Tuesday, 12 July 2011

My overall impression of the first episode of The Life of Muhammad is that the BBC has done Islam a great service. No wonder the Muslim opinion formers who saw the preview were so pleased: ‘It’s very well done’, ‘I think they’ve done a great job’, ‘I thought it was absolutely fantastic’.

Their enthusiasm is understandable. The Muslim viewpoint was given free rein while Robert Spencer’s contributions must have lasted barely a minute, and controversial claims were allowed to pass virtually unchallenged. One shameful example came courtesy of the Muslim apologist Merryl Wyn Davis, who quoted Qur’an 2:256 ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion’. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali pointed out that the rule had not always been respected by Muslims but the key rebuttal—the principle of abrogation—went unmentioned.

Abrogation had to be introduced into the Qur’an by Mohammed when his later revelations began to contradict the earlier; when there is a contradiction, the later verse abrogates or cancels the earlier. The order of revelation (see here) shows that Chapter 2 was the 87th chapter to be revealed, meaning that its peaceable message of ‘no compulsion’ is abrogated by this verse from Chapter 9, the 113th revelation:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth [Islam], even if they are of the people of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizyah [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Qur’an 9:29)

The ‘no compulsion’ of Chapter 2 has now become a command to fight non-Muslims until they are compelled to submit and are subdued. Heaven knows it takes a lot of explaining but a programme aiming to present a balanced view of Islam would have made the effort.

[The Arabic in the illustration means ‘Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah’]


Anonymous said...


Why the the west have a law in how to fight in a war, and Geneva treaty, because there is always wars and any system need a law and rules about this matter,

Islam is not only how to worship or how to sleep and eat, it also have rules about how to run a country like the Islamic finance, and juridical system and obviously rules in how to conduct wars that Muslims should follow when war starts.

Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him before going to any battle always differentiate between the rulers and the farmer which mean the general public, and the fight was against any ruler that try to stop the people from hearing the true message.

Why Quran speaks about how to fight, because it’s the Muslim Law about all corners of life either in peace time or war time, and it sets rule about being good and honest with people showing peace toward Muslims, but unfortunately not all people will be like that then Quran teach you what to do with people fighting against you or stopping you from doing your duty spreading the words of ALLAH.

In the verse that you coted it even says "until they pay the jizyah [tax]" yes they needed to pay Tax, it was so small amount of tax that it was symbolic and history tells us that in the golden age of Islam when it used to be the dark ages of Europe the tax was so much in Europe that so many of Europeans migrated to Bagdad as that symbolic Tax was so so small compared to what they used to pay in Europe and have much more protection and peace.

Old man, Women and children could live in Muslim land without paying this Tax, Muslim men paid this Tax by their blood by being in the army protecting the Islamic land, and none Muslims was not trusted to be the Army instead they had to pay small amount of money for beeing in the Islamic land,

If you live in Muslim land, Muslims give blood , and non muslim pay a small amount of money.
Isn’t that fair?

Why it was right for the Romans, French, British, Spanish, Protégées to expend in the land but not the Muslims,

I am not An Arab originally but I am decedent of the original people of north Africa called the “Berbers”, and two kind of people expended in my country, first the Muslims which came to our Land and they were stronger and Asked my ancestors to either be a Muslims and protect this land with the other Muslims, or pay a small tax.

Most of my ancestor’s choose to pay the Tax, as it was small and they didn’t have to fight against European invaders coming from the Mediterranean anymore.

within Time my ancestors saw that this people didn’t come to take their wealth or money but to follow the order of Allah and his messenger to spread the Message of Islam and the reward will not be taken in this life but in the hereafter, and they found out how there life changed for better with an organised law, fair juridical system, and peace which made them follow Islam.

now second people that Came to expend in my country were the French, go to youtube to see some videos and understand the difference between the two and how the French destroyed my country and there only reason was to take what we had.

I thank GOD that send this people to my ancestors which gave them a much better life then what they had before, and my Allah reward all people that scarified to protect the message to arrive to us today as clear as if it was revealed just now.

May Allah open the heart of anyone who is really looking for the Truth.

Will said...

What could be expected of producer Rageh Omaar ?
Just see how he depicts the crusaders:

Christianity: A History | Massacre at Jerusalem

Anonymous said...

Rageh Omaar is much more neutral then BBC Journalists, at least he is bringing academics and ask them questions better then most BBC journalists which shows videos of 650 killed children in gaza and without any academics they dare call it self defence.

Is that what means neutral journalism for you?

Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (18:29)—Hi. Taking your points in order:

1. From my Western perspective, it is genuinely worrying to see how readily you accept the principle of Muslims resorting to fighting if it helps to spread the word of Allah. I understand your argument—Islam is such a force for good that any attempt to stop its spread must be resisted at all costs—but it makes a mockery of the verse about there being no compulsion in religion. At any rate, your comment helps to illustrate the gulf between Islam and the West, and how much of a threat Islam is to our way of life.

2. With respect, you must know that non-Muslims living in a Muslim land have far more restrictions placed on them than just paying the jizyah. Their houses must not be taller than Muslims’ houses, they cannot repair their places of worship without Muslim permission, they cannot build new places of worship, etc (the full list is in Reliance of the Traveller, section o.11.0). In every respect, the non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state, the dhimma, are inferior to Muslims, even to the extent of the murder of a non-Muslim by a Muslim being a less serious offence. The purpose is clear: non-Muslims living in a Muslim land are to be treated so badly that their resistance to Islam will be worn down and, for the chance of an easier life, they convert.

3. I’m sure the French were responsible for much wrongdoing in North Africa but they did eventually leave. Our problem in the West is that our Muslim populations are growing rapidly and they will never leave, and that worries us because we look at the failed societies that Islam has produced and see our own countries being reduced to failure, too.

Anonymous said...

1. One flaw in your reasoning is Verses of say Chapter B may also at the same time be revealed although Chapter A was still incomplete.
2. Is this understanding of the verses and the abrogation your own or is it widely acknowledged in the Islamic scholarly literature? Any reference?

Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Will (21:30)—Hi. Omaar is not above using deception. In the programme, he visited a new mosque that was under construction in London and rejoiced in Muslims’ freedom of worship. But he made no mention at all of the persecution Christians endure in Muslim countries.

Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (04:09)—There are, to my knowledge, two verses of abrogation:

2:106 Whatever a verse do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

16:101 When we change one verse for another (Allah knows best what he reveals), they say: ‘You [Mohammed] are an impostor.’ Indeed most of them are ignorant men.

In the early days of Islam, before the Prophet and his followers fled Mecca, the Qur’anic revelations were conciliatory towards Jews and Christians as Mohammed tried to coax them into becoming Muslims. After the Hijra, and with many Jews and Christians still refusing to convert, Mohammed’s attitude hardened and the revelations became more hate-filled and violent. The verses of abrogation are a means of smoothing over how the message of the Qur’an switches from conciliation to warfare.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I couldnt edit my previous comment to answer Johnny but here I edited my comment.


Why do the West have laws regarding how to fight in wars, and a Geneva treaty? Because there will always be wars and any system needs laws and rules about this matter.

Islam doesn’t just tell us how to worship or how to sleep and eat, it also contains rules about how to run a country. For example, Islamic finance, an Islamic judicial system and obviously rules in how to conduct wars that Muslims should follow when war starts.

Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) before going to any battle always differentiated between the ruler and the farmer, meaning the general public. The fight was against any ruler that tried to stop the people from hearing the true message.
Islam does not allow forcing people to enter Islam. Afterall, what’s the point of having someone with you with his tongue and not with his heart? What we call hypocrites, which are people that say ‘we are Muslims’ when they are not in order to spy on the Muslim community in Madinah was looked at as a greater danger than the ones that showed that they were enemies of Islam.
Islam accepts any one to not follow Islam but no one is allowed to stop Muslims spreading the truth.
Why does the Quran speak about how to fight? Because Islam encompasses all aspect of life, during times of peace and stability and turmoil and war.
What means Jizyah? In the Arabic dictionary it states that it is paying something for a service given to you. And what was a bigger service in the middle ages than having security (a rare thing in those days) by paying the Army to protect the land. Furthermore, to stress the fairness of the system, a condition of Jizya was that if the Muslim army failed to protect the people that paid Jizya, it had to be paid back to them.
In the verse that you quoted it even says "until they pay the jizyah [tax]" yes they needed to pay tax. It was such a small amount of tax that it was mainly symbolic. History tells us that the golden ages of Islam was in stark contrast to the dark ages of Europe where tax was unfair and overbearing. The tax was so much in Europe that many Europeans migrated to Bagdad, preferring to pay the small amount of symbolic tax rather than the overbearing tax they had to pay in Europe. And with the Islamic tax, they could at least be guaranteed a greater chance of peace and security.
Old people, women, children and sick people who were not fit to fight could live in Muslim lands without paying this tax. Muslim men paid this tax by their blood; by being in the army protecting the Islamic land. The non-Muslims were not trusted to serve in the army and so instead of fighting, they would pay a small amount instead. It is difficult to think how you could possibly find this unfair!

Anonymous said...

The ruling states that if someone reaches the age to join the army but he was not a Muslim then he must pay Jizya. However, if he was poor or blind or handicap then this tax was waived and not only that but he was granted the right to benefits from bayt almal (the treasury) in order to help him in his life. I suggest you should read further about this which showed how whilst Muslims had a benefit system to help poor people Europe used to take the houses of poor people if they didn’t keep up with paying tax. Thanks to Allah that sent us Muhammad and sent you Robin Hood to save us from evil rulers!
Why are no arguments against the Romans, French, British, Spanish, Protégées to expand in the land but many only mention Muslims?
I am not an Arab originally but I am a decedent of the original people of North Africa called the “Berbers”. Two kinds of people expanded into my country: first the Muslims who came to our land and they were stronger and asked my ancestors to either be Muslims and protect this land with the other Muslims, or pay a small tax.
Most of my ancestors choose to pay the Tax, as it was small and they didn’t have to fight against European invaders coming from the Mediterranean anymore.
Within time my ancestors noticed how these people didn’t come to take their wealth or money but to follow the order of Allah and his Messenger to spread the message of Islam and the reward will not be taken in this life but in the hereafter, and they found out how there life changed for better with an organised law, fair juridical system, and peace which made them follow Islam.
The second people that came to my country were the French. You just need to go to YouTube to see some videos and understand the difference between the two and how the French destroyed my country and their only reason to enter Algeria was to take what we had.
Let me address the point that it was not only jizya that needed to be paid by non-Muslims living in Muslim lands but non-Muslims also had to dress differently.
Firstly: Before the Prophet Muhammad PBUH died he said that the revelation is finished. It means that the rules of Islam were declared, as stated in the Quran. Muslim rulers thereafter followed these Islamic rulings which resulted in much good. However, some things that were done, such as making non-Muslims dress slightly differently, were political to help them protect their kingdom. Was that right or wrong? You cannot judge it by todays standards but by the standards of that time where there was a greater amount of unfairness and wrongdoing in European societies. so much so that the Europeans who had emigrated to Muslim lands were quite happy to wear distinguishing clothes if it helped the stability and security of the Muslim land, of which they were citizens rather than remain in non-Muslim Europe where they could dress the same as everyone else but will far fewer rights, freedoms and security.

Anonymous said...

Kings were (and still are!) chosen because they were simply born into the monarchy. This is islamically unfair and incorrect. A Muslim ruler is supposed to be chosen by a group of wise knowledgeable Muslims. However, the choices have not always been the best ones and this resulted in some rulers introducing their own rules, be it for the best of intentions such as the security of the country.
Many westerners say that as Muslims are coming to Europe this is evidence that Islam is failing. There is a very simple rebuttal to that: following French, British and Western occupations of Muslim lands for centuries, Muslim lands were robbed of their wealth and during the occupations would have been denied high levels of education and healthcare. Not content with leaving behind poor countries, they also decided to leave behind puppet dictators who would oppress their Muslim population whilst making oil/gas etc. deals with their Western friends to fill their own pockets. Hopefully, recent events in the Middle East have shown that we can and will fight back. A revolution is coming.
You simply cannot judge Islam by the governments of Muslim countries as they are actively against the revival of Islam, far more than their European counterparts. This is because Islam will ensure fairness and harmony for all citizens and not just those at the very top of government and business! If you want to judge Islam, look at how a bunch of Bedouins had, in 60 years, ruled from Russia to Morocco, and made Baghdad the science capital of the world making mass immigration from the darkness of Europe and its warlords to the equality and enlightening Muslim lands.
And for people saying why there is no churches in Saudi, I ask them why there is no Mosques in the Vatican?
Why In Turkey, Tunis, Egypt, Algeria, Tunis, Morocco, Jordan and so on never destroyed churches even when they were under Islamic rules for centuries???
I thank GOD that sent these people to my ancestors which gave them a much better life than what they had before. May Allah reward all people that sacrificed to protect the message so that it would arrive to us today as clear as if it was revealed those years ago.
May Allah open the heart of anyone who is really looking for the truth.

Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (6:51, 6:53, 6:54)—I don’t have time to answer as fully as you have done so I’ll have to be brief.

1. I know that Islam is a complete code of life, and I’m entirely happy for Muslims in Muslim countries to live by that code if they so wish (not that they have much choice given the Islamic penalty for apostasy) but the teachings of Islam are at odds with our way of life. Western societies have been so successful because of free speech and free thought; the submission required by Islam would end that run of success.

2. no one is allowed to stop Muslims spreading the truth

That rather depends on the goodwill of Western countries towards their Muslim populations. If that goodwill runs out, anything could happen.

3. I doubt if the Vatican has any room for a mosque, however small. Italy, however, has thousands of them.

4. following French, British and Western occupations of Muslim lands for centuries, Muslim lands were robbed of their wealth

The heartland of Islam, now Saudi Arabia, was never occupied, yet, until the discovery of oil, it was one of the most backward places on Earth. If it hadn’t been for oil, it still would be. Over a thousand years of Islam and nothing to show for it except camels, dates, the oppression of women and the gangs who used to rob and murder the hajjis. Islam is a retrogressive force and it has no place in the West.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Anonymous, a few points:

You say western occupation of 'Muslim lands' for centuries. There is no such thing as 'Muslim lands'. There are countries where a majority of the population are Muslims. Can you give me a few examples of this occupation for centuries?

Western countries, in general, only occupied Middle Eastern countries after the first world war. Those countries were then freed from Ottoman imperial rule. So the West didn't enslave those countries; it freed them. They became independent in the 1950s and 60s, so the occupation and control lasted for only about 40 years.

On the jizya, you say it was a small tax. No, it wasn't. It was a crushing economic burden. Here is a quote from Mark Durie's book The Third Choice:

'Thus, for laborers, the jizya normally amounted to the payment of 1-3 months wages. This compares with the zakat tax rate for Muslims of 2.5% (one 40th) of annual income, or just over one week's wages.' Payment of jizya also involved a ritual that was designed to be humiliating, a simulated beheading for example. Dhimmis had to wear specially marked clothing, not walk on the same paths as Muslims, not ride horses, not swear or strike a Muslim. So Muslim children would throw stones at adult Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews would not dare respond for fear of being put to death. That exact pattern of behaviour was described in 9th century Spain and in 20th century Egypt, so across more than 1000 years of history.

Algeria was occupied primarily because it was a menace to the civilised world through its continual practice of piracy. You really think the West stole Islamic wealth? What wealth? When and where did these wealth-stealing occupations take place? You are deluding yourself. The wealth of the modern world was created by western ingenuity. The only wealth Islam has ever acquired came from stealing.

It is tragic that you develop this victim narrative blaming everyone else for your own failings. The fact is the Jizya payment system you describe represents Islamic imperialism imposed on majority non-Muslim populations. Somehow you don't find that blameworthy even though it lasted for more than a millennium, but Western imperialism lasting a few decades at most is somehow a great evil!

All of the countries you mention did destroy churches. Even in the last few decades, Turkey has destroyed Christian churches in northern Cyprus.

See here for example:

Look around the world. Every country on earth where Islam predominates is a cesspit, characterised by poverty, misery and lack of freedom.

Baghdad was never the science capital of the world. Such scientific learning as existed there came primarily from the translation of Greek texts, usually undertaken by Christian and Jewish dhimmis. There was no mass western migration to Baghdad to take advantage of low tax rates. You are deluding yourself.

You are a prime example of the modern Muslim mindset. Your ideology (Islam) has produced nothing but epic failure for 1000 years yet somehow you contrive to blame this failure on everyone else, particularly the western countries which, over the course of a few decades, freed you from the Ottoman yoke.

No one in the west today defends western imperialism in the past. Many Muslims, however, continue to defend Islamic imperialism, as you do. And since you believe the Koran to be the unchanging word of god, presumably you must believe that what was valid before is still valid today? So would it be moral for you today to invade our countries and force us to pay jizya, if you could get away with it?

Anonymous said...

To Johnny again,
1 & 2) In what I said previously it was about people trying to stop the spreading of the truth in the middle ages, not now. Now it is Christian crusaders invading Muslim countries, not to spread ‘truth and democracy’ but to steal the wealth of these nations in the form of oil and petrol (Iraq) and making individuals filthy rich by taking tax payer’s money in the West to spend in the capitalist arms industry.
And please don’t tell me that if Muslims want to live in Islamic state then they can do that. The Islamic structure for society will ensure fairness for all citizens and a justice system which no one is above. This is something the ruling elite in Muslim countries do not want (for obvious reasons) and therefore will not allow.
And yes Islam is about submission to the Lord, and that submission has proved to be a great success. Bedouins interested in only intoxication, fornication and gambling transformed into a civilised society – you only need to read the history books which document such a radical reform which ultimately saved a whole society from ruin.
3) Italy probably does have a few mosques. My country, Algeria also has a few churches.
The Vatican does not and will not, on principle and belief, allow Mosques. Similarly, Saudi Arabia does not have any churches as it is the Muslim holy land, much as The Vatican is for Catholics, and so only the one God who is worthy of worship shall be worshipped.
4) As I told you before, you can only judge the Islamic system by looking at the time of its rule and thus Islam showed to prove itself. Don’t read Muslim accounts, by all means go read western history as documented by academic researchers speaking about the golden age which was the result of applying the Islamic code.
Most Muslims found that the Gulf region was very hot. This is why they chose Damascus, and then Baghdad as the Islamic capital and the thriving civilisations in these cities were an example to the world and contributed much to the world in terms of scientific and mathematical discovery.
Some Bedouins loved the simplicity of their way of life and remained in the Gulf region. Then came the Turkish Othman empire which was good at the beginning and then deteriorated as the went further away from the teachings of Islam. That was without doubt the biggest mistake that the Turkish emperor did and caused Muslims to be backward after that.
The Turkish empire found pride in the Arabic and Othman calligraphy, appreciated as both an art and a way of communication. With the development of print, the emperor was fearful that this beautiful art form would disappear so he made a law prohibiting any printed book within the entire Othman Empire. This mean that whilst the West could, and did, take a vast amount of knowledge from the East, Muslims were not able to reciprocate.
As the years went on, inevitably ignorance spread in the empire and people in both deserts and cities became poor and through the desperation of poverty turned to some unIslamic acts to sustain themselves. Meanwhile, at this weak point the West took advantage and shared the Muslim lands between them.
But as I told you, we Muslims are now not only using printed books but we even use the keyboard! Soon, the corrupted rulers in the Muslim countries, backed by the West will be overruled and prosperity will be enjoyed by the Muslim lands once again. However, this may take a while as the West, with all their accumulated wealth and power are ready to destroy any revival of Islam, as they have done time and time again.
They will plan and Allah plans and verily Allah is the best of planners.
Best Regards

Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (08:39)—I hope you get the pure Islam for which you long but I equally hope Muslim countries keep it to themselves. For the sake of women, though, I wish Islam would reform some of its teachings. Condemning women to an inferior status (Qur’an 4:34) and saying that women are deficient in intelligence and in religion (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301) seems so wrong. Anyway, best regards to you, too.

Anonymous said...

To Cheradenine Zakalwe
What we mean when we say ‘Muslim land’ is the land that was under Muslim rule which spread from Russia to Morocco. Also in a country where there is 99% Muslims and 1% of other faiths then I don’t think you can say they were majority Muslims but instead refer to it as a Muslim land.
I’m surprised that you ask for an example of occupation when the French invaded my country, Algeria, for 130 years and the crusaders invaded and occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan for more than 250 years!

And it’s so funny when you says that the west from the Othman empire, is as if you says that a wolf freed a gazelle from a wounded lion, yes the Othman empire did so many mistakes after they gone away from the ruling of Islam.
The only reasons that the west with there satanic complots in the presence of crafty people like the British thief Lawrence of Arabic took the Othman land was the disapproval of the Othman emperor of giving Palestine to the financial Zionist family which make the west unify to take the land and give it to the Zionist.,

A word of advice, when you want to learn about a religion (which I doubt is your true intention), you shouldn’t look for books written by obviously biased authors which will no doubt be altered and crafted based on that writer’s hatred. You should instead read from neutral sources, non-Muslim Westerners with no agenda! Here is an example:
Researcher, Jurji Zaydan, one of biggest Christian historians, wrote in his book ‘History of Islamic Civilization, 11th volume’ that “Jizyah is as old as the first era of urbanization and it was introduced by Athens Greeks to the inhabitants of the coast of Minor Asia around the fifth century BC to protect them from attacks by the Phoenicians which were part of the Persians empire.’

And the Romans did the same with all nations that they conquered, and the amount of Jizyah they took was far greater than the Muslims Jizyah. For example when the Romans conquered the modern French territory they set different amounts to pay between 9 to 15 pounds in a year, about seven times the Muslims jizyah and they used to take it from both nobles, servants and slaves and the Persians also used to take it from each of their subjects.
According to authentic Traditions, the Prophet of Islam imposed Jizyah of one dinar on every adult non-Muslim per annum and directed Muadh-bin-Jabal to collect it when the latter was appointed governor of Yemen (Abu Daud). However, during the reign of caliph Umar, the Muslim empire expanded to include rich lands of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Palestine. So, Caliph Umar raised the rates of Jizyah according to the income level of non-Muslims. The rate of tax for the rich was fixed at 4 dinars, for the middle class it was 2 dinars and for the lower class it was 1 dinar per person per year.
It is not without interest to mention here that Jizyah is levied only on the able-bodied adult non-Muslim men who are capable to fight or who have actually fought against the Islamic forces. Non-combatants like women, children, old, sick, blind, crippled, poor, destitute, insane, etc. are exempted from its payment. Similarly, priests, monks and slaves are also exempt. Persons who join military service of the Islamic state are also given exemption from the payment of Jizyah. It is reported that the people of Jarjoma, during the conquest of Syria, refused to pay Jizyah on the plea that they were prepared to fight the Muslim battles against their enemy. The condition was accepted by the Muslims and peace was concluded accordingly.

Anonymous said...

Your claim that “ritual that was designed to be humiliating, a simulated beheading for example” is so ridiculous I doubt you even believe it yourself! Do you really believe that if Muslims did anything like that their empire would have expanded as it did and grown to a billion? In a way your spreading lies only makes lots of non-Muslims want to research themselves to find the truth about Islam which has led to the thousands which convert to Islam every year making Islam the fastest growing religion in the world!
And when you say “Muslim children would throw stones at adult Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews would not dare respond for fear of being put to death” that really shows how ignorant you are! If this was true why, after Europeans took ANDLUS, and Muslims migrated to Morocco which was an Islamic state, did most of the Jews go with Muslims to Morocco? Until today there is a very prominent Jewish community in Morocco. Perhaps they loved being hurled by stones so much that they thought they’d travel to Morocco for some more!

Regarding the invasion of Algeria, I ask you to watch a very old French video on YouTube named “L'ingratitude francaise envers L'Algerie (civilisation Algerienne vs crimes Francais)” where a French historian reads from the French archives about the invasion and occupation of Algeria. He reads from letters of several officers at the time like that of the famous French General Bigoux who writes to his headquarters in France saying: “this land which we used to describe as savage and inhabitable is covered with pretty country houses surrounded by gardens, vegetation is superb, and the land produces so much wheat and other grains, and animals”. General Claudontoine said in 1933, or 3 years after invasion, that “almost everyone knows how to read and count, (whist in France only 40% knew how to read the alphabet) and the French army personnel were less educated then the savages they came to civilise”. Additionally, the minister of war at the time with the name of Gerard said ”the only way to dominate Algeria is to exterminate the native people or to burn all the agriculture”.
Savari of Refigo’s letter states ”our solution is to close the water sources by the head of the bedouins” (after beheading them ‘ in the name of civilization’)

Christian in his book ‘afric francaise” says “a unit from the army settled in Algeria attacked unarmed people in the town of Zulufia, massacred immediately all men, women and children without distinguishing one from the other, it counted in the region of 12000 deaths, and all domestic animals stolen were sold to the consulate of Denmark. The women’s earrings were sold in the market of “BABA AZOUN” with some of them still attached to the women’s ear’ (of course, in the name of civilisation)

Anonymous said...

Colonel Fronsoi of Montaniac said ”I believe that any population which does not accept our conditions should be exterminated without discriminating by sex or age (perhaps the Jizya of 1 dinar won’t seem too bad now…)
Saint Arnaux who was a commandant wrote to his wife “Dear Louise, its 40 degrees hot and I am surrounded by 20 beautiful villages. I gave them a deadline by tonight to pay taxes otherwise I will send three units to burn everything”
On Juin 1945 all the people from the tribe of Ouled Riha fled like reguees to the mountains running from Colonel Pedisier on the order of Marshal Bugou that if people hid in caves, hunt them like foxes. His soldiers started a big fire and threw everybody inside” and the French man describes the next morning what he saw as a result of the French animals (how he describes his army) which he can’t describe but counted 750 bodies including women and children”
Saint Arnau in his letter stated that he found 500 Algerians hiding in big caves between Tenec and Mostaganem and ordered his soldiers to close all oxygen access and he is proud to say that he transformed the caves into a big cemetery.
General Montaniak said that the way to make war is “kill all men older than 15, take all women and children. You ask me what we use to do to the women we took? We kept some as hostages in order to take more land, and some of the others were exchanged for horses, and the rest were sold like animals in the market, (again, in the name of civilisation!) we bought big bags of pairs of ears with earings)
Now the French man in the video who is reading the letters reads the letter of Emir Abdulkader (Algerian General ) to his officers fighting to liberate Algeria at that time “Any Arab who bring a French soldier alive will have 8 doro (cent) as reward, any Arab who captures a French soldier needs to provide good treatment and take him to the closest of the representative of the Emir. If the Frenchman captured complains about bad treatment, the Arab man who captured him will not have any reward”.
An Algerian asked the Emir ‘what is the reward of a French soldier alive?’ the Emir answered 8 doro (cent) then the soldier asked what about the head of a Frenchman killed? The Emir replied that the reward is 25 lashes on your feet.
Then the French reader in the video finishes by asking “Which side were the civilised ones?” He also said that all these letters are still in the French library in Paris.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the creation of wealth and civilisation please watch the German channel RTL’s series named (Islam-und-Wissenschaft) where you will understand that all the west did is steal the Muslims science books of the golden age, taken by the crusaders which developed later and so the basis of all what you see today in terms of science and maths is all from Muslim research and discovery.
History proves who accumulated wealth by stealing. Who is stealing Iraqi oil today?
Christians believe that Jews killed their God, Jesus. Muslims believe in Jesus as a great messenger but still Christians and Jews are allies in attacking Muslims, did you ask yourself why?
Because Islam is the only power that can stop secretive organisations creating the new world order which transforms women from human beings to sex objects, instead of being judged by what they have in their braind they are judged by the size of their breasts and bottoms leading to many ladies finding that the only solution to be fit to live in this western society is by injecting poison called silicon in their bodies by the hands of some butchers called plastic surgeons.
But thousands of European ladies found that the best solution to be really free is by reverting to Islam where women are judged by her intelligence and personality.
If you want to deny that Baghdad was the science capital of the world,keep spreading this lie and let your governments squeeze Islam but Islam is like mercury, the more you squeeze the more it spreads. You can never hide the shining light with a layer of lies.
And as I told you, you cannot say that Islam produce failures because it made Bedouins conquer the world. Despite the crusaders attacking Muslims and Muslims ignoring their faith people are waking up and things will change.

And no I will not try to make you pay Jizya, because you are already paying to the Zionist families running your financial system, and paying 50% of your income to unlawful income tax which is not even written in the law!

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"What we mean when we say ‘Muslim land’ is the land that was under Muslim rule which spread from Russia to Morocco. Also in a country where there is 99% Muslims and 1% of other faiths then I don’t think you can say they were majority Muslims but instead refer to it as a Muslim land."

No. Land doesn't have a religion. Only the people who live in it do, and usually more than one. In any case, in many of what you describe as Muslims lands, Muslims were a minority of the population who had come to rule the land by using force. So how is it Muslim land if the majority of the people there are not Muslim?

Let's recall the context of your claim about Muslim lands being occupied for centuries.

"following French, British and Western occupations of Muslim lands for centuries, Muslim lands were robbed of their wealth and during the occupations would have been denied high levels of education and healthcare."

So British and French occupations must refer to the modern era, specifically the post-WW1 era in which Middle Eastern countries were ruled by Britain and France as mandate territories. That rule lasted a few decades. It is absurd to try and blame it for Muslim backwardness.

Now you try and rope in the Crusades to the argument. The territories occupied in the Crusades were not "Muslim lands". They were historically Christian and Jewish lands that had been invaded and occupied by Muslims. The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. And Muslims were allowed to live in the Crusader states. They were quite happy there. In fact, many of them preferred to live there because of the lower taxes. They were allowed to practise their faith unmolested, with fewer restrictions than the Jews and Christians living in Muslim-controlled Spain.

It is true that Algeria was occupied by France in the 19th century. It would be absurd to blame the backwardness of the entire Islamic world on the French occupation of Algeria. Pirates operating out of Algiers had been troubling shipping and neighbouring countries particularly severely in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The invasion was a legitimate response to that piracy. No one disputes that atrocities were committed by the French during the invasion or that this was wrong.

That is one of the key moral difference between us. We Europeans acknowledge that our imperialism was wrong. You Muslims either deny that your imperialism existed or insist that it was right.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

You compare jizya to just any form of taxation levied by a conquering army. That is absurd. What makes it pernicious is its distinction from the normal levels of taxation in the country. It is not a generalised form of taxation. It is exploitation of one group of people by another, based on religious prejudice, and with an implicit or explicit threat of murder or rape if the payment is not made.

It's sad you apparently aren't even familiar with the Islamic texts that describe how the jizya ritual should be performed, nor with historical accounts of how it was actually performed.

The Egyptian jurist al-Adawi said this:

"Following this [the handing over of the jizya payment] the emir will strike the dhimmi on the neck with his fist; a man will stand near the emir to chase away the dhimmi in haste; then a second and a third will come forward to suffer the same treatment as well as all those to follow."

The Moroccan jurist Al-Maghili said this:

"The acting officials representing the Law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems as well as to the others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor (again) in accepting from them the jizya and letting them (thus) go free. They then shall be dragged one by one (to the officer responsible) for the exacting of payment. When paying, the dhimmi will receive a blow and will be thrown aside so that he will think that he has escaped the sword through this (insult)."

There are many other similar texts I could quote.

Jews are compelled to live in the ghetto.

Jews are not allowed to ride outside the ghetto.

On leaving the ghetto, they are compelled to remove their footwear and remove their head covering. They are not allowed to use a walking stick although the old and sick are permitted to use a reed.

Moors frequently amuse themselves by throwing live coals, broken glass, old tinware and such things in thoroughfares traversed by Jews and enjoy the fun of seeing the latter smart under the burn or wound inflicted on their bare feet.

Jews are not permitted to build their houses above a certain height.

Jews are debarred from having stores or shops in the Muslim quarter.

The Jew is bound to pass the Moor on the left side and if he fails so to do he must retrace his steps.

Jews are forced to buy damaged Government property such as grain, or over-stocked provisions or poor items, at the normal price of undamaged goods.

Jews with their wives and daughters are compelled to undertake work for any Government official at all times (even on the Sabbath and on sacred festivals) and to receive payment far below the market rate of wages.

They are compelled to undertake work such as a Moor would consider degrading, e.g., the cleaning of sewers, carrying away carcasses of dead animals from Government stables etc. When the head of rebels or of criminals are sent to a town to be exposed at the town gate the Jews are made to salt them before they are exhibited.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Jews pay capitation tax to be exempt from military service but in paying this 'they submit to the humiliation of receiving a slap on the head.'

Jewish purveyors (butchers, grocers, bakers etc.) are bound to supply gratis all the requirements of various functionaries, otherwise their trade is cut off.

A Jew cannot appoint a Jewish attorney to plead before the Kadi against a Moor. Thus he must either conduct his case in person, or must appoint a Moorish Attorney, or suffer his case to pass undefended.

Jews are barred from the liberal professions.

Jews are disqualified from public office.

Jews are required to wear a special costume consisting of a black skull cap and black shoes.

Jews are not allowed to use public baths and 'are even denied the use of baths in the ghetto.'

Jews 'are not allowed to drink from the public fountains in the Moorish quarter nor to take water therefrom' as the Jews are considered unclean.

Jews are obligated to give gifts to public functionaries on special occasions – births, marriages and deaths – as well as on Jewish festivals.

Jews are not allowed to carry arms.

Jewish life is compensated for by the payment of £40: there is no other punishment of the murderer. Of this sum the authorities deduct a substantial proportion.

Jewish evidence is not heard.

A Muslim can always denounce a Jew, 'a thousand Jews' will fail to indict a Muslim.

'A Jew condemned to imprisonment or flogging has to pay the fees of all officials engaged in his punishment.' If he is without funds he stays in prison until such time as they are paid.

Jews are denied access to common quarters in the prisons.

If a Jew is suspected of immoral intercourse with a Moorish woman (though she be a prostitute) he is liable to imprisonment for an indefinite period. 'If he confesses, death is his punishment.'

If a Moor chose to assert that a Jew has abjured his faith he is compelled to become a Muslim 'and should he afterwards attempt to conform to the Jewish ritual, he would be liable to be stoned or burned to death.'

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

These quotes about Jews are from a text describing the conditions Jews were subjected to in late 19th century Morocco. It was presented to the British government in 1888.

Anonymous said...

But you did not answer why they were their in the first place? why after the fall of Andalus they traveled to stay with the TERRORIST in morroco and not in the Love city of Vatican?????

Anonymous said...

The BBC will always show support for any creed or group that stands against the old peoples of
Europe or people of European descent.The distorted liberal ideology of these sad and cowardly people is the only way they can view what to normal people would appear to be threats, for example the menacing presence of Islam in Europe.The drivel I have just read on this site shows clearly that Islam is a backward, talentless, nasty and destructive cult which needs to be banished from Europe forever, if not from the face of the World.

Anonymous said...

Can you remove Islam from europe? for the white supremecy to stay by itself, then what? a german white will say we are better then the french white? then another HITLER will be created, then all the jews will run again from europe to seek refuge in Muslims land, like always happened in hystory.

Anonymous said...

To Cheradenine

Atrocities to Jews by Muslims,
Islam is a religion with sets of rules that organise every aspects of life, and sets rights and duties toward, God, other Muslims and Non-Muslims.
whoever says with his tong “I bare witness there is nothing (and no one) worthy of worship but Allah, And Muhammad is his last and final Messenger” Is consider to be a Muslim but to represent Islam he or she should follow the rules of Allah, Because it’s easy to says I am Muslim but it need a censer man to be a good Muslim.
Any king or Ruler who did anything against the ruling of Islam for any reason like to gain politically or to keep his kingdom safe, or trying to stop who he thing are planning to destroy his kingdom from inside without following the rules, is not a representative of Islam.
Any King or Army that did what you said above to the Jews do not represent me or Islam.
In Islam we don’t have the equivalent of the Pope, and anyone which says or do anything which is not in Quran or the saying of our prophet then he is wrong whether he is a King, Big scholar, Imam or anything else.
Remember that what you describe about the humiliation of the Jews in morocco in late 18th century, was written by the British empire trying to find moral excuses of occupying Africa and stilling its wealth in the name of civilisation, which I don’t believe much of what their report said.

But even if what the British parliament says I think that it’s wrong to judge Islam by any time but when Islam was pure especially if that era was well researches and is still in history books.
In a quick search in the internet I found this Jewish website http://www.lloydthomas.org/5-SpecialStudies/JewsIslam.html with the page titled Jews under Islâm & under Christendom, where they list chronically the relation between Jews and both Christians and Muslims in different time of history.

Anonymous said...

But I believe that the only the time that represent the Pure Islam is the time of our prophet Muhammad and his Khalifas after him represent (4 Khalifas then beginning of Umayyad time)
629 Under Byzantine Emperor Heraclius Jews are once again banned from Jerusalem.
633 Any loyalty to Byzantium among the large Middle East Jewish populations and monophysite Christians had been destroyed by the oppressive religious policies of successive Byzantine rulers.
Jews therefore welcome the Muslim armies into Palestine.
634 Byzantine emperor Heraclius commands all Jews in his empire to be baptised into Christianity.
638 After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, there is no killing or destruction of property or religious symbols; no expropriations or attempt to force the inhabitants to convert to Islam. The Muslim invaders do not permit themselves to settle, continuing to live in special military compounds. While initially confirming Bishop Sophronius' ban on Jews, Caliph 'Umar later invites seventy Jewish families from Tiberius to settle in Jerusalem near the pool of Siloam. Jews are allowed to build a synagogue which became known as 'the Cave', probably because it was in the vaults underneath the Temple platform.
c.640 Under Islamic rule the heads of the two principal academies of Babylonian Jewry are recognised by the Exilarch (Jewish leader), and through him by the Muslim caliphate as final arbiters of Jewish law and the religious heads of all Jewish communities under Muslim rule.
Thus the Babylonian Talmud comes to replace the earlier Palestinian Talmud (3rd century AD) and becomes normative for Judaism.
653 In Spain – The Eighth Church Council of Toledo demands that converted Jews sign a written promise not to marry within the forbidden degrees of family relations and that they themselves inflict the death penalty on any person who disobeys the observance of the Catholic faith.
658 Caliph ALI enters Firuz-Shapur in Iran; the Gaon of Pumbedita and thousands of Jews welcome him with enthusiasm.
661-680 Caliph MU'AWIYA (first Umayyad caliph) rules the Islamic world and settles Jews whom he considers faithful allies in Tripoli and in Syria. He transforms the Arab world into a secular state in which religion takes second place.
This begins a period of prosperity for Jews and Christians in Palestine.
681 In Spain – The Eleventh Council of Toledo is called upon to destroy "the Jewish pest", prohibits Jewish festivals, and institutes a surveillance of converted Jews.
694 In Spain – Jews are accused of treason and reduced to slavery.
711 In Spain – The Muslim invasion under TARIK brings respite to the Jews and leads to a golden era for Spanish Jewish.

If you want to discuss Islam, we need to focus in this era where the teaching of Allah was applied, And any part of history beside this is the judgment of Muslims instead of Islam which we disagree of any wrongdoing happened from them.

Anonymous said...

It was related from the Messenger of Allah that he appointed Abdullah b. Arqam over the Jizya of the people of dhimmah and when he was leaving, he (saw) called him back and said (Narrated in the Hadith book of Abu Dawud): “Surely, whoever oppresses a person under covenant or imposes upon him more than he can afford and humiliates him or takes anything from him without his consent I will challenge him (i.e. the oppressor) on the day of judgment.”
The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi states:
“The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbors, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam.”
‘Amr ibn Maymun said, “I saw ‘Umar four nights before he was assassinated sitting on top a camel, saying to Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman and ‘Uthman ibn al-Hunayf, ‘Review the affairs under your charge. Do you think that you have burdened the tenants with what they cannot bear?” ‘Uthman replied, ‘I have levied on them an amount that I could double and they would still have the ability to pay.’ Hudhayfa said: ‘I have imposed on them an amount that leaves a large surplus.’
According to Muslim accounts of Umar, in his time some payers of the jizya were compensated if they had not been cared for properly. The accounts vary, but describe his meeting an old Jew begging, and assisting him; according to one version:

Umar said to him, "Old man! We have not done justice to you. In your youth we realized Jizyah from you and have left you to fend for yourself in your old age". Holding him by the hand, he led him to his own house, and preparing food with his own hands fed him and issued orders to the treasurer of the Bait-al-mal that that old man and all others like him, should be regularly doled out a daily allowance which should suffice for them and their dependents.
As the benefit system was introduces in the Time Of Umar May allah reward him.
Abu Yusuf gives the following report:
After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizya and the Kharaj, news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Byzantines had amassed their troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj with an instruction to tell them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.’ When this was delivered to the dhimmis and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over them!’
Did you ever heard in history of Romans or any other empire that a victorious General gave the protection Tax back????????

Anonymous said...

For saying that Jews could not work in civil cervices
Muhammad Asad states:
One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen – however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state – could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly for the ideological objectives of Islam; nor, in fairness, could such a demand be made of him. On the other hand, no ideological organization (whether based on religious or other doctrines) can afford to entrust the direction of its affairs to persons not professing its ideology. Is it, for instance, conceivable that a non-Communist could be given a political key position – not to speak of supreme leadership of the state – in Soviet Russia? Obviously not, and logically so: for as long as communism supplies the ideological basis of the state, only persons who identify themselves unreservedly with its aims can be relied upon to translate those aims into terms of administrative policy.

Having said this dhimmi can be civil servants and directors of the administrative government departments. Discrimination against dhimmi for civil service posts is forbidden. The evidence for this is from the Islamic rules on hiring (Ijara) where it is permitted to hire any person whether Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because the evidences for hiring came in a general form. The Messenger of Allah (saw) himself once hired a man from the tribe Banu Ad-Deel who was a non-Muslim, which indicates that it is permitted to hire a non-Muslim just as it is to hire a Muslim.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Allah (swt) said; I will challenge three people on the day of Judgment... and a man who employed a laborer, he received from him (the work) but did not give him his wage.”

Anonymous said...

And because you spoke about Umar (second Khalifa) rules toward non Muslim here is an english copy of his will to the next Khalifa which was going to be choosen by an election by the elite.

Testament Of Umar
On his death bed Umar was requested to make a testament for the guidance of his successor. Umar addressed the following testament to his successor:
"I enjoin upon you to have trust and faith in God, He Who has no peer.
Be kind and generous to the Muhajreen and the Ansar. Those out of them who are good, be good to them; those who are bad overlook their lapses.
Be good to the people of the conquered lands. They are the outer line of our defense; they are the target of the anger and distress of our enemies. They contribute to our revenues. They should be taxed only on their surplus wealth.
Be gracious to the Bedouins as they are the backbone of the Arab nation.
I instruct you to be good to the Dhimmis for they are your responsibility. Do not tax them beyond their capacity. Ensure that they pay the Jizya without undue inconvenience.
Fear God, and in all that you do keep His pleasure in view. In the matter of people fear God, and in the matter of Allah do not be afraid of the people.
With regard to the people, I enjoin upon you to administer justice with an even hand. See that all the legitimate requirements of the people are met. Be concerned for their welfare. Ensure the safety of their person and property.
See that the frontiers of our domains are not violated. Take strong steps to guard the frontiers.
In the matter of administration do not prefer the rich to the poor. Be hard against those who violate the law. Show them no mercy. Do not rest content until you have brought the miscreants to book.
Treat all the people as equal. Be a pillar of strength for those who are weak and oppressed. Those who are strong but do wrong, make them pay for their wrong-doings.
In the distribution of booty and other matters be above nepotism. Let no consideration of relationship or selfish interest weigh with you.
The Satan is at large; it may tempt you. Rise above all temptations and perform your duties in accordance with the injunctions of Islam.
Get guidance from the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Freely consult the wise men around you. Apply your own mind in difficult cases, and seek light from God.
Be simple in your living and your habits. Let there be no show or ostentation about you. Lead life as a model Muslim. As you are the leader of the Muslims, justify your leadership by being the best among them all. May God bless you."
His son Abdullah also desired some words of parting advice. Umar asked him to hold fast to the fundamentals of faith. Abdullah asked what these fundamentals were.
Umar said that these were:
1. Keep fast in the intense heat of the summer when the Ramazan falls in such a season.
2. Kill the enemies of Islam with sword.
3. In the event of any calamity or distress exercise patience.
4. In the cold of the winter perform your ablutions in full.
5. On a cloudy day hurry up in offering prayers.
6. Abstain from the mud of destruction.
Abdullah enquired what was the mud of destruction, and Umar said it was wine-bibbling.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Can you remove Islam from europe? for the white supremecy to stay by itself, then what? a german white will say we are better then the french white? then another HITLER will be created, then all the jews will run again from europe to seek refuge in Muslims land, like always happened in hystory."

Better than muslim supremacy, you bunch of thieves, pedophiles and rapists, 1000 years of crimes against Europe, you demons, go back to the middle east and die!!!

Don't blame Europeans for your crimes, our crimes were because of YOUR INFLUENCE, YOU CREATED THE MONSTER!!!

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews