Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Quranic concept of terrorism - (outstanding "road map"; Pakistani origins of "militant jihad!")
AMERICAN THINKER.COM ^ | JULY 22, 2005 | Dr. N.S. Rajaram

Posted on 07/22/2005 9:02:14 AM PDT by CHARLITE

Jihad is the ‘evil ideology’ that is driving terrorism. Muslims should take the lead in rooting out this barbarism.

Early reports indicate that there were no fatalities from four coordinated explosions that again targeted Londons’ transit system yesterday, July 21, 2005, exactly two weeks after the Islamikaze carnage of July 7, 2005 that killed over 50 persons. Perhaps we will also be spared the surreal drama that is enacted each time there is a major Islamikaze terrorist attack: politicians and various other “experts”—non-Muslim and Muslim alike—start praising Islam. They tell us that Islam is a noble religion that stands for peace and compassion and abhors violence. This is what Mr. Tony Blair did immediately following the London bombings of 7/7/05. It is now all but an obligatory ritual.

The major players in this post-attack drama are Muslim leaders and academics. They voice apprehensions about the possible ‘backlash’ against innocent Muslims, resulting from the terrorist acts of a minority. They assure us that the terrorists are acting against the teachings of Islam. This is soon followed by a third act, an airing of Muslim grievances— the war in Iraq, the Palestinian problem, and of course the oppression of Muslims in non-Muslim countries like Britain. The talk is always about backlash and grievances, rarely about their own responsibility in allowing fanaticism to flourish in their midst.

In all this there is an unstated assumption that the root causes of terrorism lie outside the teachings of Islam. If that is the case, how are we to explain the fact all the terrorist attacks—from New York to London to Bali—have one thing in common: that they were perpetrated by groups acting in the name of Islam? It is hard to believe that the Bali bombings had anything to do with Iraq or Palestine.

In this drama of denial and diversion, there is always a reluctance to mention the one word that goes a long way towards explaining terrorism: Jihad. While Mr. Blair talked about an evil ideology of hate, he did not mention Jihad. Neither did the British Muslim leaders who promised full cooperation. All spoke in vague terms— about fighting ‘extremism and fundamentalism’ without telling us how.

At this moment of crisis, what the world needs is clarity, not obfuscation. Fortunately, we have a lucid explanation of Jihad and terrorism by one of the founding fathers of modern terrorism, the late General Zia-ul-Haq, former president of Pakistan. He sponsored one Brigadier Malik to produce an authoritative military manual on Jihad called The Quranic Concept of War.

In his laudatory foreword to the book, General Zia wrote:

“JIHAD FI-SABILILLAH (Jihad in the path of Allah) is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone. The book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of the military force, within the context of the totality that is JIHAD.”

Indeed it does. Brigadier Malik writes,

“the Holy Prophet’s operations …are an integral and inseparable part of the divine message revealed to us in the Holy Quran. … The war he planned and carried out was total to the infinite degree. It was waged on all fronts: internal and external, political and diplomatic, spiritual and psychological, economic and military.”

Another point made by the author is that the war should be carried out in the opponent’s territory. “The aggressor was always met and destroyed in his own territory.” The ‘aggressor’ is anyone who stands in the way of Jihad.

Where does terrorism come in the picture?

“The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemy, known or hidden…”

It doesn’t stop here, for Brigadier Malik assures us:

“Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved… Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.” (Original emphasis.)

That is to say, the enemy should be made to live in a state of perpetual terror. We should be grateful to Brigadier Malik and the late General Zia for spelling it out with such clarity. We no longer need to grope in the dark to identify this “evil ideology of hate” in Mr. Blair’s picturesque phrase.

Though little known in the West, The Quranic Concept of War is widely studied in Islamic countries. It has been translated into several languages including Arabic and Urdu (the official language of Pakistan). Indian soldiers have recovered Urdu versions of the book from the bodies of slain militants in Kashmir.

It is no coincidence that the trail of terrorism today should lead to General Zia. By making Jihad the centerpiece of Pakistan’s politics he ensured that Jihadist thinking would dominate all aspects of Pakistani politics in both domestic and foreign affairs. And now British investigators have determined that three of the four suicide bombers responsible for the carnage in London on 7/7/05 were Muslims of Pakistani descent, who had recently flown to Karachi and attended Pakistani madrassas known to be run by terrorist organizations.

That this barbarous act of terrorism has indelible links to Pakistan is hardly surprising—for at least a quarter century, Pakistan has been a fountainhead of jihadist ideology—embodied in the The Qur’anic Concept of War—and a tactical training center for jihad terrorists. Indeed, even during the current Musharaf administration’s purported crackdown on Al Qaeda networks, as terrorism expert Con Coughlin observed,

“…the inescapable conclusion is that Pakistan forms the epicentre of Osama bin Laden's unremitting campaign of terror against the West.”

In the face of this, Mr. Blair’s actions in the days following the London blasts are not reassuring. Plans to deport all known Muslim fanatics allowed into Britain may accomplish little. Islamic terror is increasingly becoming home grown and will be more so in the future. What is needed is a method of combating indoctrination of young Muslim minds on English soil.

The so-called “blasphemy law” recently passed by the House of Commons is a knee-jerk reaction to pressure from Muslim groups. It will only shield Islam from honest review and criticism that the situation now demands. It is just a step removed from allowing Islamic courts and an Islamic thought police to function. This is what one expects in countries like Saudi Arabia, not Britain.

What is needed now is the exact opposite of such censorship: a free debate over all aspects of Islamic teachings and practices, especially Jihad. After all, Christianity and Hinduism, the other two major religions of Britain enjoy no such immunity. Nor have they asked for it.

Muslim leaders need to go beyond condemning violence and voicing grievances. They need to root out this evil from within their ranks. If they are really sincere about fighting terrorism, they should come out openly against the barbarism that is Jihad, and not hide behind vague statements about extremism and fanaticism. Mere lip service will not do.

Dr. N.S. Rajaram is a mathematician and historian of science. He lives in Oklahoma City and Bangalore, India


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: countries; greatbritain; jihad; koran; militancy; origins; pakistan; schools; terror; texts; training; western

1 posted on 07/22/2005 9:02:15 AM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog; Critical Bill; backhoe; Stopislamnow; Fred Nerks; canalabamian; Reborn; ...
Very important article for your interest.

Char

2 posted on 07/22/2005 9:03:51 AM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

Zia's Legacy.

Book sounds it's worth reading.

At least members of the USG should.


3 posted on 07/22/2005 9:11:24 AM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

This still does not address the catch 22 of Islam. Muhammad's prime directive was to wage war on infidels until they all surrender.

There is no Islam without Muhammad, so how can anyone say that jihad against infidels is not true Islam?


4 posted on 07/22/2005 9:29:13 AM PDT by OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Good article.What's it going to take to get past the pc rhetoric?What happens if terrorists(in the US)start blowing up schools,packed stadiums,or malls on a busy weekend?While islamonuts are blowing themselves up(and MURDERING innocent civilians),the msm,academians,and polititians are still beating the appeasement drum.Sickening.


5 posted on 07/22/2005 9:44:47 AM PDT by Thombo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder

ping


6 posted on 07/22/2005 9:50:58 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Interesting, although there are two things missing. First, "jihad" means striving. It is often used in the context of this article, but it also means striving in general, like striving to make yourself a better person, etc.

Second, I really don't know where the whole suicide bombing thing began, maybe invented by some fanatical, egotistic mullah with a God (Allah?) complex and political power goals. Mohammad preferred all-out open war on the battlefield during his jihad. The ones who went to heaven, the "martyrs," were the ones who fought on the battlefield with honor against a like opponent. From my understanding of the Quran, these suicide bombers are going to Muslim hell for the murder of innocents.

7 posted on 07/22/2005 10:01:31 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

One of the most important and clarifying works I've read. And from a mathematician, too. Imagine that...


8 posted on 07/22/2005 10:12:03 AM PDT by bruin66 (Time: Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: antiRepublicrat

You don't know what you're talking about.


10 posted on 07/22/2005 10:22:10 AM PDT by G32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Again another false conclusion that everybody who writes on these articles comes to. These teachings are fundamental to islam. Unless these people abandon islam because they cannot accept the plain readings of the koran and the ha'dith, there will be no change. In fact there will be more of this. This is what the books say. No, not every or even most passages, but it is plainly in there. There will be no "reform". What we're seeing now is the true reform, that Ayatollah Khomeini advocated, i.e., getting back to the fundamental version of islam. Pretending otherwise is just another form of denial. Imams who come out against these passages will be labeled as heretics, apostates and lukewarm mooselimbs and will be ignored by those who read the text literally.


11 posted on 07/22/2005 10:24:12 AM PDT by F15Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

BTTT


12 posted on 07/22/2005 10:42:43 AM PDT by Gritty ("The war Mohammad planned and carried out for Allah was total to the infinite degree-Brigadier Malik)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G32
You don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Explain.

13 posted on 07/22/2005 10:48:44 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hugoball
Mohamed had little problem with subterfuge and dissembling to weaken an enemy.

Subterfuge and dissembling are good in wartime. Only an inept commander wouldn't use both. If you look at the context, I was talking about how the concept of suicide bombers didn't exist. It is a recent fabrication.

Lastly, Islam is a highly decentralized cult, there is no clear authority or titular leader of any sort.

Not anymore. Decentralization does cause problems with religions. Christianity has the same problem, from churches that support homosexuals to "God Hates Fags," from peaceful groups to ones that advocate the murder of doctors, and long ago the same inter-sect warfare that you see in Islam today.

We have the basic problem that weak people will get drawn to the fanatical demagogues of any religion. There are a lot of weak people in the world, and they will do the leader's bidding.

14 posted on 07/22/2005 10:58:09 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

The author fails to note that Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam and no Muslim can edit Jihad out of the religion unless he wants his head separated from his body.


15 posted on 07/22/2005 11:21:12 AM PDT by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: hugoball
<>iThe secularized, western Persians who live in OC are not representative of Islam or Muslims worldwide

You just said that Islam is decentralized. These are one of the decentralized factions. There are Muslims all over who want peace, but there are two problems with them. One problem is shown in this story, the other is that what they do never makes the news. Terrorists are news, people just living their lives are not. That is why so many people don't believe they exist.

There haven't been any meaningful religious wars in Christendom for centuries

And Islam is over 600 years younger than Christianity. In the middle ages, those of the then 1,500 year-old Buddhist religion were probably wondering why Christians were running around killing people so much.

Muslims have less of an excuse though. Today's technology should allow pretty much everyone to get the message that religious wars are not a good thing. Unfortunately, most of the terrorists get their news from only one source: their demagogue Mullahs.

17 posted on 07/22/2005 12:34:29 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hugoball

Oops, in my post referred to an article about how moderate Muslims should speak up and turn in the terrorists.

BTW, you're harping on how the religion is now. This article is about the Quranic concepts behind terrorism. I merely pointed out that I found nothing in the Quran supporting suicide bombers, and those murderers going to heaven.


18 posted on 07/22/2005 12:37:34 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: hugoball
The truth is that a huge % of Muslims worldwide are sympathetic toward anything that they perceive pokes a stick in the eye of the West,

Again, you're going on contemporary Islam, not the Quran. As you said, what these people believe is what their governments and mullahs want them to believe. And that is usually not friendly to the West.

The religious leaders are powerful because the people make them so is more accurate than the idea that the people would be tolerant and secular if the religious leaders weren't stirring them up

Ah, the chicken and the egg. In Iraq, it's really about power. The minority Sunnis are used to running things, and don't want it to stop. The Shiites are actually showing great restraint, with their leaders pleading for the people not to retaliate for Sunni violence, thus continuing the cycle.

You know people don't want to admit that they are the source of their own problems. These religious leaders point to the West as the source and the people gather around them secure in the knowledge that their situation isn't their fault. Claiming an outside enemy is a great way to get people to rally around you, whether the enemy exists (as in the terrorists helping Bush win his second term), or doesn't (as in the mullahs telling their people that we are the reason for their desperate situation).

Frankly, it is my hope that the West begins the process of radically critiquing Islam and subjecting it's central texts to both scrutiny and open mockery

If you've read about any of the Bible inerrantists, you know that there will still be holdouts when all errors are laid open. But for the Quran that process already started years ago, and the authors are not yet dead. Of course, they don't dare study in any of the Muslim theocracies. They are not all as brave as Martin Luther, nor do they have the powerful protection of a Prince Frederick.

20 posted on 07/22/2005 1:54:26 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: hugoball

"...a terrible problem for the rest of the world....."

Ever so correct, but don't leave us out of that thought.

Jihad is occurring in many places in the world. What is also frightening (to me) is the rapid growth of Islam in the world, and the vast amount of emigration of middle east Muslims to Western countries. Canada is full of Muslims, peaceful so far.

Virtually no westerners emigrate to Muslim countries.

It is logical to conclude, given the spreading I mentioned, that Islam will, indeed, take over the world.

Unless it is stopped. (That's one reason they're fighting so savagely in Iraq to prevent Democracy. If Iraq becomes a solid democracy, the world jihadist movement will be severely weakened, as Iraq will stand as the antithesis to Islamic jihad.)

Hugoball said it well. An Islamist cannot be changed. Muhamed wrote that "infidels" (everybody else) should be shunned and killed, until only Muslims remain. That is a very clear statement. These words are engraved in the minds of every Muslim in the world, whether he's a jihadist or not. (Which may explain why apparently "good" Muslims suddenly blow up trains!)

To say that Islam is on a collision course with the West, and Christianity, is not true. The collision is occurring now.


22 posted on 07/23/2005 5:36:14 AM PDT by Randy Papadoo (Hey! That's NOT YOUR COOKIE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: CHARLITE
Dr. N.S. Rajaram is a mathematician and historian of science. He lives in Oklahoma City and Bangalore, India

And I presume he is NOT a Muslim.

Else he would not have written this codswallop.

Muslim leaders need to go beyond condemning violence and voicing grievances. They need to root out this evil from within their ranks. If they are really sincere about fighting terrorism, they should come out openly against the barbarism that is Jihad, and not hide behind vague statements about extremism and fanaticism. Mere lip service will not do.

24 posted on 07/23/2005 11:39:03 AM PDT by iconoclast ( "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I really don't know where the whole suicide bombing thing began, maybe invented by some fanatical, egotistic mullah with a God (Allah?) complex and political power goals.

It's been preached and taught for some time.

Welcome back from wherever you've been.

25 posted on 07/23/2005 11:41:58 AM PDT by iconoclast ( "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: iconoclast; Cicero; EagleUSA; Congressman Billybob; Fred Nerks; Stopislamnow; Leapfrog; ...
codswallop = nonsense

Why is his argument "nonsense?" Aren't we all saying the same things now? - i.e. that Muslims must begin a renaissance - a "reformation" from within their own religion? I'm not certain that it could be equated with Martin Luther's Protestant Reformation, but that's the idea.

Why is such a suggestion "codswallop" and "nonsense?" I'm afraid that I'm not following your reasoning. What is your suggestion for dealing with murderous, militant, bloody Islamofascism?..........teach them the music and lyrics to "Qumbaya?"

Char

27 posted on 07/23/2005 12:33:14 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

What is your suggestion for dealing with murderous, militant, bloody Islamofascism?..........
-----
The tragic part is that not enough Americans HAVE THE GUTS to do what is needed .. and that is to TROWN THEM OUT OF THIS COUNTRY...until they do reform, IF THEY EVER DO.

NO GUTS IN THE POLITICIANS = MORE DEAD AMERICANS


28 posted on 07/23/2005 1:00:35 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Again, you're going on contemporary Islam, not the Quran.

For the life of me I cannot fathom the point of your posts. Is it that we just need to give the Muslim world a century or two to sort out the message of their holy book?

29 posted on 07/23/2005 1:10:28 PM PDT by iconoclast ( "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Why is such a suggestion "codswallop" and "nonsense?" I'm afraid that I'm not following your reasoning. What is your suggestion for dealing with murderous, militant, bloody Islamofascism?..........teach them the music and lyrics to "Qumbaya?"

You dare speak of "Qumbaya"? LOL!

We are not here considering the nailing of theses on church doors by pastors.

These are barbarians beheading noncombatants, women even.

The answer is to begin dealing death and destruction to Jihadist terror training camps and the to radicals' madrassas that instill their filth in the minds of young discontents.

Wringing our hankies and hoping for a heavenly revelation to this savage sect is worse than silly.

Even more stupid than invading secularist states.

30 posted on 07/23/2005 1:29:03 PM PDT by iconoclast ( "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
It's been preached and taught for some time.

Some time being, what, 30-something years? As opposed to a religion that's over 1,300 years old.

31 posted on 07/23/2005 1:53:09 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
Is it that we just need to give the Muslim world a century or two to sort out the message of their holy book?

They don't have that much time before we get really tired of their crap. They're going to have to grow up much more quickly than the Christian religion did.

32 posted on 07/23/2005 2:53:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
OK. Glad that you cleared this up. I agree with you. My personal belief is that we should zap carefully selected military (WMD & nuclear) sites in Iran, terror training camps anywhere, throughout the Middle East, targets in Syria and then take control of all ME oil fields, including those in Iran, until we have restored sanity to the entire area.

In addition to this, I also believe that western European countries need to begin shipping their radical Islamic "dissidents" (hate preachers) out of their countries forthwith.

The notion of a "reformation" within Islam isn't bad if it becomes a genuine one and rids their cult (I refuse to call it a religion) of every single reference to killing "infidels." If they want a peaceful "Islam," then fine, but along with my friend, Ali Sina (http://www.faithfreedom.org), I actually don't think that "reform" is a realistic concept. The whole ideology is putrid, primitive, barbaric and death-driven. It always has been.

Thanks for your comments, iconoclast.

Char (:

33 posted on 07/23/2005 3:38:04 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
It's been preached and taught for some time.

Some time being, what, 30-something years?

Closer to a HUNDRED and thirty years, for whatever your point is. Longer than some your protestant sects.

34 posted on 07/23/2005 3:56:20 PM PDT by iconoclast ( "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
They're going to have to grow up much more quickly than the Christian religion did.

You're a disgrace to your culture, you loose tongued lout.

35 posted on 07/23/2005 4:08:11 PM PDT by iconoclast ( "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; CHARLITE; swarthyguy; OK; Thombo2; AdmSmith; antiRepublicrat; bruin66; hugoball; ...
This is just a small symptom of what Western civilization is up against. The "Cult of Islam" is incompatible with the progression of the human race.
More on knowing our enemy here: Islamic Scholar Warns U.S. of 'Two-Faced' Muslims
36 posted on 07/23/2005 6:03:11 PM PDT by XHogPilot (Islam is The Death Cult)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot; backhoe; Stopislamnow; Fred Nerks; canalabamian
"This is just a small symptom of what Western civilization is up against. The "Cult of Islam" is incompatible with the progression of the human race."

Thanks for that link. It is an excellent article, and absolutely PROVES that Muslims and Islam are intransigent. Period. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim! If they appear to be "understanding" and "willing to listen," it is only a hedge game. The reason for which none of the so-called "moderates" are speaking out loudly and firmly is simple. They're waiting to see if their side wins......i.e. if the "New Caliphate" will engulf this planet.

Allah forbid that they would be viewed by the dictators of "the New Caliphate" as having sided with America and the west!

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FACING


37 posted on 07/23/2005 6:37:26 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot
The "Cult of Islam" is incompatible with the progression of the human race.

Yet a long time ago, the Muslim religion was responsible for much of the progression of the human race. They had been declining a bit from then, but the killer blow to Muslims being part of civilization was Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab.

38 posted on 07/23/2005 9:17:29 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
You're a disgrace to your culture, you loose tongued lout.

If that's the culture of people in denial about the history of their own religion, then I consider that a compliment.

39 posted on 07/23/2005 9:46:30 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
Closer to a HUNDRED and thirty years, for whatever your point is. Longer than some your protestant sects.

The first suicide bombing was in the 1800s? References, please. But even that would make it a relatively recent invention.

Hey, that wasn't too long after Christianity's last witch execution.

40 posted on 07/23/2005 9:50:00 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Yet a long time ago, the Muslim religion was responsible for much of the progression of the human race.

Let's not confuse Islam with Arabian, Turkish, or Persian culture. If you study history you will find, the civilizations/cultures which Islam is credited with advancing, actually predated Islam. Islam destroyed the Turkish, Arabian, and Persian cultures.

41 posted on 07/23/2005 9:54:51 PM PDT by XHogPilot (Islam is The Death Cult)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson