Desicritics Author: MA Khan

Does the Quran Incite Violence? A Debate with Mike Ghouse, Part 2

MA Khan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:59:23 EST

I am responding below to Mike Ghouse's reply to Part 1 in this debate. I regret that I wasn't able to respond with immediacy.

Let me start by addressing Ghouse's favorite argument regarding the Quran, which I encountered in his emails and postings in Websites quite a few times. He frequently says that, in the colonial era or before, the Westerners intentionally mistranslated the Quran to harm Islam. "The Quran was mistranslated three times (by Europeans)", he asserts. Thereafter, Muslim rulers (as pious as the Saudis, who are main sponsors of translations of the Quran) also embarked on the same mission to mistranslate the Quran, obviously to harm Islam and Muslims, as Ghouse would have it. "The Kings on the Arabian lands had to fool their people too to get their support", as he puts it.

To him, these translators distorted the Quran so badly that, by reading it, Muslims are becoming terrorists all over the world in the name of Islam--the religion of pristine peace and tranquility. Let me first ask Ghouse a few questions:

1. First, what is his scholarship, expertise in Arabic, to judge translations of the Quran of most famous scholars like Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Dr. Muhshin Khan et al.? May I ask, if Ghouse, probably an India-born student of business/commercial studies, is fluent in Arabic or understand Arabic at all?

2. Secondly, would Ghouse sit in Saudi Arabia and dare distorting the Quran intentionally. I can assure Ghouse that the kind of "gross distortion" he accuses other famous translators with, if he does the same level of distortion of whatever kind sitting in Saudi Arabia, he would not last a day. Well, Ghouse may even give a try of the same at Islamabad, Khartoum, Cairo or Kabul. His is unlikely to last much longer, if at all. Let me inform readers that Muhshin Khan and his co-translator, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, taught at the Islamic University of Medina, the city of Muhammad, where Islam was born. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, another brilliant translator, was sponsored by the Saudis.

3. Thirdly, Ghouse has found a good translator in Muhammad Asad (d. 1990), an Austro-Hungarian Jews, who converted to Islam and later ended up in India, where, in the company of fanatic Allama Iqbal, he became a scholar of Islam. "Go to Mohammad Asad's translation of Quran, it is one of the most accepted translations", he asserts. In fact, Asad's translation is not correct enough for Ghouse, as he say: "If I live longer, Insha Allah, God willing, I will do the translation to reflect the intent of the Quran".

Although Asad's credential in Arabic was undoubtedly good, he had no real training in Arabic at its crown centres of Baghdad, Cairo, Saudi Arabia, which scholars like Muhshin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali had. Moreover, born in a Jewish Rabbi family and well-acquainted with developments of the 20th-century Europe, I leave it to readers to reflect on how his background could have influenced his English rendering of the Quran and on Ghouse's wisdom of picking Asad as a more reliable translator.

4. Fourthly, does Ghouse want to tell us that all the Imams, Muslim clerics--from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world--who keep spewing hatred on Quranic justification, read the Quran in English translations? Do Arabs like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, late al-Zarqawi and all those Islamic terrorists read the Quran in Arabic? Ghouse would obviously have us believe so.

I must point out another great point of this sagacious Islamic scholar, Mike Ghouse. The University of Southern California [probably with association of CAIR, MSA (Muslim Students of America] etc., hosts the Compendium of Islamic Text, which says:

There were about 360 idols around the Ka`abah. He pulled them down with his sword while reciting: "And say: 'Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.'" (Al-Qur'an, 17:81) Also "Say: 'Truth has arrived and falsehood neither creates anything new nor restores anything.'" (Al-Qur'an, 34: 49) The idols tumbled on their faces.

On the basis of such info, Wikipedia notes that:

In 630, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conqueror, and he destroyed the 360 idols in and around the Kaaba.[28][29] While destroying each idol, Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81] which says "Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish."[28][29]

But to Ghouse, this information is all false. That means leading Islamic organizations in American, like CAIR and MSA, are out to harm Islam and Muslims, too. It is false even when most of the greatest classical scholars of Islam say so. Ibn Ishaq [Karachi, p. 552], Muhammad's first pious biographer, says that after capturing Mecca, Muhammad ordered the destruction of all idols of the Ka'ba, shouting out: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish".

But to Ghouse, those greatest were ignorant or were out to harm Islam and Muslims. So, where lies truth? Who knows the truth? It is Michel Wolfe, a non-Muslim filmmaker of our time and the producer of the film "The Message". When Ghouse asked Wolfe, the latter replied, as Ghouse puts it: "From his (Wolfe's) understanding the idols were 'removed'", not destroyed, the latter remark being "blatantly misleading".

Allah or Muhammad probably paid a visit to Wolfe lately to furnish him with the correct information. He has no other way to discover this truth. I wonder how Ghouse's wisdom failed to ask Wolfe as to how he discovered the truth.

Nonetheless, the moral of the story is: You can take over a temple and remove there idols therein, not destroy them. Idolaters of the world can drive this message of Ghouse home.

Now let me turn to the Quranic verses Ghouse has addressed. I will not respond to his comments on other religious scriptures, because my expertise doesn't lie there. I have spent the last 5-6 years researching Islam extensively, on which I am confident of commenting. If other scriptures have violent content, they incite violence too.

In explanation of verse 7:179, despite whatever unnecessary things he has written, Asad's translation still says that the Kafirs, such as Hindus, "are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way". That means a non-Muslim, heedless to Allah's messages, is worse, more evil, than animals like cattle, which the original author put as: they are "like brute beast." I need someone explain what's the difference between the two. Therefore, the claim of the original author that "In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals" is roughly right, although he would been accurate had he said "kafirs [Hindus] are worse than animals (cattle)". That's what Asad affirms and Ghouse agrees.

Why does Ghouse not give a fitting treatment to his non-Muslim neighbors deserving of animals like cattle, nay, worse than cattle as Asad puts it. I grew up in the countryside, we raised cattle. Worse than cattle around us were foxes that grabbed our chickens or spoiled sugarcane plantations. We used to kill them at the first opportunity. Tigers, hyenas, wolves are worse than cattle, too. What treatment would Muslims render, if they happen to come across animals like these in their neighborhood? Heads of the kafirs should roll.

Concerning my quoted verse 4:56, Asad's translation basically say the same thing: For those rejecting Islam, "We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems) shall, in time, cause to endure fire: [and] every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering [in full]..."

This horrible cycle of punishment--that a Hindu, Christian or Jew deserves--would continue for eternity; so vile a people are they. No doubt, Allah's psychopathic punishment would surpass the barbarity of Hitler by infinite folds. Again, the original author is accurate in emphasizing that Allah has intense hatred of non-Muslims.

I will now touch upon three verses that Ghouse did not address. First verse 3:56:

"...moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come."

The question of how Allah will punish the kafirs in this world? Not by Himself but through the hands of his followers, aka Muslims. Muslims must engage the vile unbelievers in Jihadi wars and inflict grievous punishment on them; and those, who perish in the process, will receive Allah's succor in paradise (loaded with eternal virgins of immaculate beauty) as says the Quran [Quran 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 Allah'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 Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Next verse 8:13:

"Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them".

The message is crystal-clear here. This means, Muslims must endeavor to take hold of those vile unbelievers, who oppose Allah and Muhammad mission (i.e., reject Islam) and "cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers." Allah's clear words are enough; nothing more is needed to be said on this.

Let me move on the last verse 9:111:

"Allah 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 Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.."

This can be accurately dubbed as the verse of 9/11 attacks. Life of Muslims has been purchased by Allah for fighting in Allah's cause (i.e., Jihad), in which they must slay and be slain. That is, they must wage Jihad and try their best to slay the kafirs. Obviously some Jihadis would be killed in such holy wars. But this death in Jihad battles, called martyrdom, is no loss for Muslims; instead, it the greatest, the most desirable, thing ever can happen to a Muslim; because, this martyrdom gives him a ticket for straight landing in Allah's paradise. Getting a ticket to paradise, believe Muslims, is the central aim of their every action in this world.

Some master deceivers of Islam would tell us that Jihad means struggling with the self, which will help them gain paradise. I hope, some of them will come forward and explain to us as to how struggling with the self would result in slaying the kafirs and getting killed in the process. Probably Ghouse can enlighten us on that.

Let me emphasize that Ghouse has done little research on the Quran. Moreover, he is either a good-hearted person with little knowledge of Islam or he is on a mission of deceiving the gullible kafirs. The fact that he said, "However, the verses that have been quoted "as from Quran" are actually manufactured a 1000 years ago and the neocons have been recycling it to malign a religion, that is their business and livelihood", means that he is undoubtedly out to deceive his willing audience.[ED: ASSERTION]

Has Ghouse torn away those pages of his Quran that contain these manufactured verses of brutality?

Let me emphasize to the reader that engaging with ignorants or deceivers takes us to no meaningful enlightenment on the subject. Therefore, I may wish to conclude this debate here, unless Ghouse comes forward with some solid, well-researched, arguments that deserve a response.

However, if readers are keen to get a full picture of the incitement of violence (i.e., Jihad) in Islam, I urge them to get a copy of my just-released book, Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery

I am getting some very encouraging assessments on the book from experts, including top professors (see in the link). I believe this book will have strong humanizing impact on Muslims (the radical ones), while help everyone understand why the world today is mired in the horror of terrorism.

Does the Quran Incite Violence? A Debate with Mike Ghouse, Part 1

MA Khan — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:01:56 EST

Mr. Mike Ghouse (MBA, MCom), claims his Website, is by a Speaker, Thinker & Writer on Pluralism/Interfaith, Terrorism, Islam, India & peace. He is a well-known Muslim activist based in Dallas and a prolific contributor to many Websites, including Desicritics. I have been confronted by him (also noticed him confronting others) on a few occasions, including once in Desicritics, that the Quran is a book of peace and that there is no violent verses in the Quran.

Recently a Hindu writer, in an e-mail group, commented on why Muslim terrorists bomb and cause harrowing carnage in Indian cities---such as Bangalore, Ahmedabad etc.---one after another that:

“In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals and hence He instructs the Muslims to mount any kind of torture and atrocities on them, kill them, burn them and their houses, take their women and children as captives and rape their women and so on. So the Koran says:

• “We have created, for hell, many genii (races) of men...and they are like brute beasts” (7.179)
• “Verily, those who disbelieve our signs, we will surely cast them to be broiled in the hell-fire, so often as their skins shall be well burnt, We will give them new skins in exchange, so that they may taste the sharper torment” (4.56)
• “Whosoever followeth any religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him in this life, and in the next life he shall be of those who perish” (3.85)
• “I will cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers” (8.12)
• “Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them” (8.13)
• “moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come” (3.56)
• “they shall suffer a grievous punishment” (3.77).
• “They (believers) shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” (9:111).”

In response, Mike Ghouse as usual threw in his challenge:

It is time to get over the propaganda that has been dished out over the years. There is no such verse in Qur'an, if you have the list produce me one. Not what is handed down to you, but the one you can point to? Remember, finding the truth is one's own responsibility. You have an open challenge here. Let’s clean the slates and live in peace, one person at a time.

Terrorism is committed by individuals and not religions, these are the dirty games played by individuals donning the mask of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or any one. They have everything to gain to upload hatred between people.

Although I deal with violent aspects of the Quran in my Website, previously I couldn’t take on Ghouse’s challenges because of the scarcity of time. This time I have taken it up. Ghouse has agreed to an open debate with me, which we have agreed to publish in Websites. Since, we both have published in Desicritics and come from that part of the world and that the debate started concerning Islamic terrorism issues in India, Desicritics is the best place to bring this debate to readers.

In this first installment, I am initiating the debate and hope Mr. Ghouse will soon do his part to continue the debate through.

Dear Mike Ghouse,

I am, hereby, taking up your open challenge and opening the debate here.
The said Indian writer has produced a set of Quranic verses, which obviously incite violence. You can see it yourself and still, you deny that there are no violent verses in the Quran. These verses have obviously been picked from the Quran according to my checking of six different translations. May I now ask you the following questions:

1. Why do you think that these verses do not exist in the Quran?
2. If you think that they exist in the Quran, why do you think that they do not incite violence?
3. Allah himself urges Muslims to ‘strike terror into the heart of the infidels’ [8:12]. Why do you disagree with Allah? Who knows better? You or Allah?
4. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad also said: “I have been victorious with terror.” Why do you disagree with Prophet Muhammad? Do you know better than the Prophet? Why do you think that Prophet Muhammad lied?

Let our debate start from here. I wait for your response. Once the debate is completed we will publish it on websites.

Letter from an Infidel: Can Islam be Reformed?

MA Khan — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:19:43 EST

We, at islam-watch.org, received the following comment from a reader from India:

Can Islam be reformed?
I often wonder whether Islam can ever be reformed the same way as Christianity came out of dark ages.

I firmly believe that the chance of this happening is Nil. Because, the main necessity for any society to achieve reformation is the ability of the society for introspection. Now this is possible if the concerned society believes in Golden Rule and has conscience. These two are completely absent in case of Islam. Koran tells Muslims that they are best people raised for mankind and their religion is perfect. With this inflated ego how is introspection possible and hence no reformation. In 1400 years of existence Islam never produce men of stature of Lincoln or Gandhi. Only Bin Laden and Zarqawi can be found. Only total annihilation of this Evil ideology is the solution.

Regards
Raj, (India)

-------------------

Here is my response:

Dear Raj,

Thank you for the very thoughtful comments.

I have to agree with you 100%. Islam can probably not be reformed. As you say, 'their religion is perfect' - this most fundamental belief of the Muslims makes the idea of reformation totally irrelevant to Islam. Islam is not only a personal spiritual guidance, it is also the complete and perfect code of life. It covers the solution for every aspect of life: social, spiritual, moral, political and everything else a person faces in his/her entire life on earth. So Islam has specified prescription for everything one does and needs, be it shitting, farting, sneezing, bathing, doing sex and washing after sex and what not. This one-stop perfect solution and guidance for everything in life also has descended directly from the heavens.

Islam is not only a simple solution for all of one's problems in this world, following the prescription of Islam in toto also lands Muslims in eternal bliss in the next life. More importantly, the slightest of doubt about any precept of Islam lands the wrath of Allah on the person. The problem doesn't stop here; simply believing in the perfection of Islam is not enough. Muslims must act upon every edict of Allah as listed in the Quran. If they don't they are doomed. Allah says (Quoted from Do Muslims have greater rights in Australia? by Alamgir Hussain):

... (those who) desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between (this and) that. These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement." [Quran 4:150-51]

A persistent Allah repeats the warning:

... Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and will be consigned to the most grievous doom in the next." [Quran 2:85]

It's simple logic that there cannot be anything to reform in something which is perfect. The idea of reforming Islam is a term in contradiction. Islam should be the standard or ideal and everything else on earth must reform according to the Islamic precepts.

The thing is, Muslims are a very logical and intelligent people, so long as it concerns their religion. A perfect thing does not require change or reformation. For this very reason, we do not see the birth of a Rammohan Roy or Ishwar Chandra Bidyasagar as in Hinduism or a Martin Luther as in Christianity.

So Mr Raj, you have been correct in your hunch about the impossibility of reformation of Islam - at least from the logical point of view. That is exactly why many ex-Muslims like me, who have been active in analyzing Islam critically, are not focusing on reformation of Islam in particular. We are saying what Islam in reality is and it is not worth a religion or ideology to be followed by decent human beings.

We feel that if Muslims read our essays for some time, they will either become angry and more attached to Islam or leave it altogether. There is probably no middle path, which falls in the 'reformation track'. When an ideology is claimed to be perfect, there cannot be a middle path. It can only be true or false. We are logically analyzing the fundamental precepts of Islam. I personally feel that if Muslims find some credibility in our analysis of Islam, they will leave it altogether. If not, they will become stuck to it even more as a symbol of defense of what is a 'perfect guidance to life' for them. There could be some deceptive Muslims, who might seek to find a middle path. That will, however, remain a track of deception, disillusion and dishonesty. I believe there a few already in the field, but I personally doubt they will be able to solve the problem they want to, once and for all.

However, what is needed is to smash the myth about Islam that 'it is a religion of peace'. This assertion frequently comes even from the mouth of ignorant Imams of Islam, like Tony Blair and President Bush, who probably have never read the Koran, forget about the Sunnah/Hadiths. Imam Blair said recently, "...Islam is the true and peace loving religion, some forces are defaming it...." [DailyIndia.com, 18 Jan, 2007]. Most Muslims are ignorant of their religious precepts, while others never have analyzed those precepts against the modern rationalistic and humanistic ideals and values. They just take everything at face-value, without ever critically analyzing them. If we are successful in clearing this thick smokescreen around Islam (as the religion of peace) amongst the general populace, Islam (the virulent traits in the least) will wither away, either through reformation (whatever that may mean) or complete abolition.

What the razor-sharp ex-Muslim critics of Islam have been doing, through websites like Islam Watch and Faith Freedom, is simply creating pressure - a pressure to which Muslims have little or no answers. There is little scope for them to logically shut these critics up. Any attempt to shut them up through pens is to taking recourse of deception, lies or the lame excuse of the sensitivity of their belief, which are all too evident in the responses some Islamists (the moderate variety) write to our criticisms and articles. Those efforts have been proved toothless on their part. Ali Sina of Faith Freedom left a number of scholars of Islam looking for rat's holes for cover in debates with them. One must go through the on-going debate between Ali Sina and the Pakistani scholars of Islam to have a grasp of how toothless and often silly the Islamist side of the debate is. Yet, others have not dared to take up his challenge for obvious reasons.

The alternative answer Muslims have is to shut themselves off completely from our criticisms, change those precepts of Islam we take on or leave Islam altogether. Our experience over the last few years suggests that Muslims are either shutting themselves off from our criticisms or are leaving it altogether. The middle path which is the reformation or moderation track (changing those illogical and unacceptable precepts) appears to be absent. We have not read a single testimony or letter from Muslims, in which they wrote that they have either reformed or become moderate. We have received letters of either abuse and threats, or testimony of leaving Islam. Even fanatic Muslims, who contemplated becoming suicide-bombers, after the United State's Iraq invasion have written testimony of how they changed after reading faithfreedom.org and have expressed resentment of being deceived by Islam for so long.

About the effectiveness of this campaign, we are slowly but surely making some progress. For a Muslim, leaving Islam after reading a few essays of whatsoever type is just unthinkable. Unthinkable is becoming reality through the writings of ex-Muslims. However, we are heavily handicapped by the lack of exposure of the missiles we are shooting at the theological core of Islam. We wish we could get into the mainstream media. In the Islamic and the third world countries, that's impossible but quite possible in the West. But for the West, a little bit of comfort they gain through trades with the Islamic world appears more important than the very dangerous future their society faces. Of course, there is that ignorance or naivety that 'Islam is peace' or that Muslims will eventually enlighten themselves, if they are accommodated or appeased well enough.

Yet again, the Western world is where lies hope. Countries like India, China and Russia, despite badly suffering from Islam (which can only get worse), are in no position or mood to confront Islam. So far, they are only appeasing or even assisting the resurgence of Islam. This week, Russia fortified Iran with all its missile defense capability against any possible attack from Israel or USA. At least, we can hide in the West, get protection when needed (Rushdie, Taslima) and do our bit through the internet, which is relatively obscure but receiving an increasing momentum.

We do believe that defanging of Islam can be achieved only through the no-nonsense and bullet-proof criticisms of Islam we have been doing. Of course, there are others working on different strategies and they must be thinking that only their strategy would work. For us, it only matters that Islam dies off (at least its virulence) once and for all by whichever strategy it may.

Tactics of Hamas and the Prophet's Treaty of Hudaibiyya

MA Khan — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:23:08 EST

The disastrous attack on Israel in 1967 by the Arab Muslim states in their perennial desire to annihilate the Jewish nation resulted in miserable defeat for the Arabs. Israel occupied a large chunk of Arab lands that included Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, West Bank from Jordan, Golan Heights from Syria. Israel's incredible single-handed defeat of the entire Arab world brought a new realization amongst the Arab nations that their dream of destroying the Jewish state, which they promised on the day of Israel's creation two decades earlier, cannot be materialized anymore (at least, not under the current strategy). Under such reality on the ground, Egypt and later Jordan, who had lost much of the occupied land in 6-day war, slowly extended hands of peace to Israel. As of now, only three Muslims countries out of 57, namely Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, recognize the existence of the Jewish state.

Although some moderate Muslim states have extended peace to the Zionist state, other fanatic Islamic nations lead by Iran and Syria have kept the fight for the destruction of Israel alive in various guises. The first was the emergence of Arafat-lead Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist outfit, which was in a ruminant stage during the 1967 war. After a couple of decades' deadly campaign of terror, PLO also came to the realization that the resilient Zionist state could not be destroyed and abandoned its congenital charter of Israel's destruction and instead succumbed to the idea of recognizing her legitimate existence.

With PLO joining the peace camp, new and more deadly terrorist outfits, namely Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, emerged to perpetuate the campaign for the destruction of the Jewish state. One day, these apparently incorrigible militant groups might, out of despair, also decide to offer peace to the Jewish state. Most likely, there will emerge new violent Islamist groups to perpetuate the conflict.

Although such has been the reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet it has left the world guessing as why this perennial conflict of the modern times cannot be solved and instead, becomes increasing violent and complicated with time. One must investigate the commands of Islam which drives these Islamists groups to grasp the crux of the conflict. It is important to investigate the commands in the Koran and examples of Prophet Muhammad (Sunnah) which determines the bedrock of Islamic ideals and laws for eternal times. I will allude to the Koranic verdicts and historical investigation of Prophet Muhammad's tactics in similar circumstances in order to identify the roots of the tactics of the various Jihadi groups active in this conflict.

Regarding the Jews and also the Christians, Allah commands Muslims in the Koran: " Fight the Jews and Christian, until they are subdued to dhimmi status and pay poll-tax (Jiziya) in humiliation" [Q 9:29]. About one of Prophet's last wishes in his dead-bed , Ibn Hisham notes: "Let there remain no faith than Islam in Arabia" [1]. Islamic traditions also record one of Prophet's death-bed wishes was: " Lord! Destroy the Jews and Christians." Thus, the existence of Jewish state in the Arabian region with honor and dignity is not clearly allowed in Islam. The initial actions of the Arab world and of various terrorists groups later are only the extension of this command of Islam.

I will now investigate as to how the tactics of Prophet Muhammad are being applied in minute details by the various Islamist groups in Palestine. Within about 6 years of the Prophet Muhammad's emigration (Hijra) from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, the Muslims had exterminated the various resilient tribes around Medina , mainly the Jews, who did not willingly submit to Islam. The last Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza was exterminated in 628 CE by means of mass slaughter of their 800-900 adult men, capture of their women and children as slaves and confiscating their lands and assets as spoils of war [Koran 33:26-27; Ibn Hisham, p684ff; Ibn Sa'd p53f].

With no adversary in the vicinity of Medina , the confident Prophet cast his eye on Mecca, his ancestral city, the inhabitant Koreish of which had rejected his new religion. Muhammad urged all the tribes to join an expedition during the lesser pilgrimage (Omra) in 628 and assembled a strong force of 1500 men and advanced towards Mecca seeking to force into the Ka'ba, the most sacred temple for the pagans of Arabian Peninsula , to perform the rituals of Omra. As the news of this advance arrived in Mecca, they assembled their force around the city, determined to resist entry of the Muslim army.

It should be noted that the Muslims had attacked Mecca trade caravan passing through routes around Medina starting in 623 CE, which resulted in complete stoppage of Mecca's life-sustaining trades with Syria. In a number of blood-letting attacks, Meccans had lost many of their comrades, too. Also during the early days of his preaching in Mecca, the Prophet had also laid a claim on the sacred temple of Ka'ba being founded by Abraham and his son Ishmael and belonging to his own God, Allah.

Learning of the preparation of the Koreish and sensing a definite blood-bath of unknown quantum, the Prophet stopped on the way at a place called Hudaibiyya and sent emissaries to Mecca for a negotiation. Muhammad persisted on his intention to enter the sacred temple of Ka'ba for performing Omra peacefully. Mecca citizens, on the other hand, were both worried and adamant against allowing Muhammad to enter their city and their sacred temple of centuries, which would be a case of extreme embarrassment for them, too. [2]

At one point, Prophet's son-in-law, Othman, was sent to the Koreish camp for negotiations. Bargaining with the Koreish was taking a bit long for him to return and rumors started brewing in the Muslim camp that Othman had been murdered. Muhammad quickly assembled all his faithful under an acacia tree bounded them by the pledge to stand by 'Othman to the death'. All had completed the oath one by one, what became known as the famous "Pledge of the Tree" in Islamic annals. Their religious fervor was exited to such a degree that all of them were in a suicidal mood to rush upon the enemy at once.

Just about that time, Othman reappeared in the Muslim camp, avoiding a sheer blood-bath. Realizing Muhammad's determination to enter Mecca and sensing that a military confrontation would cause heavy blood-bath on both sides, the Mecca citizens acceded to Muhammad's demand to enter the Ka'ba for the pilgrimage but starting only next year. So, a truce was signed which demanded no hostility for ten years during which the Muslims would be allowed to enter Mecca and perform the annual pilgrimage peacefully. [2]

Next year in 629, Muhammad went back to Mecca during the same pilgrimage. The Mecca citizens left the city for three days allowing the Muslims perform the pilgrimage without interference. By the following year (630 CE), Muslim army had grown strong enough to overrun Mecca. Muhammad could not wait until the expiration of the 10-year truce and started preparation to attack Mecca to capture the city and the centuries-old sacred temple of Ka'ba. [3]

Hearing the news of build-up of a massive force in Medina , the helpless leader of Mecca, Abu Sufian, the father-in-law of Muhammad, proceeded to Medina to plead with his son-in-law against attacking his people. He had to return Mecca empty-handed after being denied a meeting with Muhammad. With little regard for the treaty, Muhammad launched his expedition to attack Mecca and when Abu Sufian once again set forth to negotiate with advancing Muslim army. His brother Al-Abbas, who had joined the Muslim camp only a few days earlier, presented him with the choice of submission to Islam or death: " See ye not the myriad of candles above the camp? Believe (in Islam); cast thy lot with us; else thy mother and thy house will weep for thee." When Abu Sufian showed some hesitancy, Al-Abbas exclaimed: " Woe is thee! It is not time for hesitancy, this. Believe and Testify forthwith with the creed of Islam, or else, thy neck shall be in danger." Abu Sufian converted forthwith and returned to his people asking them to submit to Islam or else shut themselves in their houses to avoid definite death at the hands of Muhammad army. Thereupon, Muhammad's army entered the city, captured the Ka'ba and destroyed the vestiges of idolatry and established the rule of Islam over the city [3].

The message one must take home from this event is the brilliant tactics Prophet Muhammad had applied by signing the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. It would have been a disaster for Muhammad to engage in a head-on battle at the time when he only 1500 men under his charge, while the Koreish of Mecca could assemble a force of 10,000 men. Yet, Muhammad was ruthlessly intent on overrunning Mecca at an opportune time in order to capture the Ka'ba - which had become the focus of Islamic creed, the house of Allah. So he insisted on a temporal ceasefire of hostility, in stead of offering the terms of permanent peaceful coexistence. This treaty gave him an opportunity to build up his forces strong enough to overrun Mecca at a later time. Although a 10-year truce was signed, Muhammad broke the agreement and attacked Mecca within two years as his force became strong enough to overrun the coveted city.

From the treaty of Hudaibiyya and the subsequent capture of Mecca and Ka'ba two years later, the evident message of the master tactician Prophet of Islam is such: 'When you are weaker against your enemy, do not jump into a suicidal war. In stead, sign a truce of nonaggression for a while during which you could build up the force and ammunition and when you are strong enough to overrun the enemy, dump the truce and launch the attack' . Exactly the same message was resonated in former Malaysia leader Mahathir Muhammad's famous 2003 OIC speech in Kuala Lumpur, which urged the Muslim world to walk in the footsteps of the Prophet. He said:

"The Quran tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react positively. True the treaty offered is not favorable to us. But we can negotiate. The Prophet did, at Hudaibiyah. And in the end he triumphed. "

He continued:

"1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weakness and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter attack."

He further added:

"We are enjoined by our religion to prepare for the defense of the Ummah. Unfortunately we stress not defense but the weapons of the time of the Prophet. Those weapons and horses cannot help to defend us any more. We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defense."

Whether paying heeds to the entreaty of the Malaysian leader or not, the current strategy of the various Islamist groups, namely Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, fighting for the destruction of Israel clearly demonstrates their adoption of exactly the same strategy Prophet Muhammad had applied in Hudaibiyya at the dawn of Islam. With Israel's insurmountable power at the present, these terrorist groups, intent on destroying the Jewish state as and when the opportunity comes, are insisting on a ceasefire, not the offer of peaceful coexistence. They seek this period of truce to build up the military might in term of recruiting the fighters, acquiring the weapons and if possible nuclear weapons for a decisive blow to the tiny Jewish land. Iran, the mother of these terrorist outfits, is rushing fast to acquire the nuclear weapons in defiance of the world. The hope is that as soon as the definite opportunity to launch a devastating blow arrives, the ceasefire would be thrown in the waste-dump and Israel will be turned into ashes.

Effective usages of such a strategy is quite in evidence in Hezbollah's usage of a long-held ceasefire to stock up its weaponry, strengthen its defenses and increase its recruitment such that the Israeli army, known to be invincible in the middle east, had to offer a ceasefire in its recent war against Hezbollah. Hamas was also applying similar tactics over the years as a guerrilla group. However, the new reality after the Palestinians overwhelmingly voted the Jihadist group to power in free and fair democratic election; they are facing a difficult choice unlike the Hezbollah in Lebanon, who does not have the responsibility of governing. After forming the Government, the responsibility of running and financing the state machinery have fallen on the shoulder of Hamas. The government in Palestine is heavily dependent on aid from the Western nations, who stopped giving aid to Hamas government because of its charter for the destruction of a sovereign nation. The humanitarian aid however has continued to flow.

This has put the Hamas government in a difficult position. It has failed to pay salaries to civil servants, teachers and doctors resulting in a dire situation in Palestine. Under such hopeless situation, the moderate president Mahmoud Abbas has stepped in to salvage the situation. He was negotiating on the formation of a unity government between his Fatah and Hamas and pleaded with Hamas to recognize the Jewish state as part of the unity Government, hoping that such a government would receive Western aid. There seems to have been some initial agreement on part of Hamas on such an arrangement since President Abbas declared during recent UN general assembly in New York that a coalition Government is going to be formed between Hamas and his Fatah party which will recognize Israel's legitimate existence. After this announcement, Hamas quickly denied such an agreement, which must have been a slap on the face of the Palestine president.

However, further intense negotiation followed under mediation of Egypt and Qatar without a breakthrough. President Abbas declared all avenues of negotiation with Hamas have failed. Verily so! Accusing President Abbas of ruining the formation of unity government, Hamas spokesperson said:

Hamas has denied talks were at a dead end, but said the latest initiative, presented in Gaza by Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, was unacceptable because it included recognition of Israel.

Hamas says it will never recognize Israel and will abide only by peace agreements with the Jewish state that it believes are in the interests of the Palestinian people. [ Reuters, October 24th, 2006]

By peace agreement, they meant a temporary truce or ceasefire of hostility, not a permanent agreement for peaceful co-existence with Israel. The detailed strategy of the noble Prophet of Islam at Hudaibiyya is in detailed application by Hamas. Howsoever difficult the situation be, they must not offer terms of permanent peace to the enemies of Islam, whom the Prophet had commanded to exterminate from Arabia in his dead-bed. So is the divine command of Allah [Koran 9:23]. Allah and his Prophet must be giving 'bravo' to Hamas sitting in heaven. And Dr Mahathir couldn't probably expect anything better.

--------------

References:

[1] Prophet's biography by Ibn Hisham, p1021

[2] Prophet's biography by Ibn Hisham, p 740ff; Al-Waqidi, p214ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p69ff

[3] Prophet's biography by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff