Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

Rating:
Summary: To Islam, Jews are pigs and apes-exterminate infidels
Review: 1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression: An Analysis

By Richard C. Csaplar, Jr.
Guest Columnist


Mr. Csaplar, a member of the Regent University Board of Trustees, writes in response to a recent article on the Crusades in U.S. News & World Report.

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:

Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.
In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, ".most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches; enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem; etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority; their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed; the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, ".the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

The Crusades

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word." Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:

1844 -- 33%

1896 -- 19%

1910 -- 13%

1922 -- 22%

1931 -- 22%

1948 -- 24%

1967 -- 21%

1972 -- 23%

1992 -- 25%


Rating:
Summary: Great truth horrible style
Review: First the good news: Any Arab or Muslim who is willing to step out and speak the truth about what Islam is doing to the world, needs to be commended. Unlike in other religions where criticism is taken if not welcome, dissent in Islam is quite the anomaly. Ever since the Rushdie affair, not many Muslims want to speak up about what is going on. Irshad Manij who recently wrote a book called "The trouble with Islam" has to walk around with bodyguards for what she has written. Anyway, I think you get my point.
Muslims and Jews is a good attempt for the author to paint a picture of how Jews are depcited within the culture of the Arab/Muslim world. Gabriel discusses how as a child he was spoon fed anti-Semitism within every level of society. Is this simply a case of where he grew up? The author backs up his claims with numerous quotes from the koran which depict jews horribly and tell muslims to fight and destroy them. Gabriel shows how many "apologists" for Islam such as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, ignore these parts of the Koran to make the point that Islam means peace and justice. The author knows the koran inside and out, and is able to make these verses come alive within the modern day.
Now the bad news: This book is written in a horrible, inarticulate form. He writes as if he is a 10 year old student, with the most unenlightening thoughs and descriptions. It may be one of the worst books I ever read in this regard.
For those wanting an insider account of how Muslims may think of Jews from someone who is from an Arab/Muslim country, it doesnt get any better than this. However, make sure you have the patience and sense of humor to sit through this guys style of writing, because it is quite bad.


Rating:
Summary: A Short Summary of a FASCINATING Book
Review: First, let me say this book is a very easy read. Yet, it remains academic. For me, it was so gripping that I could not put it down. Kudos to Dr. Gabriel.

Below is a summary of the book. It is comprised mostly of quotes (there is SOME plain summation on my part, but not much) that I had underlined to give you a quick glimpse of what the book contains.

(p. 33) Islam is a religion based on revelations that are said to have been given to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. These revelations are called the Quran, and the Quran is considered to be the words of G-d (Allah) himself. The Quran is written in first person... The Quran is the most holy and most authoritative book of Islam.

(p. 34) Islam also relies on the hadith, the record of Muhammad's teachings and actions.

(p. 39) Islam teaches that Muslims now have G-d's favor, not the Jews.

(p. 38) Islam teaches that Allah rejected the children of Israel [the Jews] because of their sins, and G-d went back to the seed of Abraham and chose a person from the line of Ishmael to be the final prophet [Muhammad].

(p. 42) Islam teaches that running away from jihad is a surefire way to displease Allah [Surah 8:16].

(p. 45) The Quran was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel who would come to him from time to time and reveal verses. Muhammad's life can be divided into two parts- the tolerant years in Mecca and the aggressive years in Medina. The revelations Muhammad received in Media sometimes clashed with the ones from Mecca.

(p. 47) When that happened, Muhammad explained that Allah causes some parts of the Quran to be abrogated ("to abolish by authoritative action," "to treat as nonexistent," or "to nullify"). These "abrogated" verses are replaced by verses that are "better" or "similar." The newer revelation overrides the previous revelation.

In the Mecca years, Muhammad said that you can't force anybody to change their religion, and that Jews and Christians were right with G-d. Still Muhammad tried to convert Jews and Christians to Islam.

(p. 47) Jews and Christians were watching Muhammad's teachings carefully. When they saw him change his teachings, they criticized him: "How can you be from G-d? What god changes his mind? How can you say one verse today and then cancel it tomorrow?" These complaints are recorded in the Quran in surah [chapter] 16:101. This practice is called nasikh. It is widely accepted in Islam. In fact, many copies of the Quran have a table that shows whether a surah is from Mecca or Medina in order to help readers know which is a newer revelation.

(p. 53) For all those Westerners who believe Muslims who say that Islam is a religion of peace, Dr. Gabriel says that these Muslims are operating by one of two motives:
1) Wishful thinking. He really believes that Islam should be about peace, so he preaches the peaceful side of Islam. He sincerely believes he is practicing Islam, but peace is not the final revelation of Islam.
2) Deception. Some imams [Islamic spiritual leaders, like ministers and rabbis] will try to make Islam look attractive to Westerners. In other words, they know the truth about Islam, but they disguise it in order to appeal to more people. The interesting thing is that in Islam a Muslim may profess to deny nasikh if doing so is for the purpose of protecting the image of Islam and furthering missionary activity. This is particularly acceptable if the Muslim is living as a minority in a non-Muslim country (such as the United States). But this denial must be in words only. In their hearts, Muslims must continue to accept nasikh and follow the full and final development of the Quranic revelation [wiping out all religions but Islam].

(p. 59) Ordinary Muslims [ones who are Muslim by culture and tradition and who are not orthodox or fanatics] in a 2001 Gallup poll overwhelmingly believe that Jewish people are evil and should be avoided. This poll was conducted via 10,000 personal interviews in Islamic countries.

(p. 60) Fanatic Muslims [the ones who join militant groups like Hamas] justify their actions based on the fact the Jewish state [of Israel] exists. They blame their terrorist activities on the Jews. They make Jews [and their allies, namely the United States] their target.

(p. 88-90) Muhammad's revelations turned from peace to violence when Jews began to mock him for being a false prophet. He then moved to Medina, gathered an army, and obliterated all of the Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam. He killed every one of them in Arabia. (There was a small group he simply drove out.)

(p. 104) All religions other than Islam must be destroyed, according to surah 8:39.

(p. 149-150) As long as Israel exists, Muslims will accept no peace negotiation. All true followers of Islam must commit to destroying Israel and the United States.

Islam teaches that once a person dies, he waits in the grave until Judgment Day UNLESS he is killed in jihad. In that case, that person does not have to be judged on Judgment Day AT ALL. In fact, that person goes straight to Paradise immediately, where 70 virgins await, plus all the alcohol he can possibly drink. So, according to Muslim belief, jihad gets you either 1) a victory, or 2) instant Paradise. There is no way a Muslim can lose.

So, to sum up:
True Muslims must vow to obliterate Israel and all Jews, plus American citizens and the United States. There is no negotiation.

Anybody still sympathic to Islam now?

Rating:
Summary: How the Quran Views Non-Muslims
Review: I served in the U.S. Army back in 1991 when we liberated Kuwait (sorry, I didn't find Saddam back then). That started my interest in Islam, after noticing that the public buses in Saudi Arabia had signs on the front door directing: "Women enter through rear door." Why so? -- and what gives with all of these veiled women, and why were poor, foreign women with young babies begging for alms on the streets? ISLAM AND THE JEWS cites verses in the Quran explaining the separation of the sexes in public places. (The begging women turned out to be divorced women left on the streets to survive.)
What I really find so valuable about this book in how the author cites specifically numbered Surahs(paragraphs-verses)from the Quran/Koran in revealing the beliefs of Allah as given to the Angel Gabriel as spoken/recorded by Muhammad. One can read the many other current books discussing Islam, but very few cite specific verses from the Quran to explain or justify WHY and/or HOW a Muslim is supposed to follow Islam.
This ex-Muslim Egyptian-born author details why there appear to be "contradictions" within the Quran. Why is it reported in the American press that Islam respects Jews and Christians? This book explains that when the Jews would not follow Muhammad's revelations, that he then received a new revelation that the only "good" Jews or Christians were those who would pay a tax(zakat) to the Muslims -- essentially, a "protection racket."
This ex-Muslim author must be revealing the "truth" about the fundamentals of Islam, after all, just look at the sad, poor, embarrassing bad-mouthings that are written by his critics: they just don't like his documentation.
I have two of the Qurans mentioned in this book, the moderate Ali translation, as well as the English translation published by the religious ministry of Saudi Arabia: The Noble Quran. I have looked at EVERY citation listed by this author, EACH one is a true and correct quotation!
The author explains that the Quran is not written in a straight timeline sequence. It is recorded from the largest chapters to the shortest -- hence, the chronological dates of each chapter are all mixed up. One has to refer to another booklet to see how scholars believe the chapters were revealed to Muhammad by date.
What is really enligtening in this book is that the author explains how Muhammad's (Allah's) views changed about Jews. Originally, Muhammad had tolerance for the Jews while he tried to entice them to convert to Islam and pay taxes to him. However, when they didn't, Muhammad told his followers that it was okay to wage war against the non-Islams and loot their valuables.
This author's companion book: "Islam and Terrorism" makes a wonderful revelation (with specific verse citations) as to how the Quran justifies Usama/Osama bin Landen's suicide-bomber attacks against Christians.

Rating:
Summary: Islam and the Jews - surprising to read!
Review: I was surprised that this was not only an interesting and sometimes riveting book to read, but it also had a message of peace and reconilation for these two groups of people who seem so opposed to one another. I was also pleasantly surprised at the author's credentials, bringing credibility to this message.

Rating:
Summary: Media, great tool... READ!!! and LEARN!!!!
Review: Islam to Israel is very threatening. Remember Israel did not exist until the early 40's and it was given credibility and the credibility was not earned. Islam and Muslims respect those who do not oppress and disallow the peaceful and civilized way of life. Who allowed Jews to re-enter Jerusalem and worship peacefully after 500 years of exile OMAR IBN KHATTAN (khalifa), look it up. While the Roman Catholics did not.The media has been trained and told to sympathize with Israel and the Jews. This is not my opinion but a fact. The media is controlled by dual citizens to America and Israel; they must show loyalty to our country USA. Learn about the history of Zionism, www.jewsnotzionists.org and righteous Jews will tell you about the short history of Israel, not Muslims Arabs or Christians. We do not see the massacre of Genin, look it up and see what Israel did to the Palestinians, murdered kids and women and old men. LOOK!!!! find the truth, are media is not reporting the news the are censored, most media moguls in Hollywood and the media are Zionists, not because i am a racist but because it is true. LOOK!!!! There is a deep and saddened bias in the news and unfortunately for the ignorant is enough. ISLAM teaches respect and reveres the Torah and the Engeel (bible) and teaches to respect all the faiths, but if they oppress and murder and pillage and blatantly disrespect Islam then they fight back, (uncivilized) strapping bombs to themselves, is there a civilized way of killing people. Israel is state sponsoring terrorism and people are turning the other cheek, millions of Muslims in Chechnya and Bosnia have been murdered (genocide and holocaust) and the western media has shunned away, where is the justice, why has not this hypocrite of an author not mention this, he his choosing and deliberately misleading people and not given a truthful fact about Islam and the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Moses (peace be upon him is a Muslim) and so is Jesus (peace be upon him) conveying the message of ISLAM (SUBMISSION TO GOD, and in between people have strayed. Post this!!!!!

Rating:
Summary: From the terrorist perspectives??
Review: Just like Ibnu Warraq or other writers who skewed the facts of Islam based on their assumptions; I cannot comprehend why in the world that I bought the book in the first place.
I'm a muslim but never never in my entire life that I had been taught about Jews as potrayed in his book.Remember, I was taught of Islam by the so called orthodox scholar.
And never in my mind that I should convert all Christians to Islam in the same way the author did; by downgrading the teaching of other religions.If us Muslim hate Christians or Jews so much, then I wonder why there is no single book by Islamic scholars that I come across which depict Christians or Jews as people that need to be wipeout from this world.
The only books I come across are this kind of book which should be titled'Teaching of Islam From The Terrorists Perspectives'
Again, please don't generalize that all muslims are terrorists.
Some wrongly taught Islamic sect may want to kill the author, but most of us muslims are loving people just like the Christians.
There is nothing wrong with Islam as a religion, just the believers who wrongly define its true meanings.
Again, totally biased and inaccurate.


Rating:
Summary: Full of Conceptual Mistakes
Review: Mark Gabriel tries to analyze the historical relations between Islam and Judaism, or Muslims and Jews, based on biblical teaching and the Quran itself, ignoring historical and political facts.
His own religious beliefs shaped the analysis in this book and added some misleading tips.
Among many of the conceptual mistakes are the following:
- Gabriel underlines the "Fundamentalist Muslim Governments" in the Middle East, and says "they are governments based on Islamic teachings" without mentioning Saudi Arabia.
- He says the leaders of Lebanon are Muslims. In fact, the Lebanese president is Christian, and half of the cabinet members and Parliament are Christians.
- He says that Hizbullah emerged after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In fact, Hizbullah emerged after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and started taking the shape we know today in 1985.
These are some of the mistakes.
Gabriel also says that the Arab-Israeli conflict is based exclusively on the teachings of the Quran in regard of Jews. This is absurd. First, not all Arabs who fought Israel and are still against the establishment of Israel were Muslims. A good example would be the late totalitarian leader of Syria, Hafez Assad, an Alawite, which is a sect that does not follow the Quran. Another example would be the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is an extreme left secular group that was involved in most of heavyweight attacks against Israeli targets in last three decades, and whose founder, George Habash, is Christian.
Additionally, Gabriel says the Quran is the only reason that made Palestinians and Arabd Muslims fight Israeli troops and kill Israeli innocent civilians. This is a fallacy. The Quran indeed orders Muslims to fight Jews, but it is naïve to consider that it is the only reason behind the current conflict. Other reasons that Gabriel should have mentioned would be the Israeli occupation of large areas of the 1967 lands and the high level of illiteracy and unemployment among the Palestinians that leave little choice for Palestinian youth to chose a future that is not connected to fighting Israel.
The book is also full of overgeneralizations. Gabriel, who was born in a poor religious Muslim family and was forced to memorize the Quran and hate Jews when he was a kid, projects the same situation on all Arabs and Muslims. He also divides Muslims into different categories based on his own thoughts disregarding sociology, anthropology, culture and geography.
What is mostly shocking is that he argues that the Arab-Israeli conflict could not be settled through negotiations or wars, but "only through the blood of Jesus Christ." This is too far from reality!
Still, the two interesting parts of the book are the part that deals with all the Quranic verses related to Jews and their Historical context, showing how they were affected by the daily ties between Mohamed and the Jewish community in Medina, and the part that shows how a Muslim fanatic can turn out to be a devoted Christian.




Rating:
Summary: Another Lost Soul
Review: Mark Gabriel, i'm not even going to call this author by his so called Doctors degree as a title, due to the fact that his thoughts does not show his "Dr's" Degree. Its amazing how much lies someone must tell in order to present an inaccurate view of something. I find it very hard to believe that Mark Gabriel was a devout Muslim and an Imam at that!! He He, so illogical. Any Imam that hear this irrational and inconsistent story of his conversion from islam will laugh. Its mentally, socially, physically, irrationally and illogically impossible for one to convert from being a devout Imam in Islam to becomeing a "Christian." This conversion had to be for some financial reason or something. And if Islam is such a "Bad and Contradictory" religion, howcome 50 thousand people in the U.S alone are converting to Islam every year? Half of whom were devout christians. Not only that, Islam is sweeping across the world with it's converts and a total of 1.3 Billion followers and growing. And to end this peace of writing, Mark Gabriel says that he "Memorized the Qur'an by heart and was an Imam, (which i find as a big lie) He has this big misconception about what a holy war is, and the arabic word for holy war. I think he needs to reconsider Islam learn arabic and stop following a way of life that will lead him to hell-fire.

Rating:
Summary: An honest and revealing book!
Review: Most people got their religious belief from their parents, and they just accept it as the truth without much questioning. It is actually dangerous. I was brought up in a Buddhist family and was happy about it before I was confronted by another religious belief. Mum always told me that all religions were good. We were all worshipping the same God. Does this sound familiar to you, too? So it was really shocking to me when I found out that there were different spirits ruling behind each religion. The truth is, idols can not save any body and reincarnation is not only a curse according to Buddhism but also a fat lie! There is one question that I'd like to pose to Muslims. How do you know that the spirit who gave Muhammed revelations in the cave was truly from God? The funny thing is, I've encountered some evil spirits. And trust me, they could tell you anything but the truth. If that spirit was not really Gabriel but an imposter, then there is no wonder that Quran entices people to die and to kill in the name of Allah. Why would a "holy" god promise to give virgins and alcohol to the men who die in jihad? What a picture of lust and indulgence that Allah has portraited for his naive followers! It sounds more like a brothel than a holy heaven! After I read this book, I was reminded about some strange opinions and accusations that Muslims had about Jesus and against the Christian Bible. I didn't know what they were talking about and wondered where they got all those funny ideas from. Now I know why --- simply becasue the Quran told them so. I've done my research and questioned everything because I was deceived once by Buddhism and didn't want to be deceived again by anything or anyone. Now I know what I believe and why I believe. But do you? Or you prefer to just accept things mindlessly because the Quran says so and so? Once again you might tell me what Quran says. My muslim friends told me that they were not allowed to question Islam's authenticity. Anyone who questioned was doomed to hell. Well, what a system of controlling and manipulation Islam is! Let me tell you plainly, if you don't question, you're risking your own life and your whole eternity. What if Jesus He did die and die for your sins becasue you cannot afford to pay for your sins and are powerless to save yourself? Imagine if He died for your sins but you refuse to believe in this and let Him take away your sins? It wasn't an easy death for Jesus, but will you care enough about the price He paid for you and start to seek the truth?