Muhammad Was a Terrorist?

Fact & Fiction

by Juan Cole

Mr. Cole is professor of Middle East and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and author of Sacred Space and Holy War (I. B. Tauris, 2002). His web site is www.juancole.com.

Jerry Falwell, the fundamentalist televangelist, has said, "I think Muhammad was a terrorist." On CBS's Sixty Minutes, the reverend contrasted Moses and Jesus as men of peace with Muhammad, whom he saw as warlike. News of the slur ricocheted through the Muslim world, and crowds rioted in Kashmir, raising questions as to whether Falwell himself is exactly promoting love and peace.

Falwell's comments are problematic for many reasons, not least with regard to historical accuracy. Muhammad forbade murder and the killing of innocents, and never used terror as a weapon in his struggles against his aggressive pagan enemies. Far from glorifying aggression, the Koran says (2:190), "Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not begin hostilities, for God does not love aggressors."

As for the contrast to other prophets, it is not as clear as Falwell suggests. Biblical narratives depict Moses as a murderer and leader of a slave revolt, and while he was a liberator, it is difficult to see him as a pacifist. The Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth because they saw him as a subversive, and historians know too little about his life to be sure they were entirely wrong. Many of the patriarchs and prophets celebrated by Christian fundamentalists were arguably terrorists or even genocidal, including Joshua.

Quite aside from the historical record, Falwell's remarks are misleading as to his own position. He and other fundamentalist leaders have repeatedly condemned Christian pacifism and have militantly supported a whole raft of wars and military interventions. If he believes that Jesus preached love and peace, Falwell has not exemplified those teachings himself. In the 1980s, Falwell even vocally supported the Reagan administration's military aid to the radical Muslim extremists who later coalesced into al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

European civilization has long been perplexed and scandalized by Muhammad, who succeeded in founding a world religion that rivals Christianity. Most early Christian attacks on Islam actually depicted it as an idolatrous religion, one of the great black legends ever fostered. Islam is nothing if not single-mindedly monotheistic. The first Latin translation of the Koran, carried out in 1143 by Robert of Ketton, was incomplete and marred by sarcasm and even obscenity. Its motive was not understanding but refutation.

Dante (1265-1321) placed Muhammad in the ninth circle of hell, writing:

How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;
And all the others whom thou here beholdest,
Disseminators of scandal and of schism

In fact, since Muhammad and the Meccans had never been Christians, it is difficult to see how they could be condemned for fomenting Christian schism.

Martin Luther promoted and wrote a preface to a 1543 Latin edition of the Koran by Theodore Bibliander, saying "I have wanted to get a look at a complete text of the Qur 'an. I do not doubt that the more other pious and learned persons read these writings, the more the errors and the name of Muhammad will be refuted. For just as the folly, or rather madness, of the Jews is more easily observed once their hidden secrets have been brought out into the open, so once the book of Muhammad has been made public and thoroughly examined in all its parts, all pious persons will more easily comprehend the insanity and wiles of the devil and will be more easily able to refute them." The dangers of this sort of religious bigotry, which once directed at Muslims can begin to spill over onto other religious communities, should be obvious.

In contrast, the Romantic sage and writer Thomas Carlyle (d. 1881) spoke for moderns in insisting on Muhammad's sincerity. (Another Western black legend about Muhammad was that he knew he was a charlatan). Of the prophet he wrote, "A false man found a religion? Why, a false man cannot build a brick house!" He went on to observe of Islam, "To the Arab Nation it was as a birth from darkness into light; Arabia first became alive by means of it. A poor shepherd people, roaming unnoticed in its deserts since the creation of the world: a Hero-Prophet was sent down to them with a word they could believe: see, the unnoticed becomes world-notable, the small has grown world-great; within one century afterwards, Arabia is at Grenada on this hand, at Delhi on that; -glancing in valor and splendor and the light of genius, Arabia shines through long ages over a great section of the world . . . I said, the Great Man was always as lightning out of Heaven; the rest of men waited for him like fuel, and then they too would flame."

The admiration of Muhammad's achievements visible in this modern writer marks a turning point in Western culture, away from narrow religious bigotries and toward a humanist ability to appreciate the best in world civilization. Falwell in contrast is promoting religious hatred for his own purposes. The rest of us should resist his scary agenda by learning more about Muhammad and Islamic civilization, and gaining a secular appreciation of their contributions to our world.

www.juancole.com

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Phil E. Dao - 5/17/2007

Get a kick out of this 1983 deposition by Larry Flynt (actual tape, not from movie) during the trail for libel when he printed an ad that suggested Falwell committed incest:

Mamma Shack Scandal:
http://www.monkeytypesthebible.com/2007/05/falwell-dead-look-back-at-mamma-shack.html

Richard Garyson - 10/18/2006

610 – Mohammed, in a cave, hears an angel tell him that Allah is the only true God.

613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.

615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.

619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha.

620 – Institution of five daily prayers.

622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, gets more converts.

623 – Battle of Waddan.

623 – Battle of Safwan.

623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir.

624 – Raids on caravans to fund the movement begin.

624 – Zakat becomes mandatory.

624 – Battle of Badr (see chapter on Badr).

624 – Battle of Bani Salim.

624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr & Zakat-ul-Fitr.

624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’.

624 – Battle of Sawiq.

624 – Battle of Ghatfan.

624 – Battle of Bahran.

625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.

625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad.

625 – Battle of Banu Nudair.

625 – Battle of Dhatur-Riqa.

626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra.

626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal.

626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah.

627 – Battle of the Trench.

627 – Battle of Ahzab.

627 – Battle of Bani Quraiza.

627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan.

627 – Battle of Ghaiba.

627 – Battle of Khaibar.

628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quarish. (The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement was signed for a period of 10 years, which became the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims. The agreement was broken after 18 months when Muhammad’s army conquered Mecca)

630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca (Quarish).

630 – Battle of Hunsin.

630 – Battle of Tabuk.

632 – Muhammad dies. …The reign of the Caliphs begins.

632 – Abu-Bakr (Muhammad’s father-in-law) along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.

633 – Battle at Oman.

633 – Battle at Hadramaut.

633 – Battle of Kazima.

633 – Battle of Walaja.

633 – Battle of Ulleis.

633 – Battle of Anbar.

634 – Battle of Basra.

634 – Battle of Damascus.

634 – Battle of Ajnadin.

634 – Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.

634 – Battle of Namaraq.

634 – Battle of Saqatia.

635 – Battle of Bridge.

635 – Battle of Buwaib.

635 – Conquest of Damascus.

635 – Battle of Fahl.

636 – Battle of Yermuk.

636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.

636 – Conquest of Madain.

637 – Battle of Jalula.

638 – Battle of Yarmouk.

638 – The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.

638 – Conquest of Jazirah.

639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.

641 – Battle of Nihawand.

642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia.

643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan.

644 – Conquest of Fars.

644 – Conquest of Kharan.

644 – Umar is murdered. Othman becomes Caliph.

647 – Conquest of Cypress island.

644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.

648 – Byzantine campaign begins.

651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.

654 – Islam spreads into North Africa.

656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali becomes Caliph.

658 – Battle of Nahrawan.

659 – Conquest of Egypt.

661 – Ali is murdered.

662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.

666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims.

677 – Siege of Constantinople.

687 – Battle of Kufa.

691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq.

700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.

700 – Military campaigns in North Africa.

702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira.

711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar.

711 – Conquest of Spain.

713 – Conquest of Multan.

716 – Invasion of Constantinople.

732 – Battle of Tours in France.

740 – Battle of the Nobles.

741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa.

744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.

746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha.

748 – Battle of Rayy.

749 – Battle of lsfahan.

749 – Battle of Nihawand.

750 – Battle of Zab.

772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa.

777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain.

Richard Garyson - 10/18/2006

Here are 13 example's of muhammad's peaceful nature

http://www.islamundressed.com/#_Toc113793210

1) The killing of Abu Afak.

2) The killing of Asma Marwan.

3) Attack upon the Banu Qaynuqa Jews.

4) The killing of Kab Ashraf.

5) The killing of Ibn Sunayna.

6) Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews.

7) The killing of the Shepherd.

8) Massacre of the Qurayza Jews.

9) The torture killing of Kinana.

10) The killing of a slave Wife and Mother.

11) The slaying of an old woman from Fazara.

12) The killing of Abdullah Khatal and his Daughter.

13) The attack upon Tabuk.

Richard Garyson - 10/18/2006

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." (Sura 2.191)

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." (Sura 3.28)

"O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand." (Sura 3.118)

"We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust." (Sura 3.151)

"O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?" (Sura 4.144)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement," (Sura 5:33)

"And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise." (Sura 5.38)

"And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust." (Sura 5.45)

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Sura 5.51)

"O you who believe! do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among those who were given the Book before you and the unbelievers; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers." (Sura 5.57)

"And how many a town that We destroyed, so Our punishment came to it by night or while they slept at midday." (Sura 7.4)

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." (Sura 8:12)

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." (Sura 8.65)

"It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise." (Sura 8:67)

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Sura 9:5)

"Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people." (Sura 9.14)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Sura 9.29)

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." (Sura 9:73)

"It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire." (Sura 9:113)

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Sura 9:123)

"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." (Sura 17:16)

"As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement." (Sura 24.2)

"And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors," (Sura 24.4)

"If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while;" (Sura 33:60)

"Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering." (Sura 33:61)

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish." (Sura 47:4)

"He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness." (Sura 48:28)

"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves;" (Sura 48:29)

"O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Apostle and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path." (Sura 60:1)

"O you who believe! do not make friends with a people with whom Allah is wroth; indeed they despair of the hereafter as the unbelievers despair of those in tombs." (Sura 60:13)

"Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins." (Sura 66:5)

"We will brand him on the nose." (Sura 68:16)

Richard Garyson - 10/18/2006

J K Wil - 11/14/2004

Mike,

You are quite a sick puppy. Interesting that
you think that someone who is a Nobel Prize Peace
winner, and leader of the Truth and Reconcilliation
Commission, is so degraded. Interesting that you
think that someone who could have been that involved in reconcilling people into what he had often told us, that all will be free together as the Rainbow People of God.

This makes you look like the worst kind of bigot and I feel sorry, not for South Africa, which is going in the direction that is toward the, as Martin Luther King would call it,"the moral arc of the Universe", but you and your ideas, which are reposed to the dustpins of history.

Joel

John M Brown - 10/21/2004

Comment removed.

Daniel m murphy - 10/3/2004

one thing that muslims and christians agree upon is that God is a holy God, but this is pretty much the end of the simmilarities. The God of the Bible without question is revealed to be far and above holier than that of the Koran. The old testament primarily reveals the unapproachable holinesss of the Lord and His hatred for sin. Without a sacrifice no man could approach this holy God. Islam makes this holy God approachable through human effort and rituals, thereby bringing His holiness down to an attainable level. Simply another religion of human endeavor. The Bible clearly teaches that the holiness of God is unattainable by human endeavor or human righteousness. This is the point of John 1:29 " behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". God in his infinite love for mankind has not compromised His holiness for the sake of accepting man in his presence. On the contrary He has proven his infinite holiness by offering an infinitely holy sacrifice for a sinful mankind. Jesus Christ the righteous. The Bible teaches clearly that man is saved by the grace of God, the mercy of God thru the love of God based upon faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished upon the cross never upon human merit (Eph 2:8,9- John 3:16, titus 3:5). It is this love that is to be the message of believers to the world, ie that any person regardless of race, status, seeming worth can enter into a relationship with this holy God, being cleasned thru the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. By the way, the peace that Christ advocated was not a world peace but a spiritual peace, and the sword that He claimed to bring was not a sword of violence but a spiritual sword. He was speaking of the division that would be revealed by those who accept his offer of grace vs. them that choose human religion and righteousness.
It is clear that the Mohamed never knew the the love of God and it is even clearer that he never knew the true holiness of God, else he would have fallen on his knees an sought mercy instead of preaching a religion of human merit. Finally, the Koran contridicts the Bible in so many ways. If it is to be the last word from God, and mohamed the last prophet, shouldn't it compliment the previous words of God. Or is God confused and unable to keep a straight story? We should have a real problem with any so called book of God that is penned by one man. This places a lot of trust upon one sinners words and claims. Who is to say that joseph smith wasn't really the one final true prophet (for he made the same claims a mohamed). No solitairy man's words should be accepted as the final word of God unless He is God, and is proven to be so by resurrecting from the dead. Mohamed where are you? In a grave? I guess you arn't God, and therefore your words are not of Him either. Study the origen of the Bible and you will find that it is an impossible book unless truly inspired by the hand of God. Over 40 authors, spanning a period of 1500 years, yet it has perfect continuity within it self. try that with any other book.

Sam Kabbani - 7/19/2004

same people that acuse Prophet Muhamad to be a teroriste had accused Jessus Christ for more than that. and Moses too. who want to here about Prophet Muhamad must read his story from real Muslems and not from antymuslems

Badi Villar - 12/28/2003

I am Spanish-speaking

******************************************

Mr.Silas wrote:

"Muhammad did indeed use murder, aggression, and terrorism as weapons against non-Muslims".

Mr.Silas's historical reflections are slanted by the prejudice.
He should compare the historical and cultural circumstances in that Moses and Muhammad lived.

Let us revise the Old Testament a little:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite them: For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake".
(King James Bible, Numbers 25: 16-18)

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife".
(King James Bible, Deuteronomy 21: 10-13)

31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
(King James Bible, Numbers)

I ask to Mr.Silas:

Do you believe in the God that order these acts?
or did Jesus differ against his Father in these matters (Trinitarianism)?

The 'Man' that order the death of infants was a "servant of God"!
God doesn't admonish Moses on this to proceed. God didn't reprehend Moses for the spill of the infants' blood!

But, the Christian affirm that Jesus is the God that he spoke of the Old Testament.
It's strange that Mr.Silas omitted the historical and social contexts and participation of Jesus-God in the wars and slaughters of the Old Testament.

I believe in Christ. My expressions are an satire to the religious hate.

Badí' Villar,
Huaraz-Perú

Badi Villar - 12/27/2003

Mr.Silas wrote:

"Muhammad did indeed use murder, aggression, and terrorism as weapons against non-Muslims".

Mr.Silas's historical reflections are slanted by the prejudice.
He should compare the historical and cultural circumstances in that Moses and Muhammad lived.

Let us revise the Old Testament a little:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite them: For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake".
(King James Bible, Numbers 25: 16-18)

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife".
(King James Bible, Deuteronomy 21: 10-13)

31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
(King James Bible, Numbers)

I ask to Mr.Silas:

Do you believe in the God that order these acts?
or did Jesus differ against his Father in these matters?

The man that order the death of infants was a "servant of God"!
God doesn't admonish Moses on that to proceed. God didn't reprehend Moses for the spill of the infants' blood!

But, the Christian affirm that Jesus is the God that he spoke of the Old Testament.
It's strange that Mr.Silas omitted the historical and social contexts and participation of Jesus-God in the wars and slaughters of the Old Testament.

shaheed tawheed - 11/23/2003

It's time that we expose wahabbies every where. They are deviants, and they do a great disservice to the propagation of the deen. In sha allah the real muslims will gain the victory Ammen. I follow abdul harrirry habash, and we expose wahabbies by the will of Allah

dennis stickney - 11/16/2003

January 26,2003,8:01 PM -- Please delete my comment?
Thank you , this is dennis stickney making this request and thank you.

dennis Stickney - 11/8/2003

You can please remove my comments and name from your web page,thank you, I am not a party to Falwell or any dialog about him.

Kevin - 10/31/2003

You must be a complete idiot if you think Islam is a religion of peace!

Avi Moshe - 10/30/2003

comment removed.

silas - 10/23/2003

I have a couple comments on Dr. Cole's article.

1) Cole's article was shallow and shoddy w/r to addressing the subject of Muhammad being a terrorist. Instead he chose to use his article to attach those he dislikes and disrespects and to pay some general platitudes to Muhammad. He should have used material from Islam's historical sources related to Muhammad's actions to determine whether or not he was a terrorist.

Here you will find my article that uses the historical material and presents a differing viewpoint

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/terrorist.htm

2) I criticize the "History News Network" for allowing such sloppy work to be published as a historical article. The editors should have insured that Cole's article actually dealt with the subject, instead of allowing Cole to use the title as a pretext to dismiss those with whom he disagrees.

There is a lot at stake, and the topic of whether or not Muhammad was a terrorist is critical and must be discussed fully. If Islam does allow and encourage terrorist activity then our society is in greater peril if due to PC, we turn a blind eye to the looming danger.

Dennis Stickney - 10/3/2003

I am Dennis Stickney from Allendale , MI .
YES! very many of the corporate church groups are too outspoken on many issues! When falwell made the comment just before the current war in Iraq began that we (the usa) should begin bombing the Iraqs and start making prophecy come true , I WAS DISGUSTED even more than before about his form of the gospel!
We have politics in the churches and the churches in too much POLITICS! The fourth reich is hell bent for oil and WATER! ALL OVER THE WORLD , not just Iraq?

Badí Villar - 9/4/2003

Read the Bible! The similarity between Moses and Muhammad is surprising. But, Moses directed more military activities than Muhammad.
Congratulations for Dr.Cole, for his brilliant article.

Badí V.
Lima-Peru

Lean la Biblia! La similitud entre Moises y Muhammad es sorprendente. Pero, Moises dirigio más actividades militares que Muhammad.
Felicitaciones al Dr.Cole, por su brillante articulo.

Badí V.
Lima-Perú

süleyman - 4/21/2003

Mohammed is an pofet.He is very god man.He love the homan.

BITCH - 4/15/2003

YOU ARE A SICKO BITCH AND YOU KNOW WHAY YOU SUCK DICKS TO CAUSE YOU SUCKED MY THIS MORNING

les_kicap - 3/8/2003

replace iraqi goverment was a 'nice' way?. i don't think so. well..what will happen to iraq maybe just same laki what was happen to afghanistan. hospital will be bombing..peplo will be killed when they ran for their life at bunker.. . children kliied coz not have enough food and medicine dll. i don't see how Iraq was so worst situation now..until i seen that US George w Bush (a stupidest american presiden that i ever seen) just wanna suck iraqi people blood. a name of peace?...BULLSHIT!!!!. how can american be so brutal to iraq that had been justify by El Baradei and Hans Blinx that iraq don't have nuclear weapon.who are bush to not hear a million voice of the rest of the world who don't want a war againts iraq!. that's ur presiden. well...for muslim...fight to defend their own homeland just a 'jihad' . and american should know the risk of what will their doing just a few weeks later. no wonder 3-4 years later...more and more suicide bomber will rise and rise until YOUR president will pay back of what he was doing to Muslim people.........and 1st payment..just a simple 'money'..that is BLOOD...in the name of God.. . don't blame muslim people...coz thier just want YOU to know how sacrifice to defend their own homeland rather than B-2 Bomber...

Dennis Stickney - 1/26/2003

Comments are like fertilizers, most of the time they smell bad or just plain stink, Falwell would do well to have a true conversion experiance, and shut-up with the fertilizer comments and just do his best to live the Godly life, or he could just shut-up and dissappear , vanish, etc. Falwell and Rush Lardball could be brothers?

Walt Brown - 12/28/2002

Arabs did not invent algebra or zero; Hindus did and Arabs borrowed the concepts from them. See "The Nothing That Is-A Natural History of Zero" by Robert Kaplan

Abir - 11/27/2002

Muhammed WAS a terrorist. The quran IS his legacy and a manual for effective terrorism.

Tarick - 11/24/2002

hay i 13 i might not know much but i do know this much that Allah is not a mith and i think who0 ever wrote that he is shall burn in the fires of HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mac - 11/21/2002

Mr. Gomez,
I like the direction of your thinking. It is the type of spark that will eventually (centuries unfortunately) provide the righteous path for people of all backgrounds. If more people stopped believing what they are told or taught and instead inspected all pertinent facts it would soon become obvious that we are dealing with human nature across the board (and have been at least for all of recorded history and I suspect since man began to communicate. The only fact not in evidence is divine intervention. I'm not saying that there is not God; I’m saying that an Omnipotent Being (ALL powerful, ALL knowledgeable) does not bless the path of a bullet. Why people can’t see the obvious is testament to our immaturity as a species. Here is an example of a religion that might have made it if just given enough ooomph:

A man and his wife have a dozen children. Upon delivering the twelfth child, The woman is stricken with a sickness and slips into a coma. The man is a stern taskmaster and continually teaches all of the children of how great the mother was, and the only proper reverence is to pray to her four times a day while facing in the direction of the hospital. The father dictates that “this will be the way from this time forth” and that they shall call the practice HOSPIKNEEL. He does this while raising his hand and bowing his head to appear solemn. All are confidant that this should surely please the mother (well, the father said it will, OK it’s what every one else is doing and that’s good enough for me.)

The kids all comply daily each trying to mimic the father’s affectation to appear equally solemn. All, except for one little boy who cries and says that he is sad to think of his mommy that way so many times a day. The father orders him killed and five of the other children comply using knives from the kitchen. They cut the little guy to shreds. Blood flies everywhere and the five get tired and thirsty so they get some cherry cool aid from the fridge and sit down at the table to rest. The father sees this, checks the calendar and declares this the blessed HACKIMUP holiday and that all will celebrate this “sacrifice” in the name of the mother every year on this same day and all will drink cherry cool to signify the blood shed on this blessed day and they will rest in memorial of the little one that was so gracious to allow others to sacrifice his young life for the glory of MOM.

The six that did not help kill the young one are horrified. (No, not with the death of the little guy they understood that. After all he had disgraced MOM.) No one should be revered more than MOM. Anyone who reveres another deserves to die. They move out to a new house where the oldest girl soon takes command. Two of the kids get homesick so the girl straps them into giant wooden devices and stretches them apart until they swear allegiance only to MOM and agree to her edict that all others are the enemy and deserve to die. They quickly agree. Another of the children calls this laughable and says that the first two only agreed because they were tortured. The oldest girl declares this heresy and orders this naysayer burned at the stake to cleanse his spirit. At the last minute the oldest gets the idea to burn the child in a hospital bed out of respect for MOM. From this day forward this group hangs the burnt bed in their place of worship as a symbol of the glory of MOM.

The father despises the oldest daughter for her disrespect so he announces a divine whisper from MOM that girls should suffer because of the eldest’s insolence. He orders his daughters held down and their clitoris cut from their body. He calls this ritual HACKERUP. He ordains it as the will of MOM. He swears that by the will of MOM it is for the girls own good and all girls will experience HACKERUP on their twelfth birthday.

Mom wakes up after a decade in a coma and true to a mother’s instinct tells the nurses and doctors in attendance that she hopes her family is happy, that they have been brushing their teeth, eating their vegetables and that she can’t wait to see them.

Both sides hear of Mom’s recovery and declare it a miracle that that surely came about because of the children that they sacrificed and their devotion. As mom waits for her family to arrive, she has thoughts of her children’s first dates, and birthdays, and family vacations and she couldn’t wait to hear every detail. She browses through the gift shop and picks out cards for each of her loved ones. Both sides of her family arrive at the same time and try to claim MOM as theirs alone. A fight ensues and Mom is killed. Aunts uncles and cousins hears of this and choose up sides.

Both sides declare the day a holiday, swear an unending hate of the other. They write new unquestionable Dogma that MOM is now a most holy spirit that will help kill the infidels (in other words the family members on the other side, and in the name of MOM, both sides start amassing bombs, and guns, and anthrax, and ….

Mom’s last entry in her journal before she went into the hospital said that she was thinking about painting the kitchen yellow.

Half of all of the fairy tales that religious leaders have made up over the years are aimed at maintaining power and control here on earth. The other half is to teach simple people simple concepts and lessons through simple stories. This is why all of the men that deliver the message best, insure that they themselves are in charge. They decide who the enemies are, who dies, and who the collective’s agenda is. They put together a few rules of self-sacrifice so that they can appear pious and they institute a tithing process so that they can spread influence through wealth. Then they go about the business of being self important in the name of "God" It's right out of the “control the people” textbook. It is the same process shared by successful religions and governments and has been for one hundred centuries. (Literally).

Why it works. I’m guessing, but I think part of it is that the average person isn’t all that smart. 75% of the population has an IQ of less that 109. Another factor is that the success of the species has been largely due to the fact that we work well in unison. That’s not to say it’s been a socialist existence. Quite the contrary, there have always been leaders and the rest were followers. A million years of evolution has put a lot of followers on the planet. Followers that will blindly hate on command, and follow a maniac into battle to defend the honor of MOM, or the fuehrer or the emperor, or the ayatollah....

fad - 11/18/2002

I just wanted to tell you that every person has his or her own view on Islam ....

Charlie - 11/7/2002

I think Falwell's argument (slur?) is historically
strong. The editorial, sadly, does not discuss such
matters. How do you explain Muhammed's raids on
peaceful caravans? His genocidal slaughter of all Jews in
Medina (including the selling into slavery of innocent women and children)? His plundering of Arabia once Mecca was
captured?

Answer: you can't.

Sunil Gupta - 10/26/2002

Mohammad was gay

Sunil Mohammad - 10/26/2002

Your idiots believe in Allah??? What scientific PROOF do you have that Mohammad(a terrorist) spoke to HIM? This is completely ridiculous!!!! Allah would only speak in Arabic???? The Koran is 100% bullshit

Sunil Gupta - 10/26/2002

He liked to screw little boys and suck dicks. He was an insane homosexual pervert like Adolph Hitler!!!!!!!

sunil gupta - 10/26/2002

The Muslim fanatics are insane. Here in the USA we have the death penalty and we WILL put you KILLERS to death. Watch out.

Yazen Ziad Fakhouri - 10/22/2002

Mr. Farwell,

allow me to begin by attempting to reason with you. I understand that you are passionate about your cause and about spreading the word of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I myself am an Arab Christian and I too am a lover of our Lord. However, in coming from a descent of people who are primarily Muslim, I have become familiar with both religions, and I must say that you are terribly misinterpretating Islam as a religion. You are giving us Arab Christians a bad name and our Lord shun upon rather than commend your approach in spreading the word. You are not a Christian and you should be ashamed of yourself!

Yazen Ziad Fakhouri - 10/22/2002

Mr. Farwell,

T.J. Stiles - 10/18/2002

A brief comment on Thomas Spencer's posting:
1) I do not "dismiss" Jesse James as a terrorist. In fact, I insist that he be taken seriously as a self-conscious political actor, and say that in his use of violence and his notoriety to promote the cause of former Confederates, perhaps the best way to understand him is as a forerunner to a modern terrorist--but not as an equivalent of Osama bin Laden. As I state in one of my endnotes, I wrote the book, including the use of the phrase, "forerunner to a modern terrorist," before September 11, 2001. But Mr. Spencer, of course, may not to have read the actual book.
2) Using Bellesiles to attack my book is not the best way to go about it. I did include references to Bellesiles's work in a few endnotes refering to a couple of points peripheral to my main thesis. After all, Bellesiles had won the Bancroft Prize at the time I was writing. However, before my book was finalized I revised it to take into account the fierce academic controversy over his work and my own problems with it, and I included warnings to the reader about it. Nothing in the book depends upon Bellesiles's work; remove it completely, and nothing in the book would change.
--T.J. Stiles, author of "Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War"

Thomas L. Spencer - 10/15/2002

Here is something I pulled off the web regarding the new trend towards "Terrorist Revisionism" in the media today. It's interesting to note that T.J. Stiles, author of the book mentioned below, used Michael Bellesiles THE ARMING OF AMERICA to support his case. Gentlemen, is this where history is headed?
------------------------

Paul Revere, Terrorist

The word "terrorist" is quickly headed down the same road that "racist" traveled down years ago. That is, the word is quickly becoming an all-purpose insult for anyone that the person doing the accusing happens to disagree with. Like "racist" or its variations like "anti-semite," "terrorist" is a term employed to cast a person in a light that discredits him in all matters and is thus unworthy of dialogue or consideration as anything other than as a symbol of pure evil.
In recent books and articles there has been a disturbing trend toward "terrorist revisionism." This is a phenomenon in which one takes a historical figure and anoints him with the new title of "terrorist" in an effort the prove the truly dastardly and sinister nature of that person. The new title reduces one to a caricature; a symbol of terrible things rather than as a truly historical figure that existed in a specific time and place and reacted to real historical events in specific ways. Terrorists, as understood by those who sling the title, are ahistorical "types" that occur here and there in history and wreak havoc upon a peaceful, righteous, and unsuspecting world. Supposedly, all was right with the world until the terrorists showed up and wrecked everything. It is also helpful to remember that in the history books, terrorists are never members of established governments. Government agents are always permitted to kill with impudence and maintain respectability. Those who must do with fewer resources must labor under the onus of being terrorists. Sixteen hundred years ago, Saint Augustine saw the inconsistency and recounted a tale about Alexander the Great and a captured pirate:
A fitting and true response was once given to Alexander the Great by an apprehended pirate. When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he replied with noble insolence, "What do you think you are doing by infesting the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate; because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor."
Augustine concluded, "what are governments but great bands of thieves?" Strangely however, the killing done by these great bands of thieves never earns any of their agents the title of terrorist. That honor is left to the small time thug; the pirate of Augustine’s tale.
Most recently exposed by the historians as a terrorist is Jesse James, the murderous bandit from Saint Joseph, Missouri who led the Younger gang on a crime spree across the United States until he was shot in the back by one of his own men. At one time in American history, James was a hero to many poor Southerners and denizens of Appalachia. One old ballad recounts that Jesse "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" and that "Jesse had a wife/ she was a lady all her life/ his children they were brave." In the late 19th century, banks and railroads were seen as tools of government favoritism and corporate pork (which they were), and the fact that Jesse relieved these institutions of some of their money was not a problem for America’s poor, especially those who had experienced the desolation of the Civil War. In a review of T.J Stiles’ Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War reviewer Roger Miller pins on James the title "Terrorist for the South" in an indictment of not only James himself but also of the entire South for romanticizing the exploits of a terrorist. This is irresponsible scholarship. Jesse James was undoubtedly a violent criminal, and if I saw him coming down my street I’d gladly open fire, but to dismiss him as a terrorist simply ignores the fact that James learned his criminal behavior fighting in an illegal war that destroyed James’ community and it ignores the kind of resentment that government meddling in the railroads and banking industry produced among the citizenry of the time. It doesn’t take a PhD to understand why some of James’ countrymen wrote sympathetic ballads about him and cheered his robbery of those whom many Americans saw as beneficiaries of a corrupt political system.
Pancho Villa is another historical figure to be rechristened a terrorist in recent years. In recent articles and op-eds many writers and pundits have begun to draw comparisons between Villa and Osama bin Laden. Villa has apparently earned the title of terrorist for his 1916 raid on Columbus, New Mexico. Villa attacked civilians in Columbus as well as the garrison of 600 American soldiers stationed there in the early morning hours. A firefight ensued and resulted in Villa’s retreat with 100 Villistas and 17 Americans dead. Woodrow Wilson quickly sent Gen. John Pershing to invade Mexico (at least the third time the United States had invaded Mexican soil since 1846) to capture Villa.
Villa has been dismissed as a terrorist for his "unprovoked" attack on Americans, but it turned out that the conflict wasn’t all that simple after all. It seems that the American government had been supporting the corrupt Carranza regime – a friendly dictatorship in President Wilson’s pocket – and had allegedly given military support to Carranza’s army in the battle of Agua Prieta where the revolutionary forces had been badly beaten. Enraging Villa’s army even more were the events of a few weeks earlier when 20 Mexican nationals had been arrested in El Paso, doused in kerosene to delouse them, and then set on fire. The revolutionaries felt that the Mexican government had been bought by the Americans through Carranza, and behaved accordingly. None of this is meant to imply that Villa was a saint. He violently harassed my own great-grandparents who fled the country soon after, and he was known to look the other way when his men raped the wives of captured soldiers, but terrible as it was, there was nothing remarkable about this for the time and the place in which Villa lived. What is remarkable is that Villa is singled out as the bad guy in a world where corrupt Mexican dictators routinely starved and murdered their own people in their petty political games. The difference between Villa and the "legitimate" Mexican dictators like Carranza was that Villa’s crimes were relatively localized. Carranza, the official thug, was able to spread misery across a much greater area, and with American help to boot.
If we carry the arguments of the terrorist revisionists to their logical conclusions we find that there are plenty of other names that might be added to lists of newly discovered terrorists in history. Consider the commentary of the future:
A new book on William Wallace reveals his terrorism, and exposes how Wallace should have accepted English occupation rather than challenge the respectable and legitimate rulers living peacefully in London. Wallace’s raids on innocent English civilians and his wanton killing of innocent English soldiers can only been seen as barbarous and inexcusable.
And…
The dissident and terrorist Paul Revere should be remembered for his conspiracy to kill innocent British soldiers. No one now denies that he was instrumental in the terrorist attacks on British troops at Lexington and Concord in 1775, and that the terrorists openly violated international law by refusing to line up and face the British head-on in battle. Fortunately, during their retreat, the British taught some of Revere’s fellow terrorists a lesson by executing them for their war crimes. And let us not forget the war crimes of Revere’s fellow terrorist Horatio Gates who ordered his men to violate international law by using snipers against British officers at the battle of Saratoga. It is remarkable that some people would stoop to honoring such butchers as heroes.
Perhaps eventually we could also add Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar, those Latin American terrorists masquerading as freedom fighters, to the list. While we’re at it, should we ever conclusively prove the existence of Robin Hood, let’s make sure he’s seen as the terrorist he was for robbing the government of its lawful tax revenues. The list could go on and on.
I’m not trying to imply that William Wallace, Paul Revere, or any of the rebels and revolutionaries discussed here are beyond criticism, are universally loved, or that they all had unblemished records as gentlemen, but there is a debate as to how such men should be remembered and revered. Calling out the "terrorist" label stifles that debate. Intelligent people understand that the English have a different view of William Wallace than the Scots do or that the Spanish have a different view of Bolivar than the South Americans, but one is not denounced as a terrorist sympathizer for suggesting that Spanish imperialism wasn’t the greatest thing ever, although I’m sure were I a Spaniard in the 19th century I would have been reluctant to say such a thing. Unlike the 19th century Spaniards, however, we Americans claim to live in a free society. We seem disturbingly preoccupied, however, with rewriting history to serve our own modern obsession with utopian ideals about good and evil that permeate our foreign policy and poison the minds of Americans against serious debate on matters historical and political.
Yes, Pancho Villa and Jesse James were killers. The question we should be asking ourselves though, is why they were killers and why they attacked who they did. These are questions that should never stop being asked, and when we give ourselves easy answers by turning what should be thoughtful debate into self-righteous proclamations about good and evil, we become cowards who are too afraid to confront the grim realities of our own history.

October 9, 2002

Ryan McMaken, Editor of The Western Mercury

Matthew - 10/14/2002

What is going on here? Is the whole world ignorant of Dhimmitude?
You will never see an Islamist defend it , because then it exposes the truth behind their version of 'peace' for the whole world.

Islam is evil......let's fight it.

Matt

Alec Lloyd - 10/14/2002

Munawar writes:
“Of course taking over a country and running their government is an excellent way to bend a country and a people to your way of life and understanding. That is an excellent idea.

But there are those of us that don't believe in subjecting a people to our governance just because we find them a danger to themselves, or to the communities around them. Why is the US deciding which countries need a shot of "New Governement?". I've never abided by the "I'm the biggest bully on the block, so I'm going to do what I want" mentality. I think in the end, it's a matter of opinion. You feel it's justified, I don't.”

In the first place, the people are already subjects of a hostile government. The US would have quite a task for it to exceed the brutality of the current regime. As many as one in six Iraqis has fled his homeland for fear of the government. It is hard to see how any American occupation can be worse.

It is also hard to see how ANYONE is the Middle East wants their present “way of life” to remain unchanged, given that there are no Arab democracies, the Mosques are controlled by the government and human rights are nonexistent. If the US were bent simply on overthrowing countries that annoy us, we’d have toppled France years ago. Right now Canada’s being somewhat of a rhetorical pain, too. If our policy were as shallow as you hint, both governments would be gone. Simply as a matter of logistics, it is far easier to occupy Ottawa than Baghdad. But that is not our purpose.

The US is not just wandering the globe, randomly toppling regimes. Saddam brought this attention to himself; he revels in it. Now he must pay the price for twisting the tiger’s tail.

When our troops enter, you will see celebrations in the streets, just as you did in Kabul. As much as it may be fashionable to portray America as an empire, we prefer to do the job and come home. (Note that Americans usually return their fallen home for burial, a distinctly un-imperial practice.)

Though you may be sarcastic, I will take you at your word: regime replacement in Iraq IS an “excellent idea.”

Mike Nargizian - 10/14/2002

http://www.rb.org.il/Islam-Israel/commentary/islamcom1.htm
No he says several things:

1) The Koran endorses Jerusalem as being the holy city for Jews as Mecca is for Muslims. Several passages and comments.

2) There is no Islamic reason against Israeli control of Jerusalem or the Mount.

3) The Saudi Wahabist (former Bedouin sect) have hijacked Islam since the British propped them up and than they found oil there. There were hundreds of fatwas against them and their founder of this at the time small heretical sect. True Islam is not the Islamist Wahabist militant "Political" Islam. The Saudis control the purse strings and exert tremendous political pressure as well to Mosques throughout Europe and particualarly in the US. Most US converts do not know any better that it is not true Islam they are being taught.

4)The reason why Arafat and his backer states did not take the deal is because they are afraid of democratization, modernity and eventual loss of power accompanied with it. That is the real reason. Arafat the 'Palestinians' captive to his own thugh selfish mentality.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP42202

".......Instead of false "leaders" such as Qadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Arafat [el-Husseini] or Yasin, we Muslims again need true leaders such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldum.

King Faysal of Iraq said:

"The Arabs, and particularly the educated ones among them, must look at the Zionist movement with the deepest sympathy."

Tragically, true leaders such as Faysal were silenced, and fanatics such as Haj Amin al-Husseini prevailed.

The evil consequences of the victory of fanaticism are clear for all to see:
Jews expelled from Arab countries where the lived in peace for over one thousand years, "Palestinian" refugees, terrorism, etc. To avoid future mistakes, we must learn from our past ones.

Unfortunately, there are Arabs who believe that they must fight against Israel until they completely destroy it (a tragedy which I do not believe the God of Israel will ever permit to happen - Never again!).

Unfortunately, there are also naive and foolish Israelis who believe, incredibly to me, that they will achieve "peace" with their Arab neighbours by giving the murderer "Arafat" [el-Husseini] a State, an army, etc. This is insane. You Jews are supposedly famous for your intelligence. How can some of your "leaders" be so stupid?

Mike Nargizian - 10/13/2002

Desmond Tutu is a phony.

Him and his pal Nelson Mandela are not all they were cracked up to be. Actually, I used to revere Mandela but always knew of Tutu's bullshit.

Tutu is nothing but a phony greedy and racist piece of garbage. It's too bad but perhaps South Africa will at some point turn the corner.

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/11/2002

You're right except for one thing.

Ann Coulter can be incendiary and hyperbolic but noone thinks she's serious. Plus she's on shows debating others who vociferously disagree with some of her statments.

However, in Arabdom when they say Jews are apes and monkeys, rapists, use the blood of Arab children, 4000 didn't go to work at the WTC, are trying to take over the world, Mein Kempf and Protocols are the best selling books, etc... THEY BELIEVE ALL OR MOST OF IT. Oh and I forgot to mention what's said about Americans and Christians of course.

Mike

PS MORE IMPORTANTLY THIS SHEIK IS SOLID AND the "Big Boys" can't even try and marginalize him because he's too solid, too respected and has too many credentials. But its noteworthy that Munwar, let's say a more moderate Muslim's, first reaction was to call him a Uncle Tom!!

Rafael Gomez - 10/11/2002

Mr. Lloyd, amongst all the unitelligible rantings that populate this discussion, your comments and those of Mario are very refreshing and elightening to read. Keep up the good work!

I just want to ask something (I don't know almost anything about the expansion of Islam) that I think is important if we are going to discuss the relative agressiveness of Islam and Christianity: To what extent were all the conquests and military adventures of islamic and christian rulers directly inspired by their religion?
The Crusades were very clearly religious in nature, or, even if there were other interests behind them, they were deliberately organized under religious pretexts. But not every conquest or military aggression is inspired by religion. For example, the European conquest of the New World, while mixed with missionary activity, did not have the spread of Christinaity as it's main goal. Europe was interested in territory, natural resources, commerce, and power. The forced opening of Japan to commerce with the west was also not motivated by religion. Probably the same can be said about many aggressive acts carried out by islamic rulers.

In summary, in this comparison between religions I think it is very important to separate those actions that were clearly motivated by religion, or at least purposefully cloaked under the guise of religion at the time, from those that had almost nothing to do with religion.

Rafael Gomez - 10/11/2002

I couldn't agree with you more!
Religion is a poison for the minds of a lot of people. It gives them all sorts of stupid reasons to discriminate, hate, and kill other.

Rafael Gomez - 10/11/2002

Matthew,
you sound and think exactly like the muslim fanatics that you profess to hate so much.

Your argument about Islam's backwardness is useless. If christianity has lasted 20 centuries (more than Islam), does it mean that it's even more backwards than Islam?
For centuries, islamic civilization was much more advanced and civilized than the european one. Arabs produced extremely important advances in medicine and mathematics, for example (the word "algebra" comes from arabic). The symbols for the numbers we all use are called "arabic numerals" precisely because they were first developed by arabs. Arabs were sometimes the first to translate some of the major writings of greek philosophers and thinkers. In fact, some of the original greek writings were lost before europeans re-discovered them, and all that survived were their arabic translations. Compare the splendor and refinement of arabic palaces in Spain with the primitive and crude castles and buildings of the contemporary christians.
Christians, until not so long ago, also had their own "fatwas" against anybody who would disagree with them. There were lists of banned books, burnings of heretics, lynchings, etc. Some of those "fatwa-happy" christians are still around, and they sound like you and Ann Coulter, in fact!
Isn't her statement about killing islamic leaders exactly the same as those of muslim fanatics who call for the killing of US or western leaders? It's as much a "fatwa" as any other.
Religious fanatics and bigots are all mirror images of each other.

GThadathil - 10/11/2002

Trying to correct Jerry Falwell will be like trying to set the dog's tail straight. Do not be surprised if he called Muhammad aterrorist because in the 1980s this same Jerry described Bishop Desmond Tutu as a "phony." Can it get any better than that. Falwell tries to terrorize other by calling them names and fiving them names. That too is terrorism.

Nevertheless, he is perhaps one of the fundamentalists advising Bush on Iraq. In the sixties, Billy Graham advised Nixon to "bomb them commies" (communists in vietnam) Now it is the turn of these bigots(Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others) to advise Bush on Iraq.

Matthew - 10/11/2002

Mike,

You are entirely correct. One of the reasons Islam has lasted 14 centuries is because of its backward nature, and the poor education of its followers. Plus, if you dare question anything( ala Salmon Rushdie), watch your back.....it is Fatwa time.

As Ann Coulter so succintly put it, " we should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity).....preferably Roman Catholicism.

Matt

Matthew - 10/11/2002

Munawar,

Thank you for your unapologetic reasoning about the prophet Mohammad.

Dhimmitude is not isolated to Egypt, I am sure you are aware that there are Dhimmis in ALL, not some, ALL Islamic countries. That is an axiom.

In regard to Islam being a religion of peace, analogous to Christianity, name one Christian denomination that straps C4 onto its children, and sends them off to kill the elderly and other children? Name one Christian denomination that treats woman as poorly as Moslems do, and name one Christian denomination that would kill a woman for having a child out of wedlock?

Please take off your intellectual blinders, and see for yourself the Islam is nothing more than a heretical cult of Judaism and Christianity.

Mike Nargizian - 10/11/2002

Subject: RE: MUNWAR REPLY TO
Posted By: Munawar

Hello Michael,
Hello Munwar,

Answer: No, I in fact join the Muslims who say that suicide bombings are wrong. I do not challenge Islamic Scholars, I let Islamic scholarship challenge Islamic Scholarship.

Thank G-d you agree. However, that's the problem no Muslims loudly stand up and criticize this Barbarian Sociopathic Behavior. However, the Sheik I detailed above calls it child abuse, which it is, when it is glorified and programmed through Television Commercials and Imams in Mosques, as well as in State Run Newspapers.

--------------------------------
Answer: I don't condemn anybody. I don't agree with them. They are scholars of the highest magnitude and I am a common man. My teachers, teach that suicide bombings are incorrect, and that is my stance. God will deal with everybody in due time.

You should condemn Arafat of course that's the problem, but I'll leave it alone.
------------------------------

Answer: Of course, the Muslims of Medina under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad fought wars and killed people. That is brutal violence. In everyone of those situations they were fighting their enemies in battle; most defensively on the field of battle.

I'll leave Medina alone since I am not learned on it and Sheik Palazzi assesses it in a similar way. Enough of it for now. Though, all the Jews were cleaned out of Medina and its been Judenrein ever since. Of course I could follow it by saying the Arabs brought on all the misery since 48 by not accepting the Jews, not accepting offers of peace, purposely causing the Arab Refugees and Sephardic Jewish Refugees, attacking Israel etc... However, I don't recall Israel cleaning out the Arabs from the "West Bank" Judea and Samaria, similar to the story of Medina.

-----------------------------------------
Answer: No Slavery is good. This was the custom of the time, and Islam included it in the religion. You cannot impose your cultural idealogies on other cultures, because you will always come off looking down on them.

Agreed. Interesting that some black leaders call all the writers of the Constitution animals because of its stance on slavery, common around the world at the time, though some were clearly against it but didn't push it due to needing the South at a critical time in the country's formation.

Farrakhan is a follower of "the Nation is Islam", not Islam. His prophet is Elijah Muhammad, not Muhammad of Islam.

Glad to hear you understand that as Palazzi's Fatwa clearly states.

Black slaves in America were not paid for their jobs, they were raped and killed at want. and they lacked any democratic voice, nor any sort of freedom. A slave in Islam has many rights, including the right not be killed, and the right of free speech. He also is able to work his way out of slavery.

Not gonna argue slavery is disgusting. However, some Slaves were not treated as you state above. Some of the founder's slaves were treated very well in fact, though of course not equal, how can a slave ever be equal in any situation.
You can't buy that slaves had the right of free speech. Do Dhimmi Jews in Muslim lands have the right of free speech. The story of buying his way out of slavery makes for a nice allegory in the Koran as the Bibles have some nice "allegorical" passages, but in common sense reality its not very "buyable".

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/11/2002

I KNEW IT. MUNWAR IS NOT A TRUE OPEN MINDED GUY. ANY JEW OR ISRAELI THAT IS CRITICAL OF ISRAEL AND WRITES OPINIONS AS SUCH, THAT'S FINE OF COURSE. Meanwhile wack jobs like Lyndon Larouche and David Duke are regular OpEd writers in Arabic Papers. And this Sheikh is a mainstream exceptionally respected Islamic religious leader, who forgot more Koran and Hadith than Munwar dreamed of learning. Yet he's an "Uncle Tom" right off the bat!

WHEN A MUSLIM SHEIKH ENDORSES ISRAEL AND CRITICIZES the out and out "THUGS" in the PLO Arafat who he says is terrorizing Israselis and "Palestinians" - HE'S AN UNCLE TOM!!

MUNWAR SHOWS HIS TRUE COLORS OF COURSE! THE KORAN SAYS WHO THE "REAL" PEOPLE are THERE by the way. I provided the verses for you even.

WHY DON'T YOU LEARN YOUR KORAN. I'D SAY THE SHEIKH, KNOWS IT A BIT BETTER THAN YOURSELF.
Further, since he wrote opinions or fatwas CRITICAL of Kabanni and even details the story of the Hudna and Medina in a way you describe it, are gonna call him some "name" anyway. However, perhaps you don't like the fact he and his fellow Imams in Italy wrote a Fatwa that MANY other Imams also signed calling "The Minister" Farrakhan and "The Nation of Islam" polytheistic Kuffars!! I assume you know your Koran well enough to grasp what that means.

He details how Arafat, who knows the Koran as well as I know the Torah, bumbles through passages of it just to utitlize and maintain his own political purposes and greedy purposes which are not in the best interest of the Arabs there nor the Israelis and how Sheiks wince any time this moronic clown tries to quote the Koran.

Why don't read the links instead of being "closed" minded which you obviously are, THOUGH you of course try to present yourself as a moderate open minded kinda guy.

Mike

PS Too bad you can't criticize his IMPRESSIVE credentials. He's trained by the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and I have links how he details the Radical Clans there WAHABISTS with their Texas Oil Money have bastardized Islam and are promoting this Radical Cult all over the world including the United States where they control the purse strings in most Mosques.

Munawar - 10/11/2002

Hello Michael,

Here is my reply to your questions. I believe I will leave this debate now as we are now entering a shouting match. Enjoy:

-------------------------------
MY REPLY:
Thus, then you condemn loudly and clearly and would so on Television how the Imams have PERVERTED Islam. Because they say Jihad and exhorting and glorifying Suicide Murder even to kids is the name of ISLAM!

Answer: No, I in fact join the Muslims who say that suicide bombings are wrong. I do not challenge Islamic Scholars, I let Islamic scholarship challenge Islamic Scholarship.

--------------------------------
MY REPLY:
So you condemn Arafat, his Muftia and the Saudi Muftis who staet Suicied Martyrdom is glorified in the Koran?

Answer: I don't condemn anybody. I don't agree with them. They are scholars of the highest magnitude and I am a common man. My teachers, teach that suicide bombings are incorrect, and that is my stance. God will deal with everybody in due time.

------------------------------
MUNWAR'S ANSWER:
You need to get your facts straight.
1) Muhammad never utilized brutal violence unless justified and required. He never struck first, nor did he do anything for pleasure.

REPLY:
REALLY IS THAT SO? YOU EVEN KNOW HIS STATE OF MIND... incredible. So you are therefore admitting that he did in fact utilize brutal violence, but ONLY when justified OF COURSE. Hitler said all his violence was justfied, he was just defending the honor of the German People, much like what Arafat states, PERHAPS, because Hitler trained his mentor.

Answer: Of course, the Muslims of Medina under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad fought wars and killed people. That is brutal violence. In everyone of those situations they were fighting their enemies in battle; most defensively on the field of battle.

-----------------------------------------
2) He had indentured servants, not slaves, who could buy their way out of slavery, and this was a custom practised by Arabs in the arabian peninsula. Even then, the prophet Muhammad advocated releasing slaves and freeing them, and he did free many in his lifetime.

Thus, it was "Good" slavery perhaps like the way the Sudanese Christians can buy their way out of slavery from their Muslim masters?? You admit he had slaves. Funny Farrakhan wants Reparations to be paid to blacks and his own Prophet had slaves, sorry indentured servants. The black slaves were paid as well acutally, they got free room and board and clothing. That was basically my pay as a camp counselor plus, a miniscule salary.

Answer: No Slavery is good. This was the custom of the time, and Islam included it in the religion. You cannot impose your cultural idealogies on other cultures, because you will always come off looking down on them.

Farrakhan is a follower of "the Nation is Islam", not Islam. His prophet is Elijah Muhammad, not Muhammad of Islam.

Black slaves in America were not paid for their jobs, they were raped and killed at want. and they lacked any democratic voice, nor any sort of freedom. A slave in Islam has many rights, including the right not be killed, and the right of free speech. He also is able to work his way out of slavery.

-----------------------------
3) He did not attack Medina. He was invited into the city to become the leader of the Arabs in Medina. He was invited in by the overwhelming majority of Arabs in the city. Not once was a sword raised a person beaten when he entered the city. Why do you keep saying he attacked Medina?

You know the Syrians claim TODAY "That they were invited into Lebanon by the Lebanese and that's simply why they don't withdraw their 40,000 troops and military occupation and leave. Perhaps, they are utilizing the same principle.

Answer: Well that's all very beautiful, but my point was that the Prophet Muhammad didn't attack Medina, he was invited into the city by the Arab leadership.

------------------------------------------
4) The Jews were removed from Medina over a period of 5 years because they made peace treaties with the prophet, then they broke their agreements by either siding with Muhammad's enemies in battle, or by secretly double crossing the Muslims in Medina.

WAIT AND YOU BYE ALL THAT?? Always there is of course a rational reason. How about the Jews didn't want to convert and he wanted them to so they made a treaty with other Arabs to try and save their necks. But Mohammed never double crossed the Jews or anyone else for that matter. NOOOOO, he was a perfect being only others "double crossed" others.

Again, Muhammad never once provoked or attacked the Jews out of hand. They brought their own downfall in the city.

They brought all the brutalization on themselves. Mohammed never wanted their land, businesses, booty, and such. It was just a COINCIDENCE that he ENDED UP WITH ALL OF IT. HOW MAGNANIMOUS OF HIM. Funny the Arabs say the Jews use this same logic in ending up with the West Bank. When Rabin has a Nervious Breakdown prior to the 67 War the Arabs say after the fact of course.... "Well the Jews planned it all out anyway to either dupe us into attacking or just making up the fact it was a defensive war."

Answer: Yes, the Jews brought it all upon themselves...breaking treaties in times of war is treason and the penalty is death. This is part of the American constituion.

------------------------------------------
5) The woman and children being taken into slavery was due to battles with the Jewish people. Arabian custom and Islamic law allow the taking of slaves (indentured servants) after a battle. There is no crazy sexual frenzy of attacking the slave woman as you seem to portray.

OH.... SO AFTER BATTLES YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE SLAVES - "Indentured Servants" sorry... Women and Children included. Or even Concubines or forced marriages like we see today in Saudi ARabis from kidnapped Christian women.

THUS, IF THE JEWS IN ISRAEL TOOK ARAB WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS SLAVES AFTER THE 48 WAR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OK THEN???? Nooo NOoo Nooo then they would be Nazis, sorry what was I thinking?

Answer: Yes, under traditional Islamic law, you can take slaves after battle, woman, and children included. I'm not sure if current Islamic scholarship has now deemed slavery as wrong, so I can't answer for what stands today.

------------------------------------------
I believe your misunderstanding of Islam stems from gaining knowledge of Islam from bad sources. I would advise you to find better sources like "Muhammad: His Life" by Martin Lings or even http://www.whyislam.org

I think listening to your rationalizations and parsing I got a pretty good idea already.

Answer: Then my job is complete

Munawar - 10/11/2002

Hi Mike,

I do not know of the Italian Sheikh, so I cannot endorse him, nor can I go against him. I find it amusing though, that all of the links you provided are from Exclusively Pro-Israeli websites. Where do you keep finding these Uncle Tom's?

Anytime the Jewish lobby supports a Muslim, I start scratching my head. What is the point you're trying to make? That he endorses that Palestinians are not the legitimate people of Palestine? Well good for him, that's his opinion, and I can respect him for that. I follow my own Shuykh in the United States. And when they spread that message, I will follow them.

Munawar - 10/11/2002

I do not speak of a “puppet regime,” but rather a gradual process of democratization. Our troops are still in Germany and Japan; such a mission may be equally long in Iraq. But if that is the price of peace, so be it. Arguably the best thing that could happen to Iraq would be a swift American victory, followed by a prolonged occupation. Iraq is not Afghanistan; it has a more sophisticated cultural heritage and a deeper reservoir of political, administrative and technological talent. Under American guidance a second Marshall Plan is not only possible but necessary.
---------------------------

Of course taking over a country and running their government is an excellent way to bend a country and a people to your way of life and understanding. That is an excellent idea.

But there are those of us that don't believe in subjecting a people to our governance just because we find them a danger to themselves, or to the communities around them. Why is the US deciding which countries need a shot of "New Governement?". I've never abided by the "I'm the biggest bully on the block, so I'm going to do what I want" mentality. I think in the end, it's a matter of opinion. You feel it's justified, I don't.

--------------------------
"My point, which you seem to agree with, is that Islam is no longer a religion of peace. It may never have been one but this is open to dispute. Having not studied Mohammed’s life in great detail, I will not pass an opinion, though I may do so in the future."

My point is that Islam is a religion of peace, but it is not being practised as such by many Muslims on this Earth today. You will find many many Muslims who actually do practise "peace". I would invite you to take a trip to Egypt or Syria. And I also would encourage you to examine the Prophet Muhammad's life. His message brought peace and civility to some of the most barbaric people on this Earth (6th Century Arabs), who buried little girls alive, because they felt that girls brought ruin on the family name. "Muhammad" His Life" By Martin Lings is a good starting point.

Peace,
Munawar

eric blankenship - 10/11/2002

Thanks mike, i tried to say what you said but could not put it into words
Blessings to you!

eric blankenship
eblankenshipnav@aol.com

Eric blankenship - 10/11/2002

I watched the jerry falwell interview and i saw both sides to the issue..i really do not care about either opinion because i am a christian that does ot believe that one should go digging into things to stir up trouble ..just like there are christians that preach love and peace there are muslims that do the same but then there are many many that would kill each other if gotten angry...so if either side really walked the walk of their religion as they say it is written, then there would be no wars or everyone angry...because ...islam is peace and christianity is love one another etc..so both basicly teach the same things...
One does not see buddist going around being pushy and angry all the time because most of them believe in love and peace..just like most religions teach.
Just like the Islams dancing in the street when the towers fell in the usa...is that an example of islamic faith?...If i saw chrisitians dancing because loss of lives...i would certainly think twice of my beliefs..or think twice about if the people really were following the religion...and search elsewhere for truths..
murdering of people is wrong and love is right. we should never fall back on religion when we do something wrong and then try to justify it...
one more thing..if someone is islamic and living in the united states they either need to be a USA citizen or get out. And if a us citizen, then they should respect us and we should respect them..if they in any way support the violence against the us ..they need to be thrown out...
I believe in love and freedom of speach ...but if you are an american citizen of any faith and speak out against our country..to others then you do not belong...this is my family and i love it. you can talk to me about what you think is wrong but never talk to others about it and do not burn an american flag...because lots of people have died and that is part of what it represents...
i know that i am rambleing but i am not agains muslims in general but i am aginsts pushy people because most religions are not like that...
love and peace and follow ones faith without ...pushing it on others....
jerry falwell is very opinionated and i do like people that do not follow the crowd but stick by what they believe...
I do not care about what the islamic belives my self so i could care less about the past...the christian faith has a history of people killing each other in the name of God also...so the point being....was it right no...do people change..yes..they follow their believes and not man because men mess things up such as cults and benlaudem...the take things to the extreame but they do not represent the true faith i hope..

Mike Nargizian - 10/10/2002

Subject: MEMRI is a very partisan Israeli site
Posted By: Mario

To call MEMRI "nonpartisan" is pretty hilarious. There have been countless articles on this supposedly "nonpartisan" organization, one of the best having appeared in the Guardian which did an investigation of its claims.

Mario talk of unbiased you are blatantly lying and exagerrating. You are reiterating word for word the synopsis on a PA funded site I read. There haven't been "countless" articles on MEMRI, JUST ONE from a writer who is vehemently leftist and anti-Israeli. The Guardian is hardly an unbiased paper as well, and is more of an agenda driven leftist British paper. Unlike MEMRI which just offers direct translations of Arabic media.

Its choice of articles from the Arab press is extremely selective and limited (anyone doing a cursory examination of the various news outlets in the Arab world can see this for himself, if they're willing to keep their minds open of course). It deliberately highlights only the most extremist articles.

Again you are repeating WORD FOR WORD. You could have at least ad libbed a bit. That is also a complete lie. They have articles often from liberal writers from Kuwait, Egypt and London to name just a few. Even recently a liberal Lybian writer. They are out there and likely many more that are sick of their gov'ts lies and deceptions and obssessions with Israel and blaming the West.

It also purports to provide translations from Hebrew but those are practically nonexistent. I heard an interview with one of the guys who run the site on the radio last month: he's an Israeli military official who professed his belief in "transfer" (i.e., ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians. MEMRI is a propaganda tool designed only to promote hatred of Muslims. It deliberately omits a plethora of perfectly moderate commentary from the Arab world.

DID YOU JUST USE THE COPY FUNCTION OR WHAT?? Again all bullshit see my other posts. Israel has nothing to hide in their media which is often published in English version and online not to mention it is a fully free media. The people who run MEMRI are actually left wingers and former proponents of Oslo and Camp David and a 2 State Solution.

Plus, there is no American or Israeli newspapers saying Arabs use the blood of Jewish children for religious ceremonies, that they are apes, pigs, monkeys, marauders, savages etc.. That they poison our water, air and anything else they can think of. If they did there would be protests in Israel or America. There is no protests in Arab coutries to this garbage, THEY BELIEVE IT ALL.

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/10/2002

Subject: MUNWAR
Posted By: Mike Nargizian

Munwar do you endorse this SHEIK and his really moderate peaceful Islamic Organization??
He has a PHD in Islam from the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

WE DON'T HEAR THE "MODERATE" AMERICAN MUSLIM ORGANIZATIONS SAYING

Everyone PLEAE read the links below. It screams of truth we don not hear from almost all 'Moderae' American or any other county's Muslim Relgiious Institutions.

By the way Munwar,
Sheik Palazzi describes the Medina situation and Mohammed in a way similar to the way you do. He however also says Wahabists through oil money now have bastardized and exported Radical Islamism which is NOTin his eyes true Islam.
He and many others also issued a Fatwa against the "Minister" Louis Farrakhan and his "Nation of Islam."
He also has very interesting views on the Israeli conflict.

CONDEMNS LOUDLY ABUSE OF CHILDREN
(Opposed to Evey other Imam that Glorifies it)
(You would side with Palazzi of course?? NO??)
http://www.mideasttruth.org/Articles/condemnationofchildabuse.htm
Condemns Suicide Bombing
http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/ISLAM/Palazzi_against_suicide_bombing.htm

STATES PA MUFTI **DISTORTS** ISLAM
http://www.onejerusalem.org/ItemDetail.asp?Language=English&ItemID=966

Personal Letter to Muslim Clergymen Regarding the Conflict
http://www.sunnah.org/publication/salafi/palazzi/palazzi_confess.html

Israel Should Declare Oslo Null and Void
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug98/palazzi.htm

Sovereignty over Israel and Jerusalem?
http://www.davidmargolis.com/journalism_muslimzionist.html
http://www.olam.org/magazine/issue5/treasure.cfm?treasure_id=17

Italian Muslim cleric Defends Israel
Blames Arafat, Arab leaders for continued Mideast
"They are Mafia Thugs" Questions "Intifada" "Palestinian"??
http://www.cabala.org/articoli/abdul.htm

"And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd,'" Koran says in 17:104, The Night Journey.

Palazzi, a Muslim cleric, told WND that one of the most common misconceptions in the current Arab-Israeli conflict is that in reality, "there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian.'

"There never was. It is a PR fiction, a Madison Avenue fantasy," he said.

Also, "There is no 'intifada,' El Aksa or otherwise. There is a Philistine Authority Pogrom, both against Jews and Arabs, by Arafat and his thugs. The main victims are the resident Arabs themselves. There is actually one reference in the Qur'an [Koran] to the Palestinian People … and that is the Philistines," he said.
(A GREEK SEA PEOPLE NOT EVEN SEMITIC OR ARAB)

Furthermore, the Koran confirms God's covenantal relationship with the Torah, land and people of Israel, he explained.

"An agreement can be reached between peace-loving Jews and Muslims, between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, on condition that the state of Israel does not take PLO leadership as a counterpart for negotiations anymore, abstains from steps which contribute to make [the] PLO survive, and patiently wait for the time when local Arabs will not bear PLO's tyranny and corruption anymore," he told WND.

In the meantime, Israel should unilaterally declare that any further peace negotiations with Arafat or any of his factions are effectively over and, in fact, should call for "PLO's self-dissolution."

Common Sense - 10/10/2002

I do not personally espouse atheism, but long it may stand as a bulwark against the sort of angry, half-literate nonsense spewing out all over this page.

Alec Lloyd - 10/10/2002

Munawar writes: “The Islamic example is in your Military Encyclopedia's. Muslims ruled most of modern day Asia for over 1000 years. Did they not coexist in peace? Did other religions not live in peace under their rule?”

At one time, Baghdad was a center of learning, now it is an oppressive hovel. The same applies to Damascus. Re-read my words carefully, I was speaking of contemporary Islam, not Islam in general for all time. The West uses Arabic numbers and Algebra—skills learned from Islamic peoples. I have not now, nor have I ever denigrated Muslim scientific achievements. Please do not lump me into the Jerry Falwell crowd.

“Islamic Terrorism and anger will recede once these lands move away from poverty and military dictatorships. Establishing a puppet regime in Iraq will do nothing but create more terrorists.”

I do not speak of a “puppet regime,” but rather a gradual process of democratization. Our troops are still in Germany and Japan; such a mission may be equally long in Iraq. But if that is the price of peace, so be it. Arguably the best thing that could happen to Iraq would be a swift American victory, followed by a prolonged occupation. Iraq is not Afghanistan; it has a more sophisticated cultural heritage and a deeper reservoir of political, administrative and technological talent. Under American guidance a second Marshall Plan is not only possible but necessary.

This would be a greater blow against terrorism than 1,000 smart bombs. By building a strong democracy with sound institutions, the US can help the Islamic world by providing a role model for other nations.

And please, enough with the Crusades. The Crusades were a defensive response to the destruction of the main Byzantine field army in 1071. I might similarly condemn Muslim pirates in Sicily and southern Italy or the Mahdist uprising in the Sudan. The systematic destruction of the Balkans under the Ottomans also comes to mind.

In any event, the Crusades were a localized phenomenon, affectiong only a portion of the Muslim world. Christendom did far worse damage to itself during the Wars of Religion. Both pale before the Communist-inspired genocides of the last century. If we are going to get into comparative body counts, we can have a different discussion.

My point, which you seem to agree with, is that Islam is no longer a religion of peace. It may never have been one but this is open to dispute. Having not studied Mohammed’s life in great detail, I will not pass an opinion, though I may do so in the future.

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

AMERICA'S ASHES: DESTROYING THE WAHHABI AL SAUD CRIME FAMILY FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER UNCLE SAM'S TEXAS TEA (OIL) COMPANIES HELPED CREATE
http://www.afsi.org/COMMENTARY/wahhabi1.htm

Warning to Muslims against the Bid'ahs
Preached by Muhammad Ibn 'Abdi-l-Wahhab
http://village.flashnet.it/users/fn034463/warning.html

WARNING

Wahhabis today call themselves "Salafis," in an attempt to confuse the Muslim masses that they adhere to the methodology of the pious Salaf, or predecessors, i.e. the Sahabahs, the Tabi’un, and Itba’u-t-Tabi’in. For example, some of the true Salaf applied ta’wil, or figurative interpretation, to Allah’s Attributes. Imam Bukhari gave a figurative interpretation of wajh to mean "Allah’s Dominion," in Suratu-l-Qasas, ayah 88. This can be found in the Sahih of Bukhari in the Chapter "Tafsir ul-Qur’an." Plenty of other examples exist of how the Wahhabi-Salafis oppose the practices of the true and pious Salaf.

The following writers are representatives of this cult. Their followers call them "Shaykhs", and Muslims must stay away from their books, papers and Web pages, and do not confuse them with real Sunni scholars:

Yusuf al-Qaradawi al-Misri (the one who says that salah in al-Aqsa is "haram". He unites the errors of Wahhabis and the errors of Ikhwanis in a new form of heresy).

‘Abdu-l-‘Aziz Ibn Baz (the deceased official "Mufti" of the Saudi regime and their Rabitah, who oppressed Ahlu-s-Sunnah in al-Haramayn).

Muhammad Nasiru-d-Din al-Albani (a recently disappeared pseudo-muhaddith from Albania who classified hadiths according to his unlimited fantasy and forbade women to wear golden ornament).

Abu Aminah Bilal Philips (a ultra-Wahhabi from Jamaica who forges claims in the history of fiqh, full of slanders and absurd accusations against Ahlu-s-Sunnah).

Muhammad Nubar Yahya Silmy (a propagandist of Wahhabism in Sri Lanka who is very much hostile to the Sunni ‘aqidah).

Shiraz Mohammadali (a former Shi'ite from Sri Lanka who converted to Wahhabism and fanatically supports all of al-Albani's heresies)

Abu Bilal Mustafah al-Kanadi.

Muhammad Saleh ibn Al-Uthaymin (an anthropomorphist who believes that Allah is "located in the upper direction").

Hamza Massimiliano Boccolini (a Wahhabi who lives in Naples and is exhorted to accept rahmah from Allah by tawbah and study of Sunnah)

'Abdur-Rahman Rosario Pasquini (an Ikhwani propagandist in Milano who, because of senescence, supports linguistic bid'at like "Allah is monopersonal" - sic! - "Muslims are islamocratics", wa na'udhu bi-Llah, afala yatadhakkarun).

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

So Munwar you endorse this Imam and his organization then.
He has a PHD in Islam from the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

FUNNY WE DON'T HEAR THE "MODERATE" AMERICAN MUSLIM ORGANIZATIONS SAYING THESE THINGS. JUST HOT AIR AND EMPTY RHETORIC.

EVERYONE READ THESE. IT SCREAMS OF THE TRUTH WE SHOULD HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS.

He describes the Medina situation in close proximity to how you describe it by the way. However, his feelings on the Wahabists, Israeli conflict and the like are I'm sure quite a bit different from what you profess.

CONDEMNS LOUDLY ABUSE OF CHILDREN
(Opposed to Evey other Imam that Glorifies it)
(You would side with Palazzi of course?? NO??)
http://www.mideasttruth.org/Articles/condemnationofchildabuse.htm

Condemns Suicide Bombing
http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/ISLAM/Palazzi_against_suicide_bombing.htm

STATES PA MUFTI **DISTORTS** ISLAM
http://www.onejerusalem.org/ItemDetail.asp?Language=English&ItemID=966

Personal Letter to Muslim Clergymen Regarding the Conflict
http://www.sunnah.org/publication/salafi/palazzi/palazzi_confess.html

Israel Should Declare Oslo Null and Void
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug98/palazzi.htm

Sovereignty over Israel and Jerusalem?
http://www.davidmargolis.com/journalism_muslimzionist.html
http://www.olam.org/magazine/issue5/treasure.cfm?treasure_id=17

Italian Muslim cleric Defends Israel
Blames Arafat, Arab leaders for continued Mideast
"They are Mafia Thugs" Questions "Intifada" "Palestinian"??
http://www.cabala.org/articoli/abdul.htm

"And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd,'" the Koran says in 17:104, The Night Journey.

Palazzi, a Muslim cleric, told WND that one of the most common misconceptions in the current Arab-Israeli conflict is that in reality, "there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian.'

"There never was. It is a PR fiction, a Madison Avenue fantasy," he said.

Also, "There is no 'intifada,' El Aksa or otherwise. There is a Philistine Authority Pogrom, both against Jews and Arabs, by Arafat and his thugs. The main victims are the resident Arabs themselves. There is actually one reference in the Qur'an [Koran] to the Palestinian People … and that is the Philistines," he said.

Furthermore, the Koran confirms God's covenantal relationship with the Torah, land and people of Israel, he explained.

"An agreement can be reached between peace-loving Jews and Muslims, between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, on condition that the state of Israel does not take PLO leadership as a counterpart for negotiations anymore, abstains from steps which contribute to make [the] PLO survive, and patiently wait for the time when local Arabs will not bear PLO's tyranny and corruption anymore," he told WND.

In the meantime, Israel should unilaterally declare that any further peace negotiations with Arafat or any of his factions are effectively over and, in fact, should call for "PLO's self-dissolution."

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

PLEASE EVERYONE READ FOR YOURSELF WHAT MUNWAR HAS STATED BELOW AND IF YOU STILL DON'T GET IT YOU ARE BLIND....

Posted By: Munawar

Question:
WHY ARE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE TERRORISM IN THE LAST 20 YEARS?
Munwar's Answer:
Islam puts peace first, current Muslims who find themselves in oppressive situations unfortunatly do not. The point being that Islam the religion does not preach this, just as Christianity does not preach actions like the Crusades.

MY REPLY:
Thus, then you condemn loudly and clearly and would so on Television how the Imams have PERVERTED Islam. Because they say Jihad and exhorting and glorifying Suicide Murder even to kids is the name of ISLAM!

The Imams in Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem, Cairo, Damascus and Beirut that say "Kill those Jews wherever you meet them, Kill them for they are evil" That also say "martyrdom is noble cause to spill your blood and kill Jews"
http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=246

Initial Quetsion:
"Strict Guidelines? Like Imams telling Palestinian children that strapping a bomb to their bodies and walking into an Ice Cream Shop, Elementary School or Pizzeria is a way to get 70 Virgins in Heaven and seek Allah. They run commercials of Mohammed Attah, whom it has BEEN PROVEN the IDF could not have killed, saying come to me in heaven."

Munwar's Answer:
Again, this is a result of oppression, poverty and anger. The bigger question is if you put any race, creed or religion in Palestine under the same circumstances, you would have the same if not greater backlash.

MY REPLY:
So you condemn Arafat, his Muftia and the Saudi Muftis who staet Suicied Martyrdom is glorified in the Koran?

MUNWAR:
I said, "When the prophet Muhammad spread Islam, never in any one circumstance did he ever attack another group of people or religion without just cause. He never once in his whole life lifted his hand against anyone unjustly."

MY INITIAL COMMENT:
You said" Right and you believe that!! Mohammed was a perfect being who never utilized brutal violence, murder or slavery?? He only attacked Medina because it was COMPLETELY morally just to do so and as well clean out every Jew from that Jewish city and turn into a Muslim city as well as take the women for their own and sell many into slavery. There are of course always Defensive Reasons for this. The Jews asked for it. Politics wasn't involved only religious purity and morally pure reasons.
That Simplisme is Polyanic gobbly gook. Just like any Christian or Jew saying that every Biblical person was perfect."

MUNWAR'S ANSWER:
You need to get your facts straight.
1) Muhammad never utilized brutal violence unless justified and required. He never struck first, nor did he do anything for pleasure.

REPLY:
REALLY IS THAT SO? YOU EVEN KNOW HIS STATE OF MIND... incredible. So you are therefore admitting that he did in fact utilize brutal violence, but ONLY when justified OF COURSE. Hitler said all his violence was justfied, he was just defending the honor of the German People, much like what Arafat states, PERHAPS, because Hitler trained his mentor.

2) He had indentured servants, not slaves, who could buy their way out of slavery, and this was a custom practised by Arabs in the arabian peninsula. Even then, the prophet Muhammad advocated releasing slaves and freeing them, and he did free many in his lifetime.

Thus, it was "Good" slavery perhaps like the way the Sudanese Christians can buy their way out of slavery from their Muslim masters?? You admit he had slaves. Funny Farrakhan wants Reparations to be paid to blacks and his own Prophet had slaves, sorry indentured servants. The black slaves were paid as well acutally, they got free room and board and clothing. That was basically my pay as a camp counselor plus, a miniscule salary.

3) He did not attack Medina. He was invited into the city to become the leader of the Arabs in Medina. He was invited in by the overwhelming majority of Arabs in the city. Not once was a sword raised a person beaten when he entered the city. Why do you keep saying he attacked Medina?

You know the Syrians claim TODAY "That they were invited into Lebanon by the Lebanese and that's simply why they don't withdraw their 40,000 troops and military occupation and leave. Perhaps, they are utilizing the same principle.

4) The Jews were removed from Medina over a period of 5 years because they made peace treaties with the prophet, then they broke their agreements by either siding with Muhammad's enemies in battle, or by secretly double crossing the Muslims in Medina.

WAIT AND YOU BYE ALL THAT?? Always there is of course a rational reason. How about the Jews didn't want to convert and he wanted them to so they made a treaty with other Arabs to try and save their necks. But Mohammed never double crossed the Jews or anyone else for that matter. NOOOOO, he was a perfect being only others "double crossed" others.

Again, Muhammad never once provoked or attacked the Jews out of hand. They brought their own downfall in the city.

They brought all the brutalization on themselves. Mohammed never wanted their land, businesses, booty, and such. It was just a COINCIDENCE that he ENDED UP WITH ALL OF IT. HOW MAGNANIMOUS OF HIM. Funny the Arabs say the Jews use this same logic in ending up with the West Bank. When Rabin has a Nervious Breakdown prior to the 67 War the Arabs say after the fact of course.... "Well the Jews planned it all out anyway to either dupe us into attacking or just making up the fact it was a defensive war."

Upon entering the city, Muhammad acknowledged the Jewish people and their religion, and he was willing to cohabit the city with them.

5) The woman and children being taken into slavery was due to battles with the Jewish people. Arabian custom and Islamic law allow the taking of slaves (indentured servants) after a battle. There is no crazy sexual frenzy of attacking the slave woman as you seem to portray.

OH.... SO AFTER BATTLES YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE SLAVES - "Indentured Servants" sorry... Women and Children included. Or even Concubines or forced marriages like we see today in Saudi ARabis from kidnapped Christian women.

THUS, IF THE JEWS IN ISRAEL TOOK ARAB WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS SLAVES AFTER THE 48 WAR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OK THEN???? Nooo NOoo Nooo then they would be Nazis, sorry what was I thinking?

I believe your misunderstanding of Islam stems from gaining knowledge of Islam from bad sources. I would advise you to find better sources like "Muhammad: His Life" by Martin Lings or even http://www.whyislam.org

Munawar

I think listening to your rationalizations and parsing I got a pretty good idea already.

Jim Schmidt - 10/9/2002

Juan Cole writes

"Martin Luther promoted and wrote a preface to a 1543 Latin edition of the Koran by Theodore Bibliander, saying "I have wanted to get a look at a complete text of the Qur 'an. I do not doubt that the more other pious and learned persons read these writings, the more the errors and the name of Muhammad will be refuted. For just as the folly, or rather madness, of the Jews is more easily observed once their hidden secrets have been brought out into the open, so once the book of Muhammad has been made public and thoroughly examined in all its parts, all pious persons will more easily comprehend the insanity and wiles of the devil and will be more easily able to refute them." The dangers of this sort of religious bigotry, which once directed at Muslims can begin to spill over onto other religious communities, should be obvious."

The problem with Cole's commentary is that he takes sides. This is not history. What Cole writes is propaganda. Look at what he writes about Luther's comments on the Qur 'an to see his venting of his prejudice. Here is what Cole's writes:

"The dangers of this sort of religious bigotry, which once directed at Muslims can begin to spill over onto other religious communities, should be obvious."

But what he calls religious bigotry is nothing but religious difference. What is that difference? Does Cole help us to understand that differerence? Does Cole tell us why Luther believed that the writings of Muhammad are "the insanity and wiles of the devil?"

No, Cole does not tell us why. Instead, he dismisses Luther's arguments by calling them religious bigotry.

This practice of Cole's is typical of that of the religious studies in the history departments of all of our colleges and universities. The works of Norman Fiering, Alan Heimert, Perry Miller, Nathan hatch, Mark Veleri, Alan Roeber, and others suffer from the same lack of "historical perspective" that Cole's comments suffers from.

When will those who busy themselves with the history of religious thought cease using their activity as a method of venting whatever personality problems that they might have and instead offer us an intelligent and rational explanation of the religious differences of the past.

Jim Schmidt
http://www.jimschmidt.com

salma - 10/9/2002

mohammed is a profet of muslims & all nations .we muslim never ever say bad commont about any profet .jesses. mosas so this is rely very bad or shame full to the knowleg able person say this kind of word .he say to sorry to GOD b/u all profets were GOD his family .

Munawar - 10/9/2002

"What “oppressive situation: are the Iranian mullahs in, exactly, save that they are the oppressors? We can understand the historical context of things, such as the original defensive nature of the Crusades and how they were manipulated and used for secular gain (the Fourth Crusade being a case in point), but that should not cause us to turn a blind eye to the obvious."

You're right the political leadership in Iran as in every part of the Islamic world is corrupt. I hesitate to call Islamic political leadership a bunch of money and power hungry barons, but I'd be pretty close if I said it. My statement should have read Islam is about Peace, Muslims unfortunatly are not. The religion says peace, but unfortunatly the masses of Muslims in this world either lack the knowledge, or they live in circumstances which do not create an atmosphere to cultivate this idealogy.

"So I, who have more than a passing knowledge of Islam, have some difficulty believing that it is a “religion of peace.” I have an atlas of military history (several, actually) which show “Muslim Conquests” from 622 onwards. Are they inaccurate?"

They are not inaccurate, but I would pose you two challenges.

1) Site me examples of flagrant violence and non-peaceful intentions from the Prophet Muhammad. (ie. his life time) and the following 13 years where his companions governed in his stead.

2) As for the violence that happened afterwards, this was a slow spin away from the real Islam. Even then I would find you hard pressed to find instances where the Muslims commited outright atrocities like you find by the Mongols or the Crusades.

"The challenge facing contemporary Islam is to decide whether it is in fact a “religion of peace” capable of co-existing with other faiths. Judeaism, Christianity, Buddhism and other religions (I mean no offense by omitting every one on the list) have made that leap. Where then is the Islamic example?"

The Islamic example is in your Military Encyclopedia's. Muslims ruled most of modern day Asia for over 1000 years. Did they not coexist in peace? Did other religions not live in peace under their rule?

"Ironically, it may take an American invasion of Iraq or Iran to produce such as state, just as it took an American military administration to demilitarize Japan. Certainly Iran has an ancient and rich cultural heritage, with enough sophistication to understand and implement the separation of church and state."

Islamic Terrorism and anger will recede once these lands move away from poverty and military dictatorships. Establishing a puppet regime in Iraq will do nothing but create more terrorists.

Alec Lloyd - 10/9/2002

Munawar writes:

“Islam puts peace first, current Muslims who find themselves in oppressive situations unfortunatly do not. The point being that Islam the religion does not preach this, just as Christianity does not preach actions like the Crusades.”

What “oppressive situation: are the Iranian mullahs in, exactly, save that they are the oppressors? We can understand the historical context of things, such as the original defensive nature of the Crusades and how they were manipulated and used for secular gain (the Fourth Crusade being a case in point), but that should not cause us to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

I have no issue with Muslims or Islam, save that it must to a better job policing itself. Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson do not issue death sentences, nor would anyone other than a bunch of fringe-lunatic crackpots pay attention if they did. They certainly haven’t ponied up cash for the heads of “blasphemers.”

So I, who have more than a passing knowledge of Islam, have some difficulty believing that it is a “religion of peace.” I have an atlas of military history (several, actually) which show “Muslim Conquests” from 622 onwards. Are they inaccurate?

The challenge facing contemporary Islam is to decide whether it is in fact a “religion of peace” capable of co-existing with other faiths. Judeaism, Christianity, Buddhism and other religions (I mean no offense by omitting every one on the list) have made that leap. Where then is the Islamic example?

Ironically, it may take an American invasion of Iraq or Iran to produce such as state, just as it took an American military administration to demilitarize Japan. Certainly Iran has an ancient and rich cultural heritage, with enough sophistication to understand and implement the separation of church and state.

Falwell is a red herring, a distration and straw man to make the point that anyone with a legitimate criticism of contemporary Islam is a bigoted crackpot fundamentalist idiot. That isn’t so. There needs to be more discussion of this, not less, and the sooner it begins in a non-adversarial way, the better.

Enough with Falwell, already, let’s deal with the real issue.

Munawar - 10/9/2002

I'm aware of his credentials, and they are immpressive, but at the end of the day if he spreads untruth about Muslims in this country, then the Muslims of this land will not be interested in him. His organization is a farce.

I live in NJ, beside NY, and we were denouncing the attacks on 9/11 from day one. I would be interested to know which Mosques you are speaking of?

Munawar - 10/9/2002

WHY ARE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE TERRORISM IN THE LAST 20 YEARS?

Islam puts peace first, current Muslims who find themselves in oppressive situations unfortunatly do not. The point being that Islam the religion does not preach this, just as Christianity does not preach actions like the Crusades.

--------------------------------------
"Strict Guidelines? Like Imams telling Palestinian children that strapping a bomb to their bodies and walking into an Ice Cream Shop, Elementary School or Pizzeria is a way to get 70 Virgins in Heaven and seek Allah. They run commercials of Mohammed Attah, whom it has BEEN PROVEN the IDF could not have killed, saying come to me in heaven."

Again, this is a result of oppression, poverty and anger. The bigger question is if you put any race, creed or religion in Palestine under the same circumstances, you would have the same if not greater backlash.

-----------------------
I said, "When the prophet Muhammad spread Islam, never in any one circumstance did he ever attack another group of people or religion without just cause. He never once in his whole life lifted his hand against anyone unjustly."

You said" Right and you believe that!! Mohammed was a perfect being who never utilized brutal violence, murder or slavery?? He only attacked Medina because it was COMPLETELY morally just to do so and as well clean out every Jew from that Jewish city and turn into a Muslim city as well as take the women for their own and sell many into slavery. There are of course always Defensive Reasons for this. The Jews asked for it. Politics wasn't involved only religious purity and morally pure reasons.
That Simplisme is Polyanic gobbly gook. Just like any Christian or Jew saying that every Biblical person was perfect."

You need to get your facts straight.
1) Muhammad never utilized brutal violence unless justified and required. He never struck first, nor did he do anything for pleasure.
2) He had indentured servants, not slaves, who could buy their way out of slavery, and this was a custom practised by Arabs in the arabian peninsula. Even then, the prophet Muhammad advocated releasing slaves and freeing them, and he did free many in his lifetime.
3) He did not attack Medina. He was invited into the city to become the leader of the Arabs in Medina. He was invited in by the overwhelming majority of Arabs in the city. Not once was a sword raised a person beaten when he entered the city. Why do you keep saying he attacked Medina?
4) The Jews were removed from Medina over a period of 5 years because they made peace treaties with the prophet, then they broke their agreements by either siding with Muhammad's enemies in battle, or by secretly double crossing the Muslims in Medina. Again, Muhammad never once provoked or attacked the Jews out of hand. They brought their own downfall in the city.

Upon entering the city, Muhammad acknowledged the Jewish people and their religion, and he was willing to cohabit the city with them.

5) The woman and children being taken into slavery was due to battles with the Jewish people. Arabian custom and Islamic law allow the taking of slaves (indentured servants) after a battle. There is no crazy sexual frenzy of attacking the slave woman as you seem to portray.

I believe your misunderstanding of Islam stems from gaining knowledge of Islam from bad sources. I would advise you to find better sources like "Muhammad: His Life" by Martin Lings or even http://www.whyislam.org

Munawar

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Fatwa on the Nation of Islam
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/1716/rulingonnoi.html

PLEASE......... tell me these Imams are not real Muslims or Mainstream or not decorated learned scholars of Islam. Please tell me that, cause I got the credentials from the highest teachers and certifiers of Islam right behind me. Perhaps, YOUR version of Islam is not the true one my friend.

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Rakan,

So are you agreeing with all of the historical facts that I presented in my original post you replied to??

Or are you just stating that Islam is the way becaused that is your religious belief, which you are entiteled by the way, YOUR beliefs.

Why is it that Muslims don't speak about the Koranic verses that state Israel is the home of the Jews, "Children of Israel" "People of the book"

"And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd,'" the Koran says in 17:104, The Night Journey.

Most High, says in the Holy Qur'aan: "Of the people there are some who say: ‘We believe in Allaah and the Last Day,’ notwithstanding their unbelief. Fain would they deceive Allaah and the believers, but they only deceive themselves, and realize it not. In their hearts there is a disease, and Allaah permitted this decease to increase. Grievous is the penalty they incur, because they are false." (Qur'aan 2:8-10)

Regarding the "Nation of Islam", their official doctrine is that Allaah appeared in the form of a human being named Fareed Muhammad, and that this "incarnation of God" chose another man, called Elijah Muhammad, as his Prophet. This is a clear contradiction of the Monotheistic faith (Tawheed), and of the Qur'aanic teaching according to which Muhammad (blessings and peace upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets. That is enough to say that everyone who belongs to the "Nation of Islam" is not, ipso facto, a Muslim, but an unbeliever.
Shaykh ‘Ali Moallim Hussen, President
Board of Ulema
Italian Muslim Association
Mailto:islaminst@box.infomark.it

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Subject: RE: islam
Posted By: Rakan
Date Posted: October 9, 2002, 9:21 AM
Mike: You are so confused and misinformed that you need to take history 101 class. By the way, I recommand you to stay away from those people who taught farwell.

If you look at the history of jews, you will find out that they were slaughtered, burned, and so forth except when they were under Muslims rules because Islam is the right religion.

Right living under Islam as long as they stayed in their Dhimmi place they were left alone? As long as they payed the exorbitant dhimmi taxes and never expected any input into the society running in which they lived. Just like the blacks knowing their place in Jim Crow South, as long as they stayed in their place.
I KNOW Sephardic Jews from Syria and Iraq, and that "Dog ain't gonna hunt" another words "That Fairy Tale shit is gonna fly anymore" The stories they could tell you would make your freekin skin crawl!!! They escaped though many they knew didn't. SO IF YOU WANNA BUY THE ISLAM ALWAYS PROTECTED THE JEWS etc... BULLSHIT than go ahead and drink your Kool Aid.

However, it seems the Jews in Israel treat the Israeli Arabs far better than Arab Muslims treat Arabs in their own freekin countries. The same goes for Muslims in the Christian United States. Thus, does that make those religions THE WAY by your logic??

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Subject: RE: If there were no Falwell, would the Left invent him?
Posted By: Munawar
Date Posted: October 9, 2002, 12:29 PM

And I think what most people are trying to point out to you is that while Islam is not a pacifist religion, it also does not glorify in killng humans.

WHY ARE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE TERRORISM IN THE LAST 20 YEARS?

Islam puts peace first, and if all else fails, then war. And even then with strict guidelines.

Strict Guidelines? Like Imams telling Palestinian children that strapping a bomb to their bodies and walking into an Ice Cream Shop, Elementary School or Pizzeria is a way to get 70 Virgins in Heaven and seek Allah. They run commercials of Mohammed Attah, whom it has BEEN PROVEN the IDF could not have killed, saying come to me in heaven.

When the prophet Muhammad spread Islam, never in any one circumstance did he ever attack another group of people or religion without just cause. He never once in his whole life lifted his hand against anyone unjustly.

Right and you believe that!! Mohammed was a perfect being who never utilized brutal violence, murder or slavery?? He only attacked Medina because it was COMPLETELY morally just to do so and as well clean out every Jew from that Jewish city and turn into a Muslim city as well as take the women for their own and sell many into slavery. There are of course always Defensive Reasons for this. The Jews asked for it. Politics wasn't involved only religious purity and morally pure reasons.
That Simplisme is Polyanic gobbly gook. Just like any Christian or Jew saying that every Biblical person was perfect.

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Subject: RE: Muslim Sheik Hero Moderate
Posted By: Munawar
Date Posted: October 9, 2002, 12:19 PM
You said about Sh Khabbani: YOU WERE SAYING AGAIN... NOT MAINSTREAM ISLAM?? THAT SO?
---------------------

Most Mainstream Muslim Muslim leadership in North America, condemn Sh Kabbani, and his organization "Islamic Supreme Council of America".

You may like him because he sides with the establishment, but most Muslims don't agree with him.

NO I like him because he states that the Wahabists Extremists have taken control of Islam and its teahing in America and elsewhere in the West and Pakistan for instance, ONLY DUE TO THEIR OIL MONEY. He states that is NOT REAL ISLAM.
But new converts in America don't know any better and MANY MANY Imams in New York City didn't condemn the attacks or its fundamentalists for months after 9/11 because they told their Priest and Rabbi friends they would lose their funding which COME FROM SAUDI ARABIA.

KABANNI'S FAMILY AND TEACHINGS DATE BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN LEBANON. His cousin is the head Mufti in Lebanon and his teacher is one that comes from a school dating back to the times of Mohammed. How much more MAINSTREAM does one have to be?
He's not a militant hate West so the Saudi Funders don't like him, including Farrakah.

On the other hand Al Manar (Hezbullah) television regularly trumps out the real lunatic fringe wackos like Finkelstein, Lyndon Larouche etc.. etc.. and Saudi Arabia has David Duke opeds in their Editorial News Pages.

Mike

Allen Campbell - 10/9/2002

I can't help but notice that as you gentlemen continue your dialogue, that rather than grow more apart, both of you seem to be finding common ground for understanding each other.

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Subject: RE: Re - ABDEL History....
Posted By: Abdel
Date Posted: October 9, 2002, 1:33 PM
Mike,

Get a hold of your emotions and learn from History.
Typical you didn't address NOT 1 fact I spoke about. NOT 1 JUST AVOIDED THE WHOLE THING.

"All of the above are just made up myths. "
Are you Delusional?
That was a sarcastic rhetorical question speaking about all of the present issues I raised. I never said Europe did not colonize Africa however I raised many DISTURBING issues going on RIGHT NOW TODAY having to do with Islam, like in the FIN Sudan which you totally avoided.

"Islam was not the religion who enslaved Human Beings for over 500 Years. Or massacred so many indigenous people in the
name of religion."
Ummmmm it is the religion that has enslaved and murdered about a Million Sudanese Christians, however, if its Muslims or blacks killing blacks that doesn't count?? pretell.......
OR As I asked is that not true or just a myth??

Are you saying the enslavement was not there and Indigenous people were not massacred by the settlers in the name of religion.
I don't believe I ever refuted that.

Get your History straight. My Ancestors were part of the thos indigenous people who were massacred and enslaved.

From where.. just curious which part of Africa?

Before concluding in your erroneous and biased information, review your knowledge in history.
Abdel...

Abdel my information and historic background is just fine. Again, how about address maybe just 1 OF THE ISSUES of many that I raised in my prior post.
Did you know that the PLO Muslims and their thugs, 13 of which got a paid exiled vacation in Europe, cleansed the once Christian majority of Bethlehem since Olso II 1995 gave them sovereignty over this former very peaceful city. Which prior to them getting control had GREAT RELATIONS with the Jewish and Christian towns next door like Gilo, Beit Jalla and Southern Jerusalem. No views on tens of thousands of Christians (Arabs) now living in exile in South America as a result

Mike

PS HOW ABOUT YOU COPY MY PRIOR POST AND PUT IN RESPONSES AFTER EACH POINT I MAKE, like I did, instead of slyly avoiding every issue and point I make.

George - 10/9/2002

Very creatively done, Mr. Lloyd. However, if a Muslim had written it, the statement would have been accepted as part of the honest pluralism of thought in one religion and especially as the essence of that religion is interpreted. It so happens that I have been a Baptist for 55 years and know a great deal about Baptist history. I referred only to the fundie leadership of my fallen denomination and not to the entire SBC. Liars, yes. Ignorant rubes, no ( nor did I even imply this ). Socratic " double ignorance" is a genuine possibility, however. You are incorrect to label JF as irrelevant in the SBC , however , for he definately is one of the SBC fudamentalist leaders. This is simply a fact and not an opinion. There is a vast difference between conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalist evangelicalism. JF and other SBC leaders are certainly among the latter. Critical disagreement within a tradition is certainly not a rejection of religion; it is simply critical disagreement. But, there are certain historical facts in a tradition which cannot be denied simply by inventing a history that never happened. Bush's obvious appeal to the extreme religious right is also simply a fact as vividly illustrated in one major instance when he kicked off his SC campaign on the campus of the most fudamentalist university in the US-- Bob Jones Univ. Even cute and creative observations have certain moral responsibilities.

Abdel - 10/9/2002

Mike,

"Zionist Myth... we know. "
It figures.

Get a hold of your emotions and learn from History.

"All of the above are just made up myths. "
Are you Delusional?

"Islam was not the religion who enslaved Human Beings for over 500 Years. Or massacred so many indigenous people in the
name of religion."

Are you saying the enslavement was not there and Indigenous people were not massacred by the settlers in the name of religion.
Get your History straight. My Ancestors were part of the thos indigenous people who were massacred and enslaved.

Before concluding in your erroneous and biased information, review your knowledge in history.

Abdel...

Munawar - 10/9/2002

My point was that Islam is hardly a “religion of peace.” I do not deny Christianity’s military history, but neither should Islam’s warlike nature be swept under the rug.
------------------------------------------------

And I think what most people are trying to point out to you is that while Islam is not a pacifist religion, it also does not glorify in killng humans.

Islam puts peace first, and if all else fails, then war. And even then with strict guidelines.

When the prophet Muhammad spread Islam, never in any one circumstance did he ever attack another group of people or religion without just cause. He never once in his whole life lifted his hand against anyone unjustly.

Munawar - 10/9/2002

You said about Sh Khabbani: YOU WERE SAYING AGAIN... NOT MAINSTREAM ISLAM?? THAT SO?
---------------------

Most Mainstream Muslim Muslim leadership in North America, condemn Sh Kabbani, and his organization "Islamic Supreme Council of America".

Here are 2 links. One a statement made by several organizations, and one webpage which talks about Sh Kabbani and his organization:

http://www.students.missouri.edu/lists/muslim-l/0346.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8841/menu.html

You may like him because he sides with the establishment, but most Muslims don't agree with him.

Alec Lloyd - 10/9/2002

Just a thought experiement:

“It is not surprising that Said joined the Wahabi sect several years ago because he quickly recognized his bothers ( and, I emphasize "brothers" since the Wahabi sect is so paternalistic and chauvinistic ) in arms ( another emphasis ). The fundies are known for inventing history that never happened if it strengthens their argument. The Wahabi fundies have done this for years and it was a major component of their take-over of the denominational structure of the mosques. It is unfortunate that more members of that denomination have not seen these liars for what they are. In their own way these fundies show that they do not have an inkling of the meaning of the essence of the Islamic faith. It is interesting , as well , to observe what a huge percentage of them support Bin Laden and his established Armageddon mode for the nation. Indeed, in so many ways we have become a nation of sheep as has the rank and file of the Wahabi.”

Hmmm, if I printed that, this board would explode with indignation. Racism! Bigotry! Islamophobia! Yet it is perfectly acceptable to paint the largest Protestant denomination as a bunch of lying, ignorant rubes. Lovely.

In fact, Falwell is irrelevant, has been for a long time. HNN may just as easily feature the ravings of Lyndon LaRouche as representative of the Democratic Party.

Halloween is just around the corner. Time to trot out the favorite left-wing bogeymen.

Munawar - 10/9/2002

WRONG. They condemn it of course but then morally relevate it. Plus, they do not cooperate in investigations, they are not critical of the hatred spewed in radical Islam, they are not openly crticial of Ben Laden or the Saudis, they are not openly critical of Homicide Bombings. Its just PATRONIZING CONDEMNATION for most of these so called "Moderate" Muslim organizations. And most didn't say a word for months.

---------------------------------------------------

How exactly are Muslims in America "morally Relevating" in 9/11?

Most Muslims are cooperating with the establishment, and the ones that aren't are doing so because of the Government's witch-hunt mentality.

You should start looking at what Muslims are actually saying instead of deciding what we're saying. Here are several links of major Muslim Organizations condemning the actions of a few within WEEKS of 9/11:

"There are a lot of people who do have the right sensibility. They also realize the stupidity of assuming the acts of a statistically insignificant number of people, whoever they were, represent the majority. In this country, there are almost 300,000,000 people; the attackers of Sept 11th are amongst a number of very crazy people that would do very crazy things given the opportunity, and some of them have actually proven that, and they are the Timothy McVeighs of the world."

Shaikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson
Full Link: http://www.zaytuna.org/tragedy/tragedy1.html

2. "What happened on that fateful day was evil indeed. In our mind there is no doubt that it was a crime, a serious offence that was totally against the teachings of Islam. There is no justification for this kind of action. Muslim organizations and leaders in this country and abroad unanimously condemned it. We condemned it more than others because it was said that the suspects of this crime came from Muslim background. "

Link: http://www.isna.net/Library/khutbahs/remembering911.asp

3. "The prophet Mohammed over fourteen hundred years ago said "beware of extremism, for it is that which destroyed the peoples before you." In the light of the present situation it is indeed wise advice. He also said, "My way is the middle way." Moderation is in fact the way of thinking people everywhere. The vast majority of humanity is not extremist but in key times can easily be driven so. To attack the seemingly intractable problem of terrorism at its roots we must address the condition that produced it and not just its ugly branches or bitter fruit. In our meeting with President Bush he said to American faith leaders twice, "I see opportunity through the tears.""

Full Link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/tv_radio/thought/documents/t20011011.html

-------------------------
You said about Sh Khabbani: YOU WERE SAYING AGAIN... NOT MAINSTREAM ISLAM?? THAT SO?

Most Mainstream Muslim Muslim leadership in North America, condemn Sh Kabbani, and his organization "Islamic Supreme Council of America".

Here are 2 links. One a statement made by several organizations, and one webpage which talks about Sh Kabbani and his organization:

http://www.students.missouri.edu/lists/muslim-l/0346.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8841/menu.html

You may like him because he sides with the establishment, but most Muslims don't agree with him.

George Shriver - 10/9/2002

It is not surprising that Falwell joined the Southern Baptist Convention several years ago because he quickly recognized his bothers ( and, I emphasize "brothers" since the SBC is so paternalistic and chauvinistic ) in arms ( another emphasis ). The fundies are known for inventing history that never happened if it strengthens their argument. The SBC fundies have done this for years and it was a major component of their take-over of the denominational structure of the SBC. It is unfortunate that more members of that denomination have not seen these liars for what they are. In their own way these fundies show that they do not have an inkling of the meaning of the essence of the Christian faith. It is interesting , as well , to observe what a huge percentage of them support Bush and his established Armageddon mode for the nation. Indeed, in so many ways we have become a nation of sheep as has the rank and file of the SBC.

Rakan - 10/9/2002

Mike: You are so confused and misinformed that you need to take history 101 class. By the way, I recommand you to stay away from those people who taught farwell.

If you look at the history of jews, you will find out that they were slaughtered, burned, and so forth except when they were under Muslims rules because Islam is the right religion.

Alec Lloyd - 10/9/2002

Mario, if I may answer your core question: Falwell is an idiot who likes the attention.

I am not “defending” him. Indeed, most if not all of my posts disparage the moron.

My point was that Islam is hardly a “religion of peace.” I do not deny Christianity’s military history, but neither should Islam’s warlike nature be swept under the rug.

Let us at least open our eyes to the way the world is, rather than obfuscate things behind p.c. smokescreens.

Paul Fitzgibbon - 10/9/2002

The fundamentalist would tell you that if you do not believe in their brand of religion you
will go to a very bad place when you die, is that not the ultimate form of terrorism ?
Terrorism of the flesh is a bad thing, but terrorism of the
soul, or whatever, is the "ultimate" bad thing.
Although,an atheist would be most terrorized by the
harming of his flesh, whereas a person who believes in
the hereafter should not.

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Subject: History speaks for itself.
Posted By: Abdel

History speaks for itself, The rise of a great civilization due the grace of Allah (SWT)and the teachings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him)was no accident.

Sorry but modern practice of Islam is intolerant and does not seem to be promoting much prosperity. Why do Muslims migrate every year to Europe and the US and not to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and the like? ITS THE IMPERIALISTS FAULT I KNOW... That's why Iran is going to overthrow the Fascists Mullahs running their country for 23 years now without any Western influence.

Islam was not the religion who enslaved Human Beings for over 500 Years. Or massacred so many indigenous people in the name of religion.

Really about 1 million Sudanese Christians have been slaughtered, or you weren't aware of that or the Slavery of them as well??? A Western or Zionist Myth... we know.

In my years of being a Muslim, I have heard only praise and honorable remarks made about Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him). In Contrast to the remarks made by Falwell about our
beloved Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him).

How do you explain the vile hatred for Jews (They don't count though) and Christians from the Mosques in Saudi Arabia, Syria, the PLO Territories, Hezbullah controlled Lebanon, Yemen etc... etc..

How do you explain the Dhimmi persecution of the Coopts in Egypt, the Assyrians in Syria, 100,000 slaughtered Christians in Lebanon, 1 million killed and enslaved Sudanes Christians?

It is interesting that a man who professes religion try to defame a Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) who is so widely respected. The remarks made by Falwell reinforce the reason why I choose Islam as a way of life. This is why more and more everyday Christians (such as my self) chooses a religion that inspires Love and Peace to the rest of Humanity.
No matter how it is depicted in most Media avenues.

All of the above are just made up myths. Anything critical of Islam is just a lie or a myth. Regardless of Falwell's ignorant comments, that doesn't justify the brutality of much common practiced Islam, Wahabist sect, and radical Islamists. Moderates like Sheik Kabanni are PARIAHS for criticizing the radicals-Wahabists and their perversion of Islam as Peace and moderation in America and around the world with THEIR OIL MONEY.

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/9/2002

Subject: RE: Moses, Jesus, and .....?
Posted By: Robert E. Nordlander
Date Posted: October 9, 2002, 2:47 AM

On the other hand, we were treated to an exposition of human ignorance, irrationality and superstition being placed at the disposal of a foreign nation. Falwellian Christianity pledged allegiance to the State of Israel.

Yeah.... and why you have a problem with him supporting the State Of Israel which has been under attack for 54 years.

Jerry Falwell referred to the founder of Islam, the prophet Mahomet, as a terrorist while proclaiming Jesus and Moses as exemplifiers of love.

Has Falwell read Numbers 31:17 where Moses gave the following order:
“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”
Jerry Falwell’s Biblical god orders that exemplar of love, Moses, to commit genocide in Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.

Falwell is either illiterate, dyslexic or a liar.
The Bible presents a schizophrenic Jesus preaching both peace and war. Luke 2:14, John 14:27 has Jesus preaching peace.
But Matthew 10:34 has Jesus saying “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace but a sword. Luke 12:51 and Luke 22:36 also affirm Jesus, the warrior.

It should be obvious that anyone who advocates belief in a sadistic torturing terrorist god that inflicts eternal pain on human beings because they did not worship him is engaging in a form of spiritual or psychological terrorism which is as despicable as any possible form of terrorism of Mahomet’s.

Robert E. Nordlander

Right, so you are saying all religions have violence in their past and........ ARE YOU FUTHER INTIMATING that due to the above Islam is a "Peaceful" tolerant religion?? Are you intimating that the current practices of Christianity and Judaism compared to Islam are barbaric? Are you kidding me?

Perhaps you should move to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Bethlehem PLO controlled, Lebanon, Syria etc..... Muslims in Israel are treated better than Arab Christians are treated in any Arabic Islamic country let alone the dhimmi Jews. Are you aware the PLO has cleared out Bethlehem of its Christian majority, through persecutions, violence, intimidation, molestations, hangings, graft etc....
They're living in exile or other parts of the West Bank now, and the resident of Bethlehem in 94 BEGGED Israel to include it in their Jerusalem sovereignty borders.

Mike

Abdel - 10/9/2002

Sam H.

Not Sure what your point is.

Abdel...

Robert E. Nordlander - 10/9/2002

60 Minutes had two segments on October 6 that were both inspiring and frightening.

One the one hand, we were given an awe-inspiring review of the history of the Hubble Telescope and how human rationality and genius are continually pushing back the frontiers of knowledge about the universe.

On the other hand, we were treated to an exposition of human ignorance, irrationality and superstition being placed at the disposal of a foreign nation. Falwellian Christianity pledged allegiance to the State of Israel.

Jerry Falwell referred to the founder of Islam, the prophet Mahomet, as a terrorist while proclaiming Jesus and Moses as exemplifiers of love.

Has Falwell read Numbers 31:17 where Moses gave the following order:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

Jerry Falwell’s Biblical god orders that exemplar of love, Moses, to commit genocide in Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.

Falwell is either illiterate, dyslexic or a liar.

The Bible presents a schizophrenic Jesus preaching both peace and war. Luke 2:14, John 14:27 has Jesus preaching peace.

But Matthew 10:34 has Jesus saying “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace but a sword. Luke 12:51 and Luke 22:36 also affirm Jesus, the warrior.

It should be obvious that anyone who advocates belief in a sadistic torturing terrorist god that inflicts eternal pain on human beings because they did not worship him is engaging in a form of spiritual or psychological terrorism which is as despicable as any possible form of terrorism of Mahomet’s.

Robert E. Nordlander
nord@famvid.com
333 Lopas Street
Menasha, WI 54952

Telephone: 920 725 1864

Moses - 10/9/2002

Sam,
As you know, a google search is value neutral. Try Jesus and scandal, Moses and scandal or Mohammad and scandal. You'll get "dozens of links to such topics."
Jerry Falwell may once have been a racist. A little known fact, however, is that his Liberty Road Baptist Church now has more African American members than any African American church in Lynchburg.
Falwell may be wrong about many things. He surely is wrong about Mohammad and Islam. His defamation of Mohammad does not give you license to defame Falwell in return.
M

Ramy - 10/8/2002

Moses was not a murderer, neither before his prophethood or after, He was a ptophet so was Jesus, Adam, Noah, Jonah, David, Mohamed and many more.
Jesus is son of Marry, the holiest women on earth. Jesus had his miracles to prove his prophecy and so did Moses, Mohamed's Miracle is the Quran and Allah/God challenges every person throughout history till day of judgement to come up with even one verse as the Quran has, and that is a proof that Islam is the Religion for all human kind to follow.

May God show you the right path.

Hegazy - 10/8/2002

Sam H. - 10/8/2002

Moses,
I stand corrected. However, Jerry Falwell's bigotry has been all over the place. Just a little search on google.com under the search clause "jerry falwell scandal" fetched back dozens of links to such topics, ranging from encyclopedias to dedicated web sites.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are racists, and promoters of hate.
Thanks for correcting my information. There was no intention to lie, as you put it.

Sam H. - 10/8/2002

What does Islam have to do with that?
Prostitution is widely spread in most Christian countries. Do you blame that on Christianity?
Islam is one thing, and what some people in Muslim countries choose to practice is another.
Let's keep Islam seperated from people's practices or traditions.
Islam was, I believe, the first religion to ban slavery. Or at least it was well over a thousand years ahead of what's so called civilized Western World in that regard.

Mike Nargizian - 10/8/2002

Posted By: Munawar
Sheikh Kabbani is not considered a mainstream islamic intellectual as many of his opinions are not in the mainstream Islamic mindset. He can say whatever he wants about other North American Muslim organizations, because nobody (Muslims) cares what he says.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=273232
...A native of Lebanon, Kabbani is a Sufi Muslim and an internationally respected Islamic scholar whose teachers trace directly back to the Prophet Mohammed. He is part of a respected family of traditional Islamic scholars that has led the muftiate of Lebanon for the last 150 years. His cousin is the grand mufti of Lebanon, the ultimate authority of Islamic rulings in that country.

EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree in chemistry, American University of Beirut. Medical studies at Louvain, Belgium. Degree in Islamic divine law from Damascus, Syria, under the tutelage of Sheik Abdullah Daghestani

Family: Wife, Hajjah Saziha Adil, a direct blood descendant of the prophet Mohammed. Four children and six grandchildren.

Currently: Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America in Detroit; founder of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order of America; founder and president of The Muslim magazine.

As leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, Kabbani has been a courageous voice of moderation and American patriotism, raising the alarm — at great personal cost — about impending foreign and domestic terrorist threats and advising what should be done about them. For years he has warned about the hijacking of Islam in the United States and elsewhere in the world by a militant and violent Wahhabist sect financed by Saudi Arabia that now controls or funds a large number of mosques, religious schools and political organizations in this country [see "'Wahhabi Lobby'" Takes the Offensive," Aug. 5]. Traditional, "moderate" American Muslim leaders, for the most part, have felt too isolated, outnumbered and intimidated to resist.

Wahhabi-linked groups worked hard to marginalize Kabbani as a result. That may be changing. In recent weeks, the State Department and White House actively have engaged the sheik and his organization.

INTERVIEW:
Insight: In what way has the Muslim community's voice been "hijacked"?

MHK:(MHK=Sheik Kabbani) We stood up in 1996. We spoke up about the Wahhabis. I did it openly. I mentioned the dangers of Wahhabism at our international conference in Los Angeles. From that time we began to get hit. We were discriminated against, boycotted, cut from many Muslim conferences because we were not accepting the way of Islam they were presenting. We were saying, "This is not the Islam we know in the Muslim countries. This is Wahhabi Islam. We cannot accept it."

We found a lot of American Muslims saying,
"We don't know what Wahhabism is."

Unfortunately, American converts were naïve; they didn't know that there was Wahhabi Islam.
Muslims born and raised here don't know the difference. The Islam they are seeing now is brought from the World Muslim League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

Insight: Saudi-based groups?

MHK: Yes, Saudi organizations that were brought here to America. And they're spreading Wahhabi Islam, and people think it's Islam because it's coming from the land of the two holy cities. No one will understand unless he is a scholar and knows Islam from back home.

Insight: What was the response to your warnings?

MHK: It caused a lot of commotion in the Muslim community. It opened their eyes. In the beginning of 1998 we began to publish The Muslim magazine, which was very well-accepted in the leadership community, in the administration, the U.S. State Department and the Muslim community. We began to expose everything. We spoke about [Osama] bin Laden, we spoke about the extremist groups in America, how they are using the centers, how they are using the Muslim mosques, how the ideology of Wahhabism is spread, how the leadership is implementing it but how the Muslim community in general is not accepting it. It went very well.

Insight: What was the reaction by the more Wahhabi-influenced groups?

MHK: They twisted what I said and lied to the community. They wanted to shut us down.

Insight: How do they operate in the United States?

MHK: This Wahhabist ideology, these Muslim national organizations, as they call themselves, operate much like the communists. They go to the poor people, they go to the grass roots and pick up stories or incidents and make them public, acting as champions of the Muslim community, [say] "these people are being discriminated against. We have to help them, we have to stop that, we have to criticize the government and the administration." The Wahhabi groups share their boards of directors.

MHK.......but I think a few in the administration at the lower level have been trying their best to block us from being invited.

Insight: Why is that?

MHK: It's obvious. The Wahhabi lobby is very strong. The homeland-security chief and the Treasury secretary had a meeting in Detroit [with Muslims and Arab-Americans] last spring. We asked many times to be included. We knew that the invitation went out, but it didn't come to me. We know it was stopped somewhere.

Insight: What is one of the main differences between the more radical but more influential Muslim groups in Washington and yours?

MHK: They're claiming that we are not representing Muslims, which is incorrect. We bring people to Islam for its moderation and its love. They make people run from Islam because they are radical and violent. So they try to cut us down as much as they can, from wherever they are able.

Insight: Yet some of these prominent Muslim lobbyists aren't even practicing Muslims. It's kind of like Catholics for a Free Choice, claiming to be Catholic while promoting views that are anathema to the religion's teaching.

MHK: That's what's so amazing! There's one person who is lobbying for Muslims; he moved to a lobbyist firm now [but] I don't want to mention his name. And he's not a practicing Muslim! Al-Jazeera asks him questions and he speaks as if he's the top of the Muslim community in America working with the White House. He has no grass-roots support, he has no constituency.

Insight: Yet that connection gives them inordinate political influence?

MHK: Unfortunately, when our government legitimizes them, they go back to the Arab countries, the Persian Gulf countries and tell them, "Look, we are working on behalf of Muslims, and this is the president, and we are working with him, advising him," and they get more money for their own purposes, not for the betterment of Muslims!

Insight: Have you encountered any racial profiling?

MHK: I've been through many airports and been profiled, but I don't say anything. At the beginning it was mostly profiling of Muslims. But now I'm surprised because they're not profiling Muslims too much because they are yelling too much. They're profiling [laughs].

Mnargizian - 10/8/2002

Subject: RE: Fact & Fiction, Mohammad Was A Terrorist?
Posted By: Munawar
Date Posted: October 8, 2002, 2:10 PM
-----------------
Where are you getting your facts from? EVERY MAJOR Islamic organization in North America has condemned the 9/11 attacks, including but not limited too, ISNA, ICNA, Zaytuna and even al-Azhar University in Egypt.

WRONG. They condemn it of course but then morally relevate it. Plus, they do not cooperate in investigations, they are not critical of the hatred spewed in radical Islam, they are not openly crticial of Ben Laden or the Saudis, they are not openly critical of Homicide Bombings. Its just PATRONIZING CONDEMNATION for most of these so called "Moderate" Muslim organizations. And most didn't say a word for months.

Sheikh Kabbani is not considered a mainstream islamic intellectual as many of his opinions are not in the mainstream Islamic mindset. He can say whatever he wants about other North American Muslim organizations, because nobody (Muslims) cares what he says.

YOU WERE SAYING AGAIN... NOT MAINSTREAM ISLAM?? THAT SO?

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=273232
...A native of Lebanon, Kabbani is a Sufi Muslim and an internationally respected Islamic scholar whose teachers trace directly back to the Prophet Mohammed. He is part of a respected family of traditional Islamic scholars that has led the muftiate of Lebanon for the last 150 years. His cousin is the grand mufti of Lebanon, the ultimate authority of Islamic rulings in that country.

EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree in chemistry, American University of Beirut. Medical studies at Louvain, Belgium. Degree in Islamic divine law from Damascus, Syria, under the tutelage of Sheik Abdullah Daghestani

Family: Wife, Hajjah Saziha Adil, a direct blood descendant of the prophet Mohammed. Four children and six grandchildren.

Currently: Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America in Detroit; founder of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order of America; founder and president of The Muslim magazine.

As leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, Kabbani has been a courageous voice of moderation and American patriotism, raising the alarm — at great personal cost — about impending foreign and domestic terrorist threats and advising what should be done about them. For years he has warned about the hijacking of Islam in the United States and elsewhere in the world by a militant and violent Wahhabist sect financed by Saudi Arabia that now controls or funds a large number of mosques, religious schools and political organizations in this country [see "'Wahhabi Lobby'" Takes the Offensive," Aug. 5]. Traditional, "moderate" American Muslim leaders, for the most part, have felt too isolated, outnumbered and intimidated to resist.

Wahhabi-linked groups worked hard to marginalize Kabbani as a result. That may be changing. In recent weeks, the State Department and White House actively have engaged the sheik and his organization.

INTERVIEW:
Insight: In what way has the Muslim community's voice been "hijacked"?

MHK:(MHK=Sheik Kabbani) We stood up in 1996. We spoke up about the Wahhabis. I did it openly. I mentioned the dangers of Wahhabism at our international conference in Los Angeles. From that time we began to get hit. We were discriminated against, boycotted, cut from many Muslim conferences because we were not accepting the way of Islam they were presenting. We were saying, "This is not the Islam we know in the Muslim countries. This is Wahhabi Islam. We cannot accept it."

We found a lot of American Muslims saying, "We don't know what Wahhabism is." Unfortunately, American converts were naïve; they didn't know that there was Wahhabi Islam. Muslims born and raised here don't know the difference. The Islam they are seeing now is brought from the World Muslim League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

Insight: Saudi-based groups?

MHK: Yes, Saudi organizations that were brought here to America. And they're spreading Wahhabi Islam, and people think it's Islam because it's coming from the land of the two holy cities. No one will understand unless he is a scholar and knows Islam from back home.

Insight: What was the response to your warnings?

MHK: It caused a lot of commotion in the Muslim community. It opened their eyes. In the beginning of 1998 we began to publish The Muslim magazine, which was very well-accepted in the leadership community, in the administration, the U.S. State Department and the Muslim community. We began to expose everything. We spoke about [Osama] bin Laden, we spoke about the extremist groups in America, how they are using the centers, how they are using the Muslim mosques, how the ideology of Wahhabism is spread, how the leadership is implementing it but how the Muslim community in general is not accepting it. It went very well.

Insight: What was the reaction by the more Wahhabi-influenced groups?

MHK: They twisted what I said and lied to the community. They wanted to shut us down.

Insight: How do they operate in the United States?

MHK: This Wahhabist ideology, these Muslim national organizations, as they call themselves, operate much like the communists. They go to the poor people, they go to the grass roots and pick up stories or incidents and make them public, acting as champions of the Muslim community, [say] "these people are being discriminated against. We have to help them, we have to stop that, we have to criticize the government and the administration." The Wahhabi groups share their boards of directors.

MHK.......but I think a few in the administration at the lower level have been trying their best to block us from being invited.

Insight: Why is that?

MHK: It's obvious. The Wahhabi lobby is very strong. The homeland-security chief and the Treasury secretary had a meeting in Detroit [with Muslims and Arab-Americans] last spring. We asked many times to be included. We knew that the invitation went out, but it didn't come to me. We know it was stopped somewhere.

Insight: What is one of the main differences between the more radical but more influential Muslim groups in Washington and yours?

MHK: They're claiming that we are not representing Muslims, which is incorrect. We bring people to Islam for its moderation and its love. They make people run from Islam because they are radical and violent. So they try to cut us down as much as they can, from wherever they are able.

Insight: Yet some of these prominent Muslim lobbyists aren't even practicing Muslims. It's kind of like Catholics for a Free Choice, claiming to be Catholic while promoting views that are anathema to the religion's teaching.

MHK: That's what's so amazing! There's one person who is lobbying for Muslims; he moved to a lobbyist firm now [but] I don't want to mention his name. And he's not a practicing Muslim! Al-Jazeera asks him questions and he speaks as if he's the top of the Muslim community in America working with the White House. He has no grass-roots support, he has no constituency.

Insight: Yet that connection gives them inordinate political influence?

MHK: Unfortunately, when our government legitimizes them, they go back to the Arab countries, the Persian Gulf countries and tell them, "Look, we are working on behalf of Muslims, and this is the president, and we are working with him, advising him," and they get more money for their own purposes, not for the betterment of Muslims!

Insight: Have you encountered any racial profiling?

MHK: I've been through many airports and been profiled, but I don't say anything. At the beginning it was mostly profiling of Muslims. But now I'm surprised because they're not profiling Muslims too much because they are yelling too much. They're profiling [laughs].

Mario - 10/8/2002

>

By no means, no. However, I think it does shed a bit of light on the issues of pace of historical change and development. Islam is still evolving at an age of hi-tech and globalization, where cultures of different levels of understanding/development are forcibly thrown together at a pace that Christianity and Judaism didn't have to endure. Third world societies co-exist with hi-tech advances and knowledge of the 20th/21st centuries together with economies, social mores and cultures that still haven't quite caught up. In the backwoods of northeastern Brazil, for example, you have illiterate, poor peasant families with very traditional views of women, family, etc. living with TVs, vcrs, CD players. (If you're wondering how they purchase such items, they buy them on installment plans that last years).

I've always thought that, given that Islam is forced to evolve at such an age as ours, where change is so incredibly accelerated, where people in far-off remote places are abruptly confronted with hi-tech communications that beam images of strange cultures, where commerce and travel confronts locals with these strange people and their mores, I'm amazed that there has not been *more* violence among its adherents than we have already seen. I have to wonder how Christianity and Judaism would have responded.

Whatever the case, I find this fixation on "proving" that Islam is inherently more violent than every other religion on the planet to be thouroughly lacking in any genuine, serious thought. Mohammed was a businessman, a great communicator and negotiator among warring tribes (he gained many followers by simply putting himself forward as an objective negotiator to resolve disputes before they became violent) who thought it was his obligation to bring the "message" of the one God to the Arabs, the message that they had not yet received but which the Christians and Jews had. At the time his society was riven with conflict and corruption. He called for honesty and ethics in business, humane treatment of animals, justice and compassion toward all people, and so on. His approach toward violence was that it was to be used as the very last resort and only in self-defense. He explicitly proscribed violence against children, women and the elderly.

Early Muslims suffered a great deal of persecution and torture so Mohammed and his forces engaged in war.

I agree of course that Jesus Christ--unlike Mohammed--was an absolute pacifist (tho Biblical scholars have for centuries debated the meaning of his quote in one of the gospels in which he says "I have come with a sword..."). But Christians also believe in the God of the Old Testament, who is hardly a pacifist. That part of the Bible (also the Torah) is full of revered prophets who call for enormous violence and war. And to claim that Judaism has a pacifist history pure nonsense.

I also strongly disagree with any attempt to claim that Christian history is somehow less violent, more moral, etc. than Islamic history. I find that patently ridiculous and thoroughly a-historical. In the modern world, Christian Maronites in Lebanon and Serb Christians have proven themselves quite capable of enormous savagery. And we've seen the appalling atrocities conducted by Hindus in Gujarat. Burning over a thousand people alive, hacking off women's breasts, impaling children, etc. That's not centuries ago, that was this year.

I note that religious violence of whatever stripe occurs far more often in unstable, undemocratic, corrupt, economically impoverished societies. In the US, for example, we have examples of Christian and Jewish terrorism but since they occur in a more stable, more prosperous, democratic society, such terrorism does not threaten the state in any serious way as in, for example, Egypt or the former Yugoslavia and so on.

Finally, I have to wonder about the maturity of Falwell and his adherents. Here we are in a very dangerous world situation in which it should be patently clear to any level-headed person that it is absolutely necessary to WORK WITH Muslims around the world if we are to defeat terrorism. Scolding them, attacking them, lecturing them, defaming their beliefs, talking about them as if they all came from the Arab Middle East (Arabs make up only about 12-15% of all Muslims) just proves bin Laden's claims about the West trying to destroy all Muslims. I don't know what Falwell thinks he's going to accomplish with this sort of stupid bigotry.

His comments have already generated massive demonstrations in South and East Asian countries, countries whose Muslim populations are overwhelmingly moderate. I should think that the most judicious, intelligent thing to be doing is to forge alliances, to talk with the world's Muslims with respect, reach out to them. We're already in a very bad situation as it is, with many Muslims already believing that the US is hell-bent on destroying Islam and murdering all the world's Muslims.

Falwell's just doing bin Laden's work. Why is he so hell-bent on alienating even the peaceful Muslims who desperately want democracy, modernization, peace and co-existence?

Alec Lloyd - 10/8/2002

Once Muslim, however, the Ottomans became formidable “missionaries.” Islam hardly pacified them.

As for where the various religions were after 1,400 years, the point is somewhat irrelevant. Even the most repressive Islamist regime cannot deny its citizens access to technology and ideas that were simply unheard of six centuries ago. Using your logic, Arabs and Muslims will always be 622 years “behind” the rest of us. Surely, you don’t wish to imply that Islam will always be “catching up” with the West?

Jerry Falwell may well applaud such a sentiment.

Mario - 10/8/2002

Good points. I'd also like to add the very salient point that the Mongol/Turks who invaded and conquered the dying Arab/Muslim empire from the east, approximately 6-700 years after the death of Muhammed, were NOT Muslims. The Arab/Muslim empire was conquered by non-Muslims who willingly *adopted* the Muslim faith and founded the Ottoman dynasty. No one forced them to adopt Islam.

It is also crucial to point out that Islam is only 1400 years old -- Christianity in the year 1400 was busy torturing and executing fellow Christian "heretics," Jews, Muslims, immersed in savage wars all over the place. Joan of Arc was a Christian fanatic devoted to the shedding of English blood. Judaism at 1400 years (the books of Joshua and Judges) is a wild, savage religion whose people are perpetually at war with their neighbors. (Hmm, some things never change...)

Moses - 10/8/2002

Abdel,
Do you deny that slavery is still practiced in some Moslem countries?

Masood Farooqui - 10/8/2002

Thanks for this excellent reply to all those extremist like Falwell to think again before throwing dirt on respectable prophets. And, prophet Mohammed whole purpose was to bring peace to all mankind...

Again, I do appreciate this article except the last comment that you have made as it states 'and gaining a secular appreciation of their contributions to our world' Please explain as secularism in nature is not part of Islamic teaching.

Masood Farooqi
Bureau Chief
East West Link & Urdu Times
(Canton Michigan)

Note: I will be glad to publish this article in our weekly if you give us permission by sending me an email. Thank You

Munawar - 10/8/2002

PS The ONLY American Islamic Leader who condemned the 9/11 attack vociferously and is critical of the bastardization of Islam is Sheikh Khabanni. Yet he is NOT INCLUDED in the NEW "Moderately" "Re-organized" American Muslim Council nor ANY "Moderate" American Muslim organization, which he says is funded and run by the Wahabi Extremists who have actually bastardized real Islam.
---------------------------

Where are you getting your facts from? EVERY MAJOR Islamic organization in North America has condemned the 9/11 attacks, including but not limited too, ISNA, ICNA, Zaytuna and even al-Azhar University in Egypt.

Sheikh Kabbani is not considered a mainstream islamic intellectual as many of his opinions are not in the mainstream Islamic mindset. He can say whatever he wants about other North American Muslim organizations, because nobody (Muslims) cares what he says.

Munawar - 10/8/2002

Interesting revisionist article on Muhammad. Funny how Mr. Cole failed to mention that Muhammed was a pedofile(how old was his last wife?), and a polygamist. Even with that aside, Islam has a long history of violence towards the dhimmi......ask any Coptic Christian in Egypt what they think of the system of dhmimmitude... very peaceful, indead.
--------------------------------

The Prophet Muhammad can be viewed as a pedofile when viewed with current Western ideals and concepts. It is not wrong from a Muslim point of view. Back in 600AD, Arab girls became woman after puberty, and were considered marriable. Marrying young girls was an Arab custom at the time, and still is, and there was nothing shocking nor wrong with this concept. The prophet's wife was married to him with full decree of her mother and father. Teenager is a word created in the past 100 years.

As for polygamy, again, you're viewing this concept through western eyes. Polygamy was practised before Islam on the Arabian peninsula, and it still is. Maybe your culture doesn't approve of it, but 1.2 billion of the worlds Muslims do not. It's funny how in this country, a man cheating on his wife is considered bad, yet when a man let's all parties know what he is doing, when he binds himself contractually to a woman, and gives her legitimate rights and legitimizes all children he has with his second wife, including inheritance, suddenly everyone is sneering and calling it barbaric and animalistic...am I missing something?

Lastly, your example of Egypt is an attack against Egyptian MUSLIMS, not the prophet, nor of the religion of Islam. There are many bad Muslims on Earth today, just as there are many bad Christians, Atheaists, and every other religion/group. Islam is a religion of peace, as are most religions on this Earth.

hesham Mahgoub - 10/8/2002

Thank you
Hesham

Mike Nargizian - 10/8/2002

Subject: Fact & Fiction, Mohammad Was A Terrorist?
Posted By: Sam H.
Date Posted: October 8, 2002, 11:42 AM
Well said Dr. Cole. Glad to see that there are voices of reason that are still breating in this country.
Our American society, unfortunately, is so blind and ignorant that it follows people like Jerry Falwell (who was caught with prostitues on public TV), and it calls him a "man of God"!
I believe that bigots like Jerry Falwell & Pat peterson are "men of EVIL". They speak of, encourage, and spread hate; and that's absolutely "ungodly"!
I hope that our society will someday wake up, and begin to see the true colors of those snakes!
Sam H.
Michigan, USA

Which Snakes are you speaking of pretell?? Falwell was never caught with prostitutes by the way, thinking of the wrong guy, lol! Speaking of spreading HATE though?? Ever read the translations coming from Islamic Mosques in the Middle East on a REGULAR BASIS? FALWELL'S comments are a panacea compared to those, only difference is the Mosques denegrate Jews especially and Christians, while Falwell denigrated Muslim. Thus, in your mind Falwell's comments which are light in comparison to the Mosque Sermons are HATEFUL and that "other stuff" is not worth mentioning or likely just some ZIONIST conspiracy or such??

Mike

PS The ONLY American Islamic Leader who condemned the 9/11 attack vociferously and is critical of the bastardization of Islam is Sheikh Khabanni. Yet he is NOT INCLUDED in the NEW "Moderately" "Re-organized" American Muslim Council nor ANY "Moderate" American Muslim organization, which he says is funded and run by the Wahabi Extremists who have actually bastardized real Islam.

Moses - 10/8/2002

Sam:
Mohammed was no terrorist; and Jerry Falwell was not "caught with prostitutes on public TV." It doesn't do either side any good to answer one lie with another.

MIke Nargizian - 10/8/2002

Subject: RE: islam
Posted By: Rakan
Date Posted: October 8, 2002, 9:09 AM
Paul, I really fell sorry for you that you can not see the real truth. However, I am confident at the end the truth always will prevails.

Yes let's hope it does. LIKE THESE TRUTHS.

Mohammed never visited Jerusalem

At the time of his death there was only a Church on the Mount where the Temple previously stood.

The Syrians in order to compete with the Arabians politically built the Dome of the Rock where the Church was, and then later built the Al Asqua Mosque 70 and 80 years respectively after Mohammed's death. They tried to heigten its signifigance which didn't work and it quickly thereafter faded into obscurity.

The Koran says that the area is "The land of the children of Israel's" and "The people of the book," THE JEWS.

Arafat's Nazi henchmen are feverishly trying to destroy all Biblical Artifacts from the Mount and dump them at a feverish pace to eventually claim it is just a Muslim Mosque on the whole hill.

Mohammed BRUTALLY slayed, enslaved, and exiled a Jews from a Jewish city previously friendly to him after the Jews there SIMPLY WOULD NOT CONVERT AND SUBMIT TO his religious beliefs. MECCA, somehow it was in self defense though? After which Muslims then faced away from Jerusalem when praying.

Mohammed utilized Rabbis to formulate ideas for the Koran and named Allah for a Pagan Moon G-d.

Historians believe that Islam may not have taken hold until 200-300 years after his death and may not have been even spread by Arabs.

Historians believe that Jews have been present in Eretz Israel continously for 3000 years especially in Jerusalem and Hebron except for the 19 years 48-67.

Historians believe in 1850 Jerusalem was almost 70% Jewish and 20% Muslim, of which about a third were even Arabs.

Historians believe that Jerusalem and Palestine only became significant when Muslims were not controlling it and after which quickly faded into obscurity again. NOT 1 dignitary or leader visited Jeusalem from 48-67, while it rotted into obscurity.

Mike

Hopefully the TRUTH will win out.

rf - 10/8/2002

I believe Falwell is a complete dunce and the fact that millions of Americans follow him says more about American than him. If the situation were reversed and he lived in a country like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen etc., he would probably be a leader like Osama Bin Laden.

I believe that it is true that "Islam is a religion of Peace" but I understand why people have a hard time accepting it. Any American would say that "America is a country of freedom," but people in the rest of the world will break out in spontaneous laughter at such a claim because they see what American foreign policy has done worldwide, the environments it has ruined, the wars it has sustained, the weapons it has spread and the regimes it has planted. That's why we need people who are rational. Right now, we have morons who are trying to will the apocalypse into happening. Good luck Falwell & co, in the long run, you are damaging America in ways you can never imagine. May God bless America and give Americans the sense to shun the filth of morons like Bin Laden and Falwell.

Abdel - 10/8/2002

History speaks for itself, The rise of a great civilization due the grace of Allah (SWT)
and the teachings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him)
was no accident. It is unfortunate that people such as Falwell refuse to accept events of
history that not only shaped the Islamic World but the Western World as well.

Islam was not the religion who enslaved Human Beings for over 500 Years.
Or massacred so many indigenous people in the name of religion.

Falwell's agenda in trying to defame our beloved Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him)
only brings about a much greater need for others to know who this most respected and honored
Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) was. "They Plan but Allah is the Greatest Planner."

In my years of being a Muslim, I have heard only praise and honorable remarks made about
Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him). In Contrast to the remarks made by Falwell about our
beloved Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him).

It is interesting that a man who professes religion try to defame a Prophet (Peace and blessings
be upon him) who is so widely respected. The remarks made by Falwell reinforce the reason
why I choose Islam as a way of life. This is why more and more everyday Christians (such as my self)
chooses a religion that inspires Love and Peace to the rest of Humanity.
No matter how it is depicted in most Media avenues.

Thank You Mr. Cole for shedding some light on true events of history.

Regards,

Abdel

Sam H. - 10/8/2002

Well said Dr. Cole. Glad to see that there are voices of reason that are still breating in this country.
Our American society, unfortunately, is so blind and ignorant that it follows people like Jerry Falwell (who was caught with prostitues on public TV), and it calls him a "man of God"!
I believe that bigots like Jerry Falwell & Pat peterson are "men of EVIL". They speak of, encourage, and spread hate; and that's absolutely "ungodly"!
I hope that our society will someday wake up, and begin to see the true colors of those snakes!

Thanks again.
Sam H.
Michigan, USA

Dr. Naiyer Habib - 10/8/2002

Juane Cole's effort is much appreciated in passing on referred comments from respecful people who respect others. These ought to enlightening for Falwell, F. Graham, Pat Robertson and people of their kind who live like a toad in the well and for them the world is what they see for themselves. They have no guts as I have commented in other media to face Scholars on Islam. Is F.Graham going to be still President's favorite most reverend!

Sean C. Goodlett - 10/8/2002

I'm not going to be dragged further into a "debate" over this, but to get a sense of just who reads the material on the MEMRI site, go to http://www.memri.org/aboutus.html.

I remain firm in my conviction that the HNN has anti-Semitic editorial policies. The articles I cite in a previous response to Prof. Cole (http://hnn.us/comments/3239.html) represent a disturbing trend amongst so-called "neutral" educational sites.

Enough.

Alec Lloyd - 10/8/2002

In fact, I was just paging through my Encyclopedia of Military History last night and took note that Indonesia seems to be an exception.

The lesson is not that Islam is a “religion of peace,” but that I should avoid sweeping generalizations.

I am not hostile to Islam. Far from it. I simply don’t see the point in making a Big Lie about its origins and spread. It is a warlike religion and as a person in the military I can respect that. But let’s at least be honest.

We can debate the extent to which Christianity is also warlike, though I should note that its founder declined to incite violence and chose death instead. As a student of Western military history, I can also note the customs which the Church (and later, Christian humanitarian organizations) have tried to impose to make war more humane. While Islam has similar rules, (and there are episodes such as the Seige of Rhodes in which they were scrupulously adhered to) modern Islamist regimes seem bent on violating them. That this elicits little condemnation from Muslim religious authorities seems strange to me.

Matthew - 10/8/2002

Munawar - 10/8/2002

Mohammed cleaned out a complete Hebraic city Mecca using the Hudna principle. Muslims claim he did so in "Self Defense" though?? He needed to expel all the residents in self defense somehow. WHY? Because they still wanted to practice as what they were Jews, and not convert to Islam.
---------------------------------

Hey, just wanted to correct some of your facts.

1. Muhammad did not clean out Mecca of Jews, he cleaned out Medina
2. Muhammad only removed the Jews from Medina after the had broken peace agreements with him in times of war.

All of the Jewish tribes in Medina created Peace Treaties with him, then one by one they all broke those peace treaties. During large scale wars, some of the Jewish tribes turned their backs on the Muslims and sided with the Quraysh, the enemies of Muhammad.

They made agreements with the Quraish against Muhamad, AFTER signing peace treaties with Muhammad. Any place on Earth that is a call to war.

3. The Prophet Muhammad, when he entered Medina, signed peace treaties with the Jewish Tribes, AND he allowed them to practise their religion. At no point did he ever attack the Jews for practising Judaism.

Ali M. Aliabadi - 10/8/2002

Dear Prof. Juan Cole,

I like to congradulate you for your excellent article in response to Jerry Falwell's insult to the Prophet of Islam. It is sad that still there are people like him that are so narrow minded that do not appreciate tolornce, mutual respect and understanding among the followres of World's Greate Religions.

I would suggest to read the article ' False Prophet: Inside the Evangelical Christian Movement; that Aims to Eliminate Islam' by Barry Yeoman in June 2002 issue of Mother Jones magazine. This article documnts the hidden agenda behind this kind of attitudes towards Islam and Muslims.

In light of 911 that created an apportunity for Christian Right to renew their attacks on Islam, I would highly recommend the followning books;

Kimball, Charle. When Religion Becomes Evil. Harper SanFrancisco, 2002.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. Harper SanFrancisco, 2002

Rakan - 10/8/2002

Paul, I really fell sorry for you that you can not see the real truth. However, I am confident at the end the truth always will prevails.

Rakan - 10/8/2002

If you talk like farwell, think like farwell, and behave like farwell you must a bigoted idiot.

abu abdullah ibn samuel - 10/8/2002

Juan Coles refutation of jerry falwell is excellent as it is based in historical fact from other than islamic sources, which strengthens his position especially for anyone not accepting the Quran and Sunnah [teachings, examples, prohibitions, actions, etc of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him]as fact. Christian showman such as falwell, robertson, franklin graham, et al are simply vomiting anti-Islamic rhetoric, spreading virolent lies to protect their own financial dominians. I do believe these extreme individuals do believe their version of christianity that is refuted by their own books, let alone the Quran, however, it seems these men have a lot to lose if the tide of Islam conversions continues[ and it will as Islam is self perpetuating as it is from Allah and not from mankind.] This is especially true in the false, desperate and idiotic claims against the Messenger of Allah being violent, [and worse from the mouth of robertson]. One only needs to turn to the bible to find shocking stories of incest, rascism, drunkeness and murder done at the hands of Prophets and Messengers of God. THis is a lie upon God, to suggest that he selects men of such low character to teach others to believe in God, live pious lives, etc., then they get drunk and father children with his daughters [Lot]. May Allah protect me from such filth. Professor Cole eludes to such irrational ideas with proofs that any sane person who believes in God and desires truth can at least consider before chastising others based in ignorance, hate and opportunism.
Thank you professor Cole!
Sincerely,
Abu Abdullah ibn Samuel

Sameh Strauch - 10/8/2002

The translation of the verse in Soorah Al-Baqarah which you have given: {but do not begin hostilities, for God does not love aggressors} is incorrect. It should say: {And do not transgress the limits (ordained by Allah), verily, Allah loves not the transgressors}

Muhammads lover - 10/8/2002

The person who made the comments aboyt Muhammad I think is sick. He doesn't read the admiration of their modren writer. He don't know that he should respect of the prophet of other religion if he doesn't beleive on him. Any way if we accept that mental disorderness of this person then this all debate will go away. If a person deney a day light in the day means he is blind.

Mike Nargizian - 10/8/2002

Mohammed cleaned out a complete Hebraic city Mecca using the Hudna principle. Muslims claim he did so in "Self Defense" though?? He needed to expel all the residents in self defense somehow. WHY? Because they still wanted to practice as what they were Jews, and not convert to Islam.

Thus, since Israel has been attacked in 48, 67 and 73 by the Arabs, Arabs still openly speak of driving Israel into the sea,
been terrorizing and killing civlians women and children for 54 years, burnt down the 2000yr old Jericho Temple, Desecrated Joseph's Tomb, Desecrated and destroyed Solomon's Stables and its Biblical Artifacts,
BY MOHAMMED'S "SELF DEFENSE" THEORIES

Muslims should completely understand if Israel were to decide to drive all the Arabs into Jordan, a Palestinian Arab state on 78% of Palestine.

Just using transferance logic.

Mike

Mike Nargizian - 10/8/2002

MEMRI is a very partisan Israeli site
Posted By: Mario

To call MEMRI "nonpartisan" is pretty hilarious. There have been countless articles on this supposedly "nonpartisan" organization, one of the best having appeared in the Guardian which did an investigation of its claims.
--------------------
The Guardian DID NOT do any investigation! I have the article. They wrote an opinionated "review" that basically said since the writer is an Israeli the site "must be" biased, not that the Guardian is?? u>However, they state as EVERYONE ELSE HAS its translations are COMPLETELY ACCURATE TO THE WORD!! And since MEMRI only offers direct translations without commentary the whole article was a WEAK attempt at a swipe at a VERY CREDIBLE RESOURCE. They had a problem that the head of the site wants to keep his identity hidden, his urge to stay alive is a problem for the Guardian.

Since Arab Spokesmen speak very differently in Arabic than they do in English the site obviously provides invaluble overall insite as to the thinking and the press in the Arab world.

Its choice of articles from the Arab press is extremely selective and limited (anyone doing a cursory examination of the various news outlets in the Arab world can see this for himself, if they're willing to keep their minds open of course). It deliberately highlights only the most extremist articles.
-----------
BULLSHIT! They translate from the major Dailies in the Middle East as well as in Britain and Kuwait, the more progressive Arabic Papers. They don't pick a Minor Radical paper, since they can't exist anyway. They're all State Run in the Middle East!

FURTHER, they regularly have articles from Liberal Arab Writers and Intellectuals that are critical of their own governments, the Middle East, Israel and provide overall great insite into the overall situation and break down of the peace process.

ON THE OTHER HANDThe Arab "Media" (State Run) regularly rolls out David Duke, Radical Leftists and Conspiracists, White Supremacists including Lyndon Larouche (Wack Job) in their column pages as evidence of the evil Zionists, Jews and American "Capitalists".

Thus, it is RIDICULOUS for you to even try and impugn the integrity of a 100% CREDIBLE RESPECTED site especially in light of the above. ARE you upset about the hatred spewed from Duke or Larouche regarding Jews or Americans in Arabnews.com?? JUST CURIOUS.

MEMRI directly translates exact articles to English PERIOD!

It also purports to provide translations from Hebrew but those are practically nonexistent.
--------------------------
NO NEED the main Israeli Dailies are all available in English or On line. Plus, since it is a Free Open Media and Society ANYONE!! can get their hands on them.
http://www.jpost.com - http://www.haaretzdaily.com
In English knock yourself out they HAVE NOTHING to hide in contrast. KNOCK YOURSELF OUT.

I heard an interview with one of the guys who run the site on the radio last month: he's an Israeli military official who professed his belief in "transfer" (i.e., ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians.
----------------------
You're lying first of all. And second, the head of the site is a Liberal Labor Party member who supported Oslo and Camp David and a 2 State Solution. Regardless, his translations are lauded by EVERYONE for their accuracy. You can't impugn it just cause you don't like the information he provides being EXPOSED to otherwise naiive Westerners.

FURTHER, note, over 75% of the Israelis also supported Camp David negotiations for peace and supported a Palestinian State. A majority still do for FINAL REAL PEACE not a Hudna Cease Fire. Meanwhile, a majority of Palestinians support liberation "From River to Sea" AND the PLO CHARTER!!!! still calls for the destruction of Israel. YOU WANT TO COMPARE NOW!! Please get a clue.

MEMRI is a propaganda tool designed only to promote hatred of Muslims.
------------------------
It provides DIRECT TRANSLATIONS and it is somehow propganda?? How does that one work??

The Arab media is Propaganda used to demonize Jews, Christians, Americans often. They are apes, pigs, monkeys, marauders, have no connection to Israel/Palestine or the Temple Mount (Comical), they use the blood of Arabs for religious ceremonies, they purposely poison the water and air and EVEN use Arab kid's bodyparts for transplants?(Comical Again) Actually, a recent Jewish victim of a Suicide Murderer donated his body parts to a Palestinian child by the way which saved his life.

Things written in the Arab press are crucial to know for Americans especially in light of the duplicitous way spokesmen's comments in English and Arabic differ. Not to mention the virulent disgusting hatred endemic in the Arab State Run Press.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT CHANGE IT. OTHERWISE you sound like an INFANT who blames everyone else for reality.
"THEY'RE USING IT TO HATE MUSLIMS" Thus, its not my fault its someone else's fault. In this case Memri for their EXACT translations.

It deliberately omits a plethora of perfectly moderate commentary from the Arab world.
-----------------------
Bullshit. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE LOOKING LIKE AN IDIOT.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD42602

Liberal Egyptian Writer in London Arabic Paper
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP42202

Former Libyan PM on the Need for Reform in the Arab World
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP39402

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP40902

Mike Nargizian - 10/8/2002

MEMRI is a very partisan Israeli site
Posted By: Mario
Date Posted: October 7, 2002, 5:56 PM

To call MEMRI "nonpartisan" is pretty hilarious. There have been countless articles on this supposedly "nonpartisan" organization, one of the best having appeared in the Guardian which did an investigation of its claims.

The Guardian DID NOT do an investigation! I have the article. They wrote an opinionated "review" that basically said since the writer is an Israeli the site "must be" biased, not that the Guardian is?? u>However, they state as EVERYONE ELSE HAS its translations are COMPLETELY ACCURATE TO THE WORD!! And since MEMRI only offers direct translations without commentary the whole article was a WEAK attempt at a swipe at a VERY CREDIBLE RESOURCE. They had a problem that the head of the site wants to keep his identity hidden, his urge to stay alive is a problem for the Guardian.

Since Arab Spokesmen speak very differently in Arabic than they do in English the site obviously provides invaluble overall insite as to the thinking and the press in the Arab world.

Its choice of articles from the Arab press is extremely selective and limited (anyone doing a cursory examination of the various news outlets in the Arab world can see this for himself, if they're willing to keep their minds open of course). It deliberately highlights only the most extremist articles.

BULLSHIT! They translate from the major Dailies in the Middle East as well as in Britain and Kuwait, the more progressive Arabic Papers. They don't pick a Minor Radical paper, since they can't exist anyway. They're all State Run in the Middle East!

FURTHER, they regularly have articles from Liberal Arab Writers and Intellectuals that are critical of their own governments, the Middle East, Israel and provide overall great insite into the overall situation and break down of the peace process.

ON THE OTHER HANDThe Arab "Media" (State Run) regularly rolls out David Duke, Radical Leftists and Conspiracists, White Supremacists including Lyndon Larouche (Wack Job) in their column pages as evidence of the evil Zionists, Jews and American "Capitalists".

Thus, it is RIDICULOUS for you to even try and impugn the integrity of a 100% CREDIBLE RESPECTED site especially in light of the above. ARE you upset about the hatred spewed from Duke or Larouche regarding Jews or Americans in Arabnews.com?? JUST CURIOUS.

MEMRI directly translates exact articles to English PERIOD!
It also purports to provide translations from Hebrew but those are practically nonexistent.

NO NEED the main Israeli Dailies are all available in English or On line. Plus, since it is a Free Open Media and Society ANYONE!! can get their hands on them.
http://www.jpost.com - http://www.haaretzdaily.com
In English knock yourself out they HAVE NOTHING to hide in contrast.
KNOCK YOURSELF OUT.

I heard an interview with one of the guys who run the site on the radio last month: he's an Israeli military official who professed his belief in "transfer" (i.e., ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians.

You're lying first of all. And second, the head of the site is a Liberal Labor Party member who supported Oslo and Camp David and a 2 State Solution. Regardless, his translations are lauded by EVERYONE for their accuracy. You can't impugn it just cause you don't like the information he provides being EXPOSED to otherwise naiive Westerners.

FURTHER, note, over 75% of the Israelis also supported Camp David negotiations for peace and supported a Palestinian State. A majority still do for FINAL REAL PEACE not a Hudna Cease Fire. Meanwhile, a majority of Palestinians support liberation "From River to Sea" AND the PLO CHARTER!!!! still calls for the destruction of Israel. YOU WANT TO COMPARE NOW!! Please get a clue.

MEMRI is a propaganda tool designed only to promote hatred of Muslims.

It provides DIRECT TRANSLATIONS and it is somehow propganda?? How does that one work??

The Arab media is Propaganda used to demonize Jews, Christians, Americans often. They are apes, pigs, monkeys, marauders, have no connection to Israel/Palestine or the Temple Mount (Comical), they use the blood of Arabs for religious ceremonies, they purposely poison the water and air and EVEN use their kid's bodyparts for transplants. A Jewish victim of a Suicide Murderer recently donated his body parts to a Palestinian child by the way.

The idea of Peace, co-existence and negotiations are crucially impacted by what is written in the Arab press.
THESE THINGS ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR WESTERNERS TO KNOW. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT CHANGE IT. OTHERWISE YOU'RE INFANTILE RATIONALIZING THAT "THEY'RE USING IT TO HATE MUSLIMS"
makes you sound like a 4 year old infant!! Same old, "Its not my fault its someone else's fault!!"

It deliberately omits a plethora of perfectly moderate commentary from the Arab world.

Bullshit. Here's one link. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE LOOKING LIKE AN IDIOT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO WESTERN PRESS THAT PUBLISHES SOME OF THE GARBAGE THAT THE ARABIC PRESS REGULARLY DOES. THAT'S WHY THE SITE IS INVALUBLE.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD42602

Liberal Egyptian Writer in London Arabic Paper
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP42202

Former Libyan PM on the Need for Reform in the Arab World
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP39402

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP40902

Mike Nargizian - 10/8/2002

Subject: RE: Consistency (never the hallmark of a small mind)
Posted By: Ali Rajaei
Date Posted: October 7, 2002, 1:26 PM
Peace to everybody!
Prof Cole might not have given a reference because it's too obvious where to look:
Just read the Joshua chapter of the old testament, it's a celebration of the genocide of the Philistines:
Israelites even burnt children, elderly and their cattle!! and attributed it to GOD!
I can never accept old testament as coming from or inspired by GOD. It has been written with a spirit
of jewish supremacy,

If you note your bible the Hebrews were the only ones who accepted the word of G-d through his convenant. Many other tribes rejected it. Further, if you read you Q'uran it speaks of Jerusalem and Israel as being Children of Israel's.

the same kind of apartheid that is supported by people like Fallwell in Palestine today.
I donot agree with Prof Cole on the prophets he names, because the information source on those matters
(Old Testament) is not accurate.

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT....
You don't accept the Old Testament thus it must not have come from G-d and especially since it was given to those "Jews".

Actually G-d's covenant was offered to several tribes but the Jewish tribes accepted his word and lived by it.

And YOU'RE CRITICIZING the Old Testament for its violence that it thus must not have come from G-d?? WE ALL KNOW HOW PEACEFUL THE QURAN IS TOWARDS OTHER KNOW DON'T WE.

Please also note that while the Bibles have been critically critiqued by Westernized Scholars the Quran has yet to receive as much critical analysis. From what we know Muhammed wrote it with the help of Rabbis and named Allah for a Pagan Moon G-d.

Further, it is also widely accepted that Muhammed also NEVER visited Jerusalem which had only a Church on the Mount at the time and the Al Asqua was built 80 years after his death, because the Syrians wanted to comptete politically with the Arabians.

NOW THOSE ARE SOME FACTS. NOT JUST WHAT I FEEL SO IT MUST BE TRUE.....
DO YOU AUTHOR YOUR OWN OPINIONS BASED ON YOUR "FEELINGS" BY THE WAY.... MAYBE THE HNN CAN PUBLISH THEM.

Mike Nargizian

galtlover - 10/8/2002

Whether I agree or not with Rev. Falwell's comments is irrelevant, as the fight is not about the religion of Muslims but it is about "Islam" the mythical ideal of Islamist terrorists, be it with guns or with a fax machine. The underlying truth is that Rev Falwell recognizes Israel and backs Israel politically. He also has a strong lobby and canvasses the US gov't.

CAIR and others like yourself are hypocrites as you never raise an eyebrow when they come out with highly insulting and racist comments against Christians, Jews or the State of Israel.... Before backing CAIR, Islmaist and other hypocrits why not ask yourself these questions? Are they (and you) for or against Israel? Do they (and you) accept the State of Israel? What is their (and your) motivation? Why do they (and you)back a dictator in power for 30 years???? Are they using Liberal idiots and bleeding hearts that say their mea culpa after reading Orientalism, by Edward Said.... Orientalism is a political Paltestinian tract that criminalize the West and Jews to make Palestinians as victims.

Please correct yourself...... Moses, did not have lead a slave revolt, They (moses and the slaves) did not revolt, they walked out after the 10 plagues... Pharaoh let them go... Moses liberated his people from slavery. He did kill a man who tried to kill another human being, it was an act of defense not of aggression, plus he went into exile for 40 years. HE DID NOT ATTACK, he killed when he was the adopted son of Pharaoh, who had tried to kill him at birth, (he was saved by the women) his brother, a Hebrew, was attacked and beaten.... Jesus never attacked anyone, he was a true victim of the Romans, judge by the coward Pilate.... the coward Pilate says leave it to the Jews.... Jews did not kill Jesus, the Roman Pilate did..... Yet Arafat and his people say that Jesus was the first Palestinian???? this your text reflects... (Orientalism)

Stories tells us that Mohammad's mother was going to be killed, because she was a girl... her father could not do it (bury her in the sand)... He life was saved..... Arabs killed their daughters, like Pharaoh killed Jewish boys..... Mohammed did try to stop that cruel custom.... Something women did in the time of Pharaoh.....

As for Mohammed, Arabs were not slaves... They modern day Arabs, Meccans or Bedouins were the keepers of slaves.... Abu Bakr did free some ill-treated slaves, and other slaves joined Mohammad. Since many of his early followers were poor and slaves in Mecca did Mohammaed lead a slave revolt????

He did attack others, (pagans and Jews) such as the Jews of Khaybar and pagans of Mecca.... although many Islamist will say that he was attacked, they should re-read their history, and ask questions of their own tradition and leave other to their soul searching.... After all Mohammad did start the new religion and was seen by his followers as a Prophet. He did attack Khaybar and when defeated all the men of Khaybar were killed along with one woman, the other women were taken as slaves (booty) and their children forcibly converted to the new religion.... (Tabari or Hodgson history of Islam)

Mohammad also killed people's spiritually by destroying their gods (Hadith Bukhari).... Claiming that Arabraham had done it before him.... this is not in the Bible.... it is only found in the Quran and Hadith and the Quran being the word of God, how can a human argue, but then so is the Bible. In the Bible, Abraham never did destroy any idols of his father or forefathers.... (an act copied by the Taliban). Mecans did pledge allegiance to Mohammad at that point, how sincere was their conversion or reverting? When they more than likely feared for their life... they had lost their spiritual life, their gods were broken into pieces. The idea was to get the keys of the Kabaa that way money collected was back to the family of Mohammad and his descendents. It did not last long, as Uthman got back the keys to his family, then Ummyyad went to war and regained the keys, and lost later to in a massacre led by the Abassid.

What I find hypocritical you see Moses and Jesus as rebels rousers a view held by Islamist. Mohammed in your analysis is seen as a man of peace.... You use Luther, etc... to show how their view of Muslims was corrupt, yet you forget thatt Goethe did see beauty in the Quran which he read....

It is not wrong or to be against the "Islam" of Islamist to say that Mohammad was a man, he make mistakes, carried a sword, went to war, fought in wars. It is only being honest, something hypocrits cannot do. Moses never went to war, oh! yes the Red Sea that closes over Pharaoh's Army Moses did not raise his sword, but his hands so the waters receed on the army. Moses the man had a staff.... As for Jesus he is portrayed in the New Testament as a perfect man, never went to war, never carried a sword.... For Faldwell Jesus is his God..... If you demand respect for Muslims and go to bat against Falwell. Should you not respect Falwell's beliefs???? I do not back Jerry Falwell I do not like his fundamentalist views and his idea of destruction or doomsday views.... But he has a right to his opinion....

shereen - 10/7/2002

thanx! dr. cole for your article. the only thing i would disagree with is the claim that other prophets would also be considered "terrorists" and "genocidal" only b/c the qur'an does not defame them as the bible does. however, i do believe that moses (peace be upon him) did in fact commit murder, but that was before his prophethood, it was unintentional, and he sought forgiveness from God, the Almighty.

thanx!! again, i do hope the voice of reason continues to gain hold.

--s--

Allan - 10/7/2002

An interesting article and sorely needed in the face of such rediculous bigotry from close-minded fanatics such as this Farwell character.

Thanks indeed.

Allan - 10/7/2002

"you can ask almost any muslim, jew, or and they'll no doubt have something to tell you about a tragedy in the past"

should have been:

"you can ask almost any muslim, jew, or - inset pretty much any faith, sect, ethnicity, etc... - and they'll no doubt have something to tell you about a tragedy in the past"

Also by "the movement was alive even long after the conquests of Spain, France, and Britain" I was referring to the essense or movement. It was clearly an ongoing process with a minor name change.

Allan - 10/7/2002

The crusades you say? For starters when the crusaders entered Jerusalem, they celebrated by massacring the city's muslims, jews, and native Christians! (they were believed to be heathans thus fair game).

Muslim Spain, once the thriving center of scientific and artistic achievement, where European scholars travelled far and wide to achieve scientific knowledge as well as gaze in wonder at the city streets lit by street lamps at night when all of Europe lay in darkness, and where Jews fleeing persecution at the hands of the fanatical masses in the north found safe haven and freedom to practice their faith along with their christian and muslim neighbors. All that was gone in a blink of an eye when the Empire fell, and what remains today are a few marvelous pieces of arthiceture offering a glimpse of past glory.

The Crusades lasted far more than 200 years, the movement was alive even long after the conquests of Spain, France, and Britain. It was probably one of the bloodiest chapters of history, you can ask almost any muslim, jew, or and they'll no doubt have something to tell you about a tragedy in the past.

I recommend you check your sources and find some concrete historical references on the topic. I remember a good one made by BBC on VHS and DVD about a couple of years ago (Islam, Empire of Faith) that you might find quite interesting in case you decide to give good will a chance.

Usman Suharjo - 10/7/2002

Alec, your claim does not fit for Indonesia.

Indonesia, the biggest muslim country in the world, has never been conquered by any Islamic armies. Instead, by few holy merchants from Gujarat, India, and Middle East, doing trading with the locals and taught them about Islam. The locals were so impressed by the merchant moral conduct then decided to embrace Islam. When the king learn the story about the pious merchants, he invited them to the palace and asked them to help the king to cure the social maladies of his kingdom [prostitution and adultery, gambling, drinking [getting drunk], stealing, and healing pots]. The merchants agree with one condition, they were allowed to build a 'pesantren' [religious school]. Then, Islam spread out through the archipelago.

And do not forget how the Christians christenized Latin America and destroyed the Astec civilization.

Alec, you need to learn more about Islam. You don't have to become a muslim afterward. It is just for the sake of understanding and tolerance. As the golden rule says, people are scared and hate of something they don't know. Trust me, the more you know about Islam, the less you will be hostile toward it. For start, I recommend you Karen Armstrong's books [hey don't you worry, she is a Catholic].

Saeed - 10/7/2002

Prof. Cole:

Thank you so much for your rebuttal to the hatred spewed by Mr. Falwell and his ilk. In an atmosphere where the only acceptable discrimination is that levied upon Muslims, it is comforting to know that someone of your conscience, eloquence and morality is out there.

Abe Ali - 10/7/2002

My deepest thanks to Mr. Cole for his most enlightened, and enlightening, article "Mohammad Was a Terrorist?". I don't know how will there ever be peace and humanity in this world without such firm stance against biggotry and hypocrisy!

Syed Hadi - 10/7/2002

I don’t understand why should all the Muslims be condemned for a heinous crimes committed against US by some stupid individuals. I don’t condemn all Christians for the Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust in WW2 and most recently in Bosnia and Kosovo. These acts were committed in the name of Christianity so why the double standard.

Mario - 10/7/2002

To call MEMRI "nonpartisan" is pretty hilarious. There have been countless articles on this supposedly "nonpartisan" organization, one of the best having appeared in the Guardian which did an investigation of its claims. Its choice of articles from the Arab press is extremely selective and limited (anyone doing a cursory examination of the various news outlets in the Arab world can see this for himself, if they're willing to keep their minds open of course). It deliberately highlights only the most extremist articles. It also purports to provide translations from Hebrew but those are practically nonexistent. I heard an interview with one of the guys who run the site on the radio last month: he's an Israeli military official who professed his belief in "transfer" (i.e., ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians. MEMRI is a propaganda tool designed only to promote hatred of Muslims. It deliberately omits a plethora of perfectly moderate commentary from the Arab world.

Cyrus - 10/7/2002

Prof. Cole also didn't condemn child pornography in his comment - does that make him a pornographer?

Why do those who cry so loudly about anti-Semitism insist on monopolizing the Victim Status by refusing to conceed that other forms of bigotry exist, and sometimes are far more tolerated (esp. in the case of Islamophobia)

Cyrus - 10/7/2002

First of all, I don't see how Rev Falwell can be considered to speak for Christianity so how can Juan Coles comments on the Rev's statement amount to an attack on Christianity? Lets not over-react!

Secondly In fact the largest Moslem country in the world today was never "conquered" at the point of a sword, so the stereotype fails. ANyway, this isn't a question of whether Christianity or Islam are peaceful in history - neither are because its about the actions of people, not religions. That Islam is a religion of peace has nothing to do with the actions carried out in the name of Islam by people, just as all Christanity itself is not responsible for the actions of those "peaceful" christian missionaries who, for example, wiped out the natives of the Americas in the name of Christ...and lets not forget the Inquisition either.

Alec Lloyd - 10/7/2002

Your point is…what? That lots of nasty stuff happened in the Old Testament? No debate there.

The true tragedy is that Falwell gets far more attention than he deserves, which is probably Professor Cole’s whole point. By “boldly challenging” a fringe crackpot, Prof. Cole can burnish his reputation as a crusader for free thought (no pun intended) whilst simultaneously tarring the right with the brush of narrow-minded religious bigotry. The fact that Falwell is a lone crank whose followers could probably fit into a double wide is irrelevant.

He gets press because the left NEEDS him to. He makes a convenient bogey-man to boost fundraising efforts.

Why HNN would accord so much attention to this moron is beyond me.

Ali Rajaei - 10/7/2002

Peace to everybody!
Prof Cole might not have given a reference because it's too obvious where to look:
Just read the Joshua chapter of the old testament, it's a celebration of the genocide of the Philistines:
Israelites even burnt children, elderly and their cattle!! and attributed it to GOD!
I can never accept old testament as coming from or inspired by GOD. It has been written with a spirit
of jewish supremacy, the same kind of apartheid that is supported by people like Fallwell in Palestine today.
I donot agree with Prof Cole on the prophets he names, because the information source on those matters
(Old Testament) is not accurate.

Sean C. Goodlett - 10/7/2002

Prof. Cole is, of course, right to denounce Jerry Falwell as a bigot who lobs incendiary rhetoric into the "marketplace of ideas." Falwell clearly intended to inflame anti-Muslim types in the U.S. and elsewhere by pushing the nonsensical equation of Mohammed with modern terrorists. Falwell will receive the (media) rebuke he deserves.

But Prof. Cole seems to have no desire to denounce anti-Jewish rhetoric (found liberally at the nonpartisan Middle East Media Research Insititute http://www.memri.org/) with the same stridency he maintains here; indeed, he is eager to ignore the rising tide of anti-Semitism (http://hnn.us/articles/1002.html). That HNN sees fit to offer this "perspective" speaks volumes for its editorial policies.

Moreover, Prof. Cole's own "scholarly" methods are highly suspect. In this piece he insists, "Many of the patriarchs and prophets celebrated by Christian fundamentalists were arguably terrorists or even genocidal, including Joshua"; and yet he offers no evidence, no citations from biblical (or other) texts. What are his qualifications to speak on Patristics? And how is it that he has received this platform from HNN (which seems never to cast an editorial glance at his writings).

Consistency, Prof. Cole, would lend your arguments some force. Without it, you become just another partisan and the HNN just another mouthpiece for so-called progressive bigotry.

Alec Lloyd - 10/7/2002

I have no end of contempt for “Rev.” Falwell. His sanctimonious bloviation does more harm than good to the cause of Christianity. Thus this article is somewhat of a non-event for me.

Islam is many things, but at least let us not decieve ourselves that it is “a religion of peace.” Islam spread at the point of a sword, sweeping through northern and eastern Africa, Iberia, southern Europe, the Balkans, Asia Minor, and vast areas of Asia. Unlike Christianity, which regards peaceful missionaries as essential for spreading the faith, Islam has chiefly found converts through conquest. While the Crusades are a clear example of militant Christianity, they pale in both scope and historical impact with the massive and prolonged military campaigns of the Caliphs and their co-religionists.

This is nothing to be ashamed of, indeed the record of Muslim military conquest is impressive given the early weaknesses of its followers. However, let us finally dispense with the idea that “evil militant intolerant Christians” are the source of all the world’s ills. Long before the Crusades, the armies of the faithful were knocking on the gates of southern Christendom. Islam came to conquer the West long before the West thought of returning the favor.

Since Professor Cole sees fit to take on this fringe figure on the right, I hope for the sake of balance he will also address some of the leftist myths as well.

khargushoghli - 10/7/2002

That was Saul who was enlightened on the road to Damascus. It was Paul who was shipwrecked and beaten with rods.

khargushoghli - 10/7/2002

If you think what Prof. Cole said amounts to proof that he is a terrorist, you are no different than Falwell--a bigoted idiot.

Orson Olson - 10/7/2002

To professor, Cole, Christianity is an evil, but Islam has nothing to account for.

Sorry, Prof--I didn't just fall off the proverbial turnip truck.
The Crusades lasted about 200 years and involved much less bloodshed than Islam's Jihad lasting 1300 years. Muhammed was a General, and all you can do to inflame Christians is point to Moses how many thousand years earlier?

I wish I could say "surely you jest!"--but I know the risible professoriate too well to be taken in by so obvious liar.

--Orson (atheist--I haver no dog in this hunt but the truth)

john - 10/7/2002

Paul, Enlightenment awaits you on the road to Damascus.

paul - 10/7/2002

You call yourself "professor" of history ?
You're so funny.
Well, mr. "professor", study the life of mohammad , his quran and learn about islam.
If you really know the life of mohammad and still defending him , then you're no different than him : A TERRORIST.