Prophet Muhammad to Imam Feisal: Islam’s Peace-Builders by the Sword
Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.
Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. Ask a Muslim: He/she will tell you that Islam brought true peace, equality, justice, human rights and liberty to mankind. Muhammad set the tone of this peaceable core of Islam through a charter of peace, the so-called Covenant of Medina, through which he established a peaceful cohesive state in Medina, where the rights of followers of all faiths were ensured. Extending this peaceful mission, he united the fractious and bickering uncivilized Bedouin tribes of Arabia, upon which was founded the world’s greatest empire and civilization, within which people of all faiths lived in peace, harmony and equality. Not only Muslims, but also non-Muslim historians, often of the Marxist leaning, would tell you so. So says Ibn Warraq, albeit regrettably (Why I Am Not A Muslim, p. 198):
Open any modern introductory book on Islam and the chances are you will find that it begins by singing the praises of a people who conquered, in an incredibly short period, half the civilized world—of a people who established an empire that stretched from the banks of the Indus in the east to the shores of the Atlantic in the West. The volume will recount in positively glowing terms a time when Muslims ruled over a vast population of diverse peoples and cultures.
Indeed, Muhammad invited the people of Arabia, even the rulers of Persia, Byzantium and Egypt amongst others, to unite under this prophethood and leadership. And, to that end, he founded an imperial Islamic state in Arabia, which would be the launching pad for the expansion of Islamic rule to far corners of the world.
But how was this so-called unity and peace was achieved? Let us first look at the Covenant of Medina, allegedly Muhammad’s first agreement of peace and pluralistic coexistence with infidels, namely Jews and Polytheists of the city.
One must bear in mind that this covenant was signed less than one year after Muhammad’s immigration there as a refugee. This covenant was dictated by, or written out from, Allah and Muhammad. It puts Muhammad as the ruler of the city, without whose permission, no-one, Muslim or non-Muslim, could go to war; the Jews and Polytheists of Medina must not protect the Quryash of Mecca, whom Muhammad had resolved to put to the sword; life of Muslims must be avenged, but not of non-Muslims, killed by a Muslim. Within a year of coming to Medina, Muhammad was offering the native non-Muslims of the city of such terms, demanding complete submission and subjugation to his authority. If they failed, concluded the document: “Loyalty is a protection against treachery”. that means, if the native non-Muslims didn’t show submission to Muhammad with complete loyalty, treachery will be unleashed: that is, the covenant would be thrown away and they would be treacherously attacked.
This is the model Muhammad had set forth for Muslims to follow through eternity, and there is a complete resemblance between this and Imam Feisal’s campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque; we will come to it later.
In like manner, Muhammad, when became increasingly powerful in men and swords, offered proposals to other communities and nations to submit to him with offer of peace and security of their life and property. Let us see what Muhammad wrote to the kings of Oman:
‘Embrace Islam and you shall be safe… If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy.’
That is, to be safe and keep your kingship, embrace Islam; else my forces would enter your backyard and wreak destruction upon you.
While writing for submission to Heraclius of Byzantium, the world’s most powerful emperor, just fresh from defeating the Persians in Palestine, Muhammad couldn’t be so threatening, in order to avoid an attack. So, he wrote to Heraclius in a somewhat mild language (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 655):
‘If you accept Islam you will be safe; if you accept Islam, Allah will give you double reward; if you turn back, the sin of the husbandmen will be upon you.’
That means, to be safe and rewarded, accept Islam; if not, you will be responsible for misguiding your people.
Here Muhammad couldn’t threaten him with punishment by sending his forces to attack him, not at this point in time, when he was so weak.
Here is the “prince of peace” of Muslims, the message of whose peace-overtures was: To buy safety and security, the infidels must embrace Islam, submit to his leadership and prophethood, or else, the swords would be drawn.
Later on, we witness Caliph Omar using the same mode of peace-overtures. Demanding submission to Islam, he wrote to the Shah of Iran:
Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option.
Down to our time, Imam Feisal, the man behind of the Ground Zero mosque project, plus his Muslim horde in the West, including great intellectual Fareed Zakaria (see why), are trying to use the same template of action or modus operandi—in the context of time and reality, of course.
Imam Feisal has emerged as a champion builder of peace and harmony between Muslims and the infidels. In words, he shoots bombastic propaganda of building peace and tolerance, but, in substance, he sends out the message of drawing out the sword, if submission and subjugation to his Islamic agenda is not realized.
His latest agenda is building a giant mosque close to the Ground Zero of 9/11 attacks, as part of his so-called mission of building interfaith tolerance and peace between Islamic and the Western world, between Muslims and Westerners. His weird logic is that building such an elegant mosque at the 9/11 Ground Zero site would foster peace and harmony between Muslims and Western infidels, would help incline Muslims more toward peace, and blunt the messages of al-Qaeda-minded Muslims.
We may forget that almost every terrorist attacks and plots in the past decade in the West, from 9/11 to Fort Hood, have been linked to radicalization of the perpetrators in mosques, that, in Islamic countries, mosques and madrasas are breeding grounds for Islamic fanatics and terrorists.
In the mildest of sense, a mosque is symbol of Islam, a symbol of Islamization. More the mosque, the elegant the mosque, the greater is Islamization, the dominance of Islam in that place. In other words, a giant mosque at the Ground Zero would represent the rising dominance of Islam in the New York City—plain and simple.
Moreover, from Islam’s inception, mosques have been built to declare political supremacy of Islam over other faiths. Muhammad started it in Arabia, by destroying the churches, synagogues and temples of non-Muslim communities, the Pagan’s Ka’ba Temple turned into the Ka’ba Mosque being the shining example. Since then, every place Muslim have conquered, they have destroyed their most revered places of worship and built at their places giant mosques to declare Islam’s political and religious supremacy over the conquered infidels. Moving on from Mecca, the most famous churches in Cordoba (Spain) and Istanbul, the most revered Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, to the greatest Hindu temple of Rama Mandir in Ayodhya—all have been taken over and desecrated or destroyed, and famous mosques have been built in their stead.
In that sense, mosques represent a symbol of terror and humiliation to non-Muslims. How can, then, a mosque at the Ground Zero foster tolerance and peace between Americans and Muslims?
Most importantly, the al-Qaeda terrorists, who brought down the World Trade Center at the Ground Zero, did so because they want to establish a global Islamic Caliphate by subjugating the infidels to Islamic dominance through intimidation and terror. The most desirable thing on earth they would dream to see is a mosque build at the prime places of infidel powers around the world. A mosque at the World Trade Center or the White House would be the most desirable, dreamable, thing they ever want to see being built. Imam Feisal’s Ground Zero mosque would become a reality what the 9/11 attack terrorists, masterminds and their like-minded Islamic radicals could only dream. It’s a dream come true for the al-Qaeda Jihadis.
One is left to wonder, then, how a “dream-comes-true” event for the Islamic militants would help blunt their mission to commit similar acts that made their dream comes true.
Weird as it may seem to infidels (except some leftist liberals), but most logical to Islamists like Feisal and Fareed Zakaria, what is interesting about this mosque-building campaign is: how they are trying to push it down the throat of Americans with veiled threats, like those of Muhammad, albeit with modern subtlety, understandably given the reality. He warned America on CNN that
Americans must remember that what we do is watched all over the world… Our national security, our personal security, is extremely important. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.
In other words, if the Imam’s expectation, nay better say his command, an Islamizing one, is not met, he threatened America with violence. Just as did Muhammad to the people of Medina and the kings of Oman, Byzantium, Persia and others: that is, accept what we want here at 9/11 Ground Zero; else, be prepared for the sword, i.e. violence from Muslims.
What is needed for true tolerance and peace building is blunting exactly this mode of Muslim thinking that has been in force from Muhammad down to Imam Feisal. And the result has been untold Muslim-to-infidel intolerance, violence and barbarism—history being the proof.
What is needed for true peace-building between Muslims and non-Muslims is to make Muslims in the Islamic world tolerate non-Muslims, give them religious freedom and equal rights; let them build houses of worship—churches, synagogues and temples freely in Muslim countries—which remains almost impossible even in highly moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh. For true peace-building, there is a need to build churches, synagogues and temples in Mecca, Medina, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Maldives and other Islamic countries, freely and without fear.
Obviously Imam Feisal is not going to propose or lead such initiatives. He wants a giant, elegant mosque at the most sensitive place in America to declare the rise of Islam. For Muslim readers, he titled his book, written in reaction to the barbaric 9/11 attacks by Muslim terrorists, as A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawah from the Heart of America Post 911. Historically Muslim invaders, after barbaric attacks on infidel nations, built mosques at their most central, sensitive and revered places for the Islamic call to prayer, call to Islam, a.k.a. Dawah. His book, as it appears, represented his desire to implement that old modus operandi of Islamic invaders, by transforming the Ground Zero into a pulpit for Dawah, call to Islamic prayers. His campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque a decade later is his resolute attempt to realize that blueprint, that dream. And to achieve it in the face of mounting opposition from Americans, he is adopting Muhammad’s tactic: that is, agree and submit to what we want or else the swords would be unsheathed, in this case, in the form of violence by Muslims against America.
Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter en masse of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.
Actions of Muhammad, the most perfect man and the best apostle of Allah, are examples for Muslims to emulate for eternity to live the perfect Muslim life. Feisal Abdul Rauf, a devout follower of Muhammad and an Imam at that, could only follow Muhammad, not do otherwise.
–
M. A. Khan is author of “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialiam, and Slavery”
Posted by M. A. Khan
on September 19 2010. Filed under Islamic Jihad.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
The big blunder of Americans was choosing islam appeaser or preacher obama as president.
Whatever imam rauf said was suit to obama's plan i.e to destroy America from within.
This guy will give all American power and your technology achievements to Arabs.
You and your government people only think about money,money and hedonic way of life, you have nomore spirit of nationality and human dignity.
You don't want to learn history of islam expansion which full of bloodshed.
And you don't even want to learn your own history.
You have nomore the spirit of Daniel Boone or Paul Revere.
You all become cowards to pursue hedonic way of life.
Now you get the result of your blunder.
Your future life with islamic environment will not going easy……it will going worse, worse and worst.
To all ground zero supporters,
First, tolerance and freedom must have the benefit and the compromise in both sides. As a muslim you have to tolerate the painful feeling of Americans and as Americans you have to tolerate other religions. The balance must exist in order to have a peace. But as usual, the muslim’s side doesn’t do it at all while Americans had done many things in religious freedom.
Fill this into your brains and think before complaining:
Tolerance:
- American: done, mosques are everywhere with no problem, they even tolerate everything on sight, maybe some day Neo Nazi and Communism will be given one.
- Muslim: not done, neglecting the tragedy of 9/11 and the condition of minorities in Islamic countries. Well, as usual the muslims who need to do their homework.
Second, that name “Cordoba” is really annoying. Ah, maybe a positive thinking people will say, it’s the symbol of unity of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in Spain. Think positive, act positive, and sweep it all as innocent meaning, what a beautiful world we live in. Oh, wait a minute, only these three religions? What about others? Go figure liberals. Cordoba of Spain and the mosque was the result of an invasion and the “peace” was under Islamic Caliphate. Ouch, so this was a symbol of invasion and after that Caliphate was formed then ruled over other 2 Abrahamic religions as per Quran instruction. All is clicked into one. Oh, “positive” thinking doesn’t stop there, maybe just maybe, this means an interfaith dialogue between Islam and the West because the Mosque remnant was in Spain (the west?). No, this doesn’t make sense. The mosque was gone and replaced by Church so the time mentioned is the past not the present. This Feisal Abdul Rauf surely didn’t use this symbol of mosque destruction, did he? Rather, he used the mosque in the past when Islam conquered Spain, yes conquer. No gentle shake hand, cultural exchange, or peaceful meeting. His persistence to use the name is odd enough and doesn’t deserve any tolerance point. History tells us that when Islam met the “west” there was no peace but war and if there is a remnant in Spain that was the result of re-conquering not hand shaking. He picked the wrong name or he did it on purpose? Only Rauf knows. Now, if he wanted an interfaith dialogue and “cultural” center for peace he could do it anywhere and there are many alternatives to reach that purpose, why did he pick this? What was his consideration? America also doesn’t need any interfaith dialogue because freedom of religion is already there unlike Islamic countries. So it goes like this:
Islamic Center + Mosque => Islamic information such as Quran and other traditions for westerners (with soft English translations and deceptive interpretations) => Peace (Islamic) or conversion? => If it’s for peace then it’s useless in fully secular nation like USA => if it’s for conversion then…
He is doing useless thing, not to mention the funding problem. Interfaith understanding must be supported with the example of muslim countries as a concrete proof that Islam is possible to understands different lifestyles and lives side by side with others. Can any liberals or muslims provide me with the real example? I challenge you all.
One statement came from CT analyst in NY about the possibility of recruitment in “radical” Islamists (keep protecting Islam as always) because majority of Americans reject the Islamic Center and he quoted statement like “America is revealing its ugly face” as a reason to get more “radical” recruits. We all know how these Islamists think, I mean not just the “radical” one but also the “not yet radicalized”. To them all things that against Islam means ugly. They will never care how many mosques or freedom given to muslims in America and with just one mosque and sensitive feeling over a tragedy, they already called it “ugly face”. If this is an ugly face then what about Islamic countries, a super double ugly disgusting and repulsive face? Every muslim has the possibility to radicalize themselves with just reading Quran and hadith, so as usual the cause was never touched making the problem to be “never ending” scenario and liberals love that because they can get in action very often.
Do you know typical Indonesian joke when the comedian doesn’t “realize” his own face in the mirror then screams and says “whose face is this, it’s so ugly”, or “there is satan in the mirror”? That’s what has happened between muslim and American in the matter of religions. Muslim said, “American, you are ugly, LOL”, then the American brought the mirror and gave it to the muslim. The muslim did exactly the same as the comedian (assuming he still has common sense and not “radicalized”).
Third, this case happens only in Islam, why? No other religions in present day had committed this act of controversy and name picking but these liberals and “neutral” people keep thinking all religions are the same (this is called “taking side” not “neutral”). One similar controversy was made by Japanese Prime Minister for honoring the deceased “war heroes” while to Chinese, Koreans, and other victims they were nothing more than war criminals. This is called insensitive gesture and if the victims don’t like it then it’s a normal reaction not an “ugly face”. It’s true that humans can’t look their own faces but can easily look others. We need a “mirror” to balance things out but that “mirror” is very hard to get. The liberal thinking is really funny, because in one place they worry about the radical’s increasing trend but in another place busy defending the cause behind it all by allowing Islam (the intolerance and absolute ideology) to enter USA. It’s a well known fact that they themselves who allowed “radicals” to enter USA and created western “radical” muslims. How can a western people go against their own nations? It’s because Islam itself, but again the liberals are pretending to be blind. It’s truly a paradox and it seems that “freedom” in America has gone beyond anything and will self destruct anytime in the future which is not the case in other non muslim countries.
Islamic critics such as this site don’t attack the human (muslim) most of the time but the ideology (Islam) and liberals do the opposite, they attack the human (radical muslim) and keep pointing their dirty finger to the critics as being racist (attacking the human). The same also applies to muslims, they keep accusing “don’t hate muslim”, “don’t practice racism”, etc while they themselves are doing it by attacking “radicals” and consider them as closed aliens (never admit that transformation to radical/fundamental version is pretty easy). I also notice that liberals never define what fundamentalism really is, because if they do that Islam will get caught. That’s the usual media propaganda everywhere and people are poisoned with it. Is a hate on non living thing like Islam worse than a hate on living human?
Islam itself is a racist ideology. It gives new “national” identity to the followers as “muslim” and create the special world called “muslim world” separated from the rest of the world and calling others as kafir, unclean, inferior, and destined to hell. Is this not racism? Oh, I forgot that they don’t have a mirror, my bad.