Has Islam been misunderstood for the last fourteen centuries? Part 3
O. Preliminary objection
Having chronicled Islamic violence, jihad and terrorism in every century from the seventh century to today, the obvious objection is this; could we not do the same thing with Christianity? What about the Protestant Catholic wars in Ireland and England? What about the church’s burning of those it deemed heretics on the stake?
This objection fails for two reasons.
First, it is not possible to do the same thing with Christianity for one simple reason. There was no Christian violence in the first century because Jesus did not preach violence and his disciples were not violent. The only violence in the first century of Christianity was against Jesus Christ and His followers.
The second reason the objection does not work is that whatever violence there has been in the history of Christianity cannot be traced back to the teaching or example of Jesus Christ and His apostles. It does not go back to the origins of Christianity.
With Islam however, the violence goes back to the teaching and example of Muhammad and his companions. This is why our chronicle started with Allah, Muhammad and Abubakar, Muhammad’s companion. Violence and terror in Islam goes back to the teachings and example of Muhammad himself! So this goes back to the origin of Islam.
P. What is the purpose of chronicling the historical violence of Islam?
The first reason for doing this is to show that Islam today has not been misunderstood by those termed “radicals” and “extremists”. If ISIS and Al-Qaeda are radicals then Muhammad must also be a radical. The onus is on those alleging that Islamic terrorism is based on misinterpretations of Islam to justify why Islam has been misinterpreted in the exact same way for the past fourteen centuries. If on the other hand, we view the history of violence and Jihad in the name of Islam as a continuation of a war against unbelievers that goes back to Muhammad and His companions, then it all makes sense. One can debate the theology from now till the end of time and get neither here nor there however the historical data is undebatable. Islam, since its inception has always been a religion at war with other religions and prone to persecution of religious minorities within its domains, something we still see this very day.
The second reason for doing this is to show how exactly Islam spread. Our Muslim friends tend to wonder how Islam became one of the largest world religions if it is false. The historical data shows how exactly that came to be. Islam spread by the sword. Islam conquers, enslaves the population and persecutes non-Muslims who refuse to convert until they choose death or Islam. Flowing from this overarching context, we can see the more specific reasons Islam spread.
- The women in a locality where historical Islam comes into would be taken as war booty. In Islamic theology, the marriages of such women become annulled and their captors can have sex with them. The babies born in this context are then raised Muslim.
- The Jizya (even historically extending to blood Jizya by way of children as the Ottoman empire did) as well as other forms of Islamic oppression made the lives of non-Muslims so miserable that a good number of them converted to Islam just to have a more decent and dignified life.
So we see the spread of Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the truth of Islam. It was basically the Islamic conquerors coming in and saying “We are going to make the lives of Non-Muslims in these lands a living hell until they become Muslim”. Conversion to Islam did not require any kind of genuine heart felt faith. This conversion ensured that children born in such households also were raised Islamic and so on and so forth. There were no debates or proof of the Quran or the prophethood of Muhammad, just chaos until you mindlessly submit to the religion.
The third reason for doing this is to show that Islam as a religion when taken seriously (as the so called radicals do) gives those outside its fold no good options. Notice that the options Muhammad orders his followers to give a Non-Islamic nation are (i) Convert to Islam (ii) pay jizya in acknowledgment of your inferiority or (iii) be killed. The subject of these threats automatically have their backs against the wall in these circumstances, their options are to either (ii) surrender or (ii) actually fight against it till the last drop of their blood. A bloody war or submission to shariah are the two options for a non-Muslim nation.
With this backdrop of Islam pushing people to the wall, we can now understand what the reason for the crusades. The oppression of Muslims (chronicled in part 1) from the 7th to 9th centuries, a period within which ,according to one historian, 75% of the Christian world (Egypt, Syria, Jerusalem, the seven localities in the book of Revelation, Antioch to mention a few)had been conquered by Muslims in the name of Islam, sparked the crusaders to action in order to not just retake the holy land but also to defend their fellow Christians under Islamic oppression. Now some parties of the crusaders in the process did very messed up things which are indefensible but the crux of the matter is that if Islam was not such a militant and oppressive force, the crusades would never have happened.
Q. The Take away
The main take away from all this is that Islam has not changed at all in the last fourteen centuries, it is doing what it has always done. The nature of Islam which never gives non-Muslims good options is still very much at play in the 21st century. The quintessential example of this is the Israel Gaza conflict currently ongoing.
A group of terrorists in the name of Islam paraglide their way into Israel from Gaza, kill civilians — including babies, rape women and take hostages and then go back to Gaza and hide in tunnels among their own civilians. What options does Israel have? Either (i) Do nothing, accede to the demands of the terrorists in order to get their hostages back or (ii) Force their way into Gaza, hunt down the terrorists and get their hostages back.
If Israel took the first option, they would have sent a message that terrorism works and encourage further acts of terrorism in future. Any country in the middle east that wants anything from Israel can go in there, take hostages and force Israel to the negotiation table until of course there is no more Israel to negotiate with. If Israel takes the second option, then we have what we currently have — death of innocent and not so innocent civilians which can then be used for propaganda and to make Israel look like the international pariahs which the mainstream media makes them out to be today. The third option is for Israel as a country to cease to exist and then all the Jews under its banner and protection will revert back to being slaves of Muslims and we know how that has worked out for them in the last fourteen centuries. There really are no good options when Islam is involved.
Now there is a message for Europe and the West in all of this as well. With the endless troops of Afghans, Somalis and other Islamic nations trooping in with absolutely no checks or deterrents. If this trajectory continues and Islam becomes more and more of a problem in the West, the latter will be stuck with the very terrible options of either implementing full shariah (in all its wife beating, religious minority persecuting and child marrying glory) or fight back to resist it at all costs. Chances are the latter option would be taken and this would be a bloody and violent conflict.
As it stands, the era of dealing with this Islamic problem in an uncontroversial fashion is gone. The way to have done that would have been to normalise discourse and criticism of Islam in the West. Islam should never have been elevated to this protected and hallowed topic which it is frowned upon to criticise, when there were riots over Muhammad cartoons and all of that, the correct response would have been to promote the rights of the cartoonists and deal with the terrorists, the job of the police should have been to deal with the violent Muslim mobs rather than the outnumbered person(s) they are ganging up against. The era for that is gone now, Islam has too much influence for that.
Now, to combat the Islamic issue, something radical but not necessarily violent or bloody has to be done! Things which might not make Europe look “nice and friendly”, things which the international community might clutch their pearls at but things which need to be done nonetheless! What things? Deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals — particularly those from Muslim nations, pay attention to teachings in mosques, dissolve shariah councils, ensure the police protect people from Muslim mobs rather than address what they are mobbing against, educate kids and teenagers about Islam (the REAL Islam not the whitewashed propagandist versions being pedalled today), investigate funding from Qatar and Muslim nations and more importantly, actively restore and promote the European values which are founded upon Christendom! All this nonsense about people not being deported because they would not have access to the right kind of French fries in their home countries has to stop. This is where things currently stand.
If this problem is not dealt with relatively peacefully albeit highly controversially right now, this leaves the problem to continue to build up and to be addressed by future generations by which time, the conflict that will resolve this issue would be bloody and violent. There is a reason Europeans fought for centuries to keep Islam out of its borders, there is need to restore knowledge of what Islam really is because only then would Europeans understand afresh why they really do not want Islam taking control of Europe.
Conclusion
Islam is a religion of terror and oppression. Either that or it has been terribly misunderstood as such for the past fourteen centuries. In either case, what would be the difference between a religion of terror and a religion that is so hopelessly unclear that a large swath of people from a large swath of cultures somehow keep coming to the conclusion that the religion calls for the terrorising and oppression of those outside it?
Concluded
Also consider:
