We are Against Hate, Not Faith

How Much Islam is Responsible for Making Muslims Terrorists

In my previous article “Fighting Against a Phantom” I wrote:

“Everyone who has a brush with Islam is at risk. Any Muslim can become a terrorist overnight. As long as people believe Muhammad was a messenger of God, they are at risk of contracting Islamic terrorist fever.”

Not everyone agreed. Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald of jihadwatch.org in a private email wrote: “‘any Muslim’ and ‘overnight’? I think too much is claimed”.

Let me respond to this concern and clarify my position. Of course not everyone who reads the Quran becomes a terrorist overnight. I said “can” not “will”.  In the same article I wrote:

“Many people are infected by HIV but only a few get AIDS. Many people are Muslims, but only a few become terrorists.”

There are several factors that have to be present and the Quran is one of them.

One factor is xenophobia or the distrust of the non-Muslims. Many Islamic countries actively and systematically promote the hatred of the Jews, the America and the West in general. You must see yourself as the victim and the non-Muslims as the oppressors in order to hate them enough to kill them. A great number of Muslims, perhaps the majority, are at this stage. Not all these Muslims are going to become terrorists, but a great majority of them are convinced that America and particularly the Jews are responsible for everything that is wrong in their lives. Just read what they write on the Internet and you’ll see their favorite line of “defense of Islam” is to blame the Jews and America .

The other factor that makes them vulnerable to become terrorists is being hit by a crisis. Personal problems, especially if they are experienced at youth, seem greater than they actually are and tend to make life look meaningless. During these crises people often seek spiritual guidance in their religions and some youngsters, out of desperation, may even commit suicide. Here is where the danger lies. When young Muslims in crisis seek spiritual guidance from their holy book, they expose themselves to the negative influnce of the Quran and the seed of becoming a jihadi aka terrorist is sown in their minds. Life is already meaningless; suicide does not seem like a bad idea. In Islam you can have your cake and eat it too. You can become a martyr – end your miserable life and gain the rewards of the afterlife too. This is like killing two birds with one stone.

Muslims are led to believe that America and especially the Jews who “run the world by proxy” (as the Malaysian PM, Dr. Mahathir said) are responsible for all their miseries. They see themselves as victims. Once they identify their alleged victimizers, they are ready to take their revenge – a revenge that is glorified by all the Muslims and is encouraged by God himself. Here is where the Quran provides them with “guidance” and confirmation. You take your revenge, you end our useless, worthless life, you will be hailed as a hero and you will go to paradise where a bevy of voluptuous celestial “virgin whores” in their see through lingerie is  waiting for you  to fulfill all your frustrated fantasies. Suddenly you can kiss goodbye all your failures and succeed. What a bargain! How can anyone refuse that?

But that is not all. You also need the support and encouragement of others. You may get cold feet. You need to be egged on, cheered and reconfirmed. This is readily available through mosques that incite hate and encourage martyrdom and the underground network of terrorism that rouse young Muslims to join their campaign of terror and become the next martyr. The whole Islamic ethos encourages you to become a martyr. You have the support of everyone. Jihad and martyrdom are the essence of Islam. Who is that Muslim who can oppose it?

Therefore to say that just by reading the Quran, loving Muslims become terrorists is not entirely true. A whole gamut of conditions must be present for that to happen.

Take the example of becoming infected by viruses. Two persons are exposed to the same virus; one become infected and the other doesn’t. Can we conclude that virus has nothing to do with the disease? Immunities vary from person to person. The person with less immunity will get infected while the one with stronger immunity will not. But ultimately it is the virus that makes people sick.

Likewise, not all those who read the Quran become terrorists. But when all the conditions are met, Muslims become vulnerable. It is like being soaked in gasoline. All it takes is a spark to be ignited and that is what the Quran provides. Others read the Quran and may not be affected. They are like wet wood. They hardly get ignited and worked out  by the hate laden verses of the Quran. But if all the conditions are met, every Muslim becomes vulnerable and can become a terrorist.

The problem is that all those conditions that prepare a Muslim to become a terrorist are also caused by the Quran. These conditions are not cultural, ethnic, political or economical. They are religious.  The hatred of the Jews and the non-Muslims has its roots in the Quran. Most of the crises that Muslim youth face, like lack of opportunity and loss of hope are also the result of the failure of Islam in solving the real problems of Muslims and particularly the youth.

One more factor that I did not mention but is very important is the lack of self-esteem and the prevalent feeling of worthlessness among Muslims, and Islam’s pedagogic fiasco in rearing confident, positive and successful humans. Terrorists are losers who seek their glory in martyrdom. That too is the direct consequence of the failure of Islamic paradigm.

Therefore, Islam does not only provide the ultimate spark, it also prepares Muslims throughout their lives to become failures, haters and terrorists. It gives them distorted values and trains them slowly to accept stupidity as a praiseworthy sacrifice and murder as a divine act.

Islam is entirely responsible for Islamic terrorism. If we fail to see that, we have failed in our diagnosis.


3 Responses to How Much Islam is Responsible for Making Muslims Terrorists

  1. Luckylarry says:



    بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
    A Wahhabi mentioned:
    Amirul Mu’mineen Mu’awiya ibn Abu Sufyan Radiya Allahu ‘anhu Siffin
    Muawiya felt that the killers of Amirul Mumineen Uthmaan RA (the fathers of Shiasm) should not be allowed to continue their evil against Islaam. He did not fight for personal power.
    ‘Ali did not hand over these assassins to Muawiya due to some sound and concrete proof that he possessed. Thus the people of Shaam joined forces with Muawiya against ‘Ali.”
    It is not surprising that this Wahhabi has overlooked what the Messenger of Allah (S) said about the fate of those who will fight Imam ‘Ali (as) which are recorded in what they call Sahih books, and stick to what is fabricated by the Leader of the Hypocrites (Amir al-Munafiqeen) Muawiyah (LA) himself. After all, I should not expect from their Wahhabi mentors to do better than that for bread and butter.
    The claim that Muawiyah raised against the legitimate Caliph of his time and killed thousands of Muslims to take revenge from the murderers of Uthman is a flat-out lie! Had Muawiyah this in mind, he should first kill the commander of his army and many of his assistants for the Sunni history testifies that those who killed Uthman were the companions who were on the side of Muawiyah (as well as other opponents of Imam ‘Ali).
    The fact is that any deceitful power-hungry leader needs to provide an excuse for his horrible acts, and this was not unique to Muawiyah. As we can see in the following Sunni references, those who agitated against Uthman were ones who came first to revenge for his blood with one aim in their mind, that was destroying the rule of Imam ‘Ali (as).
    Sunni historians confirm that the agitation against the Caliph started by some influential individuals among the companions. The weakness of Uthman in handing the affairs of the State caused many companions to oppose him. This naturally resulted in a power struggle among the influential companions in Medina. Sunni historians such as al-Tabari, Ibn Athir, and al-Baladhuri and many others provide traditions which confirm that these companions were the first who asked the other companions, resided in other cities, to join them in revolt against Uthman. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari reported:
    When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to other companions who were scattered throughout the frontier provinces: “You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad’s religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad’s religion.”Thus, they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph (Uthman).
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p184
    In fact al-Tabari quoted the above paragraph form Muhammad Ibn Is’haq Ibn Yasar al-Madani who is the most celebrated Sunni Historian and the author of “Sirah Rasool-Allah”.
    History testifies that those influential people who were the key element in agitation against Uthman include Talha, Zubair, Aisha (the mother of believers), Abdurrahman Ibn Ouf, and Amr Ibn al-Aas (the army commander of Muawiyah).
    A) Talha
    Talha Ibn Ubaydillah was one of the biggest agitator against Uthman and was the one who plotted his murder. He then used that incident for revenge against ‘Ali by starting the first civil war in the history of Islam (i.e., the battle of Camel). I just give few paragraphs from both of al-Tabari and Ibn Athir to prove my point. Here is the first one which is narrated by Ibn Abbas (in some manuscripts it is Ibn Ayyash):
    I entered Uthman’s presence (During the agitation against Uthman) and talked with him for an hour. He said: “Come Ibn Abbas/Ayyash,”and he took me by the hand and had me listen to what the people were saying at his door. We heard some say, “what are you waiting for,”while others were saying, “wait, perhaps he will repent.”While the two of us were standing there (behind the door and listening), Talha Ibn Ubaydillah passed by and said: “Where is Ibn Udays?”He was told, “He is over there.”Ibn Udays came to (Talha) and whispered something with him, and then went back to his associates and said: “Do not let anyone go in (to the house of Uthman) to see this man or leave his house.”
    Uthman said to me: “These are the orders of Talha.”He continued, “O God! Protect me from Talha for he has provoked all these people against me. By God, I hope nothing will come of it, and that his own blood will be shed. Talha has abused me unlawfully. I heard the Messenger of God said: ‘The blood of a Muslim is lawful in three cases: apostasy, adultery, and the one who kills except in legitimate retaliation for another.’ So why should I be killed?”
    Ibn Abbas/Ayyash continued: I wanted to leave (the house), but they blocked my path until Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr who was passing by requested them to let me go, and they did so.
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 199-200
    The following report also supports that the murder of Uthman was led by Talha, and the killers came out to inform their leader that they took care of Uthman:
    Abzay said: I witnessed the day they went in against Uthman. They entered the house through an opening in the residence of Amr Ibn Hazm. There was a skirmishing and they got in. By God, I have not forgotten that Sudan Ibn Humran came out and I heard him say: “Where is Talha Ibn Ubaydillah? We have killed Ibn Affan!”
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p200
    Uthman was besieged in Medina while Imam ‘Ali (as) was in Khaibar. The Imam (as) came to Medina and found people gathering at the residence of Talha. Then Imam ‘Ali (as) went to met Uthman. Ibn Athir wrote:
    Uthman said to ‘Ali: “You owe me my Islamic right and the right of brotherhood and relationship. If I have non of these rights and if I were in pre-Islamic era, it would be still shame for a descendants of Abd Munaf (of whom both ‘Ali and Uthman are descendants) to let a man of Tyme (Talha) rob us of our authority.”‘Ali said to Uthman: “You shall be informed of what I do.”Then ‘Ali went to Talha’s house. There were a lot of people there. ‘Ali spoke to Talha saying: “Talha, what is this condition in which you have fallen?”Talha replied: “O’ Abul Hasan! it is to late!”
    Sunni reference: al-Kamil, by Ibn Athir, v3, p84
    Tabari also reports the following conversation between Imam ‘Ali and Talha during the siege over Uthman:
    ‘Ali said to Talha: “I ask you by Allah to send people away from (attacking) Uthman.”Talha replied: “No, by God, not until the Umayad voluntarily submit to what is right.”(Uthman was the head of Umayad).
    Reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p235
    Talha even deprived Uthman of water:
    Abdurrahman Ibn al-Aswad said: “I constantly saw ‘Ali avoiding (Uthman) and not acting as he formerly had. However, I know that he spoke with Talha when Uthman was under siege, to the effect that water skins should be taken to him. ‘Ali was extremely upset (from Talha) about that until finally water skins were allowed to reach Uthman.”
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 180-181
    Now let us take a look at a report from the battle of Camel which has been mentioned in numerous Sunni books of History and Hadith. The following report proves that even the Umayad leaders such as Marwan who (along side with Talha) was fighting against Imam ‘Ali, knew that Talha and Zubair were the killers of Uthman. Sunni scholars recorded that Yahya Ibn Sa’id narrated:
    Marwan Ibn al-Hakam who was in the ranks of Talha, saw Talha is retreating (when his army was being defeated in the battlefield). Since he and all Umayad recognized him and al-Zubair as the murderers of Uthman, he shot an arrow at him and severely wounded him. He then said to Aban, the son of Uthman, that: “I have spared you from one of your father’s murderers.”Talha was taken to a ruined house in Basra where he died.
    Sunni references:
    - Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa’ad, v3, part 1, p159
    - al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, pp 532-533
    - History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p244
    - Usdul Ghabah, v3, pp 87-88
    - al-Isti’ab, Ibn Abd al-Barr, v2, p766
    - History of Ibn al-Kathir, v7, p248
    - A similar report is given in al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 169,371
    B) Al-Zubair
    al-Zuhri, another important Sunni narrator who is famous for his dislike of Ahlul-Bayt, reported the following dialogue of Imam ‘Ali with Zubair and Talha before the start of battle of Camel:
    “‘Ali said: ‘Zubair, do you fight me for the blood of Uthman after you killed him? May God give the most hostile to Uthman among us the consequence which that very person dislikes.’ He said to Talha:
    ‘Talha, you have brought the wife of the Messenger of God (Aisha) to use her for war and hid your wife at your house (in Medina)! Did you not give me your allegiance?’ Talha said: ‘I gave you the allegiance while the sword was on my neck.’
    (At this point, ‘Ali tried to invite them to peace, leaving them no excuse.) ‘Ali addressed his own army saying: ‘Who among you will display this Qur’an and what is in it to the opposing army with the understanding that if he loses one of his hand he will hold the Qur’an with his other hand…?’ A youth from Kufa said: ‘I will take the mission.’ ‘Ali went through his army offering them the mission. Only that youth accepted it. Then ‘Ali said to him: ‘Exhibit this Qur’an and say to them: It is between you and us from its beginning to its end.
    Remember God, and spare your blood and our blood.’ As the youth called upon them to resort to the Qur’an and surrender to its judgment, the Basrites army attacked and killed him. At this time, ‘Ali said to his army: ‘Now the fight has become legal.’ The battle then started.
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, Arabic version, Events of year 36 AH v4, p905
    As we see in the above tradition, Imam ‘Ali clearly stated that Zubair was among those who killed Uthman. Had the revolters elected Talha or Zubair instead of Imam ‘Ali (as) as Caliph, they would have given the killers of Uthman the biggest prize. Certainly the leaders did not seek revenge for the blood of Uthman, for they themselves were behind the plot. They only pretended to do that as a means of destroying the Imam’s caliphate.
    C) Aisha
    Talha and Zubair were not the only collaborators against Uthman. Sunni history tells us that Talha’s cousin, Aisha, was collaborating and campaigning against Uthman as well. The following paragraph also from the History of al-Tabari shows the cooperation of Aisha with Talha in overthrowing Uthman:
    While Ibn Abbas was setting out for Mecca, he found Aisha in al-Sulsul (seven miles south of Medina). Aisha said: “O’ Ibn Abbas, I appeal to you by God, to abandon this man (Uthman) and sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. (By the current siege over Uthman) people have shown their understanding, and light is raised to guide them. I have seen Talha has taken the possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph (after Uthman), he will follow the path of his parental cousin Abu-Bakr.”Ibn Abbas said: “O’ Mother (of believers), if something happens to that man (i.e., Uthman), people would seek asylum only with our companion (namely, ‘Ali).”Aisha replied: “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you.”
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 238-239
    Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah (sa). So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:
    “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”
    Sunni references:
    - History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
    - Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
    - al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
    - Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
    Another Sunni historian, al-Baladhuri, in his history (Ansab al-Ashraf) said that when the situation became extremely grave, Uthman ordered Marwan Ibn al-Hakam and Abdurrahman Ibn Attab Ibn Usayd to try to persuade Aisha to stop campaigning against him. They went to her while she was preparing to leave for pilgrimage, and they told her:
    “We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman) through you.”Aisha said: “I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request… I wish he (Uthman) was in one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea.”
    Sunni reference: Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, part 1, v4, p75
    D) Amr Ibn Al-Aas
    Amr Ibn al-Aas (the number 2 person in the government of Muawiyah) was one of the most dangerous agitators against Uthman and he had all the reasons to conspire against him. He was the governor of Egypt during the reign of the second Caliph. However, the third Caliph dismissed him and replaced him with his foster brother, Abdullah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abu Sharh. As a result of this, Amr became extremely hostile towards Uthman.
    He returned to Medina and started a malicious campaign against Uthman, accusing him of many wrong doings. Uthman blamed Amr and spoke to him harshly. This made Amr even more bitter. He used to meet Zubair and Talha and conspire against Uthman. He used to meet pilgrims and inform them of the numerous deviations of Uthman.
    According to Tabari, when Uthman was besieged, Amr settled in the palace of al-Ajlan and used to ask from people about the situation of Uthman: ..Amr had not left his seat before a second rider passed by. Amr called him out: “How is Uthman doing?”The man replied: “He has been killed.”Amr then said: “I am Abu Abdillah. When I scratch an ulcer, I cut it off. (i.e., when I desire an object, I attain it). I have been provoking (people) against him, even the shepherd on the top of mountains with his flock.”
    Then Salamah Ibn Rawh said to him: “You, the Quraishites, have broken a strong tie between yourselves and the Arabs. Why did you do that?”Amr replied: “We wanted to draw the truth out of the pit of falsehood, and to have people be on an equal ooting as regards the truth.”
    Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 171-172
    The divider of Muslims ignored what is well known in the history of Islam which was reported by important Sunni reporters. The revolt against Uthman was as a result of the efforts of influential companions in Medina, such as Aisha, Talha, Zubair, Aburrahman Ibn Ouf, and Amr Ibn al-Aas. The murder of Uthman provided a nice scapegoat for those who were fighting over more power, while serving under the government of Uthman. They were mainly his relatives, the Umayad, such as Muawiyah and Marwan, who thoroughly took advantage of Uthman’s life as well as his death.
    Imam ‘Ali said in the battle of Camel:
    “Truth and falsehood can not be identified by the virtue of people. First understand the truth, you will then realize who is adhering to it.”(Nahjul Balaghah, by Imam ‘Ali)
    إنَّ الحقَّ و الباطل لا يعرفان بأقدارِ الرجال. إعرف الحق تعرف أهله.
    • A) Talha
    • B) Al-Zubair
    • C) Aisha
    • D) Amr Ibn Al-Aas

  2. Luckylarry says:


    The Truth about ISLAM: in its own words

    In the words of the prophet Muhammad.

    Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.”
    Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.”
    Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”


    Islamic leaders and politicians constantly tell us in English that “Islam is a peaceful religion”, but one can’t help wondering if they would say it quite so often if they were absolutely sure it was true.

    Some recorded massacres of Muslim history:

    On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughtered its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was apparently incited by Muslim preachers that had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power. Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco. Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

    Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854¬859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Qur’an’s purported prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344). Some escaped, but the Jews of Arabia who remained were pretty much completely wiped out. Islamic revisionists claim they were killed because they were literally asking for it, is their apologetic rubbish propaganda. These Islamic revisionists (Islamaniacs) claim that the Jews demanded it as per their own law. I mean that’s like the Nazis claiming they were only accommodating the Jews demand to get warm by the ovens. Like Goebbels said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is for others to believe it.

    In the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad and Dhimmitude were firmly established by the 8th century. Perhaps the pre-eminent Islamic scholar in history, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

    In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

    Between 1894-96, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 (Dhimmi) Christian Armenians, followed by the first formal genocide of the 20th century, in 1915, at which time they slaughtered an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians. Contemporary accounts from European diplomats confirm that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal Jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of Dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. Regarding the 1894-96 massacres, the Turkish-speaking interpreter of the British embassy reported:

    …[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the “rayah” [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians…”

    The scholar Bat Yeor confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their “legal status,” which involved a “contract” (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers).

    This …breach…restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…
    In the following chronology, note how closely Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims…. Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace, but all historical facts seem to discredit that claim rather convincingly.

    Chronology of early Islam

    • 570 – Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish.
    • 577 – Muhammad’s mother dies.
    • 595 – Muhammad marries, starts to have children.
    • 605 – Placement of Black Stone in Ka’aba.
    • 610 – Mohammed, in a cave, hears an angel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
    • 613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
    • 615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraysh.
    • 619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha
    • 620 – Institution of five daily prayers .
    • 622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, gets more converts.
    • 623 – Battle of Waddan
    • 623 – Battle of Safwan
    • 623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir
    • 624 – Raids on caravans to fund the movement begin.
    • 624 – Zakat becomes mandatory
    • 624 – Battle of Badr
    • 624 – Battle of Bani Salim
    • 624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr & Zakat-ul-Fitr
    • 624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’
    • 624 – Battle of Sawiq
    • 624 – Battle of Ghatfan
    • 624 – Battle of Bahran
    • 625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.
    • 625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
    • 625 – Battle of Banu Nadir
    • 625 – Battle of Dhatul-Riqa
    • 626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra
    • 626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
    • 626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
    • 627 – Battle of the Trench
    • 627 – Battle of Ahzab
    • 627 – Battle of Bani Qurayza
    • 627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan
    • 627 – Battle of Ghaiba
    • 627 – Battle of Khaibar
    • 628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish. (The 628 Al-Hudaybiyya agreement, between the Prophet and the Meccan tribe of Quraish, was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims. The agreement was broken after 18 months, Muhammad’s army then conquered Mecca)
    • 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca.
    • 630 – Battle of Hunain.
    • 630 – Battle of Tabuk
    • 632 – Muhammad dies. The reign of the Caliphs begins.
    • 632 – Abu-Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
    • 633 – Battle at Oman
    • 633 – Battle at Hadramaut.
    • 633 – Battle of Kazima
    • 633 – Battle of Walaja
    • 633 – Battle of Ulleis
    • 633 – Battle of Anbar
    • 634 – Battle of Basra,
    • 634 – Battle of Damascus
    • 634 – Battle of Ajnadin.
    • 634 – Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
    • 634 – Battle of Namaraq
    • 634 – Battle of Saqatia.
    • 635 – Battle of Bridge.
    • 635 – Battle of Buwaib.
    • 635 – Conquest of Damascus.
    • 635 – Battle of Fahl.
    • 636 – Battle of Yermuk.
    • 636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.
    • 636 – Conquest of Madain.
    • 637 – Battle of Jalula.
    • 638 – Battle of Yarmouk.
    • 638 – The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
    • 638 – Conquest of Jazirah.
    • 639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
    • 641 – Battle of Nihawand
    • 642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia
    • 643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan
    • 644 – Conquest of Fars
    • 644 – Conquest of Kharan.
    • 644 – Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
    • 647 – Conquest of Cypress island.
    • 644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
    • 648 – Byzantine campaign begins.
    • 651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.
    • 654 – Islam spreads into North Africa
    • 656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
    • 658 – Battle of Nahrawan.
    • 659 – Conquest of Egypt
    • 661 – Ali is murdered.
    • 662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.
    • 666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims
    • 677 – Siege of Constantinople
    • 687 – Battle of Kufa
    • 691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
    • 700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.
    • 700 – Military campaigns in North Africa
    • 702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira
    • 711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar
    • 711 – Conquest of Spain
    • 713 – Conquest of Multan
    • 716 – Invasion of Constantinople
    • 732 – Battle of Tours in France.
    • 740 – Battle of the Nobles.
    • 741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
    • 744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.
    • 746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha
    • 748 – Battle of Rayy.
    • 749 – Battle of lsfahan
    • 749 – Battle of Nihawand
    • 750 – Battle of Zab
    • 772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa
    • 777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain
    Undeniably, Christians have in the past also committed despicable acts in the name of God, and in recent history the Serbia conflicts and the Protestant-Catholic Northern-Ireland clashes stand out as examples. But there are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between those crimes and the acts committed in Islam’s name.
    The first difference is that the unfortunate events were limited in both time and scope, they had an end.
    The second distinction is that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation of scriptural teaching and the example of Christ, not in fulfilment of it, as in Islam.
    The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes. To expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam’s founding in the 7th century, is to expect them to jettison core values of their faith — something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history. Although nowadays nothing seems less tolerated than pessimism, yet in relation to Islam this attitude is in fact simply just realism.

  3. Ishtar says:

    Hello, Dr. Ali Sina. How are you?

    I was about to chat with someone til I visited his profile and read things which are very annoying and made me close the chat window before we introduced each other.:P Here is some of what he wrote (I copy paste):

    “I like the answer of Dr. Zakir Naik (a Muslim scholar), when he was asked about terrorism and islam:
    * He said: who started the 1st world war? Muslims?
    * who start 2nd world war? Muslims?
    * who killed 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia? Muslims?
    * who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Muslims?
    * who killed more than 100 millions of indian in North America? Muslims?
    * who killed more than 50 millions of indian in south America? Muslims?
    * who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88 % of them died and was thrown in Atlantic ocean? Muslims?
    ****No ,they were not muslims!!!

    If he asked those questions to you, what would be your answers? Thank you in advance.

Leave a reply


Win $50,000 if you can refute Ali Sina's Claim


A Priceless Comic Book!

Read it for Free