Muslims Taking Over the World?

There is nothing in Islamic texts that suggest that Muslims must “control the entire world” by force. Quran, however, does predict that Islam would prevail over all other religions. If you consider Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions, that prediction may come true in our own lifetime! Now, you may blame Muslims for an irresponsible higher birthrate, but that’s a separate issue. Muslims ‘hope’ that Islam would spread all over the world, but that’s a far cry than the untenable accusation that Muslims would conquer the world if they could.

It wasn’t Prophet Muhammad and his followers who initiated hostilities. Pagans of Arabia not only persecuted early Muslims but also relentlessly chased them all the way to Ethiopia to have them killed. If some people are still upset, after 1400 years, that Muslims fought back, didn’t choose to become martyrs, and annihilated their enemies, then so be it. Where does it say that religious people must always remain docile or get crucified to prove their point?

History is testament to the fact that every single religion or secular ideology has needed a base or a territory to operate from. During Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime, Islam and paganism were in a life and death struggle, both could not dominate Arabia at the same time. Even so, Muslims were told to seek peace if pagans desist from fighting [Quran 2:192-193], but eventually it became abundantly clear that pagans would never let Muslims live in peace [Quran verse 9:8]. Therefore, Muslims gave three final choices to pagans: embrace Islam, get killed [Verse 9:5] or leave the Arabian Peninsula, in which case they would be escorted to safety [Verse 9:6]. However, once Islam was able to establish itself and grew out of the Arabia peninsula, Muslims gave “People of the Book” status to nearly all non-Muslims (including Hindus). Furthermore, Muslim theologians divided the world into three groups: 1. “Dar Al-Islam”: The abode of Islam or the Muslim nation. 2. Dar Al-Harb: The abode of war, those that have declared war against the Muslim nation. 3. Dar Al-Ahd: The abode of covenant, the countries that have diplomatic agreements and covenants with the Muslim nation. Dar al-Harb was considered a region or country where Islam as a religion was not allowed to grow on its own and where Muslims could not practice their religion freely [Enver Hoxa’s Albania would be a recent example].

Muslims have not invaded a non-Muslim nation for the past several hundred years. It’s Western armies that have been marauding across Asia, Africa and Middle East, looting, manipulating and subjugating poor nations. Even in the medieval times. Muslim armies were far more humane than Jewish armies of Old Testament times, Christian armies of the Holy roman Empire, Hindu armies, Communist armies, and armies of American and British colonialists (both ended up committing genocide in Americas and Australia, respectively). Every nation that early Muslims invaded not only survived but thrives to this day!

I consider it sheer hypocrisy to give a free reign to secularists [who are part-time religionists] to rule the world by aggressive use of force but to find fault with few religious people who resort to violence in order to be left alone in their own backyard. Why should there be a double standard?

6 thoughts on “Muslims Taking Over the World?

  1. Herman December 17, 2013 at 7:37 pm Reply

    “Now, you may blame Muslims for an irresponsible higher birthrate…” writes the author. It is good to find a Muslim who is concerned that the earth cannot support an infinite amount of people. Do encourage your fellow Muslims not to be so “irresponsible.”
    “It wasn’t Prophet Muhammad and his followers who initiated hostilities” claims the author. Maybe not in all instances. Please explain why Muhammad & his merry men marched all the way from Medina to Khaibar to fight the Jews there, the Jewish men at the time leaving for their fields to work. Doesn’t sound like much of a “defensive war” for the Muslims, does it?
    “Muslims have not invaded a non-Muslim nation for the past several hundred years.” writes the author. Well, they have at least tried, being stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
    ” Even in the medieval times. Muslim armies were far more humane than Jewish armies of Old Testament times, Christian armies of the Holy roman Empire, Hindu armies, Communist armies, and armies of American and British colonialists ” writes the author.
    YOU TRULY NEED TO READ ABOUT THE EXTREMELY BLOODY HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMS ON THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.

  2. sincereadvisor December 18, 2013 at 3:07 am Reply

    First of all, I have encouraged Muslims to have fewer children. You are correct that this world cannot sustain an ever-increasing global population without irreversible environmental damage and social problems.

    With regard to the Battle of Khaibar, historians, including Montgomery Watts, have noted that the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir were inciting neighboring Arab communities to rise up against the Islamic city-state of Medina. You need to remember that in the early days of Islam, this tiny Muslim community was surrounded by a sea of pagan Arab tribes who could have united against Muslims and wiped them out. So, if you don’t want to call it a “defensive war” at least consider it as a preemptive war. After the war, Jews of Khaibar were not killed but allowed to live on their own land but give half of their produce in taxes to the Muslim state. Contrast that with the treatment Western colonists meted out to Native Americans and Australian Aborigines!

    The Ottoman attack on Vienna was “several hundred years” ago, so what’s your point?

    I have read the history of the Indian Sub-Continent, and I am familiar with propaganda and distortions of Hindu fundamentalists. The fact is that Muslim armies often had Hindu generals, Muslim rulers had Hindu wives with whom they had sons who became future rulers of India, Hindu rajas fought among each other and destroyed each other’s temples, and if it were indeed “bloody” there would not have been so many Hindus today!

    Muslims also exaggerated their military victories. So, if they killed 1,000 Hindu soldiers in a battle, they probably wrote 10,000. I think I know where your comment is coming from. I think this lie originated with Hindu Professor K.S. Lal’s book “Growth of Muslim population in India”, who wrote that “according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 80 MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525.” I don’t have his book, so I am not sure if Professor Lal’s was implying that Muslims killed these 80 million or if that population became reduced because of some other reasons. In any case, the number seems highly unrealistic given the fact that that the entire population of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was not more than 350 million in 1947. So, if you calculate backwards and allow for normal population growth rates, you would realize how ridiculous Professor Lal’s assertion is. Judging from the title of the book, my guess is that Professor Lal was simply trying to explain the high percentage of Muslims in India by making a point that this percentage would have been a lot lower if so many Hindus had died during this time.

  3. Herman December 19, 2013 at 12:25 am Reply

    I commend you, sincereadvisor, for encouraging Muslims to have fewer children. I share your concern for environmental degradation arising from overpopulation.
    ****************************************************************************************************
    You state the inhabitants of Khaybar were inciting other tribes (but not, evidently, themselves) to rise up against the Muslims. Even if what you write is true, could it be that the Khaybar people regarded Muhammad & his merry men as a bunch of thieves, whose only occupation was robbing people for booty, and therefore wanted to warn other communities? You call what the Muslims did to the residents of Khaybar a “pre-emptive war.” Ask yourself why the United Nations Charter has outlawed “pre-emptive war.” You ask me to compare the actions of Muhammad & his merry men with Western colonists. Such a comparison is meaningless. Because you believe that Muhammad was chosen AS A PROPHET OF GOD. NOW BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO SAY, YOU MUST DEMAND THAT THIS PROPHET BE OF THE *HIGHEST* MORAL CALIBER.
    And in traveling all the way to Khaybar just to murder men working in the fields, and also to rob, Muhammad showed that he was far short of that caliber.
    Finally, please read about Tamerlane’s adventures in India. What motivated Tamerlane (Timur) to be so bloody and to enslave so many people? YOU WILL FIND THAT HE WANTED TO BE JUST LIKE MUHAMMAD. With Google, it is rather easy to read about Tamerlane.
    And then you will begin to understand just what a perverse effect Islam can have on peace..

  4. sincereadvisor December 19, 2013 at 4:43 am Reply

    So it’s okay for Jews to kill all Philistines, including women and children [dashing their head against rocks], in the name of their religion but if Prophet Muhammad conquered Khaibar and forced these people to pay half their income in taxes [about the same rate that Britons pay] that is immoral? What kind of hypocrisy is this? Are you willing to condemn Israel which continues to keep Palestinians in utter subjugation and has usurped their lands? It seems to me that Palestinians would be very happy with the same deal that Prophet Muhammad offered to residents of Khaibar!

    You must be from India because you are so obsessed with it. Look at all the terrible things that Hindus have done to themselves: Sati, bride burning, caste system, mistreatment of untouchables (including pouring hot oil in their throat for minor transgressions and rapes). Muslims were able to rule India for so long because they were better rulers. ALL the good things that India now has can be traced back to contributions of Muslims: Taj Mahal, Sitar, poetry, Indian movie industry, Indian foods…I can go on and on.

  5. Herman December 19, 2013 at 7:07 pm Reply

    It is unfortunate, sincereadvisor, that rather than confront the wickedness of Muhammad & his merry men directly, you can only meekly reply that other religious groups behaved in a wicked manner too. sinceradvisor, at this point in your life you choose to believe everything Muhammad tells you to believe. DON’T YOU DEMAND, THEN, THAT IN ORDER TO BE COMPLETELY CREDIBLE MUHAMMAD MUST BE OF THE HIGHEST MORAL CALIBER?
    And no, I am not from India (although I do definitely enjoy Indian food).

  6. sincereadvisor December 20, 2013 at 5:07 am Reply

    Wickedness is not seeing your own hypocrisy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: