According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world. The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them. There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.

This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible. Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side! The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins! Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!

Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators. If it is the ‘terrorists’ (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages. Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism! Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.

1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.

2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.

3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don’t find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women’s rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.

4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.

5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!

6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.

7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.

Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list. My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them. Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means! In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea etc goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech. Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!

Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides. Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs. The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.

Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it’s armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad does not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.

Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.

They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals. The Holy Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: “And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)” So, fear not Islam and Muslims, but fear the chosen people of God, fear the greedy capitalists, fear the blood thirsty freedom fascists! Be afraid be very afraid, as they are mutated as beasts that are disguised as human beings!

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
Mumbai, India

Share on digg

The advancing Mongols were halted after their defeat by Sultan Baybars in the battle of Ein Jalut in 1260. Subsequently, the Mongol invaders were absorbed by the Muslims. This is a distinct episode of human history, where the invading conquerors assimilated into the culture and religion of the conquered nations. Yet, the medieval propaganda that Islam was spread by the sword continues to be propagated, by the ‘enlightened’ and scientifically advanced minds of today.

Prior to Sultan Baybars, Salahuddin Al-Ayubi came to the defence of Muslims and non-Muslims of Palestine, and liberated it from the clutches of the barbaric crusaders. After Sultan Baybars, came the rule of the Othmania Caliphate (Ottomans). It produced the likes of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih, who liberated Istanbul (Constantinople) at the age of 21, partly fulfilling the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). The Islamic State reached its apex under the rule of Suleiman Al-Qanuni (Suleiman the Magnificent), who was on the verge of opening up Venice to Islamic rule.

After his demise, the Islamic State kept declining, with its inherent problems of economic and cultural stagnation. The gap between the Islamic State and secular Europe increased significantly after the Industrial Revolution, because now the European powers could produce much larger quantities of military hardware over a shorter period of time. This led to loss of territory in a series of disastrous wars and increasingly the Ottoman State fell under the financial control of the European powers, who labelled it as “the sick man of Europe’. Furthermore, fuelled by nationalism and inspired by outside forces, internal rebellions from the various ethnic groups increased, after living together in harmony for centuries under the Islamic State.

The last independent Ottoman Sultan was Abdul Hamid, who was renowned for refusing to sell Palestine to the Zionists, despite being tempted by huge amounts of money and at the time the state was in huge debt. He also tried to eradicate the notorious network of freemasonry which was prevalent within the Islamic State. During the Ottoman rule, there were Sultans in other parts of the Islamic world that also defended the Muslim community, for example, Ahmad Shah Durrani (Ahmad Shah Abdali) of Afghanistan, Imam Shamil of the Caucasus, and Sheikh Uthman Dan Fodio who established the Sokoto Caliphate over Nigeria, Cameroon and other parts of West Africa.

Eventually, the Ottoman Islamic State was symbolically demolished in 1924. This was achieved by the collective effort of the colonial powers (Britain and France), the Turkish nationalist movement (Young Turks), and the treacherous Arab regimes that were aided by the Wahhabi (Salafi) movement. The Wahhabi movement ‘legitimised’ the revolt against the Islamic State, as they considered everyone as an apostate unless they followed the Wahhabi school of thought. Whilst the British schemed to create the Arab revolt, the French worked to create the revolt of the Young Turks, both groups worked for the destruction of the Caliphate.

As a just ‘reward’ for their treachery, the colonial nations handed Palestine to the Zionists. People forget that these Arabs aided by the Salafi movement, were complicit with the Zionists in creating the Israeli cancer. Also, the colonial powers betrayed the Arabs by carving up the rest of the region, according to the secret treaty of Sykes-Picot. They created petty kingdoms ruled over by puppet dictators to serve their policy of divide and conquer. Some of the countries are so small and artificial that it can be classified as an oil field with a flag. The colonial powers even manufactured royal dynasties out of wild Bedouins who were operating as bandits.

In the absence of the Caliphate who will come to the defence of the Muslims now? With the demise of the Caliphate, the incursions into the Islamic lands have increased, as has the killing of Muslims and the exploitation of their resources. Most of the puppet regimes in the Muslim world continue to function like the coolies of the British Raj, always ready to serve and take orders in order to preserve their self-interests. They would sell anything to maintain their oil fields, empty palaces, shopping complexes and Filipino ‘maids’. After the Iraqi invasion, one of the members of the Kuwaiti royal family stated on TV that he would embrace the devil to regain his oil-field (Kuwait) in the south of Iraq. There was no Fatwa (Islamic edict) to pronounce him as an apostate from the land that produces endless fatwas against anyone, except those who show support for the pro-US puppet regimes!

When Iraq was attacked by the US-led coalition in 1991, these Gollum (Smeagol) like Salafi ‘scholars’ nearly choked trying to utter the word Jihad. Instead they gurgled and legitimised fighting the Muslims of Iraq under the American flag; some even saw ‘Jihad’ behind American troops in 1991! If fighting behind the Americans is Jihad, surely the likes of Bush and Sharon (a close ally of the US) are the Ameers (leaders) of Jihad! In reality this is Jihad in reverse gear, as the Muslims are the intended victims.

It was those same American troops that continued to commit the atrocities in Iraq, through enforcing the self-styled no-fly zone, and the cruel economic sanctions with direct cooperation from the Salafi orientated regimes. Then came the second invasion in 2003, the US troops committed atrocities in places like Abu-Ghraib, Baghdad, Fallujah, and Ramadi. To humiliate the Arab/Islamic world, they deliberately taped and aired the sadistic torture of Iraqis. In Haditha they gang raped a young girl and killed her along with her family, one of many such brutal crimes.

These Salafi orientated regimes managed to spin idiotic arguments for the naïve and their brain-dead followers. One of these claims is that the presence of US troops was good for Islam, as allegedly so many of them embraced Islam. According to these idiots, the blood of the Iraqi Muslims for some mysterious number of US soldiers allegedly converting to Islam was a good exchange! I suppose the first instruction given to those ‘converts’ by the Gollum like Salafi ‘scholars’ was to bomb the Muslims in Iraq! Was it their words of encouragement that led to the US forces, perhaps including the so-called ‘converts’, to massacre the retreating Iraqis on the road to Basra, and bury the defenceless Iraqi soldiers under the sand?

These Salafis describe the resistance in Palestine and Iraq as terrorists and extremists. Concurrently, they will not issue any criticism of the Pro-US regimes who are actively aiding the slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, because allegedly they have found a ‘Hadith’ which permits this treacherous stance. Even common sense tells us that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, as they justify remaining silent and inactive when violence is inflicted upon the Muslims but become overtly critical against Muslims for retaliating against injustices. This stance contradicts human nature as well as Islamic evidences. What then is the difference between the Salafi position and the neo-con ilk, who are leading the war on terror (Islam)? Only the shameless and treacherous ones would adopt the same position as those who have raped and tortured their children, mothers and sisters in a manner that is not even found amongst animals. Yet, these charlatans have the audacity to call themselves followers of the real pious predecessors (Salafis) that came after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Therefore, the label ‘neo-con salafis’ or Saudi-Salafis is most appropriate for them. This also distinguishes them from the Jihadi-Salafis, who are far more consistent.

According to the neo-con Salafi obsession of purifying the creed (Aqeeda), liberation (purification) of Palestine should be a top priority. This is because Palestine includes Masjid Al-Aqsa (Jerusalem, Al-Quds), which is explicitly mentioned in the Quran and in the Hadiths, as a purified sacred place for the Muslims. Of course that is difficult as the Salafi orientated Saudi regime is closely aligned with the US and by implication allied with Israel. No one can dispute that the US provides the lifeline for Israel. So how will these neo-con Salafis liberate Palestine when they are aligned with the US and the Israelis? Thus, to date, not a single item of literature has been produced by these neo-con Salafis, as to how they visualise liberating Palestine.

When the Muslims in Bosnia were being massacred and raped by the Christian-terrorists of Europe, the Saudi-Salafis blamed the victims (Bosnians) for their fate, because they were bad Muslims. Surely, such arguments are also applicable to the Palestinians and the Iraqis who are also suffering. If we recall, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) sent an army seeking retribution for the dishonoring of one woman, and there was no discussion if she was a good Muslim or a bad Muslim. What the Saudi-Salafis really meant was: the Bosnians were apostates, so they have no obligation to help them, and they have the same opinion of the others, but the existing public opinion makes it difficult to express their real views. Isn’t it convenient for those who blame the victim, because they can simple turn their backs on them! Some would call it treachery and cowardice. This is why those planes should have been rammed against the palaces of these oppressors, instead of the WTC. Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the bigger beast outside.

The paradox is: the neo-con Salafis (Saudi-Salafis) incessantly attack the mainstream Muslims by calling them deviants, as their Aqeeda is not pure enough, yet they have no problem in aligning with belligerent non-Muslims with a false Aqeeda and not just a deviant one. Note, the US bases in Saudi Arabia, and the other smaller Gulf States are used to launch murderous campaigns against the Muslims in Iraq, Palestine and else where, this has hardly bothered the conscience of the neo-con Salafis. Did the Prophet (SAW) not cleanse this land (Saudi Arabia, Hijaz, Najd) and say this is exclusively for the people of Tawhid (monotheism)? How can we explain this paradox, when these neo-con Salafis scream Shirk (Polytheism), Bidda (Innovation) and Kufr (Disbelief) but they are most comfortable with the presence of those hostile foreign forces that displays Shirk, Bidda and Kufr and even go beyond it?

This paradoxical behaviour of the neo-con Salafi can be explained if we dig deeper. Although they classify the rest of the Muslims (non Salafis) as deviants, but in reality they are viewed as apostates. Because, the neo-con Salafis follow the Khawarij doctrine of elevating minor issues of sin to major issues of disbelief (Kufr), hence like the Khawarij they pronounce Takfir (declare someone as an apostate) frequently. However, to avoid being isolated they say a particular notion makes one deviant instead of an apostate, but this is simply clever language on their part. Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of today. Accordingly they see no real problems with the killings of the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Bosnians, as they are unbelievers being killed for their sins by another group of unbelievers (the Israelis, Americans, and Serbs). Consequentially, Salafi orientated regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States find it easy to abuse the poor Muslim workers who have come from places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Egypt, Sudan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Yemen. These poor workers are often paid very low salaries, and some occasions paid a lower than what was agreed and there are many cases of withholding payments for long periods. This is disgusting behavior and naked oppression by any standards.

When such criticisms have been raised they become Salafi-Capitalist, arguing that the labor force should move elsewhere for greater salary. So, the Islamic brotherhood vanishes, the purity of the Aqeeda is put aside, and exploiting the poverty faced by the poor Muslims is deemed acceptable and even ‘Islamic’. They are depicting the Sunnah of the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. Is there a chance of issuing a ‘fatwa’ on this type of issue? Then the neo-Con Salafis have the audacity to lecture these poor Muslim workers facing exploitation about how deviant they are in their Aqeeda. In contrast, the white Europeans and Americans are paid promptly and paid a far greater salary for doing the same work. This is the consequence of having deep inferiority complex and racist views. There is no chance of squeezing a ‘fatwa’ out of them on this issue either.

True to their rebellious Khawarij nature, they aided the destruction of the Caliphate, replaced it with oppressive monarchies. Surely this is one of the greatest form of innovation (Bidda)? Old habits die hard, so they remain active in opposing those who are trying to re-establish the Caliphate, using various pretexts. For example, they say they do not oppose the notion of the Caliphate (Islamic State) but the creed of those who are trying to re-establish it, and at times they have had the chutzpah to question their sincerity. Obviously this is an excuse, otherwise by now we would have seen plenty of literatures and books on the notion of the Caliphate from these neo-Khawarij. In any case, did the Prophet (SAW) test the creed of all the companions before the establishment of the first Islamic State of Medina? Perhaps these neo-Khawarij are shy to proclaim that they consider the current rulers as legitimate. They were dancing and celebrating with the American forces after the killing of Muslims (or non-Muslims?) in Iraq! Never mind the dead Iraqis, but I would have thought a fatwa on the issue on dancing and celebrating with the American unbelievers would have been pronounced by now, from the land of ‘fatwas’.

For these neo-Khawarij, the Shi’ites are worse than the American soldiers massacring the Iraqis and presumably worse than the Zionist that are murdering Palestinians and Lebanese everyday! Accordingly they criticised the Shi’ites in Lebanon for fighting the Israelis, a close friend of their American masters, and simultaneously remained silent towards the Shi’ites in Iraq who collaborated with the Americans. These neo-Khawarij have been living with the Shi’ites for centuries and they only became a problem after Khomeini came to power in 1979, challenging the legitimacy of the Saudi regime. It was at this juncture we witnessed the circulation of anti-Shi’ite literatures from that part of the world.

To divert attention away from the occupation and slaughter facing the Muslims, the neo-con Salafis insist that everyone should accept their interpretation of certain metaphysical issues that has no real consequences for our life on earth. Nothing else can be discussed until this is resolved. So shedding of the blood of the Muslims, addressing famine, and other forms of tragedy does not rank very high on their list of priorities, assuming it is on their list in the first place! Perhaps helping Muslims in need is considered a minor Prophetic tradition (Sunnah)! But then again, there are no Muslims unless one is a neo-Khawarij (Saudi-Salafi or neo-Con Salafi)!

These neo-Khawarij are well-known for attacking the mainstream Muslims for following the established Madhabs (the traditional Schools of thought). They say you should not follow the Scholars but only the Quran and Sunnah (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW). Which tacitly implies the previous Scholars did not do that. In any case this is a redundant argument as following the opinion of a scholar is a must, unless one is a scholar who is capable of deducing the rules from the Islamic texts. The vast majority of the Muslims are not scholars. Therefore, the neo-Khawarij claim of following the Quran and Sunnah in reality means: do not follow the established Madhabs but follow our interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, i.e. our Madhab. So instead of referring to the books of the traditional scholars like the Hanafi, Shafee, Maliki, Hanbali, Ghazali, and others, you should pickup ‘only’ the books of Al-Albani or Bin-Baaz.

According to these neo-Khawarij, the solution to our problems means going back to the 14th century and continuing the philosophical/theological debate that was initiated as a result of encountering Greek Philosophy. In essence, when everyone becomes a neo-Khawarij, our problem will be magically solved! The US soldiers will then suddenly run in fear seeing the prevailing of the Khawarij (Salafi) compliant doctrines, Israel will cease to exist, and our lands from Morocco to Indonesia will be free and unified under a single Caliphate, finally the oil will be ours, and it will be sold at genuine market prices, the revenue will be used for the welfare of the entire Muslim Ummah (community)!

The neo-Khawarij hide behind their superficial piety which they like to display and brag about, and then confuse the unwary Muslim by citing books, scholars and technical terms. It is easy to promote the above mentioned arguments, as the vast majority of the Saudi-Salafi followers are brain-dead, incapable of thinking independently and rationally about their situation. This is why they fear the wooden cross or the tombstones over the graves, more than the American firepower.

Moreover, they have been programmed to attack the mainstream Muslims and to raise irrelevant minor issues, so that focus is kept away from their paymasters and from vital issues like the mass killings of the Muslims. The Saudi-Salafis talk, you must listen. You challenge them by the constructing your own thoughts then automatically you are reduced to a deviant innovator lacking in scholarly knowledge. There is no doubt the neo-Khawarij are the fifth columnist, they will be at the forefront of fighting the Caliphate when it returns. If we are to learn from history this time we should be prepared to shed their blood and make them extinct, if it is necessary!

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org) London, UK Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006

Share on digg

When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a)

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, “We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy is not the same thing.” (NY Times, June 6, 1989)

Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, once stated: “The Jewish “Race” is the MASTER RACE. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our “race”, other races are beasts and animals; cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement…”
After centuries of prospering as Dhimmis [1], ironically, they are now engaged in a campaign to distort history and denigrate the very people who gave them protection for centuries. Instead of pogroms, ethnic cleansing, inquisitions, and holocaust, the Jews experienced the golden age in Andalusia (Islamic Spain) under the Muslim rule, an era unparalleled in their 5000+ years of history. Even the noted Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis who’s writings are not known to be complimentary towards Muslims and Islam has stated that the Jews prospered under Muslims rule, at a time when “Jew-Baiting” was Christian-Europe’s favourite past time. Finally when the cruel inquisition did arrive in Spain, they migrated to the safe haven city of Istanbul, the capital of the Islamic State.

One of the leading ambassadors of promoting this vicious anti-Islamic agenda is Dr. Daniel Pipes [2]. His crude statements make him appear as though he is a member of some white supremacist group like the Ku Klux Klan. He is like many of the other extreme rightwing Jews that operate behind the cover of their American identity, promoting Israeli interests. Their immense grip on the mass media and the popular media like the Hollywood film industry has resulted in presenting a one-sided view, stirring up a frenzy of nationalism, anti-Arab and anti-Muslims sentiments, which is ironically so reminiscent of how the Jews felt under Nazi Germany. How short is their memory?

Daniel Pipes forgetting his own abysmal history states that Dhimmitude [3] is: “…a state in which (among other features) non-Muslims dare not say anything critical about Islam and Muslims.” If there is such a thing as Dhimmitude then Gentiletude is a reality that no one can deny. The latter is a giant octopus in comparison to Dhimmitude with its tentacles buried deep within every facet of society. Gentiletude usually manifests as anti-Semitism. It has even been incorporated into the US foreign policy, as the White House have legislated the new global anti-Semitism monitoring law. Salah Amer, a Cairo University international law professor, called the new legislation “terror of thought”, obviously designed to silence Israeli criticisms; facilitating the continuation of the Israeli State Terrorism and ethnic cleansing process in order to make way for the ‘chosen’ people of God.

It is not just Muslims, but any group that dare express anything critical about Judaism or Jews would potentially face the US sanctions followed by bombs and bullets; no doubt it will all be cloaked with the lofty values of human rights and even freedom of speech! But why is the US so concerned about anti-Semitism? Surely in light of the recent carnage in Iraq, the shameful episode of Abu-Ghraib, Camp-X-Ray etc. should the US not be more focused on anti-American sentiments around the world? It gives credence to the idea that there is disproportionate influence from the Jewish lobby that is real. Dr Mahatir did speak the truth on this matter. Perhaps you also realise why Ariel Sharon stated that now we control America, like the tail now controls the body of the cow.
Recently, a furore was created by the mayor of London, Ken Livingston, when he likened a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard. Many called for his apology, never mind the 100,000 slaughter in Iraq or the 13 year old Palestinian girl shot at close range, those events did not register in the ‘moral’ radar of the pro-Zionist section of the British intelligentsia! How are we as Muslims to interpret such paradoxical responses from one of the bastions of freedom and democracy? Or could it be that our ‘violent’ and ‘primitive’ nature prevents us from understanding such sophisticated response of a developed democracy, where they go mad over the perceived politically incorrect comments of Ken Livingston, while remain oblivious to the bombs and bullets killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq who have done no harm to their country! Who can forget when the British and American troops were burying Iraqis soldiers alive in the desert sands en masse during the first Gulf War in 1991, whilst the public were outraged at the suffering of animals caught in the oil spillage!

Another example of the hysteria of Gentiletude is when Dr. Mahatir praised the Jews for being resourceful and successful despite being numerically small and having suffered under Nazi Germany. The pro-Zionists in the West went into frenzy, with accusations of “anti-Semitism”, while remaining oblivious to the routine Israeli raids in Gaza, killing many innocent civilians. The mere unauthorised uttering of the word ‘Jews’ creates an instant response from these naive gentiles, coming to their defence, even as the Jewish nation is engaged in the shedding of blood of the goy. All the above mentioned examples clearly demonstrate the power of Gentiletude.

Reporters, Political Commentators, Journalists, and Politicians who have any backbone and objectivity left in them at best they tread carefully in fear, while others sign up to become part and parcel of this fad of showing obedience to Gentiletude or anti-Semitism. It is always easy to comply with what is fashionable instead of being principled, driven by right and wrong. Hence, you see the flexibility of the Western politicians aligning with the current fad, so they always leave room for backtracking and sidetracking like a slimy snake. Then they have the audacity to beat the drums of their commitment to noble values. Certainly, it is also fashionable to attack the Muslims and Islam, so you find plenty of journalists and politicians happily engaging in this exercise to appeal to the other majority. Isn’t that what democracy is about?

Therefore, Dhimmitude is largely mythical and has not surfaced due to the stifling of criticisms of the Muslims and Islam. It is a convenient term developed by the likes of D. Pipes to denigrate those who oppose the removal of the few remaining fragile barriers giving some nominal protection to Muslims and Islam. Removing those barriers is perhaps the last step before calling for the rebuilding of the concentration camps and the gas chambers. Many would of course argue that Camp X-Ray, Bagram and Belmarsh were miniature models of those horror chambers. How ironic the very people who were subjected to such treatment about 60 years ago are now at the forefront of inciting the US to pursue that route, while invoking victimhood of the Nazi Holocaust.

Today Muslims are often muzzled and demonised by the stick of anti-Semitism. A phenomenon that we neither created, nor did we practice by systematically eradicating Jewish population. Incongruously, those who have, tend to be the first to lecture us, in the same way they make noise about human rights after committing centuries of genocide, the most recent being in Iraq. Similarly, they shout about women’s rights while they use ‘freedom’ to profit from the ever increasing flesh based porn industry, prostitution and the infamous sex tourism. This week we see the US soldiers confessing to their animalistic behaviour of raping a 14 year old girl and then they killed her, then burnet her body. Yes, these are the soldiers of women’s rights! How ironic that while Hilary Clinton and Cherry Blair lecture about women’s rights to Muslims, their men were busy in sex-tourism in the Far East where poverty of the poor women are exploited by capitalist wealth made in democracies. If you are really sincere and honest about women’s rights then lead by examples by criminalising such activities, thus putting your own house in order first! And we as Muslims know for sure that you cannot.

In short, the two terms of “Gentiletude” and “Dhimmitude” may not carry opposite meaning in the linguistic sense, but their usage indicates that they are in opposite motion. The latter is used to remove the remaining fragile barriers in order to continue the persecution of the Muslim community often using ‘freedom’ of speech as a license. On the other hand, Gentiletude is used in the guise of anti-Semitism to reduce the existing scope (‘freedom’) for expressing criticism of the Jewish State. The insanity of Gentiletude is waning in Europe slowly as its ordinary citizens begin to realise the truth through the fog created by the one-sided mass media coverage. They see the crimes committed against innocent nations. They see that Iraq never attacked the US or the UK in its entire history, the Palestinians never occupied the Jewish homes and lands prior to 1948 coming from East Europe. Iraqis and the Palestinians are indeed the victims of organised State Terrorism and Gentiletude is one component of that policy.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK
[1] Non Muslim citizens of the Islamic State. Please see the article for a comparative analysis on: http://www.icssa.org/dhimmi.html
[2] Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum (A think tank that promotes American interests in the Middle East) and a prize-winning columnist for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem Post.
[3] The term was originally coined by another Jewish group http://www.dhimmitude.org/

Share on digg

“If we’d lost the war I would have been indicted for war crimes”.
This is not an attempt to defend or attack religion but to state the matter as it manifests in the real world. Two of the largest wars in history, centuries of colonisation, slavery and genocide, the use of the lethal nuclear bombs, not to mention the recent fabricated war on Iraq are all products of secular (Western) nations. Simultaneously, these nations are preaching the immorality of associating religion with the use of force! That raises the question, what is the underlying criteria that makes the distinction between religious and secular states using force which may led to violence as a means to achieve their respective objectives. NB: Criticism of the West is purely from a geo-political perspective, there are many people form the West who has taken the vanguard in addressing and criticising their governments.

The negative attitude towards associating religion with the use of force or violence can be attributed to European history where secularism originated. Religious institutions in the pre-secular era inflicted repression and violence, from the medieval crusades, sectarian wars, and suppression of knowledge, witch burnings to the barbaric inquisitions. This is odd considering that the central message of Christianity is one of ‘love’, as the preachers extol ‘love you enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’. The traumatic experience which Christian Europe has suffered is reflected in its attitude towards religion in general. Islam has had to bear the full brunt of this reactionary emotional response. In sum, ‘religion’ today is judged according to Europe’s trauma at the hands of Popes and Priests.
Consequently, the West redefined religion (Christianity) as being absolutely benign, passive and a matter for the individual to accept or reject. Therefore, the use of state apparatus to enforce religion has been portrayed as a contradiction of ‘religion’ itself. This concept is now being used against the tide of rising of Islam.
As for the secular West remaining indifferent towards the violence inflicted, which increased in quantity and qualitative terms, this can be primarily ascribed to the increase in material prosperity and comfort arising from the colonisation and the pillaging of other distant lands. The scramble for Africa and the genocide inflicted upon Latin America by the conquistadors are the most vivid examples. Furthermore, in the absence of electronic mass media, the news of the violence and suffering inflicted never reached the ordinary masses, touching their conscience.

Whilst pursuing colonisation they found the obstacle of the Islamic state. The colonialist nations (West) embarked upon a programme of propaganda to dismantle the association of military force (Jihad) with religion (Islam). Such propaganda was extended to other areas like polygamy; all constructed on the basis of its own historical experiences, their definitions of ethics and inherent prejudices. This eventually developed into a subject of research and study called ‘orientalism’. The sole purpose was and is to undermine political Islam and Jihad, thus facilitating the process of Imperialism.

The British even spawned the heretical sect, known as the qadianis. Not surprisingly one of its (qadianism) main pillars is to abrogate Jihad. All the Islamic conquests under the Prophet Mohammed’s (SAW) personal guidance reinterpreted to purely ‘defensive’ operations.
Like the qadianis, the neo-mods (Islamic ‘moderates’!) of today have adopted a similar position on the issue of Jihad, capitulating under the pressure of the Western intelligentsia and their ignorance. Even a cursory examination of the expansion of Islam from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) rule in Medina until the first thirty years after his demise, shows the unquestionable expansion of the Islamic state to Morocco, Syria, southern Russia and India. If the expansion is to be explained as the result of a series of ‘defensive’ wars, this is not only the apex of intellectual dishonesty but demonstrates utter stupidity, and lacking in common sense. In any case, the distinction between defensive and offensive can also be vague.

Post 9/11, Jihad has once again come under close scrutiny. The term has been historically demonised by the Hollywood film industry, the mass media including the filthy gutter tabloid press. It is usually depicted as ‘wild irrational fanatics’ (Mujahideen) firing their Kalashnikovs, killing anyone considered to be an infidel. Note, the usage of the term ‘Jihad’ and ‘Mujahideen’ had favourable exposure during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. This is no surprise, since it suited the interests of the West. Thus, the usage of the term is not devoid of ulterior political motives.

Similarly the Afghans battling against the Taliban were described as Mujahideen. This is absurd, considering that, Jihad by definition means battling against the forces of non-Islam (Kufr) rather than against practicing Muslims. It has to be noted, is the Northern Alliances ‘Mujahideen’ are composed of criminals, rapists, homosexuals, and of course drug dealers – the very antithesis of Mujahideen.

The broadcast of the message of Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden disappointed many of the anti-Islamic fanatics, in their zeal to project an irrational fanatic waving his Kalashnikov and threatening to kill all in site. Coming back to reality from Hollywood fiction, Shaikh Usamah neither showed anger, nor made stupid and ignorant (unlike President Bush and his cohorts) statements, but appeared calm, humble and serene. The message was clearly understood by the ordinary masses in the Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. In particular, those who have been the victim of American aggression and hence in places like Latin America he is popular. This is something that CNN, FOX or the BBC dare not broadcast.

Another distinguishing feature is that one of honesty and integrity, you may not agree with their viewpoint but they do not lie and deceive their population for the sake of making companies richer and in turn themselves (Halliburton and Cheney, Chevron and Condoleezza etc.). People have conveniently forgotten hypocrites like Bush who talk of fighting for ‘freedom’, avoided all military service during the Vietnam War. Prescott Bush, his grandfather made a good deal of money dealing with the Nazis, when young American and British soldiers were dying in Europe. In contrast Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden personally engaged in the battlefield and sacrificed his vast wealth, instead of squandering it by building opulent palaces.

Jihad can be both defensive and offensive, preferably by the Islamic state. At times, the distinction between the two modes of operation is blurred, depending on the political and military situation. At present it may be academic to discuss offensive Jihad, as the Islamic state does not exist in the world today. In addition the Muslims are facing an onslaught in their own lands, but nevertheless, it is worth examining it briefly to clarify some of the misconceptions.

Offensive Jihad

The Islamic state reserves the right to use military force against foreign states that engage in persecuting Muslims or, preventing the spread of Islam within their lands. Note, in principle there is no concept of forceful conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Even today, there are non-Muslims in most of the majority Muslim countries.
There is an enormous amount of deliberate scare mongering in the Western mass media and from the secular Muslim-intelligentsia depicting Jihad as a means to convert non-Muslims to Islam. However, one has to consider the fact that Christianity was involved in forceful conversion e.g. Spanish inquisition, and centuries of false propaganda has contributed towards some level of knee jerk reaction from the West. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the fact that the advanced ‘scientific’ West is still medieval in its attitude when it comes to assessing Islam.

There is a very significant and sharp distinction between offensive Jihad and colonialist occupational aggression. The sole purpose of Islamic conquests is to implement Islam, not to engage in empire building where the end justifies the means. The motive is not profit, subjugation or any other form of material benefit. This is why conquered nations often took the flag of Islam and continued with the expansion of the Islamic state e.g. Berbers and Mongols.

The above principles, coupled with other textual evidences, confirm that ‘first strike’ using ANY type of weapon upon civilians or non-combatants is prohibited according to Islamic law. Furthermore, it actually defeats the whole purpose of Jihad. Which is to convey (not to convert by force) Islam to non-Muslims rather than engage in their annihilation, e.g. using nuclear weapons. Such behaviour can only be expected from bloodthirsty criminals and state terrorists. So examine the history of who has used such weapons and pronounce your judgement.
In contrast the war waged by the US, Europe and the Zionist entity are primarily against defenceless civilian populations. Palestinians have no state or an army. Economic sanctions and the needless massacre of a retreating army and civilians on the road to Basra, during the first Gulf war are clear war crimes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as the apex of state terrorism, as is the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. The populations were burnt alive by incendiary bombs.

Further evidence of the war mongering nature of the West is the recent announcement by Bush to acquire mini-nukes and deploy ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons. Bear in mind, only when these weapons are in non US/US-sponsored hands, do they become WMD. We find the US proclaiming peace and attempting to disarm other nations selectively. In addition US bases are dotted all over the globe; this is being sold as ‘defensive’ measures. This is clearly indicative of US state terrorism increasing in the future.

Defensive Jihad

As for defensive wars, this is the case in places like Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq. This is a right that is recognised universally, as well as in Islamic law. Even under such circumstances the Muslims are not automatically allowed to retaliate against non-combatants (civilians) except in just retribution. If the US is bombing our cities, than the Islamic state or the Muslims reserve the right to hit US cities in just retaliation. The non-combatants (civilians) within the US must move to halt the crimes of its government. Otherwise they become complicit by their silence and inaction.
If Iraq, ruled by an unelected dictator could be punished collectively then by greater reasoning, any democratic states can also be punished collectively for the crimes of their government. Therefore, the inhabitants of Basra has every right to drop cluster bombs on the UK in retaliation, as the war has been proven to be based on clear lies or faulty ‘intelligence’. Similarly, the Japanese have the right to nuke the cities of the US for their war crimes in 1945.

Therefore, the inhabitants of Basra has every right to drop cluster bombs on the UK in retaliation, as the war has been proven to be based on clear lies or faulty ‘intelligence’. Similarly, the Japanese have the right to nuke the cities of the US for their war crimes in 1945.

The Western intelligentsia must move on from its infantile moaning about 9/11. Its claim of being an innocent victim is far from the truth. The eminent journalist, John Pilger referred to this point the day after 9/11. The casualties are insignificant in comparison to those inflicted upon the Islamic world prior and post 9/11. The inherent racist nature of the West and in particular the US causes them exclusively to focus on white American lives. Therefore, the civilian casualties in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being totally ignored.

9/11 was clearly a retaliatory response to the crimes committed by the various US regimes and its forces, during the last fifty years. This has been repeated once again by the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Even at individual levels, soldiers are committing all sorts of brutality and oppression. Only recently a CNN video showed cheering US soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi man. So much for the bravado of the ‘all American hero’, more like obese cowards prefer to shoot and bomb from a distance.

Conclusion

An ongoing war would only harm both parties (Islam and the West). The West has the resources and the ability to examine the current conflict objectively but that can only be achieved by removing the wall of prejudice that it has built up over centuries. In addition, all the racist and moneymaking war mongerers posing as neo-cons or hawks should be removed.

The West cannot continue to pretend waging defensive wars whilst its military bases are in the Islamic world. If the US truly seeks an understanding with the Islamic world, surely the removal and closure of these bases should be a start. This is not rocket science, as even a school child knows instinctively not to pick a fight with the strongest boy in the class, unless he is compelled to do so for sheer survival.
Today, the Palestinians are suffering horrendous casualties from the heavily US-armed Zionist Jewish forces, this scenario is repeated through out the Islamic world. Perhaps Americans should bear this mind when they ask “why”, after 9/11. The West must face up to its crimes against humanity; recognise its duplicity of lecturing the world about its higher ‘moral’ principles, which it does not uphold itself. Bush’s rants about democratisation sit uncomfortably with his own ‘election’ results! Common sense dictates you cannot expect adulterers like Clinton and Major to teach others about morality. Nor can you expect chicken hawks like Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to demonstrate bravery and courage. Most certainly it does not befit America to have such people running its country. In the same light peace cannot be expected from mass murderers like H. Kissinger, H. Truman, W. Churchill, A. Hitler, D. McArthur and G. Bush.
Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)

London, UK

Share on digg

Can anyone cite a prominent Imam or an Islamic Scholar, who was caught red-handed in a similar scandal? Even in the entire history of Islam, you would be hard pressed to find a single case. I am not gloating, but merely pointing out the words of the Bible: “by their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7: 15-16), to those Christian-Zionist zealots and the nasty TV-Evangelists like Pat Robertson that are constantly foul mouthing Islam. The reality shows Islamic scholars and prominent Imams have ‘only’ produced the best fruits. This is something the sincere followers of Jesus should think about and reflect upon.

The cult of TV-Evangelism is also a potential money-making lucrative business. Thus, many more have been caught embezzling funds raised from their followers than in sexual scandals. To increase your revenue, you need to raise your profile and ratings. Consequentially, some have resorted to claiming they are in direct communication with God. One TV-Evangelist, Oral Roberts, claimed that God told him to raise $8 million, otherwise he would be raised to the heavens, and consequentially he raised $9.1 million. Another is Peter Popoff, who was exposed for his apparent healing miracles and prophetic acts, which were in fact part of an elaborately stage-managed setup, including planting of people in the audience.

Such examples illustrates how gullible so many Americans are, giving millions to a man who simply makes a claim of receiving divine revelation, without offering any proof. Even more gullible are those who believe that these charlatans can perform miracles. One of these idiotic preachers approached me, claiming that they can cure AIDS, and all sorts of illness through their healing powers. Well, I then retorted “in that case you should put the medical profession out of business by now, and perhaps also rewrite the laws of physics in the process”.

This level of ignorance, naiveté and religious superstition amongst the US masses, may explain why the politicians and the media have been able to manipulate the masses so easily on issues like terrorism, war on terror etc. It is even more surprising that ordinary Americans still flock to these fraudulent TV-evangelists. Because, by now any rational person would become a sceptic of these characters and adopt the assumption that: those who are still preaching are simply the ones who have not been caught as yet. May be it is also time to test the followers of Ted Haggard, and ask them: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at Ted Haggard.”

The Catholic Church also face similar problems, as their celibate priests are often caught relieving their natural sexual desires on boys and girls that they are entrusted to look after. I find it strange that celibacy can be advocated as something positive. Imagine all the men and women decided to be celibate in following the example of Jesus. You would have created the biggest suicide bomb in human history! Inevitably, the Catholic Church will have to do a u-turn on this issue as they had to do on Galileo.

Clearly, both the Protestants and the Catholics are frustrated as they are losing followers to other religions and many more to the non-religious based ideologies. In addition, they have failed to halt the tide of Islam penetrating into Europe and the US, despite the intense propaganda against Islam. Surely this is a better example of a miracle, in comparison to those shown by the fraudulent TV-Evangelists! In frustration, came the notorious anti-Islamic comments from the Pope, and recently a German priest, Ronald Weisselberg, committed suicide in protest about the rise of Islam in Europe.

It is unfortunate for the Christians that they see their battle with Islam and not with the secular forces around them. Militant secularism has been continuously diluting Christianity, thus making it irrelevant, over the last three to four hundred years. It has got to a point where insulting the fundamentals of Christian faith is tolerated, not because the Bible says so, but the dictation of militant secularists. To keep silent, when ones parents are insulted is not an act of tolerance but one of a shameful coward, and this same principle should be applied even more rigorously to the divine message, because it has a higher status.

A consequence of this dilution of Christianity has led to many Christians confusing Biblical values with Secular values. Often they use secular values to interpret the Bible. As an example, “equality of sexes”, which means women can hold positions which were traditionally barred for them on religious grounds. The Bible itself goes against the notion of gender equality; you have from Adam to Jesus, male dominated Prophets sent by God, so by secular criteria God must be sexist. A son and not a daughter of God were sacrificed to redeem the sins of mankind, meaning a female sacrifice is not good enough!

Take another example of homosexuality. While a section of Christians oppose homosexuality, another has adopted it as legal, to the extent that they have gay priests. Clearly, the Christians are confused on such a fundamental issue. The underlying argument for those who favour homosexuality is drawn not from the Bible, but from secular notion of equality, regardless of one’s sexual orientation. In that case where does one draw the line? Will the constant repetition of Christian ‘love’ ad nauseam extend to anyone regardless of their sexual orientation? In that case, why not extend that love to Ted Haggard and let him continue his duty. Now is the time to demonstrate the notion of Christian love and forgiveness that we keep hearing about.

The final example of their confusion is the attack on Muslims for practicing polygamy, while they advocate monogamy. Which I find perplexing, because the Old Testament contains ample example of polygamy, and in contrast, the New Testament indicates the trend towards celibacy as Jesus never married. I fail to see where the Bible endorses ‘only’ monogamy. Those who cite Adam and Eve as evidence of monogamy fall flat on their faces due to it not being decisive, because where was the evidence prohibiting Adam from taking more than one Eve? Nor does the Bible say the only the example of Adam and Eve must be followed. As stated earlier, the evidences in the Old Testament clearly permits polygamy. Hence, to claim that the Bible only permits monogamy is to contradict the contents of the Bible.

According to the medieval Christian theology, sex was the necessary sin of the flesh, it served procreation; continuation of the human race. Perhaps this negative attitude was inspired by Jesus remaining celibate. That may explain why they get critical or to be precise they get envious, when they see Islam encourages Muslim men and women to engage in a healthy sexual life and produce children. Women were known to complain to the Prophet (SAW) against men who pursued extreme austerity and neglected their marital duties. The Prophet (SAW) scolded such men, reminded them spirituality is not just in worship but also looking after your wives and family.

This negative attitude towards sex, I also find from secular sceptics, they criticise Islam for permitting too much sex in the way of polygamy, while at the same time they advocate and promote sexual freedom. How bizarre! Yet these people hilariously class themselves as ‘freethinkers’, when they have not yet reached mediocrity, which is evident from their statements.

The fanatical missionaries knock on people’s doors, inviting them to the gospel or go berserk on evangelical TV stations claiming the truth of the Bible over all religions, usually by mocking them. The underlying message is: “my religion is better than yours”. It is hypocritical to mock other religions and then preaching to them about love and turning the other cheek. As Muslims we are prohibited from mocking the Gods of other religions, and passing derogatory remarks. For sure, we do not have the equivalent of Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell etc. It seems these missionaries are prepared to even sell their religion, and exploit the poverty of poorer nations to gain converts; such type of behaviour is disgusting and betrays the message of Jesus.

Often I get Christian nutcases emailing me with one sentence that usually says: your religion is false and you should accept Jesus as saviour. Sometimes they use obscene language against the Prophet (SAW) and then end with lecturing me about the ‘love’ of Christ! Do they expect that I should jump in the air proclaim Hallelujah, I have been saved, now I can see, I can see, like Eddie Murphy often does in his movies. It is time for the voiceless moderate Christian to come out and give a better representation of their religion and marginalise the fanatical missionaries, and the fraudulent TV-Evangelists.

Another Christian fanatic lashed out at me, saying that Islam was built on murder. I retorted that gruesome murder was the central pillar of Christianity and to the extent that the metaphorical drinking of Christ’s blood and eating his flesh is symbolically re-enacted in Church gatherings. If there was no crucifixion of an innocent man, there would be no resurrection and thus no Christianity. He then claimed the murder of Jesus was an act of love, but then God displaying Human sacrifice like the pagans used to; and how can one see love in such a brutal act where the father-the-God allegedly permits his only ‘begotten’ son or God-the-son to be crucified in this manner, while the God-the-Holy-Ghost remained a spectator?

I am not interested and nor do I have the desire to criticise Christianity, but we do have the right to respond and we will. In any case, our battle is with liberal democracy and Capitalism, and not the remnants of secularised-Pauline-Christianity that is trying to save itself from getting fully digested within the secular framework.

There has been a frantic attempt to portray the non-moderate Muslims in the image of these true Christian fanatics, who are ready convert people by force, if they are given the opportunity. As one genuine priest wrote on Osama Bin Laden’s calm appearance and presentation has left many confused. Largely because of their own propaganda, they had already built up a false perception. Their expectation was to see an angry bearded man, who would be waving a gun and screaming vengeance. The reality is the reverse. Force conversion has been a feature of Christianity and not Islam; and angry emotional men can be seen thumping the Bible irrationally on the TV.

In their zeal to confront Islam, the fanatical Christian missionaries will go to any lengths. They even side with people who actually mock Jesus (PBUH), and even those who hate Jesus (PBUH) from the heart by calling him a liar and His mother a prostitute. How strange, they side with such venomous people and scorn Muslims, who have never shown such contempt towards Jesus (PBUH), which would be an act of apostasy according to Islam. On the contrary Muslims have shown utmost devotion to Jesus and his Mother (PBUH). If anyone insulted Jesus (PBUH), it is the Muslims who are far more likely to come to His defence than the Christians, because the Christians must live up to the tolerant image set by their neo-secular Gods.

Sometimes, I wonder if the Christian zeal is driven by insecurity. Perhaps these missionaries find tranquillity when they see others adopt Christianity, helping them to deal with their own uncertainty about Christianity. For sure, the complex and contradictory notion of the Trinity is bound to raise doubts. Another factor is the central concept that an innocent man can be tortured to death for the sins of others, which contradicts the notion of natural justice.

Muslims on the other hand always supported the Christians and the Jews against the unbelievers and pagans, because we consider them to be the people of the Book and hence a degree to closer to us. The most prominent example of that is from the battle between the Persian and the Romans during the life of the Prophet (SAW). The pagan Arabs was taunting the Muslims for the defeat of the Christian Romans by the Persians, who were polytheists. The Prophet (SAW) and His companions sided with the Romans, and prophesised that the Romans would win in the next battle. So they did! Similarly an excellent example was set by the Christian King of Abyssinia, when He came to the defence of the Muslim refugees against the Arab polytheists.

Instead of attacking Muslims and Islam, the Christians should seek a better alliance with the Muslims and help us to challenge the transitory and vague values of secularism. In my opinion, no one else is capable of leading a resistance to militant secularism. Therefore, Muslims have always been the primary target and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
London, UK
Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006

Share on digg

The US District Judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, recently ordered [1] the Pentagon to release the graphic pictures and videos, of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Already numerous independent reports have corroborated the use of sadistic torture and execution (extraordinary renditions and secret prisons run by the CIA) by the US forces. They call it “interrogation methods” – a euphemistic term for sheer barbarism! Not surprisingly, the Bush administration told a Federal Judge [2] that interrogation (torture) methods are to remain secret. The obvious implication is: the US is violating the international conventions and standards, and yet it expects the rest of the world to uphold these same conventions for captured US soldiers!

Similar methods were deployed in Afghanistan; captured Taliban fighters were tortured and executed. The Bagram Air base is the Abu-Ghraib or Camp X-Ray of Afghanistan. Other evidences of US savagery can be seen from the behaviour of US soldiers themselves; suffering from guilt many commit suicide or go into a state of depression. Recently, a devout Mormon committed suicide after witnessing cruelty by the US forces against helpless Iraqi prisoners.

Therefore, Abu-Ghraib is not the exception, but rather a confirmation of the adopted US policy. According to Seymour Hersh [3], who had a prominent role in initially breaking the story of Abu-Ghraib, stated the following in 2004, about those pictures and videos that were withheld by the Pentagon:

“The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror.”

Three years into the conflict in Iraq, we have enough data to evaluate the simplistic message presented by the simpleton, George Bush: the good guys (the US-led forces) fighting the evil doers (Al-Qaeda). Accordingly, the pro-war camp, including the naive Muslim moderates argued: The principled US went to save the Iraqis from the evil Saddam Hussein. As if the Anglo-US nations suddenly developed a love bug for the Iraqis, when the hate of Arab/Islamic culture and nation has been ingrained in their history and culture for centuries!

Despite the love bug, we still see the ‘affectionate’ terms like sand-nigger, rag-head, towel-head used by those freedom loving Christian Americans! Strange, the US also acquired a love bug for the oil-rich Kuwaitis back in 1991, but not for the oil-less: Palestinians, Rwandans, and the black South Africans. It seems the US only gets infected by the bug when there is lots of oil! One would have to be gullible to believe that a profit-maximising capitalist state would become a charitable institution overnight and rush off to save those desert folks. Anyway, the following points briefly examine the track record of the good guys, and the evil doers (Al-Qaeda). Please note I am using the term Al-Qaeda synonymously with the wider Islamic resistance.

1) How many Al-Qaeda members have sodomised children and men?
The pictures and the videos of Abu-Ghraib will only shock those who are naïve and/or in a state of denial, because this is what the US soldiers do at home. Homosexuals and paedophiles are in abundance in the US and rising. This rise in homosexuality is almost evocative of the latter stages of the Roman and Greek empire. Various reports [4] estimate that 10-30% of the US population are homosexuals, with the paedophiles also growing. There is even a political group fighting for the legitimisation of child abuse and is allowed to do that by the Democratic system in place. One can also see this trend, with the growth of US and European based websites catering for such sick tastes, and for sure, this is not the work of Al-Qaeda or any ‘mozlems’ (Muslims).

It is horrific just to think about young children screaming, as they were sodomised in front of their parents, and the entire thing filmed by these degenerates. The US soldiers were taping this as souvenirs for their friends and families back at home and no doubt for many to satisfy their deviant sexual desires with their fellow degenerates. That speaks volumes about these so-called soldiers of freedom and democracy.

In contrast, if any Al-Qaeda members resorted to doing such disgusting acts against anyone, let alone the unthinkable, i.e. against vulnerable young children. The culprits would be dealt with by the other Al-Qaeda members immediately, after a short and efficient trial. The perpetrators would face real retribution that fits the crime; and not get a demotion of rank with a very light sentence to serve in a cosy cell.

For those who always ask about retribution in Islam in such cases, the perpetrators would not be raped or sodomised by another person. The initial crime was not in the penetration, (which is a pleasurable act), but it in the violation of the individual’s sovereignty to whom it was done. Our Scholars in the past have commented on such cases, and those soldiers would be given retribution with a stick and hammer, instead of a male penis, and for sure they will remember the price of unlawful entry! Please, no giggles, this is a serious issue.
2) How many Al-Qaeda members have raped women?

Many of the women imprisoned in Abu-Ghraib were the wives of Iraqi resistance fighters; they were used by the US forces as a bargaining chip. This is clearly illegal under international law and a despicable cowardly act for a side that is already armed to the teeth in relation to its opponents. When the fruits did not materialise, the women were sexually abused and raped by the soldiers of women’s rights! What an irony! These are the same soldiers bringing freedom to Iraqi women, helping them establish women’s rights. Has it occurred to anyone that these soldiers do not respect their own mothers and sisters in general, so how can they respect other women? Who can forget the gruesome gang rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl in Haditha by the degenerate American soldiers, and then they killed her and burnt her body.

On the contrary, the US women captured by the Iraqis were treated with full respect; none were raped or maltreated. In desperation, the US propaganda machine tried to create a fictitious claim over Private Jessica Lynch [5], but the robust witness accounts from the Iraqi doctors, nurses and lack of independent medical evidences, refuted any claims of rape or sexual abuse. Eventually Jessica Lynch herself denied such things had occurred to her.

The only woman that was killed under mysterious circumstances was Margaret Hassan. Prior to her death, the Mujahideen declared they were not holding her and they would release her if they came across her. Furthermore, the two Italian female journalists who were released; they spoke very favourably of their treatment. One of the earlier Italian female journalists was in fact shot at by the US forces, after she was released by the resistance. In reality, the US female soldiers have more to fear from their fellow male soldiers, than Al-Qaeda fighters, as rape inside the armed forces is significant according to their own statistics.

3) How many Al-Qaeda members have a daily diet of porn and sexual perversion?

At least 30,000 US soldiers serving in Iraq were exchanging gruesome pictures [6] of dead Iraqis (including pictures of genitals), to gain access to porn sites. Many of them confessed to watching porn on a daily basis and/or prior to going out into battle. No surprise that they were practicing their fantasies on the innocent Iraqis in Abu-Ghraib and else where.
What a paradox, the nation preaching about morality to the world shows the worst kind of immoral behaviour. The US soldiers represent a nation that is probably the largest producer and consumer of hard and extreme porn. So these soldiers of women’s rights have been raised on a diet that projects women as a piece of flesh to be devoured! In contrast, to date we do not see any such scandals amongst the Al-Qaeda fighters. If there were any, for sure they would get a fitting punishment from their fellow Al-Qaeda members.

A natural consequence of being exposed to such materials is the loss of inhibition. Thus, we see crass nudity, and publicly broadcasting all kinds of degenerate sexual behaviour as fashionable and progressive. Take the Jerry Springer show, it brings sordid truths of ordinary Americans to the public, and they seem more than willing to trade their honour, for few minutes of fame on national TV. Proves how the concept of shame and modesty is vanishing fast.

4) Who has been beheading en mass?

By now, many are fuming and ranting about the few beheadings done in retaliation and in self-defence by the Al-Qaeda fighters. But they are not willing to consider the huge number of innocent Muslims that have been initially beheaded with high-tech weapons or at close range in places like Abu-Ghraib. Note the beheading started to happen after the horrors of Abu-Ghraib was made public, which went well beyond putting women’s underpants on the faces of detainees as suggested by those illiterate Fox-TV presenters. Those who refer to Nick Berg should ask his father. Who did he blame for his son’s death?

Then the one-sided media that acts as the mouthpiece for the Pentagon, labels beheading as barbaric but the use of cluster bombs, Napalm, Phosphorus bombs etc are some how legitimate and civilised! Phosphorous or napalm bombs cause the victim to die a slow painful death, their flesh and bones literally burn that results in a slow agonizing death. Under such circumstances, they would be begging the Iraqis resistance to behead them.

5) Who has been engaged in Sadistic Killings?

It is not the Al-Qaeda fighters that stand next to their victims posing with a smile and thumbs up. Nor are they making human pyramids out of prisoners for humiliation and probably some weird sexual gratification that scientifically advanced societies like the US can comprehend! This echoes the old Mongols who used human skulls to make the pyramids after pillaging Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld himself told the congress that the pictures contain acts: “that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane”. Another Republican senator conceded that the pictures and videos contained scenes of “rape and murder”. Now imagine what we do not know! Or can you really imagine such things? Can you imagine if there are worse things which have not been revealed? We cannot call these US soldiers animals, because animals kill for food and engage in sexual activity for procreation. Animals do not engage in sadistic torture and sexual abuse? Indeed animals have better principles.

In contrast, such conduct is not seen from the Al-Qaeda fighters and they have confined their targets to US soldiers and collaborators. Most certainly, no women and children were taken prisoner and subjected to torture, rape, sodomy and sadism. In any case, the Al-Qaeda fighters need no justification for their acts in Iraq, against the illegal invaders and criminals. Their struggle is recognised by the UN Charter as the right of self-defence against illegal occupation. They have acted with far greater honour and dignity, in comparison to the barbarism shown by the coalition criminals; we now know they have sunk to the lowest position by raping children and women. Only the naive and ignorant will point fingers at the victim, in isolation of the conduct of the aggressor.

What happened in Abu-Ghraib is not confined to a few bad apples; there must have been a green light from higher authorities as this had continued for some time. Are we to believe that the higher authorities did not know, what was going on inside their prisons? One of the earlier pictures showed US soldiers crawling all over the place, minding their business, while 5 or 6 naked Iraqi bodies were tied together like animals. If Iraq as a whole can be punished for the acts of a dictator, then surely by the same reason, a democratic nation can also be punished for the acts of those who are elected and those who have authority in the battlefields.

The above points shows, the model of ‘evil’ Al-Qaeda and the ‘good’ US forces is the reverse in reality. Your deeds always expose who you really are. Ask any American with a sound mind, if they had young children and daughters who would they feel safe with: a group of drunken US marines with a track record for rape and sexual perversion or a group of pious Al-Qaeda fighters?

Now to those pro-war moderates and degenerate traitors, do you still believe that the US-led war was for your benefit? Are you still so gullible that you continue to believe that the capitalist US risked their lives and spent money to make life better for you? Why did they commit such atrocities in Abu-Ghraib and elsewhere when Saddam and his supporters were already behind bars? Why are the US soldiers raping Iraqi women and children when they are the ones who were going to be liberated by them? Can you see the evidence presented in front of your face?

There are millions of non-Muslims, who have been acting with dedication and fervour coming to the defence of innocent Iraqis, and exposing the US crimes. However, post Abu-Ghraib and still the degenerate moderate Muslims justify the crimes of US – and that makes them worse than the degenerate soldiers of Abu-Ghraib! It is a fact that Islam places the traitors (Munafiqs) in the lowest position in the hell fire, and commonsense tells us that an open enemy has better credentials than a treacherous one. When will they learn? And what will it take for them to see the reality as it is.

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
London, UK
Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006
[1] http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/10/28/pentagon-forced-to-reveal-more-abu-ghraib-pics/
[2] http://www.nypost.com/seven/11052006/news/nationalnews/tortured_logic_nationalnews_.htm
[3] http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html
[4] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/bib-homoprev.html
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3251731.stm
[6] http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/28/web.photos/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Share on digg

Is this another example of clash of values? May be not, as Jack Straw and Sheik Taj Din al-Hilal, would concur in opposing complete nudity in public. Therefore, both agree, and recognise that a minimum standard of clothing needs to be enforced in society, for both genders. Clothing is one of the factors that differentiate the animals from human beings! What that minimum standard should be, is at the heart of the debate, the most crucial question. However, this is ignored, as the primary focus is on maximising freedom for individuals, and not what should be the minimum dress code for greater harmony for the society as a whole.

Did the Australian Imam pose an intellectual argument or did he make insulting remarks about scantly dressed women? For example, did he call them prostitutes or animals who roam naked in the jungle without any shame? If he had done so, then he would have ‘progressed’ to the levels of Salman Rushdie, or those who drew the derogatory cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Denmark, or those closet racists who have now come out to vent their hate against the Muslims!

As expected, the Western media went into a state of frenzy after hearing the comments of the Australian Imam. What happened to free speech now? In short, there is no room for Muslims issuing genuine criticisms, no space for Muslims having the right to express their opinions challenging the status-quo. The media is becoming intolerant and fanatical as it claims about others in totalitarian societies. Increasingly it looks like the media of Julius Streicher in the 1930s Germany.

So, it is unacceptable when the Muslims pose a valid argument without the use of pejorative terms, and yet, when the West insults us in the crudest form, they expect us to tolerate it under free speech. Is it any surprise, the West is losing the intellectual battle against Al-Qaeda, as the London Daily Telegraph stated recently? You do not need to hire analysts, or conduct polls to establish such self-evident truths.

I was listening to the debate on the James O’Brian show on the radio. He was already incensed by the comments, and got even more enraged when non-Muslims emailed him, concurring with the views of the Australian Imam. Eventually, he suggested that the Imam should be handled physically as one cannot have a reasoned discussion with people who hold such views. Hence, Mr O’Brian is an intolerant neo-Julius-Streicher, and failing to recognise that he is the one advocating violence over dialogue and free speech. I am not sure why some of these presenters discuss subjects of this nature. I would have thought they are more qualified to debate popular culture.

Mr O’Brian claimed that the Imam’s comment exclusively blamed women for getting raped or if they suffer some type of sexual assault. I phoned in, and informed the operator that Mr James O’Brian got it completely wrong, and not for the first time. What the Imam was saying, only women who dress in a provocative manner ‘contribute’ towards these types of crimes and they have to share at least some responsibility. The operator would not let me through, as ‘he’ wanted to air some seedy story about men who ogle at women. I guess he was even less interested in free speech, and giving some voice to those voiceless people, who were being systematically demonised.

On the one hand, women are to have all the freedom (choice) and if I understand Mr Jack Straw that means: freedom to wear fewer clothes as possible. Yet, no sane person can deny the impact on the male sexual instinct by women exercising their freedom in this manner. Thus, is it unreasonable to expect women to bear some level of responsibility, so that they do not contribute towards these crimes? In the same way, would society not point fingers at those individuals who leave their money and assets unprotected, enticing the thieves? All responsible parents monitor their young daughters, as they are concerned about the predatory hot-blooded young males. The recent pictures released from Abu-Ghraib shows how nasty and hot-blooded these males are – even children are not safe from them.

The males too have a responsibility and just because they are sexually agitated, it does not give them the right to force themselves on women. Not every single male would behave according such principles, and restrain their carnal desires. Scantly dressed females should remember, especially before flirting, that for some men, if you excite them beyond a certain point they cannot retreat.

Naturally, when the opportunity arises, many men end up committing rape. This is confirmed by surveys that show a significant number of women in the US get date-raped. When men were asked if they would rape if the opportunity arises, the figures were even higher. Note, the word ‘opportunity’, meaning both sexes have the responsibility to ensure that such opportunities are not created. The constant promotion of ‘freedom’ creates selfish individuals, who give their carnal desires a greater priority, than to restrain it in order to show respect for others.

Our focus should not be to enhance freedom for both sexes, as one person’s freedom inevitably impinges on someone else’s freedom. Because, we do not live as individuals on our own islands, but collectively in a society. Rather, the focus should be to find the equilibrium between the two genders, where they can enjoy a stable relationship. Soaring divorce rates to rising single parent families are just some of the signs that clearly show we have not reached that equilibrium. This is the real debate behind the schism of the veil and the bikini.

I thought the West is yearning for a genuine debate with the Muslims. But, how can that be, when we see emotional and superficial responses coloured by their medieval heritage, from those who are bragging about the weight of their liberal values? Perhaps they expect Muslims to go on four limbs and resort to insulting also. Maybe only then Muslims will be given an EQUAL chance to express their viewpoint, under the flag of free speech!

For sure, any reasonable person knows the distinction between posing an intellectual challenge, and systematically insulting a community under the flag of free speech. At present, that seems ‘anybody’ except the very people that are shouting free speech. How ironic!

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
London, UK
Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006

Share on digg

These hostile critics use specific examples to construct: subjective judgments and simultaneously ignore how those judgments contradict other cases. For example, they describe the Prophet (SAW) of Islam as violent by citing cases where retribution was applied, concurrently ignoring the numerous occasions when He forgave the offenders. Also, how can anyone claim retribution is an act of violence, as it is a form of compensation for the victim, and a deterrence for the criminals. Retribution is central to the notion of justice.

Likewise, they claim that the Prophet (SAW) was driven by lust for having many wives, but overlook that fact that many of his wives were old and not the most beautiful. More pertinently, the Prophet (SAW) did not seek the prettiest women in the prime of his youth; nor did he seek them when He became the most powerful ruler of Arabia, when such desires could easily have been satisfied. In fact, the pagan Arabs offered Him the most beautiful women as a form of bribe, in return for His silence, but the Prophet (SAW) unequivocally refused.

If having many wives is evidence of lust, then surely these types of charges can be levied better against the Biblical Prophets; Solomon (AS) for example had 700 hundred wives and numerous concubines. Conversely, someone remaining celibate can be accused of having unnatural desires. Thus, using this type of superficial reasoning, one can make serious allegations against Prophet Jesus (AS).

Similarly, they slander Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as a ‘pedophile’, because of the sole example of His marriage to young Ayesha (RA), the only virgin wife of the Prophet. They argue that Ayesha (RA) was a child by contemporary standards and the age difference between Prophet Muhammad (aged 54) and Ayesha (age 9) is inappropriate. Simultaneously, they fail to account why all of His other wives were much older and some actually exceeded the Prophet (SAW) in age. The pertinent question is: if the Prophet (SAW) really had a strong desire for young women, then why did He not seek wives of a similar age to Ayesha (RA), when He subsequently married numerous times?

The hostile critics can be classed into two categories, the secular fundamentalists and the fanatical Christian-Zionists. In order to answer the nasty allegation made against the Prophet (SAW), we pose the following questions:

1. Was Ayesha a pre-pubescent child?
2. Was the marriage immoral due to the age gap?
3. What constitutes a valid marriage?
4. Who really condones and/or practices pedophilia?

Was Ayesha (RA) a pre-pubescent child?

The conventional definition of a Pedophile is: someone who REPEATEDLY engages in sexual act with prepubescent children. All the reports state that Ayesha (RA) went to live with the Prophet (SAW) as His wife, after she had reached puberty. She and her parents fully consented to the marriage. There was no criticism issued at that time and subsequently, by Muslims and non-Muslims. Hence, this was in accordance to the prevailing custom, and the age old tradition of girls marrying at puberty.

However, the allegation persists, because they argue that Ayesha (RA) was still a child regardless of her attaining puberty. In that case, what is the universally accepted definition that distinguishes a child from an adult for all periods of time? Surely it cannot be something as arbitrary as 18 or 16, as is the case in many Western countries, and such distinction is meaningless when you consider that most people below those ages are sexually active. Are we under any obligation to accept their assertions in blind-faith that Ayesha was a child? Note, by those same standards, having sex with an underage female is not described as pedophiliac, but underage sex, or statutory rape!

It should also be noted that even today the age of consent in many parts of the world is around 12-14. Age of consent in the USA was 10 hardly 100 years ago and 11 in the UK. Mary the mother of Jesus according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible was pregnant at the age of 12 and married of to Joseph between the ages of 7 and 9. The Christian Byzantine emperors and nobilities also had bride as young as 8 years old. The gay communities in secular societies are constantly trying to lowering the age of consent. From the definition of Islam, Ayesha was a woman. Islam makes puberty (physical capacity) and mental capacity the distinguishing factor between a responsible adult and a child.

Was the marriage immoral due to the age gap?

By whose standards the marriage was immoral? Burden of proof is on the one who makes the allegations. Hence, they must state their definition of morality/immorality and its basis. More pertinently why their definition of morality is universal and absolute – thus has legitimacy to judge all societies. The reality is: morality like laws is relative, it differs from nation to nation; and for most nations it is relative within as it changes with the lapse of time. For example once marriage was sacred but now it is outdated, homosexuality was once immoral but now it is a fad, and so on.

Some argue that certain values like lying, murder, and theft are universal, if that was so then the laws and values regarding these issues would be identical. Consider capital punishment, this is viewed as murder by some, while others consider it as a form of retribution. When foreigners kill their citizens it is deemed as murder, however when they kill foreigners it is collateral damages for building democracy! Similarly when you examine the details of what constitutes lies and theft you see the sharp differences.

The Christian-Zionist are in no position to lecture about the age gap, given that there are numerous references [1] in the Bible illustrating marriage between young girls with older men. Even a child as young as 3 can be taken as a bride [2] this is elaborated in the section below: who really condones and/or practices pedophilia. They have a further problem in lecturing the Muslims about morality as there are stories [1] alleging adultery, incest, indiscriminate murder of women and children, committed by the Prophets of God under divine guidance.

For the secular critics, to claim that the marriage was immoral is irrational and hypocritical, as secular societies do not recognise marriage as a sacred institution in the first place. It is viewed as an ancient tradition, thus people are increasingly cohabiting. Also, how their scale of so-called morality works? They say it is wrong for a man to have married a much younger woman, but there is no problem if the individual is engaged in homosexual activity or other kinds of sexual practices like incest, bestiality that are considered by most people as deviant from the norm. At least a heterosexual relationship conforms to nature and fulfills the role of reproduction. Is it morally consistent to criticise the marriage of Ayesha (RA), while permitting such activities?

Of course, the secular critics scream sexual freedom is the reason for allowing such activities. Then surely, by that freedom, there should be no objection if two individuals willingly enter into a marital contract, regardless of their age differences! Would it be perceived in the same light, if a sexually active 12 year old male wanted to marry a 60 year old woman willingly, exercising their freedoms? Many of the secular anti-Islamic monkeys have been trained to foul mouth Islam, and unable to elaborate and justify their alternative moral paradise. Naturally, if you criticise something, you must have an alternative. That leads to the next question.

What constitutes a valid (moral) marriage?

Since Aisha (RA) was much younger than the Prophet (SAW), the anti-Islamic critics make a lot of noise, as if they have been offended due to their high level of ‘morals’. That is like the devil lecturing others about sin, and a response of laughter is natural and most appropriate. They criticise the age gap, but fail to state what that gap should be and why? Indeed, they should clarify their overall position of what constitutes a legitimate (moral) form of marriage, giving details of all the relevant factors like age, gender and eligibility.

So, looking at gender, what about homosexual marriages where the gender boundaries are crossed; this is now viewed as legitimate by most secular societies, and increasingly by many of the Christian churches. Many countries have made it legal and in many places it has become a fad. We regard homosexual marriages to be unlawful and disgusting; it goes against human nature of procreation. Is it morally consistent to permit such activities, while condemning a normal heterosexual marriage for having an age gap?

In terms of eligibility, what about those who cross the traditional boundaries of marriage that is considered sacred, and commit incest by engaging in sexual acts/or marrying within the family? Is this moral? If not, then are you going to imposing your views on them and defile your sacred notion of freedom. However, this is not the end of the story, some freedom loving secularist are experimenting with beasts to eating each other (cannibalism). Of course we know the masses in general do not engage in this, but the point is secular freedom permits such things. While permitting such things, do the secular critics have any right to lecture the Muslims on marital issues?

The secular critics always avoid this pertinent point of elucidating the conditions of a legitimate marital relationship. Because, they want to criticise others – whilst avoiding their own position being subjected to the same criticisms. Indeed, we know how easy it is to call others ugly wearing a mask! It is a real irony that these secular foul mouths are constantly demanding proof from Muslims, yet when they are asked to justify their own position, they expect you to follow them with blind faith. These are the real ignorant fanatics and extremists of our time.

Who really condones and/or practices pedophilia?

Ironically, the foul mouth Christian preachers, with venom and hate slander the Prophet of Islam, while waving the flag of ‘love’. Often they are supported by the Zionists behind the scene, who have good reasons to remain relatively silent on this issue, as the evidences below demonstrate. If sexual relationship with a pre-pubescent child is that abhorrent, surely the condemnation should start by calling for the Bible to be banned. Consider the following verse, and there are numerous other verses like this:

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Numbers 31:17-18)

The verse orders the killing of all males including children of any age and that is pretty gruesome. It is not the Quran but the Bible that is suitable as a manual for terrorists, serial killers and mass murderers, may give a plausible explanation for the existence of violent societies like the Zionist-Israel, Christian-US and medieval Europe. As for “kill every woman who has slept with a man” according to the scholars of the Jewish Talmud [2], this resulted in killing of every girl 3 years upward, ordered directly by Prophet Moses himself. The verse applied to women who were not virgins as well as those who the capacity for committing sexual intercourse. The Rabbis elaborate this is 3 years upwards, as they explicitly state [2] numerous times in the Talmud: “A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse”.

Therefore, this is clear evidence of pedophilia activity legitimized by the Bible – advocated and followed by the Jews, while Christians are not obliged to follow the commandments of the old Testament but they considers it to be part of God’s revelation. If they condemn Pedophilia then logically they have to condemn their God, who permitted such activities once upon a time. Yet the Christians and the Jews have the audacity to slander Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and the Western world happily promotes such slander without looking into their backyard. They should really follow their own advice from the New Testament on this issue: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.“(John 8:7).

As for the secular critics, if they were genuinely against pedophiles, then why they are silent towards the real pedophiles around them? There are organised pedophile groups trying to legitimize such activities in the US and Europe. Yet no words of condemnation issued against them, and the secular critics should deal with such groups first, getting their house in order, before pointing the fingers at others. Like serial killers, Pedophiles exists in abundance in the West, and not in the Islamic world. Even a cursory search on the web will reveal a growing number of such sites are hosted by Western secular countries. Indeed, all the evidences suggest that these critics actually condone pedophilia, and their hypocritical silence corroborates that. No doubt, their blind and fanatical adherence to the notion of freedom has also contributed to shaping their perverse mindset!

These secular critics, particularly the western ones, have a problem of criticising Muslims by using their own demons. So, they say we are fascists when they have invented and practiced it. We are supposed to be violent but who has caused the largest wars, and have the largest war machinery. They call us terrorists, and yet they are the ones who have invented bombing civilians en masse. Likewise, the Prophet (SAW) has allegedly acted immorally for marrying Ayesha, while they issue moral ‘certificates’ for every form of sexual acts. More likely, they are accusing the Prophet (SAW) of such things, to deal relieve their guilt of having so much pedophilia activity around them.

The above mentioned examples demonstrate whether one is a refined critic with academic credentials, or a foul mouthed anti-Islamic zealot, they have the same objective of character assassinating the Prophet (SAW), while turning a blind eye to their sea of hypocrisy. It is a pity that scientifically advanced nations cannot apply the same principle in dealing with Islam. Instead they are behaving like some medieval state, thus they are disseminating insults in various ways.

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
London, UK

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006

[1] http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm

[2] http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm

Share on digg

Share on digg

Using the terms “jihad” and “holy war”, the Pope said: “violence was incompatible with the nature of God”, in the speech delivered at Bavaria on 14th September, 2006. How does his view reconcile with the central Christian doctrine of crucifixion, which is based on gruesome violence?

The doctrine claims that Jesus, the only ‘begotten son’ of God was tortured to death in order to redeem the sins of mankind. Commonsense tells us that God has sufficient powers to save his son or anyone from such torment. But he deliberately did not, otherwise there would have no crucifixion. Therefore, the violence inflicted on Jesus was part of the divine scheme, intrinsically linking violence to the central doctrine of Pauline Christianity.

If God permitted such ghastly violence on his own son, then violence could not have been contrary to his nature as suggested by the Pope. It seems that the Pope has overlooked his central religious doctrine from the New Testament that is based on bloodshed. Furthermore, the Old Testament has ample examples of indiscriminate violence, with explicit reference to killing everyone including women and children. “At that time we captured all his towns, and each town we utterly destroyed men, women and children. We left no single survivor.” (Deuteronomy 2:31-34). For this reason, the 2nd century Christian theologian, Marcion of Sinope, denounced the Old Testament. His movement at the time rivalled what was to become Catholicism.

In fact, God permits (through free will) violence all the time, as we see it occurring everyday. He also commands us to engage in violence in defence of our lives, property and honour. Furthermore, God also permits/decrees violence (deaths) and destruction in the form of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, plagues etc and thus how can violence be contrary to God’s nature. The Pope has made a fundamental error in terms of theology because, it is irrational and impossible to try and delve into the nature of God, as the created human beings cannot comprehend its creator, the uncreated. All we can recognise is the existence of God.

Everyone is asking why did the Pope turn a blind eye to the violence perpetrated by the Christians right under his nose? Like the Catholic Tony Blair, he claims that he had divine guidance/inspiration to invade and murder Iraqis. Yet the ‘infallible’ Pope did not have the will and the moral courage to actively restrain and oppose the fallible Tony Blair from murdering innocent people in distant lands, after lecturing about how he deplores violence. Likewise, George Bush, also a Christian, claims to have a hotline to God, who apparently ordered Bush to murder Iraqis, Afghanis and anyone else who opposes ‘freedom’ – that is ‘freedom’ of America of course!

Now, how does crucifixion work in terms of guidance for its followers? Because, the notion of killing an innocent man (Jesus) for the crimes of others is diametrically opposed to the natural concept of justice, which dictates that we only punish the guilty party? Pope referred to reason, logic but his fundamental doctrine of crucifixion is irrational.

It could be argued that crucifixion is an example of some kind of human sacrifice that is seen in some of the ancient religions and it is alien to monotheism. In the context of the current political situation, the event could also be viewed as a suicide operation, where Jesus willingly sacrifices himself to clean the sins of mankind! Let us not forget the feminists, who could also argue that if sacrificing a man was sufficient for both genders, than surely woman are lesser being according to the Catholic/Christian doctrine.

The furore was primarily caused by citing the derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus who was debating a Persian intellectual. The emperor said: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. We do not know who the Persian is, or how he responded. Apparently his response is not recorded in that detail. So why did the Pope felt the need to cite a bigoted remark from a source that is incomplete, therefore biased? Does this conform to reason and logic which he refers to in his speech?

The Pope used the derogatory and bigoted remarks of Emperor Manuel to make the case that spreading faith by the sword is wrong. Implying that only Islam endorsed forced conversion and only the Muslims have done this in the past – neither is true. Islam forbids forced conversion and the Muslims have never practiced this in the past. This type of propaganda sounds like the words of a Medieval Pope who waged the bloody crusades and kept Europe in the dark for centuries.

I hope the followers of the Pope will have courage to remind him that it is the Catholic Church (not the Muslims) who has practiced forced conversion for centuries. The obvious example is the brutal Spanish inquisition, when the Jews and the Muslims were indiscriminately slaughtered or expelled or forced to convert to Catholicism, with the direct approval of the Vatican. In Latin America, from the time of the barbaric Conquistadores, forced conversion to Catholicism has been used with mass murder and genocide.

In an attempt to backtrack, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of the State of Vatican, said that the academic speech was meant as “a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come”. In that case why did the Pope not lead by examples, by self-criticising Christianity’s violent past and present before commenting on the other faiths? During the Bosnian war when the Christian Serbs were raping and pillaging the Bosnians for simply being Muslims, the Vatican and the Pope was hypocritically silent. Was that because this sort of violence reminded Pope Benedict of the Medieval Crusades which he secretly desires for?

There are ample other examples of violence emanating from the Christians, and here are some prominent ones: the medieval bloody crusades, persecution of the Jews for centuries, slaughter of million in Latin America, enslaving and colonisation of Africa, brutal Spanish inquisition, the Lebanese Christian’s massacre of the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, the killing of the Algerians by the French. Yet, the Pope has the audacity to lecture the Muslims or anyone else about violence.

It is well-known that the Vatican collaborated with the Nazis. Adolf Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic, he was raised as a Catholic, and later as head of Germany he continued to affirm his Christian faith. Talking about the Nazis, the Pope in his earlier years served the Nazi regime. The official line now is: he was forced to join the Hitler Youth at the age of 14, as was required of young Germans of the time, but he was not an enthusiastic member.

However, we will never know how enthusiastic the Pope was as the Nazis lost the war – if they had won, we would have seen a different Pope Benedict altogether. The inclination towards the Nazis, the absence of a non-European (especially non-White) Pope, the statements of the Pope, and his behavior in entertaining bigots like the Oriana Fallaci, points to the racist nature of the Catholic Church. No wonder Christianity has been Latinised (Europeanised) over the centuries, thus distancing it from its Hebrew roots. He is keen to maintain a racially pure Christian Europe, hence he told the Turks to seek its partnership with the Islamic world and not Europe. No doubt the Vatican will remain white, and its leadership will also remain White European for the foreseeable future.

Eventually, a cosmetic apology was issued from the Vatican. The secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said in a statement on Saturday that the Pope “had absolutely no intention” of presenting Emperor Manuel’s opinions on Islam as his own. In that case why did he cite the Emperor’s derogatory statement? The Pope uses his statement to corroborate his own opinion. For him to say now that he is “sorry” if any offense was caused, and have the chutzpah to suggest that Muslims have misunderstood him, is hardly being honest.

If the ‘apology’ was genuine it would presents another dilemma, as words of the Pope are infallible according to the Vatican and the millions of its followers. So how can the infallible Pope even admit to making a mistake and hence apologise, especially to those infidels who are outside the fold of Christianity?

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)

London, UK

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006

Share on digg