KANWAR: We have heard your name in India, yet we do not know much about you. Will you tell me something about yourself?
SHAIKH: I was born in 1928 in a village near the city of Gujrat (Pakistan). Religion has been part of my family tradition. Naturally, I was brought up to be a scholar of Islam. To the best of my knowledge, it was my great grand father, who had embraced Islam. He was a Kashmiri Pandit. After conversion, he became an Imam-i-Masjid, a fervent preacher of Islam. My grandfather was conscious of his Brahmin ancestry, and resented if anyone spoke ill of the Vedas yet he could not return to his roots owing to the psychological grounding he had received over the years.
In Pakistan, I was a teacher and then became headmaster of a high school. Though economically life was bearable, socially it was not. I emigrated to Great Britain in 1956. After initial hardships, I struck lucky. At the height of business success, I suddenly realized that I wanted to do some reformative work instead of indulging in money-making. It was in 1978 that I started winding up my commercial activities and am glad that I did so because it gave me a chance to re-educate myself, especially in philosophy and religion.
KANWAR: I have read your book, "Islam - The Arab National Movement" which is becoming world famous rapidly. Did you write it to oppose Islam?
SHAIKH: Its purpose is not to oppose but to expose Islam: it is a serious work based on long research and personal experience. There is not one word of lie, insolence or intentional misrepresentation in this book. Since it is based on truth and nothing but the truth, it is an open challenge to those who use Islam as the tool for personal gain, politically and religiously.
So great is the force and authenticity of this book that no Muslim scholar has come forward so far to refute its contents.
KANWAR: Are you another Rushdie?
SHAIKH: I am being labelled as such. For example, the Urdu Daily Pakistan and Weekly Maharat of Lahore, have called me "a satan of much greater stature than Rushdie and Taslima," and the Daily Jang of London has described me, "a Rushdie whose writings are infinitely more dangerous to Islam than Rushdie and Taslima put together. " The Muslim readers of the Jang have written to that newspaper repeatedly begging the mullahs and other scholars of Islam to answer my questions to "save" Islam but they have deliberately kept quiet to the utter annoyance of the believers, who are really worried by the contents of "Islam - The Arab National Movement. " They had demonstrated against Rushdie in every country through public meetings, processions, slogans and murders, but about my book they have wilfully observed a conspiracy of silence because they do not want the world to know the truth about Islam. This clearly shows that I am the exact opposite of Rushdie. His work is fiction based on insult to the Prophet Muhammad and his family, whereas my book is a serious work founded on scholarship, reason and research. At the most, Rushdie is an artistic protestor whereas I am a challenger to the very concept of Islam.
KANWAR: I see. But has your book any relevance to India?
SHAIKH: My book has relevance to the entire mankind but it has especial relevance to India because before the coming of Islam, India was a prosperous, peaceful and proud country, which has not only been reduced to extreme poverty and ignorance by the Muslim predators and the Islamic rule, but has also been fragmented into geographical and political units.
The book clearly demonstrates that, as Islam seeks to impose Arab cultural imperialism on other nations through a doctrine of divide and murder, India and Islam cannot live together. This book is a must for India.
KANWAR: Do you realize that this book exposes you to serious danger? Aren't you afraid?
SHAIKH: Truth has its price which I am prepared to pay. I have not resorted to swearing or falsification simply to uphold the dignity of truth. Fear is a part of human nature and it will be wrong of me to deny it. However, I must add that by making me a martyr, they will sound the death-knell of Islam.
KANWAR: It is a revolutionary book with profound consequences. What prompted you to write it?
SHAIKH: This is an excellent question and proves your competence as a journalist. Having lived in the West for such a long time, one day it crossed my mind why the white people love their countries but the Muslims of India hate their Motherland. There is no exaggeration in it because they think of Bharat not as their Motherland but Darul Harb i. e. the battlefield, where people murder, plunder and deceive out of hatred and greed. Having given this point further thought I soon realized that Islam was based on the doctrine of hating and murdering non-Muslims and reducing them to the status of political slaves. It is totally false to say that Islam is the ambassador of international brotherhood. Again, it is completely untrue that the Muslims of all countries are one nation. It is the law of nature that nationality is constituted by blood ties and geographical boundaries, that is, the homeland. A nation being an expanded form of family, is subject to the familial rules of identity. Of course, a person can adopt another nationality quite legitimately but it is an exception and therefore cannot change the basic rule. Calling Muslims of all countries as one nation is wrong because all these nations have their separate homelands with their independent interests and different policies. Pakistan was soon split into two halves, i. e. Pakistan and Bangladesh. The government of Pakistan in 1951 stopped entry of all Indian Muslims into Pakistan despite the fact that they were the people who had made most sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan; even more shameful is the treatment of Pakistanis from Bihar, who stood by Pakistan against the Bangladeshis.
Muslim nationality is a myth which is extremely injurious to the non-Arab Muslims but highly beneficial to the Arabs. And this is what leads to the inevitable conclusion that Islam is not a religion but the Arab National Movement.
KANWAR: Good Lord! Is it what Islam is? Do you mind explaining this point a bit further?
SHAIKH: The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Muhammad: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims. Again, he stressed that in this struggle the Muslims would be victorious. This is exactly the theory Karl Marx had adopted after many centuries. Presenting his dialectical view of history he emphasized that all material progress owed itself to eternal social strife between the capitalists and the proletariats, in which the latter would win the struggle.
However, Karl Marx did not show the mastery that the Prophet Muhammad did: by creating the Two Nation Theory, he subjected all non-Arab Muslims to the cultural imperialism of Arabia. He achieved this purpose with a mind boggling subtlety: he made Arab-worship the cornerstone of Islam. Thus, those who embrace Islam naturally feel inferior to Arabia as a devotee believes in relation to his Goddess.
KANWAR: This is an unusual explanation of Islam. Can you tell me how the Prophet Muhammad raised the reverence of Arabia sky-high and made it an article of faith for his non-Arab followers?
SHAIKH: Here is a small summary of steps the Prophet took to realize his dream:
He declared that when Adam was evicted from paradise, he came to Mecca where he built the first House of God. Thus he identified Godliness with Kaaba, a Sanctuary of Mecca where God lives! Not only that, Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, also came to Mecca to rebuild the House of God!
For the purpose of imposing Arab psychological superiority on non-Arab Muslims, he decreed that they must prostrate five times a day facing Mecca. This is not only an act of submission to Mecca, the capital city of Arabia, but also proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God lives in Mecca; otherwise why should people prostrate in that direction?
A Muslim must not defecate himself or answer the call of nature facing Mecca. It is a blasphemous act in view of the sanctity of Mecca.
When Muslims die, they must be buried facing Mecca, which is the guarantee of their salvation.
To make sure that the Arabs enjoy economic opulence, the Prophet made Hajj an obligatory ritual for his followers. It is a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are countless Indian Muslims who sell their homes and personal belongings to undertake this journey. I can give many examples to this effect but it is enough to explain the real purpose of Islam.
KANWAR: It does show the Arab national tendency of Islam; but the non-Arab followers of Islam do not have to adopt a slavish attitude to the Arab national Institutions to prove their Islamic faith. Do they?
SHAIKH: I regret to say, Sir, like countless non-Muslims, you do not know the master stroke of the Prophet.
KANWAR: I have never heard of this master stroke before. Can you enlighten me in the interest of humanity?
SHAIKH: I am referring to the Prophet's declaration that Allah has made him the Model of Practice for his followers. It has come to mean that the Muslims must copy him in everything; they must eat, drink, walk and talk like him, even must look like him, that is, they grow beard like his, have a similar hair-cut and dress like him.
This is what is called following the Sunnah, i. e. the Prophetic Model which is the guarantee of salvation. One can easily say that Islam has been designed to induce love and respect for Arabia. There are express commands of the Prophet, which state that a person is not a Muslim until he loves him more than his own father and mother. The idea is that people must be weaned away from their own nationalities and motherlands and attached firmly to Mecca. This is the reason that the Muslims of India call their own homeland as the battlefield and Arabia the fountain of peace and celestial glory.
Now, it is perhaps, easy for you to understand why the Muslims of India partitioned their own Motherland for practicing the Arab cultural values in Pakistan (and Bangladesh).
KANWAR: What is likely to happen if the non-Arab Muslims do not follow the Prophet in loving Arabia even if it involves unpatriotic practices against their own homelands?
SHAIKH: The Muslims must love Arabia because the Prophet did so. They must follow him as the Divine Model of Practice. This is what Islam expects; if they don't, they are sure to enter hell because the Prophet will not intercede on their behalf.
KANWAR: What is intercession?
SHAIKH: This is the special power of the Prophet Muhammad. He will recommend paradise for his followers on the Day of Judgement. His recommendation is final and Allah cannot deny it. It is available to all murderers, rapists, arsonists, cheats, thugs, pickpockets and pimps provided they are followers of the Prophet.
On the contrary, all Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians will be cast into a flaming hell, no matter, how pious and God-fearing they may have been; piety has no meaning and value without believing Muhammad and the greatness of his homeland.
Intercession is the climax of the Prophet's national wisdom. It is this Muslim belief which gives them the hope of free sex and economic abundance, and they feel obliged to kill in the name of Islam. This is why they are ever ready to stab their motherland. After all, caring about one's country entails sacrifices whereas the comforts of paradise are sweet and splendid. And it is specially so when they involve no moral responsibility.
Kanwar: Poor India! "Islam - The Arab National Movement" seems to be the book, not only for every Indian, irrespective of religion, but also for every Pakistani and Bangladeshi as well. After all, they all belong to the Indian subcontinent. What have you done to propagate its contents?
SHAIKH: By writing this book, I have discharged my duty. Its propagation, I believe, is a duty of everyone.
KANWAR: Will you be prepared to allow translations of this book into various languages without expecting any financial reward?
SHAIKH: I shall be delighted to do so provided such task is undertaken for public good and not as a trade.
KANWAR: What is the price of the book and can people get in touch with you?
SHAIKH: The book costs 5 £ (pounds) only and the address is:
by Koenraad Elst. The Brussels Journal, November 30, 2006.
On 25 November 2006 the British Muslim apostate Anwar Shaikh died in his home in Cardiff. I would like to pay him homage by reproducing my review of one of his last books, Islam and Terrorism.
Anwar Shaikh was born in 1928 in Gujrat, now in Pakistan, in a Muslim family that vaguely remembered its pre-conversion Hindu origin as Kashmiri Pandits. In an age of mounting religious tensions, however, he grew up to be a committed Muslim. Come 1947 and the Partition of India, he was living in Lahore, a Hindu/Sikh-majority city expected to remain with India yet allotted to Pakistan because it was the metropolis of Muslim-majority West Panjab. Consequently, the city became the flashpoint of the worst interreligious violence, ending in its complete cleansing of non-Muslims. The young Anwar Shaikh took part in the Partition violence against Sikhs and Hindus, killing three Sikhs with his own hands. Terrorizing the non-Muslims seemed like the right and natural thing to do for a Pakistani.
In 1956 he quit his job as a schoolteacher, migrated to Britain and established himself as a successful businessman. In his new environment, he developed second thoughts about his native religion. He married a Welsh lady and made it a point to integrate fully in British society and culture. From 1973 onwards, he went public with his criticism of Islam. He started publishing a periodical for critical discussion of Islam, Liberty, in both English and Urdu, and a series of books on the relation between Islam and topics such as nationalism, violence and sexuality.
His demythologizing observations about the Prophet and the Quran caused considerable anguish among Britain-based Muslims, especially when the clerics they consulted failed to come up with a reassuring refutation. In the 1990s, he had the honour of being targeted by a number of Pakistani clerics with dire fatwas, finding him guilty of apostasy and of insulting the Prophet but mercifully confining the implied death sentence to the jurisdiction of properly constituted Islamic states. He ought to be safe as long as he doesn’t travel to an Islamic state. Nonetheless, his home is equipped with a number of security precautions.
In his book Islam and Terrorism (2004, Principality Publishers, Cardiff PO Box 918, Penarth Road, Cardiff, UK), Anwar Shaikh sets out to discover and reveal the scriptural and historical roots of Islam’s current involvement with terrorism. The question has been occupying the minds of some Indian scholars for decades, but after recent Islamic terror attacks on Western interests, it seems that it is at last being taken seriously by Western audiences, politicians and scholars. Many of them are no longer prepared to swallow the easy answer that terrorism is un-Islamic and that it is only advertised as an Islamic Holy War by misguided individuals unrepresentative of true Islam.
All those people who say that acts of terror such as those on 11 September 2001 are un-Islamic, should tell us on what grounds an Islamic court could sentence an Osama bin Laden. The basis of Islamic law is the Quran along with the Prophet’s sayings and conduct (which has the value of precedent). So, can an Islamic terrorist cite the authority of the Quran and the Prophet in his justification, or can these sources be invoked to the opposite effect?
The answer, Mr. Shaikh argues, is quite straightforward. He says that Mohammed himself was a terrorist, the most authoritative precedent for contemporary Islamic terrorists. To prove his point, he presents long lists of quotations from the Quran, the better-known Hadith (tradition of the Prophet) and also some lesser-known Hadith collections. In this respect, his book is a treasure-trove of first-hand data on the foundations of Islam and its doctrine of Holy War (Jihad).
Numerous canonical statements affirm that the Mujahid or Holy Warrior undoubtedly counts as the best among Muslims, e.g.: “Acting as Allah’s soldier for one night in a battlefield is superior to saying prayers at home for 2,000 years.” (from Ibn-e-Majah, vol.2, p.162) Or: “Leaving for Jihad in the way of Allah in the morning or evening will merit a reward better than the world and all that is in it.” (from Muslim, 4639) Jihad, while not a duty for every individual Muslim, is a duty on the Muslim community as a whole until the whole world has become part of the Islamic empire.
The cult of martyrdom is an intrinsic part of the doctrine of jihad: the martyr “will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him.” (Muslim 4635) And from Allah’s own mouth: “Count not those who were slain in God’s way as dead, but rather living with their Lord, by Him provided, rejoicing in the bounty that God has given them.” (Quran 3:163) Contrary to a recent tongue-in-cheek theory which reduces the heavenly reward for the fallen Mujahid from 72 maidens to mere grapes on the basis of some Arabic-Aramaic homonymy, a number of Prophetic sayings, in varied wordings mostly not susceptible to this cute Aramaic interpretation, confirm as Islamic belief that “the martyr is dressed in radiant robes of faith, he is married to houris (the paradisiac virgins)” etc. (Ibn-e-Majah, vol.2, p.174) This confirms that the suicide terrorists were not acting against Islamic tenets, as some soft-brained would-be experts in the media have claimed. On the contrary, to sacrifice one’s life in a jihadic operation against the unbelievers is the most glorious thing a Muslim can do.
In Jihad, it is perfectly permitted to deceive the unbelievers and subject them to terror. Anwar Sheikh provides all the scriptural references plus many precedents from history, which we cannot reproduce here. Suffice it to say there is ample evidence that Islam permits, and that by his personal example or by that of the men under his command, Mohammed has given permission for abduction, extortion, rape of hostages, mass-murder of prisoners, assassinations of enemies and dissidents, breaking of the conventions of civilized warfare, breaking of treaties, and suicide missions. From Osama bin Laden to the murderers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, the Islamic terrorists are faithful followers of the Prophet.
For all his grim discoveries about the religion of the Muslims, Shaikh is not anti-Muslim: “I was not only born and bred as a Muslim but also fought grimly for the glory of Islam. Even today, my loved ones are Muslim. There is no way I can be anti-Muslim.” (p.306) Being a European outsider to Islam, I always get nasty replies when I say that “the problem is not Muslims, the problem is Islam”; but here you have it from the horse’s mouth. It is perfectly possible to retain warm feelings for Muslims yet leave Islam and even criticize Islam.
He continues with some practical advice to Muslims. Setting an example in his own life, he is showing them the way to integration in non-Muslim societies: “I am a citizen of Great Britain, therefore I have a legal and moral obligation to live like other Britons and raise my children as British citizens, who are free to practice any religion they like.” (p.306) This is admittedly a difficult thing to do for the believing Muslim, for the practical core of Islam is not some theological doctrine but the observance of Islamic law, preferably under an Islamic polity but otherwise even in a non-Islamic society. The idea of allowing their children the freedom to choose their own religion, i.e. to choose against Islam and for an allegedly false religion, is abhorrent to most believers. Yet, it is what they have to do if they want to integrate into Western (c.q. Hindu) society.
Unfortunately, Shaikh finds that the number of Muslims ignoring this common-sense rule has crossed a critical threshold to a point where it negatively affects not only Muslim-non-Muslim coexistence, but even the non-Muslim host society itself: “The Muslims in this country have not fully appreciated the hospitality that they have received. (…) It is no crime to be a Muslim in this country but it is a crime to be a terrorist because terrorism has demolished many of those civil liberties for which the West has worked for a long time and given tremendous sacrifices to gain them. Now, they have created such conditions that safety is becoming impossible without identity cards, emergency laws which authorize imprisonment without a trial”, etc. (p.307)
Remember the good old days when the bobbies, Britain’s police constables, did their rounds without carrying guns? It cannot honestly be denied that the behavior of an ever-increasing number of young Pakistanis has contributed decisively to the sad discarding of this glorious tradition. Every non-brainwashed European can confirm that an influx of entire Muslim communities (as opposed to individuals or single families, who tend to blend in like most isolated immigrants do) has created a new set of problems for his society. The larger these Islamic islands in Western society become, the less willingness they show to adapt, and the more they insist on maintaining or restoring Islamic mores and laws within their communities and ultimately in society as a whole.
The one silver lining to the dark cloud of Islamic terrorism is that it alerts non-Muslim societies to the specificity of the problems which Islam poses. Westerners often feel guilty of xenophobia, “fear of what is strange or foreign”, when they criticize Islam. But the problem of Islam is not one of strangeness or foreign origin, as will readily become clear when you compare it with Buddhism. In Western culture, Buddhism is even stranger than Islam, which shares certain common roots with Christianity, yet people find Tibetans in their native dress colorful rather than threatening. There are no Buddhist gangs attacking peaceful citizens, nor are there Buddhist associations making separatist political demands such as the right to observe a separate law system. Buddhism may be strange, but informed people will agree that it is an enrichment to our society. Islam is less strange, yet its enriching contributions are unclear while its nuisance value is all too palpable. The stark reality of Islamic terrorism blows away the fog of doubt and timidity hitherto surrounding the painful question of how to evaluate Islam.
There is a general misconception that Islam seeks friendly relations with the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and the Christians. In fact, Islam is hostile to the members of these religious groups as it is to idolaters such as the Hindus. However, this is another matter that the Jews and the Hindus suffered terribly at the hands of Islam, but the Christians, though initially bore its brunt, eventually succeeded in stemming its tide in their lands.
No matter what the adherents of Islam claim about the brotherly outlook that this religion is supposed to have toward the non-Muslims, its basic doctrine, which seeks survival through intense communal strife, cannot be hidden. The Muslim scholars know this truth very well but they deliberately resort to misinterpretation. They do so, though falsely, to demonstrate that Islam is an eternal religion, which adapts itself to all ages and circumstances. Without this stance, Islam, the advocate of ferocious social principles and practices, cannot survive; it must have a humanitarian pretence in our age, dedicated to free speech and human rights. One must remember that it is only the Islamic countries, which amputate human limbs for trivial offenses, and hang people for the most innocent criticism of the Prophet.
I may come straight to the point and demonstrate that Islam gives no real preference to the People of the Book: the said tolerance is just a euphemism without any substance at all. It is because Islam declares itself to be the only true religion, which has the duty to dominate all other faiths, and eventually abolish them. See the truth for yourself:
“And when Allah took Compact with the Prophets: That I have given you of Book and Wisdom: then there shall come to you a Messenger confirming what is with you - you shall believe in him and you shall help him; do you agree? They said, 'We do agree'. Allah said, 'bear witness so, and I shall be with you among the witnesses'. Then whosoever turns his back after that - they are ungodly.” (III - The House of Imran: 75)
It is not easy to understand these verses. In a nutshell, they mean that even before people were created, Allah convened the assembly of the Prophets' (soul) and asked them to promise that they would tell the communities of their followers about the coming of Muhammad and instruct them to embrace his religion.
Obviously, Judaism and Christianity ceased to exist in principle, the moment Muhammad declared Islam. The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and practice them as such.
The Koran goes even as far as to declare about Abraham:
“No: Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one pure of faith; certainly he was never of the idolaters.” (III - The House of Imran: 60)
Abraham was the Jewish patriarch; by quoting him as a Muslim i.e. the follower of Islam, Muhammad claims that he observed the Compact that he made with Allah in the Assembly that He had convened before the creation of mankind. However, there is an ambiguity in the Koranic approach, which gives the impression that Islam is tolerant of the Jews and Christians:
“Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you: Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered'.” (XXIX: The Spider: 45)
These verses apparently indicate tolerance with the People of the Book i.e. the Jews and Christians. It is because at that time the Prophet was not militarily strong enough to impose his will on them. In fact, he tried a policy of carrot and stick. When persuasion failed, he told them what he thought of them:
“The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures...” (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolaters such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
“O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport...”
(V: The Table: 60)
In the same sura, the Koran states the same fact more emphatically:
“O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them...” (V: The Tables: 55)
It means that if a Muslim makes friends with a Jew or a Christian, i.e. becomes one of them i.e. a Kafir, that is an unbeliever. The People of the Book, unless they renounce their faith, are liable to become the victims of Jehad i.e. destruction by force of arms:
“... And he brought down those of the People of the Book who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror in their hearts; some you slew, some you made captive. And He bequeathed upon you their lands, their habitations, and their possessions, and a land you never trod. Allah is powerful over everything.”
(XXXIII - The Confederates: 25)
The above is the description of what happened to the Jews of Khyber, who were attacked without an ultimatum of war, and this practice was also repeated against the Christian tribes of Arabia.
Of course, the Koran treats Jesus as a Prophet of God and confirms that he had been given the power to perform miracles but it defies the Christian fundamentals. For example, it refutes the doctrine of Crucifixion, which holds that God made His Son the Sacrificial Lamb to carry away the people's burdens of sin:
“... for their saying, We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. Yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown them... God raised him up to Him...” (IV - Women: 155)
It means that God did not allow Jesus to suffer crucifixion, which is the kernel of the Christian faith. He raised him from the cross, and replaced him with someone, who looked like Jesus. Thus Islam destroys the very foundation of Christianity. Not only that, Islam subordinates Jesus to Muhammad. The hadith No. 287 of Sahih Muslim, volume one, states:
“...the son of Mary will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jeziya...”
One must try to understand the sophistication of this hadith: it means that Jesus will come to destroy crosses, that is, he will abolish Christianity; kill all swine, whose flesh Islam forbids, and eliminate Jeziya, the poll tax which the Koran imposes on non-Muslims. It demonstrates that the purpose of Christ's coming is to expunge all faiths including Christianity and Judaism, and enforce Islam for removing the need to impose Jeziya. Thus, Jesus has been allotted a subordinate role, and this in full accord with the Compact that all Prophets had made with Allah in the (imaginary) Assembly, before creation.
To prove the friendly attitude of Islam toward the Jews and Christians, it is claimed that it allows intermarriages between the Muslims and the People of the Book. It is a misrepresentation of the Islamic doctrine of marriage:
“Anyone of you, who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing free women in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hands own...so marry them with their people's leave, and give them their wages honorably as women in wedlock, not as license or taking lovers.”
(IV - Women: 25)
Here one can see whether a woman is free or a handmaid, a Muslim (man) cannot marry her unless she is a believer, that is a Muslim woman.
Also look at the following:
“O, Prophet, We (Allah) have made lawful for thee thy wives whom thou hast given their wages and what the right hand owns, spoil of war that Allah has given thee.” (XXXIII - The Confederates: 45)
When women of the defeated foe fall into the hands of the Muslim warriors, they count as the 'Spoils of War' and become property of the conqueror. Thus, morality and respect for the fair sex go out of the window. Such unfortunate women rank as concubines. While the Roman Law during the times of Muhammad prescribed death for the master if he indulged in carnal relationship with his slave-girl, Islam permitted sexual intercourse with her at will, but did not allow marriage with her unless she embraced Islam. Being Jewish or Christian counted for nothing. The Muslim jurists who claim that Islam allows marriage between the adherents of Islam and Jewish-Christian people, have no validity in Sunnah, the practice of the Prophet. There are some precedents rooted in Muslim Spain which show that some Muslim men did marry Christian women occasionally, but it can be stated with complete certainty that a Muslim man never gave his daughter to a Christian man. This marital concession was a show of Muslim superiority, and nothing else; necessity could be another factor: Spain was a Christian country and could not be ruled by sheer brute force; some political inducement was necessary.
However, it is against the Sunnah for a Muslim man to enter into a spousal contract with any non-Muslim woman whether she be Jewish or Christian, because these people have been declared by the Koran as "the worst of creatures."
The exact number of the Prophet's concubines is not known, but he had at least two, in addition to his wives; one of them was Marya (Mary), a very pretty Coptic Christian. She bore him a son, Ibrahim, who died in infancy. In fact, they were two sisters: the other being Shirin. They were sent to Muhammad as gifts by the Egyptian governor. The Prophet gave Shirin to his grandson, Hassan, who was a boy of about thirteen at that time. At the death of Ibrahim, the Prophet remarked that, had Ibrahim lived, the Prophethood would have continued after him (Muhammad) and he would have freed his (Ibrahim's) mother and uncles!
Rihana, a Jewish girl of great beauty was another concubine of the Prophet. She belonged to the tribe of Banu Quraizah. Her husband was among those 800 unlucky Jewish men, who were beheaded with Muhammad's consent under his supervision. The Prophet offered to marry her but she would not give up her Jewish faith. So she had no choice but to become his concubine. On the contrary, Juwairya, who belonged to Banu Mustaliq, a Jewish tribe, when fell into the lot of Muhammad as his share of the war booty, he married her because she accepted Islam.
It is difficult to describe effectively in such a short article the Islamic attitude toward the People of the Book and the Kafirs such as Hindus and Sikhs. The writer intends to write a series of essays to explain the true situation.
Islam is one faith, which has divided humanity into two permanently warring factions: those who believe in Allah and Muhammad, are the God's Party, and those who do not, are the Devil's Party. The former have the most sacred duty to eliminate and subdue the latter. So urgent is this purpose that Islam not only encourages its followers to murder, plunder and seduce the women of the infidels but also projects such murder, plunder and seduction as the greatest virtues. Islam calls it "Jehad", which guarantees the Mujahid (holy warrior) salvation i.e. a seat in Paradise.
Since Jehad is the sure means of access to paradise, the abode of choicest carnal-delights-after-death, sex and violence combine to form the basic approach of Islam to coax man into a web of salvation. This is the most effective exploitation of his natural fear and sense of uncertainty.
What is Jehad? Let the Koran explain it:
"God has bought from the faithful their selves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill and get killed; that is a promise binding on Allah... (Repentance, 9: 110)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled." (Repentance, 9: 25)
The above two Koranic verses delineate that Jehad is a binding contract between Allah and Muslims to the following effect:
Whatever a Muslim possesses, including his life, belongs to Allah in return for paradise.
Allah is bound by His promise to offer paradise to a Muslim provided he willingly kills and gets killed for His pleasure.
The Muslims must fight non-Muslims.
Non-Muslims are all those people, who do not believe in Islam (the religion of truth). Thus People of the Book i.e., the Jews and Christians, are equally infidels like the Hindus, the Buddhists, the atheists, etc., and must be killed unless they submit before the Islamic sword and live as tributaries (zimmie) to acknowledge their humiliation through payment of Jaziyah i.e. Poll Tax.
Jehad automatically becomes obligatory on a Muslim when people do not practice what Allah and Muhammad have prescribed as the proper way of life.
The following are the cardinal points of Jehad and must be noted carefully for proper understanding of this discussion:
(a) Jehad is all about massacre, mutilation and misery, and not about any moral, social or humanitarian service as the Muslim divines pretend.
Again, there is a direct connection between jehad (murdering non-Muslims) and paradise i.e. the provision of the choicest sex-after-death in the most hilarious settings ebullient with pleasures, presents and pleasantries.
Having sex after death is a novel concept, which can be realized by terrorizing, tearing and tyrannizing the non-Muslims. The commission of atrocities against infidels makes Allah honor-bound to offer paradise as a gift to a Muslim!
(b) Islam is the only true way of life: the rest is fake, foul and felonious; the People of the Book i.e., the Jews and Christians, are not believers but infidels. They must be murdered or enslaved.
The True Way of Life i.e., Islam, has been prescribed by Muhammad and Allah jointly, and not just by Allah. This is the reason that Kalmah i.e. the fundamental confession that purifies one to become a Muslim, allots an equal status to Allah and Muhammad. Look at the wording of the Kalmah:
“There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is His Apostle.”
Stating them both in one line makes them equal, but when we examine it carefully it transpires that in practice this confession pertains to Muhammad only because a person cannot be a Muslim by believing in Allah alone; he/she must believe in Muhammad as well! A hadith says:
“I (Muhammad) have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no God but Allah, and believe in me (Muhammad) as the Messenger (from the Lord)...and when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law.” (Muslim 1: 31)
The hadith makes it crystal clear that not only belief in Muhammad is equally imperative, but all guarantees of protection are to be issued in his name! Thus Allah is just a figure-head, who leaves all administrative affairs to Muhammad! This is what makes Allah a scabbard and Muhammad the sword; it lowers the former to the position of skimmed milk and elevates the latter to the status of cream!
Allah has been made to perform for Muhammad the function of early dawn, which acts as a temporary curtain and then disappears when the sun reveals its face. Allah is just a euphemism for Muhammad and Jehad is the medium to disclose this truth by raising Muhammad to the summit.
This indirect approach of Muhammad displays his wisdom, wonder and wizardry. He apparently claimed to be the humble servant of Allah and sought His glory "only". This approach involved opposition to idolatry and therefore caused him a lot of trouble, torment and torture. This showed that he had no ax to grind in his mission. The analysis of the Kalmah and his success-story, however, clearly demonstrate that he opposed idolatry, to destroy all statues so that he himself could be the only idol!
Again, Allah was the God of *Arabia, who appeared as a popular suffix in ordinary names; for example, Muhammad's father's name was Abd Allah (the servant of Allah). Because of this popularity, his *1) idol was worshipped in the Kaaba, and it was ascribed to the Koresh, the tribe of Muhammad; this fact bestowed a good deal of reverence and social advantages on them. Claiming to be the Prophet of Allah and suffering for his cause could not go unnoticed indefinitely.
This is the reason that Muhammad chose to be Allah's Prophet. In fact, he claimed to have been *2) forced by Allah to act as His Vicar. It happened when Muhammad meditated in a desert cave called Hira. To his amazement, there appeared the Angel Gabriel with a written message from Allah though Muhammad was illiterate! He commanded Muhammad:
Read: In the name of thy Lord (Allah) who created. Createth man from a clot.
Read: It is thy Lord the Most Bountiful who teacheth pen, teacheth man that which he knew not.
The Islamic doctrine makes it abundantly clear that just faith in Allah does not make anyone a Muslim; he must believe in both Allah and Muhammad. Does it not mean that Allah is nothing without Muhammad or, more properly, Allah and Muhammad are one and the same person? In fact, the proper conclusion is that Muhammad is Allah because people could communicate with Muhammad and not Allah. Again, it was Muhammad's word which counted as Allah's Word, and Allah was nothing but as Muhammad portrayed Him. Yet, the Koran occasionally describes Muhammad as Allah's slave! Do slaves control their masters? What an inconsistency it is!
If we delve deeper into the Koran, it transpires that Muhammad is, in fact, a human who masterfully substitutes himself for Allah: See for yourself the subtlety he exercised in achieving this goal:
(a) He integrated his name with that of Allah in the Kalmah, despite the fact that it is absolutely unnecessary to do so. Why? Because the Prophet has no duty to guide people; it is exclusively Allah's function:
1. "Thou (Muhammad) art not responsible for guiding them, but God guides whomsoever He will." (The Cow: 275)
2. "Your Lord knows you very well; if He will, He will have mercy on you, or, if He will, He will chastise you; We (Allah) sent thee not to be a guardian over them..." (The Night Journey: 55)
This verse clearly states that Muhammad himself, being subject to Allah's mercy and punishment, has not been appointed a guardian over people -- he is just a warner and a human. Yet he combines his name with that of Allah to become His equal!
(b) Muhammad's scheme of Divinity springs from his Urge of Dominance; it is well measured, right from the beginning. With a view to gaining people's confidence and to assure them that he has no personal interest in the matter, he presents himself as a humble person:
1. "So go thou (Muhammad) straight, as thou hast been commanded, and whoso repents with thee, and be you non insolent; surely He (Allah) sees the things you do." (Hood: 114)
2. "Proclaim thy Lord's praise, and be of those that bow, and serve they Lord, until the Certain comes to thee." (El-Hijr, 15: 95)
3. "This is the wisdom thy Lord has revealed to thee: Set not up with God another God, or thou will be cast into Hell, reproached and rejected." (The Night Journey: 40)
These verses clearly show that Muhammad is liable to go astray like other humans, and is subject to the punishment of hell. He must praise Allah by bowing and bending before Him so that he is guided.
(c) The Prophet is subject to Divine punishment because he is human and nothing else:
1. "...say glory be to my Lord! I am nothing but a mortal, a messenger." (The Night Journey: 95)
2. "Say, I have only been commanded to serve God, and not to associate anyone with Him. To Him I call, and to Him I turn." (Thunder: 35)
Even more than this, the Prophet is a mortal and subject to resurrection:
3. "You art mortal; and they (other people) are mortal, then on the Day of Resurrection before your Lord you shall dispute." (The Companies: 475)
(d) The Prophet has no supernatural powers, whatever:
"And I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner." (The Sand-Dunes: 5)
Even Allah confirms Muhammad's humanity loud and clear:
"Know you therefore that there is no God but Allah, and ask forgiveness for your sins, and for the believers, men and women." (Muhammad: 20)
One must realize that Muhammad adopted an approach of humility and humanity when he was weak; it was a ploy to assure his followers that he had no ax to grind in the mission he preached; he was just carrying out a duty allotted to him by Allah, but as he grew stronger, his style underwent a marked change, which clearly demonstrates that he wanted to be acknowledged as the Divine, and Allah was just a euphemism for Muhammad. Look at the following:
1. "Obey God and the Messenger (Muhammad), haply so you will find mercy." (The House of Imran: 125)
2. Whoso obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens..." (The Spoils: 25)
Having included his name with that of Allah for obedience, Muhammad claims to be coextensive with Him. As Allah asserts to be nearer to man than his jugular vein, the Koran declares about Muhammad:
"The Prophet is nearer to the believers, than their selves." (The Confederates: 5)
(f) Muhammad's next step is to share Divine power and declare his co-sovereignty with Allah: "It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have a choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger has gone astray into clear error." (The Confederates: 35)
(g) Having shared the authority to make decisions with God, Muhammad begins to participate in Allah's vision to see the Unknown, though previously it was exclusive to Him:
"Knower He of the Unseen, and He discloses not His unseen to anyone, except only to such a messenger as He is well pleased with." (The Jinn: 25)
(h) As Muhammad's following multiplies through battles and allure of booty, he declares that his opinions and recommendations are binding on Allah, and thus he secures an edge over the Almighty. Despite his previous statements that "Justice belongs to Allah, He is the best of all judges and he (Muhammad) himself does not know what will become of him," the Koran declares:
"Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty." (The Darkening: 15-20)
Muslims quote this verse to prove that Muhammad has the intercessory powers. They believe that, on the Day of Judgment, he will share the Throne of Justice with God. He will sit on the right hand side of Allah and his recommendations will be binding on the Almighty!
(i) Then the ultimate happens; the situation is reversed completely:
"God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet, O believers, you must also bless him, and pray him peace." (The Confederates: 55)
In every religion, it is man who worships God, but in Islam, it is God and his angels, who worship Muhammad, and the ordinary believers are required to follow them. Praying peace to Muhammad is an integral part of the Islamic rituals such as DAROOD and NAMAZ; they are performed at least five times a day, and are the true form of worship. Yet, the Muslims claim that their religion is monotheistic, that is, they believe in, and worship one God!
This is a travesty of the truth, and hence the most stunning Koranic inconsistency. Its fountain is man's dominance-urge, which goads him to achieve the highest point of power and prestige. As Godhead is the apex of might and reverence, projecting oneself to be God and worshipped as such, comes to man as a natural folly. Since fake Godhead is the exact opposite of true Divinity, there are countless tin-gods in all religions imposing themselves on ordinary folks in one form or another through deception, violence and trickery.
All aspirants to godhead are not bold and daring to claim Divinity directly. Therefore, they start exaggerating the magnificence of their established prophets and messiahs to distinguish themselves as saints, crusaders and protectors of the faith. The priest and politician are the worst culprits in this field for using religion as the source of livelihood, securing followers and achieving political ambitions.
Just look at the following to realize how some Muslim zealots have drummed up the sanctity of Muhammad out of all proportions:
When Muhammad was born, the whole house was filled with light, and the stars in the sky bowed to such an extent as if they were about to fall on the earth.
The fire-worshippers of Iran noticed that their temple-hearth, which had been lit for a thousand years, turned ice-old.
Muhammad was born circumcised and detached from the *umbilical cord and there was no pollution on his body at the time of birth as is the case with every human baby.
SHAIKH AHMAD SIRHANDI who is considered a MUJADDAD, described a hadith in one of his letters, which describes the Prophet as saying: "I have been created from the Divine Light."
A hadith of JAME TIRMZE, Vol. 2, claims that Muhammad was a Prophet when the body and soul of Adam were still in the making.
Instead of commenting on all the above items, I may explain these exaggerations with reference to #5 only.
In this connection, the following Koranic statement is quite informative:
“And when God took compact with the Prophets: That I have given you of Book and Wisdom; then there shall come to you a Messenger confirming what is with you -- you shall believe in him and you take my load on you on that condition? They said, "We do agree". God said, "Bear witness so, and I shall be with you among the witnesses. Then whosoever turns his back after that they are the ungodly.” (The House of Imran)
Since umbilical cord is the only source of supplying nourishment, the baby in the womb cannot stay alive without being attached to it. If this fable were true, Muhammad would have lived without food and water after birth, but he did need food and water like everybody else. In fact, people said, since he ate food and moved about in the streets like other humans, he would not be a prophet. He retorted that all prophets ate and drank, and moved about in the streets as he did.
In a nutshell, the above statement means that before Adam was created, God made a covenant with the future Prophets that they would acknowledge Muhammad as the Prophet and also tell their followers to believe in him. If they did not keep the pact, they would become ungodly.
It shows that the dictates of Dominance-Urge can be tremendously violent. Muhammad wanted to be followed not only by ordinary people but also by the other prophets!
One wonders how Allah made a pact with the Prophets before even they were born? If they existed before the creation, they must have received the Holy Status through Allah's guidance, which enabled them to cultivate a special relationship with Him.
The Koran contradicts it openly and decisively:
“And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit in Our Command. Thou knowest not what the Scripture was, not what the faith. But we made it a light whereby We guide whom We will of our bondsmen.” (XLII - Counsel: 50)
In simple language, it means that Muhammad was unguided and knew nothing about the True Faith until Allah revealed Scripture (the Koran) to him! He claimed to have received his first revelation when he was forty. Until then, he was unguided. Therefore, he could not have been created from God's light. Thus, all these tales connected with his birth are nothing but glorified forgeries of those who wanted to cash in on his achievements as a great man.
If this is not enough, look at the following:
“That Allah may forgive thee (Muhammad) of thy sin that which is past and which is to come, and may perfect his favor unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path.” (XLVIII - Victory: 21)
This verse is supposed to be related to the Pact of HUDAIBIYA, when Muhammad was over fifty years old. Here the Koran testifies to the following facts:
Muhammad had committed sins in the past.
He would commit sins afterward as well, and
he needed Allah's guidance to walk on the right path and thus lacked the virtue of self-guidance. How could he have guided others?
Now it is clear that Prophethood is just a device of dominance, which enables a person to project himself as divine. The Prophet Muhammad used it more effectively than anyone else. Jesus, "the Prophet of Bethlehem" could only claim to be the Son of God through his stratagem but Muhammad established himself to be Allah's superior, who worships him along with His angels. This is the highest blasphemy and the most horrible insult to God. Yet Islam claims to be the only true religion of God! What a travesty of truth it is!
It shook my faith in Islam as the divine religion for two reasons: firstly, I could not understand how come that in Islam it is God who worships Muhammad but in other faiths, it is people who adore the Almighty. Secondly, these verses are not in keeping with the basic spirit of the Koran. Thus, if the Koran contradicts itself on the most fundamental issue, it cannot be the Book from God.
The primary purpose of the Koran is:
“I (Allah) have not created...and mankind except to worship Me. I desire of them no provision...” (The Scatterers, 51: 55)
Since Muhammad was born as a human, lived as a human and died as a human, the purpose of his birth, according to the Koran, was also to worship Allah, and not the other way around.
In fact, the Koran (after formal description of Allah the Merciful and Compassionate) begins with the following:
“Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all Being.” (The Opening, 1: 1)
Again, the Koran repeats:
“Praise belongs to God the Lord of all Being.” (The Cattle, VI: 45)
In fact, Allah has obsession for praise:
“Say (Muhammad): If the sea were ink for the Words of my Lord, the sea would be spent before the Words of my Lord are spent...”
“Say (Muhammad) I am only a mortal the like of you (ordinary people); it is revealed to me that your (people's) God is One God. So let him, who hopes for the encounter with his Lord work righteousness, and not associate with his Lord's service anyone.”
(The Cave, 18: 105-110)
In view of the above verses, it is blasphemous even to think that God, along with His angels, is busy praising Muhammad day and night.
The Prophet Muhammad was not a dreamer but a practical man. His plan for achieving Godhead was well thought out: he prepared a scheme of nationalism, which revolved around his personal glory. He decided to raise a strong Arab nation, which must be conditioned to his name and carry the flag of his Divinity as a victor throughout the world. This is why he inspired his people with the fiery spirit of nationalism to build a large Arab Empire. Look at the following hadiths which establish this truth beyond a shadow of doubt:
1. Paradise lies under the shades of swords. (Albokhari, Vol. 4)
2. The Prophet said, "Before long, you (the Arabs) will conquer many countries and cities. Qazvin, shall be one of such places. The person who takes part in that battle for forty nights or forty days, will be given a gold pillar in paradise encrusted with jades and rubies. He will enjoy residing in a palace, having seventy thousand gates, and each gate shall be attended by a houri as his wife." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 169)
The Prophet said:
3. "Acting as Allah's soldier for one night in a battlefield is superior to saying prayers at home for 2,000 years." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 166)
4. The Prophet said: "He who travels to participate in a Jehad, the dust he encounters in the process, shall become fragrance for him on the Day of Judgment. (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 167)
Here is a hadith, which confirms the Prophet's imperial designs. He obviously dreamt of an Arab Empire which stretched far beyond its own frontiers to envelop a major part of the world.
The Prophet said:
5. "The one who receives martyrdom in a sea-battle is equal to two martyrs of a land-battle..." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 168)
6. The Prophet said: "He who reared a horse for the sole intention of using it in a Jehad, then he will be rewarded one virtue for each grain he gave the horse as a feed." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 172)
7. The Prophet said: "If a man participates in a Jehad for only as long as it takes to milk a she-camel, he becomes entitled to paradise." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 173)
8. The Prophet said: "The superior Jehad is the one in which both the crusader and his horse are wounded." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 173)
9. The Prophet said: "A martyr (in Jehad) is dressed in radiant robes of faith: he is married to houries and is allowed by Allah to intercede for seventy men (i.e. he is authorized by God to recommend seventy men for entry into paradise, and his intercession is sure to be granted.) (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 174)
10. The Prophet said: "O people, learn archery and horse riding Beware! archery means power. He who learnt archery, and thereafter, gave it up, he disobeyed me." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 178)
11. The Prophet said: "Whatever one spends to facilitate Jehad, Allah shall give him a reward which will exceed his contribution 700 times." (Tirmzi, Vol.1, p.697)
12. "A man who was eating dates, said to the prophet 'Where shall I be if I am killed in Jehad?' He replied: 'In paradise.' The man threw away the dates and fought until he was killed." (Sahih Muslim: 4678)
13. The Prophet said: "He who murders another, property of the murdered becomes property of the murderer." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 183)
14. The Prophet said: "fighting is (art of deceit)." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 182)
The above is a small selection of hadiths, which clearly display the purpose of the Prophet; he wanted to raise a nation of Arab warriors, who must seek international distinction by building an Arab Empire and humble every one in his name as the prophet of Allah. This Allah, in fact, is just a euphemism for Muhammad because He does what He is told by Muhammad, who uses Allah's name simply to give his own commands a godly status, which infused his message with a supernatural appeal, persuading people to believe paradise full of houries and boys. The sex-starved Arabs, who also suffered pangs of hunger, eagerly seized this Divine opportunity, which promised, not only gratification of lust, and release from starvation, but also guaranteed secular suzerainty and splendor. This approach in the name of God is a gross insult to the Almighty, who stoops to the lowest level to gain worshippers by offering them sex, and treating murder, rape and pillage as the highest morality!
The Prophet's message was basically packed with the spirit of Arab nationalism, though having the beguiling veneer of internationalism. As Arab dominance gripped foreign nations, they embraced Islam to avoid payment of Poll Tax (Jaziya) and escape the humiliation reserved for the Zimmies i.e. the non-Muslims living under their Arab rulers. As non-Arab Muslims, such as the Turks, who became powerful, realized that Jehad was the best way of achieving national unity and dominance by inciting their people to murder and plunder foreigners as the highest morality, sanctioned by Allah, they adopted Jehad as their way of life, though originally, the Prophet had devised it for his own people. Here is the evidence to this effect:
(a) "Seeing a Persian bow in the hand of a person, the Prophet commanded him to throw that away, and use the other (Arab) bow and spear because Allah shall help you to conquer other countries with the Arab bows and spears." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 177)
(b) The Prophet said: "O, Children of Ishmael, learn archery because Ishmael was an archer." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 178)
One ought to remember that Ishmael was the ancestor of Muhammad and his people, the Arabs. In this hadith, he is clearly stating the purpose of Jehad: he is training them to unite themselves as soldiers of Allah, the Arabian God, to humble and plunder foreigners.
Since killing is not an easy task, the Prophet as we have already seen, named it as Jehad. Appealing to human greed, he declared plunder and murder as sacred and lawful. Again, he made it a matter of pure faith so that nobody should put the theory of Jehad to rational test: he laid it down that "Islam is the only approved religion of Allah (V. 5) and emphasized that no other religion is acceptable to God (III: 75). Thus, all non-Muslims were declared enemies of Allah:
The hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is Allah who beguiles them. (Women: 142)
The unbelievers schemed against Allah, and Allah schemed against them; and Allah is the best schemer. (The Family of Imran: 54)
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. (The Cow: 161)
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (The Cow: 98)
The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe. (Spoils of War: 55)
Allah plots against unbelievers. (The Morning Star: 15)
Eventually, as we see in the Disputer, LVIII: 20, the Koran divides people into Momins (Muslims) and Kafirs (Infidels). The former are called as God's party and the latter, Satan's party. The Momins, who are assured victory, are charged to be permanently at war with the Kafirs.
This is what makes Jehad the way of life for every Muslim.
Having trained the Arabs militarily, the Prophet laid down the following rules (as found on p. 188-189 of Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2) to conquer the world:
When you meet an enemy (infidels) give them three choices:
Invite them to embrace Islam (which actually means acknowledging the Lordship of Muhammad).
If they do not accept the proposal, then they must surrender and pay tribute, and
if they reject both alternatives, then fight them mercilessly:
"It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter...Eat what you have taken as booty; it is lawful and good." (The Spoils, 8: 65)
This is how the fury of Islamic Jehad was unleashed on the world. With a view to explaining its historical role, I will describe the following:
The Battle of Badr, which sows the seeds of Jehad.
The Battle of Tours, which demonstrates that had Charles Martel not checked the further Arab advance into Europe, Civilization, as we know it, would have been crucified on the altar of Jehad.
Jehad and Spiritual Imperialism -- the story of Muslim predators in India and its lethal consequences.
The Battle of Badr is a tiny event by any stretch of the imagination, yet it has significantly influenced the course of human history. A deeper study of the episode reveals that this mole assumed mountainous proportions because it served as the first practical exposition of the Islamic doctrine known as JEHAD.
'Jehad' is an Arabic word, which literally means 'endeavor', but as an Islamic doctrine, it implies fighting in the way of Allah (the Arabic God) to establish His supremacy over unbelievers until they relinquish their faith to become Muslims or acknowledge their subordination by paying a humiliation-tax called JAZIYA.
Jehad is a perpetual war against infidels which include Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Deists, Skeptics as well as Jews and Christians. According to this doctrine, a person's biggest crime is to deny Allah and Muhammad's exclusive right to be believed in and adored. Therefore, this is a sufficient cause for a Muslim state to raid and subjugate non-Muslim territories. What is amazing is the fact that Allah bribes the Muslims to wage Jehad by declaring murder, arson, rape and enslavement of non-Muslims as the greatest piety whereas even an ordinary human thinks of them as the most heinous atrocities and acts of utter moral degradation.
Can Allah be really a righteous God or is it just a manipulation of the concept of Allah to establish Arab Cultural Imperialism? To answer these questions we want to look into the geographical background of Arabia because physical conditions of a land play a major role in determining its habits and culture:
The economic plight of Arabia created a pastoral society which had developed into two groups: firstly, the majority, known as the Bedouins, who had not only to keep wandering in search of pastures but also supplement their meager livelihood by resorting to brigandage, which meant raiding other tribes and commercial caravans. Though it was sheer looting, it assured them solace, security and survival, and, therefore, it was not looked down upon as sinful but a source of power, pleasure and prestige. This institution of brigandage known as ghazwa (razzia) had existed long before the advent of prophet Muhammad, the greatest Arab national hero. The Umayyad poet al-Qutami has alluded to this custom in his two verses: "Our business is to make raids on the enemy, on our neighbor and on our own brother, in case we find none to raid but a brother."
Obviously, robbing others, was a compulsive trait of the Arab national character and this is the reason that it was not considered an act of impiety but a mark of honor and manliness. Realizing its significance, the Prophet converted this institution into a religious doctrine called 'Jehad' i.e. the Holy War against infidels to build an Arab Empire. However, the Arab Empire, though in essence was exactly like any other empire, in appearance it was to look godly. Therefore, it was named as Empire of Allah, who is said to be the greatest, yet dependent on man for its creation!
The doctrine of Jehad which incorporates the Arab custom of 'razzia' (raiding for booty), is really stunning in its constitution and application. Since it seeks ascendancy of Arabia and annihilation of non-Arabs in the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, it vouched for the great wisdom of its author by making the wolf appear as a lamb, wrong as right and bleak as bright.
Though I have already tried to explain the nature of Jehad, in view of its complexity and emotional appeal, I think, it is necessary to be repetitive for elucidating this blood-thirsty war mechanism, which served not only as the cornerstone of the Arab Empire but also as the pillar of its Spiritual Empire, which sprang from the ashes of the former, and has now emerged as the most formidable challenge to the intellectual and moral dignity of man and his civilization. I, therefore, re-present a short sketch of this divine stratagem:
1. The first principle of Jehad is that a person loses his free will and becomes a slave of Allah when he accepts Islam because it creates certain duties and rewards which do not come within the jurisdiction of morality abnormally understood by cultured people:
“Verily Allah has purchased the believers Their lives and their properties; For theirs (in return) is paradise. They fight in His (Allah's) cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him.” (9:III)
Remember that paradise is the place of luxury which abounds in beautiful virgins and boys and where everything is available free of charge; again, toil, sickness, ageing and death are also unknown there.
2. What is Allah's cause? It is simply killing infidels. And what is an infidel? He or she is someone who denies Muhammad; it does not matter a jot if he/she is a lover of God! So fond is Allah of murdering the unbelievers to glorify Himself and Muhammad that He has permanently divided humanity into two perpetually hostile groups:
"Those (unbelievers) are Satan's party; why Satan's party, surely, they are the losers! Surely, those who oppose God and His Messenger, those are among the most abject. God has written 'I shall assuredly be the Victor, I and My Messenger....' Thou shalt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day who are loving to anyone who opposes God and His Messenger, nor though they were their father, or their sons or their brothers, or their clan....And he shall admit them into gardens underneath which rivers flow. God well pleased with them, and they well pleased with God. They are God's party; why surely God's party - they are the prosperers." (The Disputer 58:20)
In a nutshell, it means that Muslims are God's party because they do not love their closest relations if they happen to be infidels. Owing to their belief, they are destined to be victorious against the unbelievers, who, are Satan's party.
Now comes the specific command to wage a war against non-Muslims.
“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden - such as men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.” (Repentance 9:25)
This verse emphasizes the duty of a Muslim to fight non-Muslims; People of the Book i.e. Jews and Christians are also included in the category of infidels. They must be fought until they surrender and pay tribute as a sign of their humiliation.
Receiving tribute from unbelievers in the name of God, is the true purpose of Islam. One can clearly see here the Arab custom of brigandage, sanctified in the guise of religion. Thus loot, murder and rape are no longer wicked actions, which attract retribution, but made to look the acme of piety to deserve the highest reward that Allah can bestow on His followers. If the crusader survives, he gets loot and also legally becomes entitled to possess women of the vanquished. Along with it goes the enjoyment of imperialism that accrues from receiving perpetual tribute. And if he is killed in the battlefield, he goes straight into paradise where rivers of wine, milk and honey flow and where most beautiful virgins and pretty boys anxiously wait for them with open arms! Thus, a Mujahid (the holy warrior) wins dead or alive!
The Prophet made sure that brigandage no longer remains a low and haphazard affair, but a highly respected and disciplined organization, stamped with divine approval:
“Know that paradise is under the shade of swords.” (Sahih Al Bukhari: 4.73)
Thus, the sword became the connecting bridge between pillage and paradise and served as the motivating power for the Arabs to conquer and rule the world. The Battle of Badr though in itself a tiny event, served as the major source of the Spiritual Arab Imperialism, which has been steadily rising in magnitude for the last fourteen centuries.
Muhammad's genius lay not only in sanctifying the sword but also finding the beneficial use for it with a view to magnetizing his own person for gathering crowds of followers around himself. An overwhelming majority of those, who acknowledged him as their spiritual guide, were hungry, haggard and hounded men; they would do anything to improve their economic plight and take revenge from their Meccan oppressors, who had forced them to leave their homes to seek refuge in Medina. This migration from Mecca to Medina had been necessitated by Muhammad's aggressive preaching of his faith, which annoyed unbelievers to the hilt.
Bitterness of the refugees had been further aggravated by the fact that they had to rely on the Ansaars i.e. the local Muslim believers of Medina, for their sustenance. Though these refugees appreciated their brotherly hospitality, they resented their dependence, which the custom held as a sign of disrespect, derision and degradation.
Realizing despondency of his followers, the Prophet turned it into a rage for vengeance, which sought to plunder and persuade those, who had inflicted torture on them. However, these would-be predators did not have to bear the blemish of impiety like other brigands and assassins because they were told that although their acts might look putrid, they had been rendered pure, pious and perfect by the Almighty because He categorized them as Jehad i.e. Holy War against the infidels.
Allah is so intoxicated by the love of absolutism that He does not care for justice or decency! Who else could have the audacity to declare that murdering, looting and raping people for the sheer folly of not believing in Muhammad, ranks as the highest act of piety. One ought to note that a person may believe in God most sincerely yet he remains an infidel, subject to Jehad, unless he/she acknowledges Muhammad as the Prophet. Obviously, the pivot of faith is Muhammad and not Allah!
This commandment of holy loot also served as an effective way of boosting their moral sky-high because they believed that they were doing all this to please Allah and not line their own pockets. Therefore, a soldier of God had to be at least twice as brave, boisterous and bullish as an ordinary fighter. Thus the Prophet revealed Allah's pleasure:
“Assuredly, God will defend those who believe, surely God loves not any traitor. Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged - surely God is able to help them - who were expelled from their habitations without right.... Assuredly God will help him who helps Him - surely God is All-strong, All-mighty.” (The Pilgrimage: XXII:38)
Note Allah's promise to help the Muslims in taking revenge from those who had wronged them. What is surprising is the fact that here vengeance means helping Allah! It smells of divine stratagem, which as we shall see, lays down the principle of looting and murdering non-Muslims as the righteous way of life; the Battle of Badr is the first precedent to this effect. Though small in size, it became a major event, which exerted an important influence in determining the course of history. It is therefore, interesting to know the details:
Muhammad's effort in spreading Islam had not borne much fruit until the summer of 621 A.D. when twelve men from Medina, visiting Mecca to perform the annual Hajj ceremony, embraced the faith that he preached. They undertook to propagate it among the fellow Medinites. Next year, in June, 622, a party of seventy-five pilgrims, including two women, came from Medina; they all had embraced Islam. Driven by the zeal of their new gospel, they invited the Prophet to come and live among them to avoid persecution. Muhammad, who had become safety-conscious, asked them if they would defend him as if he were one of their own. Their answer, though positively enthusiastic, was conditional: "What shall we get in return, if we suffer damage or death in the process?" "Paradise, of course," answered the Prophet.
These private meetings known as the two Pledges of al-Alaqba, encouraged the Prophet to persuade his Meccan followers to emigrate to Medina in small groups. When about seventy of them had done so, Muhammad himself quietly undertook the highly dangerous journey because his Meccan enemies had taken the oath of killing him before he could escape. Making use of the unfrequented paths, Muhammad reached his destination on September 24, 622. This flight is called HIJRAH and ranks as the traditional starting point of Islamic history, though the Islamic era begins on the first day of the Arabic year in which the HIJRAH or the flight took place i.e. July 16, 622. However, the significance of this date is believed to lie not in the act of emigration but "the belief that this day marks severance of kinship ties and announces unity of all Muslims, no matter where they come from."
To understand its background, one must realize that Muhammad belonged to the Quresh of Mecca whereas the people of Medina had their blood ties with other tribes. Thus, accepting common denominator of Islam, they all, including Muhammad, lost their tribal distinctions.
This understanding of the act of HIJRAH, though looks golden at first sight, becomes murky when subjected to investigation because when Muhammad grew strong, he declared emphatically that the right to rule belongs to the Quresh i.e. the people of his own tribe! This is the reason that all Arab caliphs both in the east and the west belonged to Muhammad's clan i.e the Quresh.
It took the Meccan emigrants eighteen months to settle in Medina. Muhammad was given a piece of land to build a house for himself. As he gathered power, he became a polygamist after the death of his first wife, Khadija, who also happened to be his employer. Around this house, eventually, were built several apartments to accommodate his nine wives and concubines.. As his followers met in his home to offer prayers, it came to be known as the Mosque of Medina.
Muhammad's followers, both the emigrants and Medinites expected rewards for embracing Islam, " the only true and exalted faith of Allah." The believers quite rightly expected favors from God at the expense of the Kafirs (unbelievers). The All-knowing Allah, responding to the prayers of the devotees revealed through Muhammad, the doctrine of Jehad i.e. murdering non-Muslims for possessing their wealth, property and women.
In essence, there was nothing new in it because the Arabs were customarily used to plundering the commercial caravans. To exploit this vice, Islam cleverly renamed brigandage and killing as Jehad, which was to be carried out to glorify Allah, the Great. By reshaping common robbery into a Divine pursuit, it inspired the lust for plunder with the spirit of untold devotion, discipline and desire that turned the looters into crusaders, who carried out their atrocities with greatly enhanced enthusiasm; in fact, they became ferocious robots who thought of pillage as piety and equated murder with melody.
The Quresh of Mecca were a trading community. In autumn, their commercial caravans proceeded to the Yemen and Abyssinia, and during spring to Syria. Among their merchandize were frankincense, gems, precious metals and leather. The last item was their major export, which had a high demand in Syria and Persia; it commanded high prices. These Meccan entrepreneurs exchanged them for piece-goods, silk and other items of luxury at Gaza and other marts. By the old standards, these caravans were really huge because they might consist of as many as 2,000 camels whose cargo could excel the value of 50,000 dinars or mithkals; the latter was a golden coin having the worth of a Byzantine Aureus, roughly equal to two-thirds of a pound sterling. Fourteen centuries ago, 50,000 dinars represented the same value which millions of dollars do today.
The special trait of these caravans was that they constituted the economic life of the Meccans because they were financed not only by the rich people of the community but also the small men, who might have saved a dinar or two, and wanted to profit, which usually amounted to 50%. These caravans represented communal investment, and because of their high value, were often the target of highway robbers. Therefore, they had to be accompanied by an 'army of defenders', whose size corresponded with the value of the goods. These commercial caravans had a good deal in common with the seafaring joint stock companies of old England, whose venture capital was contributed by many participants, entitled to profit according to their size of stake.
The successful journey of these caravans was a matter of special delight for the shareholders, but whenever, it succumbed to the attack of the plundering mafia, it created highly heart-rending scenes of women, beating their breasts, pulling hair and singing mournful songs to express their loss, that might also include the death of some defenders.
Enunciation of the doctrine of Jehad struck terror into the hearts of the Meccan traders, who were alarmed about their trade with the north because its route passed between Medina and the sea coast. It is baffling to realize that the Prophet, who prescribed hand-cutting as the punishment for stealing, personally led the Ghazawats i.e. pillage-expeditions (razzias) against the Meccan caravans in 623. Though he failed in all three attempts, in January, 624, he succeeded in robbing a caravan returning from Yemen as it reached Nakhlah near Mecca.
Failure of the Prophet's third razzia is actually a part of the famous battle of Badr. Abu Sufyan led a caravan to Syria in October, 623 A.D. (A.H.II). It carried huge loads of the Arab products demanded in the Syrian market. The Prophet asked for volunteers to join this predatory expedition. About 200 men came forward. They had only 30 camels, which they rode in turn. The plan was to attack the caravan at Osheira on its way to Yenbo, but it had passed this point by the time the holy plunderers reached there.
These rich cargoes were very important to the Muslims, who had hardly any effective equipment to fight the unbelievers for spreading Islam. So, Muhammad tried to enhance his influence in the territory of Osheira to make the caravan trade more hazardous for the Meccans. His efforts did bear fruit and a number of tribes living in the area entered into alliance with them. The initial escape of the caravan seems to have disturbed the apostolic plan and he became determined to waylay Abu Sufyan on his return journey. During the espionage activities, the Prophet found his son-in-law, Ali, asleep "on the dusty ground under the shade of a palm grove". Seeing his face soiled , the Prophet, in a pleasantry, said, "Sit up, O, Abu Turab", and he sprang up immediately, conscious of his neglect. This became his sobriquet during the rest of his life. This is why he is called "Ali, Abu Turab".
So alarming was the Prophet's resolve to rob the caravan that his Medinite opponents warned Abu Sufyan's people at Mecca of the impending danger. Damdam, a swift and efficient courier, was immediately sent to Mecca with the bad news.
As a reconnaissance, Muhammad dispatched two scouts, in early January, to the caravan station at Al-Haura. They were well received by the chief of the Juheina tribe, who took suitable measures to protect their identity. His services were thought so valuable that after the battle of Badr, he was rewarded with the grant of Yenbo.
It was Sunday, the 12th of Ramadan, when realizing the significance of the caravan, the Prophet set out on the predatory exercise without waiting for the return of his two spies, who were to brief him on the situation. It seems that the impatience to possess all that the caravan was carrying, played heavily on the minds of the Muslims. Hearing tales of the expected rich booty, even some non-Muslim citizens of Medina tried to join the expedition. Having noticed a couple of them, the Prophet called them to his camel that he rode and asked them about the nature of their business. They told him that they were heathen but as their city had extended protection to him, he ranked as their kinsman and they wanted to join him for plunder. The Prophet replied that it was meant for the believers only, and the unbelievers were not allowed to participate in such ventures. He emphasized in no uncertain terms: "Believe and fight". Since this was the only way to share the loot, they confessed that Muhammad was the Prophet of God. It is then that they got the permission to join his party.
His army, after necessary adjustments, contained 315 men; amongst them eighty were Refugees i.e. who had emigrated from Mecca with the Prophet, and of the remainder "about one-fourth belonged to the Aus, and the rest to the Khazraj". They had two horses and thirty camels which they rode in turns to overcome tediousness of the long hard journey. In terms of size and equipment, it may not be called an army, but in effectiveness, even the mighty hosts may not be compared with it because it had no equal in fervor, ferocity and fortitude. Their newly acquired faith was a novel specimen of moral justice and piety; being based on Jehad, it did not condemn but commended rapine, rape and ruination of unbelievers and held it as the way to secular success in this life and paradisiac comfort in the next world. The fervor of such a faith, which obliterated all thoughts of loss, defeat and sin, goaded Allah's warriors with an unequal zeal to march, seek and rob the precious cargoes that lawfully belonged to the investors.
For a couple of days, the holy warriors took a direct route to Mecca but reaching As-Safra, they moved in the direction of Badr, a resting station on the road to Syria. Through local gossip, Muhammad's spies came to know that Abu Sufyan's caravan was about to appear there any time. The report was correct but Abu Sufyan was a shrewd fellow. Realizing immediate danger, he at once dispatched a courier to Mecca asking for a strong defending force.
The Meccans having suffered losses at Nakhla were not prepared to see the repetition of similar humiliation. Again, it was the caravan of the year because the cargo it carried was worth more than 50,000 golden pieces. Its loss might render the whole community bankrupt. A mixed current of fear and fervor swept the Meccan society and every household contributed a warrior to the defense of the caravan according to the size of its stake. Soon an army of 800 men was raised, accompanied by a band of women, who specialized in singing war songs, which lent a lion's heart to a bleating lamb. Their battle-melodies accompanied by the sounds of their tabrets and footwork excited the Meccan soldiers to die for the honor of their city and ancestors.
As the army reached Al-Johfa, the envoy of Abu Sufyan appeared. He told Abu Jahl, the head of the army that Abu Sufyan had succeeded escaping Muhammad through stealth and rapid marches, and all was well. They heaved a sigh of relief, but the question arose if they should return without an engagement. A passionate debate took place among the chiefs of the army. One party argued that, since no harm had been done, there was no cause for a deadly contest. Moreover, it was argued that the people on the other side were their close relations: killing them would constantly torture their conscience. It was not only wise but also desirable to return home peacefully.
Abu Jahl, the head of the Makhzum clan, on the other hand, advocated a fight to the bitter end. He advocated that their return would be interpreted as a sign of their cowardice, and it was also politic to nip evil in the bud; otherwise, the specter of Muhammad would grow in potential threat all the time. His persuasion won the argument, and they passed three days making merry by the fountain.
On the other hand, Muhammad had also been advancing toward Badr. When he reached Al-Ruha, he heard that the Quresh, being aware of the danger, were marching on him. This necessitated a council of war. Unlike the Meccans, the Muslims showed contempt for blood ties and expressed a strong desire for an immediate contest.
Here the charisma of Muhammad's personality and political sagacity deserves mention. He had emigrated to Medina on the promise of his Medinite followers that they would defend him with their blood while he would be amongst them. Addressing the war council, and particularly to the men from Medina, he declared that their pledge neither induced his defense in any aggressive action nor had it any connection with the events that took place away from the city (Medina). Therefore, they were at liberty to leave him if they so wished.
Of course, a political mind would interpret this occasion differently but to the faithful this declaration conveyed a message of the Prophet's holiness, greatness and moral dignity hitherto unknown in the Medinite annals. How they were moved by this speech is expressed by their spokesman Sa'd Bin Moadh. He said, "Prophet of the Lord! march where you desire; encamp where you may choose; make war or conclude peace with whom you will. For I swear by Him (Allah) who has sent you with the truth, that if you were to march till our camels fell down dead, we would go forward with you to the world's end. Not one of us will be left behind."
It should also be noted that at the end of the meeting, the Prophet who claimed to be "Mercy of God to All Mankind", invoked Divine curse on the infidels, and prayed, "O lord, let not Abu Jahl, the Pharaoh of his people, escape. Let not Zama'a escape; rather let the eyes of his father run sore for him weeping and become blind".
This curse of the Prophet had a psychological purpose. Being fewer in numbers than the infidels, it made his followers believe that they already possessed the power to inflict death on their enemies. To the sincere believers of Muhammad, who had their own unbelieving parents and brethren as a sign of respect to the Apostle, it was unimaginable that his supplication against the unbelievers could go astray. Reinforced by this belief, they became even more determined to deliver them a dose of violence blended with the worst pillage.
Badr was chosen as the place of battle by the Prophet. It vouched for his martial skill as well as seriousness of purpose i.e. he wanted the battle to be decisive; neither party must escape lightly. He knew that the courage of his followers, which emanated from their religious convictions, was far more forceful than the strength that the superiority of numbers bestowed upon his enemy. A decimating blow to the unbelievers would lay the foundation of the Islamic Empire.
Badr is situated close to Medina, 'the City of the Prophet'. It is a valley which consists of a plain, having steep hills to the north and east; on the southern side is a low rocky range, and the west is closely dotted with sandy hillocks. A small stream also ran through it breaking into springs here and there. The Prophet chose the most useful reservoir for his army and destroyed the rest. This was a wise military maneuver, which assured him mastery of the water sources of the battlefield.
The day before the engagement took place, Muhammad had placed the banner of the refugees (the emigrants) in the hands of Mus'ah; ensign of the Khazrajite was given to al-Hobab and the flag of Aus was handed to Sa'd Bin Moadh.
Here one again sees the tactical wisdom of Muhammad in choosing the fighting spot. As the Quresh army, comprising a thousand men advanced toward Muhammad, the glaring rays of the Arabian sun struck their eyes, making their movements troublesome. Also, the vastly numerical superiority of the enemy was hidden by the fall of the ground behind. Knowing the gravity of the situation, the Prophet again resorted to the device of praying to Allah for harnessing the superstitious energies of his followers' belief into a combating force. Raising his hands upward, he solicited the Maker, "O Allah, accomplish for me what Thou hast promised me. O Allah, bring about what Thou has promised to me. O Allah, if this small band of Muslims is destroyed, Thou wilt not be worshipped on this earth". (Muslim, Vol. 3, 4360)
The historian may find it strange that a man is telling his Creator what will happen if He does not listen to him, and the Almighty agrees to his suggestion for fear of losing worshippers, but his followers intoxicated by the promises of heavenly virgins and boys had no such qualms. They believed that Allah is directed by Muhammad and, therefore, the battle shall end in a resounding victory for them.
It was customary among the Arabs to enter single combats before starting the battle. As Sheiba, his brother Otba and Al-Walid (son of Otba) moved forward to challenge for single duels, three Citizens (the natives of Medina as distinct from the Emigrants) came out from the Muhammadan ranks to encounter them.
Here we notice the tribal tendencies of the Prophet, who did not want the honor of starting the contest go to anyone but his own kith and kin. Calling them back, he turned to the fellow Emigrants and shouted "you sons of Hashim, arise and fight, according to your right."
However, this pro-Quresh leaning of the Prophet is well balanced by the choice of his combatants. Out came three warriors, known for their valor, courage and fighting skills. They were Ali (the Prophet's adopted son and son-in-law), Hamza (the Prophet's uncle) and Obeida. As the infidels saw their heroes become sacrificial lambs at the Muslim altar, their spirits began to sink. Even more daunting was the bravery displayed by the Prophet, who recited verses from the Koran, and brandishing his sword stood by his followers like a lofty granite and assured them that paradise was the reward for martyrdom.
The story of Omeir, a sixteen-year-old Muslim boy, who was allowed to participate in this battle, is worthy of note. He was hungry and eating dates, when he heard the prophet associate paradise with martyrdom. Looking at the dates scornfully, "is it these", he cries ruefully "that hold me back from paradise? Verily, I shall taste no more of them until I meet my Lord".
Motivated by the force of belief, he rushed upon the enemy and tasted the wine of martyrdom loathed by many and loved by a few.
Yet another story worthy of narration is that of Moadh, who slew Abu Jahl, and was attacked by his son Ikrima. In this catastrophic action, Moadh's arm was nearly severed from his shoulder. Martyrdom was also his goal, which he coveted, and believed that a second rate action was not compatible with the dignity of such a heavenly prize. Since his best performance was being checked by his dangling arm, he put his foot on it, and ripping it off with the courage of a divine knight, he attacked the enemy to achieve his most cherished aim.
Was it the valor of his followers that won the day? Of course, it was a great factor in securing the field, but the inspiration that the Prophet provided was the paramount reason of success. Though he is considered 'illiterate' by his followers, he was the master of mob psychology and excelled in operating this mechanism.
The day, i.e. 17 Ramadan, the second year of Hijrah (623 A.D.) when the battle took place, was punctuated with sharp gales. As the first violent blast swept across the valley, the Prophet told his followers that the Angel Gabriel had arrived with one thousand angels to help the Muslim cause. The following two piercing blasts were interpreted by him as the arrival of the angel Michael and the angel Israpheel, each heading a reinforcement of 1,000 angels to fight on the side of the Muslims!
Nobody stopped to think why were they not visible to the crusaders, but to Muhammad only? Again, the angels must be very weak creatures if three thousand of them were required to fight just 1,000 Meccans. The Koran testifies to this event:
“And Allah most surely helped you at Badr, when you were utterly abject. So fear Allah, and happily you will be thankful. When you saidst to the believers: 'Is it not enough for you that your Lord should reinforce you with three thousand angels sent down upon you, Yea: if you are patient and god fearing, and the foe come against you instantly, your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand swooping angels.”
(The House of Imran: III:120)
By this statement Muhammad secured the entire credit for his Prophethood, which had been honored by Allah with a reinforcement of 3,000 heavenly fighters, and a promise of 5,000 belligerent angels in any future engagement against the infidels.
One ought to know the attitude of the Prophet toward his chief adversary, Abu Jahl, who was presented to him when he was about to breathe his last. As he lay at his feet, the Prophet looked at him and said, "it is more acceptable to me than the choicest camel in Arabia".
Now, we come to booty, the goal of the Islamic warfare, which Allah Himself sanctioned to strike terror in the hearts of those who refuse to bow before the Islamic Imperialism and claim their right to human dignity.
By modern standards the booty acquired from the Battle of Badr may look trivial but by then prevailing economic conditions of Arabia, its psychological effects, and the part it played in building the Arab Empire, it was simply terrific; "the loot consisted of 115 camels, 14 horses, a great store of vestments and carpets, articles of leather, with much equipage and armor".
The famous sword of Abu Jahl, known as 'Dhul-Fikr' fell to the share of the Prophet.
The Battle of Badr was fought on the doctrine of Jehad, which essentially means building an Arab Empire by denying non-Muslims all rights except the right to serve their Arab masters. This servitude is not ephemeral but eternal because Jehad seeks perpetual humiliation of non-Muslims through a system of everlasting subjugation and payment of tribute. When we delve deeper into this doctrine, it transpires that its tentacles equally spread to the non-Arab Muslims, who are converted to Islam with the force of arms; they are, of course, exempted from the payment of Jaziya i.e. poll tax, but are treated as second-class citizens and may be exploited economically as well as psychologically through the hegemony of faith, which favors the Arab Muslims against the non-Arab Muslims. I shall return to this point later but here I may further explain the novelty of Jehad as the Doctrine of Struggle against the infidels.
1. A Muslim nation requires no particular reason to attack a non-Muslim country. It is in itself a heinous crime not to acknowledge Muhammad as the last Prophet of God. According to the Koran all religions are false except Islam. Thus Allah is the enemy of non-Muslims, who are regarded as the worst kind of beasts under the sun.
It is a myth that the Jews and Christians being 'People of the Book' are exempt from this restriction. A hadith of the Prophet says:
The Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) said "...he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which (Koran) I have been sent, and dies in this state (of disbelief) he shall be but one of the denizens of Hellfire". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. One, Hadith: 284)
Having abrogated all other religions, the Prophet prescribes the course of action against them:
“I have been commanded (by Allah) to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no God but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the Messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by Law...”
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. One, Hadith: 31)
Here it is quite clear that the biggest crime for any person or nation is the denial of Islam, and the true solution of the problem is a perpetual war against infidels and renegades!
2. Of course, the institution of Imperialism is not an Arabian invention. Murder of other nations for booty by the Romans, the Iranians, the Mughals, the Turks or the British, is equally bad.
All imperial nations as they became civilized and conscious of human dignity, realized that it is morally wrong to maim, mutilate and murder other people for personal or collective gain. In fact, gradually, they upheld human rights through a code of justice and economic improvement and the concept applied to all people irrespective of race and color. Today, we live in a world where murder, rape, robbery, denial of justice and usurpation of rights are considered the greatest moral vices but this standard of morality is an utter nonsense in the world of Islam. Why?
Because denial of Islam is considered a serious crime that is a total justification for stripping a person of his human rights and subjecting him to perpetual grilling until he/she acknowledges the Prophethood of Muhammad. The faith in Islam is considered the only true virtue. This is the reason that a Muslim, no matter how wicked, shall go to paradise, whereas a highly righteous non-Muslim irrespective of his piety, shall be thrown into hell! Practicing this discrimination in this world is also the basis of Islamic culture. Small wonder, Jehad is the fundamental Islamic doctrine, which treats murder, rape and plunder of non-Muslims as the loftiest virtue and sure guarantee of paradise. However, its prominent attraction is booty, which acts as the greatest predatory motive and despite being highly impious, is believed to increase a Muslim's piety. This man- hating philosophy is deeply ingrained in the Battle of Badr and serves as the guiding precedent for all Muslims.
The Arabs have never treated non-Arab Muslims as equals in their countries. For example, no Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim holds an important ministerial or administrative post in any Arab country. Their practical status is even worse than that of the infidels: when non-Muslim subjects broke chains of the Arab domination, they became free, and even their superior, over a period of time, but the non-Arab Muslims even when they are politically independent, remain spiritual and psychological slaves of Arabia. This is the specialty of the Arab Imperialism, which vouches for the patriotism and wisdom of Muhammad. This is not a fiction but a fact because Islam is essentially the ambassador of Arab national interest, seeking to perpetuate it as Arab Imperialism in the guise of religion. One cannot help applauding the genius of the Prophet, who made his own country the center of Divine reverence and then persuaded his followers all over the world, under the threat of hell, to prostrate toward Mecca to qualify for paradise!
Look at the underlying stratagem for yourself. The Prophet declared:
God, the Creator of the world had Kaaba (Mecca, the center of Arabia) built as His own House by Adam, and then rebuilt by Abraham. Thus the land of Arabia, being the Home of Allah, is superior to all other lands.
On death, the body of a Muslim must be buried facing Mecca (to show his devotion to Arabia), otherwise, he shall not be admitted into paradise.
So sacred is Mecca (the birth-place of Muhammad) that nobody must defecate facing this City. He who does so, is an infidel and shall go to hell.
Arabic is not only the language of the Koran but also of Allah. So all Muslims must learn and speak Arabic to be godly.
The hadith no. 5751 (Mishkat, Vol. 3) reports the Prophet saying: "Love the Arabs for three reasons because (1) I am an Arab (2) the Holy Koran is in Arabic, and (3) the tongue of the dwellers of paradise shall also be Arabic.
Every Muslim, no matter where he lives, must come to Mecca for pilgrimage a least once in a life-time, if he has the means to do so.
This religious duty of the Muslims has been an important economic artery of (Saudi) Arabia for centuries and serves as a substitute for the tribute that the Prophet laid on non-Muslims to glorify the Arab Imperialism.
What really makes Islam as the ambassador of Arab Imperialism is the fact that it demands of non-Arab Muslims to follow the Arab cultural and moral lead blindly. How is it done?
This impossible goal has been made possible by the Divine Command that states Allah has made Muhammad for every believer the model of Behavior, which he must follow to avoid the fire of hell and qualify for the luxuries of paradise:
“You (Muslims) have had a good example in God's Messenger (Muhammad) for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day.” (The Confederates, XXXIII:20)
In Islam, the 'Last Day' is the Day of Judgement when a person's fate shall be decided in terms of heaven and hell: the basis of verdict shall be whether or not he or she has followed the Prophet as the Model of Behavior. In simple language, paradise is meant only for those who believe, feel, think, walk, talk, sleep, eat and drink as Muhammad did. We all know that Muhammad was a great Arab patriot and practiced the Arab culture. Therefore, every non-Arab Muslim must adore Arabia like Muhammad and adopt all Arab cultural, moral and spiritual values.
This is not a wishful interpretation, but is actually happening in all countries that lie within the pale of Islam: this principle is the foundation of the Arab Imperialism, and it perpetuates itself through the force of faith irrespective of whether the Arabs are politically ascendant or not!
Again, Islam or the Arab Imperialism is different from the Roman, Iranian, Turkish or British Imperialism because it is not based on political or economic power but exploitation of human weakness, emanating from instinctive fear of uncertainty, which makes man feel that he is drowning and must clutch at a straw to survive, irrespective of how irrational this act might be.
By imposing dictatorship of faith on its followers, Islam has crucified their rational and inventive faculties, leading to the degradation of their national cultures; this has become the major cause of their backwardness, and all the evils that spring from it.
To assess the significance of the Battle of Badr, one must realize that had the Prophet lost it, the doctrine of Islam would have been laid to rest along with the bodies of its crusaders. This little event, in fact, proved to be a vigorous seed, whose branches spread into both the east and west. However, the west checked its growth in the Battle of Tours. Such a great contribution has been made by this event to the survival and advancement of civilization that I am tempted to continue it as part two of this article.
The Battle of Tours (also known as the Battle of Poitiers) is considered as one of the most important episodes of history. Before discussing its ramifications, one ought to probe into the causes that precipitated the bloody event in 732 A.D.
Its major cause is Jihad, a clever contrivance of Islam, whose stated purpose is to establish on man the rule of Allah, "the Almighty, the Creator and the Perfect."
In fact, this device has been invented as a pretext to destroy all those who do not believe in Allah and Muhammad. More accurately, this is a stratagem for setting up Muhammad as the holiest of holies because a person such as a Jew, a Christian or a deist is treated as an infidel despite being an adherent of God. This fact reveals the true color of this doctrine. When looked at carefully, it transpires that Jihad is an insult to God, who is depicted as "the Almighty, the Creator and the Perfect." Thus, being Absolute, He needs no help from anyone to install Him as the Supreme, but the device projects God as dependent on man for establishing His glory; it is blasphemous by its very nature. If "God, the Creator" really wanted to be believed in, and worshipped by man, He would have created him as His "Obedient Servant".
The Jihad that disgraces the dignity of God and acts as the most heinous tool of destruction against innocent and the helpless, cannot be a holy principle.
Since Jihad is anti-divine by its nature, it has got to be the tool of Prophethood, which enables a man (the Prophet) to pursue his personal interests in Divine clothing. The doctrine of Prophethood, in fact, is the apex of dominance--urge, which goads a person to seek maximum power through force, frivolity and feigning. Jihad uses all these methods to secure personal supremacy of Muhammad because it legitimizes violence by inspiring belief in the myth of paradise and encourages deception to win battles.
The Prophet Muhammad was an orphan without any paternal inheritance, yet he rose to be the ruler of Arabia and founder of the Arab Empire. It shows the magnitude of his dominance-urge, which he executed masterfully:
He prepared a plan of personal power and holiness in which God (Allah) acts as his factotum. Islam insists that:
a. To be a believer, the confession of Muhammad's Prophethood is the most essential element of faith be-cause belief in Allah alone counts for nothing. Thus a Jew, a Christian or a deist is an infidel, and shall go to hell.
b. A person is not Muslim unless he treats the Prophet as the Model of Behavior and imitates Muhammad's way of life in all details. As he was an Arab, his non-Arab follower has to live as a cultural satellite of Arabia.
This is the reason that the Prophet bestowed very high reverence on his motherland and its institutions. For example, a Muslim, no matter where he comes from, is obliged to prostrate, at least five times a day toward Mecca, Muhammad's birthplace; he must not defecate facing this City; even after death, his body must be buried facing Mecca to qualify for Divine mercy,
The net result of this Arab-worship is that the non-Arab Muslims, especially from India and Africa, have more reverence for Arabia and less for their own countries. This is the attitude that has made them (non-Arab Muslims) the spiritual slaves of Muhammad's motherland at the expense of their own.
This is what makes Islam a complex plan of Arab Imperialism, although packed in an alluring box of internationalism. Stated simply, it means that higher the stature of a nation, the greater the prestige of its leader and cultural institutions. Again, greatness is achieved by might and not meekness irrespective of how moral, mellifluent or mesmerizing it may look. Only a mighty nation is the fountain of mirth, majesty and marvel. Thus, for making the Arabs a powerful nation, the Prophet turned them into a fighting force by prescribing Imperialism as the goal of their existence and appointed JEHAD as the fundamental doctrine for achieving it.
This statement is not based on fantasy but hadiths i.e., the sayings of the Prophet, which actually gladdened, guided and goaded the Arabs to stake their lives in bloody battles to secure secular ascendancy and paradisiac hopes. See the truth for yourself:
1. About the Jews, the Prophet said: "The Hour will not be established until you (the Arabs) fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say 'O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"
2. About the Turks, the Prophet said: "One of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight with people wearing shoes made of hair; and one of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight with broadfaced people whose face will look like shields coated with leather."
(Sahih Al-Bokhari, Vol. IV: 178)
Again, the Prophet said about the Turks: "The hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."
(SahihAl-Bokhari, Vol. IV: 179)
3. About Khosrau (Iran) and Caesar (Constantinople), the Prophet said: "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him and you (the Arabs) will spend their treasures in Allah's cause." He said, "War is deceit."
(Sahih Al-Bokhari, Vol. IV: 267)
Before I explain these hadiths, I ought to add that the Prophet Muhammad was not only a preacher but also a warrior. A hadith states that, when the Battle of Badr took place: "The Prophet was clad in his armor at that time. He went out saying to me (the narrator, Ibn Abbas): their multitude will be put to flight and they will show their backs. Nay but the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense) and the Hour will be more bitter than their worldly failure."
(Sahih Al-Bokhari, Vol.IV: 164)
1. The Prophet was a warrior because he participated in battles wearing armor.
2. He actually led his armies with the sole purpose of winning battles because he believed that "war is de-ceit", and therefore he might resort to any tactic, which would produce the desired result. Yet he called him-self the "Mercy of Allah to entire mankind," which ought to include unbelievers as well, but it does not. On the contrary, it seeks their annihilation.
3. To make his people most zealous warriors, he not only trained them militarily but also brainwashed them with the doctrine of Jehad, which preached destruction of unbelievers in the name of Allah as the greatest virtue against all principles of morality. Its purpose was to make his followers indifferent to the appeal of conscience.
From the hadiths quoted above, it is evident that the Prophet had a keen desire to create an Arab Empire. So he expressed it as the will of God that the Arabs must build a huge empire to gain the pleasure of Allah. What a shrewd plan of Imperialism it was! To give it the Divine authority, he stated as a predestined fact that the Hour would not come until the Arab had smashed up the Jews and the Turks as well as the Iranian and Roman (Byzantine) Empires. This is exactly what happened, enabling the Arabs to set up within twenty years of the Prophet's death an empire, which was larger than the Roman Empire that had required centuries to build.
The Prophet's imperial designs, of course, extended to both the East and the West, but as I am about to describe the Battle of Tours, it is desirable to concentrate on the Arabian thrust toward Europe.
Every invader, irrespective of his religion, is a predator, and his acts of brutality rank highly immoral, and thus pave his way toward hell but it is quite different in the case of a Muslim: his savagery is counted as an act of propriety, purity and probity by Allah, who guarantees to wipe off all the sins of a Muslim warrior (Mujahid): it is this strange Divine approval, which enables him to enter paradise inhabited by most beautiful virgins and boys.
Broadly speaking, a hadith (saying) of the Prophet Muhammad is a command to a Muslim. As we have seen, the already quoted hadiths clearly advocate decimation of the Jews, the Iranians, the Turks and the Romans. The Iranians were one of the first victims of Islam, and despite freeing themselves from the political hegemony of the Arabs, they carry the cultural and spiritual yoke of Arabia even in modern times.
To implement the message of the hadith that command subjugation of the Turks, Qutaybah, in 715 eventually conquered Kashghar (Chinese Turkestan) and is supposed to have even reached China proper. However, tradition bestows this honor on Nasr bin Sayyar, who between 738 and 740 reconquered these territories. In fact, the Apostolic mission was completed in 751 when the Arabs occupied al-Shash (Tashkand), and thus completed their supremacy in Central Asia. The Mongoloid people of these areas had adopted Buddhism, and Buddhist monasteries had sprung up in Bokhara, Bulkh and Samarkand. Since Islam is the only true religion of Allah, (according to the Arabian philosophy), they destroyed all vestiges of the Buddhist worship-centers to perpetuate their own creed for eternity.
However, the hadith requiring destruction of Constantinople must be interpreted in the context of the whole of Christianity because this City was the political Capital of this faith. Thus it is necessary to refer to the events that led to the Battle of Tours:
The first Arabian civil war, which ended with the assassination of All, brought Muawiyah to power. He was not only a tough soldier and a tactful politician but also a shrewd ruler. Realising the delicate state of his domestic affairs, he resorted to political expediency, and through the truce of 658 agreed to pay an annual tribute to the Emperor Constance II. However, Muawiyah, a zealous Muslim, could not ignore the hadith commanding conquest of Constantinople. Thus the truce meant no more than a stratagem. As the circumstances changed, he started hostilities against Caesar. Twice did his armies reach the capital of Christendom but without achieving the desired goal i.e. its capitulation, which had to wait until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, centuries later. However, the Arab raids were not for fun; they assumed the form of razzias i.e., predatory raids, which were regularly conducted every summer according to the precedent set by the Prophet for his followers.
These incursions were fierce, fanatic and fatalistic. As early as A.H. 34(655), a fleet of Muawiyah scored victory over the navy led by the Emperor Constance II. This engagement which took place at Phoenix (modern Pinike) on the Lycian coast, is considered the first great naval success of Islam. This event is known as Dhu-al-Sawari in the Arab chronicles.
A Muslim reader may face a sudden volley of puzzlement to realise that the military campaign of A.H. 49 (669), which actually succeeded in reaching the high triple wall of Constantinople, was led by Munwiyah's son, Yazid, the crown prince, who stands so maligned in the world of Islam for killing Hussain (the grandson of Muhammad) and his family-members that even Devil envies him in notoriety.
Yet he was the commander of the faithful, who obeyed his orders enthusiastically in search of booty through menace, murder and mutilation. One wonders, how Allah will open the doors of paradise for the crusaders under the direction of Yazid!
May be I should also add that Yazid fought with such a fervor, fortitude and ferocity that he earned the title of "Fateh-al-Arab" (Hero of the Arabs). An attempt to conquer the Byzantine capital was itself an act of extraordinary courage. As his sword flashed, pushing the Christians backward, the battlefield rang with the slogans of "Allah-O--Akbar" and "Fateh-Al-Arab"; equally, his opponents showered similar praises on their own commander when he demonstrated his dare, defiance and dragonism inflicting devastation on the Arab invaders. According to the purifying merits of Jehad, Yazid was a Mujahid (holy soldier of Islam) dedicated to establishing its splendor, superiority and supremacy through the process of pillage, plunder and perdition.
In the campaign was also legendary hero Ayub al-Ansari, once the standard bearer of the Prophet. He was one of the few faithful, who had heard the Prophet predict fall of Caesar at the hands of the Arabs. His repeated recital of the hadith filled his fellow crusaders with an unusual zeal to humiliate the infidels by gathering maximum booty from them. Many were impelled to earn martyrdom, which is the guarantee of the greater prize of paradise that puts to shame the reward of pillage. Abu Ayub, a Companion of the Prophet, whose presence stamped Yazid's contingent with sanctity and honor, died as a valiant crusader during the siege of Constantinople. So sacred was the spot of his burial that it became a shrine even for the Christian Greeks, who traveled long distances to pray for rains and obtain celestial blessings. Centuries later, when in 1453, the Turks laid siege to Constantinople, some soldiers discovered the morning sun shower its rays on a tomb with uncommon profusion. It could not be the burial place of anyone but Abu Ayub. Since this discovery ranked as a miracle, a mosque was built on the site to honor his holiness; thus it rose to become the shrine of three nations - the Arabs, the Greeks and the Turks.
Since Abu Ayub had participated in the battles of Badr and Uhud in the company of the Prophet, his tomb was to serve as a heavenly inspiration for the Turks to carry out their military campaigns in the east and west for establishing a Turkish Empire to please Allah. May be they experienced similar moods of piety in relation to their European subjects as the Europeans did when, centuries later, they carried 'White man's Burden" in their Asian colonies: a wolf is proud of any pretense to maim, murder and mutilate, no matter how paltry, puerile and precarious it may be.
The mosque of Abu Ayub became the proud and pious choice of the Turkish sultans for holding "martial inaugurations" which carried divine succor for crumbling, humbling and jumbling the non-Muslims.
Since the campaign led by Yazid was attended by Abu Ayub, who had been a "friend and follower of All", glorifies it considerably, one is inclined to reconsider the status of Yazid, who was raiding the center of Christianity to uphold reverence of the Prophet's word. Though the campaign failed to execute the expectations of the hadith, it cleverly interpreted Constantinople as the entire Christendom, thus sowing the seeds of the Battle of Tours, which sought to threaten the followers of Jesus with perpetual humiliation.
Islam entered Europe via Africa when Musa Ibn Nusir came to hold the Arabian territories directly under the Caliph in Damascus. His father was one of the Christian captives, who had fallen in the hands of Khalid bin walid, the famous Arab general.
In Africa, the Arabs came in contact with another racial group, the Berbers, who once belonged to the Semitic stock. Though they had embraced Christianity, they were not Romanised, and mentally stood closer to their distant Arab cousins owing to their nomadic and semi-nomadic way of life. Their ethnic tendencies were aroused by the Islamic principle of Jehad, which promised rewards of wealth, women and wine through aggressive wars waged for "the glory of Allah"! They readily accepted Islam and became clients of their Arab masters. Their ferocity and fighting skills made a considerable contribution to the Arab Imperial expansion.
The conquest by Musa of the North African coast, as far as the Atlantic, prepared the way for the Arab advance into Europe. A freedman of Berber origin, called Tariq Ibn Ziyad, was appointed by Musa as his lieutenant. In 711, he crossed into Spain with an army of 7,000 men, mostly of Berber origin but had no commission to conquer Spain. It was purely a marauding expedition for seeking booty. He landed near a mount, which history immortalized after his name as the Jabal-Al-Tariq, later corrupted as Gibraltar.
On July 19, 711, when he met the armies of King Roderick at the mouth of the Barbate River, his forces had been supplemented to 12,000. Though Roderick had 25,000 soldiers at his command, their superiority of numbers was not good enough to compensate for their inferiority of spirit: he had deposed his predecessor, the son of Witiza, and thus, was looked upon as a usurper, having no legitimate authority to rule. In those days, it was a sin for a Christian to obey the laws of such monarchs. Again, robbing non-Muslims was an act of great piety for the followers of Islam. The Berber invaders dazed by the expectations of untold plunder, which also promised entry into paradise, in case of fiasco, were emboldened beyond measure and felt crazy for a battle. Defeat of the half-hearted Visigothic army was made sure by the political enemies of the King headed by Bishop Oppas, a brother of Witiza. Nobody knows what happened to Roderick, who seems to have vanished into thin air.
The marauding expedition of Tariq succeeded in occupying half of Spain within one year. It glorified the name of Tariq, the freedman; he had achieved this historical brilliance with an army of Berbers who had begun to envy the Arabian splendor, superiority and supremacy. Jealousy of Musa, the Arab governor, was aroused by the phenomenal success of Tariq. He raised an army of 10,000 pure Arabs with a view to dimming the Berber's shine of arms and hurried to Spain in June 712. Here one can see an element of racial jealousy, which explodes the myth of Islamic brotherhood. It also demonstrates that the Arab military excursions had nothing to do with the glory of Allah: they were rooted in the lust of loot and imperialism, and Allah's name was used as a means to make the viciousness of misdeed and murders look as righteousness of pious and proud actions.
The true color of this campaign emerged with full intensity when Musa met Tariq in Toledo. Charging him with insubordination for not halting in the early stages of the expedition as ordered, he spanked and reviled Tariq publicly and then scourged him mercilessly and finally put him in chains as an ignominious prisoner to magnify his guilt. Having humbled his lieutenant, Musa proceeded to complete the conquest of Spain for decorating himself with the laurels of the triumph. What is really amazing is that, after all this disgrace, Tariq still served such an arrogant and egoistic master in his campaign. Obviously, Tariq's misconduct was a stunt, otherwise he could not have been trusted,
At this point one ought to note the irony of fate: during autumn of the same year, the Caliph al-Walid summoned Musa to appear before him in distant Damascus. He had been charged with the same offense as Tariq - exceeding his authority by invading a foreign country without the consent of his superior i.e. the Caliph.
Lust for power overrides all considerations. The Caliph, whose dominions Musa had extended, forgot all his services to demonstrate who held the real power and thus privileged to decide the matters of peace and war. With a view to expressing the size of his benefits to the Imperial cause, Musa took with him a huge train of spoils, which included four hundred Gothic nobles fully dressed in gold coronets and girdles; a sign of the Divine blessings, the train also included thirty thousand most delicate European women, whose beauty was more radiant than the jewelry they wore; among them were also handsome young boys of exquisite white and pink hues destined to embellish the male seraglios of the Caliph and other Muslim notables. Nobody knows the exact size of the treasures that Musa carried with him to appease and please his master but they were certainly enormous and had been bestowed by Allah upon His servants, the Muslims, as a sign of mercy, which was an act of extreme misery to those who had been robbed, ravaged and ruined. Well, then this is what Jehad is all about.
As the train of spoils entered Tiberias (Palestine), Musa received a secret message from Suleman, the brother and heir-apparent, that as Al Walid, the Caliph, was seriously ill, he must delay his entry into the Capital. It was Suleman's ploy to claim the glory of victory and booty for his own reign, but it did not materialize because Al Walid recovered temporarily. Having heard the tales of extravagant plunder, crowned with fabulous luster of female and male beauties, the Caliph relented and received Musa favorably. The magnificent Ummayad Mosque was decorated where he was rewarded with Imperial praises and courtesies.
Among the numerous gifts that Musa presented to his master, was a superb table (maidah) whose craftsmanship went back to the reign of Solomon, the Wise. This superb Jewish ruler, who enjoyed the pleasures of 300 wives and 700 concubines, was extravagant enough to adorn every inch of the table with the most precious diamonds and rubies that he could lay his hands on. Solomon was a great poet whose imagination was enriched, not only by sagacity but also erotic lavishness, which called for a huge harem of intoxicating beauties gathered from his own subjects, Egypt and many other lands. Thus he was also a lover of arts and its underlying mysteries. The said table was more conspicuous for its craftsmanship than the glitter, gloss and glow of its gorgeous stones.
According to the legend, this unusual table had been removed from Jerusalem to Rome by Romans, who were eventually deprived of it by the Goths. Inspired by the splendors of Solomon, every Gothic King vied with others during his reign to embellish it further with grace, gaiety and grandeur to carve his name in the annals of aesthetics. When Musa plundered this table, it was kept in the cathedral at Toledo; the Bishop had 'borrowed' it from the Lord for his personal use. Obviously, it was a sin for the Bishop because the Lord does not hold accountable his own representative for their misdeeds.
From the stories of the marvel, mystery and majesty, surrounding the Jewish table, it appears that its different parts could be detached and reassembled easily without any harm to its appearance and dignity. It is said that Tariq, having been bewitched by it, removed one of its legs and then dramatically produced it when the table was being presented to the Caliph. He obviously wanted to draw royal attention to his own person.
Though Musa's magic worked on A1 Walid, it had exactly the opposite effect on Suleman, who succeeded him. He brought him before a partial judge, who found him guilty of vanity and falsehood. Musa was whipped publicly; stood a whole day in the blazing sun before the palace gate until he begged for exile to Mecca as a pilgrim. He was granted this request but his entire property was confiscated. History has noted that this conqueror of Africa and Spain lived as a beggar in Wadi-al-Qura, a remote village of al-Hijaz.
Musa, destined to be a mendicant, was a zealous Muslim and planned to carry out the hadith, which demanded subjugation of Constantinople. His designs are known to history; he thought of Spain as the first step to bring Europe in the fold of Arab Imperialism. In fact, he had planned to cross the Pyrenees with the intention of entering France and Italy to establish the Islamic rule there. What goaded him more fervently was his desire to preach the Koranic tenets from the pulpit of the Vatican. Once the Arabian grip had been tightened on these Christian lands, he would love to conquer Germany and then gradually proceed to Constantinople to realise the full blessings of the prophetic hadith.
The dream that Musa failed to materialize, did not die with him because it was not personal to him; it emanated from a hadith, which commanded destruction of Constantinople, the Christian seat of power. In 717 or 718, al-Hurr Abd-al-Rahman al Thaqafi took up this sacred cause.
Behind this sanctity of purpose lay the lust of plunder provoked by the riches of French convents and churches. Thus, al-Hurr started the raids that were continued by his successor al-Samah Ibn-Malik al-Khawlani. In 720, his luck ran out at Toulouse, the seat of Duke Eudes of Aquitaine where he was offered effective resistances by the French fighters. Here al-Samah died.
Now we are nearing the moments of the Battle of Tours, known as the Bataille de Poitiers in France. This city had become the spiritual pulpit of France owing to the body of Saint Martin, which lay buried there. Ordinary Christians, who preferred the paradisiac blessings to the worldly comforts, saved every penny to make votive offerings at the shrine. Though the offerors' flesh had been made lean by starvation, the guardians of the shrine enjoyed layers of corpulence without suffering any qualms of conscience. The popularity of Saint Martin had lent a good deal of prestige to the local churches and convents, which boasted of gold plate and costly goblets as the results of pious offerings.
The year 732 is a landmark in European history because this is when Abd-el-Rahman Ibn-Abduallah al-Ghafiqi, successor of al-Samah, as Amir over Spain, advanced through the Western Pyrenees. In fact, this is the year that also marks the first centennial of the Prophet's death. During these 100 years, the Arabs had succeeded in establishing an empire which was greater than that of Rome at its zenith. It extended 'from the Bay of Biscay to the Indus, and the confines of China and from the Aral Sea to the lower cataracts of the Nile". Still, the Prophet's command concerning Constantinople had not been fulfilled: the expected victory at Tours was to lead to the realization of this holy aim.
As flowers attract bees, an infidel's wealth entices a Muslim to declare Jehad against him to plunder it. Saint Martin might help the French to secure comforts of paradise in the world-to-come but, in this life, his wealth-gathering tomb coaxed all the discomforts of the Islamic sword, which flashed in search of booty.
Though the Battle of Tours is one of the decisive events of history, its exact location has not been established. Some historians believe that it was fought at Mussais-la-Bataille, six miles south west of Chatellerault. Others think that it was not one but a series of running engagements ending near Poitiers in the defeat of Abdur Rahman, the Chief of Cordoba (Spain).
However, there is no doubt that the major engagement of the Battle took place between Tours and Poitiers. The French had given no cause for the Battle: its excuse was determined by Allah, who had laid on the Muslims to suppress, slaughter and seduce non-Muslims until they accept Islam or surrender and pay tribute to acknowledge their inferiority. Tours attracted this predatory expedition from Spain because it was a Christian spiritual center, also ebullient with worldly treasures. Obviously, Jehad was the most suitable action which could guarantee submission of the infidels through plunder and carnage.
The hitherto victorious Arab onslaught was in for a rude shock. The invaders were met by Charles, whose valor, tenacity and martial wisdom earned him the famous surname Martel i.e. hammer; he smashed the Islamic dream in the West. He was not the King of France but the Mayor of the palace at the Merovingian Court; owing to the authority he wielded, he was considered as the de facto ruler.
Provinces of Gaul (France) were ruled by the descendants of Clovis, who was known for his military prowess, but they did not possess their ancestral qualities. However, all was not lost. Among the French chiefs was one Eudes, the Duke of Aquitaine. He was bold enough to usurp king's authority in the southern provinces of Gaul. To acknowledge him as a Christian hero, the Goths, the Saxons and the Franks, united under his standard to fight the Islamic aggressors from Spain. To start with, he proved a successful leader: he repelled the first invasion of the Saracens (Arabs) led by Samah, lieutenant of the Caliph. In this engagement at Toulouse, Samah lost his life and army.
To the Arabs, the Christian victory was unthinkable because it brought shame on the faith that had been incredibly victorious so far; it also kindled the revengeful instincts of the Arabian occupants of Spain, who earnestly longed for an opportunity to put the Christian infidels in their place.
When a nation is destined to rise and prosper, it experiences an amplitude of heroes. That was the time when the Arab national star was racing toward its apogee. Abdur Rahman, who had been restored to his high position by the Caliph Hashim, led his military campaign, which was both punitive and predatory. His first task was to deal with Munuza, the rebellious Moorish Chief, who had become an ally of Eudes in return for his beautiful daughter. This expediency though later turned into a nuptial tie, was looked down upon by the French, who had a live sense of national honor. The Moorish chief was subdued and beheaded. His French widow was counted as an article of booty, and suffered the same fate as other pretty women of the vanquished nobility. She was sent as a present to the Caliph at Damascus, who like his predecessors, had become a connoisseur of pretty flesh and delicate manners.
Having dealt with Munuza, Abdur Rahman marched on and surprised the Eude's camp on the banks of the Garonne and heaped a shattering defeat on him; thereafter, he stormed Bordeaux, set its churches on fire and demolished people's homes mercilessly. The fate of the Christians was a picture of flaming hell. Historians have not been able to estimate the number of the slain, which is 'known only to God'. The inhuman devastation that the Saracens perpetrated in the countryside far excelled the Mafia-type vulgarity, brutality and savagery of modern times. These worshippers of the Most Merciful Allah proved to be the most merciless killers, whose atrocities surpassed the scenes of torture described in the books of the Old Testament. The romances of chivalry have, however, been created from these tales of abomination, which please and tease readers according to their aesthetic taste and psychological leanings.
Abdur Rahman came face to face with Charles Martel at the junction of the Clain and the Vienne between Tours and Poitiers. Charles, the illegitimate son of the elder Pepin seems to be one general, who had studied not only the military tactics of the Arabs but was also aware of their psychology, and the factors that motivated it. He knew that the Muslim zealots fought for booty; they called it Jehad, the most sacred fighting, because all their moral outrages were reckoned as acts of piety by Allah, who, instead of punishing them with hell-fire rewards them with the luxuries of paradise. Considering the unusual nature of the Islamic ethics, which treats vice as virtue in the guise of Jehad - a process fully committed to robbing and murdering non--Muslims, Charles adopted a very shrewd policy to beat the Muslims with their own stick.
Though half of his country had begun to suffer from domination of the Saracens, he betrayed no symptoms of panic associated with haste and fear. Historians have not paid proper respect to Charles's tactful delayed preparations for the Battle. Judging by his military genius, it is not difficult to conclude that it was all intentional on his part: he wanted the Saracens to plunder as much as they could. This pillage had the in-built cover of protection for two reasons: firstly, he wanted their greed for booty to reach the point of saturation so that they had no further desire of looting and secondly, he planned to make them immobile under the burden of their plunder.
Added to the military genius of Charles was his personal courage and zeal of patriotism. The series of engagements called the Battle of Tours, lasted for seven days. During the first six days, the Saracens held the upper hand but, on the last day, the fortunes of the combatants were reversed. There was Edes along with his men to avenge his honor; voluntary German allies of Charles displayed their proverbial fighting skills and the chivalrous thrust of Charles and his Frenchmen, whose country's destruction had made them wild, became oblivious of the word: retreat. The Saracens started losing ground, yet their retaliatory pugnacity showed no abatement; their cries of 'Allah-O-Akbar' (God is Great), which still radiated their usual terror and tenacity, could have routed the European forces, but the Lord Jehova seemed to have come to the aid of his Christian worshippers. As evening was about to spread its murky net, Abdur Rahman received a fatal blow and the Saracens became leaderless. There appeared a disorder in their rank, but they did not take to a cowardly flight. The black curtain of night acted as a barrier between the deadly foes.
Strange as it may seem, now the same spirit of Jehad rose to shatter solidarity of the Muslim combatants, which had acted as their uniting force. In fact, the wisdom of Charles that he had displayed with regard to satiating the plundering greed of Allah's soldiers, asserted itself in the form of Christian victory that was to seal the Arab fate in Europe and save civilization from infinite regression.
Members of the invading armies were not purely Arabs: they had an equal number of Berbers, who claimed Arab descent, perhaps out of inferiority complex but were equally African nomads having distant racial ties with Arabia. The Berbers were paid lip sympathy by the Arabs for their fortitude, fearlessness and fighting skills. They had accepted Islam owing to the doctrine of Jehad, which served them well to alleviate their poverty and also give them a say in administrative affairs of the government. Thus, the real relationship between the Arabs and the Berbers was waging Jehad for booty. Though this process was completely horrendous, it disguised its ugliness as the command of Allah and thus declared the sour as sweet, blight as blessing and bleak as bright.
The Muslims had gathered a lot of booty before Abdur Rahman was slain in the battlefield. This enormous loot was affecting them on two counts: firstly, it had become cumbersome to their mobility, and secondly, they had got what they wanted. Why enter further clashes? It is only a hungry wolf which searches for a lamb; and the satiated one has no such need.
Having lost their leader, the Saracens were in a critical position. It was not possible to elect instantly a military commander of AbdurRahman's stature to win the field; unending dissension was bound to be fatal not only to their lives but also their looted possessions. While gaining plunder is Jihad, losing it is contempt of Jihad. So, the Saracens decided to retreat under cover of darkness leaving the glory of the Battle of Tours to Charles Martel.
It is an irony of history that Jihad, the sacred vehicle of plunder, which gave Islam a tremendous boost through booty gained in the Battle of Badr, turned out to be the biggest hurdle to the expansion of Islam in the West owing to the massive pillage in France which they earnestly tried to protect at the expense of the sacred spirit of fighting. It reveals the true nature of Jihad. Lesson of the Battle of Tours proved so terrifying that the Arabs never resumed the conquest of France again.
What is the significance of the Battle of Tours?
1. It was a brilliant victory of the Christians over the Muslims, whose rule came to be confined to Spain. This victory gave the Christian powers a measure of self-confidence and also established that the West would form the spiritual domain of Christ, and not Muhammad's. Not only that, the Christians would eventually carry on Crusades for four centuries to stem the tide of Islam. It could not have been possible without the consciousness engendered by the Battle of Tours.
2. The sense of unity that the European Christians gained over centuries, is owed to their anti-Islamic attitudes, and a study of the Crusades testifies to this fact.
3. The more important aspect of this Battle is cultural, which is better understood when we examine the history of Muslim Spain:
Of course, there was religious tolerance but not to the extent that it has been claimed. The Jews, who supported the Muslim rule, did well, but it was usually difficult for the Christians to secure high positions in the governmental hierarchy.
The Arab culture had deformed the European way of life in Spain. The Christian men had to be circumcised like the Muslims in the interest of national hygiene. The sacred Christian doctrine of monogamy was violated by the Christians themselves. They set up vast harems and also practiced pederasty on a large scale in the Arabian fashion. There was no dearth of Christian women, who observed purdah; the number of Christian converts to Islam were steadily rising all the time. In fact, people of Muslim Spain felt proud of emulating their Arab masters; thus, in manners and dress, they became more Asians and less Europeans.
It is not usually appreciated that the Western civilization is mostly an offshoot of the manners and etiquette that were developed in the French court. All European courts eagerly imitated them. This is what created Western culture.
Had Charles Martel lost to the Saracens, there would have been no French Court, and no Western Civilization. Instead, Europe would have become a cultural satellite of Arabia like all Muslim nations.
Here, I ought to add that what Rome or Constantinople offered and propagated was not the Western civilization in its modern sense. These two centers were custodians of the Middle Eastern tradition as handed to them in the form of Christianity. The Western civilization is represented by the spirit and elegance of the Magna Carta and the French Revolution: they both are indebted to the French Court for their initial development. Had the French lost the battle of Tours to the Saracens, there would have been no French Court with its chivalrous traditions, which lifted the status of the European women, lending color, taste and beauty to culture. This is the foundation of the Western aesthetics, fine arts and equality of sexes.
3. Finally, I should applaud the Arabic arts and sciences as they prevailed in Spain and Sicily. They were certainly much higher than what the Europeans practiced but they suffered from a serious disability: they were severely restricted by the puritanical faith imposed by the Koran, which treats woman as a sexual toy and forbids indulgence in fine arts such as painting, drama, music, dance and statuary. Still worse, the Islamic politics, as now, was dominated by the vehemence of faith, and the power of mind was not allowed to solve difficult situations. Everything had to be done the way the Prophet did centuries earlier. This fundamentalism acted as the bane of the Islamic cultural and scientific advancement, and the Muslim society became regressive all over the world.
The Muslim world is benefiting from the Western scientific advances, though cursing the West at the same time to lighten the burden of inferiority complex.
Had the Muslims won the Battle of Tours, entire Europe would have gradually become a part of the Arab political and cultural dominions. Exactly the same conditions of ignorance, backwardness and intolerance would have prevailed in Europe as they do in the Islamic world today; the modern scientific revolution and international social enlightenment by way of human rights and civil liberties, could not have come into existence; civilization would have become regressive and stood at the same level as it did 1400 years ago during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
those who can imagine the socio-political conditions of the early 8th century Europe, will know that I have not resorted to exaggeration in analyzing the historical significance of the battle of Tours.
I salute the memory of Charles Martel and his brave French and German combatants, who paid a huge tribute of blood and bones to save and promote human civilization.
Man is born with a moral sense which enables him to differentiate between right and wrong. Without subjecting behavior to a common standard of vice and virtue, social evolution is not possible. This is the reason that even the primitive societies had words which denoted difference between good and bad.
All societies did not practice universal standards of vice and virtue, yet it is well known that almost all communities knew what was good and bad. For example, mutual fidelity of consorts, speaking the truth, keeping promises, respecting family ties, helping the poor and weak, were considered signs of good morality. Of course, morality cannot be coded but its rules are well understood. From this attitude arose the famous maxim: "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself."
It means that you must wish others what you wish for yourself. Since every one desires security of person and property, liberty to worship, fair trial, freedom of speech etc., these facts, over a period of time, rose to become what is called Human Rights. He who violates these rights is held the enemy of humankind.
When Islamic morality is judged by universal standards, this Arabian religion fails to qualify as the friend and guide of humanity. In fact, it constitutes a major threat to the survival of human race. I have no doubt that the Muslims will protest against this point of view, and as usual, will produce far- fetched and irrational evidence to prove that Islam advocates love and brotherhood of mankind. This type of sorcery has worked wonders for Muslim fundamentalists in the past, but with the dissemination of knowledge, it is difficult to cloud the truth with the magic of misinterpretation, marvel of memorization and mysticism of meaninglessness.
Islam has become a set of fundamentals which preach social segregation, hatred of non-Muslims and elimination of dissenters through dominance, death and destruction. These conclusions, no matter how true, cannot be palatable to the Muslims and therefore rank as fabrications, from their standpoint. I can do no better than quote from the Koran to decide the issue. Examine the following for yourself:
"Do not let non-Muslims enter mosques. They will go to hell." ( Repentance: 17 )
"O ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship." (Repentance: 28)
"O ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers .... and let them find harshness in you." (Repentance: 123)
"Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute." (Repentance: 29)
"O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil-doers." (Repentance: 20)
"Certainly, God is an enemy to the unbelievers." ( The Cow: 90 )
"God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a blazing hell." ( The Confederates 60 )
"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends.... whoso does that belongs not to God." (The House of Imram: 60)
"O believers, do not make friends with the Jews and Christians; ..whoso of you makes them his friend is one of them." (The Table: 55)
"The believers indeed are brothers." ( Apartments: 10 )
"Moslems are hard against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." (Victory: 25)
A Muslim naturally believes in all such Koranic verses, which determine his social outlook and he becomes a narrow- minded sectarian. This psychological approach is the fountain of fundamentalism. It is a myth to say that Islam advocates good relationship with the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians. What I have said at 9 above supports this statement. If this were not enough, one could refer the matter to HADITH, the sayings of the Prophet: Chapter LXXI of SAHIH MUSLIM clearly states that since Islam is the religion for the entire humanity, it abrogates all other faiths. To illustrate the point further, the hadith no.285 asserts that any Jew or Christian who has heard of Muhammad but does not believe in him, will become "one of the denizens of Hell-Fire."
The Islamic fundamentalism has become the foundation of Islamic morality. What makes it a threat to human survival is the fact that it is not a passive approach but advocates active aggression to impose itself on the unbelievers. Why? It gives several reasons for this. Let me quote two:
"Muslims are the best of all nations." (House of Imram: 110). Obviously, the best nation is superior to other people, who must wear the yoke of discrimination.
The Prophet Muhammad has been sent by God with "the religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions.." (Private Apartments: 28)
Simply stated it means that Muslims are superior to non- Muslims and have the birth-right to dominate them. This is why Islam calls itself DIN-E-GHALIB, the religion of dominance.
As every student of psychology knows, the purpose of any fundamentalism is to secure blind following from its adherents. This is possible only when they are conditioned to a certain object or goal which begins to rank as the sole purpose of their lives. As a result, the purpose begins to overrule the method of acquisition; whatever secures it is good and whatever obstructs it is bad. In a nutshell, people must stop thinking for themselves, especially in terms of morality. As the Marxists brainwashed people in the name of proletarianism and what it stood for, the Muslims have been conditioned to the person of the Prophet Muhammad, who is projected as the Saviour of his followers, having complete power to find them permanent residence in paradise, which is the abode of luxury, love making and lasciviousness. Since Muslims, in most countries are deprived, depressed and desolated, they are prepared to do anything to uphold the honour of the Prophet. For total obedience, they are at liberty to indulge in the most convenient morality such as mendacity, rape, murder, theft and treason without losing their chance of entering the paradise which has been absolutely guaranteed by their faith in the Prophet Muhammad.
A corollary of this belief is the oppression of non-Muslims by the Muslims, who deny human rights to the unbelievers for upholding the Islamic precepts in relation to the infidels. As a result, non-Muslims are discouraged to live in the Muslim countries even if they have originally belonged to their ancestors. It is justified on the precedent that the Prophet Muhammad expelled all Jews and unbelievers from Arabia. The modern example is that of Pakistan, the original home of the Hindus. There were millions of non-Muslims in this land before partition of India but as Pakistan came into being they all were thrown out through malice, mutilation and massacre. On the contrary, over 100,000,000 Muslims live in India and demand human rights! In Islamic countries, the non- Muslim minorities are either non-existent or very tiny indeed. This strangulation of human rights has become a part of the Islamic morality.
Since Islam is the Din-e-Ghalib i.e. the religion of dominance by God's will, Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries do everything possible to harass, humiliate and harangue the host countries to practise their faith and culture. The "Muslim Parliament" of Great Britain is an example in point. In fact, this coterie of a few hundred Muslim fanatics, is a mockery of the British tolerance and hospitality. Its major role is to collect donations from its adherents, forbid Muslims to seek identification with Great Britain and practice all rules of Islamic intolerance towards the host community. There is no concept of parliamentary government in Islam, whatever, yet these hatred-mongers have set up this association in the Land of Magna Carta, dedicated to liberty. It is only a matter of time before the British government take notice of its evil influence on the British culture, causing problems also for those who have adopted the British ways and are proud to be sincere citizens of this land.
Use of violence for securing worldly goal and terrorization of non-Muslims are the pillar of Islamic morality. It is done through:
secular laws which are made in the name of Islam, and
the laws which Allah has framed and require no legislative authority and procedures.
Now, let us ponder over these two points:
1a. Islam declares Muhammad the greatest of all prophets and therefore reserves the highest reverence for him. This has become an article of faith. A Muslim, unwilling to force it on others, is considered deficient in belief. As a result, every Muslim looks for an opportunity to demonstrate the magnitude of his faith by molesting non-Muslims, and even fellow- believers who express less bigotry in this field. Politicians have seized upon this emotional condition of the Muslim mind to enhance their grip on power. For example, Pakistan has passed TOHEEN-E-RASUL ACT (Contempt of Prophet's Act), which prescribes death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Such an Act has never been passed in the world of Islam during the last fourteen centuries; nor is there any religious justification for it. In fact such a law in itself is a gross contempt of the Prophet, who wanted to be known as the Blessing for mankind. A person who is so conscious of himself cannot be the Blessing for lacking tolerance and understanding of the human behavior. Yet they have done it to terrorize the dissidents and non-Muslims. The treatment of the Qadiyanis and Christians in Pakistan, speak for itself. In fact, it is an ambassador of moral perversion which is an echo of the European Inquisition conducted by the Christian clerics to defend the holiness of their savior, Jesus Christ.
This Islamic exploitation of the believers has led to their moral bankruptcy, and this fact is well demonstrated by what happened in Pakistan during the middle of April, 1994:
Hafiz Sajjad Tariq of Gujranwala in Pakistan, accidentally dropped a copy of the Koran in a fireplace. As it caught fire, people of the locality became aflame with rage. Not caring that Sajjad was a pious Muslim devoted to exalt holiness of the Scripture (Koran), they alleged that he had desecrated the Word of God. As mullahs of the area heard of it, they instantly issued Fatwas of apostasy against Sajjad. Like hawks, the fundamentalists swooped down on him, each hoping that his blow would dispatch the victim to hell assuring him (the assailant) a seat in paradise. As they were hitting him, someone shouted that he was being dished out an un-Islamic punishment because he must be stoned to death. By then, they had broken his ribs and he was not able to walk. A gallant police officer intervened and locked him up with a view to saving him from mob-violence. As the news spread, a large crowd of frenzied Muslims appeared before the local police- station demanding his immediate release. The Police Inspector, instead of enforcing the law, fell for the temptation of establishing himself as the champion of Islam and handed Sajjad to the attackers. They started stoning him mercilessly and thereafter set his body on fire. If this were not enough, they tied his corpse to a powerful motor-cycle and dragged it through the streets for two hours! After a pious show of Islamic morality, they felt that they had done enough to avenge the honour of the Prophet whom the Koran had been revealed.
This type of Islamic morality is rampant, not only in the Islamic countries, but also in the lands where the Muslims have settled in sufficient numbers. To explain this point, I may quote Britain where I live. I wrote and published a book: "Eternity" in 1990. It challenges the basic concept of revelation, the foundation of prophethood. As the Muslim organizations heard about it, they individually and severally issued a fatwa condemning me to death. Neither have they given me a chance to explain myself before a properly constituted tribunal of justice nor have they accepted my challenge for a public debate. Its consequences have been painful to me and my family.
What I have stated above roughly delineates the Islamic morality in relation to legislated law. Now, I may briefly touch upon the second part of the issue i.e. the direct commands of Allah which are so evident that they need not be legislated:
2a. Jehad is one of them, and forms an integral part of the Islamic morality. It is an open behest of Allah to murder, pillage, rape and create widows and orphans for imposing Allah's will on the unbelievers, who are considered His worst enemies just for the "sin" of unbelief. Yet, Allah calls himself the Independent (SAMAD), All-Compassionate, All- Powerful and Creator of the whole universe!
If Allah does possess all these qualities, how can He sanction the destruction of innocent people? If He were so desperate for worship, being the All- Powerful, Compassionate, Creator, He would have created humankind in such a way that everyone was born with the belief suited to God.
Instead of delving into this mystery, I hasten to add that Jihad or violence is considered holy by Allah, who, in return for persecuting, pillaging and paralyzing the infidels declares:
"Allah has bought from the faithful themselves and their belongings against the gift of paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill and are killed.." (Repentance: 110)
A HADITH ( the saying of the Prophet Muhammad ) declares: "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (Sahih Bokhari, Ch. 22: 73 )
What is paradise? The Muslim scholars are usually embarrassed by this question and pretend that it is not physical but a condition of the mind. The above Koranic verse clearly states that it is a definite exchange i.e. offer of paradise for killing a non- Muslim or getting killed in the process of obeying this divine command. The paradise is the main temptation for practicing Islam. This is the reason that the Koran explains it well. Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by Houris and Ghilman. Houris are the most beautiful ever-young virgins with wide, flexing eyes and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade an embellished with bracelets of silver.
Allah shall give every believing man no fewer than seventy houris and many ghilmans. To make sure that the lucky fellow can cope with them, Allah will increase his virility a hundred-fold! This is the ultimate goal of the Islamic morality, and it is why that the Muslims, who are usually depressed, are ready to practice convenient morality based on violence. Even more potent factor in this field is their staunch belief in the intercessory powers of the Prophet Muhammad, which means that he has the authority to accommodate his followers in paradise irrespective of what they may have done. I shall deal with this point in the next issue of "Liberty."