Imam Feisal and Prophet Muhammad: Peace Builders by the Sword

Thursday, 23 September 2010 19:49 MA Khan Jihad - War-Violence
Print

Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.

 

Islam is a 'religion of peace'. Ask a Muslim: He/she will tell you that Islam brought true peace, equality, justice, human rights and liberty to mankind. Muhammad set the tone of this peaceable core of Islam through a charter of peace, the so-called Covenant of Medina, through which he established a peaceful cohesive state in Medina, where the rights of followers of all faiths were ensured. Extending this peaceful mission, he united the fractious and bickering uncivilized Bedouin tribes of Arabia, upon which was founded the world's greatest empire and civilization, within which people of all faiths lived in peace, harmony and equality. Not only Muslims, but also non-Muslim historians, often of the Marxist leaning, would tell you so. So says Ibn Warraq, albeit regrettably (Why I Am Not A Muslim, p. 198):

Open any modern introductory book on Islam and the chances are you will find that it begins by singing the praises of a people who conquered, in an incredibly short period, half the civilized world—of a people who established an empire that stretched from the banks of the Indus in the east to the shores of the Atlantic in the West. The volume will recount in positively glowing terms a time when Muslims ruled over a vast population of diverse peoples and cultures.

Indeed, Muhammad invited the people of Arabia, even the rulers of Persia, Byzantium and Egypt amongst others, to unite under this prophethood and leadership. And, to that end, he founded an imperial Islamic state in Arabia, which would be the launching pad for the expansion of Islamic rule to far corners of the world.

But how was this so-called unity and peace was achieved? Let us first look at the Covenant of Medina, allegedly Muhammad's first agreement of peace and pluralistic coexistence with infidels, namely Jews and Polytheists of the city.

One must bear in mind that this covenant was signed less than one year after Muhammad's immigration there as a refugee. This covenant was dictated by, or written out from, Allah and Muhammad. It puts Muhammad as the ruler of the city, without whose permission, no-one, Muslim or non-Muslim, could go to war; the Jews and Polytheists of Medina must not protect the Quryash of Mecca, whom Muhammad had resolved to put to the sword; life of Muslims must be avenged, but not of non-Muslims, killed by a Muslim. Within a year of coming to Medina, Muhammad was offering the native non-Muslims of the city of such terms, demanding complete submission and subjugation to his authority. If they failed, concluded the document: "Loyalty is a protection against treachery". that means, if the native non-Muslims didn't show submission to Muhammad with complete loyalty, treachery will be unleashed: that is, the covenant would be thrown away and they would be treacherously attacked.

This is the model Muhammad had set forth for Muslims to follow through eternity, and there is a complete resemblance between this and Imam Feisal's campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque; we will come to it later.

In like manner, Muhammad, when became increasingly powerful in men and swords, offered proposals to other communities and nations to submit to him with offer of peace and security of their life and property. Let us see what Muhammad wrote to the kings of Oman:

‘Embrace Islam and you shall be safe… If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy.’

That is, to be safe and keep your kingship, embrace Islam; else my forces would enter your backyard and wreak destruction upon you.

While writing for submission to Heraclius of Byzantium, the world's most powerful emperor, just fresh from defeating the Persians in Palestine, Muhammad couldn't be so threatening, in order to avoid an attack. So, he wrote to Heraclius in a somewhat mild language (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 655):

‘If you accept Islam you will be safe; if you accept Islam, Allah will give you double reward; if you turn back, the sin of the husbandmen will be upon you.'

That means, to be safe and rewarded, accept Islam; if not, you will be responsible for misguiding your people.

Here Muhammad couldn't threaten him with punishment by sending his forces to attack him, not at this point in time, when he was so weak.

Here is the "prince of peace" of Muslims, the message of whose peace-overtures was: To buy safety and security, the infidels must embrace Islam, submit to his leadership and prophethood, or else, the swords would be drawn.

Later on, we witness Caliph Omar using the same mode of peace-overtures. Demanding submission to Islam, he wrote to the Shah of Iran:

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option.

Down to our time, Imam Feisal, the man behind of the Ground Zero mosque project, plus his Muslim horde in the West, including great intellectual Fareed Zakaria (see why), are trying to use the same template of action or modus operandi---in the context of time and reality, of course.

Imam Feisal has emerged as a champion builder of peace and harmony between Muslims and the infidels. In words, he shoots bombastic propaganda of building peace and tolerance, but, in substance, he sends out the message of drawing out the sword, if submission and subjugation to his Islamic agenda is not realized.

His latest agenda is building a giant mosque close to the Ground Zero of 9/11 attacks, as part of his so-called mission of building interfaith tolerance and peace between Islamic and the Western world, between Muslims and Westerners. His weird logic is that building such an elegant mosque at the 9/11 Ground Zero site would foster peace and harmony between Muslims and Western infidels, would help incline Muslims more toward peace, and blunt the messages of al-Qaeda-minded Muslims.

We may forget that almost every terrorist attacks and plots in the past decade in the West, from 9/11 to Fort Hood, have been linked to radicalization of the perpetrators in mosques, that, in Islamic countries, mosques and madrasas are breeding grounds for Islamic fanatics and terrorists.

In the mildest of sense, a mosque is symbol of Islam, a symbol of Islamization. More the mosque, the elegant the mosque, the greater is Islamization, the dominance of Islam in that place. In other words, a giant mosque at the Ground Zero would represent the rising dominance of Islam in the New York City---plain and simple.

Moreover, from Islam's inception, mosques have been built to declare political supremacy of Islam over other faiths. Muhammad started it in Arabia, by destroying the churches, synagogues and temples of non-Muslim communities, the Pagan's Ka'ba Temple turned into the Ka'ba Mosque being the shining example. Since then, every place Muslim have conquered, they have destroyed their most revered places of worship and built at their places giant mosques to declare Islam's political and religious supremacy over the conquered infidels. Moving on from Mecca, the most famous churches in Cordoba (Spain) and Istanbul, the most revered Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, to the greatest Hindu temple of Rama Mandir in Ayodhya—all have been taken over and desecrated or destroyed, and famous mosques have been built in their stead.

In that sense, mosques represent a symbol of terror and humiliation to non-Muslims. How can, then, a mosque at the Ground Zero foster tolerance and peace between Americans and Muslims?

Most importantly, the al-Qaeda terrorists, who brought down the World Trade Center at the Ground Zero, did so because they want to establish a global Islamic Caliphate by subjugating the infidels to Islamic dominance through intimidation and terror. The most desirable thing on earth they would dream to see is a mosque build at the prime places of infidel powers around the world. A mosque at the World Trade Center or the White House would be the most desirable, dreamable, thing they ever want to see being built. Imam Feisal's Ground Zero mosque would become a reality what the 9/11 attack terrorists, masterminds and their like-minded Islamic radicals could only dream. It's a dream come true for the al-Qaeda Jihadis.

One is left to wonder, then, how a "dream-comes-true" event for the Islamic militants would help blunt their mission to commit similar acts that made their dream comes true.

Weird as it may seem to infidels (except some leftist liberals), but most logical to Islamists like Feisal and Fareed Zakaria, what is interesting about this mosque-building campaign is: how they are trying to push it down the throat of Americans with veiled threats, like those of Muhammad, albeit with modern subtlety, understandably given the reality. He warned America on CNN that

Americans must remember that what we do is watched all over the world… Our national security, our personal security, is extremely important. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

In other words, if the Imam's expectation, nay better say his command, an Islamizing one, is not met, he threatened America with violence. Just as did Muhammad to the people of Medina and the kings of Oman, Byzantium, Persia and others: that is, accept what we want here at 9/11 Ground Zero; else, be prepared for the sword, i.e. violence from Muslims.

What is needed for true tolerance and peace building is blunting exactly this mode of Muslim thinking that has been in force from Muhammad down to Imam Feisal. And the result has been untold Muslim-to-infidel intolerance, violence and barbarism—history being the proof.

What is needed for true peace-building between Muslims and non-Muslims is to make Muslims in the Islamic world tolerate non-Muslims, give them religious freedom and equal rights; let them build houses of worship—churches, synagogues and temples freely in Muslim countries—which remains almost impossible even in highly moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh. For true peace-building, there is a need to build churches, synagogues and temples in Mecca, Medina, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Maldives and other Islamic countries, freely and without fear.

Obviously Imam Feisal is not going to propose or lead such initiatives. He wants a giant, elegant mosque at the most sensitive place in America to declare the rise of Islam. For Muslim readers, he titled his book, written in reaction to the barbaric 9/11 attacks by Muslim terrorists, as A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawah from the Heart of America Post 911. Historically Muslim invaders, after barbaric attacks on infidel nations, built mosques at their most central, sensitive and revered places for the Islamic call to prayer, call to Islam, a.k.a. Dawah. His book, as it appears, represented his desire to implement that old modus operandi of Islamic invaders, by transforming the Ground Zero into a pulpit for Dawah, call to Islamic prayers. His campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque a decade later is his resolute attempt to realize that blueprint, that dream. And to achieve it in the face of mounting opposition from Americans, he is adopting Muhammad's tactic: that is, agree and submit to what we want or else the swords would be unsheathed, in this case, in the form of violence by Muslims against America.

Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter en masse of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.

Actions of Muhammad, the most perfect man and the best apostle of Allah, are examples for Muslims to emulate for eternity to live the perfect Muslim life. Feisal Abdul Rauf, a devout follower of Muhammad and an Imam at that, could only follow Muhammad, not do otherwise.


Originally posted at Islam-Watch.org