What does the Qur'an say about Jihad?

[petros]

[xmasdale]

From the Jewish/Christian Bible:

I Samuel 15 2-8

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" 4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim--two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.

Can anybody please tell me a peaceful interpretation of these verses?

[fish5133]

Jesus says in the New Testament which has done away with the Old Testament
"You have heard that it was said You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy BUT I say to you Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use and persecute you. Matthew 5 v 43,44

Now thats a revolution!

[Riaz Ahmed]

petros:

[Riaz Ahmed]

I have done some digging for some explanation. So here it is, and hope it makes sense!

I have noticed that the translation is a little dodgy here! It uses words that are not in the Quran?!

First off all, the Quranic interpretation has been tampered with through king's ruling Islamic state's and so distorted a logical approach to the Quran as this interefered with their lust for wealth for power. This is a TOPIC on its own! And I shall expalin this in other threads!

The Noble Quran is in its original format to the dot since it was revealed. Yet it is important to know that sometimes, there is a difference in translation from different scholars.

First of all does Kafaroon NEVER EVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! mean:

1. Infidel
2. Unbeliever

Kafar comes from Farmer. This was the first meaning of the word in Arabic. The second meaning that came out of the first menaing is "To bury", the third meaning is "To close one's eyes against the sun", all these meanings were directly connected with farmer as he buried things and worked out in the field and thus was exposed to the sun constantly.

The latter meanings are ungrateful, as if someone's buries somebosy's gift as garbage.

Kafar in the Quran can only be translated as "Those that are ungrateful for the gift of Life and reject the Truth"or as "Those that bury the Truth in themselves and in their enviroment" and refers to those who are ruled by falsehood and thus the Truth is not seen in them, it is buried. And those that make sure the Truth is not seen in their society. Those are the kafaroon. It is not a title, but a description. This is step 1 of understanding this verse.

The word infidel does not even exist in the Classic Arabic language, it is a Christian/European concept that was taken over by the Muslims after the crusades.

Smite their necks is an illogical statement if it taken seriously. In the Quran, bodyparts are always taken as symbols. The hand of God, the vein in your neck, the heart is equal to the mind and so on. Also the hands of the thief refer to the person's ability to steal as Yad in Arabic means hand as well as power or ability. In Arabic the words have NEVER a fixed literal meaning. Arabic uses symbols to create a definition which creates meanings.

Yad stood for hand as well all it could do. Just as wings of a bird stood for flying, protection, extending, ability, travelling and so on. As the Quran explains itself we must take this in line when reading the above verse.

In many languages, the body was used as a symbol for a nation. It is known that the Prophet had said that the Ummah is also a body, if one part is sick, the other part will feel it.

The neck connected the head with the rest of the body, without the neck, the body could not communicate with the body, and thus so, the head stood for the ruler. We use today "the head of the state"in modern language. Thus smite the neck meant that the communication between the ruler and its army had to be severed so the oppression would be disrupted.

Smite their necks refer to capture the enemy's messengers and their spies. In this way you will immobilze the enemy as the head/ruler has no information and can not send any orders.

47:3 “So, if you encounter those who have rejected and try to bury the truth for the world, then strike the control center and all means of communication until you overcome them. Then bind them securely. You may either set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

The word Jihad is not in this verse!

33:23 Of the believers are men who have been true in what they pledged with God. Some of them have fulfilled their vow by laying their lives, and some of them stand ready, unwavering.

[TonyGosling]

check this out folks

Wisdom from our Bristol Muslim brothers after the attacks on Mosques following July 7th 2005.

www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=23951

[Emmanuel]

If you google Islam /Jihad / Quaran the top hits will be ZIonist propaganda.
I think the translations cant be trusted. I will consult my Imam friend about the authenticity of that first quote.

[Riaz Ahmed]

I forgot to mention one important part in the verse:



47:3 "So, if you encounter those who have rejected and try to bury the
truth for the world, then strike the control center and all means of
communication until you overcome them. Then bind them securely. You may either set
them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone
could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who
get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to
waste.



How can the Quran first say you must kill them and then that they should be bounded and ransomed? This clearly shows it is not about attacking physical necks, but the metaphorical neck of communication network. If we would take the first part as killing, then it would completely contradict the second part of the verse. For Quranic interpretation this is very important

[rodin]

[rodin]

[PaulStott]

For any major religion to survive and prosper, it has to mean entirely different things to different people. That's why gays and gay-haters can both find lines in the bible to support their positions on an issue like gay Vicars.

Rather than ask what the Koran says about jihad, it perhaps means more to ask what interpretations have people given to what the Koran says on Jihad. The likes of Aymaan al-Zawahiri will give an entirely different interpretation to most British Muslims for example.

[fish5133]

[petros]

This is not an answer to my question. This perhaps should be in some other topic! But I will answer.

[TonyGosling]

Whilst not a Muslim, as I understand it - and I heard this on the BBC Langan programme from Sheikh Yassin - The Koran says that Muslims are not permitted to fight agressive battles against other lands but they are allowed to fight in defence of their homelands against occupying armies.

Sounds sensible to me, and one of the only ways to halt the advance of the new totalitarinism. Whilst a pacifist I recognise the right of people to fight against occupying armies. Indeed so does the United Nations Charter drawn up after the Second World War:

[TonyGosling]

This is of course from B.C. times
A Biblical quote seems appropriate....

<< Matthew 10:26 >>
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
http://bible.cc/matthew/10-26.htm

[petros]

I have no idea which translation Mr Riaz Ahmed is using, I am not familiar with the rendering of those verses from the translations I looked at. But thank you for attempting to answer but it is merely papering over the cracks.

Also Tony writes:

[moeen yaseen]

Whilst I understand why this thread was initiated it contextualises Islamic political theory very narrowily and resorts to selective textual criticism and TOTALLY misses the bigger picture. A bit like a kid trying to drive a new car he has seen for the first time. The bigger picture which is being negated here is that ISLAM views itself NOT as the cause of all problems but as the solution for humanity. This is relevant right now when the failure and bankruptcy of the secular democratic neoliberal capitalist project is denuded. The NWO and it's leading advocates do not talk about Jihad as they are more concerned with preventing the contemporary rebirth of the Islamic KHALIPHATE for the 21st century. They know that time is against them thus their campaign to defame and malign Islam with terrorism so that the people of the world do not envisage Islam as the Universal alternative.
So let us aim to raise the discourse here to another level- shall we. The article below addresses issues concerning Islamic political theory and the myth of violence.



CALIPHATE AND THE MYTH OF VIOLENCE
Akmal Asghar
http://www.newcivilisation.com/index.php/main/newciv/current_issue/win ter_05/full_article/73/P0/0


As the attacks that rocked London's transport system unfolded before the world last July, the attention immediately turned to the British government's response.The world speculated as to where the blame would be directed, which new targets would be unveiled as part of the war to rid the world of terror. In response to the attacks on 9/11, the US invaded two countries, overthrew their regimes and has since moved to pressure Iran and Syria. After the Madrid bombings, a huge swing in Spanish public opinion dramatically changed the fortunes of the leftist political opposition who came to power on the pledge that it would pull-out all Spanish troops from Iraq. What would follow 7/7 and how would it affect the logic that had thus far formed the backbone of the War on Terror?

At the heart of the British Prime Minister's response was a new thrust that put the spotlight on 'ideology': the ideas and goals that drove the 'terrorists'. Tony Blair declared this was "a battle not just about the terrorist methods but their views. Not just their barbaric acts, but their barbaric ideas. Not only what they do but what they think". He shifted the focus away from the terrorist methods that had dominated the War on Terror to bring into focus the political ideas and goals of those who had perpetrated the attacks. But this was with a view to discredit these goals as a natural extension of terror itself as he referred to their "inherent" violence. In Blair's drive, the means employed by al-Qai'da bombing western interests, infrastructure and indeed capitals - were intimately woven into a set of political goals that demanded a Middle East free from western influence, the formation of a Shariah-based political system - the Caliphate - and an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. He described these political goals part of an 'evil ideology' as he forged the argument they were as dangerous as, indeed inseparable from, the violent means of terrorism.

This took a political vision that centred on the formation of a new Caliphate and scarred it with the horrors of terrorism. The construct sought to construe the Caliphate as some violent throwback that would usher in a new dark age, characterised by sectarian conflict, persecuted minorities and fear because these had become the hallmarks of the terrorists' campaign to create it. Blair's thrust welded terrorism onto the goal for a Shariah-based political system, a construct that the US administration was equally eager to brandish: President Bush also referred to confronting a "violent political vision" which represented "the establishment by terrorism, subversion and insurgency of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom".The Caliphate was cast as an al-Qaida preserve giving its mere mention an "almost instinctive fearful impact" in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. But rubbishing a political vision for the Muslim world that challenges their own by using the language of terrorism fundamentally misconstrues Islamic politics and acts to malign anyone associated with it.The strategy appears largely in vain however - an independent Shariah-based system now features in the vision of most of the largest and best supported organisations in the Muslim world that are neither violent nor part of al-Qaida.

We must decouple means from goals. The phenomena of organisations using violence of the al-Qaida kind, which legitimise attacks on western soil, are relatively recent and brought to the fore by 9/11. It is significantly pre-dated by the political vision of an independent Muslim world under a Caliphate, non-violent calls for which have been heard ever since the day it was formally abolished at the beginning of the twentieth century. Talk of the Caliphate is therefore not new; indeed, it has continued to feature across the spectrum of political debate in the Muslim world even after its demise. To appreciate ongoing calls for its restoration, it is important understand the Muslim world's reaction to its loss and the path of subsequent political debate.

The fall of the Caliphate in 1924 was an event of monumental significance for Muslims as it represented the end of a 1350 year-old institution that had existed since the time of the Prophet Muhammad himself. Its loss had a "deep effect on the way in which politically conscious Arabs thought of themselves" [1] such that in the immediate aftermath, individuals and movements from all quarters of the Islamic political spectrum emerged, advocating the restoration of some form of Shariahbased political system. Demands were not restricted to Turkey though it was the last home of the Caliphate and was then subject to harsh, anti-religious Kemalist policies. In Egypt, even prominent reformists led calls for its immediate re-establishment, Rashid Rida for example saying in his magazine 'al-Manar' "All Muslims will remain in a state of sin until they select another caliph and pledge allegiance to him", and by 1928 a populist Islamic movement had emerged which held Islamic government as a central goal. "When asked what is it that you call, reply that it is Islam, the message of Muhammad, the religion that contains within it a government" were the words of Hassan al-Banna founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. In its dying days, attempts to salvage it where directed from as far away as India by such likes as the Khilafat Movement [2] , a movement which left a significant and lasting impact on Muslim political thought throughout the subcontinent, forming the ideological underpinnings of later demands for a separate Muslim homeland - Pakistan. Even those who had conspired to destroy it, such as Hussein of Mecca who fought the Ottomans with British support, tried to assume its title knowing the regard it held in the Muslim world; other political leaders also tried to take advantage. King Fouad I of Egypt for example "set his sights on the lofty religious position that had been vacated in Istanbul after Turkey abolished the Caliphate in 1924" according to Egypt's al-Ahram newspaper in 1925.This is not to mention conferences held in Cairo in 1926 and throughout India during the early 1920s that addressed various questions of support for the Caliphate. The words of Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister at the time, appear to have best caught the Caliphate's significance when he announced to the House of Commons "We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity"


Since the furore that followed the demise of the Caliphate, the question of Islam in politics and Shariah-based government has arguably confronted every Islamic movement in the Muslim world, regardless of how they resolved to answer that question. Undoubtedly, some argued there must be no such thing; the reformer Ali Abdul Razaq for example challenged the likes of Rida by demanding a separation of religion from state, saying of the Caliphate "In reality, the religion of Islam is innocent of the Caliphate which Muslims have come to know". Clearly, a branch of the post-Caliphate debate did not reference Islam, driven by other ideological drifts. But after failed experiments with nationalism -Arab or otherwise Communism, Socialism during the 50s and 60s, secularism and bitter experiences with regimes that forcibly kept religion out of sight not just out of government, organisations seeking to introduce Shariah and Islam into the political system are now arguably the biggest force in the Muslim world. Any opening in the authoritarian architecture of the Muslim world is likely to yield Islamic government. F. Gregory Gause III, associate professor of political science at the University of Vermont and director of its Middle East studies program, points to the increasing paradox of democratising the Middle East for US policymakers in October's Foreign Affairs, "based on public opinion surveys and recent elections in the Arab world, the advent of democracy there seems likely to produce new Islamist governments that would be much less willing to cooperate with the United States than are the current authoritarian rulers"

For numerous organisations now, the goal of reviving Shariah in ruling matters feature at the root of their political activity. The means they employ differ, as does their vision of the Caliphate's exact workings. Some, like those affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood, PAS in Malaysia and others, opt for a gradual reform of the political system using existent mechanisms; others through encouraging individual reform whilst some opt to operate outside of existing political structures like the transnational organisation Hizb ut Tahrir. Crucially many such organisations are non-violent and do not endorse attacks from 9/11 to 7/7 let alone believe violence to be the methodology for change. Islamic organisations seeking to establish a Shariah-based government are clearly not limited to the few who have chosen violence, or to the individuals who have bought carnage to western capitals.The suggestion that the Caliphate is an inherently violent system because it is exclusive to - and draws its reality exclusively from - the violence of such people is therefore false. The formulae needs to be deconstructed and an assessment of the Caliphate made independently of such misleading associations.

Let us pose a broader question to highlight the point in a different way: is it sound to discredit a set of political goals because of the means employed by some to achieve them? If the logic held true, some of the most celebrated historical events in the West should be recast as triumphs for political violence. The founding pillars of the "enlightenment" should be held responsible for motivating violent upheaval on the continent of Europe and North America and thus should remain under the shadow of - and scarred by - the means of terror. More acutely, if Blair's careful stitch-work between means and goals is credible we must go further to render ideas of the enlightenment inherently violent, for they represented the ideals of the violent and bloody struggles that were the French and American revolutions. Thomas Paine, the esteemed thinker at the heart of America's struggle for independence, articulated the case for an American revolution in his highly influential pamphlet 'Common Sense' when he wrote "We view our enemies in the characters of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law; are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter". Thomas Jefferson too acknowledged that violence would feature in the path to America's independence, his words suggesting that although 'unfortunate' the focus should be on the bigger picture:"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end."

Equally, national liberation struggles that used violence should render the goal of independence from foreign control violent and immoral, a far cry however from the glowing endorsements they selectively received from Western powers. On the Afghan effort to force out the Soviets, former US President Ronald Reagan commented "Self-determination, the right to freely choose one's own destiny, has been the central point of the Afghan struggle… We are proud to have supported their brave struggle to regain their freedom, and our support for this noble cause will continue as long as it is needed". The African National Congress' struggle against apartheid represented a noble cause but as Nelson Mandela admitted in 1963 that "without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle" although he "planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation". None of this rendered the fight against racism in South Africa wrong, Mandela now a respected figure in international politics indeed in global peace movements, re-branded a freedom fighter no less.

The use of violence to achieve a political end is even a point of debate in western circles. Opinions range from those who believe it is never justified to those who believe that some situations necessitate it. Gary Younge, a columnist in the British newspaper the Guardian, wrote regarding the recent rioting in Parisian suburbs that "in certain conditions rioting is not just justified but may also be necessary, and effective" because "when all non-violent, democratic means of achieving a just end are unavailable, redundant or exhausted, rioting is justifiable". Thomas Paine's view that "having no defence for ourselves in the civil law; are obliged to punish them by the military one" also moves to justify the use of violence when no alternative is available. For the Oxford academic Timothy Garton-Ash: "We may want to uphold the universal principle 'no violence', but we all know that these are, in political fact and in moral content, very different things, and some violent political actions are - shall we say - less unjustified than others". Other variations debate whether the maxim 'the end justifies the means' can pragmatically justify the use of political violence to overcome an obstacle that obstructs critical human progress, as Jefferson's earlier remarks on the American revolution may lead one to conclude.


The purpose here is not to justify by stealth the use of violence as a tool for political change. It is to demonstrate that the Caliphate as a stable, independent, accountable and representative state can not be rubbished by associating it with the acts of violence perpetrated by some who claim to want something that goes by the same name; that means and goals represent distinct realities and must be decoupled. The Caliphate has a long track record of ruling quite disparate communities, ethnicities, regions and religions with success, bringing stability to previously war-ravaged territories, engaging populations and earning strong loyalties from the communities and religions it governed. Equating the Caliphate to the violence of the likes of al-Qaida is false; we must dispense of the term - and the reality of - terror from a description of the Caliphate.

Contrary to the prophecies of doom Washington and London are so eager to forward, the Caliphate will be a stabilising force for the Muslim world.It will certainly threaten foreign interests in the lands it governs if those interests resemble current behaviour towards the Muslim world - few doubt that. That may partly explain why the west is so eager to malign it. But asserting independence does not render a state unstable. Indeed, part of the Caliphate's appeal for Muslims is that it will stand-up to foreign aggression and wrestle back what they believe is rightfully theirs. The Caliphate will bring stability to the Muslim world in numerous ways.

Firstly, the Caliphate is an accountable political system whose head is legitimated only through popular consent [3]. It will therefore be unlike the regimes that currently litter the Muslim world, which are both unrepresentative and unaccountable, and inherently fragile and unstable as a result. With no means of recourse within these regimes and no channels to express dissent or criticism, peoples' concerns have become threatening political undercurrents, even threats of rebellion and overthrow, a reality exasperated by the widespread use of brutality by security services to deal with opposition.The Caliphate, in striking contrast, engages voices of dissent through the political system by providing extensive channels for accounting all parts of the states' apparatus as well as a consultative assembly made-up of elected representatives with significant powers.

Secondly, the Caliphate system is consistent with - not alien to - the values of the people in the Muslim world. This provides it deep roots and a better chance at working in partnership with its populations because it engages them on a common point of reference and for common goals. But it also means the Caliphate acts as a guarantor for values considered most at threat since its demise by Muslim peoples. The secular, autocratic even atheistic regimes that emerged in the Caliphate's wake significantly curtailed Islamic practice and engineered new readings of Islamic values and history.They often imposed views that broke with orthodoxy to demand loyalty to divisive and failed ideologies from Arabism to Communism, or combinations of both.The import of foreign value systems too is often associated with the threat of eroding deeply Islamic values; values deemed 'western', for example, are tarnished by perceptions of western moral and sexual decadence. A political system that credibly protects Islamic values is key to securing public confidence and partnership.

Thirdly, the loss of the Caliphate brought with it an unprecedented loss of authority and leadership on Islamic issues. The resulting vacuum allowed individuals to become global figureheads for merely speaking the rhetoric of anti-colonialism and standing-up to perceived aggressors, such as the likes of bin Laden. Conferences like those held in the Jordanian capital Amman last July which denounced the takfiri thought espoused by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi carry little weight or credibility, organised under the auspices of a Jordanian monarchy created on the ashes of the Caliphate and which to this day celebrates the Arab revolt considered by most a treacherous collusion with British colonisers. The same is true for declarations made by the OIC whose conferences are characterised by useless gestures and by hospitality that isolates them from the suffering of their own people, a perception not changed simply by holding the December conference in the holy city of Mecca. This crisis in leadership after the Caliphate dangerously allowed its functions to be dismembered and claimed by virtually anyone who was willing to take them on, from tax collection, to defending Muslim territory (and deciding when and how) to defining the relationship between Islam and other peoples. The Caliphate was the only institution able to provide credible leadership on Islamic issues and which can hold a credible Islamic debate that denounces weak or erroneous understandings that threaten both western and Muslim populations.

Efforts to malign the Caliphate must be challenged with an understanding of exactly what it would represent. Equating it with, and
making it inseparable from, the violence that has struck western capitals is a false association that lacks historical, political and intellectual credibility particularly in the Muslim world.The goal of replacing unrepresentative unaccountable rulers with a political system that is neither and which draws on strong ideological commonalities with its people can only be a stabilising force for the region.The Caliphate represents an alternative political vision for the Muslim world and a political system that draws on a strong historical record.

Remarks from senior US and British officials demonstrate the Caliphate is now finding its way into the language of the war on terror. American officials have recently introduced it as a pretext for continuing US involvement in Iraq. For Eric Edelman, US under secretary of defence for policy "Iraq's future will either embolden terrorists and expand their reach and ability to re-establish a Caliphate, or it will deal them a crippling blow. For us, failure in Iraq is just not an option". In addition to Tony Blair's post 7/7 remarks, the British Home secretary, Charles Clarke, said in a speech to the US think tank the Heritage Foundation "there can be no negotiation about the recreation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shariah law". Lord Curzon's warnings that "we must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims" where appended by his remarks about the end of the Caliphate: "The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam". The fact that less than eight decades after the British government announced its death, demands for a Caliphate re-appear clearly challenge Lord Curzon's forecasts as does it bring to the fore his warnings.The Caliphate may soon become the defining debate of our age; the emerging prospect of its arrival must be met with a willingness to understand a system that would undoubtedly usher in a new era for the Muslim world.

[petros]

[William James]

[petros]

[moeen yaseen]

The last contribution by Petros does not help one iota in the pursuit of truth. By quoting such a prejudiced source what are you trying to prove? You correlate selective Quranic exegesis to back up bogus claims for Muslim guilt in false flag state sponsored terrorism. Do not waste my time nor others here. The time is coming where we will have to move from the luxury of pontificating to REPLACING the NWO with an alternative holistic world order guaranteeing justice and equality.

I think Petros would find the following contribution of interest.


MUHAMMAD's SWORD

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1159094813

Uri Avnery is a journalist, peace activist, former member of the Knesset, and leader of Gush Shalom.


Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary: "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".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

[kbo234]

[TonyGosling]

That sounds like a flippant remark which hasn't had a lot of thought put into it.

I mean, Neither Stalin nor Hitler's systems, the biggest people slaughterers of the modern era, were remotely Christian.
Both explicitly rejected Christ and all his teachings.

[landless peasant]

Maybe you need to re-read Nazi history tony concerning the Vatican.

[fish5133]

I cant help thinking that Islam today is trying to make the same mistake that the Crusaders did. Trying to spread or maintain its religious/political systems and beliefs by the "sword" (fear) In one sense it doesnt really matter what the "Holy Scriptures" of any faith says rather how it is interpreted and acted upon by its followers to the detriment/or benefit of others in society.
John Bunyan wrote many books one of which is entitled Holy War (Jihad). It is an allegory of a fortified city called Mansoul and all the various attacks upon it by the forces of evil (satanic, devilish and wordly) and how these attacks come against the different gates of Mansoul (Eyegate, eargate). And of course there is an enemy within, the Bible says "the heart of man is deceitful and wicked" This is easily seen by the evil and wickedness present in all society and cultures. The true Jihad as one muslim mentioned is a personal one and one of finding truth and ones way in life.

[TonyGosling]

Where is this happening pray tell?
As far as I can see Islamic swords wielded are in defence.

[TonyGosling]

So the Vatican represents Christianity now?
Whatever next!

Even most Catholics have a healthy scepticism about the Vatican.

[landless peasant]

[moeen yaseen]

Fish 5133 is a fish out of water. You made a comment which escaped my radar by stating that Muslims were the Crusaders and using fear to spread ideology. Which planet are you living on? You might as well as join
Geert Wilders Dutch rightwing Islamophobic party below. At least we will know whose side you are on.

Dutch fear attacks over Islam film
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/news-watch/propaganda-war/times-dutch-fear -attacks-over-islam-film.html

The Netherlands is bracing itself for an international backlash as Geert Wilders, a maverick right-wing MP, prepares to release an anti-Islamic film that is already causing anger.

Critics fear the much-hyped film Fitna, which criticises the Koran, could lead to bloodshed in Muslim countries, damage Dutch business interests and endanger the lives of Dutch troops in Afghanistan.

Wilders - who has received death threats from Islamic extremists - has promised to release the film before the end of March despite pleas from the Dutch government and mounting unrest in the Muslim world.

The actual content of the 15-minute film has been kept tightly under wraps, even from the Dutch prime minister and security officials.

But Wilders revealed in January that it featured a split screen with verses from the Koran alongside examples of Sharia law, including scenes of beheadings and stonings. He has added that he wants the film to show that "Islam and the Koran are part of a fascist ideology that wants to kill everything we stand for in western democracy".

Dutch broadcasters have refused to show the video but Wilders has indicated that he plans to air it on the internet.

The Dutch government is wary of infringing his freedom of speech and has not sought to ban the film but has branded it "irresponsible" and begun a preemptive diplomatic campaign.


Already, 15,000 people have protested in Afghanistan against the film, burning Dutch flags.

Nato commanders say that the Taliban could use it to whip up more anger and the Dutch ambassador in Malaysia said protests could lead to "dozens of deaths". Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation, said the film would threaten peace.

In a speech to the European parliament in Strasbourg this year, the Grand Mufti of Syria warned of global consequences. "If there is unrest, bloodshed and violence after the broadcast of the Koran film, Wilders will be responsible," he said.


The film has been compared to the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. More than 100 people died in ensuing riots after they were published in 2006.


Can FISH 5133 explain what on earth the modern day Crusaders are doing in Iraq? Speak truth otherwise do not contribute here and waste time. And since it is Easter why don't you repent for your sins and trangression against the truth?


The Iraq Invasion, the War on Islam, Consequences and the Way Forward
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/issues-explained/the-iraq-invasi on-the-war-on-islam-consequences-and-the-way-forward.html

The media and policy discourse on the Iraq war over the last 5 years has focused on and evolved around issues such as civil war, the Sunni-Shia divide, the involvement of external actors such as Iran and Syria. However, an important issue which needs to be emphasised is how the Iraqi war and the subsequent occupation is linked to the Western objective of weakening and containing the growth of Islamic revivalism in the Muslim world.

Post Cold War, Francis Fukuyama's in his seminal work ‘the end of history', argued that liberal democracy had triumphed and its promotion had to be the key basis of US foreign policy around the world. This declaration was naïve to say the least; at best it was a knee jerk reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as ideological revival had taken root in the Muslim world since the 1960s and had been developing strength in the region. It is subsequently this region where the US would face its main challenge, in tackling Islamic revivalism in the world.


The Clinton administration relied on the promotion of globalisation, with the belief that economic growth would lead to democratic and secular development in the region. This characterised the behaviour of international financial institutions and aid agencies in the region, which were linking aid and funding to economic liberalisation and the development of free markets. However, this US policy failed to take the ideological revival off its course, with Islamic movements and their ideological call growing in strength in the context of capitalistic economic and models of development in the region. The post 9/11 period, would see a radical shift in US foreign policy towards the region, directed by the neoconservatives, which had wanted a more clearer and sharper policy for the Muslim world since the early 1990s and had lobbied the Clinton administration to take on board their views, however this failed and the 9/11 events, the subsequent emotions and outcry, allowed the neoconservatives to manipulate public sentiments to begin its war on terror, which has become synonymous with a war on Islam. The neoconservatives have linked US national security to the Middle East, and have realised the ideological threat and challenge which Political Islam poses to US national interests, in particular the ever important oil and gas supplies from the region, which has become more important given the growth of China and its growing need for hydrocarbon energy. As a result, the need to weaken the strength of political Islam has shaped US foreign policy towards the region post 9/11. This policy has involved the following;


1) The weakening and breaking up of Muslim states i.e. the fragmentation of Iraq and similar situation developing in Pakistan 2) The creation of ethnic and religious divisions i.e. Sunni-Shia divide, through the Iraq chaos and the escalation of the Iranian threat and through statements made by Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah and Hosni Mubarak who have spoken of a Shia Crescent in the region 3) Giving the green light to Israeli aggression in Lebanon, with the US aware that the ramifications of the conflict would be wider and impacting the whole region i.e. refugees, ethnic and religious divisions. 4) Turning a blind eye to increased authoritarianism in the region, for example the Islamic movement has been hounded in countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Central Asia


Therefore, the US has post 9/11 used the war in Afghanistan and particularly the invasion of Iraq to try to weaken the growth of Islam in the region. However the US and the West have also had an eye on Muslim populations in the West, in particular due to the failure to secularise them and giving them a nationalist identity, which replaces their Islamic transnational identity as one Ummah. As a result the West has fashioned and crafted policies to create secular identities among the Muslims, there has been an increased emphasis on patriotism in the US, with flags outside peoples homes a common seen and people being seen as been unpatriotic and to an extent committing treason, if a flag is not apparent forcing Muslims into developing a secular national identity, loyal to the US and her troops in Iraq.

Similarly this has been a common trend throughout Europe, with governments introducing policies, such as citizenship classes, ceremonies, tests, and oath of allegiances, with them clearly being directed towards the Muslim communities in Europe. Behind, all of this has been the objective to cut off the Muslim community from the Muslim world and to give it a French, British, and Germany identity, meaning that the Muslims would support European governments in the war on terror rather than supporting the movement for Khilafah in the region. Therefore, it is clear that Western policy has been double edged, one focusing on the Muslim world and the other to Muslims in the West, but with both edges directed towards taking the wind out of the sail of Islamic revivalism.

US Presidential Elections: Withdrawal from Iraq and the Muslim world?

An important question to answer is the impact of the impending US presidential elections on the occupation of Iraq and military presence in the Muslim world. The Republican candidate John McCain is a supporter of the war on terror, supported the Iraq invasion and supported the Bush administrations surge policy in Iraq. Therefore, McCain coming to power is not likely to substantially change US foreign policy to Iraq and the Muslim world and its objectives driving the policy. In relation to the democrats, Hilary Clinton supported the war in Iraq and now has been arguing for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and this is similar to Barak Obama. However, it is fair to say that the democrats are playing on the anti-war opinion in the US and manipulating this for political electoral points. The democrats and the republicans differ on styles in terms of executing US foreign policy but at heart they are both driven by US interests and her main interest post 9/11 is to tackle the growing demand for Khilafah in the region and this is going to continue to shape and drive US foreign policy post US presidential election in November 2008. This means that the instability and insecurity, which has characterised the Middle East post 9/11 is to continue, plunging the region into a further abyss, whether the democrats of republicans take control of Washington in November 2008.

The Way Forward for the Iraq and the Muslim World

The only way for the region, is Islam implemented by the Khilafah (Islamic State), this is the only ideology which is able to bring unity, stability and security to the region. Islam is linked to the region, through religion, culture and history, giving it a natural environment through which it can emerge in state and society. This is in direct contrast to external models of government and economics which are European centric, leading to inevitable conflict with the regions culture and history. The situation which we are seeing today in Iraq, the chaos and the Sunni-Shia divide is unprecedented, with that territory having never witnessed the bloodshed which it sees today. The ethnic and religious groupings lived in a cohesive society for centuries, under the mosaic of an Islamic political system, which was disturbed by colonialism post Ottomans and the subsequent colonial involvement, epitomised by the Iraq War.


The region is at an important juncture 5 years on from the Iraq war, US policy is causing instability and insecurity and there is a need for a paradigm change in the region, with political Islam taking root and acting as the means of dealing with the problems of the region, caused by authoritarianism and US policy. This needed change is now sensed by the majority of the people who wish to live under the systems of the Shariah and the unity of the Khilafah system.


What is the true cost of the Iraq war?

It is in the psyche of capitalists to evaluate (or more aptly relegate) the evaluation of the costs of the Iraq war to a cold and calculated cost-benefit ratio. Clinically valuing the costs of the Iraq war into dollars and pounds is hugely insulting to all those who have lost lives or limbs, their families and near relatives (on all sides of the conflict). It also conveniently distracts from the humanitarian disaster, which is beyond quantification. However, it is useful from the viewpoint of the capitalist to focus minds on the benefits in order to determine whether to continue to engage in a costly endeavour.

Without free access to the world's third largest oil reserves, the Iraq war always had a poor cost-benefit ratio. The costs of militarily invading Iraq and removing Saddam (in terms of men and equipment) would be paid for primarily by the US while the benefits would almost exclusively accrue to the Iraqi people in terms of political and economic freedom. A loss making venture - Period. This in itself should be enough to convince anyone, but the most zealous supporter s of the war, of the real motivation for the US, the world's biggest free market capitalist economy and the largest consumer of oil, to invade Iraq.


Five years on and with the US economy effectively in recession, with increasing joblessness and homelessness, it is worth noting that the Iraq campaign is estimated to be costing American tax payers $10 billion every 34 days according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. This is just one of many estimates which vary from $100 billion to $3 trillion depending on who's counting - either supporters or opponents of the war. Supporters, mostly right wing neocons, downplay the costs arguing that even before the invasion costs were being incurred maintaining the no-fly zone and a US presence in the Gulf. Opponents contend that the true costs are being concealed from the American public - just as the US ban on televising returning bodybags - to maintain public support for the war.



The truth about the true costs, as with much else related to this conflict, is elusive including the false premise - Saddam's weapons on mass destruction -upon which the war was sanctioned. This is in spite of the 24/7 news coverage; embedded reporters; and burgeoning Arabic media. It appears that even the so-called principled proponents of free speech have accepted that truth is truly the first casualty of war. However, what of the non-quantified costs: the cost of the loss of American political reputation in Europe; the cost of undermining the fractured credibility of the United Nations; the cost of losing the supposed ‘moral high ground' in the fight against terrorism; and the cost to America's standing in the Muslim and Islamic world. Shamefully though, most of these cost estimates do not even consider the loss on the Iraqi side. Just as the US did not consider counting the number of Iraqis killed in the conflict. In comparison to the 4000 odd US military staff killed, what of the cost of over 600,000 Iraqi deaths as estimated by the Lancet medical journal back in October 2006. That's about 2.5% of Iraq's population, which, as a proportion of the US population, is equivalent to losing a staggering 7 million Americans - slightly less than the entire population of New York.



In addition what of the cost of the 4 million displaced Iraqis who have had their lives and families torn apart by the war - 2 million of which are living as refugees in desperate conditions in neighbouring countries. What about the costs of a serious lack of security which disrupts every aspect of life; the cost of power outages, breakdown in sewage and failure of clean water supplies; the cost of the loss of doctors, teachers and civil servants. The list can go on. Even if stability is established, it will take generations to recover from such deep devastation. As with much else related to the Iraq war the true costs of the conflict will probably be unknown until many decades after the war, as in the case of Vietnam. The estimated costs bare little resemblance to the true cost of the conflict and betray the fact that the real motivation for the war was to gain unlimited access to Iraq's oil reserves without which growing expenditure on the war is unjustifiable. The sad reality is that America's rising demand for oil to power its economic and political strength, as oil supplies tighten, will only motivate it to control and dominate other resource rich nations. This does not bode well for the Middle East or competing and emerging economic powers like China and India.

Only the Caliphate state can end the cycle of destruction and devastation for the people of the Muslim world, the Middle East and the wider region. The Caliphate will bring regional stability and growth as it will implement a system of government and a rule of law that accords with the peoples' religion, customs and tradition. Its economic and foreign policy will not be motivated by greed or exploitation but by ending poverty and inviting other nations to witness the justice and excellence of Islam.
The Iraq invasion, secularism and Islam

In the week when the western media turns its attention to the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, numerous commentators have begun to pepper the columns with their opinionated pieces analysing the purpose behind the invasion, why it went wrong and why the west cannot now leave the current chaos that all agree is the appropriate description for the legacy of the Bush-Blair adventure, inspired in the name of the war on terror.

The grim reality of the human catastrophe of the invasion and occupation, the ever worsening situation in the region as a whole, the inability of the occupation forces to quell the violence the invasion has erupted and its elevating cost amidst the downturn in the western economies, has left the arrogant and euphoric tone that US and British government officials animated in the past seem like a very along time ago.

Justifying Colonialism
Revisiting a speech at the Heritage Foundation during his tour of the US in 2005, the former British Home secretary Charles Clarke spoke of the challenge posed by al Qaeda and its supporters to the secular democratic tradition of the West in the following manner. He stated "Our society is itself is an affront, and a reproach, to the ideologues who believe that only their way of living life is the right one". The irony of this statement made at a time when British troops occupied two Islamic countries having participated in the slaughter of thousands of innocent Muslims in the name of democracy and the war on terror did not seem inappropriate as western public opinion was still largely, albeit reluctantly, supportive of the invasion as a lesser of two evils.



Charles Clarke's speech came in the wake of similar rhetoric from George Bush speaking at the Washington-based think tank The National Endowment for Democracy. In this speech, Bush defended the invasion and occupation of Iraq amidst growing public unease by claiming that Islamic radicals were seeking to establish a radical Islamic empire with Iraq serving as the main front. He stated "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." This mantra became the mainstay of the Bush and Blair governments and their officials to justify the continuing occupation for the long term.

While the overwhelming desire of the Muslims globally is for political change in the Muslim world, the fear gripping western governments is not due to the likes of militant organisations such as al Qaeda but rather the Muslim masses who have turned away from the West and its secular values and are instead turning to political Islam to seek a solution to the present malaise. Indeed, the main problem for the Bush-Blair logic that links the establishment of a new Caliphate in the Muslim world to the modus operandi of al Qaeda, used to justify the continued immoral occupation and disintegration of once sovereign states, is the uncomfortable fact that the movement for the re-establishment of Islamic governance in the Muslim world has come overwhelmingly from peaceful political movements and not from militant groups. Indeed, the rise of militancy is a relatively new phenomenon, which has grown out of the occupation of Muslim holy lands following the first Iraq war, the immoral sanctions regime, which killed up to a million Iraqis that ensued and the continued support of the Zionist aggression against the Muslims of Palestine and Lebanon. The recent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has only accentuated the deeply rooted resentment towards western foreign policy, which as most commentators acknowledge, is the driving motivation behind the adoption of a militant methodology and the swelling ranks of such Jihadi organisations. This coupled with the collusion between western colonialist governments such as the US and Britain and the dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world has fostered a strong public opinion for the return of a sincere Islamic leadership.

Blurring the margins between political activism and terrorism

Organisations such as Hizb ut Tahrir, and prior, the Khilafah movement in India, were working for the re-establishment of the Caliphate as a model of Islamic governance in the Muslim world several decades prior to the creation by the CIA of the prelude to what became al Qaeda during the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets. Other organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood have also worked consistently for the return of Islamic governance and the implementation of Shariah Law. The rhetoric of the Bush-Blair era to the ideological challenge posed by Muslim groups was to label such movements as extremist. Whereas extremism in the past was used almost exclusively to label those who advocated a violent or intimidating methodology to promote their view e.g. animal rights extremists, Tony Blair redefined the political lexiconical landscape in his August 5th 2006 press conference in the aftermath of the London bombings by including all Muslims who wish to implement Shariah laws in their countries and the unification of the Muslim world under a Caliphate under the banner of extremism. By doing so, Tony Blair took an unprecedented step of vilifying some of the fundamental principles of Islamic belief setting the West on collision course with 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. The introduction of controversial new anti-terror legislation to include the incitement and glorification of terrorism and the proscription of the British branch of Hizb ut Tahrir, an avowedly non-violent political organisation, left Muslims convinced that the Bush-Blair war on terror was in reality a war on Islam. This message was reinforced by Charles Clarke in his US speech when he stated "...there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia Law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality of the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation." George Bush added yet another derogatory term to the growing collection of adjectives used to describe political Islamic movements seeking the establishment of a new Caliphate, " the Islamofacist!"

The contradiction between democratic theory and practise

Since Home Office documents have shown that the British government was fully aware that Hizb ut Tahrir's peaceful political work seeks the re-establishment of the Caliphate in the Muslim world and whose work in Britain is restricted to the dissemination of Islamic thought, one is drawn to the conclusion that Charles Clarke's statements can only mean that the aspirations of Muslims worldwide for the return of the Caliphate in the Muslim world is an illegitimate view and one that can not be tolerated. Indeed, the attempts by the British Government to obtain UN approval for the establishment of an international list of extremists supports this conclusion. The Bush-Blair approach sought to deliberately blur the margins between peaceful political work for change and the methodology of terrorism. While the Labour government under Brown has adopted a different tone, if not action, the opposition leader David Cameron has repeatedly called for the proscription of the British branch of Hizb ut Tahrir. The contradiction between democratic rhetoric and government policy has not gone unnoticed among the Muslim masses nor has the attempt to morally justify a policy of policing thoughts through the anti-terror legislation and via propaganda by reference to the Caliphate as totalitarian and its advocates as nihilistic.

The speech by Pope Benedict XVI at Regensberg around this period was aimed to propagate this view when he effectively stated that Islam and rationality were incompatible. In a deceptive argument, the Pope misquoted an Islamic scholar to make the point that reason in Islam cannot be used to challenge revelation. The place of reason in Islamic thought has been discussed during the period of Islamic history when the influence of Greek thought had permeated the Islamic world during the Abbasid Caliphate and was challenged by Islamic traditionalists. This debate appears now to be resurfacing as Islam re-emerges to challenge secularism. The debate which took place during the height of the Islamic civilisation resulted in the victory of the Islamic traditionalists over those who carried ideas of Greek origin. This debate was useful in helping Muslims to rediscover the Islamic understanding of the role of the human intellect and its interaction with the Islamic texts. It helped to clarify the difference between the use of the intellect to understand the Islamic texts and apply the Divine guidance inherent within them to new problems facing humanity and the error of making the intellect the source of guidance and legislation. It also reconfirmed to importance of building a creedal view upon reason and investigation rather than upon blind faith alone.

Therefore, these arguments by western politicians, thinkers and religious figures were attempts to seize the intellectual and moral high ground by accusing those aspiring for a return of Islamic governance on the international arena as promoting a vision for future intolerance, discrimination and injustice. The use of force to intervene is Muslim lands and the development of further draconian anti-terror legislation is, therefore, justifiable since the ideology of the enemy is inferior, intolerant and devoid of a rational discourse.

Religious doctrine cannot allow co-existence
One of the manifestations of this intolerance argued by many secularists is the inability of religions to co-exist. Anthony Grayling articulated this argument in a discourse entitled "The Secular and the Sacred" in the following manner. Pointing to intolerance and instability in the pre-European enlightenment era as caused by the doctrinal distinctions between the major religions, Grayling states " It is a woolly and optimistic liberal hope that all religions can be viewed as worshipping the same god, only in different ways; but this is nonsense, as shown by the most cursory comparison of teachings, interpretations, moral requirements, creation myths and eschatologies, in all of which the major religions differ and frequently contradict each other. History shows how clearly the religions themselves grasped this; the motivation for Christianity's hundreds of years of crusades against Islam, pogroms against Jews and inquisitions against heretics, was the desire to expunge heterodoxy and infidelity or at least to effect forcible compliance with prevailing orthodoxy. Islam's various Jihads had the same aim, and it spread half way around the world by conquest and the sword. Where they can get away with it-as in present-day Afghanistan-devotees continue the same practices. The religious Right in America would doubtless do so too, but has to use TV, money, advertising and political lobbying instead to impress it version of the truth on American society. It is only where religion is on the back foot, reduced to a minority practise, with an insecure tenure in society, that it presents itself as essentially peaceful and charitable. This is the chief reason why allowing the major religions to jostle against one another in the public domain is extremely undesirable. The solution is to make the public domain wholly secular, leaving religion to the personal sphere, as a matter of private conviction and practice only...."

Graylings thesis is built upon observations of historical conflicts between past nations whose differing worldviews were built upon religious doctrines and upon the European experience associated with life under the theocratic dictatorships that dominated Europe during the Middle Ages. While these clashes have taken place, their frequencies were not comparable to the frequency of conflict observed between nation states and empires in the post-enlightenment era. A cursory examination of the 20th century demonstrates that under the dominance of secular systems of governance, global conflict has intensified to alarming proportions with the occurrence of two world wars and the cold war, which lead to an arms race that has populated the world with the most destructive weapons in history. As an example, the US alone has invaded over 40 countries post world war II. This is not to mention the continual colonial wars in Europe and the enslavement and destructions of numerous nations including the American Indians. The basis of these conflicts have invariably been motivated by the perceived need to secure material assets and strategic resources in a world where nation states compete in the international arena for the largest slice of the global cake in the "Game of Nations." With the rise of new global competitors in China and India, the western states are now re-engaging in a struggle for global strategic resources such as oil and gas, and many of the current areas of international instability can be linked to these energy resources e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur.

The uniqueness of the Islamic civilisation
Graylings thesis also confuses the distinction between state and society as well as important distinctions between Islam and Christianity. With reference to the former, it is important to distinguish between the interaction on the global arena between states with differing worldviews and the interaction of individuals in society. History is testimony to the fact that all ideological states and civilisations have sought to expand irrespective of whether they are religious or secular, imperial or socialist. Therefore, on an international level, Graylings thesis laying claim to religion as a source of conflict becomes redundant. Furthermore, from the perspective of Islam, the expansion of the Islamic State established by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) was entirely ideologically motivated and involved a process of dialogue with foreign states followed by military engagement (if dialogue was unsuccessful) aimed at neutralising physical obstacles (military and political entities) to the spread of the Islamic message. The nature of these conquests were such that the people in conquered lands were given equal citizen status to their Muslim counterparts and freedom of religious belief. The deception that Islam was spread by the sword is exposed by the historically acknowledged fact that the carriers of the Islamic message to Spain were not Arabs but the conquered Berbers of North Africa who, after embracing Islam, took upon themselves the mantle of conveying the Islamic message.

On this point, it is also worth mentioning here that in 1214, during the Abbasid Caliphate, the King of England John Lackland approached the governor of Morrocco Muhammed Nasir of his desire to embrace Islam along with his nation and to become part of the Islamic Caliphate. Governor Muhammed Nasir rejected King John's proposal as it became apparent to him that the basis for John Lackland's decision to embrace Islam was his astonishment at the greatness of the Islamic Caliphate rather than his conviction on the correctness and truthfulness of the Islamic creed. This demonstrates how the Prophetic methodology of spreading the message of Islam was continued after his death by the various Caliphs and constitutes the foreign policy of the Islamic Caliphate. This policy was quite unique to the Caliphate model of governance and was based upon the Quranic injunction "There is no compulsion in religion" [TMQ Al Baqara, 256 ] and upon the Prophet Muhammed's (peace be upon him) saying "Those upon the Christian and Jewish faiths are not to be seduced therefrom." Such phenomena were not observed during the expansion of the imperial nations either in the past or present. It is not conceivable that the Muslims of Afghanistan would have facilitated the US invasion of Iraq yet alone be the carriers of democracy, or that we could ever envisage the Iraqis helping the US attack any other nation or be the carriers of democracy to surrounding countries!

The Islamic society that was established during the expansion of the Caliphate provided a level of cohesion, mutual tolerance and justice that has arguably not been repeated in the world. For example, during the siege of Jerusalem during the era of the Caliph Umar ibn al Khattab in AD 642, the Christian Patriach Sophronius requested that the terms of surrender be conducted directly with the Caliph. Caliph Umar travelled to Jerusalem from Medina where he personally negotiated a peaceful surrender with the Christian leadership, which became known as the Umari treaty that remained in force until the British invasion of Palestine in 1915.

With reference to the distinction between Islam and Christianity, Grayling is guilty of generalising between the methodology of governance of the various Christian empires with the Islamic methodology implemented by the Caliphate. The Islamic society established throughout the various ruling dynasties were never characterised by the purging of minorities through inquisitions or by internal rebellion originating from non-Muslim minorities. These communities were not coerced to adopt the Islamic belief and were protected through a covenant of citizenship built upon the saying of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) "whosoever harmed a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen) it is as if he harmed me". Minority communities consisting of Christians and Jews flourished in the Islamic lands and are still well settled to this day in countries such as Egypt and Lebanon. The loyalty of these communities to the Islamic authority during the Abbasid Caliphate is exemplified by the scale of the voluntary contribution by the Maronites to the armies, which drove out the European Crusaders. Therefore, due to the comprehensiveness of the systems of Islam, a progressive global society characterised by tolerance and harmony between divergent communities existed in contrast to the society that characterised Christian Europe.

Exploring the Islamic and Western Traditions
Grayling, like many Western commentators incorrectly draws parallels between the causes of the decline that befell the Muslim world from AD 1500 and the decline, which characterised Europe during the period of theocratic rule. The role of the Church in consolidating the tyrannical rule of the emperors of Europe has no relationship to the role that Islam played in engendering the progressive and elevated society established by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and developed under the Ummayad, Abbasid and Ottoman Caliphs. Whereas Europe's renaissance followed the redefinition of the role of the Church in governance and legislation, that is, its removal from constitutional authority, the decline of the Caliphate was predominantly due to the intellectual stagnation that took hold within the state leading to the closure of the doors of ijtihad (scholastic jurisprudence) at around AD 1000. Therefore, Europe's revival was due to the dissociation of religion from state whereas the Caliphate's decline was due to the inability to maintain the association of Islam from effectively addressing societal affairs and modern problems.

Taking the historical facts mentioned above into account, it is therefore, natural for the global Muslim Ummah to aspire to see the return of a progressive, new Caliphate in the Muslim world built upon the model established by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) but within a 21st century world. This public opinion has developed over the last 60 years alongside the rediscovery of the process of ijtihad, which is vital for Islamic societal progression. The Bush-Blair war on terror has realigned its focus upon the prevention of the re-establishment of the Caliphate through the promotion of secular democracy in the Middle East at "gun point" if necessary and the launching of a McCarthy-like witch hunt of those that work for its re-emergence.

Anti-Islamist Propaganda
In the process, Muslims living in Europe, face a new period of coercive assimilation through the implementation of policies such as anti-terror legislation, proscription of political movements, stop and search and shoot to kill, all aimed at intimidating the Muslim community into adopting the secular creed and values of European society. This is accompanied by continuous ideological attacks upon Islam and the Shariah, which has nurtured an indigenous hostility towards Muslims and their religion. The response to the speech by the Archbishop of Cantebury in which he suggested that some aspects of Shariah could be accomodated within the British legal framework is clear evidence of this new hostility. The "stick" is accompanied, however, by the "carrot" that offers an alternative vision of Islam in Europe-one that is reformed and recreated in the image of the west. Likewise, one can view the invasion and occupation of Iraq in a similar manner, that is, the stick by which the other Muslim states of the region are persuaded to fall into line. The response of Libya's dictator Ghadaffi to the western call to give up his nuclear programme and his reward by way of re-integration into the community of nations confirms this stratagem. In applying this approach, the secular civilisation can no longer lay claim to being pluralistic or tolerant as indeed the challenge of Islam posed by the Muslim masses has demonstrated that the separation of religion from the affairs of life, that is secularism, is indeed the neo-sacred that tolerates no genuine dissention.

[TonyGosling]

agreed,

Whether or not one believes the Revelation to St. John the Divine to be the inspired word of God you can be sure of one thing, that the Christian Right, the likes of Billy Graham, the Christian Zionists and other fake Christians are looking very closely at it so that they can match it to their own evil plans and REINTERPRET the events of these prophecies painting themselves as God’s people, the good guys, when in fact they are the forces of darkness.

These are the people you've got to watch out for.


Link


The evil Christian Zionists who reinforce the 'stay in the comfort zone' mentality by making out the Bible says Israel is doing 'GOD'S WILL' by turning the occupied territories into a prison camp. They are showingb their hand more recently by admitting they don't believe Jesus was the messiah. What hypocrites!


Link


Basically what they're saying is stay as a slave to the money system making all your decisions based on how much money you will get and you will go to heaven along with every single IDF soldier.

It's just plain idiocy and flies in the face of Jesus' message in the temple about the love of money being the rot of all evl.

For goodness sake - Britain never had money until the Roman invasion and never had usury (interest) until the Norman yoke arrived in the person of William the Conqueror.