Dare To Speak

Dare to Speak
Islam versus Free Democracy and Free Enterprise
By Al Bailey
Copyright 2006. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form,
by Photostat, microfilm, xerography, or any other means, or incorporated into any retrieval
system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the author.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: The new Cold War ........................................................................................................ 9
Chapter 2: A personal realization ................................................................................................. 24
Chapter 3: Koranic teachings that shape Islamic nations ............................................................. 41
The state of Muhammad’s world when he revealed the Koran ................................................ 41
Is it legitimate for a Westerner to critique the Koran?.............................................................. 44
Interpreting the Koran............................................................................................................... 49
The five pillars of Islam: requirements for being a Muslim ..................................................... 68
1. Declare, with belief, that “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear
witness that Muhammad ....................................................................................................... 68
2. Pray five obligatory prayers per day (Salah) ................................................................ 69
3. Give an offering of obligatory charity (Zakah or Zakat) .............................................. 69
4. Participate in a fast during the month of Ramadan....................................................... 70
5. Travel to Mecca ............................................................................................................ 71
The missing pillar: Love ........................................................................................................... 71
Islam’s substitute for the missing pillar of Love: War against Infidels.................................... 78
The Koran’s view of non-Muslims ........................................................................................... 83
A tool for Islam’s war against Infidels: Taqiyya (dissimulation) ............................................. 87
The “House of Peace” and the “House of War” ....................................................................... 92
The Koran’s view of Slavery .................................................................................................. 106
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?.................................................................................................. 109
Chapter 4: What are some of the characteristics of an Islamic Nation? ..................................... 112
The treatment of non-Muslims................................................................................................ 112
The spoils of holy war against Infidels (war booty) ........................................................... 116
The taxation of infidels who live in the House of Submission ........................................... 116
The treatment of Muslims who convert to another religion ............................................... 118
How essential are these characteristics to the success of an Islamic Nation? .................... 121
The treatment of women ......................................................................................................... 123
The treatment of secular Muslims and liberal Muslims.......................................................... 140
Islamic Economics .................................................................................................................. 144
Banking, Investment, and Insurance................................................................................... 144
Inheritance........................................................................................................................... 156
Corruption ........................................................................................................................... 156
Other aspects of Islamic Economics ................................................................................... 163
The over-all impact of Islam on a nation’s economy and development ............................. 164
Verdict: Islam’s road to economic hell is paved with pious intentions .............................. 173
Chapter 5: Free Democracy & Free Enterprise vs. Islamic Democracy & Islamic Economics . 174
A critique of cultural preservation for preservation’s sake..................................................... 174
Two aspects of Western culture worth passing on to our children ......................................... 174
What do the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” mean?..................................... 175
Islam opposes Free Democracy and proposes Islamic Democracy ........................................ 177
Islam opposes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship............................................. 179
3
The futility of seeking freedom and amity with Islamic governments ............................... 185
Islam opposes Free Enterprise and proposes Islamic Economics........................................... 189
Chapter 6: Islam overrules Science............................................................................................. 192
Chapter 7: The State of Islam Today .......................................................................................... 204
Stuck at a fork in the road ....................................................................................................... 204
Turkey ................................................................................................................................. 207
Iran ...................................................................................................................................... 209
Other Islamic nations, and their relationships with the West ............................................. 210
The House of Islam’s relationships with specific non-Islamic nations .................................. 220
Israel.................................................................................................................................... 220
France.................................................................................................................................. 228
Canada................................................................................................................................. 232
United States ....................................................................................................................... 233
Russia.................................................................................................................................. 248
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) ................................................................................. 250
Armenia............................................................................................................................... 253
Cyprus ................................................................................................................................. 259
Germany.............................................................................................................................. 261
India .................................................................................................................................... 264
Nigeria................................................................................................................................. 265
East Timor........................................................................................................................... 267
The Philippines ................................................................................................................... 269
Thailand .............................................................................................................................. 270
The Netherlands .................................................................................................................. 272
Spain ................................................................................................................................... 276
United Kingdom.................................................................................................................. 277
Denmark.............................................................................................................................. 290
Relations between governments and peoples in the “House of Peace” .................................. 303
Bloody borders, or just plain bloody?................................................................................. 303
A recipe for conflict: Mix Church with State; bind tightly................................................. 308
Muhammad’s reign: Church and State bound together in one Messenger ......................... 310
Abrogation and its affects on Islamic Doctrine and Law ................................................... 325
Islamic guidance for daily living after Muhammad’s death ............................................... 328
The history of leadership in the Islamic world ................................................................... 339
The real political choice that Islamic Law offers: dictatorship or chaos. ........................... 344
Future leadership of the Islamic world ............................................................................... 348
Relations between the House of Islam’s political leaders and its people ........................... 357
Chapter 8: What next? ................................................................................................................ 362
Appendix A: The Medina Charter (622 C.E.)............................................................................. 367
Appendix B: Excerpts from Shari’ah regarding marriage .......................................................... 370
Appendix C: Verses where the Koran attaches Allah’s will to Muhammad’s will .................... 390
Appendix D: Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights .................................................. 398
Appendix E: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ........................................................ 405
Glossary of Arabic, Ottoman, and Islamic Terms ...................................................................... 410
Index ........................................................................................................................................... 420
4
Introduction
Much has been written about Islam, its ethics, and its relationships with other religions. Despite
this large volume of work, there appears to be something missing, something even more basic
and important to people of all faiths. What is missing is a study of Islam with regard to
governance, particularly regarding its relationship to what we call democracy. The goal of this
book is to fill the gap by providing this investigation and presenting its findings.
Why choose this subject? Because, throughout the world, we receive starkly conflicting
information about Islam. Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace. They also claim that
our democratic traditions of religious tolerance require us to respect the freedom of Muslims to
practice Islam. At the same time, we see Muslims practicing violent religious intolerance around
the world. This intolerance is often against their non-Islamic neighbors, who range from
Orthodox Russians to Sudanese Christians, Hindu Indians, Catholic Filipinos, and Buddhist
Thais. Additionally, Muslims practice religious intolerance against each other. We hear of
Sunni Muslims persecuting Shiite Muslims, Shiite Muslims persecuting Sunni Muslims, and
Wahhabis persecuting everyone else.
Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Yet many people fail to associate the violence
committed by Muslims with Islam itself. They steadfastly seek alternative explanations, such as
colonialism, tribal tensions, racism, and poverty. They refuse to even consider the idea that
Islam may be inherently aggressive and intolerant toward other religions.
This self-deception cannot continue for long. Islam’s presence and influence is growing
throughout the world, and it demands our attention. For example, Nigeria’s northern states
announced their conversion to Islamic Law in 2002 by sentencing several women to death by
stoning for adultery. In 2006, the entire nation of Denmark was terrorized by Muslims around
the world because a mid-sized, independent Danish newspaper published some political cartoons
of Muhammad.
An ever-growing cascade of violence tells us that we are approaching a time when we will have
no choice but to confront two disturbing possibilities:
• Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy as we know it, because it opposes

the individual freedoms and protections that citizens of democracies cherish.
• Muslims are in the process of using our own democratic institutions to subvert
democracy and to replace democratically determined law with Islamic Law.
Before you dismiss these words as bigotry, please allow me to explain:
In the United States, we have embraced principles of tolerance and freedom that may be
described as “live and let live.” Applied to religion, “live and let live” means that no one has the
right to force their beliefs on others; nor may they prevent others from changing their beliefs.
While Americans may not always live up to these principles, we aspire to them, and use our
freedoms to correct ourselves as we progress.
5
Tolerance and freedom are essential parts of what we call democracy, which political theorists
usually call Liberal Democracy or Western Democracy. In Dare to Speak, this form of
democracy is called Free Democracy.
Religious tolerance is an essential principle we live by in the United States and throughout the
Westernized world. This principle has evolved from centuries of futile religious battles that
caused us to violate the very beliefs we claimed to fight for. It was codified in complete form by
the Constitution of the United States, which has been an example and a beacon of hope for
nations around the world. While these nations have created constitutions of their own, to serve
their particular circumstances, the U.S. Constitution has remained a guiding reference for
progressive thinkers everywhere. Why? Because it exemplifies a framework for governance
that grants unprecedented powers and freedoms to its citizens.
In contrast, there is a part of the world where Free Democracy has not flourished, and its
freedoms are not valued. Free Democracy did not evolve there, and we are discovering that it
does not grow there, despite a variety of working examples in other parts of the world. This
infertile soil is the House of Islam.
Why has the form of democracy we cherish failed to take root and grow in the Islamic world?
Because Islam ties religion and politics together in a Gordian knot. Islam has its own body of
laws, known as Shari’ah,1 and these laws sharply oppose Free Democracy. Islam and Free
Democracy are as opposed to each other as Communism and Free Democracy, or Fascism and
Free Democracy.
Many people refuse to consider the possibility that Islam and Free Democracy are irreconcilably
opposed to each other. After all, the benefits of Free Democracy are obvious, and many Islamic
nations have worked diligently to adopt it. Unfortunately, the fruits of these efforts confirm that
Islam and Free Democracy do not mix. Islamic nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Algeria have
histories of secular governments, but those governments have uneasy relationships with their
citizens. These nations have often found themselves resorting to warlike tactics against Islamic
fundamentalists to preserve themselves. In Iran, Islam’s mullahs won such a war, and they now
use their authority to thwart the superficially democratic institutions they control.
What makes Islam different from other religions? Why is it hostile to Free Democracy? To put
it plainly, it does not believe in “live and let live.” Devout Muslims do not feel obligated to
convince others to convert to Islam through reason. Instead, the Koran encourages them to use
persecution. According to the Koran,2 people of other faiths are allowed to continue in their
practices only if they acknowledge that Islam is a superior religion and pay extortion money to
an Islamic government in the form of special taxes.3 This exception, which is extolled by
Muslims as an example of tolerance, is actually designed to grind down other religions to
nothing over time. To people who are weak, or young in their faiths, this persecution raises a
1
Also referred to as Sharia or Shariah.
2
The Koran, which is also spelled “Qu’ran” or “Quran,” is a compilation of the recitations of Muhammad, believed
by Muslims to be literal words of Allah.
3
Jizyah, which is a per capita tax imposed on adult male non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.
6
question: “Why pay extra taxes and accept an inferior position in society when all I have to do is
convert to Islam?”
In a sense, these mercenary conversions are a saving grace. There are many Muslims in the
world who are Muslim in name only. They know that if they left Islam, their Apostasy4 would
be considered a capital crime. They are prisoners of their faith instead of believers. Therefore,
the apparent strength of Islam can be deceptive, and many nominal Muslims are far more
benevolent than Islam calls them to be.
Many of us Westerners grew up ignorant of Islam. Therefore, with few experiences to contradict
our democracy-inspired beliefs, which seek to accommodate different religions, we have
absorbed the notion that the world’s religions as merely different paths to the same goal. For
people who still believe this, the words of this book will come as a shock, because they reveal
that Islam violates this assumption. Dare to Speak will show that Islam is overtly hostile toward
other religions. More importantly, it will show that Islam is overtly hostile to non-Islamic
governments.
This book will also uncover the subterranean war that Muslims are currently waging against the
world’s Free Democracies. It will lay out the issues, provide references to back them up, and
begin to discuss the actions that Westerners can take to preserve Free Democracy for future
generations.
This book quotes extensively from the Koran (a compilation of recitations that Muhammad
claimed were Allah’s) and the Hadith (compilations of Muhammad’s other words and deeds), as
well as recent news articles and modern religious books written by Muslims. It does so to
demonstrate two key points:
1. The portions of Islamic holy scripture that carry disturbing messages are not merely stray
quotes in otherwise benign books. They are essential components of Islam, and the
Koran and the Hadith emphasize them repeatedly. Faithful Muslims take these messages
seriously and act on them.
2. The actions of Islamic terrorists around the world are not merely the products of a few
deviant minds or some splinter group; they come from the violent messages of one
“eternal” source: Islamic holy scripture .
Dare to Speak will demonstrate that, as long as Islam is treated as a respectable religion, and not
as a hostile political ideology bent on global domination, Islam will continue to expand and sow
its seeds of terror throughout the world. If we allow this to happen, the nations that currently
embrace Free Democracy may one day find themselves destitute and chaotic, with their
democratic laws replaced by Islamic ones.
As you read this book, you will find many references embedded directly into the text rather than
exiled to appendices or footnotes. This structure gives you direct access to the sources of Dare
to Speak’s assertions, to help you view them easily and form your own conclusions.
4
The abandonment of one’s religion. While most religions frown upon Apostasy, Islam views it, in specific legal
terms, as the greatest of all crimes that a Muslim can commit. It is a crime punishable by death.
7
If, after reading this book, you doubt its assertions, please do your own independent research.
With vast resources and newspaper archives available on the Web and in libraries, your job will
be easy and inexpensive. As a starting point, I highly recommend the University of Southern
California’s “Compendium of Muslim Texts,” which provides on-line access to three translations
of the Koran, plus a comprehensive compilation of hadiths, along with keyword search functions
for all texts. You can find this site at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html.
Please do not dismiss or pre-judge the points of this book if they disagree with what you want to
believe. You have a duty to yourself and your family to understand the issues we face, so that
you can respond to them appropriately. Your actions may impact your children far more than
yourself.
Before moving on to the first chapter, I would like to tell you why I call this book Dare to Speak.
According to Islamic Law, these writings could easily be interpreted as insulting to Islam, and to
Muhammad himself. The punishment for such insults, according to Shari’ah, is severe and may
include death. Therefore, by writing to you, I am truly putting my life on the line. But this is
why I feel I must speak. If I was silenced by fear, it would already be too late; Islam would be in
control of my life, and yours.
8
Chapter 1: The new Cold War
Back in the exciting days of the late ‘80s, when it became apparent that Communism had failed,
and that Free Democracy held the keys to the future, Francis Fukuyama wrote a hopeful article
called The End of History? which was later expanded into a book.5 As he saw it, history records
the evolution of society. Through it, we have learned how primitive tribes progressed through
various forms of government and economy in a series of experiments that ultimately led to a
perfected structure that Fukuyama felt could no longer be improved. He believed that, while
actual governments and laws may still evolve, the basic structures of modern democracy,
including Free Enterprise and the fair treatment of minorities, were firmly established and
needed no additions. He, and many others, believed that the battle between Communism and
Free Democracy was the last great conflict of humankind. The popular image of Afghani
Muslims at the time was that of courageous freedom fighters, who helped the West finally break
the back of the Soviet Union. With the Cold War over, we could all look forward to pounding
our swords into plowshares and cashing in on the “peace dividend.”
Only one minor problem remained: the Middle East. But Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and
Shimon Peres6 were having productive talks in Oslo,7 and, in 1994, their break-through
agreements won them the Nobel Peace Prize. The 1979 revolution in Iran was seen by the
general public as an isolated case in an isolated country. The bombing of the Marine Barracks in
Lebanon in 1984, which killed 240 Americans, was portrayed as political rather than religious,
and rooted in Europe’s occupation of Ottoman territories after World War I. Somalia’s bloody
rejection of U.S. aid in 1993 was blamed on inept interference in a chaotic country that the U.S.
did not understand. But all those issues were mere side-shows. The main event was Peace in the
Middle East. A giddy world prepared for the revelry and looked forward to giving history its
final curtain call.
Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish
extremist for negotiating away too many Jewish demands. Later, the few remaining negotiating
points became stumbling blocks that broke the whole deal. On September 28, 2000, Yasser
Arafat declared the Intifada,8 and Israeli-Palestinian relations fell apart.
An amazing detail in this deadly deterioration is that the area of land that broke the deal is less
than 50 square miles, and most of it is barren wasteland.9 Equally amazing is the fact that no one
seems willing to point out that it is absurd to rage eternally over such small stakes.
Why do we ignore the apparent silliness of these people, who sacrifice thousands of lives over a
small expanse of arid dirt? It might be because it is too embarrassing – we would rather think
5
The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama, 1992, publisher: Penguin Books
6
At the time, Yasser Arafat was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yitzhak Rabin was
Prime Minister of Israel, and Shimon Peres was Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.
7
Capital of Norway.
8
Arabic term for “uprising.” The Intifada referred to here is more formally known as the Al Aqsa Intifada, or the
Second Intifada. It refers to the uprising of Palestinians against Israel, beginning in September 2000, which began
as hopes for a resolution on issues unsolved by the 1993 Oslo Accords deteriorated.
9
Apartheid Wall, by Nigel Perry, The Electronic Intifada, 2000-2002 Palestine Independent Media Center.
9
that the world is being rocked to its foundations by something important. To Americans, living
in a country formed by the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, and the Gadsden Purchase,
the situation is unfathomable. If the parties involved really wanted to solve their problems, they
could readily do so through some kind of purchase or land swap. There is obviously something
more ominous afoot, and it has little to do with land.
Other events soon revealed that history was not going to end any time soon. They included the
bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. The United
States responded but was ineffective. The country was so caught up with Bill Clinton’s trysts
with Monica Lewinski that people barely noticed. Osama bin Laden was a shadowy, unknown
figure who had rarely surfaced in the news before these attacks. Some cynics even viewed him
as a convenient distraction from Bill Clinton’s impeachment process. After bin Laden openly
declared war on the United States, the U.S. assailed him with a military fly-swatter – an
ineffective cruise missile attack – and then returned to its scandals.
On September 11, 2001, everything changed. With the Twin Towers collapsing in a cloud of
dust, a gash in the Pentagon billowing smoke, and Flight 93 smashing into a Pennsylvania field
on its way to Washington, presumably to the White House, the United States woke up and
declared its War on Terror and Osama bin Laden.
But how could Osama bin Laden, an outlaw in a remote part of the world, with only a few
thousand terrorists at his disposal, strike such a devastating blow? And, how could he elude
capture even to this day?
The answer is that bin Laden is not an outlaw: his actions were condoned by his Afghan host, the
Taliban. And, despite his apparent outlaw reputation among most Islamic governments, he was
considered by many citizens of those governments to be a combination of Robin Hood and
spiritual leader. These people saw him, and still see him, as a hero for declaring Jihad10 against
the Infidel West, and they cheer his tirades against the United States.
The alarming truth is that the only thing that can keep Osama bin Laden at large while a $25
million dollar reward hangs over his head is the intense loyalty of a vast multitude of Muslims.
What worldview could possibly unite so many people around this ruthless and murderous
terrorist? Bin Laden may have explained it best himself in an interview he gave ABC News
reporter John Miller on December 22, 1998. In it, he skillfully combined words that were both
gracious to Muslims and menacing to the West:
ABC NEWS You have been charged with masterminding the bombings of the two U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Are these charges true?
OSAMA BIN LADEN Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds. Peace and
blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, his companions and his kin. Let me begin by stating that
we, in the World Islamic Front for jihad against Jews and Crusaders, have…issued a crystal clear
10
1. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. 2. A crusade or struggle. – The American Heritage
Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
10
fatwa11 calling on the Nation [of Muslims] to carry on jihad aimed at liberating Islamic holy
sites, and the Ancient House [the Ka’aba,12 a cube-like structure in Mecca13],14 and Al-Aksa
Mosque15 and all Islamic lands.
…this…Nation of Muhammad…has responded to this appeal... We will continue this course

because it is a part of our religion, and because God…ordered us to carry out jihad so that the
word of God may remain exalted…If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans,
in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque, and the Holy Ka’aba, is considered a crime, let history be a
witness that I am a criminal.
ABC NEWS You warned that Americans would die. Then, two months later, the U.S.
embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed. Were these bombings because of your
fatwa (decree) against America?
BIN LADEN …we have repeatedly issued warnings over a number of years. Following these
warnings and these calls, anti-American explosions took place in a number of Islamic countries.
Most probably, these acts came about as a result of such calls and warnings…
ABC NEWS If the targets…are Americans, how can the deaths of…Africans be justified?
BIN LADEN …Suppose that the Americans have attacked an Islamic country and kidnapped my
children…to use as a shield, and then [they] started to kill Muslims as is the case in Lebanon,
Palestine, and these days in Iraq, and also when they supported the Serbs in massacring the
Muslims in Bosnia. According to Islamic jurisprudence, if we abstain from firing on the
Americans lest we should kill these Muslims…the harm that could befall Muslims at large, who
are being attacked, outweighs the good of saving the lives of these Muslims used as shields.
This means that, in a case like this, when it becomes apparent that it would be impossible to repel
these Americans without assaulting them, even if this involved the killing of Muslims, this is
permissible under Islam…
ABCNEWS The U.S. has also said, in formal charges, that you are in a position to develop
chemical weapons and try to purchase nuclear material for weapons. How would such weapons
be used?
11
A legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar. – The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed.
Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
12
The Ka’aba is the most holy structure in Islam, toward which all Muslims face when they pray. It is also the
destination of the Hajj, which is the pigrimmage that each Muslim is to take at least once in a lifetime. The Ka’aba
was reputedly built by Abraham and his son Ishmael as the world’s first place of worship for Allah. Islamic
tradition holds that the Ka’aba was built in the location of a black stone, possibly a meteorite, which was given by
Allah to Adam. That black stone is located in one of the corners of the Ka’aba and is kissed by worshippers during
the rituals of the Hajj. Also referred to as Kaaba or Ka’bah.
13
Located in Saudi Arabia. Also referred to as Makka or Makkah.
14
This book uses the following convention when using parentheses in quotations: Square brackets “[ ]” denote
comments by the author of this book, while parentheses “( )” denote comments from the source of the quotation.
15
The ancient mosque in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is considered to be the third most holy city by Muslims, because it is
the alleged launching point of Muhammad’s famous “Night Journey” to heaven in a dream, discussed later in this
book.
11
BIN LADEN …To seek…weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious
duty…It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the
infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims…
…
ABC NEWS Since the bombings, the U.S. has maintained…forces in Saudi Arabia and recently
used them to help in the renewed air strikes in Iraq. What can the U.S. expect from you now?
BIN LADEN The American forces should expect reactions…from the Muslim world. Any
thief…who enters the countries of others…to steal should expect…murder at any time.
For the American forces to expect anything from me personally reflects a very narrow perception
of things. There is a nation which compromises 1200 million Muslims. This nation is angry…
…
There is no doubt that the treacherous attack perpetrated a few days ago against the Muslim
people of Iraq by the United States and Britain [recall that this interview took place in 1998]
has confirmed several things, the most important of which is that Britain and America are acting
on behalf of Israel and the Jews, to strike at any power in the Islamic world, with a view to paving
the way for the Jews to divide the Muslim world once again and enslave it...
As is known, a great part of the force that carried out the attack came from certain Gulf countries,
which underlined the fact that these countries have lost their sovereignty. Now, infidels walk
everywhere on the land where Muhammad…was born, and where the Koran was revealed to
him... This happens while our scholars and Ulemas,16 who are the heirs of prophets, are in jail.
These Ulemas are jailed while infidels, be they Jews or Christians, are free to go wherever they
want in these countries…From here, I call on all Muslims to…form a leadership for resisting this
crusader-Jewish invasion. The rulers have become powerless.
…
ABC NEWS You have been labeled as “Public Enemy number 1” by the U.S. government. Do
you deserve this label? And, secondly, how can a person who is on the run and who is being
pursued come to attack the world’s only “Superpower”?
BIN LADEN Hostility towards America is a religious duty…To call us enemy number one or
number two doesn’t hurt us. What we…care for is to please God…by doing jihad in his cause
and by liberating Islam’s holy places from those wretched cowards.
…Osama bin Laden is confident that…the Islamic nation will carry out this duty. I have been
here for a few years and I have not left Afghanistan. But I am confident that Muslims…will…be
able…to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.
…
ABC NEWS And, last question, have you got any message for the Muslims in the world?
BIN LADEN These days, we, as a nation, are being subjected to an unprecedented offensive.
We migrated…to defend the religion of God…to liberate [the] holy Ka’aba…from the crusaders,
and to liberate [the] Al-Aksa Mosque and Palestine from the Jews.
16
A body of Mullas (high ranking Islamic religious authorities) – from Mariam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, 2005-
2006 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
12
This Ancient House [the Ka’aba] is the center of attraction of people on this earth, physically and
intellectually. Our life on this planet would be meaningless if we do not worship the God of the
Ancient House. God…will not accept our prayers unless we are facing the Ka’aba…
If we were not to defend God’s Ka’ba and God’s Ancient House, how and for what else are we to
do anything to please our God…[?]
…
…Muslims should consider with care the [Koran’s] verses on loyalty, faith and jihad. They
should sever any relations with the Jews and the Christians…God almighty says: “Ye who
believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends
and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them,
verily God guideth not a people unjust”17…
This text shows that whoever befriends Jews and Christians becomes like them, and becomes one
of them in their religion and in their infidelity. God…indicated in many verses that whoever
befriends the infidels becomes one of them…: “To the hypocrites give the glad tidings that there
is for them but a [grievous] penalty.”18
“Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers, rather than believers; is it honor they seek among
them? All honor is with God.”19 That is why I advise Muslims not to count on present regimes.
Instead, they should defend their religion and themselves and the sanctuaries of Muslims. They
should consider with care the orders of God…to the Companions of the prophet, to do jihad.
And, how He blamed them when they slowed down.
He said in his holy book: “ye who believe, what is the matter with you that, when you are asked
to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world
to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter.”20 And God
also says: “when at last the order for fighting was issued to them, behold, a section of them feared
men…even more than they should have feared God.”21
They said: “our Lord, why hast thou ordered us to fight? Wouldn’t thou not grant us respite to
our natural term, near enough?”22 This is a great calamity that has afflicted people these days.
They say it would be better to delay jihad…
Whatever their reasons, the main reason is their attachment to this life. God says: “Say, short is
the enjoyment of this world. The hereafter is the best for thou who do right…”23…That is why
Muslims should take comfort in expecting the pleasure of God and their rewards in God’s
paradise…May God…give us faith and peace of mind, and help us do his orders and avoid his
prohibitions. And God’s peace and blessings be on our prophet Muhammad, and I conclude by
praising God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds.
17
Koran, surah 5, verse 51.
18
19
20
21
22
Koran, surah 4, verse 77, continued.
23
Koran, surah 4, verse 77, continued.
13
Osama bin Laden inspires many Muslims because his theology and reasoning agree with the
Koran. In fact, according to a recent poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project,24 “The percentage
of people expressing ‘a lot of confidence’ or ‘some confidence’ in bin Laden was vastly higher
than similar ratings for Bush in the Palestinian Territories (71 percent vs. 1 percent), in Morocco
(49 percent vs. 2 percent), in Jordan (55 percent vs. 1 percent), in Indonesia (58 percent vs. 8
percent) and in Turkey (15 percent vs. 8 percent).” In fact, in a July 2005 letter from Ayman al-
Zawahiri (bin Laden’s number-two man), to Abu Masab Zarqawi (the now-deceased former head
of al Qaeda in Iraq), al-Zawahiri wrote: “The strongest weapon that the holy warriors enjoy is
popular support from the Muslim masses…”25 He also called this fact to President Bush’s direct
attention in a recent video where he declared:26
Bush do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim people enjoying what God has given me
from their support and their care and their generosity and their protection, and their participating
in jihad until we defeat you, by Allah’s grace and help.
The United States, reputedly the most powerful nation in the world, has led a six-year
international manhunt for bin Laden without success. At the same time, al Qaeda and its
affiliates have continued to mount deadly attacks around the world. Obviously, bin Laden and
his message enjoy strong and widespread support in the Muslim community. As explained in an
interview with Afghani Colonel Mohammad Yahya Effendi in a recent National Geographic
article entitled Land of the Pashtun:27
…Anyone who hands bin Laden over to the Americans might be 25 million dollars richer in
reward money…but…disgrace would hang over this person, along with his family, clan, and
tribe, for many generations. “Osama’s a major Islamic hero,” he added. “Whoever betrays him,
why, his life wouldn’t be worth an onion.”
As this book will show, the reason bin Laden enjoys this support is that his call for destruction
does not emanate from himself. He simply channels the Koran, which calls all Muslims to
oppose the Infidel nations of the world until they surrender to Islam. It is through the submission
of Infidels that Muslims believe world peace will finally be achieved.
To many Muslims, who see the world through the lens of ideology, Osama bin Laden is a noble
rebel fighting for Allah (the Muslim interpretation of God). They admire his resolve to throw off
the House of Islam’s decadent entanglements with the Infidel West and to lead the charge against
unbelievers. While many Muslims may disagree with Osama bin Laden’s tactics and timing,
they do not dispute his goal.
What are his tactics? Bin Laden seeks to engage the United States and other Western nations in
a series of guerrilla actions, proxy wars, and terror campaigns, somewhat reminiscent of the early
Cold War. By creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, he aims to undermine, demoralize, and
destabilize the nations of the West. Once they are weakened, these Infidel nations will be ripe
for Islamic conquest.
24
Arab Hostility Toward US Growing Poll Finds, by Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, June 4, 2003.
25
Bombings reflect Zarqawi’s growing reach, by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, November 13, 2005.
26
Al-Zawahri in first video since failed U.S. strike, Associated Press, MSNBC News, January 30, 2006.
27
Land of the Pashtun, by Tim McGirk, National Geographic Magazine, December 2004 issue.
14
If bin Laden’s tactics are controversial in the Muslim community, then what is the underlying
goal that he and all devout Muslims share? The underlying goal of Islam is to establish a global
Islamic state, which Muslims believe will be the ideal form of government and economy.
Devout Muslims believe that “Islam is the solution”28 to the injustices perceived in lands
currently governed by Free Democracy, where economies are guided by Free Enterprise. In
other words, their shared goal is a global Islamic revolution, leading to rule by the laws of Allah,
otherwise known as Islamic Law, or Shari’ah.
This may sound like an outrageous claim. Many people may admit that there are extremists who
think this way, but they cannot accept that these beliefs are prevalent. To remove any doubt, I
am about to present the first of many quotes from an assortment of friendly beginner’s books on
Islam. These primers were written mostly by Muslims, and are meant for new converts and
Westerners curious about the faith. They include titles from the familiar “For Dummies” and
“Complete Idiot’s Guide” series. Among them are “The Koran for Dummies,” “The Complete
Idiot’s Guide to the Koran,” “Islam for Dummies,” and “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
Understanding Islam.” These books are designed to provide sympathetic introductions,
seasoned with humorous quotes and cartoons. Beneath their breezy appearances, though, these
books reveal profound attacks on the foundations of Western society that are shocking and
alarming.
When reading my comments on these primers, please keep in mind that they are not about the
books themselves, but on the Islamic beliefs they present. The authors are not indulging in
personal opinions, but are conscientiously trying to present how Muslims interpret their Holy
Scriptures, and how they apply those scriptures to their lives. These books were written by
Muslims and recognized scholars, and were designed to be uncontroversial, at least for Muslims.
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam even includes a lengthy and shining
endorsement from Qasim Najar, one of the founding members of The Islamic Foundation of
North America.
Muslims say that “Islam is the solution” because they believe Islamic Law is divine, endorsed by
Allah himself. As it says in Sohaib Sultan’s The Koran for Dummies:
Devout Muslims…strongly believe that Islam is a complete way of life that requires obedience to
God [Allah] and His Messenger (Muhammad) in communal laws as well as individual ethics.
Most devout Muslims can’t accept the notion that religious laws must be replaced with secular
laws in order to live in the modern world. Rather, as representatives or vicegerents of God on
earth, Muslims feel a responsibility to live on earth in accordance with divine laws.
…God alone is law giver, and Muslims (as those who submit to divine Will) must in turn practice
and implement those divine laws. 29
…
28
Popular slogan throughout the Islamic world which has been specifically adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood;
also used by Hamas during the 2006 elections in the Palestinian Territories.
29
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, chapter 11, section entitled Doing as
God and His Messenger Do, page 164.
15
…The entire governance of an Islamic state revolves around the concept of God as the giver of
law upon which societies are formed. An Islamic state must be governed by divine [Islamic] laws
and principles. 30
…
From the Koranic perspective, every individual in society has the obligation…to worship the
Divine [Allah]. This obligation must be facilitated, honored, and protected by an Islamic society
in order to live by the ethical teachings of the Koran. 31
…
From the Koranic perspective, Muslims form a social movement dedicated to spreading and
implementing divine teachings and laws on earth. 32
Devout Muslims believe that their goal is to liberate the world from darkness by replacing man-
made forms of governance with Shari’ah. They believe that the world exists in a state of
darkness called Jahiliyya, which means “ignorance of God’s ways.” 33 Muslims once used this
term to describe Arabic tribes before their conversions, but now apply it to any nation that does
not adhere to Shari’ah.
Even though many “moderate” Muslims do not heed bin Laden’s call for Jihad today, they
sympathize with his cause. They also want to lash out at imagined humiliations and restore
Islam’s ancient reputation for being the world’s reigning moral and political authority. For
example, Mahathir Mohamad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (now retired), gave this speech at
the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference on October 16, 2003:
…All Praise be to Allah, by whose Grace and Blessings we, the leaders of the Organization of
Islamic Conference countries are gathered here today…to plot a course for the future of Islam and
the Muslim ummah34 worldwide...
…
I will not enumerate the instances of our humiliation and oppression, nor will I once again
condemn our detractors and oppressors. It would be an exercise in futility because they are not
going to change their attitudes just because we condemn them. If we are to recover our dignity
and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who must decide, it is we who must act.
To begin with, the Governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common
stand, if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine35…
From being a single ummah we have allowed ourselves to be divided into numerous sects,
mazhabs36 and tarikats,37 each more concerned with claiming to be the true Islam than our
oneness as the Islamic ummah. We fail to notice that our detractors and enemies do not care
whether we are true Muslims or not. To them we are all Muslims, followers of a religion and a
Prophet whom they declare promotes terrorism, and we are all their sworn enemies. They will
30
Ibid, Chapter 8, section entitled The Verse of the Throne, page 113.
31
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving
religion, page 204.
32
Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Witnessing the Truth, page 238.
33
Ibid, Chapter 7, section entitled Qutub: The controversial revolutionary, page 101.
34
The worldwide community, i.e. nation, of Muslim people. Also referred to as the Ummah Islamia.
35
Throughout this book, the author adds emphasis to quotes via underlining. Special emphasis is occasionally made
via bold black print.
36
The teachings and principles of a particular sect of Islam.
37
Lodges or Orders, usually headed by a teacher or master known as mürsit.
16
attack and kill us, invade our lands, bring down our governments…And we aid and abet them by
attacking and weakening each other, and sometimes by doing their bidding, acting as their proxies
to attack fellow Muslims...
…over the centuries…the Muslim civilization became so weak that at one time there was not a
single Muslim country which was not colonized or hegemonized by the Europeans. But
regaining independence did not help to strengthen the Muslims. Their states were weak and
badly administered, constantly in a state of turmoil. The Europeans could do what they liked with
Muslim territories. It is not surprising that they should excise Muslim land to create the state of
Israel to solve their Jewish problem…
…
The early Muslims were as oppressed as we are presently. But after their sincere and determined
efforts to help themselves in accordance with the teachings of Islam, Allah had helped them to
defeat their enemies and to create a great and powerful Muslim civilization. But what effort have
we made especially with the resources that He has endowed us with?
We are now 1.3 billion strong. We have the biggest oil reserve in the world. We have great
wealth…We are familiar with the workings of the world’s economy and finances. We control 57
out of the 180 countries in the world. Our votes can make or break international organizations.
Yet we seem more helpless than the small number of Jahiliyya converts who accepted the Prophet
as their leader...
Today we…are treated with contempt and dishonor. Our religion is denigrated. Our holy places
desecrated. Our countries are occupied. Our people starved and killed.
…
Today, if they want to raid our country, kill our people, destroy our villages and towns, there is
nothing substantial that we can do. Is it Islam which has caused all this? Or is it that we have
failed to do our duty according to our religion?
Our only reaction is to become more…angry. Angry people cannot think properly. …They
launch their own attacks, killing just about anybody including fellow Muslims to vent their anger
and frustration…The enemy retaliates and puts more pressure on the Governments. And the
Governments have no choice but to give in…
…
There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people. They feel that
they can do nothing right…The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the
Europeans and the Jews…
…
It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million
Jews…And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our
strengths, to plan, to strategize, and then to counter attack…
…The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by
proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.
We may not be able to do that …But even if we can get a third of the ummah and a third of the
Muslim states to act together, we can…do something. Remember that the Prophet did not have
17
many followers when he went to Madinah. But he united the Ansars38 and the Muhajirin39 and
eventually he became strong enough to defend Islam.
Apart from the partial unity that we need, we must take stock of our assets. I have already
mentioned our numbers and our oil wealth…
…
…We are up against a people who think. [The Jews] survived 2000 years of pogroms40 not by
hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism,
Human Rights, and Democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may
enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful
countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them
through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.
Of late, because of their power and their apparent success, they have become arrogant. And
arrogant people, like angry people, will make mistakes, will forget to think.
…
There are many things that we can do. There are many resources that we have at our disposal.
What is needed is merely the will to do it. As Muslims, we must be grateful for the guidance of
our religion, we must do what needs to be done, willingly and with determination. Allah has not
raised us, the leaders, above the others so we may enjoy power for ourselves only. The power we
wield is for our people, for the ummah, for Islam…Insyaallah41 we will triumph in the end.
These are not the words of some firebrand upstart, long on ideology and short on real world
experience. These are the words of an experienced world leader, who was Prime Minister of a
nation of over 20 million people for 22 years.
One aspect of Prime Minister Mohamad’s speech is particularly interesting: he blames a Jewish
conspiracy for the humiliation and powerlessness of Muslims around the world. It makes one
wonder how many Jews he has actually encountered in Malaysia during his 22-year rule.
Certainly, for Malaysia to be humiliated by the Jews there must be at least a few Jews living
there!
According to the CIA’s World Factbook for 2006, the religions of Malaysia are “Muslim,
Buddhist, Daoist, Hindu, Christian, Sikh,” as well as Shamanism in East Malaysia. Jews are so
rare there that their faith is not even listed. Despite this, Prime Minister Mohamad expresses a
deep hatred of Jews, upon whom he blames Islam’s perceived humiliations. Remarkably, he
firmly believes that Jews have subverted the world for their own advantage, and invented human
rights and democracy to help them do it.
38
Arabic term for “helpers.”
39
Term for those who accompanied Muhammad on his flight from Mecca.
40
Yiddish, from Russian, literally, devastation: an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a
massacre of Jews. – from Mariam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, 2005-2006 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
41
God willing.
18
In this speech, Prime Minister Mohamad used the language of war – a cold war, 42 perhaps, like
the one between Communism and Capitalism, but war all the same. And the battle is for world
domination.
Also interesting is the contrast in justifications for war used by Prime Minister Mohamad and
Osama bin Laden. While both share the same end goal, i.e., a world dominated by Islam, their
grievances are quite different. While bin Laden condemns the presence of Infidels on sacred
Muslim land, Mohamad condemns alleged global domination by Jews. To Western ears, both
arguments sound bizarre. How could the mere presence of non-Muslims on an arid swath of
land be justification for war? How could anyone claim that a few million Jews actually control
the world? Moreover, President Mohamad’s reasoning places Jews in a no-win position: If they
live among others, they are accused of taking control of society; if they disconnect by forming
their own country, they are denounced for taking land formerly occupied by non-Jews. What
territory does he think is more appropriate for Jews to claim as a homeland than Israel?
Jews tend to do something very natural for groups that feel threatened: they work very hard, and
seek positions of leadership, so that they are not at the mercy of others. They may have
annoying quirks in the eyes of some non-Jews, but no more so than the members of other groups
that separate themselves from the surrounding culture. A lot of people find Jehovah’s Witnesses
quirky, and the Amish have become outright tourist attractions. Antagonism toward another
group of people that seems different may be one of the most instinctive of human motivations,
but it is also one of the least admirable.
As for those who are concerned about the relative prosperity and political power of Jews, they
might find themselves better served by emulating some Jewish educational and economic
practices instead of than lashing out. As for global domination, those concerned should note that
Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Howard Hughes, and Ray Kroc were or are all Gentiles, and there has
never been a single Jewish president in all of U.S. history.
The real purpose of these allegations of Jewish or Infidel global domination is to serve the
common goal of Osama bin Laden, Prime Minister Mohamad, and other Islamic leaders: to rally
Muslims to the cause of Islamic global domination. These leaders have simply found different
pretexts to justify the same cause. This explains why it seems impossible to resolve problems
that crop up between Islamic communities and their neighbors. As soon as a conflict appears to
be resolved, something else happens to re-open the wound, or new injuries flair up. This is
because Islam is driven by an agenda of conquest and its believers constantly seek ways to
justify it.
Why? Because any good Muslim sees the world through the eyes of the Koran and the Hadith.43
These scriptures teach Muslims to divide the world into two parts:
42
1. A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war, especially that
which existed between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II. 2. A state of rivalry and tension
between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation. – The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
19
• Dar al-Islam: This term means “the House of Islam.” It can be translated further into “the
House of Submission [to Allah]” or “the House of Peace.” It represents all lands
governed by the tenets of Islam.
• Dar al-Harb. This term means “the House of War [against Allah]” 44 It represents all
lands outside of the “House of Peace.” Any nation that does not submit to Allah by
adopting Islam is considered rebellious against him. Therefore, regardless of whether
these nations have made any hostile moves against the “House of Peace,” they defy Allah
and offend Muslims by their mere existence.
It is impossible for a good Muslim leader to want lasting peace with the House of War. There
may be strategic retreats and suspensions of hostilities, but the only lasting peace acceptable to
Islam is the one expected on the utopian day when the entire world submits to Islam. This is
why any opposition from the House of War on some issue may be labeled an insolent rebellion
against Allah, and a call for jihad, if Muslims can give it a religious context.
According to the tenets of Islam, it is not possible to diffuse this call to war by simply
secularizing nations that were once considered Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish. As The
Koran for Dummies explains, the only acceptable form of government is one that complies with
Islamic Law:45
Secularism…violates the sacred teaching that says, “There is no authority or law, except God’s
[Allah’s].” Also, for Islamic law to work, government has to have some role in implementing
laws and forming policies out of the principles of Islamic law (4:59). To form human laws that
clearly contradict divine law is considered a sin in the Islamic tradition (3.185). It proves difficult
to marry secularism to the ideals of the Koran.
Confronted with this kind of reasoning, one begins to understand that Islam is, and has always
been, hostile to all non-Islamic nations. Historically, the House of Islam has acted aggressively
toward its non-Muslim neighbors for about 1,400 years – ever since the days of Muhammad.
These hostilities have included propaganda, intimidation, demographic warfare, and terrorism, in
addition to military warfare.
Over the centuries, Islam’s decline lessened its ability to act on this hostility. The hostility itself,
however, never faded. Despite this latent menace, Westerners began to dismiss the danger of
Islam over time. Today, many refuse to even acknowledge that the danger exists, despite a
revival of jihad against Dar al-Harb, fed by vast transfers of oil wealth to Islamic nations, instant
global communications, and Muslim immigration to the West.
Unfortunately, even the Westerners who perceive the danger rarely grasp its full scope.
Religious war simply does not fit with their understanding of the world. While they may be able
to grasp the notion of Islamic terrorism or “Islamofascism,” it is inconceivable that Islam itself
43
A hadith is an account of statements or actions of Muhammad, attested to by eye-witnesses. The proper Arabic
plural for hadith is aHadith. A compilation of ahadith is called Hadith, and the discipline of its study is also called
Hadith. An alternative spelling is Hadeeth.
44
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pages121-122.
45
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 20, section entitled Morality
and Secularism, page 302.
20
could be hostile. They assume, without questioning, that all religions are basically the same, and
that all religions teach about peace and love. I know this because I was one of them, and I now
stand corrected.
Westerners are accustomed to recognizing wars only when countries declare them. This allows
Islam’s war to fly under the West’s radar, because it is declared by a borderless nation disguised
as a religion. Islam’s leaders are not the kings, presidents, or premiers that fit easily into
Western paradigms. Instead, they are religious scholars who disregard physical boundaries as
legitimate limits to their jurisdiction.
Islam is a faith that aspires to global conquest, peacefully when possible, and by force when
necessary. It also demands loyalty beyond any tyrant’s dreams. It conducts its war on non-
Muslim nations through the proxy nations it controls, the terrorist cells it imbeds in target states,
and the growth of Islamic populations in those states.
In the West’s excitement over “the end of history” and “the peace dividend,” Westerners were
once determined to ignore this war, but its reality was seared into their hearts on September 11,
2001. Unfortunately, even that shock was not enough to shake them out of their dreams. The
U.S. response, known as The War on Terror, has remained intentionally blind to the true scope of
the war. This blindness is becoming harder to maintain, however, as the banner of war moves
from an extremist in the mountains of Afghanistan to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a leader elected
by the 69 million people of Iran, who is actively developing technology that can be used for
nuclear weapons in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UN.
At a rally in Tehran on October 26, 2005, entitled “A World without Zionism,” President
Ahmadinejad stood before a huge image of a broken United States and crashing Israel (see
illustrations) and told his people:46
We are in…an historical war between the World of Arrogance (i.e. the West) and the Islamic
world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.
…
Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of
Arrogance… During the…last 100 years, the (walls of the) world of Islam were destroyed and the
World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over
the Islamic world...
This occupying country (i.e. Israel) is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the
Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the
entire Islamic world...
46
The transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s entire speech can be found on the Islamic Students News Agency
website, at www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-603386. A translation of this transcript to English can be
found on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), as Special Dispatch Series 1013,
entitled Iranian President at Tehran Conference: 'Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged
From the Center of the Islamic World – and This is Attainable', located at
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305. A translation can also be found at
www.khomeini.org/MainPageArticles/transcript%20Ahmadnijad.htm.
21
Photo of President Ahmadinejad standing in front of an image displaying symbols of a broken United States and
crashing Israel, along with a full image of the rally’s poster, and a close-up showing representations of the U.S. flag
and the Star of David in an hour glass that declares that the time for these nations has run out. (Poster cropped from
photo on Iranian Students News Agency website: www.isna.ir/Main/PicView.aspx?Pic=Pic-603386-2; Top photo
found at: http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=%22world+without+zionism%22&c=news_photos; Third
photo from Iranian Students News Agency website: www.isna.ir/Main/PicView.aspx?Pic=Pic-603386-5.
22
Note that Ahmadinejad’s “World of Arrogance” is not the United States. It is the entire
Westernized world, which “arrogantly” rejects the laws of Allah.
President Ahmadinejad also wrote a letter to President Bush, on May 8, 2006, which verified that
he sees Islam’s war as not simply with Israel or the United States. He sees it as an ideological
war with Free Democracy, the political system that now dominates the House of War:47
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds
of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point –
…Almighty God [Allah]. Undoubtedly through faith in God [Allah] and the teachings of the
prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you [Mr. Bush] is: “Do you
not want to join them?”
Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the

Almighty and justice and the will of God [Allah] will prevail over all things.
Like warped reincarnations of Marx and Lenin, a new generation of revolutionaries has risen to
proclaim the end of Democracy and Capitalism, now known as Free Enterprise.
A major difference between the Communist revolution and the Islamic revolution is that, while
Communism was a relatively new ideology, Islam is very old. What is new about Islam’s
revived revolution is the form it has taken – that of a cold war. By looking beyond the religious
overtones of Islam and grasping its political ideology, we have an opportunity to respond to it
appropriately, as we did during the Cold War against Communism, and avoid an outright Hot
War. Alternatively, if we fail to diagnose the challenge of Islam correctly, our misdirected
policies may actually bring on the devastation we hope to avoid.
World War II was the result of European policies of appeasement and capitulation, which were
designed to placate Hitler but actually encouraged him to become more aggressive. A rarely
acknowledged fact is that the European Allies actually lost the first half of WWII. Poland,
Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, most of France, Romania,
Yugoslavia, and Greece were all overrun by the Nazis and Fascists before the U.S. entered the
war. England’s defenses were on life support via the American Lend-Lease program, and the
Russians had been pushed back to Moscow. It was only after the United States entered the war
that Hitler was defeated.
In the new Cold War, terrorism is Islam’s weapon of choice, and the United States is on the front
line. This time, if the U.S. misdiagnoses the situation, who will be left to save it?
47
Full text letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran President to American President, Official website of the Presidency of
the Islamic Republic of Iran, www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/02/19/index-e.htm#b3.
23
Chapter 2: A personal realization
Growing up in a small Pennsylvania town during the ‘60s and ‘70s, Islam was so far removed
from my experience that I did not even realize that Muslims were Islamic. I was surprised when
I found out that these terms applied to the same group of people.
I met my first Muslim in 1979 while attending college. I had decided to hitch-hike home rather
than ride a bus, and one of the truck drivers was an African-American who had just converted to
Islam and was very excited about it. He told me that Islam held the answer to every question,
and handed me a book on Islamic law. Being curious, and not wanting to offend the big guy as
we bounced along in his cab, I took the book and began reading it. The rules I remember were
things like “A wife must walk 20 feet behind her husband,” “you must eat using your right hand
and wipe yourself using your left hand (toilet paper not required),” and instructions for washing
yourself, which included “if water is not available, you can wash yourself with clean sand.” I did
not ask about how this might apply to the section on wiping.
My general impression was that, while Islam might have all the answers, its answers did not
appear to make much sense. After reading this book for a while, I was asked by the trucker if I
wanted to convert to Islam. I told him that I would keep reading, but would probably not be
ready to convert by the end of the ride.
My next contact with Islam was through the Iranian hostage crisis: a former neighbor was one of
the hostages. When he finally returned to the United States, everyone in the neighborhood
watched him kiss the ground on national TV.
After that, however, events became more tragic. A former classmate of mine from high school
was one of the 240 Marines killed in 1983 during the Beirut bombing of a U.S. Marines barracks.
At the time, I did not see a direct link between Islam and political strife in the Middle East.
Everyone I knew thought that the Middle East’s problems were a result of its culture, not its
religion. I wondered how religion could be separated from culture, but decided to leave this
question for another day. It was an esoteric issue, and I was focused on personal dreams of
family, career, and prosperity. I made no time for anything that was not directly related to my
own ambitions.
After college, I went to grad school, found the girl of my dreams, got a great job at a top
company, and bought a house, all by the age of 25.
After achieving these trappings of success, my little paradise started to feel empty and I began
opening my eyes to the world around me. I started doing volunteer work in local schools and
joined an organization that tutored inner-city kids after school.
It was through this organization that I had my first real contact with Muslims. One of my fellow
volunteers was a coworker from a different part of the company. He had immigrated to the
United States from Africa to go to college, and subsequently got a job with my firm. In working
together with students, we became friends ourselves. As a couple of workaholic professionals,
24
we had little spare time to hang out or get into deep discussions. However, our friendship was
good enough that, when he and his wife had their first child, he invited me to be a part of the
baby naming ceremony, which was celebrated six months after the baby’s birth. As I sat cross-
legged on the floor with a group of family friends, saying prayers for the baby, he commented to
the group that my participation showed that Muslims and Christians could get along. This struck
a discordant note for me because I had no idea that anyone thought they could not get along. But
this was a party meant to celebrate a baby, so I decided to surpress my twinge of forboding and
not ask what he meant by that remark.
Through the course of my volunteer activities, I became acquainted with other Muslims. All of
these contacts left me with favorable impressions of Islam. I certainly did not consider it a
threat. In discussions on problems in the Middle East and Africa, I was assured that the troubles
were cultural, not religious, and that Islam was a religion of peace. None of my friends seemed
to follow those strange rules that the truck driver had shown me.
When I was growing up, I avoided religious discussions because I felt that I did not know
enough to engage in an intelligent conversation. I had what seemed to me a reasonable set of
Christian beliefs, but knew that they were all based on second-hand information. I had studied
neither the Bible nor any other source texts, and was therefore defenseless whenever someone
started quoting scripture to me.
While in college, I decided to cure this weakness by reading the entire Bible, cover to cover, and
then reading other religious texts as well. I approached this reading with the critical eye of an
academic, looking for useful knowledge and subjecting all claims to my own critical thought.
It turned out that the Bible was quite different from what I had expected. It was mostly history,
as told through the lives of its characters. Much of it was gruesome, but I could still relate to
many of the stories and learn valuable insights about human nature and how to deal with people.
After reading the Bible, I found that it had been such a valuable experience that I leapt right into
the scriptures of other religions to seek other valuable insights. I read a number of books on
Buddhism, the Tau Te Ching, and a book by Mercea Eliade called Essential Sacred Writings
from Around the World, which was a smorgasbord of essential scriptures from over 80 religions,
including Islam. Many of these passages were poetic and powerful, and the Koranic ones got me
curious about the Koran as a whole.
A few years later, while attending business school, I came across several other references to the
Koran, including an article that praised the Koran highly and claimed that it was the only book
one needed to read. Shortly thereafter, I got a copy of Understanding Islam and the Muslims,
published by The Embassy of Saudi Arabia’s Department of Islamic Affairs. This booklet
presented a beautiful and compelling picture of Islam and the Islamic world, with many inspiring
quotes from the Koran. It also had some intriguing passages, such as:
Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps this is because religion
does not dominate everyday life in the West today, whereas Muslims have religion always
uppermost in their minds, and make no division between secular and sacred. They believe that
25
the Divine Law, the Shari’ah, should be taken very seriously, which is why issues related to
religion are still so important.
At about this time, my impression of Islam began to darken. In 1992, the spiritual and political
leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, declared that Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was
an Insult to Islam, and issued the following fatwa against him:48
I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world… that the author of the book titled
The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the
Prophet, and the Koran, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been
declared madhur el dam (‘those whose blood must be shed’). I call on all zealous Muslims to
execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islam again…
In addition to this fatwa, Iran also offered a bounty of several million dollars for the
assassination of Salman Rushdie. This was a very disturbing development, but I was still willing
to believe that Khomeini was an extremist who did not represent true Islam. His behavior,
though, piqued my interest in the Koran even more.
During this time, I graduated from business school, returned to my employer for a year, and then
left to start my own business. A few months later, on February 26, 1993, the Twin Towers were
bombed for the first time. Fortunately, the bombing only damaged the base of one tower and
killed six people. The schemers behind the blast turned out to be a small group of Muslims who
were led by a New Jersey resident named Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Again, I was willing to
believe that these bombers were extremists who did not represent their faith. I decided, however,
that it was time to read the Koran and find out where all this behavior was coming from.
When I began reading the Koran in the summer of 1993, I expected something very profound,
given the wonderful praise I had heard, the snippets I had seen, and the devastating actions
committed by Muslim extremists.
What a disappointment! After all of the build-up, I found the Koran to be a legalistic,
domineering, and rather mean-spirited text that was also very disorganized. It seemed to jump
from one topic to another almost randomly. It also had some very militant passages that
specifically and repeatedly told Muslims not to be friends of Christians and Jews, and described
in detail the properly devout way to divide booty after military conquests.
While there were also well-reasoned sections that flew to the heights of inspiration, my over-all
impression was so negative that I actually began to question the translation. The highlighter
originally intended for the Koran’s most inspirational passages was used to mark its most
troubling ones instead.
Suspecting nefarious machinations on the part of the translator, N. J. Dawood, I decided to find
out more about him. It turned out that he was an Iraqi, so I assumed that he was a Muslim.
Later, I discovered that he was an Iraqi Jew, and this threw doubt on the translation’s fairness.
48
Salman Rushdie, by Jame Harrison, Twayne Publishers, New York, NY, 1992.
26
I then began searching for a more accurate and less disturbing version, and discovered one
written by a true believing Muslim named Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal.
Unfortunately, its content was essentially the same as Dawood’s translation. I was left with a
feeling of foreboding, and a dark realization that, despite oft-repeated claims, the Koran was
definitely not a book of peace.
My consolation was that the Old Testament also has many violent passages, and even the New
Testament had an occasional verse that one could say endorses violence,49 so I decided that the
real test of a religion was not simply its scripture, but also the actions of its practitioners. I
consoled myself with pleasant memories of my Muslim friends from work and volunteer
activities.
During this time, I happened to see a news show where Louis Farrakhan was being interviewed.
Farrakhan had recently returned from a visit to several Islamic African nations and was telling
the interviewer both about the terrible things that whites had done through the enslavement of
Blacks, and also about the wonderful spirit of brotherhood he experienced while visiting Islamic
Africa.
When the interviewer asked Mr. Farrakhan about the fact that one of the Islamic countries he
visited (Sudan) still practiced slavery, Farrakhan gave a two-pronged response. His first
response was to claim that slavery was different and more humane over there. When the
interviewer pressed him to describe what he meant, he said that it would be divisive to talk about
it further, implying that if the interviewer pressed him, Farrakhan would terminate the interview.
The interviewer, demonstrating his political correctness, ended this line of questioning.
Until then, I had been unaware that slavery was still being practiced anywhere in the world. I
was shocked to discover it in, of all places, Africa!50
At about this time, my wife and I purchased a home and began attending a local church, and I
was soon drafted into the Sunday school program for the high school students.
49
The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, Matthew 10:34-39:
Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or
daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not
worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Many people have accused Jesus of inciting violence in these verses. Christians have a different interpretation: they
believe that these verses describe what happens when a person accepts Christ and leaves the religion of his family.
As we will see in reports of what happens to people who convert from Islam to Christianity, provided later in this
book, this interpretation is valid. This interpretation is further reinforced by the fact that Jesus is quoting the Old
Testament (Micah 7:6), in a passage describing the Prophet Micah’s struggle to remain faithful to God during his
wretched times, which preceded the reformations of Judah’s king Hezekiah.
50
While I haven’t been able to identify this exact interview, my memory was confirmed by finding an interview in
the July 23, 1996 issue of The Final Call (the Nation of Islam’s weekly newspaper), where Minister Farrakhan
questioned the motives of those who criticized slavery in the Sudan. In the interview, he implied that Sudan was
being targeted “because this Islamic government is trying to build an Islamic nation.”
27
The lesson plans I used came from a publisher of religious materials, and, one day, as I was
preparing for an upcoming lesson, I discovered that we were to do an investigation of other
religions. To prepare, I had to go to churches of other denominations and develop a report for
the students on what I found. The goal of the lesson was to demonstrate that all churches,
regardless of denomination, were essentially teaching the same lessons and that we were all part
of one big ecumenical family.
I decided to make the lesson interesting by using it to investigate Islam. I picked up the yellow
pages and found the local Islamic Society, called them up, and asked if I could come to one of
their services. The person on the other end of the phone gladly welcomed me and suggested that
I come over that Friday. I decided to take my highlighted Koran and questions with me.
When I got there, the gentleman I spoke with was waiting for me and welcomed me in. It turned
out that he was the leader of this Islamic Society, although he had no religious title.
The first thing I noticed was that there were shoes all over the place just outside the worship
area. Also, among the shoes, were dozens of women and children. When I asked about the
women, children, and shoes, I was told that only men were allowed into the worship area, and
they had to leave footwear, women, and children outside. The gentleman then did something
very gracious. He invited me to participate in the service, and guided me to sit among the
brethren on the carpet.
We kneeled together with a quiet reverence, and I kept my eye on the others to make sure I
followed the motions properly. Then a visiting cleric began to speak from the front. I cannot
pretend to remember exactly what he said, but it was to this effect:
At one time, Islam was the greatest faith on earth. We commanded the world; we had the greatest
minds, and the noblest men. But now we are humiliated, a beaten people, dominated by Christian
nations. Why? Because we have become corrupt. We have strayed from the true teachings of
the Koran. If we want to regain our proper place in this world, we must return to Islam’s roots.
Only through the teachings of the Holy Koran can we hope to achieve our mighty destiny.
As I listened, all I could think about was “What is this guy talking about?” We are all here in the
United States; we are all free to worship as we wish. No one is persecuting any of us. No one is
humiliating any of us. As for the rest of the world, no one is specifically targeting Muslims for
persecution, except for rogue nations like Yugoslavia and arguably Russia.
It was then that a disturbing realization began to dawn on me: The people I was sitting with saw
the world in a completely different way. They did not view themselves as Americans, but as
persecuted members of a nation dominated by Christians. I later discovered that this “nation” is
the Ummah Islamia, which translates to English as the Community of Islam, or Nation of Islam.
After the service, a group of men came over to talk with me. They were all very excited and
friendly, and asked if I was ready to accept Allah as the one and only God, and declare
Muhammad his prophet. I answered that I had some questions about the Koran that I would like
to discuss first, and proceeded to open my Koran and ask about the passages that discussed
28
killing infidels, the proper sexual relations between a man and his slaves, and the proper way to
split up booty after vanquishing an enemy.
They were a bit disconcerted at my questions, but assured me that these kinds of behaviors were
not required, and quickly invited me again to convert. I then asked whether Islam considered the
Koran to be an addition to the Old and New Testaments, or something to be read instead of the
Bible, noting that the Koran refers to many Biblical characters.
The leader of the Society told me that he had never read the Bible because it was a corrupted
work. This is when I had my second realization: If a leader could say this, then the Bible must
not be valued by Muslims at all. At this point, I began to perceive looks of suppressed outrage
among the brothers, though we were able to remain courteous. I told them that I was not ready
to convert to Islam, but wished them well. We had a cordial, if awkward, goodbye.
That Sunday, I decided to limit my discussion to Christian churches. I did not want to scare my
students with what had I discovered about Islam.
I was still not ready to give up on Islam, though. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric I heard, I
still did not see anyone act in a frightening way. I was still able to cling to the comforting
thought that the Middle East’s troubles came from regional factors, such as cultures, ethnic
groups, or national policies. I tried to dismiss a growing perception that the actual cause of those
troubles was a religion that was becoming a force in my own country.
At this time, my wife and I had no children to fill our four-bedroom house. To keep ourselves
from rattling around too much, and also get the house to help pay for itself, we rented out a
bedroom, and at one point rented it to an Islamic immigrant whom I will call “M.”
I knew that we were dealing with someone from a different culture from the first phone call.
While most people accept the advertised rent as given, M negotiated. He was an independent
contractor from another state who was assigned to a local firm for a few months. I suggested
that he come over to see the room and verify whether it was worth what we were asking.
After visiting our home, M said that he liked the room but it was too expensive. He then offered
to pay substantially less. Knowing that we charged a fair price, I politely turned him down.
I figured that this was the end of it. However, a few days later, M called again. He asked if the
room was still available and I told him it was. It appeared that, after looking around, he was now
ready to rent from us. But again, he tried to negotiate. Again, I politely refused.
The following week we got another call, and again we went through the same discussion. I
realized that he was trying to see if we would lower our price out of desperation to fill an empty
room. What he did not know was that my wife and I had decided long ago that it was better to
go without rent than to compromise on any of our terms, because doing so would set a bad
precedent. Also, I knew that he needed a room more than we needed a renter, so again, I politely
turned him down. Later that week, he called again.
29
Finally, he was willing to rent on our terms. But the relentless haggling we experienced was a
concern, and I worried that this habit would create other problems. We almost turned down his
application, but, with an eye toward the law’s requirement that we not act prejudicially against
anyone because of race, creed, or national origin, we felt that refusing him might lead to legal
problems. So, with some trepidation, we opened our home to M.
It turned out that M was a wonderful renter. He was clean, considerate, and pretty much kept to
himself because of the huge workload of his project. We were aware that he was a Muslim, so
we initially stayed away from personal subjects like religion. As time went on, though, we all
got to know each other better. For example, he told us that he had a big family that moved to the
United States a few years earlier, but they had kept pretty much to themselves and had few
acquaintances beyond their faith community. We came to realize that, because of this isolation,
our cohabitation was as much a cultural watershed for him as it was for us.
As the months went by, M and I developed a friendship, and, before he left, we actually prayed
over an occasional meal together. When it was my turn, I directed my prayer strictly to God in
order to avoid turning our communal meal into something negative, and our conversations
always stuck strictly to the positive.
From time to time, I would ask M questions about Islam that bothered me. For example, we
once discussed the concept of multiple wives. M explained that, even though it was lawful to
have more than one wife, most people only had one, because only the wealthy could afford more.
Answers like this naturally begged more questions, to which M simply claimed ignorance – he
told me he would have to discuss these questions with an Islamic scholar before responding.
After a few months, M’s contract ended and he packed his bags. Before he left, however, he
handed us two videos by Ahmet Deedat, a noted and revered Islamic scholar.
One of the videos was Is Jesus God? In it, Mr. Deedat debated the doctrine of the Trinity with
Dr. Anis Shorrosh, an Egyptian Christian whom I had never heard of. The other was Is the Bible
the Inerrant word of God? In this video, Mr. Deedat debated the validity of the Bible with
Jimmy Swaggart,51 who was definitely not a person I would choose to represent Christianity in a
debate. Despite the questionable qualifications of these Christian representatives, I sat down and
watched both videos, because I had promised M that I would.
Both debates were actually quite interesting and informative, and the Christian representatives
held their own admirably against the truly learned Mr. Deedat. Both debates ultimately hinged
on the validity of the Bible, which Deedat could only chip away at by pointing out some minor
inconsistencies that could easily be explained as transcription errors or matters of interpretation.
The impression that these debates left me with was that, whether or not you believed in the
Bible’s validity, your pre-conceived notions were reinforced. After a series of indecisive
scrimmages, the interlocutors ended each debate with a respectful exchange of words,
reminiscent of the diplomatic “agree to disagree” language of the Cold War in the ‘80s.
51
Fundamentalist Christian televangelist popular in the 1980s, whose reputation was severely damaged by a
prostitution scandal in 1988.
30
While watching these videos, though, I noticed that they had both been edited after taping. Word
balloons frequently appeared, with arrows pointing to the heads of the Christian representatives,
making nasty little comments about their arguments or personal lives, intending to ridicule them.
The only balloon that said anything positive was one pointing to the head of a gentleman in the
audience, telling the viewer that Cat Stevens, Islam’s favorite convert, was in the house.
If the debates had been unedited, I would have thought them fair. Certainly, the people
representing Christianity had no idea that the tapes were going to be doctored. Through stealth,
the editors had transformed these debates into overt propaganda. Additionally, the selection of
Jimmy Swaggart to represent Christianity was a set-up. The editing tactics displayed a mean
spirit, with no sense of fairness, and they did not cast a favorable light on Islam. Instead, they
revealed how winning was more important to the editors than presenting an honest inquiry.
Moreover, the questions used in these debates, “Is Jesus God?” and “Is the Bible the Infallible
word of God?” imply that these are bedrock doctrines of Christianity. If Mr. Deedat could prove
that Jesus is not God, and that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, then he would be able
to claim that his Christian opponents were wrong, and therefore Christianity itself was wrong.
The implication was that, if Christianity was wrong, then Islam was right, even though the
doctrines of Islam were never put in the spotlight for critical analysis.
In truth, the questions raised by these videos did not validate or invalidate Christianity because
they are ones that Christians themselves have debated since Christianity’s beginning. On the
nature of Jesus, there are (or were) Catholic, Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, Gnostic, and
other Christian doctrines. With regard to the Bible, the titles of the New Testament books
themselves answer the question of whether they are “the Infallible word of God.” We have the
Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James, and
Jude. Obviously, these books were written by men believed to be inspired by God. No
intelligent and informed Christian would claim that they are the “word of God” Himself in the
way understood by Muslims, who say the Koran is literally the perfect, immutable, and eternal
word spoken directly by Allah.
It should come as no surprise that the video, Is the Bible the infallible word of God?, did not
debate the subject claimed. Instead of discussing whether the Bible was the word of God,
Deedat and Swaggart debated the Bible’s accuracy. The reason the editors chose this video’s
title is because it alludes to what Muslims claim for the Koran, not because of what Christians
claim for the Bible.
Despite the irrelevance of these two questions to Christianity’s legitimacy, these videos were
presented as if Christianity was on trial. Meanwhile, the tenets of Islam remained in the
shadows, unchallenged. When I was done watching these videos, I wondered whether anyone
ever videotaped similar debates entitled “Is Muhammad God’s Apostle?” or “Is the Koran the
Infallible Word of God?”
Then it dawned on me that such a debate was nearly impossible, because arguing against
Muhammad and the Koran are “insults to Islam” that would invite death threats. Since that time,
31
I have searched for recorded debates on my two hypothetical questions. Sure enough, while
there are monologues written by people hiding on the internet, I have found almost no recordings
of reasoned face-to-face debates. The few debates that do exist treat both Muhammad and the
Koran very gently, so as to not offend the Islamic debater. Interestingly, even under these
favorable circumstances, Muhammad and the Koran hold up poorly.52
My wife also had some interesting experiences. While working toward a Master’s degree, she
participated in a team project that included a female Muslim student. My wife frequently
complained about not being able to organize team meetings because the Muslim woman refused
to agree to a time without first getting her husband’s permission.
Later, I read about an honor killing in the U.S. that was motivated by a Muslim family’s disgrace
when a daughter rejected Islamic ways and cavorted like a normal American teenager.
Surprisingly, the court gave a lenient sentence to the murderer in deference to the family’s
cultural background.
Then came news about the Taliban during the spring and summer of 2001. I sensed that some
kind of line had been crossed when I read about the Taliban’s decision to destroy two ancient
standing Buddha statues. Their reason for blasting away these huge and irreplaceable artifacts
was that they represented idolatry and a polytheist religion.
The final straw was when I heard that the Taliban imprisoned, and later expelled, a group of
International Aid workers because they clandestinely evangelized to Afghanis. Even worse, the
Afghanis who converted to Christianity were put on trial for their lives.
At this time, I began to talk about my concern that Islam was not the religion of peace that
Muslims claimed it was. My fear was that Islam’s followers were beginning to assert themselves
in ways that could ultimately threaten the United States.
For the most part, people looked at me as if I was crazy, possibly even politically incorrect.
Even after Osama bin Laden’s bombing of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the downing
of United Airlines flight 93, many of the people I spoke with remained in denial about Islam,
going so far as to say that my translations of the Koran must have been forgeries, written by
people hostile to this peaceful religion. They refused to even read the Koran. One person told
me emphatically that a person did not have to read the Koran to understand Muslims. He, like so
many people I knew, accepted the notion that Islam was a religion of peace without ever
checking the facts. He insisted that the violent Muslims were misinterpreting the Koran rather
than acting on its instructions. Besides, he declared, Christianity also had a bloody history, so
we had no right to complain.
I wondered if these people realized that, according to Islam, it is unlawful for Infidels to even
live on the Arabian Peninsula. Did they know that Osama bin Laden’s fury at the U.S. was based
on this prohibition, because the United States fulfilled a request by the Saudi family to put a
military base on Saudi soil, to protect them from Saddam Hussein after he annexed Kuwait? Did
52
To see examples of these debates, visit www.ankerberg.com/Articles/islam/IS0100W1.htm and
www.thethingsthatmattermost.org/gallery11202005.htm. You can also conduct your own web search.
32
they think that this prohibition was something that a peaceful religion would create? Did they
think that it was appropriate for this violation of Islamic Law to be used to justify the killing
thousands of civilians on September 11, 2001? I hoped not.
The most disturbing thing I remember from September 11 was watching the Twin Towers burn
on TV, with people jumping from the windows, and then staring in disbelief as the towers
crashed to the ground. I was in shock, and so was the nation. After a stunned silence, a
bewildered cry rose up: “Why do they hate us?”
The second most disturbing thing I remember was something said at the prayer service organized
by George Bush a few days later. At the service, President Bush made a dramatic effort to bring
about healing and proclaim a universal mourning among people of all faiths for the terrible loss.
He made a point of portraying the hijackers as terrorists who did not represent true Islam. After
his speech, he was followed by a series of religious leaders who took turns speaking and offering
prayers. What struck me about the Islamic cleric was that, while others discussed the terrible
loss of life, the cleric talked specifically about the loss of innocents. His language gave me the
distinct impression that the term “innocents” was not meant to include all of the victims.
Shortly thereafter, I read about how northern Nigeria had adopted Shari’ah and quickly moved to
sentence a woman to death by stoning for getting pregnant out of wedlock. After a world-wide
protest, she was ultimately released from this sentence, but only because of a loop-hole: she got
pregnant before the law was enacted.
For me, this outcome was no consolation. It certainly would not prevent other stonings. I was
also dismayed to note that, while this one woman’s sentence was making headlines, the plight of
thousands of Christians in Islamic countries barely registered in the news. This was particularly
true in Sudan, where hundreds of thousands were being systematically displaced, enslaved or
killed while the UN debated over whether the actions constituted genocide.
Finally, our experience in Iraq during and after the two Gulf Wars uncovered Islam’s true
intentions toward the West. Let me explain:
At the end of the first Gulf War, the U.S. made a decision to stop its advance at the Iraqi
border, rather than continue toward Baghdad to topple Saddam’s reign. It did this
because the Sunni Arab nations in its coalition would not support further action, which
could have shifted power into the hands of Iraq’s Shiite majority.
As a result, the United States was prevented from overtly supporting the Shiite rebellion
that was taking place in Iraq, as it did later with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance.
Instead, the U.S. could only provide low-level, indirect support. Saddam subsequently
crushed the rebellion and killed hundreds of thousands of Shiite Iraqis.
Who did the press blame for this atrocity? They blamed the U.S., for standing by and
letting the slaughter happen. Our press never seemed to put one and one together to
recognize that the real cause of the slaughter was a longstanding hostility between Sunnis
and Shiites. Instead, they labeled the bloodbath within Iraq as a failure of U.S. policy.
33
Because many Americans are quick to believe their accusers, the popular sentiment in the
U.S. was that the U.S. was to blame. Therefore, U.S. leaders vowed that they would not
let the same mistake happen again. When the second war with Iraq started, the U.S.
vowed not to leave the Shiites vulnerable. It then set out to establish an Iraqi government
that would give Shiites limited political power through free and democratic institutions.
While protests against the war came as no surprise, most Americans were shocked when
the newly liberated Shiites turned against the Coalition that liberated them. Their response
could be summarized as: “Thank you very much for ousting Saddam. Now get out!”
This sentiment was openly declared by Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, a Shiite
leader who loomed large during the war, but died later that year in a bomb blast which
killed over 80 people.53 As reported by Newsday, al-Hakim sent this less-than-friendly
message to the liberators of his people:54
“If the Americans enter Iraq because they want to rescue our people from this evil
regime, and then they leave matters to the Iraqi people themselves, then everyone will be
pleased,”…"But if the Americans come in with the intention of controlling Iraq…then
they’re going to face strong opposition from all the Iraqi people.”
He warned that a prolonged occupation would give the war the appearance of a crusade.
“This will inflame religious tensions,” al-Hakim said. “It will show that the Americans
want to humiliate and subdue the Iraqi people. It will bring us back to the days of
colonial rule, and that will renew nationalist feelings in Iraq.”
He deflected a question about whether his Badr fighters would attack U.S. forces during
an occupation. “We have been fighting for our freedom for a long time,” he said,
guardedly. “We will continue to do so.”
Not exactly the kind of warm welcome that Americans had hoped for from the Shiites,
especially because a prolonged occupation was necessary simply to develop a
constitution and establish other foundations of democracy. This was nothing like France
after its liberation from Hitler.
Instead of praising the liberators for their sacrifice, many Shiite leaders chastised
themselves for being helpless for all of those years. It was a deep insult to be rescued by
a Coalition of Infidel nations led by the U.S., which is popularly known in their region as
“the Great Satan.” Even more humiliating was the fact that the Coalition of the Willing
wiped out Saddam’s regime in mere weeks.
In the months that followed, the hundreds of thousands who were killed by Saddam
seemed to be forgotten, but every unintended civilian death or rogue action by an
American was portrayed as brutal imperialist oppression by foreign Infidels. While
53
Iraqi Shiites Flex Muscle Even as They Mourn, by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, September 1, 2003.
54
Shiite Cleric may be a force after Saddam, by Mohamad Bazzi, Newsday, March 18, 2003.
34
Shiites and Sunnis blew up each other’s mosques, Coalition forces found themselves in
stand-offs with insurgents who used mosques as shields, knowing that any Coalition
attack on them would be seen as a direct attack on Islam, worthy of retaliatory jihad.
U.S. leaders had expected remnants of Saddam’s reign to continue an insurgency, but
they were blindsided when they found that some of the Governing Council’s greatest
threats were Shiite clerics. For example, at the beginning of 2004, Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Husseini Al-Sistani, the religious leader of Iraq’s Shiites, decided that the elections
were not being scheduled quickly enough, and nearly derailed the entire transition
process with a Shiite uprising. Fortunately, he later consented to the Coalition’s plan, but
only after Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council visited him repeatedly, and
after UN representatives convinced him that an earlier date was not possible because of
the work needed to prepare for a vote.
Later, on April 4, 2004, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr incited an uprising that overran
Najaf and quickly spread to other cities. On May 7th, one of his senior aides, Shiite Sheik
Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, gave a sermon described by the Washington Times:55
Sheik al-Bahadli said $350 would be given to anyone who captures a British soldier and
offered $150 for killing one. “Any Iraqi who takes a female soldier can keep her as a
slave or gift to himself,” he said. He also offered 25,000 dinars for killing a member of
the Iraqi Governing Council – but in the worthless, old Saddam-era dinars, a sign of
contempt for U.S.-appointed leaders.
The cleric waved an assault rifle, prompting cries of “jihad” and “God is great” each time
he lifted it.
Through a combination of intense diplomatic and military actions, this crisis was also
contained, but hostility toward the U.S. remained high. Since then, our military’s post-
combat goal has changed. It no longer expects to win the hearts of Iraqis. Instead, it
wants to lower its profile by placing Iraqis on the front line, while also controlling the
Iraqis enough to keep them from turning on each other. In doing so, it hopes to buy time
for the fledgling Iraqi government to establish itself enough to prevent a revolution or
civil war, so that the Coalition can leave without creating the appearance of retreating in
disgrace. This is important because the appearance of retreat could become a rallying cry
for militant Muslims eager to go on the offensive against the U.S. and its allies.
In fact, hatred toward the United States was so strong that on July 4, 2004, George Sada,
spokesman for Ayad Allawi, the newly appointed Shiite Prime Minister of Iraq,
announced: “If [a guerrilla] was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified
because it was an occupation force. We will give them freedom.”56
Throughout the Governing Council’s administration, America was blamed for ruthless or
callous indifference to civilian lives when military actions caused civilian casualties.
55
Cleric rips U.S. about Iraq abuse, by Scheherezade Faramarzi, Associated Press, The Washington Times, May 8,
2004.
56
Iraqi leader considers amnesty for insurgents, by Jim Krane, Associated Press, July 4, 2004.
35
Similarly, Americans were blamed for not providing adequate security when insurgents
bombed a public place and killed dozens or hundreds of civilians.
But how did Iraqi’s feel about American deaths? On April 3, 2004, just a few days after
an ambush on American civilians that left them dead, mutilated, and burned, Sheik Fawzi
Nameq addressed 600 worshippers at a Mosque near the ambush site. He told his
listeners: “Islam does not condone the mutilation of the bodies of the dead.”57
He was silent about the murders themselves.
In reading about the Shiites’ hateful reward to the United States for its sacrifice of blood, money,
and international prestige, I finally recognized the true nature of their problem with us. The fact
that it took me so long to perceive it is not the fault of the Iraqi Shiites. They had been shouting
it at the tops of their lungs for a long time, as have the Sunnis. We in the United States have
simply not understood their message, because their reason for outrage is incomprehensible to us.
There appears to be a three-part reason for Muslim outrage against the United States, and the
West in general:
1. According to the Koran, any Insult to Islam is a blasphemy that is subject to severe
punishment and even death.
2. According to Islam, the Koran is the inerrant, eternal, and ultimate word of Allah, issued
by his final and greatest Prophet. This implies that Muslims, as followers of the Koran,
are morally superior to the followers of any other religion. As such, Muslims alone are
authorized by Allah to establish law. As the Koran says:58
[3.110] Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right,
forbidding what is wrong [through Islamic law], and believing in Allah. If only the
People of the Book59 had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have
faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
3. Thus the rescue of an Islamic country’s people by a group of Infidel nations, regardless of
the bloodiness of that country’s Muslim ruler, is an unwelcome exposure of Islamic
weakness. Additionally, the Coalition’s role in setting up a democratic and secular
government is, to devout Muslims, an overt usurpation of Islam’s Allah-given authority
over mankind. To these Muslims, the “perverted transgressors,” otherwise known as “the
People of the Book (Christians and Jews),” are sitting in the seat of power rightfully held
by Allah, dictating terms to Allah’s people. This is the ultimate Insult to Islam, which
claims to be the steward of divine laws given to Muslims by Allah himself.
More generally, Infidels insult and humiliate Muslims simply by being successful while Muslims
and Islamic nations languish in poverty and chaos. Unwilling to question the usefulness of
Allah’s perfect laws, the only acceptable explanation for the abject state of Muslims is that there
57
Muslim clerics condemn mutilation – but not slaying, by Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press, April 3, 2004.
58
The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Lahore, 1934, 1937.
59
Christians, Jews, and Zoroatrians.
36
is a vast conspiracy of Jews and Christians against them. This is the conspiracy to humiliate
Muslims that Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad railed against in his speech.
Our Insult to Islam is that we Infidels have not learned our proper place, in lowly submission to
Muslims. Infidels are to be tolerated, the Koran says, but only on terms that the Koran sets.
These terms require subservience. Any relation with an Infidel nation that does not explicitly
acknowledge Islam’s superiority is, by itself, a humiliation.
My conclusions about Islam were confirmed when I read In the Presence of My Enemies, which
is the autobiographical account of Gracia Burnham’s year-long ordeal as a hostage of the Abu
Sayyaf, an Islamic terrorist group in the Philippines.
Mrs. Burnham recorded the mindset of these militants, who were engaged in a long-standing
insurrection against the Philippine government. This mindset is paranoid and aggressive, as the
following quote reveals:60
[Martin Burnham, Gracia’s husband] had an interesting conversation with a captor named
Ustedes Hail. This man was one of the most embittered fighters, passionate about regaining the
Muslim homeland. He said the Abu Sayyaf didn’t want to have to do things like the recent
massacre at the jeepney, “but the Christian world has just pushed us too far, and we’re sick of it.
When people are oppressed, you can’t hold them back. It’s just going to be this way until we are
given what we want.”
Martin kept his cool…and gently probed for specifics: “Let’s see – just what all is included in
your homeland?”
“Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Jolo, Basilan, Southern Mindanao…,” he began naming off the islands in
dispute.
“So, if you got these…would that be the end of your struggle?”
“Oh, no, no” came the quick reply. “That would be only the beginning. Then we would be
obligated to take all of Mindanao; after all, it’s a wealthy island.
“And then once we took Mindanao, we would take all of the Visayas [referring to islands in the
midsection of the Philippines, such as Cebu, Samar, Leyte, Negros, and Panay].
“Then when we were done with the Visayas, we would go next to Luzon.
“When all of the Philippines belonged to us, we’d move on to Thailand and other countries where
there is such oppression. You see, Islam is for the whole world.”
I do not mean to imply that all Muslims subscribe to the views of a militant member of the Abu
Sayyaf. However, with militant Islamic activity taking place in the Philippines, India, Thailand,
Russia, Spain, the Netherlands, England, and the U.S., to name a few, and with Osama bin Laden
being one of the most respected “leaders” in the Islamic world, it is clear that this terrorist’s
opinion was not uncommon. Moreover, his opinion agreed exactly with what I saw in the Koran.
60
In the Presence of My Enemies by Gracia Burnham, 2003, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., page 170.
37
At this point, I arrived at what I believe to be a good basic understanding of the nature of Islam.
Islam is not a religion as we in the United States usually define it, because Islam does not
consider religion to be a private matter. Instead, Islam claims the power of law – a very public
matter. Furthermore, its laws grant legal and economic rights according to each person’s
religion, and it gives Muslims political power over non-Muslims. It also gives Muslims a moral
imperative to conquer all of the world’s non-Muslims and establish Islamic governance over
them. Thus Islam can be better understood as a political ideology than as a religion.
Islam feels respected only when all other powers, be they religious or political, submit to it.
Islam also declares that its adherents can justly exert lethal force when they believe Islam has
been insulted by a lack of proper respect for its superiority.
Nowadays, when I hear someone say that Islam is a religion of peace, it reminds me of a line
from Tim Burton’s disturbing comedy, Mars Attacks: “We have come in peace, please surrender
the planet immediately!”
Paradoxically, the Muslims I have met in this country have, for the most part, been educated and
courteous. They treasure their families and are capable of having a winning sense of humor. So
how can these good and kind people believe in a faith with such violent tendencies? The only
explanations I can come up with are these:
• Muslims living in the United States do not present the true face of Islam.
In the United States, most Muslims are either secular, very liberal, or are constrained
from fully practicing their faith because they feel so outnumbered by Infidels that they
must suppress their religious imperatives. This does not mean that these Muslims are
happy about not being in power. True believers cannot help but feel humiliated by living
in a place where people shamelessly disregard Islamic law.
The liberal and secular Muslims who have immigrated to the United States have done so
through a process of self-selection. Most truly devout Muslims would not choose to
move to the United States, or anywhere else in the West, unless they intended Jihad.
However, Europe may be acting as a bellwether for the U.S. in this regard. Its
experiences are revealing that, once Muslims become well established in Western lands,
they begin to establish their own insular communities and assert themselves politically.
The thought that many Muslims in the U.S. are either liberal or secular should not give
Americans comfort. Firstly, their current liberality or secularism does not guarantee that
they will not become radicals later, nor does it guarantee that their children will not
radicalize. Secondly, the average Muslim family has two to four times as many children
as the average Western family.61 Given this trend, it is inevitable that Islamic populations
61
Examples of the average number of children per woman (fertility rate) in Islamic nations: 1990 (Source:
Population Reference Bureau): Afghanistan - 7.1, Algeria - 6.1, Egypt - 4.7, Iran - 6.3, Iraq - 7.3, Jordan - 5.9,
Kuwait - 3.7, Lebanon - 3.7, Libya - 5.5, Morocco - 4.8, Oman - 7.2, Saudi Arabia - 7.2, Sudan - 6.4, Syria - 6.8,
Tunisia - 4.1, Turkey - 3.6, Yemen - 7.4.
38
will grow faster than other populations, and this growth will ultimately give Islam the
political power to legislate Shari’ah. Thus, over time, with the aid of democracy’s
principle of majority rule, the freedoms that Westerners cherish as the hallmarks of Free
Democracy could be legislated away.
There are many Muslims whom Westerners would call good people, but this does not
mean that they are good Muslims.
This explanation has a darker corollary: there are many people who are good Muslims,
but this does not mean that they are what Westerners would call good people. Osama bin
Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini are prime examples of people whom many in the Islamic
world call “good Muslims.”
One experience with a good person who was not a good Muslim occurred during a
college engagement where I did some work with a Muslim student. When we began, she
was nervous about being alone with me for an extended time because this might violate
Islamic Law. However, as her confidence in me grew, she began to tell me about the
many challenges she faced as a young person growing up in two worlds: the Muslim
world of her family, and the secular world that surrounded all other aspects of her life.
One way her struggle revealed itself was in her two cell phones. One was a gift from her
father, and the other was a secret phone she bought for herself. Why the secret phone?
Because the one her father gave her was actually used as a means of control. He
“generously” insisted on paying the bill because it allowed him to scrutinize her calls and
interrogate her on them. He also had complete control over her finances, even though she
worked and went to college. He audited every bank statement and paycheck from her part-
time job. He accounted for every penny, and only allowed her to withdraw small amounts
each week to pay for essentials. With this she managed to scrape together enough money
to open a secret bank account, which she used to pay for the secret cell phone.
She also complained about other methods used by her father to control her life, which
centered on the tactic of giving a gift and then almost immediately making a request or
demand. She eventually reached a point where the gifts meant nothing to her – she
loathed them. They were not acts of love or kindness, but bribery and manipulation.
It did not surprise me that her father was doing these things, because they aligned with
some of the teachings of Islam that I had encountered. What did surprise me was that
she, as a Muslim, complained about his controlling ways. So I asked her: “Haven’t you
ever read the Koran?”
”No,” this college student replied.
I believe that this situation is very common. Many of the “Muslims” we meet are actually
Muslims by inheritance or the cajoling of peers. Their claimed religion has little to do with
Meanwhile, the average fertility rate for European countries is 1.4. In Japan, it’s also 1.4. According to the 2000
census, the fertility rate in the United States is 1.96 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).
39
their actual lives, other than superficial rituals and customs. In fact, this friend’s only
apparent knowledge of her faith was in her holiday celebrations, her eating and bathing
habits, and her adamant refusal of a Christmas gift because she was NOT a Christian.
• Islam actually does teach Muslims to be good in many ways, but only to other Muslims.62
Islam teaches Muslims how to be generous with other Muslims and treat them with honor
and respect. These virtues, however, do not extend to people of other faiths beyond a
superficial courtesy at best, particularly after those people have rejected opportunities to
convert to Islam. Such people are no longer considered “innocent.” Therefore, they are
no longer protected by the Koran’s words of moderation. As the Koran says:
[48.29] PICKTHAL: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard
against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves…
Clearly, the virtues we often hear about in the Muslim community should not give us
“disbelievers” comfort.
Hitler also had a beautiful utopian vision for his Aryan race, filled with good, virtuous
people and happy children. His only dilemma was that it could only come about after those
who did not fit his vision were eliminated. He did not want to kill non-Aryans; it was just
an unfortunate necessity. He went on to propel his country through a massive effort to
dehumanize those who did not fit his utopia, particularly Jews and Gypsies, so that their
slaughter would be less traumatizing to the good Aryans who carried out his Final Solution.
I have treasured my friendships with many Muslims. I believe that the hearts of these people are
far kinder than what Islam calls for. Unfortunately, it also appears necessary to confront them
about the nature of Islam, because Islam represents a direct threat to the freedoms of all
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Atheists, etc. living in the West. Just as important,
it is a direct threat to the freedoms these Muslim friends came to the United States to enjoy.
Citizens of Free Democracies have largely been misinformed about Islam’s true nature, in a way
that leaves them vulnerable to attack. Leaders of both Muslim and Western nations have falsely
led them to believe that nations can be both Freely Democratic and Islamic, and that the
freedoms we enjoy, particularly religious freedoms, can prosper in the Islamic world.
This book will give you an opportunity to examine the foundational texts of Islam, as well as
their modern interpretations, so you can draw your own conclusions. I hope that you will be left
with a deeper understanding of Islam’s true nature, how it affects each of us, and what we can do
to preserve our freedoms.
62
This statement is a bit of an over-generalization. Actually, Muslims are frequently taught to view members of
competing Muslim sects with nearly the same contempt as Infidels.
40
Chapter 3: Koranic teachings that shape Islamic nations
The state of Muhammad’s world when he revealed the Koran
To start this investigation of Islam’s Holy texts, we can begin by reviewing some basics about
Muhammad and the Koran:63
Muhammad, the man who recited the Koran, was born around 570 A.D. in Mecca, a trading post
in the untamed and tribal Arabian Peninsula.64 At this time, Mecca and its surroundings lacked
the rule of law, and various Pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes competed ruthlessly with each
other for scarce resources.
Aside from the violence between tribes, life within a tribe could be equally brutal. Incest was
common, as were polygynous practices that could give a man numerous wives, and infant
daughters were considered such a burden that parents regularly buried them alive to dispose of
them.
Mecca was also famous for being home to a place of worship called the Ka’aba. This place of
worship was used by all Arabic tribes, and they filled it with their idols, as well as icons of Jesus
and Mary. Mecca was controlled by a pagan tribe known as the Quraysh, and the Ka’aba was
controlled by a Qurayshi clan called the Hashim, into which Muhammad was born.
After Muhammad was orphaned at an early age, he was cared for by his grandfather, Abd al-
Muttalib, for several years. When his grandfather also died, Muhammad’s guardianship passed
on to his uncle, Abu Talib.
Muhammad would accompany his uncle on trading caravans, and through these travels he
established himself as an effective and honest business person. This attracted the attention of a
wealthy widow named Khadijah, who hired Muhammad and later married him.
In his caravan travels, Muhammad was exposed to the doctrines of both Jews and Christians. He
also learned about Christian doctrine from Khadijah’s cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, who was a
learned Christian monk. The beliefs of these people impressed Muhammad and, as a young man,
he began the habit of retiring to a cave for prayer and meditation.
One day, Muhammad came home from this cave and told Khadijah of a remarkable event: while
he was either sleeping or in a trance, the Angel Gabriel had come to him and commanded him to
“Recite!” When Muhammad responded in confusion, the angel clarified: “Recite in the name of
63
This history is based on the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, written by ibn Ishaq, called Sirat Rasoul
Allah, which translates to Life of the Apostle of Allah. This biography was written in approximately 780 AD, but
was lost, and exists only through the abridged version of the original produced by Ibn Hirsharn in the early 800s.
An abridged translation of this biography entitled The Life of Muhammad Apostle of Allah was written by Michael
Edwardes and published by the Folio Society in London, UK, in 1964.
64
This book quotes numerous Islamic sources that use C.E., meaning “Common Era,” instead of A.D., which stands
for Anno Domini (Latin for “The year of our Lord”).
41
your Lord who created Man from clots of blood.” “Recite! Your Lord is the Most Bountiful
One, who by the pen taught man what he did not know.”
Muhammad told his wife that, when he awoke, it seemed like these words had been “inscribed
upon my heart.”
And so began Muhammad’s ministry, which began humbly, with his wife Khadijah as his first
and only convert. For many years, his followers were limited to members of his family. Over
time, though, he began to find new followers among the poor in his community.
Muhammad spoke of Islam, which means “submission” (to the will of Allah), as a restoration of
the perfect and true religion of Allah, which was imperfectly practiced by the Jews and
Christians. His affinity toward Jews and Christians at this time was so great that Muhammad
had his followers adopt the Jewish practice of praying in the direction of Jerusalem.
Muhammad’s revelations during that time, known as the Meccan revelations, are notably
ecumenical and inclusive with regard to Jews and Christians, whom he called “people of the
book.” The content of these verses tended toward poetry and preaching.
As Muhammad’s band of followers grew, the pagan tribes began to feel threatened, and started
to persecute them. Muhammad responded by sending some of his followers across the Red Sea
to Christian Ethiopia for refuge in 615. The persecution of his followers continued, though, and
in 619 he was devastated by two tragedies: both his wife Khadijah and his uncle Abu Talib, in
their 60’s, died. This loss was even worse because Abu Talib’s leadership in Muhammad’s clan
helped protect him for years, and the new leader of Muhammad’s clan was a sworn enemy.
In the face of these disasters, Muhammad had a remarkable dream, which became famously
known as the Night Journey. In this dream, the angel Gabriel set Muhammad on a winged
donkey named Burak and whisked him to Jerusalem, from which he ascended through the seven
heavens and met Allah himself. Interestingly, on the basis of this dream, rather than any
physical event, Jerusalem was declared to be the third most holy religious site in Islam.
This remarkable dream was soon followed by a real event that was nearly as amazing. While
Muhammad had been suffering persecution, twelve traders from Yathrib, a city about 250 miles
northeast of Mecca, converted to Islam during a pilgrimage to Mecca and had brought their new
religion back with them, proselytizing enthusiastically. In 620, Muhammad met another group
of traders from Yathrib, where he now enjoyed an excellent reputation, and their conversation
changed history.
Apparently, two of the Pagan Arab tribes in Yathrib had been disputing among themselves and,
in the process, were ruining the city. Muhammad’s reputation led these traders to make him a
proposal: Would Muhammad consider moving to Yathrib and acting as an arbitrator between the
tribes? Muhammad accepted this proposal and migrated there with his Meccan followers. Once
in Yathrib, Muhammad used his position to make himself ruler of the city. In the process,
Yathrib was renamed Medina, which means City of the Prophet. His new authority was
officially declared in 622 through a celebrated document known as the Medina Charter (see
Appendix A).
42
As ruler of Medina, Muhammad became concerned with matters of governance, and his
revelations assumed new tones. Instead of inspiration and poetics, they were primarily legal
pronouncements, war rallies, and threats against political opponents. It is through this
transformation of tone that Islam assumed its mandates to conquer and rule. In the process of
ruling, Muhammad and his recitations also established Islamic Law.
After becoming the ruler of Medina, Muhammad undertook a series of diplomatic and military
operations that, by 630, had captured Mecca, slain Muhammad’s opponents, and conquered all of
the tribes that had formerly harassed Muhammad and his believers. With the submission of
Mecca, Muhammad was no longer the ruler of a city, but of a state. Word of his victories and
religion spread rapidly, and the appeal of his rule by law drew eager adherents throughout a
lawless land.
Two of the tribes that had harassed Muhammad in Medina were Jewish, and it was both their
rejection of him as a Prophet and their treachery toward him that soured Muhammad toward
Jews. Some of the Koran’s harshest verses come from this period, as did Muhammad’s decision
to change the direction of prayer (called the qibla) from Jerusalem to Mecca, whose Kabba he
claimed was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael.
By the time Muhammad died, just two years after his victory over the Meccans, Islam had spread
across nearly the entire Arabian Peninsula and was pressing toward the territories of Byzantium
and Persia. Rallying around the memory of their beloved Prophet, the conquering Muslims were
virtually unstoppable. In 633, the hapless Persian Empire lost Mesopotamia to Muhammad’s
successor, Caliph65 Abu Bakr. In 636, it fell completely under the sword of Caliph Umar.66 In
634 Abu Bakr’s troops won a victory over the Byzantines in Palestine, and Umar proceeded to
appropriate large chunks of Byzantine territory for Islam, including Syria and Jerusalem. In the
ensuing years, Muslims won military victories across all of North Africa, and by the early 700s
had overrun the Spanish peninsula and even occupied portions of southern France.
Muhammad’s written legacy for his followers is the Koran, as recorded by his scribes (known as
remembrancers), and compiled by the Caliphs who succeeded him. Muslims believe that the
Koran is a compendium of Allah’s messages, as recited by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, who
then recited them to his remembrancers. To appreciate the Koran’s significance, consider this
quote from The Koran for Dummies:67
Muslims view the Koran in its original form and language as the literal and unaltered word of
God [Allah], preserved for all times to come. When Muslims say, “God says,” or “the Koran
says,” they are in fact using different words to quote one source – namely God himself.
65
A leader of an Islamic polity, regarded as a successor of Muhammad and by tradition always male. – The
American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. Muslims
consider the Caliph to be Allah’s vicegerent (administrative deputy) on earth. Also referred to as Calif, Kaliph,
Kalif, Khalif, Khalifa, and Khalifah.
66
Also referred to as ‘Umar or Omar.
67
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Receiving
Revelation Straight from the Source, page 9.
43
The Koran provides a direct relationship from its source (God) to its audience (humanity). As
such, Muslims have a deep reverence for the Koran. In…traditional understandings of Islam, if
you express doubt that the Koran is the word of God, then you have uttered words of disbelief.
With this understanding of how the Koran’s revelations came into being, the issues they were
designed to address, and the authority they have over believers, we are almost ready to
investigate the message of the Koran and its affect on people today. But before we begin, there
is one more question to consider: Who are we, as non-Muslim Westerners who are ignorant of
the Arabic language, to make such an investigation?
Is it legitimate for a Westerner to critique the Koran?

One of the first things a defender of Islam will say when a Westerner critiques the Koran is that,
because the Koran is the “literal and unaltered” word of Allah, any translation from the original
language is not the true Koran. At best, it is a mere interpretation, and, because no translation is
the actual word of Allah, any criticism based on a translation is invalid.
At first glance, this assertion seems plausible, especially to a Westerner intimidated by a

Muslim’s rebuke. However, if one challenges this logic, it quickly falls apart, demonstrating that
it is nothing more than a ruse meant to discourage non-Muslims from commenting on the Koran.
This assertion, which implies that the only people qualified to critique the Koran are those who
can read it in its original language, is invalid for four reasons:
1. Most of the world’s Muslims do not speak Arabic.68
The assertion implies that Muslims who do not speak Arabic cannot understand the true
meaning of the Koran. Hence they cannot truly understand their own religion, and they
are not qualified to speak about its holy texts. This conclusion would be a big surprise to
most Muslims.
2. The language of the Koran is NOT modern Arabic.
The language of the Koran is Classical Arabic. During the recent rise of Pan-Arabism,
this language has ironically been renamed Modern Standard Arabic. Modern Standard
Arabic represents the revival of an ancient and nearly dead language from about 1400
years ago. Its condition was somewhat like that of Latin today, and its revival is
somewhat like the recent revival of Hebrew.
The difference between Classical Arabic and the Arabic of daily life, which varies
dramatically from country to country, has been likened to the difference between Spanish
and Italian.69 Therefore, even native speakers of Arabic cannot read the Koran in its
68
The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 22, entitled
Language and Literature, page 323.
69
For an example of the many places where you can find such analogies, see the website
www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/xislam.htm, which is an Islamic website at the University of Wisconsin, Green
Bay. Look under its section entitled “The Koran.”
44
original language unless they receive special training, which they receive in school like a
heavily promoted foreign language.
This implies that any Koran written in a modern Arabic dialect has been translated. As
such, it is a mere interpretation, and not the actual word of Allah. Just like an English
Translation.
Classical Arabic has enjoyed a revival in recent years, both because of Islam’s
resurgence, and because many Arabic nations believe Arabs can gain political and
economic clout through Pan-Arabism. It acts as a Lingua Franca for Arabs living across
North Africa and the Middle East, and this facilitates media broadcasts, internet services,
and travel.
Because of its long period of non-use by the general populace, and its current use as a
sort of unifying second language rather than as a primary language, we can safely assume
that many of its nuances from Muhammad’s time were lost. If this is true, then some of
the Koran’s nuances are also likely to be lost.
Muslims will claim that this problem has been handled because a sort of dictionary,
called The Tongue of the Arabs, was written by Ibn Al-Manthur Al-Afriki shortly after
the Koran’s compilation, and it contains a definition written for every word in the Koran.
Unfortunately, The Tongue of the Arabs is also written in Classical Arabic. Therefore, it
is about as helpful to a reader of the Koran as a French dictionary, written in French, to
an English speaker trying to read a French book. Moreover, the dictionary deals only
with words, and neglects the meanings of popular phrases in use during Muhammad’s
time. These meanings are now lost forever. Do you “get my drift?” If so, you get a
“high five.”
Again, this problem is not unique to Islam’s Holy Scriptures. In fact, the Old Testament
has it even worse because it was written in Hebrew, a language that was nearly dead for
centuries. A quick review of the Psalms alone will uncover words such as “shiggaion,”70
“sheminith,”71 “gittith,”72 “miktam,”73 “maskil,”74 “alamoth,”75 and “mahalath,”76 that
have not been translated to English because no one knows their meanings, other than that
they are “probably a literary or musical term.”
While many Jews and Christians will claim that Divine Providence made sure that all
essential meanings of the Hebrew scriptures were preserved, this claim cannot be proven.
What we do know is that we will have to do the best we can with what we have.
Muslims face the same situation.
70
The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, Psalm 7.
71
ibid, Psalms 6, 12.
72
ibid, Psalms 8, 59, 81, 84.
73
ibid, Psalms 16, 57, 58, 59, 60.
74
ibid, Psalms 32, 42, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 74, 78, 88, 89, 142.
75
ibid, Psalm 46.
76
ibid, Psalm 53.
45
No one living today can truly speak with complete authority about a language that has
been out of popular use for many centuries. This leads to the conclusion that no one
living today, not even a Muslim, can truly understand the Koran, and no one living today
is qualified to speak authoritatively about Islam. This conclusion would probably
surprise everyone.
3. The first Korans were written in a consonant-only script.
Imagine trying to read this book if only its consonants were printed. Tht ws ssntll th
chllng fcd b rdrs f th frst Krns.77 At the time of Muhammad, Arabic writing was in a
formative state. Not only could it not represent vowels; it had only 15 characters for 28
consonants.
Despite these limitations, the Arabic alphabet served the needs of Muhammad’s
remembrancers because they were trained in the Koran’s oral tradition, and used writing
as a memory aid instead of as a primary communication tool. Unfortunately, different
oral traditions arose very quickly, so that, a few decades after Muhammad’s death, no one
knew the actual words with certainty. As explained by N.J. Dawood in his translation’s
introduction:
...owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written
contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are
recognized by Muslims as of equal authority.78
There are seven authoritative readings of the Koran, based on the recitations of the
following eighth-century individuals: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr al-‘ala’, Ibn ‘Amir,
Hamzah, al-Qisa’I, and Abu Bakr ‘Asim. Additional readings that are considered less
authoritative also exist.
Even today, there are two variant readings in active use: Abu Bakr ‘Asim, which is
popular throughout most of the Islamic world, and Nafi, which is popular in Africa
outside of Egypt. So the next time someone says that the Koran is the perfect,
immutable, and eternal word of Allah, you may want to ask them: “Which version?”
At this point, it should be clear that there has never been agreement on the exact wording
of the Koran, even among Islam’s earliest followers, despite the fact that they all spoke
the Koran’s original language. In places where these various readings differ, no one can
speak with authority as to which is truly correct. The remembrancers who fleshed out the
Koran’s consonantal script into words performed the same tasks as any translator, and
faced the same dilemmas, having to base at least some decisions on their own opinions.
The only thing known for sure about the Koran is that its exact words were not even clear
to the people who were living when it was compiled. If an Islamic authority must know
77
That was essentially the challenge faced by readers of the first Korans.
78
The Koran, English Translation, with Notes Only, by N.J. Dawood, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983,
page 10.
46
the meaning of every word of the Koran, with certainty, then how could anyone claim to
have such authority?
4. Twenty-nine of the Koran’s surahs (chapters) begin with sequences of letters that no one
understands.
An example of such a sequence is “Alif Lam Mim,” which comes from the beginning of
Surah 3, entitled The House of ‘Imran.
These twenty-nine introductory character sequences cannot be interpreted at all by

anyone. Among Islamic scholars, they are called “the mysterious letters” (or “the
detached letters”). Once again, this leads to the conclusion that if a complete
understanding of the entire Koran is required before one can speak with authority on it,
then no one has such authority.
Obviously, Muslims would not be happy if their method of dismissing non-Muslim critiques was
applied to them. Doing so would demonstrate, with multiple proofs, that it is impossible for any
living person to speak with authority on the Koran. Muslims would naturally call this conclusion
absurd, and insist that their scholars can speak with authority. But if this is true, then they must
also admit that the original assertion, that the Koran cannot be translated effectively into a
modern language, is also absurd.
If this assertion is absurd, then we must conclude that it is possible for a person to understand
and critique the Koran on the basis of translations. To support this claim, consider the following:
1. People have been translating books of all sorts into English for hundreds of years with
few complaints, and the same can be done with the Koran.
While translators may be unable to preserve all the puns, rhythms, and wordplay of
foreign literature, they can do a pretty good job of preserving meaning. Also, popular
books are often translated by more than one person, so that readers can compare multiple
translations to get a fuller understanding of the original text. Also, if several translators
interpret a passage identically, a reader can be reasonably confident of its meaning.
2. Everyone who reads the Koran must interpret it when they apply it to their lives.
If a knowledgeable scholar interprets the Koran by translating it, one can be reasonably
confident that his interpretation is as good as any personal understanding that a speaker of
Classical Arabic might have.
Any reasonable person will recognize that a devout and intelligent person who reads the
Koran in English may gain a better understanding of the Koran than an equally devout
but less insightful person who reads the Koran in Classical Arabic. Unless Islamic
scholars are willing to consign to Hell everyone who does not have a perfect
understanding of the Koran, they should be willing to agree that people can gain a useful
understanding of the Koran from a good translation to English. Furthermore, because
47
several translations are available, a reader of those translations can gain multiple
perspectives of the Koran and thereby learn how different authorities interpret it.
The bottom line is that it is not necessary to understand the exact words of Allah, in the
original language, to understand the Koran. All we need to know is what the Koran
means to the people who read it. And, through their translations, numerous Islamic
scholars have provided authoritative line-by-line interpretations of the Koran.
It is also worth noting that the tactic of dismissing translations of the Koran does more than
discourage critiques by non-Muslims. It also gives Islamic authorities added power over their
followers. In fact, the more inscrutable the Koran is, and the more necessary its teachings are for
salvation, the more Muslims depend on Islamic authorities for guidance.
This situation is not unique to Islam. In the past, Christianity was just as adamant on the same
subject for the same reason. For example, William Tyndale, the first Englishman to translate the
Bible into English, was burned at the stake for heresy in 1536. It also took until Vatican II, in
the early 1960s, for the Catholic Church to endorse church services in languages other than
Latin.79 Catholicism’s requirement that scriptures be read in Latin was particularly strange
because the Bible’s books were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Latin
Bible, known as the Vulgate, is a translation.
If Christians reject the claim that the Bible cannot be translated, then they should also reject the
claim that the Koran cannot be translated. Of course Westerners are qualified to critique the
Koran on the basis of translations.
The Koran has two translations to English that are universally accepted as authoritative by
Islamic scholars: The Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal, and The
Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. In addition, there are
several other widely accepted translations80 that can help validate our critiques. By comparing
translations of Koranic verses (called ayat81 in Arabic), it is possible to gain as good an
understanding of the Koran as that of most contemporary Muslims. Such comparisons are easy
with the aid of on-line resources designed for this purpose, such as
www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran. If one compares these translations, one finds a remarkable level
of agreement, which adds confidence to the conclusions of Dare to Speak.
For the sake of readability, this book will not show multiple translations of each quote. It will
focus on the translations of Pickthal and Yusuf Ali, and will try to present the version of each
verse, or ayah, that is easiest to understand. If you have difficulty with any passage, you may
cross-check it with any translation you wish.
79
The books of the Bible were originally written in several different languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
80
Two translations that are universally accepted as authoritative are: The Glorious Koran, by Muhammad
Marmaduke William Pickthal (London, 1930), and The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, by Abdullah
Yusuf Ali (Lahore, 1934, 1937). Other translations that are considered authoritative by many Islamic leaders are:
Holy Qur’aan, by M.H. Shakir (published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur’aan, Inc.), The Message of the Quran by
Muhammad Asad (Gibraltar, 1980), and The Qur’an: The First American Version, by T.B. Irving (Vermont, 1985).
81
Koranic verses are known as Ayat in Arabic. Ayat is the plural of Ayah, the word for sign. This is because each
verse is considered to be a sign of Allah.
48
Interpreting the Koran
Before reading actual passages from the Koran, it is worth taking a moment to consider the
typical build-up that a Muslim gives when introducing it. For example, The Koran for Dummies
begins with the following tribute:82
The Jews and Christians asked Muhammad to bring some miracles as proof of the divine
inspiration he claimed to receive from God. After all, if Muhammad was a prophet, then he
should be able to perform miraculous magic, like Prophet Moses, or instantly cure the sick, like
Jesus. The Koran responds to this challenge by exhibiting the highest form of literary Arabic
ever to appear in the history of the language.
The majestic words of the Koran changed the face of the Arabic language, outclassing all the
famous poetry that was at its height before the Koranic revelation. To this day, the Koran serves
as the standard by which all other Arabic is judged. The book’s language proves especially
remarkable since it was transmitted through Prophet Muhammad, who was illiterate and was not
known for his recital of poetry…
In short, the primary miracle and proof that defines Muhammad’s prophethood is the Koran itself.
After an accolade like this, one would expect clarity from the Koran, as well as a transformative
reading experience. Unfortunately, such expectations are deeply disappointed. Although the
Koran repeatedly claims that it is clear,83 anyone attempting to read it in any language will
quickly find it jumbled, inconsistent, and confusing. It is so jumbled and confusing that The
Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran introduces its first lengthy Koranic quote with the following
disclaimer:84
82
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, chapter 1, section entitled The Proof,
page 14.
83
Some examples of quotes from the Koran where it claims its revelations are clear (there are close to 200 such
claims to clarity within the entire Koran):
1. [2.99] PICKTHAL: Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in
them.
2. [2.242] YUSUF ALI: Thus doth Allah Make clear His Signs to you: In order that ye may understand.
3. [12.1] PICKTHAL: Alif. Lam. Ra. These are verse of the Scripture that maketh plain.
[12.2] Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand.
4. [16.82] YUSUF ALI: But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message.
5. [24.54] YUSUF ALI: Say: Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only
responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right
guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
6. [26.2] YUSUF ALI: These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.
7. [27.1] YUSUF ALI: These are verses of the Qur’an, -a book that makes (things) clear;
8. [36.69] YUSUF ALI: We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less
than a Message and a Qur’an making things clear:
9. [54.17] YUSUF ALI: And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember:
10. [54.22] YUSUF ALI: But We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember:
84
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 6, section entitled In This Chapter, page 63.
49
Experiencing the Koran has been compared to navigating a wild river. It swirls and twists and
turns, then doubles back from where it came…and then, just when one thinks one knows where
the river is going, it curves yet again in a new direction entirely.
That metaphor may well be an oversimplification of the text of the Koran…although one must
always remember that Muslims believe that any explanation of the text is an
oversimplification…a great deal of the text remains, from verse to verse, entirely unpredictable
and more than a little intimidating [for] the first-time reader.
After initial claims of perfection for the Koran, Muslims retract their praise even further when
someone actually reads it in the original Arabic and discovers over one hundred grammatical
irregularities85 86 (such as non-Arabic words instead of Arabic words87), and many outright
errors, particularly in verses 2.177, 3.59, 4.162, 5.69, 7.160, 20.63, 49.9, and 63.10.88 89
Unfortunately, these are difficult issues for English speakers to verify for themselves, but in-
depth explanations are available in books such as Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab’s View of
Islam, by Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh, Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of
Mohammad, by Ali Dashti, and Why I am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq.
After reading a few surahs, it becomes clear why the Koran’s interpretation is so important, and
why it has been interpreted in so many different ways. For example, in a section describing Jews
and Christians, the Koran says:
[3.113] YUSUF ALI: Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand
(for the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in
adoration.
[3.114] They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is
wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.
[3.115] Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those
that do right.
These verses imply that there were a substantial number of Jews and Christians who lived
according to the will of Allah, independently of Muhammad and the Koran. And yet the Koran
also has many long and scathing rebukes against all Jews and Christians. For example:
[2.145] YUSUF ALI: Even if thou90 wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs
(together), they would not follow Thy Qibla91…If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee,
wert to follow their (vain) desires, - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong.
[2.146] PICKTHAL: Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize (this revelation92) as
they recognize their sons. But lo! A party of them93 knowingly conceals the truth.
85
Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by Ali Dashti, translated by F.R.C. Bagley,
Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA, 1994, Chapter 2: The Religion of Islam, page 42.
86
Why I am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, 1995, Amherst, New York, pages 112 – 113.
87
Ibid, pages 51 & 108.
88
Ibid, page 111.
89
Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, by Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988,
pages 199 – 200.
90
Muhammad.
91
Prayer direction (Muslims face toward the Ka’aba; Jews, historically, faced toward the Temple in Jerusalem).
92
The Koran.
50
…
[2.159] YUSUF ALI: Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the
Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, - on them shall be Allah’s
curse…
[2.160] Except those who repent and make amends and openly declare (the Truth)94
…
[2.174] YUSUF ALI: Those who conceal Allah’s revelations in the Book, and purchase for them
a miserable profit, - they swallow into themselves naught but Fire…Grievous will be their
penalty.
This implies that anyone who ignores “Allah’s revelations in the Book,” namely the Koran, will
be rejected by Allah. But this is exactly what Jews and Christians do, unless they convert to
Islam and leave their respective faiths.
The only way to reconcile these two sets of verses is to say that it is possible for Jews and
Christians to live righteously if they have never heard of the Koran, but the minute they reject
Islam, they become cursed by Allah and deserve the utmost contempt. This is exactly how
Muslims interpret these verses, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains:
Islam specifically acknowledges that pious…Christians who do as Allah commands will gain
entrance to Paradise (2:62). All those who persist in worshipping associate gods [that is, the
Christian Trinity] after hearing the message of the One God, however, will go to hell.95
…
The Koran…explains quite clearly…that many will ignore this call, will continue to worship their
own low desires, and will in this way become the authors of their own doom.96
…
Their skins, once burned off, will be replaced:
We will make the rejectors of Our revelations suffer in the hell fire. As soon as the fire
destroys their skins, We will give them new skins so that they may suffer more of the
torment. [Allah] is Majestic and All-wise. (4:56)97
One might also note that the adjectives used for Allah would be more accurate if “sadistic” was
substituted for “Majestic and All-wise.”
After these curses, slanders, and horrifying images, this “Idiot’s” book kindly reassures
Christians that they can expect “No intimidation, no harassment, no psychological
manipulations, [and] no subliminal influence”98 from Muslims.
While Muslims contend that they have explained the Koran’s contradictions about “the people of
the Book,” reality does not confirm their explanation. It is hard to imagine that Mother Theresa
93
That is, those who do not convert to Islam
94
The declaration referred to, stated with sincere belief, is what makes one a Muslim: “There is no god but Allah,
and Muhammad is his messenger.”
95
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 18, section entitled Muslims and Christians, page 183.
96
Ibid, section entitled Advice for Unbelievers About Believers, page 184.
97
Ibid, Chapter 19, section entitled The Punishment of Hell, page 193.
98
Ibid, Chapter 22, section entitled Sister Khadijah Changes Her Faith, page 226.
51
or Billy Graham could be accused of worshipping “their own low desires,” but the Koran teaches
Muslims that anyone who rejects Islam is in rebellion to Allah, and is therefore eternally doomed
to horrible torment.
The Koran’s approach to “the people of the Book” makes no sense in other ways as well. For
example, its guidance on how to live differs significantly from that of the Jewish Tanakh99 (the
Old Testament) and the Christian New Testament. Its stories of Biblical characters are also quite
different. If the Koran is true, then everyone who lived by the Tanakh and New Testament
before the Koran’s revelation had to be, by necessity, misled. Therefore, except for the prophets
who were inspired directly by God, it would have been impossible for any Jew or Christian to
live righteously.
The Islamic answer to this point is two-fold:
1. The Koran is always correct; therefore, any differences between it and the Tanakh or
New Testament come from corruptions to those earlier works.
2. The Koran, as well as the Torah and Gospel, always existed in a single grand “Mother of
the Book”100 created by Allah, which was revealed in phases by the prophets. Therefore
Islam (submission to Allah) always existed. Hence it has always been possible for people
to be true Muslims.
To Muslims, these explanations are airtight. From a more objective perspective, however, the
idea of a single religion always existing in its present state, even though the content of its
foundational texts changed over time, is highly doubtful. Furthermore, this notion falls apart as
soon as one actually reads the Torah and Gospel and learns how they were written. Except for
the beginning of Genesis, they were all biographical or autobiographical accounts of human
events. Therefore, it is impossible for those books to have existed before their dates of human
authorship. No one could possibly have lived according to their guidance before their authors
wrote them, even if the authors were divinely inspired.
The Koran’s depiction of these books is very different, as The Koran for Dummies reveals:101
The Koran views the Bible and Torah in the following way: Moses received divine revelation in
the form of the Torah. Jesus received divine revelation in the form of the Gospel.102 Both of
these Books were corrupted by human changes, and are therefore no longer reliable as the words
99
The Hebrew Bible; one of the two texts considered Holy by Jews (the other being the Talmud). It consists of the
Torah (the Law, also known as the Pentatuch or the Mosaic books), the Nevi’im (the Prophets), and the Ketuvim
(the Writings). It is nearly identical to the Old Testament of the Bible, differing slightly in the order of its books and
their titles.
100
The Koran refers to the “Mother of the Book” in the following verses:
• [13.39] YUSUF ALI Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the
Book.”
• [43.4] YUSUF ALI: And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of
wisdom.
101
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Previous
Revelations: Between Sacred and Corrupted, page 66.
102
The term Gospel refers to the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which record the life of
Jesus. Other parts of the New Testament are the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelations (Apocalypse).
52
of God. Each Book does contain within it the original Truth, but not all of it. The Koran sets the
record straight by including the portions of Torah and Gospel that are valid and still relevant,
while correcting mistakes and excluding that which is no longer relevant.
The fact of the matter is that very little of either the Torah or the Gospel is written in a form of a
“divine revelation.” In large part, they are biographies, autobiographies, or histories.
The Koran contends that the Torah and Gospel were “corrupted” to serve the selfish interests of
Jewish and Christian priests, but such a goal would not require these books to be rewritten so
dramatically. Moreover, while there are many ancient copies of the Torah and Gospel, none of
them indicate that there were ever any changes of the magnitude implied by the Koran. Thus,
while the Koran’s explanation of the Torah and Gospel may seem plausible to people who have
not read them, it is absurd to anyone who has.
Even worse, by calling itself a replacement for the Christian and Hebrew Bibles, instead of a
supplement to them, the Koran causes Muslims to lose a vast amount of essential information.
For example, the Koran gives almost no historical context to the Biblical characters it refers to.
If a student wanted to know whether Jonah lived before Elijah, or even whether Elijah lived
before Elisha, the Tanakh is the only reference with answers.
Also, the Koran’s omissions regarding Jesus are glaringly evident, especially to Christians, for
whom the Koranic Jesus is an unrecognizable cipher, with no message beyond Muhammad’s
own. In fact, the main messages of Jesus’ ministry, on empathy and sacrificial love, are
completely lost. In effect, the Koran pays lip service to Jesus while completely ignoring the
lessons he taught.
Another way the Koranic Jesus is unrecognizable is in the Koran’s adamant declaration that
Jesus is not the son of God, but just another prophet. As it says in Surah 19, entitled Mary
(Maryam):
[19.35] YUSUF ALI: It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son.
Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is.
This is how the Koran says Mary became pregnant. What is strange about this claim is that the
Koranic description of Jesus’ conception is not fundamentally different from the Biblical account
because, in both cases, Mary becomes pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Christians talk about Jesus being the son of God in a metaphorical sense rather than through the
physical act of intercourse, but Muslims choose to hear this phrase in a carnal sense and then
accuse Christians of blaspheming God by believing that He physically impregnated a woman.
As The Koran for Dummies says:103
103
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Purity of
Faith, page 111.
53
This passage104 rejects the Christian doctrine of God having a begotten son. The Koran
argues that God is above and beyond the need for having a son. God doesn’t have
parents, nor does he produce children.
But if one uses the metaphor of a child having a mother and father, then, according to the
Koran’s own account, if Mary was Jesus’ mother, then who other than God was Jesus’ father? In
fact, when Muslims are not busy castigating Christians for calling Jesus the son of God, they
themselves say the same thing. Several hadiths record that Muhammad himself said this:
105
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651: …I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I am the
nearest of all the people to the son of Mary [Jesus], and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and
there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).”
In other words, Muslims are quite comfortable with the metaphor as long as Muhammad can also
call himself a son of God.
Moses holds up better in the Koran than Jesus, but even he is transformed into Muhammad’s
own mouthpiece. For example, The Koran for Dummies says:106
The prophethood of Moses in the Koran begins with Moses receiving revelation from God as he
stands in the valley of Tuwa, or the Hallowed Valley. Here, Moses learns of his prophecy and
receives three teachings:
• To believe in no deity except God alone

• To establish prayers as a means of remembering the Divine
• To believe in the Last Hour when every soul will be rewarded according to its deeds.
These teachings are much more recognizable as the message of Muhammad, not the Biblical
Moses, particularly with regard to the Last Hour, a concept never mentioned in the Torah.107
Islamic teachings also make problems for the Koran itself. Muslims claim that it is an eternal
book, yet the Koran was clearly written in sections designed to deal with events as they unfolded.
It even reverses its own guidance at times, most notably with regard to alcohol, usury, and,
according to Sunnis, temporary marriage.108 And yet, Muslim orthodoxy claims that the Koran
was written since the dawn of time, as a part of the “Mother of the Book.” The only way
Muslims can reconcile this inconsistency is to claim that everything that happens in this world is
pre-ordained by an all-knowing Allah. If Allah knows what will happen throughout history, then
104
Surah 112, verses 1-4, which Sultan quotes as: “Say: ‘He is One God: God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of all
being. He Begets not, and neither is He begotten; and there is nothing that could be compared with him.’”
105
This hadith is repeated in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652, and in Sahih Muslim, Book 30,
Number 5836. NOTE: All hadiths come from a translation written by M. Muhsin Khan, available through the
University of Southern California’s Hadith Database, at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html.
106
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Becoming a
prophet, page 124.
107
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Law, the Pentateuch, or the
Mosaic Books.
108
Shiites believe that Islam permits temporary marriage, while Sunnis believe that Muhammad reversed Islam’s
original position on it. This controversy is discussed in the section of this book entitled The Treatment of Women.
54
he can write a complete book at the beginning of time and reveal it in sections as history unfolds,
strategically changing policy as needed. This explains the strong Islamic belief in predestination,
complete with a last day that is already scripted out in detail.
Of course, accepting this notion of predestination creates other problems. For example, if
everything is pre-ordained, then how can anyone be held responsible for their actions? That is,
how can Jews and Christians be blamed for rejecting Islam if doing so was pre-ordained by
Allah? The modern Islamic answer is that predestination is not really predestination, but actually
“God’s foreknowledge.”109 Therefore, Allah can still change future events based on what people
do in the moment. To see a fuller discussion of this convoluted explanation, see The Complete
Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, Chapter 8, in the section entitled All Things Great and
Small.
Ultimately, though, the explanation about “God’s foreknowledge” does not ring true. The
Hadith states the true Islamic position quite clearly, through numerous examples, such as:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 430:110…Allah’s Apostle…said…“…a human being
is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood
for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who
is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature’s) deeds, his
livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the
soul is breathed into him.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143:111 The Prophet said, “If anyone of you on having
sexual relations with his wife said (and he must say it before starting) ‘In the name of Allah. O
Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming
offspring) from Satan,’ and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be
able to harm that offspring.”
• Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 40, Number 4686:112…the Apostle…[said]: Allah created Adam, then
passed His right hand over his back, and brought forth from it his offspring, saying: ‘I have these
for Paradise and these will do the deeds of those who go to Paradise.’ He then passed His hand
over his back and brought forth from it his offspring, saying: ‘I have created these for Hell, and
they will do the deeds of those who go to Hell.’”
A man asked: ‘What is the good of doing anything, Apostle of Allah?’ The Apostle…said:
‘When Allah creates a servant for Paradise, He employs him in doing the deeds of those who will
go to Paradise…for which He will bring him into Paradise. But when He creates a servant for
Hell, He employs him in doing the deeds of those who will go to Hell…for which He will bring
him into Hell.’
109
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 8, section entitled All Things Great and Small, page 93.
110
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315, Volume 4, Book 55, Numbers
549 & 550, Volume 8, Book 77, Numbers 593 & 594, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 546, and Sahih Muslim, Book
33, Numbers 6390 & 6397.
111
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Numbers 493 & 503.
112
A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345.
55
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 621:113…Allah’s Apostle said, “Adam and Moses
argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘You are Adam whose mistake expelled you from
Paradise.’ Adam said to him, ‘You are Moses whom Allah selected as His Messenger and as the
one to whom He spoke directly; yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written in
my fate before my creation?’” Allah’s Apostle said twice, “So, Adam overpowered Moses.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 466:114…The Prophet was asked about the offspring
of pagans [who die in infancy]…; so he said, “Allah knows what sort of deeds they would have
done.”
According to these hadiths, Muhammad claimed that Allah dictates everything that a person will
do in his or her life before the person is even born. And even an infant is held accountable for
these deeds – it makes no difference if the child dies before carrying them out.
It is also worth noting that Muhammad’s logic in the last hadith is nonsensical: If Allah has
perfect foreknowledge, then Allah should be able to anticipate whether a fetus will live to birth
and, if born, what it will do before dying on a predetermined date as either a child or an adult.
Regardless of the logical flaws in these hadiths, modern Muslims have clearly invented the
fiction of “God’s foreknowledge” to keep their version of God from appearing cruel and sadistic
for intentionally creating people whom he dooms even before birth. Strangely, Muslims are
willing to ignore the hadiths themselves to do so.
Even the fiction of “God’s foreknowledge” does not avoid the conclusion that Allah predestined
every action of every person. If Allah created the world, and had perfect foreknowledge from
the dawn of time, then he is in control of everyone’s actions from the dawn of time. That is, if he
wanted people to do different things, then he could have set things up from the beginning to
produce the desired results. This takes us back to the original ethical question, which the hadiths
themselves express in the words of Adam: how can people be justly punished for performing
their roles in a plan that Allah created? Why not hold Allah accountable, if the unjust actions of
individuals fulfill Allah’s plan?
This is the point at which Muslims completely disconnect from logic and go back to “The Koran
is always right” and “Allah can do whatever He wants, and if this is what He has done, then, by
definition, it must be righteous.”
Another way the Koran reveals its inconsistency is in its guidance regarding Jews, Christians,
Sabians,115 and Zoroastrians116. For example, consider the following passages:
113
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 260 & 262, Volume 8, Book 77,
Number 611, and Volume 9, Book 93, Number 606.
114
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 465 and Volume 8, Book 77,
Numbers 596 & 597.
115
A term used for the Mandaeans, a small sect still in existence today, who revere John the Baptist as the greatest
prophet, and recognize that Jesus existed, but say he was a false prophet. The word Sabian derives from subbi,
which means “those who baptize.”
116
The followers of Zoroaster (also called Zarathushtra), the prophet of Zoroastrianism (or Zarathushtrianism),
which was the state religion of Persia.
56
• [2.62] YUSUF ALI: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish
(scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and
work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall
they grieve.
• [2.256] YUSUF ALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error:
whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that
never breaks…
• [3.187] PICKTHAL: And (remember) when Allah laid a charge on those who had received the
Scripture [Jews and Christians] (He said): Ye are to expound it to mankind and not to hide it. But
they flung it behind their backs and bought thereby a little gain. Verily evil is that which they
have gained thereby.
• [9.29] PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not
in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and
follow not the Religion of Truth [i.e., Islam], until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son
of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who
disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
How can these messages form a consistent set of instructions? On one hand, Muslims are told
that there is no compulsion in religion, and that believing Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians have
nothing to fear on the Last Day. On the other hand, Muslims are told to fight those who defy
what Muhammad (as the messenger of Allah) commands, and allows them to relent only after
those Infidels pay a special tribute to the Muslims after “being brought low.” This section then
goes on to say that all Jews and Christians are perverse, with Allah himself fighting against them.
Obviously, one cannot believe the first set of verses without doubting the second, and vice-versa.
These kinds of inconsistencies are so frequent in the Koran they motivated Islamic authorities, as
well as the Koran itself, to establish an interesting rule for interpretation: Whenever verses
conflict with each other or with the Old or New Testament, the most recent verses always nullify
the older ones. As the Koran says:
[13.38] YUSUF ALI: We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and
children: and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or
commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).
[13.39] Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.
This point is repeated later even more clearly:
[16.101] YUSUF ALI: When We substitute one revelation for another, - and Allah knows best
what He reveals (in stages), - they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
The Koran claims that it may overwrite itself and preceding scriptures in other verses as well,
such as 2.106 and 22.52.
57
As for the contradictory Koranic policies toward non-Muslims, the following hadith
demonstrates the ultimate verdict: convert or else.117
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 658:…The Prophet sent some cavalry towards Najd
and they brought a man from the tribe of Banu Hanifa who was called Thumama bin Uthal. They
fastened him to one of the pillars of the Mosque. The Prophet went to him and said, “What have
you got, O Thumama?” He replied, “I have got a good thought, O Muhammad!…if you should
set me free, you would do a favor to one who is grateful, and if you want property, then ask me
whatever wealth you want.” He was left till the next day when the Prophet said to him, “What
have you got, Thumama?” He said, “What I told you, i.e. if you set me free, you would do a
favor to one who is grateful.” The Prophet left him till the day after, when he said, “What have
you got, O Thumama?” He said, “I have got what I told you.” On that the Prophet said, “Release
Thumama.” So he (i.e. Thumama) went to a garden of date-palm trees near to the Mosque, took a
bath and then entered the Mosque and said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped
except Allah, and also testify that Muhammad is His Apostle!”
More generally, the Koran tells readers to use chronology to determine which of its commands
are actually in force. Unfortunately, the Koran is not organized chronologically, nor does it
indicate chronology. Thus, it is often difficult to determine which of the commands cancel
which, although research into these questions is aided by a group of early biographies of
Muhammad known as the Sira.118 These biographies quote many Koranic and Hadithic passages
and thereby provide a sequence of events. Despite these biographies, Pickthal states, in the
Introduction to his translation,119
The arrangement [of the Koran] is not easy to understand. Revelations of various dates and on
different subjects are to be found together in one surah; verses of Madinah revelation [which
came after Muhammad established his government in Medina] are found in Meccan surahs
[composed prior to Muhammad’s exodus to Medina]; some of the Madinah surahs, though of late
revelation, are placed first and the very early Meccan surahs at the end.
The chronology of the Koran’s conflicting verses is such a complex issue that it has spawned a
field of study called the Science of Abrogation120, where Islamic scholars determine which verses
supersede, or abrogate, others. This field is extremely important because, according to many if
not most Islamic scholars, abrogated verses have no force. Even though they remain in the
Koran, it is as if they do not exist. According to these scholars, the peaceful verses quoted above
came from a time when Muslims were a threatened minority in Mecca. These verses were
abrogated by the more hostile ones that came later, while Muhammad was ruling Medina and
expanding his power across the Arabian peninsula.
Instead of using chronology, the Koran sorts its surahs in order of importance,121 from most to
least, according to the opinions of its compilers. If one investigates how the Koran was
117
This hadith is repeated in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 451, Volume 3, Book 41, Number 604,
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 658, and Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4361.
118
Biographies of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq (and preserved through ibn Hisham’s edited version), Tabari,
Waqidi, and Ibn Sa’d. Ibn Ishaq’s biography is used as a reference in this book.
119
Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal, London, 1930, Introduction, page xxviii
120
Naskh is the Arabic term for abrogation. If a verse has been abrogated, it is nasikh.
121
Some commentators claim that the Koran’s surah’s are sorted by length, from longest to shortest, rather than
importance. While generally true, there are exceptions. For example, surah 1 is only seven verses long.
58
compiled, things get even murkier: It was assembled, years after Muhammad’s death, from
scraps of paper, leaves, bone, etc. on which individual revelations were written. Many of the
chapters, particularly the longer ones, are clearly hodgepodges where the compilers did their
best, given the difficulty of their task. As one reads portions of the Koran, one can almost
visualize the passages being cut and pasted together in a best-guess manner.122
It should now be apparent that one of the greatest challenges to understanding the Koran is the
Koran itself. According to Gerd-R. Puin, a specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic
paleography at Saarland University (Saarbrücken, Germany):
…the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the
traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible – if it can’t even be
understood in Arabic – then it’s not translatable.123
How do Muslims respond to this claim? They reply with a masterful spin job that turns
incomprehensibility into proof of superhuman brilliance and depth. As The Complete Idiot’s
Guide to the Koran explains124:
One important hadith relates that the Koran has, besides its (translatable) surface meanings,
deeper intrinsic meanings…meanings that are not apparent to every reader, but only to a select
few. Thus, the ultimate meaning of the Koran is not to be found in any translation, but in the
Arabic text itself, a text that defies simple word-for-word rendering.
It appears that the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes has not reached the Islamic world;
otherwise they would recognize in these words the logic of those clever tailors, who convinced
the Emperor that his “clothes” were so refined that only a “select few” could see them.
The “deeper intrinsic meanings” claimed by Islam’s apologists also raise other questions: If there
is anyone who can understand these meanings, why should they be unable to describe them to
other people in terms those people could understand? Conversely, if no one can explain these
meanings, then how can anyone claim to understand them? And if no one can understand them,
then how can anyone claim to know that these meanings exist?
122
A scholarly work that discusses this issue is The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi, Kazi
Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999. For each surah, Maududi provides an introduction which discusses,
among other things, how the text was assembled. For example, for the Surah Al-Baqarah (The Cow), he writes:
The greater part of Al-Baqarah was revealed during the first two years of the Holy Prophet’s life at Al-
Madinah. The smaller part which was revealed at a later period has been included in this Surah because its
contents are closely related to those dealt with in this Surah. For instance, the verses prohibiting interest
were revealed during the last period of the Holy prophet’s life but have been inserted in this Surah. For the
same reason, the last verses (284-286) of this Surah which were revealed at Makkah before the migration of
the Holy Prophet to Al-Madinah have also been included in it.
The way these surahs were assembled clearly indicates an editing process, conducted either by Muhammad or the
Caliphs who came after him. The manual construction and refinement of texts is confirmed by both eye-witness
accounts of Muhammad’s recitations and the historical account of the Koran’s assembly. The Islamic claim that
surahs such as these were written by Allah long before Muhammad’s revelation of them, in a “Mother of the Book,”
utterly defies logic.
123
What is the Koran? by Toby Lester, Atlantic Monthly Magazine, January 1999.
124
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 1, section entitled A Message Like No Other, page 10.
59
On the other hand, one would think that the Koran’s words made sense to the people who
originally compiled them. Thus the Koran’s incomprehensibility may actually prove the point
made earlier: The language of the Koran is only imperfectly understood, after being out of
popular use for 1400 years, and the portions of the text that appear incomprehensible use facets
of the ancient language that have been lost. Where the meanings of the language have been lost,
the meanings of the Koran have also been lost.
The Koran’s problems run even deeper because there has been a recent discovery of early
Korans that demonstrate that the Koran evolved over time. While this discovery comes as no
surprise to Biblical paleographers, it creates a crisis in Islam because it directly contradicts the
fundamental Muslim belief that the Koran is the “literal and unaltered” word of Allah. As Toby
Lester related in his 1999 article, What is the Koran?:125
In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana’a, in Yemen, laborers working in a
loft between the structure’s inner and outer roofs stumbled across…an unappealing mash of
old…documents…[T]he laborers gathered up the manuscripts…and set them aside…where they
would probably have been forgotten…were it not for Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa’, then the president
of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find.
Al-Akwa’ sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979
managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who…persuaded the German government to
organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the
hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a “paper grave”…the resting
place for…fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran…
Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth
centuries A.D., or Islam’s first two centuries – they were fragments…of perhaps the oldest
Korans in existence. What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing
aberrations from the standard Koranic text [that] are troublingly at odds with the orthodox
Muslim belief that the Koran…is…the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.
…
The first person to spend a significant amount of time examining the Yemeni fragments, in 1981,
was Gerd-R. Puin ... Puin…recognized the antiquity of some of the parchment fragments, and his
preliminary inspection also revealed unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations,
and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. Enticing, too, were the sheets of the
scripture written in the rare and early Hijazi Arabic script: pieces of the earliest Korans known to
exist, they were also palimpsests – versions very clearly written over even earlier, washed-off
versions. What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest…was an evolving text rather than simply
the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century A.D.
…
…Puin and Von Bothmer have published only a few tantalizingly brief articles…on what they
have discovered…They have been reluctant to publish…because they felt that the Yemeni
authorities, if they realized the possible implications of the discovery, might refuse them further
access. Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 finished taking more than 35,000 microfilm pictures of
the fragments, and has recently brought the pictures back to Germany. This means that soon Von
Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish
their findings freely…“So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers
125
60
of the Koran is just God’s unaltered word,” [Puin] says. “They like to quote the textual work that
shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran
has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the
Koran has a history too. The Sana’a fragments will help us to do this.”
Puin is not alone in his enthusiasm. “The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt,”
says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary…“Their variant
readings and verse orders are all very significant…These manuscripts say that the early history of
the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less
stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.”
Beyond this recent discovery that the Koran had an evolving text, Muslims themselves record a
long history of controvertial tamperings and omissions. To glimpse one such controversy, do an
internet search for “Surah al-Walayah,” a disputed surah attributed to the Shiites. Hadiths also
record, repeatedly, an apparent omission from the Koran, which Caliph Umar himself declared:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:…‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long
time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in
the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has
revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual
intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or
confession.” Sufyan [a remembrancer] added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.”
‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817: …‘Umar sat on the pulpit, …and…, he said,
“…Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what
Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person…who commits illegal
sexual intercourse), and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s
Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the
Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which
Allah has revealed…And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah’s Book: ‘O people!
Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on
your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.’
…
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 424:…‘Umar (in a Friday Khutba-sermon) said,
“No doubt, Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him the Book (Quran), and
among what was revealed, was the Verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning adulterers to death).’”
Note that Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, book 82, Number 817 actually refers to two omissions,
where the second one is a command for offspring to be truthful about their fathers’ identities.
Perhaps the greatest source of Koranic tamperings and omissions was Muhammad himself, who
is known to have recited sections of the “perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God,” and
then gone back and revised those sections on several occasions.
The most famous of Muhammad’s revisions is what has become known as the “Satanic verses,”
whose story is told by two of Islam’s earliest writers: al-Tabari, a great Muslim historian, and ibn
61
Ishaq (704-768), who wrote an authoritative biography of Muhammad entitled Sirat Rasoul
Allah. The story of the Satanic verses is summarized in Islam for Dummies:126
Muhammad met opposition in part because, in attacking polytheism, he was implicitly attacking
the religious beliefs of his contemporary’s ancestors. One of al-Tabari’s accounts says that
Muhammad was wishing for a revelation, which would make his situation with his fellow citizens
of Mecca less contentious. At this point he recited Sura 53:19-20, “Have you considered al-Lat
and al-‘Uzza and Manat the third, the other.” Al-Lat simply means “the Goddess.” Al-‘Uzza
means “the mighty one” – equated with Venus (the morning star), and very popular among the
Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Manat means fate or destiny, which is a key concept of pre-Islamic
Arabic religion. These goddesses are referred to as the daughters of Allah, which may originally
simply mean “feminine divine beings.” They had shrines in the area of Mecca in pre-Islamic
times. According to al-Tabari’s version – which I remind you is disputed – Muhammad added,
“these are exalted females (or literally, great birds) whose intercession is to be desired,” which
seemed to allow a subordinate role for the three goddesses.
And why not, after all? Islam accepted the existence of various beings between people and God,
such as angels and jinn, so why not also accept these beings as a conciliatory measure to the
inhabitants of Mecca who were delighted by Muhammad’s words. However, this would have
been to return to polytheism. Subsequently, Gabriel informed Muhammad that he’d been led
astray by Satan. Muhammad deleted the statement about the intercessory role of the goddess and
substituted newly revealed verses including verse 53:23 that says that the three goddesses are
mere names and don’t truly exist. The deleted verses are known as the Satanic verses.
Besides demonstrating the evolving nature of the Koran, this anecdote raises a far deeper issue:
Where did the Koran’s inspiration actually come from? Allah, Satan, Gabriel, or Muhammad?
A Muslim would claim that any other verses that were not from Allah would have been edited
out on the command of Gabriel, acting on behalf of Allah. To a skeptic, however, such an
explanation is less than satisfactory because the Satanic verses were not the only ones retracted
from the Koran, as revealed in the following hadiths:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 731: (During the early days of Islam), the
inheritance used to be given to one’s offspring and legacy used to be bequeathed to the parents,
then Allah cancelled what He wished from that order and decreed that the male should be given
the equivalent of the portion of two females, and for the parents one-sixth for each of them, and
for one’s wife, one-eighth (if the deceased has children) and one-fourth (if he has no children), for
one’s husband, one-half (if the deceased has no children) and one-fourth (if she has children).
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 57:…Gabriel informed the Prophet that they
(i.e. the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used
to recite [this message from the martyrs], “Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is
pleased with us and He has made us pleased.” Later on this Quranic Verse was cancelled…
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 69:…There was revealed, about those who were
killed at Bir-Mauna, a Quranic Verse we used to recite, but it was cancelled later on…“Inform
our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased.”
126
Islam for Dummies, by Prof. Malcolm Clark, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 3, page 39.
62
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 421:…Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His
Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma’una, and we
recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was:) “Inform our people that we have met
our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him.”
The last three of these hadiths are particularly interesting because they preserve a specific
Koranic verse that was quietly removed from the Koran without any explanation. Presumably,
this verse was erased for two reasons:
1. It was clearly not in the voice of Allah.

2. It violated the Muslim belief that dead souls stay with their bodies in the ground until the
Last Day.
However, if this verse violated the fundamental tenets of Islam, and it was given to Muhammad
by Gabriel (all messages from Allah were allegedly transferred by Gabriel) then, one must ask:
Who is “Gabriel?” Another question that comes to mind after reviewing these and other hadiths
where Muhammad edits Koranic verses is: if the Koran is the perfect word of Allah, then why
wouldn’t Allah have pronounced it perfectly the first time? One can understand why many
Muslims would rather dispute the authenticity of the “Satanic verses” and other hadiths than deal
with their ramifications.
Web searches on “Surah al-Walayah,” the Satanic verses, and the above hadiths reveal
impressive volleys of accusations and counter-accusations between Muslim sects, particularly
Sunnis and Shiites. A thorough read of these references will reveal that, in an effort to keep from
discrediting the Koran, Sunni and Shiite leaders have decided to circle the wagons. Officially,
they declare that the Koran is the perfect, immutable, and eternal word of Allah, despite the
words of their own Hadith and claims about Surah al-Walayah. They do this because they fear
that these debates could call the Koran’s perfection into question and lead Muslims to doubt their
faith.
As for the Hadith, there are such deep problems that not even Muslims are scandalized when
someone accuses them of being corrupted. In fact, hadiths contradict the Koran so frequently
that it is necessary for The Complete Guide to the Koran to explain that:127
In the case of a conflict between the Koran and the Sunna [literally, “the way;” the life of
Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith], the resolution…is simple and instantaneous: The revealed
word of God [the Koran] is what determines the matter.
Regarding hadiths that are neither confirmed nor contradicted by the Koran, Muslims appear to
uphold or discredit them depending on what is useful at the moment. If a hadith supports a
particular argument that a Muslim is trying to make, the hadith is authoritative. If a hadith is
clearly incorrect or makes Islam or Muhammad look evil, it is dismissed as unauthoritative, at
least publicly.
127
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 4, section entitled What’s the Difference Between the Koran and the
Sunna, page 40.
63
Muslims who are more scholarly will attempt to gauge a hadith’s credibility by the witnesses
who saw it and transmitters who told it, but this study still does not provide decisive verdicts.
Unlike the canonical and apocryphal books of the Bible, there is no way to look at a particular
hadith and say with certainty whether it is considered true. Another factor that has arisen is the
realization that a chain of witnesses and transmitter could be forged as easily as the hadiths
themselves.
If Muslims could agree that certain hadiths were not true, one would think that those hadiths
could be removed, or at least marked as untrue, because they tend to discredit the entire Hadith.
Instead, Islamic scholars play it both ways. They say that if a hadith comes through a weak
chain of transmitters, it is not necessarily false, and if a hadith comes through a strong chain of
transmitters, it is not necessarily true. This leaves them in a position to confirm or dismiss
hadiths at their discretion, and change their positions according to expedience.
Because of the doubtful Sunni hadiths, Shiites go so far as to reject the authority of all Sunni
hadiths, as explained on the Shiite website, www.answering-ansar.org, in its article entitled
Creed of the Shi’a: explained:
The Shi'a rejection of the Sahah Sittah128

…
There is NO requirement in Islam to believe in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim etc…let us look at some
of these hadith, and then we leave it to those with open minds to conclude whether these are true
words…or folk tales…:
…
The Prophet(s) said, “The (people of) Bani Israel used to take baths naked (all together) looking
at each other. The prophet Moses…used to take bath, alone. They said, ‘By Allah! Nothing
prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.’ So, once Moses
went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with the
clothes. Moses followed the stone saying, ‘My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone!’ Till the
people of Bani Israel saw him and said ‘By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body.’ Moses
took his clothes and began to beat the stone.” Abu- Hurayra added, “By Allah! There are still six
or seven marks present on the stone from the beating.” –“Sahih Bukhari” Volume. (1) Book (5):
Bathing, Chapter (21): Taking bath in seclusion & completely naked
Do our readers believe this type of rubbish? The dash of the stone with the clothes of Moses and
the sprint of Moses (nude) after it is such a fabricated story that no rational mind is ready to
accept it. This hadith can…best be described as a fable…
This scoffing at Sahih Bukhari reflects more than the corrupted nature of the Hadith; it reveals
that the Sunnis and Shiites honor completely different sets of Hadith. While the Sunnis honor
Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasa’i, Sunan Ibn-i-
Majah, and Malik’s Muwatta (several others exist but they have less authority), which are
collectively referred to as the Sahah Sittah, the Shiites honor Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-IsTibSar,
and mun la YahDuruhu Al-faqeeh (as well as others of lesser authority). And, just as the Shiites
ridicule the Sunni Hadith, Sunnis also ridicule that of the Shiites. To see a Sunni attack on the
Shiite Hadith, visit http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_vs_sunni.htm#2.
128
The Sahah Sittah is an aggregate term for the compilations of hadiths that Sunni Muslims consider authoritative.
64
For the sake of simplicity, this book will focus on the Sunni, rather than Shiite, Hadith. The
Sunni Hadith is used for four reasons:
• The Sunni Hadith is given more authority by Sunnis than the Shiite Hadith is given
by Shiites. The authority of Shiite Hadith is weakened (even among Shiites) by both late
dates of authorship and the fact that Shiism is divided into sects that recognize somewhat
different sets of Hadith.
• The Shiite Hadith is diluted with hadiths about the twelve Imams.129 The twelve
Imams are the blood-line successors to Muhammad whom Shiites believe to be Islam’s
rightful leaders. These hadiths record actions up to the disappearance of the twelfth
Imam in 874 AD, hundreds of years after Muhammad’s death.
• Outside of Iran and Iraq, the typical Muslim one will encounter is Sunni. This fact,
together with the two preceding, makes the Sunni Hadith the one most likely to come up
in discussions of Islam.
• The Shiite hadiths that quote Muhammad are very similar to Sunni hadiths. Where
significant differences exist (particularly regarding temporary marriage), this book
investigates them through the divergent Sunni and Shiite laws derived from those hadiths.
Shari’ah is derived by Islamic scholars who interpret the Koran and the Hadith, as well as
Islamic tradition. But if scholars cannot agree on the Koranic verses, hadiths, and traditions to
use, then it is impossible for them to agree on what Shari’ah should be. Given the controversies
over the authenticity of various hadiths, as well as the abrogation of Koranic verses, one can
appreciate the Muslim lament: If you ask a hundred Muslims “What is Shari’ah?” you will get a
hundred and ten different answers.
Unfortunately, the nature of Shari’ah is serious business in the Islamic world, because Muslims
believe that an incorrect Shari’ah is more than bad law; it perverts Allah’s intentions and can
lead believers to Hell. A glaring example of such law is the Shiite “Temporary Marriage,” which
will be discussed further in the section entitled The Treatment of Women. For Shiites, temporary
marriages are perfectly legitimate and endorsed by God himself. For Sunnis, temporary
marriage is adultery, a Hudd crime punishable by severe whippings or death.
This kind of wide divergence comes from the differing hadiths used by the sects. Given the
problems that the hadiths create for Shari’ah, one might wonder why they are referred to at all.
After all, isn’t the Koran supposed to be the perfect, immutable, and eternal word of Allah? And
if it is perfect, then shouldn’t it be sufficient? The answer to this question is that much of this
supposedly perfect book is unintelligible unless the hadiths are referred to for context.
Given the difficulty of interpreting the Koran, scholars have decided to give lay people a simpler
objective: Instead of learning the Koran, Muslims should memorize it, in the original Arabic,
even if they do not understand the language.
129
This statement is only true for the Hadith of Twelver Shiites (the predominant Shiite sect). Variations in
accepted Hadith exist between the different Shiite sects.
65
Again, Muslims are not doing anything unprecedented in Christendom. In fact, in former times,
the Catholic Church encouraged people to memorize Latin versions of Biblical passages even if
they did not know Latin.
For both Muslims and Christians, the effect of this kind of memorization is the same: it ritualizes
and mystifies holy words. In effect, scriptural verses become magical chants.
Fortunately for Christians, the Bible can be translated without losing its power. For the Koran,
however, things are different. Attempts to translate the Koran reveal that it is a triumph of form
over content, as unintentionally noted in The Koran for Dummies:130
The Koran’s oral tradition gives the Book its aura. The recited word of the Koran is
much more powerful than its printed form, especially if the text has been translated from
Arabic into another language.
The Koran, however, is more than an auditory triumph of form over content. Muslims have also
developed Arabic calligraphy into a high art form, to make sure that it is also a visual triumph of
form over content. For example, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran presents the
following example of Koranic calligraphy to demonstrate its beauty:131
When translated to English, this beautiful work of art says:
[8.60] YUSUF ALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power.
Apparently, the beauty of Arabic calligraphy does a magnificent job of concealing the Koran’s
unbeautiful meanings.
As described in Encyclopedia of the Orient, the relationship of a typical devout Muslim to the
Koran can be summarized as follows:132
The reciting of the Koran is an art known by most Muslims. The most frequently used technique
normally involves sitting on the ground with the book in the lap or placed on a specially made
low table. This sitting position resembles the lotus position used in eastern religions, but is not at
all strict on the upright position of the spine – most Muslims bend over the Koran they read.
130
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, section entitled Cheat Sheet.
131
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 21, section entitled Arabic Calligraphy, page 221. This Illustration
is cited in that book as coming from “Traditional Arabic Collections,” by Judith Burros.
132
Encyclopedia of the Orient, by Tore Kjeilen, LexicOrient, 1996-2004.
66
The reading technique uses a rhythm... The performance of this rhythm is done with both torso,
swaying a little in an oval shape, and voice and reading speed…the reading of the Koran is a
meditative moment for all Muslims, and a ritual that can be performed anywhere.
The Koran’s actual guidance in everyday life for Muslims must not be overestimated…in general
Muslims think of the Koran as far too complex to be a guide in daily matters if it should be
interpreted by a Muslim layman.
When a Muslim has problems understanding the true meaning of the Koran, he/she will resort to
books written by men learned in Islamic sciences or ask the learned in the local society. There
are situations where Muslims look up the Koran for guidance, but this will be in cases where they
know what to look for, and where to look.
The result of this state of affairs is that lay Muslims remain ignorant, despite memorizing the
entire Koran, and Islamic scholars hold an incredible amount of power over the lives of lay
people.
These scholars interpret the Koran and transform its guidance into very detailed and complex
legal codes that are not articulated explicitly anywhere in the Koran or the Hadith. This is
another reason why Shari’ah, supposedly Allah’s law, varies from one Muslim country to
another. These variations reveal how Islamic scholars claim an authority that is supposedly
reserved for Allah and his Apostle.
Because Shari’ah defines Islam’s rules for all aspects of life, Islamic scholars have sway over
more than spiritual matters. They also make declarations on matters of law, politics, and war.
This explains a phenomenon very disconcerting to Westerners, who find familiar religious
metaphors horribly warped by Islam. In the Muslim world, there are Islamic “men of the cloth”
who store powerful weapons inside their “churches” and give “sermons” that incite their
“congregations” to kill those of other faiths.
But are these aberrations really as foreign as they seem? In truth, they would sound quite
familiar to Europeans living a few centuries ago, when Church and State were not separated by
the principals of Free Democracy.133 England itself went through many deadly religious purges,
most famously during the reign of “Bloody Mary.”
The problem that Islam presents is not so much its bloody past, but the fact that its scriptures, the
source of that bloody past, are considered perfect and unchangeable. Even worse, they exhort
believers to submit the entire world to Islam. As stated in The Koran for Dummies:134
According to the Koran, God [Allah] chose the Koranic revelation as the final message that
completes the teachings of all previous revelations, both in theology and law. As the final
message, the Koran provides guidance not only for a specific community or time, but for all of
humanity.
133
Also known as Liberal Democracy and Western Democracy.
134
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Completion
of past revelations, page 12.
67
Moreover, submission to Islam encompasses every aspect of life in an unchanging and timeless
way, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran points out:
Muslims view their tradition not simply as a “religion,” in the Western sense of the word, but as a
way of life that encompasses all actions in social, political, family, and economic realms – or, for
that matter, any other realms of activity.135
…
It is important to bear in mind that changes in human language are irrelevant to the question of
the teachings of the Koran. These divine teachings, Muslims believe, do not change over time,
because the word of God [Allah] is permanent and definitive.136
More to the purpose of this book, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization states that:137
If Muslims were to accept in principle the separation of religion from the domain of public life
(which would then become secularized, as it has in the West to an ever greater degree since the
Renaissance), they would have to abandon the doctrine of Unity that lies at the heart of the
Islamic message. They would have to act against the Sunnah of the Prophet and fourteen
centuries of the historical unfolding of the Islamic tradition.
Now that we can appreciate the significance of Islamic Holy Scripture to both private and public
life, as well as the challenge of interpreting it, we are ready for an in-depth look at the Koran and
the Hadith, and the traditional ways Muslims have interpreted them.
The five pillars of Islam: requirements for being a Muslim

Given the large quantity of reading material in Islam’s Holy Scripture, and the historic illiteracy
of human populations, Islam has always been boiled down to a few basics for the man on the
street. The basics that relate to daily living are known as the Five Pillars of Islam. An
interesting fact about these pillars is that, except for the primary one, soon to be discussed, none
of them were introduced by the Koran. Instead, they were pre-existing practices that Islam
adopted for itself.
This fact fits with the Muslim notion that Islam is the perfection of a faith that has existed from
the beginning of time, albeit imperfectly. In fact, the only thing truly unique about its pillars is
that they require the believer to declare that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. This
seemingly small innovation, however, turns out to be the thin edge of a very large wedge.
The five pillars of Islam are:
1. Declare, with belief, that “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah
and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Messenger” (Kalimah or
Shahadah)
135
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled Understanding a Way of Life, page 26.
136
ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Simple Laziness, page 162.
137
Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, HarperSanFrancisco, a division of
HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 5, section entitled Political Institutions, page 113.
68
This recitation is known as either Kalimah (the “Word”), or the Shahadah (the “Testimony”
of Faith).
While there appears to be no direct quote in the Koran that mandates this pillar, there is a
reference that comes close:
[5.82] YUSUF ALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and
Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are
Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the
world, and they are not arrogant.
[5.83] And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes
overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth: they pray: “Our Lord! We believe; write us
down among the witnesses.”
2. Pray five obligatory prayers per day (Salah)
There are over one hundred references to prayer throughout the Koran. This representative
sample illustrates how these references are designed to reinforce or put a new stamp on
existing practices. The fact that prayer was a preexisting concept also becomes apparent
when one notices that the Koran discusses prayer without ever defining it. Instead, the Koran
assumes that Muslims are familiar with prayer, so it only needs to give instructions on how to
do it the Islamic way:
• [2.238] YUSUF ALI: Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and
stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
• [4.43] PICKTHAL: …Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which
ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And
if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and
ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith).
• [4.102] PICKTHAL: And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their)
worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their
arms [weapons]. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and
let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take
their precaution and their arms.
• [5.6] PICKTHAL: …When ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the
elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles…
• [11.114] PICKTHAL: Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the
night.
3. Give an offering of obligatory charity (Zakah or Zakat)
This pillar requires every Muslim who, at the end of the year, is in possession of the
equivalent of 85 grams of gold or more in cash or goods, to give Zakah at the minimum rate
of 2.5% of all assets. Taxes paid to any government do not substitute for this religious duty.
69
The recipients of Zakah are the poor, the needy, new Muslim converts, Muslim prisoners of
war (to liberate them), Muslims in debt, employees appointed to collect Zakah, Muslims
engaged in Islamic research, study, or propagation efforts, and foreign Muslims in need of
help.
The Koran has at least 27 references to Zakah, which is also translated as “regular charity,”
or “the poor-due.” Two example verses are:
• [5.12] YUSUF ALI: Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we
appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish
regular prayers, practice regular charity, believe in my messengers, honor and assist them, and
loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to
gardens with rivers flowing beneath…
• [7.156] PICKTHAL: …I smite with My punishment whom I will, and My mercy embraceth all
things, therefore I shall ordain it for those who ward off (evil) and pay the poor-due, and those
who believe Our revelations;
Unfortunately, the terms “regular charity” and “poor-due” are actually misnomers, because
Zakah is often used for Islamic propagation, administration, and warfare, rather than for the
poor, as the following article reveals:
Iraqis say Saudis financing Sunni insurgents

Associated Press, MSNBC News, Dec 8, 2006
CAIRO, Egypt - Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq
and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles,
according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting
the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab
insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes
of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.
Two high-ranking Iraqi officials…told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private
donations, called zakat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.
Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq’s insurgents, but others merely give it
to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.
4. Participate in a fast during the month of Ramadan (Sawm)
This fast prohibits eating, drinking, and having sex during the day, but encourages these
activities during nighttime celebrations.
The Koran has over twenty references to this fast. The sample quotes below explain both its
70
motivation and practice:
• [2.183] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed
for those before you, that ye may ward off (evil);
…
[2.185] The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur’an…And whosoever of you is
present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the
same) number of other days.
• [2.187] PICKTHAL: It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the
fast…So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and
drink until…dawn. Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall and touch them not, but be at your
devotions in the mosques.
5. Travel to Mecca during Ramadan (Hajj) and participate in special

religious celebrations that take place at the Ka’aba
Muslims attempting the Hajj nowadays face an interesting dilemma caused by the spread of
Islam: While there are over a billion Muslims, the maximum number of people who can visit
the Ka’aba during Ramadan is physically limited to about three million. As a result, the
Saudi government has issued a statement declaring that only 1 in 1000 people who apply for
the Hajj will be permitted to come.
If the life expectancy of a typical Muslim is 70 years, this restriction means that, for every
1000 people, only 70 of them (7%) will actually be able to do a Hajj in their lifetimes. To
allay the fears of the other 93%, who might otherwise believe that they will be condemned to
Hell, this pillar was modified, so that Muslims need only express an intent to go on a Hajj
rather than actually do it. This intent is expressed by celebrating Eid, a special holiday at the
end of Ramadan.
Again, the quotes of the Koran verify that the Hajj, in one form or another, was an ancient
practice that, in theory, traces all the way back to the days of Abraham and Ishmael:
[2.125] PICKTHAL: And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and
sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray).
And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go
around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in
worship).
Clearly, the latter four of the Five Pillars of Islam were established by Semitic tribes near the
Ka’aba long before Muhammad’s time. Therefore, the only pillar that uniquely distinguished
Islam from its predecessor religions was the first, because it required allegiance to Muhammad.
The missing pillar: Love

When reviewing the Five Pillars of Islam, one finds that they appear benign, and possibly even
helpful, particularly when compared to the chaotic culture that Muhammad grew up in.
According to Islam’s historical accounts, Muhammad’s leadership had many positive effects and
71
brought about a unifying identity, a sense of belonging and camaraderie, and an admirable
support for the needy. Unfortunately, these pillars do little to advance what we in the West
would call ethical behavior, as can be inferred from the following hadiths:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 480:138…A Bedouin came to the Prophet and
said, “Tell me of such a deed as will make me enter Paradise, if I do it.” The Prophet…said,
“Worship Allah, and worship none along with Him, offer the (five) prescribed compulsory
prayers perfectly, pay the compulsory Zakat, and fast the month of Ramadan.” The Bedouin said,
“By Him, in Whose Hands my life is, I will not do more than this.” When he (the Bedouin) left,
the Prophet said, “Whoever likes to see a man of Paradise, then he may look at this man.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 690:139…The Prophet said, “One of the sayings
of the prophets which the people have got is, ‘If you do not feel ashamed, then do whatever you
like.’”
When Westerners stand back and look at the Five Pillars, there appears to be something missing:
The principle of love and compassion for others. This principle is a pillar of Judeo-Christian
ethics that permeates Western culture even in a post-Christian age. For example, the closest
connection between the Five Pillars of Islam and the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would
have them do unto you,”140 or “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,”141 is Zakah (works of
charity). This connection is extremely remote, however, because charitable giving does not
actually require love or compassion, and can be motivated by far more self-serving objectives.
While the Koran is essentially devoid of the Golden Rule, there are hadiths that say things that
initially sounds similar, such as:
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 18: CONCERNING THE FACT THAT IT IS ONE OF THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF IMAN THAT ONE SHOULD LIKE THE SAME THING FOR
ONE'S BROTHER-IN-ISLAM AS ONE LIKES FOR ONE’S SELF…
Book 1, Number 73:142…the Prophet…observed:…“no bondsman (truly) believes till likes for
his neighbour,” or (the Holy Prophet) said, “for his brother, whatever he likes for himself.”
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 19: CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION TO HARM

NEIGHBOUR Book 1, Number 74:…the Messenger of Allah…observed: He will not enter
Paradise whose neighbour is not secure from his wrongful conduct.
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 20: CONCERNING EXHORTATION TO ACCORD HONOUR

AND RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBOUR AND TO THE GUEST AND OBLIGATION TO
OBSERVE SILENCE EXCEPT IN GOODNESS…
138
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 31, Number 115, Volume 8, Book 73, Number
188, Volume 9, Book 86, Number 88, and Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 9.
139
141, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 9, Number 9.15.49.
140
See Bible, Matthew 7:12. For a related Hebrew maxim, see Talmud, Shabbat 31a: “What is hateful to you, do
not to your fellow man.”
141
See Bible, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19. While the Golden Rule is not unique to Judaism and Christianity,
these versions are the most commonly known in the West.
142
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12 and Sahih Muslim, Book 1,
Number 72.
72
Book 1, Number 75:143…the Messenger of Allah…observed: He who believes…should either
utter good words or better keep silence; and…should treat his neighbour with kindness
and…should show hospitality to his guest.
However, a deeper look into these hadiths reveals that they are qualified in ways that undo the
Golden Rule’s intent:
• The admonition that “no bondsman (truly) believes till he likes for his
neighbor…whatever he likes for himself” applies only to other Muslims. Clearly, in
answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Muhammad would not have told the
story of the good Samaritan. Islam’s version of the golden rule is exclusive.
• The true meaning of the admonition that “He who believes…should either utter
good words or better keep silence; and…should treat his neighbour with kindness
and…should show hospitality to his guest” is clarified by the following hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 59o:144…A man asked permission to enter
upon the Prophet. When the Prophet saw him, he said, “What an evil brother of his tribe!
And what an evil son of his tribe!” When that man sat down, the Prophet behaved with
him in a nice and polite manner and was completely at ease with him. When that person
had left, ‘Aisha said…“O Allah’s Apostle! When you saw that man, you said so-and-so
about him, then you showed him a kind and polite behavior, and you enjoyed his
company?” Allah’s Apostle said, “O ‘Aisha! Have you ever seen me speaking a bad and
dirty language? (Remember that) the worst people in Allah’s sight on the Day of
Resurrection will be those whom the people leave (undisturbed) to be away from their
evil (deeds).”
In other words, Muhammad teaches believers to be completely two-faced in their

hospitality. Muslims are to be kind to the people they despise, having faith that their
kind acts will damn those people to the deepest recesses of Hell. Muslim hospitality is
not evidence of brotherly love.
Instead of focusing on love for others, Islam’s holy scriptures focus on obedience to the will of
Allah, which, during Muhammad’s ministry, meant obedience to Muhammad. Today, this
obedience has been transferred to the clerics who interpret Muhammad’s recitations.
The missing pillar of love for mankind is one of Islam’s fundamental shortcomings, although
some orders of Sufism (Islamic mystics that many Muslims consider heretical) apparently
embrace love to a certain degree. Love is an essential glue that binds people together in mutual
trust and ultimately holds society together. A society that does not understand or value love for
mankind is destined to rip itself apart.
If one searches the Koran for the word “love,” and disregards phrases like “Allah does not
love…” the search will turn up only 24 mentions of the word. Even in these cases, the Koran
143
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 76, 77, & 78, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 49,
Number 49.10.22.
144
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Numbers 80 & 152.
73
provides very little guidance on how to act in a loving way toward others. In fact, “love” is
usually mentioned at the end of a long and stern message, often related to warfare, as a carrot to
motivate the listener: “Allah loveth those who keep their duty.”145
In only a few cases do these verses discuss something similar to what Westerners think of as
love, namely charity and good works, and even in these cases, the goal is to express love for
Allah or seek Allah’s love. The Koran is simply not concerned about people expressing love for
each other in more than a superficial way.
There are many people who are charitable without being loving. In fact, the Catholic institution
of indulgences, which Catholicism wisely rejected long ago,146 hinged on the notion of charitable
donations, especially to the church, to buy God’s forgiveness for crimes for crimes.
The Koran almost never discusses love in the context of human relationships. In the absence of
love, the Koran’s primary messages on human relations are:
• Do good works and charity for other Muslims.

• Honor agreements.
• Be forgiving.
• Hold people of other faiths in hostile contempt.
In total, there are only two sets of verses in the Koran that address values akin to true love:
verses 30.21 and 60.7-8, which will be presented shortly.
What follows is a rather long section that provides every phrase where the Koran uses the word
“love” in a positive sense, along with enough surrounding text to provide context. Feel free to
skim, rather than read, these passages, once you get a sense of their meanings:
• [2.177] PICKTHAL: It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West [part
of the prayer ritual of Salah]; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the
angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to
orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and
observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they
make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress.
• [2.195] PICKTHAL: Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own
hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.
• [2.222] PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an

illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And
when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you.
Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
145
As a subsequent section of this book will soon reveal, this quote comes from the Koran, verse 9.7.
146
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, by Edward Gibbon, Random House, Chapter 58, pages
425-426.
74
• [3.31] PICKTHAL: Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will
love you and forgive you your sins.
• [3.76] PICKTHAL: Nay, but (the chosen of Allah is) he who fulfilleth his pledge and wardeth
off (evil); for lo! Allah loveth those who ward off (evil).
• [3.134] PICKTHAL: Those who spend (of that which Allah hath given them) in ease and in
adversity, those who control their wrath and are forgiving toward mankind; Allah loveth the
good;
• [3.146] YUSUF ALI: How many of the prophets fought (in Allah’s way), and with them (fought)
large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s way, nor
did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast.
[3.147] All that they said was: “Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and anything we may have done
that transgressed our duty: Establish our feet firmly, and help us against those that resist Faith.”
[3.148] And Allah gave them a reward in this world, and the excellent reward of the Hereafter.
For Allah loveth those who do good.
• [3.156] YUSUF ALI: O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren,
when they are traveling through the Earth or engaged in fighting: “If they had stayed with us, they
would not have died, or been slain.” This that Allah may make it a cause of sighs and regrets in
their hearts. It is Allah that gives Life and Death, and Allah sees well all that ye do.
[3.157] And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far
better than all they could amass.
[3.158] And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together.
[3.159] It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou [Muhammad] dost deal gently with them. Wert
thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their
faults), and ask for (Allah’s) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment).
Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their
trust (in Him).
• [5.42] PICKTHAL: Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they
have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou
disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between
them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.
• [5.93] PICKTHAL: There shall be no sin (imputed) unto those who believe and do good works
for what they may have eaten (in the past). So be mindful of your duty (to Allah), and believe,
and do good works; and again: be mindful of your duty, and believe; and once again: be mindful
of your duty, and do right. Allah loveth the good.
• [9.3] PICKTHAL: And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of
the Greater Pilgrimage [the Hajj] that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His
messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye
cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,
[9.4] Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since
abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their
treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
[9.5] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and
take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and
75
establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.
[9.6] And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so
that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is
because they are a folk who know not.
[9.7] How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those
with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship [the Ka’aba]? So long as they are
true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.
• [9.107] YUSUF ALI: And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity
- to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His
Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah
doth declare that they are certainly liars.
[9.108] Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the
first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who
love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.
• [19.96] YUSUF ALI: On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will (Allah) Most
Gracious bestow love.
• [30.21] PICKTHAL: And of His signs is this: He created for you helpmeets from yourselves
[women] that ye might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.
• [49.9] YUSUF ALI: If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace
between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all)
against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies,
then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and
just).
• [60.7] PICKTHAL: It may be that Allah will ordain love between you and those of them with
whom ye are at enmity. Allah is Mighty, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[60.8] Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and
drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with
them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.
• [61.4] YUSUF ALI: Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they
were a solid cemented structure.
• [76.5] YUSUF ALI: As to the Righteous, they shall drink of a cup (of wine) mixed with kafur, -
[76.6] A fountain where the devotees of Allah do drink, making it flow in unstinted abundance.
[76.7] They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day whose evil flies far and wide.
[76.8] And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, -
[76.9] (Saying), “We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor
thanks.
[76.10] “We only fear a Day of distressful Wrath from the side of our Lord.”
The impression of love that the Koran gives is: Love is only for Allah to give and to receive.
Good works and acts of charity are not motivated by genuine love for fellow human beings, but
by love for Allah, and the desire for Allah’s rewards and the fear of his punishment.
76
Islam goes beyond simply ignoring the notion of love, in the Judeo-Christian sense familiar to
Westerners. In fact, it loudly opposes it. For example, this is what The Complete Idiot’s Guide
to Understanding Islam has to say about love:147
Muslims look aghast these days at the efforts of Western popular culture to promote the idea that
we are all gods inside our hearts or that God lives in us, and we can tap into His power like some
sort of personal energy reservoir. It seems people are creating God in their own image and
justifying any action they engage in by claiming that “God is Love” and so will condone all types
of behavior.
It seems sometimes that authentic knowledge of God and a seriousness about what He represents
have descended to the level of a joke. Muslims stand…like lighthouses in the storm, calling
people to resist the false suggestions of Shaytan, or Satan…The Qur’an warned us long ago that
the desire of Shaytan is to separate us from God, and what better way for him to succeed than to
get all of us to call ourselves gods and goddesses or to make up gods of our own!
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam was designed to present Islam as palatably
and benignly as possible to Westerners, and yet its allegations against the West and, in a veiled
way, Christianity, are alarming. It calls the innocent and comforting statement “God is Love” an
abhorrent sacrilege. It misinterprets Christian doctrine in order to imply that Christians are
polytheists, a common Muslim charge that places modern Christians among the lowest of the
low in the Islamic hierarchy of despised Infidels.
How bad is it to be called a polytheist by a Muslim? Another book in this light-hearted series,
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, provides the answer:148
Shirk is the sin of associating someone or something with the One God [Allah] – making
something equal to Allah. It is the gravest of all sins, and is regarded as unforgivable if the
person committing it dies while still engaged in it.
Apparently, according to these books, people who say “God is Love” are among the worst of all
sinners, deceived by Satan into committing an unforgivable sacrilege.
This theme of misinterpretation, derision, and open antagonism toward Christianity, as well as
Judaism and the West in general, pervades both of these “Idiot’s” books and will shock anyone
who is familiar with other books in the “Complete Idiot’s Guide” series.
According to the Koran, love for Allah often requires bloody war with other people. If one is
called to war by an Islamic authority, any attempt to avoid it is considered Hypocrisy. As for
guidance on how people can express love for fellow human beings, the Koran is nearly silent.
While it admonishes Muslims to do good works, it says little about what a “good” work is. It is
clear, however, that war against Infidels is a good work.
147
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 4, section entitled There Is Only One God, page 39.
148
Ibid, Chapter 1, section entitled Pagans, Be Damned!, page 8.
77
Islam’s substitute for the missing pillar of Love: War against Infidels
Beyond the Five Pillars of Islam, there is another pillar that the Koran discusses extensively: War
against Infidels. In fact, Muslims often call “Jihad” the sixth pillar of Islam. The Koran for
Dummies describes Jihad this way:149
The Koran places heavy emphasis on using divine revelation as a catalyst for establishing
[Islamic] justice in all its forms, and struggling against injustice [non-Islamic justice] in all its
forms…At the center of this teaching is the concept of Jihad, which means to struggle in the path
of God, both inwardly and outwardly, for good against evil.
…
These social teachings make it impossible for Muslims to separate their religious lives from their
social responsibilities (6:162-164150). The Koran teaches that such a distinction is wrong, and
preaches that not only individuals, but also social institutions, should serve God [Allah] as a
means of producing an equitable [i.e., Islamic] society.
These words imply that any social institution, such as government, is unjust if it is not Islamic.
If it is unjust, then Muslims are called upon to struggle against it.
Muhammad states this mission, which has been passed on to his followers, more generally,
through the following hadiths. Many other hadiths express the same goal:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24: 151 …Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been
ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and
give the obligatory charity, so if they perform…that, then they save their lives and property
from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
• Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:152…when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be
upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would…say:…Fight against
those who disbelieve in Allah…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to
three courses of action…Invite them to (accept) Islam;…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand
from them the Jizya [tax]…If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. When
you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His
Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your
own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given
by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and
His Prophet be violated…
149
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Guiding the
Way: Prophet Muhammad, page 10.
150
This is a reference to the Koran:
[162-164] PICKTHAL: Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for Allah,
Lord of the Worlds. He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first of those who surrender (unto
Him). Say: Shall I seek another than Allah for Lord, when He is Lord of all things? Each soul earneth only
on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load. Then unto your Lord is your return and He will
tell you that wherein ye differed.
151
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 27 – 35, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 14,
Number 2635, and Book 19, Numbers 2993 & 3061.
152
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Mulsim, Book 19, Numbers 4295 & 4296.
78
How important is military jihad to Islam? The following hadiths, together with many others,
reveal how Muhammad made military jihad a centerpiece of Islam that was rewarded both on
earth and in the hereafter. These hadiths also reveal how Muhammad and his successors used
military jihad to spread Islam through conquest:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:…Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the
best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).” The questioner
then asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious
fighting) in Allah’s Cause.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:153…A man came to Allah’s Apostle and
said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a
deed.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 266l:154…Allah’s Apostle, in one of his military
expeditions against the enemy,…got up amongst the people saying, “O people!…when you face
the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” Then he said,
“O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book,…defeat them, and grant us victory over them.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:155…The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies
and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world…, except the
martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and
get killed again (in Allah’s Cause).”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 377:156…On the day of the battle of Uhud, a
man came to the Prophet and said, “Can you tell me where I will be if I should get martyred?”
The Prophet replied, “In Paradise.” The man…fought till he was martyred.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 627:157…The Prophet sent a Sariya [army unit]
towards Najd and I was in it, and our share from the booty amounted to…thirteen camels each.
[this was a substantial amount of wealth at that time]
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46:158…I heard Allah’s Apostle saying,
“…Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed,
otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
153
154
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 73 and 210.
155
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 72, Sahih Muslim, Book 20,
Number 4631, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.14.27.
156
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Numbers 4678, 4679, & 4680.
157
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 27, Numbers 6 & 8, Book 34, Numbers 294,
302, & 432, Book 35, Number 456, Book 40, Number 563, Volume 4, Book 53, Numbers 324, 362, 364, 378, &
379, Volume 5, Book 59, Numbers 340, 360, 469, 540, 541, 627, & 636, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 698, Volume
9, Book 89, Number 282, Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Number 2310 & 2313, Book 8, Number 3315, Book 19, 4331 –
4337, Sunan Abu-Dawood, Book 19, Number 3013, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.6.15.
158
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 104, Book 53, Numbers 348 & 352,
Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers 549 & 555, Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Numbers 4617, 4626, & 4628, and Malik’s
Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.1.2.
79
In addition, Sahih Muslim devotes an entire book to the subject of Jihad, entitled The Book of
Jihad and Expedition, which includes the following chapters:
• Chapter 1: Regarding permission to make a raid, without an ultimatum, upon the disbelievers
who have already been invited to accept Islam
• Chapter 9: Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not
deliberate
• Chapter 11: The spoils of war especially made lawful for this umma
• Chapter 12: Spoils of war
• Chapter 13: Regarding the right of the fighter to the belongings of the one killed by him in
the fight.
• Chapter 15: Fai’ (property taken from the enemy without a formal war) [in other words,
thievery and extortion]
• Chapter 17: Distribution of the spoils among the fighters
• Chapter 19: Binding the prisoners and putting them in confinement and justification for
setting them free without any ransom [The justification for release is converting to Islam]
• Chapter 20: Evacuation of the Jews from the Hijaz [Actually, a forced exodus]
• Chapter 23: Return of their gifts to the Ansar by the Muhajirs when the latter grew rich as a
result of the conquests
• Chapter 27: The Battle of Hunain
• Chapter 28: The Battle of Ta’if
• Chapter 29: The Battle of Badr
• Chapter 30: The Conquest of Mecca
• Chapter 35: The Battle of Ahzab or the Battle of the Ditch
• Chapter 36: The Battle of Uhud
• Chapter 37: Wrath of Allah upon a person who is killed by the Prophet himself (may peace be
upon him)
• Chapter 42: The Battle of Khaibar
• Chapter 43: The Battle of Ahzab or Khandaq (The Tribes or The Ditch)
• Chapter 44: Dhu Qarad and other battles
• Chapter 46: Fighting of women side by side with men
• Chapter 47: Women participants in jihad to be given a prize but not a regular share in the
booty, and prohibition to kill children of the enemy [they are to be raised in the practice of Islam
instead]
• Chapter 48: The number of wars waged by the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him)
Similarly, other hadith compilations devote large sections to warfare:
• Sahih Bukhari includes books entitled Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), One-
fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus), and Military Expeditions led by the
Prophet (peace be upon him) (Al-Maghaazi).
• Sunan Abu-Dawud includes books entitled Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad), Tribute, Spoils,
and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah), and Battles (Kitab Al-Malahim).
• Malik’s Muwatta includes a book entitled Jihad, with sections entitled Stimulation of
Desire for Jihad and Stripping the Slain of their Personal Effects in the Booty.
Even more disturbing is the realization that suicide is not prohibited as strongly as apologists for
Islam claim. The constant stream of suicide attacks by Muslims make much more sense after
80
reading the following hadith, deemed worthy of its own chapter in Sahih Muslim, which
condones suicide for the sake of Islam:
Chapter 50: ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE FACT THAT HE WHO KILLS

HIMSELF DOES NOT BECOME UNBELIEVER
Book 1, Number 211:…When the Apostle…migrated to Medina, Tufail…also migrated…, and

there also migrated along with him a man of his tribe. But the climate of Medina did not suit him,
and he fell sick…So he took hold of an iron head of an arrow and cut his finger-joints. The blood
streamed forth…till he died. Tufail…saw him in a dream. His state was good and he saw him
with his hands wrapped. He (Tufail) said to him: What treatment did your Allah accord to you?
He replied. Allah granted me pardon for my migration to the Apostle…(Tufail) again said: What
is this that I see you wrapping up your hands? He replied: I was told (by Allah): We would not
set right anything of yours which you damaged yourself. Tufail narrated this (dream) to the
Messenger of Allah…Upon this [Muhammad] prayed: O Allah I grant pardon even to his hands.
While this hadith does not seem particularly harmful by itself, it becomes so when Islamic
scholars combine it with rewards for dying in Jihad.
Muhammad called Outward Jihad, otherwise known as warfare, the Lesser Jihad. The Inward
Jihad, also called the Greater Jihad, is one’s inner struggle to follow Allah’s will in all things,
including a commitment to the Lesser Jihad, which is subsumed under it. Muslims often use this
distinction to deflect criticism of Jihad, claiming that Jihad does not necessarily stand for
military war.159 Despite this claim, the Koran and the Hadith place a major focus on the “Lesser
Jihad” against Infidels, about which these scriptures have plenty to say. They also give very
explicit and graphic instructions to believers. For example, in the Koran:
• There are seventeen specific passages where believers are told to slay or be slain.
• There are seven passages that provide specific guidance on killing through warfare.
• There are forty two passages that command believers to fight in the name of Allah.
Religion of peace, indeed.
Any reader of the Koran will quickly perceive that far more attention is given to war than to
love. Here is a small sampling of the Koran’s guidance:
• [2.191] PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places
whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.
• [2.193] PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
• [2.216] YUSUF ALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye
dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah
159
One will often hear apologists for Islam claim that “Jihad” does not necessarily mean “war.” However, this
distinction makes no sense because the term “war” also does not necessarily mean “war” as armed combat. For
example, we are familiar with “the War on Poverty,” “the War on Illiteracy,” and “being at war with oneself.” For
all intents and purposes, Jihad and war are used in the same ways with the same intentions.
81
knoweth, and ye know not.
• [2.246] PICKTHAL: Bethink thee of the leaders of the Children of Israel after Moses, how they
said unto a prophet whom they had: Set up for us a king and we will fight in Allah’s way…Yet,
when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, all save a few of them. Allah is aware
of evil-doers.
• [3.147] PICKTHAL: Their [the armies of the prophets] cry was only…give us victory over the
disbelieving folk.
• [3.168] PICKTHAL: Those who, while they sat at home, said of their brethren (who were
fighting for the cause of Allah): If they had been guided by us they would not have been slain.
Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Then avert death from yourselves if ye are truthful.
• [3.195] YUSUF ALI: And their Lord hath accepted them, and answered them:…Those who
have…suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,…I will…admit them to the gardens
with rivers flowing belief: - A reward from the presence of Allah…
• [4.74] YUSUF ALI: Let those fight in the cause of Allah, who sell the life of this world for the
hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon
shall We give him a reward of great (value).
In these passages, as well as elsewhere, the Koran gives true believers a moral imperative to kill
Infidels when doing so will advance the goal of converting all mankind “voluntarily” to Islam, or
making them submit to Allah’s authority in the form of Islamic government.
The Koran and the Hadith, and therefore Islam, exhorts and sanctifies war to such a degree that
Islamic nations have made it impossible for the United Nations to agree on a universal definition
of terrorism. As the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime states in its website’s section on
terrorism, “The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to
meaningful international countermeasures.”160
Defenders of the Koran will claim that the verses quoted above relate to specific historical events
and therefore are not directed toward modern people. The falseness of this claim unveils itself in
several ways:
• The Koran was written without any dates and virtually no historical context, and it speaks
directly to the reader. It was designed to be what Muslims claim it is (when they are not
making excuses for its violent language): timeless and universal.
• The people reviled by the Koran as Infidels and Polytheists still exist, so its commands
cannot be considered ancient history. Any reader of the Koran immediately makes the
connections between its words and people living today. If the Koran is timeless and
universal, then so are its calls for war.
• The entire foundation of Islam rests on the belief that the Koran has a message for
Muslims living today, as well as for all mankind. According to the Koran, any Muslim
160
See www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html.
82
who ignores its words commits either Hypocrisy or Apostasy, and deserves severe
punishment.
A skeptical reader of the Koran quickly begins to wonder why Allah needs people to wage war
on his behalf. After all, his almighty nature should make him capable of fighting his own battles.
The Islamic answer to this question can be seen in a quote from The Koran for Dummies:161
The Koran says that humans have been given the responsibility to represent or act as the deputy
of the Divine on earth, in both words and deeds…162
The role of vicegerent calls on human beings to become active participants in the enjoining of
good and forbidding of evil, which the Koran describes as an obligatory social role.
Part of enjoining good and forbidding evil [according to the Koran] is the struggle towards
implementing divine laws on earth, whereby societies live under a system of [Islamic] justice and
righteousness.
The Koran’s view of non-Muslims

Westerners usually think of a religion as a set of beliefs that form a worldview distinct enough to
deserve its own name. A perusal of the religious texts of Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, and
Hindus, as well as the New Testament, reveals that they focus on relationships, both with God
(or gods) and with people. None of them emphasize hostility toward other religions.
While Jesus may have been personally involved in a mission to reform the Judaism of his day,
his actual teachings were about personal ethics, relations with God, relations with other people,
and evangelizing. His goal was not to subdue or kill the Jews or anyone else. If anything, his
famous instructions to “go the extra mile”163 and “turn the other cheek”164 taught just the
opposite.
Conversely, the Mosaic and historical books of the Old Testament can remind one of the Koran
when they record how God commanded Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Saul, and David to wipe out
entire cities, right down to the babies and livestock, because they did not worship the one true
God. In fact, throughout both the Koran and the Hadith, there are passages that defend the Old
Testament, sometimes to the dismay of Jews themselves. For example, Sahih Bukhari relates the
following episode, which is retold in several hadiths:165
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 633:…A Jew and Jewess were brought to the
Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews,
“What do you (usually) do with them?” They said, “We blacken their faces and disgrace them.”
161
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled The purpose
of human life, page 131.
162
[27.62] PICKTHAL: Is not He (best) Who answereth the wronged one when he crieth unto Him and removeth
the evil, and hath made you viceroys of the earth? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Little do they reflect!
163
See Bible, Matthew 5:41
164
See Bible, Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29
165
83
He said, “Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.” They (fetched it and) came and
asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his
hand. The Prophet said, "Lift up your hand!" He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared
the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, “O Muhammad! They
should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves.” Then the Prophet
ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death…I saw the man protecting the woman from the
stones.
In fact, if Moses had been alive during the time of Muhammad, he probably would have made
Muhammad look like an easy-going guy. However, the Old Testament’s version of God’s
instructions do not threaten other faiths today because, for better or for worse, the religions that
Jews were commanded to destroy have not existed for thousands of years. Moreover, the
geographical claims of Judaism are quite limited. The “promised land” of Moses is roughly the
size of New Jersey, not the entire world.
Islam is unique among major world religions in that its holy scriptures are openly hostile to
people of every other living religion, including agnosticism and atheism. They also teach
believers to bring the entire world under Islam’s yoke, by persuasion if possible, and by force if
necessary. They also repeatedly and specifically name Jews and Christians as groups of people
to despise, to hold in contempt, to subdue, and to kill. While these scriptures occasionally offer
olive branches to these religions, the goal of the olive branch is to give Infidels an opportunity to
convert voluntarily to Islam before Muslims subdue them by the sword. People of faiths other
than Judaism, Christianity, Mandaeasim, and Zoroastrianism are simply lumped together as
heathens, idol-worshippers, or polytheists, and are considered the worst of all Infidels. As for
Atheists, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says:166
The Koran teaches that some, but not all, will earn hell’s punishment eternally. Atheists, for
instance, will earn membership in the group that earns eternal punishment:
Those who deny My existence and die with such attitude will be subject to the
condemnation of God [Allah], the angels, and all people. They will live condemned
forever, will have no relief from the torment, and no attention will be paid to them.
(2:161-162)167
A popular trend among Muslims today is to paint Christians as Polytheists because they worship
a “Holy Trinity” – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this way, they can place Christians among
those who are most despised in the Koran. The irony of this treatment is that Muslims actually
believe in the same three things, but they manufacture distinctions in order to accuse Christians
of blasphemy. To see this, consider:
1. Muslims believe in God,

2. They believe in a virgin birth of Jesus through God’s will, with the specific intent of
having Jesus proclaim the Gospel, and
166
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 19, section entitled There Will Be an Accounting, page 192.
167
This Koranic quote comes via the translation authored by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar, one of the authors of The
Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, who chose to reference his own translation.
84
3. They believe in the Holy Spirit, as the Koran explicitly states in verse 2.253. Both
authoritative versions of this verse are presented to demonstrate that the term “holy
Spirit” is not a fluke of translation:
• [2.253] YUSUF ALI: …to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and
strengthened him with the holy spirit.
• [2.253] PICKTHAL: …We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah’s
Sovereignty) and We supported him with the holy Spirit.
The Koran for Dummies also discusses a term called Imminence, which it describes as
“The avenue whereby God is known and His presence felt in human experience on
earth.”168 This is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. When Muhammad describes
Imminence in the Hadith Qudsi, his words again sound like a Biblical description of the
Holy Spirit:
My servant constantly approaches Me through supererogatory acts of worship until I love

him, and when I love him, I become his eyes with which he sees, his hands with which he
holds, and his legs with which he walks.
When Christians make such statements, however, Muslims feel free to accuse them of
calling themselves gods.
The bottom line is that Muslims believe the same three tenets that they claim are hallmarks of
Christian “polytheism.”
One reason why the Koran alleges that Christians are polytheists is that it is confused as to the
nature of the Christian Trinity. In Surah 5, entitled The Table, the author of the Koran revealed
that he believed the Christian Trinity to be Father, Son, and Mother, rather than Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit:
[5.116] PICKTHAL: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto
mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He saith: Be glorified! It was not
mine to utter that to which I had no right…
Given the reverence with which some Christian denominations regard Mary, this mistake is
somewhat understandable. However, Christians, with the exception of a small ancient heretical
group called the Mariamites, who happened to be present on the Arabian Penninsula, never took
Mary to be a god, and never regarded her as part of the Holy Trinity. Understandable as the
Koran’s error is, it is a gross error, which again reveals its less-than-divine nature.
168
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled Knowing
God, page 118.
85
To get a fuller sense of Islamic malice toward other religions, we turn again to The Complete
Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, and its section on the Taliban’s destruction of
Afghanistan’s ancient and irreplaceable standing Buddhas:169
Recently, the extremist political group known as the Taliban, who rule Afghanistan as of this
writing, became the object of a lot of international criticism for their decision to destroy the
ancient Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley…
While the Muslim world debated the merits of the Taliban policy, and the non-Muslim world
deplored the destruction of this ancient Buddhist art, the Taliban continued with the demolition.
The actions of the Taliban bring up an interesting but contradictory situation. When you look at
the situation from the point of view of the Shahadah170, the Taliban can rightly say they did
nothing wrong, yet to Western minds their actions appear very wrong. In the Taliban’s
understanding, they were merely destroying idols, or graven images, as the Bible would label
them. In fact, Taliban representatives expressed their puzzlement at the opposition from the Jews
and Christians, whose own religious book, the Bible, also requires the destruction of idols (see
Exodus 20:1-5).
What is astounding about these words is that they were published in 2002, many months after the
September 11 attacks, and yet the author, an American convert to Islam named Yahiya Emerick,
did not bother to acknowledge those attacks anywhere at all in the entire book. Apparently,
those attacks were not worth mentioning, but it was worth the author’s time to devote pages to a
discussion on the Buddhist statues, where he explains that, while the Taliban may have been a bit
overzealous, they were certainly acting within the bounds of Islam. In fact, he notes that Jews
and Christians are a bit hypocritical to criticize the Taliban because their faiths call them to do
the same thing. Subsequently, Emerick’s book points out that the Buddhist statues were
originally defaced by the British Army in the nineteenth century during their battle for
Afghanistan.171 He states that the British “destroyed” the statues but, if one looks at pictures
from that era, one finds that a more accurate term is, literally, “defaced,” in the same manner that
Napoleon’s soldiers shot off the nose of the Sphinx. While the impulsive vandalism by a group
of British soldiers is to be deeply regretted, it is quite different from a systematic government-
planned demolition.
Emerick concludes his discussion with these words:172
The Taliban concluded that since no one was there worshipping the statues, they could be rightly
destroyed as false idols without reneging on the rights granted to religious minorities…The merits
of their actions will continue to be debated in the Muslim world, but one fact remains: They
sincerely believed in what they did.
169
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, pages 116-117.
170
Mentioned previously in this book as the Arabic term for Islam’s Declaration of Faith: “I declare there is no god
but Allah, and I declare that Muhammad is His Messenger.”
171
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, page 117.
172
Ibid, Chapter 10, section entitled Are Muslims Idol-Breakers?, page 118-119.
86
Thus, in a few breezy paragraphs, Emerick manages to trivialize the obliteration of two
irreplaceable Buddhist monuments by Islamic zealots, while accusing Christians and Jews of
hypocrisy, and implying that the British were no better than the Taliban, while ignoring an
atrocity perpetrated under the Taliban’s protection. He also ignored the fact that, regardless of
the number of Buddhists in Afghanistan, half a billion of them live throughout the world, and the
Taliban’s actions were hurtful to them.
Emerick’s discussion leaves the reader wondering these questions:
• How could an American publish a book that discusses the Taliban in such
sympathetic tones after the 9/11 attacks? Has Emerick forsaken the “Infidel” nation of
his birth?
• How could Emerick make such obvious and callous misrepresentations about
Christian and Jewish doctrine, British history, and the Taliban’s harm to Buddhists? Isn’t
he obligated by his religion to have integrity?
Actually, he isn’t.
A tool for Islam’s war against Infidels: Taqiyya (dissimulation)

A disconcerting way in which Islam reveals its political, rather than religious, nature is in its
principle of Taqiyya (also known as “Taqiya”), which translates as “dissimulation,” or
“misrepresentation,” or “lying.” According to Webster’s On-Line Dictionary,173
In Islamic law and tradition, Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs to non-
Muslims. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Often thought as peculiar to the
Shi’a Muslims, Taqiyya is acknowledged by Sunni Muslims as well.
…
Taqiyya, like any other Islamic tenet, has guidelines and limits. However, these guidelines vary
from group to group; no one interpretation of this facet of Islamic law is accepted by all groups of
Muslims.
According to many Shiite Muslims, dissimulation can only be legally used by Muslims verbally,
when a Muslim believes that he or she is being wrongly persecuted…The Qur’an states that if one
lies, then the liar is guilty of sin and is a transgressor “except he who is compelled while his heart
remains steadfast with the faith”.
The first use of Taqiyya found historically in Islam was when Muslims were beginning to be
tortured by the Quraishites. ‘Ammar bin Yasir, a follower of Muhammad and whose friends had
been killed for being Muslim by the Quraish, was confronted by a Quraishite. ‘Ammar, using
Taqiyya, pretended to renounce Islam and thus saved his life when asked if he was a Muslim.
Muhammad himself was known to have used Taqiyya when he kept his prophetic mission hidden
for three years from the Quraish when prolonged hostility was occurring towards the Muslims.
In its politically correct effort to be non-judgmental about a world religion, the authors of this
definition present Taqiyya in a way that sounds fairly reasonable. Even at a surface level,
173
See www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/TAQIYYA.
87
though, the above definition becomes unnerving when one considers how determined Islam’s
leaders are to make Muslims feel “wrongly persecuted.”
A deeper investigation reveals other disturbing characteristics. One of the links that appears with
this word on Webster’s on-line dictionary leads to a 3-part essay entitled Al-Taqiyya
/Dissimulation, from www.Al-Islam.org.174 This essay provides many useful insights into the
true nature of taqiyya, as well as the reason why Shiites and Sunnis contend over it:
From Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part I:
The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions,
ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in
time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be
“Dissimulation.”
…
The following exposition will…demonstrate the existence of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, the
Prophet’s…custom, and the companions’ custom…
…
It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:
After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet…was approached
by Hajaj Ibn ‘Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth
and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you
(to escape persecution)?” The Prophet…excused him and said: “Say whatever you have
to say.”
…
It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, “Ihya ‘Uloom al-Din,” that:
Safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and

that lying is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is at stake.
…
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza’ir,” affirms that:
“it is acceptable…to utter words of unbelief; and if one is living in an environment where
evil and corruption are the pervasive norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the
exception and a rarity, then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs.”
…
Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda’ said:
“(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people).”
Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part II includes a strange assurance from Shiites: lying is not

mandatory whenever a Muslim is under duress, especially when truthfulness helps further the
cause of Islam:
174
This dissertation is spread over three web pages (Part I, Part II, and Part III):
www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html, www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/2.html, and www.al-
islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/3.html.
88
The Shia did NOT innovate or concoct anything new, they simply followed the injunctions of
Allah…, as stated in the Quran, and the custom of…Muhammad. Nonetheless, one must also
examine what the Shia themselves say about al-Taqiyya:
…al-Mudhaffar in his book, “Aqa’id al-Imamiyah,” wrote that:
“…It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is

permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya) altogether; as in the
case where revealing the truth will further the cause of the religion, and provide a direct
service to Islam…”
Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part III discusses the basis of the dispute between Shiites and Sunnis
regarding Taqiyya: Shiites feel that a history of religious persecution by Sunnis justifies al-
Taqiyya against them. It also makes a plea, from Shiites to Sunnis, to put away this dispute and
join with them as brothers, so that they can unite in lying to the Infidels:
The Shia HAVE TO practice al-Taqiyya as part of the persecution that they have suffered from
day one of the death of…Muhammad. It is enough to say “I am a Shi’I” to get your head
chopped off even today in countries like Saudi Arabia…
My comment here is that Wahhabis themselves do indeed practice al-Taqiyya, but they have been
psychologically programmed by their mentors in such a way that they don’t even recognize al-
Taqiyya when they do actually practice it…
Dr. al-Tijani [a Shiite] wrote [of a time when] he was sitting next to a Sunni scholar on a flight to
London; they were both on their way to attend an Islamic Conference. At that time, there was
still some tension due to the Salman Rushdie affair…The Sunni scholar said: “The Shia must
drop certain beliefs and convictions that cause disunity and animosity among the Muslims.” Dr.
al-Tijani answered: “Like what?” The Sunni scholar answered: “Like the Taqiyya and Muta’
[temporary marriage] ideas.” Dr. al-Tijani immediately provided him with plenty of proofs in
support of these notions, but the Sunni scholar was not convinced, and said that although these
proofs are all authentic and correct, we must discard them for the sake of uniting the Ummah!!!
When they both got to London, the immigration officer asked the Sunni scholar: “What is the
purpose of your visit sir?” The Sunni scholar said: “For medical treatment.” Then Dr. al-Tijani
was asked the same question, and he answered: “To visit some friends.” Dr. al-Tijani followed
the Sunni scholar and said: “Didn’t I tell you that al-Taqiyya is for all times and occasions!” The
Sunni scholar said: “How so?” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Because we both lied to the airport
police: I by saying that I came to visit some friends, and you by saying that you are here for
medical treatment; when, in fact, we are here to attend the Islamic Conference!” The Sunni
scholar smiled, and said: “Well, doesn’t an Islamic Conference provide healing for the soul?!”
Dr. al-Tijani was swift to say: “And doesn’t it provide an opportunity to visit friends?!”
This intriguing dissertation also reveals the ease with which Muslims can resort to Taqiyya. It
shows how Islamic teachings effectively condone dissemblance toward Infidels, particularly in
an Infidel nation, whenever doing so serves the interests of Islam.
The idea that a world religion like Islam could incorporate dissemblance to the point of making it
a field of study, with its own special name, can seem almost unbelievable to non-Muslims.
However, this does not imply that people of other faiths never lie when pressed. For example,
Dutch Christian Corrie ten Boom wrote a book, called The Hiding Place, which recorded how
89
she and her family hid Jews from the Nazis during World War II, ultimately being caught and
sent to a prison camp, where both her father and sister died. There is an important distinction,
however. Her family’s motivation was “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
It was not to avoid personal hardship or to promote Christianity.
This investigation of Taqiyya reveals an even more important point: The two scholars in the
above story were traveling to the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Although there were tensions
over Salman Rushdie at the time, the U.K. was not in a state of war with any Islamic nation.
Muslims had no reason to fear for their lives in the U.K.. Why did these scholars lie to the
immigration officer so easily that the Sunni cleric did not even realize he had done so? The
obvious answer is that their disingenuousness was habitual. Why? Because the House of Islam
considers itself to be in a state of perpetual war against the Infidel nations of the world (though
cease-fires are permitted), and Muslims do not feel obligated to deal honestly with those who
live in rebellion to Allah and his Law. As Muhammad declared repeatedly in the Hadith:
175
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268: …Allah’s Apostle called, “War is deceit.”
Some may wish to counter this conclusion with the following Koranic verse, which is part of the
Koran’s version of the story of Moses and Exodus. In it, Allah makes clear his opposition to
those who lie:
[40.28] PICKTHAL: And a believing man of Pharaoh’s family, who hid his faith, said: Would
ye [Pharaoh] kill a man [Moses] because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear
proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful, then some of
that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a
prodigal, a liar.
However, this verse does not redeem Islam from accusations of endorsing dissemblance for two
reasons:
• The “believing man of Pharaoh’s family” who spoke against lying had practiced
taqiyya.
• Verse 40:28 came from an early time in Muhammad’s ministry, while he was preaching
in Mecca and his people were a persecuted minority.176 Later, after Muhammad
became the ruler of an expanding empire, this verse was abrogated, at least with regard
to Islam’s perceived enemies, as the following quote demonstrates:
[3.54] PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed
(against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.
One might wonder why an all-powerful, all-knowing Allah would need to scheme
against his own creations, whose lives he himself decided before they were born, and of
whom he has perfect foreknowledge. The Islamic answer is that Allah has decided to
175
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 267 & 269, and Sahih Muslim,
Book 19, Numbers 4311 & 4312.
176
In fact, the story of Moses and Exodus probably did much to bolster the spirits of Muhammad’s beleaguered
followers.
90
work through the Muslims, his “representatives or vicegerents of God on earth,”177 who
are called on “to become active participants in the enjoining of good and forbidding of
evil,”178 by scheming on behalf of Allah.
There is another term related to Taqiyya, called Kitman, which also deserves special attention. A
good description of Kitman comes from the Islamic website, www.islamonline.net:179
…the word kitman comes from the verb katama, which means to hide, to conceal…it touches on
so many aspects - some of which are good and others are bad.
Starting with the good aspects, we can say that a good type of kitman (concealment or hiding) is
when you hide things still in process till they are complete….In this regard, the Prophet…says in
the hadith: “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman.”
He himself gave the best example…in the early days of Islam. When the number of
Muslims was still small and the community was still weak, there was a big need for
concealment or secret call (kitman) so as to save the cause of da`wah (inviting people to
Islam) from the fierce enemies.
…
Kitman is of much greater importance when we realize that it is a type of trust. When one
discloses some of his secrets to you and asks you to keep them secret from others, then it is
your duty to keep them secret as required by that person. Even between the two spouses,
they have to practice kitman, i.e. they are in no way allowed to talk to others about the details or
generalities of their conjugal life or intimate relations [such as beatings?]. Kitman may extend
to cover the secrets of the whole state at the time of war and peace where a person who is
loyal to his people cannot divulge to anyone or tell the enemy about his country’s affairs.
Now, let’s turn to the bad type of kitman, namely, withholding or hiding. An example of this
type is the image of a person whom Allah has gifted with knowledge so as to benefit people with
it. However, such a person practices the kitman of knowledge by hiding it. To such type of
people the Prophet hints in one of his hadiths in which he states that their knowledge will be like
a bridle for them in Hell.
Another ignominy of ignominies is that type of people whom Allah gives wealth and properties.
Yet, they practice kitman of money, by withholding zakah and not offering charity. The Prophet,
peace and blessings be upon him, warns them: “Whomever Allah gives money but refrains from
paying the zakah on it, this money will turn into a big snake, on the Day of Judgment, which will
seize him by cheeks saying, ‘I am your money, I am your treasure’”
We have already seen how Muslims apply Kitman to words like “tolerance” and “peace,” which
they use in unexpected ways that are concealed from Westerners. Another example of Kitman
comes from Understanding Islam and the Muslims, the Saudi Arabian pamphlet mentioned
177
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, chapter 11, section entitled Doing as
178
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 8, section entitled The purpose
of human life, page 131.
179
See www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016204&pagename=IslamOnline-English-
AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
91
previously in the section of this book entitled A personal realization. It contains the following
passage:
What do Muslims think about Jesus?
Muslims respect and revere Jesus…, and await his Second Coming. They consider him one of
the greatest of God’s messagers to mankind. A Muslim never refers to him simply as ‘Jesus’, but
always adds the phrase ‘upon him be peace’…
Nowhere in this Christian-friendly passage, or anywhere in the pamphlet, is it revealed why

Muslims await Jesus Christ’s Second Coming. Their disturbing reason is that Muslims believe
that Jesus’ Second Coming will bring the end of Christianity and the triumph of Islam. The
gruesome manner of this “Second Coming” is discussed in more detail in the upcoming section
entitled The future of leadership in the Islamic world.
The “House of Peace” and the “House of War”

As was noted in the beginning of this book, Muslims are taught to divide the world into two
realms: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), which can be translated more fully as the “House of
Peace,” and the House of War (Dar al-harb). Within the House of Islam, people of other faiths
may be tolerated, but only on terms specified by the Koran. Any nation that is not Islamic
automatically belongs in the House of War, and is subject to a perpetual state of jihad.180
Within its realm, Islamic tolerance of other religions has limits, as proclaimed by hadiths such
as:
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17: 181…Umar [said], “One of the last things that the
Messenger of Allah…said was, ‘May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the
graves of their Prophets as places of prostration. Two deens [religious practices] shall not co-
exist in the land of the Arabs.’”
In other words, the Arabian Peninsula is to be exclusively Muslim. In 640, Umar drove all
Christians, Jews, and Heathens from the land and, to this day, none are allowed to live there.
Infidels are not even allowed to visit the holy city of Mecca.
Muhammad’s dying wish was what prompted Osama bin Laden to declare Holy War against the
United States. It did not matter that the U.S. helped him and the other Mujahadeen fight against
the Soviet domination of Afghanistan. It did not matter that the purpose of the Prince Sultan Air
Base, which the U.S. built in Saudi Arabia, was to help the Saudis and other Islamic nations
drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. To Osama bin Laden, the mere existence of this
air base was a violation of Muhammad’s dying wish, because Infidels were living on the Arabian
Peninsula. To him, this was an unforgivable sin that had to be avenged.182
180
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis, Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pages 121-122.
181
288, Book 53, Number 392, Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3763, Book 19, Numbers 4363 & 4366, Sunan Abu-
Dawud, Book 19, Numbers 3001 and 3026, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18.
182
The Saudi’s have been skirting Muhammad’s dying wish by allowing non-Muslim foreigners onto Saudi soil, to
provide technical and management assistance in their oil industry. This necessary evil has been something the
92
The reason bin Laden is so popular throughout the Muslim world is because he dares to act on
the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith. He stands for Islam, punishes the Infidels, and
refuses to play meekly according to the West’s rulebook. Muslims cheer him for having the
bravery to lash back at the West, which disregards Islam so profoundly that it does not even
recognize its transgressions. Bin Laden has the courage that many Muslims wish they had.
The Saudi government had kept the U.S. military base a secret from its populace, and it did so
for good reason: the Saudi royal family knew that they were violating Muhammad’s wish.183
However, as soon as the secret came out, citizens became so outraged that the Air Base had to
decamp to avoid causing an unintended Saudi “regime change.”
Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, the House of Islam can claim to tolerate non-Muslims. A
Muslim’s definition of “toleration,” however, is quite different from what Westerners assume.
Westerners tend to define “religious toleration” as acceptance of and respect for other
religions.184 Muslims, on the other hand, use a different definition, one akin to “putting up with
something one despises.”185 The true spirit of Islamic tolerance reveals itself in an anecdote told
by an Islamic cleric in Germany, Bassam Tibi, in the Hamburg weekly, Die Zeit:186
The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque. The imam
handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to
present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even
touch Christianity’s holy book.
“The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behavior as a gross discourtesy,” wrote Tibi,
“but the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he
considers this a Da’Wa, or call to Islam.”
This, explained Tibi,…corresponds to a verse in the Koran: “And say ... to those who are
unlearned: ‘Do ye submit yourselves?’” (Surah 3:20).
To get a deeper understanding of where the imam’s behavior came from, consider Surah 109
(The Unbelievers) and the commentary written on it by a prominent leader of Islamic thought
named Sayad Abul Ala Maududi. As Maududi explains, this surah, which is often presented as
proof of Islam’s tolerance of other religions, is actually just the opposite:
[109.001] PICKTHAL: Say: O disbelievers!
nation has been coping with by restricting these Infidel foreigners to specific walled compounds on the edges of
Saudi soil, only allowing them temporary residency, and launching a major effort to educate their own people in the
skills needed, so that the foreigners can eventually be removed. The U.S. military presence has been viewed as a far
grosser violation because it imports powerful weapons from an Infidel land, a land that supports Israel and, in
theory, could use those weapons against Islam’s most holy sites.
183
U.S. – Saudi Alliance appears strong, by Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, April 27, 2003.
184
“A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior;…Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or
practices of others.” From Webster’s On-Line Dictionary. Source: Wordnet 1.7.1, Copyright © 2001 by Princeton
University.
185
“The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions;
toleration.” From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
186
Scholar Warns West of Muslim Goals, By Uwe Siemon-Netto, United Press International (UPI), June 18, 2002.
93
[109.002] I worship not that which ye worship;
[109.003] Nor worship ye that which I worship.
[109.004] And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
[109.005] Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
[109.006] Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
Maududi’s commentary explains that this surah declares definitively that there is no room for
compromise with regard to religion:187
There was a time in Makkah when…the Quraish chiefs had not yet lost hope that they would
reach some sort of a compromise with [Muhammad]. Therefore, from time to time they would
visit him with different proposals of compromise so that…the dispute between them [would be]
brought to an end…
…
…there was need that they [the Quraish chiefs] should be given a definite, decisive reply so that
their hope that he [Muhammad] would come to terms with them on the principle of “give and
take” was frustrated for ever.
…
…the Surah…was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to
think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers’ religion, their
rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to
tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of
their being combined and mixed into one entity….Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching
that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in
whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any
compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith. That is why… the Muslims still recite it
centuries after they have passed away, for expression of disgust with and dissociation from kufr
and its rites is a perpetual demand of Faith.
As for the esteem in which the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) held this Surah, it can be
judged from the following…hadith[s]:…Naufal bin Muawiyah al-Ashjai said to the Holy Prophet
…: “Teach me something which I may recite at the time I go to bed.” The Holy Prophet replied:
“Recite Qul ya-ayyuhal kafirun188 to the end and then sleep, for this is immunity from
polytheism.” [Numerous similar hadiths are cited at this point, which repeat and emphasize
Muhammad’s admonition to recite this surah every night.]
We can now see that the imam’s refusal even to touch the Bible offered by the bishop, after the
bishop had accepted the Koran from the imam, parallels Muhammad’s rejection of the offer
made by the Quraish chiefs. Are there different paths to the same God? Islam emphatically says
NO, and prescribes rituals that embed contempt for all other religions deeply into Muslim minds.
Obviously, ecumenical respect is a one-way street when it comes to Islam. From an Islamic
perspective, the goal of tolerance is to provide Infidels with a non-violent opportunity to convert.
“Religious toleration” is just one of several important phrases that Muslims and Westerners use
in similar ways but with completely different intents.
187
The Meaning of the Qur'an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999,
commentary on Surah 109.
188
“Qul ya-ayyuhal kafirun” means “O you kafirs!” or “O you kufrs!” This is the first ayat (verse) of Surah 109,
which was translated by Pickthal as “O disbelievers!”
94
Islamic “toleration” only grants that other religions may exist, in a constrained way, for the time
being. However, Muslims believe that even this form of tolerance will disappear during the end
times, as numerous hadiths relate, such as:
•
189
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: …Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will
not be established until you 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.’”
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR

BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY
Book 37, Number 6665:…Allah’s Messenger…said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection
Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-
Fire.
Book 37, Number 6666:…Allah’s Apostle…said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit
in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire…190
Between now and that “glorious” Last Day, the Koran requires all Infidels in the House of Islam
to humbly acknowledge Islam’s superiority and pay the Jizya.191 Jizya is a special annual
tribute, or tax, paid to support Islam’s military forces. Islamic authorities explain that this tax is
justified as compensation for the Infidel exemption from military service. While portrayed as an
advantageous way to “opt out” of the military, the fact is that Infidels are excluded. The reason
for this exclusion becomes obvious when one notes that the Jizya was often used to pay the costs
of keeping non-Muslims in their place and waging war against non-Muslim lands.
There is another agenda that the historical Jizya also served: forced “voluntary” conversion,
through this tax’s crushing weight. Once the Jizya brought a man to destitution (only males were
assessed this tax, but anyone past the age of puberty was considered a man), so that he had no
more to give without facing his and his family’s starvation, he had two options: convert to Islam
or die. This is because non-Muslims who did not pay the Jizya were considered in rebellion to
the Islamic state:
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294:192…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the
Jizya [tax]…If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.
Once the starving Infidel converted, he became required to also raise his children as Muslims.
Also, an Infidel woman who wished to avoid the destitution caused by these taxes would marry a
Muslim man, thereby ensuring that all of her children would be raised in Islam (children were
required to be brought up in the religion of their fathers).
189
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176, and Sahih Muslim, Book 41,
Numbers 6981, 6982, 6983, 6984, and 6985
190
This chapter continues in a similar vein through Numbers 6667, 6668, and 6669.
191
[9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath
been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the
People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
192
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Mulsim, Book 19, Numbers 4295 & 4296.
95
To fully appreciate the impact of the Jizya, it is important to know something about its history.
Originally, Islam imposed two taxes on its non-Muslim subjects: the Jizya and the Kharâj.
While the nature of both taxes is not exactly clear from Islamic holy scripture, and was
somewhat flexible during Islam’s history, a good sense of what these taxes were in
Muahmmand’s day comes from the Hadith. The following hadiths shed light on what the Jizya
was:
• Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3032: When the Prophet…sent him to the Yemen, he
ordered to take from everyone who had reached puberty one dinar or its equivalent in Mu’afiri
garment of Yemen origin.
• Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3040:193…the Apostle of Allah…said: Tithes [one-tenth
of a person’s income] are to be levied on Jews and Christians, but not on Muslims.
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.24.44:…Malik [said] that Umar…imposed a jizya tax
of four dinars on those living where gold was the currency, and forty dirhams on those living
where silver was the currency. In addition, they had to provide for the Muslims and receive
them as guests for three days.
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.24.46: …Malik said, “The sunna is that there is no
jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men
who have reached puberty. The…jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them.
As long as they are in the country they have agreed to live in, they do not have to pay anything
on their property except the jizya. If, however, they trade in muslim countries, coming and
going in them, a tenth is taken from what they invest in such trade [that is, ten percent of assets
brought to trade, not ten percent of the actual sales].
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 17, Number 17.25.48:…Malik…said, “…I used to work with Abdullah
ibn Utba ibn Masud in the market of Madina in the time of Umar…and we used to take a tenth
from the Nabateans.”
In the light of modern taxes, which can far exceed ten percent, this tax does not appear to be
extreme at first glance. However, a comparison of modern taxes to the Jizya is a comparison of
apples to oranges, because modern taxes are used to provide benefits to the people who pay
them, ranging from social security, to medicare, to public schools, to police and fire protection,
etc., while the Jizya was used to support a system that oppressed the people who paid it. Despite
this distinction, Muslim apologists will claim that the Jizya was an appropriate compensation for
the dhimmi exemption from military service.
Beyond the fact that a ten percent Jizya still motivated conversions to Islam, and beyond the
contempt that Muslims felt for infidels who would rather pay the Jizya in submission, rather than
fight, either for the cause of Allah or for their own faiths, there were other factors that made the
Jizya far more coercive than it may originally appear.
As mentioned, the Jizya was only one of the taxes originally placed on Infidels. There was also a
tax on non-Muslim traders, mentioned in the fourth bullet above, which took ten percent of a
193
Similar hadiths can be found in Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 9, Number 1596 and Book 19, Number 3043.
96
trader’s goods, whether or not those goods were traded. To be competitive with traders not
subject to this tax, non-Muslim traders had to either convert to Islam or deal strictly in goods
deemed unworthy of Muslims, such as alcohol and products derived from dead animals
(discussed further in the section of this book entitled Other aspects of the economy that are
affected by Islam).
However, the harshest tax was the Kharâj. Islam’s holy texts define the Kharâj through hadiths
like the following:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000:194…The Prophet fought with the people of
Khaybar, and captured their palm-trees and land, and forced them to remain confined to
their fortresses. So they concluded a treaty of peace providing that gold, silver and
weapons would go to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and whatever they took
away on their camels would belong to them, on condition that they would not hide and
carry away anything. If they did (so), there would be no protection for them and no
treaty (with Muslims).
…
[The people of Khaybar] said: Muhammad, leave us to work on this land; we shall have
half (of the produce) as you wish, and you will have half…
While this quote, and others like it in Islamic holy scripture, do not mention the Kharâj explicitly
in their English tranlations, this is because “Kharâj” is typically translated into English words,
such as “tribute” or “recompence,” instead of being left in its original form. However, references
by Muslim writers make the meaning of Kharâj clear, such as:195
When Khaybar was conquered by the Prophet,...the Jews, recognizing the conquerors as
the owners of the entire conquered land (after the custom of the day), offered to cultivate
the lands as the tenants of the State and paid a part of the produce. The Prophet granted
them their request and fixed the Kharâj at half of the produce.
Over time, the terms “Jizya” and “Kharâj” became synonymous, even though both taxes were
still assessed.196 As a result, the evolving meaning of “Jizya” has led to a situation today where
non-Muslims who fear Islam say that the Jizya was crushingly heavy, while Muslims defending
Islam dismiss this claim by referring to the relatively light definition of Jizya found in the
Hadith.
The fact of the matter is that non-Muslims were assessed crushing taxes, which frequently
impoverished non-Muslims and then forced them to convert after they became unable to pay.
While these taxes were somewhat graduated, they did not go to zero as modern income taxes do.
There was always a significant minimum tax to pay. This minimum tax was what forced the
194
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 36, Number 485, Book 39, Numbers 521, 522,
524, & 531, Book 44, Number 678, Book 50, Number 881, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 380, Volume 5, Book 59,
Number 550, Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Numbers 3758 – 3763, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.19.
195
An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, by Imad A. Ahmad, presented at the International Conference
on “Comprehensive Development of Muslim Countries: An Interdisciplinary Approach from an Islamic
Perspective”, Aug. 1-3, 1994, Subang Jaya, Malaysia. See www.minaret.org/malaysia.htm.
196
The Arabs in History, Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2002, pages 72—81.
97
destitute to convert. Interestingly, these taxes caused such a mass of religious conversions that,
by 717 AD, the (Umayyad) Caliphate suffered a financial crisis caused by the collapse of its tax
base.197 Similarly, the Abbasid Caliphate endured a long series of revolts by Christian Copts
ruined by taxes, ending in 832 with a widespread massacre of Coptic men and the enslavement
of Coptic women and children.198 These bits of history demonstrates a point that will be
investigated in more depth shortly: a government founded on the tenets of Islam only flourishes
when when it has non-Muslims to prey upon, unless it happens to control vast and valuable
natural resources.
Returning to the question of proper relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Koran
issues the following commands:
• [3.28] YUSUF ALI: Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than
believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah…
• [4.144] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of
believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?
• [5.51] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They
are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo!
Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
• [9.73] PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh
with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.
• [28.86] YUSUF ALI: And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as
a mercy from thy Lord: Therefore lend not thy support in any way to those who reject (Allah’s
Message).
• [60.13] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Be not friendly with a folk with whom Allah is wroth,
(a folk) who have despaired of the Hereafter as the disbelievers despair of those who are in the
graves.
A review of the Koran’s commands that tell Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians
leads one to wonder why. Could it be that, by getting to know their Jewish and Christian friends,
Muslims might come to doubt the Koran’s slanders against them? Or possibly even feel
empathy for them as human beings?
To discover how Muslims are taught to view non-Muslims, consider the following excerpt from
the Shari’ah issued by Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani., which defines what is considered
najis. Najis means “filthy.” If something najis is touched, ritual purification is required before
undertaking any acts of reverence or worship.
199
Najis Things
197
The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, by G. R. Hawting, London, Routledge, 2000
198
See www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/History_of_Arab_and_Ottoman_Egypt.
199
IMPORTANT NOTE: Because Shari’ah is derived from the Koran and Hadith, its exact form has been an
ongoing debate among Islamic jurists for nearly 1400 years. While most versions are similar, there can be
98
84. * The following ten things are essentially najis:
…
Urine and Faeces
…
Semen
…
Dead Body
…
Blood
…
Dogs and Pigs
…
Kafir [Disbelievers]
107. An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is
najis…
As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not
accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him
and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable
that they are Pak. However, it is better to avoid them.
108. The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid
substances of his body, are najis.
109. If the parents, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor

child are all kafir, that child is najis, except when he is intelligent enough, and
professes Islam…
110. A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not…will

be considered Pak. But he will not have the privileges of a Muslim, like, he
cannot marry a Muslim woman, nor can he be buried in a Muslim cemetery.
…
Alcoholic Liquor
…
Sweat of an Animal Who Persistently Eats Najasat [unclean things]
…
You may recognize Al-Sistani’s name. This is because he is the “moderate” who has been
representing Iraq’s Shiites throughout Iraq’s post-Saddam era. He is also the man who nearly
started an uprising against Coalition forces in early 2004, when he decided that government
control was not being handed to Iraqis quickly enough.
significant differences, especially between Shiites and Sunnis. These disputed issues are called Ishkal, which is
Arabic for “doubt.” Therefore, when quoting Shari’ah, it is not possible to refer to the translation of a single
definitive text. For this book, the version of Shari’ah used was issued by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-
Sistani, of Iraq. See www.al-islam.org/laws/index.html. When this book was originally written, Sistani’s Shari’ah
was available at www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&lang=eng&part=3, however, the website was
changed so that his Shari’ah is no longer available.
99
Despite these slanders against Jews and Christians, Muslims see themselves as persecuted, as The
Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran testifies:200
In an era when it is unacceptable to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs
and it is considered a grave social misstep to ridicule the faith of fellow-citizens…it is still “open
season” on Islam and Muslims. Today religious discrimination against Muslims is rampant, and
coarse attacks upon the faith of millions of Americans…[are] all too common.
If one were to compare the number of Muslims who have died in the United States because of
anti-Muslim hatred to the number of non-Muslims who have died in the United States because of
Muslim hatred, one would find few if any Muslim deaths, but thousands of non-Muslims deaths.
This is not simply a matter of the September 11 attacks. Numerous terrorist cells have been
thwarted, but others have succeeded, including individual acts of sheer hatred. These incidents
appear to be increasing in frequency. They include:
• The 1993 bomb attack on the Twin Towers, masterminded by Sheikh Omar Abdel
Rahman, a former professor at Cairo’s prestigious Al-Azhar University. This bombing
killed six people and injured a thousand.
• The 1997 shooting attack by Ali Abu Kamal at the Empire State Building. Kamal killed
one and wounded six before turning his gun on himself.201
• The July 4, 2002 shooting spree by Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet, who killed two
people at Los Angeles International Airport, right near the front counter of Israel’s El Al
Airline.202
• The 2002 shooting attacks of Muslim converts John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd
Malvo, who killed a total of sixteen people. Their ten sniper killings in Virginia,
Washington, D.C., and Maryland made them famous as the “Beltway Snipers.”
• The 2006 auto attack by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who ran down nine University of
North Carolina students in an SUV.203
• The 2006 gun attack by Naveed Afzal Haq, whose father helped found an Islamic Center
in Seattle. Haq broke into a Seattle Jewish charity center and shot six women, one
fatally.204
• The 2006 auto attack by Omeed A. Popal, a young man “from a ‘decent, pious and
respectful’ family, devout members of the Abu Bakr Siddiq Mosque in Hayward
[California]”. Popal drove his SUV through the streets of San Francisco, deliberately
running down fourteen randomly selected people, killing one.205
• The 2007 gun attack by Sulejman Talovic, another young Muslim, who had immigrated
from Bosnia in 1998 with his family. In his attack, Talovic shot nine people, five fatally,
200
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled In This Chapter, page 25.
201
N.Y. killer carried political note: Empire State Building security is tightened, by Tom Hays, Associated Press,
The Standard-Times (New Bedford, Massachusetts), February 25, 1997.
202
FBI names LA airport gunman, BBC News, July 5, 2002.
203
UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish Gov’t, by Steve Hartsoe, Associated Press, The Guardian (U.K.), March
7, 2006.
204
Police: Seattle shooting suspect ambushed teen, Associated Press, MSNBC News, July 29, 2006.
205
Driving rampage killed one, injured at least 13, by James Hohmann and Katherine Corcoran, Mercury News
(San Jose, CA), August 30, 2006.
100
at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. The only reason the carnage was not
greater was that he was shot dead by police while in the midst of his rampage.206
• The 2007 auto attack by Nashville taxi driver Ibrahim Ahmed, who got into an argument
over religion with two Christian students and then attempted to run them over, hitting
one.207
Perhaps what is most astounding about these incidents is the way that the press responds to them.
It tends to downplay the attacker’s religious hatred and find alternative explanations, or switches
focus to the killer’s community and fears of retribution. Examples of this phenomenon can be
seen in the articles cited above, such as Mall shooting prompts Bosnian backlash fears, and Taxi
driver had earlier Metro traffic charges. Instead of calling these attacks religion-based hate
crimes, the press rushes to defend the Islamic community and dismiss the attackers as lunatics or
cranks. While mental illness may play a role in some cases, this is only because it removes the
restraints that keep most Muslims from acting on the hatreds they are taught.
Murderous rampages always indicate a disordered mental state. Mental problems would not
excuse a racist who burns down an African-American church. He would be prosecuted for
committing a hate crime. Why doesn’t this apply to Muslim attackers?
Apologists for the Koran’s hateful verses tend to offer explanations that, on reflection, give more
distress than comfort. For example, The Koran for Dummies says:208
Passage 5:51-52 forbids Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as “friends” because the two
look only to protect one another rather than the Muslims. The verse goes on to say that Muslims
who ally with them have a (spiritual) disease in their hearts whereby they can’t trust in God.
“Friend” is an incorrect translation of the Arabic word Awliya’, which is closer in meaning to
“allies” or “protectors.”
…
However…the Koran explains that forbidding alliance with People of the Book does not apply to
all Jews and Christians. Rather, it refers, first, to those who make fun of Islam and Muslim
practices (5:57-58). And, secondly, it applies to those non-Muslims who commit aggression
against the Muslim community, oppose the practice of faith, and drive Muslims out of their
homes (60:9).
If the People of the Book, or any other non-Muslims, do not persecute Muslims, then the Koran
permits alliance and friendship and enjoins mutual kindness and justice between communities
(60:7-8)
While these words may sound reasonable at first, a real life scenario shows that they are actually
designed to tilt the global playing field in favor of Islamic conquest. Consider, hypothetically, a
case where a group of Muslim terrorists bomb a subway in what they consider to be a Christian
nation, and the bomb kills dozens of people. The authorities of the “Christian” government try to
206
Mall shooting prompts Bosnian backlash fears, Associated Press, MSNBC News, February 15, 2007
207
Taxi driver had earlier Metro traffic charges: He's charged with trying to run over two passengers, by Colby
Sledge, The Tennessean, February 20, 2007.
208
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Forbidding
“friendship” with People of the Book, page 156.
101
track down the surviving perpetrators but discover that no one in the Islamic community is
willing to provide useful information. These Muslims all claim to know nothing, and they are
shocked (!) to hear that those who committed the crime could do such a thing. In the absence of
cooperation from the community where the perpetrators came from, the “Christian” authorities
begin to tighten security measures in the community, doing things like arresting Islamic clerics
known to preach hatred against the Infidel government. In response, the Muslim community
cries out against this perceived persecution. According the maxims of The Koran for Dummies,
these Muslims have done the right thing in protecting their Muslim brothers rather than acting as
allies or protectors of the Christians. Moreover, they would be right to claim that they are being
persecuted. Such persecution is grounds for Jihad. As The Koran for Dummies explains:209
The Koran allows Muslims to fight in armed struggle against “those who wage war against
you…” (2:190)…Muslims are allowed to kill their aggressors and drive them out of their land in
order to protect the Islamic state (2:191).
Islam is not a pacifist religion. Rather, the Koran believes in self-defense in the form of war, if
necessary, and with appropriate force. Once this battle begins, the Muslims are told to “fight
against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God [Allah] alone”
(2:193).
Unfortunately for us “Infidels,” the Koran does not grant us the same right of self-defense.
This hypothetical story brings up an important question: Why is it that, time and again, when
Muslim terrorists strike Western targets, very little information comes from the Muslim
community? It turns out that there is more at work than simply a command not to ally with Jews
and Christians. Muslims also have a very strong concept of family loyalty. As described in The
Koran for Dummies:210
The Koran considers it one of the worst possible sins to cut sacred kinship bonds. Lineage
preserves the identity of individuals within society; lineage also emboldens the family structure
that is so essential to the development of a society based on Koranic ethics.
In other words, the Koran strongly discourages the betrayal of a family or tribal member to
outsiders, especially Jews and Christians, and Muslims recognize that this practice empowers
their ability to “develop…a society based on Koranic ethics.” Later in The Koran for Dummies,
the author tries to weaken this conclusion by saying:
Muslims are called to treat each other with kindness and respect, but at the same time, this mercy
should not violate the principles of justice. For example, a Muslim can’t hide a murderer,
whether family or friend, in his or her home to protect them from the justice of law.”211
While the author acknowledges that Islam’s call to kindness does not necessarily extend to non-
Muslims, he neglects to mention that the injunction against hiding murderers applies only when
the “principles of justice” are Islamic principles of justice, because the “justice of law” is
209
Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Jihad as armed struggle, page 253.
210
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving
lineage, page 205.
211
Ibid, Chapter 16, section entitled Managing justice and mercy in society, page 235.
102
actually the justice of Islamic law. Governments that do not respect Shari’ah are considered
inherently unjust, and Muslims are not required to respect them. Instead of respect, those
governments receive taqiyya and jihad.
Therefore, the Koran’s command for Muslims not to protect Christians and Jews combines with
its sanctification of kinship bonds and the principles of taqiyya and jihad to protect terrorists
from being exposed. With the aid of this cover, Muslims are able to, in the words of prominent
British cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, “bleed the enemy” in their pursuit of establishing an Islamic
state.212
Even more disturbing is the fact that this mechanism has been used by Hezbollah, a Lebanese-
Shiite terrorist organization, in an attempt to prod the entire Islamic world into a war with Israel.
Lebanon was originally founded as a primarily Christian and Sunni nation. After the Islamic
Revolution of Iran, however, Ayatollah Khomeini’s new government decided to create a new
terrorist organization, Hezbollah, whose stated objective was the destruction of Israel. With the
aid of Iranian and Syrian largesse, a second objective soon revealed itself: Shiite expansionism.
During the turmoil of Lebanon’s Civil War in the 1980s, and in the years that followed, the
Shiite population grew rapidly in Lebanon, making both Sunnis and Christians nervous.
However, by leading the charge against Israel, Hezbollah made it impossible for the Sunnis to
confront the Shiites, and the Christians were powerless to exert their wishes without Sunni
consent. In a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Sunnis could not possibly ally with Israel,
no matter what Hezbollah did, because the Koran itself makes such an act unthinkable.
Therefore, Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist organization, with only a minority representation in
Lebanon’s legitimate government, effectively commandeered Lebanon’s foreign policy.
When Hezbollah attacked Israel, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to exert its sovereignty over
Hezbollah’s Lebanese territory. When Lebanon gave Hezbollah free reign, it forced Israel to
take unilateral actions of its own. When Israel attacked Hezbollah inside Lebanon, Hezbolla’s
forces dressed in civilian clothes, concealed their weapons in civilian areas, and launched their
attack from those areas. It then successfully portrayed Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah as attacks on
Lebanese civilians. Once the attacks became viewed as attacks on Lebanon, Hezbollah’s support
expanded from its original sponsors to Muslims around the world. This kind of scenario has
played itself out several times in the past few decades, each time threatening to bring about a
global conflict between those who oppose Israel’s existence and those who support it.
Getting back to The Koran for Dummies’ claim that Muslims are justified in attacking Jews and
Christians “who make fun of Islam and Muslim practices,” this position’s one-sidedness
becomes clear when one considers that the Koran and the Hadith do far more than “make fun of”
Jews and Christians. These scriptures actually teach Muslims to believe that Jews and Christians
who do not convert to Islam are evil and accursed. For example:
[2.145] PICKTHAL: And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all
kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah…And if thou shouldst follow their desires
after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then surely wert thou of the evil-doers.
212
Bleed the Enemy, by Emily Flynn Vencat, Newsweek Web Exclusive, January 12, 2006.
103
[2.146] Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize (this revelation) as they recognize
their sons. But lo! A party of them knowingly conceals the truth.
…
[2.159] Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed…are accursed of
Allah…
This point naturally raises a question: If the Koran is correct about Jews and Christians, then
what should be the relationship between the “House of Peace” and the “House of War,” which
Jews and Christians allegedly rule? On this subject, the Koran offers its believers plenty of
guidance, a small sample of which is shown below:
• [8.12] YUSUF ALI: …I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their
necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
[8.13] This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger:
• [8.39] PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.
• [8.65] PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight… if there be of you a hundred
(steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the
disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.
• [8.67] PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the
land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter…
• [9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah…(even if they are) of the People of the
Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• [9.38] YUSUF ALI: O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to
go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to
the Hereafter?...
[9.39] Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your
place…
• [9.111] PICKTHAL: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth
because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be
slain…
• [9.123] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and
let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
Interestingly, despite the fact that Islam prohibits non-Muslims from living on the Arabian
Peninsula, or even visiting Mecca, it does not allow non-Muslim nations to make similar
prohibitions against Muslims. To see a Muslim testify to this unlevel playing field, consider the
following defense of Jihad offered in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam:
According to Islamic Law, an armed struggle can be initiated only for the following reasons:
• To defend your community or nation from aggressors.
104
• To liberate people living under oppressive regimes.
• To remove any government that will not allow the free practice of Islam within its
borders.
In other words, if Infidels were to treat Muslims the way Muslims treat Infidels on the Arabian
Peninsula, it would be grounds for war.
Despite claims to the contrary, the second item in the above list also reveals that peace is not
possible in an Infidel nation with a sizable Muslim population, because Muslims feel oppressed
when forced to live by democratically legislated secular laws instead of Allah-decreed Islamic
Law. Therefore it does not matter whether non-Muslim nations exclude Muslims or allow them
to immigrate; either action will lead to Holy War. In the long run, the only way for an Infidel
nation to avoid Jihad is to submit to Islam. Our choice is to either capitulate or prepare to defend
ourselves.
A second reason why there cannot be peace between the House of Islam and the House of War is
provided by The Koran for Dummies in the quote below. Ironically, this rationale for war arises
as the author tries to de-fang one of the Koran’s most infamous verses:213
Ayah214 9:29 says that Muslims should fight those who deny God [Allah] and the Last Day, and
deny the laws of moral law, and refuse to acknowledge the Truth from among the People of the
Book, until they pay the exemption tax (Jizya) willingly after being subdued or humbled in war.
Some people mistakenly take this Ayah to mean that Muslims should fight Jews and Christians
living in Muslim lands unless they pay the Jizya tax. In truth, the Hadith clearly outlines the true
purpose of the tax: to exempt non-Muslim men from service in the Muslim army. (Non-Muslims
shouldn’t be required to participate in armed struggle for a faith they don’t believe in.) The
money of this tax then goes into supporting the Islamic state’s army, which guarantees protection
of all non-Muslim communities living under the Islamic state…
This passage appears in the context of a Surah that discusses the hostilities of war during the time
of revelation – a time when Jews and Christians aided the Pagans against the Muslim community.
However, Ayah 9:29 in no way diminishes other passages found throughout the Koran that call
for peaceful coexistence between faiths, such as 60:8.
Leaving aside the question of how an Infidel must feel about being forced to pay for an army that
wars against Infidel nations, consider the final paragraph: the “peaceful coexistence” referred to
applies only to Infidels living humbly and subdued, paying the Jizya to an Islamic state.
Moreover, it clarifies that any time a non-Muslim nation defends another non-Muslim nation
from Islamic aggression, it falls into the same category as the Jews and Christians who aided the
Pagans. This is so because these nations are “against the Muslim community.” It does not
matter whether the nation being defended is Israel, East Timor, or the people of southern Sudan.
213
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 18, section entitled Giving Aya
9:29 its proper context, page 278.
214
Arabic term for a Koranic verse. Literally, it means “sign.”
105
Essentially, the only way a non-Muslim nation can avoid jihad is to either aid Muslim nations in
their wars or stay completely out of them, regardless of what those nations do. Any interference
on behalf of Islam’s victims is likely to trigger the jihad tripwire.
Added to this threat is the realization that the Muslims who are commanded to carry out jihad are
not simply the citizens of Muslim nations, but all members of the Ummah (nation of Islam),
including those who live in Infidel lands. In other words, devout Muslims living in the United
States would feel justified by their faith if they decided to attack the U.S. because of its support
for Israel, or even Southern Sudan or East Timor.
The Koran’s view of Slavery

If you have ever had a conversation with an African American Muslim about the fact that slavery
was widely practiced throughout the world from the beginning of history, and that it still goes on
in some Islamic African nations today, the response you can expect is that slavery in Africa,
particularly in Muslim lands, has always been different from the kind practiced in the U.S.. They
will claim that slaves in Africa were treated far more kindly. In fact, they will claim that slaves
were treated like members of the family.
Rather than accept such assertions at face value, you may want to conduct your own
investigation, by finding out what the Koran and Hadith have to say, and learning how those
scriptures were applied by Muslims throughout history. You will then be in the position to
decide for yourself. As mentioned in the Introduction to this book, the University of Southern
California hosts a website with the entire Koran, in three translations, and a large body of the
Hadith. It also contains a search function for all of these texts, to help researchers find every
place where the terms “captives,” “slaves,” “black,” or “Ethiopian” are used. See
www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html to start your own investigation.
What follows are some examples of the Koran’s guidance on slavery. Note that the first set of
verses comes from the translation by N.J. Dawood, which is written in modern English and is
easier to understand. Yusuf Ali’s version is shown in the footnotes:215
• [23.1-6] DAWOOD: Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid
profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their
wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)…
• [2.178] PICKTHAL: …Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the
freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.
These verses are particularly opposed to what Westerners normally consider justice. The first set
indisputably puts its stamp of approval on raping slave girls, who would have no recourse in a
215
[23.1] YUSUF ALI: The believers must (eventually) win through, -
…
[23.5] [those] who abstain from sex,
[23.6] except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for
(in their case) they are free from blame,
106
legal system that says their rapes “are lawful.” Verse 2.178 debases slaves even further. It states
that if a Muslim kills another person’s slave, then one of that Muslim’s slaves has to die.
Some Muslims interpret verse 2.178 more liberally: instead of killing the slave, the aggrieved
slaveholder may instead take a slave from the offender. While less bloody, the slave’s lack of
control over his or her own life is nearly as profound.
In a world where slaves are mere property, not human beings, these would sound like reasonable
penalties. In fact, this sort of law has a history that precedes Islam by millennia. For example,
the Code of Hammurabi, which is the earliest known legal code,216 prescribes the following:
Law 229: If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the
house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
Law 230: If it kills the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death.
Law 231: If it kills a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the
house.
To modern Western eyes, this ancient legal tradition appears barbaric because it requires an
innocent person to be killed or removed from everything he or she knows. According to the
legal code outlined in the Koran, slaves have no right to their own lives. They can be killed or
confiscated to punish their owners for the owners’ crimes.
But what if a free man kills his own slave? Malik’s Muwatta provides the answer:
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 43, Number 43.21.15a…Malik said, “There is no retaliation held against
a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally
murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally…”
The next verse reveals that Infidel slaves fare even worse than Muslim slaves, for while a
Muslim slave may be freed under certain circumstances, an Infidel slave is the lowest of the low,
with no hope of release except through conversion.
• [4.92] YUSUF ALI: Never should a believer kill a believer; but (if it so happens) by mistake,
(compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing
slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased
belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (is
enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of mutual alliance, compensation
should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed…
The Hadith confirms this policy with passages such as:217
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 38, Number 38.6.9:…one of the Ansar came to the Messenger of Allah…
with a black slave-girl of his. He said, “Messenger of Allah, I must set a slave free who is a
mumina [believer]. If you think that she is mumina, I will free her.” The
216
Written approximately 2500 B.C.
217
Similar hadiths can be found in Malik’s Muwatta, Book 38, Numbers 38.6.8, 38.6.10, 38.6.11, & 38.6.12.
107
Messenger…questioned her, “Do you testify that there is no god but Allah?” She said, “Yes.”
“Do you testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?” She said, “Yes.” “Are you certain
about the rising after death?” She said, “Yes.” The Messenger…said, “Free her.”
Further insights into the nature of slavery under Islam come from John Illife’s Africans: the
History of a Continent, which provides vivid images of what slavery was like in the ancient
Islamic world. If Africans treated their slaves like family, as claimed, then the following reports
paint a damning image of African family life:218
One guess is that the Saharan routes (including that from Darfur in the eastern savanna) carried
between 4,000 and 7,000 slaves northwards each year at this time [the 1300s]. North African
traders said that many died from want and thirst on the two-thousand-kilometre desert crossing
and that survivors were worth between five and eight times as much in Tripoli as in Borno…
Most slaves came from non-Islamic, often stateless peoples to the south, whom cavalrymen
raided each dry season. A song said to honour an eleventh-century ruler of Kanem celebrated his
brutality:
The best you took (and sent home) as the first fruits of battle:
The children crying on their mothers you snatched away from their mothers:
You took the slave wife from a slave, and set them in lands far removed from one
another.
As mentioned before, slavery is not merely a matter of history in the House of Islam; it is being
practiced today, in places like Mauritania and Sudan. According to a University of Pennsylvania
summary of one of its recent publications, called War and Slavery in Sudan, by Jok Maduk Jok,
a Dinka tribe member whose people are targeted by Arab slave traders:219
Slavery has been endemic in Sudan for thousands of years. Today the Sudanese slave trade
persists as a complex network of buyers, sellers, and middlemen that operates most actively when
times are favorable to the practice…the present day is one such time, as the Sudanese civil war
that resumed in 1983 rages on between the Arab north and the black south. Permitted and even
encouraged by the Arab-dominated Khartoum government, the state military has captured
countless women and children from the south and sold them into slavery in the north to become
concubines, domestic servants, farm laborers, or even soldiers trained to fight against their own
people. Also instigated by the Khartoum government, Arab herding groups routinely take and
sell the Nilotic peoples of Dinka and Nuer.
For Arab traders “the nation of the blacks,” or Bilad Al-Sudan, has traditionally been the source
of slaves. When the slave trade developed into corporate enterprise in the nineteenth century, the
slave-takers articulated distinctions based on race, ethnicity, and religion that marked the black,
infidel southerners as indisputably inferior and therefore “natural” slaves. Such distinctions have
survived…even during those periods when slavery has not been authorized by the government.
When it is authorized, as it is today (due to the implementation of Shari’ah), slavery then
becomes the extreme form of this systemic oppression.
218
Africans: the history of a continent, by John Iliffe, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Chapter 5, pages 76.
219
War and Slavery in Sudan by Jok Maduk Jok, 2004, University of Pennsylvania Press (summary found at
www.upenn.edu/pennpress)
108
At this point, the Islamic perspective of black enslavement should also be clear.
While Free Democracy ended slavery in the West, Islam reinvigorates it by making it morally
acceptable. In fact, Muslims are beginning to re-import the practice of slavery back into the
United States, one hundred and forty years after it was outlawed, as the following article reveals:
Egyptian pair gets prison for enslaving girl

Associated Press, The Herald (Monterey County, CA), Oct. 24, 2006
SANTA ANA (AP) - An Egyptian man and his ex-wife were sentenced Monday for enslaving a
girl from their home country for two years while forcing her to work under harsh conditions for
no pay.
Abdel Nasser Youssef Ibrahim, 45, was sentenced to three years in prison, and his former wife,
Amal Ahmed Ewis-abd El Motelib, 43, received a 22-month sentence. U.S. District Judge James
V. Selna ordered the pair to pay restitution of $76,173 to the girl.
Ibrahim and Motelib each pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy, holding a person in involuntary
servitude through force or coercion, obtaining labor through unlawful force or coercion and
harboring an illegal alien. Prosecutors said the two will serve their sentences before being
deported to Egypt for overstaying their visas.
The pair brought the girl into the United States in August 2000 when she was 10, and ordered her
to clean their Orange County home and take care of their five children while she lived in squalid
conditions…“The young victim in this case was subject to inhumane conditions that included
both physical and verbal abuse.” United States Attorney Debra Wong Yang said in statement.
Prosecutors said the girl received no compensation during the nearly two years that she worked
for the couple. They said she was forced to sleep in the garage, had her passport taken away and
wasn’t allowed to play outside.
…
The girl will be allowed to remain in the United States.
Slaves are like family in the Islamic world? Some family!
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

We have already seen how Westerners misunderstand Islam’s use of the term “religious
toleration.” Another important misunderstanding comes from the claim that “Islam means
peace.” According to Understanding Islam and the Muslims, published by The Islamic Affairs
Department of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington DC:
The Arabic word “Islam” simply means “submission,” and derives from a word (salaam) meaning
‘peace.’ In a religious context it means complete submission to the will of God [Allah].
This definition of Islam is quite different from what is frequently broadcasted by the popular
press. Marmaduke Pickthal, in his translation of the Koran, probably provides the most accurate
definition when he translates Islam as “the Surrender,” which agrees well with the Saudi
embassy’s “submission.”
109
Muslims, Christians, and Jews all agree that submission, or surrender, to the will of God brings
peace. However, a quick review of the Koran’s calls for warfare against non-Muslims, together
with its method of establishing “peace” through brutal repression, leads one to conclude that
Islam’s use of “surrender” is more military than spiritual. Islamic “peace” has as much to do
with real peace as the Ministry of Love described in George Orwell’s 1984220 had to do with
Love.
What is the basis of Islam’s predatory philosophy? It is the belief that Jihad against Infidels,
while bloody itself, will bring about world peace under Islam. Does this sound familiar to
anyone? Those who have studied Hitler’s career know that his plan to exterminate the Jews and
other “inferior races” was not simply an act of sadism. He honestly believed that it was an
unpleasant necessity that would ultimately bring about a better world. Similarly, Lenin, Stalin,
and other leaders of the Soviet Union all portrayed their murderous policies as temporary
measures that would lead to a Communist Utopia.
To help Muhammad bring about his utopian vision, he rewarded his Muslim foot-soldiers with
special exemptions from eternal consequences. Numerous hadiths tell how these exemptions
gave Muslims free license to steal, rape, and kill:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 445:221…The Prophet said, “(The angel) Gabriel
said to me, ‘Whoever amongst your followers die without having worshipped others besides
Allah, will enter Paradise (or will not enter the (Hell) Fire).’” The Prophet (was) asked, “Even if
he has committed illegal sexual intercourse or theft?” He replied, “Even then.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 80i:222…Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah welcomes two
men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in
Allah’s Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the killer who also gets martyred (In
Allah’s Cause).”
Muhammad went beyond rewarding his martyrs; he actually condemned to Hell those Muslims
who manage to preserve themselves from martyrdom:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 428:…The Prophet said, “Allah will not accept the
excuse of any person whose instant of death is delayed till he is sixty years of age.”
A curious similarity between Muhammad and the terrorist leaders of today is that he called
others to martyrdom while managing to preserve his own life. Muhammad lived until age 63,
which, according to this hadith, would imply that Allah should not accept him. However, as the
Hadith repeatedly demonstrates, Muhammad’s rules only applied to others, not to himself.
220
1984, by George Orwell, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949, Chapter 1.
221
573, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 285, Volume 8, Book 76, Numbers 450 & 451,
and Volume 9, Book 93, Number 579.
222
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Book 20, Numbers 4658, 4659, and 4660.
110
One of the lasting lessons from the awful days of Nazi Germany was that utopian ends do not
justify their cruel means. Leaders with utopian visions often find it easy to shed the blood of
others who stand in their way, and substitute loyalty for ethics as their basis of power.
One can reach a deeper understanding of Islam’s true nature by studying the character of
Muhammad. In Pickthal’s introduction to The Glorious Koran, he states:223
…The number of campaigns which he [Muhammad] led in person…is twenty-seven, in nine of

which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out
under other leaders is thirty-eight.
This was quite an impressive military achievement for someone whose rein lasted only eleven
years (from 622 to 632), and whose votaries claim that Islam is a religion of peace.
Pickthal then presents a long and somewhat exaggerated list of accomplishments, including
“raised woman from the status of chattel to complete legal equality with man,” and “made
universal human brotherhood a fact and principle of common law.”
What is this universal human brotherhood built on? A hadith from Malik’s Muwatta tells us:
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 15, Number 15.7.24:…“Shall I not tell you the best of your
deeds,…better for you than giving gold and silver, and better for you than meeting your enemy
and striking their necks?” They said, “Of course.” He said, “Remembrance…of Allah.”
While an objective student of Islamic history might be skeptical of Pickthal’s panegyrics, his
facts come from the ancient Islamic historians themselves. The historical record confirms that
Muhammad was a great warrior, conqueror, lawgiver, and absolute dictator. As Pickthal says,224
[Muhammad] personally controlled every detail of organization, judged every case and was
accessible to every suppliant.
While Muslims may claim that Muhammad believed in mutual consultation with others,225 he
remained the ultimate authority for all decisions within his state. Whenever he was faced with a
particular challenge, a revelation would conveniently provide the answer. Once this answer was
declared, Muhammad’s followers faced a choice: comply with it, or be accused of Hypocrisy or
Apostasy, a Hudd crime punishable by death.
Islam is clearly not a religion of peace, but of pacification, because it reduces those under its
power to a state of submission. It is a framework for conquest and establishing power.
223
The Glorious Koran, by Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthal, London, 1930, Introduction, page xxvi.
224
Ibid.
225
This principle is known as shura or sura.
111
Chapter 4: What are some of the characteristics of an Islamic
Nation?
Because the Koran is presented as a series of revelations, rather than as an organized body of
law, it does not give clear guidance on the proper structure of an Islamic state. In fact, many
Islamic nations have built governmental institutions and written Shari’ahs that differ
significantly from each other. Despite these differences, there are a number of important
doctrines essential to all Islamic governments. These doctrines address issues such as:
• The treatment of non-Muslims

• The treatment of women
• The treatment of liberal and secular Muslims
• The management of money
This section describes how Islamic nations deal with each of these issues.
The treatment of non-Muslims

Within the House of Islam, Muslims have full rights, while Infidels do not. The inferior status of
Infidels is multidimensional and can range from special taxes to an inability to testify against
Muslims in court, from special clothing requirements to building prohibitions, and from marriage
restrictions to religious requirements for children, as well as mandates for submissive deference
to Muslims.
Historically, the level of Infidel debasement has varied significantly, according to the versions of
Shari’ah adopted by various regimes. However, a single document, known as The Pact of Umar,
which established relations between the Islamic government of Caliph Umar and the conquered
Christian populations of Syria and Palestine, is the basic framework that Muslims turn to as a
guide for governing non-Muslim subjects. In Jacob Marcus’s work, The Jew in the Medieval
World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, there is both a translation of The Pact of Umar and a
description of its context. This book is quoted on both Islamic and non-Islamic websites. It
states:226
THE Pact of Umar is the body of limitations and privileges entered into by treaty between
conquering Muslims and conquered non-Muslims… The Pact was probably originated about 637
by Umar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions…, the Pact was
extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Umar…
The Pact of Umar has served to govern the relations between the Muslims and “the people of the
book,” such as Jews, Christians, and the like, down to the present day. In addition to the
conditions of the Pact listed below, the Jews, like the Christians, paid a head-tax in return for
protection, and for exemption from military service. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to
hold government office…
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!
226
The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, by Jacob Marcus, New York: JPS, 1938, pages 13-15
112
This is a writing to Umar from the Christians of such and such a city. When You (Muslims)
marched against us (Christians), we asked of you protection for ourselves, our posterity, our
possessions, and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect
in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair
any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Muslim
quarters of the town; that we will not refuse the Muslims entry into our churches either by night
or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travelers; that we will receive any
Muslim traveler into our houses and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not
harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Muslims…
That we will not teach our children the Qu’ran (some nationalist Arabs feared the infidels would
ridicule the Qu’ran; others did not want infidels even to learn the language); that we will not
make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it; that we will not prevent
any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honor the Muslims and
rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our
dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their
expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames (infidels must not use greetings and special
phrases employed only by Muslims); that we will not ride on saddles, or gird on swords, or take
to ourselves arms or wear them, or engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell
wine (forbidden to Muslims); that we will shave the front of our heads;…that we will wear
girdles round our waists (infidels wore leather or cord girdles; Muslims, cloth and silk).
That we will not display the cross upon our churches or display our crosses or our sacred books in
the streets of the Muslims, or in their market-places; that we will strike the clappers in our
churches lightly (wooden rattles or bells summoned the people to church or synagogue); that we
will not recite our services in a loud voice when a Muslim is present; that we will not carry Palm
branches (on Palm Sunday) or our images in procession in the streets; that at the burial of our
dead we will not chant loudly or carry lighted candles in the streets of the Muslims or their
market places; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of
Muslims, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Muslim.
All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive
protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement,
then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels.
The way this document establishes religious oppression and colonization is profound. Of
particular interest is the fact that Infidels were encouraged to convert to Islam, even though they
were not allowed to read the Koran. However, if they were horrified by what they read after
converting to Islam, they would no longer be able to apostasize without risking their lives.
Moreover, by prohibiting non-Muslims from reading the Koran, The Pact of Umar made sure
they remained blissfully unaware of the depth of Islam’s hostility toward them.
The Pact of Umar also made sure that Infidels stood out as different from Muslims, for easy and
immediate identification. This tactic has been used by repressive regimes throughout history,
most famously by Nazi Germany against its Jewish citizens, who were forced to wear yellow
Stars of David.
Another revealing portion of this pact is the declaration that non-Muslims must never strike
Muslims, regardless of the circumstances, including self-defense from an attack by a Muslim.
113
Furthermore, the violation of any portion of this pact by any individual was legal grounds for
launching an attack on the entire non-Muslim community. This way of thinking surfaces
frequently in the Islamic world, where the actions of a few non-Muslims, such as the Danish
cartoonists, can bring on massive Islamic retaliations that target entire nations, or more.
In addition, just as Infidels were not allowed to defend themselves from Muslim attacks, they
also did not have the same protection from murder that Muslims enjoyed, as many hadiths
explain,227 such as:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111:…Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked Ali [the fourth
Caliph], ‘Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the
Qur’an)?’ Ali replied, ‘No, except …what is (written) in this sheet of paper…’” Abu Juhaifa
said, “I asked, ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ Ali replied, ‘it deals with…the law that
no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).’
This rule even applied when a Muslim slave killed a free Infidel:
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 44, Number 44.2.2a:…Malik said about a Muslim slave who injures a
Jew or Christian, “If the master of the slave wishes to pay blood-money for him according to the
injury, he does it. Or else he surrenders [the slave] and he is sold, and the Jew or Christian is
given the blood-money of the injury or all the price of the slave if the blood-money is greater than
his price.”
This rule is especially harmful because it left the door open to murder without a meaningful
punishment. According to these rules, a free Muslim, who wished to kill a Jew or Christian,
could simply tell one of his slaves to do it for him. He then “punished” the slave by selling him
to a friend and handing the proceeds to the victim’s family. This was a small price to pay for a
“hit.”
In an era when slavery is not officially recognized in most Islamic nations, a pricing strategy for
murder has evolved to replace the old system above. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the payment
schedule for blood-money is:228
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,667 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman
227
283, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 14, Number 2745, Book 39, Numbers 4491 &
4515, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 43, Number 43.15.8b.
228
Last Rights: Saudis Welcome Foreigners to Work – But Not to Die – Nation’s Strict Form of Islam Blocks Burial
of ‘Infidels’, By Yaroslav Trofimov, The Wall Street Journal, Apr 9, 2002.
114
With the Saudi Riyal being worth about 27 cents in 2006, these prices can be quite attractive.
For while the possibility of death hangs over anyone who kills a Muslim, the penalty for killing
an Infidel is simply a murder tax.
This tax schedule reduces Infidel murder to a mere financial calculation, where the benefits can
easily outweigh the costs. For example, if an Infidel reporter writes alarming stories about Saudi
Arabia, he or she can be easily silenced by a wealthy sheik. Also, Jews should note their absence
from the blood-money schedule, so it is probably not a good idea to visit Saudi Arabia!
From The Pact of Umar, as well as other historical agreements between Muslim conquerors and
the conquered, it is clear that Muslims have never been opposed to colonialism, as long as they
are the colonizers. Muslims do not rail against European colonization because colonization is
wrong. Rather, what outrages them is that they, the rightful colonizers, were instead colonized.
When Muslims colonize a region, their propaganda assumes truly Orwellian forms. The most
Orwellian term is “House of Peace,” itself, which refers to the Islamic world, a region that, since
its inception, has been wracked with internal strife. Another Orwellian term is the one used by
Muslims for non-Muslims living in the House of Peace: “Ahl al-dhimmah,” who are nicknamed
“Dhimmies.” This term stands for “Protected People.” Essentially they are called “Protected
People” because they must pay protection money. As the rules for murder above demonstrate,
they are not actually very well protected.
Islamic newspeak also turns the concept of freedom on its head, as revealed in the explanation of
Jihad found in The Koran for Dummies:229
Jihad…[is]…the struggle (uphill road) to free men and women from servitude and lordship of
anything or anyone other than the Divine, so that he or she can choose and practice submission to
God (Islam) without any restrictions.
Of course, “submission to God” is actually submission to Islam’s religious authorities.
Also, note how the quote above cleverly avoids discussing how jihad deals with people who
choose not to submit to Islam’s version of God. The answer is that Muslims seek to free men
and women for submission, and those who refuse to submit will be repressed and exploited. In
other words, Islamic “freedom” is the opposite of freedom.
With regard to the West, “Muslims struggle to free men and women” from secular democracy,
that is, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”230 As in Orwell’s
dystopia, Muslims apparently believe that “War is Peace” 231 and “Freedom is Slavery.” 232 In
the section of this book entitled Islam overrules science, we will also find that “Ignorance is
Strength.”233
229
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Struggling
against evil, page 253.
230
Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863
231
1984, by George Orwell, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949, Chapter 1.
232
Ibid.
233
Ibid.
115
Clearly, the most accurate translation of Dar al-Islam is “House of Submission,” not “House of
Peace.”
Non-Muslims have historically been an important source of revenue for Islamic nations, as well
as individual Muslims. The next section will present the three major income streams that
Muslims feel justified in collecting from Infidels: war booty, special taxes, and confiscation.
The spoils of holy war against Infidels (war booty)

To see how Islamic nations justify enriching themselves by conquering and taxing non-Muslims,
consider Allah’s reputed words from the Koran:
• [8.41] YUSUF ALI:…out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned
to Allah, - and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer…
• [48.18] PICKTHAL: Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto
thee [Muhammad]…and hath rewarded them with a near victory;
[48.19] and much booty that they will capture. Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.
[48.20] Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture,…that He may guide you on a right
path.
War booty is such an important matter that the Koran devotes an entire chapter to the subject:
Surah 8, whose title translates as Booty, or The Spoils of War. This surah begins as follows:
In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.
[8.1] PICKTHAL: They ask thee…of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah
and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah…and obey Allah and His messenger…
The Hadith provides an explanation of how this verse came about:234
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4328:…My father took a sword from Khums235 and brought it
to the Holy Prophet…and said: Grant it to me. He refused. At this Allah revealed (the Qur’anic
verse): “They ask thee concerning the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war are for Allah and the
Apostle” (8.1).
Verses like these demonstrate that the Koran gave Muhammad and his successors permission to
enrich themselves, at their own discretion, through warfare. While the spoils of war were given
to both Allah and Muhammad, Muhammad was the only one who actually controlled their use.
The taxation of infidels who live in the House of Submission

As we have already seen, the Koran states:
234
A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4329.
235
Literally, “the fifth” in Arabic. This is a tax that applies to war booty and weath that is discovered rather than
earned, such as buried treasure and mineral deposits. Also referred to as Khumus.
116
[9.29] YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion
of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued.
How important was the Jizya paid by “protected peoples” to Muhammad’s followers? The
following hadith reveals that it was essential:236
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:…We said to ‘Umar…, “Chief of the believers!
Advise us.” He said, “I advise you to fulfill Allah’s Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is
the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes
from the Dhimmis.)”
While the Koran and the Hadith provide Muslims with over-all concepts on how to treat Infidels,
Shari’ah codifies these concepts into law. What follows are excerpts on the subject from Al-
Sistani’s Shari’ah:237
VI. Spoils of War
1837. If Muslims fight against the infidels by the command of the Holy Imam (A.S.238) and, in the
war, acquire some booty, that booty is called Ghanimat. And it is obligatory to pay Khums (a
20% tax to the Islamic government) on what remains after deducting the expenses incurred for
protection and transport etc. of that booty, and after setting aside what the Imam spends according
to his discretion, and what he keeps as his special right…
1838. If Muslims engage in a war against infidels without the permission of Imam (A.S.), and win
some spoils of the war, everything that they acquire as the spoils belongs to Imam (A.S.), and the
fighters have no right in it.
…
VII. Land Purchased by a Non-Believer Zimmi239 from a Muslim
1842. If a Zimmi non-believer purchases land from a Muslim, as is commonly held by Fuqaha
(Islamic jurists), the former should pay Khums on it from that land itself, or from any other
property belonging to him.
While Al-Sistani’s website does not provide the date of this fatwa, I have found references to it
that go back to at least February 2004. This means that if Al-Sistani had declared an insurgency
against the Coalition government (essentially forming his own alternative government), then
20% of the booty captured would have been paid to his alternative government, after he takes
whatever he feels is his fair share of the spoils. If Shiites conducted an insurgency without his
approval, then he laid claim to all of the spoils. Section VII states that if an Infidel purchases
property (or some equivalent) from a Muslim, the Infidel must pay a special 20% tax to the
Islamic government. This tax, which applies only to non-Muslims, amounts to an
institutionalized confiscation of Infidel property – as peaceful and ceremonial war booty.
236
237
Islamic Laws, on the topic of Khums: sections entitled Spoils of War and Land Purchased by a Non-Believer
Zimmi from a Muslim. See www.al-islam.org/laws/index.html.
238
A.S. stands for Ali Sistani, the author of this fatwa.
239
An Infidel living under the “protection” of an Islamic government. An alternative term for Zimmi is Dhimmi.
117
Laws such as these explain why clerics like Muqtada al-Sadr strive for greater authority, and
why clerics engage each other in bloody battles for turf. Each of them covets the authority to
grant themselves these spoils, taxes, and confiscations. These laws also show why Mosque and
state cannot be separated once Shari’ah takes hold, and why Islam is intractably opposed to Free
Democracy.
The treatment of Muslims who convert to another religion

While the Koran rails against Islam’s Apostates, it does not define specific legal penalties. To
understand the penalty for Apostasy prescribed by Islam, one must delve into the Hadith, which
provides the answer in numerous places. In the process of doing so, these hadiths also define
what are known as the Hudud240, or Hudd crimes, the only crimes punishable by death:
• Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Number 4152:241…Allah’s Messenger…[said]: It is not permissible to take
the life of a Muslim…, but in one of the three cases: [1] the married adulterer, [2] a life for life, and
[3] the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the [Islamic] community.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:242…Ali burnt some people and this news reached
Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “…I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody)
with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a
Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:243…A man embraced Islam and then reverted back
to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is
wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.”
Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 36, Number 36.18.15:…the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and
grant him peace, said, “If someone changes his deen [religion] - strike his neck!”
Sistani’s Shari’ah adds further insight on how to deal with an Apostate’s family and estate:244
2456. A Muslim who renounces Islam and adopts a non-Muslim faith is an apostate, and they are
of two types: Fitri and Milli. [The] Fitri apostate is one whose parents…were Muslims…, and
he…was also a Muslim, till after having reached the discerning age, and thereafter he
converted…A Milli is exactly the opposite.245
2457. If a woman becomes an apostate after marriage, her marriage becomes void…
240
Also referred to as Hudood.
241
Numbers 4153, 4154, and 4155.
242
243
58, Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4490, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4341.
244
Islamic Laws, on the topic of Marriage: section entitled Miscellaneous rules concerning marriage. See www.al-
islam.org/laws/index.html.
245
This cryptic definition of a Milli actually intends to state that a Milli is a person who converts to Islam (and away
from the religion of his or her parents), but then converts out of Islam again.
118
2458. If a man becomes a Fitri apostate after Nikah (marriage contract), his wife becomes haraam
(unlawful) for him and she should observe Iddah [waiting period] of death in the manner which
will be explained in the rules relating to ‘divorce’.
2459. If a man becomes a Milli apostate after Nikah, his marriage becomes void. …his
wife…should observe Iddah of ‘divorce’ which will be mentioned under the rules relating to
‘divorce’. And it is commonly held that if her husband becomes a Muslim before the completion
of her Iddah, their marriage remains intact.
What is particularly bizarre about Shari’ah’s harsh treatment of those who turn away from Islam
is its deep inconsistency with a Koranic verse that Muslims love to quote when trying to put non-
Muslims at ease about Islamic practices:
[2.256] PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion.
The question is: How can there be no compulsion in religion when Shari’ah requires such harsh
punishments for Apostates? Obviously, Islam’s laws regarding Apostates are designed to
compel Muslims not to change their religion. The answer is that the above verse was abrogated
and no longer has power.
One may wonder whether Shari’ah’s anti-Apostasy laws are actually enforced. Absolutely!
While enforcement varies from country to country, these laws remain active and ready to serve
when needed. Rashid Khalidi affirmed this disturbing fact in his book, Resurrecting Empire, in a
section intended to say something negative about the United States. In trying to portray
America’s presence in the Middle East as impiricism, he inadvertently makes a very different
point:246
Where the United States was involved in the Middle East [after World War I], it was via the work
of Protestant missionaries, who established churches, schools, and hospitals. This effort aroused
surprisingly little local antagonism, since the missionaries quickly learned to confine their
proselytizing to local Orthodox and Catholic Christians and to Jews, rather than…the Muslim
majority…Such an effort…would have been strongly opposed by the local governments while
apostasy from Islam was strictly forbidden by Islamic law, on pain of death.
These anti-Apostasy laws are not archaic remnants from former days; there are plenty of modern
cases where such penalties were executed. Four of the better known examples are:
• Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, one of the liberators of Sudan from Britain, and a practicing
Muslim who simply disagreed with the new government’s implementation of Shari’ah, was
arrested by the Sudanese government and executed for Apostasy in 1985.247
• Sadiq Abdul Karim, a Saudi Arabian Shiite who was arrested on the charge of smuggling a
copy of the Bible into Saudi Arabia. When the judge demanded that he convert from Shiism
246
Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled The Legacy of the
Western Encounter with the Middle East, page 32.
247
Sudan: In the Name of God (Repression continues in northern Sudan), Human Rights Watch, November 1994
Vol. 6, No. 9.
119
to Sunni Wahhabism, Karim refused. In response, the judge declared “You abandon your
rejectionist belief [Shiism] or I will kill you.” Karim refused again, and was convicted of
Apostasy and Blasphemy. He was publicly beheaded on September 3, 1992.248
• Reverend Mehdi Dibaj, a former Iranian Muslim who converted to Christianity, was
condemned to death by the Iranian government for the crime of Apostasy in 1983 and was
executed in 1994.249
• Hashem Aghajari, a professor at Tehran’s Tarbiat-e-Modarres (Teachers Training

University), was sentenced to death in November 2002 for publicly insulting Islam, a crime
tantamount to Apostasy. According to the Associated Press:250
Aghajari, a professor of history…was convicted of insulting the Prophet Muhammad and

questioning the clergy’s interpretation of Islam.
In a speech in Hamedan in June, he questioned why only clerics had the right to interpret Islam,
saying each new generation should be able to interpret the faith on its own.
…
In addition to the death sentence, Aghajari was sentenced to 74 lashes, banned from teaching for
10 years, and exiled for eight years to three remote Iranian cities.
The other punishments could still be carried out even if the death sentence is revoked.
Fortunately, this story ends on a brighter note than the others. After nearly two years, and the
protests of many thousands of students, along with petitions from around the world, Iran’s
Supreme Court overturned the conviction and set Professor Aghajari free.251 The conclusion
of the court, however, should not give comfort. It determined that Aghajari’s words did not
insult Islam; therefore, he need not be killed. It did not conclude that people should not be
killed for insulting Islam.
Shari’ah’s call to kill Islam’s Apostates is not limited to Islamic lands; it applies to Europe
and the United States as well. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains:252
If a Muslim rejects…any of the basic principles, or any matter that all Muslims unanimously
accept and practice, he will be considered an apostate and non-Muslim. Apostasy is a crime
comparable to high treason in contemporary law. An apostate is subject to capital punishment; in
certain cases, repentance is acceptable.
Muslims feel obligated to honor Islamic law over the secular laws of Infidel lands, though some
Islamic leaders have told their followers to respect secular laws until they can be changed
legally. But even if they respect secular governments for now, they chafe at having to live under
248
Death Penalty, published by Amnesty International, AI Index MDE 23/09/00. See
www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html.
249
1995 Amnesty International report on Iran, covering the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995
250
Condemned Iranian gets last chance, by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press.
251
Iranian professor freed from jail, by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, The Guardian (U.K.).
252
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 13, section entitled Apostasy, page 141.
120
the laws of Man rather than those of Allah, and they look forward to a day when Shari’ah rules
the world. Such are the seeds being sown in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other
Western nations where Muslims are moving to live, work and become citizens.
How essential are these characteristics to the success of an Islamic Nation?

It may be jarring to Western minds to think that the sacred texts of a religion would not only
prescribe how to conduct war and divvy up booty, but would also tell believers to tax people on
the basis of religion and punish anyone who Apostatizes with death. However, the historical fact
is that these institutions were essential to Islamic unity and growth. Terror kept Islam’s converts
from leaving the faith after joining it, and Islam’s military expansion was financed by war booty
from Infidels and taxes on Dhimmies.
At this point, it should be clear that Westerners are deceiving themselves when they make
distinctions between “good” Muslims and Muslim Fundamentalists, Extremists, or Terrorists.
Good Muslims believe that people who Apostatize from Islam should be severely punished.
They also believe that the proper position in society for non-Muslims is subjugation. In other
words, good Muslims are extremists, and Muslims who are not extremists are not good Muslims.
While every religion has been stained by murderous extremist sects, these sects are condemned
by mainstream believers. With Islam, however, extremism is the mainstream. Even the
extremists of other religions rarely hold positions as extreme as those of mainstream Muslims.
Islam’s brutal policies have brought glory, power, and wealth to Muslim nations in the past.
However, these benefits were transitory because the income streams created by Islam’s policies
are a sort of pyramid scheme. This can be seen in the history of the Ottoman Empire.
As a young nation, the Ottoman Empire expanded rapidly, and its rulers were thought to be
unstoppable. However, its medieval methods of communication and transportation, along with
its centralization of power in the Sultan, as well as its custom of beginning all military
campaigns from Constantinople, made it impossible for the Empire to project itself beyond
certain limits.253 Once the Ottoman Empire stopped growing, its power began to collapse in a
vicious cycle of decreasing revenues:
1. As the difficulty of conducting ever-more distant battles increased, war booty declined to
a trickle and then turned into losses from failed campaigns.
2. Revenue from non-Muslims declined as Infidels within Ottoman territory either

emigrated or converted to Islam, reducing the supply of non-Muslims to exploit.254
253
For example, sieges of Vienna always failed because of the army’s arrival in late summer and departure in early
autumn, to avoid the cold for which they were ill-equipped. The Ottomans were also remarkably uninterested in the
West’s technological developments until after years of humiliating losses. This latter topic is the subject of Bernard
Lewis’s book What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, Oxford University Press, 2002.
254
An example of this reduction of tax revenue, and the problems it created, can be found in Some Notes on Land,
Money, and Power in Medieval Islam, by Bernard Lewis, Published in a Festschrift in honor of Robert Anhegger,
Turkische Miszellen, in Istanbul, 1987; pages 237-242. This article can also be found in From Babel to Dragomans,
by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2004.
121
3. Revenue from the remaining non-Muslims declined as they reduced their productivity in
response to excessive taxation.255
This triple-loss of revenue brought on a period of decline in which the Ottoman Empire
languished until it fell. However, the Ottoman legacy of moribund economics through Islamic
Law has survived in its successor states up to the present day, except for places blessed with vast
quantities of oil or other natural resources.
Another contributor to the Ottoman Empire’s decline was the Silk Road’s loss of monopoly
power over European trade with China and India. Before the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire was
able to charge excessive taxes and tariffs on commerce along this route. This, in turn, created
powerful incentives for Europeans to bypass the House of Islam, which Portugal did in 1499
when it navigated a route around Africa to India.
The Ottoman Empire’s loss of monopoly power over trade with China and India is often blamed
for its decline. However, a quick review of facts shows that the Empire itself was the culprit.
Consider:
• A voyage from Europe, around Africa, to India, was long, hazardous, and expensive
compared to one that crossed the Mediterranean to Egypt, the Red Sea, and then India.
Yet this alternative was unable to compete with the more hazardous route. This says far
more about the Ottoman Empire than it does about the Europeans or their far-flung
voyages.
• An ancient canal existed that had connected the Red Sea to the Nile River, with the Nile
then going on to the Mediterranean. The potential benefits of restoring this canal, which
had fallen into disrepair, were staggering. It could have established a new source of
monopoly income for the Ottomans, who could have charged Europeans for traveling on
this convenient route. It could also have given the Ottomans a strategic advantage in
warfare: they would have been able to move warships and materiel rapidly from the
Mediterranean to the Red Sea, while preventing enemies from doing the same. And yet
the canal was not restored.
Interestingly, this ancient canal fell into disrepair at a telltale point in time. As The
Middle East for Dummies states, “Several kings had dug and maintained a canal from
about 2000 B.C., but it fell into disrepair after the eighth century A.D.”256
The fact that Muslim rulers allowed this ancient canal to decay, and did not upgrade or
even maintain it, says volumes about their inability to accomplish large projects. This
failure was the natural result of, among other things, Islamic prohibitions against lending
at interest and risk-taking, as the upcoming section of this book entitled The management
255
This is a classic economic response to taxation when taxation removes incentives to work. To further understand
the nature of how Islam’s taxation of Infidels affected their economic activity, see the section of this book entitled
The House of Islam’s relationships with specific non-Islamic nations, under Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
256
The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 6, entitled The
Modern Middle East, page 92.
122
of money and assets will discuss. In contrast to Ottoman inaction, the French proposed
the Suez Canal in the 1850s and, by 1869, had designed it, overseen its construction, and
completed it. This canal has been an economic linchpin of the world ever since.257
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, oil played a negligible role in the fortunes of Islamic nations.
It was during this time that the Ottoman Empire fell apart and Islamic leaders began a
widespread effort to modernize their nations by adopting Western institutions and codes of law.
Turkey went so far as to adopt a largely secular and democratic form of government under their
revered leader Kemal Ataturk.
However, as oil became the life-blood of Western economies, and as the West’s own oil reserves
began to decline, the wealth and power of several Islamic nations climbed rapidly. Today, with
about two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves located in the greater Middle East,258
Muslims have found a new economic engine, which is capable of turbo-charging the traditional
ones of conquest and exploitation. And, with the aid of technological advancements developed
in the West, such as cell phones (for remote detonations) and the internet (to support networks of
terrorist cells), they are conceiving ways to finally achieve Islam’s dream of global domination.
The treatment of women

In the Middle-East of fourteen hundred years ago, the precedents that Muhammad set for the
treatment of women were considered liberal. The issue women face today is not so much
Islam’s ancient liberality or conservatism, but the fact that Shari’ah has not changed significantly
in 1,400 years. While the West has gone through a continuous series of legal experiments on
everything from slavery, to religion, to women’s rights, to child labor, Shari’ah remains little
changed, like an artifact from the days of its founding.
To see how this situation affects women, consider the following Koranic verses and their
implications on the status of women in the House of Submission. Pay particular attention to the
first verse, which already appeared in this book’s discussion on slaves. It explains that, while the
penalty for murdering a man is death, the penalty for murdering a man’s wife is death for the
wife of the murderer (some may claim that the murderer’s wife should only be confiscated, like a
slave, rather than killed). Just like slaves, women are treated as property rather than human
beings, without the right to control their own lives.
• [2.178] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the
murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.
• [2.223] PICKTHAL: Your women are a tilth259 for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye
will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one
day) meet Him.
257
See History of the Suez Canal link on www.suezcanal.com, the official website of the Suez Canal.
258
The Petroleum Bomb, by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey,
Mechanical Engineering, October 2005.
259
Cultivation of land; tillage…Tilled earth. From The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P.
Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
123
The following hadith tells how the preceding verse came to exist, and also explains the meaning
of “as you will”:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Number 2159:…The people of the Book (i.e. the Jews)
used to have intercourse with their women on one side alone (i.e. lying on their backs).
This was the most concealing position for (the vagina of) the women. This clan of the
Ansar adopted this practice from them. But this tribe of the Quraysh used to uncover
their women completely, and seek pleasure with them from in front and behind and
laying them on their backs.
When the muhajirun (the immigrants) came to Medina, a man married a woman of the
Ansar. He began to do the same kind of action with her, but she disliked it, and said to
him: We were approached on one side (i.e. lying on the back); do it so, otherwise keep
away from me. This matter of theirs spread widely, and it reached the Apostle of Allah…
So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: "Your wives are a tilth to you, so
come to your tilth however you will," i.e. from in front, from behind or lying on the back.
But this verse meant the place of the delivery of the child, i.e. the vagina.
• [4.3] YUSUF ALI: If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry
women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly
(with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable,
to prevent you from doing injustice.
• [4.11] YUSUF ALI: Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male,
a portion equal to that of two females…
• [4.24] YUSUF ALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right
hands possess…
[4.25] If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed
believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess…Wed them with the leave of
their owners,260 and give them their dowers…
• [23.1-6] DAWOOD: Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid
profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their
wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)…261
The Hadith provides a practical application of the preceding verse which is particularly
interesting, because it involves Ali, the husband of Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima:
260
How about getting the permission of the slave?
261
Dawood’s translation is used in this case because the two more authorized versions are difficult to read. For the
sake of consistency, however, the Yusuf Ali translation is included here:
[23.1] YUSUF ALI: The believers must (eventually) win through…
[23.5] [those] who abstain from sex,
[23.6] except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands
possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame…
124
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent Ali
to Khalid to bring the Khumus (one-fifth of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken
a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t
you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said,
“O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he
deserves more than that from the Khumus.”
• [2.228] YUSUF ALI:…And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them,
according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is
Exalted in Power, Wise.
• [4.34] PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them262
to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good
women are the obedient…As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish
them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.
In his commentary on the Koran, Maududi, the prominent Islamic thinker and leader mentioned
previously, praises the moderation with which Muhammad exercised the command to “admonish
[rebellious wives], banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” Unfortunately, his praise has
quite a different effect: it reveals the repressive and paternalistic mindset of Islam:263
Whenever the prophet…permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so
with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is
necessary, the Prophet…directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use
anything that might leave marks on the body.
Muhammad’s own interpretation of the Koran regarding women, as well as his “moderation,” is
further displayed in hadiths such as the following:264
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 14, Number 68:…Allah’s Apostle…said, “Allah Akbar!
Khaibar is ruined”…Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed;
the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later
she belonged to Allah’s Apostle, who married her and her Mahr [bridal gift] was her
manumission.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 437:…The Prophet came to Khaibar and when
Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy’s defense, the
beauty of Safiya…was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a
bride. Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached
Sadd-ar-Rawha’ where her menses were over and he married her.
In other words, Safiya exchanged her slavery for freedom by marrying her owner, the man who
wiped out her city, killed her husband, and enslaved those of her family who survived.
262
That is, men.
263
Towards Understanding the Qur’an, by Syed Abul-A’ala Mawdudi (translated by Zafar I. Ansari from Tafheem
Al-Qur’an), Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England. Commentary on Surah 4, ayah 34.
264
431, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143, Volume 5, Book 59, Numbers 512, 513, 522, & 524, Volume 8, and Book
75, Number 374.
125
The following passages also show how Muhammad used Allah to maintain control over his
wives:
[33.30] YUSUF ALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly
conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.
[33.31] But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works
righteousness, - to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous
Sustenance.
[33.32] O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear
(Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved
with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.
[33.33] And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display…
As Islam evolved over time, these words, originally recited by Muhammad to keep his wives in
control, became law for all women.
Other insights on the rights of women, or the lack thereof, come from Ayatollah Sistani’s
interpretation of Shari’ah:
2382. If Nikah [marriage contract] of a woman is pronounced to a man without her consent, but
later both man and woman endorse the Nikah, the marriage is in order.265
2419. If a person contracts Nikah with a non-baligh [pre-pubescent] girl, it is haraam [unlawful]
to have sexual intercourse before she has completed her nine years. But if he commits sexual
intercourse with her, she will not be haraam for him when she becomes baligh [pubescent], even
if she may have suffered Ifza (meaning that her urinary tract and menstrual tract have been
one, or her menstrual passage and rectum have been one), though, as a precaution, he
should divorce her.266
2421. For a woman with whom permanent marriage is contracted, it is haraam to go out of the
house without the permission of her husband…Also she should submit herself to his sexual
desires, and should not prevent him from having sexual intercourse with her…And as long
as she does not fail in her duties, it is obligatory on the husband to provide for her food,
clothes and housing.
2422. If the wife does not fulfill her matrimonial duties towards her husband, she will not be
entitled for the food, clothes or housing, even if she continues to live with him. But if she refuses
to obey occasionally, the common verdict is that even then she cannot claim any entitlement from
her husband.
2426. If a man, for example, has two wives and spends one night with one of them, it is
obligatory on him to spend any one of four nights with the other as well; in situation other than
this, it is not obligatory on a man to stay with his wife…as a precaution, a man should spend one
night out of every four with his permanent wife.
265
Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part I of II, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Conditions
of Pronouncing Nikah.
266
You may have to read this article of law a few times to fully appreciate it. Let it sink in.
126
2428. If Mahr [a dowry given by the groom to the bride] is not fixed in a permanent marriage, the
marriage is in order. And in such case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with the wife, he
should pay her proper Mahr which would be in accordance with the Mahr usually paid to women
of her category. As regards temporary marriage, however, if Mahr is not fixed, the marriage is
void.267
This last clause touches on an Islamic institution that appears bizarre and unthinkable to modern
Western eyes: temporary marriage. As described by Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s Shari’ah:
There are two kinds of marriages:
(i) Permanent marriage
(ii) Fixed-time marriage

…
In a fixed time marriage, the period of matrimony is fixed, for example, matrimonial relation is
contracted with a woman for an hour, or a day, or a month, or a year, or more…This sort of fixed
time marriage is called Mut’ah or Sigha.
2375. If a woman appoints a person as her representative so that he may, for example, contract
her marriage with a man for ten days, but does not specify the day from which the period of ten
days would commence, the representative can contract her marriage with that man for ten days
from any day he likes…
2433. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to subsistence even if
she becomes pregnant.268
This “fixed-time marriage,” when combined with the mahr gift for the bride, constitutes a form
of prostitution that Islam considers worthy of Allah’s approval, with the woman’s “guardian”
playing the role of Allah-approved pimp.
At this point, it is important to note that, while the Sunni and Shiite versions of Shari’ah are very
similar in most regards, the institution of temporary marriage is fully sanctioned only by Shiism,
which is the sect of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sunnis, with whom Saddam Hussein is associated,
are much more circumspect about temporary marriage, as the following quote from a Sunni
version of Shari’ah reveals:269
Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah)
Marriage in Islam is a strong bond, a binding contract, based on the intention of both partners to
live together permanently in order to attain, as individuals, the benefit of the repose, affection,
and mercy which are mentioned in the Qur’an, as well as to attain the social goal of the
reproduction and perpetuation of the human species…
267
Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part I of II, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Rules
regarding permanent marriage.
268
Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part II of II, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Mut’ah
(Temporary Marriage).
269
The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Islamic Book Service, 1982.
127
Now, in temporary marriage (known in Arabic as mut’ah), which is contracted by the two parties
for a specified period of time, in exchange for a specified sum of money, the above-mentioned
purposes of marriage are not realized. While the Prophet…permitted temporary marriage during
journeys and military campaigns before the Islamic legislative process was complete, he later
forbid it and made it forever haraam.
The reason it was permitted in the beginning was that the Muslims were passing through what
might be called a period of transition from jahiliyyah [ignorance] to Islam.…After the advent of
Islam,…on military expeditions, they were under great pressure as a result of being absent from
their wives for long periods of time…The weak ones feared that they would be tempted to
commit adultery, a major sin and an evil course, while the strong in faith, on the other hand, were
ready to castrate themselves, as stated by Ibn Mas’ud: We were on an expedition with the
Messenger of Allah…and did not have our wives with us, so we asked Allah’s Messenger…,
‘Should we not castrate ourselves?’...He forbade us to do so but permitted us to contract marriage
with a woman up to a specified date, giving her a garment as a dower (mahr)…
…
…the Prophet…adopted a course of gradualism in the matter of sex, at first permitting temporary
marriage as a step leading away from fornication and adultery, and at the same time coming
closer to the permanent marriage relationship. He then prohibited it absolutely…In…the hadith
we find the Prophet’s own words, “Allah has made it haraam until the Day of Resurrection.”
…
The majority of the Companions [of the Prophet] held the view that after the completion of the
Islamic legislation, temporary marriage was made absolutely haraam. Ibn ‘Abbas, however, held
a different opinion, permitting it under necessity…Later, however, when Ibn ‘Abbas saw that
people had become lax and were engaging in temporary marriages without necessity, he withdrew
his ruling, reversing his opinion…
Even though Sunnis do not join with Shiites in overtly approving temporary marriage, they
recognize that Muhammad himself sanctioned it at one time, and see it as something that may be
tolerated during difficult times, even if it remains strongly disapproved. The question we are left
with is: Under what circumstances is temporary marriage necessary?
Unless human physiology has changed dramatically since the days of Muhammad, the idea that
temporary marriage is necessary is absurd, as is the notion that men’s sexual urges are so strong
that they have to castrate themselves to maintain control of their bodies. This whole story
sounds like a fabrication meant to rationalize Muhammad’s shifting policies.
To better understand Muhammad’s true position on temporary marriage, consider the following
hadith, from a time when Muhammad already had numerous wives. This hadith echoes the
previous “garment as a dower” anecdote:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:…The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and went in (the
garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been…lodged in a…garden in the home of
Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet
entered upon her, he said to her, “Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift.” She said, “Can a
princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?” The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so
that she might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You
have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge.” Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O
Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family.”
128
While secular governments often tolerate prostitution, Islam introduces the strange notion that
prostitution has Allah’s approval, at least under certain circumstances. This concept is even
stranger because Islam calls extra-marital sex a Hudd crime. Adultery is the crime that nearly
caused the stoning deaths of several Nigerian women in 2002.270 If those women had only
contracted to be married for an hour and accepted payment for it, then, at least according to the
Shiite Shari’ah, the whole ugly business of death by stoning could have been avoided.
Shari’ah does more than condone temporary marriage for women; one of its unintended
consequences is that it also promotes temporary marriage for men. This phenomenon stems from
a set of related hadiths typified by:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:271…Rifa’a divorced his wife, whereupon
‘AbdurRahman…married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil, (and
complained to Aisha of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by
beating)…when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as
much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When
‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from
another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as
useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By
Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie!...she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.”
Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to
remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.”…
One’s initial amazement comes from Muhammad’s disregard for wife-beating, to the point of
requiring the wife to have sex with her abusive husband. However, the precedent set by this
hadith is even more astounding. To see how Shari’ah’s interpretation of such hadiths lead to
temporary husbands, one must understand that, according to Shari’ah, it is very easy for a man to
divorce a woman. All he needs to do is say “Talaq!” (Divorce!) three times and the divorce
begins, even if the words were spoken in a fit of emotion. This power, by itself, can be
devastating to a woman. But Islamic law magnifies the devastation with its interpretation of the
above hadith, which is the foundation of an institution known as halala. This facet of Islamic
law, which is designed to discourage husbands from divorcing their wives too many times,
achieves its objective by humiliating wives. As Iraq’s “moderate” Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah
Al-Sistani, pronounces in his fatwa:272
2536. If a man divorces a woman twice and takes her back…she becomes haraam for him after
the third divorce. But if she marries another man after the third divorce, she becomes halal for
the first husband on fulfilment of five conditions…:
(i) The marriage with the second person should have been of permanent nature. If he contracts
with her a temporary marriage for one month or a year, and then separates from her, the first
husband cannot marry her.
270
Woman sentenced to stoning freed, by Jeff Koinange, CNN, February 23, 2004.
271
186 & 238, Book 72, Number 684, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 107.
272
This section of Islamic Law is excerpted from “Islamic Laws,” issued through the fatwa of Ayatollah Ali al-
Husseini Al-Sistani, Shiite Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. See www.al-islam.org/laws/divorce.html#2519.
129
(ii) The second husband should have had sexual intercourse with her…
(iii) The second husband divorces her, or dies.

…
To Westerners, this may seem like an unlikely situation, but this is because Western divorces are
much more difficult and time-consuming than saying “Talaq! Talaq! Talaq!” – with each
declaration of “Talaq!” counting as an individual divorce (according to many but not all
interpretations of Shariah). Therefore, this seemingly unlikely situation can occur in seconds.
Later, if the husband decides that he spoke too quickly in divorcing his wife, and the two wish to
reconcile, the couple must find a man who will agree to “permanently” marry the wife, have sex
with her, and then divorce her, so that the original couple can remarry. Such a marriage is
common enough to earn its own special name: Nikah Halala.
Islam’s laws are more than absurd; they can also have profoundly harmful affects on women’s
health. For example, Arab News recently reported that Saudi Arabia has attached conditions to a
pregnant woman’s right to enter a hospital:
Men Must Accompany Pregnant Women in Clinics

Essam Al-Ghalib, Arab News Staff
JEDDAH, 30 September 2003 — Deputy Minister of Health Dr. Qassim Al-Qasabi has issued a
directive to all hospitals advising that they should admit pregnant women only if they are
accompanied by men who are prepared to take responsibility for both the mother and child…
…
In the event that a woman is admitted to a hospital’s emergency room and is not accompanied by
a man, she is to be held at the hospital in specially designated rooms to prevent her escape…
If no one comes to claim responsibility for the woman, she is to be transferred to one of the
Kingdom’s social service providers after the local police have been notified.
The need to call the police and physically prevent pregnant women from escaping makes one
wonder about the nature of the services provided by the social service providers. When this
information is combined with Shari’ah’s directive that women proven to have had sex outside of
marriage are to be stoned to death, it becomes clear why those unaccompanied women might
want to escape. It is also clear that many pregnant women will stop going to the hospital.
Another Islamic policy that affects both women’s health and their economic well-being is
opposition to birth control, which religious leaders often portray as an Infidel conspiracy to keep
Muslims from gaining power. This theory ignores the fact that Infidel nations are the greatest
“victims” of this so-called conspiracy. In fact, birth rates in Europe and Japan have become so
low that they are unable to maintain their population levels. Islam’s religious leaders also ignore
the fact that much of the Islamic world faces a crushing overpopulation crisis, which birth
control has virtually eliminated in the West. But while the West views birth control as a way to
avoid overpopulation, poverty, pollution, and habitat destruction, Islamic leaders view it as a plot
to undermine Islam.
130
For example, one Islamic website, Mission Islam,273 says that part of its mission is:
To increase awareness as to the extent of oppression against Muslims throughout the world and
the conspiracy…to exterminate Muslims and the religion of Islam from the face of the Earth.
This website links to an article entitled Population Control: Centerpiece of Imperialist

Aggression against the Muslim World, which talks at length about imagined plots to trick
Muslims into using birth control and thereby depopulate the House of Islam.
The authority for Islam’s prohibition against birth control comes from hadiths such as:274
Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, book 59, no. 459…We went out with Allah’s Apostle…and we received
captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women, and celibacy became hard on us,
and we loved to do coitus interruptus [the “withdrawal” method of birth control]…we said, “How
can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked
[Muhammad] about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of
Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.’
Interestingly, Muhammad’s response implied that Allah gave Muhammad’s followers permission
to rape captured women without any sense of obligation to those they impregnated, because “if
any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
Despite this hadith’s faulty logic,275 it has been interpreted to mean that Muhammad told the
faithful to have full-fledged sex with the captives because coitus interruptus represents an
attempt to prevent souls destined for birth from being born. Thus Muhammad is seen as
opposing birth control.
The next hadith reveals that, on top of Shari’ah’s requirement that women submit themselves
sexually to their husbands, and not use birth control, the powers of Heaven are also invoked to
compel women to have many children:
276
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460: …Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls
his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger,
the angels will curse her till morning.”
The results of Islam’s mandates and beliefs are revealed in the following excerpt of a BBC
article, entitled India losing population battle,277 which also shows another way women who
violate Islamic principles become targets of cruelty:
Aasiyah Begum has given birth to 29 children she thinks, but five have died.
273
See www.missionislam.com.
274
137, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.95.
275
If it is true that “if any soul…is predestined to exist, it will exist,” then it could also be predestined that the use of
coitus interruptus prevented conception.
276
Book 8, Numbers 3366, 3367, & 3368.
277
India losing population battle, by Adam Mynot, BBC News, World Edition, December 3, 2002.
131
…
She says birth control is against her religion - Islam - and adds: “It’s a sin to have an operation.
No prayers would be said at my grave when I die. Only people with serious health problems can
have operations.”
Islam’s opposition to birth control is not unique among religions. However, its requirement that
women have sex with their husbands, on demand, without birth control, together with its cruel
punishments for those who practice birth control, create a birthrate “perfect storm.”
Fortunately, the practical issues of overpopulation are beginning to force Muslim nations to
endorse birth control regardless of tradition,278 but Muslims face no such constraints in Western
lands free of overpopulation stresses.
Shari’ah restricts women in so many ways that appear nonsensical and exploitive to Westerners
that a commentary on all of them would fill another book. To keep the focus of Dare to Speak
on its intended topic, selections from Al-Sistani’s Shari’ah regarding women have been copied,
without comment, into Appendix B. Please read them and reach your own conclusions.
While it may be true that Islam gave women certain rights that Arabian women did not have
before Muhammad, it also gave women a decidedly second-class status. According to the Allah-
given laws of Islam, women are property used as baby-producing tilths. Islam justifies this
ruling through the Koran’s reasoning that women are weaker and men provide for them. And
finally, because women are weak and provided for by men, whom they serve as baby-makers,
women should obey men. Concepts that strengthen women physically, legally, and
economically, such as modern medical care and birth control, and Western notions of fairness
and equality, are secondary matters if they matter at all.
The second-class status of women also explains Islamic policies on interfaith marriage. Muslim
men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women “of the Book,” but Muslim women are not
allowed to marry non-Muslim men “of the Book.” If a Muslim woman wants to marry a non-
Muslim man, then the man must convert to Islam.
Why does this difference exist? The answer is that Islam is less concerned about belief and more
concerned about political allegiance and power. In the House of Islam, children are raised in the
faiths of their fathers. Therefore, the most peaceful and easy way to spread Islam is through
marriage, with the children being raised as Muslims. Furthermore, if a Muslim husband dies, or
divorces a non-Muslim wife, their children must be taken from the non-Muslim wife and raised
by Muslim relatives, a ruling made famous by the movie, “Not Without My Daughter,”279
starring Sally Field.
As time goes on, the inevitable result of Islam’s marital laws is that non-Islamic religions will
dwindle.
278
Iran’s Birth Rate Plummeting at Record Pace, by Janet Larson, Earth Policy Institute, December 21, 2001.
279
Produced by Harry J. Ufland, Mary Jane Ufland, and Anthony Wave, Directed by Brian Gilbert, 1991.
132
Allowing couples to choose their faith on the basis of actual belief does not serve Islam’s
political objectives. Therefore, Islamic politics take precedence over a Muslim woman’s right to
marry the man of her choice, just as it takes precedence over a non-Muslim woman’s right to
raise her children in her own faith, regardless of the strength of her faith or the weakness of her
Muslim husband’s faith. Under Shari’ah, religious and governmental authorities have the legal
right and obligation to force a couple to divorce if the husband and wife do not comply with
these laws.
Despite obvious inequities, Muslim women have been brainwashed into thinking that they are
more liberated than Western women. To understand their perspective, read the following
portions of a website made by and for Muslim women,280 and notice that every time these
women proclaim a right, no matter how trivial, they follow up with a qualifier that undermines it:
Muslim Women Have the Right to Go Outside of Her Home

Muslim women are not forbidden from going out in the community, working, or visiting relatives
and female friends, if there is no objection from their guardian/husband and they are covered and
behave and speak according to Islamic guidelines and, if necessary, escorted by their Mahram (a
close male relative). However, a woman’s home should be the main base that she works from.
…
A Woman in Islam Has the Right to Get an Education
In the words of the Prophet Muhammad…
“To seek knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim.”

…
“Muslim,” here, meaning male and female Muslims, as women are the twin halves of men….
This is referring to religious knowledge, in the first place, and to any other kind of knowledge, in
the second place, where one has the intention of benefiting herself, her family and the Islamic
society. Additionally, a husband should not forbid his wife from going out of the house to seek
basic religious knowledge, unless he is teaching her at home…
The Right to Go to the Mosque

The Messenger of Allah…said:
“If someone’s wife asks his permission to go to the mosque, he should not deny it to her.”
…
At the same time, a woman’s prayer in her home is better, from the standpoint of her household
duties and duties as a mother. Also it is better in the sense that it prevents unnecessary mixing
with men. The Prophet…also stated on another occasion:
“But their homes are better for them.”…
Islam Gives Men and Women Equal Rights
…Equality and sameness are two very different things…
In the West, women may be doing the same job that men do, but their wages are often
280
See www.themuslimwoman.com/herrights/womensrights.htm.
133
less…whatever rights modern Western women have, they fall short of those of her Muslim
counterpart! Islam has given woman what duties [fit] her female nature. It gives her full security
and protects her against becoming what Western modern women themselves complain against: a
“mere sex object.”
The Right to Seek Employment

…
While Islam does not prohibit women working outside the home, it does stipulate that the
following restrictions be followed to safeguard the dignity and honor of women and the purity
and stability of the Islamic society…:
1. Outside employment should not come before, or seriously interfere with her responsibilities as
wife and mother.
2. Her work should not be a source of friction within the family, and the husband’s consent is
required in order to eliminate later disagreements. If she is not married, she must have her
guardian’s consent.
3. Her appearance, manner and tone of speech and overall behavior should follow Islamic
guidelines. These include: restraining her glances in relation to any men near the work place,
wearing correct Islamic dress, avoiding men, not walking in a provocative manner, and not using
make-up or perfume in public.
…
5. Her job should not be one which is mixing and associating with men.
6. A woman should try to seek employment in positions which require a woman’s special skills,
or which relate to the needs of women and children, such as teaching, nursing other women,
midwifery, medicine with specializations like pediatric or obstetrics-gynecology.
While this Muslim women’s website may level some well-placed jabs at Western society, these
jabs pale next to the body blows it delivers to Islamic women. Moreover, there is one jab at the
West that seems misplaced: the claim that Islam protects women from becoming “mere sex
objects.” If Shari’ah allows wives to be punished by their husbands for refusing sex, the natural
effect would be to reduce them to the status of “mere sex object.”
It turns out that the rights these Muslim women claim to have are not rights at all, because every
time a “right” is given with one hand, it is taken away with the other. The bottom line is that
there is very little a good Muslim woman can do without the approval of her husband or a (male)
guardian. She cannot even go outside lawfully unless accompanied by an escort.
How does Islam respond to such accusations? The Complete Idiot’s Guide for Understanding
Islam answers with a clever combination of half-truths, spin, and anti-Western slander:
Islam does not teach that women are inferior in religion or in political rights…Rather, it elevates
women by freeing them from a lot of drudgery that God has said men are primarily responsible
for…Men are the undeclared servants of women, in an ideal Islamic sense.281
281
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 20, section entitled Beyond Stereotypes, page 251.
134
One of the dictates [of the Koran] is that a female will inherit a share that is only half that of the
man’s. This seems unfair on the face of it, but remember, the role of men in an Islamic family.
The man has to support the family as a matter of religious obligation while the woman is not
obligated to spend a dime.282
The Qur’an allows a man to marry up to four wives…What could be the reason for this seemingly
licentious privilege for men?
…
It is an often misunderstood solution to certain unique problems…What…if there is a shortage of
men, say, because of war?…What about men who have a hard time being monogamous…? What
if a woman is barren? Should she be divorced and cast aside in favor of a fertile wife?
…
Polygyny283 is the answer to all of these problems. It actually works in women’s favor by tying
the man to each wife so much so that he is more aware of his responsibilities, trying to earn
enough to support his extended family.284
In other words, Islam does not subjugate women to men, but instead makes men “undeclared
servants” of women. Polygyny does not give men an advantage by making it possible for men to
play one wife against the other, as Muhammad did,285 but actually favors women. Obviously,
this favoritism toward women must be why women are not allowed to marry multiple men. And,
of course, it makes sense for a woman to receive half the inheritance of her brother, because
women do not have to support a family, even if the brother has no family to support but the sister
does.
The Koran for Dummies also adds that one should not say that the Koran endorses polygyny, but
“In truth, the Scripture seeks to limit polygamy, which was uncontrolled and widely practiced in
pre-Islamic times across Arabia and other parts of the world.”286 Unfortunately, The Koran for
Dummies does not explain how this “limit” can have any positive affect on the monogamous
societies of today.
To sort out the reality from the spin, consider the fact that Islamic law requires women to wait
four months after the death of a husband before marrying again, but men are not required to wait
at all. In fact, in a family with multiple wives, the concept of a mourning period makes no sense
because the larger family, with up to three other wives, is still in-tact. The loss of a single wife is
a much less significant event than the loss of a husband, or the loss of either a husband or wife in
a Western-style monogamous marriage. However, once the legal precedent of not having a
mourning period is established for men with multiple wives by Islamic Law, it is also applied to
men with only one wife.
282
Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Why Only Half an Inheritance?, page 259.
283
Most people believe that Islam supports polygamy, but this in fact is not the case, because polygamy allows
women to have multiple husbands. With polygyny, only men can have multiple wives.
284
Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Polygamy in Islam, page 260-261.
285
See discussion of Surah 66 of the Koran, known as The Prohibition, found in the section of this book entitled
Muhammad’s reign: Church and State bound together in one Messenger.
286
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 15, section entitled Giving
equal time: Polygamy for men, page 218.
135
After explaining how polygynous marriage is fair, and works to the advantage of women, The
Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam goes on to talk about divorce. Unfortunately, its
discussion does not explain how Islam’s slanted divorce laws are fair to women. Instead, it
praises them for being efficienct, at least for men:287
Talaq: Male-Initiated Divorce

The procedure for divorce in Islam is relatively easy. If two people have resolved to end their
marriage, then why should there be a long drawn-out and bitter fight in court? The male-initiated
divorce is called talaq, or divorce. The man must pronounce to his wife three times the word
“Talaq!”…then…all sexual relations must stop for a period of three menstrual cycles to see if the
woman is pregnant…During that time, the Qur’an forbids the man to force the woman out of the
house or to emotionally abuse her. He still has to pay all the bills as well…
Khul’:288 Female-Initiated Divorce

Women are not forever bound to men they want to leave. Islam provides a way for women to
initiate divorce called Khul’. Basically, a woman can file papers with an Islamic court or a
recognized scholar, asking to divorce her husband. Although she doesn’t need the permission of
her husband, she does need a compelling reason. She must agree to give up all or part of her
dowry in compensation to the soon-to-be divorced husband, the amount being determined by the
importance of her reason for wanting to leave the marriage…
In other words, after extolling the ease with which men can divorce women, the author goes on
to describe how women must undergo “long drawn-out” court procedures to divorce men.
The power men have over women through their ability to divorce with ease is further
underscored by the following hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 630:...Regarding the explanation of the following
verse: – “If a wife fears Cruelty or desertion…” (4.128) A man may dislike his wife and intend to
divorce her, so she says to him, “I give up my rights, so do not divorce me.”
While Muslims may have a point when they claim that “equality and sameness are two very
different things,” one would be hard-pressed to explain how women enjoy equality with men
under Shari’ah.
After explaining Shari’ah’s “equal” treatment of women, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
Understanding Islam goes on to blame the West for all of the problems that Shari’ah creates:
In most Muslim countries, few people have any rights, men or women. Remember that the
Islamic civilization was virtually wiped out during the era of Colonialism, and thus what is left is
a confused jumble of customs, religious ideas, imported governmental structures, political
turmoil, and poverty. 289
287
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 20, section entitled Divorce in Islam, page 262.
288
Also referred to as Khul’a.
289
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 20, section entitled The Struggle for Equal rights, pages 252.
136
So, from the Islamic standpoint, the liberation of women is not accomplished by rejecting their
religion but by actually implementing it. Replacing the current regimes in Muslim countries with
Islamic governments that will rule according to the Qur’an is also essential.290
In other words, if Islamic women appear repressed, it is not because of longstanding practices in
the Islamic world. Rather, it is the result of Western corruption and domination, and “imported
governmental structures” such as democracy. And the solution to any inequity is, of course, to
rid the Islamic world of corrupting Western-style governance and institute Islamic governments
that rule according to Shari’ah.
Beyond the alarming concepts these supposedly “cute” introductory books present, they carry a
distinct echo of the apologists for Communism during the Soviet Union’s declining years.
People who remember those debates will recall such remarks as: “It’s not that Communism
doesn’t work, it’s that Communism has never been tried,” and “the government of (the Soviet
Union, North Korea, Cuba – take your pick) is not true Communism.”
The people who said such things wanted their listeners to believe that the solution to
Communism’s failure was to impose a more Communistic Communism. And similarly,
according to The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Islam, the solution to Islam’s problems is a more
Islamic Islam. In fact, the argument that Islamic nations do not practice true Islamic Law has
been used to rationalize Muslims living in Infidel lands. As The Koran for Dummies explains:291
If Muslims have a real problem with following secular laws [in Western nations], they should
migrate (make Hijra) to Muslim lands where they can freely follow their religion.
However…that is nearly impossible because there is not a single government left today that truly
practices Islamic law.
As ridiculous as this claim would sound to someone living in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the
United Arab Emirates, it blames Muslim problems on the West in a way that uninformed and
gullible Westerners guiltily accept.
One of the arguments that The Koran for Dummies makes is that, rather than move back to their
homelands in the House of Submission, Muslims should work peacefully through the democratic
process to establish true Islamic states wherever they are. The author seems unable to recognize
that the repressive regimes that Muslims flee are the fruits of Islamic culture. Like vectors in an
epidemic, these Muslims carry the disease they hope to escape.
Returning to our discussion of women, The Koran for Dummies also explains why male
witnesses have a stronger voice than women in court :292
290
Ibid, section entitled The Struggle for Equal rights, pages 253.
291
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 11, section entitled Doing as
292
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 19, section entitled Right to
bear witness to business transactions, page 294.
137
The Koran says that…there should be two male witnesses to [every business] transaction. But, if
two men are not available, then one male witness and two female witnesses suffice, so that if one
woman makes a mistake the other can remind her (2:282).
…Critics…claim that this verse makes women appear intellectually inferior to men…these claims
are incorrect. You have to remember that at the time of revelation, women were largely
unfamiliar with business practices as a sector that was mostly male dominated. (Unfortunately,
the same holds true today for women in some parts of the world.) This stipulation about female
witnessing performs a function of justice in fair business practices and doesn’t represent female
inferiority in any way.
This explanation raises several questions:
• How is it fair that no quantity of female witnesses is sufficient unless a male witness is
also present, even though it is sufficient to have two male witnesses but no females?
• How is it that the eternal word of Allah could have issued a law that was a product of its
times and is no longer relevant? Do Muslims really believe that it is no longer relevant?
• Would the places where “the same holds true today for women,” tend to be in Western
nations or Islamic nations?
Muhammad, whose great wisdom is revered throughout the House of Islam, provides a clear
answer to all of these questions, through a hadith that is repeated numerous times:293
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:…The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a
woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the
deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
Today, few people would argue that the minds of Western women are so deficient that they are
incapable of standing alone in a court of law. When The Koran for Dummies asserts that “the
same holds true today in some parts of the world,” its author is not talking about Free
Democracies in the West. Instead, he appears to describe Islamic lands, where Shari’ah laws
create women who need Islam’s paternalism.
We can therefore infer that the author is correct when he asserts that “This stipulation about
female witnessing…doesn’t represent female inferiority.” Instead, this stipulation joins with
other Islamic laws to impose female inferiority, and dependence on men.
Another way Islam imposes dependency on women is by limiting their mobility, as revealed in
the following article:
Nigerian taxis fined for carrying women

Reuters, MSNBC News, Jan. 6, 2006
293
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28, Book 6, Number 301, Volume 2,
Book 18, Number 161, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125, Sahih Muslim, Book 1,
Number 142, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 12, Number 12.1.2.
138
KANO, Nigeria - A court in the northern Nigerian city of Kano has fined 45 motorcycle taxi
riders for transporting women, in violation of a new rule to comply with Islamic Sharia law, a
court official said on Friday.
The ban on women passengers…has caused controversy in the city, which is predominantly
Muslim but has a sizable Christian community.
Besides hurting all women, regardless of religion, these transportation rules also harm Nigeria’s
economy and quality of life by making it harder for women to work and go about their daily
business, and by depriving taxi drivers of a substantial clientele.
A dramatic way to discover Islam’s true position on women is to read what Muhammad himself
had to say. The next hadith restates Muhammad’s previous quote, but goes even further with his
mean-spirited put-downs:294
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:…Once Allah’s Apostle…passed by the women
and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were
you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You curse
frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in
intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.”
The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He
said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the
affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can
neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This
is the deficiency in her religion.”
There is one last way in which Muslims claim to treat women more equally than Infidels,
particularly Christians and Jews. This is in Islam’s version of the story of Adam and Eve. As
The Koran for Dummies says:
Eve’s story in the Koran stands in stark contrast with the Biblical narrative of creation. Feminists
might find these differences between the Biblical and Koranic narratives quite interesting.
…
The Koran offers a story that absolves Eve, and thus woman, from tempting Adam into sin.
Rather, the Koran identifies Satan as the enemy of both sexes.
By now, it should not come as a surprise that this claim about Islam is untrue. The truth is that
Islamic scripture blames Eve quite harshly. Furthermore, it uses Eve to condescendingly declare
that women are hopelessly errant, as can be seen in the following hadiths:
295
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 547: …The Prophet said, “But for the Israelis,
meat would not decay and but for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.”
294
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28; Volume 2, Book 18, Number
161; Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125; Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 142, and
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 12, Number 12.1.2.
295
Numbers 3471 & 3472.
139
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 548:296…Allah’s Apostle said, “Treat women
nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper
portion [the head], so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is,
it will remain crooked…”
In the light of these hadiths, one can appreciate more fully how the following Koranic verse sets
up enmity between men and women, just as it establishes enmity between Satan and humans:
[2.35] PICKTHAL: And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye
freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-
doers.
[2.36] But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in
which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other!
In summary, Islamic women have been locked into a truly medieval position in Islamic society.
But as abject as Muslim women may appear to Westerners, the position of secular and liberal
Muslims is even worse, as the next section reveals.
The treatment of secular Muslims and liberal Muslims

As discussed previously, Muslims have full rights in the House of Islam while non-Muslims do
not. This explains the phenomenon of “secular Muslims,” who call themselves Muslims for
reasons that have nothing to do with belief. Secular Muslims want to avoid being penalized for
Apostasy, and they want the legal advantages of being Muslim. Similarly, liberal Muslims try to
pick and choose only the Koranic verses that conform to their own personal beliefs. This allows
them to claim to be Muslim, and enjoy Islam’s legal benefits, even though they violate their
obligation to submit to the entire Koran.
While non-Muslims will find similar people within their own faiths, the motivation is much
weaker. For example, “Non-practicing Jews” and “non-practicing Catholics” retain their
religious affiliations for family and social reasons, rather than to preserve legal rights. Liberal
Jews and liberal Christians pick and choose their beliefs, just like liberal Muslims. For example,
there are many American Catholics who condone abortion even though Catholicism opposes it.
They choose to remain Catholics, but call themselves liberal, knowing that they could readily
switch to a more liberal version of Christianity if they want to.
While Jewish and Catholic leaders may be dismayed by their unorthodox brethren, the stakes are
much higher for Islamic leaders. For example, Islamic leaders wonder how well unenthusiastic
or unconventional Muslims will respond when Islam calls for jihad, because jihad requires all
Muslims to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and desertions could bring disaster.
Muhammad faced this problem from the beginning of his reign, and he handled it by calling such
Muslims Hypocrites and punishing them harshly. Islam’s religious leaders have maintained this
policy ever since.
296
Book 8, Numbers 3466, 3467, & 3468.
140
To get an idea of Islam’s intolerance of Hypocrites, consider this excerpt from the January 1999
edition of Atlantic Monthly Magazine, which describes the plight of Abu Zaid, an Islamic
scholar with liberal views on the Koran:297
“The Koran is a text, a literary (rather than literal) text, and the only way to understand, explain,
and analyze it is through a literary approach,” Abu Zaid says…
…for challenging the idea that the Koran must be read literally as the absolute and unchanging
Word of God – Abu Zaid was in 1995 officially branded an apostate…The [Egyptian] court then
proceeded, on the grounds of an Islamic law forbidding the marriage of an apostate to a Muslim,
to order Abu Zaid to divorce his wife…
Abu Zaid steadfastly maintains that he is a pious Muslim…
For a while, Abu Zaid remained in Egypt and sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the
face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled with his wife from Cairo to
Holland…
Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, the cleric whose preachings inspired much of the opposition to Abu
Zaid, was exultant. “We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we
have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion....No one will even dare to think
about harming Islam again.”
When reading about Abu Zaid, keep in mind that many people consider Egypt to be one of the
more westernized Islamic nations. Other Islamic nations may take a harder-line approach, as
Iran did when Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the murder of Salman Rushdie, an Apostate Muslim,
for writing The Satanic Verses.
The underlying issue that liberal Muslims, like liberal Christians, recognize is that their holy
scriptures contain contradictions, either within themselves or with common sense. For example,
with Christianity, nearly all Christians ignore, or work very hard to explain away, Paul’s
declaration that:298
…women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
– 1 Corinthians 12:34-35
Christians also work overtime to reconcile the conflicting stories of Judas Iscariot’s death found
in the books of Matthew and Acts. To see why, read these excerpts:299
When Judas…saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty
silver coins to the chief priests and the elders…Then he went away and hanged himself…So they
[the chief priests and the elders] decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial
place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
– Matthew 27:3-8
297
298
Source: The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.
299
Ibid.
141
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body
burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they
called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. – Acts 1:18-19
Who bought the field? How did Judas die? While it is possible to explain these differences as
the understandable results of two different eye-witness accounts (impalement may have also
been referred to as “hanging”), it is not possible to claim that both versions are 100% clear and
accurate.
Christians handle these issues by claiming that the Bible is a divinely inspired work, written by
men. As such, Christians grant that the Bible may contain some imperfections, but this
admission doesn’t shatter its underlying credibility. Instead, it gives people the freedom to
downplay some passages without being accused of Apostasy. Muslims, on the other hand, have
no such escape hatch. For them, there are only two options: either the Koran is the complete,
literal, and unaltered word of Allah, or it is not. If it is not, then Islam’s primary claim to
legitimacy is false. From Islam’s perspective, any free thought or criticism regarding the Koran
is viewed as a very deep threat. It amounts to Apostasy, a crime punishable by death.
Dire consequences await those who disagree with Islamic authorities on the nature or message of
the Koran. This repression destroys free thought. It also kills those who think freely.
Harsh intolerance has spawned bloody conflicts within the House of Submission ever since its
earliest days. Muhammad himself set the stage for sectarian violence when he declared:
300
Sunan Tirmidhi, Number 56 …Allah’s Messenger…said: There will befall my Ummah exactly
(all those) evils which befell the people of Isra’il, so much so that if there was one amongst them
who openly committed fornication with his mother there will be among my Ummah one who will
do that, and if the people of Isra’il were fragmented into seventy-two sects my Ummah will be
fragmented into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in Hell Fire except one sect. They (the
Companions) said: Allah’s Messenger, which is that? Whereupon he said: It is one to which I
and my companions belong.
In fact, according to Muhammad, bloody violence between Islamic sects is a requirement for
bringing about the end-times, when Islam finally achieves its ultimate redemption and glory:
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6902:…Allah’s Messenger [said:] The last Hour will not come
until the two parties (of Muslims) confront each other and there is a large-scale massacre amongst
them and the claim of both of them is the same.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6903:…Allah’s Messenger [said]: The last Hour will not come
unless there is much bloodshed. They said: What is harj? Thereupon he said: Bloodshed.
bloodshed.
With these graphic and damning words, Muhammad laid the groundwork for violent competition
between various Islamic sects, where each sect calls itself “the Congregation,” and strives to
300
Sunan Tirmidhi numberings vary; this hadith numbering came from Alim 6.0 CD-ROM version; other versions
say that this hadith is Number 171. A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 40, Number 4579.
142
bring on the end-times through bloodshed, grabbing eternal glory for itself while sending the
others to Hell. Muhammad’s words tell each sect to view every other with nearly the same
contempt that they reserve for Infidels and Polytheists. Even today, each sect is quick to call
every other sect “Hypocrite,” or even “Apostate,” for perverting the intents of Allah.
One may wonder whether Muslims of differing sects really are this hostile toward each other.
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran provides a subtly-worded answer to this question when
it says:
If any person takes part in activities, or expresses beliefs, that clearly go against the teachings of
the Koran or the authentic Sunna,301 then that person’s activities or doctrines are not Islamic.
Unfortunately, there is no universal agreement on which hadiths are authentic. Therefore, there
can be no universal agreement on the authentic Sunnah (the life of Muhammad), which the
hadiths record. What the authors of this “Idiot’s” book are subtly saying is that all Muslims who
revere Hadiths other than their own are un-Islamic and have been misled by false testimonies
about Muhammad’s life. This places them in the same category of misled believers as Christians
and Jews. Unfortunately, every Muslim sect feels this way about every other Muslim sect.
Similarly, the Koran calls any Muslim who is not willing to fight for Islam, or who maintains
friendships with Infidels, a Hypocrite, as revealed below:
• [3.167] PICKTHAL: And that He might know the hypocrites, unto whom it was said: Come,
fight in the way of Allah, or defend yourselves. They answered: If we knew aught of fighting we
would follow you. On that day they were nearer disbelief than faith. They utter with their
mouths a thing which is not in their hearts.
• [4.88] PICKTHAL: What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites…?
[4.89] They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level
(with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah
[that is, leave their homes to fight for Allah]; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill
them wherever ye find them…
• [4.138] YUSUF ALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them…a grievous
penalty;-
[4.139] Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honor they seek
among them? Nay, - all honor is with Allah.
[4.140] …Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-
[4.141] (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah,
they say: “Were we not with you?” - but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them):
“Did…we not guard you from the believers?”
…
[4.145] The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-
301
The example or way of life of Muhammad, embracing his words and actions. The Sunna is revealed primarily
through the Hadith, though the Koran and other historical references also reveal or confirm portions of it. Like the
Hadith it is derived from, the Sunna is controversial; what one considers to be the Sunna depends upon what one
considers to be the Hadith. Also referred to as Sunnah.
143
• [33.60] PICKTHAL: If the hypocrites…do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them,
then they will be your neighbors…but a little while.
[33.61] Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
Thus, Islam does more than oppress non-Muslims. It also oppresses and terrorizes its own
believers, threatening them with death and eternal torment if they are insufficiently faithful.
Beyond these threats, Islam also has financial laws that unwittingly bring hardship upon even the
most devout Muslim. In the next section, which discusses Islam’s prohibitions on asset and risk
management, we will see how Shari’ah cripples the ability of Muslims to engage in commerce,
make large investments in speculative ventures, and cover risks through insurance.
Islamic Economics
As the ruler of an empire, Muhammad developed a number of legal rulings on business
transactions within his realm. These rulings dealt with loans, commercial transactions, farming,
livestock, gambling, inheritance, nepotism, and legal testimony. In the centuries that followed,
these rulings were generalized into a comprehensive system now called Islamic Economics,
which is a subset of Islamic Law. This section presents the major aspects of Islamic Economics
and their effects on Muslims.
Banking, Investment, and Insurance

No aspect of Islamic Economics affects Muslims more than the prohibition against lending with
interest:
• [2.275] YUSUF ALI: Those who devour usury [interest income from lending] will not stand,
except as stand one whom the Evil one by his touch Hath driven to madness. That is because
they say: “Trade is like usury,” but Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury.
• [4.161] PICKTHAL: And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it…We have
prepared…a painful doom.
While these verses only imply divine punishment for usery, Islam also provides earthly
punishments for those who lend with interest, as the following hadith reveals:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 19, Number 3035:…The Apostle of Allah…concluded peace with the
people of Najran on condition that they would pay to Muslims two thousand suits of garments,
half of Safar, and the rest in Rajab, and they would lend (Muslims) thirty coats of mail, thirty
horses, thirty camels, and thirty weapons of each type used in battle. Muslims will stand surely
for them until they return them in case there is any plot or treachery in the Yemen. No church of
theirs will be demolished and no clergyman of theirs will be turned out. There will be no
interruption in their religion until they bring something new or take usury. Isma’il said: They
took usury.
144
This prohibition is codified in Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s version of Shari’ah, under its list of
unlawful business practices. This Shari’ah tells believers that any transaction involving interest
is prohibited, except under special circumstances:302
2063. There are many Haraam deals and businesses;…mentioned below:

…
(iv) Any transaction which involves interest.
2088 …a Muslim can take interest from a non-Muslim…[the importance of this clause will soon
become apparent]
This prohibition against lending money at interest may initially sound good to some people. It
also resonates with some interpretations of the Bible.303 Unfortunately, it also devastates
economies.
The reason for this comes down to two basic facts:
1. Money in a person’s hand today is worth more to that person than money promised in the
future. Why? Because money is intrinsically useful (if you have it, you can spend it; if
you lend it, you cannot) and everyone faces uncertainty about future events, such as
repayment.
2. Most economies operate with some level of inflation. In an inflationary environment,
money is constantly losing value. Therefore lenders must charge interest simply to
preserve the value of the money they loan.
It turns out that the people whom the Koran claimed to be “driven to madness” by the touch of
“the Evil one” were actually correct. Trade really is like “usury,” which we call “lending with
interest.” Such lending allows people to freely exchange money today for money in the future,
and vice versa, just as trade allows people to exchange one good for another. Strangely, Allah’s
perfect wisdom, as spoken in the Koran, missed this fact.
Despite the Koran’s lack of understanding, this concept is essential to banking, finance, and
insurance. To see this, consider a bank: It lends money, knowing that a certain percentage of
those loans will default. To stay in business, the bank must charge an interest rate on its loans to
cover those losses and provide competitive salaries for its employees.
This example demonstrates that interest charges are not inherently evil. In fact, they are the
lifeblood of financial institutions because lenders, like everyone else, expect to be paid for their
services.
In the West, “usury” has become a term reserved for loans with excessive interest rates that
exploit the ignorant and desperate. However, loans that charge competitive interest rates are
302
Islamic Laws, Transactions, Part I of III, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, section entitled Haraam
(unlawful) Transactions
303
See Bible, Psalm 15: “Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? He whose walk is blameless…who lends his
money without usury…” (quoted from The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing
House, 1985).
145
more than acceptable; they are essential to commerce. Without them, it would be almost
impossible to undertake any large private enterprise. Their absence would cause the flood of
innovations that power the West’s success, such as automobiles, electricity, telephones,
passenger jets, computers, and satellites, to slow to a trickle.
The historical lack of loans, stocks, bonds, annuities, and other financial instruments in the
Islamic world has played a major role in its poverty, with the exception of nations with vast oil
reserves. This poverty is the unavoidable result of Shari’ah’s laws against lending with interest,
despite the claims of Muslim leaders, such as Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Osama bin
Laden, who prefer to blame Islamic destitution on imagined Infidel conspiracies.304
Interestingly, there was a long time when the Christian world imposed similar self-defeating
financial rules upon itself, which caused the money-lending Jews to enjoy financial success
despite their persecution.
In the past, Jews were persecuted throughout Christendom and were prevented from owning
property. One of the few career options available to them was finance, largely because lending
money at interest was considered usury, a business unworthy of Christians. Fortunately for the
Jews, finance is a lucrative business, and they often prospered. Thus, despite their persecution,
Jews gained financial power, and came to be seen as a necessary evil.
Famous relics from those days are Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and, intriguingly, the
Magna Carta, which was signed under duress by King John in 1215. With its mighty reputation
for laying the foundations of parliamentary government, the Magna Carta will surprise a first-
time reader by referring specifically to England’s Jews, as shown in these excerpts:
Article 10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, dies before that loan
be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age…
Article 11. And if anyone dies indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay
nothing of that debt…
Apparently, the Magna Carta uses the term “Jew” where people today would say “banker” or
“creditor.”
Fortunately, as Christendom emerged from the late Middle Ages, church leaders such as
Bernardino of Sienna came to appreciate that lending with interest could be legitimate and
beneficial for all. This realization played an important role in Europe’s ascendancy.
For Muslims, however, this realization cannot occur, because the Koran eternally rules it out.
Consequently, Jews (and Christians) tend to be prosperous compared to Muslims in the House of
Islam, even though they suffer socially and legally.
Recently, some enlightened Muslims recognized that Western-style financial instruments

contribute to economic vitality. In response, they developed a set of financial services known
304
See the chapter of this book entitled Chapter 1: The new Cold War.
146
collectively as Islamic banking. Essentially, Islamic banking is normal banking, except that
interest rates and risk-taking are disguised in terms acceptable to Muslims. To the extent that it
differs from normal banking, the differences introduce restrictions that damage market
efficiencies and create unnecessary risks.
To peer into the world of Islamic Banking, read the following excerpts from the website of the
Institute of Islamic Banking & Insurance (www.islamic-banking.com). This institution devotes
itself to developing financial instruments that comply with Islamic scripture:
The Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance
Background
What was dubbed a “utopian dream” over two decades ago has become a reality in this short
period…
Islamic Banking – What is Islamic Banking?

The basic principle of Islamic banking is the prohibition of Riba (Usury or interest):
…a basic tenet of Islamic banking [is] the outlawing of riba, a term that encompasses not only the
concept of usury, but also that of interest…
…
Although the western media frequently suggest that Islamic banking in its present form is a recent
phenomenon, in fact, the basic practices and principles date back to the early part of the seventh
century…
It is evident that Islamic finance was practiced predominantly in the Muslim world throughout the
Middle Ages, fostering trade and business activities…It is claimed that many concepts,
techniques, and instruments of Islamic finance were later adopted by European financiers and
businessmen.
The revival of Islamic banking [occurred] in 1976. At the same time financial resources of
Muslims, particularly those of the oil producing countries, received a boost due to rationalization
of the oil prices, which had hitherto been under the control of foreign oil Corporations. These
events led Muslims to strive to model their lives in accordance with the ethics and philosophy of
Islam.
…
Islam not only prohibits dealing in interest, but also in liquor, pork, gambling, pornography and
anything else which the Shariah (Islamic Law) deems Haram (unlawful). Islamic banking is an
instrument for the development of an Islamic economic order. Some of the salient features of
this order may be summed up as:
1. …Islam…forbids all forms of economic activity which are morally or socially injurious.
2. While acknowledging the individual’s right to ownership of wealth legitimately acquired,
Islam makes it obligatory on the individual to spend his wealth judiciously and not to
hoard it, keep it idle or to squander it.
3. While allowing an individual to retain any surplus wealth, Islam seeks to reduce the
margin of the surplus for the well-being of the community as a whole…by participation
in the process of Zakat.
147
4. …Islam seeks to prevent the accumulation of wealth in a few hands to the detriment of
society as a whole, by its laws of inheritance.
5. …the economic system envisaged by Islam aims at social justice without inhibiting
individual enterprise beyond the point where it becomes not only collectively injurious
but also individually self-destructive.
The Islamic financial system employs the concept of participation in the enterprise, utilizing the
funds at risk on a profit-and-loss-sharing basis. This by no means implies that investments with
financial institutions are necessarily speculative. This can be excluded by careful investment
policy, diversification of risk and prudent management by Islamic financial institutions…
The Islamic Financial System

While elimination of “Riba” or interest in all its forms is an important feature of the Islamic
financial system, Islamic banking is much more. In essence, it aims to eliminate exploitation and
to establish a just society by the application of the Shari’ah…to the operations of banks and other
financial institutions. To ensure compliance to the Shariah, Islamic banks use the services of
religious boards comprised of Shari’ah scholars.
The Religious Board

…
The day-to-day application of Shari’ah by religious boards is two-fold. First, the religious board
reviews the operations of the financial institution to ensure that they comply with the Shari’ah.
This is, to a large extent, an investigatory role…the religious board endeavours to answer the
question [of] whether or not proposals for new transactions or products conform to the Shari’ah,
and offers constructive and creative recommendations.
An Islamic financial institution is required to establish operating procedures to ensure that no

form of investment or business activity is undertaken that has not been approved in advance by
the religious board.
Also, the management is required to periodically report and certify to the religious board that the
actual investments and business activities undertaken by the institution conform to forms
previously approved by the religious board.
Takaful (Islamic Insurance)

In modern business, one of the ways to reduce the risk of loss due to misfortunes is through
insurance. The concept of insurance where resources are pooled to help the needy does not
contradict Shari’ah.
…[Islamic insurance] is not a new concept, in fact it had been practised by the Muhajrin of
Mecca and the Ansar of Medina following the hijra of the Prophet over 1400 years ago. It is
generally accepted by Muslim Jurists that the operation of conventional insurance does not
conform to the rules and requirements of Shari’ah.
Conventional insurance involves the elements of uncertainty (Al-gharar)…, gambling (Al-maisir)

as the consequences of the presence of uncertainty and interest (Al-riba) in the investment
activities of the conventional insurance companies which contravene the rules of Shari’ah.
Takaful is an alternative form of cover which a Muslim can avail himself against the risk of loss
due to misfortunes.
148
Until this so-called “revival” of Islamic Banking, the damage that Islamic Law did to Muslims’
economic well-being was profound, as the following excerpt from the Associated Press article,
Islamic banking expands in West, illustrates:305
Many of Britain’s 2 million Muslims have been locked out of buying their own homes because
Shari’ah law prevents riba, or usury – meaning traditional mortgages are off-limits.
When presenting its financial concepts, the Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance makes a
number of intriguing claims that are designed to appeal to Islamic sensibilities. For example:
• Islamic banking is banking without interest.
How can banking work without interest? This section presents typical examples of
Islamic banking by contrasting the Western and interest-free approaches:
o The Islamic home mortgage
If a Westerner wanted to buy a house, he or she would make a down payment and
then finance the balance through a mortgage from a bank or mortgage company.
The buyer would then make monthly payments until the mortgage is paid off.
Because of Islam’s prohibitions against interest, Muslims have lacked a way to

finance home purchases until very recently. Fortunately, the promoters of Islamic
Banking have invented a traditional-sounding new concept known as
“Murabaha.” The Ahli Limited Bank website describes Murabaha as follows:306
Murabaha was first introduced in 1997 and is a simple method of financing the
purchase of your house according to Islamic principles.
…
How it works
You identify the property you wish to buy and agree on the purchase price with
the seller…
…the bank will buy the property…and immediately sell it to you at a higher
price.
The higher price is calculated depending on the value of the property, the number
of years you wish to pay us over and the amount of your first payment…
Your first payment to the bank is made on the day of completion and is your
initial contribution, normally a minimum of 17% of the purchase price.
One month after completion, your regular monthly payments will commence…
In other words, the person who uses Murabaha to purchase a house makes a down
payment, in this case 17%, and then makes monthly payments that are
305
Islamic banking expands in West, Jane Wardell, Associated Press, June 12, 2005.
306
www.iibu.com/buy_home/murabahahow.htm
149
indistinguishable from regular mortgage payments. The higher price that the bank
charges the homebuyer for the house, which the homebuyer pays off through a
series of monthly installments, is calculated to produce the same monthly
payments as the interest charged in a conventional mortgage.
Using the handy payment calculator provided by Ahli Limited Bank’s website,307
one can see exactly how Islamic banking works. For example, if one purchased a
$200,000 home, financed by a 15-year payment schedule, the 17% down payment
would be $34,000 and the monthly payments would be $1,492. This is equivalent
to a situation where a homebuyer makes a down payment of $34,000 and then
finances the balance of $166,000 with a traditional 7% mortgage.
While Murabaha may initially appear to be indistinguishable from a traditional

mortgage, it has a trait that actually makes it much worse. With Murabaha, the
bank owns the house, and the homebuyer purchases it from the bank for a price
that is significantly higher than the original seller’s price.
To appreciate the devastating effect of this trait, an example using numbers is

necessary. If you have difficulty with numbers, please skip the next two
paragraphs to see the end result of Murabaha on the buyer of a $200,000 house.
In the example above, the homebuyer must pay the bank $302,560 ($34,000 +
$1,492 x 12 months/year x 15 years) for the $200,000 home. Unfortunately, the
homebuyer owes the Islamic bank this amount regardless of whether the person
pays it off over the planned 15 years or whether he or she must sell the house
before then. For example, if the new homeowner is transferred by work to
another location after living in the house for a year, he or she may be able to get a
slightly higher price, say $220,000. The amount owed to the bank, however,
would be a whopping $250,656 ($302,560 - $34,000 - $1,492 x 12 months).
Thus, even though the house’s value increased by $20,000, the homeowner, after
using all of the proceeds of the house’s sale to pay off the Islamic bank, would
still owe the bank $30,656 ($302,560 – $250,656).
On the other hand, consider what would have happened if this homeowner had
made a down payment of $34,000 and then financed the rest with a traditional
mortgage of $166,000. After making mortgage payments of $1,492 for a year,
$6,490 of those payments would have gone to reducing the principal amount
owed, so that the homeowner would still owe the bank $159,510 ($166,000 -
$6,490). After using the proceeds from the home sale to pay off the loan, the
homeowner with a traditional mortgage would be left with a surplus of $60,490
($220,000 - $159,510).
In other words, Murabaha would leave the homebuyer in this example $91,146
poorer than if he or she had financed the home with a traditional mortgage
307
See www.iibu.com/buy_home/murabahacalc.asp.
150
($30,656 of debt after home sale vs. $60,490 surplus after home sale). This
difference is nearly half the value of the home.
From the perspective of the homebuyer, Murabaha is grossly inferior to a

traditional mortgage because it forces the buyer to either stay in the home for the
term of the Murabaha or suffer dramatic financial losses. Moreover, Murabaha
destroys one of the traditional ways Westerners build wealth – through the
appreciation of home values.
Islamic banks, however, profit handsomely from this arrangement, cashing in

whenever homeowners move before the terms of their Murabahas finish.
o A simple Islamic loan
The nature of a simple Islamic loan can be seen from the following example:
If a Westerner wanted to take out a simple loan for $10,000, for one month, at a
12% annual interest rate, he could make an agreement with a bank to receive that
$10,000 and then later repay it, plus $100 for the interest, for a total of $10,100.
In contrast, when a Muslim needs $10,000, he or she can go to an Islamic bank

and get it without paying any interest. Instead, the borrower would pay a service
fee for the loan. This service fee might be something like $100. In this case, the
Muslim would ask the bank for $10,100, which the bank would give him. It
would then immediately charge the $100 service fee, so that the Muslim walks
away with $10,000. A month later, the Muslim would repay the loan of $10,100.
Muslims must sure be relieved to know that their Islamic banks avoid the evil and
forbidden practice of charging interest! Islamic jurists have actually developed a term for
tactics such as those used by Islamic bankers: “hiyyal,” which means “trick” in Arabic.
With the aid of this trick, other Islamic financial practices become possible, such as Ijara
Wa Iktina, which is a lease-to-own arrangement primarily for equipment used in money-
generating operations, and Salam, which is used to create Islamic futures markets.308
Rationalizations aside, it is clear that Islamic banking is, at best, identical to normal
banking, and, at worst, is very harmful to customers. Its only benefit is that it uses
terminology that makes Muslims feel comfortable, so that Islamic Bankers can deceive
them, as well as others new to finance, with claims that borrowers do not pay interest.
• Islamic banking existed in Islam’s earliest days, and is being revived today.
This is a very strange claim, given Islam’s strong prohibitions against lending with
interest, and the fact that historical records reveal Jews to have been the former financiers
of Europe. It also rings false because it gives no rational explanation for Islamic
banking’s ancient demise. If Islamic banking existed in ancient times, why would it ever
308
For more information on these practices, see www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/economics/nbank2.html.
151
have stopped? Muslims cannot blame the West for its disappearance, because Islam was
in a state of ascendancy until the 1600s and, throughout the last few centuries of this
ascendancy, it was largely unaffected by Western ways, which it considered backward
and misguided.309
Perhaps the most convincing evidence that Islamic Banking did not exist in Islam’s early
days is the fact that Muhammad himself died nearly broke, and in debt to a Jew, as
numerous hadiths reveal,310 such as:
o Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 283:…Anas went to the Prophet with barley
bread having some dissolved fat on it. The Prophet had mortgaged his armor to a Jew in
Medina and took from him some barley for his family. Anas heard him saying, “The
household of Muhammad did not possess even a single Sa of wheat or food grains for the
evening meal, although he has nine wives to look after.”
o Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 743:…The Prophet died while his armor
was mortgaged to a Jew for thirty Sa’s of barley.
Given Muhammad’s hostility toward Jews, it seems highly unlikely that he would have
taken a loan from a Jew if he could have gotten one from a Muslim.
As Muhammad’s life demonstrated, and the remainder of this chapter will confirm, the
economic legacy Muhammad left his followers was a set of laws that produces poverty,
large families, and bad debt.
The claim that Islamic Banking has existed from the earliest days of Islam is better
explained by a Muslim tendency to take any good idea practiced in the West and find a
way to say that it was used in Muhammad’s time, was Islamic, and was lost because
Muslims strayed away from true Islam. This sort of propaganda will be discussed in
more depth later.
• Islamic banking requires a religious board to govern its decisions and procedures.
In contrast to the Western finance industry’s innovative ways, Islamic Banking’s

religious boards invoke memories of Islam’s religious leaders railing against innovations
accepted long ago in the West, such as organ transplants,311 photos, television, movies,
paintings, and secular music.312 At best, such boards, which operate in addition to the
309
What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press,
2002, page 26.
310
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Numbers 282, 309, & 404, Book 35,
Numbers 453 & 454, Book 41, Number 571, Book 45, Numbers 685, 686, & 690, and Volume 4, Book 52, Number
165.
311
Organ transplants create difficult theological issues in Islam regarding the physical nature of people when
resurrected on the Day of Judgment.
312
These contentions are based on Muhammad’s prohibitions against secular music and the manufacture of musical
instruments, and his claim that any graven image, including realistic paintings of individuals, fostered religious
idolatry. Interestingly, Muslims who claim that photographs, movies, and television are acceptable explain that this
is so because these are mechanical reproductions of real images. Creations made by an artist’s hand, however, are
152
normal structures of corporate governance, add bureaucratic overhead that make Islamic
banks slower to act, less responsive to market phenomena, and more expensive to run.
• Takaful (Islamic insurance) is an alternative to Western insurance that allows

Muslims to cover risks without involving interest, gambling, or uncertainty.
Insurance is a particularly difficult concept for Muslims to endorse because it can be

easily interpreted as gambling. As the old joke says, “You can’t win with life insurance:
they’re betting you won’t die, while you’re betting you will!”
Gambling is specifically prohibited by the Koran:
[5.90 - 91] PICKTHAL: … games of chance…are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork.

Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed…
This prohibition is also expressed repeatedly in the Hadith:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 26, Number 3662:…the following verse of Surat al-Baqarah
revealed; “They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin....”
Umar was then called and it was recited to him…
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.13.25:…“The Messenger of

Allah…forbade…buying something whose number, weight and measure is not known
with something whose number, weight or measure is known…That is not a sale. It is
taking risks and it is an uncertain transaction. It falls into the category of gambling
because he is not buying something from him for something definite which he pays.
Everything which resembles this is also forbidden”…
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 128:313 Allah’s Apostle said: …whoever
says to his companions, ‘Come let me gamble’ with you, then he must give something in
charity (as an expiation for such a sin).”314
These prohibitions against lending at interest and gambling, and against financial
speculation in general, have always made Muslims uncomfortable with the concept of
insurance despite the obvious need. Fortunately, organizations like the Institute for
Islamic Banking and Insurance have recently come up with a concept called Takaful,
which The Bank of Pakistan explains in a publication called An Introduction to Takaful –
An Alternative to Insurance:315
outlawed. Thus, while a movie may be acceptable, a poster for it may not. Saudi Arabia, however, recognizes the
absurdity of such rulings. Therefore it has made movie theaters illegal, as discussed in Daring to use the Silver
Screen to Reflect Saudi Society, by Hassan M. Fattah, in the April 28, 2006 issue of the New York Times, page 4.
313
314, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 645, and Sahih Muslim, Book 15, Number 4041.
314
314, & Book 78, Number 645, and Sahih Muslim, Book 15, Number 4041.
315
An Introduction to Takaful – An Alternative to Insurance, by Muhammad Ayub, Sr. Joint Director of the Islamic
Banking Dept. of the State Bank of Pakistan in Karachi. See www.sbp.org.pk/departments/ibd/Takaful.pdf.
153
Different views have been expressed about the status of conventional insurance…An
overwhelming majority of the Shariah scholars believe that it is unlawful due to
involvement of Riba (interest), Maisir316 (gambling) and Gharar317 (uncertainty).
Takaful, the Islamic alternative to insurance, is based on the concept of social solidarity,
cooperation and mutual indemnification of losses of members. It is a pact among a group
of persons who agree to jointly indemnify the loss or damage that may inflict upon any of
them, out of the fund they donate collectively…
Takaful is not a new concept in Islamic commercial law. The contemporary jurists
acknowledge that the foundation of shared responsibility, or Takaful, was laid down in
the system of ‘Aaqilah’, which was an arrangement of mutual help or indemnification
customary in some tribes at the time of the Holy Prophet…In case of any natural
calamity, everybody used to contribute something until the loss was indemnified.
Similarly, the idea of Aaqilah in respect of blood money or any disaster was based on the
concept of Takaful wherein payments by the whole tribe distributed the financial burden
among the entire tribe…
…
The distinction between…conventional insurance and Takaful…is more visible with
respect to investment of funds. While insurance companies invest their funds in interest-
based avenues and without any regard for the concept of Halal-o-Haram [Permitted or
Forbidden by Shari’ah], Takaful companies undertake only Shariah compliant business
and the profits are distributed in accordance with the pre-agreed ratios in the Takaful
Agreement. Likewise they share in any surplus or loss318 from the pool collectively.
This publication explains why normal insurance violates Islamic injunctions against
interest, gambling, and speculation, and presents Takaful as a concept with ancient
Islamic roots and worthy objectives. It does not, however, explain how Takaful is any
less a form of speculation or gambling than regular insurance.
There is also a question about replacing the “interest” of regular insurance companies
with the Islamic notion of “shar[ing] in any surplus or loss”: Since when did matters of
surplus (that is, profit) and loss stop being speculative? The truth of the matter is that this
kind of investment is actually more speculative than the interest-bearing ones used by
insurance companies. This leads to the next strange claim of Islamic Banking:
• When an Islamic Bank puts its customers’ assets at risk on a profit-and-loss sharing
basis, this does not constitute a form of speculation.
This is Islamic banking’s final deception: It claims that profit-and-loss sharing

arrangements do not constitute speculation. To see the falsehood of this claim, imagine
the Islamic bankers deciding whether to invest their customers’ funds in the ownership of
a business (known as an equity interest among capitalists). What are the first things that
these bankers would do? They would research the market that the business serves. They
316
Any form of business in which monetary gains or losses are matters of chance. Maisir refers to income based on
speculation rather than labor or real sector business.
317
Any major uncertainty about a contract’s subject matter or the rights & liabilities of its parties.
318
Losses, if any, are first absorbed by reserves known as Participants Equity, then from interest-free loans from
shareholders of the Takaful Company, and then by a general increase in pricing by the Company.
154
would investigate the firm’s management team, and the business’s products and services.
They would find out how much money the management itself has invested in the
business. In other words, they would try to determine whether the business is likely to be
profitable.
These efforts to minimize risk implicitly acknowledge that risk exists, and that the
investment is speculative. Anyone who has invested in a business knows that joint
ownership can be one of the highest-rolling gambles of all.
This deception makes other kinds of partnership and limited partnership permissible for
Muslims. Examples of Islamic partnerships are Mudaraba, Musharaka, and Muqarada,
which are discussed in depth at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/economics/nbank2.html.
Until the invention of Islamic Banking and Islamic Insurance, business enterprises in the Islamic
world languished from a lack of financial and organizational tools for raising capital and
minimizing risk. Thus, despite the dishonesty of their arguments, Islamic bankers create
opportunities for Islamic nations to move away from the destitution they have traditionally
known.
Islamic Banking and Islamic Insurance are positive developments for the House of Islam.
Unfortunately, they are only partial fixes because they do not address Islam’s prohibitions
against stocks, bonds, futures, and money markets, which are all purely speculative.
In recent years, through a combination of Western support and native comprehension of a need
for such institutions, stock exchanges and financial houses have begun to arise in a number of
Islamic nations. The following is a list of all stock exchanges in the Islamic world as of March,
2005:319
1. Amman Stock Exchange, Jordan

2. Bursa Malaysia Berhad, Malaysia
3. Dhaka Stock Exchange, Bangladesh
4. Dubai Financial Market, United Arab Emirates
5. Istanbul Stock Exchange, Turkey
6. Karachi Stock Exchange, Pakistan
7. Khartoum Stock Exchange, Sudan
8. Muscat Securities Market, Oman
9. Palestine Securities Exchange, Palestine
10. Tadawul-Saudi Stock Market, Saudi Arabia
11. Tehran Stock Exchange, Iran
319
Report of the Round-Table Meeting on Promotion of Cooperation Among the Stock Exchanges of the
Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) Member States, published by the Istanbul Stock Exchange on March 28-
29, 2005.
155
While this progress is commendable, participation in these stock markets remains extremely
limited. For example, the website for the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) reveals, in its About
ASE section,320 that:
The ASE was established in March 1999…The ASE membership is comprised of Jordan’s 30
brokerage firms.
Jordan’s Amman Stock Exchange exemplifies how recent, limited, and fragile these stock
markets really are, particularly after one understands Islam’s injunctions against speculation.
Inheritance
The book, Islam: A Very Short Introduction, brings up several points about Shari’ah’s economics
which, while subtle, have profound effects on the long-term development of Islamic nations:
[Shari’ah’s] laws of inheritance prevented concentrations of wealth among individuals, as estates

had to be divided according to the provisions of the Shari’a which limits the amount a single heir
may inherit while favouring a multiplicity of claims by agnatic kin (relatives in the male line).
Although these provisions could be evaded by the creation of family trusts (waqf), endowments
from which the founders’ families could draw incomes in perpetuity, such provisions militated
against the productive use of capital for commercial and industrial purposes. 321
…
In many Muslim lands women have been systematically denied their inheritance rights under
Islamic law, either by family pressures or by legal devices such as the family waqf or trust.
Marriage between first cousins, permitted under Islamic law, is often converted into a positive
injunction, with girls obliged to marry their first cousins. The aim of such customs has been to
keep property in the patriarchal family, countering the distributive effects of the laws of
inheritance…322
Some assets, such as businesses and farms, simply do not divide up easily unless they are
liquidated, and attempts at joint ownership often lead to major problems concerning governance.
Thus, Shari’ah’s laws of inheritance favor the liquidation of businesses so that their assets can be
distributed to relatives. This tends to terminate business operations that provide goods and
services to society. Apparently, the freedom that Western testators enjoy, of writing their wills
any way they want, has important societal benefits.
Corruption
This characteristic of Islamic Economics is not only a result of what Shari’ah says, but what it
consents to through silence. Islam: A Very Short Introduction describes how Shari’ah’s
exclusive focus on individual and tribal behavior encourages corruption:323
The Shari’a, both in theory and practice, was uncompromisingly individualistic…
320
See www.ammanstockex.com
321
Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 4, entitled The
Shari’a and Muslim Societies, pages 86-88.
322
ibid, Chapter entitled Women and Family, pages 97-98.
323
ibid, Chapter entitled The Shari’a and its consequences, pages 88-89.
156
The Shari’a recognized no corporate entities…in law…One consequence of the absence of [this]
concept…may be seen in the proliferating alleyways of many pre-modern Middle East cities,
where private territory – cafes, workshops, stalls, and so forth – constantly encroaches on public
space. The public domain…is…not a separate entity requiring legal protection…
A negative consequence of the Shari’a approach to law has been the lack of legitimacy accorded
the public interest in the form of city, state, or any other institution standing between the
individual and God.
Corruption is endemic in many societies, and it would be unfair to target Muslim societies as
being uniquely prone to bribery, graft, and the private misappropriation of public
funds…However, a culture informed by the absence of institutional boundaries between the
public and private spheres may be more vulnerable to such abuses than one where the boundaries
are rigorously upheld by law.
Thus, because Muhammad’s society was tribal and had few notions of corporate or municipal
governance, the Koran addresses only issues pertinent to tribes and is silent on important matters
of corporate and municipal law.
For example, is it wrong for a mayor to hand exclusive contracts for essential services to
members of his own tribe, while excluding others? Shari’ah says nothing against it; therefore,
according to Shari’ah, it is not forbidden. In fact, Islamic scholars have decided that Islam
endorses nepotism. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran proudly declares:324
Give to the Near of Kin First!
At several points, the Koran instructs that voluntary charity should [go] to blood relatives first,
and then to other members of [Islamic] society. Notice who comes at the head of the list in the
following passage: “Give the relatives, the destitute, and the needy travelers their share (of
charity).” (30:38)
It only takes a small step in logic to turn charity for a relative into a job for a relative. Thus,
Shari’ah’s silence on corporate and municipal law, coupled with its directives to help relatives
first, creates incentives for corruption.
Despite Shari’ah’s obvious shortcomings in corporate and municipal matters, no devout Muslim
would say that it is inadequate. To do so would be tantamount to saying that Allah’s law is
imperfect.
The Koran for Dummies also has a section that reveals how, even within the limited context of
law for individuals, Shari’ah has severe defects that encourage corruption. Interestingly, the
book calls attention to these defects in an effort to show how Shari’ah is not as severe as it
initially sounds:325
324
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 15, section entitled Give to the Near of Kin First, page 158.
325
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 17, section entitled Preventing
unlawful sexual relations, page 269.
157
The Koran says a man and woman that are found guilty of fornication should be flogged 100
times (24:2). According to the Sunnah, those who commit adultery should be lashed 100 times as
well as stoned to death.
However, the proof for fornication or adultery is extremely strict. Basically, in order to convict a
man or woman of unlawful intercourse, four male witnesses with a clean record of
trustworthiness must have witnessed the act of sexual intercourse (24:4). Only the actual
witnessing of the act – not just suspicion – can stand in an Islamic court.
Also, spying is completely forbidden in the Koran (49:12). As such, the testimony of someone
who peeks or invades the privacy of another person’s home can’t be accepted…
Notably absent from this discussion is any acknowledgement that these legal hurdles work
against women who have been raped, as outlined in the Wall Street Journal article, Islam and
Rape:326
…most Hudood laws legalize the prosecution of a woman for fornication if she cannot prove a
crime [of rape] was committed. In Pakistan, four Muslim men must have witnessed the event
[rape], and testify for the victim. If the woman can’t produce those witnesses, she can be
prosecuted for alleging a false crime. Penalties include stoning to death, lashing or prison.
Malik’s Muwatta explains why Shari’ah often punishes rape victims with death:
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.4.16a: Malik said, “The position with us about a woman
who is found to be pregnant…and she says, ‘I was forced,’…is that it is not accepted from her
and the hadd is inflicted on her unless she has a clear proof of what she claims…[about being]
forced or she comes bleeding if she was a virgin or she calls out for help so that someone comes
to her and she is in that state or what resembles it of the situation in which the violation
occurred.” He said, “If she does not produce any of those, the hadd is inflicted on her and what
she claims of that is not accepted from her.”
This leads us to the ultimate injustice toward women found in Islam-dominated cultures: honor killings.
Consider a situation where a woman is raped. If she accuses the rapist but doesn't have four
eyewitnesses, she is likely to suffer the punishment reserved for rapists. If she doesn't accuse the rapist
but becomes pregnant, she can be stoned to death for adultery. Faced with these choices, an honor killing
may be the most merciful option available. While this isn't the only circumstance under which an honor
killing can take place -- a girl may be killed by a family member for simply acting in ways that might lead
to this situation -- we can now see a link between Shari'ah law and the practice.
Muslims often claim that honor killing is not Islamic because it is not required by Shari'ah. They claim
that it is instead a cultural phenomenon and point out that people of other faiths can commit honor
killings too in that part of the world. However, they neglect the fact that, in the Islamic world, non-
Muslims are often subjected to the same Islamic judgements as Muslims, and face the same harsh choices.
While Shari'ah does not call for honor killings, it creates an legal environment that encourages it for
people of all faiths. And Muslims are essentially the only people who have carried this practice into the
West.
326
Islam and Rape, Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2006, page A6.
158
Islam: A Very Short Introduction also calls attention to another aspect of Shari’ah’s illogic, in its
effort to show that Shari’ah is not as severe as it initially sounds. In this case, it tells how
Shari’ah invalidates pregnancy as proof of recent sexual activity for single women:327
…in the case of a deserted or widowed woman who becomes pregnant, she may be protected by
the legal fiction (hila) of the “sleeping foetus,” according to which a pregnancy can be accepted
as lasting five or even seven years, while the child remains the legal heir of the dead or absent
husband. An unmarried woman who becomes pregnant can resort to the fiction of the “public
bath.”…a virgin, it was claimed, who visited the public baths after the men had just vacated them
might inadvertently sit on a pool of semen thereby making herself pregnant.
In fact, according to these authors, about the only thing that can cause one to be punished
according to Shari’ah is telling the truth. Muhammad himself confirms this conclusion through
the following hadiths, all of which are told repeatedly:
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.8:328…‘Stoning is in the Book of Allah for those who
commit adultery, men or women, when they are muhsan [married] and when there is clear proof
of pregnancy [according to Islamic standards] or a confession.’
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.1.6:329…two men brought a dispute to the
Messenger…One of them said...“My son was hired by this person and he committed fornication
with his wife”…The Messenger…said, “…Your son should have one hundred lashes and be
exiled for a year.” He ordered Unays al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man and to stone
her if she confessed. She confessed and he stoned her.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 810:330…A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the
Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet turned
his face away from him till the man bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet said to
him, “Are you mad?” He said “No.” He said, “Are you married?” He said, “Yes.” Then the
Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death, and he was stoned to death at the Musalla.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 813:331…When Ma’iz bin Malik came to the
Prophet (in order to confess), the Prophet said to him, “Probably you have only kissed (the lady),
or winked, or looked at her?” He said, “No, O Allah’s Apostle!” The Prophet said…”Did you
have sexual intercourse with her?”…At that, (i.e. after his confession) the Prophet ordered that he
be stoned (to death).
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 10: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PUBLICISE ONE’S SINS
Book 42, Number 7124:…Allah’s Messenger [said]: All the people of my Ummah would get
327
Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 5, section entitled
Women and the Shari’a, page 97.
328
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Numbers 816 & 817 and Sahih Muslim,
Book 17, Number 4194.
329
629, Volume 8, Book 82, Numbers 815, 821, 826, & 842, and Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Number 4209.
330
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 814, Sahih Muslim, Book 17,
Numbers 4196, 4197, 4202, 4205, & 4206, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4414, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book
41, Number 41.1.2.
331
159
pardon for their sins except those who publicise them. And (it means) that a servant should do a
deed during the night and tell the people in the morning that he has done so and so, whereas Allah
has concealed it. And he does a deed during the day and when it is night he tells the people,
whereas Allah has concealed it.
The last three hadiths are particularly interesting because, in them, Muhammad actually
encouraged believers to conceal the truth and thereby escape prosecution.
A final method for circumventing the law is to deny a crime in the name of Allah. The Hadith
illustrates this method through its rescripted Jesus:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 653:…The Prophet said, “Jesus, seeing a man
stealing, asked him, ‘Did you steal?’, He said, ‘No, by Allah, except Whom there is None who
has the right to be worshipped’ Jesus said, ‘I believe in Allah and suspect my eyes.’”
While this hadith establishes a universal precedent for lying under oath and getting away with it,
it is also specifically aimed at Christians, who worship Jesus and are expected to follow his
example. For while Christians would never swear “by Allah, except Whom there is None who
has the right to be worshipped,”they are called on to discount their own eye-witness accounts if a
Muslim swears falsely by this oath.
And what about eternal penalties for the perfidious acts one has gotten away with, with the aid of
Islam’s corrupting precepts? For these, Islam provides its own version of Catholicism’s old
Indulgence doctrine, as can be seen in these quotes from the Koran:
• [2.225] YUSUF ALI: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but
for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
• [5.89] PICKTHAL: Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your
oaths, but He will take you to task for the oaths which ye swear in earnest. The expiation
thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy…, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave,
and for him who findeth not (the wherewithal to do so) then a three days’ fast. This is the
expiation of your oaths when ye have sworn; and keep your oaths.
In other words, “Keep your oaths, but only if you really meant them in the first place. If you
break an oath that you had intended to keep, you can escape moral responsibility through
charitable works or fasting.”
Thus, with regard to truth-telling during criminal prosecutions, Shari’ah and the laws that
generally apply in Free Democracies diverge sharply. Free Democracies will offer leniency to
encourage truthful confessions. Islam, on the other hand, discourages confessions with severe
punishments. It also grants freedom and moral absolution to those who lie shamelessly when
Islam’s demanding burdens of proof cannot be met.
Apparently, Muslims believe that God’s divine and perfect law should have the following
characteristics:
• Extreme punishment, moderated by:
160
• Deliberate ignorance of facts, such as:
o Eye-witness accounts (if one denies a crime in the name of Allah)
o The fact that pregnancy cannot result from entering public baths
o The fact that human live-births have gestation periods that essentially never
exceed 43 weeks.
• Archaic and nearly unattainable burdens of proof, such as requiring four males to
eyewitnesses a sex act, when a modern paternity test based on DNA testing can
accurately identify a father.
• Roadblocks to criminal investigations, such as prohibitions against entering or looking
into a person’s house without permission. These prohibitions make many crime-busting
tactics, as well as rescue operations, virtually impossible. Examples of additional
roadblocks are the Islamic customs of burying the dead within two days of death and
outlawing exhumations. It is common knowledge that essential information about
murders can be found through forensic studies of corpses.
Therefore, not only does Islam encourage Muslims to lie to non-Muslims with the aid of
Taqiyya, it also encourages Muslims to lie to each other during legal proceedings.
While Shari’ah’s rules may have made sense in ancient times, they appear absurd in an era when
modern scientific methods of investigation are available. By today’s standards, Islamic Law
gives new meaning to the term “Blind Justice,” because its legal system is truly blind. A legal
system that punishes those who tell the truth, and is unswayed by the laws of nature, and is
unreceptive to modern methods of evidence collection, is nearly certain to be more corrupt than a
modern one.
To get a sense of the House of Islam’s pervasive corruption, consider the results of a 2005 study
conducted by Transparency International, which calculated a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)
for each nation with a population greater than one million (see table 1).332 Nations with Islamic
pluralities or majorities are shown in black, Free Democracies are shown in red, and struggling
democracies (which have been recently liberated from dictatorships, communism, economic
isolationism, or foreign domination) are shown in blue. Nations ruled by dictatorships or
communist regimes are excluded because of this book’s focus on the conflict between Islam and
Free Democracy. Nations whose populations are between 20% and 50% Muslim are shown with
three asterisks next to them (***) because, as will become more apparent in subsequent tables,
Islam impacts nations even when Muslims are minorities.
This table does not reveal that Islam is solely responsible for the corruption of nations. Instead,
it indicates that corruption can arise from a number of factors. However, it does reveal a trend:
while only ten Islamic nations appear in the top half of this ranking, thirty-eight are in the bottom
half. And, of the nations whose populations are between 20% and 50% Muslim, only one
appears in the top half, while five appear in the bottom half. In contrast, forty-one of the world’s
Free Democracies appear in the top half of the list, while only one appears in the bottom half. In
fact, the top 28 nations are all Free Democracies.
332
To learn more about the methods used to calculate a CPI, visit
www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005, and see the methodology section of Corruption
Perceptions Index 2005.
161
Table 1: 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) Ranking (Nations with > 1 Million people only)
Source: Transparency International (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority)
CPI Rank (least CPI Rank (least
Country corrupt to most) 2005 CPI Score Country corrupt to most) 2005 CPI Score
Iceland 1 9.7 Croatia 70 3.4
Finland 2 9.6 Egypt 70 3.4
New Zealand 2 9.6 Poland 70 3.4
Denmark 4 9.5 Saudi Arabia 70 3.4
Singapore 5 9.4 Syria 70 3.4
Sweden 6 9.2 Morocco 78 3.2
Switzerland 7 9.1 Senegal 78 3.2
Norway 8 8.9 Sri Lanka 78 3.2
Australia 9 8.8 Suriname*** 78*** 3.2***
Austria 10 8.7 Lebanon 83 3.1
Netherlands 11 8.6 Rwanda 83 3.1
United Kingdom 11 8.6 Dominican Republic 85 3.0
Luxembourg 13 8.5 Mongolia 85 3.0
Canada 14 8.4 Romania 85 3.0
Hong Kong 15 8.3 Armenia 88 2.9
Germany 16 8.2 Benin*** 88*** 2.9***
USA 17 7.6 Bosnia & Herzegovina 88 2.9
France 18 7.5 Gabon 88 2.9
Belgium 19 7.4 India 88 2.9
Ireland 19 7.4 Iran 88 2.9
Chile 21 7.3 Mali 88 2.9
Japan 21 7.3 Moldova 88 2.9
Spain 23 7.0 Tanzania 88 2.9
Barbados 24 6.9 Algeria 97 2.8
Malta 25 6.6 Argentina 97 2.8
Portugal 26 6.5 Malawi*** 97*** 2.8***
Estonia 27 6.4 Mozambique*** 97*** 2.8***
Israel 28 6.3 The Gambia 103 2.7
Oman 28 6.3 Macedonia 103 2.7
U.A.E. 30 6.2 Yemen 103 2.7
Slovenia 31 6.1 Eritrea 107 2.6
Botswana 32 5.9 Honduras 107 2.6
Qatar 32 5.9 Kazakhstan 107 2.6
Taiwan 32 5.9 Nicaragua 107 2.6
Uruguay 32 5.9 Palestinian Territories 107 2.6
Bahrain 36 5.8 Ukraine 107 2.6
Republic of Cyprus 37 5.7 Zambia*** 107*** 2.6***
Jordan 37 5.7 Afghanistan 117 2.5
Malaysia 39 5.1 Bolivia 117 2.5
Hungary 40 5.0 Ecuador 117 2.5
Italy 40 5.0 Guatemala 117 2.5
South Korea 40 5.0 Guyana 117 2.5
Tunisia 43 4.9 Libya 117 2.5
Lithuania 44 4.8 The Philippines 117 2.5
Kuwait 45 4.7 Albania 126 2.4
South Africa 46 4.5 Niger 126 2.4
Czech Republic 47 4.3 Russia 126 2.4
Greece 47 4.3 Sierra Leone 126 2.4
Namibia 47 4.3 Georgia 130 2.3
Slovakia 47 4.3 Kyrgyzstan 130 2.3
Costa Rica 51 4.2 Papua New Guinea 130 2.3
El Salvador 51 4.2 Azerbaijan 137 2.2
Latvia 51 4.2 Ethiopia 137 2.2
Mauritius 51 4.2 Indonesia 137 2.2
Bulgaria 55 4.0 Iraq 137 2.2
Colombia 55 4.0 Uzbekistan 137 2.2
Thailand 59 3.8 Pakistan 144 2.1
Trinidad & Tobago 59 3.8 Paraguay 144 2.1
Belize 62 3.7 Somalia 144 2.1
Brazil 62 3.7 Sudan 144 2.1
Jamaica 64 3.6 Tajikistan 144 2.1
Ghana*** 65*** 3.5*** Cote d’Ivoire 152 1.9
Mexico 65 3.5 Nigeria 152 1.9
Panama 65 3.5 Turkmenistan 155 1.8
Peru 65 3.5 Bangladesh 158 1.7
Turkey 65 3.5 Chad 158 1.7
Burkina Faso 70 3.4 Guinea SEE NOTE
Guinea-Bissau SEE NOTE
*** Country which, while not having a Muslim majority or plurality, is at least 20% Muslim.
NOTE: Guinea and Guinea-Bissau were not included in the study by Transparency International, despite their populations of
more than one million people. These nations were placed at the bottom of this ranking because it is presumed that an inability to
collect data – i.e., a lack of transparency – excluded them from the research.
162
Other aspects of Islamic Economics
There are three other important aspects of an economy that are affected by Islam: agriculture,
commodity trading, and goods produced from animal byproducts, particularly pork:
• Agriculture. As numerous hadiths report:333
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 533:…The people used to rent their land for
cultivation for one-third, one-fourth or half its yield. The Prophet said, “Whoever has
land should cultivate it himself or give it to his (Muslim) brother gratis; otherwise keep it
uncultivated.”
In other words, share-cropping is a sin.
Because of physical limitations on what a single farmer can do himself, the net effect of
Islam’s policy is to discourage the cultivation of lands that the owner cannot till, keep
farms small, and inhibit investments in large-scale farming techniques.
In spite of the complaints we sometimes hear about “agribusinesses,” it is their high-tech

methods, developed in Free Democracies, that have allowed the world’s food supply to
grow faster than its human population. Additionally, their large-scale storage and
transportation methods have also made sure that food goes to the places where it is
needed and is edible when it gets there.
In Islamic nations, however, agriculture remains largely dependent on ancient and

traditional methods. These nations often appear in the news because of mass starvations.
While droughts and other natural disasters are usually blamed, the real cause becomes
apparent when one tries to recall the last time people living in the deserts of the United
States suffered a mass starvation. This is because the United States has an agricultural
system that does not depend on local produce, and it has also turned many arid lands
green through irrigation. Even during the disastrous dust-bowl years of the Great
Depression, actual starvation was relatively rare. People moved to new locations and
sought work. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal brought relief. And farmers invented
better farming methods.
Travelers frequently remark on how the passage into Israel from one of its Islamic
neighbors is like passing from a desert into green fields. This is not an accident of
geography. It is the result of modern farming and irrigation methods, which are the fruits
of Free Enterprise.
• Commodity trading. Also recorded repeatedly in the Hadith is Muhammad’s

prohibition against brokers:334
333
Similar hadiths can be found Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Numbers 532, 535, 536, & 537, Book 47,
Numbers 801 & 802, Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Chapter 13, entitled Leasing of Land, which consists of Numbers
3715 – 3741, Chapter 14, entitled Renting of Land for Food, which consists of Numbers 3742 – 3746, and Malik’s
Muwatta, Book 33, Number 33.1.2.
163
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 36, Number 474:…Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Prophet
forbade the meeting of caravans (on the way) and ordained that no townsman is permitted
to sell things on behalf of a bedouin.” I asked Ibn ‘Abbas, “What is the meaning of his
saying, ‘No townsman is permitted to sell things on behalf of a bedouin.’” He replied,
“He should not work as a broker for him.”
While it is unclear how narrowly or broadly this edict should be interpreted, the result has
been caution about engaging in brokering activities. The effect has been to keep a variety
of commodity exchange markets operating at primitive levels.
In the busy souks of the Middle East, one commonly finds something that is rare in the
West: Street vendors who sell goods that they themselves produce. This practice is
evidence of a primitive commodities market. While quaint and charming, this system
also lacks the convenience, quality assurance, and accountability that Westerners have
come to expect.
• Products derived from pork and other dead animals. Muhammad also took the
Jewish prohibition against eating pork and broadened it in a dysfunctional and mean-
spirited way, as revealed in the many hadiths that resemble this one:335
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 438:…“Allah and His Apostle made illegal
the trade of alcohol, dead animals, pigs and idols.” The people asked, “…What about the
fat of dead animals, for it was used for greasing the boats and the hides; and people use it
for lights?” He said, “No, it is illegal.” Allah’s Apostle further said, “May Allah curse
the Jews, for Allah made the fat (of animals) illegal for them, yet they melted the fat and
sold it and ate its price.”
In addition to the products mentioned in this hadith, Muhammad’s prohibition also

applies to products like Jell-O, glue, and soap, as well as a broad range of medicines.
While many modern products and medicines are produced synthetically today, they never
would have been developed in the first place without their animal-based progenitors.
Furthermore, many products still use ingredients made from dead animals. Once again, a
prohibition from Muhammad has created stumbling blocks to innovation.
The over-all impact of Islam on a nation’s economy and development

So far, we have seen many individual components of Shari’ah that impact a nation’s economy,
but we have not looked at their aggregate affects. To appreciate the over-all impact of Islamic
Economics, review Table 2, which ranks nations according to their per-capita GDPs.336 337
334
Book 10, Numbers 3628, 3629, and 3630.
335
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Numbers 426 & 427, and Volume 6, Book
60, Number 157, and in Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Numbers 3840 &3842.
336
The per-capita GDP of a nation represents the average productivity of its citizens.
337
Source CIA World Factbook, 2006. See www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.
164
Table 2: GDP per capita by country (Source: CIA: The World Factbook 2006)
(Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority)
Net oil export Net oil exp. Net oil export Net oil exp.
Rank Country GDP - per capita (million bbl/day) per capita Rank Country GDP - per capita (million bbl/day) per capita
1. Luxembourg $55,600 (2005) 72. Algeria $7,200 (2005) 1.1 (2005) 11 bbl/yr
2. U.A.E. $43,400 (2005) 2.5 (2004) 350 bbl/yr 72. Panama $7,200 (2005)
3. Norway $42,300 (2005) 3.4 (2001) 270 bbl/yr 72. Ukraine $7,200 (2005)
4. U.S.A. $41,800 (2005) 75. North Cyprus $7,135 (2004)
5. Ireland $41,000 (2005) 76. Dominican Republic $7,000 (2005)
6. Iceland $35,600 (2005) 76. Namibia $7,000 (2005)
7. Denmark $34,600 (2005) 0.14 (2001) 11 bbl/yr 78. Belize $6,800 (2005)
8. Canada $34,000 (2005) 0.60 (2004) 7 bbl/yr 78. Bosnia&Herzegovina $6,800 (2005)
9. Austria $32,700 (2005) 78. Gabon $6,800 (2005)
10. Switzerland $32,300 (2005) 81. Lebanon $6,200 (2005)
11. Australia $31,900 (2005) 82. Peru $5,900 (2005)
12. Japan $31,500 (2005) 83. The Philippines $5,100 (2005)
13. Belgium $31,400 (2005) 84. Albania $4,900 (2005)
14. Finland $30,900 (2005) 84. Paraguay $4,900 (2005)
15. Netherlands $30,500 (2005) 86. Azerbaijan $4,800 (2005)
16. United Kingdom $30,300 (2005) 0.40 (2003) 4 bbl/yr 87. El Salvador $4,700 (2005)
17. France $29,900 (2005) 87. Guatemala $4,700 (2005)
18. Germany $29,800 (2005) 87. Jordan $4,700 (2005)
18. Sweden $29,800 (2005) 90. Guyana $4,600 (2005)
20. Italy $29,200 (2005) 91. Armenia $4,500 (2005)
21. Hong Kong $28,800 (2004) 92. Jamaica $4,400 (2005)
22. Singapore $28,100 (2005) 93. Ecuador $4,300 (2005) 0.39 (2004) 11 bbl/yr
23. Taiwan $27,600 (2005) 93. Sri Lanka $4,300 (2005)
24. Qatar $27,400 (2005) 0.76 (2005) 310 bbl/yr 95. Morocco $4,200 (2005)
25. Spain $25,500 (2005) 96. Suriname *** $4,100 (2005) ***
26. New Zealand $25,200 (2005) 97. Egypt $3,900 (2005)
27. Israel $24,600(2005) 97. Maldives $3,900 (2005)
28. Brunei $23,600 (2005) 0.19 (2005) 180 bbl/yr 97. Syria $3,900 (2002)
29. Bahrain $23,000 (2005) 0.16 (2005) 84 bbl/yr 100. Indonesia $3,600 (2005)
30. Greece $22,200 (2005) 101. Iraq $3,400 (2005) 1.4 (2005) 18 bbl/yr
31. Rep. of Cyprus $21,600 (2005) 102. Georgia $3,300 (2005)
31. Slovenia $21,600 (2005) 102. India $3,300 (2005)
33. South Korea $20,400 (2005) 104. Honduras $2,900 (2005)
34. Malta $19,900 (2005) 104. Nicaragua $2,900 (2005)
35. Czech Republic $19,500 (2005) 106. Bolivia $2,800 (2005)
36. Portugal $19,300 (2005) 107. Papua New Guinea $2,600 (2005)
37. Kuwait $19,200 (2005) 2.1 (2005) 320 bbl/yr 108. Ghana *** $2,500 (2005) ***
38. The Bahamas $18,900 (2005) 109. Pakistan $2,400 (2005)
39. Barbados $17,000 (2005) 110. Mauritania $2,200 (2005)
40. Trinidad & Tobago $16,700 (2005) 0.12 (2005) 40 bbl/yr 111. Bangladesh $2,100 (2005)
41. Estonia $16,400 (2005) 111. Kyrgyzstan $2,100 (2005)
42. Hungary $16,100 (2005) 111. Sudan $2,100 (2005) 0.28 (2004) 4 bbl/yr
42. Slovakia $16,100 (2005) 114. Guinea $2,000 (2005)
44. Lithuania $13,700 (2005) 115. The Gambia $1,900 (2005)
45. Poland $13,300 (2005) 115. Mongolia $1,900 (2005)
46. Latvia $13,200 (2005) 117. Moldova $1,800 (2005)
46. Oman $13,200 (2005) 0.72 (2004) 84 bbl/yr 117. Senegal $1,800 (2005)
48. Argentina $13,100 (2005) 0.29 (2005) 4 bbl/yr 117. Uzbekistan $1,800 (2005)
48. Mauritius $13,100 (2005) 120. Cote d'Ivoire $1,600 (2005)
50. Saudi Arabia $12,800 (2005) 7.9 (2003) 110 bbl/yr 121. Chad $1,500 (2005) 0.22 (2005) 7 bbl/yr
51. Malaysia $12,100 (2005) 0.23 (2003) 4 bbl/yr 121. Rwanda $1,500 (2005)
52. South Africa $12,000 (2005) 123. Nigeria $1,400 (2005) 2.1 (2005) 7 bbl/yr
53. Croatia $11,600 (2005) 124. Burkina Faso $1,300 (2005)
54. Libya $11,400 (2005) 1.4 (2005) 88 bbl/yr 124. Djibouti $1,300 (2002)
55. Chile $11,300 (2005) 124. Mozambique*** $1,300 (2005) ***
56. Costa Rica $11,100 (2005) 127. Mali $1,200 (2005)
56. Russia $11,100 (2005) 5.1 (2004) 15 bbl/yr 127. Tajikistan $1,200 (2005)
58. Botswana $10,000 (2005) 129. Benin*** $1,100 (2005) ***
58. Mexico $10,000 (2004) 1.7 (2004) 7 bbl/yr 129. Eritrea $1,000 (2005)
60. Bulgaria $9,600 (2005) 131. Ethiopia $900 (2005)
60. Uruguay $9,600 (2005) 131. Niger $900 (2005)
62. Brazil $8,400 (2005) 131. Palest. Territories $900 (2003)
63. Iran $8,300 (2005) 2.5 (2004) 15 bbl/yr 134. Yemen $900 (2005) 0.31 (2005) 4 bbl/yr
63. Thailand $8,300 (2005) 134. Zambia*** $900 (2005) ***
63. Tunisia $8,300 (2005) 136. Afghanistan $800 (2005)
66. Kazakhstan $8,200 (2005) 0.84 (2003) 22 bbl/yr 136. Guinea-Bissau $800 (2005)
66. Romania $8,200 (2005) 136. Sierra Leone $800 (2004)
66. Turkey $8,200 (2005) 139. Tanzania $700 (2005)
69. Turkmenistan $8,000 (2005) 0.12 (2003) 7 bbl/yr 140. Comoros $600 (2005)
70. Colombia $7,900 (2005) 0.24 (2005) 4 bbl/yr 140. Malawi*** $600 (2005) ***
71. Macedonia $7,800 (2005) 140. Somalia $600 (2005)
Side-by-side comparisons: Compare the per-capita GDP of the Republic of Cyprus (#32) vs. North Cyprus (#76), and Singapore (#21) vs.
Malaysia (#52), and Israel (#28) vs. the Palestinian Territories (#130), and India (#103) vs. Pakistan (#110) and Bangladesh (#112). These
comparisons reveal how Islam has affected countries with otherwise similar physical environments or heritages.
165
Now that there is more than one table, you may wish to compare how particular nations perform
according to various rankings. To do this, refer to Table 5, which is the last table in this section.
It lists countries alphabetically, and shows each country’s ranking according to each index.
The messages of Table 2 are clear and dramatic:
• The nations with Islamic pluralities are generally the least productive and poorest. In
fact, the least prosperous Free Democracy (Costa Rica, #56) has a higher GDP per capita
than the most prosperous non-oil producing Islamic nation (Tunisia, #63).
• The only Islamic nations that perform well have vast oil resources. These nations depend
on Western inventions for both the demand for oil and the means to extract it. A tell-tale
sign of their technological dependence is the fact that Iran, a nation of 69 million people,
and a major exporter of oil, must import its gasoline. This is because Iran has no major
oil refineries. Similarly, a tell-tale sign of the prosperous Islamic nations’ dependence on
the West can be seen in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), where surging oil prices
raised its GDP per capita from $25,200 in 2004338 to $43,400 in 2005. This surge lifted
their ranking from #24 to #2.
The U.A.E. exports nearly 1 barrel of oil for every man, woman, and child every day. In
fact, if one estimated that oil sold for an average of $60 per barrel in 2005, revenues from
oil exports alone would have been $21,000 per capita.
Kuwait provides an even more extreme example. If one again assumed that oil sold for
an average of $60 per barrel of oil in 2005, the value of its per capita oil export would be
$19,200 – exactly the same as its GDP per capita. Essentially, the citizens of Kuwait
produce nothing of value except oil extracted from the ground.
• Islamic nations without oil resources are more than slightly poorer than Free
Democracies. The differences are stark, often more than an order of magnitude. In fact,
the average per-capita income of a non-oil exporting Islamic nation is about $2,820,
while the average per-capita income of a non-oil exporting Free Democracy is about
$25,200.339
338
Source: CIA: The World Factbook, 2005.
339
These averages were computed by averaging the per-capita incomes of each country, to an accuracy of three
significant figures.
166
Of particular interest are the following five sets of nations (See also Table 2):
Original political entity Democratic Nations Islamic Nations340

1. Malaysian Federation # 22: Singapore ($28,100) #51: Malaysia ($12,100)
(Break-up: 1965)
2. British Mandate of Palestine #27: Israel ($24,600) #131: Palestinian Terr. ($900)
(Independence: 1948)
3. Cyprus #31: Rep. of Cyprus ($21,600) #75: North Cyprus ($7,135)
(Division: 1974)
4. European Soviet Satellite Nations #31: Slovenia ($21,600) #78: Bosnia&Herzegovina ($6,800)
(Dissolution: 1989) #35: Czech Republic ($19,500) #84: Albania ($4,900)
#42: Hungary ($16,100)
#42: Slovakia ($16,100)
#45: Poland ($13,300)
#53: Croatia ($11,600)
#60: Bulgaria ($9,600)
#66: Romania ($8,200)
#71: Macedonia ($7,800)
5. British India #102: India ($3,300) #109: Pakistan ($2,400)
(Independence: 1947) #111: Bangladesh ($2,100)
Until recent decades, each set of nations was joined together politically. However, after just a
few decades of separation, their GDPs per capita have diverged sharply. In 2006:
1. Singapore’s was more than double Malaysia’s.

2. Israel’s was twenty-three times that of the Palestinian Territories.
3. The Republic of Cyprus’s was triple North Cyprus’s.
4. All of the democracies (both Free and struggling) that were once European Soviet
satellites were significantly higher than any of those with Muslim majorities. (Note: The
one former European Soviet satellite not listed in either column is Serbia, which is 19%
Muslim and is still reeling from the brutal war waged by defeated ruler Slobodan
Milosevic against the Muslim-majority province of Kosovo.)
5. India’s was nearly 40% above Pakistan’s, and nearly 60% above Bangladesh’s.
These differences recall the contrasts between West Germany and Communist East Germany,
Taiwan and Maoist China, and South Korea and Communist North Korea during the contest
between Free Democracy and Communism.
The ranking of GDPs per capita shows another disturbing pattern, which indicates that Islam
does not need a plurality to impact a nation’s productivity. In fact, a Muslim population of as
little as 20% appeared capable of driving a nation’s productivity to the low end of the scale. In
fact, all 20 of this list’s bottom performers had Muslim populations of 20% or more.
Similarly, of the eleven nations being considered for loan forgiveness by the World Bank in
2006,341 six of them – Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, and Sudan – have
340
These nations are called Islamic Nations because they have Muslim majorities; hence their Muslim citizens have
the power to legislate Shari’ah through democratic or other means.
167
Muslim majorities. In addition, Liberia and Togo, two nations also being considered for loan
forgiveness, but are too unstable or dictatorial to be included in this study’s tables, have 20%
Muslim populations. And the Central African Republic, one of the three remaining countries
being considered for loan forgiveness, which is also too unstable to be included in this study’s
tables, has a Muslim population of 15%.342 In other words, only two out of the eleven nations
being considered for loan forgiveness do not have substantial Muslim populations.
How could Islam have such an impact, even when only 20% (or less) of a nation’s population is
Muslim? While each such nation listed in this study’s tables (Benin, Ghana, Malawi,
Mozambique, Suriname, and Zambia) has its own unique story, common themes are:
• High levels of corruption

• Political instability
• Financial turmoil
These themes are all characteristic of Islamic nations not blessed with vast natural resources.
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the presence of a substantial Islamic minority may
significantly damage the political and economic environment of a nation, even when Muslims do
not have majority power.
For a third perspective, consider the Human Development Index (HDI),343 calculated by the U.N.
for each of its member nations. U.N. researchers base their HDI on a combination of factors:
GDP per capita, life expectancy, adult literacy rate, and school enrollment. Table 3 shows the
ranks of nations according to their HDI scores, and reveals a dramatic difference between
Islamic nations and Free Democracies. In fact, the results in this table are just as stark as those
in Table 2: The highest-ranking Islamic nation is Brunei, at #32, and the highest-ranking Islamic
nation that is not an oil-exporter is Bosnia-Herzegovina, at #60.
This table also shows, once again, how non-Islamic nations with significant Muslim populations
are adversely affected. Of the 25 most undeveloped nations in this study, 24 had Muslim
populations of 20% or more. This group of 24 Muslim-influenced nations does not include
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, which were too unstable for the UN researchers to study.
341
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative – List of Ring-Fenced Countries that Meet the Income and
Indebtedness Criteria at end-2004, by the Staffs of the World Bank and the IMF, approved by Danny Leipziger and
Mark Allen, International Development Association and International Monetary Fund, April 11, 2006, page 6. This
document can be found at www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2006/041106.pdf.
342
The reason 20% was used, instead of 15%, as the criterion in this study is that there were not enough nations with
a 15% Muslim population to say that a 15% criterion was statistically valid.
343
United Nations Human Development Report 2005, United Nations Development Program, 2006, available at
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/
168
Table 3: UN Human Development Index 2005 (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority)
Human Dev. Oil Human Dev. Oil
Rank Country Index (HDI) Exporter? Rank Country Index (HDI) Exporter?
1. Norway 0.963 YES 69. Lebanon 0.759
2. Iceland 0.956 72. The Philippines 0.758
3. Australia 0.955 73. Paraguay 0.755
4. Canada 0.949 YES 73. *** Suriname*** 0.755***
4. Luxembourg 0.949 75. Jordan 0.753
4. Sweden 0.949 75. Tunisia 0.753
7. Switzerland 0.947 77. Belize 0.753
8. Ireland 0.946 78. Sri Lanka 0.751
9. Belgium 0.945 79. Turkey 0.750
10. USA 0.944 80. Dominican Republic 0.749
11. Japan 0.943 81. Maldives 0.745
11. Netherlands 0.943 82. Jamaica 0.738
13. Denmark 0.941 YES 82. Turkmenistan 0.738 YES
13. Finland 0.941 84. Iran 0.736 YES
15. United Kingdom 0.939 YES 85. Georgia 0.732
16. France 0.938 86. Azerbaijan 0.729
17. Austria 0.936 87. Palest. Territories 0.729
18. Italy 0.934 88. Algeria 0.722 YES
19. New Zealand 0.933 88. El Salvador 0.722
20. Germany 0.930 90. Syria 0.721
21. Spain 0.928 91. Guyana 0.720
22. Israel 0.915 92. Kyrgyzstan 0.702
23. Greece 0.912 93. Indonesia 0.697
24. Singapore 0.907 94. Uzbekistan 0.694
25. Portugal 0.904 95. Nicaragua 0.690
25. Slovenia 0.904 96. Bolivia 0.687
27. South Korea 0.901 97. Mongolia 0.679
28. Republic of Cyprus 0.891 98. Moldova 0.671
29. Barbados 0.878 99. Honduras 0.667
30. Czech Republic 0.874 100. Guatemala 0.663
31. Malta 0.867 101. Egypt 0.659
32. Brunei 0.866 YES 102. South Africa 0.658
33. Argentina 0.863 YES 103. Tajikistan 0.652
34. Hungary 0.862 104. Gabon 0.635
35. Poland 0.858 105. Morocco 0.631
36. Chile 0.854 106. Namibia 0.627
37. Estonia 0.853 107. India 0.602
38. Lithuania 0.852 108. Botswana 0.565
39. Qatar 0.849 YES 109. Comoros 0.547
39. Slovakia 0.849 110. Pakistan 0.527
39. U.A.E. 0.849 YES 111. Papua New Guinea 0.523
42. Bahrain 0.846 YES 112. Bangladesh 0.520
43. Kuwait 0.844 YES 112. *** Ghana*** 0.520 ***
44. Croatia 0.841 114. Sudan 0.512 YES
45. Uruguay 0.840 115. Djibouti 0.495
46. Costa Rica 0.838 116. Yemen 0.489 YES
47. Latvia 0.836 117. Mauritania 0.477
48. The Bahamas 0.832 118. The Gambia 0.470
49. Mexico 0.814 YES 119. Guinea 0.466
50. Bulgaria 0.808 120. Senegal 0.458
51. Panama 0.804 121. Nigeria 0.453 YES
52. Trinidad & Tobago 0.801 YES 122. Rwanda 0.450
53. Libya 0.799 YES 123. Eritrea 0.444
54. Macedonia 0.797 124. *** Benin*** 0.431***
55. Malaysia 0.796 YES 125. Cote d'Ivoire 0.420
56. Russia 0.795 YES 126. Tanzania 0.418
57. Brazil 0.792 127. *** Malawi*** 0.404***
57. Romania 0.792 128. *** Zambia*** 0.394***
59. Mauritius 0.791 129. *** Mozambique*** 0.379***
60. Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.786 130. Ethiopia 0.367
61. Colombia 0.785 YES 131. Guinea-Bissau 0.348
62. Oman 0.781 YES 132. Chad 0.341
63. Albania 0.780 133. Mali 0.333
64. Thailand 0.778 134. Burkina Faso 0.317
65. Saudi Arabia 0.772 YES 135. Sierra Leone 0.298
66. Ukraine 0.766 136. Niger 0.281
67. Peru 0.762 Afghanistan SEE NOTE
68. Kazakhstan 0.761 YES Iraq SEE NOTE
69. Armenia 0.759 Somalia SEE NOTE
69. Ecuador 0.759 YES
NOTE: The UN’s Report excluded North Cyprus, Taiwan, and Hong Kong because it does not recognize them as independent entitites.
For Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, UN researchers were unable to gather the data for their studies. For this reason, these three nations are
shown at the bottom of this ranking.
169
There is another issue that is just as important to a nation as its prosperity, and that is its future
prosperity. To help policy-makers understand the likely effects of their economic policies on
future prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have joined together to
create what they call the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF). This index ranks nations according
to their business environments, based on policies regarding trade, taxes, money supply, banking
regulations, business regulations, property rights, and wage and price controls.344 These factors
indicate whether nations are moving toward greater or less prosperity in the future. Table 4
ranks nations according to their IEFs.345
While looking at these rankings, note that the study puts countries into four categories: Free,
Mostly Free, Mostly Unfree, and Repressed. The table below shows that all of the Free
Democracies were either Free or Mostly Free, while none of the Islamic nations were Free, and
the vast majority were either Mostly Unfree, Repressed, or unstudiable:
Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) Classification Number of Free Number of Islamic
Democracies Nations
1 – 1.99 Free 20 0
2 – 2.99 Mostly Free 23 8
3 – 3.99 Mostly Unfree 0 32
4–5 Repressed 0 4
Researchers could not/did not study 0 10
From these results, we can expect that the gap in GDP per capita between Free Democracies and
Islamic nations will continue to widen.
Note that all six of the non-Islamic nations with Muslim populations of 20% or more were in the
Mostly Unfree category. If these nations had been included with the other Islamic nations in the
above summary, the number of Muslim-influenced nations in the Mostly Unfree category would
have been 38 instead of 32.
344
To find out more about how these factors are used to develop a nation’s IEF, see
www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads.cfm#methodology.
345
Source: www.heritage.org/research/features/index/.
170
Table 4: Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) for 2006 (Source: Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal)
(Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority)
Rank Country IEF Rank Country IEF
1. Hong Kong 1.28 FREE 69. Lebanon 3.00 MOSTLY UN-FREE
2. Singapore 1.56 FREE 70. Bosnia & Herzegovina 3.01 MOSTLY UN-FREE
3. Ireland 1.58 FREE 70. Guatemala 3.01 MOSTLY UN-FREE
4. Luxembourg 1.60 FREE 70. Oman 3.01 MOSTLY UN-FREE
5. Iceland 1.74 FREE 73. Mauritius 3.03 MOSTLY UN-FREE
6. United Kingdom 1.74 FREE 74. Qatar 3.04 MOSTLY UN-FREE
7. Estonia 1.75 FREE 75. Nicaragua 3.05 MOSTLY UN-FREE
8. Denmark 1.78 FREE 76. Brazil 3.08 MOSTLY UN-FREE
9. Australia 1.84 FREE 76. Mauritania 3.08 MOSTLY UN-FREE
9. New Zealand 1.84 FREE 78. Moldova 3.10 MOSTLY UN-FREE
9. U.S.A . 1.84 FREE 78. Senegal 3.10 MOSTLY UN-FREE
12. Canada 1.85 FREE 81. Guyana 3.11 MOSTLY UN-FREE
12. Finland 1.85 FREE 81. Namibia 3.11 MOSTLY UN-FREE
14. Chile 1.88 FREE 81. Turkey 3.11 MOSTLY UN-FREE
15. Switzerland 1.89 FREE 84. Cote d'Ivoire 3.14 MOSTLY UN-FREE
16. Netherlands 1.90 FREE 84. Mali 3.14 MOSTLY UN-FREE
16. Republic of Cyprus 1.90 FREE 86. Colombia 3.16 MOSTLY UN-FREE
18. Austria 1.95 FREE 87. Romania 3.19 MOSTLY UN-FREE
19. Germany 1.96 FREE 87. Sri Lanka 3.19 MOSTLY UN-FREE
19. Sweden 1.96 FREE 89. Djibouti 3.20 MOSTLY UN-FREE
21. Czech Republic 2.10 MOSTLY FREE 89. Tanzania 3.20 MOSTLY UN-FREE
22. Belgium 2.11 MOSTLY FREE 91. Morocco 3.21 MOSTLY UN-FREE
23. Lithuania 2.14 MOSTLY FREE 92. The Philippines 3.23 MOSTLY UN-FREE
24. Malta 2.16 MOSTLY FREE 93. Tunisia 3.24 MOSTLY UN-FREE
25. Bahrain 2.23 MOSTLY FREE 93. Ukraine 3.24 MOSTLY UN-FREE
26. Barbados 2.25 MOSTLY FREE 95. Burkina Faso 3.28 MOSTLY UN-FREE
27. Armenia 2.26 MOSTLY FREE 95. Gabon 3.28 MOSTLY UN-FREE
27. The Bahamas 2.26 MOSTLY FREE 95. Honduras 3.28 MOSTLY UN-FREE
27. Japan 2.26 MOSTLY FREE 98. Chad 3.29 MOSTLY UN-FREE
30. Botswana 2.29 MOSTLY FREE 98.*** Ghana*** 3.29*** MOSTLY UN-FREE
30. Norway 2.29 MOSTLY FREE 100. Argentina 3.30 MOSTLY UN-FREE
30. Portugal 2.29 MOSTLY FREE 100. Ecuador 3.30 MOSTLY UN-FREE
33. Spain 2.33 MOSTLY FREE 102. Paraguay 3.31 MOSTLY UN-FREE
34. El Salvador 2.35 MOSTLY FREE 103. Pakistan 3.33 MOSTLY UN-FREE
35. Slovakia 2.35 MOSTLY FREE 104.*** Zambia*** 3.34*** MOSTLY UN-FREE
36. Israel 2.36 MOSTLY FREE 105. Kazakhstan 3.35 MOSTLY UN-FREE
37. Taiwan 2.38 MOSTLY FREE 105.*** Mozambique*** 3.35*** MOSTLY UN-FREE
38. Slovenia 2.41 MOSTLY FREE 107. Niger 3.38 MOSTLY UN-FREE
39. Latvia 2.43 MOSTLY FREE 108. Dominican Republic 3.39 MOSTLY UN-FREE
40. Hungary 2.44 MOSTLY FREE 109.*** Benin*** 3.40*** MOSTLY UN-FREE
41. Poland 2.49 MOSTLY FREE 110. Algeria 3.46 MOSTLY UN-FREE
42. Italy 2.50 MOSTLY FREE 111. India 3.49 MOSTLY UN-FREE
42. Trinidad & Tobago 2.50 MOSTLY FREE 112. Russia 3.50 MOSTLY UN-FREE
44. France 2.51 MOSTLY FREE 113. Azerbaijan 3.51 MOSTLY UN-FREE
45. South Korea 2.63 MOSTLY FREE 113. The Gambia 3.51 MOSTLY UN-FREE
46. Costa Rica 2.69 MOSTLY FREE 115. Rwanda 3.53 MOSTLY UN-FREE
46. Uruguay 2.69 MOSTLY FREE 116. Guinea 3.55 MOSTLY UN-FREE
48. Panama 2.70 MOSTLY FREE 117. Egypt 3.59 MOSTLY UN-FREE
49. Kuwait 2.74 MOSTLY FREE 118.*** Suriname *** 3.60*** MOSTLY UN-FREE
49. South Africa 2.74 MOSTLY FREE 119.*** Malawi*** 3.63*** MOSTLY UN-FREE
51. Albania 2.75 MOSTLY FREE 120. Guinea-Bissau 3.65 MOSTLY UN-FREE
52. Jamaica 2.76 MOSTLY FREE 121. Ethiopia 3.70 MOSTLY UN-FREE
53. Belize 2.78 MOSTLY FREE 122. Indonesia 3.71 MOSTLY UN-FREE
54. Croatia 2.78 MOSTLY FREE 123. Sierra Leone 3.76 MOSTLY UN-FREE
55. Greece 2.80 MOSTLY FREE 123. Tajikistan 3.76 MOSTLY UN-FREE
55. Macedonia 2.80 MOSTLY FREE 125. Yemen 3.84 MOSTLY UN-FREE
55. Jordan 2.80 MOSTLY FREE 126. Bangladesh 3.88 MOSTLY UN-FREE
58. Mexico 2.83 MOSTLY FREE 127. Uzbekistan 3.91 MOSTLY UN-FREE
58. Mongolia 2.83 MOSTLY FREE 128. Syria 3.93 MOSTLY UN-FREE
60. Saudi Arabia 2.84 MOSTLY FREE 129. Nigeria 4.00 REPRESSED
61. Peru 2.86 MOSTLY FREE 130. Turkmenistan 4.04 REPRESSED
62 Bulgaria 2.88 MOSTLY FREE 131. Libya 4.16 REPRESSED
63. U.A.E. 2.93 MOSTLY FREE 132. Iran 4.56 REPRESSED
64. Bolivia 2.96 MOSTLY FREE Afghanistan SEE NOTE
65. Georgia 2.98 MOSTLY FREE Iraq SEE NOTE
65. Malaysia 2.98 MOSTLY FREE North Cyprus SEE NOTE
67. Thailand 2.99 MOSTLY FREE Somalia SEE NOTE
68. Kyrgyzstan 2.99 MOSTLY FREE Sudan SEE NOTE
NOTE: The Heritage Foundation specifically excluded Afghanistan, Iraq, North Cyprus, Somalia, and Sudan. These countries were
not included because researchers could not collect the data needed. Five additional Islamic nations, Brunei, Comoros, Eritrea,
Maldives, and the Palestinian Territories, were excluded for unstated reasons.
171
Table 5: Summary of Indexes (Red=Free Democracy, Blue=Struggling Democracy, Black=Islamic plurality/majority)
Net oil exp. GDP Net oil exp GDP
Country per capita CPI per cap HDI IEF Country Per capita CPI per cap HDI IEF
Afghanistan 117 136 ^ ^ Lebanon 83 81 69 69
Albania 126 84 63 51 Libya 88 bbl/yr 117 54 53 131
Algeria 11 bbl/yr 97 72 88 110 Lithuania 44 44 38 23
Argentina 4 bbl/yr 97 48 33 100 Luxembourg 13 1 4 4
Armenia 88 91 69 27 Macedonia 103 71 54 55
Australia 9 11 3 9 Malawi*** 97*** 140*** 127*** 119***
Austria 10 9 17 18 Malaysia 4 bbl/yr 39 51 55 65
Azerbaijan 137 86 86 113 Maldives ^ 97 81 ^
Bahamas, The ^ 38 48 27 Mali 88 127 133 84
Bahrain 84 bbl/yr 36 29 42 25 Malta 25 34 31 24
Bangladesh 158 111 112 126 Mauritania ^ 110 117 76
Barbados 24 39 29 26 Mauritius 51 48 59 73
Belgium 19 13 9 22 Mexico 7 bbl/yr 65 58 49 58
Belize 62 78 77 53 Moldova 88 117 98 78
Benin*** 88*** 129*** 124*** 109*** Mongolia 85 115 97 58
Bolivia 117 106 96 64 Morocco 78 95 105 91
Bosnia & Herzegovina 88 78 60 70 Mozambique*** 97*** 124*** 129*** 105***
Botswana 32 58 108 30 Namibia 47 76 106 81
Brazil 62 62 56 76 Netherlands 11 15 11 16
Brunei 180 bbl/yr ^ 28 32 ^ New Zealand 2 26 19 9
Bulgaria 55 60 50 66 Nicaragua 107 105 95 75
Burkina Faso 70 124 134 95 Niger 126 131 136 107
Canada 7 bbl/yr 14 8 4 12 Nigeria 7 bbl/yr 152 123 121 129
Chad 7 bbl/yr 158 121 132 98 North Cyprus ^ 75 ^ ^
Chile 21 55 36 14 Norway 270 bbl/yr 8 3 1 30
Colombia 4 bbl/yr 55 70 61 86 Oman 84 bbl/yr 28 46 62 70
Comoros ^ 140 109 ^ Pakistan 144 109 110 103
Costa Rica 51 56 46 46 Palestinian Territories 107 131 87 ^
Cote d'Ivoire 152 120 125 84 Panama 65 72 51 48
Croatia 70 53 44 53 Papua New Guinea 130 107 111 ^
Cyprus, Republic of 37 31 28 16 Paraguay 144 84 73 102
Czech Republic 47 36 30 21 Peru 65 82 67 61
Denmark 11 bbl/yr 4 7 13 8 Philippines, The 117 83 72 92
Djibouti ^ 124 115 89 Poland 70 45 35 41
Dominican Republic 85 76 80 108 Portugal 26 36 25 30
Ecuador 11 bbl/yr 117 93 69 100 Qatar 310 bbl/yr 32 24 39 74
Egypt 70 97 101 117 Romania 85 66 57 87
El Salvador 51 87 88 34 Russia 15 bbl/yr 126 56 56 112
Eritrea 107 129 123 ^ Rwanda 83 121 122 115
Estonia 27 41 37 7 Saudi Arabia 110 bbl/yr 70 50 65 60
Ethiopia 137 131 130 121 Senegal 78 117 120 78
Finland 2 14 13 12 Sierra Leone 126 136 135 123
France 18 17 16 44 Singapore 5 22 24 2
Gabon 88 78 104 95 Slovakia 47 42 39 34
Gambia, The 103 115 118 113 Slovenia 31 31 25 38
Georgia 130 103 85 65 Somalia 144 140 ^ ^
Germany 16 18 20 19 South Africa 46 52 102 49
Ghana*** 65*** 109*** 112*** 98*** South Korea 40 33 27 45
Greece 47 30 23 55 Spain 23 25 21 33
Guatemala 117 87 100 70 Sri Lanka 78 93 78 87
Guinea ^ 114 119 116 Sudan 4 bbl/yr 144 111 114 ^
Guinea-Bissau ^ 136 131 120 Suriname*** 78*** 96*** 73*** 118***
Guyana 117 90 91 81 Sweden 6 18 4 19
Honduras 107 105 99 95 Switzerland 7 10 7 15
Hong Kong 15 21 ^ 1 Syria 70 97 90 128
Hungary 40 42 34 40 Taiwan 32 23 ^ 36
Iceland 1 6 2 5 Tajikistan 144 127 103 123
India 88 103 107 111 Tanzania 88 139 126 89
Indonesia 137 100 93 122 Thailand 59 63 64 67
Iran 15 bbl/yr 88 63 84 132 Trinidad & Tobago 59 40 52 42
Iraq 18 bbl/yr 137 101 ^ ^ Tunisia 43 63 75 93
Ireland 19 5 8 3 Turkey 65 66 79 81
Israel 28 27 22 36 Turkmenistan 7 bbl/yr 155 69 82 130
Italy 40 20 18 42 Ukraine 107 72 66 93
Jamaica 64 92 82 52 United Arab Emirates (UAE) 350 bbl/yr 30 2 39 63
Japan 21 12 11 27 United Kingdom 4 bbl/yr 11 16 15 5
Jordan 37 87 75 55 United States of America 17 4 10 9
Kazakhstan 22 bbl/yr 107 66 68 105 Uruguay 32 60 45 46
Kuwait 320 bbl/yr 45 37 43 49 Uzbekistan 137 117 94 127
Kyrgyzstan 130 111 92 68 Yemen 4 bbl/yr 103 134 116 125
Latvia 51 46 47 39 Zambia*** 107*** 134*** 128*** 104***
^ Researchers did not rank this country according to this particular index.
172
These tables send a clear message: No matter how you slice it, Free Democracy, together with
Free Enterprise, produces prosperity, while Islam produces hardship. These tables also indicate
why the European Union may have good reasons for resisting Turkey’s efforts to join it. Despite
Turkey’s physical proximity, its people live in a world that has more in common with the House
of Submission than with the European Union.
After reviewing these statistics, it is safe to predict that the prosperity of oil-rich Islamic nations
will fall back in line with other Islamic nations after their oil reserves run out, or after the West
reduces its dependency on oil.
Verdict: Islam’s road to economic hell is paved with pious intentions

Despite the obvious failure of Islamic Economics, Muslims insist that it is superior to Free
Enterprise. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam illustrates the Muslim
perspective:
In capitalist nations, the problem (of struggle between the haves and have-nots) is only partially
addressed by scant welfare and social programs whose existence is always begrudged and under
constant assault.346
…
For every person who lives well, someone else has to make due with much less.347
These sound like convincing reasons to call Free Enterprise a failure, until one considers that the
beneficiaries of those “scant” welfare and social programs, who “make due with much less,”
have incomes and benefits that are several times the average incomes of people living in Islamic
nations that are not oil exporters. Moreover, the zero-sum thinking of the second quote goes
beyond simply being wrong. By ignoring the fact that many people have become wealthy by
enriching the world with new inventions and ideas, it gives poor people a rationale for hating
those who succeed. By pitting the poor against the rich, the author uses a tactic right out of the
old Communist playbook of class warfare, enflaming the “proletariat” against the “bourgeoisie.”
Until the Islamic world either rejects the tenets of Islamic Economics, which is unlikely, or until
it finds a way to explain that Free Enterprise was actually Islamic all along and practiced by the
Prophet, which is slightly more likely, the financial well-being of Islamic nations will continue to
lag dramatically behind that of the West. Unfortunately, with their unwillingness to question the
Koran and Muhammad’s guidance, we can expect Muslims to continue to blame their plight on
Infidel exploitation rather identify the true culprit: Islamic Law.
346
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 12, Introduction, page 139.
347
Ibid, Chapter 12, section entitled The Burden of Wealth, page 140.
173
Chapter 5: Free Democracy & Free Enterprise vs. Islamic
Democracy & Islamic Economics
A critique of cultural preservation for preservation’s sake
Before going further with this comparison of Islamic governance to Free Democracy and Free
Enterprise, there is an important issue that deserves attention: cultural preservation.
When a Westerner sees Islamic cultures, a common impression is that they are foreign and exotic
but not necessarily harmful. This view is encouraged by a wide variety of media sources, such
as the movie Kingdom of Heaven,348 and publications such as The National Geographic. The
problem with these sources is that they are not objective. Some are obliged to flatter the nations
or groups that give them access. Others have an intrinsic bias, which could be stated as:
“Different cultures are like diverse living species; they need to be preserved and not intruded
upon by perverse Eurocentric Man.”
In both cases, biased stories are almost unavoidable. In the first, media sources know that their
portals of access may close if they offend their hosts. In the second, sources tend to be sociologists
and anthropologists. These researchers devote their lives to studying other cultures, and generally
believe that societies can only be understood after one accepts them on their own terms. These
people dismiss the notion of evaluating other cultures by Western standards. To them, morality is
relative, and other cultures use belief systems that Westerners are in no position to judge.
Such motivations and worldviews incline these sources to present their subjects as those subjects
see themselves, and to portray us as those subjects see us. The images we see tend to display
other cultures at their best, while leaving their unpleasant aspects on the cutting-room floor. A
favorite tactic is to present Westerners as crude and murderous invaders who victimize innocent
and peaceful natives. For example, historians often focus on Spanish brutality during the
conquest of the Aztecs, but breeze over the fact that those Spanish, whose numbers were very
small, only succeeded because of alliances with native peoples. Why did those natives join the
Spanish? Because they were preyed upon by Aztecs for daily human sacrifices. Similarly,
researchers may write articles about the gruesome gods of living Mayan tribes that preserve
ancient beliefs, but they rarely reflect on the disturbing moral ramifications of those beliefs. If
morality is relative, then how can anyone claim that ritualized murder is wrong?
People marvel at the achievements of ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt, but often forget that
they were built on slavery and the looting of foreign lands. They admire the grandeur of
southern antebellum mansions, but ignore the fact that they were products of slavery. And they
commit the same error when they admire the great architectural achievements of Islam’s heyday,
while failing to note that they were built with war booty and slaves.
Two aspects of Western culture worth passing on to our children

After the enchantments of mystery and nostalgia are taken away, every culture, including our
own, leaves much that would offend an objective observer. If a culture hopes to leave a better
348
2005, directed by Ridley Scott.
174
world for its children, it must learn to view itself with a critical eye and seek to understand both
what helps it and what harms it.
Among the residues of harmful institutions that tarnish all of our ancestors, there are some
brilliant gifts that Westerners can be proud to bestow upon future generations. Two of these gifts
are the institutions of Free Enterprise and Free Democracy, which developed over a period of
several hundred years in Western Europe. These institutions are largely responsible for the
economic and social advancements seen in “Westernized” nations.
What do the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” mean?

Until now, we have used the terms “Free Enterprise” and “Free Democracy” without really
defining them, because most people in the West have an intuitive understanding of their basics.
However, to go further in this discussion, we need to say exactly what they mean.
Free Enterprise is a very simple concept. It is the notion that any group of two or more people
has the freedom to negotiate trade and business agreements without the outside control of some
higher authority. While Free Enterprise can have pathologies,349 it is remarkably efficient at
providing people with the goods and services they need, at prices they are willing to pay.
Governments that promote Free Enterprise try to minimize their involvement in commerce, and
regulate it only when the pathologies of Free Enterprise create significant problems.
Democracy is a system of government that allows Free Enterprise to flourish. By providing

citizens with the right to vote, Democracy makes it possible for people to influence the laws they
live by, empowering them to limit the pathologies of Free Enterprise. For example, if pollution
becomes a problem for people, they can support politicians who promise to regulate polluters.
This may be an imperfect system, but it is better than any system where rulers are not
accountable to their subjects through elections. As Winston Churchill famously said:350
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of Government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to
time.
While Democracy supports Free Enterprise, it is much more than a “capitalist tool.”351 It allows
people to influence government decisions in all areas of life.
Democracy is a political structure that empowers people in their relationships with government.
It gives people a right to participate meaningfully in debates on important issues that can cover
everything from slavery to capital punishment and abortion. But herein lies Democracy’s own
pathology, known as “the tyranny of the majority.”352 As a wit once noted, “A democracy is
three wolves and two sheep – voting on what to have for dinner.”
349
Examples of pathologies that occur within the Free Enterprise system are monopolies and free riders.
350
Hansard, November 11, 1947.
351
Famous and facetious slogan of Malcolm Forbes (1919 – 1990), based on the sentiments of Economics and
Philosophic Manuscripts, by Karl Marx, 1844.
352
From a chapter title in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, volume 1, published in 1835.
175
Without special protections for minorities, democracy can and has led to abuse. For example, in
the United States, a majority once decided that African slaves had no rights, not even to live with
their spouses and children. In 1934, Hitler held a plebiscite that gave him a 90% approval rating,
even though his hatred for Jews and other minorities was well known. In the years that followed,
German “Aryans” participated in a systematic campaign to dehumanize and murder Jews,
Gypsies, Poles, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, and other Christians, all within the bounds of
their fascist version of democracy. Similarly, communist nations also consider themselves
democratic. For example, the official name of North Korea is The Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.
Clearly, a government must be more than democratic if it is to protect the rights of all. It must
institutionalize the belief that every human being has fundamental rights that governments
cannot take away. This concept was first proposed by John Locke in 1690 as Life, Liberty, and
Property.353 It was echoed in the opening lines of the U.S. Declaration of Independence as Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It was given a legal framework in the first ten
amendments of the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. And it was deftly
supplemented by Franklin Roosevelt in his January 6, 1941 Address to Congress, in which he
outlined his “Four Freedoms,” just months before the Pearl Harbor attack. Those Four Freedoms
were: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.
This combination of fundamental rights and freedoms is the basis of Free Democracy.
Before moving forward with this discussion, it is important to note that this book uses the term
“Free Democracy” for a concept that has traditionally been known as “Liberal Democracy.” The
term “Free” is used because “Liberal” is now associated with ideas that have nothing to do with
Liberal Democracy’s original intent. When the term “Liberal Democracy” was first coined,
“liberal” implied a form of government where people were not restrained by authoritarianism.
Therefore, it opposed strong central government. Today, “liberal” often means “generous,” and
implies generous social programs provided by strong central government.
The dual institutions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise evolved over hundreds of years in
the West, and continue to evolve today. However, in the Islamic world, the story is quite
different. Not only did Free Democracy and Free Enterprise not evolve there, they fail to survive
there, despite dozens of working examples in other parts of the world.
Why do Islamic nations fail to adopt the principles of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise?
Because these institutions conflict with Islamic core beliefs, which include institutionalized
Muslim superiority and contempt for both interest-bearing loans and financial speculation.
With this understanding of the principles that shape Islamic nations, as wells as those of Free
Democracy and Free Enterprise, we are ready to discuss exactly how Islam opposes Free
Democracy and Free Enterprise.
353
From Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government published in 1690.
176
Islam opposes Free Democracy and proposes Islamic Democracy
In the House of Submission, when anything conflicts with Islam, Islam wins. As stated in The
Koran for Dummies:354
Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals who try to promote certain ideas, such as democracy,
tolerance, and so on, must make Koranic teachings a focal point of their argument. Similarly, any
ideas that intellectuals want to discourage, such as unjust violence, must be proven to be
antithetical to the wording or spirit of the Book [Koran].
Even those who aspire to an Islamic form of democracy envision something very different from
Free Democracy. Again, The Koran for Dummies provides insight into what a pro-democracy
Muslim seeks. After declaring that the Koran’s system of governance is not a theocracy, it
describes a Koranic government that absolutely is a theocracy, even if it includes some
democratic traits. Moreover, it is a theocracy that specifically excludes non-Muslims:355
The Koran does not believe in establishing a theocracy on earth. Rather, its system of governance
focuses on the following three concepts:
• Unity of God [Allah]: God’s Oneness brings together His attributes of Creator,
Sustainer, and Master, which make God sovereign over all His creation (23:116;
57:2; 7:54; 10:31). As such, God has the primary authority to create personal and
social laws that govern human life.
• Prophecy: Prophecy communicates and presents the modeled life and path built on
divine laws and guidance (4:79-80; 7:157-158).
• The role of mankind as God’s vicegerent on earth (2:30; 6:165): A religious elite or a
single religious figure does not claim ownership to this role – it belongs to the entire
[Islamic] community that lives under divine laws of rights and responsibilities…
Men and women, as a collective body, must nurture God-conscious civilizations that enjoin moral
good and social benefit and struggle against moral evil and social harm (9:71; 22:41). As new
legal issues arise for the ever-progressing [Islamic] community, the community must actively
take part in an intellectual struggle (ijtihad) to determine God’s Will.
While an Islamic state follows divine laws [Shari’ah], humans must determine and implement
those laws, which takes place under a system of mutual consultation, known as Sura356 (42:38).
Here, an elected body of legislators (such as members of parliament or congress) debates and
decides affairs of the state in light of the Koran, [Islamic] prophetic teachings, and other sources
of [Islamic] sacred law.
Key differences exist between a Western-style democracy and an Islamic democracy. Western
democracy places the sovereignty or authority of rule in the people, who form the constitution to
determine rights and responsibilities for citizens. An Islamic democracy places sovereignty or
rule of law in God [Allah], Who places rights and responsibilities on the people (4:1).
354
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Having
room for interpretation, page 82.
355
Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Debating the rule of law between citizenry and God, page 304.
356
Also referred to as Shura.
177
From this description, it is clear that Islamic Democracy is not democratic at all in the Western
sense. Its legislators are not meant to represent the will of the people, but to interpret the will of
Allah. People who do not subscribe to Islam’s interpretation of God are completely excluded
from political office and the legislative process. This type of disenfranchisement would open the
doors to more drastic forms of abuse.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Islamic Democracy is that it represents another case where
Muslims and Westerners use the same term, “democracy,” but with entirely different meanings.
Muslims often say they are pro-democracy, and in doing so lull Westerners into thinking that we
have common ground. What these Westerners do not realize is that those Muslims want Islamic
Democracy, not Free Democracy.
Before moving on to the next topic, there is one remaining question that should be addressed:
Why do Muslims believe that an Islamic Democracy is not a Theocracy? The answer can be
found in a paper entitled An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, written by Imad A.
Ahmad. 357 It states that:
Islam is, politically, a nomocracy, that is, a system of rule of law…It is not, as the Western press
is wont to misrepresent it, a theocracy, that is, a rule by clerics. The concept of theocracy
violates the fundamental premise of Islam—that there is none worthy of worship but God.
In the Islamic world-view, each human being is directly responsible to the Almighty. The issue
of what it is that God commands has been answered in writing, in the Qur’an. It is the
unchanging sharî`ah itself, and not some human being or assembly, that man must obey.
The nomocratic nature of Islam cannot be overstated…Abu Bakr’s inaugural address reflects an
attitude in sharp contrast to that of political leaders before him: “Now it is beyond doubt that I
have been elected your Amir, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am right; set me
right if I am in the wrong; truth is a trust; falsehood a treason.... Obey me as long as I obey Allah
and His Prophet; when I disobey Allah and His Prophet, then obey me not.” (Siddiqi, pp. 46-47).
Apparently, Muslims declare that Islam is not a theocracy because, in a theocracy, rulers are
worshipped. However, this definition of a theocracy is not the one commonly used in English.
For example, The American Heritage Dictionary defines theocracy as “A government ruled by or
subject to religious authority.”358 The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines theocracy as
“a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.”359 According to
these definitions, an Islamic government clearly is a theocracy. Once again, Muslims use their
own meaning for a word, which differs from the one in common use.
From a practical standpoint, the distinction Muslims make is meaningless. This is because their
“law” is Islamic Law, which only Islamic scholars are qualified to decide. Hence an Islamic
government must ultimately be controlled by Islamic jurists (scholars), even if less scholarly
Muslims are active in the legislative and executive branches. It doesn’t matter whether Muslims
357
An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of Nations, by Imad A. Ahmad, presented at the International Conference
on “Comprehensive Development of Muslim Countries: An Interdisciplinary Approach from an Islamic
Perspective”, Aug. 1-3, 1994, Subang Jaya, Malaysia. See www.minaret.org/malaysia.htm.
358
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
359
Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Third Edition, June 23, 2005
178
worship those Islamic scholars or not; the determinations of these scholars are given the same
practical authority over daily life in either case. In fact, the last portion of this quote makes it
clear that Islamic scholars have the right to overrule their own political leaders if those leaders
try to implement laws that disagree with those scholars’ interpretation of Shari’ah. This right
places the leaders of both Islamic and non-Islamic nations in precarious positions, and has been a
frequent cause of political instability. This instability is an important subject in itself, and will be
investigated more fully in the sections of this book entitled The history of leadership in the
Islamic world and Relations between the House of Islam’s political leaders and its people.
The final point to note is that Islamic Democracies do away with the separation of powers that
characterize Free Democracies. While Free Democracies carefully separate the Legislative,
Judicial, and Executive powers, Islamic Democracies concentrate power in the hands of its
jurists.
An Islamic Democracy’s “Supreme Court” can do more than simply declare laws un-Islamic,
just as our Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional; it also has the power to control who
is elected to office and may remove leaders for straying from Islamic orthodoxy. Through this
control over the avenues to power, it manipulates legislators and executives in ways similar to
the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. Paradoxically, this means that Islamic Democracies are
likely to be nearly as oppressive to Muslim citizens as to non-Islamic subjects.
Islam’s silencing of non-Muslims in politics is only one of the important ways in which Islam
opposes free speech and religious expression. We are about to uncover others.
Islam opposes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship

The concepts of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship are so intertwined that the easiest
way to understand Islam’s relation to them is to look at both together.
The following words come from an on-line tourist magazine for the nation of Qatar,360 which is
95% Muslim:361
The official religion of Qatar is Islam, and the vast majority of Qataris are Sunni Moslems…
…
During the Holy Month of Ramadhan…, Moslems are required to fast between dawn and dusk.
Non-Moslems are expected to conform to this in public, and respect the prevailing conditions…
…
It is expected that non-Moslems resident in Qatar should respect the laws and customs of the
religion. This means adhering to modest standards of dress and behaviour in public, in addition
to not mocking or denigrating Islam in any way.
At first glance, these rules, which are enforced by law, do not appear unduly harsh. A deeper
look, however, reveals how repressive they really are:
• Non-Muslims are legally required to observe Islamic practices, at least superficially.
360
www.qatar-info.com/general/religion.htm.
361
CIA: The World Factbook, 2006.
179
• It is impossible for anyone, whether Muslim or not, to have a free-ranging conversation
about religion. In addition, people of other religions are forbidden from evangelizing,
because doing so would imply that Islam is incorrect, a form of denigration.
A sad result of these constraints is that, by preventing Muslims from debating faith, Islam
deprives them of opportunities to convince others of Islam’s virtues. If a religion can only
defend itself by declaring religious debate illegal, it betrays a fear that Islam cannot bear the
scrutiny. Worse still, these constraints lead to intellectual stagnation, a hallmark of the House of
Islam. In a nutshell, Islam shuts down the free marketplace of ideas.
While one would expect an Islamic Nation’s official website to present its laws as positively as
possible, a more objective source unveils the true effects of Shari’ah on Freedom of Speech and
Freedom of Worship. For example, the 1995 Human Rights Watch World Report reveals Islam’s
dark side in its section entitled Iran-Human Rights Developments362:
In a population of sixty-two million, Iran’s religious minorities include 3.5 million Sunni
Muslims, 350,000 followers of the Bahai faith, 80,000 Christians and 30,000 Jews. Tens of
thousands of Christians, Jews and Bahais have fled Iran in the past fifteen years. During 1994 the
government mounted a fierce campaign against the small Christian minority. Churches have been
shut down, scores of young Christians – many of them converts from Islam – have been
imprisoned and tortured…
Three leading Evangelical Christians were killed in suspicious circumstances. In January, Bishop
Haik Hovasepian Mehr, who had come to international prominence leading a campaign for the
release of Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, was murdered. Mehdi Dibaj, who converted from Islam to
Christianity about forty-five years ago, had been imprisoned in Sari, northeastern Iran, from 1983
to 1994. In late June, another evangelical minister, Tateos Michaelian was shot and killed. He
was acting chair of the Council of Protestant Ministers in Iran, a post he assumed following the
murder of Bishop Hovasepian Mehr. Pastor Mehdi Dibaj was killed a week later in early July.
There was no evidence of a thorough official investigation into the killings, and Christian sources
held the government responsible for the deaths. Iranian officials claim that evangelical churches
have political agendas besides worship.
There was also no let up in the persecution of the Bahai minority, which is…referred to as a
heretical sect.
In February, a judge released two Muslims who had killed a Bahai, citing a religious authority to
the effect that Bahai blood may be shed with impunity. The judge based his ruling on the late
Ayatollah Khomeini‘s fatwa (edict) that a Muslim will not be killed for killing an apostate.
…Haji Muhammad Ziaie, a Sunni Muslim leader from Bandar-Abbas, known to be critical of
government policies, was found dead in suspicious circumstances in July. He had been
summoned for interrogation by security forces…and he has never been seen alive again.
362
Human Right Watch, 1995, Human Rights Watch World Report 1995.
180
This Human Rights Watch report does not imply that all Islamic nations are like Iran. However,
cases like those described above are not isolated, and, to the extent that nations adopt Shari’ah,
such cases become more common.
Constraints on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship exist throughout the House of
Submission. Even Islamic nations with Western frameworks of government face strong
pressures to enact Shari’ah in entirety. These governments are constantly on the defensive
against Islamists who try to overthrow them and lock Shari’ah’s shackles firmly into place.
For example, Nigeria has a democratic government but has recently experienced the ascendance
of Islam and Shari’ah in its northern states. This rise of Shari’ah is being accompanied by losses
of freedom in a genuine culture war. This war has produced several fiascos, including chilling
death sentences for pregnant women accused of adultery. Freedom of Speech has also been
assaulted, as Deroy Murdock, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News
Service, describes in his Op-Ed piece The Islamofascist Agenda:363
Islam may be a religion of peace, but many of that faith’s remarkably thin-skinned
fundamentalists evidently missed that memo. At least 220 [people] were murdered, over 1,100
wounded and some 12,000 rendered homeless in recent riots that began when Muslims in
Kaduna, Nigeria, burned down the offices of This Day, a Lagos-based newspaper. It published
Isioma Daniel’s November 16 article on the recently relocated Miss World pageant [relocated out
of Nigeria due to protests from Muslims].
“What would Muhammad think?” Daniel asked. “In all honesty, he would probably have chosen
a wife from among” the contestants. For four days…, This Day published front-page apologies
about the article. It also described its staff as half-Muslim.
None of this mollified militant Muslims in Kaduna…Muslims rampaged against the paper once
Nigeria’s Supreme Islamic Council declared that Ms. Daniel’s article “declared total war against
Islam” and urged Muslims to respond violently.
After torching the daily’s bureau, mobs ignited 22 churches and attacked Christians. They, in
turn, retaliated, setting eight mosques alight. The mayhem eventually reached Abuja, Nigeria’s
capitol, where machete-wielding Muslims chanted: “Down with Beauty.”
Meanwhile, the Zamfara state government met with at least 20 Islamic groups…and issued a
fatwa ordering Isioma Daniel’s murder. Zamfara’s deputy governor…said: “It is binding on all
Muslims wherever they are, to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.” Ms. Daniel
has resigned from the paper and is in hiding.
“If she (Daniel) is Muslim, she has no option except to die,” Zamfara’s information
commissioner, Tukur Umar Dangaladima, told the Associated Press. “But if she is a non-
Muslim, the only way out for her is to convert to Islam.”
Muslims tell us, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Koran, 2.256). They should try to explain
how this motto applies to the case of Isioma Daniel.
363
The Islamofascist Agenda, by Deroy Murdock, The National Review, December 3, 2002.
181
This is not an isolated incident. Similar terrorism was recently waged against the Miss Universe
pageant in Iraq:
Miss Iraq goes into hiding from militants

Associated Press, MSNBC News, April 12, 2006
AMMAN, Jordan - Iraq’s newly crowned beauty queen has gone into hiding, fearing she will be
targeted by Islamic militants who reportedly threatened to kill other women who participated in a
Baghdad pageant last week.
Silva Shahakian, an Iraqi Christian, received the title of Miss Iraq when the initial winner [Tamar
Goregian] stepped down after receiving death threats…
…
ABC reported that Goregian received threats by…religious extremists who referred to her as “the
queen of infidels” for participating in the pageant…
In Indonesia, often trumpeted as a land of moderation, and recognized as the most populous of
Islamic nations, a toned-down version of Playboy magazine was shut down, not only by
militants, but by the government itself:
Indonesia wants Playboy to postpone issue

Reuters, MSNBC News, April 13, 2006
JAKARTA, Indonesia - …About 300 hard-line Islamists vandalized the building housing Playboy’s
offices…in a protest against its publication in the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
The protesters threw rocks at the front lobby, breaking windows of the building…several days
after the magazine hit Indonesian news-stands for the first time. Police made some efforts to stop
the attackers but did not arrest anyone.
“It would be better if there were a deal to postpone the second edition,” Jakarta police chief
Firman Gani told reporters…
He said he planned to ask the publishers to meet with police to discuss the matter, but would
appeal to higher authorities for support of a postponement if Playboy did not voluntarily comply.
The postponement would allow police time to investigate whether Playboy’s issue had violated
any laws, Gani said.…He did not announce new actions against any of the militants involved in
the Wednesday attack or the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), the hard-line group that organized the
demonstration.
A similar report arrived recently from the newly “democratized” Afghanistan:
Editor of Afghan women’s magazine arrested

USA Today, Associated Press, October 5, 2005
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The editor of an Afghan women’s rights magazine was jailed after
a presidential adviser accused him of publishing un-Islamic material — including an article
critical of the practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes, officials said Friday.
182
Minority Shiite Muslim clerics in Kabul objected to that article and another in the monthly
Haqooq-i-Zan — or Women’s Rights — that argued that giving up Islam was not a crime. Police
arrested the magazine’s editor, Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, on Saturday.
…
…Under a revised March 2004 media law signed by Karzai, content deemed insulting to Islam is
banned. Criminal penalties were left vaguely worded, leaving open the possibility of punishment
in accordance with Shariah, or Islamic law.
Islam’s constraints on free speech are not limited to comments about Muhammad, the Koran, or
Muslims. Instead, they are generalized to enforce virtue through law. These prohibitions stem
from two Koranic verses that may initially sound commendable:
[49.11]YUSUF ALI: …Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are
better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better
than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive)
nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed
[i.e. after he has become a Muslim]: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.
[104.1] YUSUF ALI: Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger and-backbiter…
The meaning of the latter verse is clarified in hadiths that record discussions between
Muhammad and his followers on what qualifies as backbiting:
Sahih Muslim, Book 32, number 6265:364…(the Holy Prophet) said: Backbiting implies you’re
talking about your brother [i.e. another Muslim] in a manner which he does not like. It was said
to him: What is your opinion about this that if I actually find (that failing) in my brother which I
made a mention of? He said: If (that failing) is actually found (in him) what you assert, you in
fact backbited him, and if that is not in him it is a slander.
Unfortunately, the Islamic scholars who interpret the Koran and the Hadith decided to give these
remarks the force of law, and use them to suppress free speech. The Koran for Dummies
explains how:365
Islam recognizes freedom of speech, but that speech can’t violate the sanctity of another human
being’s honor by use of backbiting and slandering. Tabloids, for example, would be a big no-no
in an Islamic society.
With Islam’s prohibition against telling truths that hurt a person’s dignity, tabloids would not be
the only victims of Islamic rule. Other “big no-no’s” would be the tools that Free Democracy
uses to enforce honesty in government, such as investigative reporting on politics and many
campaign activities. Thus, the prohibition against “backbiting” further encourages corrupt
practices, adding to the problems described in this book’s section entitled Corruption.
364
A similar hadith can be found in Malik’s Muwatta, Book 56, Number 56.4.10.
365
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Receiving
the rights of citizenship, page 247.
183
This prohibition also makes it impossible for people to say critical things about Muslims without
bringing self-righteous wrath upon themselves, and it discourages Muslims from reporting on the
terrorist activities of other Muslims.
Another point to note is that, because these rules are designed to protect only Muslims, non-
Muslims remain wide-open to both backbiting and slander. Inflammatory remarks against non-
Muslims are perfectly acceptable because the Koran itself does so repeatedly.
Also, “big no-no” is an understatement meant to keep with the friendly tone of the “For
Dummies” series. To get a better sense of what “big no-no” really means, consider the following
formal statement issued by Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam) about Salman Rushdie:366
Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair

By Yusuf Islam, March 2nd, 1989
Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it
must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.
On 21st February, I was speaking to a group of students at the Kingston Polytechnic, and in
response to a question, I simply stated the Islamic ruling on the Rushdie affair. Suddenly, my
picture was splashed on the front page of newspapers all over the world next to the headline: ‘Kill
Rushdie says Cat Stevens’. It is very sad to see such irresponsibility from the ‘free press’ and I
am totally abhorred.
…
…Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country
in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and
fulfill their basic religious duties…If we can’t get satisfaction…like a ban on this blasphemous
book, ‘Satanic Verses’…this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress.
No. If Mrs. Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas…then perhaps the
only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country…
…
…as far as…the implementation of [the] full Islamic way of life in Britain is concerned, Muslims
realize that there is very little chance of that happening in the near future. But that shouldn’t stop
us from trying to improve the situation…That is the duty of every Muslim…
Sad words to hear from the man who brought us “Peace Train,” “Moon Shadow,” and “Morning
has Broken.” One shudders to think that the U.K. might someday heed the call of its Muslim
citizens and change its laws so that people who insult Islam can be assassinated.
In his statement, Yusuf Islam asserts his right to speak freely, but supports Salman Rushdie’s
murder for doing the same. Furthermore, Mr. Islam was “totally abhorred” at the press’s
“irresponsibility” for reporting his statements. Perhaps he thought they were backbiting.
More ominous than Mr. Islam’s words were the actions of other Muslims. Attempts to kill the
Norwegian and Italian publishers of The Satanic Verses were made, and Hitoshi Igarashi, its
Japanese publisher, was actually murdered.
366
This statement can be found on the Cat Stevens website. See http://catstevens.com/articles/00013/.
184
Clearly, Islamic Law opposes Free Democracy on multiple fronts: It excludes non-Muslims from
the political process, it represses speech, and it represses religious expression.
The futility of seeking freedom and amity with Islamic governments

Given Islam’s opposition to Free Democracy, which devout Muslims portray as a Jewish,
Christian, or foreign conspiracy against them, Muslims limit their options for governance to
dictatorship or one-party rule. Muslims acknowledge this, but portray these forms of
government as preferable, when tempered with the Islamic tradition of “consultation.” To
understand their viewpoint, read what the website IslamForToday has to say on the subject:367
Islamic Government
…
From the first Islamic state in Medina…until just after World War One, there was a Caliph, the
leader of the [Sunni] Muslims, and an Islamic government somewhere in the world. In 1923…,
with the end of the caliphate, Islamic government ceased.
In Muslim majority countries, all of which were at that time under the influence or direct control of
European governments, the legal and political systems introduced were modeled on those of the
Christian states of the west. Various countries copied, or had imposed upon them, the systems of
Europe…In nearly every country the institutions based upon the Quran…were abolished. Now in
the last part of the twentieth century, the demand for the Islamic system of government is reviving.
…
Consultation has a high status in Islam. This is indicated by the name of surah…forty-two,
“Consultation”.368…Although non-Muslims were not involved in consultation in the early period of
the birth of Islam, there is nothing to indicate they cannot be included in consultation on national
affairs or affairs not dealing with the beliefs of the Muslims.369 However, as the head of state must
implement the Quran and Sunna, it is necessary that this position should be held by a Muslim.
Islamic government…follows the laws and principles of the Quran and the Sunna of Muhammad.
Government is the responsibility of all humanity, especially of those people who understand that
they are the ‘caliphs’ of God [Allah]…
At best, Islamic Government is similar to the rule of a single party, the “‘caliphs’ of God.” At
worst, it is rule by a single Muslim dictator. Any claim that this conclusion is tempered by
Islamic “consultation” rings false when one considers that all dictators, no matter how despotic,
consult with others. Consultation may simply be a way to gather information and form alliances.
367
Islamic Government, By Bilal Cleland. See www.islamfortoday.com/cleland04.htm
368
As in many of the Koran’s surahs, the title does not represent the theme of the chapter, but a single distinguishing
sentence. What follows is everything that surah 42, Consultation, has to say about consultation:
[42.36] YUSUF ALI: Whatever ye are given (here) is (but) a convenience of this life: but that which is with
Allah is better and more lasting: (it is) for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord:
[42.37] Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive;
[42.38] Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual
Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;
[42.39] And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend
themselves.
369
We have already seen how Muslims believe that Islam is “a way of life that encompasses all actions in social,
political, family, and economic realms – or, for that matter, any other realms of activity.” Therefore, the possibility
that non-Muslims might be consulted on “affairs not dealing with the beliefs of the Muslims” offers essentially no
political power at all.
185
While it is old news that Iran (discussed further in Chapter 6) is an Islamic Democracy, the list of
Islamic Democracies in the world might surprise a typical Westerner. They are often portrayed as
moderate, or allies, and include nations that the U.S. even helped establish. Consider the following
excerpts from the constitutions of some of these nations.
Constitution of Malaysia: 370
PART I - THE STATES, RELIGION AND LAW OF THE FEDERATION

…
(3.3) …the [Supreme Head of the Federation of Malaysia]371 shall be Head of the religion of Islam
…
(3.5) …Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for
constituting a Council to advise the [Supreme Head of the Federation of Malaysia] in matters
relating to the religion of Islam.
Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, :372
2.Islam to be State religion

Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.
…
19. Freedom of speech, etc.
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be
freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of
the glory of Islam…
…
31. Islamic way of life.
…
(2) The state shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan,
(a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory…
(b) to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards; and
(c) to secure the proper organisation of zakat, [17][ushr,] auqaf and mosques.
…
Chapter 1. THE PRESIDENT
…
(2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim…
…
Chapter 2. PARLIAMENT
…
(1) There shall be three hundred and forty-two seats of the members in the National Assembly,
including seats reserved for women and non-Muslims.
…there shall be, in the National Assembly, ten seats reserved for non-Muslims.
…
62. Qualifications for membership of Parliament. [other than the ten seats for non-Muslims]
A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Parliament unless :-
…
370
Source: www.helplinelaw.com/law/constitution/malaysia/malaysia01.php.
371
The Malaysian term used in its Constitution is Yang di-Pertuan Agong (also called the Raja Permaisuri Agong).
372
Source: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part3.ch1.html
186
(d) he is…not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties…
…
[194] Chapter 3A. FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT
…
(2) The Court shall consist of not more than eight Muslim Judges…
…
227. Provisions relating to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.
(1) All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in
the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law
shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.
Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt:373
Article 2
Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Islamic jurisprudence is the
principal source of legislation.
…
Article 19
Religious education shall be a principal subject in the courses of general education.
Constitution of The Republic of Tunisia:374
Preamble
In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful, We…Proclaim the will of this people…;
…
- to remain faithful to the teachings of Islam…, to its membership of the Arab family, to
cooperation with the African peoples in building a better future, and with all peoples who are
struggling for justice and liberty;
…
Chapter I General Provisions
Article 1 [State]
Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is the Islam, its language is Arabic,
and its form is the Republic.
…
Section I The President of the Republic
Article 38 [Head of State]
The President of the Republic is the Head of the State. His religion is Islam.
Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan:375
Preamble
In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful – Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher
and Sustainer of Worlds; and Praise and Peace be upon Mohammad, His Last Messenger and his
disciples and followers.
373
Source: http://www.uam.es/otroscentros/medina/egypt/egypolcon.htm
374
Source: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/cafrad/unpan004842.pdf
375
Source: www.embassyofafghanistan.org/constitution.html
187
We the people of Afghanistan, believing firmly in Almighty God, relying on His divine will and
adhering to the Holy religion of Islam;
…
Chapter III The President
…
(1) Presidential candidates should posses the following qualifications:
Should be citizen[s] of Afghanistan, Muslim, and born of Afghan parents, and should not
have citizenship of another country.
…
(3) The provision of this article is applied to the Vice Presidents as well.
…
The President-elect, prior to resumption of his/her duties, performs the following oath of
allegiance…:
"In the name Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

In the name God Almighty, in the presence of your representatives of the nation of Afghanistan, I
swear to obey and safeguard the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam…
Constitution of The Republic of Iraq:376
Preamble
We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of
civilization…; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down;
on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed…
…
Chapter I: Basic Principles
…
Article 2:
1. Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.
…
2. This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people…
Article 3: Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic
world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.
…
Part III: The Judiciary
…
Article (90): …
2. The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia
(Islamic Law) and law…
Some may claim that constitutions such as these do not lead to one-party rule because different
Islamic sects can form their own parties, and Muslims can form parties regardless of sect. There
is some truth to this claim, but it neglects the fact that non-Muslims are disenfranchised. If non-
Muslims can vote at all, their votes are restricted either a token minority or legislators or to
Muslims sworn to uphold Islamic Law, which is designed to discriminate against non-Muslims.
376
Source: MERIA (Middle East Review of International Affairs), Volume 9, No. 3- September 2005. See
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue3/Iraqiconstitution/constitution.html
188
Non-Muslims living in Islamic Democracies can never hope to have laws enacted that give them
rights equal to Muslims.
To picture this situation in terms familiar to Americans, imagine what the U.S. would be like if
only Democrats could be elected to public office. The Democratic Party might polarize into
opposing groups, such as Union Democrats vs. Immigration Democrats, but Republicans and
others would still be excluded from the legislative process. Similarly, consider a U.S. where
only Republicans could be elected. The Republican Party might polarize into Fiscal
Conservatives vs. Religious Conservatives, but Democrats and others would be excluded.
Sadly, the inevitable despotism of one-party rule and dictatorship creates more opportunities for
blaming the West. For example, if Islamic governments bring oppression, then Western
governments that deal peaceably with them are accused of supporting tyranny. As The Koran for
Dummies377 states:
…from my observations, Muslims…are frustrated by the failed regimes that rule over them. The
citizens of these countries feel that their governments have allowed world powers to exploit their
resources, while Muslims are left without jobs and other public benefits.
…many Muslims are angered by the perception that while world leaders talk about democracy
and freedom, they sometimes support the very regimes that have crushed true Islamic movements
based on democracy, freedom, and justice in the Muslim world.
But if Muslims are angered by Western nations that support oppressive regimes in the Islamic
world, does this mean that Muslims would welcome Western efforts to oppose those regimes?
Apparently not. For example, after the U.S. and its allies toppled Iraq’s infamous Saddam
Hussein and began to establish an Islamic democracy, the U.S. faced rallying cries of “Infidel
occupier!” and “Democracy doesn’t flow from the barrel of a gun.”378 These cries reflected the
fact that many Muslims do not understand or trust democracy in any form, and they mistrust any
Infidel government that offers to help them establish one.
Therefore, it is futile for non-Islamic nations to seek amicable relations with the House of Islam.
They will be accused of either supporting repressive governments or being imperialsists.
Islam opposes Free Enterprise and proposes Islamic Economics

The manner in which Islam opposes Free Enterprise is subtle but very profound. Superficially,
Free Enterprise appears to flourish in the House of Islam, especially when one visits the Middle
Eastern souks,379 well-known for their bargaining practices. However, as anyone who has tried
to start a large-scale business may attest, Islam’s opposition to interest-bearing and speculative
financial instruments can impose major barriers. While some Muslims may have found ways to
377
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 18, section entitled Looking at
Jihad in Today’s World, page 282.
378
Title of an article written by Chris Patten and published in the September 2003 issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
It is a play on a quote from Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book: ‘Power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. From 1992
to 1997, Mr. Patten served as the last British governor of Hong Kong.
379
Arabian term for marketplace.
189
Islamicize certain banking and insurance sectors by cloaking their use of interest and speculation,
other sectors remain off limits, such as standard mortgages, junk bonds, and derivatives.
The actions of Islamic financiers are governed by religious boards, which certify that their
practices are halal (permitted by Islam). In Islamic nations, similar bodies police all economic
transactions to verify compliance with Islam. This level of trade interference far exceeds
anything seen in a modern Free Democracy, and the transactions allowed under Islam fall far
short of what one would call Free Enterprise. These constraints choke the entrepreneurial talents
of practicing Muslim business people and keep them operating on small scales.
Unfortunately, Islamic economists misinterpret the cause of Muslim destitution. Through

warped lenses, they perceive that Islamic nations are poor because they are not Islamic enough,
and that the true solution is to replace Free Enterprise with Islamic Economics.
Such views are promoted by people such as Mufti Taqi Usmani, a recognized Pakistani expert in
Islamic Jurisprudence and Economics who has served on Pakistan’s Supreme Court and the
Islamic Fiqh380 Council for the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).381 At the 2000
International Conference of the World Muslim Congress, he declared that:382
The twentieth century has witnessed the rise of communism, the conflict between capitalist and
communist countries, and lastly, the fall of communism. The…failure of communism was not
due to its justified criticism of the evils of capitalism. Rather it was caused by the inherent
defects of the alternative system suggested by it. The capitalist economies still suffer from
inequities in the distribution of wealth…
The world, therefore, is badly in need of a Third Economic System. The Muslim Ummah can
work out this system based on the Islamic norms. The economic principles taught by the Quran
and Sunnah of the Prophet…are quite capable of solving the major economic problems faced by
the world today…
It was neither private ownership nor the institution of market forces that was the basic cause of
injustice in the capitalist system. The basic factor for creating inequities in the capitalist countries
was the absence of a criterion to differentiate between just and unjust earnings. The instruments
of interest, gambling, speculative transactions and the tools of exploiting immoral desires of
the consumers to secure huge profits were allowed, which tend to create monopolies…
…
Islam not only allows the market forces but also provides mechanisms to keep them operative
with their natural force without their being hindered by monopolies…
First, [Islam] subjects the process of earning to certain divine injunctions, which clearly define
the limits of halal and haram. These injunctions tend to prevent monopolies and curb the unjust
and immoral earnings and commercial activities detrimental to the collective interest of…society
…
380
Literally, “to comprehend.” As applied to Islam, this term means: to comprehend Islam’s application to daily life
through study of the Koran and Sunnah. Fiqh is a prerequisite to the development of Shari’ah.
381
See biographical summary available at www.albalagh.net/taqi.shtml.
382
IIBI Discussion Forum: The Economic Challenge for the Ummah, by Justice Taqi Usmani, published in New
Horizon, February 2000 issue, by The Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance. See
www.albalagh.net/Islamic_economics/economy.shtml.
190
Second, the institution of Zakat…and…other financial obligations provide that even the halal
income is again distributed to the persons who could not earn enough due to insufficient market
opportunities. Through the twin controls, the wealth is kept under constant circulation and the
chances of its concentration are almost eliminated.
…our main tragedy is that the principles of Islamic economy are still in theoretical form for
which no living example is available. The Muslim countries have not tried to structure their
economy on Islamic bases. Most of them are still following the capitalist system and that too in a
half-baked manner, which has made the economic atmosphere much worse than that of the
developed capitalist countries. Unfortunately, despite having…clear cut Islamic injunctions, the
inequities existing in Muslim countries are far more severe than in the Western world.
Mufti Usmani clearly states that Islam is an economic system, one that he believes is superior to
both Communism and Free Enterprise, particularly because it combats the pathology of
monopoly. In fact, his words appear to reach out to disaffected Communists who are still
searching for an alternative to Capitalism.
Unfortunately, his argument seems to confuse monopoly with business growth. In the West,
there are millions of businesses that have used loans to grow, and, despite their large size, they
are not monopolies. In cases where monopoly abuses occur, the abuses are not caused by
interest-bearing loans, but by economies of scale that make a company’s service more valueable
or less expensive as the company gets bigger. A company with such economies of scale is called
natural monopoly. A good example of a natural monopoly was Bell Telephone, because its
telephone network became more valuable to customers as more people connected to it, while its
cost of adding customers was small relative to the cost of developing the network’s technology.
The West has experimented with a number of ways to reduce the abuses of monopoly with
varying degrees of success. Utilities have been regulated to limit profits. Anti-trust laws have
broken up some of the world’s biggest monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Bell Telephone.
While these approaches may not be perfect, they are superior to the prohibitions of Islamic
Economics, which would have prevented the loans and speculative investments needed to turn
gasoline and telephones into domestic commodities in the first place. Islamic Economics is why
home-grown large-scale commercial ventures are virtually unknown in the Islamic world.
In other words, Islamic Economics pursues “economic justice” the way Communism did: by
making everyone equally poor. But Islamic Economics fails to even here. As Usmani notes,
“despite having…clear Islamic injuctions, the inequities existing in Muslim countries are far
more severe than in the Western world.” If a partial implementation of Shari’ah produces less
equity than the West, why should we believe that a full implementation would create a more
equity? The fact of the matter is that, in the Islamic world, power and wealth have always been
concentrated in the hands of a few ruling families while most people lived in poverty.
Economics is not the only science reshaped by Islam. In the next section, we will see how Islam
stamps science in general with its own die.
191
Chapter 6: Islam overrules Science
At first glance, science does not appear to fit this book’s discussion of Free Democracy, Free
Enterprise, and Islam. In fact, Muslims have always been very proud of their ancient
contributions to science, particularly in math and chemistry. However, as we shall see, Islam’s
scriptural – that is, religious – understanding of science, together with its prohibitions against
free speech and lending with interest, combine to shackle scientific advancement.
To fully appreciate the extent to which Islam overrides science, it is important to note that the
Islamic concept of science is fundamentally different from that of the West:
• In the West, the guiding light of science is the scientific method, which seeks to answer
questions by formulating hypotheses, testing them with real-world experiments, and then
refining those hypotheses and testing them again.
• In the Islamic world, the guiding light of science is Islamic holy scripture, which provides
answers through Islamic scholarship.
Because of Islam’s approach to science, very few new ideas have come from the Islamic world,
though early Muslims did a decent job of assimilating innovations from conquered lands. Also,
after developing their own scholars of foreign scientific scriptures, early Muslims sometimes
combined concepts to produce advances, particularly in the fields of chemistry and algebra.
But this is not the impression one gets from Islamic propagandists. The West even plays along,
often giving credit where it is not due. The most familiar example of undue credit is the
“Arabic” number system we use. In truth, “Arabic” numbers came from India and were
absorbed by Muslim invaders. Europe subsequently learned this system from Arab traders.
Muslims claim many scientific inventions for themselves. Unfortunately, these claims may be
their greatest inventions of all. Any investigation will uncover a plethora of falsehoods and
absurdities that are so universally believed by Muslims that they are printed in even the most
Westernized of Islamic primers. For example:
• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam lists the preservation of Greek
science as an Islamic achievement.383
In reality, Europe’s loss of Greco-Roman science was largely due to Rome’s fall to
invading “Barbarians,” a disaster in which Muslims played a lead role. Basically,
Muslims acquired Greco-Roman science in the course of conquering Byzantine territory.
As a testimony to Islam’s “contribution,” The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding
Islam quotes a famous fourteenth-century Islamic historian named Ibn Khaldun, who, in
his work, Al Muqaddimah,384 described how the Islamic world got the knowledge it
383
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 26, section entitled Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe, page 323.
384
Ibid, Chapter 26, section entitled Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe, page 322.
192
“preserved”:
...the Muslims won their remarkable victories, conquering the Byzantines…At first, the
Muslims were simple, and did not cultivate learning, but as time went on, the
Muslims…began to wish to study the various branches of philosophy, of whose existence
they knew through their contact with bishops and priests among their Christian subjects.
The Caliph, al-Mansur, therefore sent an embassy to the Byzantine emperor, asking him
to send translations of books on mathematics. The emperor sent him Euclid’s Elements
and some works on physics. Muslim scholars studied these books, and their desire to
obtain others was whetted. When al-Ma’mun…assumed the caliphate,…he sent out
ambassadors…to the Byzantine Empire,…to search out works on Greek science and have
them translated into Arabic...a great deal of material was gathered and preserved.
The strangest thing about this quote is that it is presented under the subtitle, Charting the
Muslim Influence on Europe. A more appropriate title would have been Charting the
European Influence on Islam.
Also, given that the Byzantine Empire continued to exist until 1453 AD, it played just as
important a role in transferring ancient Greek knowledge back to Western Europe as the
House of Islam. However, after the annihilation of Constantinople, with three days of
pillage, rape, and fire by Ottoman forces, it has not been in a position to claim credit for
its contributions.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Islamic world’s preservation of Greek science, and its
absorption of Indian mathematics, were basically applications of Islamic science to a new
set of books. That is, scholarship was used in the acquisition of knowledge instead of the
scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation. This hardly qualifies as an
achievement.
If we can credit Muslims with anything, it is in conquering the Eastern Roman Empire
less destructively than the barbarian tribes that overran the Western Empire.
• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam claims that a Muslim, Abu Raihan
al-Biruni (d. 1048), was the first to accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth.385
Apparently, there is a bit of Greek science that the Islamic world forgot to preserve – the
widely recognized fact that the first person to accurately calculate the circumference of
the Earth was a Greek named Eratosthenes, in 240 BC. By measuring the shadows of
vertical rods at noontime on the Summer Solstice at two different locations, Eratosthenes
was able to calculate the earth’s circumference to be 39,690 km, which was accurate to
better than 0.1% of the true diameter of 40,008 km.
385
Ibid, Chapter 26, section entitled Illuminating the Science Hall of Fame, page 325.
193
• The Koran for Dummies claims that a Muslim invented the astrolabe.386
While there appears to be some debate over exactly who invented the astrolabe, the
person was unquestionably Greek. The debate revolves around the definition of
“astrolabe,” because this tool evolved over time. Eratosthenes (276 – 194 BC), invented
a spherical astrolabe. Hipparchus (c. 190 – c. 120 BC) is also credited with inventing an
astrolabe. Ptolemy (c. 90 – c. 168 AD) used an astrolabe to develop his theory of
planetary motion. Theon of Alexandria (c. 335 – c. 405 AD) wrote a treatise on the
astrolabe. Obviously, the astrolabe was a highly refined tool hundreds of years before
Muhammad was even born.
What Muslims can be credited with is using the astrolabe religiously, to locate the qibla
wherever they lived. To aid their practice, some refinements were made, most notably by
the 11th century astronomer Al-Zarqall, whose astrolabe could be used at any latitude.
Subsequently, other inventions in the West replaced the astrolabe, such as the cross staff,
the back staff, the octant, and finally, the sextant, which was invented independently in
both Britain and America in 1730. This device proved to be so accurate, portable, and
convenient that it is still used today as a back-up to modern electronic systems.
Therefore, while Muslims may have refined a tool for navigation, they did not invent it.
They simply added a few ideas and then stopped contributing, leaving the West to
continue the tool’s development.
• The Koran for Dummies claims that Chinese Muslims invented paper.387
It is widely acknowledged that paper was invented in China by a man named Cai Lun388
(ca. AD 50—121) in about 105 AD, roughly 500 years before Muhammad’s ministry.
Cai Lun could not possibly have been a Muslim. What Muslims can claim for
themselves is the refinement of paper by substituting linen fibers for bamboo some time
in the 10th century.
• The Arab World Studies Notebook389 claims that Muslims discovered America before
Columbus.
In yet another effort to steal credit for the achievements of the West, many Muslims are
now even claiming that Muslims discovered America before Christopher Columbus.
This claim has become so popular that it is now being printed as unquestioned fact in
Islamic school textbooks, such as the Arab World Studies Notebook. In fact, there are
multiple theories behind this claim, whose variations betray an intent to trump Western
386
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 20, section entitled Advancing
society through science, page 297.
387
Ibid, Chapter 20, section entitled Advancing society through science, page 297.
388
Alternative spellings: Cài Lún, Ts’ai Lun
389
Arab World Studies Notebook, Middle East Policy Council, Washington, D.C., 2002.
194
achievements rather than pursue truth. While the Arab World Studies Notebook claims
that Muslims landed in North America and interbred with the Algonquin Indians,
Precolumbian Muslims in the America390 offers a remarkable alternative reality: “a
Muslim navigator, Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad, from Cordoba, Spain, sailed from
…Palos… in 889 CE, crossed the Atlantic, reached an unknown territory…and returned
with fabulous treasures,” and “Columbus and early Spanish and Portuguese explorers
were able to voyage across the Atlantic…thanks to Muslim geographical and
navigational information.”
It is commonly known that Columbus was indeed preceded in America – by non-Muslim

explorers. One of them was Leif Erikson, a Viking Christian, who hopped from Iceland
to Greenland, and then went on to Newfoundland in 1001 AD, starting settlements that
later failed during what has become known as “The Little Ice Age.” Other predecessors
included the ancient and now nameless bands of hunter-gatherers who crossed over the
Bering Straits at least 15,000 years ago.
The American Indians can be forgiven for not being able to name their prehistoric
predecessors. Muslims, however, consider their historical records to be matters of
national pride. And yet they do not know which Muslims went to America and interbred
with the American Indians, and they cannot explain why, after supposedly discovering
great riches in the 9th century, Muslims never established trade in the Americas, as did the
Spanish, for better or for worse. If Columbus was “able to voyage across the
Atlantic…thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information,” why weren’t
Muslims using that information?
• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam states that “Like many other
scientists in the Muslim world, [abu Abdullah] Al-Battani knew the world was round.”391
The implication, that European scientists did not know this fact, is untrue. As already
mentioned, Eratosthenes calculation of the Earth’s circumference in 240 BC presumed
that the world is round. Western knowledge of a spherical Earth is at least as ancient as
Plato, who described this concept in his Timaeus in about 360 BC.
While Europe’s illiterati may have thought the world was flat, the educated knew
otherwise for many centuries. The same was true in the land that became the Islamic
world, where Western knowledge was often assimilated via Muslim conquest.
To verify this claim, recall that the Catholic Church was infamous for endorsing
Ptolemy’s geocentric theory of planetary motion, and imprisoned Galileo for claiming
that the Earth moved around the Sun. As flawed as Ptolemy’s theory was, it presumed a
round Earth. On this, the Church and Galileo were in complete agreement.
390
Precolumbian Muslims in the America, by Dr. Youssef Mroueh, 1996. See
http://www.sunnah.org/history/precolmb.htm.
391
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 26, section entitled Illuminating the Science Hall of Fame, page 325.
195
• Both The Koran for Dummies and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran make grand
claims about the Koran’s advanced scientific knowledge, but then provide examples that
are scientifically inaccurate.392 393
For example, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran contains the following strange
discussion of Koranic botany:394
The science of botany was in no way advanced enough at the time of the Prophet to have
concluded that plants have gender traits. But in the Koran we are told: He made a pair of
every fruit and made the night cover the day…(13.3)
The first error that leaps from this bit of Koranic “science” is the claim that all plants (or
fruits?) have gender traits. Plants typically do not have the gender traits implied by verse
13.3. While flowers may have male and female parts, there are very few plants with male
and female individuals (such plants are called dioecious). Most fruit-bearing plants are
perfectly capable of reproducing from a single individual, whose flowers have stamens
(male) and pistils (female). Examples of such plants are apples, cherries, cucumbers,
grapefruits, melons, oranges, peaches, pears, peppers, squash, tomatoes, and zucchini.
However, there is a fruit-bearing dioecious plant called the date palm, which was very
important in Muhammad’s world and probably inspired this Koranic verse. But the date
palm is widely known to have been cultivated as long ago as 4000 BC. It is also known
that, even in ancient times, cultivators frequently fertilized female plants manually to
improve yields and reduce the number of male plants that had to be cultivated.395 In
other words, the dioecious nature of date palms was well-known in the ancient world. In
fact, the following hadith shows that Muhammad and his companions also knew about it:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490:…Magic was worked on the Prophet so
that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One
day he…said, “I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons
came to me (in my dream)…One…asked… ‘What is the ailment of this man?’ The other
replied, ‘He has been bewitched’ The first asked, ‘Who has bewitched him?’ The other
replied, ‘Lubaid bin Al-A’sam.’ The first one asked, ‘What material has he used?’ The
other replied, ‘A comb…and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.’…”
Therefore, the second error that leaps from this “Idiot’s” passage is the claim that “the
science of botany was in no way advanced enough at the time of the Prophet to have
concluded that plants have gender traits.” In truth, the Koran was making a reference to
knowledge that medieval Arabs were as familiar with as “the night cover[s] the day.”
392
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 9, section entitled Earthly
Creations, pages 136-139.
393
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 8, section entitled Scientific and Historical Information, pages 87-
89.
394
Ibid, page 89.
395
Source: The official website of the city of Nizwa, Oman: www.nizwa.net/agr/dates/datefarm/datefarm.html.
196
Another strange bit of Koranic “science” comes from The Koran for Dummies:396
The Koran describes the divine structure of the mountain as firmly rooted in the earth,
“standing firm” so that the mountain does not shake with the rest of the earth (31:10).
Today, geologists have also come to the conclusion that mountains are rooted in the earth
with hard sediments, like the roots of trees, which play an essential role in securing the
earth.
As anyone living near the San Andreas fault, or the mountains of Pakistan or Iran knows,
mountain ranges are among the places most likely to be affected by earthquakes.
Mountains are never “standing firm,” because the continental plates they reside on slowly
but constantly drift over the face of the planet, floating on top of the Earth’s molten core.
In fact, mountains are frequently the jumbled results of continental plates crashing into
each other. The whole concept of mountains described in the Koran is flawed.
One of the most celebrated triumphs of Koranic “science” has been its description of how
a fetus develops in the womb. As The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran indicates, this
description again reveals the Koran’s miraculous nature:397
Most of us couldn’t break down the sequence of development of the human fetus, but we
are certainly aware that the fetus exists within the womb. This fact wasn’t so clear to the
people of the seventh century, who developed a litany of superstitions and fables to
explain the process of human development and birth. Yet the Koran speaks unmistakably
of a human ovum attaching itself to the uterine wall, and the processes of fetal
development:
He created man from a clot of blood. (96:2)
And…
The living germ, then, was turned into a shapeless lump of flesh from which
bones were formed. The bones, then, were covered with flesh. At this stage, we
caused it to become another creature. All blessings belong to God, the best
Creator. (23:14)
The phrase “shapeless lump of flesh” is a strikingly accurate description of the embryo in
its early stages of development. The phrase “covered with flesh” appears to refer to
muscle development.
Again, we find a specious presentation of Islamic science. While false, it sounds true
those who don’t know any better. Here are some facts about fetus development:398
• The heart muscle begins beating on about the 21st day of pregnancy.
396
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 9, section entitled Earthly
Creations, page 137.
397
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 8, section entitled Scientific and Historical Information, page 89.
398
See www.pregnancycare-center.org/Stagesofdevelopment.htm.
197
• By the time the backbone (the first structure to become bone) begins forming,
on about the 28th day, arms, legs, eyes, and ears are already visible. Moreover,
the structures that will become bone are cartelege at this point, and they only
develop into bone at a later phase of development.
In other words, bones are not the first discernable structures in the fetus, and they are not
covered later with flesh, as the Koran describes. Instead, the heart muscle, unmentioned
in the Koran, is the first discernable structure, and other flesh and bone structures develop
together at a later point. Bones, rather than cartelege, actually develop last. In fact, the
calcification of cartilaginous “bones” continues even after childbirth.
Also, despite the author’s claim that fetus development was not understood during the
time of Muhammad, the nearby civilization of Rome had an understanding of fetal
development at least as good as the imperfect one described in the Koran.
Both The Koran for Dummies and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran have other
claims about the Koran’s “scientific knowledge” that turn out to be either observations
that one could make with the naked eye, broad generalizations that do not indicate
advanced knowledge, or outright falsehoods. If one were to investigate each of these
claims, one would become convinced of Muhammad’s scientific ignorance rather than
the Koran’s scientific knowledge.
• Most strangely, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam states that “Muslims
developed the scientific method of formulating a hypothesis and testing it to see whether
it is correct.”399
Actually, an early form of the scientific method came to the Islamic world through its
conquests in India, along with the Indian number system and mathematics. This can be
seen most notably in the works of a remarkable Indian mathematician and astronomer
named Aryabhata (476 AD – 550 AD).
It is possible that the scientific method was refined in the Islamic world, but I have found
no evidence of this. However, it is known that the scientific method was refined by
William of Ockham, an Englishman and Catholic theologian from the early 1300s, who
stated a valuable research criterion that has become known as Ockham’s Razor: If there
are competing theories that explain a given set of data, choose the simplest theory.
At about this time, the Islamic world became infected with a virulent case of excess piety,
similar to what caused the Church to imprison Galileo. However, in the House of Islam,
this infection thrives even today.
One can see this infection at work in The Koran for Dummies,400 which says that:
399
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 26, section entitled Charting the Muslim Influence on Europe, page 323.
400
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 9, section entitled The sun and
moon, page 135.
198
The Koran shows an innate knowledge of astronomy in pointing out that the sun and
moon alternate by day and night in a “rounded course” (21:33), which alludes to the fact
that both the sun and moon rotate around the earth, a “scientific” discovery that was made
well after the Koran’s revelation.
This is not a typographical error. According to the Koran, the sun does rotate around the
earth. In both authoritative translations to English, the cited verse declares:
[21.33] PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created…the sun and the moon. They float,
each in an orbit.
[21.33] YUSUF ALI: It is He Who created…the sun and the moon: all (the celestial
bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
This view of astrophysics is affirmed in many other Koranic verses,401 as well as the
Hadith, which explicitly tells devout Muslims how to interpret the Koran’s words:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:…The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do
you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle
know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne
and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come
when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will
ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to
return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation
of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed).
that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’” (36.38)
Even more disconcerting than these bizarre explanations is the “Dummies” claim that
these Koranic “revelation(s)” are confirmed by “‘scientific’ discovery”!
While it is understandable that people from the Dark Ages might have believed that the
sun rotates around the earth, the Koran makes this belief permanent. It would be an act
of Apostasy for a devout Muslim to disagree with verse 21.33 and verse 36.38, as well as
their many corroborating verses.
While some Muslims may try to wiggle around the “Dummies” viewpoint by claiming
that these verses refer to the Sun’s orbit in the Milky Way, or to the Sun’s rotation on its
own axis, the fact remains that a mainstream writer for the “For Dummies” series thinks
that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Moreover, this view is what any Muslim would
401
Additional verses from the Koran that imply the Sun moves around the Earth:
• [13.2] YUSUF ALI: Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly
established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs
(its course) for a term appointed.
• [22.18] PICKTHAL: And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him.
• [31.29] PICKTHAL: Hast thou not seen how Allah…hath subdued the sun and the moon (to do their
work), each running unto an appointed term;
• [39.5] PICKTHAL: He…constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an
appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?
199
have concluded from the Koran before being informed by Western Science that the Sun
rotates around its own axis, and that it also orbits around the center of the Milky Way.
In researching the above claims, I found so many exaggerations and outright falsehoods that I
have come to doubt nearly all of these books’ claims about Muslim achievements and the
Koran’s scientific knowledge. Little of this knowledge rises to the standard of a useful scientific
theory, and little of it has contributed to mankind’s store of useful information.
In fact, the Koran has several “scientific” concepts that actually detract from mankind’s store of
useful knowledge, and are so wild that the authors of these beginners’ books avoided mentioning
them. For example, there is the story of a man named Dhu’l-Qarneyn, whom Muslims
commonly believe to have been Alexander the Great, who followed the sun until he found it
setting in a muddy spring with people living nearby:
[31.29] PICKTHAL: They will ask thee of Dhu’l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a
remembrance of him.
[31.31] Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road.
[31.32] And he followed a road
[31.33] Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring,
and found a people thereabout.
Another illuminating bit of Koranic “science” explains that the heavens in the sky have different
levels, with the lowest level hung with lamps. It also explains that shooting stars, otherwise
known as meteors, are actually lamps flung at evil spirits:
• [67.5] YUSUF ALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and
We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for
them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.
• [15.16] YUSUF ALI: It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made
them fair-seeming to (all) beholders;
[15.17] And (moreover) We have guarded them from every cursed devil:
[15.18] But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).
• [37.6] YUSUF ALI: We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,-
[37.7] (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
[37.8] (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast
away from every side,
[37.9] Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,
[37.10] Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire,
of piercing brightness.
After the Koran pronounces, three times, that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits, what devout
Muslim would say that they are interplanetary rocks that crashed into the earth’s atmosphere?
To be fair, it is important to also note that the Bible has its own strange “science” at times. It
joins the Koran in portraying angels as real, and has spawned a legion of creationists who
adamantly revolt against the theory of evolution.
200
A key difference between the Bible and the Koran is that only the Koran claims to have been
spoken by Allah himself. As previously discussed in the chapter entitled A personal realization,
this fact gives the Koran unquestionable iron-clad authority in the mind of devout Muslims.
Therefore, as the Hadith says:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 347:402… It is a sign of having knowledge that,
when you do not know something, you say: ‘Allah knows better.’
In other words, if a Westerner confronts a Muslim with logic and demonstrates conclusively that
the words of the Koran don’t make sense, the Muslim should not concede the point, but only
reply “Allah knows better.”
Another important difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians are called upon to
resolve disputes through peaceful methods, while Muslims are called upon to resolve disputes
through jihad. Despite this distinction, Christians have had their own rebellions against science,
and only reluctantly learned to listen to the Bible spiritually while letting nature speak for itself.
While this change in viewpoint may be difficult for Christians, it is impossible for Muslims, who
can only make this change by acknowledging that the Koran is not perfect – an act of blasphemy.
Another major difference between Western Science and Islamic Science is that Western Science
does not care about truth per se. Instead, it focuses on useful and accurate approximations,
because it humbly acknowledges that the ultimate truths of reality still lay beyond our crude
comprehension. As a result, Western scientists are quick to discard one theory in favor of
another if a new theory is more useful and accurate than an old one.
Islamic Science, on the other hand, defines the Koran to be the Truth, and then seeks to map the
observable world onto its pages. In fact, the authority of the Koran is greater than that of
personal observation. If a Muslim sees something that disagrees with the Koran, he or she will
claim that the Koran is still true, but we simply do not understand its truth with regard to the
thing observed.
While the Islamic world may have made some contributions to science, the fact that these
beginners’ books resorted to exaggerations and falsehoods gives sad testimony to the scarcity of
achievements. In comparison, the achievements of Western science through giants like
Huygens, Newton, Laplace, Bernoulli, Gauss, Mach, Faraday, and Einstein make exaggeration
unnecessary.
402
The phrase “Allah knows better” or “Allah knows best” permeates the Hadith, and can be found in: Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 12, Numbers 799, 809, & 829, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 874, Volume 4, Book 52,
Number 46, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 360, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 62, 297, & 333 Volume 7, Book 68,
Number 477, Book 72, Number 687, Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 1, Book 4, Number 1317, Book 16, Number
4161, Book 26, Number 5545, Book 31, Number 6070, Book 31, Numbers 6154 & 6158, Book 38, Number 6678,
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 3, Number 863, Malik’s Muwatta, Book 1, Number 1.5.24, Book 9, Number 9.24.85,
Book 16, Number 16.16.53, Book 17, Number 17.3.8, Book 18, Numbers 18.15.41 & 18.17.44, Book 20, Numbers
20.37.121, 20.51.176, 20.69.228, & 20.76.256, Book 21, Number 21.14.29, Book 27, Number 27.7.1, Book 28,
Numbers 28.1.2 & 28.13.32, Book 31, Numbers 31.1.1 & 31.44.97, Book 36, Numbers 36.10.13, 36.18.15, Book
43, Number 43.16.8c, and Book 50, Number 50.3.5.
201
A final point: While there may be Koranic verses that thwart science directly, the ways in which
Muslims interpret the Koran amplify the damage. Consider the following verse:
[22.18] YUSUF ALI: Seest thou not that to Allah bow down in worship all things that are in the
heavens and on earth, - the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great
number among mankind?
This passage could easily be interpreted in a poetic sense. Unfortunately, Muslims choose to
read it literally. For example, The Koran for Dummies states:403
The Koran teaches that all creations on earth and in the universe submit to God [Allah] in
worship by following His laws. So, the sun and the moon, the plants and the trees, and the
animals bow down in praise of God for sustaining them…
In light of the fact that neither animals, nor the moon, sun, or stars bow down and worship Allah
in any observable sense, the author goes on to explain that animals and physical objects “bow
down in praise of God for sustaining them” by simply adhering to the laws of nature.
The subtle pathology of this explanation is that it transmutes the laws of nature into the laws of
Allah, and Muslims believe that the Koran defines the laws of Allah. Therefore, Muslims
believe that the Koran, as a vessel of Allah laws, speaks authoritatively on the laws of nature,
and should be considered a source of answers to scientific questions. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr
says in his book, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization,404
Nature is a book whose ayat405 are to be read like the ayat of the Quran; in fact, they can only be
read thanks to the latter, for only revelation can unveil for fallen man the inner meaning of the
cosmic text. Certain Muslim thinkers have referred to the cosmos as the “Quran of creation” or
the “cosmic Quran”, whereas the Quran that is read every day by Muslims is called the “recorded
Quran.” The cosmos is the primordial revelation whose message is still written on the face of
every mountain and tree leaf and is reflected through the light that shines from the sun, the moon,
and the stars. But as far as Muslims are concerned, this message can only be read by virtue of the
message revealed by “the recorded Quran.”
The dark side of this viewpoint is that it makes any scientist or inventor an Apostate if his or her
work violates the Koran. We see this dark side in the diatribes of Islamic scholars against
portraiture, photography, movies, television, and even organ transplants. Islam stifles science by
suppressing free speech and, as a consequence, free thought and invention.
Islam does more than hinder science with its strictures on free speech; as mentioned previously;
it also does so through Islamic Economics. Research projects often need large amounts of
money, which in the West can be fulfilled by interest-bearing loans. Many realms of research
403
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Worship and
service to God, page 11.
404
HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 3, section entitled The Cosmos, page 71.
405
As mentioned previously, Ayat is the Arabic term for Koranic verses. The literal meaning is “signs;” thus this
quote uses a pun: the signs of nature are to be read like the signs, or verses, of the Koran.
202
are risky, such as in the ocean’s depths, air, and space, and can only be attempted if insurance
provides a safety net. Islam’s prohibitions make these hurdles even more challenging.
In summary, Islam attacks science on multiple fronts. Its holy scriptures provide false answers
to important scientific questions. It prohibits research and product development in a broad range
of areas. It lashes out against scientists whose discoveries disagree with the Koran. It makes it
difficult to raise money for research. It also discourages risk-taking.
After considering the many hurdles that Islam places before science, it is no wonder that that
science has progressed much faster in the West. This blaring fact has led Muslims themselves to
realize that something is wrong, but they cannot bring themselves to say that Islam is the cause.
Instead, they have desperately sought other reasons which have led to misguided solutions. The
resulting confusion has combined with a sense of crisis to produce the violence and rage seen in
the House of Islam today.
203
Chapter 7: The State of Islam Today
Stuck at a fork in the road
Today, Islamic nations are at a fork in their roads to the future, and each has two hands firmly on
the wheel, pulling in opposite directions.
The first hand is traditional Islamic society, which has been driving in a straight line ever since
“The Closing of the door of Ijtihad”406 in the tenth century. While Europe languished in the dark
ages, the Islamic world spent its first centuries going through a period of continual intellectual
refinement. This process came to a halt, however, when a scholar named al-Qaffal issued a
fatwa in the tenth century. This fatwa declared that all questions regarding Islam’s guidance for
living had been answered, and that there was no need for further intellectual development. From
then on, all questions were to be answered by references to preceding scholars.407
The second hand belongs to modernizers who long for the West’s prosperity and power. These
iconoclasts and leaders of a new ijtihad are constantly veering from traditional customs and
seeking out Western ideas, hoping to grab the West’s keys to success.
Unfortunately, Islamic nations have been stuck at this fork for many years. They seek Islam’s
glory days of old while simultaneously desiring the affluence, liberties, and power enjoyed in the
West. They find themselves trying to travel down two divergent roads at once.
In Islam’s earliest days, Muslims readily assimilated the inventions and scientific developments
of conquered lands. After “The Closing,” however, there was a long period of disinterest in the
thoughts, inventions, and science of Infidel foreigners. This disdain for Western innovation
gradually changed as the Ottoman Empire, which considered itself to be the center of the Islamic
world, whose Caliph carried authority similar to that of the Pope’s, began to lose wars and
territory. In the face of these losses, the Islamic world became painfully aware of its
backwardness. This realization launched a frantic Ottoman effort to reassert Islam’s long-held
belief that Muslims were the best and most advanced people in the world.
Initially, the only Ottoman goal was to import Western weapons and military tactics, but it was
soon clear that these were only short-term fixes.408 To reestablish Ottoman supremacy, the Empire
would have to harness and then surpass the West’s creative energy. Thus began a wholesale
importation of Western ideas, inventions, and political philosophies into the House of Islam.
The speed of Westernization accelerated with the 1904 discovery of Iranian oil,409 which was
then followed by other oil discoveries throughout the Middle East. Western drilling technology
406
Ijtihad is the process of studying the Koran and Hadith to derive a ruling on a specific issue. More generally,
Ijtihad can be considered a scholarly inquiry into the application of divine law based on Islamic holy texts.
407
How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed, Islamic Voice, June 1998.
408
What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press,
2002, page 20.
409
Blood & Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince, By Manucher Farmanfarmaian and Roxane Farmanfarmaian,
Random House, 1997.
204
brought Western financing, and Middle-Eastern elites were soon awash with Western money.
This money opened the floodgates of Western culture, with Middle Eastern elites giving their
children Western educations and buying vast quantities of Western toys, such as automobiles,
radios, televisions, and weapons. At a deeper level, the ascension of Western culture
corresponded with a decline of Islamic culture.
Islam’s great fall from grace followed the Ottoman Empire’s decision to enter World War I on
the side of Austria and Germany. The Allies (France, Britain, Russia,410 Italy, and the United
States) meted out harsh justice at the Treaty of Versailles. Like Germany and Austria, the
Ottoman Empire lost vast territories, which were either liberated, absorbed by the victors, or
made British, French, or Italian mandates. This loss was even more humiliating, though, because
the Ottoman Sultan and Caliph, Mehmet V, had declared it to be a jihad – a Holy War.
The devastating outcome of World War I meant that Allah, as well as the Ottoman Empire, had
been defeated by the Infidels. As with Nazism and Communism, Islam’s political ideology soon
fell into disrepute when its flagship nation fell.
The final blow to Islamic statehood was Mustafa Kemal’s revolution in Turkey, which, in 1924,
dismantled the Ottoman Empire, abolished the discredited caliphate, and left the leadership of
Sunni Islam in disarray.
Germany’s rage at the humiliations of World War I opened the door for Hitler’s revenge in
World War II. In the Muslim world, rage at the loss of Islam’s flagship nation was initially more
muted because many Arabs felt that the Caliphate had been stolen from them long ago by the
Turks. These Arabs had allied themselves with Britain and France to liberate themselves from a
reputedly illegitimate Ottoman Caliphate. Sadly, the Arabs soon came to see the mandates of
Britain, France, and Italy as Christian occupations rather than European ones.
To this day, there remains a raw sense of outrage against Christianity over the mandates. This
outrage remains so fresh that the Muslim author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding
Islam wrote:411
With the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire…interfaith dialogue [took] on the tone of conquered
and conquerors. The five nations that have done the most harm to the Muslim world – Britain,
France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Russia – suppressed the teaching and practice of Islam and
went to great lengths to set up missionary schools and other forms of institutional Christianity in
the lands they controlled.
The inappropriateness of this interpretation becomes apparent when one notes that Ataturk’s
secular revolution in Turkey did far more to dismantle political Islam and suppress Islamic
practices than anything the Christian nations ever did.
410
Though Russia had been disabled by its own Bolshevik revolution and dropped out of the war after losing
substantial territories.
411
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 17, section entitled Interfaith Dialogue, page 209.
205
The apparent triumph of Westernization in the House of Islam did not immediately create all of
the benefits that Westernizers had hoped for. The reasons for this could fill volumes, but the
bottom line is that the institutions of the West, which developed over centuries, were based on a
set of political and economic practices whose benefits are not immediately obvious. The West
had gone through a number of political and economic theories, and the ones that remained had
survived difficult trials. The expectation that Western concepts would graft easily onto the social
and cultural institutions of Islam without painful conflicts was a set-up for failure.
Unfortunately, these problems have given Islam’s religious leaders a pretext for rejecting
Western institutions altogether. As The Koran for Dummies puts it:412
Scholars have almost unanimously agreed that when the Muslim community strictly adheres to
this concept of “enjoining good and forbidding evil [according to the Koran],” then it is given
leadership as an exemplary community on earth.
But, if the Muslim community leaves behind the practice of good [according to the Koran], fails
to prevent evil [according to the Koran], and abandons sincere belief in One God [Allah], then it
can no longer be considered the “best community.”
…
The Koran views striving for…God’s laws as a requirement for the social and moral preservation
of the entire [Islamic] community. Many commentators, from the post-Islamic civilization period
[post-World War I] in particular, argue that abandoning this responsibility causes the downfall of
Muslim nations, which in their eyes have become subservient to the rest of the world instead of
becoming its leaders.
Whenever Muslims perceive injustices around them, these religious leaders are quick to declare
that “Islam is the solution!”413 In fact, this is the slogan that Hamas used during the 2006
Palestinian elections,414 to portray its opposition to Fatah415 as a battle between Islam and
secularism, and it helped produce a landslide victory. This slogan is code for “Reject the Infidel
West.”
Unfortunately, these Muslim leaders have put the Islamic world into a difficult position because
most modern ideas and institutions are not inherently Western. Instead, they represent progress
in a universal sense. To reject these concepts because they came from the West is to reject
progress and change in general. Therefore, the call of fundamentalists to revive Islam’s glory
days actually sends the House of Islam back into the brutal and tribal past.
What follows is a very brief summary of the roads that Islamic nations have chosen and how
they have fared on their journeys:
412
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Enjoining
Good and Forbidding Evil, pages 238-239.
413
U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft diplomacy, by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, February 13, 2006 issue.
414
Rise of Hamas concerns brewers, by Matthew Gutman, USA Today, April 10, 2006, page 6A.
415
The political party of Yasser Arafat. It is secular in that its unifying goal is Palestinian nationhood rather than a
particular religious agenda. It is a coalition of Palestinian Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and secularists.
206
Turkey
Through the fierce leadership of native son Mustafa Kemal, hailed as Ataturk (“Father of the
Turks”), Turkey resolved to pay the full price of change, and, after several tumultuous decades in
the early 1900s, emerged as a secular and largely democratic nation. This remarkable
achievement went so far as to offer religious freedoms similar to the West, despite its primarily
Muslim population. Turkey’s ability to maintain this government for over 70 years has
encouraged many Westerners to believe that Free Democracy can endure in the Islamic world.
However, Turkey’s prospects may not be as bright as they appear. After many decades, its grasp
of Western institutions remains tenuous. Despite its success in comparison to other Islamic
nations, there is a powerful undercurrent of Islamic resentment toward its secular government.
Turkey has been the victim of numerous Islamic terrorist bombings416 that were perpetrated by
fundamentalists opposed to Turkey’s Western orientation. These attacks supplement those of
Kurdish separatists, who are also Muslims but have an ethnic rather than religious axe to grind.
Additionally, Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a member of the Justice and
Development Party, which seeks to strengthen Islamic institutions within Turkey.
Despite the attacks of extremists, Turkey is not as secular as its reputation leads many to believe.
For example, it effectively supports Islam as the state religion by bankrolling imams and making
Islamic teachings a required part of public education, regardless of a student’s religion.417
Extremists attack Turkey simply because it is not as Islamic as they would like.
Turkey’s ostensibly secular government, along with the modernist clergy it employs, is in almost
constant conflict with the Islamic traditions of its people. One point of conflict is the education
of girls, as unveiled in the following article:
Turkish campaign seeks to educate girls

By Louis Meixler, Associated Press Writer, September 28, 2005
Van, Turkey –…Mehmet Sadik Altin, the local imam, charges up to a lopsided concrete home
with a mud roof and demands to know why the five girls inside aren’t in class.
“We don’t have money for bread,” Meryem Benek shouts…“How can I send my girls to school?”
…
Hundreds of teachers are combing city slums and rural villages as part of a massive national
campaign to educate an estimated 520,000 Turkish girls who don’t go to school.
How well they succeed could hold far-reaching consequences: Ankara begins entry talks with the
European Union on Monday, and the focus will be on issues such as human rights, gender
equality, and Turkey’s need to improve its economy. Already, many European countries are
reluctant to accept such a huge and poor country.
…
416
For examples, refer to the following articles: Bombings at Istanbul synagogues kill 23, FoxNews/Associated
Press, November 16, 2003, and Bus blast kills 5 in Turkey, CBS News/Associated Press, July 16, 2005.
417
2002 Report on Human Rights Practices, U.S. Department of State, section entitled Turkey, subsection entitled
Freedom of Religion.
207
It is…a difficult effort that clashes directly with Islamic…traditions dictating that girls don’t
belong in the classroom.
…
In some poor provinces, officials estimate that at least half of girls do not go to school – despite
the fact education is compulsory until the age of 14…
…
A key part of the campaign has been mobilizing imams like Altin – who under law must be
government employees – to convince conservative Turks that Islam is not against educating girls.
…
“Allah’s first order to the Prophet Muhammad was ‘Read!’” Tanriant said. “Allah did not say
‘Read boys!’ or ‘Read girls!’” he explained, sitting in his office in the corner of a mosque.418
That view, however, is controversial in many areas…while government imams support the
campaign, unofficial religious leaders have tried to undermine it.
…
In front of a nearby house, Selahattin Yildirim stood on the stoop, smoking.
“Why ‘Hey Girls Let’s go to School?’” he asked. “It should be ‘Hey Boys.’ This is immoral.
Why force people to send their girls to school?”
Turkey is an interesting case because its movement toward Free Democracy and Free Enterprise
has brought it relative economic success, but at the expense of Islamic values and traditions. In
fact, the driving force of its Westernization in recent years has been the government’s desire to
join the European Union and reap economic benefits from membership. This goal has been
hampered, though, by Turkey’s blemished human rights record, its support for North Cyprus,
and an economy that, while outstanding among Islamic nations, is poor by European standards.
To the extent that Turkey remains backward, its backwardness is a measure of the grasp that
Islam still has on its culture and laws. The tension between Turkey’s traditional Islamic culture,
and the Western culture championed by its government, can be seen in this recent article:
EU starts historic Turkey membership talks

MSNBC News, Associated Press, October 3, 2005
LUXEMBOURG - The European Union opened membership talks with Turkey early Tuesday —
a historic first step that would transform the bloc by taking in a …Muslim nation and expanding
its borders to Asia and the Middle East.
…
The negotiations came amid fears that rejecting the only Muslim EU candidate country could
destabilize the Turkish government, which has staked its future on building ties with the West…
…
Washington also has showcased Turkey as an example of a Muslim country that is not only pro-
Western but also secular and democratic.
418
As a side-note, it is interesting to see a Muslim claim that Muhammad was ordered to “Read!” by the Angel
Gabriel while Muslims simultaneously claim that Muhammad was illiterate. Other translations of the story of
Muhammad and Gabriel say that Muhammad was ordered to “Recite!,” which makes more sense. The confusion
arises from the fact that “recite” and “read” are both meanings of the same Arabic word, “qara’a”, which stands for
reading aloud. Qara’a is the root word for Qur’an (Koran), which means Recitation.
208
But many Europeans have…concerns about admitting a poor and predominantly Muslim nation.
In other words, after over 70 years of governmental commitment to Western institutions,

Turkey’s stability still hangs in the balance. After all this time, the acceptance of Free
Democracy by its people still appears to depend on the lure of gaining access to the wealth and
the economic prosperity of Europe, rather than the popular acceptance of Europe’s traditions of
Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. It is feared that any stop in momentum could cause the
pendulum to swing back toward Islamic traditions.
Still, Turkey’s leaders have progressed farther toward Free Democracy and Free Enterprise than
other Islamic nations. While each nation has its own unique history, their common strategy has
been to pick and choose their favorite democratic institutions without accepting the whole
package. This creates appearances of progress without accomplishing real change, such as a
president who bequeaths the presidency to his son (Syria), and a “consultative council” (instead
of a parliament), whose members are appointed by the monarch rather than elected (Saudi
Arabia). The dismal results of these half-hearted experiments confirm that a nation that puts the
strictures of Islamic Law on its people will not enjoy the benefits of Free Democracy or Free
Enterprise.
While the prospects for progress in the House of Islam remain gloomy, there have been a few
positive developments. One of them has been the revival of ijtihad. Unfortunately, the lack of
any universally recognized clergy in the Muslim world,419 together with Islam’s tradition of
resolving religious debates through war, has led to further strife. Moreover, the bounds of ijtihad
remain limited. While the Koran and the Hadith can be reinterpreted, they cannot be rewritten.
Iran
Iran is an Islamic nation that has managed to place a democratic veil over a theocracy. Its
version of Islamic Democracy conducts popular elections, but requires all political candidates to
be approved by the Guardian Council, a group of mullahs who act as Iran’s ultimate legal
authority. Therefore, the people of Iran participate in elections, but the Guardian Council
controls the outcome by eliminating candidates who do not subscribe to its views. Moreover, the
membership of the Guardian Council is determined by one man, known as the Supreme Leader,
whose sweeping powers control through proxy all aspects Iran’s governance, including the
actions of Iran’s President. Ayatollah Khomeini was Iran’s first Supreme Leader, and his
successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the current Supreme Leader.
What may be most interesting about the office of Supreme Leader is the circular power loop it
creates. That is, the Supreme Leader choses the members of the Guardian Council, who control
the selection of another group called the Assembly of Experts, who, in turn, elect the Supreme
Leader. In other words, Iran’s “Islamic Democracy” is not a democracy at all. All real power is
concentrated in the hands of an elite circle of theocrats who pay lip service to democracy in the
form of elections whose candidates they control.
419
How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed , Islamic Voice, June 1998.
209
The net effect is a Shiite Islamic party reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.420
The most recent example of how this Shiite party controls electoral outcomes was the 2005
elections, where the Guardian Council eliminated all liberal and moderate candidates for
President, plus thousands of liberal and moderate candidates for other offices. As a result, the
presidency went to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extreme hard-liner, and the nation as a whole
took a hard turn toward global militancy.
Although Iran looks like a democracy, this should not warm the hearts of the West. Not only are
non-Muslims shut out of elected office, but Sunnis and liberal Shiites are excluded as well.
Iran’s version of democracy does more than allow “the tyranny of the majority;” it actually uses
this tyranny to serve Shiite interests. Therefore, there is nothing Free about Iran’s democracy.
Ayatollah Khomeini and the other founders of Iran’s Islamic Republic were clever men. They
recognized the need for participative government, and decided to serve that need through
democratic elections. They also recognized that the only way to guarantee a Shiite government
would be to have Shiite clerics choose the candidates. Therefore they designed a representative
democracy that was guaranteed to always be Shiite. Unfortunately, by guaranteeing Shiite
control, they disabled the democracy. Even worse, their Islamic blinders prevented them from
realizing that they were destroying the democratic spirit they had dreamed of.
What Ayatollah Khomeini did not recognize is that Shari’ah is fundamentally anti-democratic,
because it represents an unchangeable body of laws. In Free Democracies, all laws are
changeable, according to the will of the people, through the votes of elected representatives.421
Any attempt to impose Shari’ah on the democratic process puts suffocating constraints on
legislators, because the only way to prevent un-Islamic laws is to create a body of religious
overseers with veto power. This is what Iran actually does, because its Guardian Council does
more than control who runs for office; it may also veto legislation that violates Shari’ah.
Other Islamic nations, and their relationships with the West

While the world’s other Islamic nations all reject Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, they do
so to varying degrees. Some are Islamic democracies, such as the nations whose constitutions
were presented in the preceding chapter. Despite their Sunni foundations, these governments
have more in common with Iran than with the United States. Other Islamic nations are
monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, or dictatorships, such as Libya, or anarchies, such as Somalia.
Regardless of their forms of government, these nations’ relationships with the West tend to fall
into three categories: Expedient, Mercenary, and Alienated.
1. Expedient. These nations share few if any common values with the West, but ally
themselves with the West for political expedience. For example, Pakistan is a strong ally
of the United States in its War on Terror, but its attempts at democracy have stumbled
time and again. It is currently a dictatorship under General Pervez Musharraf. Just a few
years ago, Pakistan actively helped the Taliban establish its Islamic government in
420
Iran Elections Now In Doubt By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, CBS News, January 26, 3004.
421
Even the United States Constitution has been subject to numerous changes. It has been amended 27 times in a
little more than 200 years.
210
Afghanistan.
The most obvious reason for Pakistan’s reversal in policy toward the Taliban is that it
was on the brink of nuclear war with India at the time when President Bush declared
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”422 Pakistan’s leaders knew that if
they continued to support the Taliban, which provided a safe haven for al Qaeda, the U.S.
might rapidly join forces with India against it.
To gauge the true sentiment of Pakistan’s people, note that General Musharraf pardoned
Abdul Qadeer Khan, the “founding father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program,” after
it was disclosed that Khan had sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.423
General Musharraf lives between a rock and a hard place: He had to support President
Bush or run the risk of invoking America’s wrath. By doing so, however, he has exposed
himself to several assassination attempts by Islamic fundamentalists,424 who accuse him
of being either a Hypocrite or an Apostate. This is because Musharraf’s actions conflict
directly with the wishes of many Pakistanis, who actively support the Taliban and Osama
bin Laden. Despite the actions of Musharraf, many of Pakistan’s religious leaders
consider themselves at war with the West, particularly the United States.
2. Mercenary. These nations struggle with the self-perception that they are selling their
souls for material gain. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain are repressive
Islamic monarchies that directly oppose Free Democracy. Their friendly relations with
the West come from lucrative trade agreements that are simply too good to pass up.
Besides a mutual desire for profit, there are few shared values between them and the
West.
To grasp how little the West shares with these “staunch allies,” 425 consider the following
article:
Saudi king cracks down on photos of women

Reuters, MSNBC News, May 16, 2006
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, under pressure from Islamists
to curb reforms, has warned local media against showing pictures of Saudi women…
…
Newspapers have broken with tradition and have…begun printing photographs of Saudi
women beside stories, usually with hair covered but faces showing, which many Wahhabi
Islamists consider morally wrong.
…
422
President George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20,
2001.
423
Pakistan: Secret nuclear network dismantled, Associated Press, MSNBC News, January 5, 2006.
424
Pakistan seeks six in assassination plots, by Paul Haven, Associated Press, August 19, 2004.
425
An example of the many references to these mercenary nations as “staunch allies” of the U.S. can be found in
Sporadic fighting marks 4th day of violence in Gaza, West Bank, by Mike Hanna, Jerrold Kessel, with Associated
Press & Reuters contributing, CNN.COM, October 1, 2000.
211
“There are photographs published in some newspapers...and one needs to think if he
would want his daughter, sister or wife to appear like that. Of course, no one would,” the
king was quoted as saying…
...
In recent months, many figures in the powerful religious establishment have used mosque
sermons, Internet forums and public debates to decry a wave of “liberalization” they fear
will secularize the country along Western lines…
Oil profits, and the Western goods they purchase, have left citizens of these countries
feeling uncomfortable. On one hand, they are able to live in luxury. On the other hand,
they see Muhammad’s Hypocrites in themselves. In addition, their religious leaders are
quick to accuse their governments of siding with the Infidel West against Muslim
brothers, as the Islamic scholar Hasa al-Banna alleges in a tract that rants against Islam’s
mercenary leaders and their European allies:426
The Europeans worked assiduously to enable the tide of this materialistic life, with its
corrupting traits and its murderous germs, to overwhelm all the Islamic lands…
They laid their plans for this social aggression in masterly fashion, invoking the aid of the
political acumen and the military predominance until they had accomplished their desire.
They deluded the Muslim leaders by granting them loans and entering into financial
dealings with them, making all of this easy and effortless for the economy and to flood
their countries with their capital, their banks, and their companies; to take over the
workings of the economic machinery as they wished; and to monopolize, to the exclusion
of the inhabitants, enormous profits and immense wealth.
After that they were able to alter the basic principles of government, justice, and
education, and to imbue political, juridical and cultural systems with their own peculiar
character in even the most powerful Islamic countries…
This being insufficient for them, they founded schools, and scientific and cultural
institutes in the very heart of the Islamic domain, which cast doubt and heresy into the
very souls of its sons and taught them…to regard as sacred anything…which had a
European source …
Islamic doctrine has taught the citizens of these mercenary Islamic nations to despise the
House of War and its Infidel citizens. Therefore, they loathe their dependence on
Western trade and call their governments sell-outs for allowing the West to corrupt their
morals. Similarly, they accuse the West of cynically propping up undemocratic
monarchies for the sake of oil and trade.427
This perception of corruption and social injustice, together with the free time that wealth
provides, has led many young people in these nations to turn to religious studies. These
young people have become vital sources of support for al Qaeda, as well as the other
militant factions that battle against their rulers.428 Beneath the apparent prosperity of
426
Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna: a Selection from majmu’at rasail al imam al shahid hasan al-banna, translated
by Charles Wendel, Berkely: University of California Press, 1979, pages 27-28.
427
Saudi Arabia: Kingdom on Edge, by Frank Viviano, National Geographic magazine, October 2003.
428
Ibid.
212
these nations is an undercurrent of destabilizing forces that could rise up at any time, as it
did during Iran’s Islamic Revolution.
For their parts, the ruling classes rationalize their trade with the West by using profits to
finance pro-Islamic activities around the world. Their money allows them to pursue a
global Islamic revolution through more subtle means. For example:
• Founding and financing mosques in areas that would otherwise not be able to
support them financially. These mosques tend to far exceed the capacity needed
to serve the existing Muslim population and act as distribution centers for hate-
literature, as the following London Times article reveals:
Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

October 30, 2007, Sean O’Neill, Security Editor
…
Books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain
indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage are being sold inside some of Britain’s
leading mosques, according to research seen by The Times.
Some of the fundamentalist works were found at the bookshop in the

London Central mosque in Regent’s Park, which is funded by the Saudi
regime and is regularly visited by government ministers. Its director,
Ahmad al-Dubayan, is also a Saudi diplomat and was among those greeting
King Abdullah when he arrived in Britain last night for his official state
visit.
Extremist literature, including passages supporting the stoning of adulterers and

waging violent jihad, was also found on sale at many other mosques regarded as
mainstream institutions.
More than 80 books and pamphlets were collected during a year-long project in
which researchers visited 100 mosques across Britain.
…
The researchers found hardline material at a quarter of the 100 mosques visited
during the project.
The report said: “On the one hand, the results were reassuring: in only a minority
of institutions – approximately 25 per cent – was radical material found.
“What is more worrying is that these are among the best-funded and most
dynamic institutions in Muslim Britain – some of which are held up as
mainstream bodies. Many of the institutions featured here have been endowed
with official recognition.”
A key theme of the books was a “strident sectarianism” which told Muslims that
they should remain separate from other faiths and resist integration. The report
stated: “Simply put, these notions demand that the individual Muslim must not
merely feel deep affection for and identity with his fellow believers and with all
that is authentically Islamic. The individual Muslim must also feel an abhorrence
for nonbelievers, hypocrites, heretics, and all that is deemed ‘unIslamic’. The
213
latter category encompasses those Muslims who are judged to practise an
insufficiently rigorous form of Islam.”
…
The report called for a radical overhaul of Britain’s relationship with Saudi
Arabia, which it argued has a “powerful and malign” influence over British
Islam and sponsored the export of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine.
As a testimony to British denial, note the sense of comfort the researchers found
in discovering that “only…25 per cent” of the mosques carried radical literature.
This is cause for alarm, not comfort.
• Founding and financing Islamic schools (called madrassas)429 around the

world. Over the past few decades, funding has focused particularly on the West,
cultivating Islamic radicalism in some of the very hearts of Western culture, as the
Associated Press reports:
Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school

The books say it’s OK for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts
Wed., June. 11, 2008
McLEAN, Va. - Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach

students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from
Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.
Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against
Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and
property of those deemed "polytheists."
The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school
year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12
at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from
the Saudi government…
George P. Shultz (former Secretary of State) and R. James Woolsey (former CIA
Director) recently wrote an article that described the magnitude of this
subversion:430
Estimates of the amount spent by the Saudis in the last 30 years spreading
Wahhabi431 beliefs throughout the world vary from $70 billion to $100 billion.
Furthermore, some oil-rich families of the Greater Middle East fund terrorist
groups directly. Whether in lectures in the madrassas of Pakistan, in textbooks
printed by Wahhabis for Indonesian schoolchildren, or on bookshelves of
mosques in the U.S., the hatred spread by Wahhabis and funded by oil is evident
429
A Madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Also spelled madrasah, madrash, medresa, or madressa.
430
The Petroleum Bomb, by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey,
Mechanical Engineering, October 2005.
431
Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic sect that has strong and close historical ties to the leaders of Saudi
Arabia. This sect has been granted near-governmental powers over the nation by Saudi rulers.
214
and influential.
• Founding and financing Islamic Studies programs and colleges and universities
throughout the West. Below are just a few examples of the prestigious American
universities that have accepted donations of tens of millions of dollars from wealthy
Middle Easterners to found Islamic Studies programs. Some examples:
o “The world’s fifth wealthiest man, Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal
Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, is donating $20 million to Harvard to expand Islamic
studies”432
o “In December 2005, the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
(CMCU) received a $20 million dollar gift from HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin
Talal…This endowed fund is the second largest single gift in Georgetown
University history.”433
o "Because the King Fahd Middle East Studies Program is based on bilateral
projects, the entire University [of Arkansas] and all its disciplines have had
opportunities to participate…Funded by a generous $21.5 million gift from
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the program is now in its sixth year.”434
• Engaging in “Libel Terrorism” and “Libel Tourism,” where wealthy Muslims,

usually from the Middle East, use crushing lawsuits to silence those who speak up about
Islam. For such billionaires, it is easy to travel to Western nations to pursue endless
litigation. The Boston Globe describes an example case:
'Libel tourism' and the war on terror

By Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silverglate, November 7, 2006
…
Rachel Ehrenfeld, an adviser to the Defense Department and director of the New York-
based American Center for Democracy, pioneered investigation into the financial roots of
terrorism…
One target of Ehrenfeld's work is Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, former owner of
the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and former chief operating officer of the
scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International…
In "Funding Evil," Ehrenfeld reported that bin Mahfouz deposited "tens of millions of
dollars in London and New York directly into terrorist accounts" and transferred some
$74 million to the International Islamic Relief Organization and the Muwafaq Foundation
run by Yasin al-Qadi, a US-designated terrorist.
Bin Mahfouz would have little chance to silence his accusers by a libel action in US
courts…No other nation goes as far to protect speech. Indeed, outside the United States,
truth is often not a defense to allegations of defamation…[such as in]…Britain,
Canada, Australia, or any of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe.
Bin Mahfouz and fellow libel tourists have made the English libel bar rich, leading
the London Times to declare the United Kingdom the "libel capital of the Western
432
Islamic Studies Gets $20M Gift, Samuel P. Jacobs, Harvard Crimson, December 13, 2005.
433
About ACMCU, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding website,
http://cmcu.georgetown.edu/about/
434
Saudi Minister of Education and Delegation Sign Cooperative Agreements with University of Arkansas,
Daily Headlines, May 28, 1999, http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/858.htm.
215
world." English lawyers now refer to the "Arab effect" to describe the surge of
English libel actions by wealthy, non resident Arabs accused of funding terrorism.
This trend has produced a succession of rulings, settlements, and damage awards
against English and American media defendants costing millions of pounds.
Bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened suit in England 33 times against those who linked
him to terrorism. He runs a website boasting of his victories. The New York Times, The
Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all have settled with him. The English
court enjoined publication of "Funding Evil" in Britain and awarded bin Mahfouz 60,000
pounds ($109,470), even though the merits of his allegations were never tried.
Is it any wonder that the Western press is strangely quiet and timid about connecting
Islam with terrorism?
Thus, despite the din of their less sophisticated citizens, the oil-rich leaders of mercenary
Islamic nations have prosecuted a subtle but effective soft jihad aimed at undermining the
very nations that enrich them.
3. Alienated. Alienated nations flounder in states of chaos. They either have no valuable
natural resources, or they are unable to organize themselves enough to extract them.
They are typically not of immediate strategic or political importance to the West.
Two examples of such nations, which have commanded recent attention, are Somalia and
Sudan. Their histories illustrate the conditions of alienated nations in general:
Somalia
Somalis reject the tenets of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise and are hostile to the
Infidel West. However, because they do not have vast natural resources, they are unable
to act on their hostility. Despite their lack of means, Somali hostility is clear.
In the early 1990s, Somalia was in a state of complete chaos. The preceding decades had
seen colonization by Italy and Britain, followed by an independent government that
attempted to reconcile democracy with Islamic tribal values. This period ended with a
coup by General Mahammad Siad Barre, whose “scientific socialism” attempted to
combine Islam with Communism. He also maintained close relations with the Soviet
Union.
Siad Barre’s government deteriorated into a dictatorship over the course of the next
decade. During the 1980s, his grip on power also eroded, resulting in a revolt in 1988 by
the United Somali Congress (USC) under General Mahammad Faarah Aidid. By 1991
there was no functioning government and the remaining social structures were based on a
combination of clan traditions and Islam.435 These rival clans engaged in bloody battles
for dominance, and their methods included burning rivals’ crops and cutting off their
resources, to starve each others’ civilian populations.
These battles combined with a drought to create widespread famine. In response, the
435
Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Studies: Somalia. See www.loc.gov/rr/frd/.
216
United Nations launched a major effort, known as UNOSOM I (United Nations
Operations in SOMalia I), to bring food and aid to the starving people. When the
convoys arrived, competing warlords attacked them and confiscated the supplies for
themselves, preventing them from reaching rival groups. The United Nations then took
up an offer from the U.S. to help create a secure environment for the delivery of
humanitarian aid. Thus began Operation Restore Hope, through the Unified Task Force
(UNITAF), a multi-national force led by the United States, which supplied 28,000 out of
45,000 troops. Its mission was to secure ports, airports, and supply lines to bring
humanitarian aid to the starving people. While UNITAF was able to stem the immediate
humanitarian crisis, the political situation remained chaotic.436 The United Nations
therefore started UNOSOM II, whose mandate was to “assist…the Somali people in
rebuilding their economic, political and social life, through achieving national
reconciliation so as to recreate a democratic Somali State.”437
What ensued was a battle between the UN and Somali tribal forces. These tribes opposed
the UN disarmament programs and aimed to defend their clannish and Islamic ways
against democracy. On June 5, 1993, UN troops attempted to shut down General Aidid’s
radio station because it was broadcasting inflammatory messages against them. In
response, General Aidid’s militiamen repelled UN forces, killing 23 Pakistani UN troops
in the process. The United States then embarked on an expensive and bloody 5-month
manhunt for Aidid. By the end of the manhunt, dozens of U.S. and UN troops were
killed, as well as hundreds of Somalis, but Aidid remained at large. In October of 1993,
the U.S. ended its search for Aidid after 18 U.S. soldiers were killed, with some of the
soldiers corpses dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.438 This showcase of brutality
was immortalized by the movie Black Hawk Down.439 In 1995, the UN terminated
UNOSOM II after the loss of 153 peacekeeper lives and an expenditure of 1.6 billion
dollars. Somalia continues to this day in a state of bloody chaos. One of the few things
that unite Somalis is hatred of the West. It is clear that those in power would prefer their
traditional bloody ways to modern democracy, which they view as foreign, Infidel, and a
threat to their own power.
What is the lifestyle that Somali traditions give its people? The following Washington
Times article provides a glimpse:
Dying for water in Somalia’s drought

By Emily Wax, The Washington Post, April 14, 2006
RABDORE, Somalia - Villagers call it the “War of the Well,” a battle that erupted
between two clans over control of a watering hole in this dusty, drought-stricken trading
town.
436
United Nations Operations in Somalia I, United Nations Department of Public Information, August 31, 1996.
See www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm.
437
United Nations Operations in Somalia II, United Nations Department of Public Information, August 31, 1996.
See www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2.htm.
438
Somalia Starts Over After Government-Free Decade, by Karl Vick, Washington Post, December 20, 2000.
439
2001, directed by Ridley Scott
217
By the time it ended two years later, 250 men were dead. Now there are well widows,
well warlords, and well warriors.
…
In Somalia, a well is as precious as a town bank, controlled by warlords and guarded with
weapons…
…
“Even when local people are good and plan out water catchment systems, warlords just
take it over. That's why we have so many people drinking horrible water with worms and
dirt and getting very ill,” said Abdul Rashid, a Somali nurse in Rabdore…
Sudan
Sudan has had a long history of foreign control and civil war, ever since the early days of
Islam. One of Sudan’s historic weaknesses has been its multitude of ethnic fault lines,
especially between its largely Muslim north and Christian-animist south, and between its
Arab and black populations, regardless of faith.
In 1956, Sudan gained independence from Britain. Six years later, civil war broke out
because the South feared Islam’s growing power in the north. In a 1969 coup, Jaafar
Numeiri took control of the country and, in 1972, signed a peace treaty that gave the
South partial autonomy.
In 1978, oil was discovered in southern Sudan. This discovery, which should have
brought prosperity to the nation, inflamed old hostilities instead, as the North and South
vied for control over the oil. In 1983, Numeiri declared Shari’ah to be the law of the
land, and thereby triggered a new outbreak of civil war. This conflict provoked a military
coup in 1985, which was subsequently replaced by a democratically elected government
in 1986. Three years later, the democratic government was overpowered in another coup,
this time by Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. Al-Bashir, together with his National
Islamic Front (NIF), abolished Sudan’s parliament, established an Islamic state, and re-
implemented Shari’ah.
In his effort to crush the non-Muslim South, al-Bashir used starvation tactics against the
areas stricken with famine. International humanitarian aid intended for the victims was
diverted to the Muslim North instead. In response to this confiscation, the U.S. stopped
sending humanitarian aid to Sudan in 1990.
When the Gulf War erupted in 1991, Sudan sided with Iraq. After the war, Sudan opened
its doors to Osama bin Laden and gave him safe haven, along with free reign to develop
23 terrorist training camps. Sudan’s leaders eventually asked bin Laden to leave, but
only upon Saudi Arabia’s request in 1996.440 Bizarrely, Sudan was a member of the UN
Human Rights Commission from 1993 to 1995. Its membership allowed Sudan to block
UN efforts to investigate and combat Sudanese human rights violations.441
440
The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 15, sections
entitled Starving for a fight and A match made in paradise?, pages 234, 235.
441
Information published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and available at
www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm.
218
In 1999, the oil that had been discovered in the South began to be exported, bringing
substantial income to the nation. In the ensuing battles for that income, the government
collaborated with Islamic militias to systematically enslave or eliminate millions of
Christians, Polytheists, and non-Arab Muslims in the southern and western parts of the
country.442 From 1998 to 2000, Sudan was again able to block UN actions, through its
renewed membership on the UN Human Rights Commission.443
While Sudan’s war with the South was settled by a peace agreement in 2005,444 the
conflict in the Darfur region continues to rage. In this region, the government
collaborates with Arabic militias, called Janjaweed, to displace, enslave, or wipe out
hundreds of thousands of black Muslims, because their race is considered inferior.445
In response to international protests, Sudan initially agreed to call off the Janjaweed, but
then balked at taking action. As a result, international sanctions were imposed by a UN
Resolution.446
Sudan’s tale of woe in Darfur is far from over, and if history has taught anything, more
trouble can be expected in the South. As it stands, the South is largely autonomous,
complete with its own legislature and ample access to oil funds for rebuilding its
infrastructure. The key point here is that the government of the South, which desires Free
Democracy, could only achieve its goal by separating from the North, which desires
Shari’ah. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this dual system as the years pass.
The examples of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Sudan reveal that the
prospects for Free Democracy in the Islamic world are grim. At best, Free Democracy barely
survives. At worst, it either deforms into something oppressive or dies completely.
Sadly, despite logic and evidence, many Muslims are in complete denial regarding Islam’s
incompatibility with Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. Rashid Khalidi, in his book,
Resurrecting Empire, provides insight into how this denial works, when he discusses the
difficulties of establishing democracy in the Arab world: 447
…[the] “democratic deficit” in the Arab world has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic
religion. Only…ignorance allows so many…“experts”…to make such claims, which are belied
by the thriving democracies in three of the largest Muslim countries in the world: Indonesia,
442
Buying the freedom of slaves in Sudan Contributor: Associated Press, CNN, December 20, 1997.
443
Information published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and available at:
www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm.
444
Documents that define this agreement include The Implementation Modalities of the Protocol on Power Sharing,
dated 26th May, 2004, The Implementation Modalities of the Framework Agreement on Wealth Sharing, dated 7th
January, 2004, and Southern Kordofan Annex, State of Southern Kordofan, Final and approved Text of 21st
December, 2004. All of these documents are available through the United States Institute of Peace, an independent,
nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution
of international conflicts, established in 1984.
445
Muslim killing Muslim in Sudan, by Sudarsan Raghavan, Knight Ridder NewsService, June 20, 2004.
446
UN council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis, by Jonathan Wald, CNN, July 30, 2004.
447
Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 2, entitled America, the West, and
Democracy in the Middle East, page 62.
219
Bangladesh, and Malaysia, not to speak of Turkey, Iran, and all the Arab countries that once had
parliamentary systems.
…Egypt did not cease to be a Muslim country during the thirty years it experienced parliamentary
government, from 1922 to 1952, nor was it because of Islam that democracy failed in Egypt (or
elsewhere in the Middle East). It had much more to do with the fact that the parliamentary
system, and the Egyptian regime in general, were so co-opted and undermined by Britain that
they were incapable of ending the seventy-two-year-old British military occupation or solving the
country’s many other pressing problems.
Khalidi has an interesting theory, but he fails to address this question: If the “democratic deficit”
“has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion,” and its failure is due to British
occupation, then why are only the Islamic members of the former British Empire so markedly
unsuccessful in establishing Free Democracies, after nearly fifty years of independence? The
answer is that Islam teaches Muslims to believe unquestioningly that Islamic ways are superior
to all others; therefore all problems must be due to the corruption or interference of Infidels. To
doubt Islam’s wisdom and law is tantamount to Apostasy.
The House of Islam’s relationships with specific non-Islamic nations

Islam’s early period of expansion, followed by decline and loss of political control, has created a
messy mix of Muslim populations in lands that are otherwise non-Islamic. In addition, a
resurgence of Islamic expansionism and fervency has created problems in places where Islam
had previously not been a factor. This section summarizes examples of nations that have been
particularly affected by Islam’s spirit of Jihad. While it cannot portray the complete story of any
single country, its snapshots reveal a composite image of Islam’s history with non-Islamic lands.
The picture one gets is of a religion that spreads violence, rules through oppression, and leaves
chaos.
Israel
Though it is not geographically a part of the West, Israel’s history, population, and political
institutions make it an enclave of Western culture in a region that the House of Islam considers
its own.
Long before the time of Muhammad, Israel’s territory was known as the Land of the Jews. In
about 1200 BC, the nomadic Twelve Tribes of Israel invaded it and claimed it as their own. In
around 1000 BC, King Saul established his kingdom there, which was expanded by his
successors King David and King Solomon. Decades later, it was divided into Israel and Judah.
Centuries later, Israel was conquered by Assyria, and a century and a half after that, Judah was
conquered by Babylon, but restored by Babylon’s conqueror, Persia. Under Imperial Rome, it
was a province known as Judea. In about 70 AD, it was crushed by Rome in response to an
insurrection. The resulting dispersal of Jewish communities throughout Europe, Africa, and
Asia, which was exacerbated by the crushed Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 135 AD,
became known as the Diaspora.
Despite their dispersal in foreign lands, these communities maintained their Jewish identity,
complete with laws, holidays, and legal authorities, based on that of ancient Israel. This identity
limited Jewish integration into host nations, and caused them to be labeled as members of a
nation that no longer existed geographically. In a sense, the Jewish nation had reverted to its
220
tribal origins, somewhat reminiscent of the twelve nomadic tribes that wandered under Moses’
unifying leadership, where membership was defined purely according to blood line and
adherence to Talmudic customs.
In the Islamic world, with Shari’ah’s tribal orientation, this tribal incarnation of Judaism fit with
Islam’s notions of governance. Jewish communities were simply subject tribes that paid tribute
to Islamic authorities and acknowledged Muslim superiority. In the West, however, Jews were
often perceived to be a subversive nation within a nation, a people that lived by their own rules
and served their own interests above those of the state. Because of this, they were not considered
simply wrong-headed and degenerate, as they were in the Islamic world. In the West, Jews were
often seen as an overt threat to sovereignty.
While all Jews lamented their status as a people without a country, modern Israel was born out of
the religious persecution that Jews suffered specifically in Europe. In the late 1800s, a Jewish
visionary named Theodore Herzl began the Zionist movement, which encouraged Jews to buy
land in the Ottoman Empire and re-establish a Jewish homeland. The weak and crumbling
Ottomans inadvertently abetted this immigration through several policies that Zionists used to
their advantage. These policies included:
• Seeking to build political support in places where Arabs were hostile to Turkish rule by
creating immigrant communities indebted the Ottomans.
• Populating and modernizing underdeveloped provinces by opening them to settlement by
Europeans.
• Appeasing Western allies by according non-Muslims equal status under Ottoman law.
To appreciate how undeveloped Jerusalem and its surroundings were at the time, note that
Jerusalem’s population during the 1890 census was only about 36,000. This city had existed for
thousands of years, and should have been a prospering tourist destination for millions of
pilgrims. Instead, it was a sleepy backwater town.
Although Germans, Russians, Frenchmen, and Englishmen all established communities in the
area, Zionists responded far more than all of the others combined.
At first, hostility toward Jews was relatively low compared to what they experienced in Europe,
and Jews were permitted to buy land freely. However, they arrived in such great numbers that
the Ottomans eventually sought to limit Jewish immigration. By this time, though, the genie was
out of the bottle. The Zionist dream of a Jewish homeland had captured Jewish imaginations
around the world, and they continued to immigrate and purchase land regardless of law.
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned into Turkey, the French mandates of
Syria and Lebanon, and the British mandates of Trans-Jordan and Iraq. When England prepared
to administer its mandates, its Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, decided to accede to heavy
petitioning from Jews for a Jewish homeland defined largely by the properties purchased by Jews
during Ottoman times. This homeland, named Palestine, was carved from Trans-Jordan. Its
official status soon brought Jewish immigration to new heights.
221
Not surprisingly, Palestine’s natives perceived this flood as a foreign invasion. Thus began the
conflicts between indigenous Palestinians and Jewish immigrants. After World War II, and in
the wake of the Holocaust, worldwide sympathy for Jews encouraged an even greater flow to
Palestine. This surge of immigrantion brought the simmering conflict with natives to a boiling
point, and the escalation of distrust and malice that had built over the decades turned into a
vicious total war. Detailed accounts of this war, as recorded in books like O Jeruslaem!,448
reveal no honorable side, only deception, betrayal, ruthlessness, implacable hatred, and blood
lust, a sickening record of man’s cruelty toward man. Today, each side looks back at the
atrocities of the other to justify its own behavior, and they continue this war through treacheries
large and small, and propaganda battles for world sympathy.
To an outside observer, it appears that the native Palestinians have a legitimate grievance.
However, their behavior has been so uncooperative and uncouth that they undermine
sympathetic impulses that might otherwise lead world opinion to side with them, as the
following brief history illustrates.
The Middle East for Dummies provides a concise and sanitized summary of the events that led to
the founding of Israel. It starts by describing the Arab response to Jewish mass-immigration in
the 1920s:449
…the Arabs didn’t stand by idly watching events take place. Their frustration with continued
developments led to a series of particularly violent revolts in the 1920s and 1930s. The discovery
of a secret Jewish arms cache in 1935 forced an alliance between Arab factions, called the Arab
Higher Commission (AHC) the following year. Heading the AHC, Hajj Muhammad Amin al
Husseini rejected a British proposal for a joint legislative council of Arabs and Jews in 1936. The
next year he also rejected the British Pell Commission’s suggestion of a partition of Palestine.
Eventually he fled Palestine to Lebanon and spent his time attempting to lead Arab opposition in
exile [The author discretely fails to mention that al Husseini joined forces with Adolf Hitler, as
described later in this book under the sections entitled “Yugoslavia” and “Germany”].
Forming modern day Israel
Unable to contain the violence, the British decided to withdraw from Palestine. A series of key
developments determined the formation of the modern state of Israel:
• 1947: Through Resolution 181, the fledgling United Nations resolves to partition
Palestine, giving roughly half to the Jews and half to the Arabs. The Jews accept, but the
Arabs reject the resolution.
• May 14, 1948: The British Mandate ends as the last British high commissioner withdraws
from Palestine.
• May 14, 1948: The Jewish National Council declares Israel an independent state.
• May 1948…: Immediately, the First Arab-Israeli War erupts. As a result, Israel gains
nearly half of the Palestinian share of the land…
448
O Jerusalem!, by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Simon and Shuster, 1972.
449
Modern Middle East, pages 88 – 89.
222
In this last bullet, the author glosses over the question of how the First Arab-Israeli war started,
but seems to imply Israeli aggression. Fortunately, a clearer picture of events can be found at
Jordan’s official website for former King Hussein bin Talal, a source that cannot be accused of
Zionist sympathies. It states: “Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, Lebanon,
Syria, Egypt and Iraq sent troops to join with Jordanian forces in order to defend their brethren,
the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.”450 In other words, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and
Iraq joined forces and attacked Israel.
Continuing with the history provided by The Middle East for Dummies:
• 1949: After the war, the Palestinians basically say, “Okay, we’ll accept U.N. Resolution
181. Give us back our land.”
• 1949: The Jews more or less say, “No way! Too late! You had your chance.”…
This development left 600,000 Israelis in charge of nearly ¾ of the land, and 1.2 million Arabs to
eke out a living on the remaining ¼, although some 700,000 of those Palestinians became
refugees, mostly in Trans-Jordan. The Israelis made two important decisions that further affected
the population.
• They allowed the Arabs living within Israel’s new borders to remain and eventually
awarded them Israeli citizenship.
• The 1950 Law of Return encouraged the immigration of any Jew living anywhere in the
world.
Despite Israel’s apparent liberality toward its remaining Arab population, the idea of living under
Jewish authority was an anathema to most of the native Muslims and Christians. President
Nasser of Egypt expressed the popular sentiment when he declared, “Israel’s existence is itself
an act of aggression. We accept no kind of coexistence with it.”451 Therefore, many of the
Palestinian Arabs chose to become exiles, setting up refugee camps in what has come to be
known as the Palestinian Territories, as well as in nearby Arab lands. Instead of accepting Israeli
citizenship or simply moving on to other parts of the world, these Palestinians chose to live in
refugee camps and wait for the day when they could reclaim Israel for the House of Islam. In
other words, the Arab-Israeli war has not ended; it had simply assumed a latent form, waiting for
its opportunity to flare up again.
The entire Middle East was outraged at the thought of Jews usurping Muslim land, and a
universal cry rose up to destroy Israel. However, the series of wars that followed each ended in
Israel’s favor, sometimes with an expansion of territory. This outraged the Arab nations even
more, and deepened their sense of humiliation and hatred.
In the face of this hatred, Israel has tried to secure peace treaties by offering back some of the
land acquired through war. This “Land for Peace” policy has resulted in peace treaties with both
Egypt and Jordan. Israel has also tried to use this policy to establish peace with the Palestinians.
450
See www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html
451
The right question: Do we take his words seriously?, by Dr. Steve Carol, Center for Advanced Middle East
Studies, January 11, 2006. See www.cames.ws/2006_01_01_camesblog_archive.html.
223
It gave substantial territories to them, which are now governed by the Palestinian Authority, and
promised to work with the Authority to establish an independent Palestinian nation.
Despite some progress, these developments have not even come close to normalizing relations
between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan were purchased
by giving away substantial territories, and they did little to build a genuine sense of comity. In
fact, their unfriendly relations have given rise to a new term: “Cold Peace.”
In the case of the Palestinians, Israel found that its land concessions were not interpreted as an
olive branch, but as a retreat, and as a military victory for the organizations attacking Israel.
Therefore, the Palestinians simply become more aggressive, illustrating the old Barberi saying,
“Whoever acts like a sheep the wolf will eat.” Even worse, the Palestinians elected Hamas,
whom they credited for the Israeli “retreat,” to lead the Palestinian government. The official
charter of Hamas calls unequivocally for Israel’s annihilation. Israel’s other neighbors only
refrain from attacking because they fear that they might lose.
A disturbing aspect of Israel’s recent history is its motivation for giving away the Gaza Strip and
the West Bank. Israel’s leaders realized that if they kept the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the
rapidly growing Palestinian populations (the average number of children per woman is greater
than 4452) would soon give Muslims an absolute majority in Israel. If this were to happen, Israel
would have to either renounce its claim of being a Free Democracy or succumb to an Islamic
majority at the ballot box.
Today, Israel stands in the crosshairs of a hatred that has spread from its neighbors to the entire
Islamic world. In fact, when Muslims today want to decide whether a nation is hostile to Islam,
their acid test is that nation’s policy toward Israel. Any leniency toward Israel is met with an
outrage that is unreceptive to discussion or reason, and indignant at the thought of having to
explain why Israel is illegitimate and the Palestinian war against it is valid.
At first glance, Muslim outrage seems justified. However, a deeper look reveals a one-sided
recollection of history that is characteristic of extreme bias. While decrying the inability of
Palestinians to find work in Israel, because of barriers that hinder transportation back and forth
from Palestinian lands, they ignore the reason for the barriers: terror attacks that were blowing
up the very businesses where Palestinians claimed they wanted to work. Furthermore, Islamic
nations have provided scant support to their own Palestinian exiles, the majority of whom
continue to languish without the rights of citizenship in refugee camps founded nearly sixty years
ago.453 454 It is ironic that Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy more freedom than their brothers in
Islamic lands, regardless of whether those Palestinians live in refugee camps. Palestinian Israelis
452
Populations and Demographic Developments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip until 1990, a study prepared by
Dr. Wael R. Ennab, presented at the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), June 28, 1994.
453
In-depth study of Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, published in February, 2000 by Fafo (an independent
research foundation founded by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions in 1982) in a joint research project
with the Jordan.
454
Why are Palestinians still living in refugee camps? Where are they from and why don’t they go home? published
by The U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation of Palestine. Website: www.endtheoccupation.org.
224
represent about 18% of Israel’s population and hold about 10 seats in the Knesset (Israeli
Parliament).455
Incidentally, the United States has also been far kinder to Palestinian exiles than the Islamic
world has been. Many Palestinians have immigrated to the United States and enjoy full
citizenship.
Obviously, Muslims are not outraged by the mistreatment of Palestinians living under the rule of
Israel or its allies. One can only conclude that the true motivation behind Muslim outrage is the
knowledge that Jews, particularly foreign Jews, have gained political control over a land that
Muslims claim for Islam. Even worse, those Jews have rebuffed attacks and prospered
economically while surrounding Muslim lands languish in poverty. Israel’s success is, by itself,
an insult to both Islam and Arab pride.
Another way to see through the fog of Palestinian/Muslim outrage, as well as Israel’s own claims
of victimhood, is to notice the inability of either side to find a solution to their land disputes.
The land currently being fought over is a thin strip along the West Bank that approximates
Israel’s pre-1967 border. Israel’s leaders want to release most of the West bank because of the
high Muslim population. Similarly, most Muslim leaders have declared that they would accept
Israel if it returned to its 1967 borders, ceding outer areas to the Palestinian Authority. The
disputed ribbon of land, claimed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel, consists of
less than 50 square miles. This is a miniscule quantity, even when compared to the rest of the
Palestinian Territories. Moreover, most of this land is infertile and relatively unsettled.
Sadly, Israelis have been nearly as hard-headed regarding territory as the Palestinians. An
interesting indicator of Israeli attitudes comes from a BBC article on Israeli settlers’ resistance to
their forced removal from the Gaza Strip in 2006:456
…as bulldozers moved towards the outpost, protestors linked arms around the buildings due to be
demolished and pelted the troops with stones, paint-filled balloons and eggs.
When the settlers resisted the eviction, troops wielding sticks charged the crowds and scuffles
broke out.
…
“They are treating people here like Arabs,” Arieh Eldad of the National Union Party told Israel
Radio.
Despite Israel’s heavy hand in the Palestinian Territories, it has three compelling arguments in its
favor regarding this ribbon of land:
• The West Bank territory was won in a war where Israel was not the aggressor.
The 1967 Six Day War is famous in Israel and infamous among Arabs because it is the
war that handed the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Sinai Peninsula to Israel. Its
455
Modern Middle East, page 139.
456
Settlers clash with Israeli troops, BBC News, February 1, 2006.
225
stage was set on May 16th, 1967, when Egypt’s President Nasser ordered UN
Peacekeepers to evacuate the Sinai Peninsula so that they would not be caught up in an
impending war. The Peacekeepers immediately complied because they were equipped to
maintain peace, not fight. With the Peacekeepers out of the way, Nasser declared war on
Israel on May 18th, saying:
As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We

shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel.
The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the
extermination of Zionist existence.457
In the days that followed, other Arab leaders chimed in with similar calls for Israel’s
extermination. However, action was delayed while Syria haggled with Egypt and Jordan
over who would command the exterminating army. Confronted with this impending
onslaught, Israel took advantage of the delay. On June 5, it launched a surprise attack on
Egypt’s Air Force and virtually wiped it out. With the forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria
in disarray, Israel rapidly took command of all theaters and pacified the Arab nations.458
Some may claim that Israel was the aggressor in this war because it actually fired the first
shot. However, reasonable people would think it absurd for a nation to sit idly while its
enemies on three sides moved ahead with announced plans to exterminate it. War was
clearly declared on Israel, and Israel acted in self-defense.
• By the rights of conquest that every victorious country has ever lived by, the West
Bank Territory is Israel’s to give away, and they can give away as much or as little
as they desire.
Again, it is absurd to think that a nation is obligated to give away territory won in a
defensive war, particularly when the aggressors did not seek conquest, but extermination.
• We can be certain that if the Arab nations had won, they would have been far less
generous to the Israelis than the Israelis have been to them.
In the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, only Arab nations, together with their
Islamic allies, have used phrases like “total war,” “exterminate,” and “wipe off this
disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.”459 In contrast, the language
of Israel has consistently been defensive. It insists on its right to exist, but also
demonstrates a willingness to trade away land for solid peace agreements. Israel’s
language and actions do not demonstrate a desire for conquest, much less a desire to
exterminate any group of people.
457
The Case For Israel, by Isi Leibler, Australia: The Globe Press, 1972, page 60.
458
Powder Keg: Israel and Palestine, pages 141 – 144.
459
Blair ‘revolted’ by ‘destroy Israel’ call of Iranian president, by Sam Knight, The Times (U.K.), October 27,
2005.
226
To citizens of a nation like the United States, which acquired a number of territorial claims from
other nations by purchasing them,460 an obvious solution suggests itself: Either Israel or the
Palestinian Authority should purchase undisputable rights to the lands in question.
And yet this solution eludes both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why? The only possible
answer is that neither side is willing to sell their claim to the disputed land for any price. The
Palestinians would rather kill and be killed than relinquish a single inch of land, no matter how
well-off the transaction would make them. And, while the same could be said of the Israelis, the
fact is that they won their land in a defensive war: it is theirs to give away or keep.
One often-heard justification for Palestinian claims to land is that the Palestinian Territories are
too small to be viable as a nation. This argument falls apart, though, at the slightest challenge,
because, in comparison to the Gaza Strip’s 140 square miles, and the Palestinian West Bank’s
2,270 square miles, the nations of Monaco (0.7 sq. mi.), Nauru (8.5 sq. mi.), Tuvalu (9 sq. mi.),
San Marino (24 sq. mi.), Liechtenstein (62 sq. mi.), and the Marshall Islands (70 sq. mi.) are tiny.
If those nations can survive, then a nation with a total of 2,410 square miles should be able to get
by. Furthermore, the roughly 50 miles of disputed territory is negligible compared to the land
Israel has already given away to create the Palestinian state.
The natives of Palestine have been under foreign domination for thousands of years, and have
never enjoyed independence during that time until now. Their rulers changed from Rome, to
Persia, to Umar’s Arabian Caliphate, to the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, to the Seljuk
Caliphate of Rum, to the Fatimids of Cairo, to the European Crusaders, to the Turkish Ottoman
Empire, to the British Authority, and, finally, to Israel, which intends to grant them sovereignty.
Their squabble over 50 square miles is an act of ingratitude that squanders any opportunity for
goodwill between it and its most important trade partner: Israel. Unfortunately, with Hamas
gaining control of the Palestinian Authority and turning to Iran as Western aid is cut off,461 it is
becoming less likely that the Palestinians will recognize their bad manners and more likely that
relations will worsen. With Iran and Syria supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based Shiite
organization whose primary purpose is also Israel’s destruction, we have the makings of a war
that could engage Israel in another existential battle and engulf the entire Middle East.
As bad as this sounds, Israel faces a long-term internal problem that is just as devastating. As
long as the birth rates of Israeli Muslims exceeds those of Jews, it is only a matter of time before
Muslims gain political dominance, unless Israel renounces its claim to Free Democracy and
travels further down the road of apartheid-like policies that it has always had,462 and which have
grown with Israel’s governance of the Palestinian Territories.463
460
The Louisiana Purchase from France, the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico, and the Alaska Purchase from Russia.
461
Iran’s leader offers to fund Hamas government, Associated press, MSNBC News, February 22, 2006.
462
According to the Government Press Office of Israel, 80.4% of Israel is government owned, and another 13.1% is
owned by the Jewish National Fund. These lands can only be rented, leaving the remaining 6.5% to private
ownership by Jews and Palestinian Israelis. While defenders of this policy claim that this form of state ownership
restricts private Jews and Palestinian Israelis equally, the fact is that Israel is a Jewish state. Therefore, state
ownership is equivalent to Jewish ownership, though in a communal sense rather than private. This means that at
least 93.5% of Israel is guaranteed to be under Jewish control, and Palestinian Israelis can never hope to own more
than 6.5%. Furthermore, Israel may decide who it rents to and who it evicts, where eviction is nearly equivalent to
exile. This is why television reports regularly show the homes of Palestinians being bulldozed by the Israeli
227
Both scenarios lead Israel to a dead end: if Israel remains a Free Democracy, it will eventually
become dominated by Muslims who will implement Shari’ah. If Israel renounces Free
Democracy, then it will lose the moral high ground it currently uses to build support in nations
that provide it with economic and military aid. If the latter case happens, Israel could become
completely isolated. Once isolated, it would be ripe for Islamic military conquest.
Israelis might take comfort in the fact that the Koran actually legitimizes Israel’s existence,
despite claims to the contrary by Palestinians and their Muslim sympathizers. This is what the
Koran has to say, in both authoritative translations:
[17.104] YUSUF ALI: And We [Allah] said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely
in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you
together in a mingled crowd.
[17.104] PICKTHAL: And We [Allah] said unto the Children of Israel after him [Moses]: Dwell
in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd
gathered out of various nations.
It is strange that Muslims seem oblivious to this portion of their own Koran. Perhaps the Jews of
Israel should focus on convincing their Muslim brothers that the Day of Judgment has not yet
come, and that its timing is for God to decide, not the political or religious leaders of Islam.
A final thought: The premise of Muslim outrage at Israel is that the Jews have invaded Muslim
lands. If we allow people to make historical claims on territory, then what territory would the
Jews be able to claim other than Israel? Are Muslims allowed to make historical claims to land
that Jews are not allowed to make?
France
France, which has long considered itself to be the cultural center of the world, is in the process of
losing its own culture. The empire it created in North Africa during the 1800s and early 1900s
encouraged Muslim immigration from an early date. This Islamic presence has grown to the
point where it is strongly asserting its own identity. As described in the New York Times article,
Muslims remaking old France:464
government as a form of retaliation, a concept unimaginable in the United States. In Israel, the state owns most of
the land and may do what it wants with it.
463
From Israel: An Apartheid State? by Leila Farsakh, published in Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2003:
After the 1967 war Israel consolidated its claims to the occupied land. The rightwing government elected
in 1977 developed an elaborate policy of territorial integration and demographic separation. The military
government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip…expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the
transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The
government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal
affairs of Palestinian inhabitants.
464
Muslims Remaking Old France, by Elaine Sciolino, The New York Times, April 10, 2003.
228
To enter the rue du Bon Pasteur in the heart of this Mediterranean port is to leave France. Or
rather, it is to leave a France still fixed in the imagination of many, a land where French is spoken
and the traditions of a secular society are enforced.
The rue du Bon Pasteur - the street of the Good Shepherd - is a haven that is owned, operated and
populated by Arab Muslims. Arabic is spoken here. All the women cover their hair with scarves.
Men in robes and sandals sit together in cafés where they reach out to Arabia via satellite
television.
…
The street reflects the political and social reality facing France. Demography has transformed the
country, whose population is about 7 percent Arab and Muslim, the highest percentage in
Western Europe. The figures are more striking in Marseille, where about 10 percent is Arab and
about 17 percent Muslim.
“We are no longer a France of baguettes and berets, but a France of ‘Allah-hu Akbar’ and
mosques,” said Mustapha Zergour, director of Radio Gazelle, a radio station geared to the Arab
community…
Mustapha Zergour’s quote points out the distinction between “immigration” and “invasion.”
When people immigrate, they want to become a part of their new country. When people invade,
they want to take over.
What is the effect of Islam’s ascendancy in France? If Americans stopped bashing the French
for a moment for not doing what Americans want, they would find that the proud French, loath
to appear weak, are actually quite intimidated. In fact, as reported by United Press International,
France has recently created an organization to help deal with its growing sense of fear:
France helps launch Muslim group

By Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religion Correspondent, December 19, 2002
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) – In France, where separation between religion and state is even
more rigidly enforced than in the United States, a Muslim umbrella organization is about to be
born with the active participation of the government.
Representatives of three leading Muslim groups – each linked to a foreign country – began a two-
day seminar in the government-owned castle of Nainville-les-Roches, near Paris, in order to
create a “French Muslim Council.”
If all goes well, this new institution will eventually act as interlocutor between French Islam and
civil authorities on the national and regional levels.
Islam is France’s second-largest religion, with between 4 and 5 million adherents.
Should they succeed, an extraordinary and sometimes almost desperate effort by a succession of
interior ministers…will finally come to an end.
…the current interior minister…expressed the hope that a “French Islam with French-speaking
imams” would emerge and “support values commensurate with the values of the Republic.”
…
229
The problem is that…there is no…indigenous French Muslim clergy…Islam does not even
possess a school of theology in this country.
Hence, future clerics are trained abroad, where often anti-Western currents prevail. Of the
approximately 1,000 imams in France, only 9 percent are French citizens.
Unfortunately, France’s interior minister appears to misunderstand the problem. Does he believe
that, by training Islamic clerics in France, somehow the Koran will become compatible with the
secular values of the French Republic? On the contrary, it is likely that, by opening Islamic
religious schools in France, France could exacerbate its troubles.
France’s growing fear is betrayed by its behavior on the international scene. As a French
professor told an American reporter during the reporter’s visit to France:465
“The reason President Chirac supported the U.S. in the 1991 Gulf War was because there were far
fewer Arabs in France at that time. Twelve years later, with such a huge Arab population, it’s not
politically feasible to support the U.S. over Iraq,” a professor of politics…explained to us …
“My students say Americans are only in Iraq for the oil, for financial interests. I ask them, ‘Who
does the most business in Iraq? France! Don’t you think France has a financial interest in
defending Iraq?’…
French Muslims sense this fear, and it emboldens them. A subtle way to assert Muslim power is
to have schoolgirls begin a widespread practice of wearing headscarves to school, a practice
which had formerly been unusual. The French, unnerved at this peaceful but visible display of
power, decided to make a general rule, aimed at Muslims, which banned all displays of religious
articles in public schools.466 This action only further revealed French weakness, because it
focused on fashion accessories but ignored the deeper issue of Islamic ascendancy.
The Islamic world’s reaction to this superficial law was as strong as it was extreme:
Thousands protest French ban on scarves467

By Masha MacPherson, Associated Press, February 14, 2004
PARIS – Thousands of people, many of them women wearing head scarves, marched in France
Saturday to protest a law banning the Islamic coverings and other religious apparel in public
schools.
Protesters said the law was discriminatory and would prevent Muslim girls from attending school.
…
Police estimated that 2,600 people marched in the southern city of Lyon and another 1,300 in
Paris, just two of a dozen cities where demonstrations were planned…
465
Politics aside, they still love us in France, by Bernadette Malone, Manchester (New Hampshire) Union Leader,
December 7, 2003.
466
French Cabinet adopts bill banning Muslim head scarves in school, Associated Press, USA Today, January 28,
2004.
467
Thousands protest French ban on scarves, by Masha McPhereson, Associated Press, Boston Globe, February 14,
2004.
230
…
Saturday’s protests were the latest in a series in France against the measure, which would also
ban Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses from public schools…
…
French leaders hope the law will quell [the] debate over Islamic head scarves that has divided
France since 1989, when two young girls were expelled from their school in Creil, outside Paris,
for wearing the head coverings…
The bill stipulates that “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of
students are forbidden” in public schools. It would not apply to students in private schools or in
French schools abroad.
It is strange how a prohibition on head scarves could suddenly prevent Muslim girls from
attending school when, for many years, Muslim girls had been attending school just fine without
them.
The Islamic tendency to paint any constraint, no matter how trivial, as a life-or-death struggle
against oppression is apparent in the following Associated Press article, which reveals that
Muslims are willing to kill over a school dress code that applies only to public schools:
French Head Scarf Ban Underway468

PARIS, October 20, 2004
(AP) France has quietly begun expelling Muslim girls for wearing head scarves to public schools
in defiance of a new law banning conspicuous religious symbols, treading carefully for fear of
endangering two French hostages in Iraq.
The expulsions of at least five girls since Tuesday were the first since the law went into effect at
the start of the academic year on Sept. 2. They were kept low-key because the French journalists’
captors had demanded the measure be abolished.
…
“They have just destroyed my life,” 12-year-old Khouloud told Le Monde newspaper after she
and another girl were expelled Tuesday from the Jean Mace middle school in Mulhouse.
…
The kidnapping in Iraq of journalists Christian Chesnot and Christian Malbrunot, who entered
their third month in captivity Wednesday, forced education authorities to tread softly…
…
The small Sikh community in France, estimated at 5,000-7,000, has learned that turbans can also
pose a problem. Three Sikh boys with turbans at a school in Bobigny, outside Paris, have been
kept out of class since Sept. 2…
At least two valuable lessons come from these articles:
1. Many Muslims, like the girl quoted, were more concerned about schoolgirls’
headscarves, claiming that their lives were being destroyed, than the French hostages
being held on their behalf, whose lives were in genuine danger.
468
French Head Scarf Ban Underway, by Elaine Ganley, Associated Press, CBS News, October 20, 2004.
231
2. By not dealing directly with the real problem (that Muslims are not assimilating into
French society and are hostile to it), French legislators have created unanticipated
difficulties for members of their society who are not a threat, such as the Sikhs.
Despite obvious and widespread cases of Islamic hostility inside France, the weeks of Muslim
rioting in November 2005 were almost completely misinterpreted in the U.S., thanks to the
press’s apparent unwillingness to report that the rioters were primarily Muslim. In U.S. news
coverage, reporters portrayed the riots in terms of American political agendas. They presented
the riots as responses to racial prejudice against Africans, mistreatment of immigrants,
unemployment, and ghetto poverty, and seasoned their reports with a healthy dose of antagonism
toward the French. The fact that virtually all of the rioters were Muslim was scarcely mentioned.
Sadly, the American press corps encouraged readers to turn their backs on the French, with
headlines such as Rage of French youth is a fight for recognition469 and France burns for its
sins.470 They obscured a key element of this civil disorder and avoided alerting Americans to the
possibility that France’s troubles with Islam may one day be their own.
The native French are afraid, and with good reason. Instead of bickering with them, perhaps the
U.S. should seek ways to join with them to defend the freedoms we share and cherish.
Canada
Canada has always worked hard to encourage immigration to its chilly climes. In their efforts,
Canadian policy makers encouraged a flood of Muslim immigration. As of February, 2005,
there were about 579,600 Muslims in Canada, representing about 2% of the population.471
Despite this relatively low percentage, Islam has already begun to assert itself politically by
trying to incorporate Shari’ah into Canada’s legal system. Surprisingly, this shocked and
dismayed many female Muslims, as the following Toronto Star article relates:
Protest rises over Islamic law…Muslim women's groups vow to stop sharia courts
Lynda Hurst, Feature Writer, June 8, 2004
…
Until last fall, no Western jurisdiction allowed the 1,400-year-old body of religious law called
sharia to take root inside its secular legal system.
Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia-
based marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are
expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they’re
vowing to stop the tribunals before they start.
…
“When you come to Canada, you are a human being with full rights,” says Jonathan Schrieder, a
Toronto civil litigation lawyer. Allowing sharia here — even a “Canadianized” version, as its
proponents claim — “will subject Muslim women to a huge injustice.”
469
Rage of French youth is a fight for recognition, by Molly Moore, Washington Post, November 6, 2005.
470
France burns for its sins, by Carol Matlack, BusinessWeek, News Analysis, November 7, 2005.
471
Muslims in America, National Geographic magazine, February 2005.
232
Many others are appalled that Ontario is setting a precedent that other secular nations will be
pressured to follow.
To writer Sally Armstrong, whose work has taken her to several Muslim countries, Ontario’s
move is a “human rights catastrophe.”
…
“Sharia law doesn’t work as it is supposed to work in a single country,” says Armstrong. “Why
does Ontario’s justice system think it will work here?”
…
The National Association of Women and the Law is preparing a research paper on how sharia, by
definition, undermines Canada’s equality rights.
This protest by female Muslims underscores the point that many people who call themselves
Muslims are actually people who converted for the sake of marriage and did not understand what
they got themselves into. It is inconceivable that a believing Muslim could be against Shari’ah.
Fortunately, Canada realized the danger of the precedent it set and rescinded the power of
Shari’ah Courts in September 2005. This wise move does not, however, solve the problem that
Islam presents; it only defers dealing with it until a later time when Muslims are a larger
proportion of the population.
United States
Over the past century, the United States has supported Muslim nations in numerous ways, both
privately and through government actions. It helped open up the Islamic world’s oil industry and
provided billions of dollars in aid. It has provided everything from food and disaster relief to
infrastructure projects and family planning. It supported the Mujahadeen’s battle to overthrow
the Soviet Union’s Communist government in Afghanistan, and helped Muslims in Bosnia
defend themselves against Serbian “ethnic cleansing.” Later, it protected Muslims in Kosovo
when Serbs sought revenge for attacks made on them by ethnic Albanian militias. It lodged
complaints against Russia for its suppression of Chechen liberators. It joined with over thirty
other nations, many of which were Islamic,472 to rescue Kuwait from an invasion by Iraq. It led
a humanitarian effort to prevent the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Somalia.
It provided $350 million to victims of the Indonesian Tsunami of 2004, and $50 million to
victims of the Pakistani earthquake of 2005. Yet, despite all this, the United States is hated
throughout the Islamic world, and dubbed by many as “The Great Satan.”
To appreciate the current state of affairs, consider this portion of a recent article, Fewer Arabs
admire the U.S., Survey Finds:473
[A] six-nation survey [was] conducted in June by Zogby International, a nonpartisan public
opinion research firm…
472
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Senegal, Niger, Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Turkey.
473
Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds, by Toshiyuki Inaba, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, July 23,
2004.
233
According to the survey, the United States gets its best rating in Lebanon, with 20 percent of
those surveyed saying they respected the United States. In Egypt, only 2 percent of residents
reported positive opinion of the United States.
James Zogby, president of Arab American Institute, which commissioned the survey, said that the
decline in U.S. popularity among the Arabs resulted from its policy toward the Arab world.
U.S. policy is so unpopular in the Arab world that it drags down those aspects of America that are
admired: values, products and people, Zogby said. “Attitudes toward American policy are
decidedly lower than it was even in 2002,”…
In explaining the decline of U.S. popularity, Zogby acknowledged the U.S. policies, particularly
toward Iraqi and Palestinian issues, fueled Arabs’ resentment of the United States. But he added
that many of those surveyed see U.S. treatment of Arabs and Muslims as more important than its
policies on other issues.
Given James Zogby’s connection to both the Arab American Institute and Zogby International,
an organization led by his brother John, and given the knowledge that the answers to survey
questions are often influenced by their wording, one must wonder whether the results of the
study were objective. However, regardless of whether or not one accepts the validity of this
study,474 475 it leads to the same conclusion, because both Zogby’s are highly recognized leaders
of the Arab-American community, and speak frequently on the community’s behalf.
Even more frustrating than the Islamic world’s forgetfulness of the many times the U.S. has
come to the aid of Muslims is their rationale for resentment: They paint any aid to an enemy, or
any attack on a fellow Muslim nation, as an attack on all Muslims. The unfairness of this view
stands out when one considers the many times Islamic nations have gone to war with each other
in recent history.
This view is not surprising, however, if one understands that it reflects the mindset of a famous
Bedouin tribal saying: “I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and
our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.” While Muslim brother nations
474
According to the biography of James Zogby found on the Arab American Institute’s website (www.aaiusa.org/dr-
zogby/36/biography), “In 1975, Dr. Zogby received his doctorate from Temple University’s Department of Religion,
where he studied under the Islamic scholar Dr. Ismail al-Faruqi.”
475
According to The New Yorker article The Pollster, by Larissa MacFarquhar, which appeared in the October 18,
2004 issue:
Zogby’s questions are mostly straightforward, but sometimes they are more leading than necessary. For
instance, one question from a recent survey of American Muslims asks, “If you had to choose one of the
following ways to wage the war against terrorism, which would you choose?” and offers these options:
“Changing America’s Middle East policy,” “Use of strategic nuclear weapons,” “Attacking Iran,”
“Contracting with mercenaries,” “Using U.S. Military Covert/Special Forces,” “U.S. Air Force bombing,”
and “Biological warfare.” If there exist choices beyond Arafat or war, they are not offered…
Some Zogby surveys can sound almost like push polls—fake polls designed not to collect data but to
persuade respondents of a point of view (the prototypical push poll being one in which an interviewer calls
voters and asks them whether they would be less likely to vote for Candidate A if they knew that he was a
bigamist or had killed his mother with an axe).
234
may war against each other without enraging the entire Islamic world, it is an intolerable if a
“foreigner” nation does the same.
The two main American policies that have attracted Muslim outrage in recent history are its
support for Israel and its attack on Saddam Hussein. If we restrain our impulse to assume that
their outrage must somehow be justified, and examine their reasons for outrage more closely, we
can see how unjustified they really are:
• U.S. Policy toward Israel. The role that the United States has tried to play regarding
Israeli/Palestinian relations is one of moderator, seeking a peaceful settlement that does
not result in the annihilation of either group. This is an extremely difficult role because
of the implacability of the opponents: Palestinians consider Israel to be “Occupied
Palestine” and are determined to retake the land and expel the Jews. Israel, for its part,
has given up on the possibility of a bilateral settlement and has taken matters into its own
hands, appropriating areas that were formerly Muslim, such as East Jerusalem, and
building permanent walls to prevent movement between Israel and the Palestinian
Territories. The taking of East Jerusalem, which was the Palestinian Authority’s intended
capital, struck Palestinians in the heart, while the walls, which block many Palestinians
from employment in Israel, struck them in the stomach.
The United States had the courage, or naiveté, to take on the role of honest broker
between these two antagonists. Its reward has been universal outrage from the Islamic
world. From a Muslim perspective, any attempt to mediate is unjust support for Israel.
Islamic fury at the U.S. boils down to rage over America’s refusal to join with Muslims
in Israel’s annihilation. From their perspective, the least America could do is abandon
Israel to its hostile neighbors.
• U.S. Policy toward Iraq. In today’s political environment, it is easy to lose track of
Saddam Hussein’s bloody legacy as partisans debate over the Second Gulf War. Here is
a quick recap of Saddam’s deeds:
Saddam’s rise to power began in 1959, with a failed assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime
Minister General Abdel-Karim Oassem. After spending several years in exile, he
returned to Iraq and played a leading role in the successful coup of 1968. Saddam was
rewarded for his deeds with the position of Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary
Command Council. Over the ensuing years, he built an outstanding reputation as he led a
successful literacy program for the nation and transformed Iraq’s health care system into
one of the best in the Middle East. However, upon his accession to the presidency in
1979, his reputation darkened quickly. He kicked off his reign by accusing 5 members of
the Revolutionary Council, as well as 17 other rivals, of an assassination plot, for which
they were executed. In 1980, he launched a war against Iran to regain disputed territories
and oil fields, and to crush the rise of Iraqi Shiite extremism inspired by the Iranian
revolution.476 During the war, he used both mustard gas and sarin gas on Iranian soldiers,
as well as internal enemies. He also exerted brute force to literally kill internal
476
The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 12, section entitled
The Iran-Iraq War, page 171.
235
opposition. At one point, he ordered a series of gas attacks on 60 separatist Kurdish
villages in northern Iraq.477 While the total number of deaths is unknown, estimates
range from 50,000 to 100,000. It has been documented that over 5000 died in the village
of Halabja alone.478
The war with Iran went on for eight years, devastating the economies of both nations and
costing each side about 250,000 lives. It ended in stalemate, with the border restored to
its pre-war location.
In 1990, almost immediately after the war with Iran, Saddam launched another war for
oil, this time with Kuwait. Through the United Nations, the United States led a multi-
national force to defeat Saddam. This victory drastically curtailed Saddam’s ability to
attack both internal enemies and neighboring states. Northern Iraq was established as an
autonomous region for Kurds. Additionally, large no-fly zones were created over the
north to protect Kurds from Iraqi air attacks, and over the south to also protect Shiites.
Despite these constraints, Saddam still managed to crush a Shiite uprising in the south,
killing hundreds of thousands and burying them in mass graves.479 As this atrocity
unfolded, the United States was chastised around the world for not doing more to protect
the Shiites.
After the first Gulf War, the UN established inspections to make sure Saddam Hussein
could no longer use weapons of mass destruction, particularly poison gas or nuclear
weapons. Saddam resisted these inspections and launched anti-aircraft attacks on the
American and British planes that enforced the no-fly zones. As a result, in 1998, the
weapons inspection teams left Iraq and the U.S. and U.K. began bombing Iraqi military
sites.480 In subsequent years, the UN passed several resolutions requiring Iraq to re-open
its doors to weapons inspectors, culminating in UN Resolution 1441, passed on
November 8, 2002. This was Iraq’s final opportunity to comply before the UN could
authorize intervention by military force.
Throughout this interplay, Saddam’s government resisted, lied, complied, bullied,

provided inadequate information, and engaged in games of cat-and-mouse. The resulting
consternation and confusion split the UN on whether to take military action. However,
the United States was determined to go ahead, and organized its own “Coalition of the
Willing” to prosecute the war. It assembled a coalition of 36 nations, without UN
approval, and, against the wishes of France, Germany, and Russia, rapidly attacked and
overwhelmed Iraq’s military. Ultimately, it captured Saddam Hussein and began a
process intended to establish democracy in Iraq.
The United States expected an outcry from the nations that opposed enforcement of the
477
Saddam Hussein’s Rise to Power by Jessica Moore, The Online NewsHour (website for The News Hour with Jim
Lehrer), Public Broadcasting System.
478
Kurds say Iraq’s attacks serve as a warning by Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2002.
479
Expert: 300,000 in Iraq’s Mass Graves, Associated Press, FOXNews, November 8, 2003.
480
No Threat: A former weapons inspector rejects Bush’s evidence by Jon Wiener, LA Weekly, September 20-26,
2002.
236
UN resolution. Those nations had extensive economic ties, both legal and illegal, with
Saddam through the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and they were quite happy to keep their
revenues flowing. The U.S. also expected opposition from Iraq’s Sunni Arab population,
which had benefited from Saddam’s reign. It was unprepared, however, for the
opposition of Iraqi Shiites. U.S. planners assumed that the Shiites would welcome their
liberators with open arms, but the Shiites greeted them with raised fists instead.
Given the power vacuum created by Saddam’s fall, an interim transitional government
was needed to administer Iraq and lay the groundwork for democratic elections. Despite
the obvious need for this administration, Shiite leaders almost immediately denounced
the Coalition presence as an occupation and tried to undermine the interim government.
Since that time, Iraq has experienced numerous terrorist attacks and several overt
rebellions. These attacks deprived Iraqis of electricity, oil money, and infrastructure,
while making its transition to self-governance more difficult. Remarkably, these attacks
came almost as frequently from Shiites, who had the most to gain from democracy, as
from Sunnis and foreign insurgents. For example, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has
declared that he and his Mahdi481 Army, an independent militia, will fight American
troops to the death, saying “I will keep on resisting, and I am staying in Najaf and won’t
leave it till the last day of my life.” 482
The United States has begun the final phase of its plan for Iraq. Iraq is now being led by
its own native citizens, elected through democratic elections. Iraqi forces are assuming
ever-more leadership in military operations, and some regions of the nation are now
entrusted to them. It is clear that the United States is trying to phase itself out of Iraq
without leaving chaos in its wake.
Has this progress served to quell the insurgency? Not at all. In fact, insurgent attacks
have become more frequent since the 2005 elections, and have begun to take the form of
a civil war.
Why has the insurgency become bloodier as Iraq moved closer to independence?
Because Iraqi opposition to Infidel occupation is only the top layer of hatred. As that
481
From the website www.islamicweb.com/history/mahdi.htm, we receive this definition:
The term “MAHDI” is a title meaning “The Guided one”. Mahdi is a normal man who is going to follow
the true Islam. His name will be Muhammad and his father name will be ‘Abdullah. He is a descendant
from Ali and Fatima (daughter of the prophet Muhammad…) so he will be descendant from al-Hasan or al-
Husain. Mahdi will be very just and his capital will be Damascus. Allah told us that Jews will master the
world two times (we live now 1998 during the first one) and Mahdi will appear between those two periods
and will rule through the last one. Mahdi is NOT a prophet but he is the final Rightly Guided Khalifa [see
definition of Caliph]. Mahdi will lead Muslims to a great victory against the Christian Romans (i.e. All the
white Europeans including the Americans). This great war is called al-Malhamah al-Kubrah or
Armageddon. It will end up with a great victory to Muslims against Romans after six years. Muslims will
take over their capital Rome (this can be any city). In the seventh year, the Antichrist will appear and a
greater war will start between Jews and Muslims for 40 days…and will end when Jesus…will come and
Muslims will kill all Jews. All people will convert into Islam. Peace will pervade the whole world.
According to Twelver Shiism, the 12th Imam, also referred to as the “Hidden Imam,” is the Mahdi.
482
U.S. Marines take command of troops in Najaf, CNN News, August 10, 2004.
237
layer peels away, other pretexts for strife come to the surface.
A basic reason for Iraq’s internal strife is that it is not an integrated nation. It has three
regions, each with its own predominant ethnic group: Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, and Sunni
(but largely secular) Kurd. Each of these ethnic groups covets Iraq’s valuable oil
resources. The region belonging to the Sunnis, in the northwest portion of Iraq, once
enjoyed wealth, power, and privilege under Saddam Hussein, but has little oil. The Sunni
insurgents are therefore fighting for the privileges of the past. Shiite Arabs and Sunni
Kurds also despise each other, but they, at least, have two things in common:
° A shared hatred of their oppressor, Saddam Hussein, and for Saddam’s

beneficiaries, the Sunni Arabs.
° Plentiful oil resources, with which they would like to enrich their own
autonomous regions.
The Shiites and the Kurds would like nothing more than to divide the oil spoils of the
Coalition victory amongst themselves and then live independently of each other. In fact,
the Kurds would already be independent if Turkey had not threatened war.
This point raises a question: why would Turkey declare war on the Iraqi Kurds if they
declared independence from Iraq? Because Turkey fears that if Iraqi Kurds get
independence, it would encourage Turkish Kurds to declare independence as well.
Welcome to the tribalistic logic of the “House of Peace”!
Another facet of this culture of tribe against tribe is again unintentionally unveiled by
Rashid Khalidi in Resurrecting Empire, when he chides the United States for its
ignorance of Iraqi sensibilities:483
…Iraqis and others in the Middle East have a strong sense of history: not only do they not
forget their experiences with the British occupation; they recall vividly the history of
earlier occupations of Baghdad, such as that in 1258 when it was sacked by the Mongols.
Bringing even a symbolic contingent of Mongolian soldiers to join the forces of the
“Coalition,” as the United States has done, is a perfect example of how to trample on the
sensibilities of such people.
The symbolic contingent of Mongolian soldiers consisted of about 170 people. The goal
of the Coalition forces was to topple a murderous and oppressive dictator and to help the
Iraqis establish a democracy. The Mongol invasion occurred 750 years ago. And yet,
Khalidi claims that the Iraqis were offended. If Americans held grudges as doggedly as
the Iraqis, it would be impossible for them to engage in cordial relations with Britain, let
alone Germany, Japan, Russia, Canada, and Mexico. If Europeans held such grudges,
they could have never formed the European Union. Similarly, a reconciled South Africa
would be inconceivable. In fact, peace anywhere in the world would be inconceivable,
just as it actually is inconceivable in the Islamic world. In the House of Islam, almost
483
Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled Raising the Ghosts of
Empire, page 172.
238
every group of people can find an incident somewhere in the past to justify hatred for
nearly every other group of people they have ever encountered.
As for the Iraqi Shiites, they are working to build close ties with Iran, with the goal of
emulating its form of government.484 In fact, when negotiating with the more secular
Kurds over Iraq’s constitution, the Shiites pushed so hard for a more Islamic state that
negotiations nearly collapsed.
Iraqi Shiites are now exerting themselves by effectively altering the laws of Iraq in ways
that Sunnis find truly alarming. For example, the Shiite laws on temporary marriage
discussed earlier are gaining hold, as the following article confirms:
Shi’ite temporary marriages regain popularity

By Solomon Moore, LA Times Staff Writer, January 15, 2006
NAJAF, Iraq —…Mutaa, a 1,400-year-old tradition alternately known as pleasure

marriage and temporary marriage, is regaining popularity among Iraq’s majority Shiite
Muslim population after decades of being outlawed by the Sunni regime of Saddam
Hussein.
…
Shiite clerics, including Iraq’s highest religious authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani,
have sanctioned mutaa…
…
Shiite and Sunni sects disagree on the lawfulness of mutaa…many Sunni authorities
regard it as a sexual relationship outside religious behavior.
…
Even though the practice quietly persisted during the Hussein regime, temporary
marriages have experienced a resurgence in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion…
[Sunnis] see that as a sign of rising Shiite influence in political and religious affairs and
of the explosion of cross-border traffic between Iraq and the Shiite theocratic state of
Iran, where mutaa is even more popular.
…
Women’s rights activists call mutaa an exploitative arrangement…“The clerics issue
fatwas condoning this practice that allows men to treat women like prostitutes…”
Sheik Adel Amir Tureihi, a Shiite cleric in Najaf, said …the practice was designed to
provide Muslims with a lawful outlet for natural sexual desires. “People need sex just
like they need food,” he said. “Islam is a natural, organic religion.”
But Azhar Tureihi, a Najaf-based gynecologist not directly related to the sheik, said
pleasure marriages carried serious societal consequences, regardless of how readily
religious authorities accepted the practice.
She said she knew of a woman who became pregnant during a temporary marriage and
was the victim of an “honor killing” by her brother. “This kind of killing is called ‘shame
washing’ — the brother went to the police and confessed,” the physician said. “The
sentence for this type of killing is normally only 10 months.”
484
Iranian minister makes historic Iraq trip, by Bassem Mroue, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, May 17, 2005.
239
Nearby, [a] shopkeeper took a more casual view. He chuckled to himself as he recounted
his many temporary brides.
“This is better than committing adultery because it is permitted,” he said, speaking on

condition of anonymity.” And sometimes my wife is sick or traveling or outside the
house. This kind of marriage can be for one year, one month, one day, one hour —
whatever you decide.”
…
…“I ask them here,” he said, waving his hands around his storefront…“The roses, the
vases — it’s all a trap. I’ll give them a bouquet or an antique, some small gift like that.
If the women ask for too much money, I will refuse.”
…
At least once…, the shopkeeper temporarily married a virgin — a 15-year-old girl, he
said…
Considering that Sunnis call the acts above “fornication” and “adultery,” rather than
“temporary marriage,” and that Shari’ah’s penalty for adultery is death, one can more
easily understand their adamant opposition to Shiite ascendancy.
Another reason for strife is that the compromises required by Free Democracy’s politics
do not come easily to people whose faiths are filled with absolutes and harsh
punishments. Islamic ideology does more than oppose Free Democracy. It deprives its
followers of the beliefs, philosophies, and habits that could help them embrace it. This,
together with the differences between Shiite and Sunni Shari’ah, explains why opposition
to the new Iraqi government remains so strong long after the 2005 elections.
Islam opposes Free Democracy philosophically by teaching faithful Muslims to ask

questions that Democracy has a hard time answering. For example:
• How can one engage in the political process of compromise when dealing with
Allah’s Law, as embodied in the perfect words of the Koran?
• How can one choose to turn away from the perfect laws that Allah himself
commanded?
• How can one bear to see Allah’s laws perverted by the misinterpretations of false
and ignorant Muslims?
For true believers, the notion of Free Democracy is abhorrent, and not just because it
could impose laws that are contrary to Allah’s will. The very thought of unscholarly
people dickering over law is an affront. Such politicians play with laws that only Allah
has the right to declare, and which only devout scholars have the wisdom to interpret.
Opposition to Free Democracy is the only thing, other than hatred for Infidels, that could
have brought Sunni militants like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq,
together with Shiite militants like Muqtada al-Sadr. These militants, who would have
otherwise been at each others’ throats, joined together in October 2005 to oppose Iraq’s
constitutional referendum. Their sentiments were like those of a statement issued by the
Ansar al-Sunna Army, another extremist group, during their battle against the 2005
240
elections: “We have also warned everyone against going to…the so-called polling centers
of this mockery and dirty blaspheming game, for voting in those centers means electing
gods to be worshipped other than Allah.”485
This viewpoint, which can seem insane to Westerners, makes perfect sense from an
Islamic perspective. Muslims believe that Islamic law was given to them by Allah, and,
therefore, the authority to define law belongs to Allah alone. Moreover, because Allah is
perfect, Allah’s law must also be perfect, needing no additions or modifications.
Therefore Allah’s authority to define law is exclusive and absolute.
Muslims believe that respect for Allah’s law is a form of worship. As it says in The
Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran:486
There are laws and rules for all activities. Any required activity undertaken …as…an
obligation to submit to the will of [Allah]…is regarded as worship.
Therefore, the authors of man-made laws have usurped the authority of Allah and set
themselves up as gods. Any person who respects those man-made laws is worshipping
those lawmakers instead of Allah.
To a devout Muslim, the notion of a secular government is fundamentally unacceptable,

and perceived as a threat. For example, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri,
has expressed this view repeatedly, as reported in the Washington Post article, Al-
Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip:487
Promoting ideology
,…In a videotape aired by…al-Jazeera…, the…Egyptian surgeon once again blasted the
U.S. military and political presence in the Middle East.
But the bulk of his lecture was aimed at another radical Islamic movement: Hamas,
which swept to victory in the Jan. 25 elections in the Palestinian Territories. Zawahiri
congratulated Hamas on its political success, but he also offered a stern warning: Avoid
the temptation to work with “secular” Palestinian legislators, and never compromise on
efforts to establish strict Islamic law, or sharia.
“Power is not an end in itself. Real power is application of sharia on earth,” he said.
“Entering the same parliament as the lay people, recognizing their legitimacy and the
accords they have signed is contrary to Islam.”
…
The lecture echoed comments made by Zawahiri on Jan. 6, when he ripped the
fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood for taking part in last year’s elections in his native
Egypt…democracy, he has said, is an assault on God’s [Allah’s] right to rule.
485
Troops Mobilize for Iraqi Balloting, by Karl Vick, Washington Post, January 28, 2005.
486
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 4, section entitled Is Islam a Religion or a Social System?, page 39.
487
Al-Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip, by Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, April 15, 2006.
241
While these words may sound like the rantings of a madman, they recall the words of
former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad quoted earlier in this book:
They [the Jews] invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, Human
Rights, and Democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may
enjoy equal rights with others.
These men despise Free Democracy and consider it evil.
Unfortunately for Muslims, they have no satisfactory alternative to Free Democracy,

because they cannot agree on what Allah’s Law actually is. Therefore, after uniting to
reject Free Democracy, Muslims proceed to turn upon each other, until one group gains
power, through assassination or war, and then maintains it through oppression.
Finally, the most depressing aspect of this attempt to create an Iraqi beachhead for
democracy in the Middle East is that the “democracy” Iraq created with its constitution is
not the kind of Free Democracy that was envisioned at the start of the war. President
Bush has said as much in recent speeches, but in language designed to soften the blow
and claim success if any kind of democracy takes hold in Iraq, whether Free or not. For
example, at a recent talk he gave to the United States Chamber of Commerce, he said:488
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is
not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will
reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us.
In other words, we may be witnessing the birth of a nation that resembles the
“democracy” of Iran more than the United States. This would leave Americans asking an
important question: “Is this what we sacrificed our lives and treasure to create?”
While the new government may be friendly toward the U.S., at least for a while, the
resounding answer will be “No, this is not what we set out to do.”
To see what the future may hold for Iraq, consider these reports from Afghanistan, where
the U.S. has had comparative success:
An Afghan judge said this week a man named Abdul Rahman had been jailed for
converting from Islam to Christianity and could face the death penalty if he refused to
become a Muslim again.
Sharia, or Islamic law, stipulates death for apostasy…
“…Whatever the court orders will be executed…” said Mahaiuddin Baluch, an adviser on
religious affairs to President Hamid Karzai.489
…
488
President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East: Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of
the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington D.C., November 3,
2003 (White House press release).
489
Afghanistan says fate of convert up to the court, Reuters, MSNBC News, March 22, 2006.
242
Diplomats say the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case, and on
Wednesday authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo
psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.
But four senior clerics…said Rahman deserved to be killed for his conversion. “He is not
crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian,” said
Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. “The government is scared of the
international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed.”
“…The people will not be fooled,” said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. “This is
humiliating for Islam. Cut off his head.”
Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan…490

…
“For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are
going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian,” said Mohammed Jan…,
who lives…in Kabul…
…
Police arrested [Rahman] last month after discovering him in possession of a
Bible…Prosecutors have offered to drop the charges if Rahman converts back to Islam,
but he has refused. 491
…
…prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman’s release because “he was mentally
unfit to stand trial.” He also said he did not know where Rahman was staying but that he
may be sent overseas for medical treatment.
‘Abdul Rahman must be killed’

Hours earlier, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting “Death to Christians!”
marched…to protest the court’s decision…
“Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it,” said senior Cleric Faiez
Mohammed,…“The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our
religion.”
…
…Rahman has asked for asylum “outside Afghanistan.”
…
The international outrage over Rahman’s case put Karzai in a difficult position because
he also risked offending religious sensibilities…senior Muslim clerics have been united
in calling for Rahman to be executed.492
The trial for Abdul Rahman’s life did not come from the Taliban, insurgents, militants, or
warlords. It came from the Islamic Democracy of Afghanistan, which the United States
helped establish. Fortunately, Afghanistan’s government found a loophole in their law
and declared Abdul Rahman insane, allowing him to find exile in Italy. Still, this episode
leaves disturbing images of what “the will of the people” is in Islamic lands.
490
Some clerics call for killing Afghan Christian, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 24, 2006.
491
Afghan convert may be unfit for trial, Associated Press, USA Today, March 22, 2006.
492
Afghan who became Christian freed from prison: Italian foreign minister will ask government to grant asylum to
convert, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 28, 2006.
243
The real lesson from Afghanistan, and Iraq, is that it may not be realistic to expect Free
Democracy to grow in Islamic nations. Sadly, the U.S. may one day find that the
sacrifices it made to bring democracy to the Middle East, measured in hundred of billions
of dollars and thousands of lives, only helped Muslims develop new forms of oppression.
Through these and other unpleasant responses to Western aid and interventions, the Muslim
world sends three clear messages to the West, and especially to the United States:
• Good deeds by Infidels will not be acknowledged or appreciated.

• Actions taken by Infidels are likely to be interpreted in the worst possible way, and as an
affront to all Muslims, to reinforce and justify Muslim hatred.
• Muslims have a special capacity for transforming any worthy concept into oppression by
remaking it in the image of Islam.
Why is this? Because one of Islam’s major claims is that it is the final and perfecting step in a
long evolution of faith that has moved beyond Judaism and Christianity. For them, gratitude
toward the non-Muslim West calls this belief into question, because it is absurd to think that a
perfected religion could leave its believers needing help or protection from their inferiors.
Christians and Jews are supposed to be the “protected peoples” (Dhimmis), not Muslims! And
no one else even deserves “protection,” let alone thanks.
People in the United States have a difficult time understanding the Muslim perspective. This is
because they typically see benevolence and care as evidence of friendship. This viewpoint
comes from recognizing that we are all flawed, and that we all have our ups and downs.
Americans even express this sentiment in popular songs, such as Bill Whithers’ Lean on Me:
Lean on me, when you’re not strong, and I’ll be your friend, I’ll help you carry on
For it won’t be long, ‘Til I’m gonna need, somebody to lean on
Unfortunately, this interpretation of mercy and aid is far from universal. In Roman times, one of
the greatest insults a victor could give the loser of a battle was mercy, depriving the loser of
honor, both in life and in death. Even the Old Testament gives a malevolent twist to helping
others, in Proverbs 24:21-22:
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for
you shall heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward you.493
In other words, show kindness to your enemy, to humiliate him or her and gain favor with God
for yourself. This Old Testament perspective is reflected in Muslim thought and makes their
resentment easier to understand.
However, this resentment toward the West does not imply that Muslims will not emigrate to it.
Despite their contempt for Infidels, Muslims still want a piece of the West’s prosperity. A
493
Bible, King James Version.
244
jarring example of this comes from Gracia Burnham’s description of conversations that took
place while she was held hostage by the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines:
He (Hurayra) would sit with a little notebook and ask us to help him learn English.
…
…He would ask all about the United States. His real goal, he explained, was to get to
Afghanistan and die in holy war so he could go straight to paradise.494
…
For some reason, he (Mang Ben) liked the idea of Hurayra learning English. He told the others in
his group, “You need to do the same. You won’t go far in this world without it.” 495
There are two ways to interpret these conversations. It is possible that these members of the Abu
Sayyaf wanted to learn English so that they could infiltrate the United States, or some other
Western nation, and then carry on their Jihad. It is also possible that they saw English as the
language of economic success. Hurayra’s questions about America suggest an interest in finding
work in the U.S. Perhaps he wanted both financial prosperity and martyrdom.
This notion of coming to the United States and achieving the American Dream is something that
many people around the world embrace, as the flood of immigrants to the U.S. demonstrates.
How can a Muslim brain both despise the United States and want to seek his or her fortune
there? After many conversations with friends from India, I have come to understand how this
logic works in a foreigner’s mind. Even though these friends are Hindu rather than Muslim, the
logic applies to both:
A common opinion among people from India is that India is poor compared to the U.S. simply
because India is overpopulated and has relatively few natural resources. My Indian friends had
decided to seek their fortunes in the U.S. (and did quite well) because they saw a wide-open
country, with plentiful land and resources. While their opinion may appear valid when compared
with India, it ignores the fact that Free Democracy and Free Enterprise play vital roles in the
United States’ success. It does not recognize that there are other parts of the world with more
resources and fewer people but, despite this, they are destitute and chaotic. It also ignores the
fact that Japan, like India, also has a large population and few natural resources, but its adoption
of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise has brought it remarkable success. It is easier for my
friends to turn a blind eye toward the virtues of these institutions rather than criticize elements of
their native culture, such the caste system.
In a more benign way, these Indians present a cultural challenge to the United States similar to
that of the Muslims. For example, there was a day when one of these friends mentioned to me
that she was going to a Patel party (her last name is Patel). I thought “How nice – a family
reunion!” She then corrected me: it was much more than a family reunion. She was going there
to meet other Patels and possibly find a husband. I was aghast at the implied incest, especially
because she was only 16, but she explained to me that the Patels were more of a clan than a set of
close blood-relatives. This only made me feel a little better – I could see a caste system in the
494
In the Presence of My Enemies, by Gracia Burnham, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2003, page 118.
495
Ibid, page 121.
245
process of incarnating itself over here in the U.S.. Later, my suspicions were confirmed when I
learned that “Patel” is the name of a caste.
Someday, it may be necessary to deal with the issues this conversation brought up. However, the
challenge of Indian assimilation into American culture is relatively minor. The Hindu caste
system doesn’t single out Westerners for persecution, and I haven’t seen any indication that
Indians are determined to make the caste system a global institution enshrined by law.
Moreover, the success of Indian democracy is beginning to remove pressure for Indians to move
to the U.S. Instead of Indians seeking jobs in America, we are now finding that American jobs
are seeking India.
Despite fears of “exporting American jobs,” this phenomenon is actually a wonderful testimony
to the success of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. We should recognize that India is in a
state of transition, from being a poor third-world nation to being a prosperous Free Democracy.
Just as in the cases of Japan and South Korea in previous decades, India may seem like a threat
as it catches up to us, but it will have a very difficult time surpassing us. Let them prosper, and
engage with us in mutually beneficial trade. Hopefully, over time, one of the results of
commerce will be that Indians see the caste system as self-harming and wrong, just as we now
see slavery and segregation in the West.
The Islamic world, however, is far more problematic. Muslims are attracted to the United States
because of the opportunities here, but it is not possible for good Muslims to feel comfortable
about living in a non-Islamic society which constantly offends their sensibilities and disrespects
Shari’ah. These affronts are pervasive: they force women to remove their veils for driver’s
license photos; they force Muslim firemen to shave their beards (so that face masks can form
effective seals); they prevent men from having multiple wives. Infidels do not acknowledge
Muslim supremacy. The list goes on.
Being told by the Koran not to take Jews and Christians for friends, Muslims face a choice of
either violating the Koran or isolating themselves from the people who surround them. As we
found with the family of our renter, “M,” they often choose to isolate themselves. But with their
traditions of large families, it is only a matter of time before Muslims will try to reshape their
adopted lands in their own image. Unfortunately, in the process of doing so, they will undo the
prosperous combination of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise that attracted them to the United
States in the first place.
This phenomenon is already beginning to happen in the United States. In 2006, Keith Ellison
was elected Minnesota’s Representative of its fifth congressional district, with the aid of a large
constituency of Somali immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. after UNOSOM in the early
1990s.
When Ellison swore on the Koran to uphold the U.S. Constitution, he might as well have sworn
on The Communist Manifesto or Hitler’s Mein Kamp, because the principles of the Koran and the
Constitution are completely opposed to each other. Only ignorance of Islam’s political nature, or
fear, could have allowed this to happen. To further the irony, the Koran used for Ellison’s
ceremony belonged to Thomas Jefferson, who was President during the First Barbary War and
246
probably used it to understand the enemy.
Because the United States is taking in a large number of immigrants who wish to enjoy
American-style prosperity rather than American-style freedom, it runs the risk of becoming a
modern day Babel. According to the Book of Genesis, Babel was a city that enjoyed great
wealth and prosperity.496 Its prosperity was a towering beacon that attracted people from all over
who sought its wealth. The story says that God caused all of Babel’s residents to suddenly speak
different languages. A more obvious secular explanation would be that the people who flooded
into Babel, seeking wealth, spoke the languages of their own homelands. In rapid order, as the
city filled with people from other lands, communication broke down and Babel’s engine of
prosperity collapsed. The people who came to Babel seeking wealth destroyed it instead. Then
they left, empty handed.
The United States, like Babel, is beginning to feel the strain of multiple languages. However, the
prospect of multiple legal systems is far more dangerous. The Ottoman Empire, with its
patchwork of different laws for different peoples, was a testimony to the chaotic results. This is
exactly the danger that the U.S. is beginning to face as Shari’ah ascends.
So far, the pressures of Islamic Law upon the United States have been isolated, in the forms of
Muslim women protesting unveiled photo-IDs, leniency for honor killings, and a de facto
prohibition against printing images of Muhammad, in the wake of Denmark’s cartoon fiasco. In
Canada and France, Islamic pressures to create special legal institutions specifically for Muslims
are already producing results, and will only increase as Muslims become more numerous. This
Babelization of law is especially dangerous in the case of Shari’ah, because Shari’ah is hostile
toward many of the West’s citizens, as well as Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.
Is there evidence that many Muslims, who come to the United States seeking prosperity, do not
respect the institutions that create that prosperity? What is the basis for accusing Muslims of
using their wealth to destroy those institutions?
To answer these questions, consider the Islamic charitable organizations that have been caught
funneling donations to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Al Qaeda. One recent example
comes from the Boston Globe:
Muslim charity indicted for alleged terrorist link

By Curt Anderson, Associated Press, Boston Globe, July 28, 2004
WASHINGTON – A major American Muslim charity and seven of its officers were
charged…with providing millions of dollars in support to Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group
blamed for dozens of suicide bomber attacks in Israel.
The 42-count indictment…claims the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
provided more than $12.4 million to individuals and organizations linked to Hamas from 1995 to
2001...
496
See Bible, Genesis 11:1-8.
247
…The charges include conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization,
tax evasion, and money laundering.
Another example was reported recently by USA Today:
Bush administration accuses Saudi charity of financing terrorism

USA Today, September 9, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration accused a U.S. arm of a large Saudi charity on
Thursday of helping to finance terrorist activities.
The Treasury Department’s action covers Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation’s locations in

Ashland, Ore., and Springfield, Mo. The action makes a formal designation that the group is
suspected of supporting terrorism…
The department said a federal investigation “shows direct links between the U.S. branch and
Osama bin Laden,” the al-Qaeda leader…
In addition, [the] Treasury cited allegations that the U.S. arm of Al-Haramain…engaged in
money-laundering offenses…to conceal the movement of funds intended for Chechnya…which
they claimed was for the purchase of a prayer house…
…[Also,] donations made to Al-Haramain intended to support Chechen refugees were instead
diverted to support “mujahideen as well as Chechen leaders affiliated with the al-Qaeda
network.”
While indictments are not convictions, it is disconcerting that these charitable organizations,
which are some of the largest and most legitimate of their kind, have multiple-count indictments
against them. Moreover, these are just two of many such organizations that have been accused.
While the U.S. court system can take years to determine guilt or innocence, these cases, together
with the terrorist cells discovered on American soil, call into question the intentions of a
significant number of American Muslims.
While the United States has a small Islamic minority at the moment, this situation could change
rapidly. As of February 2005, there were 1209 Mosques in the U.S. and roughly 2-3 million
Muslims, who comprise less than 1% of the population.497 However, in Western Europe,
Muslim populations rose, through a combination of immigration, marriage, and high birthrates,
to nearly 10% in a few decades. If our experience is anything like theirs, then we can soon
expect attempts by Muslims to reshape U.S. law. As in Canada and France, Muslims will work
to establish legally recognized Shari’ah courts, government-funded religious institutions, and
special accommodations at schools.
Russia
The primary conflict between Russia and Islamic militants today stems from Chechnya’s war for
independence. This conflict was born in Russia’s imperial past, following its conquest of the
Caucasus during the mid-1800s. These conquests encountered little resistance at the time
497
Muslims in America, National Geographic magazine, February 2005.
248
because, in large part, they filled a political void in a chaotic land.498 However, as Richard Pipes
wrote in The Formation of the Soviet Union:499
The Chechens and Ingush presented a special problem…Inassimilable and warlike, they created
so much difficulty for the Russian forces trying to subdue the North Caucasus that, after
conquering the area, the government felt compelled to…expel them from the valleys and
lowlands into the bare mountain regions. There…they lived in abject poverty, tending sheep and
waiting for the day when they could wreak revenge on the newcomers and regain their lost lands.
The time between then and now has been marked by frequent revolts, harsh repressions, mass
deportations, and occasional independent states. In 1944, Stalin commanded virtually the entire
Chechen population to resettle in Kazakhstan, to avenge Chechen collaboration with the Nazis
against the Soviet Union.
But exile did not chasten the Chechens. In fact, it only intensified their rebellious behavior. As
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described in The Gulag Archipelago,
…there was one nation that would not give in, would not acquire the mental habits of submission
– and not just individual rebels among them, but the whole nation to a man. These were the
Chechens. They were capable of rustling cattle, robbing a house, or sometimes simply taking
what they wanted by force. They respected only rebels. And here is an extraordinary thing –
everyone was afraid of them. No one could stop them from living as they did. The regime which
had ruled the land for thirty years could not force them to respect its laws.
In 1957, Nikolai Khrushchev took a series of actions meant to undo many of Stalin’s worst
offenses. In this effort, Khrushchev allowed the Chechens to return to their homeland and
establish the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. This arrangement brought
relative peace for many years, but this peace unravelled when the Chechens became outraged
over a 1988 Soviet attempt to rewrite history and claim that the Chechens had willingly joined
the USSR. This outrage soon turned into a demand for Chechen independence. Under the
leadership of Jokhar Dudaev, they briefly achieved this goal, but were crushed by Russia in
1994.500
Today, with its rebellion strangled by brute force, Chechnya’s rebels have redirected their
mission from independence to vengeance. They have channeled their malice into a string of
terrorist attacks on civilian targets by sending suicide bombers to commuter trains, hospitals, a
rock music festival, a Moscow theater, a Moscow apartment complex, and a ferry boat.501 In
May 9, 2004, the elected Chechen President, Akhmad Kadyrov, was assassinated by an
explosion as he watched an outdoor holiday concert.502 The most heinous terrorist act to date
occurred in the town of Beslan, just outside Chechnya, where 32 Chechen suicide-terrorists
498
Philip’s Atlas of World History General Editor: Patrick K. O’Brian, The Institute of Historical Research,
University of London, 1999, page 180.
499
The Formation of the Soviet Union, by Richard Pipes, Harvard University Press, 1996.
500
Chechen History by Edward Kline, President of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, 1995.
501
A Long History of Chechen Terror Attacks, Deutsche Welle, December 6, 2003.
502
Chechen president killed in stadium bombing, by Mark McDonald, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 9, 2004.
249
captured a middle school and then bombed it on its opening day in 2004.503 Some 330 people
died, more than half of them children.504
The sentiment of these suicide attackers can be summed up in a quote from a recording made by
one of the Moscow theater terrorists:
It does not matter where we will die…we will take with us the souls of the infidels…Every one of
us is ready for self-sacrifice for the sake of Allah and independence of Chechnya. We want to die
more than you want to live.505
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

The region formerly known as Yugoslavia has been so unstable for so long that it is difficult to
discuss its history without discussing the history of the entire Balkan Peninsula:
The Balkans have been the battlegrounds of cultural wars for thousands of years, with territories
frequently changing hands between tribes even in the days of the ancient Illyrians, Thracians,
and Dardanians. Its confusion of cultures and religions is so tangled that, today, when people
want to say a country is hopelessly fragmented and hostile, they say it is “Balkanized.”
Balkanization is similar to tribalization, but more complex. To understand both the Balkans and
the meaning of Balkanization, we need some background on Balkan history:
In 300 AD, the Balkan Peninsula had been a part of Rome for hundreds of years. At about this
time, the first northern invasions by Serbian tribes began, which continued throughout the first
millennium.506 As these tribes pressed further south, Orthodox and Catholic churches competed
for the hearts and tithes of these potential converts, creating a religious crazy-quilt that added
new religious components to the tensions that already existed between tribes. During the final
years of the Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Turks conquered the area and began a repressive
program designed to convert the inhabitants to Islam. The Ottoman outrages are described in
“Bulgaria: Illustrated History” :507
The place allotted to the Bulgarian people in the Ottoman feudal political system entitled it to no
legal, religious, national, even biological rights as Bulgarian Christians. They had all been
reduced to the category of the so called rayah (meaning “a flock,” attributed to the non-Muslim
subjects of the empire).
The peasants who represented the better half of the Bulgarian population were dispossessed of
their land. According to the Ottoman feudal system, which remained effective until 1834, all of
[the land] belonged to the central power in the person of the Turkish sultan. The Bulgarians were
allowed to cultivate only some plots.
503
Over 300 killed in school carnage, by Simon Ostrovsky, The Moscow Times, September 6, 2004.
504
How did it come to this?, by Andrew Meier, National Geographic, July 2005.
505
We want to Die More than You want to Live, Pravda, October 25, 2002.
506
Philip’s Atlas of World History General Editor: Patrick K. O’Brian, Copyright 1999, Published by the Institute of
historical Research, University of London, pages 70, 71.
507
Bulgaria: Illustrated History by B. Dimitrov, Published 2002 by Boriana Publishing House, Sofia, Bulgaria,
sections extracted from www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/under.html.
250
Groups of rural Christian families, varying in number, were put under an obligation to give part
of their income to representatives of the Muslim military, administrative and religious upper
crust, as well as to fulfill various state duties…
The establishment of that kind of intercourse in agriculture - the fundamental pillar of the
economy at that time,…led to the total loss of motivation for any real farming and production
improvements, both among the peasants and the fief-holders. The complex and incredibly
burdensome tax system forced the farmers to produce as much as needed for their families’
subsistence, while the feudalists preferred to earn…more from looting and from the incessantly
successful wars waged by the Ottoman Empire in all directions until the end of the 17th century.
…
The Bulgarian people were subjected to national and religious discrimination unheard of in the
annals of all European history. During court proceedings, for example, a single Muslim’s
testimony was more than enough to confute the evidence of dozens of Christian witnesses. The
Bulgarians were not entitled to build churches, set up their offices, or even wear bright colors.
Of the numerous taxes (about 80 in number) the so called ‘fresh blood tax’508 (a levy of Christian
youths) was particularly heavy and humiliating. At regular intervals, the authorities had the
healthiest male children taken away from their parents, sent to the capital, converted to Islam, and
then trained in combat skills. Raised and trained in the spirit of Islamic fanaticism, the young
men were conscripted into the so-called janissary corps, [which] caused so much trouble and
suffering to both the Bulgarians and Christian Europe.
The Turkish authorities exerted unabating pressure on parts of the Bulgarian people to make them
convert their faith and become Muslims…according to…medieval standards…, the [political]
affiliation of a given people was determined by the religion it followed.
This treatment was not limited to Bulgaria, but was common throughout the Balkan Peninsula. It
converted populations to Islam with varying degrees of success, creating a complex and hostile
mix of faiths as well as peoples.
As the repressive boot of the Ottoman Empire was lifted during the 1800s and early 1900s, this
fragmented patchwork of people and faiths was exposed. Due to longstanding rivalries and
animosities, born of both heritage and religion, the entire region has been, and remains,
politically chaotic and unstable.
A brief respite from turmoil was provided by WWII hero Josip Tito, an independently-minded
communist who went on to lead the newly formed Yugoslavia for 35 years. This unity
succeeded in part because Yugoslavia’s communism repressed all religions. However, upon
Tito’s death in 1980, the nation entered a period of economic and ethnic turmoil which, in many
ways, paralleled the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the popular rejection
of Communism, Yugoslavia quickly disintegrated in 1991 and 1992 under the misrule of
Slobodan Milosevic, a Serb nationalist.509 The shards of fractured Yugoslavia became Catholic
Slovenia, Catholic Croatia, Orthodox Macedonia, Orthodox Serbia and Montenegro, and
Islamic/Orthodox/Catholic (Croat) Bosnia-Herzegovina.
508
This tax was also known as the devshirme, or devsirme.
509
Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro, U.S. Dept. of State. See www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm.
251
While most of these nations had a preponderance of one religion over the others, Bosnia-
Herzegovina was especially tangled. Ultimately, a Serbian territory called Republika Srpska was
carved out of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which left the Muslim/Orthodox/Croat “Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.” A peaceful settlement came about only through UN intervention.510 Its
stability is fragile, even today, and is entirely dependent on UN Peacekeepers.
Another place where religious-ethnic groups continue to compete for power is Kosovo, which
has changed hands between Muslim Albania and Orthodox Serbia several times over the
centuries, and is currently a part of Serbia, even though its people are 90% Muslim Albanian.
The reason that Kosovo is a part of Serbia is its emotional and historical importance to the Serbs.
Kosovo was the location of an epic battle with the Ottoman Turks in 1389, which, while
indecisive itself, resulted in the death of Serbia’s heroic leader, Prince Lazar. After the death of
Lazar, the leaderless Serbs soon succumbed to the Ottomans. Centuries later, as the Ottoman
Empire crumbled, Serbia’s annexation of Kosovo was a deeply emotional victory for the Serbs,
who had used Prince Lazar and Kosovo as unifying icons throughout the years of Ottoman
repression.511
Unfortunately, this emotional gain by the Serbs represented an equally emotional loss by the
Muslim Albanians, who have waged battles of various sorts ever since to regain it. This included
an alliance with Axis forces during World War II, rallied by Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini,
to battle against the Ally nation of Yugoslavia.512 Albania conquered Kosovo and scattered the
Serbs living there to other lands. After the Axis defeat, Yugoslavia regained Kosovo, but the
Albanians living there responded by embarking on an effort to regain power through both
immigration from Albania and high Albanian birth rates. The Albanian population of Kosovo
climbed rapidly during the years following World War II. In the ten-year period of 1961 to 1971
alone, the Albanian percentage of Kosovo’s population increased from 67% to 74%.513
The most recent flag-carrier of this battle is the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), which began
making terrorist attacks on Serbs in Kosovo as Yugoslavia disintegrated after Tito’s death. In
the late 1980s, Yugoslavia’s elected leader, Slobodan Milosevic, responded to these attacks with
repressive measures against all Albanians, which he called “ethnic cleansing.” These attacks
were so severe that the rest of the world called them “genocide.” Interestingly, the term “ethnic
cleansing” originated with the KLA, in their effort to “cleanse” Kosovo of non-Albanians.514
This conflict was contained only by the direct intervention of NATO forces under the auspices of
the UN, which made Kosovo a UN Mission in 1999. Despite this intervention, the KLA
continues to commit intermittent terrorist attacks against Orthodox churches and Serbs. NATO’s
presence does not solve Kosovo’s problems, but only keeps a lid on them.515
510
Background Note: Croatia, U.S. Department of State. See www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3166.htm.
511
Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo, by Miranda Vickers, Columbia University Press, 1998.
512
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, by Bat Ye’or, Fairleigh Dickenson University Press,
Madison NJ, 2002.
513
Albanian and Serbs in Kosovo: An Abbreviated History, by G. Richard Jansen, Colorado State University, April
25, 1999, updated November 12, 2002.
514
Ibid.
515
Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro, U.S. Department of State, www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm.
252
Armenia
Armenia’s ancient and tortured history is one of a nation stranded on the shoals between
Christian and Islamic cultures. There were times when it was an island of Christendom. There
were also times when it was swept under waves of Islamic subjugation.
One of the greatest sources of Armenian national pride is that it was the first officially Christian
nation in the world, due to the conversion of King Trdat in 301AD. However, this honor was
short lived because the Persian Empire conquered Armenia just a few years later. Then, in 387,
part of Armenia was captured by Christianized Rome. In the centuries that followed, its status
tottered between independence and subjugation, and it was ultimately partitioned between the
Islamic Persians and the Islamic Ottomans. Through policies similar to those in the Balkans, the
Armenian nation became a crazy-quilt of populations spread throughout its traditional lands.
This book has already touched on what might be called the tribalizing effect of Islam, and its
version of tolerance, which allows other religions to exist, but only in subjugation to an Islamic
state. The Ottoman version of Islamic “tolerance” used enslavement, forced conversions, land
confiscation, special taxes, and forced migrations to maintain Ottoman power.
Islamic “tolerance” is unique in its declaration that each religious sect should govern its own
people with its own unique set of laws. As The Koran for Dummies explains:516
Non-Muslims [in an Islamic nation] have the right to set up their own communal laws according
to the principles of their religion, as long as their laws don’t violate any major state law…Critics
of Islam feel that this creates a barrier between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities that
could lead to ill feelings through a lack of communication. Islamic scholars and activists argue
that giving non-Muslims jurisdiction over their own communal laws is the only way to truly
protect the freedom of worship.
This tactfully worded explanation neglects to mention that the “major state laws” of Shari’ah
institutionalize Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims, allow Muslims to kill non-Muslims who
offend them, and prohibit conversions from Islam, on pain of death. It does, however, unveil
two other characteristics of Islamic political theory:
• Islamic political theory binds church and state together so profoundly that Muslims
cannot conceive of law outside of the context of religion. Within Islam’s framework, the
concept of secular law does not exist. Even laws that one would normally consider
incontrovertibly secular, such as traffic laws, are subsumed under Shari’ah through
extrapolation from the Koran and the Hadith’s recording of the Sunnah.
• Islamic political theory gives “freedom of worship” a completely different meaning from
what Westerners presume. According to Shari’ah, “freedom of worship” does not apply
to Muslims at all because they are not free to leave the fold of Islam. “Freedom of
Worship” is more about preserving the internal laws of non-Muslim ethnic groups (or
tribes) than it is about one’s religious beliefs or the ability to freely change them. In fact,
516
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled
Rights of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, page 251.
253
there were even times when the Ottoman Empire discouraged conversions to Islam,
because the conversions reduced tax revenues from non-Muslims.517
Muslims themselves recognize the tribalizing effect of Islam and its incompatibility with
Western concepts of nationhood, but choose to view this in a positive light. For example, in his
book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mahmood Mamdani manages to dress tribalization in the
clothes of political philosophy when referring to the cultural conflicts within Afghan society.
Instead of calling it anarchic, he says that Afghan society is “historically adapted to a highly
decentralized and localized mode of life”518 – an example of Political Correctness that verges on
comedy. He also says that:519
Historically, Afghan society managed its cultural diversity through a highly decentralized polity
and society. A centralizing state project was likely to exacerbate rather than contain these
differences.
A more honest picture of Afghan society appears in an anecdote told by Dr. Craig Davis in The
Middle East for Dummies:520
A great tension exists between different ethnic groups in the Middle East. In South Asia, for
example, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Hazaras, Tajiks, and other groups are in constant conflict.
In 1988, I went to a small Afghan hospital in Peshawar to visit one of my Afghan students who’d
developed typhoid fever. I was wearing Pakistani clothes, including a tope, a Pakistani hat.
When I announced to the Pashtun chokidar (gatekeeper) in my flawed Urdu of my intentions to
visit a patient, he abruptly informed me in his equally flawed Urdu that visiting hours were three
hours off…
After I finally succeeded in getting the…gatekeeper to talk about his family…and other small
talk, he asked me where I was from. When I told him the United States, he leaped up, shook my
hand, expressed his pleasure in meeting me, and informed me that I was free to enter the hospital.
He added that he was sorry for the delay, but said, “I thought you were Punjabi.”
While America’s version of tolerance, a product of Free Democracy, has tended to produce a
“melting pot,” the House of Islam’s version of tolerance, seasoned with contempt, has tended to
produce hard lines of mutual hostility between its sub-groups. These hostilities have created a
long history of rebellions, suppressions, and bloody purges. The effect of this history is visible
throughout the Islamic world, from India to Afghanistan and the Sudan, but it is particularly
evident in the Balkan Peninsula and Armenia.
517
The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire, by Arnakis, G. Georgiades, Journal of Modern
History, v. 24, n. 3 (September 1952), pages 235-251.
518
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, by Mahmood Mamdani, Three
Leaves Press, Doubleday, New York, 2004, Chapter 3, entitled Afghanistan: The High Point in the Cold War, page
163.
519
Ibid, Chapter 3, entitled Afghanistan: The High Point in the Cold War, page 153.
520
The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 22, entitled
Language and Literature, page 322.
254
The history of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian genocide, which climaxed in 1915, is again so
tangled and complex that there is no way to encapsulate it adequately in these pages. As a
substitute, this book will excerpt two other sources: an article from the AZT Armenian Daily, and
a book review by Professor James R. Russell of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide
and America’s Response, which depicts the genocide and its aftermath.521 Russell is a professor
of Armenian Studies at Harvard University.
AZG Armenian Daily #076, April 24, 2002, provides a brief historical recap of the genocides
committed by the Ottoman Empire and Turkey against the Armenians, along with a summary of
the long-term effects of those genocides:
Strategic Consequences of Armenian Genocide

By Armen Ayvazian
…
Up to 1915, the territory where ethnic Armenians lived occupied the whole Armenian plateau,
that is, the historical Armenia…this territory totaled 350,000 square km, each region of the
territory being kind of a separate ‘castle’, which had a protective role for Armenians living in that
region. Thus [during] Iranian, Turkish, or Mongolian invasions, [if] one region was captured, the
people could easily [go] to another region that was as hard to capture as the previous one…after
some time, when a region of [the] Armenian plateau was captured by foreign invaders, [the]
Armenian population, which escaped to neighboring regions, ‘repatriated’ back to their region.
And…the number of Armenians in each region always outnumbered the foreign population.
Being the majority in a region, Armenians could easily rebel and recover both their land and
independence.
The first terrible consequence of the Armenian Genocide, which was carried out by Ottoman
Turkey, was that Armenians were estranged from the land where they lived for centuries. As
regards [the] strategic factor, the loss of the land deprived Armenians from most of their ‘castles’,
leaving only 1/10th of the previous protective space. At present, Armenia does not have any
place to run to or cede. Directly speaking, Armenia does not have a right to lose a war;
otherwise, the Armenian nation will be eliminated.
…
…All [of] the Western Armenian leading intellectuals, political and public figures, as well as
common people, were executed during the 1915 events. Having lost their…leaders [the]
Armenian nation was thereafter helpless, and bound to scatter from country to country…
…
The genocide of [the] Armenian nation actually falls into 4 stages: 1894-96, when around 300,000
Armenians were massacred; 30,000 were killed in 1900; 1.5 million -during the 1915-16 genocide,
and about 300,000 from 1918 to 1922. The number of victims, totaling more than 2 million…are
justly described as an attempt by…Ottoman Turkey to exterminate the Armenian nation...
The Burning Tigris: When the Tigris Burned and the Euphrates Ran Red describes an on-going
complicity of the United States (and many other nations) in this genocide, for the sake of good
relations with a Muslim ally nation. The end of this section reveals how this complicity gave
tyrants the green light for other genocides in the 20th century. In the 21st century, Islamic tyrants
may turn that green light on us:
521
The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response, by Peter Balakian, published by Harper
Perennial, October 1, 2004.
255
Imagine it is the present day in an alternate universe. A historically progressive American paper
publishes a front-page article declaring that the Jews of Europe were killed in World War II
because they were agents of a foreign power that did not yet exist. A prestigious literary journal
sneeringly dismisses the Holocaust as having been the massacre of a few thousand Jews “who
had rioted against their Christian fellow citizens” of Germany.
Now let us imagine that the same Nazi Germany had been fought not to defeat, but to a draw.
The modern state acknowledges that regrettable atrocities were committed on both sides during
the Second World War, but venerates the architects of the Final Solution as national heroes.
Tourists can visit the ruins of synagogues and the cultural relics of Eastern European Jews who
lived in the region, even as the government destroys the few remaining monuments — the more
artistic of which are attributed in guidebooks to the ancestors of the Germans themselves.
One U.S. presidential candidate after another promises to sign a Congressional bill
acknowledging that what happened to the Jews was genocide but nobody ever does, for good
relations with Germany come at the price of a courteous silence. There is an Israel, but it is
isolated by a Nazi blockade, a third of its population dead of disease and starvation or in
emigration in search of work. The Jews themselves have tried in vain to advance recognition of
their cause…Some [wrote] books, and…managed to rouse the conscience of the best and the
brightest across America, only for everything…to be consigned to oblivion soon thereafter.
Substitution of Armenians for Jews in the paragraph above returns us to this universe. It was a
front-page article in the Forward522 in 1995 that claimed that Armenians, about 1.5 million of
whom were exterminated by the Ottoman Turkish state in 1915, were “assisting the Soviet effort
to overtake Turkey” — even though it was not until 1920 that the Russian Armenian province,
the guberniya of Erevan, was conquered by the Bolsheviks, and two years more until a state
called the Soviet Union came into being. The majority of the Armenians who were killed were
farmers and craftsmen who knew no foreign language, lived in villages a fortnight from the
nearest port or railhead, and rarely traveled even half as far. The second article, by Christopher
de Bellaigue, which reduced the whole business to a few thousand Armenians “killed while
rioting against their Muslim fellow citizens,” was published in the New York Review of Books.
The latter is not only an untruth, it is the opposite of the truth. There were two waves of the
extermination of the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, and de Bellaigue’s remark seems to refer to
the first: In 1895-96, members of the Armenian community of the capital, Constantinople,
demonstrated peacefully against the systematic murder and extortion of their compatriots in the
Anatolian interior (historical Armenia) by government tax-collectors and Kurdish marauders in
the pay of the Ottoman authorities. The protest was suppressed with extreme violence; it was
followed by a wave of state-sponsored massacres, called a jihad and led by Muslim mullahs
and…theological students, in which some 200,000 Armenians were slaughtered…
Today’s Armenia, a tiny state in the Transcaucasus, exists only because it was part of Tsarist
Russia and then the Soviet Union. In Soviet times, it flourished: The country was cherished and
supported by the Diaspora much as Israel was to be by Jews; there was even a kind of “law of
return,” of which many thousands took advantage. The region today is now independent, and has
been under Turkish blockade for over a decade. As a result of severe conditions, many of my
colleagues there have died young.
522
The Forward is the name of the Yiddish language newspaper in which this book review appeared, in the January
23, 2004 edition. Prof. Russell’s article was written as an indignant response to the apparent apathy of Jews to the
plight of the Armenians.
256
The Ottoman leaders who planned and carried out the Armenian genocide are officially
celebrated as heroes of the present successor state, which…denies the genocide took place.
Throughout eastern Anatolia, the names of Armenian towns have been changed and priceless
monuments of medieval Armenian Christian art had been systematically destroyed by 1997.
The official Turkish line is that the Armenians are not there now because they never were; and if
there were any, well, then it was they who did the massacring — of their Turkish neighbors. But
the Armenians were also dangerous foreign elements, a fifth column, so the genocide was
justified. Though it didn’t happen. So all the testimony of the survivors, those unlettered, gentle
grandmothers who never served a foreign state, who never struck a fellow creature in anger, but
who worked and cooked and raised children and forged a new life in the factory towns and
working-class neighborhoods of New England, is all a carefully corroborated fraud, a conspiracy.
…
…During World War I, eyewitness reports of the arrests, death marches and mass killings poured
in from American diplomats and missionaries, journalists and physicians. When the war ended,
President Wilson declared, “Armenia is to be redeemed.”
But…no amount of agitation or mass of fact could ever materially affect American policy. The
White House did not condemn the Ottomans in 1896. The United States did not go to war against
Turkey in 1917. After the October Revolution, Russia withdrew from the war and Turkey
invaded the Transcaucasus, continuing to massacre the Armenians even after its own capitulation.
The surviving sliver of Armenia controlled by Russia was incorporated into the Soviet Union, and
President Wilson’s postwar plan for an American mandate in Armenia was eventually voted
down by an isolationist Senate. Despite continuing public pressure on behalf of the Armenians,
American policy in the 1920s was more concerned with achieving a foothold in the Muslim
Middle East, and access to oil, than in a nation of which a third were refugees, another third under
Soviet rule, and the rest extinct.
…
…the insistence of the government in Ankara that America and Israel deny the Armenian
genocide as the price of continued friendship is too high to pay and in the end probably need not
be paid for the alliance to continue. It is, besides, misguided. Denial warps Turkish society itself,
as the Turkish scholar Taner Akcam has pointed out: Falsification of history leads to other kinds
of repression.
…in 1997 France recognized the Armenian genocide as such. Turkey protested loudly, but soon
life went back to normal. The United States, he suggests, is too fearful…
…The Armenians…dehumanized as infidels over a millennium of Muslim oppression and

misrule, survived in the end only because the Russian army’s nuclear umbrella sheltered (and
shelters) Erevan523.
The Armenians of Karabagh averted a new massacre in the early 1990s because they got arms and
learned how to use them. As a Zionist leader told an assembly full of yeshiva524 kids in Lithuania
on the eve of the Holocaust: “Children! I want you to learn. I want you to learn to shoot.”
523
Capital of Armenia. Also spelled Yerevan.
524
A kind of Jewish school.
257
Beyond a deeper understanding of Islam’s relationship with Infidel peoples, the Armenian
experience casts an ominous shadow on the consequences of Western inaction. Through a
combination of complacency, self-interest, and ignorance, Western nations did more than simply
permit the Armenian genocide; they set the stage for Nazi atrocities decades later. As Adolph
Hitler remarked on the eve of his Final Solution:525
Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and
children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the
founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization
will say about me.
I have issued the command – and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed
by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical
destruction of the enemy.
Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness…with orders to them to send

to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and
language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need.526 Who, after
all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
The degree to which Muslims live in a state of denial about Islam’s history of violence is mind-
boggling. Unfortunately, Westerners who have not studied history are susceptible to Islamic
propaganda, which often turns history on its head. For example, consider these words from The
Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran:527
…negative and wholly inaccurate stereotypes about Islam are common in the United States.
Some analysts imply or say openly…that Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant system of
thought – conveniently ignoring the fact that Muslim nations are remarkably free of racial strife
and violent crime and that the Islamic faith’s history of religious tolerance over the centuries is
well documented. It is a strange brand of intolerance that yields racial harmony!
The native Africans of Darfur and southern Sudan may have a slightly different opinion.
The question we face today is this: Will Osama bin Laden and his followers, like Genghis Khan
and his horde, one day be considered the founders of a vast and mighty state, despite their
murderous deeds? Will our grandchildren only remember him through the accolades of Islamic
propagandists?
Maybe we should be more careful about the precedents we set through inaction and complicity,
and maybe we should be more careful about the truths we sacrifice for the sake of political
alliance.
525
Exhibit USA-28 of the Nuremburg Tribunal. Quote also appeared in What about Germany?, by Louis Lochner,
published by Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942.
526
To make room for the growth of his Aryan “master race,” Hitler planned to conquer foreign lands and enslave the
people, who would be exterminated progressively as the Aryan need for land expanded.
527
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 3, section entitled An Example from History, page 27.
258
Cyprus528
Cyprus, one of the most famously beautiful islands in the Mediterranean, was a Christian land
from the earliest days of Christendom, as well as a part of the Byzantine Empire. With
Constantinople’s fall to the Ottomans in 1453, however, Cyprus became an outpost of
Christianity’s shrunken frontier.
Cyprus, under constant pressure from various Muslim empires, paid annual tributes for its
“protection.” By the early 1500s, Cyprus had become a quasi-vassal state of the Ottoman
Empire. Unfortunately, its tributes did not dissuade the Ottomans from their intended conquest,
but only persuaded them to focus their attentions elsewhere for the time-being. After a few
decades, Cyprus came back into the Ottoman cross-hairs and quickly succumbed in 1570.
Throughout the former lands of Byzantium, the Greek identity remained strong despite Ottoman
subjugation and Turkification programs that planted Turkish settlers in conquered lands. After
hundreds of years, Greek pride, together with Ottoman persecutions, prompted a general revolt in
the 1820s. The end result of this revolt was Greek independence and a tottering Ottoman Empire.
At this time, Britain was allied with the Ottomans against the rising power of Russia, which had
supported Greek independence and humbled the Ottomans in the 1820s during the Russo-
Turkish war. Because of the Ottoman Empire’s internal divisions and weaknesses, European
nations came to view the Ottoman Empire as a buffer state, to limit Russia’s expansion, rather
than as a threat in itself. However, as the “sick old man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire could
not adequately protect itself, and it grew dependent on European reinforcements. In the wake of
the Crimean War of the 1850s, when Britain and France joined with the Ottoman Empire to
thwart Russian encroachment, the Ottoman Empire went so far as to invite the British to make
Cyprus a protectorate in 1878. The idea was to let Britain administer Cyprus on behalf of the
Ottomans, so that the Ottomans could focus on combating the Russians. This arrangement
worked to the benefit of both nations for several decades.
In World War I, however, alliances were reversed in a mirror-maze of circumstances:
It began with the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir apparent to the Austro-
Hungarian throne, by a member of a Serbian nationalist movement known as “The Black Hand.”
The Serbs, who had recently thrown off the Ottomans with Russian support, carried out this
assassination to oppose Austria-Hungary’s plans to annex their lands. Austria-Hungary used this
provocation to assert their control over Serbia and squash its independence movement.
Russia had been an arch-enemy of the Ottomans for centuries, and had taken vast portions of
formerly Ottoman land north and east of the Black Sea. Russia had also supported rebellions
that liberated Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania from Ottoman control. Therefore,
the sympathy that Russians felt for Serbia was very strong. When Austria attacked Serbia,
Russia responded by entering the conflict to defend the Serbs.
528
This history was compiled through a review of both the history given by the official website of the President of
“The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus” (www.trncpresidency.org) and that given by the official website of the
Republic of Cyprus (www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/index_en/index_en?opendocument – for version in English).
259
Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire, humiliated by its multitude of losses to Russian-supported
rebellions, and hoping to regain lost land, decided to enter the battle against its current foes (the
Serbs and Russians) by joining forces with its previous foe, Austria-Hungary.
By this time, Germany, the fast-rising economic and military powerhouse of Europe, which had
recently defeated the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, had entered the war on the side
of its long-time ally, Austria-Hungary. Britain, on the other hand, had entered into an alliance
with France and Russia in 1907, called the Triple Entente, because it feared Germany’s rising
power. This alliance pulled Britain into the burgeoning war on the side of Russia.
And so, through a twisted chain of alliances, the British and Ottomans found themselves on
opposite sides of “The Great War.” This unintended circumstance placed Britain in the easy
position of taking Cyprus from its Ottoman opponent, and it did so by annexation in 1914.
After the war, Cyprus was relatively prosperous under British administration. However, this
period was marred by violent agitation from Greek Cypriots, who wanted Cyprus joined to
Greece, as well as Turkish Cypriots, who wanted it joined to Turkey. The only thing these
antagonists had in common was that they both wanted Britain out.
While Britain’s empire had brought it wealth and power for many years, World War II strained
its imperial system to the breaking point. At an ideological level, the brutality of Nazi Germany
and Imperial Japan stimulated a healthy dose of introspection, and imperialism lost its allure.
More pragmatically, the strain of World War II had exhausted Britain and forced it to promise
independence to many of its colonies in exchange for military support. Thus, after the war,
Britain transformed its colonies into a “Commonwealth” of independent nations that were linked
through mutually advantageous economic and political ties.
To further this transition, Britain entered into the 1959 Zurich Agreement with Greece and Turkey,
with the intent of establishing an independent Cyprus. However, the Cypriots themselves were
excluded from the agreement’s discussions, and they resented their lack of representation.
By 1960, Britain, Greece, and Turkey had agreed to a constitution for Cyprus. In this
constitution, Greeks held the highest power, but Turks, who represented about one-fifth of the
population, could veto legislation. Unfortunately, but understandably, the Greek and Turkish
Cypriots both rejected it.
But it was not simply that Greek and Turkish Cypriots did not buy into this constitution. The sad
truth was that they could not work together to produce one, and would not accept one created by
anyone else. Furthermore, they were adamantly opposed to living together as a single nation. In
the ensuing years, Greeks and Turks made polarizing migrations to build political power in
specific areas.
In 1974, Greece orchestrated a coup d’etat of the unified government. This coup provoked a
retaliatory invasion by Turkey, which led to a formal partition of the island into the Turkish
North and Greek South. In 1975, a UN-brokered agreement was established that further
260
encouraged northern migrations by Turks and southern migrations by Greeks.529 In 1983, the
Turkish legislative assembly administering the northern region proclaimed itself to be the
independent Turkish Republic in North Cyprus.
Today, for all practical purposes, the north and south of Cyprus are two separate countries, even
though the UN has rejected the Turkish North’s declaration of independence and has encouraged
its member nations to not recognize it. Since the Turkish invasion, the northern republic has
seen a massive influx of Turkish nationals, who reinforce and solidify Turkish claims to the land.
Meanwhile, the southern Republic of Cyprus, which still claims sovereignty over the entire
island, has joined the European Community.
Today, Cyprus is divided by a “fence” called “the green line.” While deep wounds remain, this
separation has given both sides economic and political stability.
Because of the ties many Greeks have in the north, and Turks have in the south, as well as
Turkey’s desire to follow Cyprus into the European Union, there have been on-going talks of a
Cypriot reunification. In discussing this topic, the following article reveals something else: the
decline of North Cyprus after the Muslim Turkish takeover:
Green Light: Border Opening in Cyprus

By Andrea Talas, HVG (independent weekly), Budapest, Hungary, April 29, 2003
A spontaneous unification process may have been started on the island of Cyprus, now divided
for 29 years, since Rauf Denktas, the president of the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus…opened the Green Line separating the island’s two sections.
…Marula Mihaili…, after 29 years of exile…visited her childhood home in the town of
Yerolakos…in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an entity recognized solely by Ankara.
The widow…found almost everything as it had been left on July 20, 1974, when she was forced
to leave it a few hours after the Turkish takeover.
The Turkish family that occupied the house still uses the silver set that Mihaili received as a
wedding gift, [as well as the] now somewhat worn furniture…Other Greek Cypriots told the same
story…it was a bitter experience for many Greek Cypriots to see how impoverished the Turkish-
occupied northern half of the island has become…The seaside resorts, once counted as tourist
attractions, were now lifeless, abandoned, in a state of decay…the Greek Orthodox churches have
been transformed into mosques. There is now nothing to suggest that the buildings were once
Christian churches…
Germany
Germany has a unique history among European nations with regard to Islam. Its historically
cordial relations with the House of Submission stem from two sources:
• Germany’s alliance with the Ottoman Empire during the World War I.
529
United Nations Document S/11789, referred to as the Population Exchange Agreement. A web-based summary
of this document can be found at www.cypnet.com/.ncyprus/history/republic/agmt-popexch.html.
261
• Germany’s belligerence, during World War II, toward France, England, the Soviet
Union (formerly Russia), and the Netherlands. These nations were despised in the
Islamic world because of their histories as colonizers of Islamic lands, spanning the
globe from Algeria to Persia, and from Chechnya to Indonesia.
By chastising the French, British, Russians, and Dutch, Germany won a special place in the
hearts of many Muslims around the world (though not all – many Arabs also considered Britain
an ally for liberating them from the Ottoman Empire). This affinity was personally strengthened
by Adolph Hitler, whose hatred of Jews resonated so well in the Islamic world that, when Persia
liberated itself from British occupation in 1935, it changed its official name from Persia to Iran
in order to trumpet the fact that Iran was the theoretical source of Hitler’s Aryan race. Later,
during WWII, Iraq actually called on Axis nations for help to fight against the British.530
Many Muslims also remember the close collaborative relationship Hitler established with Haj
Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1936, who also served as
President of the (Palestinian) Supreme Muslim Council during that time. Al-Husseini
collaborated tirelessly with Hitler to recruit and train Muslim soldiers for the Nazi war effort.
Despite this collaboration, al-Husseini escaped prosecution as a war criminal after the war,
largely because of European fears of outrage in the Arab lands they still administered. This
immunity allowed him to enjoy his final years as an icon of Arab nationalism, and his
collaboration with Hitler was never condemned by his supporters. His nephew, Yasser Arafat,
considered him a hero and mentor, and boasted of their special relationship.531
Germany has changed considerably since the bad old days of The Third Reich, but one of
Hitler’s lasting legacies is a large Muslim population in Germany. In large part, these Muslims
descend from World War II Soviet defectors, who rejected the U.S.S.R. as an atheist occupier of
Muslim lands. These Muslims now represent an axis of Muslim extremism in the heart of
Europe, as described in the following Wall Street Journal article:
The Beachhead: How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became [a] Center of Radical Islam
By Ian Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2005; Page A1
MUNICH, Germany – …Buried in…archives are hundreds of documents that trace [a] battle to
control the Islamic Center of Munich…the material shows how radical Islam established one of
its first and most important beachheads in the West when a group of ex-Nazi soldiers decided to
build a mosque.
The soldiers’ presence in Munich was part of a nearly forgotten subplot to World War II: the
decision by tens of thousands of Muslims in the Soviet Red Army to switch sides and fight for
Hitler. After the war, thousands sought refuge in West Germany, building one of the largest
Muslim communities in 1950s Europe. When the Cold War heated up, they were a coveted prize
for their language skills and contacts back in the Soviet Union…U.S., West German, Soviet and
British intelligence agencies vied for…them in the new battle of democracy vs. communism.
530
Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled The Legacy of the
Western Encounter with the Middle East, page 24.
531
The Mufti of Jerusalem, by Philip Mattar, Columbia University Press revised edition, 1988.
262
Yet the victor wasn’t any of these Cold War combatants. Instead, it was a movement with an
equally powerful ideology: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1920s Egypt as a social-reform
movement, the Brotherhood became the fountainhead of political Islam, which calls for the
Muslim religion to dominate all aspects of life. A powerful force for political change throughout
the Muslim world, the Brotherhood also inspired some of the deadliest terrorist movements of the
past quarter century, including Hamas and al Qaeda.
The story of how the Brotherhood exported its creed to the heart of Europe highlights a recurring
error by Western democracies. For decades, countries have tried to cut deals with political Islam
– backing it in order to defeat another enemy, especially communism. Most famously, the U.S.
and its allies built up [the] mujahadeen…in 1980s Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union – paving
the way for the rise of Osama bin Laden, who quickly turned on his U.S. allies in the 1990s.
…
Political and social groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood now dominate organized
Islamic life across a broad swath of Western Europe…
While these groups renounce terrorism and officially advocate assimilation, the upshot of their
message is that Europe’s Muslims – now representing between 5% and 10% of the continent’s
population – need to be walled off from Western culture. This in turn has helped create fertile
ground for violent ideas. Islamic terrorists have increasingly used Europe as a launching pad for
their attacks, from the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. to last year’s bombing of trains in Madrid.
…Postwar Munich was a ruined city packed with Muslim émigrés fleeing persecution…Most
favored some sort of accommodation with the West. But the victor had a bolder vision: a global
Islam opposed to the ideals of secular democracy…
Fortunately, in the aftermath of numerous terrorist attacks that could be traced back to
organizations in Germany, the German government realized that it not only had a problem, but
also had to do something about it:
In Germany, Harder Line Looms

By Ian Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2005; Page A14
MUNICH, Germany – Local officials have started taking steps against one of the historic centers
of Islamism in the West, after years of tolerating and even supporting it.
…
Now, attorneys in the state of Bavaria have launched two separate investigations. One is aimed at
determining whether the Islamic Community of Germany misappropriated state funds, a move
that could force the group to pay back more than €700,000 ($868,070) to the state. Prosecutors
also are investigating an allegedly related organization that runs a nearby school. Officials denied
an education license to the school…, a move confirmed by courts last week.
The actions in Bavaria could signal that Germany will take a harder line nationally against
Islamist organizations. One of the driving figures behind the moves is Günther Beckstein, the
Bavarian interior minister…Mr. Beckstein believes that the Islamic Community of Germany’s
allegedly ideological links with the Muslim Brotherhood make it an undemocratic force.
“The Islamic Community of Germany is a group that is against the constitution,” Mr. Beckstein
said…“It is justified that the state not support such organizations.”
263
For decades, the Munich mosque and its related organizations have been cornerstones of the
Muslim Brotherhood network that gradually spanned Europe…
For almost a decade, domestic intelligence had…published warnings about the group’s allegedly
radical ideology. Public officials, however, continued to deal with [it], financing its private
school with €340,000 a year. The organization maintained nonprofit status, which allowed
donors to write off their contributions.
…
In the late 1990s, the Islamic Community of Germany began to attract unwanted attention: A man
sentenced for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had been a regular at the Munich
mosque and, later, a high-ranking al Qaeda suspect who had contact with mosque members was
arrested nearby. In 1998, the group was put on the domestic intelligence agency’s watch list.
The next year, the Islamic Community of Germany lost its nonprofit status because of sloppy
bookkeeping…donations to the group are no longer tax-deductible.
…
The Islamic Community of Germany’s direct involvement with the school ended in 2003, when a
group called the German-Islamic Educational Enterprise was founded…It obtained nonprofit
status and received roughly the same…state support to run the school, officials say.
Now, state prosecutors are investigating whether the new group may have forged the signatures
of members who weren’t present at its founding…Local officials denied the school a license for
the current school year because they say it is a dummy organization set up to disguise links to the
Islamic Community of Germany.
“We are afraid that the group running the school, which belongs to the Islamic Community of
Germany, is using the school to spread Islamist ideology,” said Thomas Huber, spokesman for
the district government of Upper Bavaria…
India
India has a long history of contention between indigenous Hindus and Muslims who arrived on
the wings of the Ghurid Empire’s Islamic invasion in the 12th century. This Islamic presence
grew throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, through the Sultanate of Delhi, and culminated in the
Mughal Empire, which ruled virtually all of India during the 16th and 17th centuries.
By the time traders from Europe began to arrive, India was in the process of succumbing to the
Mughals. The European traders, pursuing their own interests, allied themselves with the Hindu
populations to gain political power as protectors, and secured lucrative trade arrangements in the
process. In the 1600s and 1700s, Britain displaced the other European nations and strengthened
its role as protector until all of India was its client and Britain ruled large portions outright.
The trade and technical innovations that accompanied Britain made its presence welcome at first.
However, by the early 1900s, after a number of atrocities, and after the insult of denying Indians
full rights as British citizens,532 the relationship soured, and India began a decades-long battle for
self-determination. During World War II, the British promised independence to India in
exchange for its military support. After the war, Britain made good on its promise, but this only
532
This may sound familiar to readers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
264
brought back the ancient war for religious dominance. One of the leading forces in this conflict
was the Muslim League, whose mission was to form a separate Muslim state ruled by Shari’ah.
Ultimately, colonial India was divided into two nations: India and Pakistan (which later split into
modern Pakistan and Bangladesh). The conflicts and mass migrations associated with Pakistan’s
founding caused more than one million deaths.533 Since that time, India and Pakistan have
fought four wars over the disputed Indian state of Kashmir. Today they periodically threaten
each other with annihilation through nuclear war.
Despite the mass migrations, there remains a substantial number of Muslims in India. In fact,
Muslims represent about 13% of India’s population. For a variety of reasons, ranging from
perceived oppression to sympathy with Pakistan to conquest, they have lashed out numerous
times against the Indian government. Bombings occur regularly,534 and, in December of 2001, a
murderous attack on India’s National Parliament itself by a Kashmiri/Pakistani militia resulted in
14 deaths.535 Muslim terrorist attacks that are less politically devastating but far more deadly are
also familiar to Indians, such as the bombing of two crowded markets on October 22, 2005,
which killed 59 people.536 Hindus have frequently responded to Muslim terrorism with attacks
of their own, leaving ample blood on everyone’s hands.
Nigeria
Islam’s rise in Nigeria was proclaimed when Nigeria’s northern provinces adopted Shari’ah in
2000 and 2001. Islamic courts then flaunted their power by quickly condemning a pregnant
divorcee to death by stoning. Since that time, northern Nigeria has proceeded to alienate itself
from the West on multiple fronts. Beyond its public displays of harsh Islamic Law, northern
Nigeria has turned away from modern innovations in other ways and sent itself on a journey back
toward Islamic traditions.
A stand-out example of this regression comes from the case of a pregnant divorcee: the court
resolved the case’s question of paternity with the aid of a traditional Islamic method, namely, the
testimony of three men, rather than a modern and scientific paternity test (the accused man
himself was the fourth male witness). Even though Western minds cannot imagine how
witnesses could prove that a man did not impregnate a woman, the male witnesses were all that
Shari’ah needed to absolve the father. As a side note, this again demonstrates how Shari’ah is
stacked in favor of men, because, while both men and women may be sentenced to death for
adultery, it is virtually impossible for a man to be convicted:
Woman sentenced to stoning freed

From Jeff Koinange, CNN, Monday, February 23, 2004
KATSINA, Nigeria (CNN) – An appeals court has freed a Nigerian mother sentenced to death by
stoning for adultery.
533
Philip’s Atlas of World History General Editor: Patrick K. O’Brian, Copyright 1999, Published by the Institute of
historical Research, University of London, pages 88, 89,118, 119, 194, 195, 248, 249.
534
India’s Great Divide, by Alex Perry, TimeAsia, August 4, 2003.
535
Indian Muslim leader is slain at memorial service, by Rama Lakshmi (Washington Post), International Herald-
Tribune, May 22, 2002.
536
Claim of responsibility for deadly India blasts, Associated Press, MSNBC News, October 30, 2005.
265
The Shari’ahh Court of Appeal ruled…that Amina Lawal’s conviction was invalid because she
was already pregnant when…Islamic Shari’ahh law was implemented in her home
province…Shari’ahh law…is practiced in 12 of Nigeria’s 36 states.
…human rights groups…were outraged at the sentence that Lawal should be buried up to her
neck and then have stones thrown at her head until she was dead.
…not all the spectators who attended the hearing were pleased by the result. One man who had
come to hear the court’s ruling said: “I would have preferred Amina to be stoned to death. She
deserves it.”
…
Lawal was convicted and sentenced in March 2002 after giving birth to a baby girl more than
nine months after divorcing. Under the strict Shari’ahh law, pregnancy outside marriage
constitutes sufficient evidence for a woman to be convicted of adultery.
…
She insists she did nothing wrong and that the man who fathered her child made a promise to
marry her. He did not, leaving her pregnant and with no support.
The man said he was not the father, and three male witnesses testified he did not have a sexual
relationship with Lawal. The witnesses constituted adequate corroboration of his story under
Shari’ahh law, and he was freed.
…
The adoption of Shari’ahh, which includes amputation as a possible punishment for convicted
thieves, has stoked violence between Muslims and Christians in Africa’s most populous state.
More than 3,000 people have been killed.
Islam’s ascendancy is also poisoning northern Nigeria’s relations with the West. Consider the
recent outbreak of polio that started in northern Nigeria and spread to its neighbors. Although
Nigeria finally allowed Western aid-workers to bring polio vaccinations to its northern
provinces, this decision was delayed for 11-months by vicious rumors spread by Islamic leaders
hostile to the West. The articles below summarize the story:
Nigeria Boycotts Polio Vaccination Drive

By Glenn McKenzie, Associated Press Writer, USA Today, February 22, 2004
KADUNA, Nigeria (AP) – Sticking to its position that the polio vaccine is a U.S. plot against
Muslims, an overwhelmingly Islamic northern Nigerian state declared Sunday it would boycott
an emergency immunization campaign being launched to stop the crippling outbreak that is
spreading across west and central Africa.
The announcement from Kano state came on the eve of a World Health Organization campaign to
immunize 63 million children in 10 African nations as the polio outbreak spreads from northern
Nigeria into countries where the disease had been eradicated.
…Islamic leaders there say the vaccine is part of a U.S. plot to kill off Nigeria’s Muslims, by
spreading the AIDS virus or agents that cause sterility.
…
Nigerian state again allowing polio vaccinations
By Oloche Samuel, Associated Press, August 1, 2004
266
TAKAI, Nigeria –…Nigeria’s Kano state, where a recent epidemic of the crippling disease
started and spread to 10 other African nations, allowed vaccinations to resume Saturday after an
11-month boycott.
…
Since the boycott began in August 2003, polio has spread from Nigeria across West and Central
Africa, infecting polio-free countries and threatening a UN backed drive to eradicate the disease
worldwide by next year…
East Timor
While East Timor’s struggle to repel an invasion by Indonesia appears to be victorious at the
moment, it had suffered overt Islamic aggression from Indonesia for 24 years. Its story is
summarized by the following report:
Last Indonesian Ship Leaves E. Timor

By Laura King, Associated Press, Washington Post, October 30, 1999
DILI, East Timor –– …Indonesian troops [in] a gray troop-transport ship slowly pulled away
from the harbor early Sunday, quietly ending the 24-year occupation of this former Portuguese
colony that left thousands dead.
Their departure from East Timor marks the end of a long and fruitless struggle by the world’s
most populous Muslim nation to subdue a small, stubbornly separatist Roman Catholic province
on its eastern fringe.
The story of East Timor’s struggle against Islamic aggression began almost immediately after it
expelled its Portuguese colonizers on December 7, 1975. Just weeks after the Portuguese
departure, Indonesia smashed East Timor’s new freedom with a bloody invasion that caused over
200,000 deaths. This was followed by a violent occupation, which was summarized in the
United Nations’ Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor.537 The
following are excerpts from the UN report:
7. On November 12, 1991, Indonesian forces shot into a crowd of people who had gathered at the
Santa Cruz cemetery in Dili for a memorial service for a youth shot dead by the Indonesian
National Army (TNI) in an incident on 28 October 1991. The number of mourners killed at the
Santa Cruz cemetery is not clear…
8. For the last several years, the Commission on Human Rights…had been concerned with the
serious human rights violations in East Timor, relating to continuing allegations of extrajudicial
killings, torture, “disappearances” and acts of sexual violence attributed to members of the TNI
and pro-government militias…
9. …in late 1998 and early 1999, new militia groups were established in East Timor by the
Indonesian authorities who reportedly portrayed the emergence of new militia groups as a
spontaneous reaction against the activities of supporters of independence.
537
Published by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland,
Copyright 1996-2000. Presented to the General Assembly on January 31, 2000. This report can be found at
www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.54.726,+S.2000.59.En.
267
10. In January 1999, President Habibie offered East Timor substantial autonomy, or
independence if the offer of autonomy was rejected…
During the months between President Habibie’s offer and the actual vote on August 30, 1999,
the situation became extremely violent. According to the UN report:
34. The members of the International Commission of Inquiry were confronted with testimonies
surpassing their imagination.
…
37. …President Habibie’s proposal in January 1999 for greater autonomy or independence for the
Territory coincides with an increase in militia activity there.
38. Intimidation by the militia groups was often in the form of burning houses, destruction of
property and beatings. The men fled to the hills and the women who remained behind were
harassed and in some instances sexually abused.
…
41. In April, several hundred internally displaced people had sought refuge in the church in
Liquicia. There is evidence that on 5 April a person was killed in the church and that militia and
TNI were jointly responsible for this killing.
On 6 April…, militia and Indonesian army personnel went on a shooting spree at the church
resulting in several deaths. A witness testified that he was engaged by TNI to remove 15 bodies
from the site and dispose of them in the lake in Maubara.
According to…a nurse in a hospital in Dili, six injured persons were brought from Liquicia to the
hospital. She described a young woman who had been stabbed in the back and neck. A man had
his right ear cut off and had stab wounds at the back, arms and shoulder.
…
48. …Another witness testified that her husband, who had sought refuge in Manual Carrascalao’s
house, was killed on that day. Yet another witness testified that on 19 April, 11 bodies were
brought in a truck and he was asked to bury them near Maubara Lake. According to him these
bodies were from the killing that took place in Manual Carrascalao’s house.
…
75. The Commission visited the site of the massacre that took place at the Suai church on 6
September. At the time of the massacre, several hundred persons had sought refuge in the
church. In the incident, three priests – Father Dewanto, Father Francisco and Father Hilario –
were killed. Accounts of the militia and TNI removing the bodies of those killed in the church
have now been corroborated with the exhumation in West Timor of 26 bodies alleged to be
victims of the killings in Suai church…
…
84. An eyewitness testified that on 12 April 1999…people were forced to stand in a line by
militia and TNI and then to kneel and pray. Then they were killed with automatic guns and
pistols. The dead bodies were thrown on a truck and driven away…Twenty-two bodies were
found later, 13 of them in one grave.
The religious overtones of these atrocities are obvious. Finally, on August 30, 1999, with a 99%
turnout, over 78% of the voters of Catholic East Timor chose independence from Islamic
Indonesia. In October, under the watchful eyes of the UN and the world, Indonesia evacuated its
military from East Timor.
268
The Philippines
The Philippines has a long history of contention between Muslims (called Moros, from Moor, the
Spanish term for Muslim) and Christians. This began in the 1400s, when several native tribes in
the southern islands converted to Islam. The spread of Islam was partially accomplished by
capturing and enslaving natives from the northern islands, and then bringing them south and
pressuring them to convert. This Islamicization of the Philippines was interrupted by the arrival
of Spanish conquistadors in 1571, who began to colonize the Philippines and convert natives to
Christianity, also often by force. Their efforts succeeded over the Muslims in large part due to
superior weapons, particularly after the arrival of steam ships in the mid-1800s.
In 1898, the U.S.S. Maine exploded and sank in Havana Harbor,538 launching the Spanish-
American War. Months later, the U.S. purchased the Philippines from Spain for $20 million, as
part of the war’s settlement at the Treaty of Paris.
The U.S. continued Spain’s Christianization effort, but switched to less coercive methods.
American administrators encouraged Christians from the northern islands to emigrate to the
southern ones, which had historically been Islamic. They also encouraged southern Filipinos to
study in Manila and taught them Western methods of politics, economics and social life.
During the American period, slavery was abolished, and highways, schools, and hospitals were
built throughout the southern islands. The Moros, however, fought these changes, claiming that
the Americans intended to make them inferior to Christian Filipinos. Their resistance continues
to this day, in the form of guerrilla warfare against the Western-style Philippine government.539
In the War on Terror, the Philippines have been paralyzed by fears of reprisals by the Moros.
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has refused to label the MILF (Moro Islamic
Liberation Front) a terrorist organization, because she fears that doing so would drive them from
ongoing negotiations and incite retaliatory attacks.540 Also, when Iraqi insurgents captured a
Filipino and held him hostage in July 2004, demanding that the Philippines leave, Arroyo quickly
withdrew the Philippines’ 600 troops from the Coalition of the Willing.541 Presumably, this
capitulation came from fears that defiance of the hostage-takers would invite Moro retaliation.
Has this timidity helped the Philippines end its Islamic insurgency? A recent article answers this
question by describing rebel activities in 2005:
538
At the time, there was high tension between Spain and both Cuba and the U.S. Cuba wanted independence, and
the U.S. opposed European interference in the Americas. The explosion of the U.S.S. Maine was attributed to a
mine in the harbor. Subsequent investigations have called this explanation into doubt, and suggest a mishap with the
ship’s steam boiler.
539
Sources:
1. Southern Philippines Question – The Challenge of Peace and Development, by Eliseo R. Mercado, Notre
Dame Press, Cotabato City, 1999.
2. Decolonization and Filipino Muslim Identity, by Samuel K. Tan, Journals and Publications Division –
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, 1985.
3. Roots of Conflict. Muslims, Christians and the Mindanao Struggle, by Rosalita Tolibas-Nuñez, Asian
Institute of Management Washington SyCip Policy Forum, Washington DC, 1997.
540
The Evolution of Philippine Muslim insurgency, by Marco Garrido, Asia Times. March 6, 2003.
541
Ex-hostage reunited with family, Contributors: Maria Ressa and Caroline Faraj, CNN, July 21, 2004.
269
Terrorists Train for Seaborne Attacks
By Jim Gomez, Associated Press Writer, March 17, 2005
MANILA, Philippines — Two of the most dangerous al-Qaida-linked groups in Southeast Asia
are working together to train militants in scuba diving for seaborne terror attacks, according to the
interrogation of a recently captured guerrilla.
The ominous development is outlined in a Philippine military report…that also notes increasing
collaboration among the Muslim militants in other areas, including financing and explosives, as
extremists plot new ways to strike.
In the past year, the Indonesia-based Jemaah Islamiyah has given Abu Sayyaf militants in the
Philippines at least $18,500 for explosives training alone…
…
Authorities fear scuba divers could target ships with more accuracy than a small explosive-laden
boat like the one used in the USS Cole blast that killed 17 sailors in 2000 in Yemen.
According to the Philippine report, an Abu Sayyaf suspect in a deadly bus bombing in Manila on
Feb. 14 named Gamal Baharan described how he and other seasoned guerrillas took scuba diving
lessons as part of a plot for an attack at sea.
Thailand
To fully appreciate that Islamic hatred is not limited to Israel, or America, or Europe, or
Christianity, or Judaism, but targets any government or religion in the House of War, consider
what Muslim fundamentalists are doing in southern Thailand, a Buddhist nation that has never
been colonized by the West. As in Hindu India, Muslims have found a pretext for attack. As
reported by Agence Presse France:
Elderly Buddhist beheaded in Thailand’s restive Muslim south

By Anusak Konglang, AFP, May 29, 2004
Bangkok, Thailand – …It was the first decapitation in the violence, which has claimed some 190
lives since January, police said.
Sieng Patkaoe, 63, was attacked by men with machetes early Saturday as he tapped rubber trees
on his plantation in the southern province of Narathiwat…
Sieng’s severed head was left along a village road. His body, found some 60 metres (yards)
away, had a note pinned to it threatening more killings, police said.
“If innocent Malayu (the predominant ethnic group in the Muslim south) continue to be arrested,
we will murder more Buddhists,” police quoted the note as saying…
The victim had no conflict with neighbours, police said.
The killing marks a new level of brutality in the violence, mainly blamed on Muslim separatists,
that has plagued southern Thailand this year.
270
In addition to decapitating religious leaders, Muslim rebels in this Buddhist country also engage
in their depressingly familiar tactic of attacking grade schools and sowing anarchy, as the New
York Times reported on July 6, 2005:
Schools in Thailand Under Ethnic Siege

By Seth Mydans, International Herald Tribune
YALA, Thailand - …In an escalating campaign of violence here in the largely Muslim south of
mostly Buddhist Thailand, government-run schools and the teachers who work in them have
become particular targets of bombs and gunmen.
In the past year and a half, dozens of schools have been damaged or destroyed by arson. The
local teachers union said 18 teachers had been killed…in the three most dangerous southern
provinces, an average of one a month…
A long-simmering separatist movement in this former Malay sultanate lies at the heart of the
violence, hand in hand with resentment at discrimination against Muslims and attempts at forced
assimilation by the government.
…
More than 700 people have died since the level of violence rose sharply in January 2004,
including nearly 200 in two mass killings by the military that have caused widespread resentment
here.
…
Just 10 percent of Thailand’s population of 63 million is Muslim, with most of them clustered
here in the south, where they live side by side with Buddhists. The teachers who have been killed
include people of both religions.
…
The whole rhythm of life is changing in the south, Ms. Duangporn said. “Everything happens in
daylight,” she said. “At night, everybody stays home…”
The economy is collapsing as well. Wholesale buyers no longer come to the fruit and fish
markets or buy fabric and clothing. The government is subsidizing part of the economy by
buying local produce.
According to a local newspaper, as many as 10,000 workers could lose their jobs as the military
shuts down rock quarry operations in order to prevent the theft of explosives…
Thailand’s trials again reveal that Islamic justifications for attack are mere pretexts. If it is not
support for Israel, then it is America’s presence in Saudi Arabia. If it is not a French ban on head
scarves, then it is Danish cartoons of Muhammad. In the case of Thailand’s Buddhists, their
crime is to have the audacity to rule over Muslims, while they themselves commit the
unforgivable sin of shirking Allah.
To fully appreciate Islam’s hostility to Buddhism, recall the Taliban’s decision to completely
obliterate Afghanistan’s two huge standing Buddha statues – harmless, lifeless, and defenseless
works of art. What pretext was there for these attacks? In this case, none existed. The
demolitions were naked displays of Islamic hostility, veiled only by the excuse that demolition
was permitted because no Buddhists remained in Afghanistan. In fact, this lack of Buddhists
271
only reflects an ancient jihad against Buddhism that accompanied the Muslim invasion of India.
This invasion essentially wiped Buddhism out of that part of the world.
Another interesting point about the Islamic insurgency in Thailand is that one of its supporters is
Jemaah Islamiyah,542 just as in the Philippines. Jemaah Islamiyah is also responsible for the
2002 Bali bombings that targeted Western tourists in Indonesia. What is most remarkable about
this Pan-Islamist organization is that its host country, Indonesia, refused to label it a terrorist
group for many years, and did so only after an attack on its own territory. In October 2003, an
Associated Press article entitled Terror Group Filling the Void543 noted:
… Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri and other national leaders don’t publicly
mention Jemaah Islamiyah by name in the country, which is home to more Muslims than any
other nation, roughly 200 million.
And the government has not declared Jemaah Islamiyah a terrorist organization – making it
impossible to prosecute membership in it as a crime – and has refused to shut down Islamic
boarding schools associated with militants…
Perhaps what most startling is not that Indonesia shields Islamic terrorist groups, but that
apologists for Islam hold up Indonesia as a progressive Islamic state. If Indonesia is progressive,
it is only in comparison to nations like Somalia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The following article
displays Indonesia’s true colors:
One in 10 Indonesians back suicide bombings

Reuters, MSNBC News, March 16, 2006
JAKARTA - Eleven percent of the people in Indonesia [more than 20 million]…believe suicide
attacks against civilian targets are sometimes justifiable, a survey said on Thursday.
…
The survey also revealed that 8 percent [over 16 million] support masterminds of past suicide
bombings, including Noordin M. Top, the most wanted terror suspect in Indonesia…
…
Anti-terror campaigns in Indonesia have faced hurdles, including perceptions the United States is
out to attack Islam, as well as the ample space given to militant voices and their sympathizers in
the Indonesian media.
Support for shariah

The survey also found that almost half the respondents [about 100 million] back stoning, as a
punishment for adulterers, while support for other extreme elements of Islamic shariah was also
significant…
The Netherlands
If any nation could be called the birthplace of extreme tolerance, it is the Netherlands. Its
tradition of toleration began as a reaction to Catholic repression under Spanish rule during the
1500s, and flowered when the Netherlands gained independence in 1609. Dutch tolerance was
542
Thailand PM: Hambali was Plotting, Associated Press, CBS News, August 16, 2003. Note: Hambali, an
Indonesian whose real name is Riduan Isamuddin, is the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah.
543
Terror Group Filling the Void, Associated Press, CBS News, October 17, 2003.
272
so famous that the Pilgrims, who ultimately landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, initially moved to
the Netherlands seeking refuge from British persecution. They decided to leave after concluding
that the Dutch were too permissive.
Since then, Dutch tolerance expanded from the realm of religion, free speech, and equal rights
for women to issues that would scandalize many in the United States, including legalized
marijuana and hashish, prostitution, nudity, gay marriage, and euthanasia.
While some people may call this kind of tolerance “utopia,” a more accurate term would be
“laboratory.” The Dutch conduct social experiments that are simply impossible in other parts of
the world. An important experiment that the Dutch have been conducting recently is: “What
happens when you tolerate groups and ideologies that do not tolerate each other?”
One of the experimental cases producing results is the Dutch mixture of Islam, homosexuality
and free speech. One result was the 2002 assassination of Prof. Pim Fortuyn, who led a fast-
rising political party known as the LPF.544 545 The professor’s death taught this experiment’s
lesson: in a nation committed to tolerance, the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance.
This paradox stands out especially with Fortuyn, because his activism against the massive influx
of Muslim immigrants was motivated by Islam’s strong prohibitions against homosexuality. As
an openly gay man, he had already witnessed brutalities carried out by immigrant Muslims
against Dutch homosexuals who were accustomed to living their lives openly. He also noticed
that many Muslim immigrants, even those who had lived in the Netherlands for generations, did
not assimilate into Dutch society, and did not even bother to learn the language. He saw the
population of his native Rotterdam rapidly become 15% Muslim. He feared that Islam’s
intolerance of homosexuality could alter Dutch society and spread anti-homosexual persecution.
At the time, Fortuyn was portrayed in Europe’s press as a xenophobic neo-Nazi. This raises an
interesting question: Why did the press deem Fortuyn’s “intolerance” of Muslim immigrants
worse than Muslim intolerance of homosexuals? At any rate, Fortuyn’s rising star, as the leader
of a major political party, was called a threat to the treasured European doctrines of tolerance.
The tide of intolerance toward Fortuyn rose to such a point that the forces of political correctness
snuffed him out. On May 6, 2002, he was shot dead by Volkert van der Graaf, a Dutch animal
rights activist, who did it “to protect Muslims,”546 just days before national elections that
predicted an impressive showing for his party.
Despite his murder, Pim Fortuyn was able to make his point, which was summarized concisely in
the National Review article, Murder in Holland:547
In a recent televised debate with an imam, Fortuyn baited the Muslim cleric by flaunting his
homosexuality. Finally the imam exploded, denouncing Fortuyn in strongly anti-homosexual
544
LPF stands for List Pim Fortuyn. No one said he was modest!
545
Fortuyn buried after Dutch bid farewell, BBC News, May 10, 2002.
546
Fortuyn killed ‘to protect Muslims’, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Joan Clements, The Telegraph (U.K.),
March 28, 2003.
547
Murder in Holland, by Rod Dreher, National Review, May 7, 2002.
273
terms. Fortuyn calmly turned to the camera and, addressing viewers directly, told them that this
is the kind of Trojan horse of intolerance the Dutch are inviting into their society in the name of
multiculturalism.
Fortuyn’s words proved to be prophetic as the Dutch experiment yielded another result. On
November 2, 2004, movie producer Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by Muhammad
Bouyeri for making a film critical of Islam.
Finally, the Dutch got Pim Fortuyn’s message. In a November 2004 poll of Dutch television
viewers, he was voted “The Greatest Dutchman of All Time.”548
As for Theo van Gogh, the New York Times article, Man on Trial in Dutch Killing Says He’d
Do ‘Same Again’, summarizes the story:
AMSTERDAM, July 12 - …Bicycling to work last Nov. 2, Mr. van Gogh was shot at least six
times before having his throat cut.
The defendant, Muhammad Bouyeri, the 27-year-old son of Moroccan immigrants, showed no
remorse, saying he had killed Mr. van Gogh based on his religious beliefs. “I acted out of
conviction and not out of hate,” Mr. Bouyeri told the court. “If I’m ever released, I’d do the same
again. Exactly the same.” He added his actions were based on “the law that instructs me to chop
off the head of everyone who insults Allah or the prophet.”
Mr. van Gogh - along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch politician (who co-produced
the film “Submission” with him) - received death threats after their short but provocative film
about abuse of Muslim women was broadcast last year on Dutch television.
…
Prosecutors…characterized Mr. van Gogh’s killing as a terrorist act designed to rein in a tolerant
and democratic Dutch society. “The accused preaches a message of hate and violence,” one of
the prosecutors… told the court. “He preaches that anyone who thinks differently can be killed.”
Mr. Bouyeri was apprehended…in a shootout with…Dutch police. He told the officers…that he
had wanted to die that day, presumably as a martyr.
…
Originally, Mr. Bouyeri had tried to boycott his own trial…Dutch journalists had speculated that
he refused to recognize the court’s jurisdiction, believing instead that he was only beholden to the
Islamic law of Shariah.
…
After killing Mr. van Gogh, Mr. Bouyeri used a knife to affix a five-page note to Mr. van Gogh’s
corpse. It quoted the Koran and threatened Ms. Hirsi Ali, among other prominent Dutch
politicians. Ms. Hirsi Ali, who went into hiding for weeks after the killing, still lives under
constant police protection.
Ms. Hirsi Ali, by the way, is an Islamic refugee from Somalia who renounced her faith and fled
to the Netherlands after being forced into an arranged marriage.549 Sadly, in the months that
followed van Gogh’s death, the firestorm caused by Hirsi Ali’s denouncement of Islam has led
548
Fortuyn voted greatest Dutchman, BBC News, November 16, 2004.
549
Gunman kills Dutch film director, BBC News, November 2, 2004.
274
the Dutch to turn dumbfoundingly on their brave refugee, with a blind eye toward the threat that
menaces them all. As the Wall Street Journal reported:
Islamist Threats To Dutch Politician Bring Chill at Home

By Andrew Higgins May 17, 2006; The Wall Street Journal, Page A1
THE HAGUE – Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been threatened repeatedly with
“execution” by Islamist extremists. She lives in an apartment with bulletproof windows, and is
driven to work at the Dutch Parliament by armed guards, who vary the route to outfox would-be
hit men.
But an unexpected menace emerged closer to home: her own neighbors. They have fought to
evict her, complaining that the presence of a well-known terrorist target in their luxury apartment
tower in this Dutch city has upset their family lives and reduced the value of their property.
“Once this lady leaves, the problem is no longer there,” says…a retired executive who owns a
place two floors above the hunted politician. He says he has nothing…against Ms. Hirsi Ali. But
along with other residents, he wants to banish the fears stirred by the proximity of Holland’s most
acid – and most frequently threatened – critic of Islam.
Yesterday, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s neighbor got his wish. Three weeks after a Dutch court ordered her
out of the building in response to complaints from Mr. Verhagen and other residents, she resigned
from Parliament and said she would leave Holland altogether. Her decision follows a cascade of
problems: angry neighbors, a government threat to revoke her citizenship and, more generally,
growing public disenchantment with her denunciations of both radical Islam and more
conventional Muslim doctrines…
Possibly the most disturbing aspects of Theo van Gogh’s murder are Mr. Bouyeri’s personal
history and the content of the letter he stabbed onto van Gogh’s dead body, as reported in the
Wall Street Journal article, Rude Awakening: A Brutal Killing Opens Dutch Eyes to Threat of
Terror:550
Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan man arrested for the murder of Mr. van
Gogh, and many of his suspected confederates, shared a trait with Mohammed Atta and his fellow
9/11 hijackers in the U.S.: They weren’t slum-dwelling delinquents but reasonably educated
beneficiaries of the Western societies they want to destroy…
A note tacked onto Mr. van Gogh’s chest with a knife…fulminated against “infidels,” [and]
vow[ed] death to Ayaan Hirsi Ali…“Hair-raising screams will be squeezed from the lungs of the
nonbelievers,” warned the letter. It ended…in the style of an Islamic verse: “I know for sure that
you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to
meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Netherlands, are going to meet with disaster.”
Mr. Bouyeri…was born in Holland and graduated from a Dutch high school. He spoke Dutch far
better than Arabic, worked as a volunteer in an Amsterdam youth center, and before he embraced
radical Islam, seemed well integrated in society.
550
Rude Awakening: A Brutal Killing Opens Dutch Eyes to Threat of Terror, by Andrew Higgins, The Wall Street
Journal, November 22, 2004, page 1A.
275
While life has remained relatively calm in the Netherlands, tensions between Muslim and Dutch
communities have heightened. Although no additional injuries or deaths have been reported,
there have been numerous retaliatory attacks on Islamic sites within the country.551
Despite their bad treatment of Hirsi Ali, the normally tolerant Dutch have begun to take pro-
active measures to stave off a culture clash with Muslim immigrants. One of their first actions
has been to send a clear message: We are a tolerant people, and if you cannot tolerate tolerance,
we will not tolerate you! The medium for this message is an entrance exam that the Netherlands
now requires of all would-be immigrants, as explained in the article, Film exposes immigrants to
Dutch liberalism:552
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a
topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants
to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.
If they can’t stomach it, no need to apply. Despite whether they find the film offensive,
applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the Netherlands’ new entrance
examination.
The test – the first of its kind in the world – became compulsory Wednesday, and was made
available at 138 Dutch embassies. Taking the exam costs $420. The price for a preparation
package that includes the film, a CD ROM and a picture album of famous Dutch people is $75…
Spain
Spain’s experience with Islam goes back to the glory days of Islam’s rapid expansion, as it
galloped across the tumbling Roman territories of North Africa and continued into the Iberian
Peninsula. In 711 AD, Muza ben-Nosair conquered the Visigoth King Rodrigo. In 712, he
proclaimed the caliphate of Cordoba. This caliphate continued its rapid expansion until it was
finally halted in southern France at the Battle of Poiters in 732. After this over-extension, the
caliphate retrenched and established a more permanent presence over most of what is now Spain.
Initially, Spain prospered under its Muslim rulers, but by the early 1100s, the caliphate had
disintegrated into 39 petty kingdoms, which became exhausted from internal battles and were
reduced to chaos. In this weakened state, the Christian subjects were able to reassert themselves
and, kingdom by kingdom, reclaim the land for Christendom. By 1492, the same year as
Columbus’s “discovery” of America, Spain’s Catholic King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella
eradicated the last vestiges of Islamic power from Spain by conquering Granada.553
After five centuries of sleep, Islam roused itself again in Spain on March 11, 2004, through the
bombing of four rush-hour trains. The reason for this shocking violence went beyond Spain’s
support for the war to depose Saddam Hussein; it was also meant to settle old accounts dating
back to the 1400s:
551
Islamic School Set Ablaze in Netherlands Associated press, November 9, 2004.
552
Film exposes immigrants to Dutch liberalism, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 15, 2006.
553
A Concise History of Spain, by Henry Kamen, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1973, summarized from
pages 15-57.
276
Madrid train bomb kills 192
By Bill Hutchinson, with James Gordon Meek and News Wire Services
New York Daily News, March 11, 2004
Stunned Spanish authorities scrambled last night to track down the cold-blooded terrorists who
killed 192 people and wounded more than 1,400 by bombing four rush-hour trains converging on
the capital of Madrid.
…
A shadowy group linked to Al Qaeda claimed responsibility…
Francisco Javier Ruperez, Spain’s ambassador to the United States, said, “This is our own 9/11,
and I am sure we are going to react very much the way the Americans did when they had that
terrible suffering of theirs.”
…
The blasts came just three days before national elections…In its letter, the Brigade of Abu Hafs
al-Masri said the bombings were payback for Spain’s support of the Iraq war.
“This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America’s ally in its war
against Islam,” the letter said...
The horror of this attack shocked the world. Afterwards, the sinister justification sank in:
“settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America’s ally in its war against Islam.”
The words of this letter reveal that the attack was really not a settling of accounts at all, but pure
aggression veiled with a pretext.
How so? Basically, there was little for the attackers to settle accounts over. Spain had rescinded
its colonial aspirations in Muslim Africa decades earlier, and the Crusades were ancient history.
In fact, Christian Spain did not even exist at the time of the Crusades – it was a part of the
Caliphate of Cordoba. The claim that America was waging a war against Islam also makes no
sense. The U.S. and its allies went to war against Saddam Hussein, a secularist who was a
menace to both his Muslim neighbors and his Muslim citizens. At the time of the blast,
Coalition forces were helping Iraq establish an Islamic Democracy.
Perhaps the terrorists intended to say that they were punishing Spain for its Apostasy from Islam
hundreds of years ago, but their only clear message was pure hatred. Nothing but hatred could
have motivated this attack on civilians that left 1400 casualties and 192 deaths.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ruperez’s predictions for Spain were disappointed, and the people of Spain
responded with fear rather than resolve. A few days after the bombing, they elected a
presidential candidate who promised to extract Spain from Iraq.
United Kingdom
With regard to Islam, the U.K. seems to be repeating a bit of history it may rather forget: the
years leading up to World War II. While the West’s conflict with Islamic terrorism is more
complex than that cataclysmic battle between nations, the parallels are striking:
277
• The full scope of Nazism’s threat was not appreciated by the British public, which, in the
bloody aftermath of World War I, sought to avoid another conflict at all costs.
With their policy of appeasement, Britain stood by as Hitler expanded his reign into
Austria and Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain even condoned these actions through
his participation in the 1938 Munich Conference, from which he returned declaring: “My
good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned
from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.”554
• In the spirit of open-mindedness, Britain legitimized Nazi Germany, as well as Hitler’s

views on Arian supremacy.
In fact, sympathy for Hitler went as high as the ruler of Britain itself, in the form of King
Edward VIII. In 1936, Edward abdicated the British throne to marry Bessie Wallis
Warfield, an American divorcee. Shortly thereafter, the newlywed couple visited
Chancellor Hitler, in 1937. If fortune had not been so kind as to see Edward renounce the
throne, Hitler may have been far more successful with his campaigns of hate.
At this point, it is important to note that Britain was not the only “civilized nation” with
native apologists for Hitler. Europe as a whole offered him unwitting support in
numerous ways. For example, the Olympic Committee of those days allowed the 1936
Olympics to take place in Berlin.
In the United States, Hitler had none other than Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh as
advocates. In fact, Ford was so supportive that in July 1938, on his seventy-fifth
birthday, he flew to Germany so that Hitler could award him the Grand Cross of the
Supreme Order of the German Eagle.555 Charles Lindbergh also flew to Germany in
1938 for an award, the Service Cross of the German Eagle, which he received from
Hermann Goering. Lindbergh later became spokesman for the America First Committee,
which opposed U.S. involvement in World War II. This organization included among its
founding members Walt Disney, Sinclair Lewis, and Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the
influential daughter of Teddy Roosevelt and cousin of Franklin Roosevelt.
• From a sense of guilt, Britain joined the rest of Europe in legitimizing Hitler’s outrage over
the settlement of WWI, thereby disabling its ability to stand up to him.
While Imperial Germany did not start World War I, it was certainly finished by it. After
several years of relative success in battle, Germany collapsed from within. It was crippled
by a general strike, which then-Corporal Hitler blamed on the Jews. This strike was soon
followed by a revolt against Kaiser Wilhelm, who fled for his life to the Netherlands.
The Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany economically and humiliated the German
people. It carved away vast German territories, stripped it of its military, and weighed it
554
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1960.
555
Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-1933, by James Pool & Suzanne Pool,
The Dial Press, 1978, page 129.
278
down with massive war reparations. German rage at this treatment, together with
Germany’s inept form of democracy called the Weimar Republic, led to Hitler’s rise. His
message of vengeance, which he called redemption and justice, resonated with the German
people, and produced a nation determined to destroy every country and people that had
humiliated it.
Britain, together with the rest of Europe, saw Germany’s rage and backpedaled on the
harsh terms of Versailles. They allowed Germany to violate those terms by first rearming
itself and then reclaiming lost territories. They did not realize that their appeasement
policies would be interpreted as weakness, and would encourage more aggression.
• Britain, along with the rest of Europe, continued to seek diplomatic solutions long after it
was clear that diplomacy was a euphemism for capitulation.
Immediately after his accession to the Chancellorship in 1933, Hitler began to dismantle
the Treaty of Versailles, beginning with German rearmament. This brought him the
support of many industrialists, who stood to profit from weapons production. With his
power base secure, Hitler began to implement his dark vision with lightning speed:
o 1933: Dachau concentration camp built and then used to help eliminate opposing
political parties.
o 1933: First Nazi book-burnings.
o 1933: Withdrawal from the League of Nations.
o 1934: “The Night of Long Knives,” during which a wide assortment of political
rivals within the Nazi party were assassinated.
o 1935: Saarland reclaimed by Germany.
o 1935: Secretly developed Luftwaffe (Air Force) announced, in violation of the
Treaty of Versailles.
In response to these aggressive actions, Britain’s Prime Minister Stanly Baldwin, and
Foreign Minister Samuel Hoare, chose to work with Hitler rather than confront him.
They and Hitler signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which allowed the German
navy parity at 35% of the British Navy. Hitler then instituted the Nuremberg Laws,
which, among other things, defined Jewishness along racial terms rather than religion.
He then made it a crime for Jews to marry Aryans, raise the German flag, and join the
German military. He also rescinded their right to vote.
In 1936, the Nuremberg Laws were supplemented by prohibitions against Jews working
in professional jobs. In March of that year, Hitler also masterminded Germany’s
reoccupation of the Rhineland, which he was able to celebrate a few months later at the
Summer Olympic Games hosted in Berlin.
During this entire period, Hitler managed to soothe European alarm with words of peace,
claiming a simple desire for German parity with other European nations. For example,
on May 21, 1935, he went so far as to say, in a major political speech:556
556
See The History Place website: www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-hossbach.htm.
279
The blood shed on the European continent in the course of the last three hundred years
bears no proportion to the national result of the events. In the end, France had remained
France, Germany Germany, Poland Poland, and Italy Italy. What dynastic egotism,
political passion, and patriotic blindness have attained in the way of apparently far-
reaching political changes by shedding rivers of blood has, as regards national feeling,
done no more than touched the skin of nations. It has not substantially altered their
fundamental characters. If these states had applied merely a fraction of their sacrifices to
wiser purposes, the success would certainly have been greater and more permanent.
Despite Hitler’s overt hostilities, these words were all Britain and other European powers
needed to hear, because it was what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, Hitler’s words
of assurance corresponded in no way with his actions.
As the nations of Europe watched with trepidation, Hitler became even bolder. In 1938,
like a chess master, he annexed Austria in a diplomatic coup. A telling description of the
times comes from an account of Hitler’s rise found in The History Place:557
Hitler knew that civilized men such as Schuschnigg [the Chancellor of Austria], and
those who followed, would readily compromise to prevent the loss of life. They would
all learn too late that Hitler did not value life and that war was his ultimate goal.
In his build-up to the Austrian coup, Hitler knew how to play the victim, portraying the
Austrian Nazis as a persecuted minority. For example, on February 20, 1938, shortly
after his visit from the former British King Edward VIII and his new wife, Hitler declared
that it was “intolerable for a self-conscious world power [Germany] to know that at its
side are co-racials who are subjected to continuous suffering because of their sympathy
and unity with the whole German race and ideology.” Austrian Germans responded by
taking to the streets and wreaking chaos upon the embattled Austrian government.
A few months after annexing Austria, Hitler turned his sights on Czechoslovakia,
employing the same “victim” gambit to stir up political and social unrest among the
German Czechoslovakians. Then, through a daring series of maneuvers, which climaxed
with the September 30 Munich Agreement, he intimidated Britain and France into letting
him annex Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland militarily. Britain and France signed this
agreement without even consulting the Czech government. The twin results of this
settlement were Chamberlain’s hopeful “Peace for our time” speech and Hitler’s
complete contempt for Britain and France. During this time, Winston Churchill, who had
been sounding alarms about Hitler for years, continued to be ignored.
While Hitler was negotiating with Britain and France, he managed to save some quality
time for Henry Ford, to award Ford with the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the
German Eagle as a birthday gift.
From Sudetenland, Hitler continued his expansionist policies with utter disregard for the
557
ibid: www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-austria.htm.
280
supposed allies of the nations he invaded. His next victim was Poland, in 1939.
• Britain could not muster the will to respond to Germany until directly attacked.
Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland shredded the Munich Agreement and forced Britain
and France to declare war. Despite this declaration, the British took little action.
Germany went on to conquer Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg,
and France as Britain stood by. This period became aptly known as “The Phony War.”558
Then, after defeating all of Britain’s nearby allies, Germany directed its malice at isolated
Britain itself.
By the time Britain responded in force, it was too late. Its neighbors were defeated, and
Britain was cornered. Its eventual victory can only be credited to Winston Churchill’s
leadership, U.S. intervention, and Hitler’s overconfident attack on the Soviet Union.
After recapping the years that led to World War II, analogies between Britain’s handling of
Nazism and its current handling of Islam become evident. Before discussing them, however, we
should note that Britain is not the only Western nation guilty of these mistakes, which grew out
of the West’s climate of moral relativism and indiscriminate inclusiveness. This point leads to
an essential moral question: If we say that there are no absolutes of good or evil, then how can
we claim that the deeds of any people, no matter how murderous, are evil? After all, even the
Nazis had their point of view – shouldn’t they have been respected?
Of course not. And with this realization, we are prepared to see how Britain’s old mistakes
regarding Nazism illuminate the mistakes being made today with Islam:
• The full scope of Islam’s threat is not appreciated by the British public, which, in the
bloody aftermath of World War II, seeks to avoid another conflict at all costs.
Islam is not bashful about its nature. Translations of the Koran and other Islamic texts are
readily available through stores and the web. Search engines make it possible to find
answers to virtually any question about Islam, almost instantaneously. The doors of
Mosques are open every Friday, waiting to share Islam’s message.
Through any method of research, Islam will reveal that it holds non-Muslims in contempt
and seeks to deprive them of the full rights of citizenship. Its believers are also glad to
discuss the inferior status that Islam assigns women, although they may call it equal but
different. And, even if the Muslims you meet may deny it, a few pointed questions will
quickly demonstrate that Islamic Law is fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of Free
Democracy and Free Enterprise.
Despite all of this, the British have continued to let Islam grow in their midst. They seem
to assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Muslims will somehow give up
Shari’ah, don bowlers and umbrellas, and join British society. They ignore the fact that
Muslims see Islamic Law as Allah-given, unchangeable, and all-encompassing, with an
558
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1960.
281
authority that supersedes secular law and demands Infidel submission.
British resolve to avoid conflict is reflected in the BBC’s decision not to use the term
“terrorist” when describing attacks in Israel, the United States, and even the U.K. Instead,
the BBC uses words like “bomber” or “gunman,” because the word “terrorist” contains a
value judgment that implies injustice on the part of the attacker.
This conflict avoidance also reveals itself in the way that radical Islam has flourished in the
U.K., with people connected to terrorism walking freely in the streets, such as Rached
Ghannouchi, whose An-Nahda party attempted to assassinate Tunisia’s President Zine al-
Abedine ben Ali.559
Perhaps the most blatant example of this cowardice is the conclusion of a study by Britain’s
Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House) following the
London subway bombings. This study announced that the U.K. is at risk of terrorism
because of its involvement in Iraq.560 This statement implies that the U.K. might have been
able to avoid terrorism by doing what the terrorists wanted.
The falsehood in Chatham House’s conclusion is clear after one considers the nationalities
of the Muslim terrorists who carried out the attacks: They were not Iraqis. One was
Jamaican and the other three were British, of Pakistani origin. Moreover, the Iraqi territory
that the British have overseen has been relatively peaceful, because that region is largely
Shiite, and the Shiites were glad to see Saddam go. Despite misgivings over the “Infidel
Occupation,” Iraqi-British relations were not deteriorating. In truth, the bombers were
simply looking for a plausible pretext to justify their actions. They could have just as
easily blamed their attack on British indifference to the French policy on head scarves.
On a personal note, I have British friends who remind me of this baffling determination to
ignore Islam’s threat despite numerous terrorist attacks around the globe. My most
memorable experience was with an educated and well-seasoned Certified Public
Accountant, who normally exhibits sharp analytical skills. One day, we got on the subject
of Islam and, in answer to his questions, I suggested that he might want to read the Koran.
I gave him my copy. Months later, I asked him about his progress with the book. He told
me that he had started to read it but found it difficult to follow. He then told me that he did
not have to read the Koran to understand Islam anyway, because he had some friends who
were Muslims and they seemed like nice people.
• In the spirit of open-mindedness, Britain legitimizes Islam, as well as Islam’s views on

Muslim supremacy.
In many ways, this point was already made in the preceding paragraphs. But there
remains an important corollary: Blind tolerance leads to self-defeating views and moral
paralysis. That is, if an intolerant ideology calls itself a religion, many people give it
unquestioned acceptance, even if it calls for global political domination and persecution
559
Jane’s Intelligence Review Vol. 7; No. 4, April 1, 1995, page 175.
560
Study: U.K. at ‘risk’ for supporting Iraq war, Reuters, MSNBC, July 18, 2005.
282
of other religions. For these people, blind tolerance and inclusiveness has disabled their
ability to see danger signs, and may even cause them to attack their defenders.
The U.K. reveals how blind tolerance can lead to self-destructive paralysis in the
following article, which tells why Israel recently decided to suppress information that
linked a subway bomber to a 2003 terror attack in Israel:
Report: U.K. bomber linked to ’03 Israel attack

Reuters, July 17, 2005
LONDON - Israeli security sources played down a report on Sunday that a key suspect in
this month’s London bombings is believed to have helped plan a pro-Palestinian suicide
attack in Tel Aviv two years ago.
…
Maariv Daily said Muhammad Sidique Khan traveled to the Jewish state in 2003 and that
Israeli defense officials suspect he helped two fellow British Muslims carry out a suicide
bombing at a beachfront bar that year that killed three people.
British police named Khan, 30, as a member of a cell that killed at least 55 people in the
July 7 bombings in the capital.
…
Israeli officials are under orders from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon not to draw links
between the London attacks and Palestinian militants to avoid offending British
sensibilities.
In other words, Prime Minister Sharon would not allow members of his government to
link the U.K. subway bombers to those who attacked Israel on behalf of the Palestinians,
because he feared that doing so might offend the many British who support the
Palestinians.
British resolve to maintain its traditions of tolerance, in spite of bloody evidence that one
of the groups they defend is viciously intolerant toward them, could one day lead them to
turn against natural allies, and protect enemies, in the war on terror.
• From a sense of guilt, Britain legitimizes Islamic outrage over Britain’s colonial past, and
its current occupation of Iraq, thereby disabling its ability to stand up to Islamic terrorists.
As with other former colonizers, many Britons feel a sense of guilt over their nation’s
colonial past. One cause of this guilt is the former belief in European racial superiority,
which helped justify colonialism. Horrified by the grotesque mirror that Hitler held up to
them, Britain recoiled from its imperialist ways.
However, before the British delve further into self-loathing, they should take heart,
because the institutions they established in colonial times ultimately benefited the new
nations. Some are among the most successful nations in the world, while others have
gone on to be at least more successful than they were before colonization. A good gauge
of how well those nations have prospered since their colonial days is the extent to which
they adopted Western institutions introduced by Britain.
283
When considering Britain’s legacy, one should consider the chaos of those territories
before the British arrived. They should also consider how determined the British were to
leave their one-time colonies with stable governments and viable economies. In
comparison, the Ottoman Empire voraciously exploited conquered lands, ruthlessly
suppressed independence, and left behind nations that were deeply wounded, struggling
to heal even today.
Similarly, after ousting Saddam, the U.K. and the U.S. have worked diligently to help
Iraqis build their own indigenous version of democracy, to provide a stable government
that would protect the rights of all. They have persisted in this worthy goal despite the
attacks of insurgents and a population that appears poorly adapted to democracy.
While some in Britain may think that Tony Blair’s policies on Iraq were misguided, no
one can honestly claim that he was mean-spirited, murderous, or exploitive. In fact, a
quick review of recent history shows that nearly everyone killed in Iraq today is a victim
of sectarian violence and terrorism, not the Coalition of the Willing.
Why is Iraq swarming with terrorists? Because there are so many causes for which
Muslims are willing to slay and be slain:
o There are Sunnis who want to take back the power they enjoyed under Saddam
Hussein and lost to the Shiites.
o There are Shiites who seek revenge on the Sunnis who formerly oppressed them.
o There are Sunnis who seek revenge on the Shiites who have killed their relatives.
o There are Sunnis and Shiites who oppose democracy because they believe it
allows non-scholars to usurp Allah’s legislative authority.
o There are Sunnis who seek to disgrace and chase out the Infidel occupiers.
o There are also Shiites so filled with hate for Infidels that they seek to destroy
members of the very Coalition that rescued them from Saddam’s persecutions.
The terrorists opposed to the Coalition of the Willing have found those forces nearly
unassailable, despite the slow attrition of about two soldiers per day. Therefore, the
terrorists have decided to change tactics and defeat the purpose of the Coalition rather
than the coalition itself. Their plan now is to:
o Destabilize Iraq’s new government.

o Kill the innocent civilians that the Coalition came to protect (especially civilians
of opposing religious sects).
o Make the Coalition forces appear impotent.
o Discredit the concept of democracy.
o Turn popular opinion against the Coalition.
A recent bombing of innocent civilians in Baghdad shows this plan in action:
Three car bombs kill up to 43 in Iraq

By Bassem Mroue, Associated Press Writer, The Boston Globe, August 17, 2005
284
BAGHDAD, Iraq –Three car bombs exploded Wednesday near a crowded bus station
and a nearby hospital where survivors were being taken, killing up to 43 people in the
deadliest suicide attack in Baghdad in weeks…
…
Police said the first bomb blew up at the Nadha bus terminal, the city’s largest, shortly
before 8 a.m. as swarms of travelers were boarding buses. As Iraqi police rushed to the
scene, a suicide driver detonated his vehicle in the station’s parking lot.
Another suicide bomber blew up his car a half-hour later across the street from nearby
Kindi Hospital, where ambulances were transporting the injured.
…
“We want our voices to be heard by the president of the republic and every official to
tackle such violence,” shouted one dazed security guard who refused to give his name.
“All those who were killed are innocent people. There were no American nor Iraqi
troops on the scene.”
Despite such testimonies, many Britons are quick to accept terrorist claims that it is
legitimate to murder innocent civilians because of Britain’s presence in Iraq. Many war
protestors even blame the Coalition for the thousands of civilians who have died since
Saddam’s downfall, as if the Coalition, and not the terrorists, did the killing.
People who blame the United Kingdom for the actions of Islamic terrorists are worse than
unfair. They actually undermine the goal of peace that they claim to pursue. These
people mislead themselves by thinking that they will be able to satisfy the terrorists by
complying with their demands. As with Hitler, capitulation only encourages the
terrorists, and leads to more demands and more terror.
• Britain, along with the rest of Europe, continues to seek diplomatic solutions long after it
has become clear that diplomacy is a euphemism for capitulation.
This phenomenon is most apparent in Britain’s, France’s, and Germany’s 2006 attempts
to sway Iran from its nuclear aspirations. A far more subtle place where diplomacy has
given cover for conquest is in the fabric of Britain’s own society. While militant clerics
incite terrorist acts against the West, the British government, in the name of free speech
and open dialogue, protects their right to do so.
After the subway bombings of July 7, 2005, British faith in diplomacy and dialogue
began to lose favor, and they began to crack down on those who incite violence.
However, before then, the United Kingdom allowed radical Muslim clerics to fill their
listeners with anger and hatred. Time and again, the U.K. took little action against
radicals until after terrorist acts were committed.
For example, native son Richard Reid, otherwise known as the “shoe bomber,” was
recruited in a mosque by a widely known militant cleric:
Shoe-bomb suspect met with al-Qaida suspects, British newspaper reports

Associated Press, January 5, 2002
285
LONDON (AP) The man accused of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with
explosives hidden in his sneakers was seen in London with suspected members of the al-
Qaida terrorist network, a British newspaper reported Saturday.
A worshipper at London’s Finsbury Park mosque, Rashid Hussain, was quoted by The
Times as saying he saw Richard C. Reid at the mosque in 1998…
…
London-born Reid converted to Islam while in prison for petty crimes. He later
worshipped at the same south London mosque as Zacarias Moussaoui, charged with
conspiracy in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The mosque’s leader, Abdul Haqq Baker, has said young converts there were courted by
extremist groups. He suggested Reid might have had contact with more radical mosques
such as the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, home of militant Egyptian-born
cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri.
Abdul Haqq Baker, the mosque’s leader, said that he was aware of young converts at his
mosque being courted by extremist groups. This raises important questions: Why did he
let this happen? Why didn’t he report what he saw? His place of worship was being used
as a recruitment center for murder, and he knew it. Yet he did nothing to stop it.
Also, why did British authorities allow the Finsbury Park Mosque to keep operating?
How could they not see that the preaching of violence would ultimately lead to violence?
It is because leaders in the Islamic community, such as Mr. Baker, continue to claim that
Islam is peaceful and that terrorists are an aberration. On the basis of these assurances,
Britons go about their business, just as they did with Hitler in the 1930s.
Even in the aftermath of London’s subway bombings, which killed 55 people and injured
hundreds, Britain’s tendency to hear what it wants goes on. For example, in a show of
unity with other leaders in London after the bombings, Sheik Zaki Badawi, the head of
Britain’s Council of Mosques and Imams, said: “Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the
name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion.”561
Let me repeat that: He said, “Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion
does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion.” These are not words
of assurance.
Another example of Britain’s continuing capitulation, even after the subway bombings,
was described in the New York Times:562
The Thursday bombings also rippled through the world of arts and entertainment with the
inevitable moments of bitter irony and bad taste.
561
Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, by Alan Cowell, New York Times, July 11, 2005.
562
BOMBINGS IN LONDON: ARRESTS; Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, By Alan
Cowell, Souad Mekhennet, and Jonathan Allen, The New York Times, July 11, 2005.
286
Waterstone’s bookshop in London scrambled to cancel print advertisements for
“Incendiary,” a new novel written in the form of a letter to Mr. bin Laden by a woman
whose husband and son died in a London terrorist attack…But some of the ads were
irretrievable, including posters already hung in the London Underground, where three of
the four bombs went off.
What was Waterstone’s afraid of? Offending Muslims for implying that Islamic
terrorism was behind the bombings? Or possibly driving home the point that Islamic
terrorism is not fiction?
Meanwhile, multitudes in the U.K. and other Western nations cling to the soothing words
of Muslims who tell them what they want to hear, even when it directly contradicts what
they see with their own eyes. For example, The Koran for Dummies explains that:563
The Koran says that while [non-Islamic] beliefs and practices theologically contradict the
Islamic way of life, it is not the responsibility of the Muslims to judge others. Rather, the
Book says that God [Allah] alone has the responsibility and right to judge “Muslims,
Jews, Sabians, Magians (fire worshippers),564 and Polytheists” on the Day of Judgment,
since only God is aware of all things (22:17). God’s condemnation and punishment of
certain souls should not be misunderstood as a call for Muslims to take these souls to
account in this world. Muslims themselves are to be judged by God, and are in no
position to judge others.
Also:565
The Koran also teaches that even those who speak or act towards Muslims in an unjust
and ignorant manner should not be treated with the same dishonor. Rather, Muslims are
instructed to respond with words of peace (25:63), and to repel evil with good, so that
friendship replaces hatred (41:34; 25:72). From the Koran’s perspective, treating even
your personal enemies with respect eventually leads to good relations with that person.
With the aid of a very select group of Koranic verses, the author tries to conceal the
Koran’s over-all message, and convince readers that people like Salman Rushdie and the
Danish cartoonists have nothing to worry about, at least until Judgment Day. This claim
contrasts sharply with the Koran’s true message, which was discussed in the section
entitled The treatment of non-Muslims.
• Britain could not muster the will to respond to Islam’s threat until directly attacked.
Until the London subway bombings, Britain’s apparent policy for avoiding Islamic
terrorism was to make itself a safe haven for terrorists. The following New York Times
article describes the fruits of this strategy:
BOMBINGS IN LONDON: THE MESSAGE
563
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Limits to
an inclusive theology, page 149.
564
Terms used to refer to Zoroastrians.
565
Ibid, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving Honor, page 207.
287
For a Decade, London Thrived As a Busy Crossroads of Terror
By Elaine Sciolino and Don Van Natta Jr.; Souad Mekhennet and Tim Golden
contributed (New York Times), July 10, 2005
Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a
breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam.
For two years, extremists like Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, a 47-year-old Syrian-born
cleric, have played to ever-larger crowds, calling for holy war against Britain and
exhorting young Muslim men to join the insurgency in Iraq…
In a sermon attended by more than 500 people in a central London meeting hall last
December, Sheik Omar vowed that if Western governments did not change their policies,
Muslims would give them “a 9/11, day after day after day.”
…
For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain’s tolerance helped stave off any
Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London’s militant clerics turned on Britain
after it offered unwavering support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. On Thursday
morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counterterrorism officials became a reality.
“The terrorists have come home,” said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who
works often with British officials. “It is payback time for a policy that was, in my
opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British government to allow these networks to
flourish inside Britain.”
Those policies have been a matter of intense debate within the government, with the
courts, the Blair government and members of Parliament frequently opposing one
another.
For example, when the Parliament considered a bill in March that would have allowed
the government to impose tough controls on terror suspects – like house arrests, curfews
and electronic tagging – some legislators objected, saying it would erode civil liberties.
“It does not secure the nation,” William Cash, of the House of Commons, said of the bill.
“It is liable to create further trouble and dissension among those whom we are seeking to
control – the terrorists”…
…
Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are
supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men
were trained in camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
…
Before Sept. 11, 2001, British officials monitored radical Islamists but generally stopped
short of arresting or extraditing them. After Sept. 11, the government passed legislation
that allowed indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. But last year, it was overturned
by Britain’s highest court, the Law Lords, as a violation of human rights law.
Complicating Britain’s antiterrorism strategy is its refusal or delays of requests for

extradition of suspects by some allies, including the United States, France, Spain and
Morocco.
288
Moroccan authorities, for example, are seeking the return of Mohammed el-Guerbozi, a
battle-hardened veteran of Afghanistan who they say planned the May 2003 attacks in
Casablanca, which killed 45 people…
But the British government has no extradition treaty with Morocco and has refused to
extradite Mr. Guerbozi, a father of six who lives in a rundown apartment in north
London…
…
For 10 years, France has been fighting for the extradition of Rachid Ramda, a 35-year-old
Algerian, over his suspected role in a bombing in Paris in 1995 staged by Algeria’s
militant Armed Islamic Group…
Another prime terrorism suspect who operated in London for years is Mustafa Setmarian
Nasar, the suspected mastermind of the Madrid bombings…
…
Across Britain, since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 800 people have been arrested under the
Terrorism Act of 2000…Of that number, 121 were charged with terrorism related crimes,
but only 21 people have been convicted.
…
Even last week’s bombings did little to curtail the rhetoric of some of the most radical
leaders, who criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for saying that the bombings appeared
to be the work of Islamic terrorists.
“This shows me that he is an enemy of Islam,” Abu Abdullah, a self-appointed preacher

and the spokesman for the radical group Supporters of Shariah, said in an interview on
Friday…
Mr. Abdullah declared that those British citizens who re-elected Mr. Blair “have blood on
their hands” because British soldiers are killing Muslims. He also said that the British
government, not Muslims, “have their hands” in the bombings, explaining, “They want to
go on with their fight against Islam.”
…
So far, there appears to be little effort to restrain outspoken clerics, including prominent
extremists like Sheik Omar, who has reportedly been under investigation by Scotland
Yard.
Sheik Omar, who remains free, is an example of the double-edged policies in Britain. He
is a political refugee who was given asylum 19 years ago and is supported by public
assistance. Asked in an interview in May how he felt about being barred from obtaining
British citizenship, he replied, “I don’t want to become a citizen of hell.”
Hopefully, as the United Kingdom digests its subway bombings and the ramifications of
their past policies toward Islam, they will begin to act on the obvious fact that people
who espouse terrorist views do not deserve the right to have their liberties protected.
Were London’s subway attacks direct enough to fully unveil Islam’s threat to the British? Or
will Britain continue to see Islamic terrorism as something that deserves no more than police
action? Will Britain continue to grasp for assurances from “moderate” Muslims, who say that
Islam is a religion of peace, while citizens try to contain their fears of a Muslim uprising?
289
Only time will tell whether Britain will continue to ignore its history with the Nazis, and repeat it
with the Muslims.
For the United Kingdom, and all of the other nations discussed in this section, the common
experience is that Islam breeds fear and hatred among all inhabitants, non-Muslim and Muslim
alike. The hostile presence of Muslim groups that do not assimilate with their host nations, and
which lash out at non-Muslim citizens, marks an unwelcome resurrection of tribalism in places
where it had been long dead. It also marks a loss of free speech, and freedom from fear, as
Denmark recently realized.
Denmark
When Dare to Speak was first drafted, Denmark was not even mentioned. Suddenly, in 2006,
Denmark became a focal point of Islamic hatred. Its plight once again made the clash between
Free Democracy and Islam impossible to ignore. It also revealed the speed with which Muslims
can strike terror throughout the world, as well as the sensitivity of Islam’s tripwire for detonating
global conflict.
Denmark’s story began innocuously enough. As Kevin Sullivan tells it in his February 2006
article for The Washington Post, entitled Cartoon furor began quietly,566
The global furor over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad can be traced to one day last September
when newspaper editor Flemming Rose smelled a good story.
He said he’d read that museums in Sweden and London had recently removed artworks their staff
deemed offensive to Muslims. A Danish comedian told him that he felt free to desecrate the
Bible but that he’d be afraid to do the same to the Koran. Then Rose read that a Danish
children’s book author couldn’t find illustrators who dared draw Muhammad for a new book on
Islam.
Rose…suspected the art world was self-censoring out of fear of Islamic radicals. So he contacted
25 Danish newspaper cartoonists with a challenge: Draw Muhammad as you see him. Twelve
responded…including one that depicted Islam’s holiest figure with a bomb in his turban.
“We have a tradition of satire in Denmark,” Rose, 47, said…“We do the same with the royal
family, politicians, anyone. In a modern secular society, nobody can impose their religious
taboos in the public domain.”
Islamic leaders, however, did not share Rose’s view that these cartoons were simply iconoclastic
affirmations of Denmark’s Freedom of Speech. Nor did they pause to contemplate why someone
might think it appropriate to draw Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban. Instead, they railed
against the caricatures as outrageous insults, and responded in a way that demonstrated that the
caricatures were true. Sullivan continues:
566
Cartoon furor began quietly, by Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, February 8, 2006.
290
At the Islamic Cultural Center in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abu Laban saw the cartoons. “We were
astonished and extremely shocked,” said Laban,…One of Denmark’s most prominent Muslim
clerics…
Laban immediately called together 11 other Muslim leaders to plan a response. Eliciting no
regrets from the newspaper or the Danish government, they sent envoys to the Middle East to
seek support…
But how did those Danish envoys transform their outrage in September into an international
conflict in January? Easy! They added obscene cartoons to the ones actually published:
The cartoons were “a volcano in Egyptian media,” Laban said. “People were extremely angry.”
…
Government officials and other critics here said Laban’s delegations intentionally inflamed
Islamic leaders in Egypt and Lebanon by passing off several obscene cartoons of Muhammad as
among those published in the newspaper.
In short, these mass riots were orchestrated by Islamic leaders who falsified cartoons and
attributed them to Danish artists. Their goal was to foment hatred against the West and launch a
series of retributions.
Even after the forgery was exposed, Muslims preferred to remain outraged by the original
cartoons, even though they previously garnered little attention. Muslim outrage ignored the fact
that, by definition, political cartoons are always offensive to someone, and every group
imaginable is caricatured by cartoonists sooner or later. Jews and Christians may grumble when
their founders are satirized in political cartoons, but they generally view such caricatures as
statements about themselves, not their founders, and they treasure the right to Free Speech
enough to bear those insults without resorting to riots, destruction, or murder.
To my knowledge, no one in a Free Democracy has ever died because of a religious caricature.
For example, the cartoonist who drew Muhammad with a bomb as a turban had previously drawn
a cartoon where the Star of David was attached to a similar bomb, yet no crisis materialized.567
Political cartoons of Jesus and Moses are common throughout the world.
Muslims give two reasons for being outraged over Muhammad’s caricatures. The first is that
such cartoons are an insult to Muhammad, and therefore, to Islam. The second is that any image
of a person can lead to idolatry, and this danger is especially true for Muhammad. The question
of how a political cartoon can both insult Muhammad and lead people to idolize him is left
unanswered.
Also unexplained is why Muslims responded so rabidly, considering the many times in Islam’s
history when Muslims themselves created images of Muhammad, as evidenced by the following
quote from Islam: A Very Short Introduction, in a space that once contained the reproduction of
such an image:568
567
Cartoon furor began quietly, by Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, February 8, 2006.
568
Sira (Biography), page 34.
291
In the first edition of this book, this space contained an illustration from the famous manuscript of
Rashid al-Din’s Universal History (1307)…Although the illuminated manuscript…is widely
regarded as a masterpiece and is often reproduced, a small number of readers found the picture
blasphemous. In the words of one of them: ‘There is definitely no human being that can ever
depict the beauty and grandeur of his (the Prophet’s) countenance.’ There is no explicit ban on
figurative art in the Quran, but popular Muslim tradition became strongly iconophobic…
It is hard to imagine that the author, a professor at Oxford University, would remove the
depiction of Muhammad simply because “a small number of readers” were unhappy with the
book. Authors, especially academics, endure criticism as part of their jobs. The author’s use of
the word “blasphemous,” together with an understanding of how Muslims responded to Salman
Rushdie’s “blasphemy,” reveals that fear is what actually motivated the removal.
This quote also reveals what appears to be the real reason for Muslim outrage at the cartoons: In
the eyes of many Muslims, Muhammad was superhuman, despite claims to the contrary. To
these people, Muhammad’s “beauty and grandeur” was so great that any image of him is
inadequate, therefore insulting. If an image of Muhammad that is considered a “masterpiece” is
“blasphemous,” then a satirical cartoon is outrageous beyond words.
At this point, it is interesting to note that while Muslims demand respectful deference, they do
not give it. Muhammad himself seemed to enjoy making fun of non-Muslims, as several hadiths
reveal, such as:569
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 435:…The Prophet said to Hassan, “Lampoon them
(i.e. the pagans) and Gabriel is with you.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 449:…The Prophet said to Hassan, "Abuse them
(with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e., supports you)."
Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 6081:…Allah’s Messenger…said, “Satirise against the (non-
believing amongst the) Quraish, for (satire) is more grievous to them than the hurt of an arrow.”
On the other hand, how are Muslims taught to repay Infidels who insult Muhammad? Numerous
hadiths provide the answer, such as:570
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 409:…While the Prophet was in the state of
prostration, surrounded by a group of people from Quraish pagans, ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’ait came
and brought the intestines of a camel and threw them on the back of the Prophet.
The Prophet did not raise his head from prostration till Fatima (i.e. his daughter) came and
removed those intestines from his back, and invoked evil on whoever had done (the evil deed).
The Prophet said, “O Allah! Destroy the chiefs of Quraish…”
569
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 731 and Volume 8, Book 73,
Numbers 171 & 174, Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Numbers 6074, 6079, 6080, & 6081, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book
41, Number 4997.
570
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 241, Book 9, Number 499, and
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 193.
292
Later on I saw all of them killed during the battle of Badr and their bodies were thrown into a
well except the body of Umaiya or Ubai, because he was a fat person, and when he was pulled,
the parts of his body got separated before he was thrown into the well.
With this background, the Islamic response to these political cartoons becomes more
understandable, even if it is not more justified. Reading about the orchestrated responses to
these cartoons is like watching an explosion whose shrapnel is malice, anarchy, and intimidation:
Developments in Prophet Drawings Case

The Associated Press, WIBC 1070 News Radio, Indianapolis, Indiana, February 2, 2006
Thursday’s developments in the controversy surrounding the publication by European

newspapers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which has sparked outrage in the Islamic
world:
• Armed militants with ties to the Fatah Party surrounded European Union offices in Gaza
and threatened to kidnap foreigners…
• More than 300 Islamic students rallied in eastern Pakistan, chanting “Death to Denmark!”
and “Death to France!”
• Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Austrian ambassador, representing the EU, to
protest the publication…
• Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai condemned the images, calling the publication an
“insult ... to more than 1 billion Muslims.”
• Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Yuri Thamrin said that while his country
upholds free expression, “such freedom cannot be used as a pretext to insult a religion.”
• The managing editor of the French daily France Soir that republished the drawings was
fired…
• The Jordanian weekly newspaper Shihan published three of the caricatures, saying it was
reprinting them to show readers “the extent of the Danish offense.” Hours later, its editor
was fired …
• About 100 Lebanese women staged a sit-in in Lebanon’s southern city of Sidon.
…
Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures
By Albert Aji, Associated Press Writer, February 4, 2006
DAMASCUS, Syria - Thousands of Syrians enraged by caricatures of Islam’s revered prophet

torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday…
In Gaza, Palestinians marched through the streets, storming European buildings and burning
German and Danish flags…
Iraqis rallying by the hundreds demanded an apology from the European Union, and the leader of
the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons “an unforgivable insult” that merited punishment
by death.
…
Aggravating the affront, Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said repeatedly
he cannot apologize for his country’s free press…
The Vatican deplored the violence but said certain provocative forms of criticism were
unacceptable.
293
“The right to freedom of thought and expression...cannot entail the right to offend the religious
sentiment of believers,” the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy.
…
In Santiago, the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the Chilean Embassy in Damascus was
also torched…
…
“We will redeem our prophet Muhammad with our blood!” they chanted.
Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale
the cartoonists should be punished by death. “We should have killed all those who offend the
Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully.” he said.
…
Anger swelled in Europe, too. Young Muslims clashed briefly with police in Copenhagen, the
Danish capital, and some 700 people rallied outside the Danish Embassy in London.
…Iran’s president ordered his commerce minister to study canceling all trade contracts with
European countries whose newspapers have published the caricatures…President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said the caricatures showed the “impudence and rudeness” of Western newspapers
against the prophet as well as the “maximum resentment of the Zionists (Jews) ruling these
countries against Islam and Muslims.”
In this article, note the words of support that the Catholic Church offered Muslims. They will
soon regret those words.
As the explosion spread, the leaders of the Free World, who normally stand up for free speech,
stood down instead. Caught off-guard, they scrambled to diffuse a bomb that had already
detonated. They even went so far as to side with Muslim terrorists, whose weapon was
intimidation this time instead of murder. They joined with these terrorizers in declaring that
Freedom of Speech should be limited far beyond the “don’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a theater” level
accepted in the West. One wonders where these defenders of Muhammad were hiding when
Jesus was insulted in the press. Moreover, what about respect for Denmark, whose embassies
were stormed and whose flags were burned? Clearly, these reputed “Defenders of the Free
World” were defending Muhammad instead out of fear of his followers. Their positions had
nothing to do with respect:
Irate Muslims Stage New Protests

By Scott Wilson and Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post, February 4, 2006; Page A12
…
In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw criticized European newspapers for republishing
cartoons that originally appeared only in one newspaper in Denmark. “There is freedom of
speech, we all respect that,” Straw told a news conference during a visit with Sudanese Foreign
Minister Lam Akol. “But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory.
I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary. It has been insensitive. It
has been disrespectful, and it has been wrong.”
The United States expressed a similar view. “We…respect freedom of the press and expression,
but it must be coupled with press responsibility,” said State Department spokesman Kurtis
Cooper. “Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”
…
294
In the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, as many as 100 members of the radical Islamic Defenders Front
stormed into the office tower housing the Danish Embassy…, demanding an apology…another
Muslim coalition, the Islamic Community Forum, issued a statement at one of Jakarta’s most
prominent mosques demanding the death penalty for the cartoonists who drew the caricatures and
others involved in their publication.
…
In London…several hundred Muslims gathered…at the London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park
and marched to the Danish and French embassies, burning a Danish flag and chanting, “Denmark,
you will pay.” Some chanted, “Jihad! Jihad!” and held up placards that read, “Learn the lesson
from 9/11.”
…
The Daily Telegraph…said it had chosen not to publish the cartoons while defending the “right to
offend within the law.” “We prefer not to cause gratuitous offence to some of our readers, a
policy we also apply, for example, to pictures of graphic nudity or violence,” the newspaper said.
What is interesting here is the cowardice of the Daily Telegraph, and the disingenuousness of its
rationale. Since when do Western newspapers refrain from publishing items that “cause
gratuitous offence to some of [their] readers”? Perhaps they were only defending the “right to
offend” within Islamic law.
The Daily Telegraph’s decision not to publish these caricatures is quite different from its
decision not to include nudity for two reasons:
• Nudity is something that publishers may freely choose to include. Anyone can go to a
newsstand and see publications with nudity. If the Daily Telegraph refrains from
showing nudity, this is a marketing decision, not a response to death threats.
• Muslim outrage essentially demands special treatment that is not given to any other
religion. They are using fear to extort “respect” from others.
The Daily Telegraph’s response makes one wonder how it would have responded to threats from
the Germans over caricatures of Hitler during the build-up to World War II, or how they would
have responded to threats from the Soviets over caricatures of Stalin. Is anger all it takes to stifle
the free press? If so, the West is in deep trouble.
Even more troubling was the self-censorship recommended by Britain’s Jack Straw and
America’s Kurtis Cooper. Administratively, how would they propose to make sure that
publications print nothing that would offend Muslims? Their words imply that Islamic scholars
should have veto power over the content of publications. This would hand Muslims a power not
given to any other religion, or even to the U.S. government. Would negative press about events
in the Middle East, or about Islamic religious leaders, also offend Muslims?
In the days that followed, much of the world was caught in a whirl-wind of catastrophe:
Violence Spreads Over Muhammad Caricatures

By Zeina Karam, ABC News International, February 5, 2006
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — Thousands of Muslims rampaged Sunday in Beirut, setting fire to the
Danish Embassy, burning Danish flags and lobbing stones at a Maronite Catholic church…
295
…
The Danish foreign minister said: “enough is enough.”…”Now it has become more than a case
about the drawings. Now there are forces that want a confrontation between our cultures,”…
…
The trouble threatened to rile sectarian tensions in Beirut when protesters began stoning St.
Maroun Church, one of the city’s main Maronite Catholic churches, and property in Ashrafieh, a
Christian area…
Lebanon’s Justice Minister Charles Rizk, a Christian, urged leaders to help end the violence.
“What is the guilt of the citizens of Ashrafieh of caricatures that were published in Denmark?
This sabotage should stop”…
In the Afghan city of Mihtarlam, some 3,000 demonstrators burned a Danish flag and demanded
that the editors at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten be prosecuted for blasphemy…
…
In Iraq, about 1,000 Sunni Muslims demonstrated outside a mosque in the insurgent stronghold of
Ramadi. A giant banner read: “Iraq must end political, diplomatic, cultural and economic
relations with the European countries that supported the Danish insult against Prophet
Muhammad and all Muslims.”
Another 1,000 supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rallied in Amarah, denouncing
Denmark, Israel and the United States and demanding that Danish and Norwegian diplomats be
expelled.
…
Caricature clash with NATO troops turns deadly
MSNBC News Services, February 7, 2006
KABUL, Afghanistan - NATO peacekeepers and Afghan police exchanged fire with protesters
who attacked a NATO base Tuesday in the second straight day of violent demonstrations…over
the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Four protesters were killed and dozens
wounded a day after four other Afghans died in a similar protest.
…
In Iran, protesters attacked the Norwegian Embassy with stones and Molotov cocktails. The
Austrian Embassy was similarly attacked on Monday.
…
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the West’s publication of the Prophet
Muhammad cartoons was an Israeli conspiracy motivated by anger over the victory of the militant
Hamas group in the Palestinian elections last month…
Afghans, NATO soldiers hurt

In Afghanistan, NATO troops…and police fired on hundreds of protesters outside the base in
Maymana after demonstrators shot at them and threw grenades. The protesters also burned an
armored vehicle, a U.N. car and guard posts…
…
In the Afghan capital of Kabul, police used batons to beat stone-throwing protesters outside the
Danish diplomatic mission office and near the offices of the World Bank on Tuesday…
…
More than 3,000 protesters threw stones at government buildings and an Italian peacekeeping
base in the western city of Heart…
About 5,000 people clashed with police in Pulikhumri town, north of Kabul…
296
…
Incidents elsewhere
Pakistan: Protests in Peshawar and North Waziristan each drew some 5,000 people…In
Peshawar, Chief Minister Akram Durrani, the province’s top elected official who led the rally,
demanded the cartoonists “be punished like a terrorist.”
…
Indonesia: Danish citizens were advised to leave Indonesia, where rowdy protests were held in at
least four cities Tuesday…
…
Diplomatic impacts
…
On Monday, Iran announced it cut all trade ties with Denmark because of the cartoons. Iran
imports some $280 million worth of goods a year from Denmark.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said he disapproves of the caricatures, but
insisted he cannot apologize on behalf of his country’s independent press.
Rasmussen’s reasoning, which any believer in Free Democracy and Freedom of Speech would
accept, was violently opposed in the Islamic world.
To see how Muslims continued to punish all of Denmark for the actions of a mid-sized
independent newspaper, and how the U.S. and other Western nations suffered collateral damage,
continue reading:
Massive cartoon protest in Beirut

By CNN Beirut Bureau Chief Brent Sadler, CNN Producer Syed Mohsin Naqvi and journalist
Tom Coghlan, Thursday, February 9, 2006
BEIRUT, Lebanon – About half a million Muslims turned a Beirut religious ceremony into a
peaceful protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed…
…“At your service, oh Mohammed, at your service, oh Prophet of God,” the crowds chanted with
fists raised. “Death to America, Death to Israel”
…
“Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a…demonstration,” Reuters quoted
[Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah as telling the crowds.
“But let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to...we will defend our prophet
with our blood, not our voices.”…“We are a nation that can’t forgive, be silent or ease up when
they insult our prophet and our sacred values,” Nasrallah said.
…
On Wednesday, Rice accused Iran and Syria of inciting Muslim anger and violent protests over
the cartoons of Mohammed – drawing the ire of Syria’s U.S. ambassador and an Iranian vice
president.
The above article ended with the following disclaimer:
CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because
the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons
while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.
297
Hmmm. Is that the kind of reasoning that uncovered the Watergate scandal? It does not seem
likely, given that Watergate was exposed through the brave actions of two reporters who not only
added fuel to the controversy, they sparked it. If those reporters had buckled in the face of
threats, the Nixon White House would have gotten away with its crimes. Obviously, cowardice
struck CNN, just as it struck the Daily Telegraph. In light of the threats made against other news
media, their disclaimer is essentially saying: “We’ll be quiet! Just don’t hurt us!” It is
remarkable to think that the press is more afraid of Islam than it was a President of the United
States.
A few days later, the House of Submission ratcheted up its vengeance with an international
boycott, to make Denmark an example for the rest of the world to fear:
Mideast boycott a ‘nightmare’ for Danish firms

By Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, February 11, 2006
COPENHAGEN - …“It took us 40 years to build up our business in the Middle East, and five
days to bring it to a total stop,” said Astrid Nielsen, spokeswoman for the Danish company here.
She said suspending operations at the Riyadh plant, the company’s regional base, and a near-total
boycott of the company’s products, have cost Arla about $1.7 million a day since Jan. 28.
The boycott of Danish goods, propelled by Muslim leaders and imams preaching in mosques, has
brought exports of Danish products to the Middle East and North Africa to a virtual standstill. It
has scuttled a flow of goods to the region that was worth about $1 billion in the first 10 months of
2005…
…
…Rasmussen…has repeatedly expressed regrets that Muslims have been offended by the
cartoons of Muhammad, while saying he cannot apologize for what was printed in a private
newspaper. “You can’t hold a whole nation responsible for what is published in a free and
independent newspaper,” Rasmussen said…
…
…the al-Qiswani Supermarket in the West Bank town of Beit Hanina…prominently displayed
posters [saying] “If you love the Prophet, join us in boycotting Danish products”…The store’s
owner, Abed Qiswani…said “…The problem these European countries have now is with the
Islamic giant…they should think about who they mess with.”
…
Rasmussen said dairy industry officials had hoped that Prime Minister Rasmussen’s televised
comments offering regrets for the offense caused to Muslims would improve the situation. “But
so far that has had no impact,” he said…
…
Pedersen said the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which first published the Muhammad cartoons,
“should have been more careful.” “Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but you can’t
cry ‘Fire! Fire!’ in a cinema,”…
And so, the leader of Denmark was compelled to ask the world’s Muslims for mercy, for a crime
that neither he nor his government committed, but to no avail. Even more pathetic was the
lament of a Danish citizen who equated the cartoons to shouthing “Fire!” in a theater. Cartoons
are nothing of the sort. They are satire – humor – which was unfortunately at the expense of a
298
group of very dangerous and hostile people, who proved the caricatures correct by beating the
Danes into submission.
On the same day, the following report came in:
Denmark pulls diplomats from Muslim states

Associated Press, MSNBC News, February 11, 2006
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Denmark has temporarily withdrawn its ambassadors from Syria,
Iran and Indonesia because their safety was at risk in the wake of a Danish newspaper’s
publication of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad…
…
The small Scandinavian country is shell-shocked by the wave of anti-Danish protests, some of
them violent, that have spread like wildfire across the Muslim world. Danish paper Jyllands-
Posten, which first published the cartoons, apologized for offending Muslims but stood by its
decision to print the drawings, citing the freedom of speech.
And so, Denmark’s little newspaper, with its staff and contributors threatened by death, and with
the sufferings of its homeland hanging around its neck, submitted to Islam’s demand while trying
to maintain a shred of dignity, with a fig leaf of principle. Does anyone imagine that they will
ever print another cartoon of Muhammad?
But this is not the end of the story – we’re only halfway through the month! Read on to see the
other smack-downs Denmark suffered, as well as the House of Islam’s self inflicted wounds,
followed by the redirection of hostility from Denmark to the entire West, particularly the United
States, Israel, and Christians in general:
3 killed as Pakistan cartoon protests escalate

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Gunfire and rioting erupted Wednesday as tens of thousands of people
took to the streets in several Pakistani cities during the country’s third consecutive day of violent
protests over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Three people were killed, including an 8-year-
old boy.
More than 70,000 people flooded the streets of the northwestern city of Peshawar…The massive
crowd went on a rampage, torching businesses and fighting police…A bus terminal operated by
South Korea’s Sammi Corp. was torched…
Protesters burned a KFC restaurant, three movie theaters and the offices of the main mobile
phone company in the country. A Norwegian mobile phone company’s offices were also
ransacked…
…
Intelligence officials say members of outlawed Islamic militant groups have joined the protests,
and may be inciting violence to undermine the pro-Western government of President Gen. Pervez
Musharraf.
…Many chanted “Death to Denmark!” and “Hang those who drew the insulting cartoons!”
…
Anger in Malaysia, Indonesia
299
…hundreds of Muslim protesters ripped apart and burned Danish flags Wednesday in a rally at
the Danish honorary consulate in Manila, the Philippines.
…
Indonesia’s importers association also announced a boycott of Danish goods until the Danish
government apologizes for the cartoons.
…
Libyans burn Italy consulate in cartoon protest
MSNBC staff and news service reports, February 18, 2006
TRIPOLI, Libya - …protesters set fire to the Italian consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and clashed
with police hours after an Islamic cleric in Pakistan offered a $1 million reward for killing one of
the cartoonists.
Libyan security officials said 11 protesters were killed or wounded in the clashes in Benghazi.
…
Thousands rally in London
More than 10,000 angry people protested in central London Saturday against the cartoons that
have infuriated many in the Muslim world.
“Free speech, cheap insults,” read one demonstrator’s placard. “How dare you insult the blessed
Prophet Muhammad?” asked another.
…
Reward on cartoonist’s head
…
Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in the
conservative northwestern city of Peshawar, announced the mosque and the Jamia Ashrafia
religious school he leads would give a $25,000 reward and a car for killing the cartoonist who
drew the prophet caricatures — considered blasphemous…
He also said a local jewelers’ association would give $1 million…

…
“This is a unanimous decision by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the
prophets deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this
prize.”
…
The cartoonists have gone underground and lived under police protection since the conflict
started escalating last year…
…
Muslims assault U.S. Embassy in Indonesia
JAKARTA, Indonesia - Hundreds of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad

tried to storm the U.S. Embassy on Sunday…
…In Turkey, tens of thousands gathered in Istanbul chanting slogans against Denmark, Israel and
the United States.
…
Christians are targets
Pakistani Muslims protesting in the southern city of Sukkur ransacked and burned a church
Sunday after hearing accusations that a Christian man had burned pages of the Quran, Islam’s
holy book.
300
That incident came a day after Muslims protesting in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri attacked
Christians and burned 15 churches in a three-hour rampage that killed at least 15 people. Some
30 other people have died during protests over the cartoons that erupted about three weeks ago.
In Jakarta, about 400 people marched to the heavily fortified U.S. mission in the center of the
city, behind a banner reading “We are ready to attack the enemies of the Prophet.”
‘We are fighting America’

…
…“They want to destroy Islam through the issue of terrorism ... and all those things are
engineered by the United States,” said Maksuni, who only uses one name.
“We are fighting America fiercely this time,” he said. “And we also are fighting Denmark.”
As anti-Christian violence erupted throughout the House of Submission, the Catholic Church
finally realized that their initial support for Muslims was rewarded only with bloodshed.
Chastened, they admitted that they had made a mistake when they tried to reach out to Muslims:
Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor, Reuters, ABC News, February 23, 2006
PARIS (Reuters) - After backing calls by Muslims for respect for their religion in the Mohammad
cartoons row, the Vatican is now urging Islamic countries to reciprocate by showing more
tolerance toward their Christian minorities.
Roman Catholic leaders at first said Muslims were right to be outraged when Western newspapers
reprinted Danish caricatures of the Prophet …
…the Vatican this week linked the issue to its long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths
are limited, sometimes severely, in Muslim countries.
Vatican prelates have been concerned by recent killings of two Catholic priests in Turkey and
Nigeria…At least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of religious riots in Nigeria.
“If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to
destroy us,” Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State (prime minister), told
journalists in Rome.
…
Iraqi Christians say they were well treated under Saddam Hussein’s secular policies, but believers
have been killed, churches burned and women forced to wear Muslim garb since Islamic groups
gained sway after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
…
“Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves,” Monsignor
Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa.
Jesus told his followers to “turn the other cheek” when struck.
“The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not
been able to get the slightest concession on human rights,” he said…
301
Bizarrely, the most tragic victims in this debacle were Nigerian Christians:
At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest

By NJADVARA MUSA, Associated Press Writer, February 19, 2006
MAIDUGURI, Nigeria - Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad

attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest
confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.
…[A] reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes,
sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.
…
Thousands of rioters burned 15 churches in Maiduguri in a three-hour rampage…
“Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters”…Witnesses said
three children and a priest were among those killed.
…
Kano lawmakers also called on the state’s 5 million people to boycott Danish goods.
…
With Saturday’s deaths, at least 45 people have been killed in protests across the Muslim world…
…
U.S. Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said U.S. newspapers generally did not reprint the
caricatures “because they recognize they are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious
convictions of our Muslim friends and neighbors.”
In Cairo…Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, of al-Azhar University, the world’s highest
Sunni Muslim seat of learning…said the Danish prime minister must apologize for the drawings
and further demanded that the world’s religious leaders meet to write a law that “condemns
insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.” He said the United
Nations should impose the law on all countries.
In other words, if the world gave in to Tantawi’s demand, the United Nations would impose a
law on every person in every country, saying that they shall not say anything that a Muslim
might consider insulting to Islam. Under such a law, religion-based crimes and oppressions
could be committed without fear of criticism, and you would be barred from reading this book.
For an entire month, the world reeled from a crisis caused by some cartoons published in a mid-
sized independent Danish newspaper. This episode can leave little doubt as to whether Islam
stands for “peace” or “submission.”
As to status of free speech in the United States, the makers of South Park left no doubt:
‘South Park’ aims at censors, hits Bush, Jesus

Thursday, April 13, 2006, Associated Press, CNN
NEW YORK (AP) – Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet
Mohammed, the creators of “South Park” skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the
cartoon’s most recent episode.
302
The comedy – in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians – instead featured an image of
Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag.
…
Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could
not run an image of Mohammed…
The network’s decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.
…
Parker and Stone…built [a script] around the incident. In Wednesday’s episode, the character
Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored “Family Guy”
even though it had an image of Mohammed.
“Either it’s all OK, or none of it is,” Kyle said. “Do the right thing.”
The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point
where Mohammed is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: “Comedy Central has
refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.”
It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag.
This article goes on to discuss how the Catholic League was offended by the image of Christ
defecating on President Bush and the American flag. Those who were offended, though, missed
South Park’s point: They could display those offensive images without endangering anyone.
Given South Park’s track record of irreverence toward all religions, from Christianity to Judaism
to Scientology, this hypocritical “respect” for Islam reveals Comedy Central’s true motivation.
As with the leaders of the Free World and the news media, its motivation was fear. In the face of
fear, all of Comedy Central’s pretended political incorrectness withered and submitted.
Sadly, those who freely antagonize peaceful religions and governments, but remain fearfully
silent about Islam, may one day discover that they have unwittingly undermined the institutions
that respected them and strengthened a religion that threatens them.
This leads us to a question: Which laws do we live by? Are we living by the laws of the United
States, which respects Free Speech, or are we living by the laws of Shari’ah? Do we really want
to tell Islamic terrorists that we disrespect people who respect our freedoms, but willingly submit
to those who threaten us?
Relations between governments and peoples in the “House of Peace”

Bloody borders, or just plain bloody?
In Samuel P. Huntington’s famous report, The Clash of Civilizations, he coined a well-known
phrase: “Islam has bloody borders.” Unfortunately, history has shown that Huntington was
being polite, because Islam is bloody inside and out. While the Koran has declared an eternal
state of war with non-Islamic nations, relations between and within Islamic nations are rarely
much better. This is because Islamic scripture offers little guidance to help people transcend
hatred, tribalism, religious intolerance, or predatory nationalism. It even sets the stage for strife
303
between Islamic factions. What follows is a brief and partial sketch of inter-Muslim strife over
the past one-hundred years:
• The Ottoman Empire’s weakness was largely due to tribal battles between its various
ethnic groups, particularly between Arabs, who believed themselves to be the rightful
stewards of Islam, and the Turks who ruled over them, but also between Arabs, Kurds,
and Persians.
• Kurdish minorities in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran have long battled their nations’ leaders for
independent homelands.
• Pakistan was originally carved from the Eastern and Western extremities of India, but the
two regions were unable to reconcile their differences and soon split into Pakistan and
Bangladesh,
• Iraq had a bloody 8-year war with Iran, and then launched a war against Kuwait.
• Iraq’s attack on Kuwait was repelled by a coalition that included Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syria,
Turkey, and The United Arab Emirates, as well as a number of Western nations, led by
the United States.
• Despite its dramatic success, this first Gulf War ended at the border of Iraq. This
premature termination left a Shiite rebellion against Saddam Hussein with minimal
outside support, and Saddam crushed it ruthlessly. Why did the Coalition stop at the
border? Because the Islamic nations fighting Saddam were mostly Sunni, and they did
not want to aid the Shiites against Saddam’s Sunni leadership.
• Pakistan’s Sunnis and Shiites terrorize each other when they are not terrorizing people of
other faiths, blowing up each others’ places of worship with dismal regularity.
• The situation is similar in Iran, except that Shiites have the upper-hand.
• In the spring of 2004, General Muammar Qaddafi of Libya joined with Al Qaeda in an
unsuccessful assassination attempt on Crown Prince Abdulla, ruler of Saudi Arabia.571
• In Saudi Arabia, Shiites are treated as Apostates.
These conflicts do not stop at the national level. They descend through ethnicities, tribes, clans,
and even families. In fact, the very characteristics that made Muslims unconquerable in former
days appear to make them ungovernable today, except through repressive displays of force. An
extreme example of Islam’s culture of conflict comes from Land of the Pashtun, an article from
the December 2004 issue of National Geographic which describes a major ethnic group in
Pakistan and Afghanistan:
The Pashtun may be the most ungovernable people on Earth. They are divided into dozens of
tribes and hundreds of clans, which are usually at war with each other. The presence of an
invader (even a pair of journalists from National Geographic) unites the tribesmen just long
enough to drive out the interlopers. Then they go back to shooting at each other. The only time
the Pashtun are at peace with themselves, it is said, is when they are at war.
In the tribal areas, the typical Pashtun home is built like a fortress, with high watchtowers and 20-
foot walls. And no self-respecting Pashtun is without his personal armory. A powerful
household might have an antiaircraft gun mounted in the watchtower, a mortar or two, a .50-
571
Al Qaeda behind Libyan plot to murder Saudi prince, Pakistan Daily Times, June 12, 2004.
304
caliber machine gun, a dozen or so AK-47s, and a stack of rocket-propelled grenades. With all
this firepower, a spat between neighbors often turns into a pitched battle.
While extreme, this sort of culture is not unusual in the Muslim world. It echoes familiar
descriptions of the Chechens and Somalis, and can be seen in the Janjaweed’s murderous
treatment of their black Muslim brothers in Darfur, Sudan.
Pakistan must also deal with separatists in its Baluchistan region. The Baluch are another
Muslim ethnic group that uses terrorism. In their case, as with many others, terrorism is being
used by Muslims against a Muslim state:572
…Baluchistan has been troubled by a growing insurgency by tribesmen seeking greater autonomy
and more benefits from the province’s natural gas resources, Pakistan’s main source.
Insurgent attacks
On Saturday, militants fired more than 100 rockets into the town of Sui, killing two military
guards and six civilians, and damaging 16 houses, police said. Sui is near Pakistan’s main gas
field and about 450 miles southwest of Islamabad.
The attack followed a similar rocket blitz on Friday and Saturday in the nearby town of Dera
Bugti. The area’s senior government administrator, Abdul Samad Lasi, said militants also blew
up a section of gas pipeline and a water pipeline in Dera Bugti overnight, while a landmine blast
on Sunday morning killed a civilian…in nearby Kohlu district.
…
The latest violence came after President Pervez Musharraf demanded on Friday that Baluchistan’s
tribal leaders disband their “private militias.”
Interestingly, these kinds of conflicts take place throughout the “House of Peace,” and they are
conducted with shockingly ruthless brutality. The West is familiar with the horrors committed
by its own aberrations, such as Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, but those masters of
terror at least tried to conceal their depravity. In the “House of Peace,” opponents shamelessly
broadcast levels of barbarism that would make Hitler and Stalin blush. A quick survey of their
tactics reveal:
• The murder of diplomats from non-belligerent nations

• Indiscriminate bombings that kill civilians on all sides of a rivalry
• Targeted bombings of hospitals, mosques, and funerals
• Attacks on vacationers
• Double- and triple-bombings, designed to kill onlookers and rescuers helping victims
• The use of innocent civilians, women, and children as human shields
What follows is a small sampling of newspaper headlines describing such attacks:
• Bali [Indonesia] death toll set at 202573

• 30 Iraqi children, 215 wounded in Red Crescent hospital bombing574
572
Bomb kills 12, injures 13 on bus in Pakistan, MSNBC News Services, February 6, 2006.
573
BBC News, February 19, 2003.
305
• Four car bombs explode in Casablanca [Morocco]575
• Bomb explodes in Afghanistan mosque; 16 wounded576
• Jakarta [Indonesia] car-bomb explosion kills 14577
• Latest Baghdad [Iraq] Bombing Comes as Thousands Attend Hakim Funeral578
• Istanbul [Turkey] rocked by double bombing579
• Riyadh [Saudi Arabia] bomb toll hits 17580
• Bomb Kills Six at Iraqi Mosque581
• Bomb Explosion at Mosque Kills 3 in Bangladesh582
• Karachi [Pakistan] mosque attack kills 15583
• Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan: Karachi Attack Follows Slaying of
Sunni Cleric584
• Suicide Bomb at Funeral Kills 14: Official’s Brother Slain 2 Days Earlier; Allawi
[Iraq] Vows Hard Line585
• Bomb blast kills 9 near Australian embassy: Big terror strike in Jakarta
[Indonesia]586
• Deadly Double Bombing In Pakistan587
• Four Killed in Pakistan Mosque Bombing588
• Bombing Kills 10 Near Shiite Shrine; Karbala [Iraq] Cleric, Apparent Target, Is
Hurt589
• Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers; Attacks Kill 30 and Injure 40 On
Last Day of Annual Rite590
• 14 killed in terrorist attack in Algeria591
• Attackers strike twice near Cairo [Egypt] tourist sites: Women open fire on tour bus
after blast near museum592
• Car bomb kills 25 at Iraq funeral593
• 5 Dead In Pakistan Mosque Bombing594
• 20 Killed in Afghan Mosque Bombing595
574
Arabic News, April 3, 2003.
575
Associated Press, CTV (Canada), May 16, 2003
576
Associated Press, USA Today, June 30, 2003.
577
AFP & Reuters, Dawn (Pakistan), August 6, 2003
578
By Scott Bobb, Voice of America, September 2, 2003.
579
BBC News, November 20, 2003.
580
News24 (South Africa), October 11, 2003.
581
By Naseer Al-Nahr, Al Jazeera, Arab News, January 10, 2004.
582
By Anjana Pasricha, Voice of America, January 13, 2004.
583
Al Jazeera, May 8, 2004.
584
By Kamran Khan, Washington Post, June 1, 2004.
585
By Doug Struck, Washington Post, July 7, 2004.
586
AFP, Dawn (Pakistan), September 10, 2004
587
Associated Press, CBS News, October 7, 2004.
588
Associated Press, FOX News, October 10, 2004.
589
By Saad Sarhan and Karl Vick, Washington Post, December 16, 2004.
590
By Jackie Spinner and Bassam Sebti, Washington Post, February 20, 2005.
591
India Daily, April 9, 2005.
592
MSNBC News Services, Associated Press, April 30, 2005.
593
By Antonia Castaneda, Associated Press, Chicago Sun-Times, May 2, 2005.
594
CBS News, May 30, 2005.
306
• Bombs hit Arab section of an Iranian Province596
• In Darfur [Sudan], foraging means risking rape597
• Probe: Truck Bomb Killed Lebanon’s Hariri [20 others also killed]598
• Top Egyptian diplomat in Iraq seized, killed by insurgent group599
• Egypt resort blasts kill 49600
• Iraqi terrorists say they killed Algerian envoys601
• Doctors in the Cross Hairs: Iraq’s physicians are increasingly targeted by
violence602
• Karzai [Afghanistan] orders ‘human shield’ probe603
• Algeria bombs kill 3, injure 24604
These headlines are only snapshots of the mountains of atrocities that have piled up in the past
few years. They are strange monuments to a religion that boasts of teaching Europe the concept
of chivalry.605
Also note that these bombings and attacks are not restricted to Iraq, but are throughout the House
of Islam. After reviewing how Muslims of different sects destroy each others’ mosques,
hospitals, funerals, diplomats, and religious leaders, it is ironic that Iraqis are outraged whenever
Coalition forces accidentally damage a mosque. Moreover, Muslims die far more frequently and
horribly at each other’s hands than at the hands of Israelis or Americans, yet those nations are
widely considered to be Enemy Number One and Enemy Number Two.
Why is this? Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia provided a glimpse of the answer
in his speech at the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference, quoted at the beginning of this book:
…If we are to recover our dignity and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who must decide, it is
we who must act…To begin with, the Governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks
and have a common stand, if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine…
From being a single ummah we have allowed ourselves to be divided into numerous sects,…each
more concerned with claiming to be the true Islam than our oneness as the Islamic ummah…the
Muslim civilization became so weak that…the Europeans…could do what they liked with
Muslim territories. It is not surprising that they should excise Muslim land to create the state of
Israel to solve their Jewish problem…
595
CBS News, June 1, 2005.
596
The Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal, June 13, 2005.
597
By Jennifer Brooks, The Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal, June 14, 2005.
598
By Zeina Karam, Associated Press, Las Vegas Sun, June 17, 2005.
599
By Andy Mosher, Washington Post, July 7, 2005.
600
By Lee Keath, Associated Press, July 23, 2005.
601
By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press, July 28, 2005.
602
By Scott Johnson, Newsweek, January 9, 2006.
603
Associated Press, CNN, May 23, 2006.
604
Reuters, CNN, October 30, 2006.
605
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 17, section entitled Interfaith Dialogue, page 209-210.
307
In other words, in the face of inter-Muslim strife and chaos, a rare consensus exists on Islam’s
malice toward Jews, Christians, and Infidels in general. Thus, in their search for a unifying
cause, Islamic leaders have decided to harness this hatred. One can infer from President
Mohamad’s speech that his goal was not to bring peace to the world, but only to redirect Muslim
aggression away from other Muslims and toward Jews, Americans, and Europeans.
Before going further, it is important to recognize that relations between Christian sects have at
times been just as dismal as those between Islamic sects. What is hard for Western nations to
accept, however, is that their hard-won lessons in peacemaking do not transfer readily to the
House of Islam.
It is even harder to accept that those lessons will not transfer at all. Unfortunately, as long as
Muslims believe that the Koran is divine, and Muhammad is exemplary, this will be the case.
Westerners do not want to accept this fact, but history confirms it. Traveling into the House of
Islam can be like stepping into the chaotic and tribal world of another millennium, except that it
has been updated with imported technology, much of it deadly.
A recipe for conflict: Mix Church with State; bind tightly

There is another issue that contributes to rampant strife within the Islamic world: a tight binding
of church with state. When church and state are unified, a person cannot change their religion
without changing their relationship to the state. This makes conversion tantamount to treason.
In this sort of world, people of different faiths are viewed as subversives, and missionary work is
an act of insurgency, or even war.
Sayad Abul Ala Maududi was mentioned earlier in this book as a prominent Islamic thinker. He
was actually much more. Maududi was a founding father of Pakistan and a war hero, whose
commentaries on the Koran are among the most respected in the world. As a founder of
Pakistan, he wrote extensively on the subject of religion’s relationship to the state. One of his
works is The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law. In it, he wrote:
If, at some time in the future, an Islamic order of government is established, the law of executing
the apostate is implemented, and all [apostates] within the confines of Islam are…imprisoned…,
no doubt in this situation the fear will arise that a very great number of hypocrites…who will
pose as a permanent threat for every kind of treason.
In my opinion its solution…is to notify the Muslim population in the area where an Islamic
revolution occurs that people who…have defected from Islam and wish to remain as defectors
should formally disclose their non-Muslim identity and leave…within a year…After this period,
all those who are born of Muslim lineage will be considered…Muslim, they will be subject to all
Islamic laws,…and then whoever steps outside the fold of Islam will be executed.606
…
An organized society which has chosen the form of a state can hardly provide a place…for people
who differ from it in fundamental matters…it is very difficult to give people a place in society…
if they completely oppose the foundations on which the…society and the state are established.
606
The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law Section III: The Execution of the Apostate - A Rational
Consideration,Part l: Muslims by Birth, by Sayad Abul Ala Maududi, translated by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest
Hahn, 1994, page 51.
308
In this matter Islam has practised a degree of tolerance which no other order in the history of the
world has ever practised. All other orders either force those who differ on fundamentals to
conform to their principles or they destroy them.607 Islam alone, while making them
tributaries…, gives them place within its borders and tolerates many of their activities that
directly conflict with the foundation of the Islamic state and society.
The sole cause of this toleration is because Islam does not despair of human nature. It operates
with an enduring hope…that when those who…do not see the light of the true religion will have
an opportunity to…experience its…blessings, they will finally accept this truth. Therefore it
works patiently and continues to tolerate those obdurate elements which do not assimilate into
society and the state, hoping that at some point they will experience transformation…
But the sole treatment for the person whose hard heart, once transformed, has again hardened and
who demonstrates no capacity whatever to assimilate into society’s order is to cast him out. In
any case, the value of the individual, however great it be, cannot be great enough to allow the
whole order of society to be corrupted because of it.608
Sayad Abul Ala Maududi’s writings show that, according to his interpretation of Islam, church is
state and state is church. In his view, Islam should control all aspects of life, and those of other
faiths are “obdurate” Infidels who are tolerated only by the patience of Islam, which does so in
hope of eventual conversion. Strangely, he appears to believe that this form of “tolerance” is the
most liberal in the world.
There is a key difference between Islamic nations and Free Democracies with a Christian
heritage: The historical foundation of Islam rests on Islamic nationhood, while the historical
foundation of Christianity rests on the separation of church and state.609 Christianity began
without governmental authority, and could therefore return to that condition without sacrificing
its fundamental tenets. Islam, on the other hand, began with governmental authority, and bound
religious matters inextricably with legal ones.
The Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah all demand absolute authority for Islam. When it does not
have the power to rule – that is, when Shari’ah does not have authority over both Muslims and
non-Muslims – it is hobbled and incomplete. In this case, true believers see themselves as
repressed, and their religion disrespected and humiliated. Therefore, wherever Muslims
represent a substantial portion of a non-Islamic nation, as is the case in the Philippines, Thailand,
and India, there will always be an Islamic insurgency.610 But the “House of Peace” also has
internal sources of strife, which began with leadership rivalries that followed Muhammad’s
death, as the next section reveals.
607
These completely false statements reveal a remarkable mindset. Imagine being a Pakistani who comes to
America with the mindset of a “tolerant” Muslim. Every day in this country would be extremely confronting, and
possibly overwhelming.
608
The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law Section III - The Execution of the Apostate: A Rational
Consideration, Part c: The Natural Requirement of an Organized Society, by Sayad Abul Ala Maududi, translated
by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest Hahn, 1994, page 35.
609
The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, Luke 20:25:
…He [Jesus] said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
610
Thailand & International Islamic Front, by B. Raman, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper no. 890, Jan. 9, 2004.
309
Muhammad’s reign: Church and State bound together in one Messenger
During Muhammad’s lifetime, leadership was clear because there was only one source of
authority: Muhammad. While Muslims might claim that leadership came from Allah,
Muhammad’s command was what Muslims actually followed. And while Muhammad may have
consulted with others before making decisions, he always had the final say.
After Muhammad’s death, Muslims faced the challenge of determining Allah’s will in the
absence of His Messenger. This is when efforts to compile the Koran and the Hadith began. The
Hadith records how this process took place, beginning with Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar, and
culminating in the definitive Koran during the reign of Caliph Uthman, over twenty years after
Muhammad’s death.611 For example:612
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:…Abu Bakr…said
(to me), “Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an
(i.e. those who knew the Qur’an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid
that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a
large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore, I suggest you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an
be collected.’”…Then Abu Bakr said (to me). “You are a wise young man and we do not have
any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So
you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book.”…So I
started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from…palmed stalks, thin white stones and also
from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance)...:
“Verily there has come unto you an Apostle…from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you
should receive any injury or difficulty…(9.128-129).”
Then the complete manuscripts…of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with
‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:…Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at
the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya
and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the
recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, “…Save this nation before they differ about the
Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa
saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in
perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered
[four Qurra’] to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men,
“In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect
of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written
many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim
province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials,
whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A
Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s
Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari…:
611
Also translated as ‘Uthman or Othman.
612
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201, Book 61, Number 511, and
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 301.
310
“Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23).”
Though Muslims assert that this compilation is the literal and unaltered word of Allah, even a
Muslim would have to admit that, in the Koran’s chain of communication, from Allah to Gabriel
to Muhammad (who was allegedly illiterate and could therefore only claim to remember what
was said to him) to Muhammad’s remembrancers (or Qurra’) to the Koran’s compilers to the
interpreters who later added vowels to the text at their discretion, there is plenty of room for the
errors of “whisper down the lane.” Moreover, how could an eternal book possibly result from a
compilation of scraps collected by a group of Caliphs who never claimed to have any direct
access to the mind of Allah?
There is also a strange Islamic tradition that claims Muhammad was illiterate, and that his
illiteracy is proof that he could not have written the Koran. They use this claim to conclude that
the Koran could only have come from Allah.
The idea of a successful trader being illiterate seems doubtful. Even 1400 years ago, a trader had
to be good with numbers and binding contracts. For Muhammad to be successful enough to
convince a wealthy widow to marry him, talent in writing and computation seem like necessities.
He certainly had the mental capacity, as the successful administration of his empire testifies.
But even if we accept the assertion that Muhammad was illiterate, the Hadith’s accounts of how
the Koran was revealed show a basic flaw in the above “proof.” Muhammad dictated his verses
to remembrancers who recorded them. Therefore, Muhammad could compose without knowing
how to write. Hence his alleged illiteracy was irrelevant to his ability to produce Koranic verses.
Furthermore, his alleged illiteracy did not prevent him from composing other written documents,
such as letters to other rulers, as many hadiths confirm. For example:613
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 189:…When the Prophet intended to write a letter to
the ruler of the Byzantines, he was told that those people did not read any letter unless it was
stamped with a seal. So, the Prophet got a silver ring…and stamped on it the expression
“Muhammad, Apostle of Allah.”
Apparently, it also did not prevent him from seeking to write a message from his deathbed:614
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393:…When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s
Apostle deteriorated, he said, ‘Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you
after which you will never go astray.’
More to the point, Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy did not prevent him from improvising the
Koran’s contents on the spot:615
613
761 & 764, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 276, and Sahih Muslim, Book 24, Numbers 5216, 5217, & 5218.
614
716 & 717, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 468, Sahih Muslim, Book 13, Numbers
4014, 4015, & 4016, and Book 31, Number 5879.
311
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 118:…When the Verse: – “Not equal are those of
the believers who sit (at home),” (4.95) was revealed, the Prophet said, “Call so-and-so.” That
person came to him with an ink-pot and a wooden board…The Prophet said (to him), “Write:
‘Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of
Allah.” Ibn Um Maktum who was sitting behind the Prophet then said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I am
a blind man.” So there was revealed in the place of that Verse, the Verse: – “Not equal are
those of the believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury, or are blind
or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.” (4.95)
Regardless of the actual source of the Koran, a quick review reveals that, for all practical
purposes, its messages emanated from Muhammad and definitely served his interests. According
to the accounts of eye-witnesses, the typical process through which Muhammad received a
revelation amounted to what others might call “thinking” or “dreaming,” or even “having a
conversation with someone.” This is how The Koran for Dummies describes the process:616
Muhammad told his companions that divine inspiration came to him in two primary ways through
Angel Gabriel:
• Revelation came “like the ringing of a bell” until he grasped all that was revealed.
• Revelation came through Angel Gabriel taking the form of a man who would then
impart divine inspiration to Muhammad.
After trying to picture what these encounters looked like, one is left with more questions than
answers. Fortunately, hadiths from Muhammad’s teen-aged wife, A’isha, provided some insight
into how the verses of the Koran were composed, although she seems as confused as we are:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400:617 Narrated [by] Aisha: Once the Prophet was
bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 440:618…‘Aisha said that the Prophet said to her “O
‘Aisha, This is Gabriel and he sends his (greetings) salutations to you.” ‘Aisha said, “Salutations
(Greetings) to him, and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on him,” and addressing the Prophet she
said, “You see what I don’t see.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48:…Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies
who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. ‘Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed
for presenting herself to a man?” But when the Verse: “(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the
turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,’ (33.51)619 was revealed,” ‘Aisha said, ‘O
Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.’”
615
Number 4676.
616
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 2, section entitled The stages
of revelation, page 24.
617
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490, and Volume 8, Book 75,
Number 400.
618
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 220, Book 74, Numbers 266 & 270,
and Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Numbers 5994 – 5997.
619
The full text of this verse, which will be discussed more fully in the next few pages, is:
312
The clearest indicator of the Koran’s actual source is the Koran itself. It reveals its true author in
numerous places, but particularly Surahs 1 and 55, respectively entitled The Opening and The
Beneficent. These beautiful surahs, which qualify as poetry and are from the early Meccan
period, begin with the following verses:
The Opening:
[1.1] PICKTHAL: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[1.2] Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
[1.3] The Beneficent, the Merciful.
[1.4] Master of the Day of Judgment,
[1.5] Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
[1.6] Show us the straight path,
[1.7] The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger
nor of those who go astray.
The Beneficent:
[55.1] YUSUF ALI: (Allah) Most Gracious!
[55.2] It is He Who has taught the Qur’an.
[55.3] He has created man:
[55.4] He has taught him speech (and intelligence).
[55.5] The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed;
[55.6] And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) prostrate in adoration.
[55.7] And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance (of Justice),
[55.8] In order that ye may not transgress (due) balance.
[55.9] So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance.
[55.10] It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures…
Throughout The Opening and The Beneficent, Allah is referred to in the third person. Unless
someone claims that Gabriel wrote portions of the Koran independently of Allah, these two
surahs indicate that the author was Muhammad himself.
Islamic commentators try to rebut this conclusion by explaining that these prayers were given by
Allah to Muhammad so that they could be taught to Muslims, just as the Lord’s Prayer was given
by Jesus to Christians. This explanation is unsatisfactory, though, because the Koran has many
verses where Allah tells Mohammad to relay messages to the Muslims and others, and they all
begin with instructions for Muhammad, such as “Say” or “A declaration…from Allah…to…”
While examples of such instructions abound, two of the most obvious ones are surahs 113 and
114, known respectively as The Daybreak and Mankind:
The Daybreak:
[113.1] PICKTHAL: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the Daybreak
[113.2] From the evil of that which He created;
[113.3] From the evil of the darkness when it is intense,
[33.51] YUSUF ALI: Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any
thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to
the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which
thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.
313
[113.4] And from the evil of malignant witchcraft,
[113.5] And from the evil of the envier when he envieth.
Mankind:
[114.1] PICKTHAL: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
[114.2] The King of mankind,
[114.3] The god of mankind,
[114.4] From the evil of the sneaking whisperer,
[114.5] Who whispereth in the hearts of mankind,
[114.6] Of the jinn and of mankind.
Devout Muslims believe that every word of the Koran is the word of Allah, as spoken by Allah
himself, and relayed by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Verses 113.1 and 114.1 are consistent
with this belief. But why would a perfect Allah break this sensible pattern for surahs 1 and 55?
It makes no sense. The most obvious answer is that these prayer surahs were written by
Muhammad, unless one says that the perfect, immutable, and eternal Koran lost a few words.
Other clear cases of Muhammad’s authorship can be found throughout the Koran. For example:
• [6.114] PICKTHAL: Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed
unto you [Muhammad’s listeners] (this) Scripture, fully explained?...
• [27.91] YUSUF ALI: For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this city, Him Who
has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow
in Islam to Allah’s Will,-
• [42.10] YUSUF ALI: Whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with Allah: such is
Allah my Lord: In Him I trust, and to Him I turn.
It is astounding that anyone could claim that these are Allah’s words instead of Muhammad’s. In
fact, the ramifications of these verses are so controvertial that a few translators have inserted
“Say:” in front of them, even though this word is not in the original Arabic text.
A dramatic example of Muhammad’s personal authorship comes from Surah 111, known
alternatively as either Palm Fiber or The Flame:
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

[111.1] YUSUF ALI: Perish the hands of the Father of Flame [Abu Lahab]! Perish he!
[111.2] No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains!
[111.3] Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame!
[111.4] His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel! -
[111.5] A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!
Abu Lahab was an uncle of Muhammad who, according to Maududi’s commentary on this surah,
was “was the only person to join with the enemies [of Muhammad] against his own relatives
[Muhammad and his followers].”620 This is a strange accusation to make, considering that it was
620
The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999,
commentary on Surah 111.
314
Muhammad who turned against the ways of his family, not the other way around. However, it is
this surah’s jarring change in tone, as it moves from introduction to content, that betrays its true
author. These are not the words of a “compassionate” “merciful” Allah, who is all-powerful and
all-knowing. Instead, they are the words of a furious man lashing out at a close relative whom he
felt had betrayed him.
Shifts in the speaker’s identity, from Allah, to Muhammad, and sometimes even to a third party,
are so frequent in the Koran that it makes one wonder how Muslims could possibly think that the
Koran’s sole speaker is Allah. To answer this quandary, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the
Koran provides a convenient explanation:
…Notice…that the names Allah applies to Himself (those beginning with capital letters, such as
We, God, He, and so on) – shift constantly. Allah, in other words, refers to himself from different
angles of perception – because he encompasses all possible angles of perception! This is a
phenomenon that repeats itself again and again in the Koran.
With this explanation, a Muslim apologist spins evidence that the Koran is a badly-written
forgery of God’s word into a demonstration of Allah’s all-encompassing nature. In doing so, he
also demonstrates that a person who decides that the Koran is the Word of Allah will always find
a way to explain away any evidence to the contrary.
Why would Muhammad choose to speak with Allah’s voice? Because doing so gave his
commands incredible power. Imagine being able to claim that God said, “I am as My servant
thinks I am,”621 or declare that “He who obeys me, obeys Allah, and he who disobeys me,
disobeys Allah.”622 These are actual quotes from the Hadith, and they unveil the power that
Muhammad enjoyed.
There are so many Koranic verses where Muhammad joins his will to Allah’s (over 70) that only
a small sampling is shown here (see Appendix C for complete list). What follows are example
cases where Muhammad used Allah’s authority to win arguments, commandeer war spoils, and
generally make his own directives unquestionable:
• [4.13] PICKTHAL: …Whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter
Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where such will dwell for ever…
[4.14] And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will
make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.
• [4.80] YUSUF ALI: He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have
not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
• [5.33] PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger
and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their
621
Hadith Qudsi, Number 15. The Hadith Qudsi is a collection of hadiths that are believed to be quotes of Allah
(that were left out of the Koran) rather than quotes of Muhammad. They differ from Koranic verses in that they are
Muhammad’s paraphrases of Allah rather than exact words attributed directly to Allah himself.
622
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 204. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9,
Book 89, Number 251, Book 92, Numbers 384 & 385, and Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1890, Book 20,
Numbers 4518 – 4523.
315
hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their
degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
• [8.1] PICKTHAL: …Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your
duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger…
• [8.13] PICKTHAL: That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth
Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.
• [9.3] YUSUF ALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people
(assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty)
obligations with the Pagans…
• [9.59] YUSUF ALI: If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave
them, and had said, “Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of
His bounty…”
• [9.61] PICKTHAL: And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a
hearer…Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom.
• The next verse is particularly interesting because, when the speaker said “Allah and His
messenger,” the reference could only mean Muhammad. This is because Muhammad
was the only being who held court, heard disputants, and judged between them. If Allah
truly knew all, there would be no need for disputants to be summoned before Him.
[24.48] YUSUF ALI: When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order that He
may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come)…
[24.50] Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? Or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that Allah
and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves who do wrong.
[24.51] The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that
He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we obey”…
In verse 24.51, who is “He”? Is it Allah, His Messenger, or “Allah and His Messenger”? The
obvious answer is Muhammad.
• The next verse is another case where “Allah and His messenger” clearly meant
Muhammad, although it should now be evident that Muhammad had difficulty
distinguishing between himself and Allah. The verse discusses times when believers
were with Muhammad, working on projects that required teamwork with him.
Muhammad was telling people working with him not to leave until he had dismissed
them.
[24.62] PICKTHAL: They only are the true believers who believe in Allah and His Messenger
and, when they are with him on some common errand [YUSUF ALI: matter requiring collective
action], go not away until they have asked leave of him…
This verse again raises the question: Who is “him”? Is it Allah, His Messenger, or “Allah
and His Messenger”? Once again, the clear answer is Muhammad.
316
• [49.3] YUSUF ALI: Those that lower their voices in the presence of Allah’s Messenger, - their
hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.
• [33.36] PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah
and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say
in their affair…
• The next verse shows how Muhammad’s absolute power gave him the ability to
transform “God damn you” into “God damns you” – a devastating curse upon anyone
who annoyed Allah’s Messenger.
[33.57] YUSUF ALI: Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in
this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
• [33.53] YUSUF ALI: …Enter not the Prophet’s houses until leave is given you…but when ye are
invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such
(behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell
you) the truth…Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah’s Messenger, or that ye should
marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah’s sight an enormity.
The above verse clearly serves Muhammad’s wishes, not Allah’s. In it, Muhammad
exempts himself from the laws that apply to everyone else: In verse 2.234, the Koran
declares that all widows are allowed to remarry after 4 months and 10 days. But
Muhammad wants none of his wives to ever remarry. This is quite a commandment,
considering that he had 11 wives after Khadijah’s death: Sawda Bint Zam‘a, A’isha Bint
Abu Bakr, Hafsa Bint ‘Umar, Zainab Bint Khuzaima, Ummu Salama, Zainab Bint Jahsh
(who had been the wife of Muhammad’s freed slave, Zayd, who divorced her so that
Muhammad could wed her623), Juwairiyya Bint al-Harith, Safiyya Bint Huyay, Ummu
Habiba, Maria the Copt, and Maimuna Bint al-Harith.
• [33.50] YUSUF ALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast
paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom
Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy…uncles and aunts, who migrated (from
Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the
Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large)…in order
that there should be no difficulty for thee…
[33. 51] Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive
any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set
aside…
These are the verses whose revelation led Aisha to say that “your Lord hurries in pleasing you.”
A more cynical observer might have said that Muhammad hurried in pleasing himself.
Islamic scholars go through great effort to put a positive spin on the above verses, which
623
Sirat Rasoul Allah, by ibn Ishaq, approx. 780 AD, Chapter entitled Last Illness. An abridged translation of this
biography entitled The Life of Muhammad Apostle of Allah was written by Michael Edwardes and published by the
Folio Society in London, UK, in 1964.
317
give Muhammad the status of Allah-sanctioned “sex-god.” For example, Syed Abul Ala
Maududi, in his introduction to Surah 33, explains the verses this way:624
“…an important thing that needed to be reformed was the question of the adoption of a
son. Whoever was adopted by the Arabs as a son was regarded as one of their own
offspring: he got share in inheritance; he was treated like a real son and real brother by
the adopted mother and the adopted sister…And the same was the case if the adopted son
died or divorced a wife. The adopted father regarded the woman as his real daughter-in-
law.
This custom clashed in every detail with the laws of marriage and divorce and inheritance
enjoined by Allah in Surahs Al-Baqarah and An-Nisa. It made a person who could get no
share in inheritance entitled to it at the expense of those who were really entitled to it. It
prohibited marriage between the men and the women who could contract marriage
perfectly lawfully. And, above all, it helped spread the immoralities which the
Islamic Law wanted to eradicate…When the artificial relations endued with customary
sanctity are allowed to mix freely like the real relations, it cannot but produce evil results.
That is why the…concept and custom of regarding the adopted son as the real son should
be eradicated completely…Therefore, it was inevitable that the custom should be
eradicated…through the Holy Prophet himself. For no Muslim could ever conceive
that a thing done by the Holy Prophet himself…could be detestable. Therefore…the
Holy Prophet was inspired by Allah that he should marry the divorced wife of his
adopted son, Zaid bin Harithah…
It should now be evident that Muhammad portrayed the will of Allah as essentially
indistinguishable from his own.
This method of legitimizing power, by joining a ruler’s will with that of a god, is a venerable
maneuver. It has been repeated throughout history, ever since the days of Hammurabi and
Pharaoh, and it persisted into modern times, in the form of Ethiopia’s King Haile Sellassie, who
was considered by Rastafarians to be a prophet of God. Leaders of religious cults often claim the
same God-given authority even today.
One of the benefits that Muhammad enjoyed from this union was nearly absolute power over his
true believers. This is the kind of power that could corrupt even the wisest of men.
Muhammad’s submission to power abuse stands out in the last two sets of verses. In these
passages, Muhammad declares for himself almost unlimited sexual rights that no one else could
have (33.50). He then goes on to declare that his wives must never marry another man after his
death (33.53). Both declarations violate the laws of Shari’ah that apply to everyone else. They
also set precedents that directly violate some of the most fundamental tenets of democracy:
• Equal protection under the law. Muhammad violated this tenet by subjecting his wives to
special laws that prevented them from marrying anyone else (33.53), even though
Shari’ah declared that widows may remarry after a four-month mourning period.
624
The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999.
318
• Rulers are not above the law. Muhammad violated this tenet by exempting himself from
Shari’ah’s laws on marriage, so that he could marry a multitude of women and impose his
sexual desires on others against their will (33.50). Muhammad went even further,
seeking exemption from any constraints, as the Hadith reveals in quotes such as “O
Allah!...Please forgive me my previous and future sins.”625 The Hadith also shows that
Muhammad claimed that this prayer was granted:626
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 3:…The Prophet said, “On the Day of
Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, ‘Let us ask somebody to intercede for
us with our Lord.’…Jesus will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad,
the Slave of Allah, whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.’…”
Moreover, in granting himself special privileges, Muhammad set a dangerous example for all
Islamic rulers, who, in their adoration, seek to imitate Muhammad’s ways. While today’s
Islamic rulers may adhere to the Shari’ah that Muhammad violated, they can still claim that
rulers are exempt from other laws that are followed by everyone else, just as Muhammad did.
In other words, verses 33.50 and 33.53 set the stage for not just corruption, but tyranny.
This is not to say that Free Democracies are free from corruption, nor can anyone claim that the
leaders of Free Democracies do not try to grant themselves special privileges. What we can say,
however, is that the principles of Free Democracy declare that corruption and special privileges
are wrong and punishable by law, and that Free Democracies give citizens both moral and legal
frameworks for combating such abuses.
What was it like to live under the reign of Muhammad? Before seeking answers to this question,
recall these words from the Koran:
[33.21] YUSUF ALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)
for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day…
The following hadiths provide snapshots of Muhammad’s reign:
If you talked badly about Allah and His Messenger in some way, Muhammad might call on your
friends to deceive you with kind words and then kill you:627
• ** Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4436:…the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
said: Who will kill Ka’b bin Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger.
Muhammad bin Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said:
Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like).
625
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 21, Number 221. Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9,
Book 93, Numbers 482, 534 & 590.
626
Other attestations to the forgiveness of Muhammad’s future sins can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book
2, Number 19, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 1, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 570, and Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers
507 & 532v.
627
270 & 271, and Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369.
319
So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship
between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity
(from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you
will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become
his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want
that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage?...we can pledge you (our)
weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad bin Maslama promised that he would come to
him with Harith, Abu ‘Abs bin Jabr and Abbad bin Bishr.
So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them…his wife said: I hear a voice
which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad bin Maslama and his
foster-brother, Abu Na’ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear,
he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will
extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job.
So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense
from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of
the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you
may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then
held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.
If you neglected morning prayers at the local mosque, Muhammad might punish your
disobedience by burning down your house, with you in it:628
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 617:…Allah’s Apostle said,…I was about to order
for collecting fire-wood (fuel), and then order Someone to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer,
and then order someone to lead the prayer. Then I would go from behind and burn the houses of
men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer.
• Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1373: ‘Abdullah reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be
upon him) as saying about people who are absent from Jumu’a prayer: I intend that I should
command a person to lead people in prayer, and then burn those persons who absent themselves
from Jumu’a prayer in their houses.
If you were a six year old girl, Muhammad might command your father to give you to him in
marriage, and then consummate the marriage when you reach your ninth birthday:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:…The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s
hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my
brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:629 Narrated [by] Aisha: The Prophet engaged
me when I was a girl of six (years)…Later on…my mother…came to me while I was playing in a
swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she
628
Hadiths similar to these two can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 626, Volume 3, Book
41, Number 602, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 330, Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1370, and Malik’s Muwatta,
Book 8, Number 8.1.3.
629
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7,
Book 62, Numbers 64, 65, & 88, and Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4915.
320
wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the
house…There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s
Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the
marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me
over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
While Muhammad may have been morally self-indulgent, he was very strict about the morality
of others. For example, if you and your spouse were once wet nursed by the same woman, he
might force you to divorce:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 827:630…“A black slave-lady came and said, ‘I
suckled you both [she happened to have wet-nursed two children, who, much later, had
married].’…“I went to the other side and told the Prophet about it. He said, ‘How can you (keep
her as your wife) when the lady has said that she suckled both of you (i.e. you and your wife?)’
So, the Prophet ordered him to divorce her.”
Because religion, morality, and law were all under Muhammad’s direct control, he was able to
generalize the above morality into law, granting himself leniency while applying an Allah-
reinforced iron rule over his subjects:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 176:631…The Prophet said, “Whoever disapproves
of something done by his ruler,…he should be patient, for whoever disobeys the ruler even a little
…will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance. (i.e. as rebellious Sinners).”
Despite Muhammad’s attraction to young girls, he could be relied on for strict morality regarding
women he found unattractive. For example, if you were a woman who asked Muhammad to
marry you, but he did not want you, then he would refuse your offer. Your disappointment
would soon be forgotten, however, when replaced by the horror of finding your nuptials
transferred to a destitute stranger:632
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 24:…A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said,
“O Allah’s Apostle! I have come to give you myself in marriage (without Mahr).” Allah’s
Apostle looked at her. He looked at her carefully and fixed his glance on her and then lowered
his head…A man from his companions got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! If you are not in
need of her, then marry her to me.” The Prophet said, “Have you got anything to offer?”…“No,
by Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! I could not find even an iron ring”…the Prophet said, “How much
of the Quran do you know?” He said, “I know such Sura and such Sura,”… The Prophet said,
“Go, I marry her to you for that much of the Quran which you have.”
If you were a Jew, or other non-Muslim, Muhammad might take your land from you, in
accordance with his belief that all the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle:633
630
631
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Numbers 175, 177 – 179.
632
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Numbers 54, 58, 63, & 66, Sahih Muslim,
Book 008, Number 3316.
633
Number 4363.
321
• ** Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:…While we were in the Mosque, the
Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews.” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras.
He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the Earth
belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst
you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise, you should know that the Earth
belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”
If you were a non-Muslim living in another nation, Muhammad felt that he had the Allah-given
right to terrorize and conquer your land, and then plunder it, and keep whatever portion of the
booty he desired for himself. Also, you would not want to oppose his attack, because
Muhammad claimed to have the power to personally redeem or damn you for eternity:
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 429:634…Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been given
five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:
1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one
month’s journey.
2. …
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else).
4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all
mankind.
5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.)
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 38, Number 503:635…When the delegates of the tribe of
Hawazin, after embracing Islam, came to Allah’s Apostle, he got up. They appealed to him to
return their properties and their captives.
Allah’s Apostle said to them, “…you have the option of restoring your properties or your
captives, for I have delayed distributing them.”…When they realized that Allah’s Apostle would
return to them only one of two things, they said, “We choose our captives.”
Admittedly, despite his great power, Muhammad displayed some restraint. For example, in the
interest of peace, Muhammad forbade others from fighting in Mecca, and only allowed himself
to fight for a few hours per day:636
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 303:…Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah made Mecca a
sanctuary and it was neither permitted for anyone before, nor will it be permitted for anyone after
me (to fight in it). And fighting in it was made legal for me for a few hours of a day only.
Besides providing snapshots of Muhammad’s reign, hadiths 1 and 9 show again how Muhammad
joined himself with Allah into a single entity called either “Allah and His Apostle” or “Allah and
His Messenger.” How else could Muhammad claim that the Earth belonged to him?
634
635
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 778, and Volume 5, Book 59,
Number 608.
636
Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Numbers 104 & 112, Volume 2, Book 23,
Number 432, Volume 3, Book 29, Numbers 58 & 59, and Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412.
322
Muhammad was also skillful in the way he positioned himself in relation to Allah, for while he
attached Allah’s will to his own, he also claimed to be only a messenger, making it impossible
for opponents to argue or negotiate with him. Among negotiators, this is known as the “higher
authority” gambit, and Muhammad wisely chose the ultimate “higher authority.”
Muhammad’s position as messenger also provided him with another benefit: He used Allah’s
authority in a way that permitted him to have human failings. This allowed him and his
followers to claim that his mistakes were glorious revelations of Muhammad’s humanity instead
of evidence that he was a fraud.
Another case where Muhammad’s indiscretions were spun into something glorious comes from
Surah 66, entitled The Prohibition. According to N.J. Dawood’s introduction to this Surah,
Mohammed, we are told, was once found by his wife Hafsah with a Coptic slave [Maria the Copt,
who became one of Muhammad’s wives], from whom he had promised her to separate. Of this
Hafsah secretly informed A’isha, another wife of his. To free Mohammed from his promise to
Hafsah was the object of this chapter.637
What follows are the opening verses of Yusuf Ali’s translation of The Prohibition:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[66.1] O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee?
Thou seekest to please thy consorts (wives)…
[66.2] Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some
cases)…
[66.3] When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then
divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and
repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, “Who told thee this?” He said, “He
told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things).”
[66.4] If ye two638 turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up
each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among
those who believe, - and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.
[66.5] It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better
than you, - who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in
repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast…
[66.6] O ye who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and
Stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who flinch not (from executing) the
commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded.
In this Surah, Allah chastised Muhammad, not for breaking a promise to his wife and having
intercourse with a slave, but for making a promise to his wife when no such promise was
required. Furthermore, Allah sent a message to the wives: Lay off Muhammad and be
submissive to him, or you and your family might be sent to Hell. This Surah also verifies that
Islamic theology does not give control of Hell to Satan, but to Allah.
637
The Koran, English Translation, with Notes Only, by N.J. Dawood, Penguin Classics, July 1, 2000.
638
Muhammad’s wives Hafsah and A’isha.
323
After reciting this surah, Muhammad punished his other wives by sleeping exclusively with
Maria the Copt for a month, clearly violating the Koran’s command for husbands to spend at
least one of four nights with each wife. However, Muhammad was already accustomed to
breaking the Koran’s edicts, having been married to nine wives concurrently instead of legal
maximum of four.
Syed Abul Ala Maududi’s explanation of this surah’s self-serving verses639 spins them about as
gloriously and creatively as one can imagine:
…[Allah’s] criticism of the Prophet and the…warning to the wives…has not been made secretly
but included in the Book, which the entire Ummah has to read and recite forever. Obviously,
neither the intention of making mention of it in the Book of Allah was, nor could it be, that Allah
wanted to degrade His Messenger and the mothers of the faithful in the eyes of the believers; and
[it] is obvious that no Muslim has lost respect for them…after reading this Surah of the Qur’an.
Now, there cannot be any other reason of mentioning this thing in the Qur’an than that Allah
wants to acquaint the believers with the correct manner of reverence for their great personalities.
The Prophet is a Prophet, not God, that he may commit no error. Respect of the Prophet has not
been enjoined because he is infallible, but because he is a perfect representative of Divine Will,
and Allah has not permitted any of his errors to pass by unnoticed. This gives us the satisfaction
that the noble pattern of life left by the Prophet wholly and fully represents the will of Allah.
Likewise…the holy wives of the Prophet were human, not angels or super men. They could
commit mistakes. Whatever ranks they achieved became possible only because the guidance
given by Allah and the training imparted by Allah’s Messenger had molded them into the finest
models. Whatever esteem and reverence they deserve is on this very basis and not on the
presumption that they were infallible.
For this reason, whenever in the sacred lifetime of the Prophet…the Companions or holy wives
happened to commit an error due to human weakness, they were checked…some…errors were
mentioned in the Qur’an and Allah Himself corrected them so that the Muslims might not form
any exaggerated notion of the respect and reverence of their elders and great men, which might
raise them from humanity to the position of gods and goddesses.
During Muhammad’s lifetime, his presence made the moral life of Muslims simple: Any alleged
command of Allah was, by definition, right, righteous, and instructive, even when it was
inconsistent with Allah’s other alleged commands.
Actually, the preceding statement oversimplifies the situation for ancient Muslims, because there
were dissentions within the ummah during Muhammad’s life. However, Muhammad always
prevailed because he could conveniently produce a message from Allah tailored to the situation.
And because the message came from Allah, it could not be questioned without risking the
accusation of Hypocrisy or Apostasy. Thus, the scimitar of death hung over all critics and
dissenters.
639
The Meaning of the Qur’an, by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Kazi Publications Inc, Revised edition, June, 1999,
from introduction to The Prohibition (At-Tahrim).
324
Abrogation and its affects on Islamic Doctrine and Law
Muhammad’s streamlined morality dramatically simplified his leadership responsibilities,
because it allowed him to produce new messages for new situations, even if those messages
contradicted previous ones.
Claiming Allah’s voice, Muhammad repeatedly declared his right to abrogate previous Koranic
verses (as previously mentioned in the section entitled Interpreting the Koran). There are so
many abrogated verses that the subject has itself become a field of study, which Muslims call the
“science”640 of Abrogation. Through this “science,” Islamic authorities try to identify abrogated
verses and the verses that abrogated them.
The number of abrogated verses varies from 42 to 238 among Muslim authorities. Of these, the
ones most important to Westerners are the peaceful ones, such as the abrogated verse:
[2.256] YUSUF ALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error:
whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that
never breaks…
Verses like this come from an early period in Islam’s history, when Muhammad’s followers were
a Meccan minority, threatened by the polytheist and Jewish tribes around them. However, after
Muhammad gained power in Medina, new verses abrogated the old ones. An example of an
abrogating verse is:
[9.5] YUSUF ALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans
wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every
stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity,
then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
This particular verse, known as “the verse of the sword,” is especially interesting because it is
famous among Muslims as the watershed verse that abrogated all of of the peaceful ones that
preceded it. It is also interesting because of the way Muslims defend it. For example, after
quoting this verse, The Koran for Dummies goes on to explain that the term “Pagans” is not as
threatening as it sounds:641
The word used in Arabic is Mushrikun, meaning “those who associate partners with God,” or
“Polytheists.” This verse does not apply to all “unbelievers.”
Hindus and Buddhists will find little comfort in this assurance. Neither should Christians, when
they realize that Muslims accuse them of being polytheists, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the
Koran explains:
• There were three major religions in West Asia during the Prophet’s lifetime: Christianity,
Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. The latter was a polytheistic faith that had a powerful influence on
640
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Abrogating
passages, page 91.
641
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Fighting
against “unbelievers”, page 154.
325
Christianity.642
• Conventional Christianity promotes Jesus as the Son of God, thereby violating the believer’s duty
not to associate anything with Allah…
In the Koran, the classical Trinity of Christianity – recognizing God as Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost – is considered a form of polytheism:
Those who say that God is the third of the Three, have, in fact, turned to disbelief. There
is no Lord but God, the only One Lord. If they will not give-up such belief, the
disbelievers among them will suffer a painful torment. (5:73)
…
The practice of associating partners with Allah in worship is…known as shirk in Islam. It is
portrayed over and over again within the Koran as a grievous sin. Humans who commit shirk do
so at the peril of their own souls. 643
Returning to the subject of abrogation, The Koran for Dummies makes a strange claim: “the
Koran argues that if the Scripture was man-made, contradictions and omissions would crop up in
the Book, rather than coherence, consistency, and completeness (4:82; 39:23).”644 The verses on
which this claim is based are:
[4.82] PICKTHAL: Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than
Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.
[39.23] PICKTHAL: Allah hath (now) revealed the fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent,
(wherein promises of reward are) paired (with threats of punishment), whereat doth creep the
flesh of those who fear their Lord…
Despite the Koran’s claims for itself, the Hadith actually testifies to the Koran’s inconsistency:645
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53:…Ibn Az-Zubair…said to Uthman bin ‘Affan
(while he was collecting the Qur’an) regarding the Verse: “Those of you who die and leave wives
...” (2.240) “This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you…leave it in the
Qur’an…?” Uthman said, “O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place.”
The very existence of the “science” of Abrogation indicates that the Koran does not meet its own
standard of proof. However, Muslims turn a blind eye to this inconvenient fact and declare that
the Koran is consistent because it says it is consistent.
Unfortunately, this circular logic still leaves the inconsistencies unresolved. In fact, Islam has at
least two unresolvable conflicts regarding essential tenets other than the treatment of Infidels:
642
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 2, section entitled An Alliance That Never Materialized, page 19.
643
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 9, section entitled No Trinity, pages 97-98. Note that the Koranic
quote comes from the translation written by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar.
644
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 21, section entitled
Misconception #1: Muhammad Wrote the Koran, page 312.
645
326
1. The nature of Allah: Is he anthropomorphic or indescribable?646
2. The nature of the Koran: Is it timeless or created?
At times, debates over these issues were so heated that they led the House of Islam to conduct its
own series of inquisitions, which rivaled the infamous ones in Spain hundreds of years later.
Ultimately, the debates were resolved by a theological tossing up of the hands, in resignation to
Allah’s incomprehensibility. This surrender is described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:647
The rationalist tendency held sway at the ‘Abbasid court under the Caliph Al-Mamun (813-33)
who imposed an inquisition-type system, the mihna, according to which government officials
were obliged to declare their allegiance to the doctrine of the Created Quran. One who refused to
do so, despite imprisonment and torture, was Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the traditionist…
In 849, under one of al-Mamun’s successors, the policy was reversed. Theological underpinning
for a compromise between the rationalists and traditionalists was supplied by…Abu’l Hasan al-
Ah’ari (d.935)…Ultimately, for the Ash’aris, God [Allah] is inaccessible to human reason. God
makes himself known only through revelation, and the terms in which he chooses to reveal
himself (including his throne, his hands etc.) must be accepted “without asking how”...This
phrase, a key term in Ash’ari theology, “leaves to God the understanding of his own mystery.”
In other words, one should not try to apply logic or reason to Allah, because, as The Complete
Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says, “Allah is, in the end, utterly beyond the comprehension of
human beings.”648
While Christianity and Judaism face similar issues, the ramifications are much more severe with
Islam because the Koran, which is the source of these logical contradictions, is also the source of
Islamic Law. Therefore, just as with Allah, this statement implies that one should not try to
apply logic or reason to the legal pronouncements of Islamic scholars.
Abrogation is also an issue with the Hadith. Therefore, whenever one sees a verse from either
the Koran or the Hadith that “proves” Islam’s peacefulness, one should always ask: Has this
verse been abrogated?
646
The controversy over whether or not Allah is defined by describable physical parameters and possibly human
shape arises from the numerous Koranic references to Allah sitting on or mounting his throne, such as:
• [7.54] PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then
mounted He the Throne.
• [39.75] PICKTHAL: And thou (O Muhammad) seest the angels thronging round the Throne, hymning the
praises of their Lord. And they are judged aright.
There are also anthropomorphic references to Allah in Muhammad’s famous description of his Night Journey. See
the following hadiths: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 429, Volume
5, Book 58, Number 227, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 608, and Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 309, 313, & 314.
647
Tawhid in Early Islamic Thought, pages 58–59.
648
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 9, section entitled Allah, the Only God, as All-Seeing Sustainer of
Creation, page 99.
327
Some Islamic scholars debate the concept of abrogation and deal with the Koran’s
inconsistencies differently. These scholars claim that the abrogated and abrogating verses refer
to specific historical situations; therefore, they do not contradict each other. They believe that
changing times call for changing policies. And with these words, they try to deflect the concerns
of non-Muslims over Islam’s hostile intents.
Unfortunately, the practical results of this position are the same as Abrogation. Why? Because,
if the Koran’s guidance is still relevant (and every Muslim would say it is), then the most recent
verses are the ones in force.
However, these scholars could be intending something more sophisticated, where they draw
parallels between the conditions of early Muslims and the conditions of Muslims today. That is,
when Muslims are a small minority, they should emphasize the peaceful verses, just as
Muhammad did when he practiced Kitman in Mecca. Then, after they gain power in numbers,
they will be in a position to emphasize the hostile verses, just as Muhammad did as the ruler of
Medina. As they say, changing times call for changing policies.
Therefore, the peaceful verses of the Koran are not what they appear to be, and the people who
quote them may be, unwittingly or intentionally, misleading others about Islam’s intentions.
The Koran’s one consistent message, which does not change, and which is driven home time and
again, is the requirement of absolute submission to the will of Allah and his messenger. Because
Muhammad joined Allah’s will to his own, the Koran effectively teaches Muslims to surrender
to the will of Muhammad.
As Allah’s spokesman, Muhammad claimed the authority to make laws, retract them, create
exemptions for himself, declare Jihad, collect taxes, and extend mercy or severity with complete
authority. While Muhammad may have been no more despotic than most leaders of his day, and
better than some, his method of gaining authority, by declaring himself the messenger of Allah,
bequeathed to his followers a legacy of turmoil.
Islamic guidance for daily living after Muhammad’s death

Islam’s centralization of religious and political authority in Muhammad ended with his death, at
age 63, as he lay in the arms of A’isha, his 18-year-old wife of nine years. His dying words were
strangely uncertain, coming from a man who claimed to be a prophet whose past and future sins
were forgiven, who could describe the Last Day in detail, and who claimed the ability to
intercede for the salvation of others:649
649
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 236:… Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah’s Apostle
and…was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, “I will be the chief of all the people
on the Day of Resurrection….Allah will gather all the human beings…they will go to Adam and say to him, ‘You
are the father of mankind…(please) intercede for us with your Lord…Adam will say, ‘…go to Noah.’ So they will
go to Noah and say, ‘O Noah!…please intercede for us with your Lord…He will say, ‘…go to Abraham.’ They will
go to Abraham and say, ‘O Abraham!...please intercede for us with your Lord… He will say to them, ‘…go to
Moses.’ The people will then go to Moses and say, ‘O Moses!…(please) intercede for us with your Lord… Moses
will say, ‘…go to Jesus.’ So they will go to Jesus and say, ‘O Jesus!… Please intercede for us with your
Lord…Jesus will say, ‘…go to Muhammad.’ So they will come to me and say, ‘O Muhammad! You are Allah’s
Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your
328
650
Sahih Muslim, Book 26, Number 5432: ‘A’isha reported:…When Allah’s Messenger…fell ill,
and his illness took a serious turn,…he withdrew his hand from my hand and then said: O Allah,
pardon me…
Muhammad’s death confronted Muslims with two immediate leadership questions:
1. Religious: How should Muslims govern their daily lives?

2. Political: Who should replace Muhammad as ruler of the House of Islam?
The bloody search for answers to these questions led to conflicts that have plagued the House of
Islam ever since.
During Muhammad’s life, the Koran, the Hadith, and the Shari’ah did not exist as complete and
authoritative documents. Muslims took their guidance for daily living directly from Muhammad,
who could override existing policies and scripture at will. After his death, those desiring a
faithful Muslim life sought the guidance of the “Companions of the Prophet.” These were the
people who knew Muhammad personally, knew his recitations, and understood Muhammad well
enough to say, with authority, how he would have handled a particular situation.
The faithful sought out these friends, family members, and remembrancers to find out how
Muhammad would have handled situations if he could. However, as time went on and these
“Companions of the Prophet” began to die off, this method of guiding the lives of Muslims
became ever-more tenuous. Responding to this diminishing resource, Islam’s Caliphs decided to
compile the Koran, then the Hadith, and finally Shari’ah, as this section will explain.
In the wake of Muhammad’s death, the geographical expansion of Islam led to divergent
traditions and scriptures, and these differences began to pull the Islamic world apart. Muslims
on the edges of the empire began to argue over what was scriptural and what was not. This
growing conflict, together with the prospect of losing Islam’s brain trust through war, prompted
Muhammad’s successors to undertake a massive effort to organize and codify Muhammad’s
recitations. At the time of Umar’s death, there were still several competing versions of the
Koran in circulation. Caliph Uthman, the third successor, consolidated these versions to define
the authoritative Koran. He then destroyed all competing versions, an act for which he paid with
his life.
While Muslims claim that the individual verses recited by Muhammad are still with us today, the
manner of the Koran’s compilation confirms that it reflects the genius of the remembrancers, the
compilers, and the editors nearly as much as it reflects Muhammad himself. Given the
fragmented nature of the source materials, there was also an opportunity for the compilers to
Lord…The Prophet added, “Then I will go beneath Allah’s Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord…Then it
will be said, ‘O Muhammad Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede; it (your intercession) will be
accepted.’ ….(Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Numbers 485, 286, & 553,
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 307, Book 55, Numbers 556 & 581, Volume 6, Book 60, Numbers 3 & 242, Volume
8, Book 75, Number 317o, Book 76, Number 570, Volume 9, Book 93, Numbers 507, 532V, 600, 601, & 607, Sahih
Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 349 – 380, and Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.2.3.)
650
329
assemble them into forms that served their own objectives rather than the original ones of
Muhammad.
While the Koran helped Muslims find guidance on how to live, it still left many questions
unanswered. In their search for guidance, Islam’s leaders naturally turned to Muhammad’s own
life, as recalled by those who knew him or preserved his memory. Unfortunately, the bad blood
between Islam’s different sects led them to rely on different memory chains, leading to
sometimes-divergent compilations of hadiths, as previously noted in Interpreting the Koran.
A major difference between the Koran and the Hadith is that the Hadith compilations were
assembled decades or even centuries after Muhammad’s death. Therefore, they created wide
gates through which legend and fable could pass. This widely acknowledged issue has led to
another Islamic “science,” where scholars try to determine the veracity of each individual hadith,
based on the chain of people who whispered it down the lane.
As a legal code, both the Koran and the Hadith were poorly organized jumbles. As Muslims
tried to apply the Koran and the Hadith to matters of law, they organized Islam’s scriptural
doctrines into a formal code called Shari’ah, through a process of interpretation called Tafsir. In
addition, a process called Ijtihad was used to produce rulings for specific situations.
Unfortunately, there were different schools of thought on the content of the Koran and the
Hadith. Therefore, it was impossible for all Muslims to agree on what was law under Shari’ah.
Among Sunnis, Shari’ah’s variations proceed from four major schools of thought: Hanafi,
Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafii. Among Shiites, the major schools are: Usuli, Akhbari, Shayki,
Alawi, Bohra, Druze, Khoja, and Zaydi. Kharijites also have their own school of thought.
While these schools could not be reconciled, each developed a relatively coherent philosophy,
making it possible for scholars to claim that Shari’ah was well-defined by the time of “The
closing of the door of Ijtihad” in the tenth century. From then on, Islamic authorities claimed to
have found, through scripture, the answers to all of life’s questions, even if each school had its
own set of answers.
With its authority over all of life’s questions, Shari’ah has a much broader scope than Western
law. Shari’ah places every single human action into one of five categories:
1. Obligatory acts (such as paying taxes)

2. Recommended acts (such as night vigil prayers)
3. Permissible acts (such as marrying four wives)
4. Undesirable acts (such as divorce)
5. Prohibited acts (such as stealing)
Because of Shari’ah’s all-encompassing jurisdiction, there is no human action on which Shari’ah

is silent. When a new case arises, Islamic scholars engage in Tafsir and Ijtihad to determine
which of the above five categories it belongs to.
How important is Shari’ah to Muslims? Obviously, given the description above, it is very
important. But most Westerners do not appreciate how important it is. Muslims believe that
330
Allah is profoundly unknowable and unavailable to them on a personal basis. Therefore, the
only connection they have with Allah comes through Allah’s instructions in the Koran.
This means that Shari’ah, which applies the Koran to daily living, is the primary way through
which Muslims express their devotion to Allah. For them, practicing Shari’ah is a form of
worship. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:651
Shari’a means literally “the way to a watering place”: the Quranic use of the term suggestively
combines the notions of a vital means of sustenance in this world and access to the divine realm
of the world to come.
Conversely, disregard for Shari’ah by non-Muslims is unbelief, and a form of rebellion against Allah. No
wonder Muslims consider non-Muslims to be cut-off from Allah and severely misguided!
The methods used to compile the Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah reveal how Muslims sought a
rational and God-fearing way to define Islamic living. Their methods were somewhat similar to
those used for the Tanakh, the Talmud, and the New Testament. In each case, groups of
religious leaders deliberated over which texts and interpretations were authoritative.
However, there is one important distinction between the Koran and the Jewish and Christian
scriptures. While Jewish and Christian religious leaders retain some humility about the origins
of their scriptures, saying only that the texts are divinely inspired, Islam’s leaders proclaim that
the Koran is literally the divine word of Allah Himself. Therefore, like Allah, the Koran is
perfect, immutable, and eternal, and so are the laws of Shari’ah that flow from it.
In addition, Muhammad’s life, as recorded in the Hadith, is considered exemplary and worthy of
imitation in all ways. Just as Christians are known for the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?”
(WWJD), Muslims ask the same question regarding Muhammad. The answers that come from
the Sunnah, however, are very different from what comes from the Gospel.
The Sunnah is the source of one of the greatest inconsistencies in Islam, for while Muslims make
a great distinction between themselves and Christians by accusing Christians of worshipping
Jesus and adamantly asserting that Muslims do not worship Muhammad, one finds that Muslims
indulge in a form of hero-worship that far exceeds anything seen in Christianity. For while
Christians apply “WWJD” to matters of ethics and morals, Muslims apply Muhammad’s version
to the minutest aspects of life. Muslims literally use the Sunnah to answer questions like “What
would Muhammad eat?” “How would Muhammad wipe?” and “What kind of pet would
Muhammad have?” In other words, Islam encourages believers to emulate Muhammad’s
manners and habits to levels of detail almost inconceivable to Westerners.
This level of hero worship far exceeds anything Hitler, Stalin, or Mao ever enjoyed within their
cults of personality. Consider the following hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:…By Allah, whenever Allah’s Apostle spat, the
spittle would fall in the hand of one of them (i.e. the Prophet’s companions) who would rub it on
651
Islam: A Very Short Introduction , by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 4, Introduction,
page 73.
331
his face and skin; if he ordered them they would carry his orders immediately; if he performed
ablution, they would struggle to take the remaining water; and when they spoke to him, they
would lower their voices and would not look at his face constantly out of respect…
Muhammad’s hero worship continues right up to the present day. In fact, a popular phrase
uttered by Muslims when defending Muhammad is “We love him more than we love our
parents,”652 as the noted Pakistani scholars, Javen Ahmad Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer, stated in
an on-line debate with Ali Sina, a courageous Apostate from Islam who founded the website
www.news.faithfreedom.org.
Muslims believe that when Muhammad was married to Khadijah, he was the ideal husband for
one wife. They also believe that later, when he was married to multiple wives, he was the ideal
husband for multiple wives, even though he had at least nine at one time and the Koran’s limit is
four. In the eyes of Muslims, Muhammad could literally do no wrong, because he defined proper
behavior, except when he made a mistake intended to demonstrate that he was human rather than
divine, and thus he provided the perfect example of human imperfection.
As The Koran for Dummies says:
The Koran describes Prophet Muhammad as a mercy to mankind (21:107) and the best example
to be followed in worshipping God (68:4). Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad’s nature,
character, and actions on a daily basis as the best of God’s servants.
The role of Prophet Muhammad is extremely important…because his sayings and actions are
considered only second to the Koran in the interpretation and development of Islamic
law…Furthermore, the life example and teachings of the Prophet supplement Koranic teachings
by clarifying or expanding on ideas and concepts.
…[Muhammad] never asked to be worshipped himself. In fact, worshipping Muhammad would

immediately place you outside the Islamic faith. Therefore, the term Muhammadanism…is not
only incorrect, but also offensive to Muslims.653
…
Devout Muslims express their love for Prophet Muhammad by trying to follow his life example
in almost every step they take throughout the day. When they sit down to eat, they try to eat in
the same manner as Muhammad; when they talk, they try to talk with the same humility that
Muhammad exhibited towards his companions; and when they walk, they seek to walk with the
same gentleness as their Prophet. 654
In other words, after stating that Muhammad was a God-sent mercy to mankind, and the best
example to be followed, whose daily actions are emulated by Muslims in minute detail, and then
noting that Muhammad’s words and actions are used extensively to develop Islamic law, the
author vehemently denies that Muhammad is worshipped.
652
See www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Ghamidi60916.htm.
653
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Guiding the
Way: Prophet Muhammad, page 10.
654
Ibid, Chapter 11, section entitled Muhammad as the best example for humanity, page 161.
332
According to the 2000 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, the second definition of
“worship” is “Ardent devotion; adoration.”655 If this is a legitimate definition, then how can
Muslims claim that they do not worship Muhammad? We, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, can only
infer that Muslims “doth protest too much” over the term “Muhammadanism.” But, of course,
The Koran for Dummies notifies readers that if anyone dares to conclude this, they will offend
Muslims and thereby make themselves targets of Muslim outrage.
Christians have no direct analog to Shari’ah because the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles are
best viewed as parables on how God wants people to treat each other. As such, they define
virtues, but do not define enforceable laws, because they do not stipulate earthly punishments for
violations. While Christian denominations may develop rules and guidelines for their corporate
governance, there are few if any governmental laws that directly reflect the teachings of Jesus.
In contrast, Judaism does have a body of rules for living, called the Talmud, which is somewhat
analogous to Shari’ah. It interprets the Torah, just as Shari’ah interprets the Koran. Jews and
Muslims differ dramatically, however, in their relationships to these interpretations. Jews
consider themselves Jewish by heredity as well as by faith. Therefore, a Jew does not need to
adhere to the Talmud to be Jewish. For Muslims, however, the practice of Shari’ah is an
essential connection to their religion.
For Muslims, inclusion is strictly a matter of belief. Therefore, a violation of Shari’ah can
effectively alienate one from Islam. Such violations may be condemned as Hypocrisy, and even
Apostasy, and, as such, can invoke a severe punishment.
Shari’ah is based on Koranic and Hadithic scriptures that were written over a thousand years ago.
While the Koran may have contributed some ideas that were advanced for its time, the claim that
those ideas are perfect and eternal is not supported by the Hadith’s own description of how the
Koran was compiled.
The Koran’s claim of eternal perfection is worse than untrue; it makes Muslims unable to adapt
to advances in technology and deal with problems that were not anticipated in Muhammad’s day.
What would be Muhammad’s answer to overpopulation, or the threat of mutual nuclear
annihilation? Undoubtedly, Muhammad would have something to say on these and other matters
if he was alive today, even though the Koran and the Hadith are silent. It is also likely that his
edicts would contradict many of the rulings made by clerics. Given Muhammad’s penchant for
abrogating verses, it is even possible that his new declarations would contradict those of the
Koran and the Hadith.
Unfortunately, the leaders of Islam are constrained to the revelations, words, and actions of a
man who lived in another era. In the face of new challenges, Islamic scholars and leaders must
do their best to apply his ancient guidance to times he could not even imagine.
What makes this constraint even more problematic is the extreme sanctity of the Koran. For
Muslims, there is no shade of gray; either it is the word of Allah or it is not. If someone ignores
655
The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
2000.
333
even the slightest passage in the Koran, that person ignores Allah himself – an act of Apostasy.
This creates a situation similar to what one would see among Jews if they still attempted to live
according to the letter of Mosaic Law. Thankfully, Jews no longer adhere to commands like:
Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death;
– Exodus 32:14656
How far does Shari’ah delve into the minutiae of daily life? A sampling of its laws will provide
a glimpse. While these laws may seem strange, obsessive, or even a bit humorous to a Western
reader, these are not like the archaic laws that are sometimes unearthed for our amusement in the
United States. These laws are taken quite seriously by devout Muslims, particularly in nations
like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, and northern Nigeria, where Shari’ah is
the law of the land:
VI. Transfer (Intiqal)657
210. If the blood of a human being, or of an animal whose blood gushes forth when its large vein
is cut, is sucked by an insect, normally known to be bloodless, and it becomes part of its body, the
blood becomes Pak (clean). This process is called Intiqal (transition, or transfer).
But when a blood-sucking leech sucks human blood during some treatment, it will be najis
(filthy), because it is not considered as part of its body – it is considered as human blood.
211. If one kills a mosquito which has sat on one’s body, and blood which it has sucked comes
out, it will be considered Pak, as it was destined to be its part, even if the time gap between its
sucking and it being killed be very small. However, as a recommended precaution, one should
avoid such blood.
This segment comes from the section of Shari’ah that deals with preparing oneself to be clean, a
process known as Wudhu. Wudhu is important for a variety of reasons, one of which is that a
person must be clean before performing any of the five daily prayers. Shari’ah describes
extensively, and in minute detail, what is considered clean or filthy, and how to make something
that is filthy, such as one’s body, clean. The penalties for violating these rules (such as
performing a prayer while in a state of filthiness) are not necessarily punished on this earth,
although they may be frowned upon. No violation, however, will go unpunished in the hereafter,
except by discretionary Divine indulgence.
Another example of the triviality to which Islamic Law descends can be seen in the following
instructions for the Ramadan Fast. To anyone familiar with medical treatments, the potential
health hazards of these instructions are obvious:658
The Fast of Ramadan becomes obligatory when thirty days of the preceding month, Sha’ban are
past, or with the seeing of the new moon of Ramadan…If one witness is accepted, it is a
condition that he must have the quality of veracity, and thus be neither a slave nor a woman…
656
The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.
657
From Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani’s Islamic Laws.
658
Extract from instructions for observing the fast of Ramadan by Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi (died 1277), an afaqih
(leading scholar) of the school of Shafii (a Sunni school of Islam).
334
To fast, one must rigorously avoid coition, vomiting…or introducing any substance to the
“interior of the body.” Some make it a condition that there be in the body power to absorb the
food or the medicine thus introduced. It does not matter if the “interior” is inside the head, or the
belly, or the intestines or the bladder; all can break the fast with the introduction of a substance by
sniffing or eating or injection, or through incision into the belly or the head, or the like.
According to the soundest opinion, putting drops in the nose or the urethra breaks the fast. It is
necessary [however] for such an introduction to be by an open passage. Thus there is no harm in
oils entering the pores by absorption…
The introduction must be intended, so that if a fly or gnat or dust of the road or flour-dust entered
by accident, the fast would not be broken…the fast is broken if saliva leaves the mouth and one
brings it back into the mouth, or if one moistens a thread in one’s mouth and then puts it back in
one’s mouth still moist…
Unfortunately, the righteous path is not always clear even to Muslims. For example, great
scholars sometimes disagree on important matters, as The Koran for Dummies describes:659
Not all scholars agree on the categorization of every single ethical action. For example, some
scholars feel that growing a beard is obligatory, while other say it is only recommended.
One thing is sure, though: Islam prohibits evil parlor games such as chess and backgammon:
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 2: IT IS PROHIBITED TO PLAY CHESS

Book 28, Number 5612:…Allah’s Apostle…said: He who played chess is like one who dyed his
hand with the flesh and blood of swine.
• Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4920:…The Apostle of Allah…said: He who plays
backgammon disobeys Allah and His Apostle.
• Malik’s Muwatta, Book 52, Number 52.2.7:…“There is no good in chess, and [Muhammad]
disapproved of it.” Yahya said, “I heard him disapprove of playing it and other worthless games.
He recited this ayat, ‘What is there after the truth except going the wrong way.’” (Sura 10 ayat
32).
According to the Koran, on the Last Day, each of a person’s actions during his or her life will be
held on a balance, and all violations, no matter how minor, will be held against them. For each
such violation, a Muslim is to suffer the tortures of Hell for a certain period of time. Because
they are Muslim, though, they will ultimately be able to enjoy eternity in Paradise. Christians
and Jews who have rejected an invitation to convert to Islam, as well as Polytheists, Atheists,
Apostates, and Hypocrites, will not be so fortunate.
An in-depth review of Shari’ah660 would reveal how Western lifestyles deeply offend the
Muslims among us many times a day. Even worse, Westerners insult Allah with their flagrant
violations of his Law. For example, there was a recent controversy in Florida where an Islamic
659
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 17, section entitled Exploring
the Contents of the Sacred Law, page 265.
660
An example of these laws can be viewed in-depth on the website www.al-islam.org/laws/ .
335
woman insisted on wearing a veil that covered her face while sitting for a drivers’ license photo.
While Westerners consider photo-IDs to be an essential form of identification for a wide variety
of purposes, this person considered herself persecuted for being required to remove her veil.661
An even more severe example of unintentional desecration is simply touching the printed word
“Allah” without having gone through Wudhu. As the Shari’ah of Grand Ayatollah Sistani says,
under the section entitled Things for which Wudhu is Obligatory,
325. It is haraam, as an obligatory precaution, to touch the Name of Allah or His special
Attributes662 without Wudhu, in whichever language they may have been written. And it is also
better not to touch, without Wudhu, the names of the holy Prophet of Islam …
Think about the number of times you have violated Shari’ah as you read this book by simply
touching the word “Allah.”
How seriously do Muslims take these seemingly minute laws? Consider a recent global
controversy over the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, as described in the following
Boston Globe article:
Guantanamo probe finds five Koran mishandling cases

By Will Dunham, May 26, 2005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has identified five incidents of “mishandling of a
Koran” by U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay, but found no credible evidence that the Muslim
holy book had been flushed down a toilet, the commander of the prison said on Thursday.
…
…Hood said investigators turned up 13 allegations of mishandling the Koran, with five confirmed
cases of “what could be broadly defined as mishandling of a Koran”
…
Hood said the detainee, who U.S. officials have not identified, said at the May 14 interview he
had not been beaten or abused but that he had heard rumors that other detainees had been.
“We then proceeded to ask him about any incidents where he had seen the Koran defiled,
desecrated or mishandled, and he allowed as how he hadn’t, but he heard that guards at some
other point and time had done this,” Hood said.
But Hood said investigators did not directly ask the detainee about a Koran being placed in a
toilet. “I do not believe they used that word toilet,” he said.
The issue of whether the Koran had been thrown in a toilet…has generated controversy globally
in recent weeks. [The] Bush administration denounced as wrong a May 9 Newsweek article, later
retracted by the magazine, that stated U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran
down a toilet to try to make detainees talk. Violent protests erupted in some Muslim countries
following the article’s publication and at least 16 people died in rioting in Afghanistan.
…
661
Judge: Woman can’t cover face on driver’s license, CNN Law Center, June 10, 2003.
662
The “special Attributes” are the 99 names of Allah. Examples: The Holy, the Sovereign Lord, the Merciful, the
Beneficent, the Exalted, the Guardian of the Faithful, the Compeller, the Subduer, the Constrictor, the Dishonourer,
the Avenger, etc. For a complete list, do a web search on “99 names of Allah” and see what you get.
336
Eight allegations of mishandling the Koran were not confirmed, Hood said. These involved six in
which guards either accidentally touched a Koran, touched it within the scope of their duties or
did not touch the book at all, he said. Two additional incidents involved interrogators who either
touched or stood over a Koran, Hood said.
Hood said the inquiry turned up 15 incidents in which detainees themselves “mishandled or
inappropriately treated the Koran,” including one case in which a detainee ripped pages from his
own Koran.
When I first heard about this controversy, I thought it was a joke. After all, just a few years
earlier, we had seen New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani get rebuked in the press and overruled by
the New York State Supreme Court because he had revoked city funding for an art exhibit that
included a painting of a black Madonna with elephant dung on her breast and cut-outs of female
genitals in the background. How could the press rebuke Giuliani, who committed no violence or
active censorship, for simply refusing to fund this affront to his faith, and then treat the touching
of the Koran as an international outrage worthy of a criminal investigation? Furthermore, at
what point did “mishandling of a Koran” become a violation of U.S. law, military or otherwise?
Do we have similar laws against mishandling a Bible, Torah, Veda,663 Tipitaka,664 or any other
holy scripture?
Next, I thought “Guantanamo must be a pretty darned good place if the inmates have to resort to
this kind of complaint.” But no, the Islamic world was quite serious, and their outrage was real.
And the press did not ridicule this outrage as they did Giuliani’s; instead they legitimized it.
In the United States, when someone desecrates a Bible or some other cherished holy image, it
can be called art, and receive government funding. Remember “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano,
which, like the poop-smeared Madonna, was also exhibited at U.S. taxpayer expense? While
many Christians felt deeply hurt and insulted by these acts, an international crisis did not ensue,
and no one died as a result.
America’s closest analogy to Islamic outrage can be seen in its debate over desecrating the flag.
However, even in this situation, Americans have been far more civil. When Americans see
images of foreigners burning their flag, they may be offended, but they do not riot and kill.
Westerners are simply not accustomed to treating anything with the kind of idolization that Islam
demands for its rituals and artifacts. Therefore, in the minds of Muslims, the West tramples
relentlessly on Islamic icons, laws, and notions of virtue. Also, they see Christians as weak for
not avenging the outrages committed against Jesus, whom they also revere. This weakness is
what Muslims call Hypocrisy, which renders Westerners doubly contemptible.
Because of Shari’ah’s rigidity, the conflicts between Islamic and Western cultures will not fade
away as people intermingle. Instead, the two cultures will chafe irritatingly against each other
until overt aggression results, along with battles for legislative domination. To get a fuller
appreciation of the depth and irreconcilability of this conflict, consider these phrases from the
663
Hindu
664
Buddhist
337
Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,665 which was declared in 1981 (Appendix D) as
an Islamic answer to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights666 (Appendix E):
Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe

…
in our obligation to establish an Islamic order:
…
It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to the
[Islamic] Law, no matter by whom it may be issued.
This document accurately reflects the Islamic contention that the laws that derive from the Koran
and the Hadith are universal, and apply to all nations, whether they are Islamic or not. In fact,
many Muslims feel obligated to live according to Shari’ah in defiance of the laws of their host
countries whenever these laws conflict. The mutinous nature of Islam’s mandate can be seen in
the following quote, already cited, from The Koran for Dummies:667
Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals who try to promote certain ideas, such as democracy,
tolerance, and so on, must make Koranic teachings a focal point of their argument. Similarly, any
ideas that intellectuals want to discourage, such as unjust violence, must be proven to be
antithetical to the wording or spirit of the Book [Koran].
Disturbingly, this quote indicates that, with Islam, there is no opportunity for genuine inter-
cultural dialogue. True Muslims are convinced that their faith has all of the answers, and that
those answers are Allah-given. This conviction severs them from lines of reason that do not
proceed from their Holy Scriptures, and “dialogue” ultimately leads to either a stand-off between
the Muslim and non-Muslim, or capitulation on the part of the non-Muslim. Tensions will
inevitably rise as Muslims and non-Muslims intermingle.
Before continuing, one must note that the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights is
more of a statement of defiance against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than a legal
document adopted by any nation. It is, however, widely cited throughout the Islamic community
as a proper definition of human rights according to the Islamic worldview, as evidenced by the
multitude of Islamic websites that laud it. If you doubt this, do a web search and verify this
claim for yourself.
Does this mean that, after Muhammad’s death, Islam’s guidance for the faithful has only come
from holy scripture, without room for new Divine messages? Not entirely. Despite the fact that
Islam adamantly declares that Muhammad was the final and greatest prophet, meaning that God
will no longer speak through prophets, Muslims have developed a loophole that allows for new
divine messages. The loophole is that these messages come in dreams where Muhammad speaks
instead of God. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:668
665
Declared by the Islamic Council, 16 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1, September 19, 1981.
666
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations in General
Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) on December 10, 1948.
667
The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Having
room for interpretation, page 82. Previously cited in the section entitled Islam Opposes Free Democracy.
668
The Elaboration of Muhammad’s Image, page 46.
338
Those to whom the Prophet appears in dreams cannot be deceived, for God will not permit Satan
to take his form…To allow for imposture – a false vision of the Prophet – would undermine the
unity of Islam by inviting accusations and counter-accusations of fraud. By the same logic, the
Muslim mystic is denied direct access to divine revelation, for Muhammad is the “seal” of the
prophets…
This belief is based on the many hadiths that echo these words:669
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 126:…The Prophet said, “Who ever sees me (in a
dream) then he indeed has seen the truth, as Satan cannot appear in my shape.”
In other words, instead of speaking for Allah, as Muhammad did, these latter-day prophets speak for
Muhammad. New players, same old game.
The history of leadership in the Islamic world

In Muhammad’s last days, the “ideal” leader made a critical blunder: He left his followers
without a well-defined plan of succession. This failure led to bloody battles for power and a
deep schism in the Islamic community. What follows is a quick summary of Islam’s early
history of succession:670
• Upon Muhammad’s death in 632, at age 63, a group of Muslims, later called Sunnis,
conducted a form of election among their tribal leaders and chose a successor whom they
called the Caliph. Unfortunately, this election was conducted without the participation of
Muhammad’s blood-cousin and son-in-law, Ali, who was busy making funeral
arrangements for Muhammad. This surreptitious election was seen as illegitimate by the
faction of Muslims later known as Shiites, who believed leadership should proceed
through blood lines, and who felt that Ali had been robbed of his rightful position.
• Abu Bakr, the father of Muhammad’s wife A’isha, was elected Caliph after Muhammad’s
death. He initiated the Koran’s compilation, but died of old age only two years later. His
reign was viewed as successful by Sunnis but despotic by Shiites. This difference of
opinion set the stage for later battles.
• Umar, the second Caliph, and father of another of Muhammad’s wives, ruled from 634 to
644 and played a major role in developing the Koran. His work was cut short, however,
when he was assassinated by a disgruntled slave in 644.
• After Umar’s assassination, Uthman, who was one of Muhammad’s sons in law, was
selected as Caliph by a 6-man council and reigned from 644 to 656. Uthman played an
important role in Islam’s history by completing the Koran’s compilation and eliminating
669
217, Volume 9, Book 87, Numbers 122, 123, 124, & 125, and Sahih Muslim, Book 029, Numbers 5635, 5636, 5637,
5638, & 5639.
670
Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong, Random House, 2000, pages xiv-xv.
339
all competing versions. Unfortunately, this honor cost him his life, as explained in Islam:
A Short History: 671
The Quran-reciters, who knew the scripture by heart and had become the chief religious
authorities, were…incensed when Uthman insisted that only one version of the sacred
text be used…, and suppressed variants, which many of them preferred…Increasingly,
the malcontents looked to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin, who, it seems, had
opposed the policies of both Umar and Uthman, standing for “soldiers’ rights” against the
power of the central authority.
In 656 the discontent culminated in outright mutiny. A group of Arab soldiers from
Fustat returned to Medina to claim their due, and when fobbed off they besieged
Uthman’s simple house, broke in, and assassinated him. The mutineers acclaimed Ali as
the new Caliph.
The death of Uthman also gave birth to another rebellion that would ultimately kill Ali
and establish the caliphate as an object of conquest and dynasty rather than either election
or Muhammad’s blood line, as described next.
• During the 24-year period of the first three caliphates, the faction of Muslims who
believed that leadership should be carried on through blood lines gained power,
particularly among the Persian Muslims. This movement climaxed with Ali’s selection
as the fourth Caliph upon Uthman’s death, and he reigned from 656 to 661.
Unfortunately, non-Persian Muslims (now known as Sunnis) resented Ali’s inclination

toward the Persians. This, along with a sense of outrage over Ali’s refusal to punish
Uthman’s murderers, who were also supporters of Ali, led to two rebellions. The first
took place when Muhammad’s wife A’isha raised an army against Ali, but lost in 656 at
the Battle of the Camel. The second rebellion was led by Uthman’s nephew, Mu’awiya
(a Sunni), and climaxed in 658 during a famous battle where the losing Mu’awiya had his
cavalry put pages from the Koran on the tips of their spears and cry out “Let Allah
decide!” (the question of Ali’s guilt or innocence in Uthman’s murder). Ali, who in all
likelihood was innocent of the murder, and more afraid of his supporters than in league
with them, agreed to an investigation. His decision, which indicated Ali’s confidence in
his innocence, robbed his supporters of certain victory, and this angered them so much
that many of these “supporters” actually turned on him and formed a faction called the
Kharijis (meaning “seceders”). This action created Islam’s third sect. Ali responded by
pursuing the Kharijis ruthlessly, killing off all of their original leaders.672 By this time,
however, the Khariji movement had new leaders and survived the slaughter. Today,
Kharijis retain a significant presence in Oman, though they represent less than 1% of the
total Muslim population.
Although Ali was able to suppress the Kharijis, the split within his camp weakened him
politically. The three-member arbitration panel established to decide Ali’s case turned
against him and gave the caliphate to Mu’awiya. Ali’s reduced forces still had power
671
Ibid, pages 32-33.
672
Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong, Random House, 2000, page 35.
340
though, and he continued to reign several more years in the Shiite strongholds of southern
Iraq. Ali was ultimately assassinated in 661, presumably by a Khariji.
After Ali’s death, struggles for the caliphate continued, with Mu’awiya’s Umayyad
dynasty on one side and the Shiites, who preferred Ali’s line, on the other. A few years
later, Ali’s former Shiite supporters called on his second son, Husayn, to rise against
Mu’awiya’s son, Yazid. The defeat of Husayn’s Shiite uprising was particularly
gruesome, and humiliated the Shiites. What follows is the sequence of events.
Shortly before Husayn’s uprising, Shiite envoys from the city of Kufa had assured
Husayn that the Shiites there would support him in a rebellion against Yazid. Husayn
responded by raising an “army” of fewer than 100 supporters and marching against Kufa.
Unfortunately, Yazid’s supporters discovered the conspiracy and killed Kufa’s Shiite
leaders before Husayn arrived. Without leaders, none of Kufa’s Shiites came to
Husayn’s aid. Isolated in the desert, and without access to water, Husayn’s meager
forces shriveled in the sun. Over the next week, Husayn witnessed the bloody deaths of
two young nephews, his oldest son (who died in his arms), his youngest son (who was
pierced in the throat by an arrow), and a nephew on that nephew’s wedding day. On the
eighth day, both arms were cut off of his half-brother as he desperately tried to fetch
water, and on the tenth day, Husayn and the remains of his Shiite “army” were
slaughtered. Husayn’s severed head was carried to Yazid in Damascus as a trophy.
Shiism lived on, though, and today Shiites flagellate themselves annually for deserting
Husayn in a “celebration” known as ‘Ashura. For them, his death is still as fresh as if had
just happened, and they are inspired by his reputed dying words: “Death with dignity is
better than a life of humiliation.” To this day, these believers give Islamic leadership
only to Muhammad’s descendants, and they insist that Ali was the first true Caliph, or
Imam, as they call him. Although Ali’s bloodline died out with the Shiite’s twelfth
Imam, the Shiites contrived a theology to preserve their beliefs. They claim that the
twelfth Imam is a “hidden Imam,” who has been hidden alive for the past 1,300 years and
will appear again to rule and conquer injustice. The vengeance they long for will apply
to non-Shiite Muslims as mightily as to any Infidel. Today, when Shiites recite their calls
to prayer, they pronounce curses upon the first three caliphs, as well as A’isha.
Thus, during the twenty-nine years following Muhammad’s death, Islam divided into three sects,
each separated by a deep chasm of hatred for the others. Given these sects’ bloody beginnings,
and the long and vengeful memories that Islam teaches its believers to have, it is apparent that
ecumenicalism is just as impossible among Muslim sects as it is between Muslims and Infidels.
To fully appreciate the chasm between Sunnis and Shiites, recall the devastating suicide attacks
that each sect has perpetrated on the other, and then note that the desire of suicide bombers is to
attain heaven by dying in jihad against non-believers.
Despite this gruesome beginning, Muslims praise Islam’s chaotic early years with nostalgic
pangyrics. For example, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says:673
673
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 2, section entitled Islam’s Triumph, page 19.
341
Clearly, a revolution had occurred [with the coming of Islam], probably the most far-reaching and
influential revolution of human history. Anarchy…and rampant immorality had given way to a
clearly ordered way of life built on principles derived from two things and two things only: the
Koran and the behavior and sayings of the Prophet.
Sunni Muslims call Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali the “Rightly-Guided Caliphs,” and their
era is considered Islam’s “golden age.” There are three reasons for this:
1. The Caliphs were “companions of the Prophet”

2. The office of Caliph was awarded on the basis of election by a council of Islamic leaders
rather than military action or inheritance through a non-Muhammadan bloodline.
3. Conquering Muslims enriched the caliphate with hoards of captured booty.
During the caliphates that followed Islam’s “golden age,” the theological rifts between Sunnis,
Shiites, and Kharijis hardened. Around 1000 AD, the caliphate itself was split as the Islamic
nation divided into several petty states, each with its own Caliph.674 They warred with each
other just as readily as they did with Infidel nations. So, just as in the Christian realm, with its
battles between denominations and kings, the House of Islam was riddled with bloody rivalries.
For many centuries, Muslims have had a fundamentally pessimistic worldview, even as the
House of Islam grew. The West has also had periods of pessimism and darkness, but with an
over-all trend toward optimism that brought it the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the
Idustrial Age, the Space Age, and the current period of global democratization. In contrast,
Islam’s history has been one of fragmentation and decline, despite its geographical expansion,
and not because of anything taking place in the West. As described in Islam: A Very Short
Introduction:
This historical achievement (which may without too much distortion appear as a golden age in the
social memory of Muslims) was counter-balanced by a conspicuous failure at the level of power
politics. After its initial expansion, the Arab empire imploded. Islam’s central institution, the
caliphate, at first contested by rival factions, was gradually drained of legitimacy, as the caliph,
the “shadow of God on earth” became the prisoner of palace guards recruited from the tribes.
…
The Islamic state…never fully transcended its tribal matrix. The implosion of the Arab empire
compounded the Caliph’s failure to enforce religious conformity [i.e. religious unity]…The law
developed separately [through the religious elite] from the agencies entrusted with its
enforcement [the rulers], and so military-tribal rule became the norm…“a ruler who has no say at
all in the definition of the law by which his subjects have chosen to live cannot rule those subjects
in any but a purely military sense.”
After Muhammad and the “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” Islam’s rulers did not have the religion-
backed moral authority to create new laws for Muslims, because only Islamic scholars could define
Shari’ah. As a result, there have been tensions between rulers and scholars for many centuries.
674
Umayyad caliphate, Fatimid caliphate, Almohad caliphate, and Abbasid Calphate, among others.
342
This restriction on Islamic rulers was not limited to Muslims. According to Shari’ah, rulers did
not even have the authority to make laws for non-Muslims. Infidels had the right to live by their
own laws as long as they submitted themselves to Muslim domination by paying the Jizya and
not violating Shari’ah’s prohibitions. Therefore, Islamic rulers were stripped of nearly every tool
for governance other than raw power.
As a result, the general Muslim sentiment has been that the Ummah was led astray by a succession
of power-hungry men who usurped the caliphate in one way or another to serve their own
purposes. Therefore, the laws made by these rulers, whether selfish or beneficent, were often seen
as illegitimate. Even traditions about Muhammad contributed to this conflict, through hadiths like:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 40, Number 4629:675…The Prophet…said: The [legitimate] Caliphate
of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone
He wills.
which has also been translated on many Islamic websites as:
the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will revert to a cruel monarchy.676
These factors combine to create a polity where Islamic scholars periodically stir up rebellions by
issuing their own fatwas that defy civil authority, as happened during the Iranian revolution.
Disagreements between Islamic scholars can also incite religious battles, which resemble civil
wars, as is happening today in Iraq. The religious inclination to overthrow rulers and clash with
other religious authorities has been a source of chaos throughout Islamic history.
The extent of Islamic hostility toward its rulers can be seen in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
Understanding Islam, when it states that:677
For many years the caliphate was a powerful institution; it was abolished in the 1920s, following
the eclipse of the Ottoman Empire, which had co-opted it in the sixteenth century.
Echoing this hostility, Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization declares that “many considered
[the Ottoman Caliphate] to be a sultanate and not a real caliphate.”678 According to these books,
Islam’s Caliphate was a sham for centuries, confirming Muhammad’s prediction as recorded in
the Hadith.
Clearly, many Muslims saw the Ottoman Empire’s caliphate as illegitimate centuries before
Attaturk abolished it and Europe “occupied” the Middle East. This observation confirms what a
study of Ottoman history also reveals: Political turmoil in the Middle East was not and is not the
675
A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Tirmidhi, Fitan, 48.
676
Example websites: www.thewaytotruth.org/miracles/predictions.html, www.mohammad-
pbuh.com/3/predictionsof.htm, www.islambyquestions.org/miracles/predictions.htm,
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=89&page=9, www.muslim-
answers.org/proofs09.htm.
677
division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 8, section entitled It’s Settled, page 86.
678
HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 5, section entitled Political Institutions, pages 111-112.
343
product of Western interference. Instead, it was a pre-existing condition that weakened the
Empire and made it seek to Westernize. Furthermore, Islam’s power continues to destabilize
Islamic nations regardless of their levels of Westernization.
The real political choice that Islamic Law offers: dictatorship or chaos.
At this point, we have investigated some major facets of Shari’ah and the society it creates, but
we have not put those facets together and viewed the whole. Doing so reveals an anti-holistic
affect. That is, Shari’ah’s harm is greater than the sum of its parts. Consider:
• Shari’ah originally meant to limit intertribal strife and slavery, but today preserves and
sanctifies them.
• Shari’ah originally meant to limit the exploitation of women, but today preserves and
sanctifies it, particularly with regard to marriage and women’s ability to engage in
unencumbered commerce.
• Shari’ah allows multiple bodies of laws to exist in a single territory for different groups
of people, fostering a tribal environment.
• Shari’ah institutionalizes religious persecution by making religious minorities second-
class citizens who are burdened with limited legal rights, special taxes, and pervasive
contempt and suspicion.
• Shari’ah holds the penalty of death or exile over Muslims who stop believing in Islam,
or who are accused of doing so.
• Shari’ah’s religious repression combines with other constraints on Freedom of Speech,
and freedom of thought, to create a suffocating intellectual environment that hinders
scientific development and allows leaders to abuse power with impunity.
• Shari’ah’s high regard for family, clan, and tribal loyalty encourages nepotism and
other forms of corruption, and also shields criminals from prosecution.
• Shari’ah’s archaic requirements for admissible evidence in court encourage lying.
• Shari’ah’s financial laws sow poverty among all Muslims.
• Shari’ah’s religious basis for law tends to place religious leaders in competition with
political leaders, as well as other religious leaders. These competitions tend to
militarize believers and breed both sectarian and insurgent strife.
• Shari’ah lacks the Golden Rule, stated in Judeo-Christian scripture as “Do to others as
you would have them do unto you,”679 or “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”680
Without these maxims, which tend to create harmonious living despite differences,
suspicions and tensions always mount between various segments of Islamic society.
Furthermore, despite Islam’s calls for Muslim brotherhood and claims of tolerance for
Infidels, it actually cultivates extreme prejudices by motivating each sect to view all
others as Apostates, Polytheists, or perverters of Allah’s word.
The net effect of these characteristics is a destitute, primitive, hostile tribal society that produces
few new ideas and is threatened by foreign ones.
679
See Bible, Matthew 7:12. For a related Hebrew maxim, see Talmud, Shabbat 31a: “What is hateful to you, do
not to your fellow man.”
680
See Bible, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19. While the Golden Rule is not unique to Judaism and Christianity,
these versions are the most commonly known in the West.
344
As Shari’ah gains influence in a society, the society will disintegrate into a Hobbsian world of all
against all, best stated as “I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother
and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.”
This is Islamic society’s natural state, although it can, at times, take on the appearance of an
empire or a modern nation-state. This happens when one particular tribe, through the efforts of
an especially capable strongman, gains power over other tribes, assumes the mantle of Caliph or
Imam (or, as Sultan, controls the Caliph) and proceeds to enrich himself with Zakat, Khums, and
Jizya.
Saudi Arabia, which was formed when Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud conquered most
of the sheikdoms of the Arabian Peninsula, is the clearest modern example of a traditional
Islamic political matrix in the appearance of a state. In fact, it may even be more traditional than
the Ottoman Empire, harkening back to Islam’s earliest times and drawing strong parallels to the
reigns of Muhammad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, where Muhammad handed power to
relatives and forged alliances through marriage.
Even though most of today’s Islamic governments appear to be more modern, the underlying
structures are almost always the same matrix of tribal alliance and nepotism.
While Western Aristocracies once had much in common with Islam’s ruling families, the West’s
ability to separate Church from State made it possible to develop the modern concepts of
Democracy and Free Enterprise. Muslims, on the other hand, can never truly accept these
concepts because they directly contradict Islamic holy scripture.
Therefore, the best metaphor for modern-looking Islamic governments may be “old wine in new
wineskins.” In this metaphor, the “new wineskins” are the democratic forms of government
established by European colonial rulers as they divested themselves of their empirical holdings,
while the “old wine” is the traditional Islamic power matrix that was repressed during colonial
rule, but returned to fill the government positions established by the departing colonizers.
As a result, the Islamic world is rife with “presidents” who effectively operate as the Sultans,
Imams, or Caliphs of old. These strongmen manipulate parliaments, media, and election laws for
their own benefit, as well as the benefit of their families, clans, tribes, hometowns, coreligionists,
and cronies. Examples of such presidents are Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Syria’s Bashar al-Asad,
Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Sudan’s Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Pakistan’s Pervez
Musharraf, Bangladesh’s Iajuddin Ahmed and, until recently, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Even
Iran’s Islamic Democracy, with its popular elections, preserves this power matrix. How? The
Guardian Council controls who may run for elected office, and it in turn is controlled by
religious experts who, according to the requirements of Shiism, are of Muhammad’s bloodline.
The problem with these kinds of arrangements is that tensions invariably arise between the tribes
in power and the tribes out of power, and this leads rulers to employ repressive tactics. These
tactics fuel deeper animosities that are often joined with religious fervor, because tribal alliances
are often formed along sectarian lines. Sooner or later, a weak successor falls, or an especially
strong opposition topples a dictator. However, rather than establish a new reign, the Islamic
345
nation is most likely to descend into chaos as the tribes that once united to oppose the old ruler
turn on each other, creating a state of chaos and intertribal warfare until a new strongman arises.
Once one perceives the Islamic world’s political cycle of strongman, failure, chaotic tribal
interregnum, and new strongman, which we can shorten to strongman-chaos-strongman, its
political landscape becomes more comprehensible. For example, one can see that:
• The Saudi monarch and the presidents for life described previously are either
strongmen or their dynastic descendants.
• Somalia is in the midst of tribal chaos that marks an interregnum.
• Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar was the strongman of the Pashtun-aligned Taliban that
arose from the post-Soviet interregnum.
• Pakistan, despite its constitution and the legacy of political institutions left by the
British, has, in fact, endured a succession of strongmen whose reigns have been far
more enduring than any of its elected leaders.
Most importantly, one can see that the elected presidents of Coalition-backed Afghanistan and
Iraq are powerless because they are irrelevant to Islam’s natural cycle of strongman-chaos-
strongman. In fact, these presidents only survive in protective bubbles provided by Coalition
forces while their countries engage in Islam’s usual tribal rivalries. If the Coalition left, those
leaders would have to either leave with them or join the intertribal warfare around them, hoping
to be a part of a new dictatorship that will ultimately arise according to the repressive norms of
Islamic society. In either case, the democratic experiments foisted by the Coalition would
quickly collapse in a death memorialized by the taunts and jeers of “victorious” Muslims.
Ataturk may have succeeded in breaking Islam’s cycle of strongman-chaos-strongman with his
secular revolution in Turkey because he attempted it during Islam’s absolute nadir, after the
Ottoman Caliphate’s loss of a Holy War against the West’s preeminent powers. Even so,
Turkey’s secular democracy has had to resort to repressive means, including military force, to
preserve itself. In fact, Turkey is currently in the process of becoming re-Islamicized.
A recent National Geographic article entitled Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan681 reveals
Pakistan’s particular instance of the powers that drive the strongman-chaos-strongman cycle. It
also reveals Pakistan’s failed vision for a modern secular nation of Muslims, whose reality is
tribalism, poverty, ignorance, and violence:
Beneath the surface of Pakistan,…opposing forces grind against each other like two vast geologic
plates…The clash between moderates and extremists in Pakistan today reflects this rift, and can be
seen as a microcosm for a larger struggle among Muslims everywhere.
…60 years after its founding, Pakistan still occupies unsettled ground. Traumatized by multiple
wars with India, a parade of military strongmen…and infighting among ethnic groups – Punjabi,
Sindhi, Baluchi, Pashtun – Pakistan’s 165 million people have never fully united as one nation,
despite being 97 percent Muslim. To hold the country together, successive governments have spent
billions on the military, creating a pampered and self-serving monolith of mostly Punjabi generals
while neglecting the basic needs of the people, for justice, health, education, security, and hope…
681
Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan, by Don Belt, National Geographic, September 2007 issue, pages 32 – 59.
346
It’s not just the surging homegrown Taliban, which in one two-week period this year scorched
and bloodied the streets of half a dozen cities with suicide bombs. Or the al Qaeda fighters who
prowl the western mountains of Waziristan, butchering anyone suspected of being an American
spy. Just as chilling are the “night letters” posted on public buildings, warning that all girls, upon
threat of death, must wear head-to-toe burkas and stop attending school. Or, in a rising tide of
intimidation, the murders of teachers and doctors and human rights workers accused of “crimes
against Islam.” But perhaps the most telling evidence of all was [an] encounter with a 22-year-
old woman named Umme Ayman, who seemed all too eager to die.
…She and a group of 200 female religious students have taken over a public children’s library in
Islamabad. They are protesting the destruction of mosques run by radical clerics that the
government says were built without permits…
“We are not terrorists,” she says. “We are students. We wish to spread Islam over all the world.
If America wants to end Islam, then we are prepared to die defending our faith. We have said our
goodbyes.”…Amid shelves lined with children’s storybooks, they have posted signs reading
“Allah is for Muslims, not infidels.”…
“Our fate is with Allah,” Ayman says, as other protesters gather around, “but if the government
grants our demands, there will be no problem.” And what are those demands? “To rebuild the
mosques and to make Pakistan an Islamic state.”…
From the start, the founders of Pakistan intended their nation to be a refuge for Muslims, not an
Islamic state…Pakistan’s first leader, Mohammad Ali Hinnah, and his brain trust of secular
intellectuals created a fledgling democracy that gave Islam a cultural, rather than political, role in
life. Their Pakistan was to be a model of how Islam, merged with democratic ideals, could
embrace the modern world…
Sixty years later, having been educated in schools that teach mainly the Koran, the young women
in the library are stunned when I mention Jinnah’s secular vision for Pakistan. “That is a lie,”
Ayman says, her voice shaking with fury. “Everyone knows Pakistan was created as an Islamic
state, according to the will of Allah. Where did you read this thing?” Such is the certainty of
Pakistan’s Islamists, whose loud assertions give them political influence far beyond their
numbers.
The women may be on the front lines of this protest, but it’s clear the clerics in the mosque next
door are calling the shots. The children’s library is a few yards from one of the most radical
mosques in Pakistan, Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, which has posted dozens of lean young
jihadists in black turbans around the library, brandishing swords, staffs, axes, and AK-47s…
…Ordinary people are…stifled by a government and police force that are among the most corrupt
in the world, led by an army that answers to no one…
A girl called Najma, who is 16, speaks in a cautions monotone, and it is difficult to know, after
what happened, whether she will ever speak naturally again…
Two weeks ago, at one in the morning, five men, maybe six, burst through the door of the
family’s mud-brick home…They identified themselves as police and said they were searching for
weapons. One held a pistol to her mother’s chest while another pinned her nine-year-old brother,
Rizwan, to the floor. And then two men held Najma down on the bed while a third raped her.
347
The leader masked his face with a scarf, her mother says, but she recognize the raspy voice of
their neighbor, a police constable, who lives 200 yards away and wants the plot of wheat that
Najma’s family moved here to farm as tenants 40 years ago. According to the complaint Najma’s
father filed with the police, the attack resulted from his refusal to vacate the land. After the rape,
the men spent a few minutes ransacking the house. As they left, they delivered a warning: Leave
this place, or we’ll be back for your other daughter.
…Rape is epidemic in parts of the country…where it is used as a barbaric instrument of tribal

justice; a village might punish a husband’s adultery, for example, by gang-raping his wife.
Najma’s case is typical in southern Punjab…where the British rewarded their local allies with
grants of land and autonomy; after partition, these feudal landlords became a law unto
themselves. In their world, rape is a tool of intimidation wielded by powerful, politically
connected landowners to terrorize peasants, to scare them off their land. If a family doesn’t
comply…they are often killed. “Who’s going to stop them?”…
…
Perves Hoodbhoy lives every day with the consequences of the lack of public education in
Pakistan. An MIT-trained professor of nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad,
he was speaking to a graduate-level class in physics a few days after the huge disaster that
devastated Kashmir in 2005, describing the geophysical forces that produced the disaster. “When
I finished, hands shot up all over the room,” he recalls. “‘Professor, you are wrong,’ my students
said. ‘That earthquake was the wrath of God.’”
…“It isn’t Islamic to teach that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates.
Instead, you are supposed to say, by the will of Allah, an earthquake happens.”
…
My new friends want to know why Americans think they are terrorists. It’s a good question, and
an innocent one, judging by the young and open faces of the dozen or so students sharing their
evening meal with me…
…they say their dream for Pakistan is “a peaceful nation, in which justice prevails, in keeping
with Islamic law.” But they believe, as many here do, that Islam is under attack. By America, by
the West, by India, by their own government. Under these circumstances, they say, jihad is
justified. What about suicide bombing? Is it sanctioned by Islam?...
“in any Muslim land that’s occupied, suicide bombing is allowed,” says a personable older boy
named Rafiullah…A few mention Iraq and Palestine as places where such bombings are justified.
Another boy mentions Afghanistan. “But it’s not allowed in Pakistan,”Rafiullah says, “since
we’re not an occupied country.”…”Nobody has a right to blow you up, even if you’re a non-
Muslim, or an infidel. If you are here as a guest, you are welcome.” He reaches to shake my
hand, as if to reassure me.
These words, intended to comfort, actually operate as a threat in disguise. All the author’s protectors
would have to do is withdraw their protection and he could be a dead man. Would he dare to speak his
mind freely and argue against their disturbing assertions? Welcome to the life of a Dhimmi in the House
of Repression and Chaos.
Future leadership of the Islamic world

Despite Islam’s pessimistic view of history, Muslims anticipate a return to righteousness and
actively seek it through a leader who might surprise some: Jesus. However, Muslims believe
348
that Jesus’ “second coming” will be very different from what Christians imagine, because Jesus
is a militant.
What will this second coming look like? The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam
describes a thoroughly-scripted eschatology in detail. Brace yourself; this is scary:682
Prophecies About the Muslim World
Are Muslims expecting the end of the world soon? Modern conditions, as foretold by the
Prophet Muhammad, lead many to believe that the end is indeed near. The greatest of these
signs lies in the worldwide condition of the Muslim community. There is no unified Islamic
nation encompassing the whole Muslim world, as is called for in the Qur’an. Muslims are not
victorious against their foes anywhere in the world, and only recently did the armies of Europe
end their military occupation of over 90 percent of the Muslim world…
To make matters worse, in almost every Muslim country the free practice of Islam is suppressed.
It is so bad that in Turkey, the former seat of the last Islamic Empire, it is illegal for females to
wear head scarves in school or for children to be sent to academies to learn about the Qur’an
[except through government-controlled courses on Islam]…
…
…Muslims feel that we have entered the beginning of the end-times process. In this there is
commonality with fundamentalist Christians, who also feel the end of the world is near.
What are the signs of the end-times? Islam teaches that after the Muslim world is vanquished and
broken up into many competing nations, the practice of Islam will be increasingly difficult for
true believers…Other signs of the end-times include…:
1. Abundant riches (oil?) will be discovered under the Euphrates River in Iraq, and
people will fight over them, causing much death and destruction.
2. Children will no longer obey their parents.
3. Poor nations will compete with each other to build tall buildings in their cities.
4. It will be hard to tell men and women apart.
5. Women will outnumber men.
6. Religious knowledge will decrease dramatically.
7. Wealth will be widespread, and corruption will be rampant.
8. Music, female singers, and alcohol will be prevalent.
9. The worst people will be chosen as leaders.
10. There will be family turmoil in every household.
…Early Muslims were often under the impression that the Last Day would soon come…
…a great Muslim leader will arise who will unify all faithful Muslims under his banner and will
wage many successful campaigns against the enemies of Islam. This leader’s title is the Mahdi.
Muslims look forward to his appearance and expect that many victories in Palestine and India
will be achieved. Invading armies from Europe will be vanquished as well.
…
682
Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 9, sections entitled Prophecies About the Muslim World, The Signs of the Hour,
The False Prophets, and The Rule of Jesus, pages 105-108.
349
[After some time,] The Dajjal [anti-Christ] will claim that he is a new prophet of God. He will be
wealthy and have amazing powers to cure people of their illnesses…The majority of the people of
the world, including a few misguided Muslims, will follow him and believe in him. He will
therefore amass a lot of military might, which he will use to harass and destroy all vestiges of true
religious expression.
The reign of the Dajjal will last for 40 days. During that time, he will gather an army and begin
to conquer the Middle East, which had been unified under the Mahdi…When all appears lost, the
Mahdi will call his soldiers together in the evening and receive their pledge to fight to the last
man and woman on the following day.
While the darkness of night is still upon the Muslim camps in and around central Syria…a voice
will be heard saying, “The one who listens to your pleas has come.” When the time for the
morning prayer arrives, the Prophet Jesus, who had been saved from dying on the cross thousands
of years before and had been kept in Paradise by God, will descend in the midst of Damascus.
After joining the Muslims in prayer, he will lead the Mahdi’s forces against the Dajjal’s army.
The Dajjal’s soldiers will number 70,000.
On the battlefield, Jesus will command his troops to move aside so that there will be a clear view
between him and the Dajjal [anti-Christ]. Upon seeing Jesus, the Dajjal’s powers will fade and he
will make a panicky retreat into Palestine. The Muslims will come down from the mountains and
crush the remnants of the enemy army. Jesus will pursue the Dajjal to a place named Lydda,
which is near an airport south of the present-day city of Tel Aviv in Israel. There Jesus will strike
down the Dajjal with a lance, and his reign of tyranny will be over.
The Rule of Jesus
…Jesus will speak to the Christians and Jews of the world and convert them to Islam. He will
succeed in breaking the worship of the cross and will stop the eating of pork…Jesus will be the
spiritual head of a transnational government of peace. Everyone in the Middle East will convert
willingly to Islam, and there will be no more war…He won’t reign for a thousand years, as
Christianity teaches, but will live only 40 more years – the rest of his natural life span. Along the
way he will marry and have children. While he is in the world, peace and prosperity will bring
countless benefits for all people.
What is more frightening than these words themselves is the fact that they reflect the scriptural
interpretations of modern Muslims more than the scripture itself. These verses tell a story much
more disjointed and less tied to current events than the above quote implies. To get a sense of
them, consider this hadith from Sahih Bukhari (Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425), which
explains that Jesus will be:683
…a just ruler [who] will break the Cross684 and kill the pig685 and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken
from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be
abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.
683
To see other hadiths pertinent to the eschatology of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, see
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 287, Number 293, Number 325, Number 327, Book 7, Numbers 3186 – 3187, Book
41, Numbers 7005 – 7057, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 36, Numbers 4266 – 4277, and Book 37, Number 4310.
684
This is a reference to Christianity or Christians.
685
This is usually considered to be a reference to either Judaism or Jews, although the author of The Complete
Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam implies that it is a reference to eating pork. While it is remotely possible that
350
What these passages from The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam reveal is that
Islamic ideology does more than oppose Free Democracy. Devout Muslims actually believe that
Free Democracy, as exemplified by Israel and/or the United States, is an evil springboard for the
anti-Christ, otherwise known as the “Great Satan.”
A widespread interpretation of Islamic prophesy, represented by the above “Idiot’s” quote, has
actually inserted the history of the past 100 years into its eschatology, and this new script
incorporates both Western democratization efforts and Israel. Moreover, this script is flexible, as
it is with all groups claiming “The End is Near,” and it will adjust to fit new events as they occur,
as it has done for centuries.
As noted in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, devout Muslims are like
Christian doomsayers in that both groups have been saying “The end is near” since the early days
of their religions, and both long for the glorious return of Jesus. Another similarity is that,
despite an appearance of prophetic truth, their “signs of the end times,” quickly fall apart under
scrutiny. For example, a quick analysis of the “signs” presented above shows that:
1. The Euphrates lies in a cultural war zone that has existed since the days of ancient Rome
and Persia, and its people have a long history of conflict. In former days, this area was
famous as “the fertile crescent” – the breadbasket of the Middle East. People fought over
its abundant farmland. The suggestion of “oil?” is a new interpretation of a very old
“prophesy” that has been true since the days of Muhammad.
2. Children have always disobeyed their parents.
3. Nations, both rich and poor, have been competing to build tall buildings almost since the
dawn of architecture. Consider the ancient Ziggurats, made legendary by the tower of
Babel, and the Egyptian pyramids, as well as the Eiffel Tower of 130 years ago.
Especially, consider the grand buildings that arose in and near the Arabian Desert during
Islam’s “Golden Age.”
4. Ask yourself: are you having difficulty distinguishing women from men? I didn’t think
so, except maybe for male terrorists hiding under burkas.
5. Women, particularly in the warlike Middle East, have always outnumbered men – in fact,
this is one of the stated rationales for polygyny.
6. If one reads ancient laments about the spiritual condition of man, one will find that
people have been bemoaning the loss of religious knowledge since the dawn of religion.
7. Widespread wealth sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing. As for corruption, it is a
timeless and universal problem that, if anything, has improved in recent years as
governments have become more transparent and accountable to their people.
8. Music, female singers, and alcohol all existed long before Islam, and have always
persisted in the Middle East, which has long been renowned for its belly-dancers.
9. Bad political leadership and corruption have been laments since the dawn of history.
10. Household turmoil is also timeless. Even Muhammad’s own household was rife with it,
as the Koranic passages and hadiths quoted in this book reveal.
Yahiya Emerick did not know the customary interpretation of this passage, it is far more likely that his
interpretation is meant to avoid bringing up the hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, which says: Come here,
Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.
351
The difference between Christian doomsayers and Islamic ones is that Islamic doomsayers are
not content to simply predict the end times. Given Islam’s militaristic outlook and dreams of
redemption, they actually seek to provoke the final battle scenes. No wonder Israel has had
numerous wars with its Muslim neighbors – many Muslims see Israel’s destruction as a signal of
Islam’s return to glory!
After considering Islam’s “prophesies,” Islamic hatred for Israel makes much more sense, as do
Muslim conspiracy theories of Jewish global domination and the oft-stated claim that Israel is the
United States’ 51st state, or that the U.S. is controlled by the Jews.
Islam’s holy scriptures set the stage for destructive self-fulfilling prophesies. They train
Muslims to distrust non-Muslims, and to even distrust Muslims of other sects. They discourage
honest communication between groups, and value loyalty over integrity and objective reason.
They portray warfare as a religious duty that yields booty now and glory later. And they train
Muslims to be outraged whenever non-Muslims act to defend themselves from Islam’s
aggression, and call their defensive acts defiance of Allah and his Apostle. After seeing how
Islam sows the seeds of conflict, it is not difficult to predict cataclysmic warfare between
Muslims and non-Muslims, especially as warfare technology advances.
With this new understanding, the speech given by Malaysia’s President Mohamad quoted at the
beginning of this book no longer sounds like the words of a paranoid and hateful man. Instead, it
sounds like the words of a rational man indoctrinated by a paranoid and hateful religion.
Even more disturbing is how this scripted eschatology encourages Islamic leaders to try to make
themselves heroes of the end-times. For example, Moqtada al-Sadr calls his militant followers
the “Mahdi Army.” It is also possible that Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, is
trying to be the Mahdi. This seems to be the only plausible reason for him to provoke a war with
Israel, given Israel’s overwhelming firepower. He knew that his forces could not win by
themselves, but he may have believed that his attack would bring on the victorious return of
Jesus. In this eschatology, Hezbollah would be rescued, Israel would be obliterated, and Jesus,
in the form of Hezbollah’s sponsor, President Ahmadinejad of Iran, would come in glory.
While Hezbollah has stopped shooting missiles into Israel, its members can still look forward to
another fight. One day, they may have the honor of eliminating Ahmadinejad’s need for long-
range nuclear missiles, and join with Iran to “wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face
of the Islamic world.”686
Sound unbelievable? Consider this: Even back in December 2005, Ahmadinejad’s words gave a
perplexed world notice that something messianic was in the works:
Religion Versus Reality

By Richard Ernsberger Jr., Newsweek International
686
Blair ‘revolted’ by ‘destroy Israel’ call of Iranian president, by Sam Knight, The Times (U.K.), October 27,
2005.
352
Dec. 12, 2005 issue - …Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric – “Israel should be wiped off the
map” – has alarmed Western diplomats…Eerie stories about Ahmadinejad’s mystical obsessions
have been drifting out of Tehran of late, specifically his devotion to the so-called 12th imam – the
Shiite messiah, better known as the Mahdi, who’s supposed to return and lead an apocalyptic
revolution of the oppressed over vague forces of injustice.
By some accounts, the new president’s first deputy…recently asked cabinet members…to pledge
their allegiance to the Mahdi in a signed letter. And when Ahmadinejad was Tehran’s mayor, he
reportedly refurbished a major boulevard on grounds that the Mahdi was to travel along it upon
his return. Last week, a videodisc began circulating that reportedly shows the president chatting
with one of the country’s leading clerics…Referring to his September speech to the [UN], during
which he called for the return of the 12th imam, the Iranian president confides that he felt himself
surrounded by a radiant light. Not one foreign diplomat blinked during his speech, he adds.
How might this apocalyptic plan operate? Hezbollah tipped its hand when it tried to probe
Israel’s capabilities through the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers. Unexpectedly, this
attack triggered an Israeli response before Hezbollah was truly ready to act. Hezbollah’s
reaction, though, revealed much about its strategy: It provoked, but did not invade, Israel. When
Israel entered Lebanon to rescue the hostages, Hezbollah began to launch rockets into Israel from
civilian areas. This was a trap that virtually forced Israel to inflict civilian casualties. The
civilian losses, in turn, unified the entire Islamic world against Israel, because, in any conflict
between Israel and a Muslim entity, Muslims must choose to follow the Koran’s command to
“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers,”687 and
“Strive against the disbelievers.”688
Few if any people believe that the current cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel will bring
about a permanent peace. Assuming that Hezbollah will provoke Israel again, we can expect
them to again become pinned down militarily. In fact, the vast network of underground shelters
that pock the southern Lebanese landscape, combined with Hezbollah’s lack of tanks and other
invasive weapons, betray a plan to become pinned down. From this apparently defensive pose, it
will cry out to its sponsor, Iran, and give President Ahmadinejad the opportunity to fulfill his
messianic destiny and declare “The one who listens to your pleas has come.” There is even an
added benefit: In this plan, the Mahdi and Jesus both are Shiite Muslims. Therefore, the question
of whether Sunnis or Shiites are the true congregation will be settled in favor of Shiism. This is
a win in every way for the Shiite schemers.
One might seek comfort from the thought that this Nasrallah-Ahmadinejad version of the end
times is not a perfect match to the story given in the “Idiot’s” book, but that book only provides
one interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith. As noted previously, the scriptural depictions of
the end times are disjoint and vague in important ways, allowing ambitious Muslims to bend
them to serve their own glory-seeking purposes.
Sadly, this kind of dementia is a recurring disease in the Islamic world. Sources used for other
portions of this book also mention several of the more successful episodes of Messianic mania.
For example:
687
Koran, [3.28] YUSUF ALI
688
Koran, [9.73] PICKTHAL
353
From Islam: A Short History:689
…These [Abbasid] caliphs gave themselves titles expressive of the divine right of kings. Al-
Mansur indicated that God would give him “special help” to achieve victory; his son styled
himself al-Mahdi (the Guided One), the term used by Shiis to describe a leader who would
establish the age of justice and peace.
From Islam: A Very Short Introduction:690
During the tenth century CE these Isma’ilis [a branch of Shiism] were at the forefront of several
revolts inspired by eschatological expectations. In 909 a leader…proclaim[ed] himself the Mahdi
and create[d] a state in North Africa.
From Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization:691
In the…eighteenth century…a number of major religious movements swept over West Africa,
establishing Islamic states based on the appeal of charaismatic leaders, some of whom claimed to
be the Mahdi. The most famous of thse figures was ‘Uthman dan Fadio, born in Gobir in…1754,
who soon conquered much of West Africa as both religious leader and ruler.
From Africans: The History of a Continent:692
The Sudanese Mahdi, Muhammad ibn Abdallah,…revealed himself in 1881 as leader of Sudan’s
stateless peoples against Egyptian rule…Three years later his forces took Khartoum…
As one might suspect, a closer look at Islam’s history reveals that its “golden age,” which
Islamic fundamentalists seek to recreate through the returning Mahdi, is actually a warped
utopian memory of an age that was golden in war booty only. Although Islam’s conquests may
have once filled its coffers and underwritten magnificent works of architecture, its politics have
almost always been tumultuous and bloody. Although this book cannot relate the entire history
of Islam, you may want to study it further on your own, using any of the resources mentioned
herein, or an Internet search, or a quick trip to the local library. You will find that the reputedly
great dynasties of Islam were actually very repressive, and brought wealth to the ruling families
while leaving the vast majority of people in ignorance and poverty.
While one may claim that these Islamic dynasties were no more repressive than their non-Islamic
contemporaries, the fact remains that they were far more repressive than anything Westerners
would tolerate today. To citizens of modern Free Democracies, the Islamic dynasties of
yesteryear should appear as attractive as the reign of Ivan the Terrible.
689
Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong, The Modern Library division of Random House, 2000, Chapter 2,
section entitled entitled Ahe Abbasids: The High Caliphal Period (750-935), page 54.
690
entitled Other Branches of Shi’ism, page 54.
691
HarperCollins Publishers, 2003, Chapter 6, section entitled Islam in Other Areas, page 139.
692
Africans: The History of a Continent, by John Iliffe, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Chapter 9, section
entitled entitled Partition, page 190.
354
The real, rather than idealized, history of Islam is one of bloody rivalries and sectarian feuds,
which began with Uthman and Ali and continue to this day. The Assassins693 of former days
have become the suicide bombers of today. In fact, suicide bombers are currently being used by
Sunnis and Shiites against each other far more often than against Israel or the West.
The following article illustrates just one recent example of this inter-Muslim strife:
Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan

By Kamran Khan, Washington Post Foreign Service, June 1, 2004; Page A17
KARACHI, Pakistan, May 31 – A bomb blast tore through a Shiite…mosque during evening
prayers on Monday night, killing 16 people and wounding at least 30 others…, one day after the
assassination of a prominent Sunni cleric in this southern port city.
…
Manzur Mughal, senior superintendent of police…, said…“We have many reasons to believe that
today’s bombing was a response to yesterday’s murder of Mufti Shamzai”…
…the blast was caused by about four pounds of C4 plastic explosives…The same type of device
was used in a suicide attack at another Shiite mosque on May 7, in which 23 people were killed
and 35 wounded…about 3,000 people have been killed in sectarian violence between Shiites and
Sunnis in the last eight years. Sunnis make up about 80 percent and Shiites about 17 percent of
Pakistan’s population of 150 million.
The ancient rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis is a primary source of Iraq’s river of blood.
Shiites, who represent the majority of the population, have been dominated politically by the
Sunnis for centuries. This was especially true under the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein,
who is known to have killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites during their uprising after the first
Gulf War.694 In the aftermath of the second Gulf War, both Sunnis and Shiites have agitated for
the Infidel occupiers to leave, but Iraqi society faces a far deeper problem. The disturbing truth
is that Sunnis and Shiites hate each other nearly as much as they hate Infidels, and that Sunnis,
fearful of possible reprisals under a Shiite-led democracy, have engaged in a widespread
insurgency to thwart democratic governance.695
To their credit, those who have worked together to form a constitution and a permanent
government have made great strides that have exceeded the expectations of many. However, the
bloody insurgency continues to rage, killing thousands of civilians since the February 2005
elections, with no end in sight.
On top of their clashes with each other, the Shiites and Sunnis also have bloody internal clashes.
For example, Shiism gives its clerics incentives to establish quasi-governmental hierarchies,
which can, in turn, produce rival militias as religious leaders compete for money and power.
693
An Isma’ili (Shiite) sect, famous for consuming Hashish and giving the term Assassin its meaning. In the 11th
and 12th centuries, they terrorized the Islamic and Infidel world alike by killing the rulers of nations. According to
Marco Polo, their key operatives were young men, ages 12 – 20, who sought Paradise by fulfilling the murderous
commands of their leaders (The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, translated by Henry Yule, London, 1875)
694
Expert: 300,000 in Iraq’s Mass Graves, Associated Press, November 8, 2003.
695
Questions and answers on the Iraq power transfer, by John Yaukey, Gannett News Service, April 8, 2004.
355
Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr provides a prime example of this phenomenon:
• He murdered a rival cleric, Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003.

• He organized a militia, known as the Mahdi Army.
• For a time, he actually took over the governance of some Iraqi cities through this militia.
This action was in direct conflict with the wishes of other Shiite leaders, particularly
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Husseini Al-Sistani, who is Iraq’s supreme Shiite authority.696
Al-Sadr’s example also shows how Shiite religious leaders can raise themselve above the law,
establishing religious governments-within-a-government that answer to no one. To see how this
works, read the following exerpt from the Newsweek article, Sword of the Shia:697
A…prominent exile was Abdul Majid al-Khoei, who was supposed [by the Coalition of the Willing]
to be a key guide to the Shia religious community…
Al-Khoei paid with his life. The London-based exile returned to the holy city of Najaf, where he was
born and raised, under U.S. military protection. He quickly organized a local council to get electricity
and water flowing again, apparently with CIA money…But al-Khoei’s father had been Iraq’s top
ayatollah—and a bitter rival of Sadr’s father—during Saddam’s rule. Now the sons were competing
for power and influence. Sadr castigated al-Khoei as a U.S. agent, and demanded that he turn over
the keys to the tomb of Imam Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law. A gilded cage surrounding
the tomb contains a box for pilgrims’ donations, a huge and vital source of income for religious
leaders.
As al-Khoei and a colleague visited the shrine on the morning of April 10, 2003, an angry mob
attacked them with grenades, guns and swords. “Long live Moqtada al-Sadr!” the mob cried out. Al-
Khoei was stabbed repeatedly, then tied up and dragged to the doorstep of Sadr’s headquarters
in Najaf, where he was still alive. A subsequent investigation by an Iraqi judge found that Sadr
himself gave the order to finish him off: “Take him away and kill him in your own special way.”
Yet it wasn’t clear at the time of the killing what Sadr’s personal role was, and “we didn’t want one of
our first acts in country to be taking out one of the most popular leaders,” says a U.S. military
officer familiar with Army intelligence on Sadr. The officer, who did not want to be named…, says
the Army was worried about provoking riots...Politicians in his Sadr bloc won 23 of 275 seats in the
January 2005 elections and, after fresh voting nearly a year later, now hold 30 seats…Sadr was able
to play kingmaker. Two prime ministers since 2005 – Ibrahim Jaafari and the current Iraqi leader,
Nuri al-Maliki – have depended on his swing votes for their majority.
While Shiites have often suffered bloody internal battles, Sunnis once enjoyed a relatively stable
hierarchy for centuries under the Ottoman Caliph. Unfortunately, the Caliphate’s dissolution
after World War I left many Sunni leaders free to declare Holy Wars of their own. Even leaders
without official credentials such as Osama bin Laden may issue fatwas and take military actions.
Today, there is no universally accepted entity that can speak on behalf of all Sunnis and declare
the proper response to current events.
696
Symbol of Insurgency, by Charles Recknagel, Asia Times, April 9, 2004.
697
Sword of the Shia, by Jeffrey Bartholet, Newsweek, December 4, 2006.
356
Thus, from both Sunnis and Shiites, there is a cacophony of voices claiming authority to speak
for Islam. Some declare that their religion is peaceful, while others declare Jihad against the
United States. Or Israel. Or Denmark.
Faced with this discord, Westerners cannot simply turn their ears to those who say what they
want to hear, because the opportunity for complicity with terrorism is enormous. While claiming
to be peaceful people, “moderate” Muslims can easily funnel money and information to killers.
Ultimately, these individuals may be caught in their deceits, but the damage done in the mean-
time could be devastating and permanent.
Who is leading Islam into the future? Unfortunately, no one, though many, like Osama bin
Laden and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, are willing to kill for the honor.
Sadly, any attempt by the West to seek peaceful relations with the “House of Peace” is futile
because Muslim hostility is a multi-headed beast. More profoundly, the idea of a lasting peace
with the “House of War” violates Islam’s basic tenets. Therefore, any Muslim leader who begins
to work toward peace with the West risks accusations of hypocritical complicity or apostasy,
thereby drawing attacks from other leaders. And, when the killers are unable to attack the
peaceful leaders themselves, they will turn on the innocent people whom those leaders are
supposed to protect, as well as the West itself, to make those leaders appear impotent and
helpless. Both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, of Palestine’s secular Fatah movement, have
contended with such attacks from Hamas whenever they began to talk peace with Israel.
Relations between the House of Islam’s political leaders and its people
Throughout much of the Islamic world, political leaders are at odds with their people and face
no-win situations. On one hand, Western-oriented leaders are despised by citizens who accuse
them of hypocritically selling out Islam for financial or political gain. On the other hand,
Islamist leaders face opposition from citizens who long for the West’s prosperity and freedoms.
At the core of this dilemma is a tangle of conflicting objectives among fundamentalist and liberal
Muslims. Consider this sampling of issues:
• There is a strong fundamentalist urge to avenge the humiliation inflicted on Islam by the
West as the Ottoman Empire declined and fell.
Even Muslims who called the Ottoman Caliphate illegitimate felt humiliated by its
downfall, particularly because no new Caliphate has arisen to take its place. To those
who still burn with this humiliation, Western economic or military aid enflames their
sense of dependence and deepens their rage. Such people will attach sinister motives to
any aid received, and will undermine efforts by liberal Muslims to collaborate with the
West. Taught to never doubt the teachings of their faith, these fundamentalists reject the
notion that the weakness of Islamic nations might be the result of Islam’s own policies,
and instead lay all blame on the West.
The problems these people cause are compounded by a lack of any central religious
authority to which they must answer, and which the Ottomans once had. In the absence
of a central authority, every theologian feels free to act on his own beliefs and speak on
357
behalf of Allah.
These fundamentalists are also a destabilizing force because they can turn to revered and
ancient Islamic authorities to support their attacks on liberal leaders who cooperate with
Infidels. For example, Ibn Taymiya,698 a 14th century jurist, argued that a ruler who does
not enforce Shari’ah in all aspects forfeits his right to rule. In this case, jihad against
such a ruler is more than acceptable; it may be obligatory.
Shari’ah declares that a Muslim ruler must wage jihad against the enemies of Islam, i.e.
those in the House of War. Ibn Taymiya’s pronouncements have strongly influenced
extremists such as Osama bin Laden, who vowed to bring down the Saudi government,
even though it is one of the most religiously conservative governments in the Islamic
world. Why did bin Laden do this? Because the Saudis cooperated militarily with the
United States in a war against Muslim Iraq, allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil. It didn’t
matter that that Iraq was led by a mass murderer who had attacked other Muslim nations
and was a military threat to Saudi Arabia. To Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia had
displayed its dependence on an Infidel army and had allied with Infidels to attack a
Muslim nation. This was both a humiliation and a direct violation of the Koran.
• Fundamentalists seek to restore what they claim is Islam’s rightful place as the most
advanced civilization in the world, by returning to the laws, beliefs, customs, and fearless
courage that once made it great.
Unfortunately, those laws, beliefs, and customs were made for a different time and do not
consider modern innovations in science, finance, forensics, and other areas. Moreover,
the teachings that inspire fearless courage adapt poorly to peacetime, leading to internal
strife. A society based on these relics will inevitably be less fair, peaceful and productive
than societies that incorporate modern ideas, technologies, and institutions. What these
fundamentalists refuse to see is that they are trying to move foreward by going backward.
• Liberal Muslims wish to enjoy the benefits of Infidel innovations but do not want to
acknowledge any superiority on the part of the civilizations that produced them.
Like the inventors of “Islamic Banking,” Muslims who try to modernize their societies
often attempt to put Muhammad’s stamp on modern ways, and thereby avoid admitting
that these innovations came from non-Muslim sources. While these modernizers may or
may not be hostile to the West, their reasoning itself leads to an absurd conclusion: That
the West has done a better job of understanding the Koran, and preserving Muhammad’s
practices, than the House of Islam.
Unfortunately, this absurdity feeds the belief that Islam’s leaders have misled the
Muslims, or are being manipulated by malevolent Infidels who have stolen Islamic
wisdom and left Muslims with nothing. Even though this belief makes no sense, it
persists and encourages rebellion, along with a longing for Islam’s days of glory.
698
Lived from 1263 to 1328, and was an Islamic conservative theologian and jurist considered to be a progenitor of
Wahhabism. – Summarized from Encyclopedia Britannica Precise, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2006.
358
Many Muslims believe that, by adopting certain Western institutions, they are taking
back Islam’s legacy. This mindset enables them to adopt Western institutions while
maintaining their hostility to the West and calling them thieves instead of benefactors.
However, by continuing to search ancient texts for answers to modern questions on law,
finance, and science, they reject the underlying methods of reason that could lead them
out of their state of backwardness. While they may be able to adopt some Western
practices, they will be hard-pressed to invent anything truly new, and will remain
dependent on the West for innovative ideas.
• Liberal Muslims aim to install the West’s engines of success (Free Democracy and Free
Enterprise) into a society faithful to Islamic holy scripture.
Professor Noah Feldman, of New York University’s School of Law at the time, did a
valiant job of attempting to write a guidebook for this installation, entitled After Jihad:
America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy.699 However, his book appears to be
more interested in creating a democracy for Muslims than a democracy for all. How so?
His vision would institutionalize the tyranny of the majority and legitimize Shari’ah’s
harshness against Infidels, Polytheists, Pagans, Hypocrites, and Apostates.
While Feldman recognizes that his Islamic Democracy would not be a Free Democracy,
he fails to appreciate that Islamic Democracy lacks the virtues that make democracy even
desirable. Instead, he seeks to comfort non-Muslims with inane bromides, assuring them
that Islamic Democracy would not be all that bad. This is what Feldman says:
One limitation of [Islamic Democracy] is that it is apparently the Muslim community

alone that is entrusted with the task of interpreting and applying God’s word. That is all
well and good for Muslims, but it excludes non-Muslims. If self-rule consists in figuring
out what God wants within the framework of Islam, then non-Muslims will not be full-
fledged participants. The answer that minorities in any democracy are excluded when
they do not share the fundamental values of the majority may be unsatisfying to someone
who thinks that equality is a touchstone of democracy. But perhaps non-Muslims could
be permitted to participate in the democratic discussion of God’s will, even if they are not
full members of the community. 700
…
Islamic states traditionally required Jews, Christians, and other non-pagans701 deemed
“peoples of the book” to pay a special tax and wear distinctive dress; legally, the state
accorded them special status as “protected persons.” Churches and synagogues had to be
modest in size relative to mosques. The enforcement of these rules varied historically
from rigorous to lax, and treatment of non-Muslims ranged from highly tolerant to
repressive and even violent. There is an extensive literature arguing about whether this
protected status must amount to second-class citizenship – a question that might plausibly
be answered either way. But even if these discriminatory taxing and zoning requirements
699
After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, by Noah Feldman, Published by Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York, 2003.
700
Ibid, Chapter entitled God’s Rule and the People’s Rule, page 59.
701
This reference to pagans does not mean that pagans did not suffer abuses. Instead, it means that pagans were
given no quarter at all. Laws are not needed for people who are not allowed to exist.
359
were put in place – and they need not be adopted by an Islamic state that is not fully
Islamist – the Islamic state faces no theoretical barrier to treating its non-Muslim citizens
equally. 702
…
In northern Nigeria, where Islamic law is being introduced today, the threat of such
punishments functions as a symbol of the new order, to Islamists and non-Muslim
opponents alike. Everyone involved gets some benefit out of drawing attention to the
possible stoning of an adulteress. It is free publicity for Islamists, and a good rallying
point for opponents. It would be a horrible tragedy if anyone should be unlucky enough
to be executed for adultery there, but an Islamic system need not execute anyone for
adultery under normal circumstances. There is almost always some legal way out. The
existence of hudud punishments is therefore not incompatible with democracy, unless we
think that capital punishment makes a country undemocratic.703
If Feldman’s ideas were implemented, his “democracy” would do more than

disenfranchise and discriminate against non-Muslims. As his defense of both Nigeria and
the hudud laws demonstrates, his Islamic Democracy would be both harsh and capricious.
Violators of the law might be killed or released, depending on the willingness of legal
authorities to find “some legal way out.”
Additionally, Feldman’s concept of Islamic Democracy would lend support to those who
wish to oppress others. Ruling factions could invoke the laws of Shari’ah to impose
severe penalties on opponents, calling them slanderers, backbiters, Hypocrites and
Apostates. Therefore, on top of oppressing non-Muslims, Feldman’s concept is almost
guaranteed to magnify the hostilities that Islamic sects already have toward each other,
with their motivations to dominate, disenfranchise, and discriminate against each other.
Interestingly, Prof. Feldman was a Senior Advisor for Constitutional Law at the Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) for Iraq. Perhaps we should not
be surprised that Iraq is being torn apart by sectarian strife and appears in danger of overt
civil war. As the U.S. and its allies are discovering, Feldman was overly optimistic when
he claimed that “It is a gamble to rely on secular moderates to produce democratic parties
that are respectful of Islam without being Islamist, but the odds may be better than would
appear to the Western imagination.”704
As alluded to previously, a sad effect of the conflicts between liberal and fundamentalist
Muslims is that they force the political leaders of Islamic nations to become repressive and
dictatorial. These leaders face citizens who are willing to use revolutionary force to achieve their
goals if the leaders resist them. However, any action a leader takes to please one faction is likely
to incite revolutionary action by the other. For example, if a leader introduces Western-style
reforms, Islamic fundamentalists are likely to declare a fatwa against the leader or simply try to
assassinate him. If a leader instead reforms a nation into an Islamic state, the state’s subsequent
economic and political failure is likely to lead to popular revolt. Thus, Islamic leaders confront a
702
After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, by Noah Feldman, published by Farrar, Straus,
and Giroux, New York, 2003, Chapter entitled Islamic Equality, page 68.
703
Ibid, Chapter entitled Islamic Liberty, page 72.
704
Ibid, Chapter entitled Democracy’s Muslim Allies, page 225.
360
Hobson’s choice of either battling Islamic fundamentalists or watching their nations descend into
chaos. Either way, they must use repressive measures to maintain order.
Into these churning waters the United States has embarked on high-stakes experiments in nation-
building, hoping to bring democracy and freedom to the Islamic world. After dethroning the
Taliban and Saddam Hussein, will they be able to chart a course for Free Democracy and Free
Enterprise? Or will these re-founded nations sink again into repression and chaos? So far, the
results of these experiments have been less than encouraging:
In Iraq, the new government faces multiple insurgencies, fed by both Sunni and Shiite rage at
Infidel “occupiers,” as well as hatred for each other. This insurgent spirit is only exacerbated by
the new government’s dependence on foreign militaries to prop it up. The economy also
continues to languish, with an unemployment rate that in 2005 was somewhere between 27% and
50%.705 The bad economy is not the result of sparse funding. In fact, billions of dollars are
being pumped into Iraq annually. However, corruption is rampant and Islamic terrorists continue
to sabotage Iraq’s infrastructure and make commerce difficult. In addition, fears of infiltration
by insurgents have kept military support jobs in foreign hands, even though Iraqis desperately
need the work. Local businesses also miss the benefits of commerce because Coalition
personnel are afraid to shop in local markets.
Afghanistan’s situation, more than six years after the Taliban’s fall, is little better. The nation
still depends on NATO forces to maintain order, and it still generates articles like these:
Bomb kills election workers

By Matthew Pennington, Associated Press, June 27, 2004, The Boston Globe
KABUL, Afghanistan – A bomb tore through a bus carrying female election workers yesterday
on their way to register women for the country's first post-Taliban vote, killing two and injuring
13. It was the bloodiest attack yet in a string of violence targeting election workers, aimed at
sabotaging the September vote. A spokesman for the Taliban claimed responsibility…
…
Bomber strikes at Afghan funeral
Kyodo, AFP, AP, Reuters, The Australian, June 2, 2005
KANDAHAR: A suicide bomb attack on the funeral of a leading cleric killed by suspected
Taliban militants left at least 16 people dead… in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, officials
said. A further 36 people were wounded when the blast ripped through a mosque in the centre of
the city…The attack will raise fears that Taliban militants are further stepping up a renewed
onslaught that has left more than 250 people dead this year.
705
Tackling Another Major Challenge in Iraq: Unemployment, By Jonathan Finer and Omar Fekeiki, Washington
Post, June 20, 2005.
361
Chapter 8: What next?
One normally expects a conclusion at the end of a book, but that is not what you will find here;
in fact, this book has probably left you with more questions than answers.
My goal has been to share a framework for understanding the resurging conflict between the
House of Islam and the West, and reveal the causes of Islamic rage which have been long
concealed by Western naiveté and mistaken assumptions. This framework answers the question
that rang out after September 11’s attacks: “Why do they hate us?”
In summary:
• Islamic terrorism cannot be blamed on a single person, like Osama bin Laden, or a single
group, like al Qaeda, or a single nation, like Iran. Instead, it emanates from one root
source: Islamic holy scripture. This scripture embodies a political philosophy that
directly opposes Free Democracy and Free Enterprise and commands Muslims to pursue
their opposition through deception, intimidation, terror, and conquest.
• Islam joins religion inextricably with governance, and opposes Free Democracy’s
separation of Church from State. Its tight union of religion and law causes believers to
struggle against what they see as Free Democracy’s sacrilegious disregard for Allah’s
Shari’ah.
• While some Muslims struggle against Free Democracy with terrorist attacks, others do so
more subtly. Leaders of oil-rich Islamic nations use their wealth to build mosques,
madrassas, found Islamic Studies programs at universities and colleges, and silence
whistleblowers through litigation around the world. They also spread anti-Western
propaganda to undermine the Free Enterprise system that produces their luxuries.
Muslim immigrants, claiming to seek Western freedoms, use population growth to turn
Majority Rule into a time bomb that will destroy those freedoms as they vote Free
Democracy out of existence. This phenomenon has already begun in the United States
with the election of Representative Keith Ellison.
• These subtle revolutionaries, whom we mislabel “moderates,” seek to transform Free

Democracies into Islamic Democracies, where only Muslims hold political power. In an
Islamic Democracy, the goal of legislators is to refine and update Shari’ah through a
legislative form of ijtihad. Their goal is not to represent the will of the people, and they
specifically exclude non-Muslims from the legislative process.
• Islam’s regressive impact is not restricted to the House of Islam. In fact, Islam’s
destructive arm can wield its scimitar very effectively in lands where Muslims do not
have a majority. Through international embargoes and terrorist acts, Muslims have the
power to cow Western nations into submission despite their minority status, as the Danish
cartoonist fiasco demonstrates.
362
• The choice between Free Democracy and Islamic Democracy, or any other form of
Islamic government, really does matter. The tenets of Islam damage society in a variety
of ways that are subtle but devastating:
o Poverty. Islam’s prohibitions against what it calls usury and gambling, as well as
other constraints to trade, lead Islamic nations into severe economic declines
unless they happen to be blessed with vast natural resources. These declines are
exacerbated by the corruption that Shari’ah’s shortcomings in corporate,
municipal, and criminal law enable. These shortcomings warp the economies of
Islamic nations and cause them to fall substantially behind Free Democracies.
o Repression. Shari’ah represses both Infidels and Muslims on multiple fronts:
It deprives non-Muslims of political voice by disallowing criticism of the

state religion and excluding non-Muslims from government.
It burdens women with institutional disadvantages regarding work,
independent living, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and legal testimony.
It condones slavery, especially the enslavement of non-Muslims. To the
extent that slavery has been eliminated from the Islamic world, it has only
been a response to outside pressure from Free Democracies, and slavery is
still practiced in some Islamic countries.
It muzzles free speech in ways that Westerners can hardly comprehend, let
alone believe. The Muslim response to cartoons of Muhammad revealed
only one facet of this repression.
o Strife. Muslims believe that the Koran is the perfect, immutable, and eternal word
of Allah Himself. They also believe that Muhammad led an exemplary life in all
ways, as recorded in the Hadith. These two articles of blind and unquestioning
faith combine to produce a form of absolutism that leads to bloodshed because the
Koran has numerous interpretations and there are rival compilations of hadiths.
When Muslims bicker over Allah’s will, they go beyond simply calling each other
wrong; they accuse each other of perverting Allah’s holy word.
Islamic scripture does more than sow seeds of conflict between factions. It also
provides scant guidance on how to build trust and focuses instead on sowing
prejudice and sanctioning violence as a means of conflict resolution.
o Additionally, because the Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah developed in a tribal
context, their teachings do not fit well with the corporate and national institutions
of the West. Instead, Islam institutionalizes tribalism and the strife that is a
natural part of tribal society.
o Scientific and technological stagnation. Islam knocks out scientific and

technological progress with a powerful combination punch:
363
It represses free speech, and therefore free thought, particularly when
those thoughts threaten Islamic beliefs or Islamic leaders.
It claims to have jurisdiction over all aspects of life. This claim gives
Islamic scholars authority to scrutinize all inventions, innovations, and
ideas, and decide whether they should be permitted. Today, many of these
scholars rage against Infidel inventions such as photography, television,
and democracy, which they obviously would have outlawed if they had the
power to do so.
It claims to have all of the answers. Therefore, it turns scientific research
away from the scientific method and toward Islamic holy scriptures. If the
Koran and the Hadith have all of the answers, why look elsewhere?
It prohibits lending at interest, making it difficult to finance large-scale
research.
It opposes insurance, making it difficult to protect research institutes from
loss.
Almost invariably, new technologies in the Islamic world have been imported
from the West. Not only has the Islamic world not given birth to these advances,
it struggles to simply accept them.
In short, Islam tends to return Muslims, along with their “protected” Infidels, back to the days of
medieval Arabia, with all of its injustices, ignorance, slavery, polygyny, and tribalism. Without
a continuous influx of Western money, technology, and political philosophy, the Islamic world
would rapidly revert to its ancient condition.
Unfortunately, Islam is spreading right now because of a combination of factors:
• There are longstanding “open arms” policies in the West for oppressed people.
• The economic and political oppression that Islam creates is causing a mass exoduses to
the West.
• Islamic nations with vast natural resources have used their wealth to underwrite efforts to
propagate Islam internationally, through both peaceful and violent methods.
• Islam’s followers understand how population growth leads to political power, particularly
in democracies, and they are quietly using it to bring new nations into the House of Islam.
• The spirit of religious tolerance fostered by Free Democracy has been interpreted by
many Westerners as an endorsement of moral relativism, which they call inclusiveness.
This version of tolerance mistakenly assumes that there is no such thing as a pathological
religion and that tolerance will always be reciprocated. It has damaged the West’s ability
to recognize that Islamic beliefs destabilize society and do not reciprocate Western
respect.
As Islam spreads, its journey to ancient ways will not be limited to the traditional Islamic world.
It will also spread its misery in nations that were once Western-oriented but are switching to
Islam, such as Nigeria. If this trend continues, Free Democracies will no longer be able to
constrain Islam’s severe and despotic tendencies. The concept of Free Democracy will become
364
discredited and derided as evil and Godless, while Shari’ah’s advocates impose their laws with
impunity.
If this happens, we can look forward to a global death-spiral of living conditions. Without Free
Democracies to prop up the economies of Muslim lands with aid and new inventions, the world’s
economies will rapidly decline, particularly as the Middle East’s oil resources decline. Islam’s
blindness to its own faults will prevent Muslims from seeing that Shari’ah is the cause of this
disaster. Instead, they will attack their favorite scapegoats, such as the Jews, Christians, Hindus,
Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, and Hypocrites. Violence will also escalate as leaders clash over
whose Islamic sect is the true “Congregation.” As conditions deteriorate, their battles to counter
the crisis with ever-more Islamic forms of Islam will become fever pitched, and continue long
after society reverts to medieval levels of chaos. In effect, we will return to the Dark Ages we
experienced during Islam’s first rise.
Hard to believe? Consider Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Despite claims by those who
want to blame all of the House of Islam’s troubles on Western colonialism, these nations were
actually oppressive and chaotic long before the days of Western influence. Even more disturbing
is the deterioration of Lebanon, which has been experiencing a miniature version of this descent
into chaos over the past few decades.
We have seen Islamic oppression in Shari’ah’s dictates on slavery, women, and Infidels. We
have seen Islamic strife and chaos in the histories of Islam’s religious sects and the nations that
have suffered Islamic subjugation. We have also seen the major fault lines that crisscross
Islamic nations even today.
Iraq has taught a hard lesson to those who believe in Free Democracy: Saddam Hussein’s
despotism may have been a natural product of the Islamic society he came from. Furthermore,
while it may be possible for democracy to succeed in Iraq, we can say with confidence that it
will not be a Free Democracy. In fact, Iraq’s new Constitution confirms that our hopes for Free
Democracy in Iraq are over. This realization is even more dismal after considering the massive
military operations, lives, and treasure devoted to building democracy there. One day we may
awaken from our dreams of nation-building to discover that we have created another
“democracy” like Afghanistan, capable of sentencing a man to death for his personal religious
beliefs. Or, even worse, a “democracy” like Iran.
It should now be clear that it is not enough to deal with Islamic terrorism and warlike threats
through police actions or disjointed policies toward individual countries. Doing so simply
attacks Islam’s violent off-shoots while ignoring the root cause, which will only sprout new
violence in the future. The uncomfortable conclusion we are left with is that, in the long run, we
can only hope to preserve the liberties of Free Democracy if we develop a response to the true
source of Islamic terrorism: Islam itself.
But how can we, as people who believe in Freedom of Religion, do such a thing? How can we
take actions to preserve the liberties we cherish without destroying them in the process? How
can we protect ourselves from violence without ourselves becoming violent?
365
Islam, with its religious belief that Shari’ah should be the law of the land, poses a particularly
difficult quandary for those who cherish Free Democracy hallmarks: Freedom of Speech and
Freedom of Religion. However, there are solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts on
them with you.
At this point, you may have guessed why this book does not end with a conclusion: Dare to
Speak is actually the introduction to another book, Dare to Act, which seeks solutions to the
conflicts we face between Islam and the dual institutions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.
I hope you now appreciate why this book is called Dare to Speak. Muslims are likely to be
offended by what it says, and it is quite possible that I will have to go into hiding, like Salman
Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists, Isioma Daniel, Silva Shahakian, Abdul Rahman, and Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, to avoid execution. I may also become a victim of Islamic hatred, like Theo van Gogh
and Hitoshi Igarashi. However, I believe that the freedoms we enjoy as the beneficiaries of Free
Democracy are so precious and irreplaceable that I would rather risk my life to preserve them
than stay quiet in cowardice. Our children have the right to enjoy these freedoms as we have
enjoyed them, and we have an obligation to protect those freedoms from Islam. In protecting
those freedoms, we will do nothing more than our forefathers who defended them from Fascism
and Communism. Compared to the great sacrifices of our predecessors, this book, written in the
comfort of a safe and secure home, furnished with the many benefits of Free Democracy and
Free Enterprise, barely registers. Those who will receive the hero’s wreaths will be those who
act.
366
Appendix A: The Medina Charter706 (622 C.E.)
In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.
(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the
believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them
and labored with them.
(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.
(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their
number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.
(4-8) The B. ‘Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in
heathenism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common
among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. ‘l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar
likewise.
(9-11) The B. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-‘Aus likewise.
(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption
money or bloodwit in kindness.
(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.
(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread
injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be
against him even if he be a son of one of them.
(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an
unbeliever against a believer.
(15) God’s protection is one; the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf.
Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.
(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his
enemies be aided.
(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers
are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.
(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.
(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.
706
A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasoul Allah, Oxford University Press,
Karachi, 1955; pages 231-233. Numbering added.
367
(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.
(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall
he intervene against a believer.
(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation
unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as
one man, and they are bound to take action against him.
(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in
God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on
the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be
received from him.
(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.
(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the
believers.
(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion
and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly
and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.
(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B.
al-Aus, B. Tha’laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a
protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of
the Jews are as themselves.
(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be
prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself
and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.
(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the
other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice
and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s
misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.
(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.
(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.
(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.
368
(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God
and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this
document.
(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.
(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.
(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a
similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.
(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.
(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people
of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection
against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this
document.
(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and
the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the
protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.
369
Appendix B: Excerpts from Shari’ah regarding marriage707
NOTE: Although the following rules and laws were dictated by a Shiite cleric, they are, for the
most part, practiced by both Sunnis and Shiites.
Marriage (Part I of II)
The relation between man and woman becomes lawful by contracting marriage. There are two
kinds of marriages:
(i) Permanent marriage
(ii) Fixed-time marriage
In a permanent marriage, the period of matrimony is not fixed, and it is forever. The woman
with whom such a marriage is concluded is called da’ima (i.e. a permanent wife).
In a fixed time marriage (Mut’ah), the period of matrimony is fixed, for example, matrimonial
relation is contracted with a woman for an hour, or a day, or a month, or a year, or more.
However, the period fixed for the marriage should not exceed the span of normal lives of the
spouses, because in that case, the marriage will be treated as a permanent one. This sort of fixed
time marriage is called Mut’ah or Sigha.
Marriage Formula
2372. Whether marriage is permanent or temporary, the formal formula must be pronounced;
mere tacit approval and consent, or written agreement, is not sufficient. And the formula (Sigha)
of the marriage contract is pronounced either by the man and the woman themselves, or by a
person who is appointed by them as their representatives to recite it on their behalf.
2373. The representative should not necessarily be a male. A woman can also become a
representative to pronounce the marriage formula.
2374. As long as the woman and the man are not certain that their representative has pronounced
the formula, they cannot look at each other as Mahram (like husband and wife), and a mere
probable suspicion that the representative might have pronounced the formula is not sufficient.
And if the representative says that he has pronounced the formula, but his assertion does not
satisfy the parties concerned, it will not be deemed sufficient.
2375. If a woman appoints a person as her representative so that he may, for example, contract
her marriage with a man for ten days, but does not specify the day from which the period of ten
days would commence, the representative can contract her marriage with that man for ten days
707
These sections of Islamic Law are excerpts from “Islamic Laws,” issued through the fatwa of Ayatollah Ali al-
Husseini Al-Sistani, Shiite Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. See www.al-islam.org/laws/index.html.
370
from any day he likes. However, if the representative knows that the woman intends a particular
hour or day, he should pronounce the formula according to her intention.
2376. One person can act as the representative of both sides for reciting the formula of
permanent or temporary marriage. It is also permissible that a man may himself become the
representative of a woman and contract permanent or temporary marriage with her. However,
the recommended precaution is that two separate persons should represent each side, for the
formula of marriage contract.
The Method of Pronouncing the Marriage Formula
2377. If a woman and a man themselves want to recite the formula of permanent marriage, the
woman should first say: Zawwajtuka nafsi ‘alas sidaqil ma’lum (i.e. I have made myself your
wife on the agreed mahr), and then the man should immediately respond thus: Qabiltut tazwij
(i.e. I accept the marriage). In this way, the marriage contract will be in order. And if a woman
and a man appoint other person to act as their representatives for pronouncing the formula of
marriage, and if, for example, the name of the man is Ahmad and that of the woman is Fatimah,
the representative of the woman should first say: Zawwajtuka muwakkilaka Ahmad muwakkilati
Fatimah ‘alas sidaqil ma’lum (i.e. I have given to your client Ahmad in marriage my client
Fatimah on the agreed mahr) and thereafter the representative of the man should immediately
respond thus: Qabiltut tazwijali Muwakkili Ahmad ‘alas sidaqil ma’lum (that is, I accepted this
matrimonial alliance for my client Ahmad on the agreed Mahr). Now the marriage contract is in
order. And, on the basis of recommended precaution, it is necessary that the words uttered by
the man should conform with those uttered by the woman; for example, if the woman says:
Zawwajituka…(i.e. I have made myself your wife) the man should also say:
Qabituttazwija…(i.e. I accept the matrimonial alliance) and not Qabitun Nikaha.
2378. It is permissible for a man and a woman to recite the formula of the temporary marriage
(Mut’ah), after having agreed on the period of marriage and the amount of Mahr. Hence, if the
woman says: Zawwajtuka nafsi fil muddatil ma’lumati ‘alal mahril ma’lum (i.e. I have made
myself your wife for an agreed period and agreed Mahr), and then the man immediately responds
thus: Qabiltu (i.e. I have accepted), the marriage will be in order. And the marriage will also be
in order if they appoint other persons to act as their representatives. First, the representative of
the woman should say to the representative of the man thus: Matta’tu muwakkilati muwakkilaka
fil muddatil ma’lumati ‘alal mahril ma’lum (i.e. I have given my client to your client in marriage
for the agreed period and the agreed Mahr), and then the representative of the man should
immediately respond thus: Qabiltut tazwija li muwakkili hakaza (i.e. I accepted this matrimonial
alliance for my client this way).
Conditions of Pronouncing Nikah
2379. There are certain conditions for the Nikah recited for marriage. They are as follows:
(i) On the basis of precaution, the formula (Nikah) of marriage contract should be pronounced in
correct Arabic. And if the man and the woman cannot pronounce the formula in correct Arabic,
they can pronounce the Nikah in any other language, and it is not necessary to appoint any
371
representatives. But the words used in translation must convey strictly the meaning of
“Zawwajtu” and “Qabiltu”.
(ii) The man and the woman, or their representatives, who recite the Nikah, should have the
intention of Insha’ (i.e. reciting it in a creative sense, making it effective immediately). In other
words, if the man and the woman themselves pronounce the formula, the intention of the woman
by saying: Zawwajtuka nafsi’ should be that she effectively makes herself the wife of the man;
and by saying: “Qablitut tazwija” the man effectively accepts her as his wife. And if the
representatives of the man and the woman pronounce the Nikah, their intention by saying:
‘Zawwajtu’ and ‘Qablitu’ should be that the man and the woman, who have appointed them as
their representatives, have effectively become husband and wife.
(iii) The person who pronounces the Nikah (whether he pronounces it for himself or has been
engaged by some other person as his representative) should be sane, and as a precaution, he
should be baligh [of mature age] also.
(iv) If the Nikah is pronounced by the representatives or the guardians of the man and the
woman, they should identify the man and the woman by uttering their names or making
intelligible signs towards them. Hence, if a person has more than one daughter, and he says to a
man: Zawwajtuka Ihda Banati (i.e. I have given away one of my daughters to you as your wife)
and the man says: Qabiltu (i.e. I have accepted) the marriage contract is void, because the
daughter has not been identified.
(v) The woman and the man should be willing to enter into a matrimonial alliance. If, however,
the woman ostensibly displays hesitation while giving her consent, but it is known that in her
heart, she is agreeable to the marriage, the marriage is in order.
2380. If, while reciting the Nikah, even one word is pronounced incorrectly, as a result of which
its meaning is changed, the marriage contract would be void.
2381. If a person pronouncing Nikah comprehends its general meaning, and has a clear intention
of effecting that meaning, the Nikah will be valid. It is not necessary for him to know the exact
meaning of each word, or to know the laws of Arabic grammar.
2382. If Nikah of a woman is pronounced to a man without her consent, but later both man and
woman endorse the Nikah, the marriage is in order.
2383. If the woman and the man, or any one of them, is coerced into matrimony, and they give
consent after the Nikah has been pronounced, the marriage is in order, although it is better that
the Nikah be repeated.
2384. The father and the paternal grandfather can contract a marriage on behalf of his minor son
or daughter, or on behalf of an insane son or daughter, if they are baligh. And after the children
have become baligh or the insane has become sane, he can endorse or abrogate it, if the
contracted marriage involves any moral lapse or scandal. And if the marriage contract does not
involve any moral lapse or scandal, but the na-baligh son or daughter calls off the marriage, then
372
as an obligatory precaution, a Talaq or a renewed Nikah, whatever the case may be, must be
recited.
2385. If a girl has reached the age of baligh and is virgin and mature (i.e. she can decide what is
in her own interest) wishes to marry, she should, obtain permission from her father or paternal
grandfather, although she may be looking after her own affairs. It is not, however, necessary for
her to obtain permission from her mother or brother.
2386. In the following situations, it will not be necessary for a woman to seek the permission of
her father or paternal grandfather, before getting married:
(i) If she is not a virgin.
(ii) If she is a virgin, but her father or paternal grandfather refuse to grant permission to her for
marrying a man who is compatible to her in the eyes of Shari’ahh, as well as custom.
(iii) If the father and the grandfather are not in any way willing to participate in the marriage.
(iv) If they are not in a capacity to give their consent, like in the case of mental illness etc.
(v) If it is not possible to obtain their permission because of their absence, or such other reasons,
and the woman is eager to get married urgently.
2387. If the father or the paternal grandfather contracts marriage on behalf of his non-baligh son,
the boy, upon attaining baligh, should pay maintenance of his wife. In fact, he should start
paying her maintenance before becoming baligh, when he is able to consummate the marriage.
And the wife should not be too young to have any sexual relation with the husband. And in the
situation other than these, there is a strong indication that she is entitled to maintenance from the
husband, therefore a compromise should be carried out as a precaution.
2388. If the father or the paternal grandfather contracts a marriage on behalf of his non-baligh
son, they should pay the Mahr if the boy does not own any means, or if either of them undertakes
to pay the Mahr himself. In other situations, the father or the paternal grandfather can pay Mahr
from the boy’s wealth, but it should not exceed the proper usual Mahr customarily given in
similar cases. But if the circumstances demand that higher Mahr be paid, they can pay it from
the boy’s wealth, and not otherwise, unless the boy approves it after having become baligh.
Occasions When Husband or Wife Can Nullify Nikah
2389. If the husband comes to know after Nikah that his wife had, at the time of Nikah, any one
of the following six deficiencies, he can annul the marriage:
(i) Insanity, even if it is intermittent.
(ii) Leprosy
373
(iii) Leucoderma
(iv) Blindness
(v) Being crippled, even if it is not to the extent of immobility.
(vi) Presence of flesh or a bone in the woman’s uterus, which may or may not obstruct sexual
intercourse or pregnancy. And if the husband finds that the wife at the time of Nikah, suffered
from ‘Ifdha’ - meaning that her urinary and menstrual tract have been one, or her menstrual
passage and rectum have been one, he cannot annul the marriage. As an obligatory precaution,
he will have to pronounce talaq if he wants to dissolve the marriage.
2390. A woman can annul the Nikah in the following cases, without obtaining divorce:
(i) If she comes to know that her husband has no male organ.
(ii) If she finds that his penis has been cut off before or after the sexual intercourse.
(iii) If he suffers from a disease which disables him from sexual intercourse, even if that disease
was contracted after the Nikah, or before or after the sexual intercourse.
2390. In the following situations, if a wife refuses to continue with the matrimony and wishes to
dissolve the marriage, then as a matter of precaution, the husband or his guardian will solemnize
the divorce:
(i) If she comes to know after the Nikah, that the husband was insane at the time of Nikah; or if
he becomes insane after the Nikah, before or after consummation of the marriage.
(ii) If she finds out that at the time of Nikah, the husband had been castrated.
(iii) If she learns that he suffered at the time of Nikah from leprosy or leucoderma.
Note: And if the husband is incapable of sexual intercourse, and she wishes to annul the
marriage, it will be necessary for her to approach the Mujtahid708 or his representative, who may
allow the husband a period of one year, and if it is found that he was not able to have sexual
intercourse with her or with any other woman, the wife can annul the marriage.
2391. If the wife annuls the marriage because of the husband’s inability to have sexual
intercourse, the husband should give her half of her Mahr. But, if the man or the wife annuls the
marriage because of one of the other deficiencies enumerated above, and if the marriage has not
been consummated, he will not be liable for anything. But if the marriage was consummated, he
should pay her full Mahr. If the husband annuls the marriage due to the deficiencies mentioned
in rule 2389, he will not be liable for anything if he has not had sexual intercourse with her. But
if he has had sexual relation with her, then he has to pay full Mahr.
708
An Islamic scholar, particularly, one who researches answers to questions on the nature of Islam and its
application to life. May have authority to decide legal matters.
374
Women With Whom Matrimony is Haraam
2393. Matrimonial relation is haraam with women who are one’s Mahram, for instance, mother,
sister, daughter, paternal aunt, maternal aunt, niece (one’s brother's or sister’s daughter) and
mother-in-law.
2394. If a man marries a woman, then her mother, her maternal grandmother, her paternal
grandmother and all the women as the line ascends are his Mahram, even if he may not have had
sexual intercourse with the wife.
2395. If a person marries a woman, and has sexual intercourse with her, the daughters and grand-
daughters (daughters of sons, or of daughters) of the wife and their descendants, as the line goes
low, become his Mahram, irrespective of whether they existed at the time of his marriage, or
were born later.
2396. If a man marries a woman, but does not have sexual intercourse with her, the obligatory
precaution is that as long as their marriage lasts, he should not marry her daughter.
2397. The paternal and maternal aunt of a man, and the paternal and maternal aunt of his father,
and the paternal and maternal aunt of his paternal grandfather, and the paternal and maternal aunt
of his mother, and the paternal and maternal aunt of his maternal grandmother, as the line
ascends, are all his Mahram.
2398. The husband’s father and grandfather, however high, are the wife’s Mahram. Similarly the
husband’s sons and the grandsons (son of his sons or of daughters), however low, are her
Mahram, regardless of whether they existed at the time of her marriage or were born afterwards.
2399. If a man marries a woman (whether the marriage be permanent or temporary) he cannot
marry her sister, as long as she is his wife.
2400. If a person gives a revocable divorce to his wife, in the manner which will be explained
under the rules relating to ‘Divorce’, he cannot marry her sister during the Iddah. But if it is an
irrevocable divorce, he can marry her sister. And if it is the Iddah of temporary marriage, the
obligatory precaution is that one should not marry his wife’s sister during that period.
2401. A man cannot marry the niece (brother’s or sister’s daughter) of his wife without her
permission. But if he marries his nieces without his wife’s permission, and she later consents to
the marriage, it will be in order.
2402. If the wife learns that her husband has married her niece (brother’s daughter or sister’s
daughter) and keeps quiet, and if she later consents to that marriage, it will be in order. If she
does not consent later, the marriage will be void.
2403. If before marrying his maternal or paternal aunt’s daughter, a person commits incest
(sexual intercourse) with her mother, he cannot marry that girl on the basis of precaution.
375
2404. If a person marries his paternal or maternal aunt’s daughter, and after having consummated
the marriage, commits incest with her mother, this act will not become the cause of their
separation. And the same rule applies if he commits incest with her mother after the Nikah, but
before having consummated the marriage with her, although the recommended precaution is that
in this circumstance he should separate from her by giving her divorce.
2405. If a person commits fornication with a woman other than his paternal or maternal aunt, the
recommended precaution is that he should not marry her daughter. In fact, if he marries a
woman, and commits fornication with her mother before having sexual intercourse with her, the
recommended precaution is that he should separate from her, but if he has sexual intercourse
with her, and thereafter commits fornication with her mother, it is not necessary for him to get
separated from her.
2406. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, and a male Muslim also cannot marry a
non-Muslim woman who is not Ahlul Kitab709. However, there is no harm in contracting
temporary marriage with Jewish and Christian women, but the obligatory precaution is that a
Muslim should not take them in permanent marriage. There are certain sects like Khawarij,
Ghulat and Nawasib who claim to be Muslims, but are classified as non-Muslims. Muslim men
and women cannot contract permanent or temporary marriage with them.
2407. If a person commits fornication with a woman who is in the Iddah of her revocable
divorce, as a precaution that woman becomes haraam for him. And if he commits fornication
with a woman who is in the Iddah of temporary marriage, or of irrevocable divorce, or in the
Iddah of death, he can marry her afterwards, although the recommended precaution is that he
should not marry her.
The meaning of revocable divorce and irrevocable divorce, and Iddah of temporary marriage,
and Iddah of death, will be explained under the rules relating to ‘Divorce’.
2408. If a person commits fornication with an unmarried woman and who is not in Iddah, as a
precaution, he cannot marry her till he has sought forgiveness from Allah, and repented. But if
another person wishes to marry her before she has repented, there is no objection. If a woman is
known as a lewd person, it will not be permissible to marry her till she has genuinely repented,
and similarly, it is not permissible to marry a man known for his lustful character, till he has
genuinely repented. If a man wishes to marry a woman of loose character, he should, as a
precaution, wait till she becomes Pak from her menses, irrespective of whether he had committed
fornication with her, or anyone else had done so.
2409. If a person contracts Nikah with a woman who is in the Iddah of another man, and if the
man and the woman both know, or any one of them knows that the Iddah of the woman has not
yet come to an end, and if they also know that marrying a woman during her Iddah is haraam,
that woman will become haraam for the man forever, even if after the Nikah the man may not
have had sexual intercourse with her.
709
People of the Book, that is Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.
376
2410. If a person contracts Nikah with a woman who is in the Iddah of another man, and has
sexual intercourse with her, she becomes haraam for him forever even if he did not know that she
was in her Iddah, or did not know that it is haraam to marry a woman during her Iddah.
2411. If a person marries a woman knowing that she has a husband, he should get separated from
her, and should also not marry her at any time afterwards. And the same rule will apply, as a
precaution, if he did not know that the woman was already married, and had sexual intercourse
with her after Nikah.
2412. If a married woman commits adultery, she on the basis of precaution, becomes haraam
permanently for the adulterer, but does not become haraam for her husband. And if she does not
repent, and persists in her action (i.e. continues to commit adultery), it will be better that her
husband divorces her, though he should pay her Mahr.
2413. In the case of the woman who has been divorced, or a woman who contracted a temporary
marriage and her husband forgoes the remaining period of marriage, or if the period of her
temporary marriage ends, if she marries after some time, and then doubts whether at the time of
her second marriage, the Iddah of her first husband had ended or not, she should ignore her
doubt.
2414. If a baligh person commits sodomy with a boy, the mother, sister and daughter of the boy
become haraam for him. And the same law applies when the person on whom sodomy is
committed is an adult male, or when the person committing sodomy is non-baligh. But if one
suspects or doubts whether penetration occurred or not, then the said woman would not become
haraam.
2415. If a person marries the mother or sister of a boy, and commits sodomy with the boy after
the marriage, as a precaution, they will become haraam for him.
2416. If a person who is in the state of Ehram (which is one of the acts to be performed during
Hajj) marries a woman, the Nikah is void, and if he knew that it was haraam for him to marry in
the state of Ehram, he cannot marry that woman again.
2417. If a woman who is in the state of Ehram marries a man who is not in the state of Ehram,
her Nikah is void. And if she knew that it was haraam to marry in the state of Ehram, as an
obligatory precaution, she should not marry that man thereafter.
2418. If a man does not perform Tawafun Nisa (which is one of the acts to be performed during
Hajj and Umrah Mufradah) his wife and other women become haraam for him. Also, if a
woman does not perform Tawafun Nisa, her husband and other men become haraam for her.
But, if they (man or woman) perform Tawafun Nisa later, they become halal.
2419. If a person contracts Nikah with a non-baligh girl, it is haraam to have sexual intercourse
before she has completed her nine years. But if he commits sexual intercourse with her, she will
not be haraam for him when she becomes baligh, even if she may have suffered Ifza (which has
been described in rule 2389), though as a precaution, he should divorce her.
377
2420. A woman who is divorced three times becomes haraam for her husband. But, if she
marries another man, subject to the conditions which will be mentioned under the rules
pertaining to ‘divorce’, her first husband can marry her again after her second husband dies, or
divorces her, and she completes the period of Iddah.
Rules Regarding Permanent Marriage
2421. For a woman with whom permanent marriage is contracted, it is haraam to go out of the
house without the permission of her husband, though her leaving may not violate the rights of the
husband. Also she should submit herself to his sexual desires, and should not prevent him from
having sexual intercourse with her, without justifiable excuse. And as long as she does not fail
in her duties, it is obligatory on the husband to provide for her food, clothes and housing. And if
he does not provide the same, regardless of whether he is able to provide them or not, he remains
indebted to the wife.
2422. If the wife does not fulfill her matrimonial duties towards her husband, she will not be
entitled for the food, clothes or housing, even if she continues to live with him. But if she
refuses to obey occasionally, the common verdict is that even then she cannot claim any
entitlement from her husband. But this verdict is a matter of Ishkal710. In any case, there is no
doubt that she does not forfeit her Mahr.
2423. Man has no right to compel his wife to render household services.
2424. The traveling expenses incurred by the wife must be borne by the husband, if they exceed
her expenses at home, and if she had traveled with the husband’s permission. But the fares for
travel by car or by air etc. and other expenses, which are necessary for a journey, will be borne
by the wife, except when the husband is himself inclined to take her along with him on a journey,
in which case he will bear her expenses also.
2425. If the husband, who is responsible for the wife’s maintenance, does not provide her the
same, she can draw her expenses from his property without his permission. And if this is not
possible, and she is obliged to earn her livelihood, and she cannot take her case to the Mujtahid,
who would compel him (even by threatening him with imprisonment) to pay the maintenance, it
will not be obligatory upon her to obey her husband while she is engaged in earning her
livelihood.
2426. If a man, for example, has two wives and spends one night with one of them, it is
obligatory on him to spend anyone of four nights with the other as well; in situation other than
this, it is not obligatory on a man to stay with his wife. Of course, it is necessary that he should
not totally forsake living with the wife. And as a precaution, a man should spend one night out
of every four with his permanent wife.
2427. It is not permissible for the husband to abandon sexual intercourse with his youthful,
permanent wife for more than 4 months, except when sexual intercourse is harmful to him, or
710
Literally, “problem,” “dilemma,” or “doubt.” From an Islamic perspective, this term applies to legal questions
whose answers are not clear through research into the Koran and Sunnah.
378
involves unusually more effort, or when the wife herself agrees to avoid it, or if a prior
stipulation to that effect was made at the time of Nikah by the husband. And in this rule, there is
no difference between the situations when the husband is present, or on a journey, or whether she
is a wife by permanent or temporary marriage.
2428. If Mahr is not fixed in a permanent marriage, the marriage is in order. And in such case, if
the husband has sexual intercourse with the wife, he should pay her proper Mahr which would be
in accordance with the Mahr usually paid to women of her category. As regards temporary
marriage, however, if Mahr is not fixed the marriage is void.
2429. If at the time of Nikah for permanent marriage, no time is fixed for paying Mahr, the wife
can prevent her husband from having sexual intercourse with her before receiving Mahr,
irrespective of whether the husband is or is not able to pay it. But if she once agrees to have
sexual intercourse before taking Mahr, and her husband has sexual intercourse with her, then she
cannot prevent him afterwards from having sexual intercourse without a justifiable excuse.
Marriage (Part II of II)
Mut’ah (Temporary Marriage)
2430. Contracting a temporary marriage with a woman is in order, even if it may not be for the
sake of any sexual pleasure.
2431. The obligatory precaution is that a husband should not avoid having sexual intercourse for
more than four months with a wife of temporary marriage.
2432. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, makes a condition that her
husband will not have sexual intercourse with her, the marriage as well as the condition imposed
by her will be valid, and the husband can then derive only other pleasures from her. However, if
she agrees to sexual intercourse later, her husband can have sexual intercourse with her, and this
rule applies to permanent marriage as well.
2433. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to subsistence even
if she becomes pregnant.
2434. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to share the
conjugal bed of her husband, and does not inherit from him, and the husband, too, does not
inherit from her. However, if one or both lay down a condition regarding inheriting each other,
such a stipulation is a matter of Ishkal as far as its validity is concerned, but even then,
precaution should be exercised by putting it into effect.
2435. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, did not know that she was not
entitled to any subsistence and sharing her husband’s conjugal bed, still her marriage will be
valid, and in spite of this lack of knowledge, she has no right to claim anything from her
husband.
379
2436. If a wife of temporary marriage goes out of the house without the permission of her
husband, and the right of the husband is in anyway violated, it is haraam for her to leave. And if
the right of her husband remains protected, it is a recommended precaution that she should not
leave the house without his permission.
2437. If a woman empowers a man that he may contract a temporary marriage with her for a
fixed period, and against a specified amount of Mahr, and instead, that man contracts a
permanent marriage with her, or contracts a temporary marriage with her without specifying the
time or amount of Mahr, the marriage will be void. But if the woman consents to it on
understanding the position, then the marriage will be valid.
2438. In order to become Mahram (with whom marriage contract becomes haraam and is treated
to be one of the close relatives), a father or a paternal grandfather can contract the marriage of
his non-baligh son or daughter with another person for a short period, provided that it does not
involve any scandal or moral lapse. However, if they marry a minor boy or a girl who is not in
anyway able to derive any sexual pleasure during the period from the spouse, then the validity of
such a marriage is a matter of Ishkal.
2439. If the father or the paternal grandfather of an absent child marries it to someone for the
sake of becoming Mahram, not knowing whether the child is alive or dead, the purpose will be
achieved only if during the period fixed for marriage, the child can become capable of
consummating marriage. If it later transpires that it was not alive at the time the marriage was
contracted, it will be considered void, and the people who had apparently become Mahram will
all become Na-Mahram.
2440. If a husband gifts the wife of Muta’h with the period of her temporary marriage, thus
releasing her, and if he has had sexual intercourse with her, he should give her all the things he
agreed to give her. And if he has not had sexual intercourse with her, it is obligatory on him to
give her half the amount of Mahr, though the recommended precaution is that he should give her
full amount of Mahr.
2441. If a man contracted a temporary marriage with a woman, and the period of her Iddah has
not ended yet, he is allowed to contract a permanent marriage with her or renew a contract for
temporary marriage with her.
Looking At Non-Mahram
2442. It is haraam for man to look at the body or hair of the Non-Mahram women, regardless of
whether it is with the intention of pleasure or not, and whether there is a fear of falling into sinful
act or not. It is also haraam to look at the faces and the arms, up to the wrists, of such women
with the intention of pleasure, or if there is fear of falling into sinful act, and the recommended
precaution is that one should not look at their faces or arms even without such an intention.
Similarly, it is haraam for a woman to look at the body of Non-Mahram man, except places
which are customarily not covered, like, his face, hands, head, neck and feet. She can look at
these parts of a man without the intention of deriving any pleasure, or if there is no fear of being
entrapped in any sinful act.
380
2443. To look at the body of a woman who would not care for Hijab, even if she were advised, is
not haraam, provided that it does not lead to sinful act or sexual pleasure, and excitement, nor is
it with that intention; and in this rule, there is no distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim
woman; and also between those parts, like their faces, their hands which they normally do not
cover, and other parts of their bodies.
2444. Woman should conceal her body and hair from a man who is non-Mahram, and as an
obligatory precaution, she should conceal herself even from a non-baligh boy who is able to
discern between good and evil, and could probably be sexually excited. But she can leave her
face and hands up to wrists uncovered in the presence of non-Mahram, as long as it does not lead
him to casting a sinful, evil glance or her to doing something forbidden; for in both these cases,
she must cover them.
2445. It is haraam to look at the private parts of a baligh Muslim, even if it is seen behind the
glass or reflected in the mirror, or clean water etc. As an obligatory precaution, it is also haraam
to look at the genitals of a non-Muslim, and of a discerning non-baligh child. However, wife and
her husband can look at the entire body of each other.
2446. If a man and woman, who are Mahram of each other, do not have the intention of sexual
pleasure, they can see the entire body of each other excepting the private parts.
2447. A man should not look at the body of another man with the intention of sexual excitement,
and also, it is haraam for a woman to look at the body of another woman with the intention of
sexual excitement.
2448. A man who is acquainted with a Na-Mahram woman should not, as a precaution, look at
her photograph etc., provided that the woman is not a heedless, commonplace person.
2449. If a woman wants to give an enema to another woman, or to a man other than her husband,
or to clean her/his private parts with water, she should cover her hand with such a thing that her
hand would not touch the private parts of the other woman or man. And the same applies to a
man who wants to give an enema to another man or a woman other than his wife, or to clean
his/her private parts with water.
2450. If a woman is rendered helpless by her disease, and if the only helpful treatment to her can
be given by a male doctor, she can refer to him. And if that male doctor must look at her to be
able to treat her, or to touch her for that matter, there is no objection. However, if he can treat
her by looking at her, he should not touch her body, and if he can treat her by touching her body,
he should not look at her.
2451. If a person is obliged to look at the private parts of a patient for his/her medical treatment,
he should, on the basis of obligatory precaution, place a mirror opposite him/her and look into it.
However, if there is no alternative but to look directly at his/her private parts, there is no
objection. Similarly, if the duration of regarding the genitals in the mirror would be longer than
looking at them directly, the latter method may be adopted.
381
Miscellaneous Rules Concerning Marriage
2452. If a person gets entangled in haraam acts owing to his not having a wife, it is obligatory for
him to marry.
2453. If the husband makes it a condition before Nikah, that the woman should be a virgin, and it
transpires after Nikah that she is not virgin, he can repudiate the marriage. However, he can
deduct and take the difference between the Mahr usually paid for a virgin woman and the one
who is not a virgin.
2454. It is haraam for a man and a woman who are not Mahrams, to be together at a private place
where there is no one else, if it is feared to lead to immorality and scandal, even if it is a place
where another person can easily arrive. But if there is no fear of any evil, there is no objection.
2455. If the man fixes the Mahr of the woman at the time of Nikah, but intends not to give it, the
marriage contract is in order, but he will be indebted to her.
2456. A Muslim who renounces Islam and adopts a non-Muslim faith, is an apostate, and they
are of two types: Fitri and Milli. Fitri apostate is one whose parents or one of them were Muslims
when he was born, and he himself was also a Muslim, till after having reached the discerning
age, and thereafter he converted to become a non-Muslim. A Milli is exactly the opposite.
2457. If a woman becomes an apostate after marriage, her marriage becomes void, and if her
husband has not had sexual intercourse with her, she is not required to observe any Iddah. And
the position will be the same if she apostatizes after sexual relation, but she had reached
menopause (Ya’isa), or if she was a minor. And if she had not reached menopause, she should
observe Iddah as will be explained in the rules of ‘divorce’. And it is commonly held that if she
becomes a Muslim during her Iddah, her marriage remains intact. However, it is improbable that
this should be valid, and therefore, precaution should not be abandoned. A Ya’isa is a woman
who has reached 50 years of age, and because of that advanced age, stops seeing Haidh and does
not expect to see it again in her life.
2458. If a man becomes a Fitri apostate after Nikah, his wife becomes haraam for him and she
should observe Iddah of death in the manner which will be explained in the rules relating to
‘divorce’.
2459. If a man becomes a Milli apostate after Nikah, his marriage becomes void. And if he has
not had sexual intercourse with his wife, or if she has reached menopause, or if she is a minor,
she need not observe Iddah. But if he apostatizes after having sexual intercourse with his wife,
who happens to be of the age of women who normally have menstrual discharge, she should
observe Iddah of ‘divorce’ which will be mentioned under the rules relating to ‘divorce’. And it
is commonly held that if her husband becomes a Muslim before the completion of her Iddah,
their marriage remains intact. However, it is improbable that this be correct, but, precaution
should not be abandoned.
382
2460. If the woman imposes a condition at the time of Nikah that her husband will not take her
out of the town, and the man also accepts this condition, he should not take her out of that town
against her will.
2461. If a woman has a daughter from her former husband, her second husband can marry that
girl to his son, who is not from this wife. Also, if a person marries his son to a girl, he himself
can marry the mother of that girl.
2462. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of fornication or adultery, it is not permissible for
her to have an abortion.
2463. If a man commits fornication with a woman who has no husband, nor is she in any Iddah,
and later marries her, and a child is born to them, and they do not know whether the child is the
outcome of legitimate relation or otherwise, the child will be considered legitimate.
2464. If a man does not know that a woman is in her Iddah and marries her, and if the woman,
too, does not know (that she is in her Iddah), and a child is born to them, the child is legitimate
and according to Shari’ahh belongs to both of them. However, if the woman was aware that she
was in her Iddah, and that during Iddah marriage is not permissible, the child according to
Shari’ahh belongs to the father, and in either case their marriage is void, and they are haraam for
each other.
2465. If a woman says that she has reached menopause, her word may not be accepted, but if she
says that she does not have a husband, her word is acceptable, except when she is known to be
unreliable, in which case, investigation will be necessary.
2466. If a man marries a woman after her assertion that she does not have a husband, and if some
one claims later that she was his wife, his claim will not be heeded unless it is proved to be true
according to Shari’ahh laws.
2467. Until a son or a daughter completes two years of his/her age, his/her father cannot separate
him/her from his/her mother. And as a precaution, a child should not be separated from its
mother till it is seven years of age.
2468. If a person proposing marriage is known for his virtues and faith, then it is recommended
that his proposal should not be rejected. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is reported to have said:
“Whenever you receive a proposal for marriage on your daughter from a man whose virtue and
piety pleases you, then give her hand in his in marriage. For if you do not do this way, great
scandals and lapses will fill the earth.”
2469. If a woman compromises her Mahr with her husband, on a condition that he will not marry
another woman, it is obligatory upon him that he does not marry another woman, and that the
wife should not claim her Mahr.
2470. If an illegitimate person marries, and a child is born to him, that child is legitimate.
383
2471. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife during fast in the month of Ramadan or when
she is in her menses, he commits a sin, but if a child is conceived, it is legitimate.
2472. If a woman who is sure that her husband died while on a journey, marries another man
after completing the Iddah of death, (which will be explained in the rules relating to ‘divorce’)
and later her first husband returns from journey, she should immediately separate herself from
her second husband, and she will be halal for her first husband. But, if the second husband has
had sexual intercourse with her, she should observe Iddah and the second husband should give
her proper Mahr equal to that of the women similar to her category, but she is not entitled to
subsistence during Iddah.
Rules Regarding Suckling a Child
2473. If a woman suckles a child with the conditions which will be mentioned in rule 2483, that
child becomes Mahram of the following persons:
(i) The woman herself (i.e. the woman who suckles it) and she is called Riza’i mother (milk
mother).
(ii) The husband of the woman (for the milk belongs to him); he is called Riza’i father (milk
father).
(iii) Father and mother of that woman and all in their upward line, even if they are milk father
and milk mother.
(iv) The children born of that woman, or those who are born to her later.
(v) The children of the children of that woman, however low, regardless of whether they are born
of her children or her children had suckled them.
(vi) The sister and brother of that woman, even if they are her milk sister and milk brother.
(vii) Paternal uncle and paternal aunt of that woman, even if they are by milk, i.e. suckling.
(viii) Maternal uncle and maternal aunt of that woman, even if they are by milk i.e. suckling.
(ix) The descendants of the husband of that woman, (to whom milk belongs) even if they may be
his milk children.
(x) Father and mother of that husband (to whom milk belongs), however high.
(xi) Sister and brother of the husband, (to whom milk belongs) even if they may be his milk
sister and brother.
(xii) Paternal uncle and paternal aunt and maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the husband, (to
whom milk belongs) however high, even if they are his milk uncles and aunts.
384
There are other persons also (details regarding whom will be given in the following rules) who
become Mahram on account of sucking milk.
2474. If a woman suckles a child with the condition which will be mentioned in rule 2483, the
father of the child cannot marry the daughters of that woman, but it is permissible for him to
marry her milk daughters, although the recommended precaution is that he should not marry
them. Moreover, he cannot marry the daughters of the husband also (to whom milk belongs),
even if they may be his milk daughters. And if any one of them happens to be his wife already,
his marriage becomes void.
2475. If a woman suckles a child with the conditions mentioned in rule 2483, the husband of that
woman (to whom milk belongs) does not become Mahram of the sisters of that child, but the
recommended precaution is that he should not marry them. Also, the relatives of the husband do
not become Mahram of the sister and brother of that child.
2476. If a woman suckles a child, she does not become Mahram of the brothers of that child.
Moreover, the relatives of that woman do not become Mahram of the brother and sister of the
child suckled by her.
2477. If a person marries a woman who has suckled a girl fully, and if he has had sexual
intercourse with her, he cannot marry that milk girl.
2478. If a person marries a girl, he cannot marry the woman who has suckled her fully.
2479. A man cannot marry a girl who has been suckled fully by his mother or paternal
grandmother. Also, if his step-mother suckles a girl from the milk belonging to his father, he
cannot marry that girl. And if a person contracts Nikah with a suckling girl, and thereafter, his
mother or his paternal grandmother or his step-mother suckles that girl, the Nikah becomes void.
2480. A man cannot marry a girl who has been suckled fully by his sister, or by his brother’s
wife. And the position is the same if that girl is suckled by that man’s niece (sister’s daughter or
brother’s daughter) or the granddaughter of his sister or the granddaughter of his brother.
2481. If a woman suckles the child of her daughter i.e. her granddaughter, or grandson, the
daughter will become haraam for her own husband, and the same applies if she suckles the child
of the husband of her daughter from another wife. But if a woman suckles the child of her son,
the wife of her son who is the mother of the suckling child, does not become haraam for her
husband.
2482. If the step mother of a girl suckles the child of her husband, with the milk that belongs to
the girl’s father, the girl becomes haraam for her husband regardless of whether the child is the
offspring of that very girl or of some other woman.
Conditions of Suckling Which Causes to be Mahram
385
2483. The following are the eight conditions under which suckling child becomes the cause of
being Mahram.
(i) That the child sucks the milk of a woman who is alive. It is of no consequence if milk is
drawn from the breast of a woman who is dead.
(ii) That the milk of the woman should not be the product of fornication or adultery. Hence, if
the milk for an illegitimate child is breastfed to another child, the latter will not become Mahram
of anyone.
(iii) That the child sucks milk directly from the breasts of the woman. Hence, if milk is poured
into its mouth, it has no consequence.
(iv) That the milk be pure and unadulterated.
(v) That the milk be of one husband only. Hence, if a breast-feeding woman is divorced and then
she marries another man by whom she becomes pregnant, if the milk of the first pregnancy still
continues from the breast till she gives birth to the other child, and she feeds any child eight
times with the milk from her first pregnancy before giving birth, and feeds the same child seven
times with the milk from the second pregnancy, after giving birth, that child will not become
Mahram of anyone.
(vi) That the child does not throw up the milk due to illness. If it vomits the milk, the suckling
has no effect.
(vii) The suckling should be of such quantity that it could be said that the bones of the child were
strengthened and the flesh allowed to grow. And if that cannot be ascertained, then if a child
suckles for one full day and night, or if it suckles fifteen times to its fill, as will be explained
later, it will be sufficient. But if it is known that in spite of the child having suckled for one full
day and night, or for fifteen times, the milk has not had any effect on the bones and the growth of
flesh of the child, then one should not ignore exercising the precaution.
(viii) That the child should not have completed two years of his age, and, if it is suckled after it
has completed two years of its age, it does not become Mahram of anyone. In fact, if, for
example, it sucks milk eight times before completing its two years, and seven times after
completing its two years, it does not become Mahram of anyone. But, if milk continues from the
breast for more than two years since a woman gave birth to her child, and she suckles the child
continuously, that child will become Mahram of those who have been mentioned above.
2484. It is necessary that the suckling child should not have taken any other food, or sucked milk
from any other person, during one full day and night. However, it takes very little food, so little
that one may not say that it has taken any food in between, there is no harm in it. Also, it should
have suckled the milk of only one woman fifteen times, and during these fifteen times, it should
not have sucked the milk of any other woman. And it should have sucked milk every time
without a gap, though, if while suckling milk it pauses to breathe, or waits a little, in a manner
that from the time it started till the end, it is taken as one suckling, there is no objection.
386
2485. If a woman suckles a child from the milk of her husband, and when she later marries
another man, suckles another child from the milk of her second husband, those two children do
not become Mahram of each other, although it is better that they do not marry each other.
2486. If a woman suckles several children from the milk of one husband, all of them become
Mahram of one another, as well as of the husband, and of the woman who suckled them.
2487. If a man has more than one wife, and every one of them suckles a child in accordance with
the conditions mentioned above, all those children become Mahram of one another, as well as of
that man, and of all those wives.
2488. If a man has two nursing wives, and if, for example, one of them suckles the child eight
times and the other suckles it seven times, the child does not become Mahram of any one of
them.
2489. If a woman gives full milk to a boy and a girl from the milk of one husband, the sisters and
brothers of that girl will not become Mahram of the sisters and brothers of that boy.
2490. A man cannot marry without the permission of his wife, those women who became her
nieces (sister’s daughter or brother’s daughter) owing to the suckling of milk. Also, if a person
commits sodomy with a boy, he cannot marry his milk daughter, sister, mother and paternal
grandmother by means of sucking milk. This rule applies also in the situation where an active
partner in sodomy is not baligh, or when the passive partner is baligh.
2491. A woman who suckles the brother of a person does not become Mahram of that person,
although the recommended precaution is that he should not marry her.
2492. A man cannot marry two sisters even if they may be milk sisters, that is, they have become
sisters by means of suckling milk. If he marries two women and understands later that they are
sisters, if he married them at one and the same time, both the Nikah will be void. But if he did
not marry them at one time, the first marriage will be valid, and the second will be void.
2493. If a woman suckles the following persons from her husband’s milk, her husband does not
become haraam for her, although it is better to observe precaution.
(i) Her own brother and sister.
(ii) Her own paternal uncle and paternal aunt, and maternal uncle and maternal aunt.
(iii) The descendants of her paternal uncle and her maternal uncle.
(iv) Her nephew (brother’s son).
(v) Brother or sister of her husband.
(vi) Children of her sister, or children of her husband’s sister.
387
(vii) Paternal uncle and paternal aunt and maternal uncle and maternal aunt of her husband.
(viii) Grand children of another wife of her husband.
2494. If a woman suckles the paternal aunt’s daughter, or maternal aunt’s daughter of a man, she
(the woman who suckles) does not become Mahram of that man. However, the recommended
precaution is that he should refrain from marrying that woman.
2495. If a man has two wives, and one of them suckles the paternal uncle’s son of the other wife,
the wife who suckled does not become haraam for her husband.
How To Breast Feed A Child
2496. The child’s mother is the best person to suckle a child. It is better that she does not claim
any award from her husband for suckling the child, although it is good that he should reward her
for that. However, if the mother demands more payment for suckling than a wet-nurse, her
husband can entrust the child to the wet-nurse.
2497. It is recommended that the wet-nurse, whose services are obtained for a child, should be
Shia Ithna-Asheri, sane, chaste, and good looking; and it is Makrooh for a wet-nurse to be a non-
Shia Ithna-Asheri or ugly, ill-humoured or illegitimate. It is also Makrooh to entrust the child to
a wet-nurse who has given birth to an illegitimate child.
Miscellaneous Rules Regarding Nursing a Child
2498. It is recommended that a woman avoids suckling any and every child, because it is
possible that she may forget as to which of them she has suckled, and later the two persons, who
are Mahram to each other, may contract marriage.
2499. It is recommended, if possible, that a child is suckled for full 21 months. And it is not
preferred that it be suckled for more than two years.
2500. If the right of the husband is not in any way violated by suckling, a wife may suckle the
child of another person without the permission of her husband.
2501. If a man contracts Nikah with a suckling girl, and the wife of that man suckles her, then it
is considered that the wife becomes the mother-in-law of her husband, and therefore, becomes
haraam for him. Although this consideration is not free from Ishkal, yet precaution should not be
ignored.
2502. If a person wants that his sister-in-law (his brother’s wife) may become his Mahram, he
may contract a temporary Nikah with a suckling girl, for example, for two days, and during those
two days, the wife of his brother may suckle that girl as mentioned in rule no. 2483. By so
doing, she will become his mother-in-law, and thus be Mahram. But if the woman suckles the
girl from his brother’s milk, it is a matter of Ishkal.
388
2503. If a man says before marrying a woman, that the woman he is marrying is his milk sister,
she is haraam for him, if his statement is verified as true. And if he says this after the marriage,
and the woman also confirms his word, the marriage is void. Hence, if the man has not had
sexual intercourse with her, or has had sexual intercourse but at the time of sexual intercourse the
woman knew that she was haraam for him, she is not entitled to any Mahr. And if she learns
after sexual intercourse that she was haraam for the man, the husband should pay her Mahr
according to the usual Mahr of other women like her.
2504. If a woman says, before marriage, that she is haraam for a man because she is his milk
sister, and if it is possible to verify her statement as true, she cannot marry that man. And if she
says this after marriage, it is like the man saying after marriage that the woman is haraam for
him, and the rule in this situation has been given in the foregoing clause.
2505. Suckling a child, which becomes the cause of being Mahram, can be established by the
following two ways:
(i) Information in this behalf by a number of persons whose word is reliable.
(ii) Two just men testify to this fact. It is, however, necessary that they should also mention the
conditions of suckling the child. For example, they should be able to say, “We have seen the
child for twenty four hours, sucking milk from the breasts of a woman, and during this time he
has not eaten anything else.” And similarly, they should also narrate in detail, the conditions
which have been mentioned in rule no.
2483. Witness by one man or two or four women, even if they are Adil, is a matter of Ishkal for
establishing that the child has suckled from a particular woman.
2506. If it is doubted whether or not a child has sucked the quantity of milk which becomes the
cause of becoming Mahram, or if it is considered probable that it might have sucked that quantity
of milk, the child does not become Mahram of anyone, though it is better to observe precaution.
389
Appendix C: Verses where the Koran attaches Allah’s will to
Muhammad’s will
The Cow
• [2.278] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Observe your duty to Allah, and give up what
remaineth (due to you) from usury, if ye are (in truth) believers.
[2.279] And if ye do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His
messenger. And if ye repent, then ye have your principal (without interest). Wrong not,
and ye shall not be wronged.
• [2.285] PICKTHAL: The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto
him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and
His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His
messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord.
Unto Thee is the journeying.
The Family of Imran
• [3.179] PICKTHAL: It is not (the purpose) of Allah to leave you in your present state
till He shall separate the wicked from the good. And it is not (the purpose of) Allah to let
you know the Unseen. But Allah chooseth of His messengers whom He will, (to receive
knowledge thereof). So believe in Allah and His messengers. If ye believe and ward off
(evil), yours will be a vast reward.
The Women
• [4.13] PICKTHAL: These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Whoso obeyeth Allah and
His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where
such will dwell for ever. That will be the great success.
[4.14] And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He
will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.
• [4.100] YUSUF ALI: He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth
Many a refuge, wide and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and
His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah: And Allah is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.
• [4.136] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the
Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He
revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and
His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered far astray.
390
• [4.150] PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek
to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and
disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between.
[4.151] Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.
[4.152] But those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction
between any of them, unto them Allah will give their wages; and Allah was ever
Forgiving, Merciful.
The Dinner Table
• [5.33] PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His
messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or
crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of
the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be
an awful doom;
• [5.55] PICKTHAL: Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who
believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).
[5.56] And whoso taketh Allah and His messenger and those who believe for guardian
(will know that), lo! The party of Allah, they are the victorious.
The Elevated Places
• [7.158] PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of

Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the
heavens and the earth. There is no Allah save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death.
So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who
believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright.
The Accessions
• [8.1] PICKTHAL: They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils
of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the
matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.
• [8.13] PICKTHAL: That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso
opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.
• [8.20] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His messenger, and turn not
away from him when ye hear (him speak).
• [8.24] PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and the messenger when He calleth
you to that which quickeneth you, and know that Allah cometh in between the man and
his own heart, and that He it is unto Whom ye will be gathered.
391
• [8.46] PICKTHAL: And obey Allah and His messenger, and dispute not one with
another lest ye falter and your strength departs from you; but be steadfast! Lo! Allah is
with the steadfast.
The Immunity
• [9.1] YUSUF ALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those
of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
[9.2] Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the
land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will
cover with shame those who reject Him.
[9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on
the day of the Great Pilgrimage, - that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty)
obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away,
know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who
reject Faith.
• [9.16] YUSUF ALI: Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though Allah did not
know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and
protectors except Allah, His Messenger, and the (community of) Believers? But Allah is
well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.
• [9.24] YUSUF ALI: Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates,
or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline:
or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or
the striving in His cause; - then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah
guides not the rebellious.
• [9.29] PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as
believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by
His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute (tax, Jizya)
readily, being brought low.
• [9.59] YUSUF ALI: If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger
gave them, and had said, "Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon
give us of His bounty: to Allah do we turn our hopes!" (that would have been the right
course).
• [9.61] PICKTHAL: And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a
hearer. Say: A hearer of good for you, who believeth in Allah and is true to the believers,
and a mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them
there is a painful doom.
[9.62] They swear by Allah to you (Muslims) to please you, but Allah, with His
messenger, hath more right that they should please Him if they are believers.
[9.63] Know they not that whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, his verily is fire of
hell, to abide therein? That is the extreme abasement.
392
[9.64] The hypocrites fear lest a surah should be revealed concerning them, proclaiming
what is in their hearts. Say: Scoff (your fill)! Lo! Allah is disclosing what ye fear.
[9.65] And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say:
Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff?
• [9.71] PICKTHAL: And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of
another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they
pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have
mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise.
• [9.74] YUSUF ALI: They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they
uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which
they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty
with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best
for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous
penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help
them.
• [9.80] PICKTHAL: Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness
for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive
them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth
not wrongdoing folk.
• [9.84] PICKTHAL: And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor
stand by his grave. Lo! They disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and they died
while they were evil-doers.
• [9.88] YUSUF ALI: But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight
with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will
prosper.
[9.89] Allah hath prepared for them gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein:
that is the supreme felicity.
[9.90] And there were, among the desert Arabs (also), men who made excuses and came
to claim exemption; and those who were false to Allah and His Messenger (merely) sat
inactive. Soon will a grievous penalty seize the Unbelievers among them.
[9.91] There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to
spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger: no ground
(of complaint) can there be against such as do right: and Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most
Merciful.
• [9.94] YUSUF ALI: They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say
thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of
the true state of matters concerning you: It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger
will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and
what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did."
393
• [9.107] PICKTHAL: And as for those who chose a place of worship out of opposition
and disbelief, and in order to cause dissent among the believers, and as an outpost for
those who warred against Allah and His messenger aforetime, they will surely swear: We
purposed naught save good. Allah beareth witness that they verily are liars.
The Light
• [24.48] YUSUF ALI: When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order
that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come).
[24.49] But if the right is on their side, they come to him with all submission.
[24.50] Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? Or do they doubt, or are they in fear,
that Allah and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves
who do wrong.
[24.51] The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in
order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we
obey”: it is such as these that will attain felicity.
[24.52] It is such as obey Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah and do right, that will
win (in the end),
• [24.62] PICKTHAL: They only are the true believers who believe in Allah and His
messenger and, when they are with him on some common errand, go not away until they
have asked leave of him. Lo! Those who ask leave of thee, those are they who believe in
Allah and His messenger. So, if they ask thy leave for some affair of theirs, give leave to
whom thou wilt of them, and ask for them forgiveness of Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.
The Clans
• [33.12] PICKTHAL: And when the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease,
were saying: Allah and His messenger promised us naught but delusion.
• [33.22] YUSUF ALI: When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: “This is
what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us
what was true.” And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience.
• [33.29] PICKTHAL: But if ye desire Allah and His messenger and the abode of the
Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense reward.
[33.30] O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the
punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.
[33.31] And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth
right, We shall give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich
provision.
[33.32] O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your
duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to
you), but utter customary speech.
[33.33] And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the
394
Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His
messenger. Allah’s wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the
Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing.
• [33.36] PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when
Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that)
claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he
verily goeth astray in error manifest.
• [33.57] YUSUF ALI: Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed
them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating
Punishment.
• [33.71] PICKTHAL: He will adjust your works for you and will forgive you your sins.
Whosoever obeyeth Allah and His messenger, he verily hath gained a signal victory.
The Victory
• [48.9] PICKTHAL: That ye (mankind) may believe in Allah and His messenger, and
may honour Him, and may revere Him, and may glorify Him at early dawn and at the
close of day.
• [48.13] PICKTHAL: And so for him who believeth not in Allah and His messenger -
Lo! We have prepared a flame for disbelievers.
• [48.17] PICKTHAL: There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame,
nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah
and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and
whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.
The Chambers
• [49.1] YUSUF ALI: O Ye who believe! Put not yourselves forward before Allah and
His Messenger; but fear Allah: for Allah is He Who hears and knows all things.
[49.2] O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak
aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain
and ye perceive not.
[49.3] Those that lower their voices in the presence of Allah’s Messenger, - their hearts
has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.
[49.4] Those who shout out to thee from without the inner apartments - most of them lack
understanding.
[49.5] If only they had patience until thou couldst come out to them, it would be best for
them: but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
• [49.14] PICKTHAL: The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O
Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say “We submit,” for the faith hath not yet
395
entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold
from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[49.15] The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and
afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.
Such are the sincere.
The Iron
• [57.7] PICKTHAL: Believe in Allah and His messenger, and spend of that whereof He
hath made you trustees; and such of you as believe and spend (aright), theirs will be a
great reward.
• [57.19] PICKTHAL: And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the
loyal, and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and their light; while as
for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell-fire.
• [57.21] PICKTHAL: Race one with another for forgiveness from your Lord and a
Garden whereof the breadth is as the breadth of the heavens and the earth, which is in
store for those who believe in Allah and His messengers. Such is the bounty of Allah,
which He bestoweth upon whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty.
• [57.25] PICKTHAL: We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed
with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right measure; and
He revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and (many) uses for mankind, and that Allah
may know him who helpeth Him and His messengers, though unseen. Lo! Allah is
Strong, Almighty.
She Who Pleaded
• [58.3] PICKTHAL: Those who put away their wives (by saying they are as their
mothers) and afterward would go back on that which they have said, (the penalty) in that
case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. Unto this ye are exhorted;
and Allah is Informed of what ye do.
[58.4] And he who findeth not (the wherewithal), let him fast for two successive months
before they touch one another; and for him who is unable to do so (the penance is) the
feeding of sixty needy ones. This, that ye may put trust in Allah and His messenger.
Such are the limits (imposed by Allah); and for disbelievers is a painful doom.
[58.5] Lo! Those who oppose Allah and His messenger will be abased even as those
before them were abased; and We have sent down clear tokens, and for disbelievers is a
shameful doom.
• [58.13] YUSUF ALI: Is it that ye are afraid of spending sums in charity before your
private consultation (with him)? If, then, ye do not so, and Allah forgives you, then (at
least) establish regular prayer; practice regular charity; and obey Allah and His
Messenger. And Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.
396
• [58.20] YUSUF ALI: Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be among those
most humiliated.
[58.21] Allah has decreed: “It is I and My messengers who must prevail”: For Allah is
One full of strength, able to enforce His Will.
[58.22] Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving
those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their
sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and
strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens
beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with
them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that
will achieve Felicity.
The Banishment
• [59.4] YUSUF ALI: That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any
one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in Punishment.
• [59.8] PICKTHAL: And (it is) for the poor fugitives who have been driven out from
their homes and their belongings, who seek bounty from Allah and help Allah and His
messenger. They are the loyal.
The Mutual Deceit
• [64.8] PICKTHAL: So believe in Allah and His messenger and the light which We have
revealed. And Allah is Informed of what ye do.
The Divorce
• [65.8] YUSUF ALI: How many populations that insolently opposed the Command of
their Lord and of His messengers, did We not then call to account, - to severe account?-
and We imposed on them an exemplary Punishment.
The Jinn
• [72.23] PICKTHAL: (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His
messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! His is fire of hell,
wherein such dwell for ever.
397
Appendix D: Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights
21 Dhul Qaidah 1401 19 September 1981
This is a declaration for mankind, a guidance and instruction to those who fear God.
(Al Qur’an, Al-Imran 3:138)
Foreword
Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at
conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice.
Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the belief that God, and God alone, is the Law Giver
and the Source of all human rights. Due to their Divine origin, no ruler, government, assembly
or authority can curtail or violate in any way the human rights conferred by God, nor can they be
surrendered.
Human rights in Islam are an integral part of the overall Islamic order and it is obligatory on all
Muslim governments and organs of society to implement them in letter and in spirit within the
framework of that order.
…
This Declaration of Human Rights is the second fundamental document proclaimed by the
Islamic Council to mark the beginning of the 15th Century of the Islamic era, the first being the
Universal Islamic Declaration announced at the International Conference on The Prophet
Muhammad…and his Message, held in London from 12 to 15 April 1980.
…
Paris 21 Dhul Qaidah 1401 Salem Azzam
19th September 1981 Secretary General
O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into
nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the
sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all
aware. (Al Qur’an, Al-Hujurat 49:13)
Preamble
WHEREAS the age-old human aspiration for a just world order wherein people could live,
develop and prosper in an environment free from fear, oppression, exploitation and deprivation,
remains largely unfulfilled;
WHEREAS the Divine Mercy unto mankind reflected in its having been endowed with super-
abundant economic sustenance is being wasted, or unfairly or unjustly withheld from the
inhabitants of the earth;
398
WHEREAS Allah (God) has given mankind through His revelations in the Holy Qur’an and the
Sunnah of His Blessed Prophet Muhammad an abiding legal and moral framework within which
to establish and regulate human institutions and relationships;
WHEREAS the human rights decreed by the Divine Law aim at conferring dignity and honour on
mankind and are designed to eliminate oppression and injustice;
WHEREAS by virtue of their Divine source and sanction these rights can neither be curtailed,
abrogated or disregarded by authorities, assemblies or other institutions, nor can they be
surrendered or alienated;
Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe
a) in God, the Beneficent and Merciful, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Sovereign, the sole Guide
of mankind and the Source of all Law;
b) in the Viceregency (Khilafah) of man who has been created to fulfill the Will of God on
earth;
c) in the wisdom of Divine guidance brought by the Prophets, whose mission found its
culmination in the final Divine message that was conveyed by the Prophet Muhammad
(Peace be upon him) to all mankind;
d) that rationality by itself without the light of revelation from God can neither be a sure guide
in the affairs of mankind nor provide spiritual nourishment to the human soul, and, knowing
that the teachings of Islam represent the quintessence of Divine guidance in its final and
perfect form, feel duty-bound to remind man of the high status and dignity bestowed on him
by God;
e) in inviting all mankind to the message of Islam;
f) that by the terms of our primeval covenant with God our duties and obligations have priority
over our rights, and that each one of us is under a bounden duty to spread the teachings of
Islam by word, deed, and indeed in all gentle ways, and to make them effective not only in
our individual lives but also in the society around us;
g) in our obligation to establish an Islamic order:
i) wherein all human beings shall be equal and none shall enjoy a privilege or suffer a
disadvantage or discrimination by reason of race, colour, sex, origin or language;
ii) wherein all human beings are born free;
iii) wherein slavery and forced labour are abhorred;
iv) wherein conditions shall be established such that the institution of family shall be
preserved, protected and honoured as the basis of all social life;
v) wherein the rulers and the ruled alike are subject to, and equal before, the Law;
vi) wherein obedience shall be rendered only to those commands that are in consonance with
the Law;
vii) wherein all worldly power shall be considered as a sacred trust, to be exercised within the
limits prescribed by the Law and in a manner approved by it, and with due regard for the
priorities fixed by it;
viii)wherein all economic resources shall be treated as Divine blessings bestowed upon
mankind, to be enjoyed by all in accordance with the rules and the values set out in the
Qur’an and the Sunnah;
399
ix) wherein all public affairs shall be determined and conducted, and the authority to
administer them shall be exercised after mutual consultation (Shura) between the
believers qualified to contribute to a decision which would accord well with the Law and
the public good;
x) wherein everyone shall undertake obligations proportionate to his capacity and shall be
held responsible pro rata for his deeds;
xi) wherein everyone shall, in case of an infringement of his rights, be assured of appropriate
remedial measures in accordance with the Law;
xii) wherein no one shall be deprived of the rights assured to him by the Law except by its
authority and to the extent permitted by it;
xiii)wherein every individual shall have the right to bring legal action against anyone who
commits a crime against society as a whole or against any of its members;
xiv)wherein every effort shall be made to:
(a) secure unto mankind deliverance from every type of exploitation, injustice and
oppression,
(b) ensure to everyone security, dignity and liberty in terms set out and by methods
approved and within the limits set by the Law;
Do hereby, as servants of Allah and as members of the Universal Brotherhood of Islam, at the
beginning of the Fifteenth Century of the Islamic Era, affirm our commitment to uphold the
following inviolable and inalienable human rights that we consider are enjoined by Islam.
Explanatory Notes
1 In the [following] formulation of Human Rights, unless the context provides otherwise:
a) the term ‘person’ refers to both the male and female sexes.
b) the term ‘Law’ denotes the Shari’ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the
Qur’an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by
methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence.
2 Each one of the Human Rights enunciated in this declaration carries a corresponding duty.
3 In the exercise and enjoyment of the rights referred to above every person shall be subject
only to such limitations as are enjoined by the Law for the purpose of securing the due
recognition of, and respect for, the rights and the freedom of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare of the Community (Ummah).
The Arabic text of this Declaration is the original.
I Right to Life
a) Human life is sacred and inviolable and every effort shall be made to protect it. In particular
no one shall be exposed to injury or death, except under the authority of the Law.
b) Just as in life, so also after death, the sanctity of a person’s body shall be inviolable. It is the
obligation of believers to see that a deceased person’s body is handled with due solemnity.
II Right to Freedom
a) Man is born free. No inroads shall be made on his right to liberty except under the authority
and in due process of the Law.
400
b) Every individual and every people has the inalienable right to freedom in all its forms⎯
physical, cultural, economic and political — and shall be entitled to struggle by all available
means against any infringement or abrogation of this right; and every oppressed individual or
people has a legitimate claim to the support of other individuals and/or peoples in such a
struggle.
III Right to Equality and Prohibition Against Impermissible Discrimination

a) All persons are equal before the Law and are entitled to equal opportunities and protection of
the Law.
b) All persons shall be entitled to equal wage for equal work.
c) No person shall be denied the opportunity to work or be discriminated against in any manner
or exposed to greater physical risk by reason of religious belief, colour, race, origin, sex or
language.
IV Right to Justice
a) Every person has the right to be treated in accordance with the Law, and only in accordance
with the Law.
b) Every person has not only the right but also the obligation to protest against injustice; to
recourse to remedies provided by the Law in respect of any unwarranted personal injury or
loss; to self-defense against any charges that are preferred against him and to obtain fair
adjudication before an independent judicial tribunal in any dispute with public authorities or
any other person.
c) It is the right and duty of every person to defend the rights of any other person and the
community in general (Hisbah).
d) No person shall be discriminated against while seeking to defend private and public rights.
e) It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to
the Law, no matter by whom it may be issued.
V Right to Fair Trial

a) No person shall be adjudged guilty of an offence and made liable to punishment except after
proof of his guilt before an independent judicial tribunal.
b) No person shall be adjudged guilty except after a fair trial and after reasonable opportunity
for defense has been provided to him.
c) Punishment shall be awarded in accordance with the Law, in proportion to the seriousness of
the offence and with due consideration of the circumstances under which it was committed.
d) No act shall be considered a crime unless it is stipulated as such in the clear wording of the
Law.
e) Every individual is responsible for his actions. Responsibility for a crime cannot be
vicariously extended to other members of his family or group, who are not otherwise directly
or indirectly involved in the commission of the crime in question.
VI Right to Protection Against Abuse of Power

Every person has the right to protection against harassment by official agencies. He is not liable
to account for himself except for making a defense to the charges made against him or where he
is found in a situation wherein a question regarding suspicion of his involvement in a crime
could be reasonably raised.
401
VII Right to Protection Against Torture
No person shall be subjected to torture in mind or body, or degraded, or threatened with injury
either to himself or to anyone related to or held dear by him, or forcibly made to confess to the
commission of a crime, or forced to consent to an act which is injurious to his interests.
VIII Right to Protection of Honour and Reputation

Every person has the right to protect his honour and reputation against calumnies, groundless
charges or deliberate attempts at defamation and blackmail.
IX Right to Asylum
a) Every persecuted or oppressed person has the right to seek refuge and asylum. This right is
guaranteed to every human being irrespective of race, religion, colour and sex.
b) Al Masjid Al Haram (the sacred house of Allah) in Mecca is a sanctuary for all Muslims.
X Rights of Minorities
a) The Qur’anic principle “There is no compulsion in religion” shall govern the religious rights
of non-Muslim minorities.
b) In a Muslim country religious minorities shall have the choice to be governed in respect of
their civil and personal matters by Islamic Law, or by their own laws.
XI Right and Obligation to Participate in the Conduct and Management of Public Affairs
a) Subject to the Law, every individual in the community (Ummah) is entitled to assume public
office.
b) Process of free consultation (Shura) is the basis of the administrative relationship between
the government and the people. People also have the right to choose and remove their rulers
in accordance with this principle.
XII Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech

a) Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within
the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to
circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo or to
cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.
b) Pursuit of knowledge and search after truth is not only a right but a duty of every Muslim.
c) It is the right and duty of every Muslim to protest and strive (within the limits set out by the
Law) against oppression even if it involves challenging the highest authority in the state.
d) There shall be no bar on the dissemination of information provided it does not endanger the
security of the society or the state and is confined within the limits imposed by the Law.
e) No one shall hold in contempt or ridicule the religious beliefs of others or incite public hostility
against them; respect for the religious feelings of others is obligatory on all Muslims.
XIII Right to Freedom of Religion

Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious
beliefs.
XIV Right to Free Association
402
a) Every person is entitled to participate individually and collectively in the religious, social,
cultural and political life of his community and to establish institutions and agencies meant to
enjoin what is right (ma’roof) and to prevent what is wrong (munkar).
b) Every person is entitled to strive for the establishment of institutions whereunder an
enjoyment of these rights would be made possible. Collectively, the community is obliged to
establish conditions so as to allow its members full development of their personalities.
XV The Economic Order and the Rights Evolving Therefrom

a) In their economic pursuits, all persons are entitled to the full benefits of nature and all its
resources. These are blessings bestowed by God for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
b) All human beings are entitled to earn their living according to the Law.
c) Every person is entitled to own property individually or in association with others. State
ownership of certain economic resources in the public interest is legitimate.
d) The poor have the right to a prescribed share in the wealth of the rich, as fixed by Zakah,
levied and collected in accordance with the Law.
e) All means of production shall be utilized in the interest of the community (Ummah) as a
whole, and may not be neglected or misused.
f) In order to promote the development of a balanced economy and to protect society from
exploitation, Islamic Law forbids monopolies, unreasonable restrictive trade practices, usury,
the use of coercion in the making of contracts & the publication of misleading advertisements.
g) All economic activities are permitted provided they are not detrimental to the interests of the
community (Ummah) and do not violate Islamic laws and values.
XVI Right to Protection of Property

No property may be expropriated except in the public interest and on payment of fair and
adequate compensation.
XVII Status and Dignity of Workers

Islam honours work and the worker and enjoins Muslims not only to treat the worker justly but
also generously. He is not only to be paid his earned wages promptly, but is also entitled to
adequate rest and leisure.
XVIII Right to Social Security

Every person has the right to food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care consistent with
the resources of the community. This obligation of the community extends in particular to all
individuals who cannot take care of themselves due to some temporary or permanent disability.
XIX Right to Found a Family and Related Matters

a) Every person is entitled to marry, to found a family and to bring up children in conformity
with his religion, traditions and culture. Every spouse is entitled to such rights and privileges
and carries such obligations as are stipulated by the Law.
b) Each of the partners in a marriage is entitled to respect and consideration from the other.
c) Every husband is obligated to maintain his wife and children according to his means.
d) Every child has the right to be maintained and properly brought up by its parents, it being
forbidden that children are made to work at an early age or that any burden is put on them
which would arrest or harm their natural development.
403
e) If parents are for some reason unable to discharge their obligations towards a child it
becomes the responsibility of the community to fulfill these obligations at public expense.
f) Every person is entitled to material support, as well as care and protection, from his family
during his childhood, old age or incapacity. Parents are entitled to material support as well as
care and protection from their children.
g) Motherhood is entitled to special respect, care and assistance on the part of the family and the
public organs of the community (Ummah).
h) Within the family, men and women are to share in their obligations and responsibilities
according to their sex, their natural endowments, talents and inclinations, bearing in mind
their common responsibilities toward their progeny and their relatives.
i) No person may be married against his or her will, or lose or suffer diminution of legal
personality on account of marriage.
XX Rights of Married Women

Every married woman is entitled to:
a) live in the house in which her husband lives;
b) receive the means necessary for maintaining a standard of living which is not inferior to
that of her spouse, and, in the event of divorce, receive during the statutory period of
waiting (iddah) means of maintenance commensurate with her husband’s resources, for
herself as well as for the children she nurses or keeps, irrespective of her own financial
status, earnings, or property that she may hold in her own rights;
c) seek and obtain dissolution of marriage (Khul’a) in accordance with the terms of the
Law. This right is in addition to her right to seek divorce through the courts.
d) inherit from her husband, her parents, her children & other relatives according to the Law;
e) strict confidentiality from her spouse, or ex-spouse if divorced, with regard to any
information that he may have obtained about her, the disclosure of which could prove
detrimental to her interests. A similar responsibility rests upon her in respect of her
spouse or ex-spouse.
XXI Right to Education

a) Every person is entitled to receive education in accordance with his natural capabilities.
b) Every person is entitled to a free choice of profession and career and to the opportunity for
the full development of his natural endowments.
XXII Right of Privacy

Every person is entitled to the protection of his privacy.
XXIII Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence

a) In view of the fact that the World of Islam is veritably Ummah Islamia, every Muslim shall
have the right to freely move in and out of any Muslim country.
b) No one shall be forced to leave the country of his residence, or be arbitrarily deported
therefrom without recourse to due process of Law.
404
Appendix E: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages.
Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text
of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally
in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of
countries or territories.”
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the
highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to

rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life
in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for
the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples
and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for
these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
405
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be
made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory
to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any
other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights & obligations & of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for
his defense.
406
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did
not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the
time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement & residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-
political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have
the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage,
during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection
by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience & religion; this right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.
407
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage
and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization
and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his
dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself
and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether
born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional
education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible
to all on the basis of merit.
408
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and
shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the
arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations
as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for
the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public
order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
and freedoms set forth herein.
409
Glossary of Arabic, Ottoman, and Islamic Terms
AAQILAH – An arrangement of mutual help or indemnification customary in some tribes at the
time of Muhammad, from which the modern concept of Takaful is derived. It involves the
sharing of surplus (profit) and loss.
AFIQIH – Literally, “one who comprehends” (the application of Islam to life). A leading scholar
of one of the schools of Islamic thought and jurisprudence.
ALLAH – Islam’s interpretation of God. While “Allah” is the general term used in the Arabic
language for “God,” by Christians as well as Muslims, it is useful to keep the term distinct from
“God” because its usage in the English language is exclusively Islamic, and the Islamic
interpretation of God is quite different from that of the Christians and Jews who speak the
English language.
ANSAR – Helpers.
AYAH – Literally, “sign;” used when referring to a verse from the Koran. It is called this
because each verse is considered to be a sign of Allah. The plural of ayah is ayat. Also spelled
aya.
AYATOLLAH – Literally, “Sign of God.” The title of a leading Shiite cleric. Also referred to as
Ayatullah.
BALIGH – Of sexually mature age. The generally accepted age of baligh according to Islam is
nine years.
CALIPH – Literally, “successor.” For Muslims, it is title given to one considered a “successor to
the Prophet.” The religious and political ruler of the Sunni Muslims, particularly in a caliphate.
Also referred to as Calif, Kaliph, Kalif, Khalif, Khalifa, and Kahlifah.
CALIPHATE – A government lead by a Caliph.
DA’IMA – Permanent wife.
DAR AL-HARB – The House of War. This is a reference to any territory that is not under the
rule of an Islamic government.
DAR AL-ISLAM – The House of Islam, which is sometimes translated further as the House of
Peace, but is more accurately translated as the House of Submission. It is the territory under the
rule of an Islamic government.
DHIKR – An Islamic prayer, considered to be a remembrance of Allah, which consists of a

repeated set of Koranic verses.
410
DEVSHIRME – Fresh blood tax, levied by the Ottoman Empire to create and maintain the
Janissary Corps. Also referred to as devsirme.
DHIMMI – A “protected” non-Muslim living in the House of Islam, who pays special taxes
known as Jizya that Muslims do not pay, is excluded from the military, is prevented from owning
weapons, and has little or no legal weight when providing testimony that conflicts with the
testimony of Muslims. Plural used in this book: Dhimmis. Also referred to as Zimmi.
DHIMMAH – Collective term for the Dhimmi population within the House of Islam. More
properly, they are referred to as Ahl al-dhimmah.
FATWA – A ruling, issued by a recognized Islamic religious authority, on the interpretation of

Islamic Law, or on a particular legal question, or on the application of Islamic Law to events.
FIQH – Literally, “to comprehend.” As applied to Islam, this term means: to comprehend
Islam’s application to daily life through study of the Koran and Sunnah. Fiqh is a prerequisite to
the development of Shari’ah. Also referred to as Fiqih.
FITRI – An Apostate from Islam who was born to Muslim parents, and therefore born Muslim.
GHARAR – Any major uncertainty about a contract’s subject matter or the rights & liabilities of
its parties. Gharar is linked with gambling by Shari’ah and is thus considered haraam.
HADITH – An account of Muhammad’s words and actions, attested to by eye-witnesses. The

proper Arabian plural for hadith is ahadith. A compilation of ahadith is called Hadith, and the
discipline of its study is also called Hadith. Also referred to as Hadeeth.
The nature of Hadith is controversial because it consists of numerous books whose authenticity
Muslims debate. For example, the Hadith considered authoritative by Sunnis are Sahih Bukhari,
Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik’s Muwatta, while the Hadith considered
authoritative by Shiites are Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Kafi , Al-IsTibSar , and mun la YahDuruhu Al-faqeeh.
Other books of Hadith also exist.
HAJJ – Arabic term for “Pilgrimage.” For Muslims, a Hajj is a pilgrimage to Mecca that takes
place specifically during the 12th month of the Islamic lunar calendar, known as Dhul Hijjah, and
thereby participates in special rituals performed only during that month.
HAJJI – Arabic term for “Pilgrim,” specifically one who has completed a Hajj. Used as an
honorary term.
HALAAL – Permissible; particularly, actions considered permissible according to Shari’ah. Also

referred to as Halal.
HALALA – According to Wikipedia: (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Halala)
411
Shia and much Sunni jurisprudence of Sharia disallows a couple remarrying after having been
through three divorces. Some Sunni schools view a triple talaq, when the husband saying “I
divorce you” three times in a row, as equivalent to three single talaq. Other Sunnis and Shia treat
that as a single divorce, arguing that Muhammad did so and Umar having no authority to change
that (Muslim 3491, 3492).
Theoretically couples cannot remarry until the ex-wives marry another man, to ensure that
divorce is not taken lightly. However there is a legal stratagem that can be used to allow
remarriage for couples who repent their decision to separate. It requires the former wife to marry
somebody else (and sometimes have sexual intercourse in between). Usually this is achieved by
marriage with somebody who agrees to help the couple.
Shia use Nikah Mut’ah [temporary marriage]. In Sunni jurisprudence, they need to engage in a
Nikah with the intention of divorcing as soon as sexual intercourse takes place. This sort of
marriage is referred to as Nikah Halala. As can be easily imagined the whole process is fraught
with emotional turmoil.
After iddah is observed, the original couple may remarry.
Nikah Halala is used mainly in countries that recognize the triple talaq.
Also referred to as Halalah.
HARAAM – Forbidden; particularly, forbidden by Shari’ah. Also referred to as Haram.
HIJRAH – Literally, “migration.” From an Islamic perspective, this term specifically refers to
the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina in 622, to escape hostile
Meccan tribes and establish Muhammad’s governance of Medina. The Muslim calendar begins
in the year of this migration.
HISBAH - Public vigilance, an institution of the Islamic State used to observe and enforce
Islamic norms of public behavior. Actions can be initiated by both private individuals and so-
called Morality Police.
HUDD – The most serious category of crime in Shari’ah, which may be punished with the most
extreme punishments, including death and amputation. While the specific punishments for Hudd
crimes may vary from country to country, the following summarizes those used by the Ottoman
Empire, which is today often romanticized as an “ideal” Islamic state by Sunnis: (1) For
adultery, stoning; (2) For fornication, a hundred stripes; (3) For the false accusation of a married
person with adultery (or Qazf), eighty stripes; (4) For apostasy, death; (5) For drinking wine,
eighty stripes; (6) For theft, the cutting off the right hand; (7) For highway robbery; for simple
robbery or the Highway, the loss of hands and feet; for robbery with murder, death, either by the
sword of by crucifixion. (source: A Dictionary of Islam, by Thomas Patrick Hughes, London,
W.H. Allen & CO., 1895) Also referred to as Hadd. Its plural is Hudud or Hudood.
Item (3) deserves special attention because of the harsh implications it has on women who
accuse men of raping them but cannot produce four male witnesses to support their claim. It is
derived from the following hadith:
412
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4452:711…A man of Bakr ibn Layth came to the Prophet
(peace be upon him) and made confession four times that he had committed fornication with a
woman [who presumably was married], so he had a hundred lashes administered to him. The
man had not been married. He then asked him to produce proof against the woman, and she said:
I swear by Allah, Apostle of Allah, that he has lied. Then he was given the punishment of eighty
lashes of falsehood.
HUDUD – The Islamic penal code that defines punishment for the most severe crimes,
categorized as Hudd. It is also the plural of Hudd. Also referred to as Hudood.
IDDAH - The waiting period of a widowed or divorced woman during which she is not to re-
marry. Iddah may also be observed in cases of Apostasy, because a Muslim is required to
divorce a marriage partner who Apostatizes.
IJTIHAD - The process studying the Koran and Hadith to derive a ruling on a specific issue.
More generally, Ijtihad can be considered a scholarly inquiry into the application of divine law
based on Islamic holy texts.
INSYAALLAH – Arabic for “God willing,” or “If Allah wills it.” Also stated as Inshallah.
INTIQAL – The process through which blood from a human or animal becomes ritually clean
(Pak) when an insect normally known to be bloodless ingests it.
ISHKAL – Literally, “problem,” “dilemma,” or “doubt.” From an Islamic perspective, this term
applies to legal questions whose answers are not clear through research into the Koran and
Sunnah.
JANISSARY – A military corps in of the Ottoman Empire comprised of Christian children taken
from their families through a devshirme, or “fresh blood tax,” converted to Islam, and then used
to wage war against Infidel nations. Janissaries were at times given high prestige and privilege,
so that some Christian families, otherwise oppressed, sought to elevate their children through
entrance into the Janissary Corps.
JIHAD – Literally, “struggle” or “striving.” With regard to Islam, there is the “Greater Jihad,”
meaning self-mastery in conforming oneself to Islam, and there is the “Lesser Jihad,” meaning
the battle against injustice (disregard for Shari’ah). The “Lesser Jihad” often takes the form of
war against Infidel nations or insurgency against rulers who does not respect Shari’ah. The
Greater Jihad is also known as the Outward Jihad or the Outer Jihad, and the Lesser Jihad is also
known as the Inward Jihad or the Inner Jihad.
JIZYA – Special taxes that Dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects of the House of Islam) pay to Islamic
authorities.
KA’ABA – The most holy structure in Islam, toward which all Muslims face when they pray. It
has a cube-like shape and is located in Mecca (Saudi Arabia). It is the destination of the Hajj,
711
A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4423.
413
which is the pilgrimage that each Muslim is to take at least once in a lifetime. It was reputedly
built by Abraham and his son Ishmael as the world’s first place of worship for Allah. Islamic
tradition holds that the Ka’aba was built in the location of a black stone, possibly a meteorite,
which was given by Allah to Adam. That black stone is located in one of the corners of the
Ka’aba and is kissed by worshippers during the rituals of the Hajj. Also referred to as Kaaba or
Ka’bah.
KAFIR – A general term for any non-Muslim, whether Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu,
Buddhist, Atheist, etc. Also referred to as Kufr.
KHARAJ – A special tax on agricultural land that is assessed only to Dhimmis (non-Muslim
subjects of the House of Islam).
KHARIJIS – Arabic term for “the seceders;” the second sect of Islam, who separated from the
followers of Ali. Also referred to as Kharijites.
KHILAFAH – Viceregency. From an Islamic perspective, this term is used in reference to the
viceregency of man, acting as Allah’s deputy, to carry out Allah’s will on Earth.
KHUL’ – Female-initiated divorce. A legal process where a woman files papers with an Islamic
court requesting divorce. If a recognized Islamic scholar determines that a compelling reason
justifies the divorce, He will approve the divorce request. Also referred to as Khul’a
KHUMS – Literally, “the fifth” in Arabic. It is a tax that applies to war booty and weath that is
discovered rather than earned, such as buried treasure and mineral deposits. Also referred to as
Khumus.
KITMAN – This term comes from the Arabic verb katama, which means “to hide” or “to
conceal.” There are two kinds of Kitman:
• “Good” Kitman, where people conceal their intentions or actions until they accomplish
their objectives. This term applies especially to concealing intentions and actions when
promoting the cause of Islam.
• “Bad” Kitman, where people hide their talents or money so that the Ummah cannot
benefit from it.
KORAN – Literally, the recitation. It is the name give to the compilation of messages that
Muhammad claimed to have received from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Based on the
Arabic word “qara’a,” which means “to read aloud.” Also referred to as Quran, Qur’an, and
Qur’aan.
KUFR – See Kafir.
MADINA – Arabic for “City of the Prophet.” This is the name that the city of Yathrib adopted
for itself after Muhammad’s arrival. Also referred to as Madinah.
414
MADRASSA – An Islamic religious school. Also spelled madrasah, madrash, medresa, or
madressa.
MA’ROOF – A good and righteous act; in accordance with Islam.
MAHDI – From the website, www.islamicweb.com/history/mahdi.htm, we have this definition:
The term “MAHDI” is a title meaning “The Guided one.” Mahdi is a normal man who is going
to follow the true Islam. His name will be Muhammad and his father name will be ‘Abdullah. He
is a descendant from Ali and Fatima (daughter of the prophet Muhammad…) so he will be
descendant from al-Hasan or al-Husain. Mahdi will be very just and his capital will be
Damascus. Allah told us that Jews will master the world two times (we live now 1998 during the
first one) and Mahdi will appear between those two periods and will rule through the last one.
Mahdi is NOT a prophet but he is the final Rightly Guided Khalifa [see definition of Caliph].
Mahdi will lead Muslims to a great victory against the Christian Romans (i.e. All the white
Europeans including the Americans). This great war is called al-Malhamah al-Kubrah or
Armageddon. It will end up with a great victory to Muslims against Romans after six years.
Muslims will take over their capital Rome (this can be any city). In the seventh year, the
Antichrist will appear and a greater war will start between Jews and Muslims for 40 days (longer
that usual days) and will end when Jesus (pbuh) will come and Muslims will kill all Jews. All
people will convert into Islam. Peace will pervade the whole world.
According to Twelver Shiism, the 12th Imam, also referred to as the “Hidden Imam,” is the
Mahdi.
MAHR – Marriage dowry.
MAHRAM – Close relative, whom one is forbidden by Shari’ah from marrying. This term
usually, but not always, applies to males.
MAISIR – Any form of business in which monetary gains or losses are matters of chance. Maisir
refers to income based on speculation rather than labor or real sector business. Considered to be
a form of gambling, thus haraam according to Shari’ah.
MAQASID – Objectives; specifically, the objectives of Shari’ah, the end goal of which is justice
according to Allah’s will.
MASJID – Mosque.
MECCA – Birthplace of Muhammad; a city on the southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula
where the Kaaba, the spring called Zam Zam, and the Great Mosque is located. Also referred to
as Makkah and Makka.
MEZHAB – A particular sect of Islam, or the teachings or principles of that sect.
MILLI – An Apostate from Islam who was born as a non-Muslim, and then converted to Islam,
and then Apostatized.
415
MUDARABAH – An Islamic form of silent partnership where one party provides capital and the
other undertakes the enterprise.
MUFTI – An officially recognized Islamic scholar with the authority to make legal
pronouncements.
MUHARJIRIN – Term for those who accompanied Muhammad on his flight from Mecca during
the Hijrah.
MUJTAHID – An Islamic scholar, particularly, one who researches answers to questions on the
nature of Islam and its application to life. May have authority to decide legal matters.
MULLAH – An Islamic religious leader or teacher.
MU’MIN – The Arabic term for Believer (in Islam). Also referred to as mumin. Feminine form
is mu’mina.
MUNKAR - Reprehensible deed.
MURSIT – An Islamic teacher or master. Literal translation is “Guide.”
MUSHRIK – An idolater; a polytheist. The Arabic plural of Mushrikun is Mushrikun.
MUT’AH – Fixed-time marriage, also referred to as temporary marriage or pleasure marriage. It

is also referred to as Sigha, but this is a shortening of “the Sigha of Mut’ah,” meaning the
declaration of a temporary marriage. A proper illustration of these terms being used can be
found at www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00330.html, a page devoted to
questions from lay Shiites that are answered by an Imam:
Question: Is it permissible to pronounce the sigheh of muta in a language other than Arabic, i.e.
English or French?
Answer: The sigha of mut’a can be pronounced in any language. But it should convey the full
meaning of the original.
The woman to say: “I give away myself in Mut’ah to you for a period of ............and against the
agreed mahr of ................”
The man to say: “I accept you in mut’ah accordingly”.
Mut’ah is considered Haraam by Sunnis and Halaal by Shiites. Also referred to as Muta, Mutaa,
and Mut’a. The term may also be preceded by “Nikah” (marriage).
MUZABANA – The practice of trading something whose quantity is known for something whose
quantity or contents is not known. Shari’ah declares such transactions haraam because they
constitute gambling.
416
NAJIS – Ritually impure according to Shari’ah; unclean; filthy; requiring Wudhu (ritual
purification) before undertaking other acts of reverence or worship.
NASKH – Abrogation; abolishment; nullification.
NASIKH – Abrogated, that is abolished; annulled; nullified.
NIKAH – Marriage, or Marriage contract.
PAK – Ritually clean according to Shari’ah.
PBUH – Acronym for “Peace Be Upon Him.” Obligatory blessing said immediately after
mention of a prophet’s name. In Arabic, the acronym is SAW, standing for “Sallallaahu ‘alaihi
Wa (Sallam).”
QIBLA – The prayer direction. Muslims face toward the Ka’aba, while Jews faced toward the
Temple in Jerusalem. Also spelled Qiblah.
RAMADAN – Ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar, during which Muslims participate in a
fast known as Sawm.
RAYAH – Literally, “flock.” A term applied by the Ottoman Empire to its subjects, particularly
its non-Muslim subjects. In contrast, Muslims are considered members of the Ummah.
RIBA – Lending with interest, considered haraam by Shari’ah.
SAHAH SITTAH – An aggregate term for the collections of Hadith that Sunni Muslims consider
authoritative. These collections include Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and
Malik’s Muwatta.
SALAH – The five daily prayers obligatory to Muslims.
SARIYA – Army unit.
SAW – Acronym for “Sallallaahu ‘alaihi Wa (Sallam),” meaning Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH).
Obligatory blessing said immediately after mention of a prophet’s name.
SAWM – The fast the Muslims participate in during the month of Ramadan. This fast prohibits
eating, drinking, and having sex during the day, but encourages these activities through
celebrations that go on throughout the night.
SHAHADAH - The Arabic term for Islam’s Declaration of Faith: “I declare there is no god
except God, and I declare that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” Also referred to as
Kalimah.
SHARI’AH - Islamic law. Also referred to as Sharia or Shariah.
417
SHIITE – Second largest Islamic sect; followers of Ali, who was nephew and son-in-law of
Muhammad. Shiites consider him to be the first Imam, or Leader of the faith, and believe that
leadership should pass through Muhammad’s bloodline. Also referred to as Shi’a, Shia, and Shi’I.
SHIRK – To associate; particularly to associate partners with Allah or make other beings or
people equals to Allah; to worship idols. Considered to be the worst sin a person can commit;
one that is unforgivable if one dies while doing it.
SHURA – Literally, “consultation.” This term refers to the method of mutual consultation that an
Islamic ruler uses to gain information and advice before making a legislative, executive, or
judicial decision. Liberal Muslims view Shura as the fingerpost toward a historically Islamic
form of democracy. Also referred to as sura.
SOFTA – Islamic religious student.
SOUK. – Marketplace, a term particularly applied to the great open marketplaces of the Middle
East.
SUNNAH - The example or way of life of Muhammad, embracing his words and actions. The
Sunnah is revealed primarily through the Hadith, though the Koran and other historical
references also reveal or confirm portions of it. Like the Hadith it is derived from, the Sunnah is
controversial; what one considers to be the Sunnah depends upon what one considers to be the
Hadith. Also referred to as Sunna.
SUNNI – Islam’s largest sect. Sunnis consider Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to be the first three
Caliphs, successively elected by tribal leaders after Muhammad’s death.
SURAH – Literally, a “step” or “gate.” In the Koran, the term is used in place of “chapter.” Also
referred to as sura.
TABARRU’ – To donate for the benefit of others; charity.
TAFSIR – Koranic exegesis that interprets the Koran through a study of its language, its
historical contexts, its use of allegory, and the traditional interpretations of scholars.
TAKAFUL – An Islamic concept of pooling resources to help the needy, particularly in the form
of Aaqilah, that has been extrapolated by proponents of Islamic Banking to fill the void created
by Islam’s declaration than Western-style insurance is Haraam. Islam’s prohibition against
Western-style insurance is based on the notion that it is a form of gambling, and also involves
lending with interest.
TALAQ – Male-initiated divorce. This kind of divorce is initiated if a man says “Divorce!” three
times to his wife: “Talaq! Talaq! Talaq!”
TAQIYYA – The Islamic principle of dissimulation toward non-Muslims. Shiites also apply it to
Sunnis.
418
TARIKAT – An Islamic lodge or order, usually headed by a teacher or master known as a mursit.
ULEMA – A body of Mullas.
UMMAH ISLAMIA - Worldwide Muslim community, i.e. Muslim nation. Also referred to as the
Muslim ummah or simply the Ummah.
WAHHIBISM – A fundamentalist Islamic sect that has strong and close historical ties to the
leaders of Saudi Arabia. This sect has been granted near-governmental powers over the nation
by Saudi rulers.
WAQF – A family trust used to avoid Shari’ah’s inheritance laws. It allows assets to be held by
a corporate entity controlled by a family, existing beyond the lives of individual family members.
WUDHU – A ritual cleaning for the face, hands, arms, head, and feet that is required before
undertaking other acts of reverence or worship. These acts include prayer and touching the name
of Allah.
YATHRIB – A city located about 280 miles north of Mecca, whose supporters of Muhammad
invited him to emigrate from Mecca and establish a government. Upon Muhammad’s arrival, it
was given the new name of Medina.
ZAKAH – Obligatory charity in the form of a tax on possessions assessed at the end of each year
at a rate of 2.5%. This tax is paid to either the Islamic government or Islamic religious leaders
whose responsibility it is to disburse tax revenues in service of Muslims who are poor or in debt,
newly converted, conducting war, imprisoned by war, researching Islam, or administering the
tax. Also referred to as Zakat.
419
Index
1995 Amnesty International report on Iran, al-Ah’ari, Abu’l Hasan, 327
120 Alaska Purchase, 10, 227
20 Killed in Afghan Mosque Bombing, 306 Alawi, Shiite school of thought, 330
2002 Report on Human Rights Practices, Al-Azhar University, 100
207 Albania, 167, 252, 259
3 killed as Pakistan cartoon protests Albanian and Serbs in Kosovo: An
escalate, 299 Abbreviated History, 252
30 Iraqi children, 215 wounded in Red al-Banna, Hasa, 212
Crescent hospital bombing, 305 al-Bashir, Omar Hassan Ahmad, 218
5 Dead In Pakistan Mosque Bombing, 306 Algeria, 6, 38, 262, 289, 306, 307, 345
A Concise History of Spain, 276 al-Hakim, Bakr, 34
A Long History of Chechen Terror Attacks, Ali, Hirsi, 274, 275, 276, 366
249 Ali, Yusuf, 36, 48, 323
A Rational Consideration,Part l: Muslims by Al-IsTibSar, 64, 411, See Hadith
Birth, 308 al-Jazeera, 241
A Very Short Introduction, 327, 331, 338, Al-Kafi, 64, 411, See Hadith
354 Allawi, Ayad, 35
A’isha, 312, 320, 323, 328, 339, 340, 341 al-Masri, Abu Hamza, 103, 286
About ACMCU, 215 al-Qaffal, 204
Abrogation, 58, 325, 327 al-Sadr, Muqtada, 35, 118, 237, 240, 296,
Abu ‘Amr al-‘ ala, 46 356
Abu Sayyaf, 37, 245, 270 Al-Sistani, Ayatollah, 35, 99, 117, 118, 126,
Afghan convert may be unfit for trial, 243 127, 129, 132, 145, 239, 334, 336, 356,
Afghan who became Christian freed from 370
prison: Italian foreign minister will ask Al-Tahzeeb, 64, 411, See Hadith
government to grant asylum to convert, Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation, 88
243 Al-Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his
Afghanistan, 12, 21, 33, 38, 86, 87, 92, 168, grip, 241
182, 187, 188, 211, 233, 242, 243, 244, al-Zawahiri, Ayman, 14, 241
245, 254, 263, 271, 288, 289, 293, 296, Al-Zawahri in first video since failed U.S.
304, 306, 307, 334, 336, 346, 348, 361, strike, 14
365 Amman Stock Exchange, 155, 156
Afghanistan says fate of convert up to the 'Ammar bin Yasir, Quraishites, 87
court, 242 An Introduction to Takaful – An Alternative
Afghanistan, Constitution of, 187 to Insurance, 153
Africans: the history of a continent, 108 An Islamic Perspective on the Wealth of
Africans: The History of a Continent, 354 Nations, 97, 178
After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Ansars, 18
Islamic Democracy, 359, 360 Apartheid Wall, 9
Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, 21, 210, 294 Apostasy, 7, 83, 111, 118, 119, 120, 129,
Akhbari, Shiite school of thought, 330 142, 199, 220, 324, 333, 334, 360, 413
Al Muqaddimah, 192 Apostate, 143
al Qaeda, 14, 211, 212, 263, 264, 347, 362 Apostles, 333
Ala Maududi, Sayad Abul, 308, 309 Arab Hostility Toward US Growing Poll
al-Abedine ben Ali, Zine, 282 Finds, 14
420
Arabs in History, The, 97 bin Laden, Osama, 10, 12, 14, 19, 32, 37,
Arafat, Yasser, 9, 206, 262 39, 92, 146, 211, 218, 241, 248, 258, 263,
Armenia, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258 356, 357, 358, 362
Aryan race, 40, 262 Blair 'revolted' by 'destroy Israel' call of
astrolabe, 194 Iranian president, 226, 352
At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest, Bleed the Enemy, 103
302 Blood & Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince,
Attackers strike twice near Cairo tourist 204
sites: Women open fire on tour bus after Bohra, Shiite school of thought, 330
blast near museum, 306 Bomb explodes in Afghanistan mosque; 16
Austria-Hungary, 259, 260 wounded, 306
Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, 35, 99, Bomb Explosion at Mosque Kills 3 in
117, 118, 126, 127, 129, 132, 145, 239, Bangladesh, 306
334, 336, 356, 370 Bomb kills 12, injures 13 on bus in Pakistan,
Background Note: Croatia, 252 305
Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro, Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan,
251, 252 355
Badawi, Sheik Zaki, 286 Bomb Kills 16 at Shiite Mosque in Pakistan:
Baghdad, 33, 182, 227, 238, 284, 285 Karachi Attack Follows Slaying of Sunni
Bahrain, 211 Cleric, 306
Baker, Abdul Haqq, 286 Bomb kills election workers, 361
Bakr, Abu, 43, 46, 339, 342, 418 Bomb Kills Six at Iraqi Mosque, 306
Baldwin, Stanly, 279 Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite
Balfour, 221 Worshipers; Attacks Kill 30 and Injure 40
Bali death toll set at 202, 305 On Last Day of Annual Rite, 306
Balkan Peninsula, 250, 254 Bombing Kills 10 Near Shiite Shrine;
Balkanization, 250 Karbala Cleric, Apparent Target, Is Hurt,
Balkans, 250, 253 306
Bangladesh, 155, 167, 220, 265, 304, 306, BOMBINGS IN LONDON: ARRESTS; Show
345 of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to
Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Cool Tensions, 286
215 BOMBINGS IN LONDON: THE MESSAGE,
Beachhead: How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis 287
Became Center of Radical Islam, The, 262 Bombings reflect Zarqawi’s growing reach,
Beirut bombing, 24 14
Belgium, 23, 281 Bombs hit Arab section of an Iranian
Beltway Snipers, 100 Province, 307
Beneficent, The, 313 Bosnia, 11, 100, 233
Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 167, 168, 251
Kosovo, 252 Bothmer, Von, 60
Bible, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 45, 48, 52, 53, 61, Britain, 119, 205, 213, 216, 218, 220, 238,
64, 66, 72, 83, 86, 93, 94, 119, 141, 142, 259, 260, 262, 264, 277, 278, 279, 280,
145, 200, 201, 243, 244, 247, 290, 309, 281, 282, 285, 287, 289
334, 337, 344 Buddhist, 5, 18, 20, 86, 87, 270, 271, 337,
Bible, New International Version, 309 414
Bill of Rights, 176 Buddhists, 40, 83, 87, 270, 271, 365
421
Bulgaria, 167, 250, 251, 259 Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, The,
Bulgaria: Illustrated History, 250 15, 49, 51, 59, 63, 66, 68, 84, 100, 120,
Burnham, Gracia, 37, 245 157, 196, 197, 241, 258, 326, 327, 341,
Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide 343
and America’s Response, The, 255 Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding
Burning Tigris: When the Tigris Burned and Islam, The, 15, 55, 77, 86, 134, 136, 173,
the Euphrates Ran Red, The, 255 192, 195, 198, 205, 307, 349, 350
Bus blast kills 5 in Turkey, 207 Condemned Iranian gets last chance, 120
Bush administration accuses Saudi charity Confucians, 83
of financing terrorism, 248 Constitution of Malaysia, 186
Buying the freedom of slaves in Sudan, 219 Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt,
Byzantine Empire, 43, 192, 193, 250, 259 187
Caliph, 43, 185, 193, 204, 205, 237, 310, Constitution of The Islamic Republic of
327, 339, 340, 341, 342, 354, 356, 410, Afghanistan, 187
415 Constitution of The Islamic Republic of
Capitalism, 19 Pakistan, 186
Car bomb kills 25 at Iraq funeral, 306 Constitution of The Republic of Iraq, 188
Caricature clash with NATO troops turns Constitution of The Republic of Tunisia,
deadly, 296 187
Cartoon furor began quietly, 290, 291 Constitution of the United States, 6, 176
Case For Israel, The, 226 Corruption Perceptions Index, 161
Catholic Church, 48, 66, 195, 294, 301 Cote d’Ivoire, 167
Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Creed of the Shi’a: explained, 64
215 Croatia, 167, 251
Chamberlain, Neville, 278 Cyprus, 167, 208, 259, 260, 261
Chechen History, 249 Czech Republic, 167
Chechen president killed in stadium Czechoslovakia, 278, 280
bombing, 249 Dar al-Harb, 20
Chechnya, 248, 249, 250, 262 Dar al-Islam, 20, 92, 116
Christianity, 27, 30, 31, 32, 48, 72, 77, 84, Dar as Salaam, 11
93, 120, 140, 180, 205, 242, 244, 259, Dardanians, 250
269, 270, 303, 309, 325, 326, 331, 344, David, King, 220
350 Dawood, N.J., 26, 46, 106, 323
Churchill, Winston, 175, 280, 281 Deadly Double Bombing In Pakistan, 306
CIA: The World Factbook, 18, 166, 179 Declaration of Independence, 176, 264
Claim of responsibility for deadly India Decolonization and Filipino Muslim
blasts, 265 Identity, 269
Clash of Civilizations, The, 303 Deedat, Ahmet, 30
Cleric rips U.S. about Iraq abuse, 35 Democracy in America, 175
Clinton, Bill, 10 Denmark, 23, 281, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295,
Code of Hammurabi, 107 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 357
Cold War, 9, 14, 23, 30, 167, 254, 262, 263 Denmark pulls diplomats from Muslim
Communism, 6, 9, 18, 19, 137, 216, 242, states, 299
251, 366 Developments in Prophet Drawings Case,
Comoros, 167 293
422
Doctors in the Cross Hairs: Iraq’s Fascists, 23
physicians are increasingly targeted by Fatah, 206, 293, 357
violence, 307 fatwa, 11, 26, 99, 117, 129, 180, 181, 204,
Driving rampage killed one, injured at least 360, 370
13, 100 FBI names LA airport gunman, 100
Druze, Shiite school of thought, 330 Feldman, Prof. Noah, 359, 360
Dudaev, Jokhar, 249 Ferdinand, Franz, 259
Dying for water in Somalia’s drought, 217 Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds,
East Timor, 105, 106, 267, 268 233
Economics and Philosophic Manuscripts, Film exposes immigrants to Dutch
175 liberalism, 276
Editor of Afghan women’s magazine Final Call, The, 27
arrested, 182 First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad
Edward, King VIII, 278, 280 Caliphate AD 661-750, The, 98
Egypt, 6, 38, 46, 70, 109, 122, 141, 174, Five Pillars of Islam, 68
187, 220, 223, 224, 226, 234, 241, 263, Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna, 212
291, 306, 307, 345 Ford, Henry, 278, 280
Egypt resort blasts kill 49, 307 Formation of the Soviet Union, The, 249
Egypt, Constitution of, 187 Fortuyn buried after Dutch bid farewell, 273
Ehrenfeld, Rachel, 215 Fortuyn killed ‘to protect Muslims’, 273
El Al Airline, 100 Fortuyn voted greatest Dutchman, 274
Elderly Buddhist beheaded in Thailand's Fortuyn, Pim, 273
restive Muslim south, 270 Four Freedoms, 176
Eliade, Mercea, 25 Four Killed in Pakistan Mosque Bombing,
Ellison, Rep. Keith, 246, 362 306
Emerick, Yahiya, 55, 77, 86, 134, 136, 173, France, 23, 34, 43, 205, 227, 228, 229, 230,
192, 195, 198, 205, 307, 349 231, 232, 236, 247, 248, 257, 260, 262,
Empire State Building, 100 270, 276, 280, 281, 285, 288, 289, 293
Encyclopedia of the Orient, 66 France burns for its sins, 232
End of History, The, 9 France helps launch Muslim group, 229
Eratosthenes, 193, 194, 195 Free Democracy, 6, 7, 9, 15, 23, 67, 109,
Erdogan, Recep Tayyip, 207 118, 161, 166, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177,
Eritrea, 167 183, 185, 189, 190, 192, 207, 208, 209,
Essential Sacred Writings from Around the 210, 211, 216, 219, 220, 224, 227, 228,
World, 25 240, 242, 244, 245, 246, 254, 281, 290,
EU starts historic Turkey membership talks, 297, 351, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365,
208 366
Euphrates, 341, 349 Free Enterprise, 9, 15, 173, 175, 176, 189,
Evolution of Philippine Muslim insurgency, 190, 192, 202, 208, 209, 210, 216, 219,
The, 269 245, 246, 281, 359, 361, 362, 366
Ex-hostage reunited with family, 269 French Cabinet adopts bill banning Muslim
Expert: 300,000 in Iraq's Mass Graves, 236, head scarves in school, 230
355 French Head Scarf Ban Underway, 231
Faarah, Mahammad, 216 From Babel to Dragomans, 121
Farrakhan, Louis, 27 Fukuyama, Francis, 9
Fascism, 366
423
Full text letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran Harvard, 215
President to American President, 23 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
Gabriel, 41, 42, 43, 62, 208, 311, 312, 313, Initiative, 168
323, 414 Heritage Foundation, The, 170
Gadsden Purchase, 10, 227 Hezbollah, 103, 227, 297, 352, 353
Galileo, 198 Hiding Place, The, 89
Gates, Bill, 19 Hindu, 5, 18, 20, 114, 245, 246, 264, 270,
Gaza Strip, 224, 225, 227, 228 337, 414
Genesis, 52, 54, 247 Hindus, 40, 83, 264, 265, 325, 365
Georgetown University, 215 Hipparchus, 194
German-Islamic Educational Enterprise, 264 History of the Suez Canal, 123
Germany, 59, 60, 93, 111, 167, 205, 222, History Place, The, 279
236, 238, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, Hitler, Adolph, 23, 34, 40, 110, 176, 205,
278, 279, 280, 281, 285, 305 222, 258, 262, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283,
Giuliani, Rudy, 337 285, 286, 295, 305
Glorious Koran, The, 48, 58, 111 hiyyal, 151
Gogh, Theo van, 274, 275, 366 holocaust, 33
Golden Rule, 72, 73, 344 Holy Qur'aan, 48
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, 254 Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary,
Gospel, 52, 53, 84, 331 The, 36, 48
Graham, Billy, 52 honor killing, 32, 158, 239, 247
Great War, The, 260 House of ‘Imran, The, 47
Greater Jihad, 81, 413 House of Islam, 6, 14, 20, 28, 90, 92, 93, 95,
Greece, 174, 259, 260 105, 108, 112, 122, 131, 132, 140, 146,
Greek Church of Constantinople and the 155, 159, 173, 189, 198, 204, 206, 209,
Ottoman Empire, The, 254 220, 223, 225, 238, 254, 299, 307, 308,
Green Light: Border Opening in Cyprus, 327, 329, 342, 357, 358, 362, 364, 365,
261 410, 411, 413, 414
Guantanamo Bay, 336 House of Peace, 20, 92, 104, 115, 116, 238,
Guardian Council, 209, 210, 345 303, 305, 309, 357, 410
Gulag Archipelago, The, 249 House of Submission, 20, 116, 123, 137,
Gulf War, 33, 218, 230, 235, 304, 355 173, 177, 181, 261, 298, 301, 331, 410
Gunman kills Dutch film director, 274 House of War, 20, 92, 104, 105, 204, 212,
Hadayet, Hesham Mohamed Ali, 100 270, 357, 358, 410
Hadith, 19, 20, 54, 63, 64, 65, 68, 83, 88, 93, How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became Center
98, 105, 118, 131, 143, 153, 183, 204, of Radical Islam, The Beachhead, 262
209, 309, 310, 315, 327, 329, 331, 333, How did it come to this?, 250
350, 363, 364, 411, 413, 417, 418 How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed, 204,
Hadith Qudsi, 85, 315 209
Hafsah, 323, See Wives of the Prophet Human Rights Watch World Report, 180
halala, 129 Hungary, 167, 261
Hamas, 15, 206, 224, 227, 241, 247, 263, Huntingon, Samuel P., 303
293, 294, 296 Hussein bin Talal, King of Jordan, 223
Hanafi, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Hussein, Saddam, 32, 92, 127, 189, 235,
Hanbali, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 236, 238, 239, 276, 301, 304, 355, 361,
Haq, Naveed Afzal, 100 365
424
Hypocrite, 143, 211 Iran, 6, 9, 21, 26, 38, 103, 120, 141, 155,
Hypocrites, 13, 98, 140, 141, 143, 144, 212, 180, 181, 204, 209, 210, 211, 213, 219,
213, 308, 335, 359, 360, 365, 393, 394 220, 227, 235, 239, 242, 262, 272, 285,
Ibn Al-Manthur Al-Afriki, 45 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 304, 334, 352,
ibn Ishaq, 41, 62, 317, 367 353, 362, 365
Ibn Kathir, 46 Iran’s leader offers to fund Hamas
Igarashi, Hitoshi, 184, 366 government, 227
IIBI Discussion Forum: The Economic Iranian hostage crisis, 24
Challenge for the Ummah, 190 Iranian minister makes historic Iraq trip,
Ijara Wa Iktina, 151 239
Illyrians, 250 Iranian President at Tehran Conference, 21
Imminence, 85 Iranian professor freed from jail, 120
Implementation Modalities of the Iran's Birth Rate Plummeting at Record
Framework Agreement on Wealth Pace, 132
Sharing, dated 7th January, 2004, The, Iraq, 11, 12, 14, 33, 34, 35, 38, 70, 98, 99,
219 129, 168, 182, 189, 218, 221, 223, 230,
Implementation Modalities of the Protocol 231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240,
on Power Sharing, dated 26th May, 2004, 242, 244, 262, 277, 282, 283, 284, 285,
The, 219 288, 296, 304, 306, 307, 310, 341, 343,
In Darfur, foraging means risking rape, 307 345, 346, 348, 349, 355, 356, 358, 360,
In Germany, Harder Line Looms, 263 361, 365, 370
In the Presence of My Enemies, 37, 245 Iraq, Constitution of, 188
In-depth study of Palestinian refugee camps Iraqi leader considers amnesty for
in Jordan, 224 insurgents, 35
Index of Economic Freedom, 170 Iraqi Shiites Flex Muscle Even as They
India, 37, 122, 131, 167, 192, 198, 211, 245, Mourn, 34
246, 254, 264, 265, 304, 309, 346, 349 Iraqi terrorists say they killed Algerian
India’s Great Divide,, 265 envoys, 307
Indian Muslim leader is slain at memorial Irate Muslims Stage New Protests, 294
service, 265 Is Jesus God?, 31
Indonesia, 14, 182, 219, 262, 267, 268, 270, Is the Bible the infallible word of God?, 31
272, 297, 300, 305, 306 Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations
Indonesia wants Playboy to postpone issue, Collide, 252
182 Islam for Dummies, 15, 62
Infidels, 19, 32, 37, 38, 40, 57, 77, 78, 81, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab’s View of
82, 84, 87, 89, 92, 94, 95, 102, 105, 110, Islam, 50
112, 116, 117, 121, 122, 143, 205, 220, Islam, Yusuf, 184
240, 244, 309, 355, 359, 364, 365 Islam: A Short History, 339, 354
Inner Jihad, 413 Islam: A Very Short Introduction, 156, 159,
Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance, 291, 327, 331, 338, 342, 354
147, 190 Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization,
intercourse, 53, 71, 83, 110, 126, 127, 158, 68, 202, 343, 354
251, 323, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, Islamic banking expands in West, 149
380, 382, 384, 385, 389 Islamic government, 6, 27, 112, 117, 185,
Inward Jihad, 413, See Lesser Jihad 210, 363, 410, 419
Islamic Government, 185
425
Islamic Holy Scripture, 7, 68, 240 Jihad, 10, 16, 38, 78, 81, 102, 104, 105, 110,
Islamic Law, 8, 15, 20, 33, 43, 104, 105, 115, 189, 220, 245, 295, 328, 357, 359,
137, 147, 149, 161, 173, 174, 184, 185, 413
265, 281, 308, 334, 402, 403, See Shari'ah Jok, Jok Maduk, 108
Islamic Laws, Transactions, Part I of III, Jordan, 14, 38, 155, 156, 182, 223, 224, 226
145 Judaism, 77, 83, 84, 118, 244, 270, 303,
Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part I of II, 126, 325, 344, 350
127 Judge: Woman can't cover face on driver's
Islamic Laws: Marriage, Part II of II, 127 license, 336
Islamic prophesy, 351 Justice and Development Party, 207
Islamic Saudi Academy, 214 Ka'aba, 11, 12, 13, 41, 50, 71, 76, 414, 417
Islamic School Set Ablaze in Netherlands, Kabul, 183, 243, 296
276 Kaduna, 181, 266
Islamic Studies Gets $20M Gift, 215 Kadyrov, Akhmad, 249
Islamic Summit Conference, 16, 307 Kamal, Ali Abu, 100
Islamist Threats To Dutch Politician Bring Karachi mosque attack kills 15, 306
Chill at Home, 275 Karzai, Hamid, 183, 242, 293
Islamiyah, Jemaah, 270, 272 Keith Ellison, 246, 362
Islamofascist Agenda, The, 181 Kemal, Mustafa, 205, 207
Israel, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 70, 82, 100, 103, Khadijah, 41, 42, 51
105, 106, 163, 167, 220, 221, 222, 223, Khalid bin Mahfouz, 215
224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 235, 256, 257, Khalidi, Rashid, 119, 219, 238, 262
270, 282, 283, 299, 300, 307, 351, 352, Khan, Genghis, 258
353, 355, 357 Khariji, 340, 341
Israel., 103, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, Kharijis, 340, 342
235, 247, 350, 352, 353, 357 Kharijites, school of thought, 330
Israel: An Apartheid State?, 228 Khoja, Shiite school of thought, 330
Istanbul rocked by double bombing, 306 Khomeini, Ayatollah, 26, 39, 103, 180, 210
Jahiliyya, 16, 17 Khrushchev, Nikolai, 249
Jakarta, 182, 295, 301 King Fahd Middle East Studies Program,
Jane’s Intelligence Review, 282 215
Jerusalem, 21, 42, 43, 50, 221, 235, 262, 417 Kingdom of Heaven, 174
Jesus, 27, 30, 41, 49, 52, 53, 54, 83, 84, 85, KLA. See Kosovo Liberation Army
237, 291, 294, 301, 303, 309, 313, 326, Koran for Dummies, The, 15, 16, 20, 43, 49,
331, 333, 337, 349, 350, 352, 415 52, 53, 54, 66, 67, 78, 83, 85, 91, 101,
Jew in the Medieval World, The, 112 102, 105, 115, 135, 137, 157, 177, 183,
Jews, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 40, 41, 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 202, 206, 253,
42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 69, 287, 312, 325, 326, 332, 335, 338
83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 98, 100, 101, 102, Koran, English Translation, with Notes
103, 104, 105, 110, 112, 119, 140, 143, Only, The, 46, 323
146, 176, 180, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, Kosovo, 167, 233, 252
228, 235, 237, 242, 246, 256, 262, 278, Kosovo Liberation Army, 252
279, 287, 291, 294, 307, 308, 334, 335, Kufa, 341
350, 359, 365, 368, 369, 376, 415, 417 Kurdish, 207, 236, 256, 304
Kuwait, 32, 38, 92, 211, 233, 236, 304
Kyrgyzstan, 167
426
Lahab, Abu, 314 Matthew, 27, 31, 52, 72, 83, 141, 206, 344,
Land of the Pashtun, 14, 304 361
Last Indonesian Ship Leaves E. Timor, 267 Maududi, Sayad Abul Ala, 59, 93, 94, 125,
Latest Baghdad Bombing Comes as 308, 309, 314, 318, 324
Thousands Attend Hakim Funeral, 306 Mauritania, 108
Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, The, 127 Meaning of the Qur'an, The, 59, 94, 314,
Lean on Me, 244 318
Lebanon, 9, 11, 38, 103, 221, 222, 223, 227, Mecca, 11, 18, 41, 42, 43, 58, 62, 71, 88, 92,
234, 291, 293, 295, 296, 297, 307, 353, 104, 148, 402, 411, 412, 416, 419
365 Medina, 42, 43, 58, 148, 185, 325, 340, 367,
Lesser Jihad, 81, 413 412
Lessons in hate found at leading mosques, Men Must Accompany Pregnant Women in
213 Clinics, 130
Lester, Toby, 60 Merchant of Venice, The, 146
Leviticus, 54, 72, 344 Middle East, 9, 24, 25, 29, 45, 119, 123,
Libel Terrorism, 215 157, 208, 214, 219, 220, 224, 227, 235,
Libel Tourism, 215 238, 241, 242, 254, 257, 262, 291, 298,
'Libel tourism' and the war on terror, 215 343, 350, 351, 418
Liberal Democracy, 67, 176 Middle East for Dummies, The, 44, 122,
Libya, 38, 210, 211, 300, 304 218, 222, 225, 226, 235, 254
Life of the Apostle of Allah, 41 Mideast boycott a ‘nightmare’ for Danish
Locke, John, 176 firms, 298
London Central mosque, 213 Milosevic, Slobodan, 251, 252
Los Angeles International Airport, 100 Miss Iraq goes into hiding from militants,
Louisiana Purchase, 10, 227 182
Luke, 31, 52, 83, 309 Mohamad, Prime Minister, 18, 19
Luxemburg, 23, 281 Mohamed Taha, Mahmoud, 119
Macedonia, 167, 251 Montenegro, 250, 251
Madrid train bomb kills 192, 277 Morocco, 14, 38, 288, 289, 304, 306
Magna Carta, 146 Mosaic Law, 334
Mahathir Mohamad, 16, 37, 146, 242, 307 Moses, 49, 52, 54, 64, 82, 83, 84, 291
Mahdi, 237, 349, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, mosques, 35, 71, 181, 214, 229, 261, 286,
415 295, 298, 305, 359
Malaysia, 16, 18, 97, 155, 167, 178, 186, Mother Theresa, 51
220, 299, 307, 352 Mu’awiya, 340
Malaysia, Constitution of, 186 Mudaraba, 155
Malik’s Muwatta, 64, 72, 73, 79, 80, 92, 97, Mufti of Jerusalem, The, 262
107, 111, 114, 131, 153, 158, 159, 183, Mufti Taqi Usmani, 190, 191
201, 320, 329, 335, 411, 417, See Hadith Muhajirin, 18
Maliki, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Muhammad, John Allen, 100
Malvo, Lee Boyd, 100 Multiple Identities of the Middle East, The,
Mamdani, Mahmood, 254 20, 92
Marco Polo, 355 mun la YahDuruhu Al-faqeeh, 64, 411, See
Marcus, Jacob, 112 Hadith
Mars Attacks, 38 Munich Conference, 278
Massive cartoon protest in Beirut, 297 Muqarada, 155
427
Murabaha, 149 North Cyprus, 167, 208, 261
Murder in Holland, 273 North Korea, 137, 176, 211
Musharaka, 155 Nosair, Muza ben, 276
Musharraf, President Gen. Pervez, 210, 211, Oassem, Abdel-Karim, 235
299, 305 OIC, 155, 190
Muslim charity indicted for alleged terrorist Old Testament, 27, 45, 83, 84, 244
link, 247 Oman, 38, 155, 304, 340
Muslim clerics condemn mutilation – but not One in 10 Indonesians back suicide
slaying, 36 bombings, 272
Muslim killing Muslim in Sudan, 219 Opening, The, 313
Muslims in America, 232, 248 Operation Restore Hope, 217
Muslims Remaking Old France, 228 Organization of Islamic Conference, 16, 190
Mut’ah, 127, 370, 371, 379, 412, 416 Ottoman Empire, 9, 121, 122, 123, 204, 205,
N.Y. killer carried political note: Empire 221, 227, 247, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255,
State Building security is tightened, 100 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 284, 304, 343,
Nafi, 46 357, 411, 413, 417
Nairobi, 11 Outer Jihad, 413
Najaf, 35, 237, 239 Outward Jihad, 413, See Lesser Jihad
Najar, Qasim, 15 Over 300 killed in school carnage, 250
Nameq, Sheik Fawzi, 36 Pact of Umar, The, 112, 113, 115
Nasab, Ali Mohaqiq, 183 Pakistan, 153, 155, 158, 167, 186, 190, 197,
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, 202 210, 211, 214, 219, 233, 265, 293, 297,
Nasrallah, Hassan, 352, 357 299, 300, 304, 305, 306, 308, 334, 345,
National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, 346, 347, 348, 355
215 Pakistan seeks six in assassination plots,
National Geographic, 14, 174, 212, 232, 211
248, 250, 304, 346 Pakistan, Constitution of, 186
Netherlands, 23, 37, 205, 262, 272, 273, Pakistan: Secret nuclear network
274, 275, 276, 278, 281 dismantled, 211
New Testament, 27, 52, 57, 83, 331 Palestine, 9, 11, 12, 16, 43, 112, 155, 221,
New York State Supreme Court, 337 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 235, 307, 348,
Niger, 304 349, 350, 357
Nigeria, 5, 33, 139, 181, 265, 266, 267, 301, Palestinian Authority, 224, 225, 227, 235
302, 334, 360, 364 Palestinian Territories, 14, 167, 223, 225,
Nigeria Boycotts Polio Vaccination Drive, 227, 235, 241
266 Pashtun, 14, 254, 304, 346
Nigerian state again allowing polio Pentateuch, 54
vaccinations, 266 Peres, Shimon, 9
Nigerian taxis fined for carrying women, Persian Muslims, 340
138 Peshawar, 254, 297, 299, 300
Nikah Halala, 130 Petroleum Bomb, The, 123, 214
NIV Study Bible, The, 27, 45, 141, 145, 309, Philip’s Atlas of World History, 249, 250,
334 265
No Threat: A former weapons inspector Philippines, 37, 245, 269, 270, 300, 309
rejects Bush's evidence, 236 Phony War, The, 281
nomocracy, 178
428
Pickthal, Muhammad Marmaduke William, Report of the Round-Table Meeting on
27, 48, 58, 109, 111 Promotion of Cooperation Among the
Pipes, Richard, 249 Stock Exchanges of the Organisation of
Poland, 23, 167, 280, 281 Islamic Conference (OIC) Member States,
Police: Seattle shooting suspect ambushed 155
teen, 100 Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic
Politics aside, they still love us in France, school, 214
230 Report: U.K. bomber linked to ’03 Israel
Pollster, The, 234 attack, 283
Polo, Marco, 355 Republic of Cyprus, 167, 261, See
Popal, Omeed A., 100 Resurrecting Empire, 119, 219, 238, 262
Populations and Demographic Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The, 278,
Developments in the West Bank and Gaza 281
Strip until 1990, 224 Rise of Hamas concerns brewers, 206
President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq Roman Empire, 74, 193
and Middle East, 242 Romania, 23, 167, 259
Prince Abdulla, 304 Roosevelt, Franklin, 176
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Roots of Conflict. Muslims, Christians and
Alsaud, 215 the Mindanao Struggle, 269
Prohibition, The, 135, 323, 324 Rude Awakening: A Brutal Killing Opens
Protest rises over Islamic law, 232 Dutch Eyes to Threat of Terror, 275
Protest rises over Islamic Law in Ontario, Rushdie, Salman, 26, 89, 90, 141, 184, 287,
39 366
Psalm, 45, 145 Russell, James R., 255
Ptolemy, 194, 195 Russia, 28, 37, 205, 227, 233, 236, 238, 248,
Puin, Gerd-R., 59, 60 249, 256, 257, 259, 260, 262
Punishment of the Apostate According to Sabians, 56, 57, 287
Islamic Law, The, 308, 309 Sada, George, 35
Qaddafi, Muammar, 304 Saddam Hussein’s Rise to Power, 236
Qatar, 179, 304 Sahih Bukhari, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64,
Questions and answers on the Iraq power 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 83, 88, 90, 92, 95, 97,
transfer, 355 110, 114, 117, 118, 125, 128, 129, 131,
Qur'an: The First American Version, The, 136, 138, 139, 140, 152, 153, 159, 160,
48 163, 164, 196, 199, 201, 292, 310, 311,
Quraysh, 41, 62, 322, 367, 368, 369 312, 319, 320, 321, 322, 326, 327, 328,
Rabin, Yitzhak, 9 329, 331, 339, 350, 351, 411, 417, See
Rage of French youth is a fight for Hadith
recognition, 232 Sahih Muslim, 55, 58, 64, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80,
Rahman, Abdul, 242, 243, 366 95, 97, 116, 118, 131, 142, 153, 159, 163,
Rahman, Sheikh Omar Abdel, 26 183, 201, 292, 311, 312, 315, 319, 320,
Rahman, Sheikh Omar Abdel, 100 321, 327, 329, 335, 339, 411, 417, See
Ramadan, 70, 71, 334, 384, 417 Hadith
Rasmussen, Anders Fogh, 293, 297 Salam, 151
Reid, Richard, 285 Satanic verses, 62, 63
Religion Versus Reality, 352 Satanic Verses, The, 26, 141, 184
429
Saudi Arabia, 12, 25, 32, 38, 89, 92, 109, 239, 282, 304, 330, 339, 341, 342, 353,
130, 153, 155, 209, 211, 214, 215, 218, 355, 411, 416, 418
219, 227, 271, 272, 304, 306, 334, 419 Shoe-bomb suspect met with al-Qaida
Saudi Arabia: Kingdom on Edge, 212 suspects, British newspaper reports, 285
Saudi king cracks down on photos of Shorrosh, Dr. Anis, 30
women, 211 Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to
Saudi Minister of Education and Delegation Cool Tensions, 286
Sign Cooperative Agreements with Shultz, George P, 123, 214
University of Arkansas, 215 Sigha, 127, 370, 416
Scholar Warns West of Muslim Goals, 93 Singapore, 167
Schools in Thailand Under Ethnic Siege, Sirat Rasoul Allah, 41, 62, 317, 367
271 Sistani, Ayatollah, 35, 99, 117, 118, 126,
Second Treatise Concerning Civil 127, 129, 132, 145, 239, 334, 336, 356,
Government, 176 370
secular government, 207, 241 slave, 106, 107, 108, 123, 124, 321, 323,
Sellassie, King Haile, 318 334, 339, 396, 406
Senegal, 304 slavery, 27, 106, 108, 109, 123, 125, 174,
Serbia, 167, 250, 251, 252, 259 175, 269, 363, 364, 365, 399, 406
Serbian, 233, 250, 252, 259 Slovakia, 167
Serrano, Andres, 337 Slovenia, 167, 251
Settlers clash with Israeli troops, 225 soft jihad, 216
sex, 70, 106, 128, 130, 131, 134, 136, 161, Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, 249
239, 318, 399, 401, 402, 404, 406, 417 Somalia, 9, 167, 168, 210, 216, 217, 218,
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, 202 219, 233, 272, 274, 346, 365
Shabbat, 72, 344 Some clerics call for killing Afghan
Shafii, Sunni school of thought, 330, 334 Christian, 243
Shari’ah, 6, 8, 15, 16, 26, 33, 39, 65, 98, Some Notes on Land, Money, and Power in
103, 108, 117, 118, 119, 123, 126, 127, Medieval Islam, 121
129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 145, 146, 148, South Park, 302, 303
149, 156, 157, 159, 167, 181, 190, 210, 'South Park' aims at censors, hits Bush,
218, 233, 240, 246, 247, 248, 253, 265, Jesus, 302
303, 309, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, Southern Kordofan Annex, State of Southern
336, 337, 358, 359, 362, 363, 365, 366, Kordofan, Final and approved Text of 21st
370, 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 417, 419 December, 2004, 219
Shayki, Shiite school of thought, 330 Southern Philippines Question – The
Shiite, 5, 33, 34, 35, 63, 64, 87, 89, 103, Challenge of Peace and Development,
127, 129, 183, 210, 227, 235, 237, 238, 269
239, 240, 242, 282, 284, 296, 304, 341, Soviet Union, 9, 137, 210, 216, 233, 249,
353, 355, 356, 361, 370, 410 251, 256, 257, 262, 263, 281, 305
Shiite Cleric may be a force after Saddam, Spain, 37, 269, 276, 277, 288, 327
34 Stevens, Cat, 31, 184
Shi'ite temporary marriages regain Strategic Consequences of Armenian
popularity, 239 Genocide, 255
Shiites, 33, 34, 35, 36, 61, 64, 65, 88, 89, 98, Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan, 346
99, 117, 128, 206, 210, 236, 237, 238, Study: U.K. at ‘risk’ for supporting Iraq
war, 282
430
Sudan, 27, 33, 38, 105, 106, 108, 119, 155, Terror Group Filling the Void, 272
167, 216, 218, 219, 254, 258, 305, 307, terrorists, 10, 33, 101, 102, 103, 141, 211,
334, 345, 365 240, 249, 250, 263, 277, 283, 284, 285,
Sudan: In the Name of God (Repression 286, 287, 288, 289, 361
continues in northern Sudan), 119 Terrorists Train for Seaborne Attacks, 270
Sudetenland, 280 Thailand, 37, 270, 271, 272, 309
Suicide Bomb at Funeral Kills 14: Official's Thailand & International Islamic Front, 309
Brother Slain 2 Days Earlier; Allawi Thailand PM: Hambali was Plotting, 272
Vows Hard Line, 306 The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth
Sukarnoputri, Megawati, 272 Edition, 43, 333
Sunan Abu-Dawud, 55, 64, 78, 79, 80, 92, The Arabs in History, 97
114, 118, 124, 142, 153, 159, 201, 292, The Beachhead: How a Mosque for Ex-
320, 335, 350, 411, 413, 417, See Hadith Nazis Became Center of Radical Islam,
Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, 64, See Hadith 262
Sunan Nasa’i, 64, See Hadith The Beneficent, 313
Sunan Tirmidhi, 64, 142, 343, See Hadith The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian,
Sunni, 5, 33, 63, 64, 87, 89, 90, 103, 127, 355
179, 180, 237, 238, 239, 240, 296, 302, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian
304, 334, 341, 342, 355, 356, 361, 410, Genocide and America’s Response, 255
417 The Burning Tigris: The Armenian
Sunnis, 33, 35, 54, 63, 64, 65, 88, 89, 99, Genocide and America's Response, 255
103, 127, 128, 206, 210, 237, 238, 239, The Burning Tigris: When the Tigris Burned
240, 284, 304, 330, 339, 342, 353, 355, and the Euphrates Ran Red, 255
356, 411, 416, 418 The Case For Israel, 226
Swaggart, Jimmy, 30, 31 The Clash of Civilizations, 303
Sword of the Shia, 356 The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran,
Symbol of Insurgency, 356 15, 49, 51, 59, 63, 66, 68, 77, 84, 100,
Syria, 38, 43, 112, 209, 221, 223, 226, 227, 120, 143, 157, 196, 197, 198, 241, 258,
293, 297, 299, 304, 350 315, 325, 326, 327, 341, 343
Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
293 Understanding Islam, 15, 55, 77, 86, 104,
Tackling Another Major Challenge in Iraq: 134, 136, 173, 192, 193, 195, 198, 205,
Unemployment, 361 307, 343, 349, 350, 351
Tafsir, 330 The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
Taheri-azar, Mohammed Reza, 100 74
Taliban, 10, 32, 86, 87, 210, 243, 347, 361 The End of History, 9
Talmud, 52, 72, 331, 333, 344 The Evolution of Philippine Muslim
Tanakh, 52 insurgency, 269
Taoists, 40, 83 The Final Call, 27
Taqiyya, 87, 88, 89, 90 The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad
Taxi driver had earlier Metro traffic Caliphate AD 661-750, 98
charges, 101 The Formation of the Soviet Union, 249
temporary marriage, 54, 65, 89, 127, 128, The Glorious Koran, 48, 111
129, 239, 240, 371, 375, 376, 377, 379, The Great War, 260
380, 412, 416 The Greek Church of Constantinople and
ten Boom, Corrie, 89 the Ottoman Empire, 254
431
The Gulag Archipelago, 249 The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 278,
The Heritage Foundation, 170 281
The Hiding Place, 89 The Satanic Verses, 26, 141, 184
The History Place, 279 The Tongue of the Arabs, 45
The Holy Qur'an: Translation and theocracy, 177, 178
Commentary, 36, 48 Things for which Wudhu is Obligatory, 336
The House of ‘Imran, 47 Thousands protest French ban on scarves,
The Implementation Modalities of the 230
Framework Agreement on Wealth Three car bombs kill up to 43 in Iraq, 284
Sharing, dated 7th January, 2004, 219 Tipitaka, 337
The Implementation Modalities of the Tongue of the Arabs, The, 45
Protocol on Power Sharing, dated 26th Top Egyptian diplomat in Iraq seized, killed
May, 2004, 219 by insurgent group, 307
The Islamofascist Agenda, 181 Torah, 52, 53, 84, 331, 337
The Jew in the Medieval World, 112 Trans-Jordan, 221, 223
The Koran for Dummies, 15, 16, 20, 43, 49, Trdat, King, 253
52, 53, 54, 66, 67, 78, 83, 85, 91, 101, Treaty of Paris, 269
102, 103, 105, 115, 135, 137, 157, 177, Treaty of Versailles, 205, 278, 279
183, 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 202, 206, tribalization, 250, 254
253, 287, 312, 325, 326, 332, 333, 335, Troops Mobilize for Iraqi Balloting, 241
338 Tunisia, 38, 166, 187, 282
The Koran, English Translation, with Notes Tunisia, Constitution of, 187
Only, 46, 323 Turkey, 6, 14, 38, 123, 155, 173, 205, 207,
The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, 127 208, 209, 219, 220, 221, 238, 255, 256,
The Life of Muhammad, 367 257, 260, 261, 300, 301, 304, 306, 346,
The Meaning of the Qur'an, 59, 94, 314, 349
318, 324 Turkish campaign seeks to educate girls,
The Merchant of Venice, 146 207
The Middle East for Dummies, 44, 122, 218, Turks, 205, 207, 208, 250, 252, 260, 261,
222, 223, 225, 226, 235, 254 304
The Mufti of Jerusalem, 262 Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, Prophetic Career of Mohammad, 50
20, 92 Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the
The NIV Study Bible, 27, 45, 141, 145, 309, Prophetic Career of Muhammad, 50
334 Tyndale, William, 48
The Opening, 313, 314 U.A.E.. See United Arab Emirates
The Pact of Umar, 112, 113, 115 U.K.. See Britain
The Petroleum Bomb, 123, 214 U.S. – Saudi Alliance appears strong, 93
The Phony War, 281 U.S. Marines take command of troops in
The Pollster, 234 Najaf, 237
The Prohibition, 135, 323, 324 U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft
The Punishment of the Apostate According diplomacy, 206
to Islamic Law, 308, 309 Umar, Caliph, 43
The Qur'an: The First American Version, 48 Umar, The Pact of, 112, 113, 115
The right question: Do we take his words Ummah Islamia, 28
seriously?, 223
432
UN council OKs resolution to act on Sudan What about Germany?, 258
crisis, 219 What is the Koran?, 59, 60, 141
UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish What Went Wrong? Western Impact and
Gov't, 100 Middle Eastern Response, 121, 152, 204
United Arab Emirates, 137, 155, 166, 304 Whithers, Bill, 244
United Kingdom. See Britain Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of
United Nations, 82, 217, 222, 236, 261, 267, Hitler's Rise to Power 1919-1933, 278
302, 338, 353, 405, 407, 409 Why are Palestinians still living in refugee
United Nations Human Development Report camps? Where are they from and why
2005, 168 don't they go home?, 224
United Nations Operations in Somalia I, 217 Why I am Not a Muslim, 50
United Nations Operations in Somalia II, Wives of the Prophet, 324, 394
217 Woman sentenced to stoning freed, 129, 265
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Woolsey, James, 123, 214
338, 405 World War II, 23, 90, 205, 222, 252, 256,
Universal Islamic Declaration of Human 260, 262, 264, 277, 278, 281, 295
Rights, 338, 398 Yahya, Col. Mohammad, 14
University of Arkansas, 215 Yemen, 38
University of North Carolina, 100 Yildirim, Selahattin, 208
Usmani, Mufti Taqi, 190, 191 Yugoslavia, 23, 28, 222, 250, 251, 252
Usuli, Shiite school of thought, 330 Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On
Vatican to Muslims: practice what you The Rushdie Affair, 184
preach, 301 Zaid, Abu, 141
Veda, 337 Zakah, 69, 72, 403
Violence Spreads Over Muhammad Zarqawi, Abu Masab, 14, 240
Caricatures, 295 Zaydi, Shiite school of thought, 330
Walton, Sam, 19 Zionism, 21, 221, 223
War and Slavery in Sudan, 108 Zionist, 221, 226, 257
Waziristan, 297, 347 Zogby, James, 234
We want to Die More than You want to Live, Zogby, John, 234
250 Zoroastrians, 56, 57, 376
433

Dare To Speak - Islam Vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dare To Speak - Islam Vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Islam versus Free Democracy and Free Enterprise

• Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy as we know it, because it opposes

Before you dismiss these words as bigotry, please allow me to explain:

…this…Nation of Muhammad…has responded to this appeal... We will continue this course

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the

He was silent about the murders themselves.

“So, if you got these…would that be the end of your struggle?”

”No,” this college student replied.

Is it legitimate for a Westerner to critique the Koran?

At first glance, this assertion seems plausible, especially to a Westerner intimidated by a

1. Most of the world’s Muslims do not speak Arabic.68

2. The language of the Koran is NOT modern Arabic.

3. The first Korans were written in a consonant-only script.

These twenty-nine introductory character sequences cannot be interpreted at all by

The Islamic answer to this point is two-fold:

• To believe in no deity except God alone

This point is repeated later even more clearly:

1. It was clearly not in the voice of Allah.

The Shi'a rejection of the Sahah Sittah128

When translated to English, this beautiful work of art says:

The five pillars of Islam: requirements for being a Muslim

The five pillars of Islam are:

2. Pray five obligatory prayers per day (Salah)

3. Give an offering of obligatory charity (Zakah or Zakat)

Iraqis say Saudis financing Sunni insurgents

4. Participate in a fast during the month of Ramadan (Sawm)

5. Travel to Mecca during Ramadan (Hajj) and participate in special

The missing pillar: Love

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 19: CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION TO HARM

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 20: CONCERNING EXHORTATION TO ACCORD HONOUR

In other words, Muhammad teaches believers to be completely two-faced in their

• Do good works and charity for other Muslims.

• [2.222] PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an

Similarly, other hadith compilations devote large sections to warfare:

Chapter 50: ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE FACT THAT HE WHO KILLS

Book 1, Number 211:…When the Apostle…migrated to Medina, Tufail…also migrated…, and

Religion of peace, indeed.

The Koran’s view of non-Muslims

1. Muslims believe in God,

My servant constantly approaches Me through supererogatory acts of worship until I love

Emerick concludes his discussion with these words:172

Emerick’s discussion leaves the reader wondering these questions:

A tool for Islam’s war against Infidels: Taqiyya (dissimulation)

From Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part I:

Safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and

Al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation Part II includes a strange assurance from Shiites: lying is not

…al-Mudhaffar in his book, “Aqa’id al-Imamiyah,” wrote that:

“…It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is

What do Muslims think about Jesus?

Nowhere in this Christian-friendly passage, or anywhere in the pamphlet, is it revealed why

The “House of Peace” and the “House of War”

[109.001] PICKTHAL: Say: O disbelievers!

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR

109. If the parents, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor

110. A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not…will

• To defend your community or nation from aggressors.

The Koran’s view of Slavery

The Hadith confirms this policy with passages such as:217

Egyptian pair gets prison for enslaving girl

Slaves are like family in the Islamic world? Some family!

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

…The number of campaigns which he [Muhammad] led in person…is twenty-seven, in nine of