Many negative things are being said in the media about the religion of Al-Islam. Some of Islam's enemies has even accused the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) of being a terrorist. Others have taken Quranic verses out of context and misquote them, in order to justify an Islamic basis for terrorism. When you consider that Prophet Muhammad (saaw) taught the following regarding Muslim conduct during war, a great disparity can be seen between what he taught and the terrorism charge that Muslims and Al-Islam is being accused of today:
"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman. nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."
This section contains articles that addresses Al-Islam and terrorism.
Dr. Robert B. Ashmore Writes:
Around 1074 AD the old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. By the 2nd crusade the very same Byzantium emperor, who called for help from European Christians, allied himself with the Muslims against the crusades. What could have caused the Eastern Christians, who were beset by “barbarous Muslims”, to seek help from their civilized Christian brothers in Europe to suddenly change allegiance? Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ.
But as history shows, the very Eastern Christians-- that according to goal 1 the crusades were meant to liberate -- actually turned against them and by the 2nd crusade, were on the side of the Muslims fighting against the crusades. Well what did the crusaders actually do to bring about such a drastic change in the hearts of those who asked them for help as well as to the people they came in contact with? After all helping to liberate their fellow Christians from barbarous Muslims was the main goal of the crusades and the reason for it getting started. Here are just a few things pointing to why the Eastern Christians decided to side with the Muslims against the Crusades.
The Crusaders killed the women, also, and with their swords pierced tender children of whatever age and sex. The Jews, seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children, and that they were sparing no age, likewise fell upon one another, brother, children, wives, and sisters, and thus they perished at each other’s hands … preferring them to perish thus by their own hands rather than to be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised.
“Franj” as they (the crusaders) were called in the East) distinguished themselves in the way they vanquished the Syrian city of Ma’arra in November, 1098. The chronicler Radulph of Caen wrote, “In Ma’arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.”
Reaching Jerusalem in June, 1099, the Crusaders lay siege to the city. Successfully defeating its defenders, the Crusaders flooded into Jerusalem on July 15. “Men, women, and children were put to the sword until the streets were littered with corpses. Even Jewish inhabitants were killed.”
“The population of the holy city was put to the sword, and the Franj spent a week massacring Muslims.” Ibn al-Qalanisi adds, “The Jews had gathered in their synagogue and the Franj burned them alive.” Maalouf writes, [b]“Not even their coreligionists were spared. One of the first measures taken by the Franj was to expel from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre all the priests of Oriental rites. They arrested the priests who had been entrusted with custody of the Cross and tortured them to make them reveal the secret [of its whereabouts].
Please see the following video as well as the excellent work by Dr. Robert B. Ashmore in PDF format below for more about "The Crusades Then & Now"
Download the PDF for "The Crusades Then & Now" below or click the picture above:
In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam, tolerance had never been preached as an essential part of religion.
If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension.
Innumerable monasteries, with a wealth of treasure of which the worth has been calculated at not less than a hundred millions sterling, enjoyed the benefit of the Holy Prophet's (Muhammad’s) Charter to the monks of Sinai and were religiously respected by the Muslims. The various sects of Christians were represented in the Council of the Empire by their patriarchs, on the provincial and district council by their bishops, in the village council by their priests, whose word was always taken without question on things which were the sole concern of their community.
Dennis Prager is a well known nationally syndicated talk show host whose article, "Five Questions Non-Muslims Would Like Answered" , written from a very Islamophobic perspective, appeared in the Los Angeles Times' Faith Front section, November 13, 2005 as an op ed. Mr. Prager made open accusations and demanded responses to his questions from Muslims. What follows is my humble responses (shown under the red headings) sent to Mr. Prager and the LA Times on December 17, 2005. My reply was published in several newspapers and magazines in the US. I am sure that you will agree that the questions and answers are very relevant for today.
Five Questions Non-Muslims Would Like Answered
Response to Opening:
'Real' Islam and Jihad - A rejoinder
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
(Wednesday December 17 2003)
"To understand the significance of Jihad in Islam and its civilization, one must distinguish between a common meaning of the term and the theological and the juridical sense of the word."
In post 9/11, there is no denying about the existence of a very concerted effort by anti-Muslim Jesuits, pundits, rabbis and their paid agents, some even masquerading as secular humanists, to demonize Islam. So, it is not surprising to see a mushrooming growth of self-styled ‘experts’ on Islam.
Their audacious claim, without any formal training, let alone on the language, of the subject material, is so ludicrous that it only reminds me of the story of a barber who pretended to be a medical surgeon. [It was evident from confessional statements by these ‘experts’ that some of them did not read any book on Islam outside the readily available Internet sources or a handful of books now found in the bazaar. Most of their newly found interest in Islam dates back to 9/11/2001, a fateful day in American history.] In his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Prof. Neil Postman showed how in this age of ‘information super-highways’ our best actors no longer come from Hollywood; they are our elected representatives! Looking at the delinquent activities of our self-styled experts, thanks to bigoted, anti-Muslim websites, who now needs Orientalist academics to tell us about Islam and Muslims!