Love for Life

THE NEW JIHAD: EXPLORING THE GLOBAL RESURGENCE OF MILITANT ISLAM
A book by Harrell Rhome, M.Div., Ph.D.
THE NEW JIHAD: EXPLORING THE GLOBAL RESURGENCE OF MILITANT ISLAM

[Note: Use above link to view a map of the Islamic Terrorist Network in America including the book]

Harrell Rhome is an investigative researcher and writer. He writes occasionally for newpapers and journals such as Journal of Cultural Review, Patriot Report, Eagle Newsletter, Wisconsin Report, Contact, Revisionist Observer, Freebooter Newsletter, several Internet web sites; additionally, Rhome is a Contributing Editor of The Barnes Review historical journal, speaking to their conference in 2002 on "Islam and Zionism: Two Natiionalistic Forces In Inevitable Conflict".

DUE TO NUMEROUS REQUESTS, THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THIS TIMELY BOOK ON ISLAM IS NOW AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE.

Once you have read all or some of the book, we invite your comments. Click on the e-mail link at the very end of this web page, last button on the right.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

One: Ignorance (Lack Of Knowledge) And Arrogance (Being Too Proud To Realize Or Care) Are A Dangerous And Deadly Duo

Two: Understanding “The Religion Of Peace And Submission” (Al-Islam) And Its Founder, Apostle And Prophet, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah

Three: The Koran (“The Recitation” Or “The Copy”) And The Hadiths (“The Traditions”)

Four: Who Is The Deity Called Allah?

Five: Islam And Other Religions

Six: The Major Divisions And Practices of Islam

Seven: Islam And Zionism: Opposing Forces, But With A Common Foe?

Eight: Islam And The Theology of Violence

Nine:Islam Versus The West: The Roots Of The Rage

Ten: Wahhabist Islam And The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia: The Original Seedbed Of Islamic Extremism

Eleven: Responding to Islamic Issues

[The footnotes in the first version of the book have been converted to in-text references, and are set off in brackets, which seem to make for easier reading.]

FOREWORD

"Journalism is writing history while it is happening. The very act of reporting is crucial. News, if unreported, has no impact. It might as well not have happened at all."

This book contains historical and present-day facts as well as the author’s analysis and opinions. It is a broad overview, and should not be seen as an encyclopedic compendium. Every effort is made to provide documentation so that The New Jihad serves as a general reference and challenge for further study. Because of the controversial nature of the topic itself, it goes without saying that all readers may not agree. The book rightly begins with a controversy, one surrounding its name. What is jihad? Is it just a word meaning personal striving and struggling with life? Is it the life of a “suicide/homicide” bomber? Or is it ever so much more complex? Moreover, why is the truth on such matters so obscured? This book is a cultural, theological, and geopolitical commentary on the renascence and reshaping of Islam in the modern era, especially the manifestations of violence stemming from sects dedicated to militant, expansionist Islamist doctrines and concepts of history. The book is not an “attack” on Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other religion, but it certainly can be characterized as “critical” and perhaps even “caustic”. My book is presented in the spirit of open debate unfettered by ideology. Every writer has a bias or two, and so do I, but I make little pretense of hiding mine. All the same, if I am accused of such things as “anti-this or anti-that” -- or perhaps “blasphemy” -- then I suppose that such words are not really all that surprising. If you don’t like controversy and challenge, if such disturbs your “ground of being”, then by all means, please stop here!

BUT -- if you truly disagree with my commentary and analysis, then dispense with my opinions altogether at any particular point in your reading – just focus on the data presented about Islam. And as to my sources --again, if you want, throw them all out! Get on the Web, go to a library and find completely different books and articles on Islam (the Internet and the press are full of them). On top of that, get whatever translations you want of the Koran and the Hadiths and the Islamist philosophers of yesterday and today – all the better, read them in Arabic if you can. You can find several versions set up with search engines on the www. But when you are complete, e-mail at EagleNewsTips@aol.com (or at link provided at end of this web page) and tell me precisely where you differ as to the factual data (not the opinions) presented in this book about the religious faith and international cultural-political movement known as “The Religion of Submission” or if you prefer a slightly different translation, “The Religion of Peace”.

But please note! -- Any Fatwas should be forwarded to Salman Rushdie, as he has much more experience than I in dealing with such matters.

So climb aboard for the “ride”. Even though you may not like my “driving” at times, I promise a fascinating journey, with an outlandish cast of characters, and over some very exotic terrain.

CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH SIX: A SURVEY OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION
CHAPTER ONE

IGNORANCE (LACK OF KNOWLEDGE) AND ARROGANCE (BEING TOO PROUD TO REALIZE OR CARE) ARE A DANGEROUS AND DEADLY DUO

ISLAM IS SUDDENLY A VERY “HOT” SUBJECT, AND…
34,000 AMERICANS HAVE CONVERTED TO ISLAM SINCE 9-11!

Try finding something at a book store or library. It will likely be harder than you think. Anything about Islam, especially copies of The Koran, are selling out fast, and libraries are swamped with requests for anything on the subject. Demand is at an all-time high in the wake of 9-11 Day. Some are trying to make sense out of what’s going on and trying to make sense of our rather dedicated enemies. On the other hand, reliable sources astoundingly report (WorldNetDaily) and several others; all cite Islamic sources) that since 9-11 Day, over 34,000 Americans have converted to Islam! This is an incredible figure, and far exceeds either the previous results or the wildest hopes of those who brought the desert religion of “The Submission” (Islam) to the Americas. Are these new converts all “foreigners”? No, they are not. Islam, with its egalitarian, internationalist sense of destiny and community, has believers from all races and backgrounds, including not only American blacks, but whites and even Hispanics as well. John Walker Lindh was not the first nor will he be the last “white Taliban” as others (including black Americans) have come before him and are in place right now. We should be concerned about this man, not because of his radical beliefs, but because of his treatment as an American citizen. While not our topic, it would seem that the Constitution no longer applies to him – or me or you. As the rather crude reactions to the existence of such as John Walker Lindh show, America is neither ready nor willing to confront this rather uncomfortable fact about the worldwide Islamic network – even moreover, its basic appeal to many and varied people. What is this all about? Why are Americans attracted to Islam? And what is this “religion of peace and submission to Allah” really all about?

There appears to be a vast disparity between the information and positions of “our” government and the facts of the matter. For instance, we are told that the 9-11 Attacks were “like Pearl Harbor,” but is this true? In most cases, the analogy is false, and fails to hold up to scrutiny. For instance, after Pearl Harbor, literally millions of American men lined up at recruiting offices to join any branch of the armed services that wanted them. Today, we have had an all volunteer military system for many years. But after 9-11, the statistics show that the recruitment levels have hardly changed at all. Americans are obviously not responding as they did over 60 years ago. Moreover, if 34,000 Americans had joined the German-American Bund or converted to Japanese Shinto, what would Americans of 1941 have thought about their country’s chances of overcoming the powers against them? Ask someone who was around in 1941 if this is not the case. The 9-11 Attacks have nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, and the reactions are completely different, but Americans seem reluctant to confront such an absolute falsehood and misrepresentation. It is one of the purposes of this book to dispel such obvious and blatant propaganda.

Consequently, this book is about some very uncomfortable questions – and some possibly equally uncomfortable answers – that we can no longer afford to ignore. It is essentially and intrinsically designed NOT to be just another “talking head” piece or cheap paperback rushed out for a quick buck. While I have only now brought any of it into print, I have been interested in Islam and Arabic history, as well as the history of Palestine, for a long time. I did not begin my research with a dislike for Islam as I admired its stand against global financial exploitation and unfair policies in Palestine, but as happens on many journeys, I encountered much more than I initially expected.

An assumption behind my writing is best expressed by that master manipulator, and America’s first “president for life”, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“IN POLITICS, NOTHING EVER HAPPENS ACCIDENTALLY. IF SOMETHING OCCURS, YOU CAN BE SURE THAT IT WAS PLANNED THAT WAY.”

The basic goal, the raison d’etre, of my all my writing is to stimulate readers to think for themselves, but moreover, to think investigatively -- i.e., beneath the surface of current (and past) events. Nothing (or very little) is as it seems to be. Here again, I know I will be called a “conspiracy theorist”. Americans are particularly vulnerable -- due to the intentionally dumbed down “school system”, now quite well-entrenched -- to a psychological condition where they know little more than (and sometimes not even that) which is presented in our contrived and controlled “free media”. Observing from my former experiences as a psychologically-trained and licensed professional counselor, most Americans seem willing to blindly follow what they are told by “leaders” and “commentators”, even when this media culture often contradicts itself and blatantly errs in its “objective reporting”. Not only that, “objective opinion polls” say that the public gives an alleged 90% “approval rating” for George W. Bush, part, parcel, and product of the same family that gave us “Bush War One” in the Persian Gulf, yet another war which did nothing to solve (and actually increased) the regional problems and anti-American alienation. I maintain Sadaam Hussein is in power because the “leaders” of the Western World Order chose for him to remain in place. Why, exactly, I do not know, and while intriguing and well worth mentioning in passing, this is not the subject of my book.

WHO IS THE “ENEMY”?

We have, like dutiful “patriots”, waved our newly-purchased flags and decals, and lined up to enlist in the “war against terrorism”, often expressing our worst and most violent feelings, and yet we wonder why the rest of the world doesn’t see us as peaceful and beneficial – as we prefer to see ourselves. We truly “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. Suddenly, the complex and misunderstood new/old enemy is arrogantly dismissed in Bush Babble sound bites as “evil cowards” who “hate freedom” with “medieval minds”. In being obedient, good little “patriots”, we have dutifully lined up and followed our leaders into what may already be World War Three. In this “war on terrorism”, we have identified an “enemy”. GWB tells us “Islam is not our enemy”, but almost everything else we are told denies this.

Anyone with any small bit of perception quickly realizes that while all Muslims are not our enemy and are not terrorists, ALL terrorists now attacking us are Muslims. Not only that, they are also almost all Saudi Arabians or other Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula, but more on that later.

What is it about this severe and rigid desert faith that causes such a reaction against us? Why do they “hate” us? Is it just Islam’s imagination that they are and were already under assault from the West?

JUST PRECISELY WHAT IS BEING “LIBERATED” IN AFGHANISTAN?
THE BUSH FAMILY OIL VESTED INTERESTS IN CASPIAN REGION

Are we only there to bring freedom and democracy? Or is this merely another name for the Western World Order push for regional control and stability? The full utilization and transport of the “newly discovered” Caspian Sea oil reserves depend on a peaceful, Afghanistan. Look at a map. Resources from the region would go as much to the East as to the West, opening better access to rapidly growing energy markets. This would ultimately (perhaps very quickly) break the current OPEC control of the world markets. Furthermore, some sources say that Afghanistan itself sits on significant oil reserves. It has an already acknowledged vast reserve of natural gas. Whatever the case, the “war on terrorism” is not to “liberate” Afghanis -- or their women. Only the naïve and the mentally challenged would buy into such blatant “Bush-babble”. And if the reader has doubts that oil money and Bush family are virtual synonyms, please the still-unfolding Enron Scandal. There are numerous articles and Internet features on this aspect of the “war on terrorism”. One series of articles by Pepe Escobar from Asia Times newspaper is posted on Rense.com were called “Pipelinestan”. Without launching into a long and thus diverting subtopic, we will leave the reader to pursue the oil ties and how this determines crucial domestic and foreign policy decisions. When Muslims angrily say that the West oppresses and seeks to dominate their lands, in many ways, they are not far from the truth.

THEIR MINDS MAY BE “MEDIEVAL”, BUT THEY UNDERSTAND US MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN WE UNDERSTAND THEM: A LOOK AT ISLAMIC MEDIA

While the Western media have to acknowledge and tell you a little about the Arab TV giant, Al-Jazeera, you would think the limited coverage, that there is nothing else. This is, of course, a serious sin of omission; there is much more. In actuality, “they” really wish you knew nothing at all about any of these stations – my goodness, you might listen – and even worse, you might agree or hear something the “free” Western media didn’t cover.

One of the “other” Islamic news services is Al-Manar television (also newspaper; means “The Beacon”, “The Guide” or “The Usher”) and the website of its sponsor, Hesbollah. Al-Manar is quite a sophisticated operation, and knows well that it faces an even more ruthless and sophisticated enemy in the Israelis. And with few resources, technological or otherwise, Al-Manar became a major voice in the Islamic world, but because of its anti-Israeli stance and glorification of the on-going struggle, we hear little of it, facilitated by the fact the larger and better-funded Al-Jazeera has been the recipient of much inside information as well as having correspondents in the various hotspots, which Al-Manar does not (but it does have its sources). Nonetheless, we could do no better than to emulate Al-Manar, who clearly sees it as of paramount importance to comprehend the enemy. As I will say at numerous points in the book, the Islamic foes understand us far better than we understand them, “medieval” though they may be.

“In 1996, Al-Manar also began broadcasting in Hebrew, addressing Israeli soldiers and civilians and warning them of staying in South Lebanon. The Hebrew Observation Department monitors Israeli broadcasts and studies the Hebrew press online. Al-Manar has plans to launch a daily Hebrew news program. Hesbollah believes that to destroy one’s enemy, it is essential to understand that enemy first. … The more we know about them, the more we know their weak points. This makes it easier for us to confront them.” [Hassan Ezzieddine, Hesbollah Media Relations Director. Blanford, Nicholas, “Hesbollah Sharpens Weapons In Propaganda War,” Christian Science Monitor, 28 Dec. 2001.]

So Hesbollah has a “Hebrew Observation Department”; how interesting. And where is our “Islamic Observation Department”? Do we have one? Even now? And, no, it definitely does not seem to be the CIA. In essence, the entire American intel bunch have seemed (and still seem, like the whole administration) rather “clueless”. So what about the highly touted “free Western media”? While they did seem to have a few clues to what was going on, no one paid attention, and what’s more, editors and producers obviously decided not to go with the stories in a big way until after 9-11 Day, and even then, not very well. The fact is, quite sadly, that while all have not been entirely silent, practically no one – especially our leaders and media magnates – seemed to think that the beliefs and thinking of the terrorists was important. All we here are “Bush babble” sound bites: they are “evil”; they “hate our way of life”; they “hate freedom”. This hubris, this arrogance, this ignorance should now be unthinkable, but already, so soon after 9-11, e are slipping back into our old ways. Nevertheless, even though the government and the media are putting out little other than sound bites, some of us are still trying to “get the word out” about this enemy that has brought and already-ongoing war [for years; did you know that?] ever too close to home.

We could only hope that the “average American” (or Westerners in general) would be as savvy and informative as is much of the Islamic media, who very seriously pursue an analysis and understanding of the opposing cultural and political forces in the West. We, especially in North American, are still pretty ignorant about our now-designated enemies. So… since our multi-billion dollar media is not doing the job, and in hope of rectifying the situation (at least to some degree) -- and admitting inspiration from our “enemies” -- I offer this book as my version of your… “Islamic Observations Department.”

CHAPTER TWO

UNDERSTANDING “THE RELIGION OF PEACE AND SUBMISSION” (AL-ISLAM) AND ITS FOUNDER, APOSTLE AND PROPHET, MUHAMMAD IBN ABDULLAH

“ISLAM IS AS ISLAM DOES.”

“Instead of asking ourselves the pragmatic [and obvious] question, ‘How can we defeat terrorism?’ we should be asking ourselves the more basic question, ‘Is this the kind of situation we should let ourselves be maneuvered into?’ How did a country that was once determined to remain aloof from the endless conflicts of the Old World manage to get itself embroiled in, of all things, the medieval Crusades?

But the original Crusaders were at least fighting for something defined and definite: the Cross of Christ. They agreed that Christianity was right and Islam wrong.

President Bush would never say such an atavistic thing. He insists (in effect) that we are fighting for Islam itself, because terrorism is a ‘perversion’ of ‘true’ Islam, which is a ‘religion of peace’. In other words, this is a war for liberalism and tolerance, which Mr. Bush equates with ‘true’ Islam.

Such nonsense is too much for the distinguished Zionist scholar of Islam, Daniel Pipes, who reasonably asks by what authority a Texan Methodist can decide what is orthodox or heretical for Islam.

In a purely secular sense, ISLAM IS AS ISLAM DOES.”

Columnist Joseph Sobran
12 December 2001

DEFINING ISLAM

Most Americans greatly misperceive and misunderstand Islam, and neither the media nor the few carefully chosen Muslims who appear sporadically seem to shed much real insight. Most Americans either label it "a terrorist religion" or "a religion of world peace and brotherhood", but what are the facts?

Melissa K. Strecker, an American Islamic woman writes from San Jose CA to a number of newspapers, saying, "The word Islam is derived from the Arabic [root] word 'S_L_M' [salaam; same root as Hebrew shalom; the two languages are actually quite similar], which means among other things, peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, the word Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His Law."

So that sounds OK, doesn't it? No evil or terrorism is present in what Maria wrote. She should know. Converts to any religion are often the most fervent and best-read among the faithful. This is a good point to add that "Mohammedanism" is a blasphemous term to Muslims ("those in submission" or if you prefer, “those at peace”; “Moslem” is not considered correct), and reminds them of Christianity, which blasphemously says a mere man is God, or so says Islam. Some 1.25+ billion people practice "the religion of peace and submission." Once almost all Muslims were Arabs, but today they constitute only about 10% of that number. Today, Indonesia is the largest Islamic nation.

Islam is a growing force in almost all parts of the world. While you have not heard it on your favorite network “news” broadcast, American Muslim sources tell us that over 34,000 Americans have converted to Islam since the 9-11 Assault.

WHO WAS MUHAMMAD? WAS HE TRULY “THE LAST AND GREATEST PROPHET” OR THE MOST SUCCESSFUL AND GREATEST RELIGIOUS ECLECTIC SYNTHESIZER TO EVER LIVE?

[While I know that some regard inquiries such as this as blasphemy, even if it comes from a non-Muslim. It will probably be disregarded by those who think like that, but blasphemy or disrespect is not my purpose. The basic aim of this chapter is at the essence of historical revisionism – that is, taking a new look (reviewing) the events of the past -- and its personalities.]

“It was the personality of Muhammad, his vision of truth gained through deep brooding and struggling of soul, that constituted him to founder of Islam. There can be no question of his sincerity at the beginning of his career, nor of the purity of his original motives; it is equally clear that he deteriorated in his later days, became at least a self-deceiver, fell into self-indulgent vices, and justified them with supposed visions and voices from heaven.” [Adeney, Walter F., The Greek And Eastern Churches (New York: Scribner’s, 1908, p. 162).]

As a matter of fact, when he was a proto-prophet, not quite fully into what was happening to him, Muhammad initially questioned the origin of the voices he heard, thinking that they might be jinni or demons. The man Muhammad ibn Abdullah (Ibn or bin Abdullah means “son of the Servant of Allah,” but supposedly Allah was not fully revealed until the coming of The Last Prophet. So who was the “Allah” that his father, Abdullah, served? Muhammad means "Praised"; how curious), was born into the pagan Arab Quraysh tribe near Mecca on the Arabian peninsula, and lived from c.560-570 to 632. His father’s name, Ibn Abdullah, means “servant of Allah,” but how could that be his name since the Allah of Islam had not yet been revealed? The answer to the riddle is that Muhammad’s father was a devotee of the moon god also called Allah or Al-Ilah, but more on this later. Young Muhammad’s early life was somewhat tragic. He never knew his father, who died before his birth. The Quraysh tribe was previously worshipped Allah, the moon god. His Uncle, Obied-Allah, and his mother, Aminah, were said to have been involved in mysticism and sorcery. [McClintock, John, and Strong, James, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1981.] Because of her poverty and illness, in tribal tradition, the baby was given to a Bedouin shepherd and his family, where he spent his first six years with them in the severe desert environment. But soon after he was returned to his mother, she died, and the young prophet-to-be was raised by his grandfather and uncle. He knew all kinds of pagans, Christians and Jews, and was obviously influenced by all. As you will see, this was not the only early influence on this evidently dedicated and dynamic man who may be the greatest eclectic synthesizer of religious thought who ever lived. The Koran, the great revelation of the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad, has no other witness (other than Allah and Gabriel) other than Muhammad himself. While one may raise similar questions as to the resurrection of Jesus, there were certainly many more than one person claiming to be witnesses to the events. In fact, the number of New Testament witnesses is estimated at about 5,000.

Muhammad wrote down the revelations somewhat randomly, and really wrote nothing else. At first, he thought he was beset with demons, but later decided that he was mistaken, and it was the Archangel Gabriel instead. The Hadiths, the traditions, are stories and reminiscences of the Prophet from those who were around him. It is, of course, considered blasphemous to even consider that those assembling the traditions, and those who later codified it, might have had some personal or ideological interest in its contents. More on this later.

ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF AND QUESTIONS ABOUT MUHAMMAD’S LIFE

WAS HE AN ACTUAL PERSON OR LATER CONFABULATION?

Before moving on, we should briefly touch on two other topic in the interest of presenting a full range of alternative views. Some authors don’t think that the man, Muhammad, was even a real character, or at best, the stories that came to be known as his life were put together by followers much later after his death. “We find no references to him as a prophet until 150 years after his death. No one has ever found even the smallest fragment of the Qur'an from the 7th century. Thus much of what is said about the life of Muhammad must now be dismissed as fiction.” [How The Qur'an Came To Be by Robert A. Morey © 1996 Research and Education Foundation. For more information on Islam, write Faith Defenders PO Box 7447 Orange, CA 92863 www.faithdefenders.com]

WAS MUHAMMAD A BLACK MAN?

The other question is, was Muhammad a black man? While many Africans and some African-Americans believe the Prophet was black, this appears to be a story carefully planted by Arab mullahs, who emphasized the "African-ness" of Muhammad. In actuality, Vol. 2 of Hadith No. 122 says clearly calls him "this white man". Muhammad thought blacks were suitable for slavery. One story tells how he seized a slave freed by a Muslim, auctioning him off immediately for 800 dirhams! In spite of all this and much more, Muslims (especially in the Third World) still say that Islam supports black liberation and opposes slavery, and that he was a man of color. If you are ever discussing this, you might mention the following ayahs (verses) from Sura 3 of the Koran.

[3.106] On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved.
[3.107] And as to those whose faces turn white, they shall be in Allah's mercy; in it they shall-abide.

PRE-ISLAMIC RELIGION IN ARABIA:
MECCA AND THE KAABA ARE EARLY INFLUENCES ON MUHAMMAD

Muhammad's home town, Mecca was already a pagan "proto-one-world-religion" center, sacred to no less than five religions, including those worshiping Saturn or the Moon. In addition to the pagans, were resident Christians, Sephardic Jews, Judeo-Arabians, Christian and non-Christian Gnostics, and others. The Kaaba, an ancient, almost square stone structure, was already there. Nowadays, it is surrounded by the courtyard of the Grand Mosque. The word mosque is an Anglicization of masjid, or place of prostration for the ones who submit, i.e., Muslims. Said to have been built by Abraham, the Kaaba houses a black meteorite which is still venerated much like a Catholic statue or holy relic in spite of all the various Koranic prohibitions against idols. Apparently Muslim theologians or the faithful don't see it that way even though the main event of the Hajj is the circling of the Kaaba and kissing or touching the black stone, now no longer a pagan symbol, but now purified and imbued as a sign of Allah. Crowds estimated at more than one million have done this ritual march around the simple, black-draped cube, some dying in the crush of the crowd. Each Muslim is asked to make a Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in life if possible. Emphasizing equality before Allah, all Hajjis wear a simple white garment. But as said, in early times, the Kaaba was the perfect model for a One-World Religion. In truly ecumenical spirit, it contained at least 360 idols from the world over, including a bust of the Virgin Mary with the Christ Child. In fact, the Virgin Mary is mentioned 30 times in the Koran, and Catholic writers point out that Muhammad’s scriptures have verses on the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity. [Pilote, Alain, “Mary and the Muslims,” Michael Journal, Jan./Feb. 02, 1101 Rue Principale, Rougement Quebec J0L 1M0 Canada.] Some Jews revered the Kaaba too, with a tradition that Moses and Aaron made pilgrimages there. A Judeo-Arab convert named Tobba put the first curtain over the building, much as it is today. When Muslims make their Hajj, the procession circles the Kaaba where each one kisses or touches the black stone. This is the central ritual of the pilgrimage experience. As a matter of fact, he really changed as little as possible of the old rituals and ceremonies.

“The Kaaba itself remained the focal point of the pilgrimage and the ritual of circumambulation, seven times around the great black stone, continued as in pagan times. So did the custom of drinking at the sacred Zamzam Well and the pacing seven times down the stretch where Hagar frantically wandered in search of water for Ishmael. Likewise the visit to the holy mountain on the Arafat plain, the throwing of twenty-one stones at pillars representing the evil spirits and the sacrifice of camels and sheep, were all adopted as Muslim rites.” [Nutting, Anthony, The Arabs (New York: Mentor, 1964, p. 35).]
Several good sources tell us exactly the same thing. “Islam's origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kaaba which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kaaba seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kaaba, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc.. These were pagan rites practiced by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born.” [http://www.templemount.org/missler.html, “Notes and References on Islam” by Chuck Missler26 Jan 02]
THE MISSION OF MUHAMMAD

Multi-cultural, polytheistic pre-Islamic Mecca had a great influence on the future prophet, who knew many faiths. He was 40 when beginning his religious, prophetic life. It was not an easy course. He attracted a few followers from his immediate family and clan, but aroused little other than anger among most he encountered. Sir Richard Burton, the 19th century explorer and Orientalist, said, "After a long course of meditation, fired with anger by the absurd fanaticism of the Jews, the superstitions of the Syrian and Arabian Christians, and the horrid idolatries of his unbelieving countrymen, ...he determined to reform those abuses.... He introduced himself as one inspired to a body of his relations and fellow-clansmen. The step a failure (except for converting Ali)." These religious/political struggles were quite fierce and bloody on all sides, hence, Muhammad had many opponents who wanted to kill him. In 622, he and his main followers were forced to flee from Mecca to Yathrib. While somewhat of an ignominious retreat, it did save his life, and the event became legendary. The date is commemorated as the Hegira, the Flight from Mecca to Yathrib, then renamed Medina, now the second greatest holy site. Islamic calendars note this as Year 1. He proclaimed Allah as the One God and himself as the last and greatest prophet, then returned to Mecca, where he cleansed the Kaaba of idols, and began the first Islamic state.

“Historians agree to say that there is a big difference between Muhammad’s personality in Mecca and his personality after his migration to Mecca. In Mecca, Muhammad was struggling to be accepted, so he tried to appeal to Christians and Jews as well, his teachings [then] condemning violence, injustice, and neglect of the poor. However when he moved to Medina, and his followers grew in strength and number, he no longer needed to please people of other faiths, and became a relentless warrior intent on spreading his religion by the sword.” [Pilote, Alain, “Mary and the Muslims,” Michael Journal, Jan./Feb. 02.]

Muhammad led his followers to military victory (and thus "conversion") of all surrounding tribes, massacring the Jews and Christians who dared refused in spite of the Koran. By 630, he had won all of Arabia. The Jihad for Allah continued after his death, threatening Europe from more than one direction. From North Africa they conquered Spain and Portugal, resulting in over 500 years of Islamic government on the Iberian peninsula. Islamic maps, by the way, commonly still show Spain and Portugal colored with the green denoting an Islamic state. From there, the Moors (mostly Arabs and Berbers) advanced across the Pyrenees into France, but were driven back. More than once, the Saracens (mostly Turks) came in from the East, assaulting the gates of Vienna. They were repulsed, but Turkey held on to much of the Balkans long enough to establish a strong Muslim presence, evidenced today by Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and others tinderbox areas.

MUHAMMAD AND WOMEN

“Muhammad's Wives: (Sura 4:3 forbids more than 4 wives; Muhammad, however had 16 official wives, and 6 others as well.)
1. Khadija
2. Sawda
3. Aesah (8 or 9 years old)
4. Omm Salama
5. Hafsa
6. Zaynab (originally Jahsh's, Muhammad's adopted son's wife.)
7. Jowayriya
8. Omm Habiba
9. Safiya
10. Maymuna (of Hareth)
11. Fatima
12. Hend
13. Asma (of Saba)
14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
15. Habla
16. Asma (of Noman)

Other wives:
17. Mary (the Coptic Christian; chose to remain a slave rather than convert.)
18. Rayhana
19. Omm Shank
20. Maymuna
21. Zaynab (a 3rd one)
22. Khawla.” [ From material by Chuck Missler.]

As we see, Muhammad had quite a large harem. In one story, he takes the wife of his adopted son and copulated with her when she was only nine years old! However, to be fair, we must not impose the responsibility for certain practices on Islam even thought they occur (not solely) in Islamic societies, e.g., female circumcision. This is a pre-Islamic practice that has simply continued as a part of dominating the submissive Islamic female. I know that many Islamic women will disagree, and I know that women (like Maria at the beginning) love and appreciate Islam and the status it gives (some) women (in some places). Nonetheless, while I abhor the "cultural models" that are imposed on western girls, Islam would not seem to be much of an improvement. Before closing the topic, let's also note that Maria is a modern Islamic woman in America. She would not lead the same kind of life in almost any declared Islamic state. She knows this, and values her religion anyway, hoping for positive changes, I am sure. I greatly respect people of this nature. It's just that I disagree with her answers.

There is much more to say about this fascinating character who said he was the Last and Greatest Prophet of a god he called Allah, but this is probably enough for our purposes.

CHAPTER THREE
THE KORAN (“THE RECITATION” or “THE COPY”) AND THE HADITHS (“THE TRADITIONS”)

[NOTE: Readers who have English Korans (also Qur'an and Quran) may find the verse numbering done differently. If you are truly serious about examining the Koran, go to the Radio Islam website, where they have a search engine that covers not one, but two different English translations. Just enter key words and phrases, and you will have your list of verses almost instantly. Hadith references are arguably more “violent” and “extreme” than the Koran, though the Hadiths, like many religious works, covers a plethora of topics.]

Is the Koran the pure uncorrupted word of God? Tradition and tales of the Prophet say that he received his “transmissions” from the Archangel Gabriel at various times when he would quickly write them down and toss them in a big box with others, hence only God or Gabriel would ever know which came first and so on. Most Christians are ignorant of the New Testament and how it was transmitted, but as most know, we have never had the original texts, only some early copies. But most Muslims will tell you that the Koran (the one in Arabic, which is the only “real” one) records the exact words spoken, hence its name, Koran. Is this true? See what you think. [My comments are in brackets.]

“By the way, it is no secret that the Qur’an itself has suffered from a multitude of textual variations. Again, Geisler and Saleeb point out: ‘If the divine authenticity of a book were to be based on the unanimous agreement among all the human-made copies of the original documents, the Qur’an itself will fail the test! Contrary to the opinion of many Muslims, we do not have the original copy of the Qur’an or even the uthmanic codex … the oldest text of the Qur’an still extant dates from the 2nd century after the Hegira [622 A.D., so c. 750 A.D. for the oldest ms.] and is compiled on vellum [as are early Christian mss.] in the early al-mail script [not the same as modern colloquial Arabic]. Other early Qur’ans are in Kufic script and date from the same time as well.’ The British historian, Sir Norman Anderson, relates to us that, ‘although it is true that today the Kufan text of Hafs is accepted almost everywhere in the Muslim world, the claim commonly made by Muslims that they have the ipissima verba of what Muhammad actually said, without any variant reading, rests upon an ignorance of the facts of history.’” [Answering Islam, 2000. Lifeforce@hotmail.com]

The Koran is said to have been dictated (over 20 years) by the Archangel Gabriel. Muhammad was ordered to listen and then repeat, hence "Koran" means "The Recitation." About the same size as the New Testament, it is organized in 114 suras or chapters. They are not arranged by subject or chronology, but by size, the shortest being first. Like verses from the Talmud, the Koran (perhaps intentionally?) contradicts itself, or if you prefer, like the duplicitous Talmud, "provides more than one interpretation." While there are incongruities in the materials collected and approved to be called "Bible canon", contradictions (and thus loopholes) are key features in both Sharia and Talmudic Law. It is impossible, therefore, without the help of a Mullah (means “judge”), Sunni Imam or a Cadi (Islamic law scholar and judge), to make sense of Sharia just as one cannot make sense of the Talmud without the help of Talmudic scholars and rabbis. Since there are major contradictions and variances on many topics, Sharia and Talmud mean only what the mullahs and rabbis say it means. I have long maintained that the entire "legal" concept of the "loophole" comes from the Talmud. Since Muhammad was heavily influenced by Jews, admiring them in the beginning, it is not surprising to find this legalistic, litigious likeness.

By 651-652, the canonical text of the Koran was settled. (Though some Shiites have an additional Sura). Other materials, legends, superstitions and stories are collected in a compendium called the Hadiths. While the Koran is in many languages, it is not considered genuine and worthy of veneration unless it is in Arabic or has the Arabic text to the side, as do some Jews with parallel Hebrew text. In the beginning, few thought that it had any meaning outside the Arabic cultural and linguistic paradigms. Like Christianity, it was only in its secondary phase that it manifested itself as a world religion. Studied intently by Muslims (often they study nothing else), it has become the basis for a now-international Islamic culture complete with legal and governmental guidelines.

In other words, the Koran is not only the guidebook for your life, but forms the constitution and law books of an Islamic state. All one needs is found there, and if you cannot decipher it yourself, the mullahs and tribunals will assist you.

HOW THE KORAN CAME TO BE

“Modern scholars using sound principles of literary analysis have determined that the Qur'an did not come from Muhammad. He did not recite it and actually never saw a copy of it. It was not put together in its present written form until nearly one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death. This has come as quite a shock to Muslims. According to the legends, myths, and stories found in the Hadiths, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad's companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Caliph Uthman. The insurmountable problem that Muslims face is that they do not have any documentary evidence from the 7th and 8th century to back up any of their claims. For example, if Uthman compiled the Qur'an as the Hadiths claims (Bukhari I:63; IV:709: VI:507, 510), where is the manuscript evidence for this? Why have no Qur’ans survived from that period? Why do we have to wait over a hundred years before we find even a scrap of the Qur'an? … The Qur'an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus the Qur'an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.” [How The Qur'an Came To Be by Robert A. Morey.]

THE KORAN ON ISLAMIC HOLY WAR

If jihad means only struggle or striving, and the Koran is a book of peace, then how does one explain certain verses that seem to belie such an assertion?

From The Koran. Sura/Chapter: Ayah/Verse [with comments in brackets].

2:190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors. [This is the favorite verse of those Muslims who seek to disown extremist bin Ladenist Islam. Like Christianity in previous centuries, Islam too defined a code of acceptable warfare, but both were quite bloody and relentless in practice rather than theory.]
2:191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers. [So, if the enemy are unbelievers (USA), it is OK to strike out? I imagine this and the next are favorite jihadist verses.]
2:192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.
2:193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.
2:194. The sacred month for the sacred month; sanctities should be respected alike ( by all concerned). Thus, if someone has attacked you, attack him just as he attacked you, and fear Allah and remain conscious that Allah is with those who guard against violating the bounds set by Him. [While the Imams and Mullahs said the USA should stop the Afghan campaign during Ramadan, it did not. Islamic armies have never really adhered to this, anyway.]

THE HADITHS (“THE TRADITIONS”)

“The Muslims are also guilty of circular reasoning when they document the Qur'an by the Hadiths and then document the Hadiths by the Qur'an! But there is no documentary evidence to back up the Hadiths or the Qur'an! They are both fraudulent as to authorship and dates.” [How The Qur'an Came To Be.]

The Hadiths are secondary in importance only to Koran. "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight until you worship Allah alone...." (Vol. 4, No. 386). "No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel." (Vol. 4, No. 283; Vol. 9, No. 50). "Any Muslim who is killed while fighting in a Jihad will go straight to the sexual pleasures of Paradise." (Vol. 1, No. 35; Vol. 4, No. 386). The last one is what the Old Man of the Mountains, the original proto-type of Osama bin Laden, and his Hashish-eating “Assassins” (a word derived from "hashishin") believed back in the 15th century. Much of the violence and ugliness comes from the Hadiths. Hence, a Muslim can dissemble and misrepresent the facts, and tell you that none of it is found in the Koran. It's not, but it's in the Hadiths, which is also sacred. Furthermore, the Hadiths, like the Talmud, teaches that a Muslim may possess the property of the goyim/infidels through Jihad and oppression. As Muhammad said, "Whoever has killed and enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils." (Vol. 4, No. 370).

The Hadiths contains many other teachings and stories of Muhammad in addition to the "sacred" traditions cited above. Just as Jews tell you that they have no hate, directing you to the Torah and ignoring the spiteful Talmud, so Muslims will tell you that, according to the Koran, Islam is a civilized religion of peace and tolerance, usually ignoring Koranic texts to the contrary (there's probably another that contradicts it), but always avoiding the Hadiths altogether. Some of the few moderates and fewer liberals in Islam question that the Hadiths should be given (as it most often is) equal standing with the Koran itself, most Islamic scholars incorporate six other books of lesser collections of tradition (also called Hadiths) into the Sharia law code. As to the sensitivity of some of what we discuss, the following is illustrative.

“The historical significance of the Hadith collections is controversial. Conservative Muslims accept the Hadith books as accurate and reliable records of the Prophet’s sayings, actions, and approbations, arrived at by a careful scientific sifting of the good from the bad. Furthermore, there is an element of faith in their attitude toward the Hadiths which makes any question about its authenticity seem an attack upon Islam. Modern scholars, however, point to contradictions, anachronisms, and tendentious elements even in the Six Sound Books themselves and deny that the Hadith collections give reliable information about the Prophet. In their view the Hadith collections represent the consensus of the Muslim community on the great legal and theological questions of its history, all of which had been settled by the time the Six Sound Books were composed. The significance of the Hadith collections, therefore, lies in what they tell us of the Muslim mentality….” [Parrinder, pp. 482-483.]

“The burden of proof is now clearly on the Muslims. They must supply scholars with the documentary evidence to support their theories on the origins of the Qur'an and the Hadith. Until they do so, we cannot believe in the inspiration of either one.” [How The Qur’an Came To Be.]

JIHAD AND THE ISLAMIC INVASION
Looking At Holy War Through The Hadiths (The Traditions)

[Begin quoting.] The Hadiths reveals that Muhammad wanted his religion to be spread primarily by the sword. It is filled with commands to make war upon non-Muslims in order to force them to embrace Islam. Jihad was so important to Muhammad that he made it the second most important deed in Islam.

Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and his Apostle.” The questioner then asked, “What is the next?” He replied, “To participate in Jihad fighting in Allah’s cause.” (vol. 1, no. 25).

Anas bin Malik recorded that, Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; their children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah’s Apostle who married her. (vol. 2, no. 68).

A brief summary of Muhammad’s teaching on Jihad should be informative to Westerners. The translator of the Hadiths, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin K’ban, wrote an introduction to the Hadiths which included a discourse on the subject of Jihad by Sheik Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Saudi Arabia (vol. 1, pgs. Xxii-xi). This is the most frank Muslim discussion of Jihad we have ever read. It does not deny or play down Muhammad’s demand that Muslim’s must force Jews, Christians, and pagans to either embrace Islam or submit to political and financial suppression. Indeed, it tries to stimulate and motivate Muslims to engage in Jihad today. According to Sheik Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, Muhammad …commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, until the pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and the Christians who do not embrace Islam) (p. xxiv).

Jihad thus employs several different methods:

1. There is the Jihad of the sword.
People are either to be converted or subdued through the violence of military force (vol. 1, p. xxii). Chapter 19 of the Hadiths speak of those who convert to Islam, by compulsion of fear of being killed (vol.1, p. 27). Muhammad said,
I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and the Muhammad is Allah’s Prophet, and offer prayers and give obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property. (vol. 1, no. 24).
This is why Muhammad warned the King of the Byzantines,
If you become a Muslim, you will be safe. (vol. 1, no. 6).
If the king did not convert, he and his kingdom would be destroyed and enslaved. The Hadith records how Mecca was conquered by force to Islam in vol. 1, no. 104. In vol. 3, no. 495, we read,
Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests.
When a Muslim murdered someone during a Jihad, he got to take the man’s property.
The Prophet said, “Whosever has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils.” (vol. 4, no. 370).
Thus is the driving force behind Muslim violence in Africa today. In such countries as Nigeria and Sudan, hundreds of thousands of Christians and pagans brutally slaughtered or enslaved in the name of Jihad because they would not convert to Islam.
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or give Jizya (vol. 4, no 386).

2. There is the Jihad of taxation.
Those who refuse to embrace Islam must pay a special tax called Al-Jizya (vol. 4, chap. 21, pgs. 251-252). This financial burden suppresses non-Muslims and makes their life as hard as possible.

3. There is the Jihad of financial reward.
In Iraq, a free university education has been offered to any Christian or Jew who will embrace Islam. They will also be paid $500 for any other blacks they convert to Islam. It has been quite common to tell Americans and Europeans that if they want to continue to work in the oil business in Saudi Arabia, they must convert to Islam. No church is allowed to be built on Saudi Soil in the attempt to suppress Christian worship.

4. There is the Jihad of fear.
The death penalty is applied to anyone who renounces Islam and embraces another religion such as Christianity. Currently, there are many Christians being tortured in prisons in Egypt and other Islamic countries whose only crime was to convert to Christianity.

5. There is the Jihad of slavery.
The only place in the world where black chattel slavery is practiced is in Muslim countries. “The London Economist”, along with many other magazines including our booklet, “Slavery In Islam”, reported that the Sudanese Muslims are presently capturing and then selling black women and children of the Dinka Christian Tribe for as little as $15 a head! Even the U.N. released a report on slavery that points out that the Muslims are still enslaving blacks. This has also been pointed out in special editions of “Newsweek” and other large magazines reporting on the reality of slavery in the Islamic world. Non-Muslim women who go to Saudi Arabia to work as maids are often enslaved by their Muslim employers, beaten, and raped at will. When the try to escape, the Saudi government will not let them leave the country, but returns them to their masters.

6. The Jihad of the courts.
Non-Muslims are denied equal access to and equal protection before the law because their testimony in court is not valid against a Muslim (vol. 3, chap. 31, pgs. 525-526). This applies even to murder!
No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (vol. 4, no. 283; vol. 9, no. 50).

7. There is Jihad after death.
A Muslim is to fight on Muhammad’s behalf in his lifetime and after his death (vol. 1, chapter 43).

8. There is the Jihad of Paradise.
Any Muslim who is killed while fighting a Jihad will go straight to the sexual pleasures of Paradise (vol.1, no. 35; vol. 4, no. 386).

[The preceding (and some previous selections) is presented with thanks to and permission of Words Of The Spirit/ACMTC (HR 60 Box 11 Fence Lake NM 87315), an admittedly “biased” organization, with members on the front lines where Christians and Muslims are thrown together, such as Nigeria, where many lives have been lost in a true religious war almost totally ignored by the “mainstream media”. The author/compiler of this selection is a Muslim convert to Christianity, and for the sake of self and family, remains anonymous. While a donation to cover mailing is nice, Words Of The Spirit will be pleased to send additional materials, without obligation, to anyone who asks. While I don’t necessarily agree with every position, (a group that I totally agree with probably does not exist) their material on Islam is direct and informative.]

ISLAM, THE RELIGION TRUE TO SCIENCE?

This topic arises because this is one of the claims of Islam. Not all Muslims accept these claims, indeed, such points of argument are unacceptable among many of the Submissive Ones, who take the Koran literally as a object of faith. More educated and scholarly Muslims, however, do discuss such matters, and have put together an entire school of thought on the matter.
[For specifics in the Koran, see Scientific Errors In The Qur'an by Robert A. Morey, Research and Education Foundation,1996. Truth Seekers PO Box 250 Newport, PA 17074]

BUCAILLEISM: IS IT “ISLAM’S VERSION OF ‘CREATIONISM’
OR IS IT A SCHOLARLY SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH?

I am assuming that most non-Muslim readers have never heard of this, but it is a highly regarded school of thought within Islam. When the fundamentalist Madrassah or the broader-based Islamic university teaches about science, it is more often than not framed within the parameters of Bucailleism. In strict Islamic thinking (is there any other?), it is alright to study the scientists of the infidel West if the study is within the context of the Koran. Therefore, Bucailleism is a fundamental “scientific” underpinning to allow science to be taught as there is no conflict with the Koran. Going even further than that, Bucailleism maintains that the Koran predicted all the major scientific discoveries, such as the atom – well, you get the idea. The name is taken from a French writer and surgeon, Maurice Bucaille, who articulated the position in an influential 1976 book, widely known in the Islamic world. In many ways, this is the counterpart of fundamentalist Christian “Creationism.” Yet while Creationism denounces many scientific theories as lies, Buceilleism embraces science totally, saying that the Koran prophesied the Big Bang Theory and almost every other major scientific breakthrough. [For a much more extensive discussion, see Daniel Golden’s “Strange Bedfellows: Western Scholars Play key Role In Touting ‘Science’ In The Qur’an,” Wall Street Journal, 23 Jan. 02.] Many Western scholars were drawn into the debate, some under allegedly false pretenses. Dr. Joe Simpson, a Presbyterian physician-professor at Baylor University, who says his earlier works and articles were taken out of context. Yet when one researches the whole matter, we see that even though the good Presbyterian physician has withdrawn and repudiated many statements, that he is still touted as the “expert who agrees” throughout the entire Islamic world. The “Scientific Validity of the Koran” is used as a major conversion argument as well as providing answers for young Muslims with inquiring minds and who are drawn toward medical and scientific careers. This is no small enterprise in the global Islamic plan. Right in the heart of Mecca we find the Commission on Scientific Signs, funded by the Saudi royals and housed in an ornate building. A branch office is in Jeddah. One of the main missions of the Commission is the distribution of a videotape, This Is The Truth, which includes the whole pantheon of outlandish claims. For those Muslims who do not have access to television, the text has been published separately as A Brief Guide To Understanding Islam, including the “testimony” of many non-Islamic scientists. To say that the program is an “educational” success story, would probably understate its importance to the propagation of Islam.

CHAPTER FOUR
WHO IS THE DEITY CALLED ALLAH?

While always said to simply mean God, "Allah" is made from two Arabic words: "Al" (“al” means "the"; not the same as Al or AL) and "ilah" ("god"), used in the pre-Islamic Arabic transition from polytheism to "monolatry" or the worship of one supreme god out of many (same as Elohim, a plural), indicating that their tribal god was the supreme God. Besides, if you don't like the name, Allah, the Koran (again, like the Talmud) says there are 99 other names/attributes (I think the Talmud and Cabala may have even more than that), commemorated in the 99 beads of the Islamic rosary (taken from Catholics and Buddhists), the 100th and largest one representing Allah. Today, most people, Christian and not, will say that all "three great monotheistic faiths" worship "the same God", and want to join with them in prayer at public events. Again, there is a tendency to say much more here, but to put it simply: once one studies the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud and Koran, most readers note a stark difference between the God of Jesus, the Christ, and that portrayed in modern-day Talmudism or Islam – or liberal Christianity. Another way this fallacy is expressed is "we all worship the same god", whether Hindus, Aum Shinrikyo, Voodoo, Pale Mayombe or whatever. The good old American "melting pot" idea is misapplied in this instance. Serious Jews don't believe it for a minute, and serious Christians know that Christ Immanuel is One with God; that He is God. But, today's "Judeo-Christians" and New Agers have no theological or doctrinal problems with any of this. It's the "experience" of God or the "spirit" of Jesus' "and praying and meditating as brothers and sisters" that counts, which all begs the basic question of is it all the "same God"?

The combined words of al and ilah combined to form “Allah", from the same Semitic root word for a supreme deity, "EL" or "AL", an early name for God (or gods as in the polytheistic Hebrew plural , "Elohim", as in the Old Testament). The "EL" root is used in names such as Isra-el, Gabri-el, etc. EL/AL is God/god perhaps through a different line of tradition than the one ending up as Y_H_W_H; naturally, scholars vary on this. More than a few religious scholars and archeologists believe that "Allah" may be the continuation in another form of an old pagan moon god, also called similarly called Allah or Al-Ilah (the greatest of all gods), one of 360 idols in the Kaaba. If we accept this as fact, which it certainly appears to be, then this Allah/Al-Ilah has no connection at all with the EL/ELOHIM of the Old testament. The Prophet cleansed the Kaaba, expelling all the idols, yet the crescent (hilal) moon remains as the most enduring and visible symbol of Islam, and the Islamic Calendar (which begins with the Hegira in 622) is based on a lunar year. Please be advised that this is a very touchy subject in Islam, which may be the most easily offended religion on earth. To publish this in most Muslim countries would bring serious charges of blasphemy. But all this aside, see what you think.

WAS “ALLAH” A MOON GOD?

Or to put it differently and (perhaps) more kindly, was a pagan god(s) possibly a precursor of the theistic construct now know as Allah? Asking the question in this way is (perhaps) kinder, in that it assumes that Muslims are acting in good faith, and not knowingly worshiping a “moon god”. But we already know that Muhammad was an eclectic synthesizer, so did he bring in pagan gods (or memories and vestiges of their tradition) into his religious stewpot? While devoutly claiming to be of the original Abrahamic monotheistic line, one must remember Muhammad’s eclectic genius of blending traditions and stories of the old Middle East together. To accept the moon god origin hypothesis, one can see how the Great Reformer chose only the best parts. This would have (and did in other areas) included existing worship and rituals and dates just as the Christians did with Christmas, Yule, Saturnalia, and the like in the early times of that other eclectic, synthesizing faith. Was one deity chosen among others to incorporate because its cult was so powerful and ubiquitous? Some Arabs of the day already practiced a paganism broadly called “monalatry” (worship of one god, but out of many; one is the supreme deity). Monalatry is a transition from polytheism (worship of many gods) to monotheism (just One God). If, then, we assume monalatry as a part of the cultural mix, then the evolution of Muhammad’s theological thought would have included this concept of one supreme god out of many. He would have known of the moon god cult and how important it was to win over this powerful group. With this in mind as background, we continue to explore the possibilities. He must have appealed initially to the Arabs not as one introducing a new deity, but a new way of understanding the god.

“The Bedouin were … animists, for they believed in a number of powers, spirits, and demons whom they propitiated…. [They] were also influenced by the astral religion of the ancient Semitic peoples, which led them to recognize deities associated with heavenly bodies. The major figures were goddesses, of whom the most important were al-Lat, al-Uzzah, and al-Manat. A superior deity called Allah [al-Ilah, the one greatest god of all gods] was also familiar to them, but his function was vague, and he did not figure strongly in their thinking or practice. Nonetheless, this deity was already known to the Arabs, and Muhammad’s proclamation of his unique power did not involve the introduction of a wholly new deity. The Arabs also made pilgrimages to shrines located at different places in the peninsula. There was a shrine to al-Manat at Ukaz, not far to the north of Mecca….” [Parrinder, Geoffrey, Ed., World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present (Bicester, UK: 1971, pp. 464-465).] “Archeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. … The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kaaba; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc. … The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.” [Yeshua Communications Network. http://www.yeshua.co.uk.]

Dr. Robert Morey speaks plainly on the matter in his book The Islamic Invasion saying: "Islam's origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc. These were pagan rites practiced by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born."

This "Allah" or "Al-Ilah" was a moon god (or pair of moon gods), and was a part of the pantheon of the Kaaba. Furthermore, the crescent (hilal) moon is the ubiquitous symbol of the Faith of Submission, and its calendar is based on a lunar year. But can such a connection really be proved? Anyone who has ever read more than one book or two on the archeology and the history of the Holy Land knows that this is very confusing. The entire archeological process is politicized, and has been for centuries. All Islamic explorers are just that – Islamic. Almost every Jewish digger, and many “Christians” as well, are Zionists, and if not that, devoted to proving the “truth of the Bible”, generally meaning their particular theological slant via their favorite translation. It is true: great things have been found, and more will surface. It’s just that there are few who can agree on exactly what has been found, not to mention arguing heatedly about dating the objects. For instance, some maintain there was either no David, or that David and his kingdom was nothing but a local tribal chief. Then others will tell you that this was one of the greatest powers of the day. Maddeningly, both sides are amply armed with archeological “evidence”. In addition to the very solid reference previously quoted, I also present the following.

“In the 1950s, archeology disproved the Muslim faith. A major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazor in Palestine. This important discovery of science is recorded in numerous archeological journals. The facts cannot be denied. Two idols of the Moon-god Allah were found, proving that the ‘Allah’ which Muslims around the world worship as the only true God was a pre-Islamic deity! Photos at the dig site, show Allah sitting on a throne with the crescent moon, the symbol of the Islamic faith, carved on his chest. Yet these moon-god statues were made long before the Islamic faith was founded.” [Bloody Islam, ACMTC, 2000. For free info. on Christianity and Islam, write “Words Of The Spirits” HR 60 Box 11 Fence Lake NM 87315]

Thus, the pagan Arabs were converted rapidly. They did not have to give up their real god, the greatest god (al-ilah); they merely had to forget about his daughters and consorts.

SOME MUSLIMS KNOW THE TRUTH

THE REAL HISTORY OF THE CRESCENT AND STAR, THE PRINCIPAL SYMBOL OF ISLAM

It is not to say that all Muslims are unaware of the derivation of the most potent and enduring symbol of Islam.
“The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. Information on the origins of the symbol are difficult to ascertain, but most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods. There are also reports that the crescent moon and star were used to represent the Carthaginian goddess Tanit (Tanith) or the Greek goddess Diana.

The city of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople and Istanbul) adopted the crescent moon symbol. According to some reports, they chose it in honor of the goddess Diana. Others indicate that it dates back to a battle in which the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of a lunar month. In any event, the crescent moon was featured on the city's flag even before the birth of Christ.

The early Muslim community did not really have a symbol. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic armies and caravans flew simple solid-colored flags (generally black, green, or white) for identification purposes. In later generations, the Muslim leaders continued to use a simple black, white, or green flag with no markings, writing, or symbolism on it.

It wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty. There is speculation that the five points on the star represent the “Five Pillars of Islam”, but this is pure conjecture. The five points were not standard on the Ottoman flags, and as you will see on the following page, it is still not standard on flags used in the Muslim world today. For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire ruled over the Muslim world. After centuries of battle with Christian Europe, it is understandable how the symbols of this empire became linked in people's minds with the faith of Islam as a whole. Based on this history, many Muslims reject using the crescent moon as a symbol of Islam. The faith of Islam has historically had no symbol, and many refuse to accept what is essentially an ancient pagan icon. It is certainly not in uniform use among Muslims.” [From Islam Newsletter on About.com. While some Muslims do recognize and discuss that the crescent and star are pagan symbols and are thus not appropriate for Islam, the religion really has no other symbol to compete with the hexagon of the Jews and the tau/cross of the Christians.] Other traditions hold that the crescent and star symbol were chosen by Muhammad when he had his first revelation from Allah in June of 610. When he looked up to the heavens, he saw the Moon and the planet Venus in conjunction, and so were chosen as the symbol of Islam and the first Mujahadeen. While this indeed may have been the astral configuration in June of 610, one can hardly overlook the convenience of this “new” tradition blending on and incorporating the already existing use of the now ubiquitous symbol.

The whole idea of the moon-god hypothesis is quite threatening to Islam, and especially so to the better-educated and scholarly Mullahs and Imams (like most of those in the West) who must know the truth. One must also remember that university educations are provided essentially for free in some Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia. The most popular major? Islamic studies. Do they hear of such things? They must, but are provided with plenty of rationalizations by their teachers so that, if successful of purging their mind of such questions, can merely ignore them as infidel propaganda. This, however, is quite another matter as to sharing this truth with the average believer among the Submissive Ones (Muslims). Their clerical/legal power-hold over the Islamic masses all around the world lies in their claims to complete purity of doctrine.

THE SAME GOD?

Is Allah the same God as the YHWH or EL of the old Hebrews such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Is Allah the same God whom the New Testament tells us is the Father of Jesus Immanuel, the Anointed One? Without getting into a long doctrinal and theological discourse, one thing that seems to be missing is the concept of God’s love. Islam (like Talmudist Judaism) is a religion of rules and law. While the concept of “the same God” has some necessary usages as we interact with others in everyday life, and in certain kinds of non-denominational ministries. Indeed, to share our faith with another, ultimately we must discuss who God is and how God acts in the world, and such exchange of ideas begins with basic concepts, focusing initially on likenesses rather than differences. Does God really care? Each person must decide, but each person should be aware of the facts, not just what some intellectual-theological idealistic dreamer has constructed to gull the masses with the idea of a One-World Religion.

For those who adhere to any sort of traditional Christianity there is a problem with the big, all-encompassing universalistic One-God called Allah. Almost all Christians believe in the Trinity, a triune manifestation of the godhead. Absolutely not a trace of this is found in Islam. Yet most Bible translations render “God” as “Allah”; better to recruit converts, I suppose. My guess is that most Christian sermons of late try to illustrate that “good, American Muslims” (at least) worship the same God as the rest of us. While I don’t think any preacher of any kind, Christian, Judaic, or Islamic, ought to continually preach a message of hate toward other religions (as is the case in much of Islam), a little bit of the truth every once in a while is not too much to ask. Make an inquiry of your pastor. What does he/she know of the real origins of Allah? It’s not that hard to find, you know?

CHAPTER FIVE
ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS

The following is a brief foray into the very specialized and fascinating field of comparative religions. As such, it can only survey major theories and themes, and cannot go into great detail on each and every one. But with the references I have provided, any more curious readers may go to a library and/or Internet Search Engine for a wealth of additional material on these and the other related topics.

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

“[in the Koran] …all religions but that of Islam are treated with contempt. As a consequence, cruelty to the unbeliever and especially the apostate – that is to say the convert of Christianity – has been frequently permitted, and that with ruthless fanaticism.” [Adeney, p. 163.]

The Koran says Jesus (Issa in Arabic) was a great (but not the last) prophet, and (unlike some modern Christians) says that He was born of a virgin. He is not, however, seen as divine, hence the basic Christian claim is offensive and blasphemous to those In Submission. Some Jesus miracle stories are repeated, but Muhammad's marvels always seem to top them, emphasizing his prophetic seniority over the Judean, Issa. Islam not only came to reform, but to replace Judaism and Christianity, both of whom he accused of corruption, and of altering or adulterating their sacred writings. By the 2nd century A.D., Christianity was flourishing all over the Middle East. The Nestorians even went to China, and a strong Chaldean Church thrived in Persia and Iraq. There were many Arab Christians in North Africa. Early versions of the Bible, as well as some important, non-canonical ancient Christian writings, were in Arabic. Many writers point out that Christianity had dulled into a superstitious slumber in Africa by 700 A.D. But whatever the case, by the second and third generation after Muhammad, all these communities (and many not cited) fell militarily to Islamic forces after more than 500 years of deep roots. The Christians of Constantinople, many who were rich and powerful, packed into the great Hagia Sophia Cathedral when the Muslim Jihad entered the city in 1453. Along with their Patriarch and his bishops, they thought they would be spared. They were not. Uncounted tens of thousands were killed, and blood ran knee deep in the floors of the huge building. The Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sofia) was cleansed of the blood and all Christian profane items, and became a mosque as it is today, an ancient Christian Constantinople, "the Second Rome", was so devastated and depopulated that it took centuries to truly recover.

“[The Christians in Hagia Sofia] were caught in a trap. … The old people were killed on the spot; the young men and women were led off in strings of captives for a worse fate. “ [Adeney, p. 271.]

I have recounted nothing about the earlier Christian Crusades, but most everyone knows that few military campaigns, then or now, exceed their brutality. Neither religion was a religion of peace; both used the sword freely. Emasculated modern Christianity has lost its warrior spirit. Islam, however, has not. Nonetheless, after the rise of Islam after the passing of Muhammad, Christianity virtually ceased to exist in North Africa and the orient except in enclaves like the Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia, and a few in the mountains of Iraq. Several Orthodox Patriarchs still sit in Istanbul, Damascus Iraq and Beirut, etc., but where they were once the spiritual leaders of millions, their congregations today are a mere shadow of their former pre-Islamic glory. Most (but not all) Islamic states tolerate Christians, but does not allow them to proselyte or publicly talk about their faith. In severe Islamic states such as 1970s Iran, and in the newer Taliban movement, it could mean death. Christianity is seen as a blasphemous (saying a man is God) and idolatrous cult, at best to be tolerated and confined (and taxed), but not allowed to expand. Nothing of the Trinity recognized; Islam is Unitarian; God/Allah is One. Christian art works like paintings and statues in Catholic churches and the icons of the Orthodox are seen as idols. The Koran allows no portrayals of human or animal form, hence there is no true Islamic art other than abstract drawings and geometric designs. While Sufism and other mystical, aesthetic beliefs widen their traditions a bit, Islam is primarily an ascetic, desert faith, closer in temperament to the Anchorite, Stylite desert Christians monks (who preceded them) than to the worldly modern "Christians" of today.

Some American Muslims , as have all other faiths, have "adapted" to our hyper-culture and to the "modern" world. Even "fundamentalists" such as the Saudi royals of the Wahhabi sect can be enticed by the satanic delights of the west via western money. It is these "adaptations" that spurred the modern Islamic World Revolution. So far, the moderates are losing, and "liberals" exist no where except as carefully tended "hothouse flowers" in the west.

Historic Christianity can have courteous, mutually respectful relations with Islam, but when theology and doctrines are placed on the table and examined , there is really very little room for either side to agree on much of anything. In spite of the ugliness of Islam toward Christians, Vatican II Pope John Paul II goes to Iraq and kisses a Koran! Oh well, he had already acknowledged Judaism as a "brother", so why not Islam as well?

So then, Judeo-Christians and Judeo-Catholics can pray all they want with a few carefully selected "moderate" Imams such as those hauled out for the media lens in recent "national prayer." While we can be civil and respectful with one another as religions sharing the world, as do nation-states through diplomacy, the theological issues are clear. Either Christ Jesus Immanuel is correct or Muhammad is correct. There is little middle ground. Certainly not many "Christian pastors" ever told you any of this, so call one up and see what he/she might have to say on the matter. I welcome dialog and comments.

SOME COMMON ISLAMIC STRATEGIES AND THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS OFTEN EMPLOYED FOR THE CONVERSION OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS

Conversion is an on-going process. It is largely on a one-on-one or small group basis. While there may be some, I could find no reference to media advertising to promote Islam other than on the Internet. The following strategies are gleaned from Christians and Jews who have had contact with Muslims and talked about Islam with them. More often than not, one would hear the following persuasive arguments, especially persuasive to someone with an inadequate understanding of their own faith. This category includes most who call themselves Christians, and who know little enough about the history of their own chosen faith, much less know anything at all about Islam. We can be quite sure that Americans such as John Walker Lindh heard and accepted all these arguments. Shortly after you started reading the book, I presented the astounding figure that over 34,000 Americans had converted to Islam in the three or four months following the 9-11 Attack. I could never find a source that gave any kind of ethnic breakdown, but it would be almost impossible to think that the band of new Muslims includes not only Middle Easterners and black Americans, but white and Hispanic Americans– and many others as well. If you get a chance to talk to one – which I recommend – see how many of the following arguments present themselves as you progress in your dialogue. I am betting that they all do. And of course, I am interested in expanding the list as I am sure that even more creative arguments are used, especially by those well-versed in Islam. But if you talk to a new convert, this should be precisely what you will hear from them when you eventually ask exactly why they converted.

1. Islam is the righteous religion. Jews never believe in Jesus or Muhammad or in the Bible or the Koran. Christians never believe in Muhammad or the Koran, and think that the Old Testament can’t stand alone without the New Testament. Islam is not like them. We believe in Moses and his Law and also in Jesus and his Injil (Bible). Muhammad completed the message of both of them. So if you accepted Islam, you will be a believer in all the prophets and in all of their books.

2. Our book, the Koran, is a complimentary book. The Bible is deficient in some important conditions that manage the daily life of believers. It is concerned only with the spiritual things. Torah, on the contrary, is only concerned with the daily duties and neglects the eschatological issues. But Islam is concerned with both of them.

3. If you believe in Islam, you would lose nothing, only a few regulations will be added to your lifestyle. We have many things in common. We believe in one God like you, believe in angels, prophets, holy books, prayer and fasting as a way to God. We believe in life after death and in resurrection at the end of times. We believe in the paradise and hell. So a lot of things are common between Islam and older versions of religions. We complete what is deficient in them.

4. If you believed in Islam, you will need nothing to be saved. Our religion is simple. You can do everything after you utter the two witnesses and pray five times a day, and fast for a month every year. After that, you can work, marry, and enjoy your life and all your sins will be easily forgiven. After death you will be a member in the paradise.

5. Islam is the religion God likes. God sent the Koran after all previous prophets failed to satisfy the needs of humanity. So He sent the Koran to fill the empty spaces in the previous books and no more books will be inspired till the day of judgment.

6. Islam is the religion of equality, freedom and human rights because all Muslims (notice it does not say all people) are equal in front of God. The prophet Muhammad is the prophet of peace, mercy and truth. Islam respects the weakness of our human nature, so it doesn’t impose overzealous duties on believers. So they can be easily saved. [Basic material taken from “The Masks of Islam,” in Battle Cry Sounding, # 159, 2002, prophet@hubwest.com.]

Well, now – are you ready to enroll and receive all these benefits? I suppose that’s rather doubtful if you’ve come this far with me in the book, but as important than your own conversion is that of those around you. Young “Johnny Taliban” was only 16 when he fell in love with the Saving Faith. But more than all of that – and I address this to Christians of all varieties – can you answer these very persuasive arguments? Think about this. I did not ask you if you believed these statements. I asked if you could answer them. Or do you know someone who could help you? Do you have a pastor (rabbi, spiritual guide, guru, psychic, etc.) who can answer them for you? Christianity, as it is constituted here at the beginning of the 21st century, seems ill equipped ideologically to face the challenge. The average Muslim seems more dedicated and devout in his or her faith than do “modern” Christians. After all, other than multi-cultural one-worldism and “brotherhood” or some form of “fundamentalism” or religious emotionalism – all of which are intellectually confined within the parameters of denominational sectarianism -- what do most churches offer today? Not to divert too far, but did you know that the word translated as “church” in the New Testament is ecclesia, and that it simply meant a like-minded cultural-religious covenant community rather than the monolithic entities we have today?

As to the conversion points employed by Islam: Muslims make no real secret of hiding their intent. No one is being “brainwashed” or “hooked in” unless they choose to be. Right now, Islam in North America has no reason to worry about forcibly converting or “brainwashing” anyone. Apparently, interest in Islam – and not just interest in the topic, but interest in conversion – is at an all-time high according to every source I could find. There are smiles on the bright faces of both young and older Muslims who welcome those who seek to submit to the Religion of Peace and Salvation, a faith in which they are secure and happy, in spite of what we are told. Are you secure enough with your own faith, whatever it may be, to both confront and answer these questions? Do you even know where to look for the answers? Some questions can only be truly and meaningfully answered inside oneself, a process that must come long before sharing one’s faith and beliefs meaningfully with others.

The situation is no longer just a culture war. 9-11 changed all of that, but there is no way that Islam can win a traditional war with the West, and besides, that’s not the kind of wars we fight nowadays anyway. We have arrived in the dimension of “stars wars” military science fiction come true. We can now kill people all over the world – sometimes even the right ones – with the touch of a button. With Predator Drones and even more sophisticated unmanned aircraft soon and sure to come, we need not endanger the lives of a pilot or crew. If American or Western lives are lost, it is through “friendly fire” accidents. Subsequently, the conflicts are bloodlessly and antiseptically presented by our “fair and balanced” media, and almost everyone goes, “ho hum, pass my the chips and beer,” and pays little attention. Even after 9-11, we have resumed our usual slothful inattentive ways. But, the point is that although radical militant Islam can inflict a lot of damage, ultimately, it will be defeated. It is then reasonable for “mainline” Islamic thinkers to work on finding another way to pursue the basic issues, but that presupposes that anyone has really agreed upon what these issues are. Again, it is not my responsibility to tell Islam precisely how to respond, only to suggest that what they are doing at present will ultimately fail. If there was ever a time for true Islamic Unity, it is today against the forces technologically superior forces of the New World Order. These very real forces directly confront Islam on all cultural and economic fronts. Among other things, Islam has the audacity to operate a banking system without usury. [This is a fascinating topic that deserves much more attention. This is an area where Islam could contribute a useful model for economies that want to exit from the International Banking and Trade Cartel. While most Islamic banks are forced to do business with the usury banks, the model itself is still pure and potentially useful for patriots and nationalists in every nation of the world. ]

Hey, Muslims – you got our attention 9-11 – what will you do with it now?

ISLAM AND JUDAISM

If there is any true kinship among the "three great monotheistic faiths" (as ironic as it may sound) it is between Islam and Judaism, not with Christianity. When he was just a regular guy in his pre-prophet days, Muhammad was probably a "Hanif", a member of a sect claiming spiritual descent from Abraham. Moreover, several Arab tribes had adopted Judaism of some form. One (like the later Central Asian Khazars) became a Judaic kingdom for a time. Islam, like Christianity, arose out of a Judaic milieu. Some writers say that Muhammad was a Christian before creating his own strange religious blend. To some degree, both early Islam and early Christianity (until Paul) are efforts to reform, purify and unify Judaic and pre-Judaic Hebrew beliefs. While the Pauline church gave up some Mosaic and all Talmudic/Pharisaic law codes, circumcision, ritual foods, and the like, Islam did not. Because of his pre-existing Christo-Gnostic-Judaic-quasi-Abrahamic belief system, Muhammad naturally expected Christians, but especially Jews, and more especially, those of the Arab-Jewish tribes, to see the light. He evidently anticipated more success than Jesus, whom the Jews rejected and killed some 600 years earlier. Surely, thought Muhammad, they will follow me and recognize Allah. They did not. As well as ridding the newly-conquered Islamic lands of the idolater-Christians, Muhammad also annihilated the Jewish and Jewish-Arab tribes of North Africa in one of the first bloody Islamic Jihads.

This is a lesson and a proto-type. The Ones In Submission must tolerate the infidels only so long. Once they have been given a chance to convert and refuse, then conversion by the conquest of holy war is seen as not only legitimate, but demanded.

But as I said, this should be judged in context. As exemplified amply in the Old Testament, and foreshadowing the Christian Crusaders yet to come, early Islam follows an ancient tradition of holy war and murder in the name of a god. Sir Richard Burton said, "And did Moses disdain to place carnal weapons in the hands of his people? The great Lawgiver of Israel sanctioned the murder in cold blood of women and child captives. Even kings were hewed in pieces before the Lord." This is a fascinating line of inquiry to follow as it leads to the conclusion that what we today know as "Jihad" has both Mosaic and Talmudic-Jewish roots. One of many famous stories about Muhammad concerns an attempted poisoning by a Jewess. After this, not to mention the consistently unrelenting and often bitter rejections by the Jews, he finally gave up on converting them. Muslims were now told to face Mecca for prayer, where previously, they faced Jerusalem.

There are more likenesses. Ritual food preparations are almost identical. Halal food may be substituted when a Kosher meal is not available, and vice versa. Both the Orthodox Jew and the devoutly observant Muslim prefer the unshaved beard, though the Islamists omit the Hasidic forelocks. Islam has no real "Sabbath" but Friday (often in the evening) became the day a Mullah might preach a sermon and read from the Koran. The Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday night. Islam has no liturgical music or dance (except in Sufi mystical sects).

We have the Koran, which has ample texts refuting (“abridging” say the Muslims) itself, and then we have the Hadiths, which function like the Talmud as a guide to get around, avoid and evade what is found in the primary scriptures. Sharia Law operates quite like Rabbinical Talmudic Law. One submits disputes to a court of Mullahs and Koranic scholars and judges who decide the case on that basis. Both Judaism and Islam are best described as legal systems rather than religions. This is essentially the same as the Rabbinical beit din court. In another interesting parallel, one can change his/her name after converting to either Islam or Orthodox Talmudism. Almost every convert to Islam changes their name, and immigrants to Israel have the right to adopt a “Jewish name” when moving there. Women are not really regarded very highly in either faith. Some mosques, like some synagogues, separate male and female worshippers.

There are other similarities as well, but lately on TV, some of them are uncannily mirrored in rituals and educational practices. Koranic study, like Talmudic study, is intense. If he (like Jews, women are not encouraged to study scripture) learns to recite the Koran from memory, he bears the honorific, Hafiz. Watch the young Islamic boys at Madrassah schools, in their skullcaps, swaying back and forth reciting the Koran just as Jewish boys in yarmulkes recite the Talmud. The Jewish swaying and nodding is seen on TV at the "Wailing and Whining Wall" in Jerusalem. Curiously, the little "beanie" cap is found in Christianity too. Just look at the Pope, the Cardinals and the Bishops. Looking at clergy of all religions, a mullah is more akin to the rabbinical model, as he is, above all, a Judge, an interpreter of the Sharia of Allah. Burial practices are similar as well. The actual rites are simple -- what we see on TV at Muslim martyr-funerals are the public parts, heavily politicized, especially the parade with the ubiquitous Martyr Photo (posing for the photo is a big deal accompanied by a celebration) plastered on big posters carried by the mourning crowd, always accompanied by a cacophony of ululating Muslim women. Muslims, as do the Orthodox Talmudist Jews, inter the body very quickly after the death.

Formerly, all three religions forbade usury. Christianity gave this up in the 1500s, and Jews can practice all the usury they want with non-Jews, but Islamic banking still holds to the non-usurious model. Naturally, the international banking and trade cartel would like to suppress and destroy this rival system, but seem to be content with merely co-opting it. Whether you charge interest or not, you have to have money, and money comes through the cartel. Again, this is a topic worth further exploration as this may be a very positive contribution, and also an interesting parallel.

In another likeness, both Jews and Muslims are quite exclusive, essentially regarding those who do not practice their true religion as heathens at best and cattle/goyim sub-humans at worst. One who has submitted to the purity of Islam does not make friends or confidants of such types. Strongly echoing the Talmud, the Koran says:

"O ye who believe! Take not Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily, Allah guideth not a people unjust." Sura 5:51

This is very enlightening in the face of current events and recent history. Think of this verse, then think of all the trouble Islamic countries have with U.S. military and cultural presences in Muslim lands. No wonder Osama bin Laden and many others think that the Saudi royals apostatized and betrayed the Koran by allowing American military protectors on holy soil. And maybe the part of the verse I highlighted is not so far off base when one thinks of the "Christian" U.S. and its backing of Israeli Jewish terrorism toward Palestinians.

Within the last decade, the number of Muslims exceeded the number of Jews in the U.S. Like a large number of Jews, most Muslims come from abroad. Counting undocumented aliens, the figures may be much higher. There are other ironic and seeming incongruous similarities between the two religions as well, but this short survey will have to suffice for now.

THE KORAN SPEAKS ON AND JEWS CHRISTIANS

Essentially and fundamentally, the Koran allows for no other religions. Pagans are particularly despised, as the present-day animists of southern Sudan know as well as the almost equally despised Christians of that sad region, and the destruction of the centuries-old Buddha statues by the Afghan Taliban represents how a Muslim, strictly speaking, should handle such pre-Islamic barbarism. “The People of the Book,” that is, Jews and Christians, are to be barely tolerated – but taxed. As are critics of any religious text, I will be inevitably accused of taking all of this out of context, but that begs the basic question of why they are there, not to mention what they mean for hundreds of millions of Muslims. With that said, please consider the following ayahs.

{SURA (Chapter): AYAH (verse).}
2:62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
2:113. The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.
2:120. Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of God,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against God.
2:135. They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with God."
2.140. Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma'il Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than God? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from God? but God is not unmindful of what ye do!
4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
4:160. For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from God's Way;-
5:15. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will God show them what it is they have done.
5:20. (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"
5:44. O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by God, thou hast no authority in the least for him against God. For such - it is not God's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
5:47. It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.5.054. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.
5:72. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
5:85. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

ISLAM AND OTHER WORLD RELIGIONS

Other than the jihad against Christianity, the jihad against the atheist Soviets in Afghanistan, the next greatest struggle has been with Hinduism as evidenced by the on-going standoff between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. Islam, while it can have varying levels of tolerance for compliant Jews and Christians, this is simply not so with other faiths, which are regarded as horrific pre-Islamic paganism. No good Muslim wants to live in such a society, nor should a Muslim be expected to peacefully tolerate its presence within Islamic lands. Again, the olive branch of peace, friendship, trade, etc., must be offered first – all, of course, directed toward conversion. If this peaceful struggle and striving (jihad) does not work, then the jihad of open conflict may be invoked. If the Muslims are weak and unable to do this, they may abide a temporary state of affairs, but the heart of the good Submitter (Muslim) is always toward the submission of the infidel to the reign of Allah’s holy law, the Sharia.

THE ISLAMIC WORLD ORDER—
A REIGN OF PEACE AND SUBMISSION TO SHARIA LAW

Who would not want a world where there is no war, no conflict? Who would not want a world where a just legal system was available to all? Not only that, the decisions of the legal system will be based on the revelations of Allah as revealed to the Last and Greatest Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah by the Archangel Gabriel (even though he first thought it was demons)? Every Muslim wants this reign of Allah – in some form or the other. When speaking with Muslims, be prepared to hear that jihad is merely the struggle that every Submitter (Muslim) has within oneself to let the word/law of Allah rule their lives. All of this is certainly true, but obviously it does not stop there. Islam is a universal, Unitarian one-way-for-all, all-encompassing universal spiritual and political order. Islamists have no concept of what we call in the West, separation of “church” and “state”. Why would anyone want Allah to rule and bless your life and not want the same thing for the whole world? There are only three kinds of states. Infidel states of various kinds, which ultimately must be converted. Peaceful methods must be used first, but if the infidels resist, the jihad is legitimate. Christians and Jews are grudgingly allowed to exist after resisting conversion, but must keep to themselves, never proselytize, and – always, as ordered by the Koran – pay a head-tax. Another kind of state is one that is partially Islamicized, and on the way to conversion. These are states where Islamic rights are protected by treaties. It is assumed that, one way or another, they will be added to the list of Islamic states. An Islamic state can take many political forms, but it based in Sharia law. The Koran is not only a guide for one’s personal life, it is a guide (constitution) for the proper government of Muslims – the Islamic state.

ISLAM IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB –
ANYONE CAN JOIN, BUT ULTIMATELY, EVERYONE MUST JOIN

It is not that Islam is an exclusive club or caste as with Judaism. Anyone can join Islam, but ultimately, everyone must join. There is no room for tolerance or pluralism as we have in America. Again, Jews seem to innately know this. Christians should have learned it long ago, but who remembers the perhaps millions of Christian martyrs to the Islamic Jihad in Africa and Asia over a the past one thousand years? Or today? A really violent Jihad may not be all that necessary in Europe and North America. "Jihad by immigration” or the “bloodless jihadi’ may do the job even more thoroughly and effectively.

“KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE.”

“The burden of proof is now clearly on the Muslims. They must supply scholars with the documentary evidence to support their theories on the origins of the Qur'an and the Hadith. Until they do so, we cannot believe in the inspiration of either one. … The truth will triumph in the end. The Qur'an and the Hadith were political tools used to subjugate non-Arab cultures by forcing them to accept a religion with elevated Arabian language, political laws, moral standards, dress codes, penal punishments and other cultural elements to the status of divine law. This is why, to become a Muslim, you must take an Arab name, dress like an Arab, speak Arabic, eat only what Arabs eat, treat your wife as Arabs treat their wives, etc.

THE RELIGION OF ISLAM WAS BORN OUT OF ARAB CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

The religion of Islam was thus born out of Arab cultural imperialism and is rooted in a racist attitude that all things Arab are good while all things non-Arab are evil. Until this is understood, the true nature of Islam cannot be grasped. This is why Western dress, food, movies, hairstyles, etc., are zealously denounced by the Mullahs and Imams as Satanic. Such things as blue jeans are not really condemned because they are immoral but because they are not Arab. The truthfulness of this observation is easily demonstrated by Islam's demand that one bow in prayer in the direction of Arabia (Mecca) and make a pilgrimage to Arabia (Mecca). The religion of Islam is Arabian paganism and culture raised to divine law and imposed upon conquered nations.

Nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. who had the misfortune of having Islam forced upon them by the sword, need to break free from Arab imperialism in order to regain their own identity and culture. Until they throw off the shackles of Islam, they cannot become free societies where human rights are honored.” [How The Qur'an Came To Be.]

CHAPTER SIX

THE MAJOR DIVISIONS AND PRACTICES OF ISLAM

THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM

While many readers are familiar with these, not all are, so let’s take a quick look. These are the basic obligations and ritual requirements (Ibadat) of every Muslim toward Allah, regardless of the sect or tradition within Islam.

SHAHADA, or the Confession of Faith. “There is no God but the One God (Al-Ilah), and Muhammad is his Prophet (or Apostle or Ambassador).” There are additional beliefs expressed in Allah’s books, in angels (messengers) and the Last Day. A pious Muslim will repeat the short confession many times a day. In the Sufi mystical sects, a concentrated meditation on the Shahada is part of a practice called dhikr. Another use of the word shahada is to describe one’s confession of faith in action, i.e., becoming an “Active Martyr.” Active Martyrdom is not at all analogous with our Western view of suicide.

SALAT, or ritual prayer is said, according to the Hadiths, at five times daily: dawn, noon, late afternoon, prior to sunset; after sunset. The accompanying kneeling and pre-prayer ablutions are all strictly prescribed.

ZAKAT, or alms is of great importance as an outward sign of Islam, and is most often collected as a tax in countries with Islamic governments. These duties are imposed on all Muslims; even the very poor should make an effort. It goes without saying that if you are a Muslim, you will contribute zakat. As we know, a myriad of foundations and charities exist solely for this purpose, which is essentially benevolent. As we also know, it is under the blanket of zakat that one may support Mujahadeen who are active in Jihad. Almost all the Muslim organizations targeted internationally with seizure of (some) bank accounts were reputedly “charitable”.

SAWM, or fasting during the lunar month of Ramadan from dawn until dusk is mandatory for all but the very ill. Celebrated at the end of the month is Eid al-Fitr, a joyous festival. In the West, some Muslims send holiday greeting cards for Eid. If you would like to be informed on all of this, try the Radio Islam website, and sign on for email bulletins, Eid greetings, and an opportunity to research all of this much further.

HAJJ, or Pilgrimage to the Kaaba in Mecca is expected of every Muslim who has the means. As part of their zakat obligations, wealthy Muslims will pay for poorer ones to go on the Hajj, all through the miracles of rapid modern transportation. Where only a few thousand visited annually, this all took a quantum leap beginning in the 1950s. Now a Hajj may involve a million people or more.

“ISLAM, IT IS OFTEN SAID, IS A RELIGION OF LAW. AMONG ALL THE EXPRESSIONS OF ISLAMIC PIETY, LAW IS THE MOST CHARACTERISTIC.” [Parrinder, p. 488.]

In a likeness with Judaic Talmudism, Islam is extremely and pedantically ritualistic and legalistic. As a matter of fact, it is this distinct and clear guidance that the Ones Who Submit (Muslims) seek, indeed, it is regarded as the least of what they expect from religion. For the devout Muslim like the devout Talmudist or Christian Biblical literalist-legalist believes that the law is sufficient for each and every situation one might ever encounter. There is no doubt and no problems if one follows the “simple” law of Allah and the “religion of peace.” This extreme punctilious legalism is in direct and stark contrast to the Christian message, which fulfilled the law and opened mankind to a new era of God’s love. This is an extreme difference between Christianity and the other two members of the so-called “Three Great Monotheistic Religions”. Monotheistic they may be called, but when the differences are laid out on the table, love versus legalism distinctly stands out.

ISLAMIC CLERGY

Again, this subject is conflicted and misunderstood by false analogies to Christian clergy. As said, Mullahs, Imams and other variously called Islamic clergymen (again, there are no women clergy) are mainly, like Rabbis and Talmudic scholars, interpreters of the Law (Koran) and the Traditions (Hadiths, etc.). A Mullah is neither a priest (presenter of the sacrifice for the people) nor is he a pastor (one who cares for and teaches lay Christians) – the word “Mullah” (from ) means “Judge”. There is neither priesthood nor sacraments in Islam, though the Shiite movement has their own lines of Ayatollahs ("Sign of Allah"), and hierarchical clergy in addition to a calendar of martyr-saints and religious pilgrimages. In most Islamic countries, a Mullah has studied for 12 years or more before being recognized in that position. In Europe and the United States, as well as in some Sunni Muslim countries, the local mosque leader may not be a Mullah, but a man who has more than average study of the Koran, and who is respected and chosen by the members of the mosque. He is called an Imam (essentially a chief leader), though this is also a term used for the Prophet himself, for the first three Caliphs, and in the Shia movement for the successors of Ali and the messiah-like 12th Imam, whose physical return is ardently expected. To confuse this word even more, Imam is also used like prince as the designation of an Islamic ruler such as formerly in Yemen.

ISLAMIC EDUCATION

If one watches news channels at all, by now, you have seen the Madrassah schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Normally, all you see are young boys, but if you look closely, you will see an older youth or young man or even an older man sitting and swaying back and forth while reciting The Recitation (Koran). It is considered a privilege to attend such a school. While a Madrassah school is technically a theological college or seminary, in the two countries cited, the Madrassah is often the only kind of school that is available. Hence, most students are not there to be trained as Mullahs. Those who are inclined in this direction would add at least another four to six years to their studies, which would broaden to include other Islamist theologians and theorists as well, depending on the political/religious (remember, there is no distinction in Islam) persuasion of the head master or governing board of the particular Madrassah. Islamic universities of higher are all over the Middle East, and some of them are quite good. Indeed, Islamic universities dating from early medieval times have the longest continuous history of any schools in the world. The main learning in the basic Madrassah (in addition to reading and writing) is the Koran. All instruction is from the Koran. All classroom illustrations and lessons are from the Koran. Sermons and lectures are summations and applications of the Koran, and as we now know, some schools are known to be quite rabid in their extremist views, using the schools as recruiting grounds for the on-going and omnipresent jihad. For the average student, it takes eight to ten years to memorize the Koran, and you are not considered as having finished or graduated until you are able to do this. If one searches the wire services and other publications, it’s not hard at all to come up with some real horror/abuse stories of beatings, being chained to desks and beds, and worse for those who cannot or will not complete their Koranic training. While some Madrassahs admit female students, most do not, and the ones that do offer a limited, shorter curriculum for the girls.

WHAT AND WHO ARE “FUNDAMENTALISTS”?

The English word “fundamentalist” is used over and over by the media, and usually seems to mean the same thing as “radical” or “extremist”, but that is not its real meaning at all. In American (primarily non-Catholic) religion, fundamentalist is not (until recently) a “bad word”, simply indicating one who held to basic Christian beliefs strongly rooted in a usually literalist interpretation of the scriptures. While some think this is “good” for Christianity, when used for Muslims it seems, across the board, to be an entirely pejorative term. The word really should not have a value judgment put on it as it is a useful descriptive word. But the use of “loaded language” seems to have, more or less, demonized it. [We hear “loaded language” all the time in the media, a common propaganda technique, particularly in this “age of the politically correct”. Words like extremist, radical, racist, anti-Semite, e.g., (and now fundamentalist) are ubiquitously bandied about, endlessly repeated, endlessly demonized, and then used like a broad paint brush to color anyone they target. “Overloaded language” is just more of the same, and is perhaps the better descriptive term for the highly “loaded” terms herein cited.]

While I have employed the word in this book as a descriptive term, there is another problem with it besides loaded language. Essentially, it is quite difficult to translate this term into Arabic. The concept is not really understood in that culture and religion. There are those who are “orthodox”, that is, they follow a type of Islam that is agreed upon by the large majority of followers as being closest to that taught by the Prophet. They are called Sunnites. The Shiites on the other hand, feel the same way. They are “conspiracy theorists” (another “loaded” term) of sorts in that they feel certain forces conspired to conceal the real teachings. So both parties see themselves as orthodox, a better word than fundamentalist. In Islamic theology, the “bad guys” are called innovators. An innovation is to change or add something to the Prophet’s message. Of course, both these Islamic sects see the other as the evil and insidious innovator. But as not to belabor the point, the American meaning of fundamentalism has little meaning to but a few Muslims.

Even the word “orthodox” is not really applicable in the Western sense. Sunni Islam is usually referred to as orthodox Islam, but the better term would be “majority of Islam”. It is very mistaken to say that Sunni and Shiite Islam are like Catholics and Protestants. While most Americans seem to insist on seeing it present, there is really no analogy at all. The divisions of Islam should not be seen as the denominations of Christendom. No matter how much they actually disagree, the Muslim sects/schools see themselves as basic or orthodox or fundamental in belief. In Islam, there really is no other acceptable path!

Unlike Christianity, which after centuries of sectarian battling has now gone the other direction taking in almost anything and everything, there are no such things as “liberals” or “moderates” or “conservatives” in Islam. While a few “liberals” exist, all of them under Western aegis, they are generally regarded as innovators, thus blasphemers. “Liberal innovators” (or any other kind of innovators) have never been welcome in Islam, and probably never really can be successful in the face of 1,500 years of fierce resistance fired by fierce ideology. Again not to recommend his silly books, but an example of how “liberals” are treated in Islam is the case of Pakistani Salman Rushdie, and it was the Shiite Khomeini who issued the now-infamous Fatwa condemning him to death.

So then, the divisions of Islam more resemble divisions of ancient Greek philosophy. While they followed various teachers or “schools”, first and foremost they were Greeks. The majority Sunni orthodox wing has several schools of thought, but there is not truly sectarian split except the minority (but very important) Shia wing. While Christian denominations have done all kinds of terrorism to one another over the centuries, for the most part, Muslims have not treated one another in this way, preferring to (mostly) reserve this for the infidels. But there have been exceptions, with the intolerant Wahhabis who did everything they could to theologically cleanse and physically remove the Shiites from the holy ground of Arabia, whose innovations were un-Koranic, hence they could abide even their physical presence.

TERRORISM AND THE DIVISIONS OF ISLAM

Just as most Islamic radical extremists are part of the Sunni orthodox wing as are the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, some of the most radical ones are Shiites, whose revolution and movement in Iran got untold reels of press coverage when they seized the American Embassy when the bewildered Jimmy Carter sat in the Whitehouse. Various terrorist groups, like criminal gangs who oppose one another in turf battles, will work together for a unified purpose from time to time. There is absolutely no reason not to assume that Shiite and Sunnite terrorist groups network without any overt doctrinal programs. As a matter of fact, terrorist groups of all kinds operate in a gray and murky “internet” where they share intelligence and armaments just as do the intel orgs of nation-states. Ideology is put on the shelf; “right wing” terrorists have trained with Marxists (there is even a blend of Nazi thought and Maoism), IRA with Colombians drug-lord fighters, and so on. But again, if we just have the September 11 events under our microscope, along with the subsequent Afghanistan events, just about all the major players are Saudi Arabian Wahhabist (Sunni) terrorists.

“IF THIS IS ISLAM, WE MUST DENOUNCE IT.” William F. Buckley, Jr.

[After citing several other atrocities, columnist Buckley also said,] “The Taliban has taken unmarried women detected in pregnancy and buried them to neck level before execution. Where is Islamic condemnation of such practices? … If it is thought to be a sign of tolerance to defer to Islam as simply another religion. It isn’t that. It is a form condescension. Carefully selected, there are Koranic preachings that are consistent with civilized life. But on Sept. 11 were looked in the face by a deed done by Muslims who understood themselves to be acting out Muslim ideals. It is all very well for the individual Muslim spokesmen to assert the misjudgment of the terrorists, but the Islamic world is substantially made up of countries that ignore or countenance or support terrorist activity.”
[From one of Buckley’s syndicated columns as seen in Los Angeles Times 12/01.]

SUNNI ISLAM

The Sunni or Sunnites (from Sunna, or Sunnat, Arabic for tradition] are adherents of the largest division of Islam, most often considered the most traditionalist or orthodox. Sunnites comprise 85% to 90% of all Muslims (almost all the others are Shiites). They accept the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad as authoritative and approve the historic order of Muhammad's first four successors (remember, he had no sons; ironically, only a daughter) while the rival Shiites maintain that Ali (son-in-law), the fourth Caliph, should have been the first. Differences in ceremony and interpretations of Sharia law divide Sunnites into four separate, but related, schools: Hanafites, Malikites, Shafites, and Hanbalites. Others are also important, particularly the now-widespread and influential Wahhabi movement, discussed earlier. While the even more sectarian Shiites feel that it is they who are the real fundamentalists (basic believers), they are viewed as shameless innovators by most Sunnites.

THE SHIITES

Shiite Islam, via Iran, was formerly the main source of terrorist threats, and stands today in Lebanon as the Hesbollah, a group that eventually must be included in any peace plans. Because of the importance of Iran in regional and world affairs, particularly in the Afghan dilemma, we will spend a little more time on this rather fascinating Muslim school of thought, thoughts that quite often translate into actions! Shiites, then, are the one sole surviving major Islamic sectarian movement, growing from the early disputes over political succession to The Prophet. Shiites believe that rule over the Muslim community or umma is the divine right of The Prophet’s descendants through daughter Fatima and husband Ali (he had no sons). The Shiites believe in a series of 12 infallible, almost divine leaders (called Imams, but in Sunni Islam, this is merely a title of respect for a mosque leader) beginning with Imam Ali and are accordingly known as the “Twelvers.” The 12th and last imam disappeared in 880 A.D., and Shiites anxiously await his return, like a messiah, when the world will be filled with the justice of Allah and The Koran.

There are political implications as to this theology. One could assume that the real world Islamic World State would not materialize until the coming of this figure. Therefore, until that grand and glorious era to come, even the very best Islamic ruler is not fully legitimate. The Shiites are more esoteric and metaphysical than the more orthodox Sunnis. While quite meticulously observing proper conduct and Sharia law, a Shiite leader will be guided by mystic knowledge as well. Some say that the Koran has a model for democracy in the concept of consensus of the community as a determining and deciding factor. But a Shia mystical-political leader will rely more heavily on visions, dreams and prayer rather than the consensus of the community in situations where opinions of the Mullahs differ from that of the general public.

Shiites and Sunnites also disagree on ritual and ceremony, and even over The Koran itself. Some Shiite versions of the Koran have an additional section which (allegedly) Muhammad dictated on his death-bed, turning all power over to Ali. While there are no popes, cardinals or bishops in Islam, unlike Sunnis, there is a distinct and hierarchical division of the clergy. At the top are the various Ayatollahs (“Signs of Allah”; even they have ones who are senior members) with other levels going on down to regular Mullahs (local clergy), who are also called Hojatoleslams (“Vicars of Islam”). While a mosque leader in Sunni Islam is often called Imam, this is a revered title in Shia Islam for their 12 great ones and the one so ardently awaited. The Shiite year is filled with ritual observations, many of them having to do with martyr-saints. The Shia sects all share an Roman Catholic-like calendar of saints (mostly dead martyrs of course) complete with pilgrimages to their tombs and/or martyrdom sites. While the Hajj is still the central goal of every Muslim, the Shiite devotee participates regularly in these “mini-Hajjes”, visiting various sites in Iran and Iraq (when they are not killing one another). Even the disastrous 8 years of war can be seen as religiously based in many ways. It is only when Sadaam was under assault that he suddenly took on a Muslim veneer to get assistance and sympathy for his cause. Sadaam is a member of the Ba’ath Party, a Pan-Arab unity movement, somewhat based on European National Socialism. Gamel Abdel Nasser was its main voice and guide. It, like the “Young Turks” that overthrew the Ottoman Empire, is a secular movement. Arab Ba’ath nationalist movements have overwhelmingly failed in their attempts to unify the Arab world (e.g., the defunct U.A.R. merger between geographically separated Egypt and Syria). And as we know, this failure is one of the roots of the present-day reaction and revolutionary rage.

THE SHIA MOVEMENT IS CENTERED IN IRAN AND IRAQ

Shiites constitute a significant minority presence (and possibly a rival to Sadaam) in Iraq. Shiites are well-established in Lebanon, where the Hesbollah (or Hesbollah; the Party of Allah) openly and successfully operate, launching countless small attacks on northern Israel. There are a few Shiites in Pakistan, and an entire Shia militia division, centered in Herat, Afghanistan. The Taliban Sunni government was not like by Iran, and the Taliban only grudgingly accepted the Hazara Afghans in the west who practice Shia Islam. In fact, they are derisively called “munafiqueen” or “hypocrites beyond the pale of Islam.” [Ahrari, M. Ehsan, “Transnational Terrorism & Old Friends: Pakistan & The U.S.,” Strategic Review, Winter 2001.] Of course, they are ignored as is the crucial role of Iran in bringing any real peace to the region.

Today, we know Shiite revolutionary “fundamentalists” best from the 1970s Islamic Revolution in Iran, when young, radical Iranian students-extremists seized and held our embassy personnel for well over fifteen months before being released, an unpardonable and disgraceful situation allowed to drag on and on by the indecisive and confused Carter administration. Even the military was confused and befuddled during those years of Jimmy, the Peanut. You might remember that desert special ops rescue attempt that ended in tragedy when our helicopters ran into one another while trying to launch the mission. Later, we “mistakenly” blew a packed Iranian passenger jet out of the air. Since those volatile times, the Ayatollah Khomeini has passed on to Islamic paradise, and the situation is a bit less radical, with Iranians now again wanting to open up to the West. [Ruhollah Khomeini was a fascinating figure. In video footage, he often appears blind, being led by aides. He was not blind. He kept his eyes closed in public to avoid spiritual pollution. It is said that when flying, he would look at Allah’s blue sky and clouds from his window. He was close to 80 when he came to power, and ruled as a mystical, benevolent (or not so) despot, a Khalifa of the Middle Ages for modern times.] Because of our then-opposition to Iran, we encouraged and abetted Sadaam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, in which ten of thousands of young Shiite boys marched across mine fields under gunfire, dying in huge waves, seldom truly breaching enemy lines. Even when they did, it was like World War One – tens of thousands of lives expended for trenches and a few acres of enemy ground. What did we care, right? Let the “towel heads” kill one another off, isn’t that the way? Besides, while they’re killing one another, they won’t be bothering us or messing with the oil prices. Whatever the policy really was, it has done little other than give us Sadaam Hussein and Bush War One. And moreover, we now have Bush War Two where we can make up not only for the failures of Bush War One, but for the Clinton era debacle in Somalia as well. But I digress.

When the Shia radicals seized the American Embassy in Tehran, they emphasized several main points, which, then as now, were never fully addressed by our media or our politicians. First, they said that the Shah was an American puppet. He was; they were right. And in our ignorance and arrogance, we over-estimated his abilities and woefully underestimated the radical revolutionary forces opposing him much as we have ignored the present-day boiling pot, which has been steaming and spilling over for years. Second, and worse, they said that the U.S. directly funded, equipped and trained the dreaded secret police apparatus known as SAVAK. Just as the U.S.A. runs the “School of the Americas” to train Latin American torturers, we shared our advanced knowledge with the Tsar’s (oops, I mean the Shah’s) KGB-like police as well. Third, the Islamists said the embassy was a nest of spies. Again, we denied, but they told the truth. The old embassy was packed with scores of unattached “diplomats” and shadowy “special attaches”, that is, spies. What is more, the young radicals didn’t just sit around listening to boom boxes all that time. They put together hundreds of secret, classified documents from the paper shredders. No U.S. official ever denied their authenticity because they were real, and they could not really say anything at all. As always, the mass media was complicit and accommodating.

But in the present-day, all of this is almost like ancient history. While the Shia “fundamentalist” Mullahs and Ayatollah’s still rule, they are more and more (once again) giving way to the eternally assaulting forces of modernism and the West. Just think: the embassy-seizing radicals of the Khomeini revolution are now the middle-aged men who govern the country – and they have “joined” us in our “war on terrorism”, and they want American ingenuity and American dollars to return, which they will. Will the cycle repeat itself, or will the medieval ideas be cast aside? I have no real answer, but so far, it sure looks like we are merely retracing the steps of the past.

WAHHABISM

“Wahhabis: in Islam, members of a puritanical reform movement begun by the conservative Syrian jurist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92). Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was faithful to the Koran, the supreme body of Islamic law, and to the Hadiths (or Sunna), a second body of Islamic law comprising the actions and utterances attributed to the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam. He rejected, however, all innovations and also the principle of consensus (Ijma) of the Muslim community on any text of Islamic writ and on customs compatible with the Koran or Hadiths.
The ascetic life and stern preaching of ibn Abd al-Wahhab extended the influence of the Wahhabis, who rejected all luxury, dancing, gambling, music, and the use of tobacco. Wahhabism spread rapidly as a nationalist religious movement, gaining ascendancy throughout Arabia. Wahhabi warriors successfully attacked and purged the Islamic shrine at Karbala’ and the cities of Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina in the early years of the 19th century before they were defeated by the armies of the Turkish sultan Mahmud II, after a campaign ending in 1818. The number of Wahhabis today probably exceeds 8 million, but they are confined almost entirely to the Arabian Peninsula, in Saudi Arabia.” ["Wahhabis," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia..]

Comment: Since we will examine the Wahhabis and their Saudi Arabian homeland later, we will not spend too much time with them here, but any discussion of the divisions of Islam, especially in the present times, cannot be complete without including this important and vital movement. The description above is accurate – to a point. First, while Wahhabism failed in the early 19th century to take full control of the Muslim holy places, in a little over a hundred years (1926), they would succeed in this goal. Second, while the number of Wahhabis in Arabia may number only 8 million, their influence is ubiquitous and universal in the Muslim world, with around 80% of U.S. mosques said to be promoting basic Wahhabist thought. As far as extreme or radical Islam, basic Wahhabist theology and geopolitics form the intellectual glue bonding these followers together wherever they may be found. The spread of Wahhabist thought has far exceeded the bounds of the Arabian Peninsula, and has moved beyond the Arabic language as well as the majority of Muslims today are non-Arabic. But Wahhabist doctrine is available in dozens and dozens of languages, including English. It forms the basis of most every sermon preached by a Sunni Mullah. The importance of Wahhabism in modern Islam cannot be overemphasized.

OTHER MUSLIM SECTS

Several small sects have developed out of Shia Islam, the most important of which is the Ismailis. [For a fascinating capsulated history of both Druze and Ismailis (Assassins; Hashishins), see Nesta Webster’s classic work, Secret Societies And Subversive Movements, London: 1924 , but now available in reprint.] The theological ideas of the Ismailis are more radical than those of the Shiites and are largely derived from Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. The Ismailis emerged from a dispute in 765 over the succession of Jafar al-Sadiq, whom “orthodox” Shiites view as the sixth imam, or successor to The Prophet. The Ismailis recognized Ismail as his legitimate successor. On Ismail's death they acknowledged his son Muhammad as the seventh -- and last imam, whose return on Judgment Day they await. The Ismailis are known as Seveners, as they accept only 7 imams, rather than the 12 of other Shiites. Ismailis are found for the most part in India and Pakistan; others have recently emigrated from East Africa to Canada.

Even after now-centuries of persecution, a Shia/Ismaili minority continues to exist in the Sunni homeland of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Shiites are primarily of the Yam tribe, and their 1.2 million members constitute about 8% of the population. Their current leader, Sheik Sa’ab, complains bitterly about their treatment, calling for reforms unlikely to ever be granted by the Saudi royals, who hold to the strict Wahhabist line in such matters.
[Dorsey, James M., “Saudi Tribal Leaders Seek End To Religious Discrimination,” The Wall Street Journal, 09 Jan. 2002.]

Again, it’s a fascinating story will have to omit, but the eerie prototype of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in the Tora Bora Mountains was the “Old Man of the Mountains”. This guy was the original “murder incorporated” of the mountains, drug lord, bandit, as well as a deeply mystic, hypnotic leader, whose followers were willing to die for him on command.

An offshoot of Ismailism is the Druze sect, which arose after the mysterious disappearance in Cairo of the Ismaili Fatimid caliph al-Hakim. Many Druze believe al-Hakim to have been an incarnation of God. Today, the Druze exist primarily in the mountains of Lebanon, where they have held out for centuries. They are so highly secretive that no one is really sure of what their actual beliefs are.

In 1844 a young Shiite Muslim called Mirza Ali Muhammad of Shiraz, Iran, proclaimed and self-styled himself the Bab (“gateway” to God) assuming a messianic role, anathema and blasphemy in this Shiite land. His followers, the Babis, were severely persecuted by the Shiite Mullahs, and “the Gate” was closed when he was executed in 1850. Under the leadership of disciple Mirza Hoseyn Ali Nuri, now called Bahaullah, the Bahais (as they came to be called) developed a universalistic pacifist doctrine, declared Bahai to be a religion independent of Islam, and has won some converts in the United States. In spite of some antipathy with the dominant Shiite culture, Babis or Bahais coexisted more or less peacefully, paying their tax as required by the Koran for unbelievers in a Muslim land. But when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned and the Islamic Revolutionary jihad really got underway, their attention eventually turned to the peaceful Bahais. More than a hundred of their holy men and leaders were executed in 1981. Members had their property seized and were made homeless. Thousands fled the country. Perhaps to fully and irrevocably shed their Islamic roots, and perhaps as a last “Bronx cheer” in the face of the Shiites, the group moved its headquarters to Haifa, Israel.

ISLAM IN THE MODERN WORLD

Islamic culture stagnated and atrophied after the medieval period. Later though, this cultural decay led to religious reform movements. Unlike the primarily doctrinal and philosophical movements of the Middle Ages, the modern movements were chiefly concerned with social and moral reform. The first major reformer was Ibn Abd al-Wahhabi. His movement emerged from Arabia in the 18th century and spread its revivalist message all over the Muslim world. The Wahhabist movement wanted to revive Islam by cleansing of the dreaded innovations (such as Shiism) and various modernisms, in other words, all un-Islamic influences.

Islamic modernists, what few there have been, such as Muhammad Abduh and Muhammad Iqbal (two very important, but not the only ones) believed that Islam could be reformulated, and was essentially not in conflict with such ideas as representative democracy, which dovetails with the Koran’s teaching as to rule by consensus rather than submission to a monarch, or in more modern times, a strongman dictator. These forward-thinking intellectuals also sought to change the role of women, and were especially critical of polygamy and its inherent abuses. In all fairness, the women of Islam have been suppressed as much by non-Islamic cultural accretions and pre-Islamic folk practices as it was by the actual precepts of the Koran. The really radical idea of these reformers (and probably what made such speculation acceptable) was the truth of Islam would be confirmed by the knowledge of the west rather than seen as antithetical and polar opposites. This kind of synthesis movement might have, to at least some degree, succeeded. In reality, the Koran promotes the study of science and the careful and reasoned uses of natural resources. But perhaps these forward thinking Muslims came too late. Islam, once innovators in scientific knowledge as well as preservers of classical knowledge, for a variety of complex and reasons, Islam left these scholarly studies, abandoning them to the West. Hence, nowadays they are humbled and angry over their excruciatingly crucial dependence on the West for science and technology.

So this kind of radical revisionist Islamic thinking has not succeeded too well as the modern resurgence of Islam is mostly in the hands of those we in the West call fundamentalists. It is wrong to always stereotype them as anti-education and anti-freedom. Nor or they anti-science obscurantists or oppose technology. What they oppose – and with great vigor and vehemence – are the things that come along with Western technology and money. What comes automatically as a part of the package is what passes today for Western culture. Most Muslims don’t want anything to do with the overt overemphasis on sexuality and the general immorality that are integral elements of what we offer the world. They see democracy as an eventual disintegration of the family structure, so important in the oriental world. And they (rightly, some of us think) question the ability of democracy to survive if it is (as it is more and more becoming) nothing more than the rule of the masses. Like many other religions, they teach that might nor majority opinions make something right out of something that is inherently and intrinsically wrong.

AMERICAN VERSIONS OF ISLAM

All kinds of Muslims are in the U.S. -- Sunni, Shiite, Wahhabi, Ismaili, , even the curious Druze, and some who have no real name for their sect, but follow the precepts of a particular Mullah. The best-known American-born sect is Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, but there are others too, e.g., "Moorish Science". All are uniformly regarded as unorthodox by major branches of Islam. Nation of Islam was founded by an Arab (or a white man) named Fard, and contains many non-Koranic beliefs, including black supremacy and racial separatism in contrast to orthodox Islam. Again, do not stereotype all "black Muslims." Only a few are members of the Nation or other splinter sects, most adhering to traditional Sunni beliefs. While most American Muslims are still heavily of Middle Eastern or Asian descent, the occasional Caucasian or even Hispanic convert is not as uncommon as it once was. Approximately 32% of U.S. Muslims are from South Asia or of that descent; 26% are Arab-Americans, and black Americans make up around 20% of the total. [Kaufman, Jonathan, “Meet Hamza Yusuf…,” Wall Street Journal, 15 Feb. 02.] As said, a watered-down American blend is evolving, but this is of no consequence to the millions of fundamentalist Muslims outside of the cosmopolitan, multi-cultural U.S.A. They do not care what some Mullah, manipulated by and openly associating with Christians, says on infidel American TV. All of that is strictly for domestic consumption so that even more anti-Islamic incidences do not proliferate. Islam is a "religion of peace" when it is of benefit to Islam, but the Jihad over the satanic infidels is never far from mind. Even watered-down American versions will only go so far. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Read the Koran and the tales of the Hadiths, and tell me where I'm wrong.

EUROPEAN ISLAM

As we know, some European peoples in the Balkans have followed Islam, which became firmly established in the region when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. The present-day problems in the region are rooted in a Christian versus Muslim centuries old struggle. But as problematic as the Balkan white Muslims may be, they are nothing compared to the millions of others now present in Europe through recent waves of immigration encouraged by a New World Order that intends to displace and destroy traditional Indo-European culture and values. If allowed to continue, the Hegelian synthesis will result in a politically Islamicized (and thus paralyzed) Europe, i.e., a Europe no longer able to act without considering its large Muslim minorities. There are many North Africans in France and Spain, Turks and Kurds and whatever in Germany, plus generations of Pakistani Muslims in the UK. In Germany alone, there are an “estimated” 3.5 million. Like in the US, Muslims are now everywhere. The turban and the chador and the headscarf are no longer considered as exotic sights in the supermarket check-out line. Albanians (though religion was repressed by the Communists) and other Muslims have been in Europe for centuries. Albania may eventually declare itself an official Islamic state as it already functions as a de facto one. “Kosovars” (Albanian Muslims) are already demanding an Islamic republic. Radical pro-Bin Laden Islamic Chechnya already has a solid de facto existence. While there is no officially declared Islamic European state, Albania (70% Muslim) may be said to have this de facto status. Then, we have Bosnia with a 40% Muslim population, and (now that the Christian Serbs have been ethnically-cleansed and virtually expelled) Kosovo could become the first, but there is certainly no reason to assume it will be the last.

THE INTERCONTINENTAL SPREAD OF ISLAM

Islam is a growth phenomenon throughout the world, without exception. South America is in the same pattern as North America; Muslims are becoming significant minority populations. Carlos Menem, former President of Argentina (yet another fall from grace by scandal), is of Syrian descent. Western China’s Uighur region is in turmoil, hence their quick sign-on with the Bush anti-terrorism campaign. The rest of Asia, Southeast Asia and the island nations have some of the fastest-growing Islamic populations anywhere. As said, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. Even once 98% Caucasian Australia has been flooded with immigrants from a host of places, including many Muslims from Southeast Asia.

ISLAM AND THE “ONE-WORLD RELIGION”

The goal of the New World Order United Nations multi-racial, multi-cultural, “democratic” synthesistic, all-encompassing ecumenical eclectic religionists is a simplified, unifying faith through "brotherhood and equality" and their carefully crafted concepts of "social justice." For those who need the "spooky" and the mystical, there are various underlying Masonic, Cabalistic and "New (old) Age" beliefs on an ecumenical buffet table. Islam fits in here, for a close reading of the Koran reveals a combination of Gnostic, Jewish, Christian and pre-existing Arab paganism, although, of course, they deny it. In case you have not figured out, most of the present-day sects called Christian are either active collaborators, willing dupes, or useful idiots serving this “greater good for mankind.”

Other than for its extreme exclusivity and insistence on its own way or nothing, egalitarian (except for women), (ostensibly) non-racialist Islam fits right in. I'm no "prophet", but look at the American Mullahs and Ministers of Islam on TV, right alongside the Baptists and the Catholics and the Jews and whatever else. There already is an "American blend" of diluted Islam just as diluted Christianity is now practically the only kind you can find. This kind of Islam may possibly be incorporated by Hegelian synthesis into the One-World Religion that is now already with us. But real, traditional Islam is not a very good candidate for incorporation and synthesis. Islam sees only itself as The One True Religion, and recognizes the legitimacy of no other. No real Muslim will (for very long) tolerate anything less.

“MODERATES” AND “LIBERALS”, AN UN-ISLAMIC CONCEPT

As I said earlier, in the West, we may see some forms of “moderate” or even “liberal” Islam arise in America and Europe that will achieve some kind of (perhaps uncomfortable and non-enduring) synthesis with our Western ways, but no Muslim who reads the Koran and the Hadiths can ever not hope for the eventual Islamicization of the world, in whatever form that may take (Muslims do not agree). Many American blacks have turned and are turning to Islam. As I pointed out in the beginning, the white and even the Hispanic convert are becoming more common, worshipping in the mosques right alongside of the Asians and the Arabs – and most likely, listening to a sermon by a Mullah or Imam well-versed in Wahhabist doctrine.

In other words, when it comes to certain basic doctrines, all Muslims are “fundamentalists”. They do not understand our differentiations. By definition, both moderates and liberals are given to compromise and lack of literalism. While “liberals”, “moderates”, and “conservatives” are all considered valid theological positions in today’s Christendom, there is no real counterpart in Islam. Why would anyone want to moderate or liberalize something in the Koran or in the Hadiths? That would be an innovation or reinterpretation, which is basically (“fundamentally”) forbidden and alien to the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims.

ISLAM STANDS IN STARK CONTRAST AND OPPOSITION TO THE (FORMERLY) CHRISTIAN WEST

But no matter how you feel about Islam, it must be seen in direct opposition, not only to western secular culture, but to the whole concept of the World Order of the West. But while Muslims want an Islamic world order, they differ greatly on how to achieve this or what it might really look like. A state is Islamic because it follows the Koran, but its government might be a republic or a monarchy, or maybe as time goes by, something else.

While I do not want to worship the Islamic Allah, we may be able to connect with Islam, at least to some degree such as journalism, to oppose and expose Zionism for the land-grab plot it is, masquerading as a religion. I use several Islamic news services, and believe I can do that without compromising principles. Can/should we have theological dialog with Islam? Certainly, for this is how religions understand one another and perhaps avoid misunderstandings that become wars. But to claim that "we all worship the same God" is at best, a great over simplification. Muslims are working for an Islamic World Order which includes no other ideas or religions. This is not an unfamiliar thing, really, as this is how Europe and the Americas were operated for a long time. Europe was under a Catholic hegemony, and the U.S. under a Protestant one. But that old religious cultural center is broken, shattered and empty today, and modern Christianity is certainly not the Christianity of the past.

While Islam is in natural opposition to the forces we call the New World Order, it's own Islamic World Order is just as deadly for all those not “in submission”. When Islam is firmly in control, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence shows that it firmly roots out and destroys any rival ideas, no matter how bland and insipid they may be. While some existing Islamic states are somewhat more tolerant than others in the face of present world opinion, when the carrot is removed, the stick can quickly become a weapon of Jihad. Should we fear and hate Islam? No, not at all, but we must act out of knowledge rather than naiveté and ignorance and haste. And most of all we must not act from fear and weakness, for this is never due respect, and never wins.

On the other hand, the role of a Superpower Bully who attacks small, poor Islamic countries, forcing American military presence and American/Western political and financial hegemony on them is not right either. Yes, Islam and the west can co-exist in a milieu of mutual strength and respect, but if we choose to violently confront them in their own lands, and impose false peace and American-backed terror such as in Palestine, then we have truly sown the seeds of the wind, and are now harvesting the whirlwind of Islamic Jihad. The full extent of the present "war on terrorism" is yet to be known, and the outcome far from determined. We seem to be making all the classic blunders, beginning a war in the worst mountains in the world, yet now we claim to have “won” and that the people of Afghanistan are “liberated”. Only Osama (surprise, surprise) seems to be “missing”. Moreover, and strangely to be marveled over by western women journalists, many Afghani women still (as they a have for centuries) wear their burqas. [Perhaps some readers recall when Western women, esp. Catholics, covered their head in church, though the entire concept of modesty in dress and behavior has largely disappeared. There are several forms of related Islamic modest dress from women. In addition to the burqa, a complete head-to-foot bag-like with gauze veil; there is the chador, another head-to-foot garment slightly less severe and more common; the shalwar kameez, a long nightshirt-like garment; and the ubiquitous jalaba or North Africa, also worn by men. Hijabs are the less-severe headscarves often seen on Western-oriented Islamic women, while some more “modern” Muslim misses and mistresses wear nothing at all (on their head, that is). Thanks again to C-FAR Newsletter and issue #364 for this information.] Why don’t they remove them now that we have “liberated” them, ask the pretty, usually blond, talking heads. Do they simply not understand, or are they finding it impossible to move beyond political correctness to see and tell the truth about the cultural and intellectual battlefield on which we now find ourselves? I like to give the pundits the benefit of the doubt, but who can really say? But worse than all of that, we have begun what many (only “alarmists”, of course) are beginning to call World War Three with an abysmally dangerous lack of knowledge (ignorance induced by schools and media and self-induced by apathy) and woeful underestimation (largely through arrogance) of those with whom we now do battle.

CHAPTERS SEVEN THROUGH ELEVEN: ISLAM AND CURRENT EVENTS
CHAPTER SEVEN
ISLAM AND ZIONISM AS SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS

BOTH ZIONISM AND ISLAM STAND IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO GLOBALISM

It’s impossible to understand either Islam or Zionism (or any other nationalist or separatist movement, for that matter) on today’s world stage without understanding the following very basic – but extremely important – points. ALL separatist movements are in direct opposition to the forces we call New World Order, One-World Order, or more simply, Globalism. [A great 4-part video tape series is entitled “Globalism”, an incredibly vast reserve of data. Write us at Eagle Pub. Co. as to availability.] A number of books could be filled with facts and commentary on this topic, but for the purposes of this study the following salient points are sufficient.

Islam is not only a religion. It is best seen as a worldwide religious based separatist or nationalist movement. In a sense, it too wants a “New World Order”, but with Sharia law as the underlying principle of the theoretical world Islamic state. Islam, then, is in direct opposition to Globalist goals of those we may call the International Bankster-Merchant Cartel. To make the proverbial long story short (the purpose of this chapter) separatism is not “good for business”, so it is on a “short list” for extinction by the forces of Globalism. In putting themselves in such a position, Islamic separatists and nationalists have chosen very dangerous opponents.

Zionism has essentially the same dynamics, but the goals are different. Zionism is essentially a nationalist/separatist political movement “piggy-backing” on the Judaic religion. While it is politically incorrect to talk about, there are several groups of non-Zionist Jews (e.g., Nuterei Karta, one very outspoken sect.). They (correctly) say that it is Zionism – not “anti-Semitism or “racism” – that represents the present greatest danger and threat to Judaism and the well-being of Jewish people all over the world. Going even further, some of them call for dismantling the rather artificial, ill-situated and ever-incendiary ministate so-called and self-styled as “Israel”. [I won’t open the provocative subject of who is really “Israel”, but for those who think today’s “Israelis” are the “People of the Bible” need only take a close look at that oft-cited but seldom read book to see if today’s Israeli ministate reflects the desires of God as expressed in the Old and New Testament. Enough said.] But most Judaists are “Zionists” even though a few brave ones (e.g., Benjamin Freedman or Israel Shahak) step out of line from time to time. It is impossible to say what might be the results of a truly anonymous opinion poll among Judaic believers (because one will never be held), but it could be that Nuterei Karta are only the “tip of the iceberg”. Nonetheless, Zionism has succeeded in thoroughly installing itself in the driver’s seat of Judaism. And while the driving has been over some pretty rocky ground (for some Jews) the vehicle has propelled Zionism to victory in one of the most successful “new country” projects ever undertaken. In the 1930s, the World Zionist Congress could have had either Uganda or Madagascar, but both rich lands were patently rejected. It was Palestine or nothing, and Palestine is what they got. But what did they really get? Can they keep it? Is the nationalist purist concept of “Israel” being diluted and made more “multi-cultural” through immigration by secular Jews and liberal American and European Jews? Only time will tell, but for this study, I view Zionist Israel as a separatist state, essentially and fundamentally in opposition to Multi-Culturalism (Jewish assimilation is the real threat) and the forces of Globalism. Like Islam, Zionism is in direct opposition to Globalism, and as such, the Zionist separatists and nationalists have chosen very dangerous opponents.

As said at the beginning, one could take any one idea above and easily expand into an article, position paper or book, and I realize I may be accused of “simplicity” or “incompleteness. The New Jihad makes no pretense of being a complete history or analysis of Islam. Like any author, I will have more than accomplished my goal if just a few readers are inspired or challenged to dig deeper. Go for it! There is an incredible wealth of materials in print and on the Web. For those who want to more deeply explore either Zionism or Islam, there are many avenues.

But for our examination of the Islamic separatist phenomenon, we continue in the next chapter (it’s more than one page!) with a look at the Islamic traditions of violent jihad.

CHAPTER EIGHT
ISLAM AND THE THEOLOGY OF VIOLENCE

WHAT IS JIHAD? WHO ARE THE SHAHEEDS?

CHRISTIANITY AND VIOLENCE

We mustn’t neglect to focus on Christianity as a militant and violent faith. Throughout the book are numerous references to the violence that is seemingly intrinsic in Islam. Today, Christianity seems largely liberalized, a religion of “universal brotherhood, peace and love”, but Christianity of old was a virile and proselyting faith. But as such, it has fallen victim to the multi-cultural forces of world one-ness. Most of modern Christianity has been theologically deconstructed, resulting in a composite figure of Jesus as a gentle prophet and peace maker, a man who loved children, and who taught it was right to “turn the other cheek” to violence. While He certainly did manifest these qualities, they were not the only qualities which still show forth in a close reading of the Gospels. Without belaboring the point, most modern Christians prefer a feminized (look at various depictions), totally gentle Jesus, passing over such incidences as advising his followers to buy swords and saying that He came not to bring peace, but a sword. Then he physically assaulted the Pharisees and profiteers in the Temple courtyard with a whip. Most Christians have never really read the Old or the New Testament and only a few really study it in depth. From my own experiences, I include clergy in this category. The Jesus of scripture who spoke so harshly against the Pharisees of that day is totally ignored or so glossed over that the incidents seem irrelevant and out of character. That is, of course, until you actually read the accounts yourself. They are quite harsh! Read them and see. [No, this time, I’m not going to tell you. Solution: read and find them. You might be surprised at what else you “uncover”.]

So just as most Christians overlook the actual words and examples of the one they call Savior, they also overlook the first 15 or more centuries of Christian history. Historian Geoffrey Regan says that Muhammad may have borrowed the concept (as he did so many others) from the Christians of Byzantium, in particular, Emperor Heraclius, who was waging war in the 620s against the Persians. Many regard him as the First Crusader. The followers of Muhammad included many converts from Christianity who would have known the stories about the Christian warrior-emperor quite well. [The Spectator, 27 Oct. 2001.] There is more. “The famed Bayeaux Tapestry shows a Christian bishop armed with a cudgel actively participating in the campaign of William the Conqueror against the English. Medieval popes led armies into battle against Muslim invaders of Italy. … In the 17th century, Germany was torn apart by the Thirty Years War, which originated in a religious struggle, then escalated into the first general European war.” [Grossman, Ron, “The Age-Old Revival Of War And Religion,” Chicago Tribune, 06 January 2002.]

“Washington may not want it to be a religious war, but this is what it has been for ten centuries and this is what it will remain. Wishful thinking will change nothing. Osama bin Laden would not have said, ‘America has spearheaded the Crusade against the Islamic nations,’ unless he knew it would resonate with much of the Islamic world – and it does. … The war has an ebb and flow. … Ever since the Industrial Revolution… the West has been on top. Now, …Moslems too have acquired advanced weapons.” [Richard Maybury in Richard Maybury’s U.S. And World Early Warning Report For Investors, Nov. 2001. He is also the author of The Thousand Year War, which is a full exploration of this subject.]

In a way, the West helped plant the seeds of this problem of religious violence as well as some of the others we will review. Jonathan Riley-Smith, Professor of Medieval Studies at Cambridge rightly points out that the Islamic world was mostly uninterested in the history of the Crusades until the 19th century when Kaiser Wilhelm II, who magnanimously restored the great Saladin’s (a Kurd -- not a Turk or an Arab) tomb at Damascus. [The Spectator, 20 Oct. 2001.]

There are martyrs from various wars, with Islam and others, who are saints. Moreover, while the horrid deaths have largely passed from the fickle public memory, the self-immolating priests and monks of the Vietnam War years were not only Buddhist, but Roman Catholic as well. And I can bring you even closer to the present than that. In 1998, a Roman Catholic bishop, convicted under Pakistan’s severe Sharia system, killed himself in protest outside a courthouse. [Moffett, Matt, “Strange Tale: Pakistan Faces A Rorschach Test Of Its Move Toward The West,” Wall Street Journal, 04 Jan. 2002.]

WHO ARE TODAY’S “CRUSADERS”?

Yet in spite of this, and in spite of the ugly history of the Crusades, it is not now Christianity that attacks Islam. While one such as myself can sympathize with the Muslim reactions to the deplorable spread (“assault”) of Western “pop” culture, bullets are not the proper response. “Many Christians and Jews insist on the unique truth of their religions, but they do not seek to enforce that truth with fire, sword and Kalashnikovs. That is why commentators who equate Christian fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism are wrong and why Muslim leaders who liken today’s West to the Crusaders are equally wrong. The Islamic extremists are today’s Crusaders, seeking to rid the Holy Land of infidels.” [Gunwale, Henry, “The Lure Of The Rings,” Wall Street Journal, 04 Jan. 2002.]

“Westerners see him as a loathsome, murderous fanatic. But to many people in Asia and Africa, including non-Muslims, bin Laden is a defiant, heroic figure, who gives a measure of self-respect to those who have little; a mujaheed, or holy warrior battling the successor to the British Empire, the American Raj; and an avenger come to smite the United States for all the real and imagined wrongs it has done around the world.” [From Eric Margolis’ column, he Use Of Media As A Weapon,” Toronto Sun, 21 Oct. 2001. Compared to American conformist journalists, Canadian Margolis is a breath of fresh air.]

MANY FUTURE TERRORISTS ARE TRAINED IN PRISONS

This section is based on research on French inmates, but much of the same thing is true for all prisons in Europe, or for that matter, anywhere else. While I include the U.S. and Canada, virtually nothing has been written or said about radical Islam and North American prisons. But we do know this: Islamic Mullahs and Imams, including the home-grown varieties, have long had access to prisons in the U.S. and Canada in order to conduct worship services. In Europe, such services would more often than not be conducted in Arabic, Farsi, etc., hence rendering any surveillance allowed (in the politically correct West) even more difficult. In France, over half the 45,000 inmates are Muslim, more than six times the proportion of Muslim’s in France’s overall population. “The extremists have very quickly acquired a huge influence over other prisoners,” says David Schots, a warden of the Ville-Franche prison in the Rhone Valley, and almost the only official willing to speak on the matter. Extremists have build what many call a “terrorist university behind bars”, complete with smuggled tapes, and printed material, including some from Al-Qaeda. While French officials use frequent transfers of trouble-makers (called “diesel therapy” in our federal pens), but this is self-defeating in the lax French system, and merely helps “spread the gospel” to other locations. The French Intelligence agencies have, however, built up extensive data bases on terrorists, especially since the fatal bombings in Paris streets and in the Metro between 1986 and 1996, and General Jean Pierre Kelch, Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, admitted that French intel assets were on the ground in Afghanistan long before the U.S. forces ever thought about actually being there. [While not the subject of this book, it is important to note that this makes it relatively easy to conclude that the CIA and other U.S. intel “assets” must have known a lot about Al-Qaeda’s and bin Laden’s plans for the 9-11 Attack. Moreover, on 16 Dec. 2001, media news sources acknowledged that Mossad knew, but issued only purposefully vague warnings. While Mossad did withhold, it is unlikely that our traditional allies, the French, would have treated us so shabbily. It begs the question! Why wouldn’t the French tell us? I feel certain that they did. Watch closely as more about this will surely be revealed.]

But no matter what French intel may accomplish outside the borders of France, the liberal-socialist forces of political and religious correctness are the biggest block to stopping or at least slowing down the growth of terrorist training units in its jails. There is already evidence of Islamicization of French policies, which have not always gone solid in their expressed commitments against terrorism. As early as 1977, France set off an international furor by releasing Abu Daoud, a PLO official allegedly behind the attack on Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic in Munich. “But France’s war against extremism behind bars is proving difficult to pursue. Apart from the transfers and efforts to prevent the smuggling of banned books and tapes, prison authorities are hamstrung by a law guaranteeing that ‘each detainee must be able to satisfy the demands of his religious, moral or spiritual life.” Sound familiar? [All quotations and statistics from Scripps Howard News Service and San Francisco Chronicle columnist Frank Viviano’s article, “Future Terrorists Trained In Prison”, via Washington Times, 03 Nov. 2001.] This apparently includes their rite to learn all these “spiritual practices” like bomb-making, homemade mines, detonators and fuses! Do you now have at least an interest in what might be going on in our United States lock-ups?

ISLAM VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD

“…there is an inherent isolationist strain in Islam. It divides the entire world into Dar al Islam, the House of Submission (to God) and Dar al Harb, the House of War. Osama bin Laden repeated this concept when he declared in his highly effective video speech that this was a war between believers and those without faith. There is an inherent strain of violence in Islam. Muhammad was both spiritual leader and a military leader.”
[Richard Gwyn, Toronto Star, 21 October 2001.]
In addition to the House of Submission and the House of War, there is a third position called the House of Peace, or Dar al Salaam, where Islamic powers have treaties of peace (often including some observances of Sharia law) with a non-Islamic state, often one that has been partially Islamicized by a Muslim minority presence. In the concepts offered by radical Muslim synthesizers, the House of Peace would be seen only as a stop-gap, bridge between that and the full implementation of Sharia through the establishment of a full Islamic state.

WHAT IS AN ISLAMIC STATE?

“In the second stage of his enterprise, Muhammad sanctioned the sword for the rooting out of idolatry and the spread of the faith. By this following up preaching with force, he had secured most of Arabia at the time of his death (A.D. 632). But there is no proof that he had ever contemplated crossing the borders of his own land. With Muhammad, Islam was the religion of the Arab.”[Adeney, p. 163.]

General Hamid Gul, former Director-General of Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI, which originally installed the Taliban government in Afghanistan and previously cooperated with the CIA in backing Osama bin Laden) describes his concept of what is to succeed the "post-modern nation-state", i.e., the Islamic state:

“The world needs a post-modern state system. Right now, the nation-state and round the clock satellite TV lead people to imitate America’s way of life. Which is mathematically impossible. You have 4% of the world’s population consuming 32% of the world’s resources. The Creator through the prophet Muhammad said equal distribution. Capitalism is the negation of the Creator’s will. It leads to imperialism and unilateralism. [This post-modern state system will look like] a global village [are you listening, Hillary?] under divine order, or we will have global bloodshed until good triumphs over evil. Islam encapsulates all the principal religions and what was handed down 1,400 years ago was the normal evolutionary sequel to Judaism and Christianity. The prophet's last sermon was a universal document of human rights for everyone that surpasses everything that came since, including America's declaration of independence and the U.N. Charter of universal rights. If you superimpose true secular values on true Islamic values, there is no difference. So surely divine law should supersede man-made law. Islam is egalitarian, tolerant and progressive. It is the wave of the future."
[UPI interview. General Gul is a very interesting, articulate and informative source.]

Got that? If not, look again. While we fear the existing New World Order cabals, they are plainly not the only threat to freedom. But as to the Islamic state concept -- during his lifetime, Muhammad never controlled any territory outside Arabia. It is by no means certain that he thought Islam had any significance at all except for Arabs. It was the successors to Muhammad, the Caliphs, who were already militarily prepared and motivated for more Jihad, who emphasized (what they say) are "Universalistic tendencies" in Muhammad's thought. Over the centuries, Islam has become the ultimate in Unitarian, Universalistic religions for all mankind. It (says it) has no racial lines, and provides an entire and complete divinely inspired cultural and political system. There were once Christian states as there are Islamic states, but now there are none, and the concept has almost disappeared. In another add parallel with the past, the old "Christian" Crusaders bear similarity to the Muslim holy warriors of today. While some men went to the Crusades only for gold and power, most went for spiritual, prayerful reasons. And, like the Mujahadeen, many were young and idealistic. There were two children's crusades; both ended tragically just as tens of thousands of young warriors died in the Iran-Iraq war and elsewhere, gladly becoming cannon fodder for Allah and the Prophet. Today, no Christian state exists apart from the artificial Vatican, but there are over fifty Islamic nations, ranging from the Taliban and Sudan to the more moderate Morocco or Egypt. We know that Islamic states look to Allah, but it is unclear what deity is recognized by the non-Islamic, non-Christian nations of the One-World Order. You decide.

THE NEGATION OF MODERNISM – MEDIEVAL MINDS ARMED WITH MODERN METHODS OF MAYHEM

German intellectual and essayist Hand Magnus Enzensberger completely rejects the idea that the Shaheeds can be explained away by blaming it totally on “extremist” or “fundamentalist” Islam or a Medieval mentality. It is most eerie and unsettling to see how these “Medieval minds” turned our own technological creations against us. Most Americans, already jaded and haggard by their “modern” lives, and worse, aided and abetted by the government and the media, almost uniformly reject any call to look inward to see our own contributions to the current dilemma.

“Yet the murderous forces at work within our contemporary world cannot be traced back to ‘tradition’: no matter what form they take, these forces are not archaic phenomena, but absolutely contemporary reactions to the present state of global society. Even an eminently venerable religion like Islam – a religion which, just like ultra-orthodox Judaism, has not come up with any productive ideas for some time now – is prone to such reactions. Islam derives its current strength from its status as the negation of Modernism – a status which precisely links it to the latter. The immanence of terrorism, no matter from which direction it comes, is manifested not only by the terrorists’ behaviour, but also by their choice of weapons. Terrorism is a pathological copy of the organism it attacks, a retrovirus created from the latter’s cells. It is thus deceptive to think the enemy comes from without, for there is no location outside of our contemporary network of global relationships from which any impulse, human or inhuman, could come. The threat of terrorism is omnipresent – like the telephone, the camera, the Internet and the spy satellite.

The terrorists who attacked New York were not just well-versed in modern technology. Inspired by the visual symbolism of western culture, they staged the massacre as a media spectacle, following the Hollywood scenarios to the letter. [Think how the media immediately collaborated to make this even more effective.] Such an intimate understanding of American civilization does not spring from an anachronistic way of thinking.”
[Deutschland magazine, Oct./Nov. 2001.]

WHAT IS JIHAD?

One more word about "Jihad", or “struggle.” Jihad is most misunderstood, and sometimes means the struggle within one's own life to submit to God and live a truly Islamic life, which practicing Christians will understand. As for violent holy war, just as there are wars "approved" by "Christian" Popes (and now by national religious consensus), there are Koranic rules for a state of official Holy War. While Muslims purely hate the word "crusade" because of the unfortunate events of the past, the Islamic Jihad of today's fundamentalists fits the crusade model. The goals are the same -- to compel a territory to accept the True Religion or die. Except to some extremist elements, true Jihad is in self-defense, and is not invoked without good cause, after one has been attacked. Of course, the fundamentalist Islamic world believes that it is under attack from the west on several fronts, least of which is the ubiquitous spread of American "pop culture." No wonder the first things burned are the U.S. embassies, then the banks, and then MacDonalds. There is a cultural onslaught from the west whether we Americans want to see it or not. Conservative Christian and Jewish Americans understand these multi-cultural, often anti-religious, pressures all too well.

AYAHS (Verses) FROM THE KORAN ON JIHAD AND ITS REWARDS

Sura (Chapter) 4:74 Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

47:4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

9:111. God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

3:169. Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord. [That is, they have eternal life.]

3:195. And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of God, and from His presence is the best of rewards."

3:170. They rejoice in the bounty provided by God: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.

WHAT RADICAL ISLAMISTS WANT AND HOW THEY HOPE TO GET IT.

Actually, what ALL Muslims ultimately want (but on which they do NOT all agree!) is called the Islamic World State or the Islamic World Order under Sharia law, seen by many modern Islamists as not only the inevitable, but the rightful and natural successor to the outmoded and dysfunctional nation-state of the Western World Order. Some Islamists maintain that we have not yet seen a truly Islamic government. Differences exist between Muslims as to precisely how this is to be carried out, some “liberals” and “moderates” saying this can only mean that the individual believers establish the Islamic way in their own heart and life, which with hope and prayer, might someday spread all over the world. In this moderate interpretation, the struggle for this state of being within oneself is a jihad. Suffice it to say, this is not at all the accepted interpretation. First, it is established in the person, then in his family, then in the tribe and state, and later to the who world. Jihad by war can be used when all else fails, or more importantly, in response to attacks on Muslims and Islam.

One writer, speaking two years before the WTC and DC bombings, says: "The facts speak loudly... [Islam] ...has tricked many into believing that [it] is a religion of peace, justice and equality. It has never been our policy to group all Muslims in the same category, for we know that not all Muslims are guilty of the crimes committed by the more extreme and violent elements in Islam. Nevertheless, we can definitely say beyond a doubt that the religion of Islam itself teaches and condones violence, which is characteristically manifested in war, revenge, oppression, slavery, persecution and murder toward any and all who oppose Islam. ... Do not be deceived, for Islam will not tolerate other systems of belief, nor will they rest until their opposition is completely subdued."
[From Words of the Spirit/ACMTC materials, 1999 and 2000.]

“THE WESTERN AGE IS FINISHED’ -- IT COULD NOT PROVIDE THE VALUES WHICH WERE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE NEW MATERIAL CIVILIZATION. ONLY ISLAM OFFERS HOPE TO THE WORLD.” Sayyid Qutb [As quoted in Hourani, p. 446.]

“The path to the creation of a truly Muslim society [begins] with individual conviction, transformed into a living image in the heart and embodied in a program of action. Those who accept this program would form a vanguard of dedicated fighters, using every means, including jihad, which should not be undertaken until the fighters had achieved inner purity, but it should then be pursued, if necessary, not for defense only, but to destroy all worship of false gods and remove all obstacles which prevent men from accepting Islam. The struggle should aim at creating a Universal Muslim Society in which there are no distinctions of race, and one which was worldwide.

“NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE SUICIDE BOMBERS, BUT ALL MUSLIM SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE WAHHABIS.”
[“Citizens For Foreign Aid Reform” C-FAR Newsletter, #363. They also publish Canadian Immigration Hotline and Free Speech Monitor. C-FAR POB 332 Rexdale ONT M9W 5L3 Canada. Some of the other Canadian press citations were featured in C-FAR newsletters. Special thanks to e-columnist Erik Thomson for leading us to this informative source as well as providing us with other research material from Canadian media.]

Wahhabism is the direct theological inspiration for Saudi national, Osama bin Laden. The Saudi links to the 9-11 Bombing are not only ideological. Fifteen of the nineteen shaheed martyr-bombers were Saudi nationals, direct from the land of our “friends and allies”! And, all of them (as well as those ready to replace them) were inspired by Wahhabi theology. Other Wahhabi-influenced organizations include the entire Al-Qaeda network, the USS Cole bombers, the Khobar Towers bombers (in Saudi Arabia), the Egyptian terrorists who slew Anwar Sadat and later massacred the European tourists at Luxor, the Algerian fundamentalists who are near an electoral takeover, the first World Trade Center bombers led by Ramzi Yusef and the Blind Sheik, Abdul Rahman (whose son is with Al-Qaeda) all the way to the Taliban (“seminarians” or religious students) of Afghanistan. All are avowed and proud Wahhabis as are most other Saudis, including the bin Laden family and every other rich family in the country, and not to forget, the numerous other wealthy and prolific royals and assorted sheiks and emirs of the aristocrat caste. Through private sources, any of these wealthy families can transfer funds to whomever they want and never be traced.

Already, our “independent” media, deeply enthralled by “Bush babble”, has de-emphasized tracing the terrorist funds, and almost never mentions Saudi Arabia, a nation that has consistently refused (for its entire existence) to allow any probe into its arcane financial connections.

UNDERSTANDING SHAHADA OR ACTIVE MARTYRDOM
“Shahada: The creed of Islam, and one of the religion’s five pillars. Shahada is best translated with ‘testimony.’ Shahada is not on a testimony of one’s belief, but also a legal testimony. ‘There is no god but God [Allah], and Muhammad is his messenger [apostle or prophet].’ Shi’is add ‘..and Ali is his friend.’ This statement, so frequently used, is also very consciously used in connection with holy warfare, jihad. A Muslim dying while fighting jihad is called shahid,(with a long “i” sound), which often is translated with ‘martyr.’ A person performing Shahada in civil or legal sense, is called shahid (long “a” sound), i.e., a term different for the one used for martyrs.”
[Encyclopedia of the Orient, an on-line resource, http://lexicorient.com/e.o/shahada.htm,]

Shahada is an interesting Arabic word, and one that presented problems in my early research. In older books about Islam, the Shahada is the Confession of Faith that every Muslim says, some many times each day, as in the short discussion of the Five Pillars of Islam. In most of these earlier works, no other meaning of shahada is featured. This is not so much a contradiction as it is the action of translators to reflect the basic or core meaning of a word in the must succinct way. So then, if one enlarges the concept of ‘confession of faith”, it is clear that the shaheed (active martyr or “confessing martyr”) is not only a martyr per se, but a “confessor” as well. His confession (shahada) is his act or faith, that is, the martyrdom. In the face of almost insurmountable public opinion (and ignorance), the Islamist martyrs did not “commit suicide.” The Wahhabis teach that Islam is justified in using Holy War against the West because the West has attacked Islam, not only by aiding and abetting the atrocities against the Palestinians in Israel, but through our pagan, consumerist self-centered culture. The believers, especially the impressionable young, are told that those who commit shahada (active martyrdom) receive the greatest heavenly delights. Westerners do not “get” this concept. Just as hara-kiri is seen as an honorable and heroic death by the Shinto Japanese, Shahada is not viewed as “suicide” in the usual western sense as a disgraceful death, but as an act of supreme and glorious, hope, dignity -- and very deep faith.
[Even in the West, we make exceptions. For instance, the alleged (few skeletons have ever been found) “Jewish martyrs” of Massada are held in almost holy awe as are the numerous willing Roman Catholic martyr-saints. In a sense, the passengers of the suicide plane that crashed in PA sought suicide rather than death at the hands of their captors, though the word “suicide” is avoided and they are only referred to as “victims.”]

A WORD ON “BRAVERY” AND “EVIL”

And, while I know some readers don’t want to hear it, but one must add bravery to the list Many say that the 9-11 bombers and Osama are “cowards, cowering in caves”. This is so very far from the truth it is frightening to see people who actually believe this. Granted, it was an “evil” act (only to us, not them), but who ever said evil does not demand courage? Get off your “moralistic obsessions” and try to see things for what they really are. To say someone acted bravely is to say just that – and nothing more. Acts done bravely in one era may become crimes in another, so who can pronounce the final judgment? I suppose you can let that great southern Methodist expert on Islamic theology, The Reverend Doctor George Walker Bush, define it for you, if you like. He seems to have a clear sense of what is “good” and “evil”. This cultural blindness and deafness is why we do not understand this supreme sacrifice and dedication. What does western “civilization” have that any of us would die for? We seem so afraid of U.S. military deaths, yet we think nothing of the children we have killed and help kill in Iraq and Palestine. Are we morally deficient or what? If this is so as I maintain, then how do we intellectually and physically defend against such dedicated – and brave -- foes?

I pose these question for the Bush administration and their cheering sections. It is not enough to parrot meaningless sound bites about how the enemy is “evil and cowardly”; indeed, Bush 43 seems to say little else as if programmed (h’mm), but not to be allowed beyond these basic sound bite clips. So what does the “average American” say in response? “Bomb the s___ out of them!”, but, alas, little else. Yes, you “Bush Rangers” better hope that western technological prowess can get this over with as soon as possible. And in light of that, it is quite frightening to hear Bush 43, Cheney, Rumsfield, Fleischer, et al, talk about how “we’re in it for the long haul”. Well, if that is so, then we will surely be learning more lessons about shahada (not “cowardly suicide”) as a tactic of “modern” warfare. Extremist Muslims are willing to die for principles they believe should govern the world. Once Christians felt this, but such Christian martyrs are but a distant, faded memory for almost all the ones called Christian today.

THE SHAHEED, HOLY MARTYR FOR ALLAH

“The martyr is not dead. It is forbidden by the Koran to say so, ‘Do not believe that those who die in the name of Allah are dead. They are alive near Allah.’ … The shaheed, as soon as the first drop of blood drips out, all his sins are forgiven. A crown …is put on his head, and he becomes as pure as the day he was born, and this is eternal.” [In Paradise, the martyr will] “meet the Lord of the Universe, my brothers, and my friends.” [From an MSNBC special, “Mind Of A Suicide Bomber” (aired 01 January 2002).]

The TV special featuring these words describing an active martyr interestingly focused on some imprisoned Palestinian shaheeds who failed in their missions, and who were willing to talk about their recruitment and training. In one instance, the would-be bomber pulled the trigger, but only the detonator exploded, knocking him unconscious. He awoke in an Israeli military hospital, but was so confused at first that he insisted he was in Paradise. With some “graveyard humor”, this was dispelled by his captors who asked him if he thought Israelis were in heaven with him! The shaheeds spoke not in the sense of betraying their movement or to gain privileges, but matter-of-factly to express their continuing commitment. Videos are one of the most useful tools for recruitment. The tapes are made to show after the glorious death, and as well to create a situation where the would-be martyr cannot turn back. They also make a big ceremony out of posing for one’s last picture, his martyr photo, which will be carried on signs at his funeral and displayed after his death. In further preparation, the shaheed lies alone for hours on hours in a cemetery, clad in a burial shroud. This pre-death ritual is supposed to convey to him what a privilege it is to die in this matter. Indeed, this is one of the key recruitment points about shahada, which we in the West see as quite fatalistic. Everyone will die, say the Islamist radicals, so why not choose your own death in the greatest and noblest possible way? Why would any sensible and devout Muslim do otherwise? Shahada is, then, is seen as the ultimate path of a fearless man, choosing his own death in the greater glory of Allah. The funeral of the martyr is also a time for more videos, photos and interviews with the family of the deceased, who also are promised Paradise by the actions of the shaheed. In addition to this great honor and prestige, the family often receives financial assistance through Islamic charities set up expressly for this purpose. This means a lot to a family in, e.g., Gaza, where the unemployment rate is over 50%. The funeral is not one exclusively of tears, but of great expressions of joy as well, and thanksgiving to Allah that the family was blessed by having such a man within it.

“The concept of Holy War in Islam does not take into consideration whether (the war is) a defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of God and the construction of an Islamic society and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case it is the apex, the most noble Holy War. It is legal to carry on a Holy War.”
(From The Jurisprudence of the Biography by Al-Buti)

PROFILE OF A HOLY WARRIOR:
“We went to jihad filled with joy.” Ijaz Khan Hussein, a college-educated mujaheed.

ON THE WAY TO PARADISE:
“This world is an illusion [valueless beside paradise].” Osama bin Laden, Emir of Al-Qaeda

Pakistani Mujaheed Ijaz Khan Hussein, a college-trained pharmacist. He has, so far, survived the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan. In the West, when a soldier returns home safe from the war, we rejoice and count him lucky. The now-veteran fighter expresses some disappointment, saying: “We went to the jihad filled with joy, and I would go again tomorrow,” he said. “If Allah had chosen me to die, I would have been in paradise, eating honey and watermelons and grapes, and resting with beautiful virgins, just as it is promised in the Koran. Instead, my fate was to remain amid the unhappiness here on earth.” [Burns, New York Times News Service, 27 Jan. 02.]

Certainly it must be said that not all Muslims believe so radical a thing, but all Muslims see jihad (meaning everything from holy war to the inner spiritual struggle or striving) as a duty. Whether the striving is armed or more a personal duty of conscience is an unanswered question for many of the world’s 1.25 billion adherents of The Religion of Submission. The down-trodden, basket-case economies of the Middle East offer little, even to professionals, many of whom train just to get out of the country – if they are allowed to. But while the 9-11 Attack showed us the college-educated family-man as suicide warrior, must shaheeds are still drawn from the lower classes, especially in Palestine, but in many other areas too.

Recently, the excellent journal, Foreign Policy published a thorough and detailed profile of a suicide warrior. [Sprinzak, Ehud, “Rational Fanatics,” Foreign Policy, Sept.-Oct. 2000.] Some of this changed with 9-11, but the basic profile is still valid. While the author surveys several groups employing suicide as a battle tactic, he goes into some detail in the example of Islamic Jihad in Palestine. The typical shaheed is a religious, unmarried, unemployed, high-school educated male between the ages of 18 and 27. Many have had a relative or friend killed, injured or brutalized by the Israeli forces. Contrary to popular belief, most shaheeds do not volunteer, but are recommended by others, most often their religious teachers. Once successfully recruited, the new shaheed (and as importantly, his family) is showered with money and gifts, the acceptance of which helps cement their commitment to sacrificial martyrdom. Likewise, the social status of the new shaheed and his family is automatically upgraded, supplemented, as said, with visible honors and (very important in the impoverished Middle East) money. Lastly, of course, the Mullahs tell him of his special rewards when he reaches Paradise and eternal life. The cement has set and hardened – there is no turning back.

Not to divert too far, but in non-Islamic extremist groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, the recruit is not trained to simply be a bomb, and often as not, may be a female. Other members of special suicide squads are highly trained in military assault tactics, and though some will perish in Kamikaze attacks, they are just as likely to be called on for other daring and dangerous combat missions that do not necessarily include suicide. The only examples of female suicide warriors in Islam that I found was to the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK). While this is a nationalist-separatist movement rather than Islamically based, it does operate in a Muslim culture. PKK “bomber babes” are often dressed to appear pregnant, thereby reducing the chance of being frisked by male Turkish police officers. Moreover, the ever-utilitarian PKK, realizing (unlike the West) that most women can’t keep up with combat troops in the rough mountain terrain, choose female bomber candidates just to thin the ranks? The women mujaheedas of Islamic groups mainly play supporting roles, such as fund-raising. God/Allah forbid that they ever follow the already-established examples of the PKK or the Tamil Tigers! This would open up yet another vulnerable window of opportunity for terrorists. If you think we are ill-equipped to deal with what has/is already happening, just wait until the girls start carrying the bombs, and highly-trained suicide-ready (notice the difference) combat units are unleashed on the home front. Is Bush 43 and Homeland Security “Tsar” Tom Ridge ready? Are you?

This profile information is still quite valid today, but it must be emphasized that not all Jihadis or Shaheeds necessarily fit this pattern. Many of the 9-11 hijackers were college graduates, some with careers and families. And even if you argue that they did not really know that the planes were going to be transformed into cruise missiles, they each and everyone knew that their participation in such a mission could surely lead to martyrdom.

SOME “SURPRISE” SHAHEEDS

FEATURING THE NEWEST BRAND OF SNEAKERS, “AIR JIHADS”

Some of these characters have really come out of “left field”, totally “off the grid”, and I’m afraid we better be expecting some other “little surprises”. And by the time this book reaches you, I’m betting the list is longer. Again, I will reiterate – John Walker Lindh is not the only “Taliban American”, nor is he the only Caucasian one. Right now, we won’t focus on Jihadists in general, but only on the ones committed to Shahada martyrdom, and among those, the more bizarre examples.

Much in the same way, nobody really expected Richard Reid, the now-infamous “Sneaker Bomber” (now doing ads for a new shoe, “Air Jihads”). In spite of his rather foreboding appearance (he looked exactly like what he was; a recent jailbird out on the street, which should have “done it”, but it didn’t), his Anglo-Saxon name and fresh U.K. passport got him on the plane. If the airport screeners were “racially profiling” for Middle Easterners, then this too contributed to the security failure, for the man was of mixed British and Jamaican descent. The Sneaker Bomber, even though he bumbled the explosion, had to have had both training and support, which likely began in jail, another facet of the terrorist M.O. All of this begs the question of just why Reid failed (e.g., he could have done it at leisure in the lavatory), but I’ll save that for another article.

“WATCH THE NEWS; I’LL BE ON.”

Another strange case is that of 16 year old Charles J. Bishop, who stole a small private plane at an airport where he was taking lessons, crashing it into the Bank of America tower in Tampa in early January 2002. While some are trying to blame his actions on an anti-acne drug he may have been taking, he had no known history of depression, drugs or alcohol. Was he “just after publicity” as some simplistically theorized? When his body was recovered, a note was found expression sympathy and solidarity with Osama bin Laden. In a further surprise, it seems his name is not “Bishop”, but “Bishara” and, moreover, that he is the son of an apparently (at least by surname) Middle Eastern American felony fugitive on the run. Since the media found all of this out so quickly, it can be safely assumed that the boy knew of his heritage. While I don’t want to be accused of racial profiling, I did notice his vague Middle Eastern look when his face first appeared on television. Later reports even more surprisingly revealed that the boy’s mother and father once tried suffocating themselves in a mutual suicide pact, apparently one of those occasionally chosen by “young lovers”. [Murphy, Chuck, “Parents Of Boy Who Flew Into Tampa Skyscraper Had A Suicide Pact,” St. Petersburg Times, 11 Jan. 2002.] Did this “suicide thing” run in the family, or what! But more importantly for our topic of shahada, did the boy, knowing that he was of Arabic (or other) Middle Eastern descent, think through the issues and come down squarely on the side of extremist Islamists? From the last reports on the matter, this is so. His final statement expressed direct sympathy with bin Laden stated much the same way as other Islamists, although he says he acted alone. Nevertheless, the media has persisted in dismissing the young many as “an isolated act” of a “troubled boy.” All this may be so, but the exact source of the motivation is clearly and without a doubt taken from doctrinaire Jihadist Islam. [The most complete story was Amy Herdy’s and Robert Farley’s “Terrorist Or Lonely Teen?” from St. Petersburg Times On Line, 07 Feb. 02.] “This is an operation done by me only. I had no other help but I am acting on their behalf. … The U.S. will face the consequences. … You will pay – God help you – and I will make you pay!” He also added that Al-Qaeda was planning to use an old nuke from the 1967 Israeli-Syrian war. While it is quite doubtful the boy had any actual information, this is a most interesting (and plausible?) scenario as nukes from that era would most certainly be accounted for nowadays on anyone’s inventory. [See both Vicky Chachere’s “Police Deny Teen Pilot’s Claim…”, Associated Press, 07 Feb. 02. See also Amy Herdy and Robert Farley, “Terrorist Or Lonely Teen?” St. Petersburg Times On Line, 07 Feb. 02.]

Already almost forgotten in the wake of 9-11, the boy in the light plane pointed to so many things that are wrong with our highly vulnerable systems and infra-structure – not to mention the risk of alarming people to some kind of Columbine-like “attack of the teenage jihadists”. While young Bishara has slipped from the “news grid”, the lessons we need to learn are starkly in focus as “talking heads” have apparently been directed to “inform” us how vulnerable our nuclear facilities would be to a light plane loaded with the proper explosives. Then, instead of crashing into a wall like an impotent bug on a windshield, the pilot of a small plane could very quickly become a lethal short-range cruise missile.

MORE “SURPRISES” -- DO ALL ISLAMIC WOMEN WANT TO BE “LIBERATED” LIKE WESTERN MEDIA CONTINUES TO INSIST?

THE MUHAHEEDA, A LOOK AT A DIFFERENT KIND OF HOLY WARRIOR.

While some, of course do want to be “liberated,” it is disconcerting to see the media talking heads trying to explain why more Afghan women are not seen without the burqa now that the oppressive Taliban have been driven from power. Moreover, they tell you nothing about another kind of Islamic woman, one who is far more common and exemplary of the Islamic world than the pitiful few who ran “underground beauty salons” or “illegal schools for girls”, now so touted by the pundits. Asra Nomani, a Western journalist, who spent some time in Islamabad, “she found a different kind of warrior: the educated, middle-class women of her own extended family. I wish I could tell you that these women are among the brave guerrillas who have been defying the Taliban by running illegal schools for girls and chronicling atrocities with camcorders concealed beneath their burqas. They are not. They are raising money for the jihad. They are turning to the certainties of fundamentalist Islam. They are voluntarily donning the veil and the burqa, voluntarily giving up their professions and returning to their homes, voluntarily withdrawing their daughters from Westernized private schools and sending them to study the Koran. They do not demonstrate in the streets. Instead, they hold tag sales for the Taliban. ‘They consider themselves each a mujaheeda, a female version of a mujaheed, a freedom fighter.’ … We westerners have invested a lot in the belief that the fanatic, dogmatic version of Islam exists on the margins, only among the poor and the disenfranchised, and the occasional off-center university graduate. The alternative is far more frightening.

In Britain, Canada and the United States, many Imams [around 80%] preach the kind of hate to their followers that would cause anyone else to be hauled before a human rights commission.” [White, Margaret, “Muslim Matrons Of Jihad,” The Globe And Mail, 10 November 2001.].

LOOK OUT! THE SHAHEEDAS ARE COMING!
An all too brief look at the tragic life and times of Wafa Idris

Female suicide warriors are rare, but not without precedent. “Professor Yona Alexander, the director of the Inter-University Centre for Terrorism Studies, predicted that this would have to change. ‘First it was men, now a woman, maybe next time it will be a child on a bicycle or a handicapped person or a foreign recruit,’ he said. Jewish extremist groups used women against British forces in Palestine and the Palestinians employed women fighters, notably Leila Khaled, the notorious hijacker released by the British Government. The use of female suicide bombers came later. Tamil separatists pioneered the use of women, and Rajiv Gandhi, the former Indian leader, was killed by a woman suicide assassin. The tactic was first used in the Middle East in Lebanon in 1985, when a 16-year old Palestinian girl drove a car into an Israeli Army checkpoint in southern Lebanon, killing two soldiers.” [The Australian, “Bomber Sparks Security Review,” from The Times and AFP 30 Jan. 02.] In 1990, a pregnant Palestinian was killed while attempting to plant a bomb. While she is a martyr, she is not a true shaheeda. In 1999, a 21 year old Kurdish woman suicide bombed a Turkish police station, and there are other Kurdish women as well, but ignored by the media. Chechen women and Sri Lankan women have also blown themselves up for nationalist causes in recent years. [Hoffman, Lisa, “Extremists Give Women Right To Kill, Die,” Scripps Howard News Service, 08 Feb. 02.] Nevertheless, they are rare indeed, and this new manifestation introduces a new and very deadly weapon into the Palestinian conflict. Most Americans annoyingly persist in thinking of Islamic women as “oppressed” and in need of Western-style “liberation,” but this is certainly not always the case.

Note yet another Saudi link to extremist Islam and terror in that six weeks before the 9-11 Attacks, and following months of heated theological and geopolitical debate, the “High Islamic Council of Saudi Arabia” issued a fatwa that decreed women should be received into the ranks of suicide “active martyrs” for Islam. Two Palestinian Mullahs, Hassan Yusuf and Sheik Abdullah Nimr Darwish, embraced the rulings. The honorable Sheik and Islamic scholar, Darwaish, said, “Now the women will also fight; we can use them on a daily basis.” Nonetheless, while female suicide bombers are not unknown, they have yet to be employed by Islamic militant groups except on very rare occasions (one was a mistake) -- at least until lately.

On Sunday, 27 January 2002, a college-educated woman training to be a nurse, named Wafa Idris, [As per Al-Manar TV, her name was first given as Shinaz Amuri, said to be a student at Al-Najah University in Nablus on the West Bank, a hotbed of jihadist extremism.. But – no one seemed able to find this person. If the Al Manar report had been correct, this would have identified her as a Hesbollah asset, but now that is not the case. Mistake? Rival jihadist groups vying to grab credit? Who can say, but I will have to let it go yet another story lost in the narrow, winding streets of the Mid-East where you never come out exactly where you thought you would.] detonated a bomb killing herself and a bystander, wounding over a hundred others [Myre, Greg, “Palestinian Fires Bomb, Kills Man and Herself,” Associated Press, 28 Jan. 02.] including two Israeli Shin Bet secret police agents, according to a story on The Jerusalem Post Radio (30 Jan. 02). Most reports ignored the deaths of the agents. Since Hesbollah-sponsored Al-Manar TV was the very first to release specific details like her name (which turned out to be untrue), we might assume that this mujaheeda was associated with this faction, organizationally based in Lebanon. But later, Al Aqsa Brigades, a sub-sect of Arafat’s Fatah movement, took full credit. Her martyr posters show a lovely woman with a warrior’s bandana tied around her head, a true inspiration for all young girls, there is no doubt! There are so many “interesting coincidences” and unanswered questions in this case, taken to an even deeper level by “coincidental” presence at the bombing scene of Mark Sokolov, a WTC Bombing survivor. Why was he there? Was he targeted? But how? Is Al Aqsa Brigade or even Hesbollah that sophisticated? Why were the two Shin Bet “homeland security” cops there? I found them mentioned in only a couple of places, and then not at all. Were there more? Were they shadowing Sokolov? Or Wafa? Or whom? How did Wafa Idris, who once wanted to be a nurse to heal others, come to choose her target? Who or what was the target? And was she successful? Why all the discrepancies about the victims? Most never mentioned Shin Bet, focusing on an 81 year old man who was killed; some say “at least a dozen” were wounded where others said over a 100?

Now, “they” even say that maybe she was not a real shaheeda, that she was only meant to deliver the bomb, but this seems unlikely, and is probably an attempt to play down the emphasis on an intelligent young Palestinian woman who made the ultimate sacrifice for her people. Not only that, even the usually jaded watcher of TV news saw Wafa’s martyr poster being paraded through the streets. Do you think they “just happened” to have that poster all made up and ready to go? No, it was prepared as are those of all shaheeds, in an emotional session attended by friends, family and movement members. This was no mistake. A brave woman went to do what she was assigned to do. And, no, I am not “praising the terrorists” – I am merely being honest with the events as they happened in light of the Israeli-Palestinian society, a schizophrenic stewpot of institutionalized hate and violence that gave rise to such extremism. Am I pointing fingers? Yes – at both sides, and especially at the United States, who could contribute greatly in bring pressure to truly solve the problems and does not.

“NOW THE WOMEN WILL ALSO FIGHT; WE CAN USE THEM ON A DAILY BASIS.”

While none of the “talking heads” of the media seemed willing to discuss it, Wafa Idris, the newest shaheeda, introduces an entirely new dimension to the Palestinian conflict. Is this the signal to Israel that Palestinians, even though deprived by the West from having proper defensive weapons, have “other ways” of defending itself? A message saying, “hey, Ariel Sharon, you haven’t seen everything yet!”? I think so, but time will tell. While no one nowadays is ever completely comfortable on an Israeli street, we now must also worry about old and young women who are continually around carrying kids or baskets of fruit – or whatever. And there another horrible level of escalation after that. Are you ready for when a 12 or 15 year old boy – or girl – or younger – becomes the next shahada “active martyr”? But on the other hand, what are the Palestinians to do? There is a vast disparity of weaponry. Tanks and rockets fire into Palestinian residential neighborhoods killing indiscriminately all the time, a form of “state terrorism” sponsored and paid for by U.S. “aid” to the Israeli ministate. The overlords and their minions seem to forget the late 20th century maxim: “terrorism is the nuclear strike capability of the oppressed,” but we must resist such a digression from our main topic. So then, dear readers -- if you thought that bombings of Israeli discos and wedding halls was just the beginning of an escalation, you were absolutely right. I would personally be very uncomfortable anytime in that old land called “holy”, but if you needed any other reasons to stay away (listen up, Christian pilgrims), then please put this one at the top of your list. Look out! The shaheedas are coming!

On 27 February 2002, a second shaheeda blew up her car and injured four at an Israeli checkpoint. She will surely not be the last.

AND ONE WHO WOULDN’T – THE RELUCTANT SHAHEEDA
“Everyone has emotional distress. You are killing our people and we are killing yours.”

Tawriya Hamamra is a 25 year old single Palestinian woman who gave an interview (Spring 2002) to a selected group of journalists after she backed out of a suicide mission that involved multiple perpetrators. Another woman, Arin Ahmed, age 20, was arrested by Israelis after she was traced to a bomb plot. She too backed out at the last minute. In the interview, Tawriya expressed great dissatisfaction with her handlers who did almost nothing to prepare her for the ordeal. Further, they asked her to dress in revealing western clothes with make-up and loose, uncovered hair, all of which went against her rigid fundamentalist faith. She really began having second thoughts after the handlers (reportedly from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah splinter group) instructed her to go ahead and blow herself up before she reached the target if she thought she was about to be caught. “Blow up for nothing? What is this – trading in the blood of martyrs so that my handlers can say they executed the operation.” She went on to relate the perfect horror of life in the Occupied Territories on a day-to-day basis. “Everyone has emotional distress. You are killing our people and we are killing yours.” She ended the interview on a sad note, knowing that she would never be accepted by most of her people, and said she can only ask forgiveness from her parents. In the meantime – somewhere in Gaza or the West Bank – another young man or woman is being prepared for another mission. In the most likely scenario, his or her handlers will do much better than the inept and cruel bunglers described by Tawriya. More often than not, the mission will be a “success”, and the family will not be ashamed, but will be basking in pride while grieving the loss of a child. And though it may seem crass and uncaring to say it, they will, within a few weeks, become wealthy members of their community. Money will come from the various Islamic charities all over the world set up for this purpose, but the “big guy” in Iraq, old Sadaam (“Sodom”) Hussein will make the biggest contribution, reportedly lately to be around $25,000, quite a tidy sum where some wages pay only a few dollars a day. And the juggernaut of death rolls on, its wheels freshly greased with blood – and money.

THE TRIUMPH OF SUICIDE”

In his Deutschland magazine essay, Hans Enzensberger reflects how suicide is a sad and ugly motif of our times, and he reflects on this sick cultural yearning, this “widespread… desire for a personal Armageddon. While I have broken up the presentation for clarity and organization, it is shared throughout the book almost in its entirety. The essay requires a minimum of commentary, and clearly speaks for itself. The problems of suicide are among us all. Is it really so surprising that some have ritualized it and given it meaning, employing it as a tool of warfare?

“Whether suicide is individual or collective, the urge to end it all suddenly in an act of violence seems preferable to drawing out the real or imagined agony any longer. … If a terrorist can claim some lofty motive for his actions, all the better for him. But whatever illusion he cites is irrelevant…. His victory consists in his immunity to both attack and punishment – he sees to his own execution. His commander in his distant bunker also awaits the moment of his own annihilation – consoled in his imagination by the spectacle of myriads of people, including his underlings, preceding him into death. … Although the overwhelming majority of people have no desire to run amok, they have no chance of survival when faced with someone infatuated with suicide. Since there are probably hundreds of thousands of such living time-bombs walking around [and not just Muslims], this, particular form of violence will continue to accompany us on our journey into the 21st century. This is one of the most ancient rituals of our species, human sacrifice, has also succumbed to globalization.” [Deutschland magazine, Oct.-Nov. 2001.]

HOW ISRAEL MADE HESBOLLAH SHAHEEDS A SUCCESS STORY

The special concluded with a segment as to how Israel itself created the martyrs of today, as well as the only successful merging of Shiite and Sunnite violent extremists in one movement. In 1992, in the middle of the night, Israeli security forces swept through Palestinian areas, seizing almost 500 radical leaders. While they had been responsible for some violence such as sniping, rocket and mortar attacks, the suicide bombers had not yet come to full flower at all. These leaders were not imprisoned or charged with crimes. Instead, they were bussed to the Lebanese border, where they were forced across at gunpoint. But the already-beleaguered Lebanese government did not want them either, and refused visas or to let them move beyond a small border enclave, where they dwelt in crude tents without proper clothing, and with little food and water. It seemed no one at all would help, but then the Shiite Hesbollah (Party of Allah) group came along to reach out to these almost 500 Sunnite Palestinian activists. Through this assistance, a bond was forged and never forgotten. Suicide bombing began in Lebanon in the early 1980s. The Hesbollah concept of shahada is that the martyrdom is the central goal; the victory itself is secondary. This concept, as well as other Hesbollah tactics and doctrines, was well absorbed by the activists.

Then, quite suddenly and moreover, quite surprisingly, the Israelis permitted the activists to return to their Palestinian homes! Of course, they took their new Hesbollah knowledge and links with them. Was this an intentional action of the Zionist ministate to radicalize the Palestinian situation to the point that peace is unsalvageable – as it seems to be right now? If not, that certainly was the result. Would the Zionists do such a thing? Sadly, but truly, they have sacrificed many – both Arabs and Jews – to achieve their goals. Begin, Sharon and many others started their careers as “terrorists”, or at least that’s what the world called them back then. Would they employ such tactics to attain and keep power? Read with your eyes fully open and listen with fully open ears, then you write and tell me.

FUNDING TERRRORISM -- AMERICAN ISLAM AND EXTREMISTS

While I am sure that some American Muslims will dispute it, more than a few sources (all of which are Islamic) say that 80% of U.S. mosques and Islamic societies are estimated to be under the control of Wahhabist Imams, who preach extremism. [As examples, see the C-FAR source above, but if you want something from the “mainstream”, try Jeffrey L. Sheler’s “Muslim In America” in 29 Oct. 2001 Newsweek, where he attributes one source to U.S. Islamic Imam, Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani. He gave the figure of 80% to a State Dept. forum held in 1999. He seems to tell (at least some of) the truth, and of late has even been allowed on such as the Fox News Channel.] We can only assume that similar conditions exist in European mosques. Money to both legitimate charities and fronts that fund radical networks come from American Muslims. Funds are transferred both legitimately and through the underground network of informal Islamic money brokers. You can do it over the Internet in Arabic and English. This is not to say that all American Muslims support such group, but it does beg the question of how many contribute alms (remember: a religious duty) to organizations which are largely unaccountable, contributing to an “ignorance is bliss” mentality for the contributors.

TERRORISM: THE PRODUCT OF OUR AGE?

While terrorism has clearly arises from primal, atavistic, archetypal forces, and has been around since the coming of humankind. For one example, think of the horrific battles recounted in the Old Testament and the Books of Maccabees. But terror-warfare, where early “ethnic-cleansing” sought to annihilate enemies was primarily characteristic of the Orient, not the Occident (except for religious wars, of course). As Dr. Revilo Oliver tells us, this all changed greatly in the West with the coming off “modern” times.

“IN THE WESTERN WORLD, TERRORISM IS THE NATURAL PRODUCT OF DEMOCRACY.” Prof. Revilo P. Oliver

“So long as Europe was ruled by monarchs, wars (unless becoming religions wars by competition of the Christian sects) were fought for territorial gains by small professional armies under the command of more or less cultured noblemen, who naturally sought to minimize damage of property and hardship to the civilian population, since it was obviously to the interest of both sides to keep the disputed territory prosperous.” Dr. Oliver elaborates on this to say that most of the horror of ancient European conflicts were in religious wars, not territorial ones. Civilians were expected to be non-belligerents, but if they took up arms, they were certainly regarded as fair game by the professionals. They were eliminated as potential troublemakers for the coming occupation. Other than that, civilians were expected to continue producing goods and services for the new masters. “All of this changed with the coming of democracy… [which made warfare a] vast slaughter wrought by modern armies, raised by conscription and slavering with hate excited by propaganda, in wars which are evolving gradually into wars of annihilation. ‘Democratic’ wars are wars between civilian populations [where] once civilized nations revert to barbarism….” While there is not room to print a lot more, Dr. Oliver presciently cites the effectiveness of biological agents like anthrax which “provoke terror far greater than mere violence could produce.”
[Professor Revilo P. Oliver, “The Terrorist”, Feb. 1989. Original article in Liberty Bell magazine (no longer pub.) ]

ISLAMIC CONFERENCE ISSUES DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

Ignored by practically everyone outside the Muslim world, the Islamic Jurisprudence Academy of the Mecca-based (hence Saudi and Wahhabi-controlled) Muslim World League. [Dorsey, James M., “Islamic Conference…”, Wall Street Journal, 14 Jan. 2002.] The scholars defined terrorism as “all acts of aggression committed by individuals, groups or states against human beings, including attacks on their religion, life, intellect or property.” The scholars also said that “any act of violence or threat designed to terrorize people or endanger their lives or security.” As expected, the conference drew a sharp distinction between terrorism and legitimate self-defense, condoning Palestinian resistance to occupation as legitimate jihad. “Heinous terrorism currently perpetrated by the Jews of Palestine [state terrorism] … is the most dangerous terrorism threatening world peace and security, and confronting it is a just defense, and jihad is the way of Allah.” Naturally, this has not only been ignored by the mainline media, but even more so by the State Department, which wants to hear nothing remotely critical of Israel or U.S. policies.

IS ISLAM INHERENTLY A RELIGION OF VIOLENCE?

If judged solely by its beginning and middle years, the propensity for forcible conversion was strong and all-pervasive. But as readers of history know, Islam fell into what I shall call an “Ottoman slumber”, pulling a Rip Van Winkle episode for hundreds of years, in fact, until about 70 or 80 years ago. It awakened to a world that had passed it by. The once-preservers of science and philosophy were way behind the times. And, as is proven every time a “techno-peasant” like myself walks into a computer store, your ignorance and naiveté can certainly work against you in such cases! So it was with Islam. What parts of the Industrial Revolution that made their way to backward Islamic lands were courtesy of Europeans and later Americans, whose business ethics we shall not examine other than to reiterate my techno-peasant analogy above. Oil was little help. The West was absolutely necessary to extract it, and more importantly, to buy it. The money fattened the pockets of fat cats, little making its way to the people. These are only a few reasons for the present-day Islamic rage.

“Whether they claim to be acting in the name of a right-wing or a left-wing ideology, in the name of religion or freedom, their actions always follow the same pattern, of which the common denominator is paranoia. … It is difficult to be certain of anything in the dark world of terrorism. Yet practically all terrorist activities have one characteristic in common that is hard to overlook: the protagonists’ self-destructive tendencies. … In the long run, the most devastating consequences of terrorism will be borne not by the West but by those regions in whose name it is carried out. For millions of Muslims, the foreseeable consequences will be catastrophic – the Islamists are celebrating the beginning of a war they can never win.” [Deutschland magazine, Oct.-Nov. 2001.]

If (and this is a big question) Islam can overcome its cultural and ethnocentric paranoia in order to resolve its rage and anger in a positive way, there might be some hope for rapprochement as well as for a peaceful and profitable mutual existence in the 21st century world. But only a few Islamic thinkers and theologians seem to really examine the issue thoroughly. While they rightly accuse of us of blindness and arrogance toward world events, the Islamists are apparently unable and/or unwilling to look at themselves clearly in a mirror.

To renounce violence and live in a peaceful state of co-existence with the rest of the world, it would be necessary to re-define several key theological concepts, such as jihad, shahada, and the all-encompassing, all-consuming Muslim drive and desire for the ultimate Islamic One-World Order. I have no problem with the Islamic world creating this – for themselves, but not for the rest of us “infidels”. While some more modern and assimilating Muslims (likely those who are most influenced by the West) may someday significantly impact Muslim beliefs and practices, there is little evidence of it today.

Can it happen? Could Islam truly become a religion of peace? Absolutely. Will it happen? I can’t say for sure, and I don’t want to close every chapter on a “grim” note. Some “westernized” blend of Islam will surely arise out of this. Who knows? Islamic pacifists (none have shown up yet) might even organize. Stranger things have happened. While the possibility certainly exists, in all honesty, it is difficult to believe that all (or a significant number of?) Muslims will suddenly change ideological directions. Yet modern Western Christianity has done an about-face on its past. Look at the Roman Catholic Church. While I do not personally like many of these changes, the facts show that a major world religion made stunning ideological/theological changes in the late 20th century. So, we must not rule out changes of the same magnitude for Islam, but no one should “hold their breath”. Christianity had to become old, disbelieved (thus poorly presented), disrespected and worn-out (at least, the “official” versions, anyway) before significant change could occur. I’m sure that some will disagree, but I see Islam as a still-dynamic and highly motivated system. It is no where near such a change, and shares none of the history of decline and disbelief which struck Western Christianity in the heart.

Until certain issues can be resolved (Palestine is foremost among them), they will continue to feed the Theology of Violence. Pour in a good helping of poverty and a dose of inept and stubborn governments, and we have just the recipe for more of the same. Furthermore, we, ourselves have to be honest, and realize (admit) that we participate in as well as sponsor and promulgate violence. I won’t digress further, but it all begs the question of why a constitutional republic formed largely by European immigrants escaping the turmoil and violent, convoluted politics of the Old World now carries all the trappings and responsibilities of an Imperium in what may be called the Age of the American World Order. Now, over two hundred years has past, and the new American Imperium is no longer that same constitutional republic. It has become a new Roman Empire, with Legionary troops in hundreds of spots all over the world. Why are they there? I’m not entirely sure. Are you? Do our “leaders” know?

Until individual “average” Americans come to terms with our real history as a world-domineering power, it is likely that little will change. Conversely, one would not expect the enemy – a religio-political system that began in the struggle of armed jihad – to quit and back off either. With all of this in mind, let us survey the roots of the rage. Some are old, some are new. None – so far – have been satisfactorily resolved.

CHAPTER NINE

ISLAM VERSUS THE WEST:
THE ROOTS OF THE RAGE

ISLAM BEGAN AS A RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL REFORM MOVEMENT

“Thus in Syria and Egypt Christianity became degraded. It sank into a species of idolatry. … About the sixth century of its era the Christian world called loudly for reform. When things were at their worst, Muhammad first appeared on the scene. … After a long course of meditation, fired with anger by the absurd fanaticism of the Jews, the superstitions of the Syrian and Arab Christians, and the horrid idolatries of his unbelieving countrymen, … he determined to reform those abuses which rendered revelation contemptible to the learned and prejudicial to the vulgar. … [all previous revelations] …in the fullness of time had been superseded by the revelations of El Islam, the Saving Faith. All the past was now effete and abrogated. All the future would be mere imposture; for his was the latest of religions, he the Soul of the Prophets. He accused the Jews and Christians of entire corruption, of spiritual death, and preached to them with fervour a new faith, a doctrine of life.

… Abolishing all belief in a local or personal God, he announced to his Arabs the One Supreme…. He preached ALLAH, the God unapprehensible, incomprehensible, omnipotent, all-beneficent, spiritual, and eternal. He revived the earliest scheme of Mosaicism and pristine simplicity of Christianity by making every man priest and patriarch of his own household. … he bequeathed to the world a Law and a Faith than which none has been more firmly or more fervently believed in by mankind.

BUT, HOWEVER EL ISLAM PROSPERED AMONGST THE KINDRED RACES, IT FELL FLAT ELSEWHERE.” Sir Richard Francis Burton, 19th century explorer, linguist and ethnographer.
[Selected quotations in this chapter are taken from a most unique and controversial posthumous book by Sir Richard called The Jew, The Gypsy, And El Islam, London, 1898. It is available in reprint, and many libraries have biographies. Burton spoke over 40 languages, including obscure dialects. He posed as an Afghan Pathan Muslim to covertly visit Mecca and Medina, the only known European to ever do so and live to tell the tale. In the early 1870s, he was stationed in Damascus, Syria, as British Consul-General. Burton also wrote over 50 other books.]

While it truly did “fall flat”, it was not from lack of trying. But nowadays, with the exception of a few scattered colonies in Eastern Europe (but still troubling us today), in spite of numerous military assaults, it gained little actual ground. Today, the war is waged militarily, politically and intellectually. While Western civilization rocked on in arrogance and ignorance, Islam became resurgent in the 1930s. But first, let’s survey some of our mutual history – and resentments. As in all human stories, it is a story of both successes and failures.

ROOTS OF THE RAGE: THE CRUSADES --
They May Be Gone And Forgotten By The West, But Not By Islam.
To Many Muslims, It Is “Just Like Yesterday”

Really a series of related events, the Crusades began in 1095 when Pope Urban II rallied the Christians to war, ostensibly to liberate and protect the Holy Land, but numerous other motivations present themselves. Europe was overcrowded in all sections of the rigid class structure. Peasants were many and idle; the young sons of aristocrats had no where to go. The aristocracy, especially counts and dukes who wanted to be kings, saw the chance of expansion into new and not too distant lands. Even lesser crusaders (so-called because of the crosses prominently worn) might gain land. Italian cities and their trade cartels, especially Venice, saw a great mercantile opportunity in the Near East once Europeans rather than “Saracens” controlled the old and sometimes not so holy lands. The Pope (and following Popes and clerics and monks of all sorts) greatly encouraged the holy warriors, curiously (in light of today’s events) who were promised martyrdom and heaven for their sacrifices should they be slain. They were also automatically granted special Papal Indulgences, forgiving them from even the most venal sins. They would need it, for soon they would commit some of the foulest and most heinous war crimes and ethnic cleansings ever seen to this very day. While there are extensive books and articles on this period of history, my old edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia dismissed the whole 200+ years of events and their aftereffects in one short paragraph. How curious!

The First Crusade (1095-99) was quite successful, securing Jerusalem. They wasted no time in claiming the land. Four “Latin Christian kingdoms” were soon established, apparently with little regard to the fact that they presented special difficulties in defending. It was also during this time that the later famous Knights Hospitalers and Knights Templar monk/holy warrior orders were established. All was well and prosperous – for a while. The Muslim forces did not back off completely; they merely reorganized and tried to recoup their losses. By 1144, they had reclaimed Edessa. In Europe many voices (St. Bernard of Clairvaux was the loudest) called for a Second Crusade, which lasted 1147-49. This was a dismal failure, and the great Islamic re-conqueror, Saladin, recaptured Jerusalem for Islam with his massive and overwhelming jihad of 1187. A Third Crusade (1189-92), led by several of the crowned heads of Europe, failed to recapture the city, though Christians were granted access rights after a three year truce. This was the end of the real crusades to capture/recapture the Holy Land. The so-called Fourth Crusade (1202-04) was diverted by pressure from the Venetians to attack and sack (Eastern Orthodox) Christian Constantinople instead! A “mad monk” or two created a horror and monstrosity known as the Children’s Crusade in 1212. Most never reached the “holy” land, and were sold into slavery (often in child brothels) or died of hunger and disease. A Fifth Crusade (1217-21) was aimed at Egypt, but also failed. Yet another (albeit a short one), the Sixth Crusade (1228-29) was attempted. The crusaders were at least consistent. It too failed miserably and totally to reverse any Muslim gains. There were many smaller crusades. In fact, during the earlier, more successful times, the smaller versions became almost annual events. But the real crusades came to an inevitable end in 1291 with the fall of Acre, the last Christian stronghold in The Levant. “Christian” troops were not to enter the city of Jerusalem again until 1917.

It’s hard to know when to quit on a fascinating topic like this, but suffice it to say, there are no sweet memories. For a final look at this era so crucial to Islamic-Western relations, especially today now that we are fighting medieval warriors again, to remind ourselves of all the furor we have unleashed against them, and all of it long before the wounds inflicted in modern-day Palestine, on 15 July 1099. [Before you start sending letters to tell me that the Crusades were not really “Christian”, you can save pen, ink or email time – There several causes (economic greed, e.g.) other than religion for this ugly enterprise that went on for over two centuries. Yet the Crusades were sponsored by the then-only Christian Church and operated under a Christian aegis -- and (more importantly) the Crusaders thought of themselves as Christians, and thought they were doing God’s will just as the Muslim holy warriors did and do today.] On that ultra-sanguineous day, the “Christian” Crusaders breached the walls of the Holy City of Jerusalem. Later in the following week of slaughter and terror, they herded all the Jews into the synagogue and burned them alive, all the while circumambulating the building singing “Christ, We Adore Thee”. But before they could attend to the unfortunate few Jews that remained in the “Holy City”, the victorious Muslim Jihadists had more important business.

“[After they breached the walls] Then began one of the bloodiest and cruelest massacres in history. No reliable figures are available of the total number of Muslims who perished, but according to Ibn al-Athir, some 70,000 were slaughtered in the Al-Aqsa Mosque alone, all of them noncombatants and some of them Imams and professors of theology, who had taken refuge in what, under Islamic rules of war, was held to be a sanctuary. Christian annalists have confirmed this report, and one of their number, a Crusader chaplain named Raymond, exulted in print over the atrocities that were perpetrated. ‘Wonderful sights rewarded our eyes,’ he wrote. ‘Some of the men, and they the more merciful, cut the heads of the enemies: others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers: others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Heaps of heads and hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city.’ Small wonder that to the Muslim world, the Crusaders were ‘animal, possessing the virtues of courage and fighting, but nothing else.’ For a whole week these ‘wonderful sights’ continued as women and children, old men and young, soldiers and civilians, Arabs and Jews, were butchered in a massacre unsurpassed in savagery until the Mongol invaders.” [Nutting, p. 172.]

Various other crusades/campaigns were organized from time to time (e.g., 1396, 1464) to block the further extension of Islam. These were largely successful, and Islamic/Turkish expansion in Europe was confined to Greece and the Balkans. The expansion slowed to a halt after the disastrous Islamic/Turkish naval defeat in 1571 at the Battle of Lepanto. Islam was further diverted by the Mongol threat in the 13th century. And in 1492, they were completely and inexorably expelled from Iberia. While the Muslim Mogul empires flourished in India and present-day Pakistan, this had little bearing on Europe. Islam in the West and the Mid-east settled down into a cultural slumber. Once on the forefront of science, technology, and warfare, the Muslim world, for a complex set of reasons, seemed to abrogate and desert these efforts and their former intellectual and practical leadership in these fields.

A MILLENNIUM IS BUT THE BLINK OF AN EYE

But Muslims have never forgotten the Crusades. In the present scheme of things, they blame America and the Jews. Since this is one of the areas in which I am allegedly “provocative and extremist”, I’ll let a recent Atlantic Monthly journalist describe the situation.

“Another European contribution to this debate is anti-Semitism, and blaming ‘the Jews’ for all that goes wrong. Jews in traditional Islamic societies experienced the normal constraints and occasional hazards of minority status. Until the rise and spread of Western tolerance in the 17th and 18th centuries, they were better off under Muslim than under Christian rule in most significant respects. With rare exceptions, where hostile stereotypes of the Jew existed in Islamic tradition, Islamic societies tended to be contemptuous and dismissive rather than suspicious and obsessive. This made the events of 1948 – the failure to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel – all the more of a shock. As some writers observed at the time, it was humiliating enough to be defeated by the great imperial powers of the West, suffer the same fate at the hands of a contemptible gang of Jews was intolerable.”
[Lewis, Bernard, “What Went Wrong?,” The Atlantic Monthly, January 2002.]

Were they right? While this book is not about Palestine and its problems, it’s not really too hard to see why Muslims equally blame the Britain, the U.S.A. and the U.N. for establishing (against the wishes of many member states and against the advice of many statesmen) the so-called and self-styled “state” of “Israel”. [“Israel” means “chosen of God”. Does this sound like the government and policies now in place in the artificially created ministate? Again, readers are encouraged to explore the topic further.] They rightly identify European expansionism and then-developing capitalism as the real motivations for what essentially was a land-grab scheme. Additionally, it was a religious and ritual intrusion (a rape and ravaging, if you will) into the holiest places of Islam. (Still an issue today; this was/is one of Osama’s main issues.) Not only did the Crusaders return and trespass again, now there are U.S. troops seemingly stationed permanently in Saudi Arabia, the holy land of Islam, an uncomfortable and unwanted presence in the land of Mecca and Medina. With the third holiest place in Jerusalem under the command of the Jews, the indignity and disrespect seemed complete. In the eyes of most Muslims, the U.S. and Israel are held directly responsible for the situation at hand and for the failure of peace and a free Palestine.

To many Muslims, the Crusades began in 1095, and the military and cultural aggression from the West has never really ceased. Europe has always been a detrimental block to the spread of Islam. We cannot recount the entire history, but more than once, Islamic military forces came quite close to conquering Europe. Indeed, they came as far as France and Vienna (as late as 1683). They might have conquered Europe had they fully exploited their advantage. But they did not.

Even more frustratingly, Muslims clearly see that had Christian Europe not stopped them, there might already be a world in submission to Allah instead of the world today, where Muslims are under attack and suppressed on multiple fronts. They have not forgotten the Crusades nor have they forgotten the ultimate goal of all Muslims – the establishment of an Islamic World Order. While they regret their failures, the blame is shifted in its entirety to the West, the eternal aggressor and the adversary (the Satan; this is the real meaning) of the True Faith.

To conclude our discussion of the Crusades (then and now), in all fairness and honesty, the stated reasons for the Crusades were at best a pretext. The Muslims never really blocked pilgrims from Palestine. Even after the savage crusading assaults, they still granted reasonable access rights after the Third Crusade. These lands were wrongfully (to them) seized again by the infidel Christians in 1917. And to further add insult on top of injury, the third holiest site in Islam was turned over to the Jewish Zionists in 1918 through the Balfour Declaration, and consummated in 1948 with the establishment of the artificial and eternally-troublesome ministate of Israel. When the new “Israelis” took over, they seized even more land, abrogating land deeds and titles that had been valid and legal for centuries. This brings the Crusades and geostrategic issues of a thousand years ago directly into play on today’s world stage.

ROOTS OF THE RAGE: THE TECHNOLOGY-DEFICIENT ISLAMIC WORLD IS OBLIGED TO DEPEND ON (THUS BE DOMINATED BY) THE WEST

Muslims see themselves at a disadvantage, which they are. Where they were more than equals of the Christian Crusaders of a millennium ago, they are now far behind the times, waging the technological wars of today with the weapons of yesteryear. Yet the successful assaults on the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa and concluding (?) with the highly coordinated 9-11 attack on the Pentagon and the WTC complex show that, once again, the underdog can win the fight – or at least inflict major damage and insult. But Islamic computer experts, scientists and technologists all either trained in the West or were educated by Western-trained teachers. Asia has far outstripped the Islamic world in economics and technology. If an Islamic company or government cannot hire scientists and technicians from Europe or America, they must come from other “infidel” nations like Japan and Korea. The West has been transformed by the scientific revolution, and most of Asia will not be too far behind, but the Islamic world seems lost in a technological backwater, even though the 9-11 perpetrators seemed to use it fairly adeptly!

9-11 DAY: MEDIEVAL MINDSET AT WORK WITH “OUR” TECHNOLOGY

“According to classical Islamic law, the world was divided into three zones: the House of Islam, where Muslims are ascendant; the House of Peace, those powers with whom Muslims have peace agreements; and the House of War, the rest of the world. Gradually, however, jihad came to be interpreted more in defensive than in offensive terms. In the 20th century the concept of jihad inspired Muslims in their struggle against Western colonialism.”
["Islam," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.]

Both in strong actions and strong symbolism, the WTC-Pentagon bombing showed that low tech methods (box cutters) and the spirit of the Mujahadeen of old could take over one of the symbols and tools of the modern age – the fast, sleek passenger jet – and almost alchemically transform it into a cruise missile. And not only was it more effective than a cruise missile, it was also much cheaper. [In comparison, during the Allied assault on Serbia, “they” really wanted to take out the tallest building in Belgrade, HQ of the ruling party and the national TV/Radio center. At least three of the highly vaunted (and expensive) Tomahawk cruise missiles struck the building. While they did indeed take out the TV/Radio broadcasts, with the exception of gaping holes, the building remained strong and still stands.] The entire mission (originally to be four attacks) cost only about $500,000 while each cruise missile costs over $1,000,000. Using this information, we see that the price of just one cruise missile could fund eight assaults of the 9-11 type! Say what you want about the bombers being “cowards” and “suicidal mad men” with “medieval minds” if it makes your feel any better. This was a bold, in-your-face, deadly serious attack using our own freedom of movement and travel, and the technological instruments thereof (the jets) to strike the most deadly non-state-sponsored, non-military attack in history.

THE DISAPPOINTING SELF-DESTRUCTION OF PAN-ARAB NATIONALISM

It suffices for this discussion to say that all attempts at Arab unity, no matter how auspicious and promising their beginnings, have failed not too much later. Gamel Abdel Nasser is perhaps the best-known Pan-Arabist known to the West, though he is certainly not the only political or intellectual figure in this movement. The so-called United Arab Republic (1958-61) was a short-lived union between Egypt and Syria (with Yemen in for a short time near the end), but later dissolved. Other Arab nationalists were at work as well, and there was a federal union for a time between the two Hashemite kingdoms of Jordan and Iraq. It looked for a while that this would succeed, but to make a long story short, Nasser overplayed his hand, failing to bring Sudan (a non-Arab state, actually) into the pact. The Arab League also had promise, but this too has come to nothing. Now, after more than a half century, the (mostly) arbitrarily contrived borders solidified into states of one sort or another with their own local politicos and their less than Pan-Arab interests. Because the Arabs have more or less settled within these borders, the greater cause of Islamic political unity will have to replace the Arab nationalism of the 1950s. If it can raise the same fervor and determination that the old movement did – and avoid its many mistakes – a new Islamist union of nations could someday arise. But while this could happen, don’t expect it anytime soon as vested and entrenched interests on all sides (and in the background) always work against (and/or to control) such movements. Nevertheless, they can effectively align on some issues and projects, so look for more of this, although their performance as a bloc within the U.N. General Assembly has also been disappointing.

While some Arabs do indeed look inward to see the reasons for the failure as well as the solutions, many Arabs seem quite content to blame the whole thing on the West. To be honest, we must observe that rampant European and U.S. capitalism and imperialist expansionism allowed no rivals, and did as it pleased to re-draw maps to suit themselves rather than the needs of the people of the various lands involved. In the minds of many, many Islamic people, the failure of all of this is just one more grievance laid at the feet of the West.

RAGE AGAINST WESTERN FINANCIAL DOMINANCE AND WESTERN IMPERIALISM AND NEO-COLONIALISM

“As with every successful revolutionary, Muhammad touched on the raw nerve of the masses in Hejaz who were not privileged to share in the pleasures of life. For within his spiritual message, there was a call to social revolution every bit as clear as the writings of Karl Marx or the speeches of Gamel Abdel Nasser. And just as Nasser did in the 20th century, so Muhammad was able to uplift the Arabs and give to the underprivileged citizens who received his call a new dignity in being a Muslim Arab.” [Nutting, p. 37.]

One could write pages and pages on the symbolism of the twin towers and the Pentagon, and you can see my Position Statement in the Appendix for a bit of this, but again, the effects were really quite well thought out, even brilliant. Am I unpatriotic? Am I praising our enemy? No, not really, but neither patriotism nor praise should deny the truth of matters. Look at exactly what was hit: the symbols of American financial and trade dominance and the symbol of military dominance. What are the main complaints of the Islamic world? Oppression by Western cultural and economic goals, often forced and enforced by the powerful ultra-modern and technology-superb American military, perhaps most odious for its apparent permanent role as an occupation force in Saudi Arabia, the holy land of Islam – and no less odious for its blind support of the Israeli ministate. I guarantee you that even if most Americans were (until 9-11) drifting along in now not so blissful ignorance, the Islamic world did not. It would be hard to say how many of the world’s 1.25 billion Muslims almost immediately understood what I have been writing about here, but once you rule out small children and the mentally disabled, the figure must be about 99.99%!

This illustrates the woeful ignorance of the West. Whether it is really what we mean or not, we seem arrogant and disdainful of world opinion, especially if it might mean changing our lifestyle or lessening our consumption patterns and use of resources.

While many more Muslims than ever before are smart, sophisticated and well-trained, the vast majority of Muslims are poor and live in underdeveloped and most often misgoverned countries. While they rail against the Western and Jewish financial interests, some Muslims (Saudi royals and the like) live the good life of the West and play the system just as do the Jewish and infidel Westerners. But they only spread a little of the wealth to “the people”, just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Is this the Islamic way? Fundamentalists don’t think so, and they are right. Since the coming of oil in the 1930s, exacerbated by a demanding market via WWII and the post-war boom, billions upon billions of dollars have flowed into Muslim hands, and continues to flow each and every day, just as regularly as your own trips to the gas pumps. So why are they still poor and underdeveloped except in rich “playhouse countries” like Kuwait and the little Emirates?

WHY ISLAM FELL FROM GRACE

There are many reasons for Islam’s humbling after falling culturally asleep for centuries, becoming an economic and technological backwater. The author of another recent book on Islam and its dismal cultural and societal failures once again stresses that Islam was once a dynamic, expanding (albeit through jihad) network of empire builders.

“Islam created a world civilization, polyethnic, multiracial, international and one might say even intercontinental. … In the Muslims’ own perception, Islam itself was conterminous with civilization, and beyond its borders there were only barbarians and infidels.”
[One of the newest books on Islam in addition to The New Jihad is Bernard Lewis’ What Went Wrong?, 2002.]

As a book review columnist said, “…in our postcolonial period, Islam has become a largely sordid collection of impoverished and despotic regimes where ruling cliques subjugate and terrorize their own peoples. Think Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Taliban.”
[House, Karen Ellen, in a Wall Street Journal review of the book below, 11 Jan. 2002.]

“Arabs are among the world’s leaders in percentages of dictatorships, rogue states, violent conflicts, and military spending.”
[Daniel Pipes, “Arabs Still Want To Destroy Israel,” Wall Street Journal, 18 Jan. 02.]

In actual fact, what happened was that Islam was the big-time loser in a kulturkamph, a culture-war which it not so much lost, but simply withdrew from the field of battle, both the armed one and the cultural-technological one. Of course, Islam was turned back in several military assaults on Europe, but what if the Saracens had regrouped, acquired Western armaments and expertise? How long could Europe have resisted an equal or greater power – one that just wouldn’t quit; kept on coming? It’s a scary thought, but if their dynamic push had included the development of modern technology and, we might all be speaking Arabic and memorizing the Koran in madrassah schools. And, surely you’ve now come to see that, eerily and uncannily, “they’re back!”

ROOTS OF THE RAGE: THE BIG HOPE AND EVENTUAL EMPTY PROMISES OF PETROLEUM PIPE DREAMS

“The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.” Stanley Kubrick

To most Americans, it would be seen as a true Godsend if oil and/or gas were discovered on land that we own. Depending on the quantity, we would expect to be wealthy and well-endowed. While great riches have flowed into Islamic hands, only a miniscule fraction has gone to help the vast sea of unemployed, under-employed and unemployable (due to lack of education) Islamic people. Even in Saudi Arabia, the richest of all the oil lands, there are still those living in poverty and need beneath the glistening, but false, surface. The problem is not one of wealth, but of distribution.

Not only that, while the Asian market is increasing, the main customers (and developers) have been from Europe or the U.S.A. For whatever the reasons (and they are complex), this has meant that the Western financial world has come to thoroughly dominate the Islamic world. [This introduces the unique and intriguing subject of non-usurious Islamic banking, a possible alternative to the One-World Order banking cartel that also dominates each and every one of us, but we must resist the temptation to divert from our main topic.] The oil industry is run from the West, and can’t really function without direct Western assistance. Iraq, even with covert help from Europe and Russia, is barely able to keep its now old and creaky pipeline and refinery systems going without American technicians being on the scene. Even during the days of the Libyan embargo by Reagan, both U.S. citizens and Europeans blatantly continued to work in the petroleum production system. No one, especially the U.S., said a word about it because the biggest customers of Libya are in Western Europe. To hell with Qaddafi and the terrorists and their victims -- and to hell with the U.S.A.! Nothing was allowed to stand in the way of oil reaching ever-thirsty, but petroleum-deficient Europe.

Even today, both Saudi Arabia and Iran seem to be dysfunctional without Western help and expertise. This is both humiliating and angering to Muslims all over the Islamic world. While we Westerners have certainly exploited the situation to the max, the underlying causes are not of our making. But as we know, this knowledge does nothing to diminish the already-deteriorated feelings and relationship between Islam and the West.

Not only that, Islam must face the realities of the oil business, that the need for this product, indeed, the business of petroleum itself, are centered in the West. Even Saudi Arabia and the former glories of Iraq and Iran, the three greatest profit-takers in the trade, are but mere purveyors of raw product. What refining potential they have is entirely constructed by and run by Western personnel. For whatever the reasons (and they are many and varied), this is the reality of matters as they now stand. The Islamic world knows this too. It is a situation ripe or resentment. The arrogance and aggressive nature of Western life, culture and business has done nothing to help a forced partnership already fraught with relational problems.

ROOTS OF THE RAGE: INFIDEL TROOPS NEAR MECCA AND MEDINA

As stated several times, this is really a key sticking point, and one that reportedly redirected Osama’s and Al-Qaeda’s goals and activities away from Saudi Arabia. This is certainly fortunate for the Saudi royals, who can now keep the American oil field security force as a possible bodyguard/protector in the event of a coup. But the domestic political stewpot may be even more near the boiling and spillover point. In January of 2002, various information was released indicating that the Saudi state might ask U.S. troops to leave. But, as Osama bin Laden and other Islamists point out, the U.S. does not like to withdraw once it is in place. The Bush 43 regime quickly hushed up and discounted the reports. There is ever so much to say on just this one subject, and we will discuss some possible answers to alleviating this particular sticking point.

ROOTS OF THE RAGE: THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM

While some writers would rather rationalize or just conceal a bias, it has never been style. The few of you who have seen my writings realize that I have never concealed my feelings about the modern ministate self-styled and so-called Israel, so there is no reason to conceal them here. Nor is there much reason to dwell on any of this intensely since this book’s goal is to understand something about Islam, not get bogged down in a very closely related cultural and geopolitical issue. Is it more important than anything else? Is it, for instance, more important than economic disparities and misused oil wealth? No, but it is at least equally important in the minds of the aforementioned 1.25 billion Muslims. I offer the following capsulation of the problems at hand.

Palestine (from Philistine) was Palestine for much longer than the small part of it once known as the tribal kingdom (and then a split-off sub-kingdom) of Israel, which ended up as the even smaller ministate of Judea. While the Levant (the larger area) is more “Balkanized” than the Balkans, this is especially true in Palestine of yesterday and today. Though small, it has never been just one land. In fact, it might be the most sub-divided real estate holdings in the world.

Again, it is hard to know where to begin and stop with a discussion of the perennial problems of Palestine, so you I ask your pardon if I exclude some faction, character or issue that may be seen as crucial to the situation. Along with Islam, it is perhaps one of the most MIS-understood topics of our day, so if this capsulation causes you to probe beneath the surface of what the media carefully chooses to dole out to us on this and every other subject, then I have succeeded in one of my main goals.

In 1898, what had been carefully planned and discussed for a long time was declared to the world. Theodore Herzl convened a body self-styled as the World Zionist Congress, and declared they wanted Palestine as the Jewish State, but not much happened until after the close of World War One in 1918. Turkey chose the wrong side, and ended up losing almost all her empire to the Europeans, including Palestine. As we saw, Western military forces entered Jerusalem in 1917, the first time since 1291, when the Crusaders of old were finally cast out. For the support of the Rothschild and other Jewish banking interests, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, which set in process the coming State of Israel. Not all the world agreed then as now that this was a wise plan. The interests of the already-resident Palestinian Arabs were, then as now, discounted, disrespected and disregarded, and the Jewish ministate became a controversial reality in 1948. Nothing can be gained from reciting a history of the various wars and conflicts in the region since then, so I shall not do so.

So many of the problems that led to the current state of affairs stem from the fate of the Palestinians, that to go much further would truly and thoroughly divert from the main goal of the book, which is a look at Islam and the roots of its past and current rage against the West. Molly Ivins is a thoroughly grounded Democratic Party propagandist posing as an independent columnist. If I bother to read her column, it is usually to see what outlandish liberal cause she has adopted to bore us with on a particular day, but on one Friday not so long ago, the old girl actually had something very concise and true to say about Palestine, and in her second sentence, she states the very reason why I wrote this book! How this “slipped through the net” I’ll never know, but listen as she concludes our discussion of the Palestinian dilemma.
[Creators Syndicate, 29 Dec. 01. The article was titled “Unsavory Ally”, and was about Afghan General (and former Communist thug) Dostum, but then her discourse suddenly and inexplicably ended with the section above. Maybe she just grew tired (I certainly have) of Bush 43’s continual harping on how “evil” our enemy is, but with nothing really of substance to say. Molly never liked the Bushes (another place I guess I have to admit agreeing with her). When GWB was Governor of Texas, she always called him “Shrub”, and inferred he was an intellectual light weight at best, so this may have provoked her reflections, but who knows? As I have learned, truth can sometimes manifest itself from the strangest and most unlikely of places – even from “liberals”.]
“It seems to me it does no one any good to keep saying, ‘Our enemies are evil people who hate us because we are successful.’ That’s certainly not the way they look at it – and, at the very least, it is necessary to understand your enemy in order to fight him. [That’s why I wrote this book.] As many others have pointed out, we are probably dealing with at least two aspects of terrorism. One is the perverted holy-warrior fantasy of Osama bin Laden, and the other is the consequence of history and policy.

If you drive people off their land – say the Palestinians – and leave them to rot in refugee camps for three generations, you are going to get terrorism. If you further aggravate old wounds by sending settlers into Palestinian territory and ruthlessly occupy same, you will get more terrorism. This is not a great mystery, nor is it caused by envy of American success. There is no weakness in re-examining policies that lead to terrorism – we’d be fools not to do so.”

ARE MUSLIM ISSUES REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE WEST?

Of course, the temptation is to say that we are more focused than ever on Islam, but are we really? And, once again, it is important to put aside our Western minds and think about some current events through the Islamic filter. For the sake of brevity, one example must do. Here we go, rounding up thousands of prisoners from Afghanistan. Moreover, we continually vow vengeance and punishment on the ones we call “evil cowards”, whom we also dub “war criminals” and “mass murderers”. But the two leading Serb war criminals – president of the rump Republika Srbska, and General Ratko Mladic, together responsible for the deaths of 8,000 to 10,000 Muslims in the Balkans – are apparently not important. U.S. and British troops in Bosnia say they won’t arrest the two even if they found them! Yet we bomb the caves and already-bombed-out Afghan landscape in relentless pursuit of bin Laden and company. How do we explain this to Muslims? Or do we arrogantly ignore it!
[Margolis, Eric, “Heroes And Villains Of 2001,” The Sunday Sun of Toronto, 23 Dec. 2001.]

WORDS OF EERIE WARNING FROM OVER A CENTURY AGO

Since we began with the words of Sir Richard Burton, we will also close with them. not only had an excellent and fluent knowledge of Arabic, but knew and well understood the intense -- and ultimately -- violent nature of the Islamic faith, especially when it feels challenged or threatened, as it does here at the beginning of the 21st century. It is said that in the madrassah religious academies that include science in the curriculum, the texts used were written be brilliant Islamic scholars – in the 9th century. But the theology taught goes back much farther than that. It goes to the very beginnings and foundation of The Religion of Submission itself. [Interestingly, Burton called Islam “the Saving Faith,” and I suppose he was right. The trouble is, Muslims (not unlike a few “Christians”), want to “save” you whether you want to be “saved” or not. That is when “the Saving Faith” becomes the “Religion of the Submission”.] To really understand and know a person (friend or enemy), it is always good to have a grasp of what they do when they are threatened – or feel threatened. If we will but read history, it is not hard to see that it is in just such situations that our enemies are the most lethal and dangerous.

“And should Christianity, as it has often threatened, ever meet the Saving Faith in mortal combat, and the Cross assail the Crescent in the latest of crusades, the Muslim scimitar, rusty as it is with the rust of ages, will prove the good metal of which it was in the beginning forged.

Supposing, however, El Islam abolished by civilization, underminded by the slow action of the Christian Powers closing around it, or become decrepit from old age, what would be the result? Some renewal, essentially the same, formally different; some revival of its eternal principle, monotheism, disguised under a fresh garb of those outward accidents that constitute a religion. Such has ever been the history of the world’s creeds.

At all times
Emerging from the storm,
Primeval faith uplifts the changeful form,
Mounts from her funeral pile on wings of flame,
And soars and shines another and the same.”

Sir Richard Francis Burton, K.C.M.G., F.R.G.S.

As shown, Islam was cocooned in a deep cultural slumber when Burton wrote this in the 1870s, and few could really conceive of the backwards, insular Middle Easterners ever being a real threat to the Western Imperium as the now “modern” West quickly put their defeat in the Crusades behind them, moving on, literally, toward new worlds to conquer. But those few Westerners (like Richard Burton) who were able to visit the lands of Islam, and those fewer still (again, like Burton) who had the capacity or the willingness to understand what Burton called “The Saving Faith” realized the actual potential then (and until recently) lying still and dormant. Then as now, few listened, and even among those who did here the message, fewer still really took it seriously and paid attention, as the now-familiar Western cultural syndrome of arrogance and ignorance was at work.

The West, like most of humanity, rocks along from day to day, making the inevitably false linear assumptions that one day will be more or less like the next. While there are always wide-eyed prescient ones who see what is really happening, they are few and far between and most often scoffed at, ignored, even persecuted. Who could think a small cult of apostate Judeans flocking around a discredited prophet could start a world religion? Who in old Rome or Greece before it thought that the Barbarians would ever defeat the greatest power the world had ever known? Even Eastern Christian Byzantium – who should have known better – didn’t really think that the newly upstart Arabs could do any actual damage – until the Islamic Jihad rolled into town in 1453. And even though Muslim armies almost made it into Europe, they did not. The West moved on with science and knowledge as well as warfare, and the Muslims fell back to their homelands, to take a long cultural siesta in the Middle Eastern sun.

But they are not asleep any more. What’s more, they are learning our Western science, our “magic tricks,” and they are showing us a few new ones and some new ways to use the old ones. So far, these are lessons taught in the most painful way. Like the old story about the jackass who needed to be hit in the head with a two-by-four to get his attention, we have opened our eyes – some – after 9-11. But now the flags are tattered, and we are slipping back into our linear assumptions. Are the roles reversed today? Are the Muslims now the most dynamic force (albeit unfocused and not yet fully formed) in the still unfolding 21st century, and are we the culture who now wants to go to sleep? Only time will tell, but the times and our responses seem to beg such a question.

“Experience and history teach us that people and Governments have learnt nothing from history, nor acted on principles deduced from it.”
Georg Wilhelm Hegel, 1770-1831

CHAPTER TEN

WAHHABIST ISLAM AND THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA: THE ORIGINAL SEEDBEDS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST EXTREMISM

Osama Bin Laden Is The Fruit Of The Tree, And The Roots Run Deep Into Saudi Soil

WE’RE AT “WAR”, BUT WHO IS THE ENEMY?

This book is a commentary on the nature of the cultural forces we now (for some time, actually) oppose. As a matter of fact, I “fundamentally” agree with Islam’s general assessment that Western “civilization” has become a decadent, disgraceful, distasteful society deep in a process of cultural malaise, decline and dissipation. [For a European corresponding view, see Horst Mahler (some articles in Eng. on the Web) and others, and one can do no better than to begin with Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West.] And I further agree that it is not a healthy model for the world to emulate, and further yet – that something different (but perhaps not better) will eventually dethrone it completely. It is at this point that we part company, for the Islamic World Order (while different) is no better than the monstrosity we have come to know as the New or One-World Order. But since our leaders have chosen to “crusade” against these present-day reincarnations of the Islamic Holy Warriors of old, it seems prudent to know a bit about them and what “makes them tick”, an expression that has taken on a new, explosive meaning!

The Bush 43 regime and its “flacks” keep parroting the line, “this war is not against Islam” in spite of the obvious fact that (so far) only Muslims and Muslim nations have been targeted. They are rounded up without due process and detained (evidently) without Habeas Corpus rights. Hence, when GWB says we are not combating Islam, no self-respecting Muslim believes this for even an instant. While G. W. Bush may not be at war with Islam, a large portion of Islam is quite clearly at war with the West. We have attacked Islamic governments in several countries (but only those in militarily weak countries) of one sort or another seem to be the main targets. The list is long, but some of the most targeted regimes include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia – and now backward and military weak Afghanistan. The Taliban movement is viewed as especially odious due to its treatment of women and its rigid social system. In point of fact, the social-cultural practices (and especially the treatment women) of such as the Taliban, at least in the minds of some, seem to justify the ultra-violent assault on Afghanistan as much (or more so?) than the actual 9-11 assault. Moreover, the whole matter is a clash of radically differing cultural values, with the stronger one (U.S. and the west) imposing an unwanted code on the weaker ones (Islam and other “third worlders”). Yet while Islam may be weak now, it is certainly not helpless, and would just love to reverse what is now going on so that it is they, not we, who will determine the form and order of tomorrow’s world. The west leads in technology and money, but Islam is winning the population war with an ever-increasing birthrate. And if you are curious and want to really see a country (and not a poor, weak one) where the model of the Islamic World Order is already securely in place, don’t look to poverty stricken Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or Sudan – just look at Saudi Arabia, the original Islamic fundamentalist (Wahhabist) “modern” state.

Subsequently, if this “war on terrorism” is also a war to liberate oppressed women, and if such revolutionary change is culturally and politically viable, indeed, demanded, for Afghanistan, then why not apply the same criteria to Saudi Arabia? Is it because Afghanistan is poor and almost helpless before our relentless military ultra-assault that we have our way with them? Is it because they can’t turn off the pipeline spigots like the perhaps even more corrupt and Islamically rigid Saudis? Are “un-liberated” women in Saudi Arabia less important than those in Afghanistan? Expanding beyond even that for a moment, do all Afghani (and other Islamic women want to be “liberated”) and live their lives as do those in the west? It is an historical fact: the burqa, so endlessly photographed and paraded by the media, is a form of modest Islamic dress that was around for a long time before the Taliban, and will remain the chosen dress of a significantly large group of Afghan women even after the “liberation brings the “gift” of “democracy”. Similar dress is in use in all Islamic countries by the more conservative elements. Further, Western feminist ideas have been almost uniformly rejected by the women of Saudi Arabia. While some would surely like more freedom such as in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc., practically none want to partake of the Western infidel delights. U.S. femi-nazis know this, yet another reason why the topics of women and the realities of Saudi Arabia are shunned.

This chapter deals solely Wahhabist Islam and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have excluding other extremist factions and nations such as the interesting and intriguing Shiite movement in Iran or that of Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad and many others that were not chosen for such an extensive survey. Why is this? First, Saudi Arabia is of paramount geopolitical importance (but solely because of oil) to Europe and the United States. Second, and perhaps more importantly even than that, because wherever one starts searching for the roots of present-day Muslim fundamentalist extremism, the geographical trail eventually leads to Saudi Arabia and the intellectual/theological trail to the Wahhabi sect.

SAUDI ARABIA, A CAPSULATED HISTORY: THE HOLY LAND OF ISLAM IS THE ORIGINAL AND CONTINUING SEEDBED OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

The roots for Osama and extremist Islam all lead to the same place – Saudi Arabia. The arid Arabian Peninsula was the home to Muhammad (a Mecca boy) and the first Muslims back in the 7th Century A.D. Geography and climate color the theology of Islam. It was born in a harsh environment, and is an ascetic, severe and rigid desert faith for the most part (but not entirely) based on the Abrahamic heritage of the Old Testament, including Talmudic Pharisaic Judaism, Gnosticism, and Christianity as part of the mix. Muhammad was a very adept and functional religious eclectic, putting together from many and varied influences a theological system with its own unique book of holy writ. By the beginning of the 8th Century, it ruled the desert lands of all Arabia. During the time of Muhammad, “Arabia was briefly the center of Islam, but by the end of the 7th century, the area was disunited.” [The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia.] While the Mecca and Medina retained their importance for pilgrims, Arabia was the cultural center for only a short time. The real flowering of Islamic culture found its expression in other locations ranging from Moorish Spain (Al-Andalus; perhaps the apex) to Damascus and Baghdad. When Europe was in its “dark ages”, Islamic mathematicians, astronomers, physicians, and scholars of all types were not only preserving (in Arabic) classical Greco-Roman learning , but making new discoveries as well. The oldest continually existing universities are those of the Islamic world. But while all this was going on, Saudi Arabia, as it had done for eons, continued to cook in the desert sun, and life changed little for the hardy, ascetic desert tribes who lived in a land with virtually no useable natural resources. They knew nothing of hidden oil, and water was worth more than gold.

MODERN (or not so modern) SAUDI ARABIA

“MODERN SAUDI ARABIA OWES ITS EXISTENCE TO IBN SAUD, AN ADHERENT OF THE PURITANICAL [WAHHABI] MUSLIM SECT.” [Ibid, p. 732.]

“…Medina and Jeddah fell, and on January 8, 1926, Ibn Saud was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Sultan of Nejd. Six years later, in September, 1932, the union of Nejd, Hejaz and Hasa formally became the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with Ibn Saud as its hereditary sovereign.” [Nutting, p. 306.]

The Saudis and their tribal allies had conquered and more or less united most of the peninsula by 1932, when ibn Saud proclaimed himself king of a country named after himself and his clan. While united under the Wahhabist self-proclaimed monarchy, the new nation of Saudi Arabia was then one of the poorest countries in the world. When it officially began in 1932, the new kingdom’s treasury was very low, which had become a common condition. Oil reserves were first located in 1936. Less than two years later, oil began to flow out of the barren peninsula and a non-stop pipeline of money began to flow back to the Saudi royals and their chosen aristocracy.

At the very least, one might assume that some of this great wealth would be used by the supposedly pious Saudis to spread Islam to the world. More to the point, one might expect such an Islamic King to be a mighty defender of Islam, like Saladin of old. After all, now Saudi Arabia had virtually unlimited resources. Surely now that it was an important country in the eyes of the west, it would use its influence to help Muslims everywhere, but this did not prove to be the case at all.

“Even when the Zionist openly proclaimed as their aim a Jewish national state in Palestine, Ibn Saud did not bestir himself. Jewish immigration from Europe mounted by leaps and bounds; yet the Saudis’ king scarcely lifted a finger to sustain his Arab brothers in their struggle to retain their land. And when, in 1948, the State of Israel came into existence and its Arab neighbors tried to crush it at birth, he gave only token support to their efforts and let it be known that he considered their campaign ill-timed, unprepared and uncoordinated. [Did he miss a chance for peace?] It is arguable whether, if Ibn Saud had exerted his own considerable influence with Britain and with the Arabs of Palestine, some compromise might have been reached, before the Second World War unleashed an irresistible flood of Jewish migrants…. Certainly by 1948 it was too late for anyone to prevent the disaster. But in the 1930s, an Arab of Ibn Saud’s standing and prestige might have been able to persuade both the British and the Arabs in Palestine to adopt saner policies and wiser courses. In fact, he never tried.” [Nutting, p. 311.]

It is the duty of every Muslim to share as he can with others, a duty of alms demanded by the Prophet himself. The Arabian people (a very small population, numbering only about 12 million today) also received benefits from the oil wealth. Life is good in the paternalistic and outwardly benevolent kingdom (for most, anyway; some women and dissidents disagree!), and many live a satisfied life -- or at least the thousands of royals and relatives hope to keep it that way. For beneath the surface, a stew-pot of extremist beliefs cooks on, slowly approaching an eventual boiling point -- under the right conditions. The bloated, pompous, hypocritical royals (worldly and morally corrupt modern “Pharisees”, really) could be replaced – and they know it. The visage of the now-long-gone Shah of Iran, another “popular” and worldly monarch dethroned by fundamentalists, looms ominously over the not-so-old House of Saud.

SAUDI ARABIA’S GREAT UNIFIER AND WOMEN

“[Ibn Saud’s] personal life was strictly disciplined according to the Muslim codes. Although he liked women a great deal and is said to have married over a 100 times, he never had more than the permitted four wives at any one time, plus four concubines to run the house and four slave girls to minister to his needs. Each of his wives had her own house and her own servants, for Ibn Saud strongly disapproved of any mixing of the sexes at court or at meals, which he ate only in male company. This was due partly to tradition, but also to the fact that his two favorite topics of conversation – sex and world affairs – were not in his view suitable for female ears.” [Nutting, p. 312.]

While OPEC nations supply 57% of U.S. oil, Saudi Arabia only provides about 10%. BUT: it controls a fourth to a third of the world’s known oil supplies. [For your speculation: “They” already know where all these reserves lie, including any other kind of mineral and ore you can imagine, including gold, through satellite mapping techniques. Does the ruling “cryptocracy” of the West and the Saudis already know that the world has ample reserves, readily available? Moreover, potentially even cheaper than now? New pipelines from the Caspian region, while not making the Saudis irrelevant, would certainly lessen their overall importance.] This is even more important oil-poor Europeans, who are directly dependent on Saudi oil reaching them smoothly as Europe has few strategic reserves. Even a slight change in production levels one way or the other drastically affects world prices. Our crucial, but uncomfortable (for both sides), “alliance” causes the Saudi government to (more or less) accept our support of the Israeli ministate and it’s state-sponsored terrorism toward Palestinians and other parts of our foreign policy that ordinarily devout Islamists would oppose. Conversely, our dependence on Saudi oil and stable prices causes us to overlook (or look away from) such things like (among a host of things) the Saudi treatment of women (ranking near the bottom), restrictive laws and punishments for Christians, severe Sharia “justice” for everyone such as floggings and beheadings (a Saudi princess lost hers a few years ago; she was an adulteress), slaves and indentured servants (i.e., virtual slaves; from the Philippines, Malaysia, etc.), and not to forget – Saudi covert (and sometimes not so covert) moral and financial support for terrorism. Do the royals really believe in these causes? They act mostly out of fear, hence purchasing anti-terrorism “insurance”. But who are these Islamic purists, these “fundamentalists” who so frighten the profligate and rich aristocratic oil lords?

WAHHABISM, A SAUDI ARABIAN RELIGIOUS PHENOMENON

“WAHHABI [or Wahhabism; also Wahabi): …the religion of the ruling family of Saudi Arabia… founded by Muhammad ibn al-Wahhab (c.1702-1792) who converted the Saud tribe. He taught that all accretions to Islam after the 3rd century of the Muslim Era, i.e., after c.950, were spurious and must be expunged. The movement, although centered in Arabia, has also spread eastward to India [hence Pakistan and Central Asia; now western China], and Sumatra and westward to North Africa and the Sudan.” [Columbia Concise Encyclopedia, p. 902.]

Ibn Abdul Wahhab was born near present-day Riyadh, later becoming a noted and expressive Koranic scholar. In a little over 200 years, Wahhab’s strict and rigid interpretation of Islam has gained far-reaching and widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim umma, or world community. Wahhabism is rigid, intolerant and fanatical to the core. Likewise, it is hyper-aggressive and ultimately violent. It originated in Saudi Arabia, and is the official doctrine of all the Arabian Peninsular states, but its theological, intellectual and political influence is now worldwide.

As an example of severity of doctrine and the use Jihad, look at how they handled disputes with fellow Muslims. Wahhabism sternly opposed Shia Islam and the Sufi movement, both of which had made innovations regarded as illegitimate by the Wahhabi “reformers”. Both Shiism and Sufism are also reform movements, so are rivals of Wahhabism. “Among those innovations was the reverence given to dead saints [they are much like Medieval Catholics] as intercessors with Allah, and the special [mystical] devotions of the Sufi orders. The reformer made an alliance with Muhammad ibn Saud, ruler [tribal chieftain] of a small market town, Dir’iyya, and this led to the formation of a state which claimed to live under the guidance of the Sharia (the Islamic law code) and tried to bring the pastoral tribes all around it under its guidance too. … By the first years of the 19th century the armies of the new (Wahhabist) state had expanded; they had sacked the Shi’a shrines in southwestern Iraq and occupied the holy cities of Hejaz (1926).” [Hourani, Albert, A History Of The Arab Peoples, Harvard: 1991, p. 258.]

We must never forget a truism for all extremist and terrorist movements, perhaps stated best by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer:

“It is doubtful the oppressed ever fight for freedom. They fight for pride and power – power to oppress others. The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressors; they want to retaliate.”

WAHHABISM CONTROLS AND DOMINATES ISLAM’S HOLIEST SHRINES

The source went on to say, after the 9-11 airliner/cruise missile attacks: “Ironically, the fortunes of doctrinaire Wahhabism rise and fall with the airliners themselves. From shortly after the death of Muhammad until 1926, the holy places of Islam were controlled by the sophisticated, educated elites in Damascus, Baghdad and then Istanbul. In 1926, the Wahhabi sect took control of the holiest places of Islam, Mecca and Medina. … Suddenly the holy places were in the control of a desert sect that has since used those pulpits to impress a single, extremely limited and intolerant version of Islam on the pilgrims. The pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca was until the 19th Century limited to those with the time to walk there, or with the time and money to go by sailing ship. Pilgrims were counted in the thousands each year. Soon after the Wahhabi conquest, modern transportation enabled increasing numbers of pilgrims and oil allowed the Saudi government to support these growing numbers. There are now several million pilgrims a year, a large percentage non-Arabs who cannot read Arabic and come from non-Arab traditions. But they are taught the Wahhabi way, and the devout take the word home.”
[Gamber, Don, “Why We Fear The Crescent” as quoted in C-FAR, above.]

ISLAM’S SHRINES HAVE BEEN TRADITIONAL TROUBLE POINTS

One only need think of the third holiest site, the famed Dome of the Rock (al-Aqsa) in Jerusalem (al-Quds) to recognize this fact. Not to say that Muslims have been the principal trouble-makers in the Holy City; the Jews are and have been extremely provocative, with a Jewish terrorist gunning down worshippers at the mosque. Most of the problem is that the site (reputedly; not entirely proven) is the same as that of the last Judean Temple. But the first and the second holiest sites in Islam are and have been magnets for extremism. “The religion was born here 1,400 years ago. Islam’s two holiest cities of Mecca and Medina are the spiritual heart of the country. And armed threats to the regime traditionally have come from extreme Islamists, whether during the 1920s challenge by white-robed militants known as al-Ikhwas, the 1979 takeover of the main mosque in Mecca, or today’s potential threat from Mr. Bin Laden’s loyalists.” [Pope, Hugh, “The Islamic Thorn In The Side Of Saudi Arabia’s Monarchy”, The Wall Street Journal, 07 Jan. 2002.]

“ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION”

This is the cry of the Wahhabist-inspired modern-day international Islamic renaissance and revival movement. Billions of people have heard, are hearing, and will hear this message. What is our reply? What does western culture have to offer as an alternative? And if, sadly and regrettably, we have no viable alternatives, what does this mean for our eventual fate in this “war”? Forget Osama -- if we are really in it “for the long haul”, then I believe the most dedicated and faithful ones will eventually triumph. The ultimate end result (decades from now?) does not look promising.

OSAMA IS A FOLK HERO. THE “BATTLE FOR THE HEARTS AND MINDS” HAS ALREADY BEEN WON – BY OSAMA BIN LADEN.

Even if the U.S. should succeed in capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, he is already a martyr and the inspiration of millions of young Islamic boys. The next two generations of Jihad are already in place. This should be genuinely frightening not only to our readers, but to our “supreme leaders”. Since our foreign policy will probably continue in its already well-established, arrogant, blundering, but deadly way, the sparks that light the fires in the eyes of the all-to-ready shahada martyrs will surely rise to white-hot terror more than once again. If you’re still asking the question, “Will terrorist attacks happen again?” or if you think that all of this “war” is over if we somehow “get” Osama, you are right in step with about 90& of your fellow Americans who blandly and blindly follow their “leaders” into an deep abyss, blithely ignoring any lessons that history might teach. The next generation of fundamentalist international Mujahadeen is already in place. And beyond that, so is the generation that will follow that one! So, fellow Americans, are you sure “we’re in it for the long haul”? I don’t really mean to be “unpatriotic”, but given the foregoing information, isn’t it at least prudent to pose the question?

And further, if you think I should not attribute “blame” to the ignorance and arrogance of the United States, then you should have left my writings alone a long time ago! Focus on the “evil boogie man” Osama all you want, but if you’re going to narrow your sites, at least realize that the “great Emir (literal meaning is “commander”) Osama”, (whether dead or alive) is a now-metaphysical idol/saint and even comic book hero of Islamic young boys is an educated Wahhabi Muslim from Saudi Arabia – as were well over half the assault team on 9-11 day. If you include Arabian Peninsula countries (Oman, Yemen, etc, are all Wahhabis), the percentage is even higher.

JIHAD IN THE LAND OF OUR “ALLY”, PAKISTAN

When the Bush Jihad – oops, I mean Operation Crusade – oops, wrong again – oh yeah, the “war on terrorism” – began in November 2001, a news story was hurriedly reported and then dropped by the media. A Catholic Church in Pakistan was attacked during Sunday mass. Several worshippers were killed, and others were wounded. The church had already been under threat from Islamic extremists, and it had not been lax, hiring an off-duty Muslim cop to help them on Sundays. He was killed too. To date, no one has been brought in for this high-profile crime in a small country. Moreover, our “free media” no longer has anything at all to say about it. Will the ever be brought to justice? Or will they simply be overlooked and then be lionized as heroes of the Jihad to rid Pakistan of the infidel “cross worshippers”? Do Americans or American Christians care? Where is the indignation of arch-Zionists Falwell and Robertson? Do the “700 Club” types care? Does the Catholic EWTN media care? Now at least, they are beginning to speak out. But where they should have led the charge, they were meek late comers in the game. Alternative media sources (and some “mainline” ones as well) have documented Muslim atrocities all over the world, especially in Sudan and Pakistan. Perhaps they were too busy “rebuilding” the “Jewish temple” [ At best, the present site (if correct!) is the site of the Herodian temple, built by the Idumean (non-Judean) Herod.] or getting ready for the “rapture”[ I have never seen it satisfactorily demonstrated that this concept is even remotely scriptural.] or whatever, but I shall waste no more space on those ones! They are but intellectual Pharisees, theological poseurs at best.

The Muslim writers featured below, however, are quite fervent, sincere and zealous in their beliefs.

MODERN ISLAMIC SCHOLARS

“No one is more distant than the Americans from spirituality and piety.”

Sayyib Qutb, after living in the U.S. 1948-50.

Another media misconception perpetrated on viewers and listeners is to imply that all Islamic warriors are ignorant peasants, trained in Madrassah schools, which are just “indoctrination centers”. While this is true in some cases, it again turns a blind eye to what is a 21st century Islamic intellectual and cultural renaissance. Since most westerners know nothing of this or completely misunderstand it, let’s take a just a brief look.

In the 1930’s, an era of political and cultural change movements of all kinds, radical Islam began to chafe under the colonialist yoke. Many of the writings and movements begun in those days are still with us, but one need not look to writers long gone and silent. Probably not one westerner in a hundred could much name any of these men (no women on this list), much less relate anything about their ideas, yet they are household names in Islamic nations and enclaves all over the world. Let’s take a moment for just a brief look.

When members of Islamic Jihad assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981, a small 54 page document was found, entitled The Neglected Duty. This is apparently one of those explosive “little” books that pop up in various times and places of revolution and upheaval. While Islam (like Christianity) teaches subservience to rulers, the anonymous author(s) say that, on the other hand, it is the duty of good Muslims to overthrow a ruler who has abandoned true Islam. It is this philosophy (and resulting actions) that so frighten the Islamic leaders who have sold out directly to the west, like the Saudi royals, or who have become inextricably and compromisingly entangled with the infidels, as are the rulers of Egypt, Pakistan, etc. This all goes back to a medieval (how did you guess?) movement called Salafiyya. Not only did/do Salifis believe hypocritical Islamic rulers should be overthrown, but that the western (formerly Christian) world is equivalent to the state of barbarism (Jahiliyya) that existed before Muhammad was manifested as the Prophet, and which he ordered Muslims to overthrow and displace. A major exponent of this belief, and a “spiritual godfather” to Osama and company, is Sayyib Qutb, executed in Egypt in the mid-1960s. His best-known work is Signposts On The Road. A few others are ibn Taymiyya, who lived in Damascus in the 13th and 14th centuries. He was an inspiration for Qutb. Also circulating are pamphlets by “the blind sheik”, Abdul Rahman, now imprisoned for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the 1996 A Declaration Of War Against America by Osama bin Laden. [Robert Worth’s “Muslim Extremists Justify Actions With Scholars’ Historical Works”, a New York Times News Service story of 28 Oct.2001.]

FUNDING TERRORISM – THE ROLE OF SAUDI ARABIA

In order to keep such as Osama from starting a movement in Saudi Arabia (they might even name it something else as well) to replace the royals with an Islamic fundamentalist republic, the incredibly rich Saud family simply pays them off. Some of this could be called a bribe, but some support is willingly and lovingly given. As we are now finding out, following the money trail is not an easy thing. Saudi Arabians control any number of “regular” offshore banks, such as those in the Caymans and other offshore havens, as well as another tier of them within the Islamic banking system and other banks in and doing business with the moneyed and varied Saudi interests.. The informal Halawa money delivery system through brokers in Islamic communities all over the world can move not only small amounts for the common people, but large amounts as well.

MANY TERRORIST AND TALIBAN FIGHTERS ARE SAUDI NATIONALS OR FROM OTHER ARABIAN PENINSULA NATIONS SUCH AS YEMEN

“Only after Sept. 11 did Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban government of Afghanistan. … The severing of ties appears to have been belated. In the waning days of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, a former Saudi official estimated this month (Dec. 2001) that the number of Saudis there, as combatants, prisoners or casualties, probably number between 600 and 700, and possibly as many as 1,000. As many as 25,000 Saudis received military training or experience abroad since 1979, according to estimates by royal Saudi intelligence.” [Jehl, Douglas, “U.S. Officials Rue Not Checking Saudi Arabia As Source Of Terrorists,” NY Times News Service, 29 Dec. 2001.] I assume such estimates would purposely be understated. If you concur, then could there be two or three times that many? The Saudi royals don’t really care, just as long as they don’t bring the jihad back home. But certain ones might be allowed back in, just to help keep the lid securely on the ever-simmering Islamist radical stewpot. And to further reflect – all Western intel agencies, including the CIA, knew this, no matter what they may say. How could they not? As a matter of fact, anyone in journalism knew it as did any readers who read closely, especially those that explored the Internet and the alternative media, though the “story” was no “surprise” at any level.

As I wrap up the research for this section, I see that Afghan “Interim President” Hamid Karzai [Karzai, who almost always appears in a colorful cloak worn like a royal robe, seems to forget that his coronation as Warlord-In-Chief is primarily due to the fact that right before 9-11. the Taliban assassinated the two men who would have been first on the list. At this point, he seems a willing tool of the West as a lot of money hinges on him looking good, like a “democratic leader” should.] has made his first state visit. While GWB has already invited him, Washington will not be the first destination. Karzai visited Saudi Arabia, seemingly a strange first choice in light of his impending trip to the USA, but one must remember that hundreds, possibly thousands, of Saudi Taliban Mujahadeen and Al-Qaeda fighters remain in Afghanistan, either imprisoned under the largely Uzbek Northern Alliance who is, so far, holding on to them, or held by other warlords or who are on the run. Surely the Saudis have (with Pakistan’s help) already extracted the cream of the crop, but so many Saudis on the scene surely looks bad in the eyes of the West. Once again, the truth manifests itself quite clearly: Saudi Arabia and Wahhabist Islam is at the root of the violence, financially, spiritually – and physically. Both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda ranks, especially the front lines, would have been much thinner without the presence of so many fighters from Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Peninsula states.

WHERE COULD/WOULD OSAMA HIDE?

He could still be in Afghanistan (though unlikely) or hiding out under Pakistani protection nearby; there are many trails to follow, and our “intelligence experts” seem (once again) to be baffled. Speaking of other trails to follow, just exactly where could the most wanted man in history hide? Where do the cops first look for any fugitive? They look at home, so the simplest answer is Saudi Arabia. The most likely place to look for any fugitive is at or hear his home. The entire bin Laden family, including several who have openly supported Osama’s efforts, lives there, and would shelter him for family pride if nothing else. Construction magnate (via Saudi royal patronage) Muhammad bin Laden had 53 sons (he did more than build buildings) in addition to Osama, all of whom are millionaires, not to mention many daughters, all of whom are married to millionaires. Same thing with the Saudi royals. There are over 100 rich and wealthy Saudi “princes”, many of whom would consider it a religious duty and a good deed to shelter the family of their famous, now legendary, brother. Osama has several wives and over 20 children. Where do you think they are? Surely they are sheltered guests of the various families; Osama has not only the 51 brothers and uncounted sisters, but several hundred cousins and nieces and nephews, who also are in on the family money pipeline. This is one of the most closed, secretive, concealed cultures in the world. Osama and company could stay in a different mansion or estate in Saudi Arabia for years and never stay in the same place twice! Anyone can enter the country with almost any passport (he must already have several) if he is a Muslim on their Hajj (pilgrimage). Once in the country, he would never be seen again. To be complete in our analysis of this scenario (or wherever Osama might go), we must add that Osama is at least 6 ft. 5 inches tall (estimates from 6’2” to 6’8”!), and is left-handed. While the height cannot change height (at least not too much; there are “ways”), when in public, he can be around other tall ones. He never uses the left hand anyway except for shooting and other tasks – and cleaning after defecation. No Arab, no matter how dominant a “leftie” he might be, will use this hand with food or to touch others, hence the seeming inconsistency in the (reputed) home video released 12/01. Besides, this was never a man given to party-going or public events anyway, being more the reclusive type anyway. He can spend his time with his several wives in various mansions, and receive admiring guests who regard him as a minor deity.

For the record, there is a truly evil man who is a well-documented torturer -- and cannibalistic ritual murderer, who kept heads and other body parts in a convenient walk-in freezer. Thousands were grabbed up by his “State Research Bureau”, never to be seen again. He is one of the world’s all-time top terrorists, responsible for war crimes and ethnic cleansings taking the lives of hundreds of thousands. He safely and securely resides in Saudi Arabia (Jiddah, I believe). Not only that, absolutely no one, including his victims, have made any serious effort to bring him to justice. He has lived under royal government protection (and stipend) for many years now. His name is Idi Amin, the Butcher of Uganda.

HOW “FRIENDS AND ALLIES” SHOW THEIR APPRECIATION

“…for more than a decade, the U.S. has been increasing the use of computers to screen passengers before they arrive. … Ninety-four airlines cooperate, but Saudi Arabian Airlines and Egypt Air are among a handful that do not electronically provide passenger lists when planes begin flights to the U.S., the officials said. It should be mandatory….” [New York Times, 18 October 2001.]

As most readers know, after Israel, Egypt is by far the largest recipient of American aid of all kinds. In addition to the money we spend for Saudi oil, we also spend lots of American dollars investing in and developing their state-of-the-art petroleum delivery systems, not to mention the money we spend to militarily defend the bloated monarchy. It seems that it would be simple to make this a condition of receiving the aid in the first place, but who am I to second guess the great minds who have make these decisions?

“Bush will have to extricate the United States from what the Economist magazine called a ‘cat’s cradle of failed engagements in the Middle East’. These include economic sanctions in Iraq, which have ‘poured fuel on the fire’; our bases in Saudi Arabia, which make us ‘cozy with an often brutal regime’; our support of Israel, which gives us “guilt by association’ in Arab eyes, and our support of Egypt, which links us to another authoritarian regime. A strong lobby of Washington [pro-Zionist] hawks wants to wage war on Iraq. That would please the unilateralists, who say we should go it alone, but it would ruin whatever relations we have left with the Arab world – our chief oil supplier.” [“Has Bush’s Foreign Policy Really Changed?” by Holger Jensen of Rocky Mountain News, 30 December 2001.]

WILL (CAN) SAUDI POLICIES EVER CHANGE? WILL (CAN) U.S. POLICIES TOWARD THIS UNFRIENDLY “FRIEND” EVER CHANGE?

If Saudi Arabia is such a close “friend” of the United States and the West, why has the Saudi government done everything possible to continue “business as usual”, essentially making no contribution at all to the “war on terrorism” even though its citizens are numerous in the ranks of the armies of the Jihadists, especially Al-Qaeda? Shouldn’t the Attorney-General be sending the FBI to Saudi Arabia to interrogate the families and associates of the 9-11 conspirators? Yes, but they never allowed us direct access to the Khobar Towers alleged bombers, who were beheaded without further ado, making further questioning a bit difficult! It seems reasonable to say that if all Saudi funding and moral support for extremist Islamic groups was cut off, the problem would ease considerably. This will never happen because the corrupt Saudi royals know they would be signing their own death warrant. They are not a “friend” – how can they be? First of all, it is against the Koran to be friends to either Jews or Christians (Sura 5:51) and second, they are not at all going to commit shahada for the “Great Satan of the West”, as per the teachings of the Wahhabis, which they literally have heard since birth. Third, and most importantly, they cannot be perceived by their subjects as any being any worse than the lackeys they already are.

Westerners should be quite wary of our great and excessive energy dependence on this unreliable and ill-intentioned “partner”. They do not like us or approve of our “culture”. If they were able to raise the same money through sales strictly to the Islamic world, they would do so, then turn their vast resources against us – as they would really like to do. And they are somewhat afraid of us. Osama predicted that if Western infidel troops came to the holy Arabian lands, they would never leave, which they have not. Why not remove this irritant and send the troops home? They are there to protect the oil, but is this guaranteed always and forever to include bailing out the royals? Is this at the root of their fear? After all, an American blitzkrieg could seize the strategic Arabian peninsula without too much trouble, and we see how the U.S. can rent a local army and political blocs as they did in Afghanistan. But the Saud royal family is rightly much, much more afraid of their own fundamentalist Islamic people, who without the presence and threat of western military action, might overthrow the fat cat fake (self-proclaimed) royals and set up a real Islamic state. The Saudi “petroleum pashas” exist in a rich, opulent (albeit uncomfortable) nether world, drifting precariously between the worldly West and the eternal asceticism of their desert Wahhabi faith. Will this Humpty Dumpty kingdom eventual fall and shatter? It can happen any time. However the royals are ready. Right after 9-11 Day, the Swiss airfields were badly overcrowded with Saudi private and government jets. They most vulnerable ones, including the King, were taking no chances.

Under the Bush 43 regime, even deep in the midst of “wartime”, the same winking deal-makers play the same old, cozy bedfellow games as they always have. The rich Bushes and the bloated Saudis (and their protégés, the bin Laden family) grow richer and richer while the larger Islamic world is left in the economic backwaters. And all the while, the American people/sheeple get stupider and stupider, believing the lies and con games thrown at them 24 hours a day in the media and the schools and the churches. No one is serious about alternative energy, and Europe is even more vulnerable; it has no other source of oil except Russia. For the foreseeable future, we seem solidly and irrevocably to be wed to these odd and not-so-inscrutable oriental Saudi bedfellows.

The facts are before the public – if you want to see them. Are there solutions? Couldn’t we at least come up with plans for more real and genuine cooperation with our Saudi “allies”? Yes, but none of this can ever happen until the American people demand it. But this would mean that they had wakened from their deadly sleep and opened their eyes. So far, they have not as “independent opinion polls” still say 85% to 90% of Americans still approve of George W. Bush and the job he is doing. The demand for the badly needed foreign policy changes toward Israel/Palestine or Saudi Arabia is not likely to come from such “contented cows”.

Nevertheless, we have begun what some say will be World War III with former adversaries of one sort or the other who are now our “friends.” It seems apparent that we have not followed our parents’ (George Washington’s) advice about choosing our “friends,” but what about our choice of “enemies”? As the old pundit and poet Oscar Wilde once said: “A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies.”

AFTER-NOTE

On 21 Jan. 02, a man named Issa Nakhleh, an employee of a Saudi-funded “public relations” (read “propaganda”) institution of some kind, wrote a long and flowery letter to The Wall Street Journal praising Saudi Arabia, saying (among other things) that all religions are respected, that women have lots of rights, and – he really said this – that Saudi Arabia was a “democratic Muslim state”! While I was tempted to write to the WSJ, I did not as I was working furiously to finish the book. But a lady named Amanda Schwartz wrote them from Smyrna GA. I thought her response was so on-target, terse and timely that it is included in its entirety.

“There is a saying among the non-Gulf Arabs of the Middle East: “al-feloos ma al-haroof” (“the money is with the goat”). It is the Arabs of the Levant and North Africa who built the biblical cities and the early universities, and who preserved science and mathematics through the European Dark Ages. And yet when oil is discovered, it is under the feet of the Bedouin Saudis, who then get to influence the world economy. One of life’s great injustices. So it is with a smile on an otherwise dreary Monday morning that I read Mr. Nakhleh’s letter extolling the democracy the Saudis have built in the desert. I would like to pose a few questions to him:

Why have the Saudis, as custodians of Islam’s two holy places, Mecca and Medina, never established a set of universally accepted educational standards that a Muslim must meet before he is allowed to lead a congregation or teach Islam to schoolchildren? If the rights of women are protected, then why do the religious police in Saudi Arabia patrol the streets with electric camel prods looking for women exposing a little too much ankle under their chadors? Only the Taliban, the Saudis and the early revolutionaries in Iran have chosen to protect women in this way. If Christianity and Judaism are respected, why were the Christian soldiers serving in Desert Storm prevented from sitting down to Christmas dinner?”

Thank you, Amanda. Hello readers – it’s your turn now.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

RESPONDING TO ISLAM

Our culture has largely followed the course of decline foreseen by Oswald Spengler and others. We are living at the dénouement of the old Western world order. Our Christian cultural center is broken and scattered, and no one seems to know exactly what has replaced it. Yet it is at such a crisis point that we find ourselves intricately involved in perhaps the greatest culture war ever seen. And this is exactly what it is: a kulturkamph, i.e., a jihad , a struggle, a battle between two distinctly different worlds. A thousand years ago, Muslim tenacity defeated us in an ugly series of wars called the Crusades. Are we up to the challenge today? Our present state of arrogant ignorance of the opposition breaks every rule of successful warfare. The New Jihad began as my personal attempt to understand the nature of the forces arrayed against us as well to suggest some possible solutions. See what you think.

A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

Once the Cold War was over, global tensions would merely shifted in focus. Ten years ago, a forward-thinking Harvard professor (something good comes from there every once in a while) named Samuel P. Huntington wrote an little known and little-noticed article called “clash Of Civilizations” in Foreign Affairs, an influential journal among the “movers and shakers.” Dr. Huntington maintained that the coming conflict would not so much be wars of ideology (“communism vs. capitalism”), but wars between civilizations, which he clearly delineated in cultural and religious terms. The majority of this conflict would likely take place between “Confucian civilization” (China) and the West, and/or with Islam. While “big names” surely read the article and noted its truth, apparently the overall effect was almost nil. No big surprise in that. Is this man now in the limelight or what? Yes he is, but reportedly, he is not very happy with being the “man many Muslim leaders love to hate” as he was called in The Wall Street Journal (31 Jan. 02). Relax, Dr. H – they probably haven’t even read The New Jihad yet.

FORMULATING A WESTERN RESPONSE TO ISLAM

Since the Western world is no longer Christian in either a de jure or a de facto way, it seems difficult to see Christianity as the basis of the response, but from where else will it come? After we put aside the sexually exploitative selfish consumerism of the West as manifested in movies, news broadcasts and the ubiquitous “pop culture”, what is it that we offer. Some people are making a big deal about posting the Ten Commandments on public property, but don’t seem to realize that not only have they “missed the boat”, the boat long ago sank a long time ago! Of course, all that could be different if we were as interested in practicing the Ten Commandments as we are about displaying them. Then we might have something along the lines of Christian morals and ethics to offer to Muslims, but sadly we do not. We blow them up and kill them with “friendly fire” – or let them starve and die of disease as in Iraq – and we hardly hear a Christian or a Christian clergyperson say a thing. This is said in no way to “indict” everyone. I thank God that there are exceptions – sometimes brightly displayed..

So, if we rule out a religious response and we already know that Muslims detest our worldly and corrupt Western ways, what do we have to offer? The West is the acknowledge master of science and technology, though with the dumbing-down of the American “educational” system, one can’t help but wonder how long this will continue. Nonetheless, this is something that we have control over – at least for now, anyway. But how have we used technology? Sadly, it is most noted for its efficiency in killing other humans. So we must ask: has it benefited everyone? This then begs the question of: could we use it differently? These are only a few of the exciting and challenging questions that a genuine inter-cultural, inter-religious and international dialogue could address. Such a paradigm, however, would require the West to act as sincere and genuine partners, not just with Islam, but with all the world in a re-formation of technological and scientific goals. I hope all my newsletter readers will relax here. I am NOT advocating “Globalism”, but there is nothing wrong with international dialogue and cooperation that does not violate or seriously compromise sovereignty. As with all these topics, much more thinking is required, but just posing the questions would open up a myriad of new possibilities. Of course, an arrogant West that insists on “my way or the highway” will find few willing partners.

In addition to technological prowess, Western republican systems of government – though flawed – are far better and proven models than those that, so far, have posed themselves as Islamic states. If our Western heritage and civilizations have had anything to offer the world that is of lasting significance, it must surely be the dignity and respect for the individual. While the ultimate and complete “sovereignty” of the individual begs some crucial questions, this important philosophical concept has no stronger intellectual, theological, and political grounding than in the West. This is something concrete and important as well as something Islamic people too can value – once it is separated from the hateful, impure and exploitative practices that characterize the West in the minds of most Muslims. And don’t buy into the “Bush Babble” that Muslims oppose us because “they hate us and they hate freedom and our way of life.” Give me a break! This is crude propaganda at best. No one “hates freedom.” They may disagree on the precise, individual definition of “freedom”. There is “freedom” and there is “license”, hence our word, “licentiousness”, an adjective that seems to describe our way of life. But there are few people anywhere who spurn freedom in its ultimate and essential terms. But do we stand for freedom – or licentiousness? If we are to “win their hearts and minds”, then we must manifest something worthwhile, something Islamic Americans could share with their international brothers and sisters? Who knows? Such a cultural climate might lay the foundations for a new generation of Muslims where at least a significant portion of them were able to choose something in between the extreme licentiousness of the West and the deadly, but very powerful clique of intellectual and physical thugs who perpetrate and propagate fundamentalist, extreme Jihadist Islam. We could offer a real alternative, but right now, we do not. Only a few Americans – or other Westerners – seem willing to look at our history and our policies and how this has affected the rest of the world.

ISLAM WAS ONCE BRIGHT, NEW AND PROMISING. WHAT WENT WRONG?

There are many approaches to such a topic, and each of them could fuel a book or two or more, but I’m going to stick close to our “roots of the rage” discussion, and address those key areas. A thousand years ago, the West eventually resisted Islam’s invasion attempts in Europe because we had military superiority. And Islam came to a cultural crossroads, but rather than choosing one path or another, the whole Islamic world kind of fell asleep, nodding off by the side of the road -- for a long time! Now it’s awake again, and to an impartial outside observer (if one exists), it might appear that Islam could win this latest round of the kulturkamph. All of this begs the question of why it failed the first time.

In his new book, What Went Wrong?, Bernard Lewis asserts that the answers is derived from two fundamental differences between Islamic and Western culture. First and foremost, Western Christendom developed a concept of Separation Between Church And State. This did not come easy, and many long and bloody wars over many years were fought on the soil over religious differences among Christians. While some may question exactly how this principle is applied, most Westerners nowadays believe in separating the spiritual and the political realms. Consequently, Western Christian culture developed a spirit of compromise and the attitude of live-and-let-live, especially in the area of a person’s religious beliefs – or complete lack thereof. Basic separation of church and state has proven to be a superior model to that of Islam, which essentially does not recognize the concept. After all, why would any Muslim not want the Sharia of Allah to rule over them? And the whole world too? Indeed, most Muslims would tell you that the concept of rigid separation of religion and politics is un-Islamic. The spirit of compromise, based on similar cultural/religious assumptions, led to Western greatness. With Islam, there is little, if any, compromise on anything. It is all or nothing.

A second crucial component missing from the Islamic world order was its inability to adapt and coexist amicably with those whom it conquered. When the old Romans conquered an enemy, they brought Roman clothes, Roman architecture, Latin language and culture, building Roman towns demonstrating a new way of life under Roman law and justice. Moreover, they did as much as possible to integrate the conquered ones financially as well. (Of course, in some cases this only went so far and failed miserably as in Britain, but I shall not digress.) As Bernard Lewis’ What Went Wrong? and others point out, that (while there are some exceptions) Islam could not coexist with the non-Islamic conquered peoples.

But there is a third, or second part of this matter of cultural (and hence technological) adaptation. Islam totally failed to live harmoniously with – that is, adapt to– those whom it could NOT conquer. But that is not all. Islam seemed unable to learn from those who had defeated it, though this period could be at an end. Islamic radicals were forced to make use of things like computers and the Internet to facilitate their goals. Because of their dedication to Islam, they have entered into the West, and learned our ways well enough to most effectively and devastatingly turn them against us on 9-11 Day. Medieval minds armed with modern technology is a potent and deadly combination.

ISLAM CAN ADAPT, BUT MUST STOP BLAMING OTHERS –
AND CEASE BEING A PRISONER OF ITS HISTORY

Adaptation is but a hypothetical possibility– but not certain. There are few signs, except in some segments of Western Islam, that this can happen, and even there, it is questionable. But if some kind of cultural rapprochement or détente. First, Islamists will have to quit blaming everything on the “Great Satan” (USA) and the other “barbarian infidels”, and see if they could learn something and make some alterations which, unlike what they have done so far, would bring beneficial change to the world. This was how it was over a thousand years ago when classical knowledge preserved by Arabic scholars fueled the Western Renaissance. The majority of the Islamic world reacts to Western technology and political systems from an inborn hostility and paranoia that has developed over more fifteen hundred years. But young Islamic people – where they are allowed to – are more adept at technology, and many have trained in the West as doctors, nurses, scientists, computer professionals and the like. What’s more, some of these professionals (so many stay here and “live the good life’) carry the skills back to their homelands. Islam could adapt, and while the younger generation is the seedbed of the Mujahadeen, it is also the seedbed of successive generations that can learn technology other than operating a mortar or AK47. The answer to such cultural and technological advancement is the time and leisure to learn that comes with money. In a few more paragraphs, I posit an answer to where lots of dollars can come from to fund every bit of this genuine educational renaissance in the Middle East, and not one buck of it comes from “foreign aid”.

WHERE IS THE ISLAMIC PEACE MOVEMENT?

Some maintain that certain Sufi sects teach Pacifism, but this is only a tiny, rather silent minority. It is somewhat disheartening to thing that there are 1.25 billion Muslims, but I have never seen a single word written about and “Islamic Peace Movement”. If there is one, this would be a good time to come forward, but antagonizing the militant Jihadists would probably mean Muslim pacifist martyrs, something we have never seen before.

Perhaps some new-generation Islamic leader will arise to lead a jihad/struggle for peace, freedom and justice and a better day-to-day life for the average Islamic person. Perhaps a series of Madrassah schools will be established to teach the Koran and real science, have new computers and even teach French or English or Chinese. Perhaps Islamic women will be allowed a greater level of participation along the models of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, etc. But this may never mirror the west. God, let’s hope not! We can then pray and hope that perhaps a new generation of young Islamic women and men will come along and write the beginning of a new chapter of The Saving Faith in the post-modern 21st century. Perhaps.

Islam is moving against the flow of modern and post-modern events. Pan-Arabism failed because Arabs are essentially tribal and territorial, and all are completely unwilling to let just one of them be “Emir-in-Chief.” Since they know no other system of government, “Arab unity” in a democratic situation – or even an authoritarian, but free-voting Islamic republic – seems unlikely, though not impossible. Turkey has been somewhat successful in maintaining a society where, although Islam is not the only law, it is respected, and its main tenets are not violated. Egypt is another possibility, but for years, the Egyptian government has tacitly allowed persecution and violence, including murder, by extreme Islamists against the native Christians. [There are any number of Coptic Christian organizations and website who try to get the truth over to a bunch of apathetic American “Christians,” and who have unfortunately failed to make much headway. Fascinatingly, the Copts are the actual descendents of the folk of ancient Egyptian times whereas the newcomer Muslim Arabs now outnumber them and run the country.] This is something that is entirely up to Islam. It cannot and should not be imposed in any way by the West. As a real matter of fact, Islamic unity in a much greater degree than now seen is more than likely essential and crucial if Islam is to truly assert itself in the face of the Western World Order, which does threaten to overwhelm it.

Imposed Western values and political systems are a large part of the problem right now, and is something for which Muslims can rightly blame the West. But the Koran and the traditions of Islam seem to be fairly open on the exact form of an “Islamic state,” so some form of representative republic is not impossible. This is an opportunity for a new generation of Muslim spiritual-political leaders (remember, they are the same) to arise. But -- if they are perceived as mere lackeys of the “Great Satan”, they won’t get very far. “Innovators” and “liberal reformers” (or even “moderates”) have never found a very fertile climate in Islam. Perhaps it can happen, but it has never happened. It is hard to find an actual example of an “Islamic state” that differs in any really essential way from any other form of Oriental despotism. Could one arise and “break the mold”? Perhaps.

HOW TO MAKE “PERHAPS” BECOME AT LEAST A BIT MORE “POSSIBLE”

If the “perhaps” could become a “possible” through the elimination of things like troops on their holy grounds, then why not do it? And, while I am dreaming, we could quit doing business with Middle Eastern thugs and crooks such as the Saudi royals – not to mention a whole unsavory host of others in the “axis of evil powers” -- and make sure that out of all the billions of dollars we send out of our country -- every minute of every day of every year – that at least a fair share of this could go to the people of those countries rather that lining the pockets of aforesaid fat-cats and thugs. This was addressed in the chapter on Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, so let us move on to – perhaps – and even thornier question.

WHAT ABOUT PALESTINE?

The Palestinian Problem is the main grievance of Islam against the West. Therefore, the injustices against the Palestinians – paraded over the media almost every day – serve as magnets for Jihadist recruits. Several of my Internet e-mail comrades sent me a photograph entitled “Palestinian Terrorist In Training”. It was a picture of a very sad-looking and very young Palestinian boy standing among the ruins of his West Bank home. What does he thing of Israelis? How does he feel about Americans? This is so simple an equation that anyone should be able to grasp it, but – just as sad as the little boy himself – is the incredible arrogance and ignorance that blind our seldom-open eyes! Alleviate the Palestinian Problem and terrorism will be shorn of its greatest asset – the legacy of hate that goes on and on. Stop the cycle. Stop it now, but don’t expect that it will just quietly go away as soon as a solution occurs. Concrete steps will need to be firmly in place first.

Some maintain that the establishment of the artificial Israeli entity fulfilled certain protocols and plans that were established by the Zionist movement long before 1948. It is much too late to debate about whether or not the ministate should ever have been established. Face the facts. To almost all Muslims, the situation in Palestine is an ugly, painful, and ever-present reminder of a long pattern of betrayal. Nevertheless, it is hard to foresee Israel closing up shop. We must deal with things as they are. Let’s say – just for the sake of argument -- that Israel was a real democracy when it began, and thus was deserving of our support. If this was ever true, it all changed in 1967. As a result of the “Six Day War”, Israel seized the West Bank, Golan Heights and several other pieces of real estate that were never intended to be part of the Palestine package. When the Zionists refused to relinquish these territories, they essentially failed to make a real and lasting peace. At that point, all aid should have been cut off. And not only that. Since then, Israel has been no genuine “friend and ally”, but a perennial pestering problem due to Zionist arrogance and intransigence. Yet no U.S. administration has ever even raised the possibility, yet – year after year – we bomb and bomb and bomb Iraq for “non-compliance”. Are Muslims correct about the U.S. being the enablers of the Zionists? They certainly couldn’t pull it off without us. This is another issue never directly addressed by our “free media” or our political leaders.

I hope and pray that the 9-11 Attack and aftermath of emotions are not simply used to gloss over and justify even more extreme (mis)use of the powerful Israeli military and security assets against the Palestinian people, but sadly, this seems to be exactly what is happening. No one from Bush 43 on down will comment on why it is permissible for Israel to have the latest in weaponry (including nukes, another fact conveniently omitted from the debate) while it is supposed to be scandalous and shocking that Palestinians might want to bring in weapons to defend themselves. We should not be surprised – yet we are – that suicide bombers and other weapons of last resort are used by a desperate people under heavy and unrelenting assault by a superior force. We cheer on movies about Americans in history who gave their lives for their country like Mel Gibson in The Patriot, but no one can find sympathy with a twenty-something Palestinian mujaheeda who does essentially the same thing. Disagree if you like. I know I shall be accused of many things for what I am saying in this book, but I really fail to see much of a difference.

WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM?

My newsletter readers will continue to be surprise as I join company with the liberals of America, who never miss a beat to proclaim government-enforced gun control as the solution to our violence problems here at home. The American Medical Association has even been politicized the matter, now saying that gun deaths among children are the result of a “syndrome”, and that the “cure” is to remove the guns. If this is true, then the children (not to mention the rest of the people) of Palestine are suffering from this “syndrome” because almost every two or three days, one or more of them are killed by bullets or tank artillery shells from the heavily armed “storm troopers” of the Darth Vader-style Israeli security forces.

SO THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE – TAKE AWAY THE GUNS!

This is a solution on which people all over the political spectrum can unite. For instance, liberal leftist pro gun control Democrats who want to disarm U.S. citizens can get very enthusiastic about my proposal. After disarmament, perhaps the Holy Land can actually become holy again. Once the guns are gone, Jimmy Carter and the Habitat for Humanity teams can go in and rebuild all the Palestinian cities and villages devastated by tanks and bulldozers. Lots of liberal social workers will be needed to help the Jewish settlers resettle out of the Palestinian territories. The “trauma counselors” and children’s rights advocates can move to the Middle East and begin to counsel the Palestinian children, not just in Palestine, but those that live in the squalid refugee camps all around the region. How can this be done? We already have the model in how we formerly dealt with Iraq with U.N. inspection teams. They were eventually ousted by Sadaam Hussein, but the point is, we already have the model, so let’s use it. Who should be responsible for all of this? That’s a “no-brainer”. The one’s ultimately responsible for anything are the ones who start it – and those who foster and feed it. Hence, Britain, the United States and the United Nations should be responsible. Britain was the main culprit in the early mis-drawing of all the maps in the Middle East (not to mention Africa and elsewhere!), and for the infamous Balfour Declaration, which led to the establishment of the ministate. The U.S. was a witting, able and accomplished enabler, and the whole thing was done under the aegis of the U.N. These three entities made the mess, so they should clean it up.

THE FREE CITY OF JERUSALEM

Perhaps Jerusalem should not be a part of an Israeli or a Palestinian state. While the idea of Jerusalem as an international holy city is not new, it has never really been tried. If it is not to be the capital of Palestine, then it should not be the capital of Israel either. It is an example of Israeli chutzpah and imperialism that the idea ever came about. Tel Aviv was created to be the capital, so let it stay there. The Palestinian capital could be in Gaza or elsewhere. If it is to be in “East Jerusalem”, then it should be renamed. Jerusalem could be administered under and international body of Christians, Muslims, and Jews with freedom of government and religion open to all. The new Free City must be truly representative, and no one should seek to make Jerusalem a “Vatican” for any particular faith. [The Pope would like to take it over, but although this seems unlikely, it is not impossible. I can’t help but feel that would be a big mistake.] Who knows? A new model for the city would likely arise, and it could not only be a truly holy city and a bastion of peace, it could stand as an example for the world.

PALESTINIANS MUST CHANGE TOO – AND THEY MUST HAVE A STATE

What has happened in Palestine is that the few liberals and moderates left Palestine a long time ago. Most of the professionals and the people with more than a little money also left, and worked as hard as they could to get the rest of the family out of the country. Who remained in Palestine? While there is certainly a small cadre of these folk still around, they cannot speak out or accomplish much of anything under the Arafat thug regime with its myriad of secret police agencies. The most militant forces are dominant. The Zionists know Arafat cannot really stop the bombers – especially after the Israeli military devastates his headquarters and his security apparatus. Do the Zionists want the more militant elements to seize power as to justify their reoccupation and repression? I think so. As said, Arafat is basically an uninspiring thug, but do we want the alternative? There are some Palestinians -- like Dr. Hanan Ashrawi and others -- who could lead a new government, but this could only occur with genuinely free elections. Hamas and Hesbollah must lose their raison d’etre before any of this could even be possible. A genuine and honest peace would go a long way toward this goal. Naturally, a real Palestinian state must arise. Not something cobbled together by “W” and his buddies Tony Blair and “Pooty Poot” Putin, but something that reflects the real desires and needs of the Palestinian people.

But no matter what the final form is for a Palestinian State, a Free City of Jerusalem or any other solution, SOMETHING CONCRETE MUST HAPPEN – AND SOON – TO STOP THE VICIOUS CYCLE OF ZIONIST OPPRESSION AND PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE.

Of course, we should have friendly and on-going relationships with Islamic nations, just as we do with all the nations of the world. Our interfaith or ecumenical discourses should operate on the same model of mutual respect such as is supposed to be the way of the diplomatic community. Indeed, we should not only encourage the spread of Internet and other media that promote freedom of thought. Again, we have to have more to offer than fast foods and Hollywood porn and pabulum, but more interaction on a model of mutual respect will alleviate much of the mutual ignorance and misunderstanding. Such exchanges on this model might encourage a “moderate” Imam or Mullah to dare pose some of the uncomfortable questions that Islam must answer in order to co-exist peacefully. Yes, there are certainly parts of Islam will never “co-exist” with the West, or for that matter, with any other non-Muslim people (think of Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India). But perhaps some Muslims can come to see that Sharia, to be truly efficacious in bringing about change must begin in one’s heart and radiate outward, and not be imposed by oppression and violence. Perhaps some of this could begin by all religions -- and nations -- condemning the willingness to use violence to achieve political goals. Is this just idle dreaming? It’s possible, but not in the present “you are either with us or for terrorism” context in which the One-World Globalistic Order of the West has chosen to confront the Islamic World Order.

Our government is already telling us that suicide bombers and “dirty bombs” and all sorts of mayhem are coming to the homeland. What does this say? I know I shall hear cat-calls of “defeatist”, but how can we “win” such a “war” when it seems our leaders are already saying they can’t protect us? We must find another way to win the “war on terrorism”? For how can we “win” a war in which our “allies” such as the Afghanis and Pakistanis only participate in through outright bribery and threats? If every adult in the world had a democratic opportunity to vote on the matters in question, right now, the West would overwhelmingly lose! We have never “won the hearts and minds” of anyone other than through their admiration of our many toys and our seemingly endless supply of money. It’s time for a new approach. We should have creative dialogue and interchange between all cultures and nations. Sadly, the United States seems to be acting like archetypal “fascists” we have been so well-programmed to hate and detest.

SOME “THEOLOGICAL” THOUGHTS

As said, I make no claims to being a “theologian” but that is not to say that I don’t have a thought or two on this front. And, since no “theologians” are saying much of anything about Islam – and almost nothing at all remotely critical of Zionism – I’ll let the next two sections close the chapter and the book.

Meetings together of world religions always include prayer. We are continually told that “we all worship and pray to the same God”, but when one ideologically and historically examines this postulate, I believe it is shown to be a false assumption. But nevertheless, such cultural interactions can be positive -- if they are viewed properly. I noticed something very interesting at the January 2002 Conference of World Religions hosted by Pope John Paul II at Assisi. The diverse participants had all sorts of public gatherings and plenary sessions where they conversed and listened to speeches together as one body. But when the meeting adjourned for a prayer session, it was handled much differently. In ecumenical, interdenominational prayer in the U.S., the participants always sit together as equals, and one or more of them will deliver a prepared public prayer while the others pray silently – as if in total agreement. This was not the system used at Assisi. The Muslims went to a prepared room as did the Hindus and the Sikhs and the witch doctors and shamans and all the other host of “colorful” attendees. This conference was largely ignored by media other than in perfunctory, brief items. I only became aware of this when I watched “Catholic News” on EWTN, where (and only then in a brief, fleeting note) it was mentioned that the delegates were not really “praying together”. Is this the proper model? Or should we do as we’ve always done when U.S. clergy gather for prayer, and as we have done several times since 9-11 Day. Yes, just trot out the Nation of Islam Imams and the Shiite Hojatoleslams (“vicars of Islam”), and line them up with the Baptists and the Pentecostals preachers and the Catholic priests and the rabbis as well so they all can take turns at the mike as if they are there as a body making a unified statement. In reality, this propagates an image of unity that never really was -- even when it was all Christians. Certainly I am not saying that different religions cannot unite on common goals (such as a truly free Palestine, e.g.), but why start out with untrue assumptions? Maybe it is “the same God”, but does this mean we all have to agree on what this means? Gee, I thought that “diversity” was politically correct, but perhaps I am wrong. And I realize I am speaking against a powerful and long-enduring “American” model, but perhaps it will stir some creative thoughts on the matter.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS DEFENDING ISLAM – AND A RESPONSE

The New Jihad is not the only new book that is critical of Islam. American Islamists, however, are not sitting idly by. Many arguments have been developed to refute things that “anti-Islamic” writers are saying. [Burns, John F. in New York Times, 20 Jan. 02.] In Lebanon, there is a man, Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, who is regarded as the spiritual leader of the Hesbollah Movement, and readers will recall my focus on Al Manar TV and websites. The above-ground, legal Hesbollah political movement has worked now for decades to amend its image, and manifest itself as a strong voice for Palestinian freedom, but from a “moderate” point of view. If you have forgotten your recent history, Sheik Fadlallah was accused of masterminding the bombing of the lethal truck-bomb attack on Beirut Marine barracks at the airport in 1983, killing 241. In return, it is said, the CIA tried, but failed, to get the now-honorable Sheik in a 1985 car bombing outside his Beirut home, killing 75. But nowadays, the 66 year old “voice of moderation” has several things to say about Islam, the 9-11 Attacks and related matters. Naturally, each and every point below could be discussed at length, ad infinitum, but here goes.

1. POINT: The 9-11 Attacks were “not compatible with Sharia law,” hence the perpetrators were not true martyrs, “merely suicides” as innocent victims were slain contrary to the Koran. An accompanying argument is that the actions of “fundamentalist extremists” are not representative of Islam. COUNTERPOINT: Certainly vast, sweeping generalizations should be avoided, and many tens of millions of Muslims, especially those in the West, do not support the attacks or the ideology behind them. However, many more Muslims accept the bin Laden theology of violence than do not. The entire Islamic world stands in basic opposition to the Western Hegemony. That some significant number of devout believers will carry this to bloody, but logical (think about this before answering) extremes. What’s more, Osama is a doctrinaire Wahabi Muslim, and is regarded so by most of the Mullahs and Imams of that most powerful Saudi sect that controls the holy places of Mecca and Medina.
2. POINT: “There is no concept of jihad as aggressive combat.” He dismisses Osama as merely someone who has “relied on personal psychological needs” as if this immediately dismisses any ideological arguments. COUNTERPOINT: Again, it is obvious that not all Muslims agree, but this belies the fact that many do. While “Bin Ladenism” may not be orthodox and doctrinaire to all Muslims, it certainly is accepted by more than we even want to think about! They certainly don’t think of themselves as aberrant or extremist. They see the “moderate” Muslims as lacking courage and resolve to carry forth the “struggle” and “striving” (both words are most often given by Muslims as the only meaning of jihad) to final victory. Ask a Palestinian if the Intifada is a jihad. Ask if they are merely “striving and struggling” within themselves for freedom and a homeland. The New York Times article said, “Yet there are legions of young men who seethe with resentment at America and its power, and long after Mr. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have faded into history, they seem likely to form a ready pool of recruits for messianic leaders.” In Pakistan alone, there are almost a thousand Madrassah seminaries teaching the Islamic theology of violence. Many schools post prominent signs and billboards with the names of alumni who have found their way into the promised Paradise through active martyrdom of Jihad. If they all stopped today, the seeds are already planted and the seedlings now grow strong on their own. All Muslims do not have to agree, but entirely too many obviously do! As one “seminarian” (Talib; plural, Taliban) said, “Jihad will continue until doomsday, or until America has been defeated, either way.”
3. POINT: Yet another honorable Sheik, Yusuf Abdullah Al Qaradawi of Egypt, weighs in on the matter, saying “Islam is the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack on innocent human beings as a grave sin. … Even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who is engaged in face-to-face confrontation with them. Killing hundreds of helpless civilians is a heinous crime to Islam.” COUNTERPOINT: Since history is always written by the victors, we all like to portray our wars as basically noble and virtuous, in intent if not in practice, and Islam is no different. We have already looked at the Crusades, a horrid orgy of blood and violence in which “good Christians” and “good Muslims” mutually and happily hacked away at one another for hundreds of years. “Hundreds of helpless civilians” is so descriptive of atrocities on both sides. We could easily put up a bunch of extracted pacifist Bible texts, but that too would be unrepresentative of the whole. Again, if the Koran is such a book of peace and justice, why is it used as the primary textbook for Islamic violence? Is violence endemic in the Koran and, hence in Islam? Look at the data. You decide.
4. POINT: Anti-Muslims take verses in the Koran out of context, and you could do the same thing with your Bible. The Koran, like the Christian Bible, while containing isolated verses about violence, is a book of peace and justice. COUNTERPOINT: Yes, the Bible certainly has been quoted and used “out of context” many times. But how does one define “out of context” when the “context” (that is, the cultural and social climate) often defines the content? One can easily see the Old Testament as a book of ugly tales of human sacrifice, war, violence, and apostasy – or as the greatest story ever written. It all depends on which stories you read and emphasize. One could say the New Testament is a book of peace and love, but you could isolate certain things Jesus said and did, and see an activist, zealot revolutionary – as some do. The main question to ask about any book, including religious books, is what effects have they had? What have they inspired the readers to do? Has it been “good” or “bad” for humankind? The Koran and the religion of Islam originated in violence and grew in prominence largely in the context of militant expansionist imperialism. Again, while the Koran and the Islamic faith does not mean the same thing for all Muslims, its overall context is one of not only condoning violence, but actually demanding it in certain situations.
5. POINT: Muhammad’s message completes those of all the Prophets who came before. The Koran completes the Old Testament and the New Testament. Islam completes Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, Islam is a perfection of all previous religions. COUNTERPOINT: This is assuming that there is something incomplete in the other two religions, a statement with which neither convinced Jews nor Christians would agree. On the other hand, individuals with significant doubts and questions about their faith could be led to consider Islam as an alternative. In today’s churches, if one is seriously devout, he or she may find themselves ostracized or at very least, without much support from their pastors or fellow believers. Many today are disaffected from what passes for faith and doctrine in today’s Christian churches, and it is not surprising that the piety and inner strength of many devout Muslims attracts their attention. If someone in your church or community was considering converting to Islam, and came to you for advice, what would you say?

Of course, this list is not complete, and there are other points that could be included, but this is representative of the arguments one will hear from Muslims who want to share their faith. Unfortunately, not very many Americans – including those who identify themselves as Christian or Jewish – are equipped to deal with such questions. If the Muslims ask about the latest sordid soap opera or movie or the newest videogame or the sports scores or the best liquor to drink or the most recent sexual encounter, most Americans would have a lot to say. But when asked to respond to questions like those above, very few Americans have anything to say at all! But many Muslims can recite all these points and many more as well. Intellectually deprived and dumbed-down Americans are at a real disadvantage. It need not be that way, but if you want to move out of the quagmire, you will have to be motivated to do it on your own. I hope I am very wrong, but I don’t see and political or religious figures who have much to offer.

Wake up, Westerners! We have been asleep much too long.

UNTIL LATER…

I sincerely thank you for giving attention to my presentation. It is the greatest honor a writer can receive. And I hope that we meet again someday on another literary journey to a new and different place. As experienced travelers know, the end of a journey is always a beginning.

So, until we meet again -- don’t miss what is “hidden in plain sight”, read “between the lines”, listen “between the words” to what is not said -- and then pose some of the myriad of questions not ever asked.

May God bless you and keep you safe.

Harrell Rhome
A Pilgrim On The Road

> > > > > > > > Comments and information requests should be addressed to EagleNewsTips@aol.com A comb-bound copy of the book is available, and will be provided free as a Microsoft Word document file download, on request. < < < < < < <

Thanks for your attention!!! hr

Some Interesting Links

Visit the new Journal of Russian & Slavic Studies: http://www.rusjournal.com
Learn More About Islam: http://www.radioislam.com
Explore Truth In History with The Barnes Review: http://www.barnesreview.org

Link to this book: http://hometown.aol.com/eaglenewsdesk