The Root Cause of Turmoils in the Muslim World

As long as Muslims move within the closed circle of “neurotic fantasies and conspiracy theories”, they won’t be able to live in harmony with the rest of mankind.

---

Since the beginning of 2011, the Arab-Muslim world has been undergoing dramatic upheavals. The first political fire broke out in Tunisia, ending with the ouster of a long governing dictator through the action of the brave citizenry of that most secularized North African country. Then came the turn of Egypt. Having suffered under three successive military regimes since 1952, finally the masses rose up and acted on the slogan, Kifaya, i.e. Enough. Yes, enough of Hosni Mubarak, a modern Pharaoh who was planning to create a dynasty by handing over the presidency to his son Gamal. No sooner than Mubarak left Cairo for an unknown destination, than the winds of change moved westward. This time, the fires began burning the Libyan “Jamahiriyya,” a term invented by the semi-rational Colonel Qaddafi. (The normal Arabic word for republic is “jumhuriyya,” with its equivalent in Turkish, “cumhuriyet.”)

As of the writing of this review, 26 February, 2011, the situation in Libya remains unclear as to the outcome of the struggle against the mad man of Tripoli.

Unlike the rest of the nations in Africa and Asia, Muslim nations have been unable to cope with the multiplying problems of the post-colonial era, as the rest of the world has managed to do. The dilemmas that confront Islam today have been well treated, and commented on, by the veteran expert on Islam and the Middle East, Professor Bernard Lewis. I would like to briefly review and comment on three of his works that related to the root causes that feed the turmoil raging these days in Islamic lands. They are: “The Multiple Identities of the Middle East”¹ “The Political Language of Islam”² “What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response”³

I begin with, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East. It offers a much-needed background for our understanding of the people and politics of the Middle East. One of its main themes deals with a complexity that arises from the fact that Middle Easterners identify themselves both ethnically and religiously. However, the religious element remains the dominant one. Within the vast Islamic empire, the conquerors classified people according to their religions affiliation. One was either a Muslim or a follower of one of the earlier religions. Muslims enjoyed all the rights and privileges accorded to them by the Islamic Shari’a Law. As for others, such as Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, they were given the status of dhimmis, i.e., the “protected ones.” This “protection” was actually a euphemism as it entailed many restrictions imposed on non-Muslims. Thus, one’s identity was not primarily defined by an ethnic or geographic factor, but by one’s religious faith. This classification continues to the present day. A Middle Easterner’s primary identity resides in his or her religious faith; secondarily it is defined by the state within which he happens to live.

For example, in the 99-member Lebanese Parliament (before the upheavals of 1975), the president of the republic had to be Maronite, i.e., of the Roman Catholic faith, the prime minister, a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the Parliament, a Shi’ite Muslim. Usually, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs went to a Christian of the Orthodox Church! This way of identifying people created a serious crisis whenever relations between the various religiously-defined groups were strained. Quite often, Muslims even though living within a distinct country such as Lebanon, felt that their ultimate identity (and therefore loyalty) resided elsewhere, within the Islamic Umma. That kind of allegiance practically nullified the modus vivendi that had existed in Lebanon since the 1920s, and that led eventually to the upheavals that lasted from 1975 until the early 1990s, in a land that used to be known as the Switzerland of the Middle East.

Bernard Lewis has been much more than a historian. His method of teaching the history of Islam has distinguished itself by his interpretive approach. The rest of my review-article will consist mainly of excerpts from his recent works that I hope would shed a great light on what appears to be a very confused situation in the Arab World.

Here is a quotation from the “Multiple Identities of the Middle East”:

During the centuries-long confrontation between the states of Europe and the Ottoman Empire, the Europeans always saw and discussed their relations in terms of Austrians, Frenchmen, Germans, Englishmen, and other nationalities versus Turks; the Turks saw it in terms of Muslims versus Christians. In pre-modern Muslim writings, the parochial subdivisions of Christendom are given scant importance. In the worldview of Muslims, which they naturally also ascribed to others, religion was the determinant factor of identity, the focus of loyalty and, not less important, the source of authority.” (p. 22)

In these words, we notice how the religious factor is of utmost importance in our relations with the Middle East or any nations within the vast Islamic world that surrounds it. Secular Western writers tend to ignore the critical importance of religion in Islam and what constitutes a Muslim’s ultimate loyalty. They tend to forget that, in contrast with Christianity, Islam is an amalgam of religion, politics, and culture, in one indivisible entity. If this thesis is correct, and I believe that the history of the last 1400 years supports it, then we must ask: why do some writers and politicians continue to ignore this fundamental fact about Islam?

The history of Pakistan affords us an example of why Muslims believe that they ought to live in an environment that is officially and legally Islamic. Before the end of the British rule, the most outspoken representatives of Indian Muslims requested the Raj to partition the subcontinent between Muslims and Hindus; and thus the Islamic state of Pakistan was born. That event signified that at the end of European colonial presence in Asia and Africa, Muslims would not tolerate living under non-Muslim rule. Since they identify themselves primarily as Muslims, their first loyalty goes to the Islamic Umma. Muslims feel at home only within Daru’l Islam.

Back to Bernard Lewis.

In the modern world, the political role of Islam, internationally as well as domestically, differs significantly from that of its peer and rival, Christianity. The heads of state or ministers of foreign affairs of the Scandinavian countries and Germany do not from time to time foregather in a Lutheran summit conference. Nor was it customary, when the Soviet Union still existed, for its rulers to join with those of Greece and Yugoslavia and, temporarily forgetting their political and ideological differences, to hold regular meetings on the basis of their current or previous adherence to the Orthodox Church. Similarly, the Buddhist nations of East and Southeast Asia, the Catholic nations of southern Europe and South America, do not constitute Buddhist or Catholic blocs at the United Nations, nor for that matter in any other political activities.

“The very idea of such a grouping, based on religious identity, might seem to many modern Western observers absurd or even comic. But it is neither absurd nor comic in relation to Islam. Some fifty-five Muslim governments, including monarchies and republics, conservatives and revolutionaries, practitioners of capitalism and disciples of various kinds of socialism, friends and enemies of the United States, and exponents of whole spectrum of shades of neutrality, have built an elaborate apparatus of international consultation and even, on some issues, of cooperation. They hold regular high-level conferences, and, despite differences of structure, ideology, and policy, have achieved a significant measure of agreement and common action.” (p. 26)

In another work by Bernard Lewis, “The Political Language of Islam” he refers to the problems that continue to impact the Islamic nations and make them ill at ease in our modern world:

“The second half of the twentieth century brought great disappointments and much soul searching. The talismans from the mysterious Occident worked no magic; the nostrums offered by various foreign hucksters brought no cure to the ills of Islamic lands and peoples. Constitutional governments, contrary to expectations, did not make them healthy, wealthy, and strong. Independence solved few problems and brought many more, while freedom — now meaning the freedom of the individual against his own compatriots and coreligionists — seemed further away than ever. Many imported remedies were tried — from eastern as well as western Europe, from South as well as North America. None of them have worked very well, and increasing numbers of Muslims have begun to look to their own past, or what they perceive as their own past, to find a diagnosis for their present ills and a prescription for their future well-being. The revolution in Iran has shown one way, and there are men and women in every Muslim country today who seek to follow the Iranian way, or to find a better alternative, in order to return to the true, original, and authentic Islam of the Prophet and his companions. The political language of Islam is acquiring a new relevance and a new significance.

“It is also acquiring a new content. A revised or reconstructed past is never the same as the past as it was, and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution owes more to the outside world than just guns, direct dialing, and cassettes, important as they were in his seizure of power. Among fundamentalist circles in Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere, a new Islamic political language is emerging, which owes an unacknowledged debt to the westernizers and secularists of the past century and their foreign sources, as well as to prophetic and classical Islam. Much will depend on their ability to harmonize these different traditions.” (p. 115-116)

The third book of Professor Lewis that deals with the continual unrest in the Islamic world was written before the attack on the World Trade Center and Washington, on 11 September, 2011. However, it was published in 2002,"What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response.”

Rather than excerpt large portions from this valuable work, I end the review with a few lines from the Introduction, and the Conclusion. They give us his scholarly insight into the continuing malaise that pervades the world of Islam in general, and especially the lands between Morocco on the Atlantic, and Iraq on the Gulf.

“What went wrong? For a long time the people in the Islamic world, especially but not exclusively in the Middle East, have been asking this question. The content and formulation of the question, provoked primarily by their encounter with the West, vary greatly according to the circumstances, extent, and duration of that encounter, and the events that first made them conscious, by comparison, that all was not well in their own society. But whatever the form and manner of the question and of the answers that it evokes, there is no mistaking the growing anguish, the mounting urgency, and of late the seething anger with which both question and answers are expressed.” P. 3

In the final chapter, “Conclusion,” Mr. Lewis gives his prescription for the age-long malady of the Islamic world. He pleads for the intellectuals to lead their world in shedding the question,“Who did this to us?” that has “lead only to neurotic fantasies and conspiracy theories” and to begin asking “What did we do wrong?” that would lead them “naturally to a second question: “How de we put it together? In that question, and in the various answers that are being found, lie the best hopes for the future.” P. 159

As long as Muslims move within the closed circle of “neurotic fantasies and conspiracy theories”, they won’t be able to live in harmony with the rest of mankind. Let’s hope and pray that somehow, the young Tunisian, who burnt himself last month to protest against a regime that deprived him from earning a livelihood by confiscating his grocery cart, did not died in vain. We wish the peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and the rest of the Muslim world, emancipation from the shackles of their religious traditions that have kept them enslaved to oppressive and totalitarian regimes for the last 1400 years!
——————————————————–
References

1 The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, by Bernard Lewis. Random House, NY, 1998

2 The Political Language of Islam, by Bernard Lewis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1988

3 What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, by Bernard Lewis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY 2002

Congressman Allan West Slams CAIR Propagandist

Allah West shows to the CAIR apologist, where the Quran asks Muslims to attack Americans.

Egypt: Momin Muslims Pleased Allah by Raping Captured Woman Lara Logan

Bearded Momin Muslims, in their joyous celebration of deposing Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir Square, added further spice to their joy by capturing the kafir woman reporter Lara Logan of CBS and gang-raping her one after another as others, watching the show and masturbating shouted: "Jew! Jew!! Allahu Akbar".

---

Politically correct mainstream news-media did not give details of the rape and just called it simple 'sexual assault 'for the fear that details may offend Muslims (see the video). The fools do not know that the Egyptian Muslims were doing what our prophet did after every jihadi raid and reading the details is like reading sahih Bukhari hadiths. Here are the actual details of the incident as reported by Muslim media based on videos taken on cell phones.

• A bearded Muslim was the first one who got the ball rolling. He ripped the top off the (well endowed) reporter to expose her breasts and began clawing them with both his hands. He then pinned her to the ground, removed her pants pulled out his (circumcised) penis and raped her vaginally (what Allah allowed Muslims in ayas 4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 33.50 and 70.30 and what our Prophet did to Safia, Juavaria, Rehana and hundreds of other kafirs after capturing them)
• After he was done, at least six more Muslims followed him and raped her vaginally while a number of other men raped her anally (anal sex is allowed in Islam; Quran says Muslim men an approach their women in any way they desired).
• Some men fondled her breasts while other were raping her (to gain Allah’s blessings).
• Many men watching the action masturbated on her. (we pray that Allah give them partial credits)
• Some men urinated on her.
• The men were shouting “Jew! Jew!” and “Allah u Akbar”…
• The onlookers included women and policemen.
• Reporter’s breasts were bitten and one of the nipples was bitten off (left)
• One report claims that up to 50 men were involved in the rape/fondling...

COMPARING LARA LOGAN WITH VICTIMS OF OUR PROPHET

Although momins of Egypt tried to do to a reporter what our prophet did to his captured women, their actions fell way short of the standards our Prophet set for all Muslim (33.21: prophet is your role model).

- Momins raped Lara for an hour and then let her be freed while Prophet claimed the owner ship of all his captured women.

- Momins did not kill any relative of Lara. Prophet Mohammad often killed all male relatives of his victims.

- Lara is 39 years old. In his heydays, the Prophet would not touch a 39 year old captured woman with a ten foot pole, let alone with his six-incher. Prophet was very selective in his choice of captured women. He liked very young meat. Judging from his fondness of sexual activities with 6 year old Aisha, one can safely say that he always chose very young girls as part of his booty.

The True Color of Humanitarian Muhammad

A deceptive Muslim scholar spout blatant lies to depict Muhammad as the greatest humanitarian in history. This article reveals the true color of Muhammad's humanitarianism...

---

This year, February 16 was 12^th of Rabi-ul-awwal in Islamic Hijri calendar. On this day in 570 AD Hajarat Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was born in the city of Mecca. On this very day, he also left this material world in 632 AD. Muslims across the world observe this day as Eid milad-un-nabi or Fateha Doaz Daham. The 16^th February edition of Bartaman, a Kolkata based Bengali daily, published an article “Manabatabadi Hajrat Muhammad (S)” (i.e. Humanitarian Hajrat Muhammad), written by a Muslim writer Kazi Masum Akhtar.

It is well known that the All-Knowing and All-Observing Allah has given a clean chit to every Muslim to tell lies to glorify Islam and its Prophet, known as Taqiyyah or 'holy deception'. And Akhtar has exploited this sanction of Allah to the fullest extent by telling outright lies about the life and deeds of Prophet Muhammad. In a nut shell, he has made a sheep out of a hyena.

The reader can guess that projecting Muhammad as a humanitarian person is an outrageous lie. Neither was Muhammad, nor is his creed called Islam, humanitarian. If at all, Islamic humanitarianism or brotherhood is confined amongst Muslims alone; for non-Muslims, Islam has nothing but hatred and terror. And Muhammad, the founder and propagator of this creed, exercised this hatred and terror toward non-Muslims in the fullest extent. Swami Vivekananda accurately articulated the so-called Islamic humanitarianism and brotherhood as thus: “Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into this brotherhood; he will more likely to have his throat cut.” (‘Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. 4, p. 380, 1990)

To begin his article, Mr. Akhtar writes:

“On this auspicious day we should remember how an illiterate, orphan and a poor shepherd, who from his childhood, belonged to a society that was immersed in the darkness of ignorance, could raise Islam as a World religion with unthinkable rapidity, as if by magic? What was his tool behind this achievement? History tells us that his message of equality and brotherhood, or in other words, the timeless principle of humanitarianism was that infallible weapon. The chief aim of his religious instructions and conducts was to bring the entire humanity into a disciplined force for the well being of the entire humanity. So, even today, after passage of so many centuries, his teachings and ideals are relevant and pertinent. It is because, Prophet Muhammad had translated and adapted all his teachings in his own life. His life was an uncompromising commentary of the holy Koran.”

The author continues:

“The Prophet wanted to instill these ideas into every heart and he succeeded to accomplish his mission. Swami Vivekananda could grasp this point and said, “If any religion could move up to the first step of socialism then it is the religion of Islam.” (But the author has not provided the source wherefrom he has collected this quotation) It was Prophet Muhammad, who unequivocally said, “The exploitation of an individual or a group of people by another group of people cannot be tolerated. Every individual must have the right to have an equal share of produced goods. Only labour must be the basis of production, distribution and lively-hood of every individual. No one should have right to others’ labour and to accumulate that.”

The lies

Let us see what Mr Kazi Masum Akhtar wants to say. Muslims are used to lying or deceiving shameless when it comes to their religion; they are not ashamed of telling outrageous lies, as their creed inspires them to lies for the benefit of Islam. Islam is barbaric and inhuman in its heart, and if the Muslims tell the truth, the world would learn about its heinous color and it would fall apart like a house of sand. So, the author says: due its humanitarian appeal, Islam could have become a world religion within short span of time. In reality, all original biography of Muhammad and history books of Islam tell us that this so-called humanitarianism of Islam was the sword or forcible conversion at the point of sword that helped the quick spread of Islam. Swami Vivekananda right said: “…Muslims are …most sectarian. Their watch-word is: there is one God (Allah), and Mohammed is His Prophet. Everything beyond that is not only bad, but must be destroyed forthwith, at a moment’s notice, every man or woman who does not exactly believe in that must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism (Islam)!” …“In this line the Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the word the Koran in the one hand and the sword in the other” Take the Koran, or you must die; there is no alternative." (ibid, Vol 4, p. 126, p. 369-370)

The author tries to impress that the message of Islam is equality of man and humanitarianism. But those, acquainted with even a, b, c of Islam, know that it divides the entire humanity sharply into two categories: Muslims or Momins and non-Muslim infidels or kafirs. Islam truly means surrender or submission, not peace. In Islamic context, it stands for unconditional surrender to commands of the Koran and Prophet Muhammad. Those, who surrender to Koran and Prophet Muhammad, are imandar Mussalmans; those, who do not, are despicable kafirs. Allah holds intense hatred for the kafirs and instructs the Muslims to do likewise.

In the eye of Allah, kafirs are the worst of all creatures, and He instructs Muslims to hate, attack, torture, kill them, to plunders wealth, and to take their women and children as captives, with women to be raped as sex-slaves.

Amongst the Koran's kafir-hating verses are:

1. “We have created, for hell, many genii (races) of men, ….and they are like brute beasts” (7.179)
2. “Verily, those who disbelieve our signs, we will surely cast them to be broiled in the hell-fire, so often as their skins shall be well burnt, We will give them new skins in exchange, so that they may taste the sharper torment” (4.56)
3. “Whosoever followeth any religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him in this life, and in the next life he shall be of those who perish” (3.85)
4. “I will cast a dread into their hearts of the unbelievers” (8.12)
5. “Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them” (8.13)
6. "moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come” (3.56)
7. “Allah loves not the unbelievers” (3.57)
8. “they shall suffer a grievous punishment” (3.77).

In light of these hatred-inciting verses of Allah, Dr Ambedkar rightly observed:

“Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslim and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating… The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to the Muslims alone. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.”

To highlight this aspect of Islam, Dr Ali Sina, an scholar of Islam from Iran, says:

“The Quran is a book full of hate of the nonbelievers. To overlook this fact is a gross error that could cost millions of lives. … In Islam, terrorism is prescribed in the Quran; it is encouraged and recommended. The prophet of Islam laid the example of terror for all followers to follow. He raided civilians, massacred his prisoners of war, raped their women (for example, Mohhammed raped Jewish woman Rehana after killing all her male family members) enslaved women and children, looted their belongings, assassinated his opponents, burned trees, and showed no mercy to any one who dared to stand in his way. Muslim terrorists are just doing that. You cannot fight Islamic terrorism without fighting Islam.”

Mr. Akhtar has tried to convince that Muhammad had said: "The exploitation of an individual or a group of people by another group of people cannot be tolerated. Every individual must have the right to have an equal share of produced goods. Only labour must be the basis of production, distribution and lively-hood of every individual. No one should have the right to exploit others’ labor and to accumulate that.”

It seems from the quotation that Muhammad was a Marxist; he was a true originator of Marx’s theory of socialism many centuries earlier than Marx. The author, one can fathom, indirectly suggests that Marx borrowed his theory from Muhammad.

Muhammad was a Mass Murderer

While Mr. Akhtar intends to establish that Muhammad was a great humanitarian, but his life and deeds after his immigration to Medina tells a diagonally opposite story. There lived 3 major Jewish clans -- namely Beni Kanuika, Beni Nadir and Beni Koreiza -- in Medina. These Jews were rich and well-off in Medina. Muhammad tried to convert them to Islam. And when it became clear that the Jews were not going to accept Islam, they became the target of Muhammad’s extreme hatred and violence. Meanwhile, Allah, reading Muhammad's mind well, revealed a verse, terming the Jews "apes and pigs".

Muhammad became hell-bent on evicting or exterminating the Jewish communities of Medina, thereby, to grab their riches and wealth. To that end, he first warned them to embrace Islam; otherwise they should be ready to face grave consequences. At the same time, he produced a series of Jihad verses to empower Muslims to kill any Jew at anytime and anywhere. His first victim was the Jewish clan of Beni Kanuika, after suffering defeat and surrender, agreed to leave Medina, leaving most of their belongings behind.

Next, one day, Muhammad went to house of Beni Nadir leader to discuss some dispute, and suddenly he rushed to Medina without telling anyone the reason for his departure. Later on, he brought the allegation that the Jews had planned to crush him by rolling down a stone from the top of a house. Based on this unsubstantiated accusation, he ordered them to evacuate from Medina. When the Beni Nadir Jews declined to leave Medina and the Muslims put their fortified colony under seize. Ultimately, the entire tribe, except two families who converted to Islam, had to leave Medina. Some of them settled at Khaibar, a place nearly 100 miles in the north of Medina and the rest moved further ahead to Syria.

In 626 AD, the Prophet brought allegation against the Beni Koreiza that they had entered into a secret intrigue with the Koraish of Mecca against Muslims, an allegation that was never substantiated. After attacking and defeating them, a 'kangaroo court' was set up by Muhammad, headed by Sa’d -- fanatic follower of his -- and he issued a bloody verdict: all the able men would be beheaded, women and children would be captured as slaves. About 800 adult male-members of the tribe, judged by pubic hair growth, slaughtered on that day. The Prophet selected young Rihana, most beautiful among the women, to be his sex-slave.

To describe the incident Sir W Muir, the celebrated biographer of Muhammad, writes:

“The butchery, begun in the morning, lasted all day, and continued by torchlight till the evening. Having thus drenched the market-place with the blood of seven or eight hundred victims, and having been commanded for the earth to be smoothed over their remains, Mohammad returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Reihaha, whose husband and all her male relatives had just perished in the massacre. He invited her to be his wife; but she declined, and chose to remain his slave or concubine”. The Life of Mahomet, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1992).

This author has never seen a Bengali Muslim biographer of Muhammad narrate this cold-blooded massacre of 800 people by the Prophet. Only one Bengali biographer, Abdul Aziz Al Aman, has mentioned it in his Kabar Pathey (On the Road to Kaaba): he called the massacre of the Koreiza Jews a blot in the history of Prophet’s stay in Medina as well as a blot on Islam. So, obviously apologists like Mr Kazi Masum Akhtar will always refrain from describing this bloody episode of their Prophet; because it would then be impossible to portray Muhammad as a humanitarian and apostle of peace. During his 10-year stay in Medina, Muhammad organized 82 raids, as a part of his jihad, on non-Muslim settlements and caravans of Arabia, massacring thousands who refused to accept Islam. Out of these 82 raids, Muhammad participated in 26.

The Beni Nadir, who had settled at Khaibar after being evicted from Medina, suffered worst violence later on. In August, 628 AD, he invaded Khaibar with a 1600-strong army after sunrise (just after finishing the fazr or early morning prayer), when the inhabitants of Khaibar were totally unprepared. Massacre of unarmed people continued throughout the day drenching the land with blood. Young Kinana was the leader of the Jews. Information reached Muhammad from a traitor Jew that Kinana had concealed his treasure of gold ornaments and utensils, which he had received as dowry while marrying Safiya. One would be shocked to know the inhuman torture that Muhammad inflicted on Kinana to force him reveal where he hid the treasure. Muhammad placed burning charcoal on his chest and fanned it to glow red hot. Many believe that the torture continued till the burning charcoal penetrated Kinana’s heart and lungs. When another Jew disclosed the secret place, Kinana was beheaded. Safiya, Kinana’s wife, aged 17, was extremely beautiful and Muhammad took her as his sex-slave and raped Safiya her on the same night. Such was the most humanitarian Prophet of Islam.

Prophet Muhammad, the embodiment of mercy?

The author Kazi Masum Akhtar then writes, “As the basis of Muhammad’s teachings, he used to say – It is the birthright of every individual to for freedom and equal dignity and self respect. He praised the idea of international brotherhood." He also said, “The entire human society is a member of the one world-family of man and hence every man is equal before the law.” This was the fundamental spirit of his teachings regarding an ideal state. To protect religious tolerance and the safety of the religious minority community, he said, “If in an Islamic state or in a society dominated by the Muslims, the people of the religious minority are deprived of their rights, then it would be a cursed society and Allah will not forgive those who are responsible to bring such inequality.”

When Muslim tell such blatant lies, they can't provide reference, never they will. We have seen above, how Muhammad dealt with the Jews, a religious minority group, in Medina. We also see how the minority groups like Jews, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists are being treated in the Islamic states like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, and so on---although much better than how Muhammad's barbaric treatment of minorities. Muslims' persecution of non-Muslim communities in those countries is only a legacy of Muhammad’s own treatment of the Jews and other non-Muslim Arabs of Medina.

The author then writes,

“Prophet Muhammad, the embodiment kindness and compassion, to feel the torment and agony of the poor and unprivileged, accepted poverty and insolvent life till his death. His mission was to help the poverty stricken people of the society to make their ends meet. The introduction of mandatory jakat (kind of today’s income tax) and fitra (alms) were two pillars of his program for helping the poor. The unfortunate slaves and even the birds and animals were not deprived of his kindness. Innumerable such examples are strewn in the pages of the Koran and the Hadiths.”

We have seen above, how Muhammad -- an alleged embodiment of kindness and compassion -- could massacre the Koreiza Jews of Medina, and enslave and sell the women and children. The young and charming girls were not sold, but distributed amongst his jihadis for using as sex-slaves, with Muhammad himself keeping the prettiest catch of the lot as his personal sex-slave. The Muslim migrants, who came to medina with the Prophet, were very poor. They were called muhajirs or refugees, and the rich converts of Medina, who helped these muhajirs, were called ansars. At first, Muhammad tried to create a fund by collecting sadka (alms) from the well-off Muslims to be distributed among the muhajirs. After passage of time, this sadka turned into mandatory jakat. It is interesting to note, though Muhammad made jakat mandatory for every Muslim, but he refused to pay the same. He used to say, “There is no jakat for me and the families of my kin.” Such was the kindness and compassion of Muhammad for the poor.

Kazi Masum Akhtar then writes: “It was Muhammad, who said - After getting a work done by a laborer, he should be paid in full before drying up of his sweat. One day, he saw a man drawing water from a well and offering that to a dog to drink and said, “This man (for showing compassion to a street dog), would certainly enter Allah’s paradise.” In reality, Muhammad hated dogs, which is well-known. He used to say that the dogs were embodiment of the Satan. On one occasion, he ordered his followers to kill all the street dogs of Medina, which was promptly carried. For this reason, dogs are hated in Islam; it is un-Islamic, even today, to keep dogs as pet.

Kazi Masum Akhtar then writes, “Abolition of slavery was one of his declared policy. But his most important step was to declare jihad for liberating the women by breaking the stubborn wall of gender apartheid of the dark middle ages.” These claims on abolition of slavery and liberation of women of Kazi Masum Akhtar deserve an elaborate discussion; we hope to tackle them in the next part of the article.

Read part 2: Humanitarian Muhammad: Did Muhammad Abolish Slavery?

Egypt, Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood

It is unclear which direction Egypt and Tunisia will go in terms of creating secular or religious governments. Hopefully, the people of Egypt and Tunisia create secular governments while maintaining their cultures.

---

To the surprise of everyone, a nonviolent movement was able to topple a modern day pharaoh in Egypt. For that, the Free Muslims Coalition congratulates the Egyptian people.

In assessing the revolution, most experts focused on Mubarak's authoritarian government as the catalyst for the revolution. It is true that Mubarak was authoritarian but he has been authoritarian for 30 years. What ultimately brought him down were inflation, unemployment, corruption and a poor economy in general. This is why more authoritarian governments such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar are less likely to have a revolution. The governments in those nations are able to provide their people with a good standard of living.

Nevertheless, news reports suggest that the U.S. is sending envoys to allies such as Jordan to encourage political reform. This is a mistake. If the United States wants to help allies it should focus on reducing corruption and increasing economic growth before focusing on political reform. Political reform should be natural and not appear to come from outside.

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the main reasons why a significant number of people in the Middle East seek Islamic based fundamentalist governments is because of the expectation that such governments would eliminate corruption, produce stronger economies, reduced unemployment and create higher standards of living. Obviously, Islamic states, as with any state based on religion, are much less likely to produce peace and prosperity. However, by the time supporters of religious states discover that such states produce failure; it is usually too late to do anything about their governments. Religious governments usually equate opposition to their rule with opposition to God, which is a strong deterrent to protesters. Iran is an example.

As to Israel, there are only two states which have diplomatic relations with Israel and this number will never increase unless Israel makes peace with the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan established political relations with Israel against the will of their people. They established relations because of political, strategic and economic necessity. Israel's other neighbors do not have the same pressures that Jordan and Egypt had and thus they have no incentive to establish relations with Israel. Thus, democratic changes in Middle Easter nations will produce one of the following two results with respect to Israel: 1. the status quo will be maintained or 2. diplomatic relations will cool. Under any circumstance, there will be no improvement in relations and no new peace agreements unless peace is made with the Palestinians. As to war, that is highly unlikely no matter who takes control.

It is still unknown which direction Egypt and Tunisia will go in terms of creating secular or religious governments. Hopefully, the people of Egypt and Tunis create secular governments while maintaining their conservative cultures.

---

Kamal Nawash is a Palestinian-born American citizen and the president of Free Muslims Coalition.

Who Is Allah?

Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society, but they won't be laughing for very long. The de-Christianization of Europe in the name of "tolerance" is rapidly driving the spiritually shiftless continent into the arms of Islam. And now, amidst the postmodern theological confusion that defines contemporary Europe, even Catholic clergy are jumping on the Islamomania bandwagon.

The latest post-Christian theological spectacle comes to us from the Netherlands (of Ayaan Hirsi Ali fame), where the Roman Catholic Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, says he wants Christians to start calling God "Allah" because he believes such a gesture would promote "rapprochement between Christianity and Islam". Appearing on Dutch television, the 71-year-old cleric said:

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him?"

Inquiring minds want to know: If the bishop really thinks the names "God" and "Allah" are interchangeable, why doesn't he ask Muslims to start calling Allah "Yahweh", the biblical name for God? But he won't, because he knows they won't.

Indeed, just because Christianity, Judaism and Islam are called "monotheistic" faiths, it does not follow that Christians, Jews and Muslims pray to the same God. So for those pre-postmoderns who believe that words still mean something, a quick survey of archaeology, history and theology-accompanied by a dose of common sense-can answer the question of whether the Allah of Islam is really the God of the Bible.

What Archaeology Says about Allah

Muslims claim that in pre-Islamic times, "Allah" was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles. Indeed, the credibility of Islam as a religion stands or falls on its core claim of historical continuity with Judaism and Christianity. No wonder, then, that many Muslims get uppity when the claims of Islam are subjected to the hard science of archaeology.

Because archaeology provides irrefutable evidence that Allah, far from being the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was actually the pre-Islamic pagan moon-god. Indeed, it is an established archaeological fact that worship of the moon-god was the main religion of the ancient Middle East.

But what about the Arabian Peninsula, where Mohammed (570-632) launched Islam? During the last two centuries, prominent archaeologists have unearthed thousands of inscriptions which prove beyond any doubt that the dominant religion of Arabia during Mohammed's day was the cult of the moon-god.

In fact, for generations before Mohammed was born, the Arabs worshipped some 360 pagan gods housed at a stone temple in Mecca called the Kabah. According to archaeologists, the chief deity of Mecca was the moon-god called al-ilah (meaning the god or the idol), which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. Pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave themselves: Mohammed's father (Abdallah), for example, had Allah as part of his name.

What History Says about Allah

Historians say that pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped the moon-god by bowing in prayer toward Mecca several times a day. They would also make a pilgrimage to Mecca, run around the Kabah seven times and throw stones at the devil. And they fasted for one month, which began with the appearance of the crescent moon and ended when the crescent moon reappeared.

These same rites form the core of Islam today: Muslims bow in prayer toward Mecca; they make a pilgrimage to Mecca and run around the Kabah seven times; and they still throw stones at the devil. They also observe the fast of Ramadan, which begins and ends with the crescent moon.

Moreover, the ancient symbol of the pagan moon-god, the crescent moon, is the official symbol of Islam; it appears on the flags of Muslim countries, as well as on the tops of mosques and minarets everywhere.

Historians say that Mohammed, who as a traveling trader was exposed to Judaism and Christianity during his visits to different parts of the Middle East, tried to mimic those monotheistic faiths by taking Allah, the main deity within the Arabian pantheon, and making it the only god. Indeed, the basic confession of Islam is not that "Allah is Great" but that "Allah is Greater". Greater than all the other idols, that is.

But Islam also draws from other pagan traditions. For example, the tale of Mohammed's night journey into heaven parallels the Zoroastrian story of Arta Viraf. Zoroastrianism also inspired the Islamic belief that dark-eyed virgins await every man who enters heaven. And the Islamic ritual of praying five times a day? That, historians say, originates with the Sabeans, Syrian pagans who practiced an ecumenical mixture of Babylonian and Hellenic religion.

No surprise, then, that some scholars refer to Islam as monotheistic heathenism.

What Theology Says about Allah

Muslims claim that Islam is Judaism and Christianity reformed. They say the Koran confirms the truth of the Torah and the Gospels. But since those texts did not jibe with Mohammad's beliefs, they accuse Jews and Christians of changing and distorting the original versions. Muslims therefore assert that the Koran "clarifies" the Bible.

Even if that were the case, the Koran and the Bible present ideas about God (especially about His character) that are so diametrically opposed that any reasonable observer would conclude that each book refers to a distinct deity.

The Koran, for example, states unequivocally that Allah is an unknowable and non-personal deity. By contrast, the God of the Bible allows Himself to be known and desires fellowship with human beings on a personal basis. Indeed, the Bible says that Abraham (the same Abraham whom Muslims say they venerate) was the "friend of God."

The Koran also portrays Allah as a vindictive deity who hates sinners and desires to afflict them. But the Bible says God is love.

Moreover, the New Testament teaches that God loved humanity so much that He came to earth to pay the debt for man's sin, and that that act of grace is available for free to anyone who believes Jesus Christ is their personal Savior. But Islam denies that Christ was God or that He died in order to save humanity. Indeed, Allah does not provide any way for man to be reconciled to God.

And the theological differences go on and on, so much so that the God of the Bible cannot possibly be the Allah worshipped in Islam. Unless, of course, a Dutch bishop says so.

Allah and Eurabia

Mohammed thought the Jews and Christians of his day would receive him as a prophet. But the Bible says that any new revelation must agree with what is already established in Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). So they rejected his Allah as a false god. And Mohammed replied by setting his Islam on a permanent warpath against Judaism and Christianity that continues to this day.

The Dutch bishop and other Muslim fellow travelers think they can buy a fake peace with Islam by playing relativistic word games as a part of an "inter-faith" dialogue. But Muslims understand much better than do post-modern Europeans that ecumenical appeasement is a symptom of a Judeo-Christian civilization that is weak and dying.

The irony is that the real danger from Islam stems not so much from ordinary Muslims as it does from sickly Europeans who have subverted their Judeo-Christian heritage in search of secular hedonism. Because they live only for the moment, they are willing submit to anything, including Islam, as long as it doesn't interfere with the pursuit of pleasure today.

It has been more than 50 years since the late Christian apologist C.S. Lewis first warned about Western Civilization's disastrous lurch into post-Christianity. But even he would be surprised to see how quickly Islam is filling the religious and cultural vacuum that is post-Christian Europe.

It's not that Europeans haven't been forewarned. It's that they couldn't care less.

Islamic Justice: Justice Par Excellance

I was walking my two puppies, fully focused on the job of making sure I clean up after them, like a good neighbor should, when someone bumped into me, knocked me to the ground and yelled: "Watch where're you going. You blind?"

I turned around to apologize, when I saw my friend doubled-up laughing.

"You sure have a sense of humor. I almost cracked my head against the puppies' mailbox," pointing to the fire hydrant.

"Puppies' mailbox," he stopped laughing long enough to ask.

"Yeah, that's their mailbox. They were checking their P-mail."

He resumed laughing.

"Tell you what. Dump the puppies, and buy me lunch and I'll give you a very interesting report from home. I know you haven't been to Iran for a while and I just got back yesterday. I'll give you an exclusive so you can write about it and keep on raking it in."

"The way I have been raking it in with my writings, if I buy you lunch, my pups have to go hungry. And, I won't do that to them."

"That bad, huh?"

"Worse."

"How about you dumping them and just buy me some coffee?"

"I buy you coffee, then I'll have to watch you drink it."

"That bad, really?"

"No, but not all that good either."

"Wow, and some Muslims believe you're in pay of the AIPAC and Israelis, the way you defend the Jews and bad-mouth Islam."

"Speaking truth is bad-mouthing, I suppose. People don't like to hear the truth. Cause it's often bitter. If I wanted to be in pay of anybody, I would choose the Saudis. My second choice would be the damned Iranian Mullahs who steal our money and support every Islamist thug anywhere in the world. The Israelis? Get real."

"Some Muslims call you Islamophobe while some call you racist and many worse things."

"Right. You know better. I am simply an Ex-Muslim who has become Ex because from the minute my brain got functional enough, I saw serious issues with Islam from its inception to this very day. The Islamic system of justice in particular bothered me a great deal. And you're a lawyer and I have talked to you about it many times."

"Are we gonna stand around and watch your puppies check every tree and fire hydrant, or are you going to buy me a cup of coffee?"

"Tell you what. Come to my place and I'll make you a cup of instant coffee. Hope you don't ask for cream. I don't have any. Not even that chalky stuff they peddle as creamer.

We headed for my place.

"So you don't think much of Islam and the Islamic justice system?"

"I believe the Islamic justice system perfectly fits the rest of Islam. It is a mockery. I have told you that before. No point rehashing the old stuff."

"No rehashing. I've got some new stuff for you. My souvenirs from my latest visit home."

"Okay, I'm listening."

"A week before leaving for home, I started wearing the Islamic hejab..."

"Did I hear you right? You, a man, wearing Islamic hejab?"

"Yeah. Don't get so literal. I started growing stubbles. That's a form of male hejab faithful Iranian Muslims sport. It's kind of wearing your religion on your face."

"Okay, I get it. But why?"

"Cause, I wanted to interview a high-ranking Islamic judge-Hujat-ul-Islam-and having the stubbles would make me seem a devotee and gives more leeway to ask some pointed questions."

"Okay. Got that. Go on."

"Fine. You've heard of ‘trial by fire'"?

"Yes, sort of."

"I bet you haven't heard of ‘trial by noose'".

"No. Never been to law school. But, have heard of trial by pain in the neck." Getting a bit annoyed at the guy.

"Close, not the same thing. Want to know what trial by noose is?"

"No, what I really want is deliverance from trial of putting up with you."

"Are you insinuating I'm trying you?"

"No, I am not insinuating, I am saying right out you are."

"Bear with me. You'll love what I'll be telling you. Guaranteed."

"Okay."

"I managed to get an audience with a very prominent Islamic judge and asked him a lot of legal questions. Used a great deal of tact to avoid offending him. I didn't want to end up in the slammer, understand?"

"Yeah?"

"I said to him, Your Person, people in America, where I practice law, have a terrible misunderstanding of the Islamic Justice system. For instance, they claim lawyers of prisoners of conscience are routinely denied access to their clients. He got offended and said, ‘No truth to it. As a matter of fact, we don't incarcerate anyone unless they are guilty. When a lawyer, a paid shyster -- that's what all lawyers are -- shows up to wiggle him out, we give the lawyer unlimited access to the criminal. We send him to live in the same cell with his client until he is fully convinced of the criminal's guilt."

"Hey, that's good. Very hospitable of them."

"Yeah. I gathered my courage and said, ‘Your Person, they, the Americans, have the audacity to call Islamic courts kangaroo courts. He became terribly agitated and screamed, ‘see, there is no limit to the slander and untruth these evil infidels shower on us. How could we possibly have kangaroo courts when we don't even have kangaroos?"

"You're sharing all this with me gratis? Why don't you write a book about it and make a fortune."

"You don't make a fortune writing books, unless you are a big cheese of some sort. I know you have written books and you can't buy me a cup of coffee and serve me this black poison?" He pushes his barely touched coffee away so hard that it spills all over my rug.

My pups, on cue, run to the spill, sniff at it briefly and return to gnawing on my rug's fringe in between bouts of wrestling.

"See what I mean? Even the pups declined your hospitality. Besides, they're doing just fine feasting on your rug. You could've bought me lunch."

"Wrong. That's their snack. They're babies and require protein. Don't you have better things to do? Like chasing an ambulance?"

"I'll ignore that and go ahead and edify you about trial by the noose. It is a system of justice used extensively by the Mullahs. According to His Person, it bypasses all the complicated so-called due process and gets to it. A man suspected of a major infraction stands on a stepladder with a noose around his neck. The executioner kicks the stepladder away. He said, if the party is guilty, his neck snaps. If he is innocent, the rope breaks."

"Hey, that's very good. Very good."

"So far no one has seen the rope break. The Hujat-ul-Islam proudly claimed that it goes to show how they are unerring in their judgment. He said that there have been times, very rarely, that the rope has broken, instead of the neck. You just have to take their word for it, like you do everything else they preach as Quran truth."

"Well, that's edifying."

"See, you stick with me and you learn a great deal."

"Tell you what, when it comes to sticking, I want you to stick it, I mean stick with, someone else and leave me in my ignorance."

"I'll ignore that again. That's the price all wise people pay in discharging their duties. All they get is insult and ingratitude, and sometimes death. Didn't that happen to Socrates?"

"If you keep this up, it might happen to you by this ungrateful me."

"Don't be sore for spilling coffee on your rug. It masks what your puppies freely discharge on it. Now let me go on. Do you know anything about ‘trial by missiles'?"

"No. I told you. Never been to law school."

"Okay. It is another form of Islamic trial used mostly for women, particularly women adulterers. Well you've gotta love it. It is completely legal for any married man to have sex with an unlimited number of women concurrently or consecutively through the farcical provision of temporary marriages. But if a married woman is even suspected of making love to a man, she gets the trial by missiles, more commonly known as stoning."

"Yeah, barbaric."

"Well, they don't think so. It's not simply burying the woman up to her neck and unleashing psychopathic thugs to stone her to death, he told me. No, there are safeguards and stipulations. They limit the size of the stones the mob may use to bombard the woman. They also draw a line, some twenty meters away from the woman. No one is allowed to cross that line and have a better crack at her. No limits on the number of stones, however. Bushels and bushels full of them are set up at the firing line."

"Now, I call that safeguard, Islamic style. Isn't it just wonderful?

"Just like the trial by the noose thing, they say if the accused woman is innocent of the charges, and she is still alive twenty four hours later, then they'll dig her up and let her go."

"Yes, lovely indeed."

"Get this. Again, he assured me that some women occasionally survived the trial in the past. That is, a wrongly accused woman had actually survived the stoning. When he saw me incredulous, he explained how it could've happened. He said, a host of invisible angels sent by Allah surrounded her and deflected the fusillade. The angels also gave her water and food and kept her company overnight. No one in living memory has actually seen anyone survive the stoning even more than an hour or so."

"Right. Twenty four hours of being buried up to the neck and receiving the fusillade of stones and surviving it? That doesn't prove innocence. It certainly qualifies as an outright lie fabricated by the thugs of Allah.

"Well, I'm with you on that. I thought I would ask him another question. So I said to him, ‘Your Person, the Westerners harp a great deal about the status of women. They say women in Islam are worth half of men, they have no right for divorce, and if ever dare to report being raped, four witnesses are required to substantiate their claim. Also why is it that men are allowed multiple wives, while women are limited to only one husband? Why the disparity between the status of the sexes, Sir?' The man sure had a temper. His neck vein bulged, he yanked at his own beard so hard, I thought he might rip a chunk of it out and said, it is ordained in the holy Quran. It stipulates that men are rulers over women. And for excellent reasons. Men marrying multiple wives is a way of insuring no woman is left unsupervised and uncared for. Many men are often killed in wars and a surplus of women must be dealt with. Women also are deficient in numerous ways. They are not only physically weaker than men, they are prone to mental errors. Precisely the reason that woman's claims need not be taken seriously unless four witnesses confirm them. Women's main function is to bear and raise children. They require supervision to keep them in their place."

"Enough to make me puke."

"Hold it until I leave. There is much more. I'll tell you the rest of it later. Got to go chase an ambulance," he says and dashes out.

---

Amil Imani is the author of the book Obama M eets Ahmadinejad.

The Left and Islam

The following is an updated edition of a paper I published eighteen months ago. The current edition includes new references to the unfolding events in Egypt.

In front of our eyes, a gigantic regional Arab uprising is taking place. It is evident that until the last few days Western Left had very little to say about it all. It seems as if the Left has reached a rock bottom state of detachment. It has lost contact with the people, social reality, and humanity in general.

Thinking Outside the Secular Box

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
– Karl Marx 1843

Before I launch into a disclosure of liberal and leftist delusional treatment of religions in general, and Islam in particular, I would like to share with you a bad racist joke. Beware; you may not want to share this short tale with your feminist friends.

An American female activist who visited Afghanistan in the late 1990′s was devastated to find out that women were marching 15 feet behind their men. She soon learned from her local translator that this was due to some religious guidelines that ruled [this is the way we show] respect for the ‘head of the family’. Once back in America the devastated activist launched campaign after campaign for women’s rights in Afghanistan. As it happened, the same devoted activist visited Kabul last month. This time she was amazed to find a totally different reality. Women were actually marching 30 feet ahead of their husbands. The activist was quick to report to her headquarters in America: “The Women’s rights revolution is a great success here in Afghanistan. While in the past it was the man who marched in the front, now it is the woman who takes the lead.” Her Afghani translator, who overheard her report, took the activist aside and advised her that her interpretation was totally wrong. “The women” he said, “are walking in front because of the landmines.”

As tragic as it may sound to some, we are not as free as we believe ourselves to be. We are not entirely the author of most of our thoughts and realizations. Our human conditions are imposed on us; we are a product of our culture, language, ideological indoctrination, and in many cases, victims of our intellectual laziness. Like the semi-fictional American female activist above, in most cases we are trapped within our preconceived ideas, and that stops us from seeing things for what they really are. Accordingly, we tend to interpret (and in most cases misinterpret) remote cultures by employing our own value systems and moral codes.

This tendency can have some grave consequences. For some reason ‘we’ (the Westerners) tend to believe that ‘our’ technological superiority together with our beloved ‘enlightenment’ equips us with a ‘rational secularist anthropocentric absolutist ethical system’ of the very highest moral standard.

The Lib-Left

In the West we can detect two ideological components that compete for our hearts and minds; both claim to know what is ‘wrong’ and who is ‘right’. The Liberal would insist on praising individual liberty and civil equality; the Leftist would tend to believe that he or she possesses a ‘social scientific’ tool, helping to identify who is ‘progressive’ and who is ‘reactionary’.

As things stand, it is these two modernist-secularist precepts that have taken on the role of acting as our Western political-ethical guards. But in fact, they have achieved precisely the opposite. Each ideology in its own peculiar way has led us to a state of moral blindness, for it is these two so-called ‘humanist’ calls that have either consciously prepared the ground for criminal interventionist colonial wars (the Liberal), or, have failed to effectively halt or oppose them while employing confused, ineffectual ideologies and faulty arguments (the Left).

Both Liberal and Left in their apparently banal Western (English speaking) forms suggest that secularism is the answer for the world’s ailments, and without a doubt, Western secularism may indeed be a remedy for some aspects of a Western social malaise.

However, what many of the proponents of Western Liberal and Left ideologies typically fail to understand, is that that secularism is itself a natural outcome of Christian culture, i.e., a direct product of Christian tradition and openness towards an independent civic existence. In the West, the spiritual and the civil sphere are largely separated.¹ It is this very division that enabled the rise of secularity and the discourse of rationality. It is this very division that also led to the birth of a secular ethical value system in the spirit of enlightenment and modernism.

But this very division led also to the rise of some blunt forms of fundamental-secularism that matured into crude anti religious worldviews that are no different from bigotry. And it is actually that very misleading fundamental secularism that brought the West to a total dismissal of a billion human beings ‘out there,’ just because they wear the wrong scarf, or happen to believe in something we fail to grasp.

Progressive vs. Regressive

Islam and Judaism, unlike Christianity, are tribally orientated belief systems. Rather than ‘enlightened individualism,’ it is actually the survival of the extended family that is at the core interest of those two belief systems. The Taliban that is regarded by most Westerners as the ultimate worst possible, and darkest political setting, is simply not concerned at all with issues to do with personal liberties or personal rights. It is the safety of the tribe together with the maintenance of family values in the light of the Qur’an that stands at its core. And Rabbinical Judaism is no different at all: It is basically there to preserve the Jewish tribe by maintaining Judaism as a ‘way of life’.

In both Islam and Judaism, there is hardly a separation between the spiritual and the civil. Both religions stand as systems that provide thorough answers in terms of spiritual, civil, cultural and day to day matters. Jewish enlightenment (Haskalah) was largely a process of Jewish assimilation through secularization and emancipation, and spawned various modern forms of Jewish identities, Zionism included. Yet Enlightenment values of universalism have never been incorporated into the body of Jewish orthodoxy. As in the case of Rabbinical Judaism, which is totally foreign to the spirit of Enlightenment, Islam is largely estranged to those values of Euro centric Modernism and rationality. If anything, due to the interpretation of the Scriptures (hermeneutic), both Islam and Judaism are actually closer to the spirit of post modernity.

Neither the various Leftist ideologies nor Liberalism engage intellectually or politically with these two religions. And this fact is disastrous, for the biggest current threat to world peace is posed by the Israeli-Arab conflict; a conflict rapidly becoming a war between a Jewish expansionist state and Islamic resistance.

And yet, both the Liberal and the Left ideologies are lacking the necessary theoretical means to understand the complexities of Islam and Judaism – The Liberals would dismiss Islam as ‘sinister’ because of its approach to human rights and women in particular, whilst the Left would fall into the trap of denouncing religions in general as ‘reactionary’.

But maybe without realizing it, both Liberals and the Left are falling here, into a clearly supremacist argument, for both Islam and Judaism are more than just religions: they convey an entire ‘way of life,’ and stand as a thorough attempt to answer crucial questions regarding being in the world – in dismissing them therefore, the Western Lib-Left are in danger of a complete dismissal of a large chunk of humanity.

I recently accused a genuine Leftist and a good activist of being an Islamophobe for blaming Hamas for being ‘reactionary’. The activist, who is evidently a true supporter of Palestinian resistance was quick to defend himself claiming that it wasn’t only ‘Islamism’ that he didn’t like, he actually equally hated Christianity and Judaism.

For some reason, he was sure that hating every religion equally was a ‘proper humanist qualification’, but the fact that an Islamophobe also considers himself a Judeophobe and Christiano-phobe is not necessarily a sign of a humanist commitment. I kept challenging that good man; he then argued that it was actually Islamism (i.e., political Islam) which he didn’t approve of. I challenged him again, and bringing to his attention the fact that in Islam, there is no real separation between the spiritual and the political: The notion of political Islam (Islamism) may as well be a Western delusional reading of Islam. I pointed out that Political Islam, and even the rare implementation of ‘armed jihad’, are merely Islam in practice.

Sadly enough, this was more or less the end of the discussion –The Palestinian solidarity campaigner found it too difficult to cope with the Islamic unity of body and soul.

The Left in general is doomed to fail here, unless it grasps the organic Islamic bond between the ‘material’ and the so called ‘opium of the masses’. And for the Leftist to do so, it will be nothing less than a major intellectual shift.

Such a shift was suggested recently by Hisham Bustani, an independent Jordanian Marxist, stating:

The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this ‘we know better’ attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior.

Palestine

Solidarity with Palestine is a very good opportunity to review the gravity of the situation. As it happens, in spite of the murderous Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, solidarity with Palestinians has yet to become a mass movement, and it may well never make it as such a movement. Given the West’s failure to uphold the rights of the oppressed, Palestinians seem to have learned their lesson, and they democratically elected an Islamic party that promised them resistance. But interestingly enough, very few leftists were there to support the Palestinian people and their democratic choice.

Within the current template of conditional political solidarity, we are losing campaigners on each turn of this bumpy road, and the reasons are as follows.

1. The Palestinian liberation movement is basically a national liberation movement. This acknowledgment is where we lose all the Left cosmopolitans, those who oppose nationalism.


2. Due to the political rise of Hamas, Palestinian resistance is now regarded as Islamic resistance. This is where we are losing the secularists and rabid atheists who oppose religion, catapulting them to being PEP (progressive except on Palestine).

And the PEP are divided largely into two groups:

PEP1. Those who oppose Hamas for being ‘reactionary’, yet approve Hamas for their operational success as a resistance movement. Those activists are basically waiting for the Palestinians to change their mind and revert to a secular society. But, they are willing to conditionally support the Palestinians as an oppressed people.

PEP2. Those who are against Hamas for being a ‘reactionary’ force, and dismiss its operational success. These are waiting for the world revolution. They prefer to let the Palestinians wait for the time being, as if Gaza were a seashore holiday resort

With these rapidly evaporating solidarity forces we are left with a miniature Palestinian solidarity movement with an embarrassingly limited (Western) intellectual power and even less positive performance on the grass roots level. This tragic situation was disclosed recently by Nadine Rosa-Rosso, a Brussels-based independent Marxist. She states: “The vast majority of the Left, including communists, agrees in supporting the people of Gaza against Israeli aggression, but refuses to support its political expressions such as Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.” This leads Rossa-Rosso to wonder “why do the Left and far Left mobilize such small numbers? And indeed, to be clear, are the Left and far Left still able to mobilize on these issues?”

Egypt

When it comes to Egypt, Western Left’s take is even more embarrassing. As much as the so-called progressive thinkers support the Egyptian peoples’ uprising against their pro-American tyranny, they somehow find it hard to admit, that it is not exactly a Socialist revolution.

A few days ago the UK Socialist Worker journal published an enthusiastic review of the unfolding revolution in Egypt. Though the SWP are in total support of the Egyptian people, the word Islam didn’t appear even once in the article. The Muslim Brotherhood popped up once, and even then they were second to the ‘Socialists’

But it would be a mistake to think that there are no political organisations in Egypt. In immensely difficult circumstances, courageous political activists have organised over many years – socialists, the Muslim Brotherhood and others.

However, the journal is consistent with its working class politics. The word ‘class’ appeared no less than nineteen times in the relatively short article. I do not have any doubt that the SWP supports the Egyptian masses – but I wonder, why is it so reluctant to explore the clear social significance of Islam?

Like the Capitalist West, the Eurocentric Left is somehow afraid to admit that it is more than likely that the Muslim Brotherhood are destined to lead Egypt in the near future.

In spite of recent polls that suggest that up to 95% of the Egyptian Muslim population would prefer to live according to Shari’ah law, the Left, like the Western politicians, insists on minimising the political role of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. What we see here is, again, an extended lack of integrity within the ‘progressive’ realm. I would call it ‘PEM’ (‘progressive except for Muslims’).

Tragically enough, the PEM fails to admit that for most Egyptians – liberation and emancipation may mean Islam.

Can the PEM get over his or her Islamophobia? I am not so sure.

But here is the good news. According to some multiple reports from Cairo, in the recent days, tens of thousands of workers across Egypt have gone on strike and joined the anti-Mubarak protests.

Associated Press reported February 9 from Cairo:

Thousands of state workers and impoverished Egyptians went on strike Wednesday after weeks of anti-government protests cast a spotlight on corruption and the wealth amassed by those in power in a country where almost half the people live near the poverty line.

The protests calling for President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster have been spreading outside of Cairo’s Tahrir Square… . For the first time, protesters were forcefully urging labour strikes…

Seemingly in spite of Western Left general impotence, there is a clear awakening of Left grassroots forces in Cairo.

Where Next?

If the left’s support for human rights in Palestine is conditional and dependent on the Palestinians denouncing their religion and ideological beliefs, cultural heritage, and social traditions and adopting a new set of beliefs, alien values and social behaviours that matches what its culture deems acceptable; that means the world is denying them a most basic human right, the right to think, and to live within a chosen ethical code.

– Nahida Izzat.

The current Left discourse of solidarity is futile. It estranges itself from its subject; it achieves very little, and it seems to go nowhere. If we want to help the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the other millions of victims of Western imperialism we really must stop for a second, take a big breath and start again from scratch.

We must learn to listen. Rather than imposing our belief on others – we had better learn to listen to what others believe in.

Can we follow Bustani’s and Rossa-Rosso’s suggestions, and revise our entire notion of Islam, revise our understanding of its spiritual roots, its structure, its unified balance between the civil and the spirit, its vision of itself as a ‘way of living’?

Whether we can do so or not is a good question.

Another option is to reassess our blindness, and to encounter humanist issues from a humanist perspective (as opposed to a political one). Rather than loving ourselves through the suffering of others (which is the ultimate form of self-loving) we had better, for the first time, exercise the notion of real empathy. We put ourselves in the place of the other, whilst accepting that we may never fully understand that very other.

Rather than loving ourselves through the Palestinians and Egyptian masses and at their expense, we need to accept Palestinians and Egyptians for what they are and support them for who they are regardless of our own views on the world.

This is the only real form of solidarity, for it aims at ethical rather than ideological conformity, and it puts humanity at its very centre. It reflects on Marx’s deep understanding of religion as the “sigh of the oppressed”. If we claim to be compassionate about people, then we should begin to learn to love them for what they are, rather than for what we expect them to be.

1. Something to do with a low Roman heritage and the early development of Christianity as an expansionist concept aiming to spread itself to remote cultures and civilizations.
   
2. It can be argued that the primary agenda behind postmodern attempts is to destabilize the foundations of modern knowledge and [ethics by challenging the possibility of modern universal applicability. As eloquently put by Muqtedar Khan, the postmodernist seeks to privilege the ‘here and now’ over the global. Both postmodern philosophy and Religious theology, says Khan “reject the modernist claim in the infallibility of reason”. Like the postmodernist, Islam and Judaism are skeptical towards the sovereignty of reason and discourses of rationality.
   
3. The rather common bizarre Marxist suggestion that ‘quite a few out there’ are in fact ‘reactionary’ for being religious entails the necessary assumption that the Marxist himself is settled comfortably in an absolute moral high ground. Such an assumption is rather faulty for two obvious reasons:
   
   
   
   1. Claiming to know more than others on base of ideological or political affiliation is nothing less than supremacy in practice;
   
   
   2. The claim for possession of the highest moral ground X cannot be verified scientifically unless validated by another superior and higher moral ground X’. For the Marxist to sustain his ‘highest moral ground’ position, he would have to move on and claim to be holding the highest position X’. In order to verify X’ he will need to move on to a superior X’ and so on. We are facing here an infinite search for the validation of ethical meaning. Such a model of thought may help us grasp why Western Marxism has managed to detach itself from ethical reality and ethical thinking and hardly engage with issues to do with true equality.
      
      The obvious problem with the Marxist implementation of the ‘progressive vs reactionary’ dichotomy is that the Marxists suitably claim to be among progressives and conveniently claim that the ‘adversary’ is found among the reactionaries. This is obviously slightly suspicious or even dubious to say the least.

   Phil Weiss in his invaluable MondoWeiss blog recently coined the useful political term PEP: progressive except on Palestine term.
   

Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He lives in London and is the author of two novels: A Guide to the Perplexed and the recently released My One and Only Love. Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. He can be reached at: atz@onetel.net.uk. Read other articles by Gilad.

Hijab: Muhammad's Criminalization of Beauty

Behind the hijab... did Muhammad hide his sins and lust..

---

Some of the Muslim women proudly wear hijab; some are forced to wear it, but most wear it accepting it as part of culture, without knowing why they were asked to wear hijab; they just follow the words of Muhammad without questioning: why he ordered Muslim women to cover their full body, from head to toe, and call it a sin for women if they showed any part of their body to any man other than their husband. God has created humans, women and men, to live freely, to live as they are created. Why then did Muhammad order women to hide in the hijab for their entire life? Every time I see a Muslim woman entirely covered by a hijab, I question myself:

Why is she hiding herself from others?

What wrong has she done?

Why can't she walk freely like other free humans?

Who is she afraid of?

There are two main reasons that make people hide from others:

1. Shame
2. Fear

Shame: I do not think it is shameful to be a woman. Woman gives birth to new life, and it is something they should be proud of. Why are Muslim women ashamed of what God has made them?

Fear: Another reason for wearing the hijab can be fear of men. Yes, women, who live beside uncivilised men, such rapists and abusers, may want to cover themselves because of fear.

When pondered on these questions, it appears to be a situation like this:

There was a kingdom on Earth, ruled by a whimsical powerful king. In his kingdom, there were two farmers, Nawaz and Ali Jinnah, both having mango-farms very close to each other. One summer Nawaz's mango farm had a very good season, full of beautiful mangos, but Ali Jinnah’s farm had a poor harvest. Ali Jinnah was upset and jealous of Nawaz's farm. On one night, Ali Jinnah stole mangos from Nawaz’s farm, and sold them. Nawaz got to know about it. And the next night, he kept watch on his farm, and he caught Ali red-handed as he tried to steal mangos again. He was forgiven when promised not do it again. But he again attempted to steal mangos from Nawaz’s farm. He was caught again brought to the king.

But Ali Jinnah was loyal to the king and had served him well. The king, advised by minister, spoke:

“I know Ali Jinnah is a noble man and prays five times a day, and worships my God the way I have ordered to my citizens. On the other side Nawaz is a hardworking man. I heard Nawaz’s mangos are nice, and the finest in the kingdom.

Ali Jinnah is an honest and truthful man, but he became weak when he saw Nawaz’s mangos. Nawaz’s mangos enticed Ali Jinnah, and the mangos made him commit the crime of stealing.”

So he removed all the charges against Ali Jinnah and filed a case against Nawaz. The king spoke: “The law has spoken; you should put fencing around your farm, bigger than the trees you have in there, so that no one can see your mangos. If no one sees them, no one will steal.”

The king’s cruel justice, thus, ruined the farm and life of Nawaz---an honest, innocent, and hard-working man. He punished the innocent, and set a criminal free.

The wisdom of Allah and Muhammad vis-à-vis the imposition of hijab on Muslim women was similar to the king's. Muhammad did not advise men to respect women. He allowed his male-followers to marry four women and keep unlimited number of slaves for sex. He even imposed hijab on the women to cover their beauty, lest his uncivilized male-followers get tempted and rape or molest them. Just like the king said: cover your mangoes, so that others don't get tempted to steal them.

Women’s safety is not the main reason for the hijab. The true for Muhammad's imposition of hijab on women is revealed.

Muhammad had so many wives, most of them young and beautiful; some even younger than his grandkids. Once he heard some of his followers about his so many young wives and his lustful character; they started talking about his wives and the age-difference with him. A young follower of his had even said: he would marry Muhammad's child-wife Aisha after the Prophet's death. So, Muhammad sought ways to prevent others from getting tempted toward his wives and ordered his wives to wear veils not to show their face or any part of their body to other men. He knew that if people did not see his wives, they would never get to know about their age and beauty, and they would not get attracted to or talk about them.

Islam prescribes women to start wearing the hijab at the age of 6. It was likely ordered by Muhammad, since he married his child-wife Aisha at the age of six. If Muhammad had married Aisha or another girl at the age of three, he would have ordered women to wear the hijab from the age of three. Muhammad hid his sins and lust under the hijab. He made laws out of the necessities and desires of his own in the name of God. Every law he made, he said, was the law of God.

God didn't send women covered head to toe. On the Judgment Day, God will never ask if you wore the hijab or scarf, Indian sari or Western dress, dirty clothes or clean clothes. The only thing God will ask is: how pure you were in your heart.

Islam is 'one of the great evils in the world'

Richard Dawkins says it outright. One wonders why so few other atheists are speaking out in the same way. Note that he does not hasten to qualify his comment by saying, "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam.

Dawkins: "I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there."

Narrator: "Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?"

RD: "There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, 'Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.' There's an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it's possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned."

Great Virtues Islam Endows upon Islamic People

Allah tells Muslims in Quran: 3.110 “You are the best people, raised for the good of mankind”. And certainly there are. The following are the great Islamic qualities that distinguish them from others.

MUSLIMS HAVE HIGH LIBIDO

As a special favour from Allah all Muslim men are given high libido.

They can fondle a mannequin and get the same arousal and pleasure as fondling the real thing. In this photo, Islamic men are fondling mannequins in a local mall and getting sexual pleasure...

MUSLIMS LOVE LITTLE GIRLS

Prophet married Ayesha when she was 6. He thighed her till she was 9.

HIGH LIBIDO HAS IT’S SERIOUS DISADVANTAGES

Our Prophet was given a libido of 30 men.

Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:

“Prophet was given the sexual strength of thirty men”.

Prophet got aroused even by baby girls. He could imagine having sex with wives and get the same pleasure as the real thing.

BUKHARI, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:

Narrated Aisha:

“Allah's Apostle used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives (and came) while he actually had not”.

And Ayesha ended up cleaning his come.

Bukhari,Book 002, Number 0572:

Aisha said, “In case I found that (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) dried up, I scraped it off with my nails."

So this high libido became his liability. He apparently came during foreplay and could not plant his seeds.

http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/aisha-hr.gif

That is the reason he could not sire a single child in Madina although he slept with women day and night. (Maria’s child could be sired by his slave, whom Prophet sent Ali to kill)

Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:

'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could." (naïve little Ayesha thought Prophet controlled his desire, she did not know that Prophet had already come)

MUSLIMS ARE NOT AFRAID TO BLOW THEMSELVES UP

NASA has been asked to use Muslims in the space program.

MUSLIMS TRAVEL TO FAR OFF LANDS TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE

A suicide-bombing school in Pakistan. Students come from far off lands. Pakistan has the honor of being the biggest exporter of Mujahids.

EVERY BODY IS SCARED OF MUSLIMS

Muslims in traditional garb make airline passengers shit their pants.

MUSLIM ARE RESPECTED BY KUFFAR

While other inmates are called prisoners, Muslim inmates are called guest detainees. While other inmates offer prayer in their beds, Muslims are provided with on site mosques.

MUSLIMS ARE VERY LOYAL TO THEIR OWN

Alhamdulillah all Muslims voted for an inexperienced community organizer Buraq Hussain Obama, who was born in Kenya just because they believe deep down he is a Muslim (if they thought he had apostate by leaving Islam they would have killed him). Mashallah even hard core republican Muslims voted for the Islamic candidate of Democratic Party.

GOOD MUSLIMS ARE NOT AFRAID TO TRAVEL FOR GOD’S WORK

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/2006_07.html

No body offers better benefits than global Jihad people. Assignments are exciting, expense accounts are generous, accommodations are luxurious and afterlife benefits are out of this world (include 72 virgins with swelling breasts).

MUSLIMS LOVE APOSTATE KILLERS

In Pakistan Malik Khadri, who killed Panjab Governor Salman Taseer for going against Quran by criticizing blasphemy law thus apostatizing from Islam, is honored and garlanded by an adoring high five giving crowd.

http://barenakedIslam.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/surprise-pakistani-Muslim-wife-beheaders-lawyer-is-a-joooooooooooooo/20090213cairbridgesaward/

HONOR KILLING IS AN HONORED TRADITION OF ISLAM

Largest Islamic organization CAIR is honoring Muzammal Hasan, the CEO of Islamic TV and prolific wife beater, who beheaded his wife Aasia. Aasia had apostatized by denouncing wife beating (an important tenet of Quran (4.34)) and later divorcing her husband (a serious violation of sharia law).

MUSLIMS LOVE MULTIPLE SEX PARTNERS

Approved animals for sex: Lambs, sheeps, goats, cows and camels. (Restrictions: after sex a man is not allowed to drink the milk or eat the meat of the animal he made love to)

Reference:
Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahrire al vasyleh, vol. 4, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990.

MUSLIMS ARE FAITHFUL TO THEIR SEX PARTNERS

(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000420.html

MUSLIMS CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN’S BRIGHT FUTURE

Giving them deaths as shaheeds in jihad, the dead children gain paradise instantly, the very best gift a father can give to his offspring. (9.111)

MUSLIMS ARE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SUICIDE BOMBERS

A shaheed bypasses grave and judgement day and goes directly to paradise after shahadat (9.111).

MUSLIMS LOVE HALAL SEX AND DESPISE HARAM SEX

Our prophet killed kuffar and forced himself on their wives and daughters and raped them while their husbands and fathers dead bodies were still warm. Alhamdulillah that is clean halal sex, approved and blessed by Allah in Quran. However, consensual sex between two consenting adults is dirty and haram in Islam and our prophet ordered such people stoned to death. Masahallah in sharia countries good Muslims still follow this beautiful sunna of stoning with greatest celebration and enthusiasm. Any man who even throws a single stone on these adulterers get the same blessing as throwing a stone on satan during Haj. Here is a recent stoning of a young couple who were deeply in love.