Your warped view of history and Islam

Submitted by Khaled Dahak (Australia), Mar 8, 2008 at 11:33

Dear Infidel,

Firstly, your question pertaining to why Iraq, a "great muslim nation" invaded and went to war with "another great mulim nation" Iran, is unbelievably childish and uneducated. Mid level high school students here in Australia have learnt that the United States of America(with its zionist infiltrators) exerted pressure on its ally Saddam Hussein of Iraq to invade the Islamic Republic of Iran. America, France, USSR and the UK armed Iraq to the teeth, and it is well documented, so Saddam (a great Muslim - what a joke you infer Infidel) can kill as many Iranians as possible, annex land, take over the Shatt Al-Arab waterway on behalf of the UAE, and overthrow the revolutionary regime in Tehran, so you hippocrits in the west can install another dictator Shah to plunder and pillage its vast oil reserves.

Saddam was not only armed with weapons such as bullets, tanks and missiles, but also with biological and chemical weapons! At the same time the Americans were arming, low and behold, the Iranians. Remeber the Iran-Contra affair!!! After 8 years of war, the conflict was over, the west was mildly happy as Iran had lost a few million of its Islamic population, and Saddam was in debt to his eyeballs with western shylocks and so-call Islamic nations in the Gulf( 30 billion to the west and 40 billion to Gulf states). All in all a great success for the west wouldnt you say infidel, even though Iran remained firmly in the hands of Islamists.

Your points to early Islamic history are also childish and lacking, like the rest of the West's popular myths of Islam, the whole truth. Yes early Islam did conquer vast lands and defeated many empires. But, the believers did not conquer to rape and pillage the land for its wealth, or to proclaim we are wanting to spread democracy or unearth weapons of mass destruction, when zionist instructions and oil were our true motives! A lesson in early Islamic history here mate -

Within four years after the death of the Prophet(Peace & blessings upon him) the Muslim state had extended its sway over all of Syria and had, at a famous battle fought during a sandstorm near the River Yarmuk, blunted the power of the Byzantines - whose ruler Heraclius had shortly before disdainfully rejected the letter from the unknown Prophet of Arabia.

Even more astonishingly, the Muslim state administered the conquered territories with a tolerance almost unheard of in that age. At Damascus, for example, the Muslim leader Khalid ibn al-Walid signed a treaty which read as follows:

This is what Khalid ibn al-Walid would grant to the inhabitants of Damascus if he enters therein: he promises to give them security for their lives, property and churches. Their city wall shall not be demolished, neither shall any Muslim be quartered in their houses. Thereunto we give them the pact of Allah and the protection of His Prophet, the caliphs and the believers. So long as they pay the poll tax, nothing but good shall befall them.

This tolerance was typical of Islam. A year after Yarmuk, 'Umar, in the military camp of al-Jabiyah on the Golan Heights, received word that the Byzantines were ready to surrender Jerusalem and rode there to accept the surrender in person. According to one account, he entered the city alone and clad in a simple cloak, astounding a populace accustomed to the sumptuous garb and court ceremonials of the Byzantines and Persians. He astounded them still further when he set their fears at rest by negotiating a generous treaty in which he told them:

In the name of God ... you have complete security for your churches which shall not be occupied by the Muslims or destroyed.

This policy was to prove successful everywhere. In Syria, for example, many Christians who had been involved in bitter theological disputes with Byzantine authorities- and persecuted for it- welcomed the coming of Islam as an end to tyranny. And in Egypt, which 'Amr ibn al-'As took from the Byzantines after a daring march across the Sinai Peninsula, the Coptic Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted them.

This pattern was repeated throughout the Byzantine Empire. Conflict among Greek Orthodox, Syrian Monophysites, Copts, and Nestorian Christians contributed to the failure of the Byzantines - always regarded as intruders - to develop popular support, while the tolerance which Muslims showed toward Christians and Jews removed the primary cause for opposing them.

'Umar adopted this attitude in administrative matters as well. Although he assigned Muslim governors to the new provinces, existing Byzantine and Persian administrations were retained wherever possible. For fifty years, in fact, Greek remained the chancery language of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, while Pahlavi, the chancery language of the Sassanians, continued to be used in Mesopotamia and Persia.

You rant with your diatribe in relation to Islam, its believers and so-called Islamic mations who pick and choose what suits them from the teachings and the rest swept conceniently under the carpet, but dont try to hide your own civilizations pitfalls, such as truth, mass murders, wars for profit, lack of respect for human rights, and the Wests political, economic and military support for dictatorships within the Middle East.

Mate, your the one practising Taqiyya seems to me.

And yes, the earth does belong to God and his Apostle. Thankyou for reminding me Infidel!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".