of the five pillars of Islam.

Six articles of belief

There are six basic beliefs shared by all Muslims:

1. Belief in God, the one and only one worthy of all worship.

2. Belief in all the Prophets (nabi) and Messengers (rasul) (sent by God).

3. Belief in the Books (kutub) sent by God.

4. Belief in the Angels (malaikah).

5. Belief in the Day of Judgment (qiyamah) and in the Resurrection.

6. Belief in Destiny (Fate) (qadar). (Note that this does not mean one is pre-determined to act or live a certain life. God has given the free will to do and make decisions.)

The Muslim creed in English:

"I believe in God; and in His Angels; and in His Scriptures; and in His Messengers; and in The Final Day; and in Fate, that Good and Evil are from God, and Resurrection after death be Truth.

"I testify that there is nothing worthy of worship but God; and I testify that Muhammad is His Messenger."

The God of Islam is called Allah

The fundamental concept in Islam is the oneness of God (tawhid). This monotheism is absolute, not relative or pluralistic in any sense of the word. God is described in Sura al-Ikhlas, (chapter 112) as follows: Say "He is God, the one, the Self-Sufficient master. He never begot, nor was begotten. There is none comparable to Him."

In Arabic, God is called Allah. The word is etymologically connected to al-ilah "deity", ultimately from Proto-Semitic ilâh-al, and indirectly related to Hebrew El. Allah is also the word used by Christian and Jewish Arabs, translating ho theos of the New Testament and LXX; it predates Muhammad and in its origin does not specify a "God" different from the one worshipped by Judaism and Christianity, the monotheistic religions to which Muhammad's teaching stood in contrast. Some Christians and Orthodox Jews dispute the notion that the God that Muslims worship is the same God described in the Old and New Testaments due to extreme differences in the two teachings.

The implicit usage of the definite article in Allah linguistically indicates the divine unity. Muslims believe that the God they worship is the same as the Judeo-Christian God, i.e., the God of Abraham. However, Muslims reject the Christian theology concerning the unity of God (the doctrine of the Trinity which regards Jesus as the eternal Son of God). Quoting from the Qur'an, sura An-Nisa 171: "O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as its defender."

No Muslim visual images or depictions of God exist because such artistic depictions may lead to idolatry and are thus prohibited. A similar position in Christian theology is termed Iconoclasm. Moreover, most Muslims believe that God is incorporeal, rendering any two or three dimensional depictions impossible. Instead, Muslims describe God by the many divine attributes mentioned in the Qur'an. All but one Surah (chapter) of the Qur'an begins with the phrase "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful". These are consequently the most important divine attributes in the sense that Muslims repeat them most frequently during their ritual prayers (called salah in Arabic, and in India, Pakistan and Turkey called "namaaz" (a Persian word)).

The tenets of Islam

There are two main sects in Islam: the Sunni and the Shi'a. Sunni Muslim make up roughly 90% of the Muslim world. Sunni Islam's most fundamental tenets are referred to as the Five Pillars of Islam2, while Shia Islam has a slightly different terminology, encompassing five core beliefs (the "roots of religion") and ten core practices (the "branches of religion"). All Muslims agree on the following statements, which Sunnis term the Five Pillars of Islam, and Shia would consider two of the Roots of Religion and four of the Branches of Religion:

* Shahadah: The Testimony that there is none worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is his messenger.

* Salah: Establishing of the five daily Prayers (salah).

* Zakat: The Giving of Zakaah (charity), which is one fortieth (2.5%) of the net worth of savings kept for more than a year, with few exemptions, for every Muslim whose wealth exceeds the nisab, and 10% or 20% of the produce from agriculture. This money or produce is distributed among the Muslim poor.

* Sawm: Fasting from dawn to dusk in the month of Ramadan

* Hajj: The Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca during the month of Dhul Hijjah, which is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it.

The Shia include the following, though some of these beliefs are also considered accurate in Sunni Islam as well:

* The Justice of God ('Adl).

* The Resurrection (Me'ad).

and four of what the Shia call the Branches of Religion:

* Enjoining what is good (Amr-bil-Ma'roof).

* Forbidding what is evil (Nahi-anil-Munkar).

* Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad).

* Paying the tax on profit (Khums).

while two "branches", and one "root", are specifically Shia:

* The belief in the divinely appointed and guided imamate of Ali and some of his descendants (Imamah).

* To love the Ahl-ul-Bayt and their followers (Tawalla).

* To hate the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt (Tabarra).

The Qur'an

The Qur'an is the sacred book of Islam. It has also been called, in English, the Koran and the Quran. Qur'an is the currently preferred English transliteration of the original Arabic word for the Qur'an; it means "recitation". Although it is referred to as a "book", when a Muslim refers to the Qur'an, they are referring to the actual text, the words, rather than the printed work itself.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel on numerous occasions between the years 610 and Muhammad's death in 632. In addition to memorizing his revelations, his followers are said to have written them down on parchments, stones, and other media, so that the entire Qur'an was written down during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an available today is the same as that revealed to Prophet Muhammad and by him to his followers, who memorized his words. Scholars accept that the version of the Qur'an used today was first compiled in writing by the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, sometime between 650 and 656. He sent copies of his version to the various provinces of the new Muslim empire, and directed that all variant copies be destroyed. However, some skeptics doubt the recorded oral traditions (hadith) on which the account is based and will say only that the Qur'an must have been compiled before 750.

There are also numerous traditions, and many conflicting academic theories, as to the provenance of the verses later assembled into the Qur'an. Most Muslims accept the account recorded in several hadith, which state that Abu Bakr, the first caliph, ordered Zayd ibn Thabit to collect and record all the authentic verses of the Qur'an, as preserved in written form or oral tradition. Zayd's written collection, privately treasured by Muhammad's widow Hafsa bint Umar, was used by Uthman and is the basis of today's Qur'an.

Uthman's version organized the revelations, or suras, roughly in order of length, with the longest suras at the start of the Qur'an and the shortest ones at the end. More conservative views state that the order of most suras was divinely set. Later scholars have struggled to put the suras in chronological order, and among Muslim commentators at least there is a rough consensus as to which suras were revealed in Mecca and which at Medina. Some suras (eg surat Iqra) were revealed in parts at separate times.

Because the Qur'an was first written (date uncertain) in the Hijazi, Mashq, Ma'il, and Kufic scripts, which write consonants only and do not supply the vowels, and because there were differing oral traditions of recitation, as non-native Arabic speakers converted to Islam, there was some disagreement as to the exact reading of many verses. Eventually, scripts were developed that used diacritical markings (known as points) to indicate vowels. For hundreds of years after Uthman's recension, Muslim scholars argued as to the correct pointing and reading of Uthman's unpointed official text, (the rasm). Eventually, most commentators accepted seven different readings (qira'at) of the Qur'an as canonical.

The form of the Qur'an most used today is the Al-Azhar text of 1923, prepared by a committee at Cairo university of Al-Azhar.

The Qur'an early became a focus of Muslim devotion and eventually a subject of theological controversy. In the 8th century, the Mu'tazilis claimed that the Qur'an was created in time and was not eternal. Their opponents, of various schools, claimed that the Qur'an was eternal and perfect, existing in heaven before it was revealed to Muhammad. The Ashari theology (which ultimately became predominant) held that the Qur'an was uncreated. However, modern liberal movements within Islam are apt to take something approaching the Mu'tazili position.

Most Muslims regard paper copies of the Qur'an with extreme veneration, wrapping them in a clean cloth, keeping them on a high shelf, and washing as for prayers before reading the Qur'an. Old Qur'ans are not destroyed as wastepaper, but burned or deposited in Qur'an graveyards.

Almost every Muslim has memorized some portion of Qur'an in the original language. Those who have memorized the entire Qur'an are known as hafiz. This is not a rare achievement; it is believed that there are millions of hafiz alive today.

From the beginning of the faith, most Muslims believed that the Qur'an was perfect only as revealed in Arabic. Translations were the result of human effort and human fallibility, as well as lacking the inspired poetry believers find in the Qur'an. Translations are therefore only commentaries on the Qur'an, or "translations of its meaning", not the Qur'an itself. Many modern, printed versions of the Qur'an feature the Arabic text on one page, and a vernacular translation on the facing page

Prophets of Islam

The Qur'an speaks of God appointing two classes of human servants: messengers (rasul in Arabic), and prophets (nabi in Arabic and Hebrew). In general, messengers are the more elevated rank, but Muslims consider all prophets and messengers equal. All prophets are said to have spoken with divine authority; but only those who have been given a major revelation or message are called messenger.

Notable messengers include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses (Musa), Jesus (Isa), and Muhammad, all belonging to a succession of men guided by God. Islam demands that a believer accept most of the Judeo-Christian prophets, making no distinction between them. In the Qur'an, 25 specific prophets are mentioned.

Mainstream Muslims regard Muhammad as the 'Last Messenger' or the 'Seal of the Prophets' based on the canon. However, there have been a number of sects whose leaders have proclaimed themselves the successors of Muhammad, changing and extending Islam, or, whose devotees have made such claims for their leaders. However, most Muslims remain unaffected by those claims and simply regard those said groups to be deviant from Islam.

Islamic Eschatology

Islamic eschatology is concerned with the Qiyamah (end of the world) and the final judgment of humanity. Like Christianity and some sects of modern Judaism, Islam teaches the bodily resurrection of the dead, the fulfillment of a divine plan for creation, and the immortality of the human soul; the righteous are rewarded with the pleasures of Jannah (Paradise), while the unrighteous are punished in Jahannam (a fiery Hell, from the Hebrew ge-hinnom or "valley of Hinnom"; usually rendered in English as Gehenna). A significant fraction of the Qur'an deals with these beliefs, with many hadith elaborating on the themes and details.

Other beliefs of Islam

Other beliefs include the existence of Angels, the Jinns (a species of beings not composed of solid matter, but 'fire') and the existence of magic (the practice of which is strictly forbidden).

Organization within Islam

Religious authority: There is no official authority who decides whether a person is accepted into, or dismissed from, the community of believers, known as the Ummah ("family" or "nation"). Islam is open to all, regardless of race, age, gender, or previous beliefs. It is enough to believe in the central beliefs of Islam. This is formally done by reciting the shahada, the statement of belief of Islam, without which a person cannot be classed a Muslim. It is enough to believe and say that one is a Muslim, and behave in a manner befitting a Muslim to be accepted into the community of Islam.

Islamic law

Sharia: The Sharia is Islamic Law, preserved through Islamic scholarship. The Qur'an is the foremost source of Islamic jurisprudence; the second is the Sunnah (the practices of the Prophet, as narrated in reports of his life). The Sunnah is not itself a text like the Qur'an, but is extracted by analysis of the Hadith (Arabic for "report") texts, which contain narrations of the Prophet's sayings, deeds, and actions of his companions he approved.

Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from the broad topics of governance and foreign relations all the way down to issues of daily living. Islamic law at the level of governance and social justice only applies where the government is Islamic.

According to Islam, the Sharia is divinely revealed. It is understood as protecting five things: faith, life, knowledge, lineage, and wealth. However, it is by no means a rigid system of laws. There are different schools of thoughts and movements within Islam that allow for flexibility. Moreover, Islam is a diverse religion as many cultures have embraced it.

Apostasy and Blasphemy

Apostasy in Islam: Islamic communities, like other religious communities, often exclude apostates and blasphemers from the community of believers.

In orthodox Islamic theology, conversion from Islam to another religion is forbidden and punishable by death. Apostasy is public disloyalty towards Islam by any one who had previously professed the Islamic faith. Blasphemy is showing disrespect or speaking ill of any of the essential principles of Islam. There is no sharp distinction made between these concepts, as many believers feel that there can be no blasphemy without apostasy.

In the period of Islamic empire, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph. Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, and Mauritania. Blasphemy is also an offence in many of these countries.

In most of these countries, such laws are invoked only sporadically and selectively; convictions tend to be reversed at a higher level, or if not reversed, those convicted may be allowed to leave the country. Some Islamic countries, notably, Saudi, Iran under the Islamic Republic, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Sudan, have been more willing to enforce laws and punishments against apostasy and blasphemy. In each of these countries Islamist regimes are estimated to have executed, flogged, and imprisoned hundreds or thousands of people believed to be apostates or blasphemers.

Other punishments prescribed by sharia (depending on interpretation) may include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children, the loss of property and inheritance rights, or other sanctions.

Here as elsewhere in Islam, scholars disagree on specific applications of core principles, with some prominently advocating a punitive approach to "exclusionary" issues and others tending to de-emphasize such questions.

Islamic calendar

Islam dates from the Hijra, or migration from Mecca to Medina. This is year 1, AH (Anno Hegira) - which corresponds to 622 AD or 622 CE, depending on the notation preferred (see Common era). It is a lunar calendar, but differs from other such calendars (e.g. the Celtic calendar) in that it omits intercalary months, being synchronized only with lunations, but not with the solar year, resulting in years of either 354 or 355 days. This omission was introduced by Muhammad because the right to announce intercalary months had led to political power struggles. Therefore Islamic dates cannot be converted to the usual CE/AD dates simply by adding 622 years. Islamic holy days fall on fixed dates of the lunar calendar, which means that they occur in different seasons in different years in the Gregorian calendar.

Islamic Sects

There are a number of Islamic religious denominations, each of which has significant theological and legal differences from each other. The major branches are Sunni and Shi'a, with Sufism often considered as a mystical inflection of either Sunni or Shi'a thought.

The Sunni sect of Islam is the largest of the sects (some 80-85% of all Muslims are Sunni). Sunnis recognize four legal traditions (madhhabs): Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi, and Hanbali. All four accept the validity of the others and Muslims choose any one that he/she thinks is agreeable to his/her ideas. There are also several orthodox theological or philosophical traditions (kalam).

Shi'a Muslims differ from the Sunni in rejecting the authority of the first three caliphs. They honor different traditions (hadith) and have their own legal traditions. The Shi'a consist of one major school of thought known as the Ithna Ashariyya or the "Twelvers", and a few minor schools of thought, as the "Seveners" or the "Fivers" referring to the number of infallible leaders they recognise after the death of Muhammad. The term Shi'a is usually taken to be synonymous with the Ithna Ashariyya/Twelvers. Most Shi'a live in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Sunni and Shi'a have often clashed. Some Sunni believe that Shi'a are heretics while other Sunni recognize Shi'a as fellow Muslims. According to Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot, head of the al-Azhar University in the middle part of the 20th Century, "the Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shi'a al- Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought". Al-Azhar later distanced itself from this position.

Another sect which dates back to the early days of Islam is that of the Kharijites. The only surviving branch of the Kharijites are the Ibadhi Muslims. Most Ibadhi Muslims live in Oman.

Wahhabis, as they are known by non-Wahhabis, are a more recent group. They prefer to be called the Ikhwan, or Brethren, or sometimes Salafis. Wahhabism is a movement founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab in the 18th century in what is present-day Saudi Arabia. They classify themselves as Sunni and some claim to follow the Hanbali legal tradition. The major trend, however is the abolition of these 'schools of thoughts' (legal traditions), and the following of a more literalist interperation. Some even regard other Sunni as heretics. They are recognized as the official religion of Saudi Arabia and have had a great deal of influence on the Islamic world due to Saudi control of Mecca and Medina, the Islamic holy places, and due to Saudi funding for mosques and schools in other countries.

Another trend in modern Islam is sometimes called progressive, liberal or secular Islam. Followers may be called Ijtihadists. They may be either Sunni or Shi'ite, and generally favour the development of personal interpretations of Qur'an and Hadith. See: Liberal Islam

One very small Muslim group, based primarily in the United States, follows the teachings of Rashad Khalifa and calls itself the "Submitters". They reject hadith and fiqh, and say that they follow the Qur'an alone. There is also an even smaller group of Qur'an-alone Muslims who claim to represent the authentic teachings of Rashad Khalifa and seem to have split from the Submitters. Most Muslims of both the Sunni and the Shia sects consider this group to be heretical.

Sufism is a spiritual practice followed by both Sunni and Shi'a. Sufis generally feel that following Islamic law is only the first step on the path to perfect submission; they focus on the internal aspects of Islam, such as perfecting one's faith and fighting one's own ego.

Most Sufi orders, or tariqa, can be classified as either Sunni or Shi'a. There are also some very large groups or sects of Sufism that are not easily categorised as either Sunni or Shi'a, such as the Bektashi. Sufis are found throughout the Islamic world, from Senegal to Indonesia.

Religions based on Islam

The following groups consider themselves to be Muslims, but are not considered Islamic by the majority of Muslims or Muslim authorities: (The graph below is used with permission from Barry L. Brumfield. His website is called Israel's Messiah.com.)

Islam - religion

* The Zikris

* The Qadianis (or Ahmadiyya)

The following consider themselves Muslims but acceptance by the larger Muslim community varies:

* The Nation of Islam (African-American Cult)

* The Druze

* The Alawites (Alnusairiya)

The following religions are said by some to have evolved or borrowed from Islam, in almost all cases influenced by traditional beliefs in the regions where they emerged, but consider themselves independent religions with distinct laws and institutions:

* Babism

* Bahá'í Faith

* Yazidi

The claim of the adherents of the Bahá'í Faith that it represents an independent religion was upheld by the Muslim ecclesiastical courts in Egypt during the 1920's. As of January 1926, their final ruling on the matter of the origins of the Bahá'í Faith and its relationship to Islam was that the Bahá'í Faith was neither a sect of Islam, nor a religion based on Islam, but a clearly-defined, independently-founded faith. This seen as a considerate act on part of the ecclesiastical court and in favor of followers of Bahá'í Faith since the majority of Muslims would regard a religion based on Islam as a heresy.

Some see Sikhism as a syncretic mix of Hinduism and Islam. However, its history lies in the social strife between local Hindu and Muslim communities, during which Sikhs were seen as the "sword arm" of Hinduism. The philosophical basis of the Sikhs is deeply-rooted in Hindu metaphysics and certain philosophical practices. Sikhism also rejects image-worship and believes in one God, just like the Bhakti reform movement in Hinduism and also like Islam does.

The following religions might have been said to have evolved from Islam, but are not considered part of Islam, and no longer exist:

* The religion of the medieval Berghouata

* The religion of Ha-Mim

Islam and other religions

The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow "peoples of the book" (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), and others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures. At different times and places, Islamic communities have been both intolerant and tolerant. Support can be found in the Qur'an for both attitudes.

The classical Islamic solution was a limited tolerance - Jews and Christians were to be allowed to privately practice their faith and follow their own family law. They were called Dhimmis, and they had fewer legal rights and obligations than Muslims.

The classic Islamic state was often more tolerant than many other states of the time, which insisted on complete comformity to a state religion. The record of contemporary Muslim-majority states is mixed. Some are generally regarded as tolerant, while others have been accused of intolerance and human rights violations. See the main article, Islam and other religions, for further discussion.

Brief History of Islam

Islamic history begins in Arabia in the 7th century with the emergence of the prophet Muhammad. Within a century of his death, an Islamic state stretched from the Atlantic ocean in the west to central Asia in the east, which however was soon torn by civil wars (fitnas). After this, there would always be rival dynasties claiming the caliphate, or leadership of the Muslim world, and many Islamic states or empires offering only token obedience to an increasingly powerless caliph.

Nonetheless, the later empires of the Abbasid caliphs and the Seljuk Turk were among the largest and most powerful in the world. After the disastrous defeat of the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Christian Europe launched a series of Crusades and for a time captured Jerusalem. Saladin however restored unity and defeated the Shiite Fatimids.

From the 14th to the 17th centuries one of the most important Muslim territories was the Mali Empire, whose capital was Timbuktu.

In the 18th century there were three great Muslim empires: the Ottoman in Turkey, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean; the Safavid in Iran; and the Mogul in India. By the 19th century, these realms had fallen under the sway of European political and economic power. Following WWI, the remnants of the Ottoman empire were parceled out as European protectorates or spheres of influence. Islam and Islamic political power have revived in the 20th century. However, the relationship between the West and the Islamic world remains uneasy.

Contemporary Islam

Although the most visible movement in Islam in recent times has been fundamentalist Islamism, there are a number of liberal movements within Islam which seek alternative ways to align the Islamic faith with contemporary questions.

Early shariah had a much more flexible character than is currently associated with Islamic jurisprudence, and many modern Muslim scholars believe that it should be renewed, and the classical jurists should lose their special status. This would require formulating a new fiqh suitable for the modern world, e.g. as proposed by advocates of the Islamization of knowledge, and would deal with the modern context. One vehicle proposed for such a change has been the revival of the principle of ijtihad, or independent reasoning by a qualified Islamic scholar, which has lain dormant for centuries.

This movement does not aim to challenge the fundamentals of Islam; rather, it seeks to clear away misinterpretations and to free the way for the renewal of the previous status of the Islamic world as a center of modern thought and freedom. See Modern Islamic philosophy for more on this subject.

The claim that only "liberalization" of the Islamic Shariah law can lead to distinguishing between tradition and true Islam is countered by many Muslims with the argument that any meaningful "fundamentalism" will, by definition, reject non-Islamic cultural inventions - by, for instance, acknowledging and implementing Muhammad's insistence that women have God-given rights that no human being may legally infringe upon. Proponents of modern Islamic philosophy sometimes respond to this by arguing that, as a practical matter, "fundamentalism" in popular discourse about Islam may actually refer, not to core precepts of the faith, but to various systems of cultural traditionalism.

Demographics of Islam today

Based on the percentages published in the 2005 CIA World Factbook ("World"), Islam is the second-largest religion in the world. According to the World Network of Religious Futurists, the U.S. Center for World Mission, and the controversial Samuel Huntington, Islam is growing faster numerically than any of the other major world religions. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance estimate that it is growing at about 2.9% annually, as opposed to 2.3% per year global population growth. This is attributed either to the higher birth rates in many Islamic countries (six out of the top-ten countries in the world with the highest birth rates have a Muslim majority [1]) and/or high rates of conversion to Islam.

Commonly cited estimates of the Muslim population today range between 900 million and 1.4 billion people (cf. Adherents.com); estimates of Islam by country based on US State Department figures yield a total of 1.48 billion, while the Muslim delegation at the United Nations quoted 1.2 billion as the global Muslim population in Sept 2005.

Only 18% of Muslims live in the Arab world; 20% are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, about 30% in the Indian sub-continental region of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and the world's largest single Muslim community (within the bounds of one nation) is in Indonesia. There are also significant Muslim populations in China, Europe, Central Asia, and Russia.

France has the highest Muslim population of any nation in Europe, with up to 6 million Muslims (10% of the population[2]). Albania is said to have the highest proportion of Muslims as part of its population in Europe (70%), although this figure is only a (highly contested) estimate (see Islam in Albania). The number of Muslims in North America is variously estimated as anywhere from 1.8 to 7 million.

Major Muslim Countries of the World (% of population)

Country - Muslim (%)
Afghanistan 99
Albania 70
Algeria 99
Azerbaijan 93.4
Bahrain 100
Bangladesh 83
Brunei 67
Burkina Faso 50
Chad 51
Comoros 98
Djibouti 94
Egypt 94
Gambia, The 90
Gaza Strip 98.7
Guinea 85
Indonesia 88
Iran 98
Iraq 97
Jordan 92
Kuwait 85
Kyrgyzstan 75
Lebanon 60
Libya 97
Maldives Sunni Muslim
Mali 90
Mauritania 100
Mayotte 97
Morocco 98.7
Niger 80
Nigeria 50
Oman 75
Pakistan 97
Qatar 95
Saudi Arabia 100
Senegal 94
Sierra Leone 60
Somalia Sunni Muslim
Sudan 70
Syria 90
Tajikistan 90
Tunisia 98
Turkey 99.8
Turkmenistan 89
United Arab Emirates 96
Uzbekistan 88
West Bank 75
Yemen Muslim

Symbols of Islam

Green is commonly used when representing Islam. It is much used in decorating mosques, tombs, and various religious objects. Some say this is because green was the favorite color of Muhammad and that he wore a green cloak and turban. Others say that it symbolizes vegetation. Some say that after Muhammad, only the caliphs were allowed to wear green turbans. In the Qur'an, 18:31, it is said that the inhabitants of paradise will wear green garments of fine silk.

The reference to the Qur'an is verifiable; it is not clear if the other traditions are reliable or mere folklore. However, the association between Islam and the color green is firmly established now, whatever its origins may have been.

* The color green is absent from medieval European coats of arms as during the Crusades, green was the color used by their Islamic opponents.

* In the palace of Topkapi, in Istanbul, there is a room with relics of Muhammad. One of the relics, kept locked in a chest, is said to have been Muhammad's banner, under which he went to war. Some say that this banner is green with golden embroidery, others say that it is black and others think there is no banner in the chest at all.

In early accounts of Muslim warfare, there are references to flags or battle standards of various colors: black, white, red, and greenish-black. Later Islamic dynasties adopted flags of different colors:

* The Ummayads fought under white banners

* The Abbasids chose black

* The Fatimids used green

* Various countries on the Persian Gulf have chosen red flags

These four colors, white, black, green and red, dominate the flags of Arab states.

The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but flag historians citations state that they were the insignia of the Ottoman empire, not of Islam as a whole.

(Editor's note: The sword also is an unofficial symbol of Islam. The sword appears prominently on the flag of Saudi Arabia and references to swords and beheading are prominent in the Koran and hadiths. Muhammad is also purported to have said in one of the hadiths: "Paradise is under the shade of swords.")

Notes
1. Shi'a muslims do not believe in absolute predestination (Qadar), since they consider it incompatible with Divine Justice. Neither do they believe in absolute free will since that contradicts God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Rather they believe in "a way between the two ways" (amr bayn al-'amrayn) believing in free will, but within the boundaries set for it by God and exercised with His permission.
2. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad group claims, as did a few long-extinct early medieval Kharijite sects, that Jihad is the "sixth pillar of Islam." Some Ismaili groups consider "Allegiance to the Imam" to be the so-called sixth pillar of Islam. For more information, see the article entitled Sixth pillar of Islam.

by Barry Brumfield (www.IsraelsMessiah.com)

to us by placing this
graphic on your web site. Insert the
References:
* Encyclopedia of Islam
* The Koran Interpreted: a translation by A. J. Arberry, ISBN 0684825074
* Islam, by Fazlur Rahman, University of Chicago Press; 2nd edition (1979). ISBN 0226702812
* The Islamism Debate, Martin Kramer, University Press, 1997
* Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0195116224
* Progressive Muslims: Oneworld Publications, Oxford, 1986, 1989, 1997. ISB Islam
* The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder, Bassam Tibi, Univ. of California Press, 1998

2006-11-14T20:25:00.000-08:00

A PRAGMATIC LOOK AT THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT

by Andrew Stunich

In the late 1940's when the United Nations was analyzing and debating whether a Jewish homeland should be recognized in the Holy Land, debates as to whether it was the Jews or the Arabs that had a superior claim to the land may have made sense. However, decades later such a debate resolves nothing and is counter-productive to any chance that the Arabs will ever accept a negotiated solution. Any possible resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict does not lie in the usual approach of trying to convince others of one side's superior claim to the Holy Land. Both sides have legitimate, historical ties to the land.

Arabs have had a continuous presence in the Holy Land since they conquered the land in the seventh century. The Jews trace their presence in the Holy Land even farther back in time than do the Arabs. Consequently, it is counter-productive to try to resolve the dispute based upon arguments as to whether the Arab or Jewish claim to the land is superior. Such arguments only reaffirm the Arab world view that any claim to the land is a zero sum game that one side must completely win.

That approach inevitably leads to Arab terrorism in a desperate attempt to achieve an impossible "victory." We must shift our analysis of the problem to one that more pragmatically recognizes the present situation and achievable solutions. Israel is much more technologically advanced than its Arab neighbors and has nuclear weapons. Hence, while Arab nations have a larger population and a land mass 650 times the size of Israel, that size and population advantage will never overcome Israel's technological advantage.

Even if the Arabs could eventually challenge Israel militarily, if the Israelis were faced with being overrun by an Arab army, they undoubtably would utilize their nuclear weapons in a last-ditch attempt to avoid what would most certainly be another holocaust. Since Israel cannot realistically be defeated militarily without a resulting cataclysmic devastation of the surrounding Arab countries, Arabs must pragmatically agree to a negotiated solution that acknowledges Israel's right to exist.

Six million Israelis have nowhere else to go. Half of Israel's population is comprised of Jews or the descendants of Jews who were forced to flee Arab lands in the 1940's and 1950's. Many of the rest of the non-Arab Israelis fled a hostile Europe. For those who take an "Arabs have the most valid claim to the land approach," where do they expect the Jews to go? Back to slavery in Egypt, Germany, dhimmi status under Muslim control or the pogroms of Eastern Europe?

The Jews will never voluntarily agree to any such "final solution." It follows that the Arabs, for peace and economic reasons, must come to grips with Israel's existence. Despite the Arab world's extremely valuable oil reserves, the average per capita GDP in Arab countries is $3,700 versus $18,000 for Israel. Arabs can, therefore, prosper from good relations with the industrious Israelis. The only hindrance to peace is extreme Arab anti-Semitism and a culture that cannot accept any concept of pluralism. Nothing else explains the extreme hatred for Israel and the Arab world's zero sum approach.

Present day Israel has never been an independent Arab state. There are at least twenty-one Arab states and only one tiny Jewish state. Eighty percent of Palestine was carved off and turned into Jordan, an Arab state. A small part of what was left was divided into a tiny Jewish state and separate Palestinian area. While the Jews believed that the United Nation's division was unfair, they nonetheless accepted the internationally approved division.

The Arabs rejected the division and attempted to annihilate the nascent Jewish state. After losing a series of wars, the Arabs resorted to terrorism against which Israel must defend itself. The often-expressed belief that Israel must meekly accept certain types of terrorist attacks without attempting to defend itself such as in the situation wherein Hezbollah was allowed to store rockets throughout the Shiite civilian population of Lebanon and to indiscriminately fire those rockets into Israel without Israel trying to destroy the rockets is inherently dependent upon a belief in a zero sum approach based upon a perceived Arab "superior claim" to the land. Such an approach leads to an endless cycle of terrorism and we must move beyond such arguments.

The Israelis have shown a willingness to give up land to allow for an independent Palestinian state. More Arabs will reach the understanding that they must accept something short of a state that replaces present day Israel if so many in the West stop accepting the Arab world's zero sum approach.

The Arabs must, for the love of their children, compromise. As Golda Meir said in 1957: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." That peace can only follow recognition that framing the debate as to who has the stronger historical and religious claims to the land is, literally, a dead end.

2006-11-09T19:28:00.000-08:00

Ninety Five Things That Fuel Muslim Extremism

by: Hugh Fitzgerald

"The American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism."

-- a conclusion concluded from the National Intelligence Estimate by many concluders in solemn conclusory conclave assembled.

Ninety-Five Other Things That Also Fuel Muslim Extremism:

1. Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses."
2. The British government's protection of Salman Rushdie.
3. The American coup against Mossadegh in 1953, cited by some Iranians as the direct cause of the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini more than 25 years later.
4. The remarks of Pim Fortuyn about Muslim attitudes toward liberal Dutch mores.
5. The movie by Theo van Gogh about the subjection of women in Islam.
6. The election of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the Dutch Parliament.
7. Hindus passing by mosques as Friday Prayers end.
8. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Sunni insurgents.
9. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Shi'a militias.
10. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Kurdish desire for independence.
11. The failure of Americans in Iraq to give Baghdad an instant makeover so that it resembles the most prosperous and advanced American city.
12. The failure of Americans to solve every economic problem in Iraq, to make Sunnis and Shi'a friends, to get the oilfields pumping at full capacity, and to make donations even beyond the many tens of billions spent directly on reconstruction in Iraq.
13. The failure of the Americans, in obtaining debt relief from all Infidel creditors for Iraq (but not from any of the Muslim Arab states), to persuade those same Infidel countries to supply another $50-$100 billion.
14. The refusal of the French state to permit the wearing of the hijab.
15. The insistence, by the French state, that texts by Voltaire, Montaigne, Proust, and other writers deemed or perceived to be anti-Islamic by Muslims, be assigned to students, as required reading, by the Ministry of Education.
16. The selling of alcohol by Christians in Basra.
17. The existence of Christians in Basra.
18. The continued functioning of Christian churches in Baghdad.
19. The Copts in Egypt who complain when Muslims attack their churches and other institutions, or kidnap and forcibly convert Coptic girls to Islam.
20. The Filipinos who try to hold private religious services in Saudi Arabia, land on which no non-Muslims should be present in any case.
21. The American airmen who were assigned to bases in Saudi Arabia and who showed insufficient obeisance to their Saudi masters, all daggers and dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command.
22. The obvious superiority of Western economies.
23. The obvious superiority of Western education.
24. The obvious superiority of Western medical care.
25. The obvious superiority of Western artistic achievement.
26. The obvious superiority of Western (fill in here whatever you like).
27. The failure of Muslims living in the countries of Western Europe to have a standard of living equal or superior to that of non-Muslims.
28. The continued refusal of non-Muslims in the West to institute a formalized long-term system of Jizyah, by which Muslims can be supported; they now must make do only with the benefits provided by Infidel taxpayers on a year-to-year basis.
29. The financial support given by the Americans to the Mubarak regime in Egypt that enrages the Muslim Brotherhood.
30. The financial support given by the Americans to successive Jordanian kings and kinglets, which enrages the Muslim Brotherhood.
31. The diplomatic and other support given by the Americans to the corrupt Al-Saud family of "Saudi" Arabia, which enrages Al-Qaeda and its local supporters.
32. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from the Mubarak Friends-and-Family Plan, which whips up anti-American sentiment among Egyptian Muslims.
33. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from Pakistan if it does not collaborate less meretriciously in the soi-disant "war on terror," which whips up anti-American sentiment among Pakistani Muslims.
34. The temporary withdrawal of Infidel support for the "Palestinians," who deserve to receive Infidel aid of every kind, and permanently.
35. The discussion by some in the West of ways to diminish, in order to prevent further global warming, the use of oil -- which discussion is seen as damaging Arab and Muslim interests, and must therefore be regarded as a deliberate attack on Islam.
36. The reference by Pope Benedict to a 14th century Byzantine emperor's remarks in the course of a scholarly address at Regensburg.
37. The refusal of Pope Benedict to continue to apologize, and his apparent refusal to completely humiliate himself, before Muslims demanding such humiliation.
38. The Israeli "occupation" of Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank after the Six-Day War.
39. The Israeli "occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank after the Camp David Accords.
40. The Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank after the full withdrawal from Gaza.
41. The Israeli "occupation" of the sacred Arab and Muslim soil on which the only Jewish state was created in 1948.
42. The presence of Jews in the Middle East.
43. The presence of Jews, uncowed, anywhere in the world.
44. The presence of a strong, self-assured community of Christians in Lebanon.
45. The presence of Copts in Egypt, who sometimes act as if they, too, too, have a right to regard Egypt as their land.
46. The refusal of Italian authorities to prosecute, before her death, Oriana Fallaci.
47. The refusal of Italian authorities to ban Dante in schools because of the mention of Muhammad in The Inferno.
48. The refusal of Italian authorities to remove or cover over frescoes in Bologna that depict Muhammad in an unflattering manner.
49. The refusal of the government of Denmark to punish a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for daring to exercise the right of free speech.
50. The refusal of Hindus to abandon any claim to ancient sites, where Hindu temples once stood until destroyed by Muslim invaders.
51. The refusal of some Hindus to forget the history of India.
52. The refusal of some European governments to permit Muslim mosques of any size to be built wherever, whenever, and with whatever towering minarets and electronic amplifying equipment, as Muslims believe is their sacred right.
53. The attempts by some Western police to enter mosques where they have found, in the past, false passports and other documents, as well as weapons including guns and explosives, sometimes hidden in false ceilings.
54. The attempt to permit Europeans to continue, even outside Denmark, to exercise the so-called right of free speech, as has happened with Charlie-Hébdo and other French newspapers.
55. The refusal of the University of Geneva to renew the contract of Tariq Ramadan.
56. The public displays of piggy-banks, and of allusions in English pub names such as The Saracen's Head, which may offend Muslims.
57. The discussions by some national authorities in Holland and state authorities in Germany of the need for more stringent qualifications for nationalization, and in some cases the institution of those more stringent qualifications.
58. The single mention by President Bush of the word "islamofascism" -- a word which Muslims all over insisted must never again be repeated by him, and which he never again repeated.
59. The behavior of American soldiers who have on several occasions returned deadly fire coming at them from mosques in Iraq.
60. The behavior of the British police in not notifying Muslim authorities well in advance of any planned raids on any suspected Muslim terrorists in Great Britain; this is a grave offense which has now apparently been rectified in order to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds.
61. The belief that some in the West continue to hold, that Jews do have a historic as well as religious connection to the part of Dar al-Islam they call Israel.
62. The outrageous way in which Infidels refer to the Prophet Muhammad as if he is not universally regarded as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
63. The mention by Infidels of aspects of Muhammad's life -- such as the Khaybar Oasis attack, the Banu Qurayza decapitation, the murder of Asma bint Marwan, the marriage to nine-year-old Aisha; these are not true, or if true, are not things which Infidels have any right either to discuss or even to know about.
64. The belief of some Infidels that those who give up on Islam, who are apostates and therefore traitors to Islam, could after their act of treason conceivably continue to know anything about Islam, given that Allah clearly takes away from such people all their previous knowledge of Islam at the very moment when they decide to apostasize.
65. The outrageous belief by some Infidels that nonetheless they may have reason to listen to the testimony of ex-Muslims as to the real contents of Islam.
66. The outrageous and insulting mention, by Infidels, of such words as "taqiyya" and "kitman."
67. The outrageous mention, by Infidels, of the word "dhimmi," about which they can not possibly have any accurate conception, and which they have no right to discuss in the first place unless they are Muslims.
68. The outrageous attempt to suggest that people are not born Muslims.
69. The outrageous attempt to suggest that the spread of Islam was ever undertaken through violence, when everyone knows it was a case of sudden mass conversion.
70. The refusal of this or that Infidel religious leader, political figure, writer, artist, comedian, or simply you, or simply I, to exhibit the proper attitude toward Islam, Islam, Islam.
71. The wherewithal provided by OPEC revenues that enables the Saudis, especially, to fund mosques and madrasas worldwide and thereby to naturally increase the numbers of "extremists" in the Lands of the Infidels.
72. The wherewithal of OPEC revenues that pay for an army of Western hirelings, including former diplomats (mostly English and American), former intelligence agents, former and present journalists (especially those covering the Middle East), public relations experts, businessmen eager for contracts in the Gulf, and many other fixers and middlemen. This helps delay the day of new energy policies that could conceivably diminish the OPEC oil revenues that fund the Jihad, and also prevents the unwary from regarding Saudi Arabia as anything other than a "staunch ally."
73. The willingness of journalists to overlook obvious links between the practice of Jihad and the doctrine of Jihad, encouraged by journalists who still do not feel any obligation to learn about Islam. This encourages Muslims to make demands for changes in political and legal institutions in the West, or to insist that outspoken Infidels -- the Pope, Theo van Gogh, Jyllens-Posten -- must stop speaking or writing about Islam. Any such refusal to comply with Muslim demands engenders -- "fuels" -- Muslim "extremism."
74. The refusal of the Buddhists in southern Thailand to stop being Buddhists.
75. The refusal of the Christians in the southern Philippines to submit to the demands to hand over lands to the Muslims of As Sayyaf.
76. The refusal of Christians in Sulawesi to stop holding church services.
77. The refusal of the Israeli government to stop trying to protect ancient archeological sites in Jerusalem, many of which have been severely damaged by the Muslim construction on and deep within the Temple Mount.
78. The refusal of Hindus in India to concede to Muslim demands for the full application of Shari'a to the Muslim community.
79. The refusal of Orthodox priests in monasteries in Bosnia and Kosovo to abandon the monasteries to Muslims who are clamoring to destroy them.
80. The outrageous insistence by the world's Armenians and by many others that Turkey stop denying the mass murder of Armenians by Muslim Turks between 1915 and 1920.
81. The outrageous demands by many Infidel lands that outside forces be brought in to protect the non-Arab Muslims from the Arab Muslims in Darfur, despite the express opposition of both the government of the Sudan and the Arab League.
82. The outrageous demands by some Infidels that Muslims should be permitted to open mosques only on the basis of reciprocity -- that is, on the basis of similar permission being granted to non-Muslims in Muslim lands.
83. The outrageous refusal of some Infidel countries to prevent transmissions of Al Manar and other satellite channels run by terrorist groups.
84. The refusal of many Western countries -- Great Britain, Germany, Canada -- to yield to demands of local Muslims that they be made subject only to the Shari'a and not to the manmade laws of the Infidels.
85. The refusal by Australia to cease contributing troops to help their American allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
86. The continued existence of Jews.
87. The continued existence of Christians.
88. The continued existence of Hindus.
89. The continued existence of Sikhs.
90. The continued existence of Buddhists.
91. The continued existence of followers of Confucius.
92. The continued existence of agnostics.
93. The continued existence of atheists.
94. Everything.
95. Nothing.

Some, especially in Lutheran lands, may be satisfied with these 95 theses. Others may prefer to round out the polemical embonpoint by adding another five items to the list. Still others may wish to keep adding to the list from the rich profusion of items offered by each day's Jihad news -- items in keeping with the nature and quite unnecessary nurture of the belief-system of Islam. It took very little time to compose this list. It would not take much longer to add another hundred, two hundred, three hundred items to the list of things that "fuel Muslim extremism."

I decided to add the following to the list:

96. Muhammad bobblehead dolls.

2006-11-01T14:30:00.000-08:00

THE QURAN ADVOCATES VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS AND CHRISTIANS

by Andrew Stunich

Contrary to the assertions of Islamic apologists, the Quran does not command respect for Jews and Christians. In fact, it commands Muslims to make war against them until they are subdued and willingly submit to discriminatory taxes and laws. (Quran, chapter 9, verse 29)

While some verses in the Quran do advocate respect toward Jews and Christians, there are other superseding verses that are the epitome of intolerance. The Quran, for example, prohibits Muslims from taking Jews or Christians for friends (chapter 5, verse 51). The Quran also teaches that Jews have been cursed by Allah, David and Jesus (chapter 2, verse 61; chapter 5, verses 78-82), and that Allah was so disgusted with Jews that he transformed them into apes and pigs (chapter 5, verses 60-65; chapter 2, verse 65; chapter 7, verse 166).

The Quran further alleges that Jews and Christians have corrupted their holy books such that they are untruthful, that Jesus was not crucified, and that he was not the Son of God. Despite such disrespectful attacks on Jews and Christians and their most sacred beliefs, when Westerners so much as depict Muhammad in cartoons, even for the sake of humor, the Islamic world erupts in violent, deadly protests. Such a violent double standard is attributeable to Islamic Doctrine and the prevalent Islamic belief that Islam is superior to other religions because it is allegedly God's final revelation. Adding to the deep-seated bigotry is the widespread defamation of other religions and western society in mosques, Islamic schools, and in the Islamic news media.

It gets worse. The Quran also commands the muslim faithful to wage war against Jews and Christians for profit:

“Fight ... the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya (discriminatory tax against non-Muslims in conquered territories) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (chapter 9, verse 29).

The foregoing verse and similar verses are what led the early Muslims that knew Islam best due to their personal exposure to Muhammad to attack Jewish and Christian tribes in the Arabian Peninsula and to embark on wars of conquest against neighboring empires. Muhammad and the early Muslims beheaded hundreds of Jewish males and sold Jewish women and children into slavery. Muhammad ordered one Jewish leader tortured and killed for not revealing where the Jews had hidden some treasure. Muhammad then shortly thereafter took his widow as a “wife.” Because the Quran teaches that Muhammad is the perfect example for Muslims to follow, many Islamic scholars teach violent intolerance toward Jews and Christians using, inter alia, the verses set forth above.

There are some peaceful verses in the Quran that Islamic apologists use to justify their version of Islam that I derisively refer to as "Disneyland Islam" for naive westerners. The mix of peaceful and intolerant verses causes great confusion to new readers to the Quran. However, the discrepancy is easily resolved when one understands that the discrepancy between the peaceful and violent verses in the Quran resulted as a natural consequence of how it came into existence.

Muhammad never presented his complete revelations at one time as a book that was meant to be consistent. Rather, Muhammad verbally revealed verses sporadically over a period of at least twenty-two years. The verses were revealed to a mostly oral Arab culture based on the circumstances of the time and what Muhammad hoped to accomplish or justify. The complete written Quran was not created until approximately 20 years after Muhammad’s death.

When Muhammad first attempted to convert Jews and Christians to Islam, he did so by alleging he received verses from God that were peaceful and that advocated tolerance. When Muhammad came to power in Medina, his entire approach changed from trying to persuade others to convert solely by voluntary means and he began to reveal the harsher verses of the Quran ordering war against non-Muslims. At first, he hoped to win over Jews and Christians to Islam by persuasion. When they refused to accept him in any significant numbers, the subsequent violent Quranic verses were revealed and those verses were meant to replace the earlier tolerant verses. “When We substitute one revelation for another — and God knows best what He reveals (in stages) — they say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: but most of them understand not” (chapter16, verse 101).

The verse set forth above commanding war against Jews and Christians was one of the last verses revealed by Muhammad and it is difficult to convince fundamentalist Muslims that earlier peaceful verses should guide their behavior and lead to respect for any adherents to other religions.

In addition, because Muslims are taught that Muhammad’s life was a perfect example to live by, his history, as documented in the earliest Muslim source (Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad) leads to violence as terrorists mimic the life of Muhammad that they are taught was inspired by God.

Islam developed rules based on the Quran and words and deeds of Muhammad that forced Jews and Christians to live under discriminatory laws that were designed to profit from them, humiliate them and severely inhibit their religious freedom. Bat Ye’or is the world’s leading authority as to how Jews and Christians were treated under Islamic rule. Her speech on the topic is available online at www.sullivan-county.com/z/dhimmitude.htm. Bat Ye'or's work has done much to disprove the abundant amount of disinformation set forth by Islamic apologists in order to re-write history so that Islam can be falsely portrayed as a religion of peace.

Respect means allowing adherents of other religions to live in peace as equals. Making war against them until they feel subdued and accept harsh discriminatory laws as the Quran requires is simply one step removed from the Quranic verse that disrespectfully commands Muslims to slay pagans wherever they find them if they will not convert to Islam (chapter 9, verse 5).

2006-10-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

REFUSE TO BE A DHIMMI

There is a website located at www.dashboardmohammed.com/store.html that is selling dashboard Muhammad dolls. The dolls are based on one of the cartoon drawings, depicted below, that caused widespread protests and violence. I have always been of the view that the Islamic World does not have the right to curb free speech. Radical Muslims try to do so through violence and threats of violence. If we inundate the Islamic World with our resistence to this form of demanded dhimmi subservience, we may make it too difficult for the Islamic World to erupt in violence to any specific depiction of Muhammad. Assert your First Amendment rights and order a Muhammad doll now. Let the Islamic World know that you refuse to submit to Islam and refuse to accept dhimmi status. Besides, it is great depiction of Muhammad. The bomb in his turban fairly represents the direct correlation between the religion he founded and modern terrorism.

2006-10-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

BEYOND LIBERAL VALUES TOWARD TREASON AND THE
UNDERMINING OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

by Charles R. Martel

Perhaps it is not so wise to always ignore politicians’ moral lapses. Senator Edward Kennedy is a good example. Senator Kennedy is infamous for an incident wherein he drove a car off a bridge into the water and then left his passenger and presumed paramour, Mary Jo Kopeckne, in the car while he failed to alert authorities for hours. It seems logical to conclude that Senator Kennedy’s delayed reporting must have resulted from his desire to sober up and avoid DUI and/or manslaughter charges. No other explanation makes sense. Timely reporting would probably not have saved Ms. Kopeckne, but she was entitled to the chance no matter how slight.

Perhaps Ms. Kopeckne’s fate at the hands of Senator Kennedy is a metaphor for his treatment of the American People from which we can learn an important lesson.

Senator Kennedy’s career was not completely ruined by the incident as one might have assumed it would be at the time. The incident should have served to expose a serious character flaw in Senator Kennedy that kept him off the world stage. Instead, he went on to, arguably, commit even larger mistakes in the service of his country or, perhaps, in the service of his own ambition.

CNS News has reported that in his new book titled, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College, discloses that a “KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War” shows that Senator Edward Kennedy “offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.”

CNS News further reported that the letter, dated May 14, 1983, “was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.” Apparently, Senator Kennedy suggested strategies to Yuri Andropov as to how he might counter Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. Senator Kennedy suggested that the leader of much of the then enslaved world directly appeal to the American People via television interviews.

I was stunned to read the foregoing news. Senator Kennedy’s conduct seems to bear a striking resemblance to the age old crime of treason. It is one thing to hold liberal values, I am not immune to such sentiments myself, but to be so consumed by one’s ideology and desire for political power as to try to actively and underhandedly undermine your President’s Cold War strategy in dealing with a man as heartless and cruel as Yuri Andropov not only illustrates the triumph of left-wing ideology over love of country, but the deceitful, underhanded nature of a conniving traitor. Yuri Andropov was partly responsible for the Soviet invasion of Hungary during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution wherein the Soviet Union slaughtered thousands of people for wanting nothing more than to be free of communist slavery and Soviet tyranny.

That Senator Kennedy would offer assistance to such a man as Yuri Andropov in an attempt to thwart legitimate foreign policy goals suggests that the war on terror may well be undermined by Senator Kennedy’s “values” as well. It makes me wonder what aid and comfort he has given to Osama bin Laden and his reprobate minions.

If he has provided some type of assistance similar to his offer to Yuri Andropov, we may never learn of it. We do know, however, that his reckless political rhetoric has hurt the war on terror. Shortly after the terrorism started in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, I opined to a friend that I could see the writing on the wall as to what might happen in Iraq. I stated that bringing about democracy in such a tribal, sectarian society would be difficult. I pointed out that the terrorists would soon realize that the best strategy to avoid the successful implementation of a stable government and democracy would be to adopt a Vietnam strategy. Simply start killing people and the radical American left would commence a relentless campaign to undermine the war and American resolve. That is exactly what happened; however, I do not claim to have been clairvoyant. The strategy was an obvious one to both the terrorists and to the radical American left.

I cannot help but wonder how much encouragement and will to fight on the terrorists felt when they viewed or read reports of the constant undermining of morale and the war by the American left. I believe it has been a significant factor in some of the sectarian violence. Knowing that they only had to simply hold on and let the radical American left work on the American people had to provide tremendous comfort to the terrorists.

The radical American left seems to not understand or to not care that allowing Iraq to become a terrorist state would undermine the war on terror. Whether the United States should have invaded Iraq is irrelevant to the decision as to whether we should prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. If Iraq becomes a safe haven to plan, prepare, and launch international terrorism, everyone, other than fundamentalist Muslims, lose.

Senator Kennedy has been a champion of the exact approach and rhetoric that seems assured of eventually guaranteeing that Iraq will slide into the fundamentalist, Islamic fold. We should, therefore, at least be thankful that Senator Kennedy never became President. Perhaps Mary Jo Kopechne should be posthumously awarded for her sacrifice. Her death severely damaged Senator Kennedy's reputation and her death is generally regarded as having precluded any potential for Senator Kennedy to become President Edward Kennedy. In light of the latest revelations about Senator Kennedy’s attempt to assist the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it is logical to conclude that Mary Jo Kopechne may have inadvertently accomplished far more for her country than we will ever know.

Finally, it is fascinating that this news about Senator Kennedy seems to have generated such a small amount of interest. To borrow a line from an old song, it is a “mixed up, shook up, bubble gum world” when a national figure can be exposed for having collaborated with the enemy without causing the politician’s ouster from office.

2006-10-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

DON'T GO TO CITGO?

by Charles R. Martel

The Venezuelan national oil company, PDVSA, owns Citgo. Citgo is the Venezuelan national oil company's refining and marketing branch. Citgo has become the target of a steadily increasing boycott in the United States due to the outrageous conduct of Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez.

Many Americans are deeply angered over Hugo Chavez' support of terrorism, his frequent diatribes against and hostility for the United States, and his profligate squandering of Venezuela's oil revenue. If Mr. Chavez stays the course he is on, he will waste Venezuela's oil wealth for his own self-aggrandizement in a vein attempt to accomplish his radical political agenda without accomplishing any long-term boost in Venezuelans' standard of living.

While Venezuela remains saddled with large pockets of grinding poverty, Mr. Chavez has chosen to greatly increase Venezuela’s military budget despite no military threat against the country. He gives foreign aid to anti-American regimes, sells discounted heating oil in the U.S. in order to make a political point, and picks friends around the World solely based upon their hostility to the United States and not based upon Venezuela’s legitimate interests.

Mr. Chavez' level of vitriolic hatred toward the United States is evidenced by his highly offensive United Nations speech wherein he called President Bush "the devil." Such infantile conduct in such a formal setting reveals a deep level of hatred that cannot be controlled. Such unbridled anger and incompetence in a national leader suggests great danger to the United States.

It should not, therefore, come as a surprise that there are reports that Mr. Chavez is training terrorists in Venezuela.

Hundreds of gas stations have already dropped Citgo gasoline and most others would follow if Americans refused to purchase anything from gas stations that sell Citgo products. While we should refuse to give any financial support to those who would harm us, a boycott may well hurt innocent Americans far more than Hugo Chavez.

After initially calling for a boycott of Citgo, I received the following critique of my boycott call and it is an interesting one so I altered this post in response:

"Yours is one of the more eloquent posts I've read on this subject, even though I respectfully disagree with your conclusion to boycott Citgo. Don't you think that boycotting Citgo would harm Americans way before it had even a tiny impact on Chavez? And by Americans, I mean people like Maximo Alvarez (an American) who owns gas stations in Florida. Not to mention his employees and their families. What's that cliche about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?"

The foregoing comment was sent anonymously, but I do not know why as it is very rational. I agree with the criticism. I originally assumed that gas station owners could just switch suppliers. If not, then perhaps a boycott is not a good idea. I do not want to see any mom and pop businesses placed into distress.

Thank you anonymous.

(Please see my related article posted October 17, 2006, entitled "America Must Depose Hugo Chavez." I also recommend that readers view the linked article above by clicking where it says "Maximo Alvarez.")

by Charles Martel

2006-10-17T10:29:00.000-07:00

America Must Depose Hugo Chavez

by Charles R. Martel

There are reports that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has been training Arabs to speak Spanish and to blend in with Hispanics so that they can illegally enter the United States. Surprisingly, this story, at least so far, is receiving little attention in the mainstream news media. No public outcry or outrage has yet to register.

The serious danger of Hugo Chavez' conduct should be readily apparent. I suspect that Hugo Chavez is not trying to help the downtrodden enter into the land of milk and honey for humanitarian reasons. Rather, it is obvious that he is helping terrorists infiltrate the United States. In fact, some of those who Hugo Chavez has rendered assistance to have turned up on lists of known terrorists. Mr. Chavez' express hatred of the United States is hardly a Venezuelan state secret.

It is quite possible, if not probable, that Mr. Chavez has helped or will one day help terrorists enter the United States that will commit acts of terrorism. Given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the terrific havoc that trained terrorists can render in the United State's open society with its millions of middle eastern immigrants for Arab terrorists to hide amongst, anyone with the slightest modicum of understanding should be outraged and deeply concerned.

So far, while I have been disgusted with Hugo Chavez' infantile rhetoric and deeply concerned about the militant direction in which he has taken Venezuela, I always maintained that Venezuela had the sovereign right to make such disastrous mistakes. This latest discovery changes everything.

Training people to enter the United States who patently mean to do us wrong is no different than a direct invasion by Venezuela. Mr. Chavez' conduct is no less egregious, it is just less courageous. He is a dangerous and deceitful man and he has now committed an act of war. The Venezuelan people should not be made to suffer and Hugo Chavez alone should be removed from office by the least amount of force necessary to complete the task. Americans have the inalienable right to defend themselves and their borders.

If we do not make an example of Hugo Chavez and draw the line at this brazen act of war, we will not only directly endanger ourselves, but we will further lose credibility with respect to our assertion that we are prepared to defend ourselves and thereby indirectly cause yet further harm to the war on terrorism. Republican Congressman Michael McCane also believes that Hugo Chavez is a grave risk: "Venezuela, in my view and Mr. Chavez, pose some of the greatest risk to this country given his alliance and his friendship with the islamic jihadist world."

Update for October 19, 2006: I still have not noticed any report on this subject in the electronic version of the New York Times. That probably means that no media outlets, other than Fox News which broke this story, are reporting this news. I am not watching all of the news networks so I may be missing other reports. If anyone has seen this news reported anywhere other than at Fox News, newshound, and here, please e-mail me at charlesrichardmartel@yahoo.com.

by Charles R. Martel

2006-10-14T18:19:00.000-07:00

WHY THIS WEBSITE WAS CREATED

by Charles R. Martel

The reason for the creation of this website is concern for what the future holds as a result of international, Islamic terrorism. No reasonable person disputes that there is a great deal of terrorism in the World committed in the name of Islam. The only disputes are whether the terrorism stems from a distortion of Islamic doctrine or the actual tenets of Islam, the degree of danger posed by terrorism, and how best to defend against terrorism.

I firmly believe that the actual tenets of Islam and its true history lie at the heart of the problem and the articles and essays contained herein explain why. There are, however, factors beyond Islamic doctrine that contribute to terrorism and those collateral factors will be discussed and analyzed in future articles or essays as well.

Given the proliferation of advancing technology and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as well as terrorists’ express desire to use WMD’s, terrorism should be considered our worst nightmare and discerning the causes and how to prevent terrorism should be our first priority. While terrorism receives a great deal of media attention, much of that attention is superficial and most media outlets are unwilling to speak candidly about Islam and its full connection to terrorism. The best way to end a nightmare is to wake up. Toward that end, this website seeks to help wake up the West to the nature and degree of harm Islamic fundamentalism would visit upon us if it could.

Some of you at this point are angry and believe that I am unfairly blaming Islam and further believe that I should focus solely on the terrorists. The reason I cannot accommodate that desire is that Islam and most terrorist acts are inextricably entwined. I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Most Muslims are obviously not terrorists. I also further believe that most Muslims want peace; however, there is a marked difference between certain Muslims as individuals and Islamic doctrine. Islamic doctrine can be objectively evaluated without having to make unfair assumptions about all or even most Muslims.

It is simply untenable to argue that peace is the main characteristic of the faith of Islam and that Islam offers no true support for some of the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. The opposite is true. Muslims become moderate by either being unaware of the teachings that comprise Islamic doctrine, by ignoring those doctrines, or by attributing strained meanings or interpretations to the teachings of Islam and Islamic history.

Nonetheless, I would prefer, if I could, to be a friend to all and an enemy to none. However, there is no way to make peace with fundamentalist Muslims and Islamic doctrine. True Islam mandates that Muslims make war against non-Muslims until the whole World is under Islam’s yoke. That message is plainly set forth in the Koran, the life and history of Muhammad (Islam’s seventh century Prophet), and Islamic history. Pretending otherwise for the sake of polite discourse is dangerous as it causes an underevaluation of the seriousness of the threat. It is no mystery that many of those who espouse an "Islam is a religion of peace" philosophy also tend to resist many aspects of the war on terror.

Understanding the true nature of the causes of terrorism is crucial. Every great general from Sun Tzu to Napoleon Bonaparte has been quoted as saying, in essence, that one must understand the enemy. Given the stakes, we cannot afford to pretend that Islam is one of the World’s peaceful religions.

I realize that there are millions of peaceful Muslims who believe that Islam is peaceful. Many Muslims are unaware of many of the violent aspects of Islamic Doctrine as they either do not read all of the Koran and hadiths or they rely solely on secondary sources that delete the negative aspects of Islam. It grieves me that many of those Muslims who by chance see this website will be upset by this website and will believe that they are being unfairly attacked. I would ask that they read the articles and essays on this website so that they might understand the basis for the views contained herein. I would also ask that they realize that I am fully aware that most Muslims are simply trying to worship God in the only way they know how and that they mean no harm to the West. This website also means no harm to them. In fact, I believe that non-violent Muslims have just as much to fear from fundamentalist Islam as the West does.

In addition to the articles/essays posted below, I and other contributors to this site are working on a biography of Muhammad, an essay covering the causes of terrorism, and other new articles/essays.

2006-10-14T18:18:00.000-07:00

ISLAM: IS IT A RELIGION OF PEACE?

by Andrew J. Stunich

One of the enduring and seemingly impossible to resolve threats to World peace and safety is terrorism carried out by Muslims who claim that Islam authorizes their conduct. In response to that terrorism, a host of Islamic experts, celebrities, and politicians such as Dr. Aziz (HSU professor), Oprah Winfrey, and President Bush, have opined that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are distorting Islamic teachings to justify their conduct. Americans were inundated with this message post- 9/11/2001 to such an extent that it has become conventional wisdom and anyone who challenges that conventional wisdom is often labeled a racist or a bigot. This is true even though Muslims are hardly limited to any particular race. Arabs, for example, comprise less than twenty-five percent of the World's Muslims.

Given the consequences of rendering any opinion that challenges the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace, it is not pleasant to feel compelled to voice a different conclusion. This is especially true about a religious topic that engenders such an extreme emotional response in so many people. However, it is important that we all know the truth so that we can properly exercise our democratic rights. It is ultimately the will of the majority (at least the majority of those who vote) that determines the long-term direction of a democratic society and if we are misinformed our votes will be equally misinformed and misguided.

It is, therefore, crucial that we have an accurate understanding of Islamic terrorists and what motivates them. This is especially true given that Islam is not just a religion, but is a combined religious, political, and social system. Understanding the true nature of Islam is so important because there is a marked difference between a threat that is based on false religious teachings and a threat that truly derives from the actual doctrines of one of the World's most widespread religious faiths. The latter is more likely to cause the threat to endure and spread and to defy resistance.

After intensely studying the question of Islam, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islamic doctrine easily supports terrorist activity and offensive (not limited to defensive) warfare. It is patently an error to assert that Islam is universally a religion of peace. I reached my conclusions by, amongst other endeavors, simply reading the Koran and hadiths (Muhammad's recorded life and deeds), both of which are universally accepted as the basis for Islamic doctrine.

My opinion that Islam is not universally a religion of peace does not mean that I believe all Muslims are terrorists. Obviously, most Muslims are not terrorists. I further believe that most Muslims want peace; however, there is a marked difference between certain Muslims as individuals and Islamic doctrine. A writer named Theodore Dalyrymple, in a June 4, 2006, article writing for City Magazine, eloquently assessed the difference between moderate Muslims and Islamic doctrine as follows:

"It is important, of course, to distinguish between Islam as a doctrine and Muslims as people. Untold numbers of Muslims desire little more than a quiet life; they have the virtues and the vices of the rest of mankind. Their religion gives to their daily lives an ethical and ritual structure and provides the kind of boundaries that only modern Western intellectuals would have the temerity to belittle."

Despite the peaceful and sometimes beneficial application of some parts of Islam to some Muslims' lives, it is simply untenable to argue that peace is the main characteristic of the faith of Islam and that Islam offers no true support for some of the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. The opposite is true. Muslims become moderate by either being unaware of the teachings that comprise Islamic doctrine, by ignoring those doctrines, or by attributing strained meanings or interpretations to the teachings of Islam and Islamic history. Because Islam does in fact support terrorism, many "moderate" Muslims respect the fundamentalists as true Muslims and are afraid to speak out against them. I also acknowledge that fear is often a factor. However, regardless as to the fear or other reasons for not speaking out, it is hard for moderate Muslims to speak out because the undeniable fact is that Islam alone among the World's religions commands the Muslim faithful to wage war against non-Muslims until they submit to Islam.

Consider the following verses from the Koran translated from Arabic by Yusuf Ali:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans [Idolaters or polytheists] 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 practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Koran chapter 9, verse 5)

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle [Muhammad], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Koran chapter 9, verse 29)

To summarize the verses, collectively they mean that Pagans (some Koran translations say idolaters) must convert to Islam or be killed and Jews and Christians must, at a minimum, submit to Islam as the dominant religion, government and social order, and pay a tax, or convert to Islam or be killed. This doctrine comes from Islam's holiest book and, as shown below, there are other aspects of Islamic doctrine that command the same violent and intolerant approach.

These Sword Verses (some call verse 9:29 the "tribute" verse) quoted above speak strongly to Muslim fundamentalists. Because most people in the West are secular, it is often difficult for Westerners to appreciate how deeply religious belief can impact individuals and society. The impact of devout religious belief is magnified in the Islamic World because of the duel nature of Islam as a religious and political system that permeates nearly all aspects of life in most Islamic countries. Try to understand how the foregoing verses would affect you if you believed they were literally the word of God and you lived in a society wherein Islam dominated your religious, political, business and social pursuits. The Koran is the holiest book in Islam. Muslims believe that the Koran is not just inspired by God, but that it is literally the Word of God as revealed by God to Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (Islam's revered seventh century Prophet or Messenger); consequently, verses contained in the Koran impact Muslims' behavior in ways that Westerners have difficulty grasping. The Koran lists four seemingly contradictory ways in which God allegedly revealed his Word to Muhammad: Directly by God (Koran chapters 53 and 81); by God via the Archangel Gabriel (Koran chapter 2); by the Holy Spirit (Koran chapters 16 and 26); and by an Angel (Koran chapter 15).

Regardless as to how they believe the revelations were accomplished, Muslims universally revere the Koran as the literal word of God and they revere Muhammad as God's Prophet and his life and sayings, along with the Koran, complete the core of Islamic doctrine. The University of Southern California's Islamic web site teaches Muslims that Mohammad's deeds and words were literally inspired by God. When Muhammad's life history is studied, it is easy to see why Islamic fundamentalists can justifiably say that Islam supports their actions.

It follows that in order to understand Muslim fundamentalists, we must understand something about the Koran and the life of Muhammad and the roles both play in establishing Islamic doctrine. The Koran differs greatly in format from the Bible and the Koran tends to surprise Western readers because the Koran is not written in a narrative form, it is not in any chronological order, it has very little prophecy, no miracles, very little history, no geography, no parables, and no biography of anyone other than a limited insight into the character and life of Muhammad. The Koran is simply a relatively small book (smaller than the New Testament) of seemingly random verses of positive and negative commandments and dire warnings that Muhammad claimed were revealed to him over a twenty-two or twenty-three year period. One Islamic scholar, Reza Aslan the author of No god, but God, aptly calls the Koran a rule book for living.

Exactly what some of those Koranic rules for living are astonish or even offend most readers who adhere to the type of Western values set forth in the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The following paraphrased examples of the teachings in the Koran are some of the most difficult for Westerners to accept:

* There is no separation between Church and State. (Koran chapter 2, verse 193)
* Fighting is prescribed for Muslims. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 216)
* Wives are a field to be used by their husbands as they desire. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 223)
* Men are superior to women. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 228)
* Women have half the rights of men in court as a witness. (Koran, chapter 2, verse 282)
* A man may marry up to four wives at the same time. (Koran chapter 4, verse 3)
* Women have half the rights of men in inheritance rights. (Koran chapter 4, verse 11)
* A man may beat his wife. (Koran chapter 4, verse 34)
* No opposition parties are allowed. (Koran chapter 4, verse 59)
* Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands. (Koran chapter 5, verse 38)
* A Muslim must not take a Jew or a Christian for a friend. (Chapter 5, verse 51)
* Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam. (Koran chapter 9, verses 5, 29)
* A Muslim apostate (one who leaves the faith) must be killed. (Koran chapter 9, verse 12)
* Muslims must make war on non-Muslims. (Koran chapter 9, verse 73)
* Adultery is punished by public flogging. (Koran chapter 24, verse 2)
* The Koran attributes many negative characteristics to Jews, such as "falsehood" (3:71) and "distortion." (4:46)
* Among other things, the Koran teaches that the Jews have been cursed by Allah, David, and Jesus. (2:61; 5:78-82)
* Allah was so disgusted with Jews that he transformed them into apes and pigs. (5:60-65; 2:65; 7:166)

The life of Muhammad also has a major impact on Islamic doctrine as Muslims are taught that any ambiguity in the Koran is resolved by looking to Muhammad's words and deeds, which, as noted above, Muslims are taught were inspired by God. The Koran expressly admonishes Muslims in several verses to not only obey God, but to obey his Messenger or Prophet, Muhammad. (See, e.g., 3:32, 3:132, 4:59, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 24:47) Hence, following what Muhammad said and did is mandated by the Koran.

Accordingly, the Koran is just a part of Islamic doctrine. The hadiths are the reports of Muhammad's words and actions that complete the core of Islamic doctrine. The Koran and the hadiths are the foundations for later Islamic legal rulings known as Sharia Law. The role of the hadiths in Islam is properly explained in the University of Southern California's web site:

"In Islam, the Arabic word sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (saas), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur'an (another way Koran is spelled). Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them. The Arabic word hadith (pl. ahadith) is very similar to Sunnah, but not identical. A hadith is a narration about the life of the Prophet (saas) or what he approved - as opposed to his life itself, which is the Sunnah as already mentioned."

The hadiths, which set forth much of the life and deeds of Muhammad, offer no refuge to those who would try to give Islam a softer image outside the Islamic World by labeling it a religion of peace. One of the most widely accepted hadith collectors and editors is Al Bukhari. According to Bukhari:

Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, his life and property will be saved by me." (Al Bukhari Vol. 4:196)

Mohammed's last words at his deathbed purportedly were: "Turn the pagans (non-Muslims as that was the practical application) out of the Arabian Peninsula." (Al Bukhari, Vol. 5:716)

Mohammed 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 Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). " (Al Bukhari, Vol. 1:35)

Mohammed once was asked: what was the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and His Apostle? His answer was: "To participate in Jihad in Allah's cause." (Al Bukhari Vol. 1: 25)

If anyone believes that I am simply taking a few negative portions of Islamic doctrine from a sea of more enlightened Koranic verses, consider the additional verses from the Koran set forth below. Once again, to try to best understand Islam, imagine as you read these verses that you believe they are not only commandments from God, but literally the word of God as revealed to Muhammad whose words and deeds you also believe to be inspired by God.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not." (2:216)

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, . . . 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." (2:190-191)

"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." (2:193)

"Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers." (9:14)

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (9:30)

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed.." (9:73)

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him." (9:123)

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (5:33)

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' This because they contended against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God and His Apostle, God is strict in punishment." (8:12-13)

"In order that God may separate the impure (non-Muslims) from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost." (8:37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (8:60)

"Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. . ." (48:29)

"When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly." (17:16)

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks [chop their heads off]; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God, - He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

Nicholas Berg was kidnaped in Iraq and later beheaded in May 2004 by Islamic militants. Remember all those so-called Islamic experts that, following the Nicholas Berg beheading, said there was no support within Islamic doctrine for the cutting off of heads? Apparently the experts forgot about chapter 47, verse 4, and chapter 8, verses 12-13 from the Koran.

With respect to the verses regarding Jihad, note that Jihad is an Arabic word which translates to English as "struggle." Jihad can mean striving to be a better Muslim (known as the greater Jihad). The most well known meaning, however, is fighting for Allah (also known as the lesser Jihad). In this sense, Jihad is the struggle for the cause of spreading Islam using all means available to Muslims, including force and deception (Islamic doctrine known as Al Takeyya). The lesser Jihad is what has become to be known as "Holy War." Some critics describe the greater Jihad as trying to find peace after engaging in violent Jihad.

Concerning Jihad, the Koran guarantees Paradise to those who fight for Allah. (4:74) The Koran promises instant Paradise for those who die fighting to advance Islam. (9:111 and 47:5-6) Dying for Allah is presented as preferable to living: "And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass." (3:157)

Martyrs are promised a secure, sensual (sensual is expanded to erotic in the hadiths) and luxurious life in paradise with beautiful women. (44:51-56; 52:17-29) For example, chapter 44, verse 54 promises: "So; and We shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes." Some disrupted homicide/suicide bombers have freely admitted that it was the Koranic and hadith promises of virgins in paradise that motivated them.

Based on the foregoing, one can begin to understand why Islamic homicide/suicide bombers are willing to sacrifice themselves. In a culture wherein women and men are largely kept separated, it is not difficult to see how young men might become highly motivated by the foregoing teachings. Muhammad Atta, for example, had a wedding suit packed in one of his carry-on suitcases when he boarded what he knew to be a suicide flight on 9/11 as he believed he would be marrying virgins in paradise. We know this because the carry-on bag was not allowed on the plane and it was subsequently searched by the FBI.

In the hadith, Mohammed also urges Muslims to practice Jihad. (See, Bukhari 4:196, 5:716, 1:35, 1:25)

It is the foregoing Koranic verses and others, as well as numerous hadith based on Muhammad's life and words, that have led to the Islamic world view that divides humanity into two opposing spheres: Dar al-Islam, House of Islam where Islam rules and Dar el Harb, the House of War against non-Muslims. This world view mandates that war will continue between these competing ideologies until the supremacy of Islam is fully established everywhere. Jihad in Islamic theology is one of the instruments to bring about the end of Dar el Harb. That is why we so often hear terrorist leaders stating their goals as follows:

1. Overthrow the secular or partial secular rulers of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Note that Saudi Arabia and Iran are currently the only two nations that have imposed full Sharia Law. Saudi Arabia is nonetheless targeted because its rulers (Saudi Royal Family) are not religious leaders and even though their support of fundamentalist Islam is nearly as complete as the Caliphs of old, that is not considered good enough.

2. Exterminate Israel. (Drive the Infidels into the sea is a popular way to express the sentiment in the Islamic World.)

3. Force the rest of the world to submit to Islam.

The foregoing goals were articulated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, a Shiite religious leader. In 1998, Osama Bin Laden, a Sunni Muslim, stated the same goals. (Sheikh Usamah bin-Muhammad bin-Laden, "Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans," published by Al-Quds al-Arabi on February 23, 1998. (Posted on the Internet at www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm.)

Osama Bin Laden also defiantly declared that the United States is the prime obstacle to the achievement of the foregoing goals and called on Muslims everywhere "to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."

As can be seen, both Shiite and Sunni Islam have both incited some of the exact same beliefs and goals in Islamic fundamentalists. The reason is the Islamic doctrine set forth above.

So far I have made my case for the proposition that Islam is not a religion of peace by citing Islam's own doctrines and showing how even opposing branches of fundamentalist Islam adhere to and accept the Koran as God's rules for living. However, a more secular analysis supports the same conclusion. Consider the following:

1. Polls indicate that high percentages of our supposed allies in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia support Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists acts. (The higher percentages are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.) How could a religion of peace engender such support for random acts of murder and violence in two of the more Islamic fundamentalist countries of the World?

2. Post 9/11/2001, the name, "Osama" has attained a favored name status for newborn male children in several Muslim nations. Why would a religion of peace allow its adherents to honor such a man?

3. Numerous Mosques in Islamic states purportedly exhibit the photo of Bin Laden as a hero of the faith. While I was watching news about the Tsunami relief efforts, I personally saw Osama Bin Laden tee-shirts worn by children.

4. In many nations where Muslims constitute a large percentage of the population, the Islamic faithful gather in the streets yelling "Allah Akbar" (Allah is greater or God is great) every time America or Israel suffers from an Islamic terrorist attack. These street demonstration occur in the West Bank and Gaza strip in Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria, and the Philippines. In America, some Muslims have been observed doing the same. One translator of Iranian descent working at the FBI reported that even FBI translators celebrated 9/11 at work.

5. Some Muslim spokesmen who in public spoke against 9/11 were recorded in private supporting terrorism or terrorist acts. Some so-called moderate leaders say the right buzzwords in English and then express their true sentiments in Arabic when they think they will not be exposed. Yasser Arafat was famous for such deceptive tactics.

6. Polls in England show that at least half of the Muslim population would like to impose Sharia Law as the law of the land.

7. The leaders of the terrorists and or their religious advisers seem to invariably come from backgrounds wherein intense Islamic study was undertaken.

Islamic history also offers support and inspiration to Islamic terrorists. Muhammad, the revered Prophet of Islam and the man whose words and deeds are believed by Muslims to have been inspired by God and his life held out as the perfect example for living, raided caravans for booty and even asserted that one fifth of the booty was his with the rest to be shared by his warriors. Chapter 8 of the Koran is actually titled "Booty."

Muhammad attacked Arabian tribes who would not voluntarily submit to Islam and slaughtered hundreds of captives. After one Jewish tribe surrendered and sought Muhammad's mercy, he ordered 600-900 of the men beheaded and the women and children sold into slavery except for the women he and his followers took as "wives." Muhammad's aggressive tactics continued after any significant resistance to Islam was eradicated on the Arabian peninsula. Jewish tribes fared the worst which, along with very negative verses about Jews in the Koran, is the genesis of the seemingly ubiquitous, extreme anti-Semitic Muslim view toward Jews.

Muhammad had critics and rivals alike assassinated. In fact, the word assassin derives from a Muslim sect that specialized in terrorizing the Muslim elite of their day with politically motivated assassinations. The assassins were renowned for their willingness to sacrifice their life for their cause. Sound familiar?

Muhammad ordered the execution of some people for nothing more than satirical statements about him. There are currently web sites that expressly advocate the killing of anyone that criticizes Muhammad. Is it really surprising then that a devout Muslim named Mohammad brutally murdered Theo van Gogh in 2004? (Theo van Gogh was a controversial and inappropriately cruel and harsh critic of Islam and Muslims who was killed by Mohammad Bouyeri who then left a five page note that threatened Western governments and Jews.)

It should be parenthetically noted that there are several excellent sources for the history of Muhammad. The oldest and most accepted history of Muhammad was written by a devout Muslim named Ibn Ishaq. What has been saved of Ibn Ishaq's work can be read in an easy to read abridged version at http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/. William Muir's history of Muhammad is also an excellent source and can also be found online, but its language has become dated. Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, is also an excellent source and it is very accurate and well supported.

The hadiths also show that Muhammad accepted one man's story that he murdered his own wife and gestating child because the man alleged his wife had blasphemed Muhammad. Muhammad ordered that the man should not be punished. (This incident was recorded in a hadith.)

Before he died, Muhammad made preparations to attack Syria. After his death, his followers, some of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Caliphs means successors to Muhammad) as Islam calls them, spent ten years fighting to force all of the Arabian tribes to covert to Islam or to return to Islam when they tried to abandon Islam after Muhammad's death. Muhammad's followers eventually conquered the Holy Land and other parts of the Byzantine Empire (last of the Romans) and what remained of the Persian empire. Muslims eventually conquered Spain, parts of France, Constantinople, and, with some setbacks along the way such as the loss of Spain, continued to conquer and subdue until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

One of Muhammad's generals, Walid Khalid, who also served some of the successors to Muhammad known as the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, was known as the Sword of Allah and was renowned for his military prowess and his brutality. Even the highly regarded Saladin slaughtered captives at Hatin (the battle that preceded the Muslim re-conquest of Jerusalem) and motivated his warriors by having the Koranic verses set forth above read to them. The exploits of Saladin, Muhammad, and Walid Khalid are well known to Islamic fundamentalists and they draw inspiration from their recorded actions. Osama Bin Laden seems assured of eventually taking his place amongst these revered Islamic icons.

Critics of my position will argue that there are many verses in the Koran that advocate peace and tolerance. They are correct. However, the Koran was not presented as a complete book by Muhammad and to understand it one must realize how the verses came into existence.

Koran literally means "recite" or "recitation" in Arabic. Muhammad alleged that the angel Gabriel told him to recite. At no time did Muhammad say that he was ordered to write nor was he ever compelled to write down and collect his alleged revelations. He never presented his complete revelations at one time as a complete rule book for living. Rather, the Koran was created approximately twenty years after Muhammad's death. Arab society in the seventh century was an oral society with little writing. Most of the people, and perhaps Muhammad himself, were illiterate. Hence, Muhammad verbally revealed verses sporadically over a period of at least twenty-two years. The verses were revealed based on the circumstances of the time and what Muhammad hoped to accomplish.

The most famous peace verse in the Koran which states, "[t]here is no compulsion in religion," was revealed while Muhammad was in Mecca still trying to convince the people of Mecca (mostly polytheists) to voluntarily convert to Islam. He had very little success and he and his followers were eventually driven out of Mecca to Medina. When Muhammad came to power in Medina, his entire approach changed from trying to persuade others to convert solely by voluntary means and he began to reveal the harsher verses of the Koran. These subsequent verses were meant to replace early verses. "When We substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." (Koran, chapter 16, verse 101) "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?" (Koran, chapter 2, verse 106)

It follows that what was happening within the Muslim community at the time verses were revealed plays an important role in interpreting the Koran. Sadly, that history, as briefly set forth above, overwhelmingly supports the fundamentalists' interpretation and leads to violence as terrorists mimic the life of Muhammad that they are taught was inspired by God and which constitutes the perfect example for living. The Sword Verses were some of the last verses revealed by Muhammad and it is difficult to convince fundamentalists that earlier verses revealed in Mecca before the Hijrah (transfer to Medina) should guide their behavior.

Regarding the interpretation of the Koran, to put the entire matter into perspective by way of analogy, imagine a student telling a teacher that, following a lecture, an order to take a test was ambiguous because earlier in the day the teacher had said to pay attention to the lecture. We would all agree such a position is strained at best. Those who advocate that the harsher verses of the Koran are unclear because of the earlier peaceful commands are simply ignoring how the Koran came into existence and their position is equally strained.

Based on the foregoing, notwithstanding the diversity of belief in the Islamic World, including those like Dr. Aziz that advocate a peaceful interpretation of Islam, there will always be fundamentalists who adhere to the "true faith" and advocate violence until the whole World submits to Islam. Can we then honestly claim that Islam is universally a religion of peace?

With so much Islamic terrorism in the World, and an entire nation such as Saudi Arabia with at least nineteen million inhabitants in which militant Wahabbi Islam (A Sunni branch of Islam) is the law of the land, does it not seem logical that something within the Islamic religion is inspiring terrorism? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals wherein fundamentalist Islam is the only religion allowed. If the militancy and terror generated by Wahabbi Islam is an aberration with no relation to true Islam, then why is it that Shiite Islamic theology in Iran has produced the same militant type of Islam and terrorism even though the two sects are quite hostile to one another? Why were the Taliban so intolerant and militant even though their very name derives from them being students of Islamic theology? Why is there so much Islamic militancy in Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Lebanon, and the Aceh province in Indonesia? Why did the Armenian genocide occur in which nearly one and a half million Christians were slaughtered or deported in 1915 under Turkish Ottoman rule (now Turkey) in the 20th century? How can Islamic militancy in such diverse parts of the World be explained if it does not, at least in part, derive from Islamic doctrine?

It seems, at least to me, simply too plain for argument that Islam promotes violence and cannot be said to be a religion of peace given that it inspires so much terror and intolerance. That Islamic terrorism threatens us daily. As technology and the capacity for terrorists to cause mass destruction increases, the stakes are going up and we must understand what the true root of the problem is if we are to have the best possible chance of defending ourselves.

Many diverse individuals have reached similar conclusions. Salman Rushdie, a renowned liberal, wrote the following in 2001:

"‘This isn't about Islam.' The world's leaders have been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because if the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can't afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related.
The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?
Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat? Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand to be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt while apparently turning a deaf ear to the self-incriminating statements of Al Qaeda's own spokesmen (there will be a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the West are warned not to live or work in tall buildings)? Why all the talk about American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia if some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the present discontents?
Of course this is ‘about Islam.' The question is, what exactly does that mean? . . ."

Through the centuries, other independent thinkers have arrived at the same conclusion that Islam is not a religion of peace. Alexis de Tocqueville, a nineteenth century political thinker, commentator and historian, purportedly said:

"I studied the Kuran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

The following quote from the sixth American President, John Quincy Adams, (1825-1829) is revealing. Cited in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, page 83:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab . . . [i.e., Muhammad], [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."

(Note that Robert Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), notwithstanding the politically polarizing title, is an excellent source for understanding the darker side of Islam. It is accurate, well written, and interesting.)

The foregoing is just a small sampling of the people who have all reached the same inescapable conclusion that Islam is not a religion of peace. So many educated people from highly diverse backgrounds who formed their opinions about Islam centuries apart have come to the same conclusion for a reason. The reason is that Islam is simply not a religion of peace and we must have the courage to say so and deal with the problem in the most effective, humanitarian way that we can.

In a World where Iran, a universally acknowledged terrorist state under Sharia Law, is on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons and has vowed to share those nuclear weapons with the Islamic World, we must ponder, as Mr. Rushdie did: "Of course this is ‘about Islam.' The question is, what exactly does that mean?"

2006-10-14T18:09:00.000-07:00

NATURE AND HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM

by Barry L. Brumfield

First of all, do you think anti-Semitism is not alive and growing rapidly, particularly in America? Then try this; run a search in Google or Yahoo for "Nazi", "White Power", or "Skin Heads". Then after you recognize that hate and anti-Semitism is a very serious problem, come back here and learn how anti-Semitism is affecting God's chosen people, the Jews. We won't place actual web links to hate groups here to avoid offering them any support.

You probably have heard the word "anti-Semitism," but how much do you really know about this ugly phenomenon? Did you know, for example, that historically anti-Semitism has appeared variously in the garb of theological, socio-economic, and even racial hatred? Here's a brief survey of the dominant forms of anti-Semitism throughout history.

"Christian" anti-Semitism

A hatred of Jews as "Christ-killers" or "infidels." The totally mistaken belief that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus-a belief based largely on the account of Jesus' death which appears in the Gospel of John-is one of the oldest forms of anti-Semitism, dating back 1500 years to the formation of the Holy Roman Empire and enduring well into this century. This form of anti-Semitism has been the cause of countless pogroms -organized massacres of Jews, often on Easter (when the Gospel of John is traditionally read). Jews have also been persecuted for their refusal to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. During the Spanish Inquisition, Jews were burned alive for their refusal to embrace Christianity.

Socio-economic anti-Semitism:

Hatred of Jews based on their occupations, wealth, or political activities. Stereotypes such as Shakespeare's "Shylock" or of the Jewish banker (which the Nazis used extensively) have long been used to stir up popular hatred of Jews. The contradictory stereotypes of Jews as rich capitalists who control the government and as Communists or union organizers who are opposed to it, have both been used to whip up anti-Semitic passions. One of the most insidious and enduring manifestations of this form of Jew-hatred is the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-a document produced by the Russian Czarist police in 1905 alleging an "international Jewish/Zionist conspiracy"-which was used to whip up popular hatred against the large Jewish community in Russia, with disastrous results. In the U.S. , the "Protocols" have been distributed by groups as diverse as the Ku Klux Klan, the Ford Motor Company, and the Nation of Islam.

Racial anti-Semitism

The belief that Jews constitute a separate and inferior race provided the ideological foundation for the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party's genocide of the Jews during World War II. The Nazis also considered Blacks and "Gypsies" to be inferior races. In fact, Jews come from many racial backgrounds including Semites (of Middle Eastern origin), Caucasian, Asian, and African-American.

Swastikas - the ultimate symbol of hatred

Originally a Hindu symbol, the swastika was adopted by the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party as their emblem. It has since come to symbolize the profound anti-Semitism which found expression in the Nazis' "Final Solution"-their nearly-successful attempt to annihilate all the Jews of Europe.

Scape-goating Jews

When a speaker such as Minister Louis Farakkhan singles out Jews for their role in the slave trade-which pales beside the vastly more important role of Dutch, British, French and even African slave traders-such singular and targeted criticism, or "scape-goating," has the effect, and no doubt also the intent, of stirring up animosity toward Jews. Therefore it's not surprising that the Nation of Islam is one of the few organizations in the U.S. (other than the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazi groups) which continues to distribute the virulently anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a 1905 forgery by the Russian Czarist police, purporting to prove the existence of an "international Jewish conspiracy").

Criticizing Israel (and only Israel)

The singular criticism of Israel for its government's policies constitutes a form of anti-Semitism which is difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to respond to. Israel 's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza , and the countless deaths on both sides, are serious issues requiring critical discussion. But often a double standard is applied, which focuses on Israel while ignoring, for example, the Serbian genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990's, or the genocidal violence in Rwanda (where more than half a million Tutsis were murdered in 1994 followed by the forced exile of nearly two million Hutus). This double standard has been prevalent in the "Developing Nations" and "Multicultural Affairs" pages of the Collegian-where, until this semester, massive attacks on Israel and Zionism had appeared with numbing regularity (sometimes weekly). Over the same period, articles addressing the tragic events then taking place in Bosnia and Rwanda were conspicuously absent.

by Barry Brumfield

(Mr. Brumfield maintains his own website at www.israelsmessiah.com)

2006-10-14T17:49:00.000-07:00

THE JEWISH CLAIM TO THE HOLY LAND IS SUPERIOR TO THE ARAB CLAIM

by Barry L. Brumfield

There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine" and the very notion of a "Palestinian Arab nation" having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct "Palestinian" culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964... three years BEFORE the Arabs of "Palestine" lost the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War (which the Arabs started). Even the so-called leader of the "Palestinian" people, Yasser Arafat, is EGYPTIAN! In short, the so-called Arab "Palestinians" are a manufactured people...a people with no history and no authenticity... whose sole purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish State!

Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C.E. these first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and Israel's First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous!

Ancient Jerusalem

Then in 70 C.E. (nearly 2000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire's turn to march through ancient Israel and destroy the SECOND Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of its Jewish population. Many Jews left on their own because conditions for life were made unbearable in many respects... yet thousands upon thousands stayed and rebelled on for centuries in order to once again rebuild a Jewish Nation in this Holy Land.

Over 3250 years, various Peoples, Religions and Empires marched through Jerusalem, Israel's ancient capital. The region was successively ruled by the Hebrews [Jews], Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks (who indifferently governed the backward, neglected territory from the 16th century until the British drove them out during World War I) and then once again by the Jews in 1948. None bothered, nor were they in the least bit inclined, to build a Nation of their own... EXCEPT the Jews!

It must be noted that in 636 C.E., when the Arabs marauders came to the land and uprooted even more of its Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there... and certainly not a "Palestinian" nation. They were simply "Arabs" who, as did others before them, moved into a geo-political area called "Palestine!" And remember this one fact... it was not the Jews who "usurped" (a favorite word from the Arab propagandists) the land from the Arabs. If anything, it was the Arabs in 636 C.E. who overran and stole it from the Jews!

The Land Belongs to Israel

No nation, other than the ancient nation of Israel and later again in 1948 with the rebirth of the 2nd Nation of Israel, has ever ruled as a sovereign national entity on this land. A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs --- and their Islam --- were even born! The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. Every time there is an archaeological dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that the Jewish People have had a presence there for well over 3,000 years. The coins, the pottery, the cities, the pottery, the ancient texts... all support this claim. Yes, other peoples have passed through, but there is no mistaking the fact that Jews have always had a continual presence in that land for over 3,000 years. This predates and certain dwarfs any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Jews have. And if you want to talk religion, fine. G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!

Then in 70 C.E. (nearly 2000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire's turn to march through ancient Israel and destroy the SECOND Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of its Jewish population. Many Jews left on their own because conditions for life were made unbearable in many respects... yet thousands upon thousands stayed and rebelled on for centuries in order to once again rebuild a Jewish Nation in this Holy Land.

Over 3250 years, various Peoples, Religions and Empires marched through Jerusalem, Israel's ancient capital. The region was successively ruled by the Hebrews [Jews], Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks (who indifferently governed the backward, neglected territory from the 16th century until the British drove them out during World War I) and then once again by the Jews in 1948. None bothered, nor were they in the least bit inclined, to build a Nation of their own... EXCEPT the Jews!

It must be noted that in 636 C.E., when the Arabs marauders came to the land and uprooted even more of its Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there... and certainly not a "Palestinian" nation. They were simply "Arabs" who, as did others before them, moved into a geo-political area called "Palestine!" And remember this one fact... it was not the Jews who "usurped" (a favorite word from the Arab propagandists) the land from the Arabs. If anything, it was the Arabs in 636 C.E. who overran and stole it from the Jews!

No nation, other than the ancient nation of Israel and later again in 1948 with the rebirth of the 2nd Nation of Israel, has ever ruled as a sovereign national entity on this land. A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs --- and their Islam --- were even born! The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. Every time there is an archaeological dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that the Jewish People have had a presence there for well over 3,000 years. The coins, the pottery, the cities, the pottery, the ancient texts... all support this claim. Yes, other peoples have passed through, but there is no mistaking the fact that Jews have always had a continual presence in that land for over 3,000 years. This predates and certain dwarfs any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Jews have. And if you want to talk religion, fine. G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!

"Palestine?"

The term "Palestine" came from the name that the conquering Roman Empire gave the ancient Land of Israel in an attempt to obliterate and de-legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The name "Palestine" was invented in the year 135 C.E. Before it was known as Judea, which was the southern kingdom of ancient Israel. The Roman Procurator in charge of the Judean-Israel territories was so angry at the Jews for revolting that he called for his historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their past history. The scribes said, "the Philistines." Thus, the Procurator declared that Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Philistia" [further bastardized into "Palaistina"] to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history. Hence the name "Palestine."

One more thing. Very often one hears the revisionists and propagandists finding ancient historical links between the "Philistines" ("Invaders" in Hebrew) and the Arab "Palestinians." There is no truth to this claim! The Philistines were one of a number of Sea Peoples who reached the eastern Mediterranean region approximately 1250-1100 B.C.E. They were actually an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, primarily of Aegean and south-east European origin [Greece, Crete and Western Turkey] and they died out over 2500 years ago! Those Philistines were not Arab... and neither was Goliath! The Arabs of "Palestine" are just that... Arabs! And these Arabs of "Palestine" have about as much historical roots to the ancient Philistines as Yasser Arafat has to the Eskimos!

The ancient, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are long perished from the earth. Canaanites, Phoencians, and then Philistines, all were dominated by the Israelites before 1060 B.C.E. Most of these cultural identities dissolved completely by the neo-Babylonian age, or, the 6th century B.C.E. Arabs weren't even in Palestine until the mid-7th century C.E., over a thousand years later, after Palestine's 1,300-year Jewish history. Arabs later living in Palestine never developed themselves or the land, but remained nomadic and quasi-primitive

Even the word "Palestine" has no meaning in Arabic - every word in Arabic has some meaning deriving from the Koran, but the word "Palestine" does not. If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. For example, the "Palestine Post" [forerunner of today's Jerusalem Post] newspaper and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra were all-Jewish. The "Palestine Brigade Regiment" was composed exclusively of Jewish volunteers in the British World War II Army. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab" identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of "Greater Syria."

In Conclusion

There was no "Arab Palestinian" history before the Arabs manufactured one shortly after 1948, and then especially after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War! In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.

Archeological sites to this very day continue to yield artifacts with Hebrew writing, not some fictitious "Palestinian" or Arabic text! The so-called "Palestinian" Arabs were simply then, as they are now, Arabs no different culturally, historically or ethnically from other Arabs living in any of the 24 Arab countries from which they emigrated. The suggestion that the "Palestinians" are some sub-group of Arabs with their own unique identity is pure fiction! Great propaganda... but still pure fiction! And had not the Arabs continued to brainwash generation upon generation into believing this historical lie about some ancient "Arab Palestinian" ties to the Holy Land, most could have gotten themselves a real life by now with much less bloodshed and suffering for everyone concerned.

by Barry L. Brumfiled

(Mr. Brumfield maintains his own website at www.israelsmessiah.com. )

2006-10-14T11:21:00.000-07:00

* The Zikris

* The Qadianis (or Ahmadiyya)

The following consider themselves Muslims but acceptance by the larger Muslim community varies:

* The Nation of Islam (African-American Cult)

* The Druze

* The Alawites (Alnusairiya)

The following religions are said by some to have evolved or borrowed from Islam, in almost all cases influenced by traditional beliefs in the regions where they emerged, but consider themselves independent religions with distinct laws and institutions:

* Babism

* Bahá'í Faith

* Yazidi

The claim of the adherents of the Bahá'í Faith that it represents an independent religion was upheld by the Muslim ecclesiastical courts in Egypt during the 1920's. As of January 1926, their final ruling on the matter of the origins of the Bahá'í Faith and its relationship to Islam was that the Bahá'í Faith was neither a sect of Islam, nor a religion based on Islam, but a clearly-defined, independently-founded faith. This seen as a considerate act on part of the ecclesiastical court and in favor of followers of Bahá'í Faith since the majority of Muslims would regard a religion based on Islam as a heresy.

Some see Sikhism as a syncretic mix of Hinduism and Islam. However, its history lies in the social strife between local Hindu and Muslim communities, during which Sikhs were seen as the "sword arm" of Hinduism. The philosophical basis of the Sikhs is deeply-rooted in Hindu metaphysics and certain philosophical practices. Sikhism also rejects image-worship and believes in one God, just like the Bhakti reform movement in Hinduism and also like Islam does.

The following religions might have been said to have evolved from Islam, but are not considered part of Islam, and no longer exist:

* The religion of the medieval Berghouata

* The religion of Ha-Mim

Islam and other religions

The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow "peoples of the book" (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), and others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures. At different times and places, Islamic communities have been both intolerant and tolerant. Support can be found in the Qur'an for both attitudes.

The classical Islamic solution was a limited tolerance - Jews and Christians were to be allowed to privately practice their faith and follow their own family law. They were called Dhimmis, and they had fewer legal rights and obligations than Muslims.

The classic Islamic state was often more tolerant than many other states of the time, which insisted on complete comformity to a state religion. The record of contemporary Muslim-majority states is mixed. Some are generally regarded as tolerant, while others have been accused of intolerance and human rights violations. See the main article, Islam and other religions, for further discussion.

Brief History of Islam

Islamic history begins in Arabia in the 7th century with the emergence of the prophet Muhammad. Within a century of his death, an Islamic state stretched from the Atlantic ocean in the west to central Asia in the east, which however was soon torn by civil wars (fitnas). After this, there would always be rival dynasties claiming the caliphate, or leadership of the Muslim world, and many Islamic states or empires offering only token obedience to an increasingly powerless caliph.

Nonetheless, the later empires of the Abbasid caliphs and the Seljuk Turk were among the largest and most powerful in the world. After the disastrous defeat of the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Christian Europe launched a series of Crusades and for a time captured Jerusalem. Saladin however restored unity and defeated the Shiite Fatimids.

From the 14th to the 17th centuries one of the most important Muslim territories was the Mali Empire, whose capital was Timbuktu.

In the 18th century there were three great Muslim empires: the Ottoman in Turkey, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean; the Safavid in Iran; and the Mogul in India. By the 19th century, these realms had fallen under the sway of European political and economic power. Following WWI, the remnants of the Ottoman empire were parceled out as European protectorates or spheres of influence. Islam and Islamic political power have revived in the 20th century. However, the relationship between the West and the Islamic world remains uneasy.

Contemporary Islam

Although the most visible movement in Islam in recent times has been fundamentalist Islamism, there are a number of liberal movements within Islam which seek alternative ways to align the Islamic faith with contemporary questions.

Early shariah had a much more flexible character than is currently associated with Islamic jurisprudence, and many modern Muslim scholars believe that it should be renewed, and the classical jurists should lose their special status. This would require formulating a new fiqh suitable for the modern world, e.g. as proposed by advocates of the Islamization of knowledge, and would deal with the modern context. One vehicle proposed for such a change has been the revival of the principle of ijtihad, or independent reasoning by a qualified Islamic scholar, which has lain dormant for centuries.

This movement does not aim to challenge the fundamentals of Islam; rather, it seeks to clear away misinterpretations and to free the way for the renewal of the previous status of the Islamic world as a center of modern thought and freedom. See Modern Islamic philosophy for more on this subject.

The claim that only "liberalization" of the Islamic Shariah law can lead to distinguishing between tradition and true Islam is countered by many Muslims with the argument that any meaningful "fundamentalism" will, by definition, reject non-Islamic cultural inventions - by, for instance, acknowledging and implementing Muhammad's insistence that women have God-given rights that no human being may legally infringe upon. Proponents of modern Islamic philosophy sometimes respond to this by arguing that, as a practical matter, "fundamentalism" in popular discourse about Islam may actually refer, not to core precepts of the faith, but to various systems of cultural traditionalism.

Demographics of Islam today

Based on the percentages published in the 2005 CIA World Factbook ("World"), Islam is the second-largest religion in the world. According to the World Network of Religious Futurists, the U.S. Center for World Mission, and the controversial Samuel Huntington, Islam is growing faster numerically than any of the other major world religions. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance estimate that it is growing at about 2.9% annually, as opposed to 2.3% per year global population growth. This is attributed either to the higher birth rates in many Islamic countries (six out of the top-ten countries in the world with the highest birth rates have a Muslim majority [1]) and/or high rates of conversion to Islam.

Commonly cited estimates of the Muslim population today range between 900 million and 1.4 billion people (cf. Adherents.com); estimates of Islam by country based on US State Department figures yield a total of 1.48 billion, while the Muslim delegation at the United Nations quoted 1.2 billion as the global Muslim population in Sept 2005.

Only 18% of Muslims live in the Arab world; 20% are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, about 30% in the Indian sub-continental region of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and the world's largest single Muslim community (within the bounds of one nation) is in Indonesia. There are also significant Muslim populations in China, Europe, Central Asia, and Russia.

France has the highest Muslim population of any nation in Europe, with up to 6 million Muslims (10% of the population[2]). Albania is said to have the highest proportion of Muslims as part of its population in Europe (70%), although this figure is only a (highly contested) estimate (see Islam in Albania). The number of Muslims in North America is variously estimated as anywhere from 1.8 to 7 million.

Major Muslim Countries of the World (% of population)

Country - Muslim (%)
Afghanistan 99
Albania 70
Algeria 99
Azerbaijan 93.4
Bahrain 100
Bangladesh 83
Brunei 67
Burkina Faso 50
Chad 51
Comoros 98
Djibouti 94
Egypt 94
Gambia, The 90
Gaza Strip 98.7
Guinea 85
Indonesia 88
Iran 98
Iraq 97
Jordan 92
Kuwait 85
Kyrgyzstan 75
Lebanon 60
Libya 97
Maldives Sunni Muslim
Mali 90
Mauritania 100
Mayotte 97
Morocco 98.7
Niger 80
Nigeria 50
Oman 75
Pakistan 97
Qatar 95
Saudi Arabia 100
Senegal 94
Sierra Leone 60
Somalia Sunni Muslim
Sudan 70
Syria 90
Tajikistan 90
Tunisia 98
Turkey 99.8
Turkmenistan 89
United Arab Emirates 96
Uzbekistan 88
West Bank 75
Yemen Muslim

Symbols of Islam

Green is commonly used when representing Islam. It is much used in decorating mosques, tombs, and various religious objects. Some say this is because green was the favorite color of Muhammad and that he wore a green cloak and turban. Others say that it symbolizes vegetation. Some say that after Muhammad, only the caliphs were allowed to wear green turbans. In the Qur'an, 18:31, it is said that the inhabitants of paradise will wear green garments of fine silk.

The reference to the Qur'an is verifiable; it is not clear if the other traditions are reliable or mere folklore. However, the association between Islam and the color green is firmly established now, whatever its origins may have been.

* The color green is absent from medieval European coats of arms as during the Crusades, green was the color used by their Islamic opponents.

* In the palace of Topkapi, in Istanbul, there is a room with relics of Muhammad. One of the relics, kept locked in a chest, is said to have been Muhammad's banner, under which he went to war. Some say that this banner is green with golden embroidery, others say that it is black and others think there is no banner in the chest at all.

In early accounts of Muslim warfare, there are references to flags or battle standards of various colors: black, white, red, and greenish-black. Later Islamic dynasties adopted flags of different colors:

* The Ummayads fought under white banners

* The Abbasids chose black

* The Fatimids used green

* Various countries on the Persian Gulf have chosen red flags

These four colors, white, black, green and red, dominate the flags of Arab states.

The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but flag historians citations state that they were the insignia of the Ottoman empire, not of Islam as a whole.

(Editor's note: The sword also is an unofficial symbol of Islam. The sword appears prominently on the flag of Saudi Arabia and references to swords and beheading is prominent in the Koran and hadiths. Muhammad is also purported to have said in one of the hadiths: "Paradise is under the shade of swords.")

Notes
1. Shi'a muslims do not believe in absolute predestination (Qadar), since they consider it incompatible with Divine Justice. Neither do they believe in absolute free will since that contradicts God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Rather they believe in "a way between the two ways" (amr bayn al-'amrayn) believing in free will, but within the boundaries set for it by God and exercised with His permission.
2. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad group claims, as did a few long-extinct early medieval Kharijite sects, that Jihad is the "sixth pillar of Islam." Some Ismaili groups consider "Allegiance to the Imam" to be the so-called sixth pillar of Islam. For more information, see the article entitled Sixth pillar of Islam.

by Barry Brumfield (www.IsraelsMessiah.com)

2006-10-14T00:59:00.000-07:00

2006-10-13T19:02:00.000-07:00