|
Also on this page
Karen Armstrong’s Campaign of Disinformation
and
“You Call
It Evangelism? Then, What a Beautiful Evangelism It Is!”
The
Bloody History of Iraq: What the West Ignores
In
his review of Robert Spencer’s
The
Truth about Muhammad — Founder of the World’s Most
Intolerant Religion,
Andrew C.
McCarthy wrote:
“Islam is quintessentially tolerant. Its adherents are hospitable
to liberty, equality, and pluralism, the rudiments of
modern democracy. Those committing terror in its name
are heretics — a fringe which has ‘hijacked’ a “religion
of peace. This conventional wisdom brims over the
mainstream media’s daily servings. It is, moreover, the
not-to-be-questioned premise of U.S. policy on a host of
paramount issues.” National Review Online, 11 January
2007*
I
remember former President Clinton repeating the mantra,
“Islam is a religion of peace,” on more
than one occasion. After the 9/11/01 attack on the
United States, President Bush proclaimed to the joint
meeting of Congress that Islam was a religion of peace,
but that its radicals had hijacked it, and declared war
on the West.
Actually, the campaign of misinformation about the true
nature of Islam was in full swing long before 9/11. For
example, several PBS stations across the country
telecast a documentary, “Islam: Empire of Faith.”
In this presentation, Western Islamophiles sang the
praises of Islam and portrayed its worldwide expansion
as propelled by its message: “There is no god but
Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah.”
That’s all that it took to spread Islam from Arabia
throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe! Islam must have
been the exception in the long history of mankind. Of
all the ancient and modern empires, only Islam spread by
the power of its “faith!”
However, when we turn to Islamic sources and reflect on
Islam’s worldview, we discover that the concept of war
has always been a basic tenet of the faith. The
very division of the world into Daru’l Islam
and Daru’l Harb, (the House of Islam
and the House of War) points to the fact that Muslims
themselves have understood and claimed that their
expansions (futuhat) took place by their
resort to the sword, and not by the proclamation of
their faith. So, I am not exaggerating when I say that
documentaries such “Islam: Empire of Faith,”
and “The Legacy of the Prophet” are
nothing but campaigns of disinformation designed to
delude Westerners; and are not unlike the Communist
propaganda that used to portray the USSR as an earthly
paradise!
In
this article, I would like to concentrate on the history
of Iraq that for centuries was the very center of the
vast Islamic Empire. This land is notorious for the acts
of savagery that have taken place on its soil. Here is a
chronological list that begins with the murder of
Hussein, son of Ali, and ends with the execution of
Saddam Hussein in January 2007.
1. On
the tenth day of the month of Muharram
A.H. 61, corresponding to 10 October 680, Hussein, son
of Ali and Fatima, and grandson of the Prophet, was
murdered in Karbala. Shi’ites commemorate this tragedy
by calling it ‘Ashura, a word derived from
‘ashra, the Arabic for the number ten.
2. In
750, most members of the Umayyad dynasty
were massacred by the Abbasids. The first
Abbasid caliph is known as al-Saffah, i.e.
“the butcher,” due to his utter cruelty
toward his enemies. Soon after his death, Baghdad became
the capital of the Islamic Empire.
3. On
the order of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur,
the military Persian genius, Abu-Muslim
al-Khurasani, who had
masterminded the victory over the Umayyads, was
assassinated in 755.
4.
Caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809), reputed
for his “wisdom and clemency,” ordered the assassination
of the Barmakis in 803. Members of this
Persian family had served the Abbasids faithfully for
generations as treasurers of the empire.
5.
Civil war broke out between the two sons of Harun
al-Rashid, al-Amin and al-Ma’mun.
That led to the siege of Baghdad in 812, and the triumph
of al-Ma’mun over his brother in 813.
6.
The revolt of the black slaves working in the
Basra area known as the Zanj Revolt
(869-883). These African slaves worked in the salt mines
under extremely harsh conditions. They sacked Basra in
871. Later on, their revolt was brutally crushed.
7.
The twelfth in line from Ali, known as the Twelfth
Imam “disappeared” in 873. That gave birth to
the Shi’ite belief that he will return at the end of
time, to bring justice to the world.
8. In
1258, the Mongolians sacked Baghdad and brought an end
to the Abbasid Caliphate.
Fast forward to Modern Times
The
Ottoman Turks conquered Iraq and ruled until the end of
World War I. The following is a summary of the bloody
events that have marked the modern history of Iraq.
9.
The Kingdom of Iraq was born in 1921. Its first king was
Faisal I; he was the son of Sherif
Hussein of Mecca. His brother Abdallah
worked with him during WWI to defeat the Ottoman Turks.
Faisal I died in Bern, Switzerland in
1933. Rumors spread that he was poisoned! He was
succeeded by his son, Ghazi.
10.
In 1936, the founder of the Iraqi Army, General
Ja’far al-‘Askari was assassinated after a coup
led by Bakr Sidqi. A few days later,
Bakr himself was assassinated together with an
Iraqi Air Force officer at the Mosul Airport.
11.
That same year, King Ghazi died in a
mysterious car accident. He was succeeded by his young
son, Faisal II, with his maternal uncle,
Emir Abd-al-Ilah, acting as regent.
12.
During WWII, a pro-Nazi Iraqi leader, Rashid Ali
al-Kilani led a revolt against the Iraqi
Government. The British army rushed from Jordan and
crushed the revolt. Rashid Ali and four
army officers that engineered the coup were hanged. This
was followed by the hanging of the leader of the Iraqi
Communist Party.
13.
On 14 July, 1958, Iraqis woke up to the news of an army
coup led by Abdel-Karim Qassem, that
brought to a violent end the regime of King Faisal
II, the Regent, and Prime Minister Nouri
al-Sa’eed. They were assassinated, disfigured,
and their bodies were dragged throughout the streets of
Baghdad. The king was only 23; none of the victims were
buried! Some Iraqis wept, but the majority rejoiced.
Colonel Nasser’s propaganda machine went into high gear
broadcasting insults on the murdered King and his
officials. Several army officers that had not sided with
Qassem were executed. It was a horrific
blood bath!
14.
On 8 February 1963, Abdel-Karim Qassem was
attacked by the Iraqi Air Force while at the Ministry of
Defence building. The next day, he surrendered to his
attackers, but was executed with three army officers.
His body was shown on Iraqi television. Killings broke
out all over Baghdad between Communists and Baathists.
The frenzied crowds sang and danced in the streets.
Nasser’s infamous “Sawt al-‘Arab” (Voice
of the Arabs) radio station broadcast vilifications of
the massacred men!
15.
Another coup took place in Iraq on 18 November, 1963.
Abdel-Salaam ‘Aref, the leader of the coup
against Qassem, turned against the
Baathists who had aided him in the coup, and assumed
sole power in governing Iraq. He died in a tragic
helicopter accident, and was succeeded by his brother,
Abdel-Rahman.
16.
On 17 July 1968, an army coup toppled President
Abdel-Rahman ‘Aref. He was exiled to Turkey.
Many others, however, were executed in awful ways, that
pointed to the utter depravity of the perpetrators of
the coup.
17. A
new president assumed power, Hassan al-Bakr;
and Saddam Hussein from Tikrit was
appointed as his vice-president. Al-Bakr’s
presidency was extremely brief. He died in 1979,
preceded by the equally mysterious death of his two
sons! Saddam Hussein assumed absolute power, and began
his reign of terror by executing several men whom he
considered as a threat to his dictatorial rule. Saddam’s
regime was infamous for its utter depravity, and lasted
more than three decades. Incredible killings of Muslims
by Muslims continued during his long dictatorship: the
mass murder of Kurds in Northern Iraq, and of Shi’ites
in Southern Iraq. Not to forget the ecological
devastations that occurred when the southern marshes,
that had marked the area for millennia, were drained on
orders by Saddam! He did that to punish his enemies,
regardless of the cost to the entire area.
For
details of Saddam’s years of absolute horror, please
consult the following books:
“Republic of Fear: The Inside Story of Saddam’s
Iraq,” by
Samir al-Khalil. It was published by Pantheon Books, New
York in 1990; and republished in 1998 under the title of
“Republic
of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition.” Samir al-Khalil
is the nom de plume of Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi-American
intellectual.
His
other book on Iraq is: “Cruelty
and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising in the Arab World” Published in 1994 by W.W. Norton & Company
“Between Two Worlds: Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in
the Shadow of Saddam”
by
Zainab Salbi and Laurie Becklund, Gotham Books, a member
of Penguin Group, Inc., New York, 2006
In
preparing this brief chronology, I did not intend to
imply that no other civilizations ever engaged in acts
of mass murders and brutal treatment of prisoners. The
past century was replete with the events of the Jewish
Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, the horrors of the Gulag
Archipelago, and Pol Pot’s “Killing Fields.” My
compiling of the list of the bloody events that took
place on the soil of Iraq is simply to allude to the
often-forgotten fact that they were committed within a
culture that is infused with the teachings of the
religion of “peace.” The truth is that Islam’s sacred
and authoritative texts contain those very ingredients
that give birth to the tragic events that have made the
modern Middle East, a place where unbelievable tragedies
happen, and keep on happening to this very day.
*For
a full text of Andrew C. McCarthy’s review of Robert
Spencer’s book, please go to:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTljZmRjMGU5NGI0NDkzM2FmMzczZjljYzc4YzYzMzY=
~~~~~~
Karen Armstrong’s Campaign of Disinformation
In 1992, HarperCollins published Karen Armstrong’s
“MUHAMMAD: A Biography of the Prophet.” That
was the first time I heard about this author. When I had
the opportunity to glance at the book, I noticed right
away that it was not just another Western biography of
the Prophet. It was a deliberate attempt to engage in an
apologetic for Islam. I had hoped that Miss Armstrong
and her book would not be taken seriously in the West,
but I was wrong.
Lately, she
has been very busy, lecturing on Islam, on both sides of
the Atlantic. It seems that several Westerners are quite
impressed by her, as shown in the 11 November, 2006,
issue of The Wall Street Journal. Karen Elliott
House, a former publisher
of the Journal,
contributed an article under the title of
“Five Best, Sense of Ummah: These books are essential to
understanding Islam.”
She
listed the following: 1. "Islam" by Vartan Gregorian
(Brookings, 2003); 2. "Muhammad" by Karen Armstrong
(HarperCollins, 1992), 3. "What Went Wrong?” by Bernard
Lewis (Oxford, 2002); 4. "The Koran Interpreted"
translated by A.J. Arberry (Macmillan, 1955); 5. "Wahhabi
Islam" by Natana J. Delong-Bas (Oxford, 2004).
I was very disappointed by the choice of
Karen Armstrong’s book, “Muhammad.” To be
listed alongside books by Bernard Lewis and A. J.
Arberry is astonishing, if not shocking! Miss House
could have referred to such classical books that tell a
credible story of Muhammad: “The Life of Muhammad,” by A. Guillaume, and the standard book on the Muslim Prophet,
Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, by W.
Montgomery Watt. I guess, it would have been too much to
expect Miss House to recommend Robert Spencer’s latest
book, “The Truth about Muhammad” Regnery
Publishing, 2006!
As
you begin to read Karen Armstrong’s book, you’ll be
struck by her deliberate manipulation of the historical
data regarding Muhammad. For example, in her
Introduction she writes:
“In 1984, I had to make a television
programme about Sufism, the mysticism of Islam, and was
particularly impressed by the Sufi appreciation of other
religions --- a quality that I had certainly not
encountered in Christianity! This challenged everything
that I had taken for granted about ‘Islam’ and I wanted
to learn more…We know more about Muhammad than about the
founder of any major faith so that a study of his life
can give us an important insight into the nature of the
religious experience.” P. 13,
14
Further on, in Chapter 2, she wrote:
“In the Qur’an, therefore, we have a
contemporaneous commentary on Muhammad’s career that is
unique in the history of religion: it enables us to see
the peculiar difficulties he had to contend with, and
how his vision evolved to become more profound and
universal in scope. In contrast, we know very little
about Jesus.” P.51
To
claim that we know more about Muhammad than about Jesus
Christ is pure propaganda for Islam. The Qur’an does
mention certain episodes in the life of Muhammad; but
how could they be reliable when he himself was relating
them, while attributing their source to Allah? As to the
various biographies of Muhammad, they were written more
than a century after his death, and were based on
various accounts taken from the Hadith,
i.e. the Traditions. The fact that there were many
spurious Hadiths circulating in Islam, led Muslim
scholars to reject a great number of them, and to
produce their own versions of what is known as the
Sahih (Authentic) Traditions.
The
most “authoritative” source on the Traditions of
Muhammad which we possess are taken from a raconteur of
the Hadith, Ibn Hisham, who died in the
middle of the 9th Century, around two
hundred years after the death of the Prophet! In
contrast, the Gospels, written within a few decades
after the death, and resurrection of Christ, give us
accurate and completely reliable accounts of the person,
the miracles, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, it is well-known that the science of
Textual Criticism existed in the Christian tradition; it
gathered and compared several early Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament, in order to give us the most
trustworthy account of the life of Jesus Christ.
There is no such thing as textual criticism of the
Qur’an within the Muslim community. They regard
their holy book as the very words of Allah. In Islam,
the Qur’an is qadeem, i.e. uncreated.
Armstrong’s book is replete with disinformation and
propaganda. She never tires of blaming the West for
misunderstanding Islam. As she brings this “masterpiece”
to a close, she writes,
“We in the West have never been able to cope with Islam:
our ideas of it have been crude and dismissive and today
we seem to belie our own avowed commitment to tolerance
and compassion by our contempt for the pain and inchoate
distress in the Muslim world. P. 265
“Today some Muslims are beginning to turn
against the cultures of the People of the Book, which
have humiliated and despised them. They have even begun
to Islamise their own hatred. The beloved figure of the
Prophet Muhammad became central to one of the latest
clashes between Islam and the West during the Salman
Rushdie affair. If Muslims need to understand our
Western traditions and institutions more thoroughly
today, we in the West need to divest ourselves of some
of our old prejudice. Perhaps one place to start is with
the figure of Muhammad: a complex, passionate man who
sometimes did things that it is difficult for us to
accept, but who had genius of a profound order and
founded a religion and cultural tradition that was not
based on the sword ---despite the Western myth--- and
whose name ‘Islam’ signifies peace and reconciliation.” P. 266
So,
Miss Armstrong lectures us about the need of
“divesting ourselves of some of our old prejudice”
and to start “with the figure of Muhammad.”
Does she expect us to erase all that we have
learned about the founder of Islam, from both Arabic and
Western sources, and to accept her sanitized bio of the
Prophet?! Does she really want us to believe that he
“founded a religion and cultural tradition that was
not based on the sword ---despite the Western myth---
and whose name ‘Islam’ signifies peace and
reconciliation”? Whom is she kidding?
Where did she pick up her knowledge of Arabic, and who
ever instructed her that ‘Islam’ signifies peace
and reconciliation? I have spent many years
learning Arabic grammar and syntax. I can tell you, Miss
Armstrong that “Islam” means
“surrender.” It signifies total surrender to
Allah, as he is revealed in the Qur’an.
The
WSJ article appeared on Veterans’ Day 2006. Five days
later, The Mosaic Foundation issued this bulletin:
Karen Armstrong to Lecture on 'Islam: The Misunderstood
Religion.' The Foundation introduced the event which was to
take place on Monday, 20 November with these glowing
words:
“Karen Armstrong, prolific
author, speaker, teacher and media commentator on
religious affairs in the U.S. and England, will launch
the Mosaic Foundation's new lecture series
"Re- Discovering the Arab World."
Her lecture is entitled "Islam: The Misunderstood
Religion."
The event was
held at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th
Floor (Ballroom), Washington, D.C. It took place under
the auspices of an organization that defines itself as
follows: “Established in 1998,” as
“an American charitable and educational,
nonprofit organization founded and run by the spouses of
Arab Ambassadors to the United States. Through its
projects, Mosaic seeks to improve the lives of women and
children globally and increase understanding and
appreciation of Arab culture in the United States.”
So, the spouses of Arab
ambassadors to the US enlisted the help of Miss
Armstrong to enlighten the American public about the
true nature of Islam, and our need to re-discover the
Arab world!
I don’t know what the
renowned speaker said in her 20 November lecture, but I
can share with the readers of FFI, the comments she had
made on 18 September, on Pope Benedict’s words relative
to Islam. They were published in the Guardian; I
am positive they provide us with an up-to-date idea of
Karen Armstrong’s campaign of disinformation. Here are
excerpts from the interview:
She began by
saying that “The Pope's remarks
were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that
the west is incurably Islamophobic
“Last week, Pope Benedict
XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent
approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine
emperor Manuel II: ‘Show me just what Muhammad 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.’ The Vatican seemed bemused by
the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope’s words,
claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended ‘to
cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the
other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards
Islam.’
“But the
Pope’s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of
Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western
culture that it brings together people who are usually
at daggers drawn. Neither the
Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive
caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor
the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a
paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common
cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they
are in full agreement.
[Emphasis is
mine, JT]
“Pope
Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany
the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It
is difficult to believe that his reference to an
inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely
accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from
the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his
predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more
desperately needed than ever.
Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his
remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince
more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and
engaged in a new crusade. [Emphasis is mine, JT]
“We simply cannot afford
this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many
people in the western world unconsciously share this
prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur'an are
addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact
violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed
this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as
typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really
were.
“With
disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces
every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet
until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant
and peaceful faith than Christianity.
The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion
in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as
coming from God; and despite the western belief to the
contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the
sword.
[Emphasis is mine, JT]
“The early
conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s
death were inspired by political rather than religious
aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century,
Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively
discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to
Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic
revelations of their own.* The
extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the
Muslim world in our own day are a response to
intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the
occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of
authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west’s
perceived ‘double standards’ - and not to an ingrained
religious imperative. [Emphasis is mine, JT]
“But the old myth of Islam as a
chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the
most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas
of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate.
Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back
into our old habits of projection.
As we see the violence - in Iraq,
Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of
responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame
it all on ‘Islam.’ But if we are feeding our prejudice
in this way, we do so at our peril.”
[Emphasis is mine, JT]
I leave it to the reader of the above
quotations, and especially those that appear in bold
characters, to judge about the reliability of Karen
Armstrong, as an “expert” on Islam. She excelled in
placing all the blame on us in the West, for the ills of
the Muslim world, both ancient and modern. I guess, if
she were interviewed today, 22 November 2006, she would
added that the West was also responsible for the brutal
assassination of
Pierre Gemayel, a minister in the
Lebanese cabinet. Really, there can be no end to
Karen Armstrong’s Campaign of
Disinformation!
*The real motive for
discouraging Jews and Christians from Islamizing was
that the Dhimmi people of the Islamic Empire were the
major source of income for the state. They had to pay
the jizya tax, and not only that, but do
it with all humility; thus acknowledging the superiority
of Islam!
~~~~~~ “You Call
It Evangelism? Then, What a Beautiful Evangelism It Is!”
Every now and then,
some Muslim intellectuals cannot help but admire the
actions of Christians, especially during the Christmas
season. They do that in spite of Islamic
hypersensitivity, that any Christian manifestation of
good will to all people, is interpreted as an attempt to
“evangelize.” On 26 December, 2006,
Elaph online published an article with this
title, “You Call It Evangelism? Then, What a
Beautiful Evangelism It Is!” Rather than add any
comments, I would share with you this Anglicized version
of this article.
“When I was a
very young boy, my parents would not allow me to
congratulate Christians during the Christmas season.
They claimed that it was kufr and heresy to offer
such greetings. When I grew up, the prohibition
continued; however, I decided to disregard it. I was not
convinced at all that to congratulate a person for a day
he considers sacred, should be regarded as against any
religion. On the contrary, I believe that it must be of
the very essence of any religion to congratulate others
during their own festivals. More than that, it would be
even better to participate in their joyful celebrations.
This is why I would like to congratulate Christians all
over the world, and greet them during this Christmas,
and wish them a Happy New Year. I would like also to
greet all Muslims and congratulate them on the occasion
of the blessed ‘Eed al-Adha.
It is noteworthy
that this year, both Christmas and ‘Eed al-Adha
happen to occur during the same time! What a wonderful
occasion if we got closer to one another!
“I say this,
having read yesterday in the newspaper “7 Days”,
which is published in Dubai, about an Italian clergyman
who has been living in the Emirates for more than three
decades. He is planning to have a big celebration at a
church in an area known as Jabal Ali, in Dubai.
He is inviting around 4,000 workers from Dubai, who do
not have any relatives. He wants them all to feel like
one family; so he is planning to give them a festive
meal. Buses have been chartered to bring them to the
church.
“The interesting
thing about Father Eugene, (the name of this Italian
clergyman,) is that the invitation is open to all
people, Christians as well as to followers of other
religions, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, etc.
“I respect Father
Eugene, and appreciate very much what he has done. As to
anyone who regards his initiative as “evangelism”
and similar to a ghoul ready to devour us; my
answer is he must be a beautiful ghoul that seeks
to create love among people, regardless of their color,
religion, or sect.
“Now look at us
Muslims. A Sunni will never greet a Shi’ite, nor seek to
get close to him, nor would invite him to his home,
whatever the occasion may be. We Muslims would never
invite Christians to share with us our festivities, at
our mosques or religious centers. God is exclusively
ours!
“So, let’s learn
a lesson from Father Eugene who says that God is for all
kinds of people and that the church is God’s household.
Therefore, Christmas is more than a religious occasion.
During this festive season, no one should remain hungry,
deprived, or lonely, regardless of his faith. Should
Father Eugene’s act be considered as “evangelism,”
let us Muslims emulate him, and “evangelize” in
the same way; rather than call others kafirs, or
even cut their heads off!
“Happy New Year
to all of you: Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and
Buddhists.”
|
