The christian west confronted by militant islam

The Christian West Confronted by Militant Islam 632-2003 C.E. G. Richard Jansen Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 January 1, 2002, Revised January 1, 2003 Introduction On September 11, 2001 the continental United States (i.e. the lower 48 states), was directly attacked by a foreign enemy for the first time since the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington by the British. At 8:45 a.m. on a clear morning American Airlines flight 11, hijacked by Islamic terrorists on a flight from Boston's Logan Airport to Los Angeles with 92 passengers on board slammed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Shortly after this unthinkable occurrence a second hijacked plane, United flight 175 also en-route from Logan to Los Angeles slammed into the south tower. Following multiple explosions and tremendous fire and heat, both towers unbelievably collapsed with the estimated loss of life of 3000-4000 innocent people. In addition two other airliners were also hijacked by Islamic terrorist and one was crashed into the Pentagon in Washington and the other was forced to crash in Western Pennsylvania by brave passengers who were aware by cell-phone with what was happening and prevented the terrorists from achieving their fourth objective which apparently was either the White House or the Capitol building itself.

The four planes had been hijacked by 19 Arabs from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries at the direction of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist network with branches all over the world and headed by Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi businessman in Afghanistan. It should be noted that his Saudi citizenship had been taken from him and he had been deported from both Saudi Arabia and Sudan prior to setting up his

headquarters in Afghanistan. These attacks in New York and Washington were rightly described by President Bush as evil and as "acts of war", views agreed to by an overwhelming percentage of the American people.

The President also told the American people that not only were these attacks acts of war but that the United States was entering into a prolonged struggle against world terrorism in which our objective will be to destroy world terrorism and hold all nations accountable for giving aid or sanctuary to the terrorists. He made it very clear that there are only two positions possible for nation states; a country either will work with the United States against terrorism or we will consider them allies of the terrorists. On these views multiple national polls indicate that President Bush has the support of 85-90% of the American people. This country has not been so united since the attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941.

These recent terrorist attacks, because of their brazenness and evil nature came as shattering surprises, but shouldn t have since Osama bin Laden had publically declared war on the West in general and the United States in particular three years ago in the following statement: Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement: 23 February 1998 Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan Fazlul Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem

(of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone: First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "AlBada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it [EMPHASIS ADDED], in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam,

defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are illtreated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty God said: "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life.

And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty God also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter?

But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter.

Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."

Almighty God also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

Prior to this statement in 1998, Al-Qaeda had killed American Rangers in Mogadishu, Somalia, carried out a truck bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 and the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Since the above 1998 statement Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar-es Salaam Tanzania with much loss of life and the attack on the U.S. Cole in Aden, Yemen killing many sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

This statement should be read carefully by all Americans. The United States has described this war as a war against terrorism. However, our enemy has declared this war to be a holy war, and indeed a resumption of the war between Islam and the Byzantine empire and the Christian Crusaders at the turn of the last millennium. It is the intent of this essay to review the 1500 years during which Western Civilization has been confronted by militant Islam.

It is clear that hatred of the West and Western Civilization runs deep in the Islamic world. Even more so is this true for Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups. Questions to be considered are how did we arrive at the present situation and what does the future hold.

The Christian World at the Birth of Islam.

In the early 4th century the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity and the Roman Empire became Christian. In the middle of the 5th century the Western Empire fell to Germanic tribes from the north but remained Christian. The Eastern or Byzantine Empire centered in Constantinople remained Christian for another thousand years before falling to the Turks in 1453. In the West, were located the dioceses of Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy and Africa. In the East were the dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia, Thrace, Pontus, Asia, East, and Egypt. The Mediterranean Sea was in essence a Roman and a Christian lake. In 570, about the time Mohammed is believed to have been born,

most of Europe and Asia Minor including the northern, eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean were Christian.

Christians lived in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and in Persia. Even in Arabia, entire Arab tribes were Christians and many other tribes and larger communities included substantial Christian populations. These Christian populations were present throughout the Arabian peninsula extending even to the extreme southern tip.

Origins of Islam: Muhammed There are no contemporaneous written accounts of either Muhammed's birth or his life. The earliest written biographies were written at least 100 years after his death, much longer than is the case for Christ. What is known and what is excerpted in this essay comes from oral traditions, anecdotal comments in the Hadith and from the Koran itself. Muhammed was born around 570 in Mecca in that part of western Arabia along the Red Sea referred to as the Hejaz. His mother died when he was quite young and he was raised by his grandfather, a prominent member of the Hashim family in the Koraysh tribe. Mecca was a trading center with a developing relatively wealthy merchant class. Muhammed married a wealthy widow named Khadija who was an unknown number of years older than he, and as long as she was alive he took no other wives. She owned a trading company and Muhammed became first her business agent, and then her husband.

In and around Mecca and in the Hejaz lived Jewish and Christian tribes as well as pagans, who were for the most part polytheistic.

However apart from these non-Jewish, non-Christian tribes were others that were already monotheistic, thus Muhammed did not bring monotheism to the Arabian peninsula although he obviously greatly strengthened and expanded monotheism, the belief in a single allpowerful God. These monotheists before Muhammed were known as Hanifs and included Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians, as well as Arabs who claimed descent from Abraham as later did Muhammed.

The tradition says that Muhammed was introspective by nature who spent time by himself meditating. He became upset at the corruption, idolatry and polytheistic worship that was predominant in the Korysh tribe, his tribe, that basically ran Mecca. Among other such experiences, while alone he went to the Cave of Hira to meditate when he heard a voice of and saw a vision of a man, subsequently identified as the Angel Gabriel who recited to Muhammed the revelations from Allah that form the earliest chapters or suras in what became in time known as the Holy Koran. After this he had multiple visions and seizures and with Khadija's help and encouragement became convinced he was the prophet of Allah or God with the mandate to reveal God's will to all mankind.

In 621 a group of twelve men took an oath with Muhammed not to worship idols, lie, commit adultery or kill their infant daughters. They also pledged to obey Muhammed and thereby became his twelve disciples analogous to the twelve apostles of Christ. This may be said to be the beginning of what became known as Islam; submission to Allah and Muhammed as his prophet. However, Muhammed's message and his ideas were not well received in Mecca and most of his at this time several hundred followers either lived in or went to live in Yathrib, a town now known as Medina located approximately 250 miles north of Mecca. Muhammed and his few remaining converts fled from Mecca to Medina at night in June 622, an event referred to as the hegira or flight. This term also refers to the last ten years of Muhammed's life 622-232, the beginning of Muhammed's ministry and the beginning of the Muslim era, Islam.

Muhammed was faced with the task of establishing a base of power and authority in Medina where resided already a number of powerful tribes. He accomplished this in relatively short order. In February 623, only months after his arrival in Medina Muhammed organized and led raiding parties against Meccan caravans thus adding considerably to the wealth he had inherited from his wife Kadija. A bloody victory under

Muhammed's direct command was won at Badr, where 350 of his men fought and defeated 700 Meccans. After this the raiding parties against Meccan caravans increased in frequencies until finally the Meccans attacked and defeated Muhammed and his men in the Battle of Ohod where 74 of Muhammed's men were killed along with 19 Meccans.

However, the Meccans did not follow up this victory and Muhammed resumed his raids on the Meccan and other caravans thus greatly adding to his wealth and that of his men.

Muhammed organized his followers, those who followed him to Medina, into a community called the Umma. Having admired the moral code of the Jews, he preached a belief in one God, Allah, and a religion based on a distinction between good and evil. His goal was to bring the lawless Bedouin tribes into a moral system based on charity, love, and equality among all followers, i.e. Muslims to be.

Muhammed and the Jews Initially Muhammed was favorably disposed toward the Jews. Much of the Koran is based on Jewish scripture, i.e. the Old Testament as revealed to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel, a biblical figure. In Mecca and Medina and in the rest of the Hejaz resided many Arab tribes that were Jewish, and some were quite wealthy. The Koran describes Jews and Christians as privileged People of the Book, and on their part the Jews appreciated and supported Muhammed's efforts to extirpate idolatry and polytheism. However as Muhammed's power increased in Medina, he increasingly insisted that the Jews should acknowledge his claim to be God's Prophet and that Judaism had been superceded by his new dispensation from God. For many valid and theologically well based reasons the Jews not surprisingly refused this demand. This angered Muhammed and in response he changed the direction Muslims should face when praying from Jerusalem, which was his first edict, to Mecca as it is today. In 625 Muhammed ordered the Jews in the community of Nadhir out of their homes and to move to Syria. He

and his followers seized the homes and property of the departed Jews.

The next act in this process occurred in Medina in April 627 when the last Jewish tribe was annihilated by Muhammed and his men following what is known as the Battle of the Ditch. Eight hundred Jewish captives with their hands tied behind their backs were led to a trench and under Muhammed's order and in his presence were beheaded. Their lands, chattel, weapons, wealth and cattle were divided among Muhammed s men. Approximately 1300 Jewish women and children were sold into slavery to surrounding tribes. The last major action against the Jews occurred in 628 when Muhammed and his men attacked and captured the wealthy Jewish oasis of Khaybar on the route to Syria.

The spoils of war were tremendous and considerably enriched Muhammed and his followers. The chief of the Jewish tribe was captured and beheaded. Muhammed took the chief's young wife for his own.

Muhammed and the Christians As a child Muhammed's first nurse was a Christian woman from Abyssinia (Ethiopia). In hsi life Muhammed was acquainted with many Christians including Christian Monks that he knew well, and was exposed to and familiar with many Christian influences and doctrines.

His influential first wife Khadija had strong Christian links.

As was the case with the Jews, in the beginning of his ministry Muhammed was favorably disposed to the Christians. The Christian Gospel was considered by Muhammed to be of divine authority. He considered Jesus to be a divine messenger or prophet of God, and the Christian Gospel was in fact the word of God, the Good News, and the truth. However, in view of his struggles with some of the Arab tribes over polytheism, he could not accept Christ as the Son of God nor accept the Christian Trinity, and therefore Christ was not divine. In this he received moral support from the Jews. Muhammed apparently

misunderstood the Trinity as God, Jesus and Mary, not too surprising in view of the development of Mariolatry in the Catholic Church.

Muhammed did not believe that Christ was crucified on the cross.

Rather he believed that someone else took his place. However, Muhammed did accept the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

According to the Koran, both Christ and Mary were taken up bodily into heaven. Muhammed and his followers asserted that Muhammed was the Holy Comforter spoken of in the Bible, the Paraclete. This claim was not accepted by Christians.

Unfortunate, as was the case for the Jews, after Muhammed consolidated his power in Medina he increasingly became hostile to Christians, as Christians increasingly resisted his religious claims.

Muhammed in 630 led a large military force to the city of Tabuk, 250 miles northwest of Medina and forced the Christians there to pay a heavy tax and tribute in order to prevent Muhammed and his men from attacking the city. This was also done to other Christian towns and cities. Muhammed informed Christian cities in the Hejaz that he was the Prophet of God and they must submit to Islam and pay required tithes, taxes and tribute or face retribution. The situation did not improve with the Caliphs who succeeded Muhammed on his death.

In January 630, eight years after his flight from Mecca to Medina, Muhammed and 10, 000 of his followers reentered Mecca as its conqueror. He was conciliatory toward those who had opposed him and placated the people in the city who now pledged allegiance to him..

He departed Mecca in about two weeks, Muhammed died two years later in 632. In the last two years of his life he consolidated his rule, both temporally and spiritually among all of the tribes in the Hejaz in Western Arabia.

The Religion of Islam Islamic religious beliefs are based on the Koran and the hadiths, o.e. the syings of Muhammed. These beliefs are summarized in the Pillars

of Islam and the Pillars of Faith in Islam. The Pillars of Islam are the five duties required of all Muslims: 1) the profession of faith that there is no god but Allah: Muhammed is the prophet of Allah, 2) ritual prayer five times a day with the face turned toward the shrine of the Ka'bah in Mecca, 3) paying the alms tax levied to benefit the poor and needy, 4) fasting from sun-up to sun-down during the holy month of Ramadan, and 5) at least one pilgrimage to Mecca, i.e. the Hajj.

The six Pillars of Faith in Islam are: 1) belief in God (Allah), 2) belief in Allah's angels, 3) belief in Allah's revealed books including the Koran, the New Testament, Psalms of David, and the Pages of Abraham, 4) belief in Allah's messengers including many of the prophets of the Jewish scriptures as listed below, Jesus, John the Baptist and previous Arab prophets such as Hud and Salih, 5) belief in the Last Day, a belief very similar to Christian eschatology including an intercessory role for Jesus, and a belief in a prophetic figure, the Mahdi, to come after Jesus, and 6) belief in Allah's determination of affairs whether good or bad, as in "it is the will of Allah."

The Koran The Koran is considered by Muslims to be the word of God, Allah, as revealed to his prophet Muhammed. It is believed by pious Muslims to provide revelation from God that is complete, unalterable and final, and is not subject to change or amendment. The intermediary in these revelations to Muhammed was the Angel Gabriel. It is clear that Muhammed's understanding of these revelations was influenced by his knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, the Jwish scriptures (Christian Old Testament) as well as the teachings of Jesus. It was his view that the Jews from the time of Jacob, i.e. Israel had gone astray and that his revelations expressed the true word of God in the lineage from Abraham to his son Ishmael via Hagar. Abraham was born in Ur, south of present day Baghdad in Mesopotamia, present day Iraq, moved

north along the Euphates river to Haran, and then after staying in Haran many years journeyed south to Canaan, present day Palestine.

In the tradition of Islam and Judaism, both Jews and Arabs are Semites, i.e. descendants of Noah's son Shem. According to the Islamic tradition Abraham traveled to Medina in the Hejaz with his Egyptian servant Hagar and their son Ishmael. God asked Abraham to offer up his first son Ishmael as a human sacrifice which Abraham was prepared to do until divine intervention produced a sheep to be used in Ishmael s place. In this tradition Ishmael became the progenitor of all the Arabs. In the Biblical tradition God asked Abraham to offer up his second son Isaac as a human sacrifice and who was subsequently spared. Isaac was the progenitor of the Jews and his son Jacob took the name Israel. Thus the importance of Abraham to both the Jewish and the Islamic tradition and indeed to the Christian tradition as well.

Many Bible stories and Biblical history are repeated in the Koran. The Jewish Torah, the first five books in the Bible, is considered to be definitive law in the Islamic faith. In the Koran it is described as a "perfect code for the righteous." The Koran includes from the Bible the creation story, Adam and Eve's fall, Cain and Abel, Noah and the flood, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon and many other Biblical stories and events.Of the twenty-seven prophets mentioned in the Koran exclusive of Muhammed, twenty-two are from the Old Testament including Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. Three are from the New Testament; John the Baptist, his father Zechariah and Jesus.

The Koran consists of 114 suras, or chapters. Some of these revelations were made to Muhammed in Mecca before the hegira or flight to Medina. These are the Meccan suras. The Medinan suras, approximately two thirds of all suras, are longer than the Meccan suras and exhibit less apparent religious enthusiasm. There is more tolerance for other faiths and even pagan Arabs in the Meccan suras than suras from the Medinan period after Muhammed had consolidated political and military power, and religious authority. The suras were recorded by scribes, called ameneunses, since it is believed that Muhammed

neither read nor write. Some were Christians, some were several of his wives and other Muslims who could read and write.

At the time of Muhammed's death in 632 the Koran had not yet been compiled and assembled. The first uniform text of the Koran was fixed in 655, twenty three years after Muhammed's death. It is not known who arranged the order and named the suras in their present form. It is likely that information about Jewish and Christian theology and history was incorporated into the Koran in its formative years from written sources present in the region in pre-islamic times. There is so much Old Testament material in the Koran that is it difficult to Imagine one man, no matter how gifted, memorizing it on hearing it from the Angel Gabriel, and transcribing it with the aid of his scribes.

The Hadiths In contrast to the Koran, which consists of recited revelations from God, i.e. recited to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel, the hadiths represents un-recited revelations from God based on statements made and actions taken by Muhammed during his lifetime. The earliest collections were not started until a century and a half after Muhammed' death. There were a number of such collections. Perhaps the best known and most authoritative was assembled by Muhammed al-Bukhar, a Persian, over a seventeen year period. He collected 200,000 hadiths and rejected 400,000 others as being unfit for consideration. Out of the 200,000 he selected about 7300 and considering redundancies about 2700 unique hadiths resulted. Sunni Muslims have six collections of hadiths they consider authoritative, Shia Muslims have a different set of five.

Muslim Sharia Law Muslim law is based on the Koran, the Hadith, or sayings of Muhammed and inherited custom (sunni). In addition as Islam spread a large accumulation of foreign elements were incorporated from more civilized non-Muslim societies such as those in Mesopotamia, Persia,

Syria, Palestine and Egypt along with legal concepts from Jews, Christian and Zoroastrians.

Islamic Practices There is of course more to Islam than the brief Pillars, the Koran, the hadiths, and the Sharia law. As will be discussed later, jihad, or holy war, is imbedded in Islam from the very beginning, and is a sacred duty for Muslims. The Koran states that infidels or unbelievers should not be tolerated and "when you meet infidels strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them." Also "seek out, ambush, besiege, seize and slay unbelievers wherever they are found unless they are converted to Islam ." As was also the case in Biblical times slavery was an established fact and way of life during Muhammed's life. In contrast to the Christian West where slavery was eliminated in the 19th century at the initiative of Evangelical Christians, slavery persisted in some Islamic countries until current times and persists even until the present day in Sudan.

One of the suras, or chapters in the Koran is entitled Spoils. This sura deals with the spoils of war and how they should be divided up. In the Arab conquests to be discussed, the Sword of Islam resulted in forced conversions or minimally heavy taxation and property confiscation and maximally death.

According to the Koran a man is entitled to four wives, if he will take care of them, and an unlimited number of concubines. According to the Koran women must stay in their homes as much as possible. They are not to show themselves unveiled to any man either in or out of the home except to a small select group of close relations.

A striking aspect of Islam is the sexual paradise for men but not for women described in the Koran. As described in the Koran in the pleasure domes of paradise men will be attended by beautiful young boys who will serve the elect with bounteous food, fruits and goblets of such fine wine that will neither result in headaches nor will disturb the reason. The blessed will be face to face with dark eyed damsels of stainless purity, virgins with swelling breasts who neither man nor jinn

(a kind of spirit lower than angels) have touched. The virgins will remain "ever young, ever beautiful and ever ready to serve."

Whether they will remain ever virgins is not described in the Koran.

Faithful Muslim wives and true Muslim women will also go to paradise, but perhaps without youthful men or boys as company.

Successors to Muhammed.

On Muhammed's death in 632, after some initial uncertainty, his second in command Abu Bakr became the first Caliph, meaning in arabic successor. He swiftly consolidated his power against his opponents, particularly those in Medina and Yemen. Upon his death, possibly by poisoning, he was succeeded as the second Caliph by Umar, his deputy. Neither of these two Caliphs were of the family of Hashim, i.e. Mohammad's family and there were significant numbers of believers who felt that Ali, husband of Muhammed ' daughter Fatima, was the rightful heir to the Caliphate. In time the supporters of Ali became known as the Shi'a, i.e. the party of Ali. After the murder of Umar in 644, the third Caliph was Othman of the Omayyad clan or family. He, in turn was murdered in 656 and was succeeded, finally, by Ali. Unfortunately Ali was murdered in 661 and the Omayyad clan came back into power.

The first four Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Othman and Ali collectively became known as the Medina Caliphate. In 661 the Omayyad Caliphate began and after moving the Caliphate to Damascus in Syria ruled until replaced by the Abbasid Caliphate in 750 which moved the Caliphate to Baghdad.. The first of the Abbasid Caliphs, Abul Abbas, started his rule by rounding up members of the deposed Omayyad family, inviting them to a banquet and then slaughtering them. The nominal suzerainty of the Abbasids was ended by the Mongol conquest in 1258.

Hulagu, the Mongol, in 1258 initiated a massacre in Baghdad that lasted a month. The Mongols sacked Baghdad, destroyed most of the city and killed possibly as many as 800,000 of its residents. Following this event, multiple Caliphates and Sultanates existed in the Islamic world. In 908

a Caliphate was established by Abu Muhammed Obaydulla, a leader of the Shi'a sect. This Caliphate lasted until 1171 and these Caliphs became known as Fatimids, in honor of Fatima, Ali's wife and Muhammed's daughter. The Mongols, some of whose leaders were converted to Islam were followed by the Seljuq Turks and eventually the Ottoman Turks who established the Turkish Sultanate and Caliphate and ruled the Islamic world until 1919, the end of the World War I, and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire as will be discussed later.

The Arab and Islamic Conquest The spread of Islam in the first one hundred years after Muhammed's death was by Arab conquest and the force of military arms. By 660, less than thirty years after the death of Muhammed, the Medina Caliphate ruled all of the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and much of Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran). After Muhammed died in 632, the first Caliph Abu Bakr led the invasion of Syria. During this military action in 634, the whole region between Gaza and Caesarea including Palestine and the Holy Land was devastated. Four thousand peasants, Christians and Jews, were massacred. During the campaigns in Mesopotamia, between 635 and 642 monasteries were sacked, and monks killed. According to the Chronicle of John written by the Bishop of Nikiu in approximately 695, as the Arabs advanced into Egypt "whoever gave themselves up to them was massacred, they spared neither the old nor the women or children." In North Africa Tripoli was pillaged in 643 and Carthage razed to the ground with most of the inhabitants killed.

By 750, the end of the Omayyad Caliphate and the beginning of the Abbasid Caliphate, North Africa, Spain and the Sind region of Northern India had been incorporated into the Muslim Empire. Spain was conquered in 712. The Muslim armies then crossed the Pyrenees and invaded France, raided the southern coast of France, now called the

Moorish Coast, before being defeated by Charles Martel and his men in 732 at the Battle of Poitiers, two hundred miles from Paris.

Most but not all of the population in these conquered lands in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia Minor were converted to Islam. At that time the religious distinctions among Judaism, Christianity and Islam among the un-lettered masses of people were not as clearly delineated as they are today, since so much of the Koran was related to Jewish scripture and in Islam Jesus was venerated as a prophet, although not as the Son of God. An important question to be answered is why the Arab invaders were so successful in converting Eastern Christendom, the very lands that had become Christian in the first hundred years after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, to Islam so quickly. there is no one that has answered this question so well as Bat Ye'or in her book: Islam and Dhimmitude:Where Civilizations Collide. The following analysis is taken directly from this book.

"The Arab conquest which followed domination by Byzantium embraced a multitude of peoples from diverse ethnic groups, languages, and cultures. The Christianization of the ancient world, pursued since the conversion of Constantine, represented not only the eradication of paganism but primarily an attempt for religious uniformization in the Eastern and Western Christian empires. The pagan world was collapsing and Christianity was emerging from the ruins. But in effecting its fusion with Christianity, paganism brought its beliefs, distortions, and constant sources of renewed schisms and conflicts. The institution of the Church, the formulation of worship and its liturgy, and the budding of a patristic literature, grew and developed amid a profusion of heresies and violent theological anathemas. Ethnic and cultural divisions blended into the temporal interests of the powerful Churches, heirs to the pagan priesthood's colossal wealth. The Church, linked with the imperial Byzantine power, attempted to combat voices of dissent expressed in the Christological debate:

Arianism (in North Africa, and Spain), Nestorianism, and Monophysitism (in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria, Armenia). Throughout the Empire the struggle to unify the Christian faith gave rise to bloody religious revolts, the crucifixion of dissident monks, and murderous fanaticism supported by a repressive legislative apparatus, inspired by canon law.

These conflicts between Church and State, and between the different Christian denominations, appeared at every level: at the levels of the priorities of episcopal sees, the demarcation of dioceses, the autonomy of financial sources, and the appointment of bishops. At the level of dogma, the imperial authority intervened to impose the councils' doctrinal decisions upon recalcitrant bishops. Lastly, a juridical conflict developed between the Byzantine state, heir to Roman jurisdiction with its respect for the different religions of its subjects, and the Church which tried to replace it with canon law in order to impose a rigid system of religious intolerance and exclusivism in all areas.

After the Arab conquest, Muslim caliphs and governors knew how to play upon the inter-Christian dissension in order to impose Islam irrevocably on Christian countries. The Monophysite wish to be rid of the Chalcedonian Greeks had facilitated the Persian, and then the Arab, conquest of Egypt, :Mesopotamia, and Syria; the conquest of Spain was organized by princes and dissident bishops. The Arab advance into Armenia, then the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and the Balkans, were based on the same alliances and betrayals in high imperial and ecclesiastical circles. The alliance between the turban and the tiara constituted a major factor in the Islamic progression, the patriarch under Islam regaining the legislative and economic power which the Christian state had disputed. In fact, the rallying of the Eastern Churches to the Arab-Islamic government reflected the power struggles between the Christian state and the Churches. It was through this loophole that Islam, by gratifying the patriarchs' ambitions for economic and religious autonomy, was able to ensure their collaboration, amenability, and betrayal in the defeat of the Christian state.

Christians who collaborated with Muslim armies-princes, bishops, governors, tribes, or mercenaries-are known historical persons, designated by name and office. During the Arab invasion of the seventh century, Tagrit (Iraq) was betrayed by the Monophysite Archbishop Marutha, Hira (Iraq) by its Nestorian bishop, and Egypt ceded by the Melchite Governor-Bishop Cyrus. Michael the Syrian mentions collaboration by the Coptic patriarch Benjamin; Damascus was surrendered by its Melchite governor, Mansur b.Sarjun, who received from the Arabs the administration of the provinces. One of the leaders of Hims (Syria), Abu Ju'ayd, is also recorded as a traitor to the Byzantines and as having been active in the capture of Jerusalem which was handed over without a battle by the patriarch Sophronius. The invasion of Spain was organized by Prince Julian and by Bishop Oppas.

The Christian Arab tribes-Monophysite and Nestorian-who provided the Muslims with information or assisted them in the seventh century are well known. Fully documented, likewise, are the defections by Armenian mercenaries, the accession of Christian collaborators to the highest offices under the caliphate, the goodwill toward the Islamic authority on the part of the Nestorian, Monophysite, and Melchite patriarchs.

However, the illusions were short-lived. Less than fifty years after the conquest, the wave of destructions of churches, amply recorded by Christian and Muslim chroniclers, swept over the whole dar al-Islam.

Repression harshened under Harun aI-Rashid (786-809), while his son, al-Ma'mun (813-33), dealt the death-blow to the Copts' revolts by massacres and deportations. This is the period-with a few remissions here and there-of that long hellish descent for the Churches, corroded by simony and the corruption established by the sale of ecclesiastical offices to the highest bidder-a system which ruined Christian communities and favored a trend toward Islamization.

As the inter-Christian divisions were an essential factor in stabilizing Islamic power, the authorities were quick to support and exploit them.

The caliph was able to manage the large Christian populations, who

constituted the majority of his subjects at the beginning of the conquests, by playing on the rivalries between Melchites, Monophysites, and Nestorians through the grant of a favor or the transfer of a church. The caliph entrusted to the patriarch the task of collecting the taxes extorted from his flock, leaving him only with a pittance. The chronicles record in detail these relationships based on money and violence and always involving torture, from the lowest social level to its summit. Equally, one should have few illusions about the appointment of high Christian officials, particularly to the Treasury.

Integrated into this Islamic machinery for the destruction of Christendom, they could, by a gesture, temporarily slow it down, temper it, or exacerbate it, but could not abolish it".

Major Divisions in Islam The most significant division within Islam is between Sunni and Shi 'a Muslims. This division began as a struggle for succession and leadership of Islam at the time of Muhammed's death in 632.

Muhammed's deputy Abu Bakr was chosen to be the first Caliph, or successor to Muhammed. A significant number of Muhammed's followers strongly disagreed, and held that Ali, husband of Muhammed's daughter Fatima and thus from Muhammed's family should be chosen. Ali was chosen to be the fourth Caliph, but was murdered in 661 by a Muslim from a rival faction after the First Civil War. This war also saw the son of Ali murdered by the victorious Umayyed's who established the next caliphate. This crystalized the Shi'a's, i.e the party of Ali as a permanent minority and dissenting party.

The remaining Muslims became known as Sunni Muslims or the party of tradition. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims follow Muhammed and the Koran. Most Muslims in the world follow the Sunni tradition. Sunni's believe that the first four caliphs were rightful successors to Muhammed, while Shi'ites obviously do not. Sunni's place more emphasis on tradition and consensus building. Using consensus they

were able to incorporate a variety of practices and usages that had arisen over time into their belief system even when support for all such practices could not always be found in the Koran. Sunni's hold that the historical experience of the Sunni community gives theological value to precedent and tradition thus making conformism and obedience religious obligations.

Shi'ites believe that after the death of Muhammed, and especially after the murder of Ali thirty years later Islam took a grievously wrong turn, and as a result the majority, i.e. the Sunni's have been in the words of the historian Bernard Lewis "living in sin." Shi'ites, are a minority among all Muslims, but Shi'ism has been the sole legal faith in Persia/Iran since the 16th century. Shi'ites also differ from Sunni Muslims in having ayatollahs and imams. Ayatollahs are religious leaders, and imams are Muslim leaders believed by Shi'ites to be divinely appointed, sinless infallible successors to Muhammed. The Ayatollah Khomeini led the Iranian revolution that in 1979 led to the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

An important tradition within Sunni Islam is Wahhabism. This movement derived from the teaching of Muhammed ibn Abd alWahhab in the 18th century. This tradition is fundamentalist in the sense that it requires of its adherents a literal interpretation of the Koran and a strict doctrine of predestination. Followers of this doctrine describe themselves as muwahhidin, i.e. as "unitarians" who believe God is one and only one. Wahhabism condemns as un-Islamic the practice of using the name of any prophet, saint or angel in a prayer, calling on them for intercession, making vows to them or visiting tombs for such intercession. In 1744, Abd al-Wahhad, the founder of this tradition obtained the support and commitment of Ibn Saud in Arabia and by 1811 the Wahhabi Saudis established control over most of Arabia. In 1932 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was established with Wahhabism the established religion with Sunni Islam. It was from this

tradition that Osama bin Laden derived his even more extreme form of Islam.

Another religious tradition within Islam is sufism. Sufism is a form of Islamic mysticism that developed in the 7th and 8th centuries and to which Wahhabism was and is strongly opposed. Sufism developed following the murder of Ali, Muhammed s son-in-law, in reaction to the perceived worldliness of the Umayyed caliphs and period. In sufism there exists masters and their bands of disciples. Sufi practice was characterized by saint worship, veneration and visiting tombs and miracles hence the strong opposition from the Wahhabis. Orthodox Muslims also were concerned about the abuse of power and authority by masters toward their disciples. There were strong conflicts in sufism with the shariah, or Islamic law. On the other hand sufism led to a flowering of Islamic and Persian poetry and literature that gave comfort to millions. Its missionary activities in preaching trust in God, faith in God's love have enlarged the fold of the believers. In India by virtue of incorporating earlier pre-Islamic strands of mysticism sufism evolved into dervish orders which emphasized emotionalism and hypnotic ecstatic states.

Dhimmitude and the Dhimmis The origin of dhimmitude and the status of the dhimmis in Islamic societies are well described by Bat Ye'or in her book Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide: "The elimination of the Medina Jews between 624 and 627 enriched the umma. The property of the Banu Nadhir formed the Prophet's share of the war-treasure, while the booty taken from the other tribes was apportioned between the Muslim warriors, the Prophet receiving a fifth. In 628, benefitting from a nonaggression treaty (Hudaybiya) with the Meccans, Muhammad went on to besiege the oasis of Khaybar, 140 kilometers away, cultivated by Jewish peasants. They surrendered after a siege lasting one and a half months. According to Muslim jurisconsults

some centuries later, the agreement (dhimma) made between Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar formed the basis of the dhimmi status. The Prophet allowed the Jews to farm their lands, but only as tenants; he demanded delivery of half their harvest and reserved the right to drive them out when he wished. On these conditions, he granted his dhimma, that is to say, his protection for their lives and safety. Similar pacts were concluded in the same year with Jews living in other oases, Fadak and Wadi'l-Qura (628), Mu'ta (629), as well as with nomadic or sedentary Christianized tribes. These tribes preserved their religion on payment of a tribute (jizya), the symbol of their submission. In exchange, Muhammad undertook to respect their religion and to protect them from Bedouin razzias. Each community could keep its own religious jurisdiction. The dhimma of Khaybar inspired the treaties which the Arab conquerors subsequently granted to the indigenous inhabitants of lands outside Arabia. Later treaties concluded with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were modeled on the letters of protection which Muhammad sent from Tabuk in 630 to the Jewish and Christian populations of Makna (north of the Hijaz, on the gulf of Eilat) and in south Palestine: Eilat,Jarba, and Adhruh".

The dhimmis thus are People of the Book, i.e. Christians and Jews who live in Muslim lands under the authority of Islam. First a word about People of the Book. In Islam the Koran exists eternally and has from the beginning of time. Thus the Koran existed prior to the Bible, both old and new testaments. The Bible is an imperfect and inadequate revelation from God, Allah, and is superseeded by the pre-existing Koran now revealed to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel. Since Christians and Jews are mentioned in the Koran they are People of the Book. However, unless they accept Islam they are nevertheless infidels.

The dhimmis thus are Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands under the "protection" of Islam as discussed above, and their subservient status is defined by Bat Ye'or as one of dhimmitude. Under

Islam, humiliation and degradation of the dhimmis was considered a religious duty. The dhimmis, i.e. Christians and Jews may worship in their faiths, but only in silence and humility. Burials of thedead must be carried out secretly and quietly, and dhimmis and Muslim graves separatedand differentiated. Islamic law is supreme in litigation between Muslims and dhimmis, and evidence and testimony from dhimmis are inadmissible in Islamic courts. Muslims should not associate with dhimmis.

The subsevient status, i.e. the dhimmitude of Christians and Jews was daily emphasized by concious degradation of their status.

Differentiation in clothing was the subject of many detailed regulations.

The dhimmis were not allowed to ride such noble animals as horses and donkeys but must ride only donkeys. When passinf Muslims on the street dhimmis must turn awat their eyes, bow and make way. Houses of the dhimmis must be smaller, of humble and dark appearance.

In the 19th century, as the Islamic world receded and Western, i.e.

European power became dominent in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, much, but not all, of this Islamic order described above was forced the change under the influence of Western ideas of modernity and secularization. Thus under Western duress the dhimmis were freed from a millennium of degradaion. It is of course a reversal of the effects of modernity and secularization and the return of authority of a caliph over all the Islamic world, the umma that Miltant Islam desires.

The Crusades The Muslim Empire, which had expanded so rapidly under the Medina and Omayyad Caliphates, consolidated under the Abbasids who came into the Caliphate in 750. The loose army organization was replaced by smaller highly trained corps of full-time professional soldiers who, in the main, had few ties and little contact with the rest of the population. The Abbasids moved the Caliphate from Damascus to

Baghdad, thus removing it even further from its original Arab birthplace in the Hejaz of Arabia.

The Abbasids were even less tolerant to Christianity than had been the Omayyads, and many thousands of Christian churches and monasteries were closed. Under the Fatimid Caliphate in 969 the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was burned and in 965 the Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem was burned alive on charges of being a Byzantine spy. In 1071 the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV was defeated in Armenia by the Seljuk Turks thus further weakening the Byzantine Empire. Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, continuing a long tradition of such pilgrimages were encountering increasing difficulty in gaining access to the holy places, primarily by extortion of money and humiliation if not by physical force. The response from Christendom came in the form of the Crusades.

In November 1095 Pope Urban II convened a Church Council in Clermont. His chief concern was a breakdown of the Christian peace, or a lawful society in Europe. At the end of the Council meetings and outside the church he addressed a crowd made up primarily of nobles who had been present. He denounced the violence and injustice on the part of some Knights that had contributed to a breakdown of the peace and civil society. He then suggested that they employ their strength rather in defense of their Christian brethren in Eastern lands under Muslim control , specifically the Holy Land of Jesus' birth, life, crucifixion and resurrection, who were being ill treated by the Muslim infidels. The Crusades ended in 1291 when the Crusaders were forced to abandon Acre, their last stronghold. Thus the Crusades lasted two hundred years in the form of eight wars between the Christian Franks, as they were called by their enemy, and the Muslim Arabs and Turks.

The first Crusade was successful in capturing Jerusalem in 1099. The siege and battle were bloody and many Muslims and Jews were massacred. However, such massacres were not systematic and Muslim records in Cairo record that the Franks particularly respected women.

As a result of the first Crusade, a Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was

established that lasted until 1143 when the Crusaders were driven from Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks from Anatolia. The second Crusade ended in a dismal failure. However, by this time Christians and Muslims who had remained in Syria and Palestine had established a reasonable accommodation with each other and a blended civil society resulted.

However, some of the Franks were not satisfied with this status quo and waged a short war in which they were soundly defeated by Saladin in 1187.

The third Crusade, renowned in lore for the battles between Richard the Lion-Hearted and Saladin also was unsuccessful. However Saladin also was unsuccessful in driving the Frankish presence from the Holy Land. The fourth Crusade is known mainly for the sack of Constantinople, the Byzantine Capital in 104l by the Christian Crusaders from the West who established a short lived Latin Kingdom in the East that only lasted until 1234.

Little glory can be awarded to either side in the Crusades. The battles were bloody and there were many massacres of innocents on both sides. The period was characterized by intrigue, treachery, betrayal and broken promises on both sides. It must be noted that the Crusades did not come about because of anti-Muslim fanaticism but rather because of a visceral and deeply rooted attachment to the holy places in the Holy Land. The preeminent historian of Islam Bernard Lewis, at Princeton University points out that the initial Crusades, even including the conquest of Jerusalem attracted little attention in the Muslim world. The real counter-crusade began when the crusaders started to attack the Muslim holy land of the Hejaz, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Professor Lewis points out that in the Arabic historiography of the period the words Crusade or Crusader do not occur. The Christian invaders were referred to as Franks or infidels.

A positive outcome of the Crusades was a weakening of the feudal system in Europe and a creation of artisan and craftsman guilds. It was a rather remarkable accomplishment for the Crusaders to remain in the holy land in small enclaves for two hundred years, so far removed from

their base of supplies and reenforcement. In addition our whole concept of the Holy Land emerged from the objectives laid out by Urban II in 1095 and the results of the Crusades themselves.

The Mongol Conquests The first Mongol invasion of the lands of Islam occurred in 1220.

Under the leadership of Genghis Khan, many cities in Transoxonia and Khorasan were terrorized and destroyed. When Genghis Khan died seven years later his empire stretched from the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Japan. In 1256 forces under the Mongol leader Hulegu invaded Persia and Syria, sacked Baghdad and took control of Mesopotamia and the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the fertile crescent.

These Mongol regimes became rivals and struggled with each other for control of territory. The group derived from Hulegu s leadership were known as the Ill-Khans and controlled Persia, and Mesopotamia, lands where Islam had been well established. In 1295 a Buddhist named Mahmud Ghazan became Khan, converted to Islam and compelled most of the Mongol leadership to become Muslim as well.

However, by the middle of the 14th century Mongol rule became weak, fragmented and too diffuse to resist successfully Turkic power.

Unfortunately, the Mongol invasion and the sack of Baghdad had a devastating effect on Islamic culture and its artistic and scientific achievements.

The Ottoman Empire The Byzantine Empire on its Eastern flank increasingly was pressed by Turkic speaking pastoralists from central Asia known to history as the Seljuq Turks. They became converted into Sunni Islam early in the 11th century, and expanded their power and influence into western Persia and Syria, and occupied Baghdad. As tribal bands occupying much of Anatolia (present day Turkey), they pressed very close to

Constantinople, the Byzantine capital. During the first half of the 14th century, the Anatolian Seljuq sultanate was one of the most important Muslim states of its day. It ruled over a heterogeneous population including both Armenian and Greek Christians.

Lasting Muslim power in Anatolia did not, however, come from the Seljuqs, but rather from a warrior state on the frontier of the Byzantine Empire. This tribal state known as th Osmanlis or Ottomans was named after its founder Osman I who ruled from 1281-1324. In 1453 the Sultan Mehmed II laid siege to and conquered Constantinople thus ending the Byzantine Empire. He allowed his troops three days of plunder before entering and assuming control over the city. Many men, women and children were massacred. In 1683 from July 17 to September 12 the Ottoman Turks laid siege to Vienna. They were defeated by a combined force led by John III Sobieski of Poland. This marked the beginning of the end of Turkish domination in Eastern Europe. The peak of Ottoman power and influence as well as of Ottoman culture was reached during the sultanate of Suleyman I who ruled from 1520-1566, and who was known among the Ottomans as the Lawgiver , and who became known in Europe as the Magnificent . After his reign the Ottoman Empire, due to a variety of causes and influences declined until at the outbreak of World War I it became known as the sick man of Europe.

20th Century Developments Many developments in the early years of the 20th century are important in relation to the interactions of the Islamic World with Christendom, i.e. the culturally still Christian West in Europe and the Americas. Most seminal in this regard was WorldWar I and its aftermath. This war, referred to at the time as the Great War led to the end of the Russian and Austrian-Hungarian Empires and the rise of communism, fascism and Naziism in that order. More important to the subject ofthis essay was the demise of the Ottoman Empire. The

Ottomans had made the bad mistake to side with the Central powers,Germany and Austria against the Allies, namely Britain, France and Russia.

Prior to the catalyst for the Great War to come that occurred in Sarajevo in 1914, there had been several earlier wars in the Balkans.

The Balkans were and still are a place where Catholic Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Islam interacted violently. A major problem facing the Ottomans in the early 20th century and facing Western Europe today was the irredentism of national minorities in the Balkans in general and within the Ottoman Empire in particular. Within Armenia, Armenian national consciousness was developing strongly with hopes and aspirations for a separate, independent and Christian Armenia. This was not something the Ottomans favored in fact they reacted violently against the Armenians. The so-called Young Turks headed by Enver Pasha in control in Istanbul, subjected the Armenians to deportation and exile with the intent to populate the vacant towns and villages with Muslim refugees. A ruthless campaign was initiated by the Ottoman authorities to disarm the entire Armenian population of all personal weapons. As an aside, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution in the Bill of Rights was intended specifically to prevent this action by a government against its citizens. What followed in 1915 were mass deportations and massacres of men women and children in what is now known as the Armenian genocide.

The total number of victims will never be precisely known, but the most accepted and authoritative estimates puts the total at over one million men, women and children dead, and hundreds of thousands more deported.. The Ottomans also disposed in a similar manner the Assyrians in Iraq, another Christian minority.

About the Armenian massacres, Bat Ye'or in her book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam wrote as follows: "The genocide of the Armenians was the natural outcome of a policy inherent in the politico-religious structure of dhimmitude. This process

of physically eliminating a rebel nation had already been used against the rebel Slav and Greek Christians, rescued from collective extermination by European intervention, although sometimes reluctantly.

The genocide of the Armenians was a jihad. No rayas took part in it.

Despite the disapproval of many Muslim Turks and Arabs and their refusal to collaborate in the crime, these massacres were perpetrated solely by Muslims and they alone profited from the booty: the victims' property, houses, and lands granted to the muhajirun, and the allocation to them of women and child slaves. The elimination of male children over the age of twelve was in accordance with the commandments of the jihad and conformed to the age fixed for payment of the jizya. The four stages of the liquidation-deportation, enslavement, forced conversion, and massacre-reproduced the historic conditions of the jihad carried out in the dar ai-harb from the seventh century on. Chronicles from a variety of sources, by Muslim authors in particular, give detailed descriptions of the organized massacres or deportation of captives, whose sufferings in forced marches behind the armies paralleled the Armenian experience in the twentieth century.

This policy was not an isolated phenomenon. It was part of a defensive strategy to maintain Islamic jurisdiction over a territory which had been conquered by war and to eliminate dhimmi nationalism. The Armenian tragedy was therefore accompanied by the destruction of Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in the Euphrates valley north of Syria. In September 1915, at Jabal Musa (Antioch), French ships took on board 4,000 to 5,000 Armenians, in extremis, who had been encircled by the Turks and Arabs. However, the British and French authorities, fearing the hostility of the Muslim populations, refused permission for the Armenians to disembark in Egypt, Rhodes, Cyprus, Tunisia, and Morocco. In the end, the British High Commissioner of Egypt agreed to let them go ashore temporarily at Alexandria ."

At the conclusion of the Great War(WWI) in 1918, the victorious Allies proceeded to dismantle the Ottoman Empire. The Russians coveted Istanbul and control of the Bosporus waterway between the Black and the Mediterranean seas. In this they were thwarted by General Mustafa Kemal, better known as Attaturk the father of the secular state modern day Turkey. This was accomplished by the force of military arms under Attaturk s command against the Western powers.

During the war, Britain and France sought help in the Middle East against the Ottomans wherever they could find it. Sharif Hussain ibn Ali of Mecca in the Hijaz of Arabia along the Red sea had imperial ambitions for an Arab nation, headed of course by himself. The British bribed the sharif and his Bedouin sons and tribesmen with gold and the promise of booty in what perhaps misleadingly has been termed the great Arab revolt, and glamorized by Lawrence of Arabia. The forces of Hussain and his sons attacked and captured the port of Aqaba on the Red sea in their most famous victory and eventually entered Damascus as victors along with the real victors the British army. However, at the time most of the Arab world from one end to the other was indifferent or hostile to this desert revolt. Specifically, there was little interest to this event in Palestine and the Muslims in Mesopotamia (Iraq) were hostile to it. Lawrence had made promises to the Arabs and the British and France had signed the Sykes-Picot agreement on dividing up the Ottoman Empire after the war, and these agreements were not feasible to keep in the reality of the post-war situation.

The outcome of many diplomatic maneuvers at Versailles and elsewhere was to give France a Mandate (i.e. temporary authority) over Syria and Lebanon and Britain a Mandate over Palestine and Iraq.

Sharif Hussein's son Feisal was made King over Iraq. His son Abdullah, as a consolation prize since he had coveted Iraq, was made King of a newly established Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, now called Jordan, which was carved out of the British Mandate of Palestine in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Balfour declaration of 1917

in which the British had promised Palestine to the Zionists as a national home. It was called Hashemite in view of Abdullah's claimed lineage with the Hashim family of the Prophet Muhammed. Kuwait had achieved its status as a British protectorate after World War I, and full independence in 1961.

Arab Nationalism Arabism, or Arab nationalism and Islamism have important elements in common, but the differences are more important and crucial for understanding than the similarities. All Arabs are not Muslim, some are Christian, and all Muslims are not Arab. In fact, by virtue of the Arab conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries all people that speak arabic are not Arabs, witness the Berbers of North Africa where there is currently a revival of Berber nationalism and the native Berber language of pre-Islamic conquest time. Many Arabs in the middle East speak arabic, consider themselves to be Arab and especially in the past ,identified themselves with Arab nationalism. Until the Lebanon civil war Lebanon was a predominately Christian country.

We have seen that sharif Hussein of Mecca's call for an Arab nation under his control fell on mostly deaf ears throughout the Arab world.

After World War II the cause of Arab nationalism was promoted most vigorously by military dictators interested in power for themselves and their respective cliques, not Arab nationalism per se. A good example was Nasser who fell out of favor after Egypt's humiliating defeat by Israel in the six-day war of 1967, and Arab nationalism has been in decline ever since. The high water mark of Arab nationalism was the merging of Egypt and Syria into the United Arab Republic in 1958 but this didn't last long. The truth is that pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism was more of a dream by Western Orientalists or romantics such as Lawrence of Arabia than a practical political reality in the Arab world, Even though many of the Arab national states in the Middle East were creations of the Western powers after World War I, the rulers of these

national states are much more interested in their national identities as Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians and so on than in surrendering any power to such a vague idea as Arab nationalism per se.

Islamism (Islamic Fundamentalism) According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary on the internet, Islamism is the "faith, doctrine or cause of Islam." The cause of Islam has been described no better than by Martin Kramer in his book Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival as follows: "The idea is simple: Islam must have power in this world. It is the true religion-the religion of God-and its truth is manifest in its power. When Muslims believed, they were powerful. Their power has been lost in modem times because Islam has been abandoned by many Muslims, who have reverted to the condition that preceded God's revelation to the Prophet Muhammad. But if Muslims now return to the original Islam, they can preserve and even restore their power.

That return, to be effective, must be comprehensive; Islam provides the one and only solution to all questions in this world, from public policy to private conduct. It is not merely a religion, in the Western sense of a system of belief in God. It possesses an immutable law, revealed by God, that deals with every aspect of life, and it is an ideology, a complete system of belief about the organization of the state and the world. This law and ideology can only be implemented through the establishment of a truly Islamic state, under the sovereignty of God. The empowerment of Islam, which is God's plan for mankind, is a sacred end. It may be pursued by any means that can be rationalized in terms of Islam's own code. At various times, these have included persuasion, guile, and force.

What is remarkable about Islamic fundamentalism is not its diversity.

It is the fact that this idea of power for Islam appeals so effectively across such a wide range of humanity, creating a world of thought that crosses all frontiers. Fundamentalists everywhere must act in narrow

circumstances of time and place. But they are who they are precisely because their idea exists above all circumstances. Over nearly a century, this idea has evolved into a coherent ideology, which demonstrates a striking consistency in content and form across a wide expanse of the Muslim world.

This is, in Kramer's view what Islamism, or Islamic fundamentalism is all about. Bassam Tibi, in his book The Challenge of Fundamentalism:Political Islam and World Disorder describes Islamic fundamentalism in a similar manner.

Islamic fundamentalism, as a form of religious fundamentalism has been considered by some, mistakenly, to be analogous to Protestant fundamentalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Protestant, or Evangelical fundamentalism is mostly a 20th century movement with its roots stretching back into the 19th century. It emphasizes a literal interpretation of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture. It seeks a return to the peaceful teaching of Jesus and his apostles. Islamic fundamentalism also seeks a return, in its case to the inerrant teachings of Muhammed as found in the Koran and the Hadith, or the sayings of Mohammed. The differences between these two fundamentalism are immense. Evangelical fundamentalism seeks a return to Christ's teaching by preaching the gospel, i.e. the good news, and the conversion of people to Christianity by persuasion, as in the time of Paul and the other writers of the New Testament.

In contrast, Islamic fundamentalism, as we have just described, and as derived specifically from Muhammed in the Koran and in the Hadith is by Jihad or holy war and a revolution to institute an Islamic world order. The Islamic concept of Jihad , or holy war is described as documented in and derived from the Koran by Ibn Warraq in his book Why I am not a Muslim as follows: "The totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of jihad, the holy war, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah.

To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of

salvation outside it. It is the sacred duty-an incumbent religious duty established in the Koran and the traditions of all Muslims to bring Islam to all humanity. Jihad is a divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight, and kill in the name of God. Sura 9.5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

Sura 4.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God. Sura 8.12: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.

Sura 8.39-42: Say to the Infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, 'and the religion be all of it God's.

Sura 2.256: But they who believe, and who fly their country, and fight in the cause of God may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful. It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers those who do will roast in hell.

Sura 8.15, 16: Believers, when you meet the unbelievers preparing for battle do not turn your backs to them. [Anyone who does] shall incur the wrath of God and hell shall be his home: an evil dwelling indeed.

Sura 9.39: If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place. Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come.

Sura 4.74: Let those fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.

It is abundantly clear from many of the above verses that the Koran is not talking of metaphorical battles or of moral crusades: it is talking of the battlefield. To read such blood thirsty injunctions in a holy book is shocking. Mankind is divided into two groups, Muslims and nonMuslims. The Muslims are members of the Islamic community, the umma, who possess territories in the dar al-Islam, the Land of Islam,

where the edicts of Islam are fully promulgated. The non-Muslims are the Harbi, people of the dar al-Harb, the Land of Warfare, any country belonging to the infidels that has not been subdued by Islam but that, nonetheless, is destined to pass into Islamic jurisdiction, either by conversion or by war (Harb). All acts of war are permitted in the dar alHarb."

Jihad is defined in Merriam-Webster as a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. In al-islam, an important and authoritative Islamic web site, jihad, defined as fighting in the cause of Allah, is documented in many references in both the Koran and the hadiths under such heading as; excellence of jihad, judgment pertaining to jihad, elements of the battle, the stages of the battle, spoils and treaties and covenants.

Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406), made the following comments concerning Muslim jurisprudence of the preceeding five centuries with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad: "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. ..The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. ..Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

The concept of Islamic fundamentalism in the 20th century can be traced back to the writings of the Egyptian teacher and political preacher Sayyed Qutb writing in the immediate post World War II period. In his writing the Christian West is morally bankrupt, about to crumble and only Islam is prepared to assume world leadership from the West for a Islamic world order.

The late sheikh of Azhah, Judulhaq Ali Judulhaq made a distinction between Islamic Jihad, peaceful for worthy purposes, and Jihad Massallah, a resort to violence and in fact terrorism to accomplish the Islamic world revolution. In contrast Islamic fundamentalist Hassan al-

Banna ridiculed such an idea, and described lesser and greater forms of jihad. In his view, violent Islamic world revolution through force and terrorism is the greater jihad true to the teachings of Muhammed. In the view of Hassan Tibi in his book referenced above Islamic fundamentalism is not a renaissance of religious belief but rather is a political movement toward the hegemony of a world Islamic order. This author points out perceptively that Islamic fundamentalists are not terrorists, per se, but Islamic terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists.

The Issue of Palestine Historically Palestine encompassed the Holy Land of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, as well as the present country of Jordan, which, as mentioned earlier was carved out of the British Palestine Mandate after World War I. For our purposes we will start with the year 70 in the Christian era when the Romans destroyed both the Jewish state in Palestine and the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Jews were dispersed from Palestine to all over the known world in what is known as the diaspora. After another Jewish revolt in 132, the Jews were driven even more from Judea, although some remained, especially in Galilee. With the conversion of Constantine to Christianity in the early 4th century the residents of Palestine were mostly Christian. In 352 the Jews in Galilee revolted as did the Samaritans in the 6th century. Both revolts were violently suppressed. Jerusalem came under Persia control in 614 but in 628 Palestine and Jerusalem were restored to the Byzantine (Christian) Empire again. A short ten years later, Palestine was conquered by the Arabs. The periods of the Arab conquest, the Crusades,, the Ottoman Empire and many relevant events in the 20th century have been covered earlier in this essay.

Following widespread pograms against the Jews in Russia, as written about by Sholem Aleichem in his stories about Tevye the Dairyman, and as dramatized in Fiddler on the Roof, a first wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine from Russia took place in the 1890's. The

Zionist movement began in 1896 on the publication of Theodor Herzl s book A Jewish State. Especially following the widespread antiSemitism revealed in France by the Dreyfus affair, the Zionists had come to the conclusion that the Jews would never be fully accepted and assimilated in Europe and therefore a Jewish national home or state was necessary. Zionism was a secular movement and was not supported by orthodox Jews who held to the view that a return to Palestine, i.e. Zion, would and should only occur following the long awaited arrival of the Jewish Messiah. The map on page 22 shows that the British divided the Palestine Mandate in 1922 such that threequarters of it went to form the newly established Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan with Abdullah as its King. It is fair to say that TransJordan was the establishment of an authentic Palestinian State, but unfortunately with an imported Arab from the Hijaz as its King.

Following the founding of Trans-Jordan the remaining one quarter of Palestine was set aside as a Jewish national home in at least partial honoring of the Balfour agreement of 1917. Unfortunately, at least for the Jews, the British backed away from even this commitment by recommending the further partition of the remaining one quarter of Palestine into Palestinian and Jewish sections.

In 1919 an important event happened that is not widely known. This was a signed agreement between Emir Feisal, representing the Arab Kingdom of Hijaz and Chaim Weitzman, representing the Zionist organization. Feisal, of course was later installed by the British as the King of the newly created Kingdom of Iraq. This agreement is worth citing in its entirety: AGREEMENT BETWEEN EMIR FEISAL AND DR. CHAIM WEIZMANN, JANUARY 3, 1919 His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist. Organisation, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jew-

ish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles: ARTICLE I The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

ARTICLE II Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be parties hereto.

ARTICLE III In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2d of November, 1917.

ARTICLE IV All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement, and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

ARTICLE V No recognition nor law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and

enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

ARTICLE VI The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

ARTICLE VII The Zionist Organisation proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

ARTICLE VIII The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

ARTICLE IX Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January; one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.

Chaim Weizmann.

Feisal ibn-Hussein.

RESERVATION BY THE EMIR FEISAL If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of January 4th addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.

Feisal ibn-Hussein.

The key statement is this document is this reservatiom by Emir Feisal . What he meant by the Arabs being established as he had asked was the fantasy of an Arab nation including Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt under a caliphate with sharif Hussain of Mecca as caliph. Nobody in the Islamic world wanted this except for sharif Hussain and his followers.

The events that occurred at the end of World War I related to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire are important and relevant to the Palestinian problem with us today and also to the sources of Arab resentments and rage to be discussed later in this essay.

In 1916 Great Britain and France with the assent of then imperial Russia made provisions for the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of hostilities. The provisions of this secret Sykes-Picot agreement were disclosed to the world by the newly established Bolshevik government in Russia in 1917. As discussed earlier in this essay the British during the war had enlisted the services of the shariff of Mecca in the Hejaz, Hussain ibn Ali in the war against the Ottoman Turks in the Middle East. Hussain and his ambitious sons Feisal and Abdullah had imperial ambitions of their own and they also were the recipients of British armaments and gold. Hussain's family, the Hashemites, wanted to establish an Arab Nation extending from Mesopotamia, soon to be Iraq all the way to Yemen at the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. Colonel T.E. Lawrence, of Lawrence of Arabia fame was a romantic Arabist who shared this vision and on behalf of the British expressed considerable support for this imperial dream. The dream and fantasy died because of Arab fractiousness, which Lawrence was well aware of and which had frustrated him in his dealings with the Arabs, and because of political realities. In the Sykes-Picot agreement for dismembering the Ottoman Empire, the French and British assigned Lebanon and Syria to France, and southern Mesopotamia including Baghdad, and the ports of Haifa and Acre to Great Britain. In the

Balfour Declaration of 1917 the British government said it would look favorably on the establishment of a Jewish National home on Palestine in response to Zionist interests. In 1920 at the San Remo Conference the French Mandate of Syria and the British Mandates of Iraq and Palestine were established as already described.

These developments did not sit well with sharif Hussain and his sons in the light of what ever promises had been made by Lawrence on behalf of Great Britain for an Arab Nation. However, in compensation the British made Feisal King of Iraq and Abdullah King of Trans-Jordan.

However in Arabia the Hashemites lost out to the family of ibn Saud who defeated them in a war for control of Arabia, lost the Hejaz to the Saudis in 1924 and saw the establishment of the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with fundamentalist Wahhabism as the religion of the state.

The 1920's saw the beginning of considerable Jewish immigration into Palestine, with many establishing Kibbutzim, communal farms, or settling in the towns and cities. The Jews established their presence in Palestine by buying land and property from what we now refer to as the Palestinians. The Palestinian authorities fought violently against this Jewish presence by rioting and reprisals against the Palestinians who had sold land to the Jews. The Palestinian authorities ordered that land should not be sold to Jews, and those that did so would be severely punished. In support of the Arab world in general and the Palestinians the British severely limited Jewish immigration, with such limitation formally sanctioned with a White Paper in 1930.

After World War II and the Holocaust in which Nazi Germany killed six million Jews for no other reason than that they were Jewish and talented, Zionist pressure for a Jewish state in Palestine, which was still under British control, grew stronger. The British announced their withdrawal and the United Nations proposed to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Jews accepted but the Arabs did not. In 1948 the Jews announced the establishment of the state of Israel which was immediately recognized by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Israel was immediately invaded by five neighboring Arab countries.

The Arab states were defeated in this 1948 war of independence for Israel. After the 1948 war 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands with most re-settling in Israel. Approximately 650,000 Palestinians were displaced from Israel and ended up in refugee camps in Jordan and elsewhere where they remain today.

Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq again made war on Israel in 1967 and were again defeated in what is known as the Six Day War. As a result the socalled West Bank, essentially Judea and Samaria, moved from Jordanian to Israeli control. All of jerusalem was now under Jewish authority. The Arab countries were again defeated by Israel 1973 in the Yom Kippur war.

It is clear to this writer that the Jews, have accepted unconditionally and as an unalterable historic fact the division of Palestine into Jordan and Israel. They also have accepted, perhaps reluctantly but accepted nonetheless that there must be some sort of Palestinian autonomy and self government in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and Gaza. It is equally clear that the Palestinian leadership and indeed much of the Arab world has not yet accepted the right of Israel to exist As a nation with secure and defensible borders.

The Palestinian Authority knows where the terrorists against Israel are in the West Bank and Gaza, and could go after them in a meaningful way if they wished to So far they have not chosen to crack down on Hamas, Hizb Allah or the Islamic Jihad. At this time the situation in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is unresolved, volatile and dangerous.

French and Vatican Arab Policy: The Anti-Jewish Fulcrum The role of Christian anti-semitism in the issue of Palestine today must be considered. No one has done this better than Bat Ye'or in her book Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. The following analysis is taken directly form her book:

"The great Arab uprising against the Ottoman sultan which France had sought in the 1830s did not occur for want of a concept which would unify ethnically diverse and mutually hostile populations. The missionaries who, had flocked to the Levant helped to fill this gap. >From the 1840s they set about teaching and modernizing the Arabic language, the centralizing pole of a future Arab nation which would detach the Arabic-speaking provinces from the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the concept of an Arab nation was born in the French Catholic missions of the Levant. After the massacres of Christians in Syria between 1840 and 1860, the Christians clung to Arabism in order to surmount the religious conflicts and strengthen a policy of rapprochement with the Muslims.

The French protectorate over the Catholic rayas directed them to Arabization, and used them as agents of its anti-Zionist Arab policy.

Simultaneously, the Judeophobic campaign frequently renewed blood libel accusations in Europe, in Russia, and in the Ottoman Empire where Christian rayas endeavored to associate with Muslims. This was the beginning of the polarization of the Eastern Christian communities, Arabized by Catholic missions, in the anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist campaign, and the appearance of a theme that was to have a great future: a struggle that would unite Christians and Muslims against the "Jewish enemy."Thus the return of the Jews to Palestine, contemporary with an immigration of Levantine Christian refugees, unleashed antisemitic passions in Europe . At the end of the century, French religious and extreme-right parties called for the abolition of the republican laws, the segregation of the Jews in ghettos--as had been done by Pope Pius IX in Rome-and the restoration of their traditional discriminatory status, in order to remove their means of political and economic action. Closely associated with the European antisemitic movements, the Eastern Churches--particularly the Palestinian Churches--integrated European antisemitism into the machinery of hatred and linked it to Arab-Muslim anti-Zionism. After the First Zionist

Congress in Basle (1897), a two-stage Christian-Muslim strategy was developed: the fabrication of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and its incorporation into Arab nationalism. The Protocols, a Christian work of anti-Zionist political theology, was symbiotically connected by Arab Christians with the concept of an Arab nation, an ideology uniting Christendom and Islamdom. This symbiosis is revealed in a book by Negib Azoury, Le Reveil de la Nation Arabe (The Awakening of the Arab Nation), published in Paris in January 1905. A Latin Catholic close to; the Jesuits, Azoury was born in Lebanon in 1873, studied in Paris in the mid-1890s, and lived there toward the end of 1904 till 1908, frequently returning to Cairo. >From 1898 to 1904 he was an assistant to the Turkish governor of Jerusalem, Kiazim Bey. For Azoury, France and Rome represented two basic political poles of an Arab nation which extended over the whole Levant, except for Egypt. This Arab nation not only gathered Arab Christians and Muslims together in Palestine, but It also represented all the branches of Christianity Hence ;Arabism embodied the nucleus of the MuslimChristian symbiosis, bringing 'together the whole of Christendom and Islamdom against Israel. For Azoury, the pillars of this symbiosis would be the papacy, as a unifying force of Christianity in its entirety through the Uniate movement; and the Caliphate on the Muslim side. Both institutions, of irreproachable morality, would coordinate their activity in perfect harmony, under the political aegis and military protection and collaboration of France. Azoury further explains that his present book "will allow the reader to realize the unique idea that we are recommending in our two books." He is referring to Le Riveil de La Nation Arabe and a forthcoming book, Le Peril ,Juif Universel (The Universal Jewish Peril), both united in the same concept.The link between traditional Christian anti-Judaism and the Christian involvement in anti-Zionism and Arabism is thereby acknowledged.

Azoury declares that he has exposed the universal nature of the Jewish peril from new and entirely unknown point of view".

The Christian West and the Islamic World Contrasted Christ and his Followers in the First Century after his Birth Christ was a man of peace who preached love, repentance of sin and forgiveness. He was not a political or governmental figure, was not a ruler, nor did he have or command an army. There is no violence attributed to either Christ or his followers in the New Testament except for the attack on a servant of the High Priest by one of Christ's disciples when Christ was arrested.

Christ immediately condemned this violence. Christ was a teacher, a Rabbi. His message is best summarized in the Beatitudes in his Sermon on the Mount in which he said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. In this same sermon, Christ also said: "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. " His apostles and followers preached this same message of love and peace on earth. John, the writer of the fourth gospel in the New Testament wrote down words spoken by Christ as follows: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever

believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." In one of the most famous passages on love ever written, the Apostle Paul wrote in his first letter to the early Christian church at Corinth as follows: " If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres"..."And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." Christ instructed his followers to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. Christianity spread through the Roman world during the first century by word of mouth and by the preaching of the gospel. There was no force of arms or government authority involved. In fact the spread of Christianity occurred in spite of repression and persecution by the Roman authorities.

Muhammed and his Followers in the First Century After his Birth Muhammed's instructions to his faithful are summarized as follows in the Pillars of Islam: and the Pillars of Faith in Islam. The Pillars of Islam are the five duties required of all Muslims: 1) the profession of faith that there is no god but Allah: Muhammed is the prophet of Allah, 2) ritual prayer five times a day with the face turned toward the shrine of the Ka'bah in Mecca, 3) paying the alms tax levied to benefit the poor and needy, 4) fasting from sun-up to sun-down during the holy month of Ramadan, and 5) at least one pilgrimage to Mecca, i.e. the Hajj. The six Pillars of Faith in Islam are: 1) belief in God (Allah), 2) belief in Allah's angels, 3) belief in Allah's revealed books including the Koran, the New Testament, Psalms of David, and the Pages of Abraham, 4) belief in Allah ' messengers including many of the prophets of the Jewish scriptures as listed below, Jesus, John the Baptist and previous Arab prophets such as Hud and Salih, 5) belief in the Last Day, a belief

very similar to Christian eschatology including an intercessory role for Jesus, and a belief in a prophetic figure, the Mahdi, to come after Jesus, and 6) belief in Allah s determination of affairs whether good or bad, as in "it is the will of Allah."

Muhammed was a ruler, a military commander, a warrior, a plunderer and a thief. According to Islamic sources, it was at his word and in his presence that Jews in Medina were beheaded and thrown in the ditch. He preached love of Allah with less emphasis on love among men, and loving one's neighbor as one's self. Instead he preached Jihad, i.e. Islamic holy war against all unbelievers in Islam. The word islam in Arabic, according to the Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary means submission, i.e. to Allah. We have already related how in the first 30 years after Muhammed s death the Arab armies under the sword of Islam conquered Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt.

We have also seen that at least three and perhaps all four of the first Caliphs, or successors to Muhammed were murdered. The differences between the origins of Christianity and Islam couldn't be any starker.

Christ instructed his followers to go out into the world and preach the gospel. Muhammed instructed his followers to go out into the world and wage jihad, i.e. holy war, for Islam and against the infidels, the unbelievers.

The Christian West Since the Crusades At the time of the Crusades, as had been the case since Constantine, the Church and State were separate entities in the Christian West, known as Christendom. The states of Europe were feudal in nature, in some cases with Kings, in others, with suzerains with one title or another. The church was the Roman Catholic Church, the word catholic meaning universal. At about the time of the Crusades this universal church split into two branches, the Roman Catholic Church in the West, and the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople in the East.

The church was very powerful in Western Europe at the time of the Crusades. It was the Pope who initiated this attempt to regain the Holy Land for Christendom. The Pope had power over the kings by virtue of

his power to interdict religious services including communion and rites for the dead in a dispute with the King. This caused the populace tremendous anxiety and put tremendous pressure on the Kings to conform with the Pope. For example, in 1077 Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, in a bitter dispute over lay investiture with the powerful Pope Gregory VII, known to us as Hildebrand, was forced to go to Canossa in sackcloth and hair-shirt as a simple penitent and receive absolution after waiting three days from the Pope following the interdiction of religious services in the Empire. There were many such disputes between the Crown and the Church and the church won some and the Crown others. Christ had told his followers to render unto Caesar that what is Caesar's, i.e. the State and unto God that which belongs to God, i.e. the church. Of course there were and still are disputes over this distinction but the principle was clear. Christ in his ministry did not challenge the authority of the Roman Empire.

Europe was emerging from the middle ages with its powerful church and for the most part was unaware of the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome, and so was unaware of Greek and Roman literature, history and science. At the time of the crusades, Europe was way behind the Islamic world in science, literature, centers of learning, philosophy, and libraries.

The Crusaders brought back to Europe some of this knowledge of Greek and Roman history. The renaissance of the 14th through 16th centuries further enhanced this knowledge and there was a flowering of humanism, art, literature and science. There also developed hostility to the power of the church. The Reformation beginning in 1517 with Luther further weakened the power and authority of the Church with the development of the Anababtist, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Presbyterian churches and the separation of the Church of England from Rome. The Thirty Year's War ending in 1648 in which the Lutherans fought the Calvinists , and both fought the Roman Catholics, brought Europe to a realization that religion needed to be removed

from the primary concerns of government and does not present a suitable issue to fight deadly wars over.

In this environment, also developed parliamentary government first in England, the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789, the writings of the Scottish and French enlightenments, the economic writings of Adam Smith and the French Physiocratic school of economics. As a result, the concepts of liberty, and both political and economic freedom took hold. The industrial and scientific revolutions produced wealth and conditions in which freedom, liberty, science, literature, business and most important the rule of law all flourished. Europe and now North America became secularized in terms of government policies but remained Christian in its culture and its population. These factors and many others resulted in the Western World becoming the economic, scientific, and technological power it is today.

The Islamic World Since the Crusades As stated above, at the time of the Crusades the Islamic world was considerably more advanced than was the Christian West culturally, scientifically and economically. Islam had inherited and absorbed much of the culture of the ancient civilizations of Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Byzantium and Persia. Encouraged by the Koran to seek knowledge of signs of the Creator, Islam created a scientific society, especially in astronimy that was the envy of the world. The language of arabic was the preferred language of science for five hundred years and arabic numbers replaced roman numerals which made advances in mathematics and science possible. The Islamic world peaked in culture, influence and wealth in the Ottoman Empire of Suleyman I, called in Europe The Great in the middle of the 16th century. It has been in decline ever since.

The world of science and ideas increasingly became held in a time warp of the 7th century by the idea gaining increasing currency through the years that the Koran contained all needed knowledge. This became a considerable disincentive to learning, especially to learning new ideas.

Science increasingly became thought of as a Western idea and Islamic clerics became increasingly hostile to it and Western ideas in general.

The Koran, the various hadiths, or sayings of Muhammed and the Sharia laws based on these sources plus emphasis on Islamic traditions became a powerful barrier to modernism, i.e. Western ideas, particularly since the religious and political authorities were one and the same.

The Western ideas of liberty and freedom did not and have not developed in the Islamic world except marginally in the secular state of Turkey. Even there, it is under considerable attack from Islamic fundamentalists as it is throughout the Islamic world. Islamic fundamentalism is hostile to modernism and freedom in general, and the Christian West in particular. The only Western ideas that unfortunately did take hold in the Islamic world were the totalitarian ideas of communism, socialism and dictatorship.

Islam Today In Islamic theology the Koran is eternal and inerrant. There is no central Islamic authority, outside the Koran, as there was in the days of the Caliphs. To gain a glimpse of Islamic beliefs and practices today we turn to the Islamic question and answer web site: www.islam-qa.com.

Welcome to Islam Question & Answer! This site aims to provide intelligent, authoritative responses to anyones question about Islam, whether it be from a Muslim or a non-Muslim, and to help solve general and personal social problems. Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author. Questions about any topic are welcome, such as theology, worship, human and business relations, or social and personal issues.

All questions and answers on this site have been prepared, approved, revised, edited, amended or annotated by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, the supervisor of this site.

With the spread of Islam world-wide walillah il-hamd and its diffusion into the internet, some sites have been published claiming to serve Muslims and to speak in the name of Islam. However, not all of these sites, which discuss issues relevant to Islam, present accurate and reliable information based on the true beliefs and practices of the Prophet (peace & blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his companions.

Thus, there is a need to increase the number of sites providing resources based on these authentic teachings. It is hoped that this site will be among them. The objectives of Islam Q&A include: * to teach and familiarize Muslims with various aspects of their religion * to be a source for guiding people to Islam * to respond to users questions and inquiries to the best of our resources and capabilities * to assist in solving the social and personal problems of the Muslims in an Islamic context It was decided to make the site all-encompassing, directed towards Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Subject areas include, but are not limited to, Islamic fiqh and jurisprudence, Islamic history, Islamic social laws (including marriage, divorce, contracts, and inheritance), Islamic finance, basic tenets and aqeedah of the Islamic faith and tawheed, and Arabic grammar as it relates to the Quran and Islamic texts.

The responses are handled by Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, using only authentic, scholarly sources based on the Quran and sunnah, and other reliable contemporary scholarly opinions. References are provided where appropriate in the responses. All requests are held with confidence, and replies are available personally and/or publicly (posted to this site).

A database organized by subject areas, containing common as well as previously asked questions, is available for exploring, either by browsing the entire contents or specific subject areas, or by searching for specific keywords. In an effort to maximize efficient use of everyones time and effect the most rapid responses, please be sure to

consult the database before submitting a question to make sure it has not already been asked before.

Information on Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid He was born on 30/12/1381 AH. He completed his elementary, middle and secondary schooling in Riyaadh, and completed his university studies in al-Dahran, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He attended the classes of Shaykh Abd al- Azeez ibn Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al- Uthaymeen and Shaykh Abd-Allaah ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Jibreen; they were the shaykhs from whom he learned the most. He also studied under Shaykh Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Naasir al-Barraak and Shaykh Muhammad, the son Seedi al-Habeeb alShanqeeti. He learned the recitation of the Qur aan from Shaykh Sa eed Aal Abd-Allaah.

Among his shaykhs from whom he learned were also Shaykh Saalih ibn Fawzaan Aal Fawzaan, Shaykh Abd-Allaah ibn Muhammad alGhunaymaan, Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Zaamil and Shaykh Abd alRahmaan ibn Saalih al-Mahmood.

The shaykh from whom he learned the most with regard to fatwas was Shaykh Abd al- Azeez ibn Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz may Allaah have mercy on him; his relationship with him lasted for fifteen years. He is the one who encouraged him to teach, and wrote to the Da wah and Guidance Centre (Markaz al-Da wah wa l-Irshaad) in Dammaam to ask them to co-operate with him in arranging lectures, khutbahs, and classes. Because of Shaykh Abd al- Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), he became a khateeb, imaam and lecturer.

He also started the website Islam Questions and Answers on the Internet in 1997, and this work is still continuing until the present. And Allaah is the Source of Strength.

Meaning of Islam

Question Reference Number:: 10446 Title: Meaning of the word Islam Question: What is the meaning of the word Islam?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

If you refer to Arabic language dictionaries you will find out that the meaning of the word Islam is: submission, humbling oneself, and obeying commands and heeding prohibitions without objection, sincerely worshipping Allaah alone, believing what He tells us and having faith in Him. The word Islam has become the name of the religion which was brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Why is this religion called Islam? For all the religions on earth are called by various names, either the name of a specific man or a specific nation. So Christianity takes its name from Christ; Buddhism takes its name from its founder, the Buddha; the Zoroastrians became well known by this name because their founder and standard-bearer was Zoroaster. Similarly, Judaism took its name from a tribe known as Yehudah (Judah), so it became known as Judaism. And so on. Except for Islam, for it is not attributed to any specific man or to any specific nation, rather its name refers to the meaning of the word Islam. What this name indicates is that the establishment and founding of this religion was not the work of one particular man and that it is not only for one particular nation to the exclusion of all others. Rather its aim is give the attribute implied by the word Islam to all the peoples of the earth. So everyone who acquires this attribute, whether he is from the

past or the present, is a Muslim, and everyone who acquires this attribute in the future will also be a Muslim.

From Kitaab al-Islam Usooluhu wa Mabaadi uhu by Dr. Muhammad ibn Abd-Allaah ibn Saalih al-Suhaym. (www.islam-qa.com) Citizenship Question Reference Number:: 14235 Title: Ruling on Muslims taking on European nationality Question: What is the ruling on taking European nationality for a Muslim who has come to a European country fleeing from oppression in his homeland, where he has lost his identity papers and has lost all hope of going back to his country? May Allaah reward you with good?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

In order to answer this question, we must explain two things.

1 Whether settling in a kaafir country is permissible 2 Establishing whether there is a need to take the nationality.

With regard to the first matter, settling in a kaafir country is not permissible unless the following conditions are met: 1- There should be a legitimate need for settling in their country, which cannot be met in the Muslim lands, such as trade, da wah, officially representing a Muslim country, or seeking knowledge that is not available in a Muslim country either because it does not exist there, or what is available is not of good quality. Or there should be fear of

death, prison or torture, not mere harassment, for oneself or for one s family and children, or fear for one s wealth.

2- Settling there should be regarded as temporary, not permanent. It is not permissible to have the intention of staying there permanently; rather one should have the idea that it is temporary, because settling there permanently means that one has migrated (made hijrah) from the land of Islam to the land of kufr. This clearly goes against the ruling of sharee ah that it is obligatory to migrate from the land of kufr to the land of Islam. Having the intention of staying there temporarily means that when the need to stay in the kaafir country no longer applies, one will get up and leave.

3- The kaafir country in which one wants to settle should be one which is at peace with the Muslims, not one which is at war with them.

Otherwise it is not permissible to settle there. A country is regarded as being at war with the Muslims if it is hostile towards the Muslims.

4- There should be religious freedom in the kaafir country, so that the Muslim will be able to practise his religion openly.

5- He should be able to learn the laws of Islam in that country; if it is difficult for him to do so then it is not permissible for him to settle there because that implies that he is turning away from learning the religion of Allaah.

6- He should think it most likely that he will be able to protect and maintain his religious commitment, and that of his family and children, otherwise it is not permissible for him to settle there, because preserving one s religious commitment takes precedence over preserving one s self, one s wealth and one s family. Whoever meets this condition and how difficult it is to meet it is permitted to settle in the land of the kuffaar, otherwise that is forbidden to him, because of the texts which clearly forbid settling there and enjoin migrating from such lands, as is well known, and because of the great danger which that poses to religion and morals, which no one can deny except one who is arrogant.

Secondly: there should be a legitimate need for taking the nationality, such as the benefits for which the Muslim has settled in the kaafir country being dependent upon his taking the nationality. Otherwise that is not permissible for him, because taking the nationality is an obvious manifestation of befriending the kuffaar, and because it involves speaking words which it is not permissible to believe in or adhere to, such as approving of kufr or man-made laws. Moreover, taking the nationality may lead to staying in the kaafir land permanently, which is not permissible, as stated above. Having established these two points, I hope that Allaah will forgive the Muslims who settle in kaafir lands for the great danger that they have exposed themselves to, because either he is forced to settle there and necessity makes permissible that which is ordinarily forbidden, or to serve an interest which outweighs the harms. And Allaah knows best.

Shaykh Khaalid al-Maajid, Faculty Member, College of Sharee ah, Imaam Muhammad ibn Sa ood Islamic University. (www.islamqa.com) Question Reference Number:: 11309 Title: The kufr of those who rule by man-made laws Question: Is the one who fails to rule by that which Allaah has revealed and bases the entire legal system on man-made laws a kaafir? Should we differentiate between him and one who judges according to sharee ah, but may rule in a manner contrary to sharee ah on some issues, because of his own whims and desires or because of a bribe, etc.?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Yes, we must make this distinction. The one who rejects the law of Allaah and casts it aside, and replaces it with man-made laws and the opinions of individuals has committed an act of kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam. Whereas the one who adheres to the religion of Islam, but is a sinner and wrongdoer by virtue of his following his whims and desires in some cases, or pursuing some worldly interest, but admits that he is a wrongdoer by doing so, is not guilty of kufr which would put him beyond the pale of Islam.

Whoever thinks that ruling by man-made laws is equal to ruling by sharee ah, and thinks that it is OK to do that, is also guilty of kufr that puts him beyond the pale of Islam, even if it is only in one instance.

Shaykh Abd-Allaah al-Ghunaymaan (www.islam-qa.com)

Jihad Question Reference Number:: 7461 Title: Ruling on booty from the wars which Muslims are fighting today Question: In a situation where the muslims are engaged in jihad against an agressor like in bosnia. when the mujahideen are fighting they sometimes capture land and booty: Money, arms, etc..

Islamically speaking it is haram in islam to steal. but is this theft? If it is not then...

1) how must the money be used?

2) who can use it?

3) does it have to be distributed? to who?

4) what is ment by a fifth?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah has prescribed jihaad for His sake for great purposes and reasons, such as spreading this religion, telling people about it and about the purpose for which Allaah created them. Other purposes of jihaad include repulsing the aggression of the enemies of this religion, who fight it in order to extinguish its light and are trying to eliminate it and its followers. The basic evidence for this is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged; and surely, Allaah is Able to give them (believers) victory Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allaah. [al-Hajj 22:40] What is happening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and other parts of the Muslim world is that which Allaah has told us about concerning the kuffaar (interpretation of the meaning): They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). [al-Nisaa 4:89] and they desire that you should disbelieve [al-Mumtahanah 60:2] Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after the truth has become manifest unto them [al-Baqarah 2:109] Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion [al-Baqarah 2:120].

So the fighting that is taking place between the Muslims and the kuffaar is the checking of one set of people by means of another, which

is part of the laws of the universe created by Allaah, which Allaah mentioned when He said (interpretation of the meaning): So they routed them by Allaah s Leave and Dawood (David) killed Jaaloot (Goliath), and Allaah gave him [Dawood (David)] the kingdom [after the death of Taloot (Saul) and Samuel] and Al-Hikmah (Prophethood), and taught him of that which He willed. And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists) [al-Baqarah 2:251] Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allaah. For had it not been that Allaah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allaah is mentioned much would surely, have been pulled down. Verily, Allaah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allaah is All Strong, All-Mighty [alHajj 22:40] The Muslims fighting nowadays against their enemies among the Serbs, Russians and other kuffaar is no more than the repulsion of aggression, hostility and injustice. It is the kind of jihaad aimed at checking people which is prescribed in Islam, and thus is subject to the Islamic rulings on jihaad. Whatever the Muslims take in these wars whether it is wealth, weapons, equipment, property, or whatever in general belongs to the Muslims and it is halaal for them, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good [alAnfaal 8:69]. What is meant here by booty (ghaneemah) is wealth in the form of money, property and other useful things which the Mujaahideen who are fighting for the sake of Allaah have taken in their battles with the kuffaar. This is not a kind of stealing at all, for a number of reasons: 1. Stealing means taking property by stealth and unlawfully from its proper place. This is something completely different, for the wealth of jihaad, the spoils of war and the booty, are taken from the kuffaar by

right. We are given permission to do so by sharee ah and it is allowed for us to do this as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good [alAnfaal 8:69].. And the Prophet <http://63.175.194.25/images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to do this in his wars and his jihaad against the kuffaar, when he confiscated their property and wealth.

2. Stealing applies in the case of property which is protected and is sacrosanct, but the property of the kuffaar who are waging war against Islam is not protected or sacrosanct.

The least that we can say is that this (taking booty) is a means of responding in kind, because the Muslims there have had their wealth taken from them, their rights have been denied and their homes have been confiscated. So this is a means of restoring their rights and giving back that which has been taken from them. It is in the nature of restitution of their rights. For Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them i.e., blaming them or declaring them to be sinners The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and rebel in the earth without justification [al-Shooraa 42:41-42] Once this is understood, then all the property which the mujaahideen gain during their wars with the kuffaar is called ghaneemah (booty) or fay (spoils of war) in sharee ah. The difference between them is that the former is that which is taken by fighting, and the latter is that which is taken without fighting, i.e., what is left behind by the kuffaar when they are routed or when they surrender without a battle or any military action. With regard to ghaneemah (booty), it is obligatory according to sharee ah for the imaam (leader) or the commander of the mujaahideen or the one who is responsible for them or in charge of them, to gather the booty and divide it into five equal parts, one of

which is to be distributed to the groups mentioned by Allaah in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily, onefifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allaah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masaakin (the poor) and the wayfarer [al-Anfaal 8:41] The other four-fifths are to be shared out among the mujaahideen who took part in the fighting, by giving one share to each foot-soldier and three shares to each horseman (one share for him and two for his horse this is if horses were used in the fighting). This wealth is permissible and good for the Muslim army, and has been allowed for them by Allaah, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good [al-Anfaal 8:69].

What is meant by al-khums (the one-fifth), is what referred to in the aayah [al-Anfaal 8:41] and this is this first share to be distributed. The way it is to be distributed is as follows: 1. A share for Allaah and His Messenger, which is to be used to serve the common interest of the Muslims, not for any specific person(s).

Allaah has stated that this is for Him and for His Messenger <http://63.175.194.25/images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah and His Messenger have no need of it, therefore we know that it is for the slaves of Allaah. The fact that Allaah did not state that it was for anyone in particular indicates that it should be spent to serve the common interests of all. (Tafseer Ibn Sa di, 3/169) 2. A share for the relatives of the Prophet <http://63.175.194.25/images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) from Bani Haashim and Bani al-Muttalib. They are all equally entitled to it, rich and poor, male and female.

3. Orphans those who have lost their fathers whilst they are still young i.e., before the age of puberty.

4. The poor and needy.

5. The wayfarer, i.e. travellers who are cut off and need money in order to get back home.

Some Mufassireen said that the khums (one-fifth) of the war booty should not be given to anyone outside of these categories, and that it need not be shared out equally between these groups, but should be distributed in the manner that best suits the current circumstances.

This was the view regarded as most correct by Ibn Sa di, may Allaah have mercy on him.

For more information, see Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/269; Zaad al-Ma aad

by Ibn al-Qayyim, 3/100-105).

And Allaah knows best.

Question Reference Number:: 10272 Title: Is it permissible to launch an Islamic Jihaad between Sunnis and Shi ahs?

Question: Can there be Jihad between different types of Muslims (i.e. Sunni vs.

Shiite)?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

It is well known that Shi ah means the Raafidah, i.e., the Ithna Ashari Imaamiyyah. They have false beliefs, such as their regarding Abu Bakr, Umar and most of the Sahaabah (Companions of the Prophet) as kaafirs (disbelievers), their belief that the succession after the death of Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah <http://63.175.194.25/images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should have passed to Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), and their belief that the twelve Imaams are infallible.

Among their basic principles is the idea of Taqiyah (dissimulation) which means concealment of their false beliefs. Their way is the way of the hypocrites. They have obvious bid ahs (innovations in religion),such as building mashhads (shrines) and domes over tombs, and taking them as places of worship, and their remembrance of the killing of al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him), during which they openly commit all kinds of evil actions. The worst of that is their associating of others in worship with Allaah (shirk), when they seek help from Ali and al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with them) and all their imaams, unless they are living in societies which do not allow them to do that.

On this basis , if the Sunnis have a state and are in power, and the Shi ah openly display their bid ah, shirk and beliefs, then the Sunnis are obliged to fight them, after calling upon them to stop manifesting their shirk and bid ah, and to adhere to the way of Islam. If the Sunnis do not have the ability to fight the mushrikeen (those who associate others in worship with Allaah) and the innovators, then they have to do whatever they can to call them to the truth and to explain the right way, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope [al-Baqarah 2:286].

Written by Shaykh Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak.

On the basis of the above, it cannot be said that the Raafidah are a group of Muslims, because whoever believes that the twelve Imaams have knowledge of the Unseen and that what they say is (Islamic) legislation, or curses the Companions of Muhammad <http://63.175.194.25/images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or seeks help from people who are dead and buried instead of from Allaah, or seeks help from Ali, al-Husayn and others instead of Allaah, cannot be a Muslim. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Question Reference Number:: 5275 Title: Can we fight in jihaad when there is no khaleefah?

Question: Can we really participate in Jihaad when we don't have any khalifa to organise us, or we don't have the strength to fight them? Do we behave like the Prophet (SM) did having patience and trust in Allah (S) before gaining the strength to fight the kuffar?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Jihaad for the sake of Allaah is the pinnacle of Islam, and is one of the principles of the religion. It does not depend on there being an imaam (khaleefah or ruler) & But obviously jihaad requires preparation and organization, and the existence of a leader of the army who can weigh up the pros and cons. This strikes the balance between those who are reckless and pay no attention to the regulations of sharee ah, and those who neglect this duty and ignore it completely.

It is obligatory to follow the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in all his affairs, which includes preparation and equipping oneself.

Shaykh Muhammad Aal Abd al-Lateef (www.islam-qa.com) Question Reference Number:: 10455 Title: Greater and lesser jihaad Question:

Which is the greater jihad, jihad with one's nafs or jihad in the battlefield ?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

It was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), said to his companions when they returned from a military campaign, We have come back from the lesser jihaad to the greater jihaad. They said, Is there any greater jihaad than jihaad against the kuffaar? he said, Yes, jihaad al-nafs (jihaad against the self).

This hadeeth is not saheeh.

Undoubtedly jihaad against the self comes before jihaad against the kuffaar, because one cannot strive against the kuffaar until after one has striven against one s own self, because fighting is something which the self dislikes. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): Jihaad (holy fighting in Allaah s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allaah knows but you do not know [al-Baqarah 2:216] The point is that jihaad against the enemy cannot take place until one strives and forces oneself to do it, until one s self submits and accepts that.

Fataawa Manaar al-Islam by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), 2/421 Ibn al-Qayyim said: Jihaad is of four stages: jihaad al-nafs (striving against the self), jihaad al-shayaateen (striving against the shayaateen or devils), jihaad al-kuffaar (striving against the disbelievers) and jihaad al-munaafiqeen (striving against the hypocrites).

Jihaad al-nafs means striving to make oneself learn true guidance, and to follow it after coming to know it, calling others to it, and bearing with patience the difficulties of calling others to Allaah. Jihaad alShaytaan means striving against him and warding off the doubts and desires that he throws at a person, and the doubts that undermine faith, and striving against the corrupt desires that he tries to inspire in a person. Jihaad against the kuffaar and munaafiqeen is done in the heart and on the tongue, with one s wealth and oneself. Jihaad against the kuffaar mostly takes the form of physical action, and jihaad against the munaafiqeen mostly takes the form of words & The most perfect of people are those who have completed all the stages of jihaad. People vary in their status before Allaah according to their status in jihaad.

(Zaad al-Ma aad 3/9-12) And Allaah knows best.

Slave Women Question Reference Number:: 10382 Title: Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife Question: Could you please clarify for me something that has been troubling me for a while. This concerns the right of a man to have sexual relations with slave girls. Is this so? If it is then is the man allowed to have relations with her as well his wife/wives. Also, is it true that a man can have sexual relations with any number of slave girls and with their own wife/wives also? I have read that Hazrat Ali had 17 slave girls and Hazrat Umar also had many. Surely if a man were allowed this freedom then this could lead to neglecting the wife's needs. Could you also tell clarify wether the wife has got any say in this matter.

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.

A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.

This is indicated by the Qur aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa eel (may peace be upon them all).

Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice [al-Nisa 4:3] What is meant by or (slaves) that your right hands possess is slave women whom you own.

And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal

uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful [alAhzaab 33:50] And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers [al-Ma aarij 70:29-31] Al-Tabari said: Allaah says, And those who guard their chastity i.e., protect their private parts from doing everything that Allaah has forbidden, but they are not to blame if they do not guard their chastity from their wives or from the female slaves whom their rights hands possess.

Tafseer al-Tabari, 29/84 Ibn Katheer said: Taking a concubine as well as a wife is permissible according to the law of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). Ibraaheem did that with Haajar, when he took her as a concubine when he was married to Saarah.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/383 And Ibn Katheer also said: The phrase and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allaah has given to you [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his

son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500 The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is permissible.

I bn Qudaamah said: There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy. [al-Ma aarij 70:29-30] Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was the umm walad (a slave woman who bore her master a child) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she was the mother of Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), of whom he said, Her son set her free. Haajar, the mother of Isma eel (peace be upon him), was the concubine of Ibraaheem the close friend (khaleel) of the Most Merciful (peace be upon him). Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) had a number of slave women who bore him children, to each of whom he left four hundred in his will. Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) had slave women who bore him children, as did many of the Sahaabah. Ali ibn al-Husayn, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and Saalim ibn Abd-Allaah were all born from slave mothers Al-Mughni, 10/441 Al-Shaafa i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy. [al-Ma aarij 70:29-30] The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one s right hand possesses.

Al-Umm, 5/43.

The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com) Marriage of an Adult with a Child Question Reference Number:: 1493 Title: Ruling on marrying young women Question: I need to know, when did the Holy Prophet get married to Hazrat Aisha, there have been claims on newsgroups that the Holy Prophet was a pedophile. I want enough information to be able to answer such allegations.

I need to know, when did the Holy Prophet get married to Hazrat Aisha, there have been claims on newsgroups that the Holy Prophet was a pedophile. I want enough information to be able to answer such allegations.

I need to know everything about this particular marriage, quoting sources.

I need to know, when did the Holy Prophet get married to Hazrat Aisha, there have been claims on newsgroups that the Holy Prophet was a pedophile. I want enough information to be able to answer such allegations.

I need to know everything about this particular marriage, quoting sources.

Wa-alaikum Answer Praise be to Allaah.

The answer to your question may be found in the ahaadeeth of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and the commentary of al-Haafiz al- Asqallaani, which are quoted below: Aa ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: "The Prophet <file:///images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married me when I was six years old. Then we came to Madeenah and stayed in Bani al-Haarith ibn Khazraj. I fell ill and my hair started to fall out (due to the illness; then it grew back thick again). My mother Umm Roomaan came to me whilst I was on a swing and my friends were with me. She shouted for me and I came to her, not knowing what she wanted. She took me by the hand and led me to the door of the house.

I was out of breath and we waited until I had calmed down, then she took some water and wiped my face and head, then took me inside.

There were some women of the Ansaar in the house, and they said: " Alaa al-khayri wa l-baraka wa ala khayri taa ir (blessings, best wishes, etc)." My mother handed me over to them and they tidied me up, then suddenly the Messenger of Allaah <file:///images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was there. It was midmorning, and they handed me over to him. At that time I was nine years old." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3605).

Urwah said: "Khadeejah died three years before the Prophet <file:///images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) migrated to Madeenah. He stayed alone for two years or thereabouts, then he married Aa ishah when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3607) The phrase "he married Aa ishah" means that the marriage contract was drawn up; the marriage was consummated later on, when she was nine.

Muslim reports from al-Zuhri, from Urwah, that Aa ishah said that she was taken to him when she was nine years old, and she took her toys with her. He died when she was eighteen years old. Muslim also reports a similar account from Aa ishah via al-Aswad. He reports from Abdullaah ibn Urwah from his father that Aa ishah said: "The Messenger of Allaah <file:///images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married me in Shawwaal and consummated the marriage with me in Shawwaal."

Aa ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said that the Prophet <file:///images/saws.gif> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, and she stayed with him for nine years."

(Reported by al-Bukhaari, 4738) Al-Bukhaari calls this chapter of his Saheeh "Baab inkaah al-rajul wuldahu (or waladahu) al-sighaar (Chapter on a man marrying off his young children)." The fact that Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ". . . and for those who have no courses [periods] [(i.e., they are still immature) their iddah is three months likewise, except in case of death] . . ." [al-Talaaq 65:4] is an indication that it is permissible to marry girls below the age of adolescence. This is a good understanding, but the aayah makes no specific mention of either the father or the young girl. It could be said that the basic principle concerning marrying children is that it is

forbidden unless there is specific evidence (daleel) to indicate otherwise. The hadeeth of Aa ishah states that her father Abu Bakr married her off before the age of puberty, but there is no other evidence apart from that, so the rule applies to all other cases.

Al- Muhallab said: "[The scholars] agreed that it is permissible for a father to marry off his young virgin daughter, even though it is not usually the case to have intercourse with such a young woman."

(The above was summarized from Fath al-Baari Sharh ala Saheeh alBukhaari) In summary, then, it is permitted to contract marriage with a young girl and to hand her over to her husband to stay with him before she reaches adolescence. As for consummating the marriage, this does not happen until she is physically able for it. Thus the matter becomes quite clear. Do you see anything wrong with a man living with his young wife in one house, bringing her up and teaching her, but delaying consummation until she is ready for it? We ask Allaah to show us truth and falsehood and to make each clear. And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com) These glimpses into Islamic jurisprudence at the dawn of the 21st century, when combined with everything else we know about Islam, confirm that because of the inerrancy of the Koran and the infallibility of the sayings of Muhammed and his close associates recorded in the Hadith , that the World of Islam is still living culturally and jurisprudentially , if not scientifically, in the 7th century.

Conclusion As the year 2002 began, the war against terrorism declared by President Bush in the aftermath of the suicide attacks against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon was being pursued

successfully and at a deliberate pace. The oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been deposed and Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are on the run, hiding and not at present in a position to carry out any more attacks against the United States and the West. There have been and continue to be many arrests against Al-Qaeda members and suspects and considerable damage has been done to the financial networks that support the terrorists. Much, much more remains to be done.

It is known that many Al-Qaeda cells and other Islamic terrorist organizations exist in over fifty countries of the world. Noteworthy in this regard are Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, the Phillippines, Malaysia, Indonesia , Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The most fundamental form of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and wealthy Saudis are using their wealth to export Wahhabism all over the world, and especially to build fundamentalist mosques in the United States and other Western countries. Th Shia form of Islam in Iran also supports world terrorism. President Bush has correctly and wisely stated that these terrorist organizations pose a mortal threat not only to the United States but to Western civilization itself. He has declared it to be the highest priority of his administration as long as he is in office to seek out and destroy these terrorist networks, as long as it may take.

It is said and widely believed that Islamic terrorism with suicide attacks and the killing of innocent civilians is a perversion of true Islamic teaching. Bernard Lewis, the noted and widely respected historian of Islam, says that while the reward for martyrdom, meaning death in a jihad, is eternal bliss, suicide is , in his words, another matter . suicide is not permitted in Islam and is, in fact, a mortal sin. In his opinion there is no precedent or authority in Islam for what happened on September 11th. Nevertheless he also acknowledges that some Islamic jurists and scholars are blurring the distinction between martyrdom with its reward of eternal bliss and suicide in the cause of

jihad which , in their view, is not a mortal sin but rather is indeed martyrdom.

The Islamic fundamentalist movement is driven by a desire to return to the unaltered teachings of Muhammed and to a time when the Islamic world was superior to the Christian West. It rejects modernism and secularism. Muhammed and his immediate successors not only preached jihad with death to the infidels, but waged jihad, or holy war, and very successfully did so. The goal of Islamic fundamentalism is to establish the supremacy of Islam in the world. The precedents in the Koran to do this by the force of arms with little mercy shown to the unbelievers are too many to be ignored. It is true that precedents can be found in the Old Testament in which God blessed military force by the Jews against their enemies. However, it should be kept in mind that these battles described in the Old Testament took place one thousand to two thousand years before Muhammed. Muhammed operated in a desert culture more like that of King David than the New Testament culture. The teachings of Christ, which took place six hundred years before Muhammed emphasized love, repentance of sins and forgiveness. Christ asked his followers to go out into the world and spread the Gospel, not to wage jihad.

In an article published in the Christian Science Monitor about a month after September 11th, an Islamic law student from the Punjab region of Pakistan is quoted as being in favor of creating through a holy war, if necessary, an Islamic state that spans the globe. All nations would be under the control of sharia (Islamic law), with the locus of authority in Saudi Arabia, the Center of Islam. And for the first act, he looks to Osama bin Laden, "our hero number 1, our religious leader, our model, our general".

The truth is that Islamic fundamentalism and the views of Osama bin Laden are closer to the teachings and the actions of Muhammed and the early caliphs than most moderate Muslims and many wellintentioned individuals in the West are willing to acknowledge.

Whether or not terrorism in the cause of Islam is a legitimate way to

wage jihad is a matter of interpretation in which Islamic jurists and scholars presently disagree. The British historian and writer Paul Johnson stated that Islam is an imperialist religion in contrast to Christianity or Judaism. It is hard to dispute this view based on the evidence.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are correct that the war on terrorism must be pursued as long as it takes to eliminate the treat.

Within the Islamic world, the allure of Islamic fundamentalism must be reduced through the leadership of Islamic scholars, political figures, journalists, moderate clerics and Islamic governments. This can only happen within the world of Islam itself.. Western leaders can be supportive but can not cause it to happen. The West should respond to justified grievances but remain resolute in the face of the unprecedented threat we face from Islamic terrorism, and especially the possibility that the terrorists and te states that support and sponsor them may obtain nuclear, chemical, biological or other weapons of mass destruction. In the conclusion to his recent book What Went Wrong. Professor Lewis wrote the following which could not better state the current situation in the confrontation between the West and the World of Islam: "To a Western observer, schooled in the theory and practice of Western freedom, it is precisely the lack of freedom-freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination, to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom of women from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny-that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world. But the road to democracy, as the Western experience amply demonstrates, is long and hard, full of pitfalls and obstacles.

If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination: perhaps from a resurgent Russia, perhaps

from some new expanding superpower in the East. If they can abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies, and resources in a common creative endeavor, then they can once again make the Middle East, in modern times as it was in antiquity and the Middle Ages, a major center of civilization. For the time being, the choice is their own."

At the time of Muhammed"s birth, the Christian West, i.e.

Christendom, consisted of Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East, Egypt and Africa. Phillip Jenkins in his book The Next Christendom, states that in 500 A.D. shortly before the birth of Muhammed, there were 43 million Christians in the world, 21, 14 and 8 million respectively in Asia Minor, Europe and the Middle East, Egypt, Africa combined. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, cited by Jenkins, there are two billion Christians in the world today with 560, 480, 360, 313 and 260 million residing in Europe/Russia, Latin America, Africa, Asia and North America respectively. As Jenkins points out, Christianity is on the wane in Europe, but growing in Africa and Latin America. In 50 years there will be approximately equal numbers of Christians and Muslims, but of the former, only a fifth will be non-Hispanic whites.

Militant Islam is that part of the Islamic world that has taken the Koran, the Hadith, the Sunna and the words and deeds of Muhammed and the early Caliphs most seriously, i.e. Islam places an obligation on every able-bodied Muslim male to wage jihad, holy war against the unbelievers until the whole world becomes Islamic, that is submits to Islam. In Islamic theology it has ever been the dar-al-Islam, the world of Islam against the dar-al-harb, the world of war, i.e. the non-Islamic world.

As the year 2003 begins, where does the Christian West, i.e.

Christendom, stand in this 1500 year confrontation with Islam. It is clear that Militant Islam has declared war on the West in general and on the United States most particularly. Christians are being killed by Islamic terrorists almost on a daily basis all over the world solely because they are Christians. Militant Islam, also called Islamism, is

winning the war of ideas within Islam over Sufism and other moderate elements within the Islamic community. Most of the poorest nations in the world are Islamic and are governed by autocratic rulers. Because of this they are breeding grounds for fanaticism and militancy. There are surely many peaceful Muslims in the world but Islam by its very nature is not a peaceful religion.

Europe is dying culturally and spiritually. Before World War I Turkey was referred to as the sick man of Europe. Now, unfortunately, Western Europe itself, except for Great Britain, has become the sick man of Europe with not even the will to defend itself against a worldwide adversary of unparalleled hostility and determination. Europe is also dying demographically. The rule of thumb for demographers is that for a country or a culture to maintain itself without immigration, each women of child-bearing age should have 2.1 children. The current figure for women in Western Europe as a whole is about 1.5 and for Italy is currently 1.2 and Spain the lowest in Europe at 1.1. The population deficit that would normally result under such circumstances in many European countries is being made up by an in-flux of Muslims with a high birth rate and little tendency for assimilation. Militant Islam is flourishing in Europe and the United States with Saudi Arabia using its oil revenues to build Mosques in the Christian West devoted to Wahhabism, the most backward looking of all elements in Islam.

Militant Islam is flourishing in Bosnia and Kosovo which have become havens for Islamic terrorists, Al-Qaida and drug running. The United States is leading the War against Terror which more accurately should be called the War against Militant Islam. While this essay has dealt with Islam and the Christian West, Islam has ben equally if not more destructive on Hindus and Buddhists.

As discussed earlier in this essay, the Christian West went through a renaissance, reformation, the enlightenment resulting in republicanism, democracy, a separation of church and state and, in the main, freedom. Western societies became modern, secular and adjusted well to changing circumstances. Islam is, to an increasing extent as Islamic

fundamentalism becomes more powerful, wedded to the concept that all answers to societies needs are to be found in the 7th century Koran.

It must be our hope that success in the War against Militant Islam will give strength to those elements in the Islamic world. It is clear that there will be no significant freedom and liberty developing in the Islamic world until Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are defeated and the power of the clerics, Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs is greatly reduced as has happened in Turkey. Then the Western ideas of freedom, liberty, the emancipation of women, parliamentary government and representative democracy may have a chance to develop. Until then it is likely that the Islamic world will continue to be mired in poverty, autocratic governments, Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

Bibliography Al-Bukhari .1994. Summarized Al-Bukhari, Arabic-English. Maktaba Darus-Salam.

Publishers and Distributers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Bat Ye'or 1996. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude.

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison N.J. Bat Ye'or. 2002. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide.

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison N.J. Bible 1986 The Ryrie Study Bible. New International Edition Moody Press, Chicago Bodansky, Youssef. 1999. Bin Laden. The Man Who Declared War on America.

Forum/Prima Publishing. Rocklin, CA.

Dawood, N.J., translator. 1999 The Koran. Penguin Books, London Encyclopedia Britannica, Compact Disc 1998 Esposito, John (ed). 1999 The Oxford History of Islam. Oxford University Press, New York, Jenkins, Phillip 2002. The Next Christendom. Oxford University Press Karsh, Efraim and Inari Karsh. 1999. Empires of the Sand. The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Kramer, Martin. 1996 Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival. The Politics of Ideas in the Middle East. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ Lewis, Bernard. 1974 Islam from the Prophet Muhammed to the Capture of Constantinople. Vol.1 Politics and War. Vol. 2 Religion and Society. Walker and Company, New York Lewis, Bernard. 1990. The Roots of Muslim Rage. Atlantic Monthly Magazine, New York Lewis, Bernard. 1993 Islam and the West. Oxford University Press, New York Lewis, Bernard. 2001 What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle East Response.

Oxford University Press. New York Netanhahu, Benjamin. A Durable Peace. Israel and its Place Among Nations. 2000. Warner Books, New York

Pipes, Daniel. 1983 In the Path of God. Islam and Political Power. Basic Books, New York.

Tibi, Bassam. 1998. The Challenge of Fundamentalism. Political Islam and New World Disorder. University of California Press, Berkeley California.

Trifkovic, Serge. 2002. The Sword of the Prophet. Regina Orthodox Press, Inc, Boston, MA. Walker, Benjamin. 1998 Foundations of Islam. The Making of a World Faith. Peter Owen Publishers, London Warraq, Ibn. 1995. Why I am not a Muslim. Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York Warraq, Ibn. 2000. The Quest for the Historical Muhammed.

Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York Warraq, Ibn 2002. What the Koran Really Says. Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y. Watt, W. Montgomery. 1961 Muhammed. Prophet and Statesman.

Oxford Univ. Press, London. Oxford University Press