There are slogans which call for death to blasphemers, death to America. The strong longing to detest, bringing death and destruction upon oneself or others is deeply embedded in these slogans; the desire to kill the “culprit” not through the application of law but mob justice
What we find today is that it is only Islam and its followers which are privileged to be the focus of the entire world. Islam, though a minority religion of the world is struggling hard to excel all other religions being “youngest” of all the other “divine” religions.
Almost all the Muslims—by and large— maintain similar views on life and the material world yet the Muslims of Pakistan are notorious for their “love for Islam”, while the rightful claimant still remains Saudi Arabia.
The “family” of the Prophet and people from Mecca and Medina has always expressed their superiority over all other Muslims. Since Islam was primarily a religion of the Arab desert, at second place in “prestige” come the other Arab Muslims. The non-Arab Muslims fall at the third place. However, the philosophy of Islam underscores universality which when translated into ground realities assumes the form of “forced occupation” or imperialism. The first lesson of Islam states: “No God but Allah”; a complete negation of all the other religions, beliefs and cultures. Hence, Muslims do not consider other religions as legitimate religions but heresy and desire their elimination. ‘True’ Muslims do not understand that calling adherents of other religions as heretics is a great insult to religion itself. Everybody following any religion considers his or her to be the true, while it is only Islam which deems itself not only the “true religion” it also aspires for the total annihilation of all other religions. This diversion distinguishes Islam from all other spiritual belief systems while it assumes the form of a political religion which endeavours to establish its authority and hegemony all over the world.
When a belief system carries political considerations, it also begins to feel pride in being “true”. This leads to delusions causing aggressive tendencies. To advance aggression one needs material resources, whereas Muslims are deficient in education, scientific and technological advancement as well as political stature. This deficit causes them to become intolerant since all the material, economic and political power is in possession of the West. Hence, the Saudi rulers from the royal family employ all their economic resources and petrodollars to invade the world in another way. The strategy begins with spreading the extremist Wahabi doctrine in Muslim states to accomplish“spiritual occupation”; a goal achieved quite successfully. A large number of mosques and religious schools have been set up propagating Wahabi philosophy presented as “true Islam”. Trousers above the ankles and Arab-style burqas are now very popular in our country while most of the jehadi and extremist organizations belong to the Saudi brand of Islam which also enjoys the backing of our security establishment. The Saudis have also made efforts to pitch all Muslims of the world against the West and followers of all other religions. Hence, it is Islam vs. the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia is actively involved through the advancement of particular beliefs, culture and political objectives. In short, Saudi imperialism is spreading in the name of Islam.
The basic ideology of Islam and the Muslim mindset clearly establishes that there is no pluralism in Islam. And this is the reason why mainstream Muslims cannot live alongside people from other religions and cultures. They consider it against their belief system. They strongly feel that all the non-Muslims are heretics and are involved in hatching conspiracies against them. Such material is written in the Quran and in our text books which we teach our children. Therefore, most Muslims do not consider diversity as indicative of the beauty of nature and humanity and that is the primary reason why minorities live a miserable life in the Muslim countries [often regarded as second class citizens]. Efforts are even made in the Muslim countries to eliminate minorities. Harshest of laws and attitudes exist in Saudi Arabia. It is therefore not possible that the civilized world and the Islamified Muslim world can integrate or even co-exist.
The Muslims foster a strong desire that the whole world should treat them in a preferential way as well as respect Islam while they keep calling every non-Muslim a heretic. They should have the allowance to live their lives according to their beliefs and values while they would not become part of any other religion or culture. They would remain a separate entity, demand separate rules for themselves overlooking the fact that the Western society is no more religious or “divine” in character rather it is driven by humane considerations and is founded on values which mankind has found useful after gaining experience of thousands of years based on rationality and science. On the other hand, the Muslims consider male oriented tribal Arab traditions of the desert as ideal not only for themselves but for the entire world.
A majority of the Muslims do not consider man-made disciplines of any real value. The rights and civil liberties which most Muslims demand in non-Muslim countries do not exist even in their own countries. These do not exist either in Islam, which like most religions happens to envisage an authoritarian, centrist and theocratic state. Here there is no concept of individual freedom. If a single demand of the Muslims is conceded to by a Western country, they would put forth another; till such time that the whole society would divide on the basis of Muslim and non-Muslim. The story would not end here; the next demand would be the establishment of an Islamic state.
Today even if we look at our own society, we find violence and authoritarianism as part of our national psyche. As if the Caliphs still rule the world and we are a super power. This attitude can be gauged by going through the slogans written on banners seen all across the country:
“Gustakh-e-Rasul ki saza, Sar tan say juda” or “hand us over the blasphemer”.
The expression “Gustakh” itself is an expression of power. It translates into “How dare you”. Then there are slogans which call for death to blasphemers, death to America, Islam zindabad and kufr murdabad. The strong longing to detest, bringing death and destruction upon oneself or others is deeply embedded in these slogans; the desire to kill the “culprit” not through the application of law but mob justice.
How many heads would roll as the Muslim world is fast losing rationality, humanity and a civilized existence.
|Arshad Mahmood is a columnist,freelance writer and a social activist.|
Original Article: http://www.viewpointonline.net/inside-the-muslim-mind.html
- Criminalizing the Defamation of #Islam (iranaware.com)
- Four Stages of Islamic Conquest (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- ‘Sharia Harassment’ Plagues Egyptian Women (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Dawn Ellen & Rican to the Right – Silenced by Jihad (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Why We Are Afraid of the Evils of Islam, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
Originally posted on Most Intolerant Religion:
Now a days various Social Medias are loaded with claims like, “Jihad is a peaceful Ideological Struggle, and it has nothing to do with Physical violence at all,” by devout Muslims. They quote their religious scholars to prove their claim, which reads as follows:-
Those who are introduced to the Quran only through the media, generally have the impression that the Quran is a book of Jihad, and Jihad to them is an attempt to achieve one’s goal by means of violence. But this idea is based on misunderstanding. Anyone who reads the Quran for himself will easily appreciate that its message has nothing to do with violence. The Quran is, from beginning to end, a book which promulgates peace and in no way countenance violence. It is true that Jihad is one of the teaching of Quran. But Jihad, taken in correct sense, is the name of peaceful struggle rather than that of any kind of violent action. 
So as we see, the author of above words claim that, “The Quran is, from beginning to end, a book which promulgates peace and in no way countenance violence.” But how much true these words are? Although his starting words are true, which says, “Quran is a book of Jihad, and Jihad to them is an attempt to achieve one’s goal by means of violence.” The author also challenges that if a man reads Quran for himself will easily appreciate that its message has nothing to do with violence. Which for sure we know is not true. In fact there are millions of people around the globe who read Quran for themselves, and appreciate the fact that Quran is book preaching violence and Hatred in name of Allah. However the same author quotes a verse from Quran, 25:52, to prove that Jihad is a peaceful Ideological struggle. Let’s read the verse and find whether he is right or not? The verse reads:-
- Radical Islamic Chaplain at Northeastern Must Go! (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Rarely Has an International Crisis Been More Predictable (americanthinker.com)
- Islam is a Radical Threat to Free Speech (maverickphilosopher.typepad.com)
You have free access to this content Islam, Jihad, and Terrorism in Post-9/11 Arabic Discussion Boards Rasha A. Abdulla† Article first published online: 6 JUN 2007 DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007….
See on paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com
- Soviet Russia, the Creators of the Plo and the Palestinian People (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- | Winds Of Jihad | Turkey: Parliament Speaker Warns Against Racism &”Islamophobia” In Europe (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- What Islam teaches about muslimas marrying nonmuslims (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Muslim Brotherhood infiltrates U.S. public schools? (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests
by Raymond Ibrahim
March 1, 2012
Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time, with more after (e.g., the Ottoman conquests).
By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, theulema).
Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq’s (d. 767)Sira (“Life of Muhammad”), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi’s (d. circa. 820) Maghazi(“Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]“); Baladhuri’s (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan (“Conquests of the Nations”); and Tabari’s (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, (“History of Prophets and Kings”), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.
Taken together, these accounts (which are primarily based on older accounts—oral and written—tracing back to Muhammad and his successors) provide what was once, and in the Muslim world still is, a famous story: that Allah had perfected religion (Islam) for all humanity; that he commanded his final prophet (Muhammad) and community (Muslims) to spread Islam to the world; and that the latter was/is to accept it either willingly or unwillingly (jihad).
It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”
According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.
The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam’s authority, upon Muhammad’s death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad’s successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the “Ridda Wars” (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.
The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.
The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis,” paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.
Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.
Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America’s classrooms: many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion’s intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals.
Meanwhile, as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad).
The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook’s mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a “spiritual-struggle” against one’s vices.
Contrast this definition of jihad with that of an early edition of the venerable Encyclopaedia of Islam. Its opening sentence simply states, “The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general.… Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.… Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.” Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.
Likewise, the Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam’s theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures.
It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means “openings”—that is, the countries conquered were “opened” for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is nothing to regret or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as for the good of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today’s Muslims).
In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum
- Danish ghetto: Muslims Demand $1,800 (jiyza) for being ‘black and Christian’ (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Abraham did not build the Kaaba (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Five Things About Muhammad (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Iran Is a Rogue Nation (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Christians Stoned by Muslim Mob at Temple Mount, Media Silent (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
- Thank God For The Crusades (justicemusings.wordpress.com)
TriEmm Man Yin Fēi, Iran has a history of aggression against Muslims all over the world and it has very closed ties with the Jews. In 1987, Iran planned to attack on Kabbah and did it through it’s pilgrims. Iran supported Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against Talibans since 1998. Iran supports Hezbullah in Lebanon. Iran also supports many Shia militant groups who are killing Muslims. Apart from it, read about the character of Persian peopleright after the conquering Persia by Umar Ben El Khattab (RZ), you will find that Iran (previously Persia) never been like an Islamic Country and been involved in many activities which clearly showed that Iran is a real major threat for Muslims before other external enemies.
Yin Fēi TriEmm Man brother brother brother.don’t you think I don’t know that.I know that but all this thing which is told a Zionist conspiracy to make fitna between Sunnia and Shia.There are some worst Shia who cannot be called Muslim and there are some wonderful Shia who give everything for Islam.Don’t divide be united.Zionist want us to divide so that they can easily attack Iran and destroy that country.Believe it or not if any country in the world in today’s day have Islam in their governmental system that is Iran thought much less but at least they have it in their governmental body.And attack on Kabbah by Iranian is a propaganda and we must not believe in propaganda.
TriEmm Man Yin Fēi - Iran attacked on Kabbah is not a propaganda since it’s a reality and you may ask to anyone who knows the history that how Iranians attacked on Kabbah in 1987. As far as the Fitna is concern so I don’t think so, SHIAISM itself a Fitna since its inception. I have no soft corner for these SHIA nutz (descendants of Abdullah Ben Sabah a Jew). Btw as per unanimous Islamic believes Shias are Non Muslims and there is no question for division. These Shias are Zionist Agents. And Mark my worlds Jews will protect Iran in any case…19 hours ago · Like
Mark as SpamYin Fēi TriEmm Man again that wasn’t an attack that was a demonstration in the city of Mekkah.A group of Iranian done it and we cannot blame the whole Iran for that.In 1979 a Sunni group had also attacked and hostages Al-Masjid al-Haram that means whole Sunnis are bad for some of those idiots?Coming to the next point as I said not all Shia are Kafir.Some Shia do bring sovereignty of Ali to Allah but not all Shia.So,whole of Shiaism is a foolishness as their kaalima is perfect.Regarding to Jews protecting Iran.It not the whole of Iran.Jews will surely protect Isfahan as 70thousand of the Jews will come from their but not of whole Iran.Iran is currently their biggest enemy as they deny to agree with their oppression towards Palestine.19 hours ago · Like
TriEmm Man Yin Fēi - It wasn’t a demonstration – how can you think of DEMONSTRATION where the Iranian Pilgrims came with weapons with them and which Muslim come to perform Hajj with weapons??? What happen in 1979, there was not a SUNNI GROUP … for that I would like to share a link pl read it from beginning to end. For your views that not all Shias are Non Muslims … I strongly disagree, all Shias follow the same believe of cursing Companions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), cursing wives of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), all shias prays to the shrine of LULU Feroz (May Allah curse on him) who attacked on Umar Ben El Khattab, Shias made changes in Quran, they deny the Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), all shias believe that right after the sad demise of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) all companions turn to be Kafir except Ahal-e-Bait, and many more evil activities that are sufficient to call them Non Muslims.
TriEmm Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure
en.wikipedia.orgThe Grand Mosque Seizure on November 20, 1979, was an armed attack and takeover by Islamist dissidents of the Al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the holiest place in Islam. The insurgents declared that the Mahdi, or redeemer of Islam, had arrived in the form of one of the insurgent leaders, …
Yin Fēi TriEmm Man I didn’t find it any where that these people where non-Muslim who did the attack in your article.However,again that totally foolishness to call all Shia as kafir.As I told you before you are categorical few Shia with all of the Shia.I have some Shia friend whose both tawheed is perfect, infarct more perfect then some of our Sunnis.However it neither you nor me to decide if they are kafir or not.They will be judge in akhi raat and then their decision will be made.
TriEmm Man Well, as per Islamic Believes Shias are Non Muslims you may better consult with any Islamic Scholar. On the basis of some shia friends, no one call them as nice Islamic Shia. I have also many colleagues who are Shia, but again they are non Muslims. May be their TAWEED would be perfect but their rest of the believes are not perfect as I mentioned above.
Mark as SpamYin Fēi Roshan Mansoor well said brother.And opening hand while is also found in one of the majab or sect in Sunnis too.If I am not mistaken Hambalis probably open their hand when they pray.And we cannot just call anyone kafir like that.Remember that Hadith if you call one of the brother kafir and he is not a kafir then one of them between you and he became kafir.2 hours ago · Like
Mark as SpamRoshan Mansoor Yin Fēi…In total what I mean is that giving Fatwa with out knowledge is forbidden. I know most of the shias have different beliefs rather than Islamic….but some of them dont have. I can see so many Mushriks among Sunni groups specially in Afghanistan, pakistan and India….They worship graves. the follow poets and peers instead of the prophet and his companions….etc..
- Admonish One Another
- Comment on Son’s Facebook regarding ObamaCare
- Can We Stop This Creeping Jihad?
- Terrorism in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood is being rejected
- Baby Jihad or Jihad by birth rate
- Our Wives Are In Charge HVAC Service
- The Arab World Fears the ‘Safavid’ | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- Report: EU Backing Away from Blacklisting Hezbollah | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- The not defendable borders of lesser Israel
- Allah and Muhammad quote Babylonian Talmud instead of Hebrew Scriptures
- Prominent U.S. Imam: New Caliphate Should Wage Jihad
- Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a Muslim Terrorist
- Business Services – Temporary Posts
- Christianity / God
- Daily Gospel
- Just Because :-)
- Pending Classification
- Societal / Cultural Issues
- Understanding Islam