Muhammad, Islam and Terrorism
The actions of Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world are well known. Islamic terrorists have bombed and destroyed buildings, planes, and vehicles. Additionally, during the last 20 years, Muslim terrorists have targeted and murdered tens of thousands of men and women, including children. All over the world, in Kenya, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, France, South America and America, etc., Muslim terrorists have attacked and murdered those they felt were a threat or hindrance to their purpose. No one has been spared by these treacherous people.
Not surprisingly, examination of the web sites that deal with terrorism show that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature.
Why are these groups Islamic? What does the religion of Islam have to do with terrorism? Is there a link between the two? How do these groups justify murdering civilians based upon Islamic values? Are terrorism and murder actually allowed under Islam?
This examines the basis for Islamic terrorism found within Islam. Starting with Muhammad and reviewing his teachings and his actions, and then surveying what other Muslims have taught, the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism will be examined.
1. My comments or source references will be in [ ] brackets. Other writers comments will be in the ( ) parentheses.
2. When I talk about terrorist actions, I am talking about motive and action. Crime exists in every society, and I am not including all crimes as examples of terrorism. I am focusing on the violent actions Muslims carry out in Islam’s name. For example, in Egypt some years ago, a Muslim man murdered an American women. He killed her then robbed her. His motive was greed and not the furtherance of Islam. I would not call that an Islamic terrorist action. On the other hand, Muslims who carry out bombings, like the ones in Kenya and Tanzania – in which hundreds of innocents died, do so because they feel they are attacking Islamic enemies and have Allah’s sanction to do so. That is an Islamic terrorist action.
Additionally, there are many kinds of terrorists who engage in violence. There are political terrorists operating in South America, there are terrorists who murder doctors who perform abortion. There are Communist terrorists, capitalist terrorists, right wing terrorists, left wing terrorists, etc. In America, there are gangs that operate like terrorists in the streets. However, in this writing, I am focusing on terrorism based upon what Muhammad taught and did. I am focusing on Muslims, who for the sake of Islam, commit violent acts of terrorism. However, I want all my readers to know that I am fully aware there are many non-Muslim terrorists operating in the world. Some of these other terrorists are every bit as vicious as Muslim terrorists.
3. A “terrorist” is defined as “one who engages in acts of terrorism”. “Terrorism” is defined as “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
When Muhammad started out preaching his religion of Islam he was not violent. If anything, he was more like Jesus or Gandhi. He was persecuted for preaching his religious ideas – Islam – and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. Some of Muhammad’s followers were tortured. Things were so bad for him and his few followers that he sent many of them to Abyssinia [Ethiopia] for refuge. Eventually, he and his followers moved north to a city called Yathrib [Medina], where some members of two Arab tribes wanted Muhammad to be their prophet.
Just prior to Muhammad’s leaving for Medina, he received a “revelation” allowing him to fight the Meccans. He knew that in Medina, he had a group of armed men who would support him. Furthermore, in Medina, would be more distant from the Meccans and their attempts to oppress or kill him. The following is from “The Life of Muhammad”, page 212-213, by A. Guillaume, which is a rendering of Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasulallah”, a biography of Muhammad written by an early Muslim scholar .
[Note: two passages from the Qur’an are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and [b] Sura 2:193]
Two critical points here:
1) in Mecca, where Muhammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the Meccan’s religions. But it was just prior to his leaving for Medina, where he had a limited amount of armed men to support him, that he received this “revelation” and began to use violence to further his desires. Islamic history shows that as Muslims grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare.
The problem with this is that Muhammad had been severely persecuted prior to this and that Muslims had been abused well before their departure. In other words, the quoted passage is an apologetic work on Ibn Ishaq’s part. Earlier, well before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were so bad for Muhammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek their help and protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 192]. The Taifians rejected and abused him. Things were so bad for Muhammad that in Mecca, Muhammad had to beg three men for their protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 194].
In Mecca, Muhammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet and he was abused all the more. He never received any “revelations” to fight at that time. Eventually, good fortune fell into Muhammad’s lap and just as in Adolph Hitler’s case, his persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs in Medina accepted him as their prophet. They hoped he could help them maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh [Guillaume, op cit, page 205]. Now Muhammad knew he had an able and armed following. It was only until he had a following that could defend themselves, and his people were migrating north to Medina, and that he knew he was going to leave town, that suddenly “Allah” gave Muhammad his “revelation” to fight. Muhammad’s circumstances changed, and Muhammad’s Allah changed with them. Muhammad went from being only a “warner” to being an aggressor.
After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I’ll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist. The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad’s command to his followers to “kill any Jew that comes under your power”. From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:
This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996:
This murder was committed upon Muhammad’s command. Note that this Muslim murderer would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Muhammad was no better than a bigoted criminal boss, ordering his men to wantonly murder Jewish people. Hitler did this. And, this is what the Serbs did to the Kosovan Muslims. Muhammad’s command to murder Jews puts him in the same category as Milosovic, Hitler, and others who have persecuted Jews throughout history. A quote from an Islamic scholar – Wensinck writes in his, “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina” , page 113:
This incident is also documented in Tabari’s History , page 97 of volume 7. This shows that Muhammad had unsuspecting people, those who even had good relations with Muslims, murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish. There was no justification to murder these Jews other than they were not Muhammad’s followers. These actions were the work of Muhammad’s terrorists committing murder.
The second terrorist incident involves another one of Muhammad’s requests: this one for his men to murder an old Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years. Afak had urged his fellow Medinans to question Muhammad. From Guillaume, op cit., page 675:
[NOTE: the Tubba was a ruler from Yemen who invaded that part of what is present Saudi Arabia: the Qaylites resisted him]
Additional information is found in the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (Book of the Major Classes) by Ibn Sa’d, Volume 2, , page 32:
From a contemporary Muslim scholar – Ali Dashti’s “23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, , page 100:
Prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97:
Here another man was murdered upon Muhammad’s command. This man was 120 years old. He was no physical threat to Muhammad and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or the Muslims. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, there was no dialogue with Abu Afak; it was just an outright murder of another one of Muhammad’s critics. Afak urged the people who lived in Medina to doubt and leave Muhammad. Afak found that Muhammad’s sayings were strange and dictatorial. He chided the Arabs that put their faith in Muhammad. Muhammad heard of this and viewed the 120 year old man as a threat to his credibility, not to his life. Nowhere does it say that Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm Muhammad. Yet for speaking his mind, for the benefit of his friends, this man was murdered by Muhammad.
The last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya’s verse reveals something though:
This statement displays that the Muslims knew exactly what they were doing. They knew it was cold-blooded murder that they were committing upon Muhammad’s request. They wanted to keep it secret, they wanted to hide their evil deeds from the populace at large. That’s why Umama said he wouldn’t reveal who murdered Afak.
When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. How would an Iraqi be treated if he spoke out about Saddam? Amnesty International just reported that over 1500 political prisoners were executed in Iraq in one year. Or take the Ayatollah Khomenni. His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad’s methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.
The third incident involves Muhammad’s request for his men to murder a women named Asma b. Marwan. Quoting from Guillaume, pages 675, 676.
And from Ibn Sa’d’s, “Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir” [op cit] volume 2, page 31.
Let’s sum this up and put it in perspective. Muhammad had al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit killed. This upset Abu Afak, so he spoke out against it. So, likewise, Muhammad had Abu Afak murdered. This offended Asma b. Marwan and she spoke out against that evil deed. She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against Muhammad. When Muhammad heard of what she had said, he had her killed also. At first glance, this order to kill Asma might seem justifiable. Asma was calling for someone to kill Muhammad. It is understandable for Muhammad to be bothered by that.
But let’s look deeper at the event and examine the context of Asma’s relationship to her tribe.
1) First of all, Asma has seen Muhammad in action. She had seen him for what he was, a cold blooded murderer. Of course she spoke out against a murderer. Second, her tribe was not under Muhammad’s rule. Perhaps they had a treaty with Muhammad, perhaps not. Either way, this women was free to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and if Muhammad thought that she was out of line, Muhammad could have complained to her tribe’s leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent or dealt with the situation.
2) What’s more noteworthy about this event is that after she was murdered, Muhammad said “Two goats won’t butt their head about her”, meaning no one will care about her death. (Well except her children and her family). Also note, that there were already people from her tribe who had become Muslims. Certainly these people were not going to listen to her. The point is this: if no one really cared about her being murdered, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Her people also knew about Muhammad having Abu Afak murdered, and they didn’t care about that either. Even in that light, no one would take her serious enough to listen to her urgings to murder Muhammad, who was the leader of a powerful group of people. None of her people were willing to put their lives on the line for her words. The bottom line is that Asma b. Marwan was not a legitimate threat to Muhammad. She didn’t scare him, she was not the leader of her tribe, and she had little or no influence. She was little more than a nuisance to him. And one wonders why Muhammad didn’t kill her himself? It was always easier for Muhammad to have someone else do his killing.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Throughout the Middle East, there are Muslims who call America the Great Satan. These Muslims have called for the violent destruction of America. Frequently great crowds have gathered to chant “death to America, or death to one of its presidents.” At times these people have even murdered Americans. Now, if America, or its president, were to use Muhammad’s standards, they would engage in killing multitudes Muslims, because Muslims criticized America. America could justify its action by appealing to Muhammad’s standards of treating those who criticized him. But we know that the chanting of a crowd of hot-heads does not necessitate the use of violence against them. There are better ways to deal with critics and criticisms. Frequently, in the passion of youth, people do and say things they don’t intend to act out, or are not able to carry out. Given time, people can change, and pursue peaceful dialog. But if one applied Muhammad’s standards, American would be justified in bombing Tehran; Israel would be justified in wiping out hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims.
The only conclusion is that this lady troubled Muhammad and he wanted her silenced. Again, like Abu Afak, she was murdered in the night while she slept. What type of people murder those that sleep? Criminals!
1) What alarms me the most about Islam is its disposition to violence and use of violence as a standard of God’s will. Umayr is a perfect example of this. Here is a Muslim man, a friend of Muhammad’s, acting upon Muhammad’s request and going into a woman’s home under the cover of night. He comes upon the women, sleeping in her bed with her child, and murders her by plunging a sword through her body.
Afterwards, Muhammad tells the man that he has “helped God and his apostle”. If Allah were really threatened by this woman, I think He could have killed her Himself, don’t you? Does God need men to sneak around in the night and murder sleeping women?
2) What kind of religion is Islam really? Soon after Umayr murdered Asma, he went to her family and mocked them! He was laughing in their faces that he had murdered their mother and that they were powerless to do anything about it! Here is the quote again:
3) Finally, similar to observation #1, look at the power of Islam. Here is the quote:
So then, the power of Islam is to go about and murder sleeping women in the night, and get away with it? Does “might make right” ring true in Islam? Is it “he who has the biggest sword is from Allah? The only people I know who respect that kind of power are criminals. Criminals who go out in the night and murder people while they sleep. We know that there are good and bad in all religions, but this case is different. This event reflects upon the man who started Islam: Islam is built upon Muhammad’s words and deeds. We see here that Muhammad had a woman brutally murdered. She was killed because she spoke out against him, and she was merely a nuisance.
The fourth incident involves a Muslim man who murdered his own slave. From the Hadith of Abu Dawud . Book 38, Number 4348:
Here we see here that Muhammad allowed people to murder others just for insulting him. Here a slave women, who was used as a concubine by her Muslim master, paid for her criticism of Muhammad with her life. Note here that one man murdered his own slave, who was the mother of two of his children! A slave lady made fun of Muhammad and was brutally murdered and that action received Muhammad’s sanction. Now then, was that slave a threat? Were Muslims going to leave Islam because of a slave women’s criticisms? Of course not! Muhammad could not long tolerate any personal criticism, he didn’t want his credibility undermined, so he allowed his followers to murder anyone who expressed different views. Oh, by the way, before we move on, let me continue to quote from Abu Dawud. The note #3800 states:
When Jesus said His followers had to hate their families, even their own lives to follow Him, everyone knew He meant it as a comparison to their love for Jesus. In addition, Jesus commanded people to honor their fathers and mothers and to love their enemies. But Muhammad allowed his followers even to murder members of their own families!
The fifth incident involves another Muslim man named Amr Umayya, who was sent out by Muhammad to murder Muhammad’s enemy Abu Sufyan, (Guillaume, op cit, page 673). However, his assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep, and thereafter:
Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He relates,
So, Muhammad blessed one of his men who murdered a one-eyed shepherd while he slept. Another person who didn’t want to follow Muhammad, another murder in Islam’s name. Muhammad’s trail of blood continued to grow.
The sixth incident involves the actions of Muslims who were sent out by Muhammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Fazara initially defeated the Muslims. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account from Guillaume, op cit, page 665:
Here, Muhammad’s companions went out and attacked people, took some prisoners, then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These men were so destitute of basic human values, that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! When one reads of the horrible things the Serbs have done, one is offended. But I wonder how many Muslims know that Muhammad’s companions did such things. Muhammad was every bit as brutal as the Nazis.
The 7th incident involves another slave woman who was murdered, upon Muhammad’s command because she had mocked Muhammad some time earlier. From Guillaume, op cit, page 550, 551:
Let’s stop here and examine this paragraph. Muhammad ordered that a man who apostatized, and his two slave girls, be killed. Khatal was ordered to be killed not because he killed his male slave, a Muslim, but because he apostatized. Islamic law does not allow a Muslim man to be put to death for killing a slave. Muhammad also ordered two slave girls to be killed for singing satirical songs about him. They sung satirical songs about Muhammad probably at least a year or more earlier. Now, after Muhammad conquered Mecca, it was his time to pay those slave girls back. These slave girls were not threats to Islam, or to the new Islamic state. They were only slave girls. They were ordered to be executed only because they sang a silly song about Muhammad. Page 551 finishes the story of the slave girls:
Needless to say, if the second slave girl didn’t ask for “immunity”, Muhammad would have had her murdered also. How do you feel when you hear of Serbs murdering Bosnian and Kosovo women? Yet Muhammad did exactly that – he had women murdered just for making fun of him. If a Muslim justified Muhammad’s murder of slave girls, then by their standards, they have to justify what the Serbs did in Kosovo.
We see that Muhammad had many people murdered. By request, by command, by implication, Muhammad had many people murdered, many killed while they slept. There were no trials, no judgments, no dialog, if you insulted Muhammad, if you doubted his credibility and if you spoke out, you were murdered. Men and women, young and old, all were killed because of Muhammad’s hatred. Here is a summary of the seven terroristic murders committed at Muhammad’s requests or efforts:
I will add that there were many more people who suffered a similar fate. I choose not to list them here because of space limitations. Make no mistake about it: Muhammad was a terrorist. Today’s Muslim terrorists follow his actions. Like prophet, like followers; today’s Mohammadan terrorists commit their acts based upon what Muhammad did.
1) What kind of man was Muhammad who would have peaceful Jews, a 120 year old man, a mother of 5 children, slave girls, etc. murdered because they disagreed or criticized him?
2) Is it right to murder others simply because they disagree with you, or even mock you? Why couldn’t Muhammad handle some criticism? Do people who disagree with others deserve to be murdered, in cold blood, in the night, secretly, while they sleep? Don’t corrupt politicians or organized criminals do that?
3) Isn’t this type of action similar to the actions of Muslim terrorists today? They operate secretly, they kill unsuspecting people, they murder without law or justice. They kill those who merely disagree or even verbally oppose them.
4) Are these “Islamic” values compatible with our values in America? Should Americans who criticize Muhammad expect to have their freedom of speech threatened, or should they live in fear of being killed for speaking their mind? Remember, Muslims in America have already begun to murder Americans for the sake of Islam.
5) If Muhammad put this system in place, i.e., the murdering of people who disagree and criticize him, how does it affect Islamic society? How does it relate to what we have seen done in Islamic societies such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Sudan? The end result has been brutal massacres, murders, tortures, etc. This is all traceable to Muhammad’s actions.
6) If Muhammad were alive today, and you knew about the people he murdered, what would you say? Shouldn’t we want this type of criminal to pay for his crimes, put in jail for life, or possibly even forfeiting his life for his capital crimes? Who feels sympathy for a white racist who is sentenced to death for dragging a black man behind an automobile and killing him? Yet Muhammad tortured a man then murdered him, just to get money. Muslims are called to follow Muhammad’s “lifestyle” and Islamic law. Murdering others, in Allah’s name, is part of that style and system.
7) Don’t we have the right to evaluate Muhammad’s actions according to decent standards of morality? He claimed to be the last prophet of God. He claimed his system was God’s final revelation for all humankind. So by any common moral standards, wasn’t what Muhammad did was terribly evil? If normal human standards of morality are far better than his behavioral standard, then how does the morality of this self-asserted “prophethood” rate? Why do our moral standards eclipse those of God’s alleged final prophet?
8) Doesn’t this sound exactly like what the Serbs are doing? We see the Serbs committing some of the most brutal atrocities in history. Yet Muhammad did the same things. The Serbs have murdered the Kosovars simply because they were not Serbs. This is exactly what Muhammad ordered when he urged his follower to murder the Jews. We see the Serbs taking the possessions of the Kosovars. This is exactly what Muhammad did to the tribes of people he attacked. We see the Serbs raping Kosovan women. Muhammad allowed his soldiers to rape female slaves. If Muhammad were alive today, we’d call him a Serb or a Nazi!
9) Why wouldn’t Muhammad murder her himself? Why is it that every time Muhammad wanted someone killed, he always got someone else to do his killing?
10) Look at this dark side of Islam. This is the Islam Muhammad practiced. When the founder of a religion has to have powerless women murdered in the night for opposing him, how can that religion be described?
11) Where are “human rights” now in Islam? If Muhammad denied freedom of speech to others, how does that reflect upon Islam and what we see occurring in the Islamic world today?
12) Why is it that the more fundamental a Muslim nation becomes, the more oppressive it becomes toward all basic human rights? Take the Taliban for instance. They have been great fighters. But once in power, they began to oppress the populace, and especially Afghan women. Initially, they said it was only temporary, but it has continued to get worse, not better for Afghani women. The RAWA organization has a website that exposes their oppression.
Muhammad taught his followers to oppress or kill non-Muslims. Generally, Jews and Christians were allowed to live as such, provided they paid a special tax. This tax is Jizya, a tax revenue given to the Muslims to make up for revenues they lost from no longer dealing in pagan activities. If the Jews and Christians refused to pay this extortion tax they would have to convert to Islam or be killed. Non-Jews and non-Christians, such as idolaters or pagans, had to convert to Islam or be killed. Generally they didn’t have the option of paying the tax. Here is the verse that teaches Muslims to oppress Jews and Christians:
The order to subjugate or kill Christians and Jews is in that verse. It is clear that Muhammad ordered his followers to fight those Christians and Jews to convert them or pay the Jizya, and if they didn’t convert or pay, do you think that he told the followers to let them go in peace? It is very clear: convert, pay with submission, or die. The background for this is found in “The Life of Muhammad”, op cit, page 620,
Muhammad told his followers to attack the Jews and Christians. If they humble themselves and submit to the Muslims, but choose to remain Christian or Jewish, then they had to pay the Muslims. Again, as Muhammad’s circumstances changed, Allah changed. Now Muhammad was an extortionist. Also note that the tax levied upon the Christians and Jews was not to support the state in general affairs, it was to compensate the Muslims. Muhammad was exactly like Mafia crime boss, making others pay for “protection,” except it was Christians and Jews who really needed protection from the Muslims! Here is the verse in the Qur’an that teaches Muslims to attack and kill pagans:
The background for this verse is found in “The Life of Muhammad”, op cit, page 617-619. Please note that my comments are in [ ] type brackets, and that it is a very long passage, so I have only quoted a portion of it:
Basically, Muhammad had an agreement with a number of Arab tribes. Some were peaceful with him, others disliked him. “Allah” gave Muhammad a “revelation” allowing him to break his word, the “agreement” with the pagan Arabs and attack them after the four sacred months were over. Once again, Muhammad had gained power, and things changed. Now Muhammad was permitted to lie, i.e., break his agreement, and make war upon the pagans. Muhammad’s circumstances changed, and Allah changed again.
Note that in the last quoted paragraph, it is supposed to be God telling the Muslims to go out and kill people. Some of these people had gotten along peacefully with the Muslims. But because they didn’t follow Muhammad, they were going to be attacked.
Muhammad was not content to conquer by force, or kill those who merely opposed him verbally. Muhammad also taught that Muslims who leave the Islamic faith are to be murdered as well. Here are some quotes from Bukhari’s collection of Hadith. Remember, Bukhari’s Hadith is the second, following the Qur’an, most important writing in Islam,.
Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57,
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64
Not only did Muhammad teach that Muslims are to murder those that have left Islam, “wherever you find them”, he further taught that a Muslim who commits this type of murder will be doing God’s service and be rewarded!
Several Muslims have written about the reasons they are allowed to wage war. From “The Qur’anic Concept of War”, by Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, it says, [in the preface]
The Muslim writer states that those who reject Islam are viewed as a cancerous growth to be violently removed, i.e., murdered. And, note that the Muslim writer basically agrees with the “Western Scholars” who say that Islam is indeed “in a state of perpetual war”, with non-Muslims. In viewing what has happened in Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. it appears the reverse is true, viz., Islam is actually the cancerous growth that has caused so much death and terror in the world.
There are a number of web sites that document the actions and intentions of the many Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world today. As true Muslims, these people will use violence against anyone who hinders their aims or offends their religious beliefs. This is a partial listing of a number of web sites that are on the Internet.
Osama bin Laden
Top of Page
Most Muslims are not terrorists. Many of them reject the actions of their Muslim brethren around the world. Unfortunately, since Islam teaches world domination, these moderate Muslims rarely raise their voices in protest. If Israelis bomb a Hezbollah camp in Lebanon, Muslims in Western countries will organize vocal demonstrations. Israel has never killed as many Muslims as Saddam Hussein has, but Muslims generally turn a blind eye to violent acts when it is Muslim on Muslim violence. But getting Muslims to condemn the terrorist actions of their brethren, say of those in Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, or Iraq is like pulling teeth. While the Muslims world wide continually condemn Israel, few Muslims have ever raised their voices in protest over Saddam Hussein’s genocidal war upon the Kurds. Why has Bin Laden failed to help the Kurds? Instead, reports on Bin Laden have shown that he has worked together with Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, why did the Muslim nations of Iran and Iraq oppose Western military action to stop the genocide of Muslim Kosovars?
Muslims condemn Western sanctions of Iraq. But, they forget that Western nations were their saviors when Iraq conquered Kuwait and made threats toward Saudi Arabia. These Muslim countries appealed to non-Muslim nations to free Muslim Kuwait from Muslim conquest and to halt Iraq’s military advance upon the land of Mecca and Medina. If Western countries were so evil, why did Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the land of Muhammad, have to appeal to the West to protect them from their own Muslim brethren? Why did non-Muslims have to stop the fighting between Muslim brethren and to protect the land of Mecca from Saddam Hussein, a Muslim despot? Was not Allah able to protect them? Even though all these events are historical facts, Muslims freely criticize Western involvement in the Middle East.
What does the future hold for Islam in Western countries? One thing I am certain of; it holds terrorism. I’ve studied Islamic viewpoints on the Western world, especially America. The majority of Muslims today view America as the last great wall that stops Islam. In their mind, America must be destroyed or brought down, by any means necessary. This is what motivated Sheik Rahman to blow up the New York towers. This is what motivates Muslims throughout America to speak of a day when America will fall to Islam’s power. Make no mistake about it, Muslims have murdered Americans in America, and will continue to do so. It is not a question of “if”, it is a question of “when.”
Once again I say, most Muslims in America are not terrorists. Many of them are good people. But the seeds of terrorism are planted deep within the theology and psyche of Islam. This theology, when free to grow and blossom, will show itself in the actions of Muslims who are faithful to the example of Muhammad. And as was demonstrated in “Not Without My Daughter”, who knows when a peaceful, liberal or moderate Muslim will turn to fundamentalism and embrace the violence of Islam?
Often there is a strange transformation in the viewpoint of some Muslims who seek to immigrate to a Western nation. At first, these Muslims complain to immigration officials about their native country and its lack of opportunities, human rights, religious liberties, and intellectual freedom. However, once they settle in a Western nation and enjoy its liberties, some turn against their host nation and begin to praise the virtue’s of an Islamic state. They seem to have forgotten their pleadings with immigration officials to accept their application. They would be upright, and certainly more honest, if they would strive for human and religious rights for the non-Muslim minorities who suffer under Islamic rule. And, if they truly believed that Islam is the answer, why didn’t they seek asylum in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan?
Muhammad intimidated and murdered people to propagate his ideology. His actions are the actions of ideological and religious terrorism. Since Muslim look to Muhammad as a source of inspiration and model behavior, Muslims find support for Islamic terroristic activity in the life and teachings of their prophet Muhammad. Today, Muslims use that justification to attack and murder those who differ from them. When Muslim terrorists do this, they follow in Muhammad’s footsteps. Jesus condemned those who murder, and Muhammad falls into this category.
Jesus said in John’s gospel that Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and that those who sought to murder Him were Satan’s children.
As soon as he rose to power, Muhammad began to have people murdered. Today, Muhammad’s children do the same evil deeds. Jesus taught that one day people would murder Christians thinking they would be doing service to God.
Today, in Muslim countries, like Iran for instance, Muslims murder ex-Muslims who have become Christians. And in other countries, they attack and threaten others. Jesus taught to love your enemies, to pray for those that persecute you. Jesus didn’t send his disciples out to murder people in the night, Muhammad did. Take the example of Christ and the Samaritans opposition to Jesus.
Muhammad would have ordered his men to attack the Samaritan village, then kill or enslave the people, and take all their possession as plunder. After Muhammad gained power, he sent his armies out to attack non-Muslims. Who then really brought God’s message of His love for mankind? Who really taught peace? Surely, this man Muhammad was not from God. Instead, Muhammad is one of the false prophets Jesus warned his disciples about in Matthew gospel,
1 “The Life of Muhammad”, by A. Guillaume, pub. by Oxford Univ. Press.
Last edited 05-20-2001