In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Yasin T. al-Jibouri
Samuel P. Huntington’s article
“The Clash of Civilizations?”
Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993)
October 8, 1993
Prophecies made by Prophet Muhammed in which he forewarned the Muslims against falling a prey to their enemies are numerous in the books of ¦adīth. The gist of one of them is that Muslims will be attacked in time to come as a carcass is attacked by hungry wolves. Such time has already come, and if you do not believe it, read Samuel P. Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations?” in the Summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. This article brings the following Qur’ānic verse to memory:
O you who believe! Do not take for intimate friends from among those other than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still… (Qur’ān, 3:118)
Let us review this article and assess the extent of vehement hatred in it and judge thereby what plots Huntington et al have in store for the Muslims of the world.
First of all, the writer, who is Jewish, claims that a war between Christianity and Islam has been raging for the past 1,300 years. This, unfortunately, is how some Christians see it. They regard the advent of Islam as a harbinger of the fall of Christianity. Muslims do not regard Christians, Jews, Hindus, or adherents of any other faith as their enemies; they have better Islamic ethics and principles than that. On ¦adīth (tradition) tells the faithful that the Almighty sent as many as twenty-four thousand prophets and messengers to various nations and tribes throughout history. Each one of them spoke the language of the people to whom he was sent and argued with them in the way they understood best, and that the Almighty revealed to each and every one of them the same truth. Their nations, unfortunately, changed that truth; nevertheless, the Muslim faithful are taught to respect the beliefs of others and not to antagonize them. At the same time, it is their obligation to explain to non-Muslims the message of truth revealed to Prophet Mu¦ammed , perhaps they may benefit from it, and they may even see in it the true solutions to their individual, social, global, economic, physical and spiritual problems. They may accept it, as we have been blessed, honored, and privileged to accept it, as the ultimately fulfilling way of life, for this is what Islam really is. It may set them free from whatever man-distorted creeds they have been raised to follow.
Religious beliefs held by Christians and Jews, as a matter of fact, are respected by the Muslim faithful more than those of followers of any other religion. Adherents of these creeds are referred to throughout the Holy Qur’ān as ahlul kitāb, People of the Book, namely the Old and New Testaments, the originals of which (and only the originals) are accepted by Muslims as the word of truth revealed by the Almighty to both Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them. Islam does not enjoin the faithful to wage an all-out war against these ahlul kitāb so long as the latter do not fight them. Unfortunately, though, some Christians (and certainly many, if not most, Jews) regard the mere existence of Muslims as a threat to their religion and “civilization.” Such paranoia reflects a great deal of lack of self-confidence and is the core of the problem. The knowledge these paranoid individuals have about Islam, if any, comes from what they were told by their ill-informed and biased clergy, or from the writings of those who wrote about Islam not to explain nor to understand it, but to distort and attack it. They either deliberately ignore or are ignorant of the fact that Muslims and the people of the Book believe in the same Creator, in His heaven and hell, in the Day of Judgment, and in the fact that we all descended from Adam and Eve and are members of one large family. Muslims regard churches and synagogues as sacred houses of God; they believe in and sanctify all Biblical prophets the stories of whom are quite often so similar that many Christians have accused the Prophet of Islam of having derived his faith from Christianity and Judaism. And they believe in and honor Christ and his virtuous and sinless mother, peace be upon both of them; the best Christians and Jews in the world, in fact, are Muslims. The Holy Qur’ān testifies to all the miracles of Jesus as narrated in the Bible in addition to one more: that he spoke at the time of his birth. They eat the food prepared by Christians (as long as it does not contain pork or any of its derivatives) and the kosher meat slaughtered by the Jews. They are permitted to marry Christian or Jewish ladies; even Prophet Muhammed did so. He married Mary the Christian Copt, mother of Ibrahim, and Safiyya daughter of Huyayy al-Akhtab, a Jewish lady who was the daughter of his arch-enemy in Medina. “Christian” Europeans, not the Muslims, massacred the Jews and persecuted them. Muslims do not regard themselves as enemies of the people of the Book; why should they? In times of turmoil such as these, we have to look for what we agree about; surely there are numerous theological differences not only between Islam and these creeds, but even among various Christian and Jewish sects. This holds true about any religion, and it encourages scholarship and the study of comparative religion. Why should we emphasize our differences, anyway?
Here let us come to the worst part of Huntington’s article. We have no choice except to quote this rather lengthy statement by Huntington in order to see how blind some people can be and unaware of the atrocities they inflict upon other nations while accusing the latter of the same; he says,
After World War II, the West, in turn, began to retreat; the colonial empires disappeared; first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism manifested themselves; the West became heavily dependent on the Persian Gulf countries for its energy; the oil-rich Muslim countries became money-rich and, when they wished to, weapons-rich. Several wars occurred between Arabs and Israel (created by the West). France fought a bloody and ruthless war in Algeria for most of the 1950s; British and French forces invaded Egypt in 1956; American forces went into Lebanon in 1958; subsequently American forces returned to Lebanon, attacked Libya, and engaged in various military encounters with Iran; Arab and Islamic terrorists, supported by at least three Middle Eastern governments, employed the weapon of the weak and bombed Western planes and installations and seized Western hostages. This warfare between Arabs and the West culminated in 1990, when the United States sent a massive army to the Persian Gulf to defend some Arab countries against aggression by another.
The “oil wealth” Huntington is talking about is quite deceptive, and so is the West’s dependence on oil in Arab and Muslim countries; the West simply prefers to buy dirt cheap oil from these countries to tapping and using its own oil and other energy resources, including nuclear and solar energies. The same countries that sell the U.S. oil for almost nothing buy U.S. arms and manufactured goods, hence more Americans can go to work and be productive. Who is the winner in both cases? And the only arms they are sold are defensive; more sophisticated weapons are reserved for others such as “Israel,” a creation of the West as the writer himself admits, that gets them free of charge under “defense aid packages.” Such weapons include biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The plan is very simple: keep arming “Israel” in order to use it as a spear-head against any nation that refuses to become a lackey of the West. And the “several wars” between Arabs and “Israel” have taken place with the complete knowledge and backing, with arms and political support, of Western countries in general and the U.S. in particular, hence the Arabs in all reality have not been fighting “Israel” but the U.S., thus draining their resources, weakening their economies, and remaining under-developed: this is exactly how the West would like to see them.
In 956, not only the British and the French attacked Egypt but also “Israel.” Why did the writer not say so? Is he ignorant of this fact or is he deliberately covering it up? Three advanced countries attacking one single poor and under-developed Muslim country; this is the policy of ganging up, the same policy whereby the U.S. ganged up with its other European “buddies” and attacked the Muslims of Iraq and kept their tyrant in power in order to have an excuse to attack them again and again. The role played by France, Britain, and “Israel” in our Muslim world is an open book: even children know who enjoys raining bombs on them then turns around and calls them “terrorists.”
What were people in the West before World Wars I and II doing anyway, I mean before their guns became large enough to reach Muslim lands in Asia and Africa? Did they have a sound civilization one would be proud of? Or were they living in ignorance, invading one another, taking to the seas and making a living as pirates? Any fair-minded judge would deny people in the West as having had any significant form of civilization for many centuries following the advent of Christianity. Actually, it was only when they put an end to the Church’s interference in their scientific research, leaving their dark ages behind, that their Renaissance flourished. Do you remember poor Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), the Italian mathematician, astronomer, and physicist who proved that the earth revolves around the sun, and that it is not the center of the universe, and how the Church treated him? He was denounced, accused of blasphemy, almost brought before the horrible Court of Inquisition in Rome, and pressured to publicly deny what he knew to be the truth. It took him seven years of seclusion to get over the fuss created by the Church about his discoveries. Can anyone in the West accuse Muslims of hampering science and scholarship like that? The Renaissance cannot be traced back before Galileo’s time; he is one of its pioneers. What does this mean? It simply means that for one thousand and six hundred years, people in the West were as backward as can be. Muslims, by contrast, ascended to supremacy as early as the sixth century, thus surpassing those in the West by one thousand years and going beyond that a few hundred years more till World War I which lasted from 1914-1918. The year 1922 is the year that witnessed the complete dissolution of the last Islamic power, the Ottoman Sultanate, when Turkey as we know it today proclaimed itself a Republic. Applying simple mathematics, we can conclude by saying that Islam’s power continued for at least thirteen centuries, the longest life-span of any civilization in history. The British rose to power, and the sun once did not set over their domain, then they gradually weakened and waned, and so did the Italians and the Germans. Now comes the turn of the Americans. For how long do you think they are going to be able to maintain their power which is based on military might and scientific progress? Two huge cracks have already appeared in their power structure:
1) Their moral decay. History testifies to the fact that when powerful men become corrupt (are politics in the West not corrupt?)__and power by itself corrupts__, they will eventually lose their power. They say the fool and his money will soon be parted; we say the corrupt and their power will soon be parted. It happened to the Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Pharaohs, the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Arabs, and it is happening these days to those who regard themselves as the people most fit to live and prosper, even if their life means the death of other nations (Westerners have killed people in all the corners of the earth), and even if their prosperity is based on robbing other nations. Even the most corrupt nations in history did not reach the level of immorality, promiscuity, and lawlessness reached by today’s Western “civilization;” consider the following facts: drugs, homosexuality, pornography, and sexually-transmitted diseases are reaching epidemic proportions, nation-wide swinging, elderly women getting raped or shot, homicide is everywhere, fathers committing incest, preachers impregnating their church women or molesting children, teachers coercing their students to have sex with them, teenagers getting pregnant, mothers getting rid of their newly born babies by putting them in dumpsters, the number of the homeless and beggars is staggering although the U.S. is regarded as the wealthiest nation on earth…, and the list goes on and on. Is this the “civilization” Mr. Huntington is defending and promoting?
Signs of moral decay are depicting an ugly picture of the West’s lack of concern about human lives, especially the lives of non-Westerners. Now they have even turned their guns to their own chests; the new generation is the most violent one history has ever witnessed. Consider the following facts: Most murders nowadays are committed by teenagers ages 14 to 17; school children are forming armed gangs all over the U.S., so much so that many parents are afraid of sending their children to school; automatic and semi-automatic guns are increasingly becoming available to children and teenagers, including AK-47s; shooting is no longer confined to open streets or night time: hospitals, shopping malls, schools, churches, restaurants, libraries, even court rooms are witnessing violent incidents in broad daylight. A few staggering statistics (if you need references, we can provide you with them): One out of four deaths occurs among teenagers; bullets killed about 4,200 teenagers in 1990, up from 2,500 in 1985; an estimated 100,000 students carry a gun to school; in a poll, fifteen percent of students in the sixth through twelfth grades said they have carried a handgun in the past thirty days, 11% said they have been shot at, and 59% said they know where to get a gun if they need one. Sometimes crimes are totally senseless and do not seem to have a motive: a 15-year old girl killed two of her younger sisters with a .22 caliber pistol; some children kill or torture animals for fun by shooting them with BB guns, place a lit fire cracker in their mouths, or leave them on the highway to watch them being run over by speeding cars… What happened to the innocence of childhood? If children are capable of committing such mischief, what will they do when they grow up? In the words of one Omaha police officer, “For some reason this particular generation of kids has absolutely no value for human life.” Is this the type of “civilization” the West wishes to force other nations to accept? Have you heard anything as horrible as these incidents taking place in any Muslim country, at any age, in the past or in the present? There may be poverty throughout the Muslim world because the Muslims’ wealth was stolen by the ahlul kitāb, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), but there is neither immorality nor lawlessness of such a horrible magnitude.
Here we would like to stop for a moment to narrate an incident. It took place during the government of the great caliph ‘Omer ibn Abdul-Aziz. His wali over African Muslim lands was Kafur al-Akhshidi who, like ‘Omer, was one of the best rulers. Having collected all the taxes from African Muslims, Kafur ran out of place to store them, so he dispatched a messenger to the caliph asking him for suggestions. “Call upon the people,” the answer came, “to come to baytul māl (state treasury), and invite them to take what they need: each according to his particular need.” So Kafur sent callers throughout North Africa inviting the Muslims to go there or send someone to fetch whatever items they needed. Not a single person showed up. He sent the callers a second time; still nobody showed up, and the same happened even after the third time. Everyone had had all they needed; they were satisfied, secure, and happy. Everyone was happy except poor Kafur who had to send a second message to ‘Omer who this time instructed him to give the perishable items away as gifts to outstanding individuals, keep at baytul māl as much as his discretion dictated of precious metals and currency, and ship the rest to Damascus. This is the fruit of implementing Islam as it ought to be implemented. During horrible Medieval times, nobody in Europe could leave his house without an escort. During our time, the same is true. What has changed?
2) After the failure of Communism (which did not gain much support in Muslim countries because it was regarded as a form of atheism), it will not take long before we witness the crumbling down of capitalism. Economists who have studied the famous book Das Kapital by Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) conclude that both communism and capitalism are two interpretations of one Marxist theory in economics: the East interpreted it in its way, and it was communism, whereas the West understood it differently, and it was capitalism. Both ideologies have no concern for basic human values. Remember that Marx derived his theories after studying mid-19th century economic system in England, the system of private enterprise and free competition. The very fact that the largest industrial giant in the world, namely the U.S., is now incapable even of servicing the interest on its national debt is by itself the death knell of capitalism. Add to this the fact that manufactured U.S. products are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with similar products manufactured overseas in terms of quality and price. Overseas, antagonism towards the U.S. is skyrocketing because of a short-sighted “gun boat” foreign policy, one based on brutal military force, hence nations prefer to buy non-American products on that account alone. Massive lay-offs, ever-increasing unemployment, a continuous decline of domestic markets for American products, an increasing budget and trade deficits… all point out to one conclusion: the days of prosperity for Western “civilization” are numbered.
Let us take a close look at what “civilized” Catholic France did in once peaceful and prosperous North Africa, and let us confine our study to one of its victims: Algeria. As many as one million Algerians were killed by the French during Algeria’s struggle for independence which lasted from 1954 to 1962. Huntington says that, “Islam has bloody borders;” we say that such blood is the blood of Muslims which colonial Europe first shed, and which is now being shed by imperialist U.S., as is the case with Iraq which the U.S. and its buddies reduced to rubble in the pretext of “liberating Kuwait.” France’s mischief extended to Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, Chad, Mauritania, and Djibouti. If the writer implies that Islam was disseminated by the sword, a popular lie in the books of many unfair and prejudiced writers in the West, we ask him and them to explain why Indonesia is now the largest Muslim country in the world without ever being invaded by Muslims militarily, and why Muslims refrained from invading followers of other creeds in, say, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, or anywhere else in Asia. Although Islam was born in Asia, it spread more rapidly in Africa, and it is now spreading rapidly here in America where, according to calculated predictions, after no more than five years, Muslims will outnumber Jews, and Islam will thus become the second largest religion in America. Had Islam been spread by the sword, nations that accepted it would have reverted to their previous creeds. The Holy Qur’ān outlines the method to propagate Islam in these beautiful verses:
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and dispute with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who stray from His path and He knows best those who follow the right way.” (Qur’ān, 16:125)
Since the list of Western countries that shed the blood of Muslims is lengthy and the space here is limited, let us stick with France; what applies to France applies to other European countries and the U.S. (which was populated by European immigrants escaping religious persecution in intolerant Europe).
France’s policies aimed at spreading its language and culture in all countries which it subjected to its control by sheer brutal force, and the establishment of settlements and the engagement of Christian missionary activities. It can safely be said that France’s efforts continued for one thousand years without reaping any significant success. Its first attempts date back to 670 A.D. when Uqbah ibn Nafi‘ succeeded in spreading Islam in North Africa, then from 711-714 during the campaign of Musa ibn Naseer and Tariq ibn Ziyad (after whom Gibraltar, that is, jabal Tariq, Tariq’s mountain, is named ever since he and his Muslim troops landed upon it in 711 A.D.) and the fall of Byzantium which paved the way before it to take control of some lands in Africa and the Middle East, including Jerusalem. Then the Crusades came. These were wars called for by the Church in the pretext of looking for the “original cross” upon which Christ, peace be upon him, was supposedly crucified. Tell us, dear reader, why should the French look for that cross in Africa?! Was Christ crucified in Algeria or Chad, or was he crucified in Mauritania?! Those crusades were led by rulers and monarchs whom the Church supported and regarded as “God’s shadow on earth.” We do not think that God endorses the death and destruction committed by those crusaders, and we do not think that Christ was pleased with them, knowing that he was the “Prince of Peace.” But it is just an excuse. Nevertheless, Muslims demonstrated a great deal of clemency to these invaders, and one example is that of Emperor Romanus IV Dogenes who attempted to stop the Turks from advancing on Byzantine territories. Led by Alp Arsalan, Turkish Muslims fought the emperor’s army at Manzikert in August 1071. The Byzantines were defeated and their emperor was taken prisoner. Alp Arslan did not press his advantage; instead, he released the emperor on easy terms. Not so easy were the terms whereby the government of Iraq was “released” in the aftermath of the “Gulf War.” The price is yet to be realized by present day Iraqis and their future generations. Western writers have not hesitated to label the attack on Iraq as a Crusade. On October 3, 1993, Washington Post staff writer Rick Atkinson chose the title: “Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War” as the heading for his front page article which featured the picture of an American F-16 fighter plane flying above a Baghdad mosque. The message is unmistakably clear: “O Muslims of Iraq! Here we come! The Crusades are very much alive and well!” Congratulations, therefore, to the Al Sabah and Al Saud clans for inviting these crusaders to kill their brothers and neighbors… The future generations of these “brothers and neighbors” will deal with these lackeys, you just wait and see. In 1099, the French entered Jerusalem, sparking far-reaching reactions throughout the Muslim world who consider it their first qibla and the third holiest of their shrines. French writers raced with one another to attack Islam, just as Huntington and his likes are doing nowadays, without reaping any results other than stirring the feelings of resentment towards them.
Palestinians who have been killed since 1948 by bullets donated to the Israelis by the U.S. may number as many as their Algerian martyr brethren. All this shedding of blood is caused by those who do not value Muslim lives at all. It was only through Islam that the Algerians won their independence, and it will likewise be the case with Palestine. It was Abdul-Qadir al-Jaza’iri who led, in the name of Islam, the Algerians to kick the French out, and the Palestinians need another Abdul-Qadir al-Husaini to likewise kick the Israelis out and send them back to Europe where they had come from. By the way, Abdul-Ghaffar Abdul-Rahman Aziz, aide to the emir of “Jama`ati Islami Pakistan” expressed his fears in August 1991 that the Israelis were making plans to attack Pakistan’s nuclear reactor.
During the period from 1756-1763, Great Britain was struggling to firm its control over its colonies, causing France to lose its influence in the then important economic part of the world. France, therefore, started looking for other areas to colonize and settle its people, and Algeria was its choice which it invaded in 1827 and succeeded on July 5, 1830 in firming its grip on it when its ruler, Husain Pasha, surrendered. The Algerians withdrew from the main cities and organized guerilla warfare against occupying French forces under the leadership of heroes like Bey Mustafa bu Marzooq, al-Hajj Ahmed Bey Qisanteenah, Prince Abdul-Qadir al-Jazairi (b. 1808 and d. 1883, the most prominent among them), al-Maqrani, Shaikh al-Haddad, the descendants of Sidi al-Sheikh, Bu ‘Imamah, Ibn Za‘moon, Sidi al-Sa`di, Agha Muhyud-Deen bin al-Mubarak…, to name only a few. On July 25, 1830, the French fought Algerian mujahidin defending al-Midya, and when they entered the city, they did not find one person in it alive. The residents were either martyred or withdrew to fight the French later. Such heroism is what is lacking these days in our Muslim world. In the summer of 1831, Ibn Za`moon’s troops set fire to the farms planted by the French and other European settlers and missionaries, igniting a battle that lasted several days during which Algeria could have fallen in the hands of the mujahidin had no additional French forces been sent to rescue the besieged troops. On April 7, 1832, the French, out of a sheer desire for revenge, moved during the night on the houses inhabited by members of the tribe of al-‘Ofiyya and wiped them out completely, killing all the children, the elderly, the women, and everyone else in them. Menachem Begin, the world renown leader of the Jewish terrorist gang, Irgun, did the same in 1947 to the village of Deir Yasin, killing all its 254 inhabitants…, and examples like these are too many to count here. True, the borders of Islam are bloody; they have been bloodied by ahlul kitāb, people of the Book. It was only through the efforts of Jewish spies in Algeria such as Ibn Baju and Bu Janah that the French were able to enter Constantine city in northeast Algeria. On page 147 of Lectures on Algeria’s Modern History by Dr. Abul-Qasim Sa`d-Allah, al-Hajj Ahmed is quoted commenting about those Jews saying, “It is they who always corrupted all the politics in which they interfered; they take no part in fighting, but they have a vested interest in seeing all others torn by dissension; they are like the wolves that come to take the lion’s leftovers.”
France followed in Algeria what “Israel” has been following in Palestine: a policy of bloody suppression, forced settlement of Europeans, and economic strangulation. French crusaders invaded Muslim lands and shed the blood of Muslims during a period of about three hundred years during which Muslims were massacred, their farms and orchards burnt, their possessions confiscated, and their free men and women brought to Europe as slaves. It is true, “Islam has bloody borders,” borders which the crusaders stained with Muslim blood. The last French crusade on Africa took place in 1270. It was led by Louis XIX. It failed to achieve its objectives; the Africans resisted the invaders, and Africa is now predominantly Muslim. Another Frenchman with bloody hands is Charlemagne (768-814) who is very well known for terrorizing the Muslims of Spain through his own Court of Inquisition which was set up by the Catholic Church, and which employed innovative torture methods. His massacres put an end to the presence of Islam in some parts of Spain called Andalusia that had lasted for more than eight centuries. Those were the best of times. They witnessed the establishment of a great civilization the remnants of which can still be seen in Barcelona, Grenada, Cordoba, Lisbon and numerous other cities. Once the Islamic torch of enlightenment was put out by Charlemagne, Andalusia and the rest of Spain gradually became one of the poorest nations in Europe after a brief period of Spanish supremacy built on the once formidable navy known as the “Invincible Armada.” The defeat of that Armada at the hands of the British on July 29, 1588 signaled the decline of Spain as a world power and the rise of “Great Britain.” Charlemagne will probably be incinerated with rage in his grave if he comes to know that more than one thousand mosques have already been built throughout France, and that less than three miles away from the Vatican, a mosque and an Islamic center are being built. You see, shedding the blood of Muslims, and causing Islam to have bloody borders, as Huntington puts it, does not stop the progress of the Islamic message; on the contrary; it kindles the fire of zeal in the heart of every Muslim no matter where he or she lives; Muslims are one umma. And this is exactly what frightens Huntington and his likes.
Yet the term “Islamic terrorists,” which Huntington and his likes use, is by itself a clue from which one can easily detect where he comes from. This term is one of the inventions of international Zionism; it is both offensive and self-contradictory. On one hand, Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. The word “Islam” itself is derived from salām (Shalom in Hebrew) which means peace: peace with one’s own soul, peace with all other human beings, peace with the environment, and peace with the Almighty. When certain individuals are carried away by their frustration to do something as abhorred and frowned upon as taking hostages or killing innocent civilians, Muslims condemn their acts before all others do. But why do you involve the name of Islam in what they do? When the West uses the term “Islamic terrorists” so loosely, should the Muslims refrain from doing the same when they refer to the Serbs and Croats who are terrorizing their Bosnian brethren as the “Christian” world ties the hands of Bosnian Muslims and forbids them from having access to arms to defend themselves, dropping a few bread crumbs on them so that they may not die of starvation but be killed by the bullets of the Serbs and Croats? Should they refrain from applying the term “Jewish terrorists” to the Israelis who daily terrorize our Palestinian Muslim brethren, and to those who dole out arms to them and give them funds and plenty of veto power at the U.N.? Why has the West been reluctant to call members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) “Catholic terrorists” although they categorize their actions as typical of “terrorists”? If the shoe fits, wear it. What is right for them is right for us, too, and this is the way it should be. On the other hand, often those who apply this term are themselves responsible for numerous acts of terrorism world-wide. If those European writers wish to see the ugly face of terrorism, they just have to look in a mirror. What is indicated above regarding France is true about Italy and the U.S. Both have shed a great deal of the blood of innocent Muslims. U.S. planes and boats, or their proxy Israeli forces, have strafed, invaded, bombed, many areas in Lebanon (the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon is an example), Jordan, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, and will not hesitate to attack Iran, Pakistan, the Sudan, or any other Muslim country.
Needless to say, it is American Zionist Jews who promote writings like Huntington’s. In this article, and commenting on the quotation cited above, we cannot escape detailing the bloody history of “Israel” which the writer admits is a creation of the West; so, let us tell the inquisitive reader the following, reminding him that U.S. policies are in full conformity with those of “Israel” and the U.K.:
Before the close of World War I, and to be exact in 1917, Great Britain was great no more, and its coffers were almost empty. European Jews succeeded in buying the post of Foreign Secretary for one of their co-religionists, namely Lord Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930), a nephew of Robert Cecil, third marquess (marquis) of Salisbury, whom he succeeded as Prime Minister. He was Secretary for Scotland and Chief Secretary for Ireland, and a bitter opponent of the independence of Ireland from British domination. In a letter he sent to the renown Jewish billionaire Lord Lionel Rothschild on November 2, 1917, he wrote saying, “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” a letter now referred to as the ill-famed Balfour Declaration that set the foundations of “Israel” in the heart of the Arab and Muslim umma. The following year, 1918, U.S. President Wilson read a Fourteen Point declaration to the U.S. Congress in which he said, “The other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.” Did the U.S. act upon this statement, and if not, why not? We do not think it is necessary to answer this question, especially since everyone knows how much influence American Jews have maintained over U.S. politics even as early as the beginning of the present century. After World War II, the recipe for the creation of “Israel” had already been cooked and was ready to serve. During the war, Jews were being trained on terrorism and sabotage throughout Europe and the U.S. Both the Jewish Defense League (JDL), one of whose terrorists was rabbi Meir Kahane, and the American Defense League (ADL), are still pursuing such training in their U.S. camps even today. Let us digress for a moment to provide you with the following list of acts of terrorism committed by American Jews which did not receive any significant publicity in the biased news media: the complete destruction by the Jewish Defense League of the Institute for Historical Review for publishing reports of acts of terrorism committed by Jews in the U.S.; the bombing of the Boston office of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) followed by the murder of Alex Odeh, a Christian American of Palestinian descent, after bombing the Santa Ana, California, office of the ADC, then the bombing of the Washington, D.C., office of the ADC (an action which excited Jewish militants such as Mordechai Levy and Irv Rubin of the JDL); the breaking of the windows of the San Francisco Mosque on June 16, 1985, of the windows of the Islamic Institute of Dearborn, Michigan, on June 21 of the same year, and of the windows of the Islamic Education Center (IEC) in the Potomac, Maryland, on the same day; and the throwing of home-made pipe bombs through the window of the Houston Mosque on June 22, 1985… Had any of these targets been a synagogue, the news would have been carried by all news media networks and published on the front pages of all publications owned by or sympathetic to Jews.
The terrorist Zionist organizations that prepared for the establishment of “Israel” include the following:
1) Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization), which was founded in 1931 and one of whose most famous terrorists was Menachem Begin. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it “committed acts of terrorism and assassination against the British, whom it regarded as illegal occupiers (of Palestine), and it was also violently anti-Arab. Irgun also participated in the organization of illegal immigration into Palestine,” and it participated in hostage-taking. If Americans, like this Huntington, consider taking hostages as a terrorist act, they should likewise consider Irgun terrorist since it in 1939 took British army officers hostage and executed them. And who has supported its leader Menachem Begin other than the U.K. and the U.S.? What do you call those who support terrorism? Or is it the usual double-standard of “some people’s honey is other people’s poison”?
2) Haganah (Defense), which was established in 1920 to terrorize Palestinian Arabs in preparation of settling Jews in Palestine. It became in 1941 a full-time commando force;
3) Haddassah, which recruited Jewish women to “entertain” Jewish terrorists and to dress their wounds; and 4) Stern (pronounced “Shtern,”) or the Stern Group, another terrorist Jewish organization established mostly by German Jews. Its activities did not differ much from those of Irgun. When the British wanted to leave Palestine in 1948, after the expiration of their U.N. mandate over Palestine, they did not want to transport all their heavy military equipment back home, especially since many of them had by then become outdated and obsolete, so they offered them for sale. Jews were swift to take advantage of that opportunity, especially since they knew that the Arabs did not have the money, thus gaining an edge over the poorly armed and trained Arab volunteer armies that resisted the establishment of “Israel” on May 15, 1948. Most Arab countries were by then under Western control: Iraq and Jordan, as well as Egypt, were de facto British colonies, while Syria, Lebanon and many other Arab countries were under French and Italian domination. Since both Britain and France were already collaborating with the Zionists, they did all they could to firmly plant the seed of the Zionist entity in the midst of the Arab world, and now they are doing everything they can to keep it in existence.
This is why “Israel” has survived the odds; it is not because the Arabs are weak, but because they simply are no match to these Western countries with all their planes and naval fleets. And the Jews have been, since then and even before then, trying their best to buy power and authority in all significant Western countries, so much so that no politician in his right mind in the West dares to say or do anything that may anger “God’s Chosen People,” as the Jews like to call themselves. In Vol. II (1955) of his memoirs titled Years of Trial and Hope, p. 132, President Harry S. Truman recounted one of his statements in which he said, “I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”
What is the price of keeping “Israel” alive, and how have the Israelis rewarded their benefactors? Many books have been written on this subject, some of them by Christians and Jews (such as Edward Said, Lt. Col. Gordon “Jack” Mohr, Roger Garaudy, Efraim Sevela, Haviv Schieber, Samir Abd-Rabbo, and rabbi Elmer Berger, to name a few), all concluding that Zionism is racism and has nothing to do with Judaism, and that today’s Jews are taking advantage of Gentiles in general and Christians in particular. More than 18 Jewish organizations in Paris alone are anti-Zionist. If you combine the military with the economic U.S. aid “packages” doled out to the Israelis, you will come to the staggering figure of more than three and a half billion dollars a year of tax money. No other nation in the world receives so much money and weapons. And “Israel” is the only country in whose Army Americans are permitted to serve, and, believe me, they have been… Intelligence sharing is another bonus. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) always hands over to the Israelis whatever intelligence its agents, as well as satellites and spy planes, and lately U.N. weapons inspectors, collect about Arab armies and their weapons. In all the wars which “Israel” fought against the Arabs, the Americans were more than forthcoming in providing “Israel” with all its economic, political, and military needs, and the American veto is always ready at the U.N. at Israel’s service. This comes despite the fact that the Americans fully know the extent of violations of human rights in “Israel.” This proves the persistent double standard policy of the U.S. when it comes to human rights. The same can be said about other countries assisted by the U.S. in the past or in the present (and definitely in the future as well): Iran under the Shah, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq when it was fighting the Iranians. All these countries received some sort of assistance from the U.S. while the latter was fully aware of their human rights violations at the time. The U.S. opts to ignore human rights whenever it is convenient for it to do so.
In order to detail the way whereby the Jews have been rewarding their Christian benefactors, one will never run out of material. Such material reflects the very fact that while good-hearted Christians earn their living with the sweat of their forehead and send their tax money to the Jews in “Israel,” American Jewish financiers are getting more and more rich due to the economic system in the West the architects of which are none other their own selves, the system based on usury which takes the form of high interest rates. Consider the interest rate, and calculate the compounded interest, which is one of the Jewish inventions in the monetary world, on any given amount of money, and see how much one has to pay for interest which ranges from five to twenty-three percent. One may end up paying three times as much as he would have paid for anything he buys in cash. Since not many people can afford these days to pay for what they buy in cash, they have to borrow money today in order to pay it back tomorrow, and when tomorrow comes, they will lose their house because they can no longer afford to pay its mortgage installment, or their credit card payment, and we will not talk here about loan sharks and pawn shops. Thus, money-hungry dealers in usury will end up owning a piece of property as much as one hundred times more in value than what they had lent its prospective owners in credit. John Cummuta, an American financial expert, puts it this way: “If you charge $2,000 on a credit card and pay the minimum payment, it will take you over thirty years to pay it off and you will have paid more than ten thousand dollars in payment. In other words, you will pay the credit card company over $8,000 for the privilege of using their $2,000!” Go back to the days of Henry Ford I, founder of the Ford Motor Corporation, and let him tell you how the Jews are in total control of America’s economy. Look in any library for his book The International Jew and see if it can be found at all. Jews make sure that nothing is published, broadcast, televised, displayed at theater, that tarnishes their image. With the news and information media totally in their hands, Jews will never tell the American people the truth. “When ignorance is a bliss, it is folly to be wise,” says the old axiom. How many Americans know about the 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded after 821 rocket and machine-gun holes ripped the USS Liberty which came under attack from Israeli jets and torpedo boats during the so-called “six-day war” of June 5, 1967? The attack lasted more than two hours, and when the Israelis saw that the vessel did not sink, they ripped its life rafts and sent their helicopters to finish it up knowing exactly what vessel it was, having put it under their intense low-level surveillance for more than six hours by photo-reconnaissance aircraft, flying as low as 200 feet directly overhead…
Huntington makes reference in the same quotation to the U.S. helping the Kuwaitis put an end to Iraq’s occupation and annexation of their country without stating the real reasons for such “help.” The truth of the matter is that the U.S. did not rush to the Kuwaitis’ rescue because it is fond of them. Rather, it was a God-given opportunity to crush the mightiest Arab army in order to give “Israel” a leverage over the Arabs and to oblige the British who have always had a major interest in Kuwait. The U.S. surely did not have any fight with the Iraqis, nor is Kuwait vital to its interests; five percent only of U.S. oil imports come from there, but the British do not wish to relinquish their control over Kuwait. Since they did not want to fight the Iraqis, the British got the Americans to do the dirty job for them. On the other hand, the extent of brutality of the U.S. attack on Iraq, the total destruction of Iraq’s army and economic infrastructure, the huge loss of civilian lives, the destruction of all types of civilian installations which had no impact whatsoever on Iraq’s military capability (such as sewer pumping stations, power generators, warehouses, irrigation canals, schools, mosques, churches, and even highways) gives one the impression that the Americans had a much bigger goal in mind when they dragged 29 other countries to stain their hands with the blood of the people of Iraq; they simply have no value for the lives of Iraqis even when the latter had nothing to do with the madness of the Butcher of Baghdad; after all, Iraqis are only Muslims. That is sufficient reason to kill as many of them as possible and to leave the rest to starve through economic sanctions. Economic and political sanctions are being enforced not only on Iraq but also on Syria, Iran, Libya, and recently the Sudan which are all accused of “sponsoring terrorism.” Tomorrow, Pakistan’s turn will come to be added to the same list, and after that…, who knows? Notice how those on the U.S. list of countries that allegedly support terrorism are all Muslims. This is deliberate, my friend. It is time the Muslims of the world started blacklisting those who try their best to harm them and call them names and take strong trade and political measures against them. Notice also how the U.N. has become an easy tool in the hands of the West to carry out and legitimize the latter’s assaults on Muslims world-wide, especially those who live in the Arab world. Should the Muslims of the world remain silent as the West, especially the U.S., keeps branding them as “terrorists”? What a horrible price they are paying for remaining thus silent.
If we were to comment on all items in Huntington’s article, we would to write a voluminous book, yet one more issue we simply cannot ignore: We feel it is our obligation to respond to it as follows:
“Historically,” says Huntington, “the other great antagonistic interaction of Arab Islamic civilization has been with the pagan, animist, and now increasingly Christian black peoples to the south. In the past, this antagonism was epitomized in the image of Arab slave dealers and black slaves.” While this statement is made regarding the Sudan’s war with its armed separatists in the south, the explicit reference to Arab slave dealers is both offensive and ironic, especially since it is made by someone who claims to be a promoter and a defender of the civilization of and an adherent to the faith that permitted, encouraged, and actively participated in slave trade for almost one thousand and nine hundred years. Till the year 1807, slavery was permitted and practiced in “Christian” America. If there is any antagonism, we assure Huntington that its source is neither Arab nor Islamic; rather, its roots and origins are European.
Let us briefly review how Christianity dealt with slavery, then we will see how Islam, on its part, emancipated slaves. Writing about this subject in his book Spirit of Islam (London: University Paperback, 1965, pp. 259-261), Justice Emir Ali says that the established Church adopted the system of slavery which was already in effect during the Roman empire without any effort to mitigate its baneful character or promise its gradual abolition, or even improve the status of slaves. Under civil laws, slaves were mere chattels. On page 61, Vol. 2, of History of European Morals (New York, 1926), W.E. Lecky indicates that, “The Church did not condemn slavery. Orthodox and heretic, Roman and barbarian alike assumed the institution to be natural and indestructible. Pagan laws condemned to slavery any free woman who married a slave; the laws of Constantine ordered the woman to be executed, and the slave to be burned alive. The emperor Gratian decreed that a slave who accused his master of any offence except high treason to the state should be burned alive at once, without inquiring into the justice of the charge.” Even the word “slave” itself is of European origin: the French used to supply the Spanish slave market with what they called “barbarians” who were actually Muslims of Turkish descent inhabiting Slovakia. They were called “Slavs” or “Slavics,” hence the word “slave”. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, all in all, as many as fifteen million blacks may have been transported to the Western Hemisphere from Africa. The slave system aroused little protest until the 18th century. The movement to emancipate blacks was started by American Quakers who established in 1788 the “Society of the Friends of the Blacks.” British Quakers started the same campaign only five years earlier. Attempts failed in 1787 to consider a ban on slavery in the U.S. constitution; finally, it was only in 1807 that the U.S. officially prohibited it. Such an official ban, however, was not actually enforced, as Arnold J. Toynbee tells us in his book Mankind and Mother Earth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976) till 1862. Even when his book went to the press, the author conceded that the blacks in America were “with good reason, feeling now, more than a century later, that they are still being denied full human rights by the white majority of their fellow citizens.”
Huntington is not a “Christian” writer who falsely claims that Islam not only tolerated but even encouraged slavery, but he truly reflects a typical Jewish prejudice which since the inception of Islam manifested itself on the behavior of many members of the Jewish communities of the world; so, we understand where he comes from. Many books written by malicious writers in the West, most of whom are either Jews or paid by Jews, contain the same lie. Islam adopted a gradual process to emancipate slaves, a process which may be divided into two major steps:
First, Islam put a very strong restriction on the acquisition of slaves. This restriction (the one and only) included an enemy who adheres to the idol-worship and who is captured in a war fought either in self-defense or with the permission of the Prophet of Islam or one of his rightful successors.
Second, Islam actually set out on a campaign to emancipate slaves as an atonement of a number of sins. For example, if a Muslim fails to fast during the month of Ramadan without a valid excuse, he has to free one slave for each day of the fast which he misses. Another is if he fails to maintain his vow. Even if he, in a state of extremely uncontrollable grief (such as the sudden death of a dear one like a spouse or a child, etc.), tears his shirt, he has to free a slave as an expiation. Likewise, if a woman beats herself or pulls her hair while grieving over the death or homicide of someone, she has to free a slave. If a Muslim accidentally kills someone else, he must free a slave. These are only sample cases, and to review more, refer to any book dealing with fiqh. It is also interesting to notice the fact that some of the greatest personalities in the history of Islam were, for one reason or another, slaves. Some such slaves received an implicit honoring mention in the Holy Qur’ān such as Zayd ibn al-Harithah who belonged to Khadija wife of Prophet Muhammed and whom she gave to the Prophet . He was freed by the Prophet and later on came to be the general commander of one of the armies raised by the Messenger of Allah at the dawn of Islam. Even Zayd’s son Usamah enjoyed the same honor later on. And who can forget Bilal ibn Rabah, the Ethiopian muaththin, caller to prayer, and Salman al-Farisi, about whom the Prophet of Islam said, “Salman is one of us, we Ahl al-Bayt (people of the household of the Prophet)”? All these examples date back to the sixth century, almost fourteen hundred years ago, when Christians were freely trading with slaves, mistreating them, and looking at them as objects or household items. Islam, contrariwise, enjoined the faithful to treat slaves as human beings, ordering them to feed their slaves the same food as they themselves eat, and to clothe them as they themselves wear. Cherfils, the French writer of Bonaparte et l’Islam (Paris, 1914) quotes Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), who invaded Egypt, expressing his astonishment at slaves’ conditions in Egypt then by saying, “The slave inherits his master’s property and marries his daughter. The majority of Pashas had been slaves [i.e. Mamlukes or Mamaleek]. Many grand viziers are Mamlukes. Ali bin Murad Beg had been a slave. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merits or by favor. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rung.”
The idiosyncracies peculiar to Huntington and his likes are the reason why he and they think that they are the ones who, rather than anyone else in the world, deserve to live and prosper. It is blind prejudice and bigotry compounded with the lack of a sincere desire to examine history, our greatest teacher, to see how civilizations rise and fall.
Our final word is addressed to our dear Muslim readers whom we request to support our humble effort to defend Islam against the attacks to which it is subjected daily by writers like this Huntington whose article is a drop in the ocean of what is being falsely written about Islam and Muslims. Remember: The Zionists have controlled the public by controlling (buying and/or managing) the news media, and we can and must do something about their misrepresentation of our creed. If you do not care, your children may find themselves in the same situation in which our Bosnian brethren have found themselves: too many enemies, while not enough friends…, Wassalamo Alaikom.
Yasin T. al-Jibouri
President, International Islamic Society of Virginia, Inc.
Falls Church, Virginia, U.S.A.