Desicritics Author: Alamgir Hussain

Strangulating Freedom of Expression - Islamic Historical Perspectives

Alamgir Hussain — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:00:48 EST

Mr. Tahir Aslam Gora, driven out of Pakistan for his critical-of-Islam writings, wrote in The Hamilton Spectator on December 13 that freedom of expression has deteriorated even in the liberal West from what it was in Mecca during Prophet Muhammad’s time 15 centuries ago. Referring to the example of hounding of Bangladeshi humanist author Taslima Nasrin by unruly Muslim mob and an Islamic death-fatwa on her head, in Hindu-majority secular India, he wrote:

“Prophet Muhammad exercised his rights of freedom of expression in his full capacity by challenging the prevailing beliefs of the time and calling them mere lies. Despite the opposition to his claims, he had open and huge support from his allies. But today, in a so-called liberal and enlightened world, challenging some Islamic beliefs is not that easy.”

Mr. Gora is absolutely correct in stressing that Muhammad enjoyed a high degree of freedom of expression, but he fails to mention that Muhammad had killed other rights to freedom of expression at the same time. Mr. Gora is correct that Muhammad took full freedom in saying whatever he wanted about the religion, custom and forefathers of the Pagan Quraysh of Mecca. Muslim chronicler Baihaki records (in Proof of Prophecy) Muhammad’s disciple Amru ibn al-Aas’s testimony of Quraysh leaders’ discussion about Muhammad one day:

“Never have we had to tolerate from anyone what we have had to tolerate from this man. He slanders our fathers, criticizes our religions and divides our people, and blasphemes our gods. Such grievous things have we tolerated from this man…” The Prophet who was nearby and hearing this conversation, he responded, “Men of Quraysh! I will surely repay you for this with interest.”

Islamic historian al-Zuhri adds:

“The unbelievers of the Quraysh did not oppose what he [Muhammad] said. If he passed the place where they sat together, they pointed to him and said: “This young man of the tribe of Abd al-Muttalib proclaims a message from heaven!” This they continued to do until Allah began to attack their gods…, and until He proclaimed that their fathers who died in unbelief were lost [to hellfire]. Then they began to hate the Prophet and show their enmity to him.”

In trying to prevent Muhammad’s insults, the Quraysh sat with him in their sacred shrine of Ka’ba in 615 C.E. and requested him to desist from reviling and speaking evilly of their Gods. They offered to worship his God for one year, if Muhammad would reciprocate by worshipping theirs for the same period. In rejection, he responded [Q 109:1-6]: “Oh unbelievers, I worship not that which ye worship… To you your religion and to me my religion.”

In sum, Prophet Muhammad preached his religion in Mecca for 13 years insulting their Gods, customs, and ancestors and never did he receive any physical assaults of serious nature if at all. In 622, seeing no hope of progress of his stagnated mission in Mecca, the Prophet emigrated with all his disciples to Medina where his creed was making brisk progress.

After his relocation, Muhammad called the treatment of his community by the Quraysh “tumult and oppression,” which was in turned deemed “worse than slaughter.” In revenge, the Islamic deity revealed a series of verses, sanctioning Holy war against the Quraysh [Q 2:190-193], until the religion was Allah’s [Islam] alone. Muslims must slay the idolaters [the Quraysh] wherever found [2:193]. They must fight the infidels even if they did not like it, because Allah only knows what is best for them [Q 2:216]. They must “fight in Allah’s cause, and slay and be slain” [Q 9:111].

With Allah’s sanction of Holy wars against the Quraysh, Prophet started sending Muslim horsemen to raid caravans of the Quraysh, starting in the seventh month after his relocation. After three failed attempts by his disciples, the Prophet himself commanded three expeditions, which also went in vain. In the eighth attempt, they achieved success at Nakhla, in which, one Meccan attendant of the caravan was killed; two were taken prisoners; and the fourth escaped. This first successful Jihad raid brought much-needed booty. The prisoners brought more revenue through ransom. The Prophet, being the leader of the bandit, took 1/5 share for booty.

The following month, the Prophet led another expedition to plunder a rich caravan returning from Syria under the care of Meccan leader Abu Sufian. This led to the famous battle of Badr, in which the Quraysh suffered a heavy defeat. They lost 70 men and another 70 were captured as prisoners, while Muhammad’s party lost only 14 Jihadists.

A few of the prisoners were cruelly beheaded at Muhammad’s instruction. One of them was the Meccan poet Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, who distrusting Muhammad’s messages, used to say: “By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have.” Instead of ransoming him like other prisoners, Muhammad ordered his execution.

This massive bloodbath, rare in Arabia―that too, of their own kinsfolk―caused much revulsion among the people. Abu Afak, an elderly poet of 120 years of age, wrote poetic verses condemning the cruelty of Muhammad. Muhammad ordered the poet’s execution. One of Muhammad disciple slyly entered Afak’s house at night and dispatched him in his sleep [Ibn Ishaq, Oxford, Karachi, p675].

In condemnation of the elderly poet’s death, Asma bte Marwan, a poetess and mother of five, wrote verses denouncing Muhammad’s heinous act. Muhammad ordered her execution, too. His blind disciple named Umayr, belonging to Asma’s tribe, entered her house one night, removed her suckling baby from her bosom and plunged his sword into her breast with such force that it got stuck onto the couch. Prophet thanked Umayr for the job well-done [Ibn Ishaq, p675-6]: “You have helped God and His apostle, O 'Umayr.” The blind assassin for his great service received the honorific, ‘Umayr the Seeing.’

Another famous poet to fall pray to Muhammad’s sword was Ka’b ibn Ashraf, a Jew. Hearing about Muhammad’s victory at Badr, he traveled there. Witnessing the ghastly bloodbath, he traveled down to Mecca, and wrote a poem, lamenting over the dead Quraysh and inveighing Muhammad’s unjustified barbarity.

Once reached Muhammad’s ear, he said [Ibn Ishaq, p367]: “Who would rid me of [Ka’b] Ibnu'l-Ashraf?” Muhammad’s disciples, including Abu Naila and a foster brother of Ka’b, volunteered for the job. The assassins, with permission from Muhammad, befriended Ka’b by saying bad things about the Prophet. Then on one moonlit night, Abu Naila went to Ka’b house calling him to come out to devise some plan to counter Muhammad. Ka’b’s newly married wife warned him: “By God, I can feel evil in his voice.” Ka'b answered to his wife: “Even if the call were for a stab, a brave man must answer it.” Then he went out with Abu Naila, who enticed him to go walking around while talking about their plan. A pleasant little proposal on a moonlit night as it was, Ka’b came along. Once gotten at the right place, Abu Naila and his four accomplices fell upon the naïve poet with their swords and dagger and butchered him. Al-Tabari records, they brought Ka’b’s head to Muhammad and the Prophet duly thanked them for their service to Allah.

When Muhammad captured Mecca in 630 CE and destroyed the idol Gods of Ka’ba, he ordered execution of 10-12 men who had criticized, apostatized from, or overtly opposed his creed. Among them, were two singing girls, who had composed songs ridiculing Muhammad’s messages more than a decade earlier during Muhammad’s preaching in Mecca.

Ibn Ishaq [p368] adds that the “attack upon God's enemy [Ka’b] cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.” Indeed, it had struck terror in the hearts of the poets and critics. No one, who lived within his reach and aware of these incidents, probably never dared composing anything critical of the Prophet thereafter.

The Prophet took utmost liberty of the tolerant Arab society in disparaging the religions, customs and ancestors of the Quraysh in any way he liked and still enjoyed complete safety in Mecca for 13 years. He freely converted the citizens of Mecca, but he ordered execution of the ones who apostatized from his creed.

In Medina as a refugee, he tried to attract the powerful and wealthy Jews to his creed. Once rejected, he took the liberty of disparaging their creed, calling it perverted and canceled by Allah and still enjoyed complete safety. But just for a poem of Ka’b, he ordered his execution.

The next day, he announced an open order to kill the Jews [Al-Tabari, Vol. VII, p97]: “Whoever of the Jews fall into you hand, kill him.” One unfortunate Jewish merchant named ibn Sunayna happened to fall on the way of Muhayyisah―a convert from the same tribe. Muhayyisah’s family was dependent on the generosity of ibn Sunayna. Still, the fanatic barbarian fell upon the unfortunate merchant and killed him. When his elder brother confronted him citing the generosity of the merchant and coming hardship to their family―the mindless fanatic warned the brother that he would kill him too, had Muhammad instructed so.

Muslims of our civilized world today take the freedom and liberty and proudly distribute, in the idolatrous country of India, their holy book, which demand killing the idolatrous Hindus, wherever they are found [Q 2:191; 9:5]. But when a poet or writer another book criticizing the unacceptable content of the book; her/his life is there for taking by the Muslim mob. Even when Taslima Nasrin says softly point out the obvious fact that Islam oppresses the women, her life is threatened by blood-thirsty Muslim mob.

Muslim refugees of the Western country take all the liberty and freedom to preach Islam, and distribute their holy book among the Christians and Jews of those countries that calls the scriptures of the latter to be corrupted, perverted and cancelled. It denies and condemns many percepts of the Bible, including the divinity of Jesus ― the central belief of the Christians. Quran also urges unconditional war against and subjugation of the Jews and Christians to subhuman dhimmi subjects [Q 9:29].

But when a critic, Salman Rushdie for example, writes a book doubting the claims of Muhammad, his life is there for the taking. If a Hindu, Jew or Christian openly tries to preach their creed to Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran or any other Muslim country―He/she faces death, assaults and jail by the authority or the Muslim mob.

Muhammad had killed the freedom of expression of the highly tolerant Arab society, save his own, 14 centuries ago. After his death, Muslims have killed freedom of expression of others wherever they have gone. Like their refugee Prophet in Medina, the supersensitive and intolerant Muslim refugees are successfully undermining the freedom of expression at every step in Western countries ― the only frontier which allows it by law today.

Islamic Lynch Mob Hounds Taslima Nasrin: In the Footsteps of the Prophet

Alamgir Hussain — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:36:35 EST

Last week, Muslim mobs in India, seeking Taslima Nasrin’s blood for her writings critical of Islam, hounded her out of Calcutta. With assistance from the police, she escaped from Bengal and is now hiding somewhere in the Indian capital. She had to flee her home country Bangladesh when militant Islamic mobs pursued her in 1994 in similar fashion on the same charges. She found a home of some sort in West Bengal, where people speak the same language she speaks and writes in. But now, Taslima has nowhere to go. She may well forget about her writing career altogether.

The mission of Muslims in life is to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s life in meticulous detail to gain access to Paradise. The slightest deviation from it will land Muslims in hell for some time to be roasted there in the terrible fire, before getting access to Paradise. Bravo Muslims of India, you are trying to emulate the Prophet. Let us go back 14 centuries to the time of Prophet Muhammad.

Prophet Muhammad’s 13 years of preaching Islam in Mecca yielded only about 150 converts in all. By 620, his mission in Mecca had come to a standstill. Open preaching among Mecca citizens had been banned. In 620, he secretly started preaching to pilgrims from Medina during the Hajj pilgrimage at the idol-temple of Ka’ba. Six Medina pilgrims converted to Muhammad’s faith. Next year during Hajj, another six joined to give allegiance to Muhammad’s creed. The pilgrims returned with a disciple of Muhammad named Musab to instruct the converts of Medina in Islamic creed.

Musab turned to be an able preacher; and came back with 75 converts during the following Hajj season in March 622 to meet Muhammad at a secret meeting at Akaba near Mecca. Obviously seeing the great success of his creed in Medina even in his absence, the Prophet sought to move there with them. In urging their support for his protection if move there, Muhammad said: "I invite your allegiance on the basis that you protect me as you would your [own] women and children." The Medina converts replied: "By Him [Allah] Who sent you with the truth we will protect you as we protect our women. We give our allegiance and we are men of war possessing arms which have been passed on from father to son” [Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p204].

Muhammad was all set to move to Medina. He ordered his disciples in April to relocate there. Over the next two months, all Muslim converts left for Medina in small batches except Muhammad and Abu Bakr and their families plus Ali still left behind. It was time for Muhammad to leave; and in the company of Abu Bakr, Muhammad set off for Medina. Ali and females of Abu Bakr’s and Muhammad’s families, including Prophet’s child-wife Aisha, were still left behind. They set off for Medina after a few more days like nothing had happened [Ibn Ishaq, p219-221].

The departure of the Muslim community from Mecca was completed. Muhammad arrived in Medina on 21 June 622 CE to a hero’s welcome from his eagerly awaiting disciples, from Mecca and Medina combined.

Muhammad took about six months to build a communal abode for his community. Once his community was comfortably settled, there came time for revenge against the Quraysh for rejecting his faith. Quraysh’s rejection of Muhammad’s creed, as described in the Quran―“to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members"―became tantamount to “Tumult and oppression,” which in turn was “worse than slaughter” [Quran 2:217].

Thereupon, Allah sanctioned Jihad or Holy war upon the Muslims to “fight them [Quraysh] on until there is no more Tumult or oppression [ie, rejection of Islam & practice of idolatry], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah” [Quran 2:193]. Muslims must “slay them [Quraysh idolaters] wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out” [Quran 2:191]. In other words, Muslims must take upon a mission to exterminate the idolatrous Quraysh from Mecca once and for all.

For those Muslims, who did not like fighting as it involved violence and even bloodbath―they still had to fight, because: “Fighting [Jihad] is prescribed for you [by Allah], 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 Allah knoweth, and ye know not” [Quran 2:216].

Having made Jihad an obligatory duty on all Muslims, Prophet Muhammad started sending his armed comrades in search of trade-caravans from Mecca to plunder them. The Prophet himself pursued a few caravans; but they escaped before the messenger of Allah could reach there on time. The first success came in January 624 at Nakhla, 9 days away from Medina and only 2 days’ from Mecca. In the attack, one of the Quraysh attending the caravan was killed, two taken captive and another managed to flee. The raiders returned to Medina with the rich booty and two prisoners. The latter were ransomed bringing more revenue for the Prophet.

But, it was the sacred month of Rajab in which fighting was prohibited in Arabian tradition. This bloodbath, therefore, created unhappiness among the people of Medina and the region, including among the Prophet’s disciples. Allah justified this illegal holy-month attack and bloodbath, claiming that the ‘Tumult and Oppression’ [ie, the rejection of Allah’s religion] committed by the Quraysh was “worse than [the] slaughter,” which his henchmen committed at Nakhla:
“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” [Quran 2:217].

In a couple of months, the Prophet pursued another huge caravan returning from Syria under the care of Quraysh leader Abu Sufyan. This led to the bloody battle of Badr, in which the Quraysh got defeated. Some 50 Quraysh were slain and similar number captured, while Muhammad’s side lost only 15 Jihadists.

Muhammad’s violent plundering raids one after another and such bloodbaths, rather uncommon in Arabia, enraged some conscientious intellectuals of Medina. There was among them the first Taslima, named Asma bte Marwan ― a poetess. She composed poetic verses disparaging Muhammad’s heinous acts and railed the men of Medina for allowing such as a bloodthirsty person settle in their community, who had no regard for life whatsoever even of his own kinfolk of Mecca.

As her verses spread quickly, an exasperated Muhammad said: “Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?” Umayr, a disciple of Muhammad, took up the job of finishing Asma off. On one night, Umayr stealthily entered Asma’s apartment, when she was deep asleep with her suckling baby on her bosom. Umayr removed the child quietly and plunged his sword into her breast with such force that it got stuck onto the couch. The next day at the mosque prayer, the Prophet thanked Umayr: 'You have helped God and His apostle, O 'Umayr” [Ibn Ishaq, p675-6].

Umayr belonged to Asma’s clan and when he was returning from upper Medina and passed by Asma’s sons burying their mother―they accused him of killing her, to which he responded that “if they dared to repeat things such as she had uttered, he would slay the whole clan of them” [William Muir, The Life of Mahomet, London, p240].

The next intellectual to be in line to embrace the same fate was another poet, 120-year old Abu Afak. Horrified by the bloodthirsty zeal of Muhammad’s followers in the name of their God and religion―he wrote verses condemning his actions. He even wrote a poem to incite the Quraysh to take revenge against Muhammad’s Badr massacre without regard for kinship whatsoever. The prophet sent another disciple, named Salim, to finish him off [Ibn Ishaq, p675].

There started Islam’s journey of Holy terror or Jihad against the intellectuals, critical of Islam. Six years later when Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630 CE, he ordered the death penalty on 10-12 people, who had criticized, strongly opposed, or, apostatized from, his creed. Those belonging to influential families were spared upon reconciliation achieved by lobbying from their families. Finally, four persons were executed, among whom were two singing-girls, who had composed songs ridiculing Muhammad [Muir, p392-3].

Four centuries later, we meet the great blasphemous thinker Ibn Sina, who considered that Greek Philosophy was revealed truth, not the Quran; and that Aristotle and Plato were greater than Muhammad. Enraged by this, the jealous Sunni and barbaric invader of India, Sultan Mahmud ordered hunting Ibn Sina down. To save his life, Ibn Sina fled to Egypt to take refuge under the deviant (Ismaili) Fatimid rulers. Some two centuries later in 1190s, the great thinker Ibn Rushd, a commentator on Aristotelian philosophy, got banished from Spain for his heretical views. French author, Renan writes, “Not a Musalman philosopher and scholar escaped persecution… who passed half their life in prison, in forced hiding…” [Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not a Muslim, p274].

Continuing in the Prophet’s footsteps, we witness his steadfast followers putting his writ into action in India. The Prophet must be delighted sitting among at least 72 celestial virgins in Paradise.

However, the Muslims in India deviated a little from the Prophet’s protocols by alerting Taslima beforehand, saving her from embracing the fate of Asma. Muhammad sent his assassins to Asma and Abu Afak quietly without altering them. Muslims in India have failed to emulate Prophet’s example in meticulous detail. Infidel observers may see this as a sign of their progress towards civility, but Allah and His Prophet may not be all too happy by this lapse of theirs.

Murder of Frenchmen in Holy City: Continued Legacy of 14 Centuries of Holy Terror

Alamgir Hussain — Fri, 2 Mar 2007 00:18:25 EST

Three expatriate French nationals* in Saudi Arabia were murdered by machinegun wielding terrorists on 26th February. A teenager, wounded in the attack, became the fourth victim two days later when he succumbed to injuries. The victims were on a site-seeing tour across the kingdom with their families. The gunmen targeted the adult males, leaving the females and children unharmed, when they were camping in an area near the city of Medina. Non-Muslims are barred from entering the city of Medina and Mecca, the holiest cities in Islam. It is thought that this breach or transgression may have been the motive for the attack. Home-grown Islamist radicals in the kingdom, declaring allegiance with al-Qaeda, have launched waves of terrorist attacks over the last few years often targeted at foreigners in their aim to drive the "infidel" Westerners not only out of Mecca and Medina but also from the entire Saudi Arabia, the holy land of birth of Islam and its holy prophet.

What lies behind this holiness of the city of Mecca and Medina and the entire Saudi Kingdom for that matter is the tragic tale of barbaric terrorism, which was orchestrated by the prophet of Islam 14 centuries ago. The latest murder of the French tourists is simply a continuation of the legacy. The prophet of Islam started his mission of preaching a new religion in 610 CE in the city of Mecca, dominated by the idol-worshiping pagans. His messages were insulting to the religion and gods of Mecca people, abusive to their culture and tradition and degrading to their ancestors, which can be easily confirmed by reading the pages of the Koran. Muhammad preached his religion for 12 years and people of Mecca joined his creed freely, without ever facing violence or threat of injuries, except that a two-year-long social excommunication was imposed between 617-619 CE. Muhammad made very little progress during 12 years of preaching in Mecca, which lead the prophet to relocate, with about 50 Mecca followers, to Medina in 622 CE, where his mission was achieving brisk success in making converts.
The Mecca pagans steadfastly refrained from joining his creed, naturally discouraged the fellow pagans not to join his mission and did not allow him access to their holy temple of Ka’ba on which Muhammad laid claim of belonging to his God, Allah. This was affirmed when the victorious Prophet yelled over the dead bodies of the Mecca pagans at the battle-field of Badr (624 CE): “Have ye now found true that which your Lord did promise to you. What my Lord promised to me, that have I verily found to be true. Woe unto these people! Ye have rejected me, your Prophet! Ye cast me forth, and others gave me refuge; ye fought against me, and others came to my help!" [Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trs. Guillaume, Karachi, p305-6] The Koran also affirms the same: “..but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.…” [Q 2:217]

Shockingly, this simple rejection of Muhammad’s creed and sticking to idolatry by the Mecca pagans became tantamount to tumult and oppression, which in turn, was considered worse than slaughter by Allah and his apostle, defying all logic and reasons. It did not end there. Muslims must take revenge for this so-called tumult and oppression by fighting and killing their kinsfolk of Mecca. To convince and force the hesitant believers, Allah sent down a revelation making fighting the infidels binding upon them, even if they didn’t like: "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 Allah knoweth, and ye know not". [Quran 2.216]

In Medina where Muhammad became a refugee, the idolater tribes quickly assembled under the umbrella of Islam. The prophet sought to coax the wealthy and influential Jews (also probably some Christians) to his apostleship by affirming their scriptures (Torah & New Testament), sometimes erroneously, in his revelation (Q 5:65-66) and by adopting many of the Jewish customs and rituals such as fasting, circumcision and prohibiting pig meat etc. When the Jews and Christians did not accept his religion, the annoyed Allah parted with them: "And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper" [Quran 2:120].

With these sanctions coming down from the heaven, Muhammad got the licence to launch a campaign of terror against the pagans of Mecca and the Jews of Medina. In 624 CE, he attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir two years later and sent them to exile. In 628, he attacked the last Jewish outpost of Banu Qurayzah and slaughtered their 600-900 grown-up males. The women and children were captured as salves, the prettier women were kept as sex-slaves and the rest were sold overseas for horses and weapons. This was done with this sanction from Allah: “..Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden…” [Q 33:26-27]

On the other front, Muhammad started raiding the life-sustaining trade-caravans from Mecca passing through the major routes nearby Medina in order to kill the oppressors of Mecca in revenge and to loot the caravans. This led to a number of blood-letting confrontations between 623 and 630 CE. By 630, Muhammad had become so powerful that he breached an existing 10 years-long treaty after only two years and attacked and captured Mecca. The vestige of idolatry was blotted out from Mecca and larger Arabia with the following sanction from heaven: “when the forbidden months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush... [Q 9:5]

In sum, Medina became the holy city of Islam, through the banishment of the Jews from their centuries-old homes through Muhammad’s terror resulting in their eviction, mass slaughter and enslavement. On the other hand, Mecca became the Muslim holy city by complete banishment of idolatry through slaughter of some of the Mecca pagans and forcing others to accept Islam at the pain of death [Q 9:5]. Not only Mecca and Medina, the entire Arabia became holy for the Muslims and no-go zones for the infidels when the prophet commanded to finish off the Jews and Christians from Arabia in death-bed “that two religions should not be allowed to remain in the Arab Peninsula." [Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, (trs. A Guillaume), Karachi, p523] Prophet’s last wish was ruthlessly executed by his successors. In 638 CE, caliph Omar expelled the Jews of Khaybar, who were allowed to stay when Muhammad had conquered that outpost 10 years earlier. By the time of 3rd caliph Othman (d 656), there remained no Christians and Jews in the Islamic heartland of Arabian Peninsula.

What is known as the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina and the holy land of Arabia, thus, is the outcome of ruthless terrorism perpetrated by the founder of Islam with the collusion of the Islamic God. At the receiving end of it were the existing pagans, Jews and Christians of the region, who suffered disastrous tragedy. The founding of the Islamic holy land in Arabia also marked beginning of unbridled terrorism, which devastated vast parts of the world “stretching from the banks of the Indus in the east to the shores of the Atlantic in the West” in a very short time, which may have resulted in violent death of approximately 270 million people. This also marked a barbaric legacy of terror that have continued for the entire 14 centuries of Islam’s existence to this day. This legacy will probably continue until Allah’s promise to “make them (Muslims) rulers in the earth as He made rulers.." [Q 24:55] is fulfilled. The terrorist attack in Medina, that killed four Frenchmen, is just the continuation of that legacy of holy terror which the prophet of Islam had started 14 centuries ago. So are all Islamic terror campaigns in Iraq, Iran, India, Sudan, Somalia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Thailand and elsewhere, which are ongoing across the world.

* Reports suggest that some of the victims were Muslims, which the terrorists probably could not know.

Dr. Mahatir Mohamad's 2003 IOC Speech: A Turning Point In My Perception of Islam

Alamgir Hussain — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:58:43 EST

As a Muslim, you just grow up hating Jews. As soon as you start understanding things, you are brainwashed with how the Jews of Medina insulted and fought with our beloved Prophet. This starts at a early age when Muslim kids haven't grown old enough to know how to question what is told to them. So they never get to know the details. They just grow up with that hatred of the Jews ingrained in their hearts and minds.

Although I personally grew up a believing Muslim, engaging myself nominally with the rituals and scriptures (which was the case with more than eighty percent of the young people during that time), I also grew up with that hatred of the Jews without ever meeting one, nor knowing the details of the circumstances that had lead to the conflict between the Jews and our Prophet.

For the first time, however, I raised the question of why Muslims have to hate the Jews when I was a third-year undergraduate student, while discussing some event that took place in Israel/Palestine with a few friends who were more religious and knowledgeable about Islam. The answer I got was that the Jews fought with and insulted the Prophet and that Allah said in the Koran that Jews were a cursed people who will never find an abode to live in peace (my recent investigation into Islam finds it absolutely true).

That was a good enough a reason - when Allah (the Creator) had said so, it did not require any further questioning or explanation. I didn't question it for another 15 years until the following experience that changed my life significantly.

Before I paid a visit to Bangladesh in early 2002, a few months after the parliamentary election, I was already saddened with what had happened to the Hindu minorities in the days following the election. The Jamat-e-Islami aligned nationalist coalition, lead by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which had trounced the Islamo-secularist incumbent Awamy League government, went on a rampage against the people aligned with the defeated party.

The ever insecure Hindu community which traditionally votes for the secular parties had to bear brunt of this horrendous campaign most. Rapes (including gang-rapes), torture and humiliation (with incidents of striping and parading the Hindu women around the village) became widespread according to media reports. One investigative report by the most popular English newspaper, Daily Star, had cited that they had interviewed nearly 1,000 Hindu women and girls raped and gang-raped in a single district. The ages of the victims ranged from an 8 year-old minor to a 72 year-old grandmother.

When I arrived home, I had more to learn about. I learned how activists of the defeated party, even of the Muslim background, spent months in terror. Some of them who did not have tribal muscle-power and got caught were paraded around the locality with garland of shoes round their necks. A subsequent media outcry and international condemnations forced the government to crackdown on such violence and violations, after the barrage of defiant denials in the initial weeks.

This left a lasting mark on my mind which probably changed me forever.

Instituting a government based on the Islamic ideals is the vision of the Jamat-i-Islami party. BNP is the slightly moderate Islamo-nationalist party, whose founding father changed the constitution of Bangladesh from secular (instituted by the founding father of defeated Awamy League in the 1970s) to an Islamist one in the 1980s. These two parties combined represent the Islamic face of Bangladesh. All these flagrant violations of human dignity and rights happened under their stewardship and patronage.

Whether real Islam had anything to do with it or not, what struck me most is that so long there will be divisions between people, such as Hindu-Muslim barriers, such things will continue to happen. Nothing is worth this, whatsoever the true Islam may represent.

Earlier, I knew how the Hindus had to move out of East Bengal and later Bangladesh in tens of millions to India because of the treatment they got at the hands of the majority Muslims. I myself had the experience of foiling a bid of kidnapping my Hindu classmate, a girl who was being forced to marry a Muslim thug (who had dropped out from my class a few years earlier). I played a crucial role in foiling the bid by alerting the girl and her family and helping them escape to India. I considered my effort in this incident a great gesture of kindness to my classmate, without realizing for a long time how much distress and pain the whole thing might had have caused to the victims, who had to abandon their ancestral homes of centuries forever.

Although my outlook on life took a humanistic turn after this, never did I leave the fear of being burned by Allah in the fire of hell. I still thought there was probably something very worthwhile in Islam. Else why would so many people believe in it? Why were so many people converting to Islam? Why is it the fastest growing religion? And why are so many Westerners, including some famous ones like Cat Stevens, also converting to Islam?

But what ensued in the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in Kuala Lumpur in March 2003 changed my life once and for all.

Mahathir Mohamad was my greatest Islamic leader, whom I used see as a model for the Muslim world's movement towards moderation, prosperity and development. Never did I realize that there is so much poison in the mind of this highly acclaimed leader - both in the East and the West. I was very disappointed with his OIC speech.

That Mahathir speech definitely changed my life and perspective of the world forever. I became much more sympathetic to the people of other religions (including the Jews) than I was before, which they definitely deserve, not less if not more. The terrible treatment doled out to the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Jews etc. in any Muslim-dominated country in the world on a daily basis even today would easily justify my sympathetic views of them by any standard of logic.

This also marked the commencement of my journey of finding out what is there in Islam that can fill the mind of 1.4 billion Muslims with such poisonous and cruel thoughts and utter degree of irrationality as reflected in Mahathir's speech. After studying Islam (the Koran and the Prophet's biographies) a great deal, what I found is that it all comes from the Koran and the life of the Prophet Muhammad and that the Jews are totally undeserving of this treatment.

French Court To Rule On Whether Prophet's Cartoons Were Offensive

Alamgir Hussain — Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:06:15 EST

One of the interesting news today is French Court to Rule on Whether Cartoons Insulted Muslims [Bloomberg]. The way appeasement (Appeasement takes hold again in Europe) has been going in Europe, the outcome of this court ruling may come to be anything. The only hope lies in France's great history of secularism.

The cartoon mania, the liberals and the death of Voltaire!

Publication of a number of caricatures of the Prophet of Islam, initially in a Danish paper, last year, created an unprecedented media-hype and violent protests amongst the worldwide Muslim community. These protests turned deadly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Nigeria resulting in at least 100 deaths, which continued to rise by every passing day. Danish and other European embassies were been attacked, torched and even burned in countries like Syria, Iran, Indonesia and Lebanon. Churches were been burned in Pakistan and Nigeria. A Pakistani Cleric offered $1 million reward for killing each of the cartoonists. An Indian Muslim Minister offered $10 million bounty for the head of the cartoonists or their publishers, which got support from the Indian Islamic court and Islamic law board members. As protests across the Muslim world started catching momentum, many publications in Europe, Australia and New Zealand reprinted those caricatures in a show of solidarity with the Danish sister publication for the sake of defending their much prized right of freedom of expression. (Desicritics on Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons)

It should be understood that Westerners value the right to free expression immensely, which was achieved through lot of blood of their ancestors more than 200 years ago. The right of freedom of expression was first codified in article 11 of the French constitution [The Right of Man] following the French Revolution in 1789 under the stewardship of Napoleon Bonaparte which read: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Every citizen can therefore speak, write and print freely; but may need to respond if freedom is abused in cases determined by law."

This article on freedom of expression has been included almost unaltered in all secular constitutions of Western secular democracies whilst the United Nation's included it in its International Declaration of Human Rights in 1946. This freedom of expression, however, does not come without responsibility and a person is liable to respond when one abuses it as determined by the law. It is now accepted that the right of freedom of expression must exclude incitement to violence or intent to physical harm and unjustified or untrue defamation.

The publication of the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad must have hurt the sensitivity of the worldwide Muslim community because of the alleged taboo against depicting the Prophet in any art form. But does this hurt constitute a violation or abuse of the right of free expression? Hurting the sensitivity of an individual, group or religious community does not constitute an abuse of the right of free expression. Indeed, the inclusion of man's right of free expression in the French constitution was meant for negating the sensitivity of an individual or racial and religious group - not to protect it. It was created to nurture tolerance and tolerance can be created only by blunting or desensitizing it through its negation and exposure to criticisms - so long such criticisms do not constitute incitement to violence or bodily injury or undeserved harm to one's reputation. Hence, if the West seeks to follow their constitutional right of freedom of expression, they cannot care about the sensitivity of the Muslims or any other individual or community.

In the backdrop of the hurtful publication of those cartoons, the only thing Muslim could consider is whether their publication constituted an incitement to violence or a case of baseless defamation to the person or community in question. Publishing some cartoons of an individual or group does not definitely constitute incitement to violence or bodily harm although that may hurt someone's feeling or sensitivity. Publication of caricatures and burning effigies of many leaders including those of US president Bush or UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, depicting them as terrorists and even as Hitler, is one of the most common form of protests around the world, especially in Muslims countries, these days. Those caricatures and effigy-burning have never been deemed an incitement to violence against those leaders, their citizens or party members although those hateful and degrading acts would definitely hurt the feeling of those leaders and of their millions of supporters. By the same bar, the caricatures of Islam's Prophet do not constitute incitement to violence in any consideration. More so when the Prophet in question is dead and these caricatures cannot cause any harm to his person or affect his reputation that would cause any distress to him.

The last thing that one must consider is whether these caricatures lead to baseless defamation to the person of Prophet Muhammad or his followers. Of course, this is a valid possibility but the verdict on such a possibility can only the determined in a forum or court of law after thorough examination and analysis of the historical recording about the Prophet Muhammad and in his preaching contained in the Koran and Sunnah. Thus, the best step for Muslim community was to take the Danish paper to court on the charge of baseless defamation of the Prophet of Islam through those cartoons, not on the charge of hurting their sensitivity. But instead, Muslims world yelled aloud and reacted violently with street protests, burned embassies, declared bounty for the heads of the cartoonists and the publishers. They torched, burned and vandalized the Danish and other Western diplomatic missions and business enterprises, sanctioned blockade against Danish businesses and attempted to violently attack the diplomats of those countries where these caricatures were published and reprinted. Violent protests and attacks caused at least 45 deaths. The Danish imam who lead protesters spelled his support for 9/11, the London protesters chanted 7/7 London bombings was on, whilst protesters from across the Muslim world urged Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda to strike the Western powers and yet other imams, including some in the West, urged suicide-bombing in revenge. In this controversy, every step taken by the Muslim community and most Muslims Governments constitute a flagrant violation of the article of freedom of expression because of the overt display of violent intent and incitements and acts of vandalism and damage to life and properties.

These events surrounding the cartoon controversy point to a grave future that West is going to face in the coming decades. Suppose a situation that these cartoons were being published at a time when Muslims have constituted ~20% of the population in Europe. Can we imagine the consequence? Of course we do, unless we are absolute idiots. Cities after cities would have been burned into ashes in Denmark and other countries that published and reprinted those cartoons; the editors of the papers that published those papers would have been given farewell from this world already. Massive vandalism would have left these countries and their business infrastructures in sheer disarray.

In this controversy, the Muslims have found the predictable and yet likely and formidable partners that include all the pious Christians and Jewish groups in Europe and elsewhere. Christian priests and Jewish Rabbis have joined voice with the Muslims against the publications of the said cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. The Vatican termed the cartoons an ``unacceptable provocation'' and that the right of freedom of expression "cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.'' Even the bigot American Evangelic Pat Buchanan, who is avidly hated by the Muslim community, has found strange bedfellows in the Muslims in the aftermath of this hysterical cartoon saga.

The likelihood of the Western religious groups' joining voices with the Muslims needs an understanding in this discussion. It should be realized that the concept of freedom of expression was devised in the West as an affront to the extremely intolerant and overly sensitive religious sentiment of the Christians in the middle age. It was devised in the light of the terrible experience of the Christian clergy-ruled Europe that witnessed the days of inquisition, the burning of 9-10 million women charging them as witches as well as the burning of thousands of men and women for apostasy. In the backdrop of the horrible experience of the medieval Europe, there started the Enlightenment movement against the irrationality, superstition, intolerance, cruelty and tyranny of the Christian clergy. Prominent courageous Enlightenment philosophers, namely Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Kant were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Age as a period of social decline and the existing system of Church and state. They advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics and knowledge. This movement had also provided a launching pad for the American and French Revolutions, as well as leading to the rise of "capitalism" and the birth of "socialism". The Enlightenment movement acted as the precursor for the separation of Church and state, leading to the emergence of modern secularism and democracy in the Western world.

It was the philosophy of Voltaire, who was most vocal in attacking the Christian Clergy for the intolerance, injustice and ills of the-then European society, who defined the modern-day concept of freedom of expression with the much acclaimed quote attributed to him, "I may disapprove of what you say but I will fight to death for your right to say it". This core idea of Voltaire's philosophy on man's right to expressing his views was codified in the French Constitution in 1789 under the patronage of the great freethinker Napoleon Bonaparte. The point one must pick from this discussion is that the right of freedom of expression emerged out of struggle against religious sensitivity, intolerance and tyranny of a religion - not of Islam but of Christianity - of the Medieval Europe. It was achieved in the backdrop of immense cruelty and atrocity and at the cost a lot of innocent lives and sufferings.

Thus the codification of man's right of freedom of expression in French Constitution in 1789, was an unsavory and bitter defeat of the Christian clergy and devout Christians which thoroughly marginalized them in the affairs of the societal issues of Western society. This has made them digest all sorts of humiliation and vilification of their religion and religious symbols over the decades. Andres Serrano portrayed Jesus on a cross sunk in a bottle of urine called "Piss Christ", which was funded by the National Endowment of Arts and is being displayed in a New York Museum. A recent movie portrayed Jesus as a gay man. The Da Vinci Code portrays Jesus as a mere mortal who married and fathered children. A painting of Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung won the Turner's prize in 1999. Such humiliating and insulting depiction of the Christian religious symbols although cause displeasure and insult to the faithful, it never create any stir in Christian community who are being handicapped by the article of free expression in their constitution.

Under the current violent hysteria unleashed by the Muslims over the Prophet's cartoons, the devout Christian groups in Europe - long felt humiliated and handicapped by the constitutional protocol of freedom of expression - have found a long-awaited ally in the fight against the freedom of expression. This alliance of the devout Christians and also Jews with the Muslims will produce a strong force in safeguarding their religious sensitivities and religious symbols from the tradition of regular mockery and humiliation which they have digested over the decades. With the Muslims, who have no regard for any laws of the land or articles of constitution of the State when it comes to the issues of their religion, will transform this alliance into a much more formidable and dangerous force for the Western secular democracy to reckon with - given the Lemming-like deadly and suicidal instinct Muslims possess.

In this controversy, most Western Governments, except Denmark, France and Germany, have taken stand in favor of the Muslims by condemning the publication of those cartoons. The US State Department termed cartoons "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims" and their publication "not acceptable," warning that press freedom "must be coupled with press responsibility." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the decision to republish the cartoons was "insensitive ... disrespectful ... and wrong." The Swedish Government shut down a paper for reprinting the cartoons, Norway Government quickly rushed to ban blasphemy whilst the EU moved to restrict reporting on Islam. The UN secretary general Kofi Annan pledged to rewrite the UN Human Rights Charter to "protect the sanctity of religions and the prophets." All major news media including BBC and CNN did not dare displaying the cartoons on their papers, TV screens and websites.

Most astonishing reactions that have startled many are those of the many liberal thinkers, critiques, media men and politicians in the West. Former US president Bill Clinton, a liberal, condemned the publication of the cartoons as "appalling" and "totally outrageous." He further asserted that Muslims face Xenophobia like the Jews during the WWII. In Pakistan, he urged the EU to convict the publishers of the caricatures in sheer violation of constitutional right of the latter. An overwhelming majority of the Western politicians, commentators and media outlets from leftist, freethinker and liberal blocks have expressed similar disgust against the publication of the said cartoons. The most scathing remark came from the highly regarded German writer Nobel laureate Gunther Grass who compared the publication of the caricatures to Nazi caricature of the Jews. He further accused the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten of deliberate provocation for publishing the cartoons despite knowing the offense it would cause to Muslims.

It begs to ask as how the publication of just a few caricatures of the Muslim prophet becomes so offensive and unacceptable to this latter group of people when more humiliating depiction of Christian religious icons like Jesus in bottle of urine, Jesus as a lustful gay and Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung become most acceptable and unoffending to them. For example, when New York mayor Giuliani threatened to cut public funding to the Museum for displaying the drawing of Virgin Mary covered in dung, which offended to the Christian taxpayers, Hillary Clinton took a staunch stand in favor of the museum's right to display the art piece.

This intriguing double standards of the so-called progressive, liberal and freethinker camp of the Western thinkers and politician is not only unfathomable but also add a very dangerous dimension to the future health of free-speech in the West. Their confusing stand on the current cartoon controversy will have a two dimensional hazard to the health of freedom of expression. Firstly, it will embolden the hands of the taboo-ridden Islamist movements which will progressively destroy the right of freedom of expression and liberal lifestyle in the West one after another. Norway's introduction of medieval blasphemy law and EU's decision to censor reporting on Islam have already started the process of the death of free-speech in the West, which other Western nations are likely to follow suit one after another.

The second hazard of this hypocritical stand is the increasing disenchantment and disillusion of the Western public with the so-called left, liberal and progressive camp. It does not need any great intelligence to identify the hypocrisy of this camp's stand of proactive vilification of Christian and Jewish religious sensitivities whilst taking exactly the opposite stand vis-�-vis Islam on similar issues. It is a fact that many a believing Christians and Jews in the West, despite their respect and faith in religions, do not wish to hand over the political power to the religious groups. In other word, despite their belief in their respective religion, majority of the Westerners have stood behind the lefts and liberals in keeping the political power away from the religious group. As they continue to be intrigued and disillusioned by the most obvious double standard of lefts and liberals, they will definitely join hands with the devout Christian groups having political motivations. This process has already started with religious political groups becoming increasingly strong. Continued hypocritical stand of the liberals and lefts will continue to strengthen them, thus transforming the long-marginalized religious elements into a dominant force in the European politics in a not so far future. Muslims will unequivocally support these Christian groups who are more likely to respect their religious sensitivities and will sanitize the Western way of life as desired by the Muslims. Certain French political party's recent announcement of re-thinking the article of secularism in their manifesto in the hope of attracting the Muslim votes is just the beginning. We must also remember that Muslims had overwhelmingly voted for President Bush in the 2000 election because of his conservative and religious credentials. Let us also remember that about 50% of Muslims are in favor of Sharia Law in UK at a time when they form only ~3% of the population there. Muslims are seeking Sharia Law in many other Western countries. Ontario, which had naively introduced this medieval and oppressive Islamic law, recently repealed it amid vigorous campaign of a handful of human rights groups - much to the displeasure of the Muslims. The end result is: Europe is moving fast tract back to the pre-Enlightenment days.

It should be considered here that the present-day liberal and progressive thinkers, commentators and politicians are the off-springs of the Enlightenment-age heroes like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emmanuel Kant and Voltaire et al. Given that, these modern-day progressive groups should have taken the mantle of the Enlightenment and lead the civilizational progress forward. Yet, the so-called modern-day Enlightenment heroes have consistently taken stands vis-�-vis Islam, which are exactly the opposite ones that the Enlightenment-age thinkers had taken against Christianity centuries ago. Yet, most intriguingly, they have maintained consistency with the Enlightenment-age thinkers by taking the same stand vis-�-vis Christianity and Judaism. Their glaringly opposite stands, vis-�-vis Islam on one side and Christianity/Judaism on the other, will accelerate the strengthening of religious elements of both sides and push the world to the pit of religious cruelty and barbarity of the middle age Christian Europe, which is manifestly in existence in many Muslim countries even today. In stead of being the torch-bearers of civilizational progress - they are only hastening the race of the world towards darkness through their stupidly dubious stands in regard to Islam and Christianity/Judaism on parallel issues.

It should be understood that Voltaire might have left the world physically but he has been alive amongst us, especially in the West, through his priceless gift to mankind - the freedom of speech. Unfortunately his legal deputies of today are hell-bent on destroying this most precious gift and achievement of human civilization. Such intent was shockingly pronounced in explicit terms by liberal-left news media CNN's Jim Bitterman. In a CNN reporting on the cartoon issue, while quoting the famous attribution of Voltaire's ideal "I may disapprove of what you say but I will fight of death for your right to say it", he quickly opined that Voltaire's views was hugely controversial during his time and left an open-ended question whether his views should be suitable for today's world.

Raising such a doubt about the great man's finest ideal, that too by the modern vanguards of the liberal and progressive thoughts, is not only incredible but also a damning insult to him. It should be understood that Voltaire's priceless gift to our civilization came at the cost of his own sufferings and persecution, including repeated incarcerations and exile, at the hands of the reactionary religious forces more than 2 centuries ago. Yet, shortly before his death in 1778 when Voltaire returned to Paris (from where he was driven out in 1726) to attend the premiere of his new play Irene, he was given an standing ovation by the large crowd as the "Grand old man" of French Enlightenment. It is thoroughly unacceptable that 228 years later today, the vanguards of modern-day Enlightenment are questioning whether his ideals should hold valid after all the civilizational progresses.

The standing ovation to Voltaire by the Parisians in 1778 and inclusions of his ideals in the French constitution 11 years later made Voltaire a living man, especially in the civilized West, forever since. But the legal torch-bearers of his ideals of today are spelling his death by questioning the suitability of his ideals to today's world. Voltaire is probably becoming motionless slowly in his grave.

The intriguing stand of the Western liberals and progressives on the cartoon controversy and other Muslim issues over recent years portends a dangerous threat to future of civilizational progress. At this trying time when Muslims are imposing increasing restrictions and constraints on the freedom and life-style of the Westerners, it is essential to go back to the mantra of Voltaire, "Ecrasez l'infame", which means "Stamp out the infamous thing". To Voltaire, "the infamous thing" meant religious bigotry and fanaticism. What is imperative today is that the liberals and progressives embrace this uncompromising mantra of Voltaire instead of condemning him to death by questioning his ideals. They have applied this mantra vis-�-vis Christianity and Judaism consistently. What is needed is to apply exactly the same bar vis-�-vis Islam. Else, the progress and prosperity of our civilization, since the beginning of Enlightenment movement 4 centuries ago, are on a fast track rush towards a certain doom.

Islam is in Desperate Need of a Little Bit of Idolatry

Alamgir Hussain — Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:12:06 EST

The Abrahamic religions - prominently Judaism, Christianity and Islam - have been founded on the fanatic hatred towards idolatry, worshipping God in the image of various man-made idols. Idolatry had once been the universal form of worshipping the God amongst us until the modern anti-idolatry religions turned people, often through cruel and bloody enforcement, away from the practice. These religions have replaced arrays of Gods of polytheistic idolatry into a unified and invisible monotheistic God, who go by the name Allah, God or Jehovah etc.

The modern Abrahamic religions had displayed extreme hatred and often violent incitement against the practice of idolatry that had been prevalent in areas where these religions took root. Hatred against idolatry in the Bible has been presented in the following verses: Zec 11:17, Isa 66:3, Act 17:16, 2Ch 15:16; Gal 5:20-21, Col 3:5-6 [Act 17:16: Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry]. According to the Koran, the Jewish patriarch prophet Abraham had displayed avid hatred towards idolatry and had violently demolished the idols of the temple his father (Azar) was the custodian of. This story is described in the following verses of the Koran: Q: 6:74+, Q: 21-51+, Q: 26:68+.

[Q 21.57: And, by Allah! I (Abraham/Ibrahim) will certainly do something against your idols after you go away, turning back.
Q 21.58: So he broke them into pieces, except the chief of them that haply they may return to it.
Q 21.59: They said: Who has done this to our gods? Most surely he is one of the unjust.
Q 21.60: They said: We heard a youth called Ibrahim speak of them.]

The Koran also describes the hatred of Moses toward idolatry (Q 7:138). Taking the lead and inspiration from the hatred expressed by earlier Abrahamic religions, the Koran has indeed been made abundantly rich with verses expressing hatred and hostility towards idolatry. Indeed, the launch of the new religion by Muhammad, as allegedly revealed by Allah, was mainly aimed at exterminating idolatry from amongst the polytheistic pagans of Mecca in the early 7th century.

This extreme and violent hatred of Islam towards idolatry has been concisely presented by an Islamist writer, Mesbah Uddin, in a recent essay published in the web-magazine New From Bangladesh, which received great attention and admiration of the readers such that the articles were re-posted twice within a week on the readers request. Mr. Uddin wrote of Islam's Prophet Muhammad: "He must have despised idolatry so much that he faced towards Jerusalem for his prayer rituals until those 360 idols in the Ka'ba, were totally destroyed." This statement simply represents the most accurate picture of how much idolatry was hated by Prophet Muhammad! His fanatic hatred of idolatry as suggested by Mr. Mesbah Uddin is precisely corroborated by the verses of the Koran:

"And he said, You have only taken for yourselves idols besides Allah by way of friendship between you in this world's life, then on the resurrection day some of you shall deny others, and some of you shall curse others, and your abode is the fire, and you shall not have any helpers" [Q: 29.25].

Thus there is no doubt about Mr. Uddin's assertion that Muhammad had harbored virulent hatred towards idolatry so much so that he had relented only after destroying all the idols that were kept in the Ka'ba - considered the "house of God" in the pagan's belief. Not only that, with his conquest of Mecca, he made the doors of the Ka'ba shut to the idolaters forever. Yet, Mr. Uddin's article has been totally misdirected in his identification of Muslim reverence to Prophet Muhammad as a kind of idolatry. And he is evidently indignant towards the Muslims for their ceaseless effort to emulate the words and deeds of Muhammad which Muslims do to show deep respect to the Prophet. Mr. Uddin's splendid article, however, does not clearly explain a few points as listed below:

1. It does not explain how the Muslims' reverence of Muhammad can be likened or compared to the idolatry of the pagan of the 7th century Mecca?

2. Even if it could be likened to idolatry, Mr. Mesbah Uddin does not explicate why idolatry towards Muhammad itself is such a problem for Islam?

3. Most importantly, it does not explain why idolatry should be so fanatically detestable by Muhammad and Islam and by him for that matter including him.

Idolatry was so hated by the Abrahamic religion or its God that Prophet Abraham is said to have not forgiven his father Azar for his sticking to idolatry as explained in the Koran:

"The prayer of Abraham for the forgiveness of his father was only because of a promise he had promised him, but when it had become clear unto him that he (his father) was an enemy to Allah he (Abraham) disowned him. Lo! Abraham was soft of heart, long-suffering" [Q 9.114].

Taking cue from this verse the Prophet of Islam Muhammad also had not forgiven his dying uncle Abu Talib, who loved and protected the orphaned Prophet like a father, for which he had to suffer the Mecca community's ire.

"[Bukhari: 6:60:295] Narrated Al-Musaiyab: When Abu Talib was on his death bed, Allah's Apostle came to him and found with him, Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin Al-Mughira. Allah's Apostle said, "O uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, a sentence with which I will defend you before Allah." On that Abu Jahl and 'Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said to Abu Talib, "Will you now leave the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib?" Allah's Apostle kept on inviting him to say that sentence while the other two kept on repeating their sentence before him till Abu Talib said as the last thing he said to them, "I am on the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib," and refused to say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah. On that Allah's Apostle said, "By Allah, I will keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so."

So Allah revealed in the Koran:

'It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans." (9.113)

And then Allah revealed especially about Abu Talib: "Lo! thou (O Muhammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He will. And He is Best Aware of those who walk aright." (28.56).

It is said that Prophet Muhammad had stopped at the grave-yard of his mother Amina on the way to the first journey to Mecca for Omrah (the lesser pilgrimage) in 628 when Muslims had signed the allegedly unfair Hudaibiya Treaty with the Meccans. Yet, because of the above verse that was revealed earlier he could not pray for the soul of his own mother, who had died a Pagan before the birth of Islam, These stories once again affirm Mr. Mesbah Uddin's assertion as to how virulently Islam hates idolatry. Indeed, Islam can only rest once all forms of idolatry have been annihilated from the surface of the earth.

Were Pagans of Mecca Cruel and Uncivilized?

Muslims claim that the people of Mecca were an uncivilized people and were extremely cruel and harsh on Muhammad in order to justify Muhammad's destruction of the Pagan religion in Mecca. Muhammad himself has repeatedly called the pagans of Mecca Kaffir, meaning cruel, as evidenced in the Koran and Hadiths. However, it is very hard to substantiate this claim of cruelty. The Meccan pagans, confronted with the helpless arid environment and hardship of the days, used to be deeply religious people. Ka'ba was considered the "house of God" by them in which they had assembled allegedly 360 idols for worshipping. Ka'ba used to be held in similar esteem and veneration as it is being held by the Muslims today. After Muhammad allegedly received revelation from Allah, he termed the religions of the pagans wrong and also groundlessly made the claim that Ka'ba is the house of his own God Allah built by Prophet Abraham and hence belonged to him and his Muslim converts. Despite these insulting, offensive and audacious comments and claims, Muhammad and his small gang of converts were allowed to live and preach in Mecca for 13 years. Although there might have been a sense of hostility and opposition to Muhammad's claims, there was no report of any kind of assaults or bodily injury caused to Muhammad or to any of his disciples by the pagans. Instead, the pagans had allowed Muhammad and his gang of followers to pray inside Ka'ba. It is learned that the Muslims used to pray inside Ka'ba three times a day facing the main pagan deity, named Allah, before his banishment from Mecca. Now, consider a similar situation in the present-day context:

Suppose a man from any community from Mecca or elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, or from elsewhere in the world including president of the United States tomorrow goes to Mecca and declares that he has received the true revelation, Islam is false, Ka'ba is the house of his own God and he is the true messenger. The Muslims should hand over Ka'ba to him or at least allow him to say his prayers inside the Ka'ba.

Can anyone figure out what would happen to this person, even if he was an unguarded President Bush? Isn't that person going to be slaughtered into pieces on the spot? Why Ka'ba - even if some non-Muslim person openly makes such claim on any major mosques anywhere in the world, that person would be slaughtered on the spot by the fanatic followers of Islam even in today's world of excellence in civilization, science, humanism, free-speech and human rights. If, we compare the fanatic mentality and tendency towards violence of the present-day Muslims with those of pagans of Mecca of that so-called barbarian age, who never made any kind of physical assault on Muhammad for almost 13 years, despite Muhammad's continued insult of pagan's religion and his demand on Ka'ba which was of similar reverence to the pagans as it is today to the Muslims today. In stead, the pagan allowed Muhammad and his gang of converts to enter and say prayers inside Ka'ba for years. And even in today's civilized world, non-Muslims are not allowed to enter any mosque (forget about Mecca) even for a visit. Such is the fanatic teachings of Islam which had transformed such amazingly tolerant and civilized Arab pagans into such a murderous and intolerant lot - the legacy of which the modern-day Muslims continue to carry forward with the same strain of intolerance and bigotry. Yet, Muhammad used to call those excellent human beings of Mecca Kaffirs and all sorts of names - so do the Muslims of modern days. But the truth is: Muslims of today's civilized world are much more intolerant, cruel and uncivilized human beings as compared to those pagans of the early 7th century.

Pagans of Mecca - A peerless example of tolerance and harmony

Given that helpless harsh reality of a desert town, the Pagans of Mecca must have been a very religious people - so much so that Mecca had become the centre of religious activities of the entire populace of the nearby regions and countries. Despite this religious devotion, it is tolerance, harmony and accommodation but not intolerance and hatred towards other religions that became the hallmark of the so-called barbarian people of the 7th century Mecca. This is evidenced in the fact that the Ka'ba - despite being the heart of the Pagan religion and venerated as the House of God - the Meccan Pagans never considered it their sole property. Indeed, Mecca pagans had allowed all the religious sects of the region and neighboring countries - Southern Arabia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria and other places further afar - to place their religious symbols and idols in and around the Ka'ba [Foundations of Islam, Benjamin Walker, Rupa Press (New Delhi), p44]. As Mecca became an important center of trades and stop-over for merchants of regions, those merchants used to bring their favorite idols with them to Mecca so that they could worship them during the stay there. And the Pagans of Mecca were so accommodative, tolerant and sympathetic to these foreign merchants that they housed these idols inside and around the Ka'ba - so that they remain in a safe hand and those merchants could come to the Ka'ba and pray to their own idols. There was also a symbol of Abraham as well as of Mary inside Ka'ba - representing the faith of the Jews and Christians of the region. Not only that, allowing Muhammad and his Muslim converts to pray to the chief pagan deity, named Allah inside the Ka'ba also substantiates the accommodative nature of the Meccan pagans. Even the Hindus of India who worshipped very different set of idols seem to have had access into the Ka'ba as Indian traders were said to have brought an idol monolith from Ka'ba to Somnath in India where it was worshipped as the Linga of Shiva, which was destroyed by the Muslim conqueror Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024. These ancient idols from various lands and faiths were believed to have formed a circle of 360 monolithic figures in and around the sacred shrine of Ka'ba.

Given these facts, the Pagans of Mecca were evidently more tolerant, generous, accommodative and civilized people than even today's Hindus, Christians and Jews. For example, if someone goes to major Hindu temple, Christian church and Jewish synagogue and declare in front of the assembled faithful that he has received true revelation from God, their religion is false, that temple/church/synagogue belongs to his God (like Muhammad's demand on Ka'ba) and they should hand it over to him. What is going to happen to this so-called new prophet? If it happens in any third world country, say in Hindu temple in India, it is likely that this guy would be immediately assaulted and he might even end up being brutally killed by the Hindu faithful. Nonetheless, one thing can be said for sure that this so-called prophet will not step onto the backyard of that temple, church or synagogue for a second time - forget about letting him come in with his followers and say regular prayers.

If compassion, tolerance, accommodativeness and nonviolence are to be the foundation of civility of human beings - the Meccan idolaters must have been a thousand folds more civilized people than the Muslims of today. The pagan of Mecca had also been of much greater tolerance and harmony than any other religious sect of the modern world. Even the non-theists of today are neither going to allow any religious person to place his/her religious symbols nor allow him/her to say prayers in their property. In a nutshell, the pagans of Mecca - who were so vilified by Prophet Muhammad - had been a peerless example of tolerant people for any time.

The idolatry and Tolerance

In reality, idolaters have always been the more tolerance, harmless and civilized people than the monotheists even today. Let's analyze this assertion a bit more in detail:

According to Mr. Mesbah, today's Christianity and Judaism too have become religions of idolatry. Although this claim is highly disputable, yet Prophet Muhammad himself used to think in exactly the same way of these religions. According to Muslim chronicles, after returning from Mecca signing the Hudaibiya treaty, the Prophet had sent multiple emissaries to nearby tribal heads and foreign rulers. One letter to the powerful emperor of Rome, Heraclius commanded him to abandon the idolatrous worship of Jesus and Mary and accept the mission of his.

Despite the extreme hate towards idolatry in Islam, there is no doubt that the idolatrous Christians of today remain very tolerant people as compared to Muslim. Judaism is a bit of a controversial issue vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestine conflict - which is more political than religious - yet Jews living outside Israel are definitely much more tolerant than the Muslims. Even within the territory of Israel, the Muslim and Christian minority people are many folds better treated by the Jews if compared to the status of the minorities in Muslim-dominated countries anywhere in the world. Even at of war-front between Israel and Palestine, can anyone fathom which Muslim country would have given a better treatment to a people of another faith who are committed to destroying that Muslim state and continuously launching missiles, sending suicide bombers etc. Consider a Muslim army tank being faced by stone-throwing children, young men and boys of a minority people who are hell-bent on destroying that Muslim country. What kind of treatment are those stone-throwing non-Muslims people going to get at the hands of the Muslim soldiers?

Although the Jews and Christian can hardly be called idolaters in the real sense of it, the true idolaters remain to be the Hindus, Taoist and Buddhists etc. Evidently, Buddhists remain the most tolerant people in the world, so are the Taoists. Hindus, have historically been a non-threatening religion towards another faith until the rise of Hindutwa incited by the fanatic Muslims when they started demanding for division of India to create Pakistan as the British were preparing to leave India in the early 20th century. Yet, the minority Muslims of India are much better treated than the minority Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Rapes, including gang rapes of minority women are a common thing, so is the eviction of Hindu people from their homes and properties in Bangladesh. In time of peace, incidents like rapes of Muslim women by Hindus might occur in India but incidence must be many folds lower. Let's not bring Pakistan in the discussion where things are much worse for minorities. However one simple statistics would make the picture clear: the Hindu population has been reduced from ~30% to ~10% in Bangladesh and from ~15% to 1% in Pakistan whilst the percentage of Muslim population might have increased in India - definitely have not decreased in India.

Why Idolatrous Obsession towards Muhammad is a Problem?

It is now evident that the idolatrous Meccans were a highly civilized, tolerant and accommodative people as compared to the purely monotheistic Muslims of that time. It is also evident that the idolaters remain the more tolerant and civilized people today, so have they been throughout the last 1400 years of history of Islam. Not only that they have also been much greater contributors in science, technology, medicine and economics - at least in modern days. Mr. Mesbah has quite debatably sought to show a strain of idolatry that has sneaked into Islam. This idolatry is Muslims' obsessive devotion to Muhammad which can hardly be called idolatry in the true and traditional sense of it. Even if his assertion is considered valid, he has been unduly worried about this issue which should be appreciated instead of being worried about as will be explained below.

In Islamic doctrine, Muhammad was the greatest and only perfect man for all time. If that is the case, what is wrong in giving due praise and showing great respect to the greatest-ever man? It is a commonsense that every man should strive hard to emulate such a man. Einstein and Newton et al. hold an idolatrous status in aspects of science amongst the scientific community and if every scientist passionate work to reach the status of them - what is wrong in it? Instead, if every scientist strives to emulate the scientific careers of Galileo, Newton and Einstein et al. and contributes like scientific greats did, that will be of immense benefit for the world. Such things should not be discouraged by raising the sword of idolatry but instead should the encouraged. By the same token, since prophet Muhammad was the only perfect man for all times in every aspects of a human being, all Muslims should seek to emulate him which will be of immense blessings to the humanity. Thus Muslims have only done the right and logical thing by seeking to emulate the deeds and actions of prophet Muhammad - you call that idolatry towards him or not.

Islam - an atypical and virulent idolatry

Is the doctrine of Islam above idolatry? The answer is a firm no. Although the idol worship of the Mecca pagans, or Hindus of India for that matter, is evidently the traditional and true acts of idolatry - the religion of Islam, in reality, is based on a form of idolatry which in atypical and virulent and malicious. The only difference is that the man-made idols of the pagans, Hindus and other idolaters have been replaced by the some vague, unseen and imperceivable idol what they call Allah - which indeed was the name of the chief deity of the Pagans of Mecca. The pagans had multiple idols each signifying different aspect of the faithful's imagination. In turn, these pagan idols were a bunch of tolerant and harmonious deities who were extremely willing to share the authority over the various aspects of the life and the Universe amongst them - truly democratic in a sense. The Islamic idol, on the other hand, turned himself a lone owner of everything on earth like a real tyrant. He does not want to share the authority and propriety over vast aspects of life and the Universe with anybody else. Not only that but also, like a real tyrant, he threatens to punish those with who wish to share the ownership with multiple deities or want to give ownership to another deity - just because that there is no solid evidence of the Islamic idol Allah himself is the sole proprietor of this universe. His punishment is astonishingly harsh and unbelievable: he wants to burn those who do not accept Him as God with hellfire and all other sorts of extraordinarily cruel punishments both here and in afterlife. His intolerance and cruelty would have beaten the cruelty of any human tyrant and psychopath that have appeared on earth - including Hitler, Nero, Saddam or Genghis Khan by millions of folds. Suppose, Saddam or Hitler would punish someone by setting him on fire on the streets of Baghdad or Berlin, respectively. That would have made them greater cruel tyrants that what they were. But the Islamic idol, Allah, will put those, who deny him as the God or doubt his being the God - by setting him/her on fire which would not finish in minutes nor would it ever kill the victim but continue for eternity. It does not end there, from the burning hellfire they would be transferred to ultra-cold water and bring back to fire and many other forms of punishment to follow with them. Can anyone fathom the level cruel barbarity of this monstrous idol of Islam?

In a nutshell, the man-made idols of the pagans and Hindus, who are many in number, are a tolerant lot of supposed Gods/Goddesses - who strike a chord of harmony and peace amongst themselves and similarly, let the faithful live in peace and harmony amongst themselves and with those who follow other idols including Allah. But the lone Islamic idol is an absolutist tyrant - he is unbelievably intolerant, barbaric and cruel. He does not only put those who disbelieve in Him into eternal torment and turmoil but also his own followers, who makes harmless mistakes, with all kinds of cruel and barbaric punishment such as stoning and beheading.

Bring some idolatry to Islam

It has been proven that Muslims' obsession for Prophet Muhammad can hardly be called idolatry, neither should anyone be unduly worried about it. However, Islam clearly is a religion of an atypical and virulent strain of idolatry. Yet, in respect to the true and traditional forms of idolatry, Islam remains the least idolatrous religion on this earth. And the least idolatrous people are evidently the most intolerant, violent, cruel, destructive, unproductive and uncivilized people on earth today. Historically, the legacy of true and traditional idolatry has been associated with greater civility, compassion, tolerance, harmony and nonviolence whilst greater non-idolatry (oneness of God, monotheism etc.) has been associated with greater cruelty and violence - Judaism, Christianity and Islam being the clear proof.

But by invoking the virulent hatred of Muhammad and Allah towards the traditional idolatry, Mr. Mebah Uddin is spreading a dangerous message for the idolaters of today - who according to him include Jews, Christians and all other traditional idolaters. He has expressed his extreme hatred towards the idolaters in the most ominous words of his own: "He (Muhammad) must have despised idolatry so much that he faced towards Jerusalem for his prayer rituals until those 360 idols in the Kaba, were totally destroyed." Mr. Mesbah Uddin is only doing his religious duty as a perfect Muslim by stoking violence towards the idolaters of today - a promise of which forms major the foundation of Islam. Mr. Mesbah Uddin's living in the largely idolatrous society of UK also gives it a similar background to Prophet Muhammad's expressing the desire to root out idolatry from the 7th century Mecca. The startling point is the vitriolic language in which Mr. Mesbah has spelled his first expression of hatred towards idolatry. It is learned that Prophet Muhammad used to be relatively tolerant in expressing his hatred towards the religion of the idolaters of Mecca at the beginning, although to care for his safety only. But thanks to the freedom of speech, an invention of the idolaters of the West, which Mr. Mesbah Uddin has exploited in his maiden expression of hatred towards idolatry of the West and of the wider world. The notable point is that when Muhammad had first started (~610 CE) expressing his dislikes for pagan's idolatrous religion in a rather soft and civilized tone at the beginning, nobody could realize that this man would one day be able to destroy everything of their life and faith. And the inevitable tragedy that befell the Meccans 20 years later is known to all. Mr. Mesbah Uddin's style of expressing his hatred towards idolatry should definitely send a stronger message to the idolaters of today's world. The people of Britain should take note of it in the historical background of the 7th century Mecca. Else you never know!

Because of the nature of the Islamic doctrine, it is only expected that there will always be fanatic inciters of violence amongst the 1.4 billion Muslims against the idolaters, who are otherwise nice human beings. Yet, there are other Muslims - the moderates who seek to live in peace and harmony, instead of in hatred and violence against the harmless idolaters. This latter group of lesser Muslims should understand that introduction of a little bit of true and traditional forms of idolatry into Islam will do themselves and the wider humankind a great deal of good in terms of civility, peace, harmony, progress and prosperity. Given the kind of terror, violence and destruction being unleashed by the Muslims worldwide inspired by the true non-idolatrous doctrine of Islam - introduction of the desired bit of idolatry into Islam has become a desperate necessity. It has been told that the allegedly moderate and peaceful Muslims are an overwhelming majority. If that be the case, there will be little difficulty in introducing the required bit of idolatry into Islam. There are certainly a few meek and faint voices such as a gay Muslim leader's speaking up in the UK recently (see Islam blasted by gay Muslim peer). Such voices need to precipitate and strengthen to do the job. The time is limited if we want to see the future of our children saved from the sword of fanatic hatred of Islam towards idolatry. It will be a test of whether the so-called peaceful moderate Muslims are really an overwhelming majority or a desperate minority. Time only will tell.

Confessions of Three Former Terrorists Not Heard

Alamgir Hussain — Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:05:09 EST

Three former Islamic militants from the Middle East, Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, and Zachariah Anani, now reformed and warning the West of the danger of radical Islam, were to speak at the University of Michigan yesterday (30th January) in a public forum, billed as "The 3 Ex-Terrorists." They have fought for the militant wing of PLO in Palestine and had participated in acts of violence and terrorism against Israel. Shoebat is reported to have had bombed Israeli Bank as a teenager. Anani was a teen militia fighter, where he was trained to kill Jews and claims to have killed 223 people, according to www.3xterrorists.com.

As usual the proposed forum offended the Muslims. Digital50.com reports that Anani is under death threat for his plan to participate in the event.

According to a Detroit Free Press report, speaking about the danger of radical Islam is also a form of hate to the Muslims. The head of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Imad Hamad, said "this is another form of hate...in the name of fighting terrorism."'

Hamad met today with university officials to express the community's concern about the event.

Keith Davies, organizer of the program, however, disregarded Mr. Hamad's concerns asserting: "It has nothing to do with hatred of any certain people, but there's a certain ideology we have a problem with, and that's what we need to expose."

ADC also questioned whether it's possible to reform a terrorist. "If they were once terrorists", the ADC said, "they should always be treated as terrorists" as reported in DetNews.com.

The strangest fact is that ADC head Hamad Hamad is reported to have "been promoting the terrorist cause by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in media interviews." The same ADC had earlier sponsored a Hamas/Hezbollah conference targeted against Israel in the same campus.

Hamad was also a suspected member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Communist faction of Palestinian terrorism, responsible for countless homicide bombings and the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi in October, 2001. [Digital50.com]

However, little did the organizers know that they cannot disregard the concerns and discontent of the Muslims so easily! Michigan Daily reprted about 300 local Arabs and Muslims from the neighboring Dearborn flooded the building to protest against holding the forum. The discussion was finally conducted amid disruptions by hecklers, shouting and a staged walkout by the protesters. This whole episode clearly points to how the familiar scenes of the Islamic countries in religiously sensitive issues are being cloned by the Muslims in the heart of the Western world.

Yet, it is worthwhile to take stock of what other issues across the Western world that did not offend the Muslims over the last couple of weeks. First, Taj ed-Din al-Hilai, the Egyptian-born chief Imam of Australia's biggest mosque in Sydney, raised furor by claiming that the Muslim immigrants in Australia have grater rights there than the white Aussies, who descended from the convicts as reported by Reuters on 12 January, 2007. Also dubbed as the 'uncovered meat' Imam after he had raised another outcry last year by calling the liberally dressed Australian women as 'uncovered meat' who tempts men to raping them, he further slammed the Australian as the "biggest liars" who are bent on "bringing the Muslim community on its knees" - referring to the uproar over his 'uncovered meat' comment.

The replacement cleric at Mufti Hilali's Lakemba mosques, Yahya Safi, gave the last Friday's sermon, stirring his own controversy. Hilali's understudy, is reported to have offered prayers "for our brothers in Iraq", appealing to God to destroy the enemies of Islam. "God destroy the oppressors, destroy the aggressors, destroy the hypocrites, destroy the despotic tyrants," read the sermon.

Within a week, another firebrand Islamic top Imam, Lebanese-born Sheikh Feiz, was found to preach violence and hatred in DVDs which were in sale in Muslim shops in Australia. The Cleric called the children to violent Jihad against infidels, urged Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praised the dead in Jihad as the martyrs. He further describes "the inmates of Guantanamo Bay as better Muslims than those in Australia, who would not forsake their lifestyles for martyrdom." as reported in Townsville Bulletin on 20 Jan, 2007.

Yet again another Indonesian firebrand cleric, Dr Ismail Yusanto, outlined his plan for instituting Sharia laws, the absolute form of Islam, to a crowd of about 500 Muslims gathered at the Islamic Khilafah Conference in Lakemba. He urged his audience that violent Jihad or civil war may be necessary to institute such an Islamic superstate (caliphate). Spilling blood on the streets would be necessary. "No pain, no gain", he said according to a report in News.com.au on 28 Jan, 2007.

Then over in Europe, undercover cameramen of UK's Channel 4 recorded video statements of top Imams, known to promote moderate Islam, preaching extreme hatred towards the British people and culture. Channel 4 Dispatches, dated 15th January, report the video "captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs - and predict a coming jihad. "An army of Muslims will arise," announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must "dismantle" British democracy - they must "live like a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take over."

Such preaching of extreme hatred and violence by the respectable Islamic clerics against the people and society that have offered them a "good life" across Australia and Europe did not offend the Muslims at all. Only after a media outcry, some meek condemnations were widely circulated in the Media which is nothing but a tactical damage control exercise by some deceptive Muslims. We have never seen a big group of Muslims heading to the hate-preaching Imam's mosque to stage a demonstration, submit a letter for the Imam's resignation or stage walkout from prayers or abstain from taking part in it in any of the mosque. Neither any demonstrations nor protests were held at the residence of the concerned clerics.

Let us recall here that the first Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, who created a storm by demanding and persisting on taking oath by the Koran, had the excited the same Muslims of Dearborn in December 2006 in his mission of instituting justice in America. Detriot Free Press Detroit Free Press reported Mr. Ellison, who thinks that America does not have justice and equal protection to citizens, addressed a Muslim conference in Michigan on 23-24 Dec, 2006 as follows:"Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection", suggesting that Muslim activists may be part of God's plan.

In his firm plan to institute Allah's justice and truth in the American soil, he exhorted the Muslim crowd: "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, sallalahu aleyhi wasallam," (meaning peace be upon him) "did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?... How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?"

Mr. Ellison further exhorted the Muslim audience to strive hard with faith in Allah to institute the perfect justice: "You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim."

The same Dearborn Muslims, ecstatic with inspiration, had roared: "Allahu akbar" (Allah is great).

The latest incidence in Michigan University campus is probably the first sign of how Muslims are going to the bring justice and equality to the American soil as espoused by Keith Ellison. The Congressman, who firmly believes Muslims came here with a mission from Allah, must be delighted about the fact that his Muslim foot-soldiers undertook the cause of his mission almost forthwith.

The 'Three ex-terrorists' should not grudge about failing to hold the talk smoothly. They should, instead, hope for more such botched programs to send their message to Westerners much more effectively.

Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - A Fact or Fiction? Part 4

Alamgir Hussain — Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:35:05 EST

Conclusion: No tolerance of other religion or creed in Islam

In truth, there is no total freedom of non-Islamic religions in Islam. Instead, they are relegated to a lower status to Islam or are completely intolerable, which Allah and His apostle made very clear towards the ending stage of the prophet's career. We have to go back to the verse 9:1-5 mentioned above to explain these issues.

The terms, negotiated by Abu Sufyan, under which the Quraysh were allowed to keep their religion on the day of conquest of Mecca, has been outlined above as accounted by Ibn Ishaq. However, one recalcitrant group of Meccans, who are said to have fallen on the way of Khalid al-Walid's army, showed a meek resistance and Khalid slaughtered those fallen within his reach and pursued others running for their lives.

Although many Quraysh embraced Islam on that day, there were some who apparently persisted on practicing idolatry and they were allowed to enter the Ka'ba for worships but on paying toll to the Muslim guardian appointed by the Prophet. The Prophet now wanted to do away with the practice of idolatry not only in Ka'ba but the rest of Mecca and elsewhere. To achieve this goal, the verse 9:1-5 (slay the pagans wherever ye find them etc.) were revealed, which will be discussed more in detail here.

Now consider the verse 9:2 & 9:3:

[Q 9:2] Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

[Q 9:3] ...If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

So, Allah warned that the pagans were frustrating Him by sticking to paganism and urging them to repent and submit to Islam or else face Allah's wrath. However, they could only vacillate (go backwards and forwards) for another four months.

On the day of conquest of Mecca the earlier year, Allah and his apostle had promised the safety of the pagans at the pain of accepting defeat and acceding their territory to the Muslim rule. But how does the frustrated Allah, Who has lost patience by now, make those remnant pagans accept Islam unconditionally? Find it out in verses 9:1 and 9:3:

[Q 9:1] Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

[Q 9:3] And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger....

Here, Allah and His apostle abruptly break the treaty or obligation of protecting the idolaters made the earlier year. Once made Himself arbitrarily free of any obligation to the pagans, here is how He plots the complete annihilation of the vestiges of idolatry in verse 9:5.

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

Once the forbidden months, that is, the grace period of four months (Q 9:1, 9:4) is over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and you can use every strategic and deceptive means to accomplish this final goal of Allah. However, they will be spared only if embraced Islam and performed all the rituals and obligations binding on the Muslims. Hence, according to the Koran, the freedom of religion in Islam for the pagans/idolaters (like the Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists etc.) is acceptance of Islam or death. This is how Allah becomes Oft-forgiving and Most Merciful.

Finally in verse 9:28, Allah specify that complete prohibition of the pagans to enter the Ka'ba.

[Q 9:28] O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque . And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Now that the Ka'ba had been cleansed of idolatry, the Prophet could make his pilgrimage the following year in 632, which was also incidentally his last Hajj (farewell Hajj).

How about the Christians and Jews? Now that position of the idolaters in Islam has been made clear, I will now allude to the final status ordained to the Christians and Jews (people of the book) in Islam. Let us turn to verse 9:28 again. After prohibiting the entry of idolaters for worship and pilgrimage to Ka'ab, Allah recounts the worries of the Muslims as follows:

[Q 9:28] ...And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

How this fear of poverty is linked to the prohibition of the entry of the idolaters in Ka'ba? It is because, the Ka'ba had traditionally been a source of great revenue from tips/toll paid by pilgrims coming from far-flung places around Arabia. For this reason, the guardianship of Ka'ba had been the most coveted object amongst the Mecca tribes and was the centre of many disputes and dissensions. When the idolaters are not allowed to enter the Ka'ba, from where to get the lost revenues? It should be understood that in the original Islamic rules, Muslims are supposed to pay only the Zakat ( 2.5% of produce, profits) and nothing else. This practice was in vogue during the early period of Islam.

And here in verse 9:29, Allah devise the policy of making up for the lost revenues (from the Ka'ba) as promised in verse 9:28 (soon will Allah enrich you...):

[Q 9:29] Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The stubborn Jews and Christians, the so-called people of the book in Islam, need not convert to Islam. They can keep their religion by accepting subjugation and submission to the Muslim rule and paying Jizyah, which was to make up for the revenues lost from the coffer of Ka'ba as a result of complete prohibition of idolatry.

Idolatry, which is out and out disapproved by Allah, cannot be tolerated. However, the people of the book, despite the faulty and unperfected nature of their religion, can be tolerated but at a price, which is accepting subjugation (lower status) to the supreme and perfect truth of Islam and by paying the Jizyah. After all, same Allah was the architect of those religions which must contain His partial truth and guidance. On the hand, religion of idolatry, paganism or heathenism holds no truth but complete falsehood and is an affront to the almighty creator and must be annihilated.

Modern educated Muslims' spreading the cooked-up notion of Islam's according 'total religious freedom to all other religions,' thus, amounts to misinforming, misleading and spreading falsehood. This has been called the spreading of mischief and hypocrisy, that is, fitnah or al-fasad in the Islamic jargons. The punishment for spreading fitnah in Islam is death, crucifixion or cutting-off hands and feet from opposite ends.

References

1. Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah, trs. A Guillaume) Oxford University Press, Karachi.

2. William Muir, The Life of Mahomet , Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002.

3. WM Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1981

4. WM Watt (2), Islam and The Integration of Society , Routledge & Kegan Paul; London, 1961

-------
Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - A Fact or Fiction? Part 1

Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - A Fact or Fiction? Part 2

Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - A Fact or Fiction? Part 3

Alamgir Hussain — Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:03:22 EST

Conquest of Mecca and Quraysh pagans' embracing of Islam in great number

Apologist moderate Muslims also typically cite the allegedly peaceful entry of Muslim army into Mecca in 630 and the conversion of large number of the Quraysh to Islam under no duress. Brig. Zaman also did not miss the same as he wrote: "The Muslims occupied Makkah in January, 630 almost unopposed. Makkans in great numbers embraced Islam."

It is important to consider if the un-opposed entry of the Muslims into Mecca was because they were a peaceful and lovable people or because the Muslims were deadly and cruel enough to destroy the weak Mecca pagans had they opposed their entry. Weren't the fates of unfortunate Jewish clans of Medina alive in the minds of the Mecca pagan? How come, the Mecca citizens did not choose the religion of peace just two years earlier when Muhammad had led a pilgrimage to Mecca ? Instead, they had sought to prevent Muslims' entry into their city with their lives which resulted in the negotiated signing of the Hudaibiya treaty.

Is there any evidence that Muslims did any work of peace and love during those two intervening years after singing the Hudaibiya treaty, which might have convinced the Mecca pagan to convert to Islam in such great numbers as soon as the Muslim conquered Mecca in 630? No. Instead, Islamic history tells us that Muslims engaged in a number of aggressive and violent attacks, raids and expeditions against non-Muslim tribes and territories around Medina that came within their reach and power during those two intervening years. What then may have convinced the Mecca pagans to embrace Islam in such great numbers as soon as Muslims captured Mecca?

Let us examine what took place behind this mass conversion of the Quraysh pagans on the day of the Prophet's capture of Mecca. By discarding the treaty of Hudaibiya, the Prophet ordered preparation for attacking Mecca. He wanted to take the Quraysh by surprise and so he kept praying as the preparation went on: "O Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh so that we may take them by surprise in their land" [Ibn Ishaq, 544].

An invincible Muslim army approached near Mecca and camped at Marr al-Zahran at night each lighting fire to show to the Quraysh a glimpse of the huge army assembled. Catching a glimpse of the Muslim army, Al-Abbas who had joined the Muslim camp a while earlier said, "Alas, Quraysh, if the apostle enters Mecca by force before they come and ask for protection; that will be the end of the Quraysh forever".

Quraysh leader Abu Sufian, Prophet Muhammad's father-in-law, received the news and set off for a negotiation and mercy to his citizens. On the way, his brother Al-Abbas met him in the darkness and assured him protection and led him to the Prophet. On the way, Omar al-Khattab met them and seeing Abu Sufian, he cried out: " Abu Sufian, the enemy of God! Thanks be to God who has delivered you up with out agreement or word". He then rushed for his sword, adding: "Let me take off his head". [Ibn Ishaq, p547]

Al-Abbas overcame Omar on the ground of his promise of protection to Abu Sufyan and brought him to the prophet, who asked to bring him back the next morning. When brought back the next morning, the apostle said, "Isn't it time that you should recognize there is no God but Allah?" When Abu Sufyan showed hesitation, the apostle exclaimed, "Woe to you, Abu Sufian! Isn't it time that you recognized that I am the apostle of God?" To which he answered, "As to that I still have some doubt." At this point, Al-Abbas forcefully intervened and said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the apostle of god before you lose your head"; so he did. Then Al-Abbas requested the Prophet to do something for Abu Sufian's people in Mecca. The Prophet said, "He who enters Abu Sufian's house is safe, and he who locks his door is safe and he, who enters the mosque (become Muslim) is safe." [Ibn Ishaq, p547-48].

Here is the cruel saga behind Muslims' lofty claims of Muhammad's peaceful entry into Mecca and many Quraysh people's embracing of Islam in great numbers on that day under no compulsion. Of course, when 'entering the mosque', that is, 'becoming Muslims', is one of the two choices in face of the complete submission of their city to Muhammad's army, many Quraysh were to convert to Islam naturally. However, those stubborn ones who had persisted on practicing idolatry, did not have much time before they were forced to convert to Islam on the pain of death (see the conclusion).

Muhammad's display of great kindness and forgiveness to the Quraysh

Another gigantic claim Muslims make is about Prophet Muhammad's display of great generosity and forgiveness to the citizens of Mecca for sparing their lives. This is also a proof of the Prophet's kindness towards his enemies and tolerance towards people of pagan religion. Muslims give such an impression that never in history, such accordance of forgiveness and tolerance was shown by any leader in the world.

Let us first consider why the pagans of Quraysh should be considered such great enemies by the Muslims at all, which warranted forgiveness. The bitterness of the rivalry between the Quraysh of Mecca and the Muslims has been clearly outlined once by Allah in the Quran:

"[Quran 2:217] They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can ..."

The Prophet also describes his rivalry with the Quraysh in the battle field of Badr. As the dead-bodies of the slain Koreish were being unceremoniously thrown into a mass-grave, an indignant Prophet yelled over them:

"Oh people of the pit, you evil kinsfolk of your prophet. Have ye now found true that which your Lord did promise to you? What my Lord promised to me, that have I verily found to be true. Woe unto these people! Ye have rejected me, your Prophet! Ye cast me forth, and others gave me refuge; ye fought against me, and others came to my help!" [Ibn Ishaq, p305-6]

These statements of the Quran and the Prophet clearly say that the faults of the pagans were their non-acceptance of Muhammad's new religion, advising others not to accept it, and stopping him from entering the Ka'ba (which was pagan's sacred temple for centuries), which resulted in the Prophet's relocation to Medina (seeing a better prospect of success of his religion there). Islamic literature does not list any incidence of violence by the Quraysh against Muhammad and his converts except some of their slaves who had converted. By 'ye fought against me', the Prophet probably meant the fighting and wars that were initiated by the Prophet after relocating to Medina since there is no incidence of fights between them when the Prophet was living in Mecca.

The Quran is hateful to non-Islamic religions, people and their cultures on every page. The Quraysh tolerated the preaching of such hateful messages for 12 years before Muhammad relocated to Medina (al-Hijrah). The Quran also makes a claim on the Ka'ba, the most sacred temple of the pagans in Arabia for centuries, as the house of Allah, the God of Muhammad's new religion. After all these, they never tortured or attacked him other than putting the Muslims under social exclusion for two years, which is very much a civilized measure in even today's standard.

This most tolerant and civilized gestures of the Quraysh were termed as 'tumult and oppression' which were worse than slaughter in the eyes of Allah and His prophet. So, Muhammad started attacking the Quraysh caravans and killing their people which resulted in a number of blood-letting confrontations. Muhammad disrupted most of the trading pathways of the Quraysh causing great sufferings to them. On top of that, when Muhammad became strong enough, he disregarded an existing treaty and attacked Mecca, captured the Ka'ba and destroyed the idol-gods therein, which were revered by the citizens for centuries. It appears that Muhammad had not yet had enough of barbaric brutalization of the Quraysh of Mecca. Muslims of all shades think that the Quraysh had committed such unpardonable crimes that Muhammad was justified in slaughtering them all after capturing Mecca in 630.
----------

References

1. Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah, trs. A Guillaume) Oxford University Press, Karachi.

2. William Muir, The Life of Mahomet , Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002.

3. WM Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1981

4. WM Watt (2), Islam and The Integration of Society , Routledge & Kegan Paul; London, 1961

Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - A Fact or Fiction? Part 1

Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - A Fact or Fiction? Part 2