The Stealth Crusade
Inside one Southern university, Christian missionaries are being trained to go undercover in the Muslim world and win converts for Jesus. Their stated goal: to wipe out Islam.
At 8 o’clock on a warm Monday morning in January, 20 students file into Rick Love’s classroom at Columbia International University in South Carolina. Eyes glassy from writing papers all weekend, they clutch Styrofoam cups of Folgers as they settle into their seats. In front, an overhead projector hums; it is hooked up to the instructor’s laptop, ready for a morning full of PowerPoint presentations.
Outside, CIU’s piney campus is quiet. Most of the student body has not yet returned from Christmas break. But these students, all evangelical Christians, have arrived two weeks early for an intensive course on how to win converts in Islamic countries. They’re learning from the master: Love is the international director of Frontiers, the largest Christian group in the world that focuses exclusively on proselytizing to Muslims. With 800 missionaries in 50 countries, Frontiers’ reach extends from the South Pacific to North Africa, with every major Islamic region in between.
this concept of no equal rights in the islamic world is a complete fallacy. During the era when muslims were in spain they allowed both jews and christians to practice their faith freely, however after during the christian conquest both muslims and jews were wiped off. I ask those with stereotypes to be more open and look back at history because it paints a very different story to public opinion held today. even with the crusades after the butchering of cities (even cannabalism), after their defeat, the muslims fed the defeated crusaders. When the French went to Algeria to supposedly enlighten the ‘barbaric arabs’ they ended up pillaging and slaughtered en masse the algerians. I do not say this as opinion but as fact from history. Please I do not say this out of anger towards any christian as a muslim is not one who holds a grudge, as Our Prophet (May God’s Peace be upon Him) even forgave those who mutilated the body of his uncle Hamza (May God grant him mercy). Christians I do not hate you so I ask why do you hate me and my religion. Please I sincerely ask you all, read about islam because it is a religion that has brought me into harmony with myself and you will never find that inner peace with your soul until you do. Muslims are not a people who lie but as with all faiths you find those who are truthful and those who are not. May God grant you all the light of Islam.
Wel knew he the olde Esculapius
And Deyscorides and eek Rufus
Olde Ypocras, Haly and Galeyn,
Serapion, Razi and Avycen,
Averrois, Damascien and Constantyn,
Bernard and Gatesden and Gilbertyn.
The Arab Roots of European Medicine
Written by David W. Tschanz
In the “General Prologue” of The Canterbury Tales , Geoffrey Chaucer identifies the authorities used by his “Doctour of Physic” in the six lines quoted above. The list includes four Arab physicians: Jesu Haly (Ibn ‘Isa), Razi (Al-Razi, or Rhazes), Avycen (Ibn Sina, or Avicenna) and Averrois (Ibn Rushd, or Averroes). These four did not make Chaucer’s list only to add an exotic flavor to his late-14th-century poetry. Chaucer cited them because they were regarded as among the great medical authorities of the ancient world and the European Middle Ages, physicians whose textbooks were used in European medical schools, and would be for centuries to come. First collecting, then translating, then augmenting and finally codifying the classical Greco-Roman heritage that Europe had lost, Arab physicians of the eighth to eleventh century laid the foundations of the institutions and the science of modern medicine.
After the collapse of the western Roman empire in the fifth century, Europe lost touch with much of its intellectual heritage. Of Greek science, all that remained were Pliny’s Encyclopedia and Boethius’s treatises on logic and mathematics; the Latin library was so limited that European theologians found it nearly impossible to expand their knowledge of their own scriptures.
The center of Europe’s new world view became the church, which exerted profound new influences in medicine. Because Christianity emphasized compassion and care for the sick, monastic orders ran fine hospitals—but they did not function as hospitals do today. They were simply places to take seriously ill people, where they were expected to either recover or die as God willed. There were no learned physicians to attend them, only kindly monks who dispensed comfort and the sacraments, but not medicines.
Because the Christian church viewed care of the soul as far more important than care of the body, medical treatment and even physical cleanliness were little valued, and mortification of the flesh was seen as a sign of saintliness. In time, nearly all Europeans came to look upon illness as a condition caused by supernatural forces, which might take the form of diabolical possession. Hence, cures could only be effected by religious means. Every malady had a patron saint to whom prayers were directed by the patient, family, friends and the community. Upper respiratory infections were warded off by a blessing of the throat with crossed candles on the feast of Saint Blaise. Saint Roch became the patron of plague victims. Saint Nicaise was the source of protection against smallpox. Kings, regarded as divinely appointed, were believed to be able to cure scrofula and skin diseases, among other maladies, with the “royal touch.”
With the study of disease and of patients neglected, licensed medicine as an independent craft virtually vanished. Those physicians who endured were mostly connected with monasteries and abbeys. But even for them, the generally accepted goal was less to discover causes, or even to heal, than to study the writings of other physicians and comment on their work. In the middle of the seventh century, the Catholic church banned surgery by monks, because it constituted a danger to their souls. Since nearly all of the surgeons of that era were clerics, the decree effectively ended the practice of surgery in Europe.
At roughly the same time, another civilization was rising in the east. The coming of Islam, also in the seventh century (See Aramco World, November/December 1991), led to a hundred years of continuous geographical expansion and an unprecedented era of ferment in all branches of learning. The Arabs rapidly melded the various cultures of the Islamic domain, and Arabic—the language of the Qur’an—became the universal language. By the 10th century a single language linked peoples from the Rann of Kutch to the south of France, and Arabic became to the East what Latin and Greek had been to the West—the language of literature, the arts and sciences, and the common tongue of the educated.
The Young Marriage of Aishah
Mother of the Believers
Abû Imân cAbd ar-Rahmân Robert Squires
© Muslim Answers – Orlando, Florida, All Rights Reserved.
The marriage of the Prophet Muhammad(P) to cAishah bint Abû Bakr when she was at quite a young age has been the focus of quite a bit of criticism in the West. Unfortunately, in this Neo-Colonialist Age of Smart bombs, MTV and the Big Mac, some of those who profess to be Muslims have themselves become critics. Many Muslims, faced with the juggernaut of allegedly “universal” Western liberal values that have permeated almost everyone around them, sheepishly avoid discussion of such “embarrassing” Islamic issues. It is a keenly true observation that even though the European powers have pulled their colonial armies out of Muslim lands and granted them “independence”, an even worse plague continues. This curse is “Colonialism of the Mind” and it is more dangerous since it is much more subtle. Insha’Allah, this article will be a contribution to making both Muslims and non-Muslims aware of not only the objective facts regarding the Prophet’s(P) marriage to cAishah, but how to understand it in light of Islam and life in the “modern” world.
Regrettably, for those of us trying to spread the truth of Islam in the West, we often have to agree with the Orientalist W. Montgomery Watt when he wrote:
Of all the world’s great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.1
But here, for a change, were are dealing with something that is an authentic part of Islamic history, not an apocryphal or fabricated event that Westerners have been duped into believing is authentic, such as the so-called “Satanic Verses” incident. That a man in his fifties would marry such a young girl – especially a man who is supposed to be a living example of piety – is not only difficult for many “modern” Westerners to come to terms with, but it has even gone so far as to stir up disgusting “sexual misconduct” charges amongst them. In the face of such criticism, Muslims have not always reacted well. In the past century, when so many Muslims were so “Westoxicated” and ready to monkey Europeans in almost anything, the usual reaction was to deny the sources that reported the alleged “embarrassing problem”. To Muslim “modernists”, who argued that only a legal ruling found in the Qur’ân was Islamically valid, brushing aside this aspect of the Prophet’s(P) life was rather easy. They simply denied that it had occurred and attacked the sources which reported it. Fortunately for Muslims, the apologetics of these “Uncle Toms of Islam” has faded to the periphery to a large extent. However, there are still many Muslims out there who try to get around what they see as a problem by ignoring authentic Islamic sources while claiming to be followers of the Ahl as-Sunnah. (which basically means “orthodox Sunni” Muslims, for those unfamiliar Islamic terminology). Many other Muslims possibly wonder whether the story is authentic and how to understand it if it is.
The Islamic Evidence Of cAishah’s Marriage
Due to the apparent ignorance of many Muslims, possibly due to reading “modernist” apologetic literature like that mentioned above, a look at what the authentic sources of Islam say about the age at which cAishah married the Prophet(P) is in order. This way, before we move on to an analysis of the facts, we will first establish what the authentic Islamic facts are. At this point, it should be mentioned that it is absolutely pointless from an Islamic standpoint to say that the age of cAishah is “not found in the Qur’ân”, since the textual sources of Islam are made up of both the Qur’ân and the Sunnah – and the Qur’ân tells us that. For those wanting (or needing) to learn more about the status of the Sunnah in Islam, please read An Introduction to the Sunnah, by Suhaib Hasan. Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some “modern” and “cultured” Muslims that there are four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhârî and three ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim clearly state that cAishah was “nine years old” as the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet(P). These ahâdîth, with only slight variation, read as follows:
Number of View :580
cAishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P) was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
Reply To Robert Morey’s Moon-God Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence
M S M Saifullah, Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi & ‘Abdullah David
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 13th April 2006
Last Modified: 15th September 2007
And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him. (Qur’an 41:37)
One of the favourite arguments of the Christian missionaries over many years had been that Allah of the Qur’an was in fact a pagan Arab “Moon-god” from pre-Islamic times. The seeds of this argument were sown by the work of the Danish scholar Ditlef Nielsen, who divided the Semitic deities into a triad of Father-Moon, Mother-Sun and Son-Venus. His ideas (esp., triadic hypothesis) were used uncritically by later scholars who came to excavate many sites in the Near East and consequently assigned astral significance to the deities that they had found. Since 1991 Ditlef Nielsen’s views were given a new and unexpected twist by the Christian polemicist Robert Morey. In a series of pamphlets, books and radio programs, he claimed that “Allah” of the Qur’an was nothing but the pagan Arab “Moon-god”. To support his views, he presented evidences from the Near East which can be seen in “Appendix C: The Moon God and Archeology” from his book The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World’s Fastest-Growing Religion and it was subsequently reprinted with minor changes as a booklet called The Moon-God Allah In The Archeology Of The Middle East. It can justifiably be said that this book lies at the heart of missionary propaganda against Islam today. The popularity of Morey’s ideas was given a new breath of life by another Christian polemicist Jack T. Chick, who drew a fictionalised racially stereotyped story entitled “Allah Had No Son”.
Morey’s ideas have gained widespread popularity among amenable Christians, and, more often than not, Muslims find themselves challenged to refute the ‘archaeological’ evidence presented by Morey. Surprisingly, it has also been suggested by some Christians that Morey has conducted “groundbreaking research on the pre-Islamic origins of Islam.” In this article, we would like to examine the two most prominent evidences postulated by Morey, namely the archaeological site in Hazor, Palestine and the Arabian “Moon temple” at Hureidha in Hadhramaut, Yemen, along with the diagrams presented in Appendix C of his book The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World’s Fastest-Growing Religion (and booklet The Moon-God Allah In The Archeology Of The Middle East) all of which he uses to claim that Allah of the Qur’an was a pagan “Moon-god”.
Muhammad(P) & Lies
M S M Saifullah
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 1st September 1999
On 9 Jun 1997, Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
> Jochen Katz was asked:
> There was also a question in my post Jochen, can’t you answer it? Who
> do you say Muhammad was? Tell us. I’ve asked you this question a
> number of times. You’ve never answered it.
Actually this question has been answered by the pals of Jochen a few centuries ago. And Jochen will not answer this because his motive is “Inter-Faith Dialogue”. But let me help Jochen and others out of this “Inter-Faith Dialogue”. Most of us may not have heard the word Maometis derived from Mahomet. the word Maometis means The number of the beast, i.e., 666 stuff . When the Christian polemics started a few centuries ago strong vituperative language was poured out upon Muhammad(P) headed by Maracci, Prideaux and others. The word Mahoun and Mahound means Muhammad, imagined in the middle ages to be a pagan God. In Scottish this word means the devil.
We have to agree with the Orientalist W Montgomery Watt when he says:
Of all the world’s greatest men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad. It is easy to see how this has come about. For centuries Islam was the great enemy of Christendom, for Christendom was in direct contact with no other organized states comparable in power to the Muslims. The Byzantine empire, after losing its provinces in Syria and Egypt, was being attacked in Asia Minor, while Western Europe was threatened through Spain and Sicily. Even before the Crusades focused attention on the expulsion of the Sarcens from the Holy Land, medieval war-propaganda, free from the restraints of factuality was building up a conception of ‘the great enemy’. At one point Muhammad was transformed into Mahound, the prince of darkness. By the eleventh century the idea about Islam and Muslims current in the crusading armies were such travesties that they had a bad effect on morale. The crusaders had been led to expect the worst of their enemies, and, when they found many chivalrous knights among them, they were filled with distrust for the authorities of their own religion.
A few centuries ago the Prophet(P) was called the pagan God, the number of the beast i.e., the devil. This was the work of those Holy Ghost inspired Christians. These Christians also said that the Prophet(P) was a Child Molester, a Keeper of Harem and an anti-Christ. The great lies of the Crusades against the Prophet(P) and Muslims can even be seen in the so-called classics The Adventures Of Don Quixote.
Coming back to the modern age, we will still find Christians like Jochen calling the Prophet(P) Child Molester although in a politically correct language. Go to Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner (London, UK) on Sunday and you will find Christian fundamentalists calling Allah, the Moon god and repeating the same age old polemics like the Prophet(P) was a Child Molester, a Keeper of Harem and an anti-Christ. Basically, nothing has changed from then till today. The “Crusades” are still there although wrapped up in a deceptive way. So do not get fooled by Jochen’s “Inter-Faith Dialogue” or “Christian-Muslim Understanding”. All these are lies and damn lies. Being on the soc.religion.islam for more than two and half years, I can testify that.