Was Falwell Wrong?

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad, there was a young and handsome man who was the chief of his tribe. His name was Ka’b ibn Ashraf. He used to malign the Prophet. He even composed some poetry vilifying the messenger of Allah reciting them in Mecca a town that was hostile to the Prophet. Ibn Ashraf was in fear for his own tribe because he had seen that Muhammad had banished another Jewish tribe, the Bani Qainuqa from Medina after confiscating all their possessions. Muhammad was very much annoyed by Ibn Ashraf’s insolence and one day he addressed his companions and said:

"Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)." Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271

Ibn Maslama lied to Ibn Ashraf and treacherously gained his trust, then stabbed him to death. Tabari, the great historian of Islam, reports, (volume 3, p. 1006 Persian edition Entesharat-e Asatir) that the death of Ibn Ashraf threw fear in the hearts of the Jews residing in Medina and the next day the Apostle of Allah said:

“If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property. Muhayysah told him “By Allah if the one who has ordered me to kill him orders me to kill you, I will do it”. Huwayyisah was stupefied and asked: “By Allah would you really kill me?” Muhayyisah answered “Yes by Allah if he orders me to kill you, I will kill you”. Huwayyisah, the older brother, said: “By Allah, the religion that has made you thus is strange” and he embraced Islam.”

This story is also partially recorded in collection of hadith: Sunan Abu Dawud Book 19, Number 2996:

In an interview broadcast last week on the CBS program 60 Minutes, Rev. Jerry Falwell said, “I think Muhammad was a terrorist”. Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham also made similar remarks about the Prophet of Islam. These remarks outraged the Islamic community around the world to the point that some Islamic clerics like Shabestari, a representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted saying: "The death of that man (Falwell) is a religious duty”. And Sheikh Muhammed Hussein Fadlullah, a Lebanese top cleric said: “Muslims all over the world ought to remain vigilant and rise up to defend their faith against this new wave of wars and crusades against Islam.”

Muslims in India rioted over Falwell's remarks and five people were killed. Things got so scary that the Executive Board of the (U.S.) National Council of Churches, fearing that Falwell’s statements would endanger the lives of Christians around the world condemned and repudiated the Reverend’s statements.

The pressure mounted: "This is a war against Islam, against the Prophet Muhammad, against the Qura'an" said Sheikh Walid al-Haj, a popular speaker in Hebron. "Don't you believe them when they tell you they are only against terror, they are against every thing Islamic. Didn't you see how Bush and his gang remained silent when one of the pigs (Jerry Falwell) described the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist," said al Haj during Friday sermon.

Finally the preacher was forced to swallow his pride and take back his words. On one hand there was a real threat to his life, on the other, the lives of many Christians around the world was in jeopardy. The President of USA, who unwillingly had been dragged into the controversy, and placed under the spotlight, in such delicate situation when he has to walk on eggshells or else, might also be one of the reasons behind Falwell’s retraction.

As the result everything went back to normalcy. Falwell apologized and the media reassured the public that Islam is a religion of peace.

Although some clerics like Ayatollah Hussein Mousavi Tabrizi accepted the Evangelist's apology and called him "worthy of praise" for his courageous apology, others like Sheik Zuheir Jaaed, deputy head of the Islamic Ulama Gathering, a Lebanon-based association of Sunni and Shiite Muslim scholars, said Falwell's comments "will not calm us" and added: One "cannot insult the prophet then apologize".

Yet I still do not understand how through threats, murder and acts of terrorism one can prove that his religion is not a religion of terror. Don't these very threats prove that Islam is not a religion at all? When I read the story of the conversion of Huwayyisah I was amazed at the low moral intelligence of the Arabs of the 7th century. Huwayyisah saw the evil in killing a friend especially one who feeds you, yet he mistook his brother's zealotry as the sign of the greatness of his Faith. What is disappointing is that 1400 years later the moral intelligence of Muslims has not surpassed that of Huwayyisah.

Many called Falwell’s remarks, “historically untrue” and “factually uninformed”. I wonder based on which history they made such claims! The history of Islam, as was recorded by Waquidi, Tabari, Ibn Hesham and other early historians portray the Prophet of Islam as a terrorist. For how long can we continue with our denial? What we gain by lying to ourselves? Isn’t it time that we read the history of Islam and learn the facts? For how long shall we keep denying that Islam and the examples laid by its founder are the real cause of Islamic terrorism? Perhaps we should ask apologists of Islam such as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, which historic books do they read? Where do they get their facts from? How they came to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace? We are a society living in denial. Only we, will suffer the consequences of our unwillingness to face the truth. More lives will be lost while we try to rewrite the history negating it.

"Terrorist" has some very specific meanings in today's world. Applying them to a 7th century Middle Eastern prophet/mystic/politician/general makes little sense.

If the same standard is applied, Moses and Joshua were terrorists. They were even more terroristic than Mohammed, since they commanded their followers to kill all living things, including women, children and animals, in some of the cities they attacked. Mohammed never did that! (Probably because he was smart enough to realize that it's hard to rape or sell a woman you've killed.)

Muslims in India rioted over Falwell's remarks and five people were killed.

.....Lets see... I critisize some historical religous figure...and a few thousand miles away some people riot and somehow its my fault...that THEY CHOSE TO RIOT...hmmmm not much accountability there. Anyway the profit Mo'hamEd had a demon wisper in his ear the Koran...one of his wives (not sure if it was the 9yr old or not) whispers in his ear..that it was not a demon but an angel of the Most High God...the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob..

The very same God who proclaimed that Ishmael would be a man whose hand would be against every man and every mans hand against him..

Abraham who saw that the war like nature of Ishmael would mean that his Son ..Issac would be in danger if Ishmael were allowed to grow up in his household and had Ishmael and his mother Hagar driven out...to fend for themselves..

This very same God now changes his very nature..the one reveled to Abraham and his decendents..the people of the promise..this God now revels Himself to MoHamhead and gives him contradictory knowledge...establishing with Mo a different covenant?

NO I dont think so...imo..this demon tricked Mo's wife...and Mo wishing in his heart that this be of the real God and not the false one...went along with the deception...and has been propagating the deception satan laid on him years prior..

The people of the curse..go on believing that they are the people of the promise...and of course try to eliminate the people of the promise of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob....and the people of the Son of God..those Jesus..and the Spririt of God revel themselves to..

By their fruits ye shall know them...

>If the same standard is applied, Moses and Joshua were terrorists.

Moses was the lawgiver while Joshua was the military commander. Moses was not a killer like Mohammed. Feel free to rewrite the Bible to suit your own ideas any time.

Secondly the Bible never commands Jews to kill all Gentiles or even anything close to that. Islam commands its followers to kill the kafir (or dust).

On Art Bell they had a rerun of Malachi Martin who desribed the steps that a Satanist takes in is initiation.

First is ritual. Secondly you gain power by inflicting pain, then hate, then burning (human sacrifice via a holocaust in mockery of the burnt offering commanded by G*d).

In Islam you are advised to gain power by murdering and enslaving people not in your group. The Koran is a battle manual which instructs one to begin jihad with cruel attacks designed to shock (the pain stage).

Not content to merely kill, the Islamic world is rife with tales of resentment and hate towards others. (the hate stage) As if they can create the energy for group cohesion and identity only through violence and hate.

The final stage of burning is obvious when one considers 9-11 or the suidice bombing (a type of burning) attacks which the jihadis favor.

You point is well taken. However, whatever Moses command Hebews to do was ordered by G-d: to the best of my knowledge, one does not find many stories about him doing things on his own. This is true, in fact, to an astonishing extent: during the rather lengthy reading of the story of Exodus during passover celebrations, the name of Moishe Rabeinu (Moses) is not mentioned ONCE. The person who was the leader and main protagonist, is not even mentioned. Why? The rabbinical answer is that he served G-d; he did what G-d ordered him to do; his name is not mentioned so that people do not begin to idolize Moses.

In addition, killings that occurred were the result of taking the land given by G-d. The cost of taking possession of the promised land does dissress modern sensibiltiies. While one could question why would G-d order such a thing, there was an order, and the cost was incurred for the rather large benefit of the entire Hebrew tribe.

Compare this to the killing of a person that insulted the Prophet. I am not an expert on the matter, but I believe that one would be hard pressed to find similar stories in teh Bible; that is, stories of personal vendetta elevated to virtue.

Moses was the lawgiver while Joshua was the military commander. Moses was not a killer like Mohammed.

Moses was the political leader, while Joshua was the military commander. Moses gave the orders that Joshua implemented while Moses was alive and after his death. Those orders included commands to destroy completely all living things in certain cities and ethnic groups.

Any political leader issuing such orders today would be considered a terrorist, at the very least. I realize conditions were different back, but they were different in Mohammed's day, too. If you are going to call Mohammed a terrorist, the same standard would also fit Moses.

Secondly the Bible never commands Jews to kill all Gentiles or even anything close to that.

Agreed. But surely the term terrorist doesn't apply only to those who try to kill everybody else? The Nazis concentrated on Jews and Gypsies, but they were surely terrorists.

The Nazis concentrated on Jews and Gypsies, but they were surely terrorists. YOu are misusing the word. The actions of a terrorist have an objective of instilling fear in the living for political aims. These actions may or may not include killing of somone, but even if it does the result pursued is the fear in the rest of the population.

Genocide of the Nazis was not terror. The Nazis practices terror before the war: there were a number of casualties durign the Night of the Broken Glass, but not in the millions. The result was fear in the millions, both Jews and dissident Christiand.

The genocide of the Jews and Roa was actually opposite of terror in that it was conducted in secrecy. "Terrorist" has now so misused that it has become a synonim dfor "bad guy." Not every evil deed, however, is a terrorist act.

Not every evil deed, however, is a terrorist act.

True. However, I submit that many actions of the Nazis were indeed terroristic, for instance their "Night and Fog" campaign, in which people would just disappear in the middle of the night, and their hostage-taking and public killing. The purpose of these acts was to terrorize the citizens of the occupied countries.

Yeah Islam has some eerie similarities to satanism. Islam actually condones sacrificing enemies to atone for one's sins.

Pro-Chechen Islamist Website: Islamic Religious Interpretation Permits Killing of Prisoners

In reaction to the arguments made by some critics that no one should be punished for the sins of others, the author maintains that Allah permits the killing of a prisoner because he is a prisoner, and all the more so if his killing for the sins of others serves an important Islamic interest, as well as a deterrent (to the enemy).

Your equivalence argument doesn't work. There is nothing in the Bible or in Jewish history or in the lives of the patriarchs remotely resembling the doctrine and actual practice of jihad.

Many of the wars in the Bible are simply reported without any indication that God commanded them to happen. Other wars were clearly defensive. There are a few cases where a particular city was totally obliterated. Why did God command this? I don't know, but there are cases within living memory in which cities in our world were also put to the ban. At the time it was thought necessary and even just to do so. Was Truman a terrorist then? I don't think so. Equating the doctrine of jihad and all its evil consequences with the kingly wars of the Bible really doesn't hold much weight.

Arafat loves that equivalence argument too: 'One man's terrorist is another's Thomas Jefferson.' But any investigation into his life shows he is a serial murder, sadist, thief and liar quite apart from a Jefferson or Washington.

>Yeah Islam has some eerie similarities to satanism. Islam actually condones sacrificing enemies to atone for one's sins.

Jesus also predicted that there would be people who would murder his followers (later called Christians) and believe they are doing G-d a favor. No, this didn't apply to the Romans who were more pragmatic than theological in their motives. Could it have been a prophecy about Islam?

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.