An Offering of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians of the World in the Twenty-First Century, BUT, MOST OF US DO NOT GIVEA DAMN ABOUT MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING, UNITY OF HUMANITY, AND PEACE IN THE WORLD!
But, the struggle (Jihaad) for freedom, truth, justice and a moral way of life must go on no matter what!
Racist Israel's armies of terrorists, oppressors, and murderers.
Kate Bates commented on this.
An Offering of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians of the World in the Twenty-First Century
Dr. John Morrow and Charles Upton, two leading American Muslim intellectuals, are working to help end Christian-vs.-Muslim strife by publicizing the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians of the World. These remarkable documents, drafted and signed by the Prophet himself, enshrine Muslims’ duty to protect Christians “until the end of the world.”
Listen to my brand-new interview with Charles UptonCharles Upton and Dr. Morrow ask that you forward this article to “Christian leaders or activists, or anyone else, who might be able to get these resources to Christian congregations living under threat from the Jihadists in any part of the world.” They are also looking for publishers in Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian, and Urdu. (Translations into those languages have already been completed.)
–Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
An Offering of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians of the World in the Twenty-First Century
by Charles Upton and John Andrew Morrow
In October of 2013 a book by Prof. John Andrew Morrow was published in the United States, entitled The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World [Angelico/Sophia Perennis, 2013]. The covenants of the Prophet with various Christian communities, which Prof. Morrow re‐discovered in obscure monasteries and collections and sometimes newly translated, also providing powerful arguments for their validity, uniformly state that Muslims are not to attack peaceful Christian communities, rob them, stop churches from being repaired, tear down churches to build mosques, prevent their Christian wives from going to church and taking spiritual direction from Christian priests and elders, etc. On the contrary, the Prophet commands Muslims to actively defend these communities “until the coming of the Hour”—the end of the world. In order to publicize this book I conceived of an initiative—the Covenants Initiative—which invites Muslims to subscribe to the theory that these covenants are legally binding upon them today. The heart of the Covenants Initiative is the following Declaration, addressed by Muslims to Christians:
We the undersigned hold ourselves bound by the spirit and letter of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the Christians of the world, in the understanding that these covenants, if accepted as genuine, have the force of law in the shari‘ah and that nothing in the shari‘ah, as traditionally and correctly interpreted, has ever contradicted them. As fellow victims of the terror and godlessness, the spirit of militant secularism and false religiosity now abroad in the world, we understand your suffering as Christians through our suffering as Muslims, and gain greater insight into our own suffering through the contemplation of your suffering. May the Most Merciful of the Merciful regard the sufferings of the righteous and the innocent; may He strengthen us, in full submission to His will, to follow the spirit and letter of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the world in all our dealings with them.
Since 2013, the Covenants Initiative has become an international movement in the Muslim world. Many Muslims from all walks of life, as well as a number of respected Islamic scholars—including Dr. Mohammed Gameaha of Al-Azhar University, which is the premier religious authority in Sunni Islam—have signed the Initiative. An interview with Dr. Morrow also appeared on the website of Ayatullah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran.
On the Christian side, we have received letters of support from Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Theophilus II, Patriarch of Jerusalem; The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has also been presented to Pope Francis. In 2016, in response to an appeal from Bishop Francis Y. Kalabat, Eparch of the Chaldean Catholic Church (of Iraq) now in exile in Detroit, Michigan, the Covenants Initiative launched a project called the Genocide Initiative, which was a call to “all political players” to declare the actions of ISIS war crimes and genocide; it took the form of a petition posted on Change.org. The Genocide Initiative formed part of the push that led to the unanimous passage of the (unbinding) Fortenberry resolution in the House of Representatives, in March of 2016, affirming our position on ISIS; soon afterwards, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry felt it necessary to make a public statement to the same effect: that the actions of ISIS constitute genocide. The Genocide Initiative was commended in an article in the foremost U.S. armed forces publication, Stars and Stripes (reprinted from the Fort Wayne Herald.
by Charles Upton and John Andrew Morrow
In October of 2013 a book by Prof. John Andrew Morrow was published in the United States, entitled The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World [Angelico/Sophia Perennis, 2013]. The covenants of the Prophet with various Christian communities, which Prof. Morrow re‐discovered in obscure monasteries and collections and sometimes newly translated, also providing powerful arguments for their validity, uniformly state that Muslims are not to attack peaceful Christian communities, rob them, stop churches from being repaired, tear down churches to build mosques, prevent their Christian wives from going to church and taking spiritual direction from Christian priests and elders, etc. On the contrary, the Prophet commands Muslims to actively defend these communities “until the coming of the Hour”—the end of the world. In order to publicize this book I conceived of an initiative—the Covenants Initiative—which invites Muslims to subscribe to the theory that these covenants are legally binding upon them today. The heart of the Covenants Initiative is the following Declaration, addressed by Muslims to Christians:
We the undersigned hold ourselves bound by the spirit and letter of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the Christians of the world, in the understanding that these covenants, if accepted as genuine, have the force of law in the shari‘ah and that nothing in the shari‘ah, as traditionally and correctly interpreted, has ever contradicted them. As fellow victims of the terror and godlessness, the spirit of militant secularism and false religiosity now abroad in the world, we understand your suffering as Christians through our suffering as Muslims, and gain greater insight into our own suffering through the contemplation of your suffering. May the Most Merciful of the Merciful regard the sufferings of the righteous and the innocent; may He strengthen us, in full submission to His will, to follow the spirit and letter of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the world in all our dealings with them.
Since 2013, the Covenants Initiative has become an international movement in the Muslim world. Many Muslims from all walks of life, as well as a number of respected Islamic scholars—including Dr. Mohammed Gameaha of Al-Azhar University, which is the premier religious authority in Sunni Islam—have signed the Initiative. An interview with Dr. Morrow also appeared on the website of Ayatullah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran.
On the Christian side, we have received letters of support from Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Theophilus II, Patriarch of Jerusalem; The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has also been presented to Pope Francis. In 2016, in response to an appeal from Bishop Francis Y. Kalabat, Eparch of the Chaldean Catholic Church (of Iraq) now in exile in Detroit, Michigan, the Covenants Initiative launched a project called the Genocide Initiative, which was a call to “all political players” to declare the actions of ISIS war crimes and genocide; it took the form of a petition posted on Change.org. The Genocide Initiative formed part of the push that led to the unanimous passage of the (unbinding) Fortenberry resolution in the House of Representatives, in March of 2016, affirming our position on ISIS; soon afterwards, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry felt it necessary to make a public statement to the same effect: that the actions of ISIS constitute genocide. The Genocide Initiative was commended in an article in the foremost U.S. armed forces publication, Stars and Stripes (reprinted from the Fort Wayne Herald.
Most of our energy over the last four years has been directed toward the Muslim world, since we felt that the first order of business was to inform Muslims of the existence and the crucial import of these documents authored by the Prophet Muhammad himself, documents that most Muslims, and many Muslim scholars, had never heard of. One powerful sign of our success in this effort appeared in May of 2017: when ISIS burned St. Mary’s Cathedral in Mindanao, the Philippines, the Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao immediately invoked the Covenants of the Prophet to prove that this action of ISIS was “un-Islamic”. It was this, among other indications, that resolved us to turn more of our rather slim resources toward Christian outreach. In line with this decision, the present article should be understood as a formal offering of the Covenants of Muhammad to the Christians of the world, particularly those under siege by ISIS and other Takfiri terrorists, or who have reason to believe that they might be in the future, as shields of protection in the name of the Prophet Muhammad. (The word “Takfiri” denotes a pseudo-Muslim extremist who holds that any non-Muslim, and any Muslim not part of his or her particular sect, is a heretic who can legally be killed.)
This is entirely in line with Muhammad’s original intent. The Prophet foresaw that the expanding Muslim state would eventually come to blows with the Byzantine Empire, and knew that if this were to happen, some zealous but ignorant Muslims would simply consider this as inaugurating an “open season” on all Christians. Several passages of the Holy Qur’an, various rulings of the Prophet which have come down to us in the hadith literature, and most especially his Covenants with the Christian communities of his time, were explicitly designed to nip this tendency in the bud. Certainly these declarations were not entirely successful in preventing various excesses in later years, but they did exercise a powerful influence in the direction of tolerance and mutual respect among Muslims and Christians, an influence which lasted at least until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922—the Covenants having formed the basis of state policy toward religious minorities under the Ottomans—and which has been resurrected in our own time largely through the ground-breaking scholarship of Dr. John Andrew Morrow.
It is of course important for those Christians who are considering how they might use the Covenants of the Prophet as documents of protection against various Takfiri terrorist groups to satisfy themselves that these documents are valid; a sampling of our exhaustive case for their genuineness appears below. To make a thorough study of our arguments would be time- consuming, even if the reader did not attempt to assimilate the approx. 550 published reviews favorable to The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, or become familiar with the objections of our critics—many of which appear, so as to be refuted, in that book, as well as in our three-volume anthology of critical studies on The Covenants, Islam, and the People of the Book, which includes articles by Dr. Morrow and 17 other scholars, both Muslim and Christian.
This is entirely in line with Muhammad’s original intent. The Prophet foresaw that the expanding Muslim state would eventually come to blows with the Byzantine Empire, and knew that if this were to happen, some zealous but ignorant Muslims would simply consider this as inaugurating an “open season” on all Christians. Several passages of the Holy Qur’an, various rulings of the Prophet which have come down to us in the hadith literature, and most especially his Covenants with the Christian communities of his time, were explicitly designed to nip this tendency in the bud. Certainly these declarations were not entirely successful in preventing various excesses in later years, but they did exercise a powerful influence in the direction of tolerance and mutual respect among Muslims and Christians, an influence which lasted at least until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922—the Covenants having formed the basis of state policy toward religious minorities under the Ottomans—and which has been resurrected in our own time largely through the ground-breaking scholarship of Dr. John Andrew Morrow.
It is of course important for those Christians who are considering how they might use the Covenants of the Prophet as documents of protection against various Takfiri terrorist groups to satisfy themselves that these documents are valid; a sampling of our exhaustive case for their genuineness appears below. To make a thorough study of our arguments would be time- consuming, even if the reader did not attempt to assimilate the approx. 550 published reviews favorable to The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, or become familiar with the objections of our critics—many of which appear, so as to be refuted, in that book, as well as in our three-volume anthology of critical studies on The Covenants, Islam, and the People of the Book, which includes articles by Dr. Morrow and 17 other scholars, both Muslim and Christian.
On the other hand, the Covenants have the potential for saving lives—and when lives hang in the balance, long deliberations and delays can have serious consequences. In this sense the Covenants are like a new and potentially lifesaving drug that’s undergoing clinical trials. If the drug is released too soon there could be unintended negative effects; if the release is delayed too long, lives will be lost. The goal of this article is to provide a “fast-track” for the acceptance of the Covenants by Christians, while directing them to more exhaustive research if they still have lingering questions. Meanwhile, the reader can refer to the May 2017 article “The Hidden Documents of Islam that can Defang Islamic Terror” by Melik Kaylan in Forbes magazine, to get some idea of the profound import of the Covenants for our time.
The following section, by Dr. Morrow, contains his list of authenticating authorities for five of the six Prophetic Covenants contained in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, a shorter work which contains only the texts of the Covenants themselves. This list provides solid evidence for their ultimate authorship—despite the vicissitudes of history undergone by the texts that we possess—by the Prophet Muhammad himself:
*
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai
The following section, by Dr. Morrow, contains his list of authenticating authorities for five of the six Prophetic Covenants contained in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, a shorter work which contains only the texts of the Covenants themselves. This list provides solid evidence for their ultimate authorship—despite the vicissitudes of history undergone by the texts that we possess—by the Prophet Muhammad himself:
*
The Covenants contained in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time were treated as trustworthy by the Companions and their Followers along with the Caliphs, the Sultans, and the Shahs of Islam from the 7th century until the early 20th century.AUTHENTICATION
They were regularly renewed by Muslim rulers over the course of the past 1400 years and consistently authenticated by leading Islamic authorities from all schools of jurisprudence throughout the ages.
The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad were certified as genuine or sahih by Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II, the 34th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and the Last Caliph of Islam, who passed away in 1918.
As primary documents of prophetic provenance, they come second only to the Qur’an.
As the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, attested, they are binding upon all believers until the end of times.
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
The Monks of Mount Sinai (7th century CE to the present)
The Jabaliyyah Arabs of the Sinai (7th century CE to the present)
Honored by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Honored by the Ummayads and ‘Abassids (661-750; 750-1258 CE)
Ibn Sa‘d cites Treaty of Najran / St. Catherine (d. 845 CE)
Fatimid Decrees (965, 1024, 1109, 1110, 1135, 1154, and 1156 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Mu‘izz (953-974 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-‘Aziz (975-996 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim (996-1021 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Zahir (1024 CE)
Fatimid Vizier al-Afdal ibn Badr al-Jamali (1094-1121 CE)
al-Hafiz (1134 CE)
Decree of Shirkuh (1169 CE)
Ayyubids Decrees (1195, 1199, 1201/02, and 1210/11 CE)
Mamluk Decrees (1259, 1260, 1272, 1268/69, 1280 and 1516 CE)
Ibn Kathir reportedly paraphrases the complete list of privileges granted to St. Catherine’s Monastery (d. 1373 CE)
Treaty of the Sultan of Egypt with the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (1403 CE) Fatwas: Nearly 2000 Edicts from Five Schools of Jurisprudence (975 CE-1888) Ottoman Decrees (1519 to 1904)
Jean Thenaud (1512 CE)
Copies of the Covenant (Undated, 1517 CE, 1561 CE, 1683 CE, 1737/38 CE, 1800/01 CE) Tsernotabey (1517 CE)
Firman of Selim I (1517 CE)
Copies of Achtiname (1517-1858 CE)
Greffin Affagart (1533 CE)
Feridun Bey (d. 1583 CE)
Franciscus Quaresmius (1639)
Balthsar de Monconys (1646-1647)
Nektarios of Sinai (1660)
Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustapha Pasha (1663-1666)
Joannes Caramuel de Lobkowitz (1672)
Henry Stubbe (1632-1676 CE)
M.L.M.D.C. (1697)
Eusèbe Renaudot (1713)
Bernard Picard (1736)
Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) (apocryphal but authentic in content) Richard Pococke (1743)
Thomas Salmon (1744)
J.A. Van Egmont and J. Heyman (1759)
George Psalmanazar (1764 CE) (apocryphal or limited to the Sinai Monks)
Jean Michel de Venture de Paradis (1798)
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
The Monks of Mount Sinai (7th century CE to the present)
The Jabaliyyah Arabs of the Sinai (7th century CE to the present)
Honored by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Honored by the Ummayads and ‘Abassids (661-750; 750-1258 CE)
Ibn Sa‘d cites Treaty of Najran / St. Catherine (d. 845 CE)
Fatimid Decrees (965, 1024, 1109, 1110, 1135, 1154, and 1156 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Mu‘izz (953-974 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-‘Aziz (975-996 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim (996-1021 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Zahir (1024 CE)
Fatimid Vizier al-Afdal ibn Badr al-Jamali (1094-1121 CE)
al-Hafiz (1134 CE)
Decree of Shirkuh (1169 CE)
Ayyubids Decrees (1195, 1199, 1201/02, and 1210/11 CE)
Mamluk Decrees (1259, 1260, 1272, 1268/69, 1280 and 1516 CE)
Ibn Kathir reportedly paraphrases the complete list of privileges granted to St. Catherine’s Monastery (d. 1373 CE)
Treaty of the Sultan of Egypt with the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (1403 CE) Fatwas: Nearly 2000 Edicts from Five Schools of Jurisprudence (975 CE-1888) Ottoman Decrees (1519 to 1904)
Jean Thenaud (1512 CE)
Copies of the Covenant (Undated, 1517 CE, 1561 CE, 1683 CE, 1737/38 CE, 1800/01 CE) Tsernotabey (1517 CE)
Firman of Selim I (1517 CE)
Copies of Achtiname (1517-1858 CE)
Greffin Affagart (1533 CE)
Feridun Bey (d. 1583 CE)
Franciscus Quaresmius (1639)
Balthsar de Monconys (1646-1647)
Nektarios of Sinai (1660)
Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustapha Pasha (1663-1666)
Joannes Caramuel de Lobkowitz (1672)
Henry Stubbe (1632-1676 CE)
M.L.M.D.C. (1697)
Eusèbe Renaudot (1713)
Bernard Picard (1736)
Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) (apocryphal but authentic in content) Richard Pococke (1743)
Thomas Salmon (1744)
J.A. Van Egmont and J. Heyman (1759)
George Psalmanazar (1764 CE) (apocryphal or limited to the Sinai Monks)
Jean Michel de Venture de Paradis (1798)
Napoléon Bonaparte (1798)
Jean-Joseph Marcel (1798)
Commission des Sciences et des Arts (1798)
Charles Thomson (1798)
Edward Wells (1809)
J.N. Fazakerley (1811)
Abraham Salamé (1819)
Félix Mengin (1823)
Thomas Clarke (1823)
John Carne (1826)
Abbé Grand and Adrien Egron (1827)
John Gibson Lockhart (1835)
National Geographic Society (1835)
Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall and J.-J. Hellert (1837) Ministers of Various Evangelical Denominations (1839)
C.B. Ḥoury (1840)
Maria Giuseppe de Géramb (1840)
Pietro della Valle (1843)
A. Oumanetz (1843)
Louis de Tesson (1844)
Père Joguet (1844)
Léon Gingras (1847)
Austen Henry Layard (1850)
Amable Regnault (1855) (authentic in content)
Henry Day (1857)
J.G. Pitzipios-Bey (1858)
Joseph Wolff (1861)
Antonio Figari Bey (1865)
John Davenport (1869)
Samuel Sullivan Cox (1887)
R. Accademia dei Lini (1888)
Philippe Gelât (1888/1889)
Nawfal Effendi Nawfal (late 19th century CE)
Syed Ameer ‘Ali (1891)
R.P. Jullien (1893) (authentic with reservations)
Dean Arthur Stanley (1894)
L’Union islamique / al-Ittihad al-Islami (1898) Bessarione (1898)
Échos d’Orient (1898)
Anton F. Haddad (1902)
‘Abdullah al-Ma’mun al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905) Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II (1904)
Sésostris Sidarouss (1907)
Jurji Zaydan (1907) (apocryphal but based on authentic covenants) Na‘um Shuqayr (1916)
Alberto M. Candioti (1925)
Jean-Joseph Marcel (1798)
Commission des Sciences et des Arts (1798)
Charles Thomson (1798)
Edward Wells (1809)
J.N. Fazakerley (1811)
Abraham Salamé (1819)
Félix Mengin (1823)
Thomas Clarke (1823)
John Carne (1826)
Abbé Grand and Adrien Egron (1827)
John Gibson Lockhart (1835)
National Geographic Society (1835)
Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall and J.-J. Hellert (1837) Ministers of Various Evangelical Denominations (1839)
C.B. Ḥoury (1840)
Maria Giuseppe de Géramb (1840)
Pietro della Valle (1843)
A. Oumanetz (1843)
Louis de Tesson (1844)
Père Joguet (1844)
Léon Gingras (1847)
Austen Henry Layard (1850)
Amable Regnault (1855) (authentic in content)
Henry Day (1857)
J.G. Pitzipios-Bey (1858)
Joseph Wolff (1861)
Antonio Figari Bey (1865)
John Davenport (1869)
Samuel Sullivan Cox (1887)
R. Accademia dei Lini (1888)
Philippe Gelât (1888/1889)
Nawfal Effendi Nawfal (late 19th century CE)
Syed Ameer ‘Ali (1891)
R.P. Jullien (1893) (authentic with reservations)
Dean Arthur Stanley (1894)
L’Union islamique / al-Ittihad al-Islami (1898) Bessarione (1898)
Échos d’Orient (1898)
Anton F. Haddad (1902)
‘Abdullah al-Ma’mun al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905) Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II (1904)
Sésostris Sidarouss (1907)
Jurji Zaydan (1907) (apocryphal but based on authentic covenants) Na‘um Shuqayr (1916)
Alberto M. Candioti (1925)
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (1927)
Essad Bey (1936)
Porphyrios III (1937)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
Edmond Poupe (1938)
Islamic Review (1940)
Joan Meredyth Chichele Plowden (1940) (not impossible)
Joaquim Pedro Oliveira Martins (1946)
‘Aziz Suryal Atiya (1955)
Albert Champdor (1963)
Alfred Nawrath (1963)
Hasan al-Shirazi (1967)
Stuart E. Rosenberg (1970) (cannot be proven or disproven)
Oleg V. Volkoff (1972) (neutral)
Robin Waterfield (1973)
Criton George Tornaritis (1980)
Le Figaro (1986)
Akram Zahoor and Z. Haq (1990)
Nikolaos Tomadakis (1990)
Konstantinos A. Manafis (1990)
Hieromonk Demetrios Digbassanis (1990)
Edwin Bernbaum (1990) (according to tradition; dating back at least to early Fatimid times) Nicole Levallois (1992)
Giovanna Magi (1993)
Joseph J. Hobbs (1995) (neutral)
Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne (1996)
LaMar C. Berrett and D. Kelly Ogden (1996) Gawdat Gabra and Morsi Saad el-Din (1998)
Ansar Hussain (1999)
Hüseyn Hilmi Işik (2000)
Yusuf Islam [Cat Stevens] (2001)
Giovanni Magnani (2001)
Harun Yahya (2002)
Frederick Quinn (2002)
Let’s Go Inc. (2003)
Bruce Merry (2004)
J. Gordon Melton (2004)
Brian Paciotti (2004)
Reza Shah-Kazemi (2005)
R.W. McColl (2005)
Elizabeth A. Zachariadou (2005)
Martin Gray and Graham Hancock (2007) Jean-Pierre Isbouts (2007) (authentic according to tradition) K. Staikos (2007) (authentic according to tradition) David Douglas (2007)
Andrew Eames (2008)
Essad Bey (1936)
Porphyrios III (1937)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
Edmond Poupe (1938)
Islamic Review (1940)
Joan Meredyth Chichele Plowden (1940) (not impossible)
Joaquim Pedro Oliveira Martins (1946)
‘Aziz Suryal Atiya (1955)
Albert Champdor (1963)
Alfred Nawrath (1963)
Hasan al-Shirazi (1967)
Stuart E. Rosenberg (1970) (cannot be proven or disproven)
Oleg V. Volkoff (1972) (neutral)
Robin Waterfield (1973)
Criton George Tornaritis (1980)
Le Figaro (1986)
Akram Zahoor and Z. Haq (1990)
Nikolaos Tomadakis (1990)
Konstantinos A. Manafis (1990)
Hieromonk Demetrios Digbassanis (1990)
Edwin Bernbaum (1990) (according to tradition; dating back at least to early Fatimid times) Nicole Levallois (1992)
Giovanna Magi (1993)
Joseph J. Hobbs (1995) (neutral)
Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne (1996)
LaMar C. Berrett and D. Kelly Ogden (1996) Gawdat Gabra and Morsi Saad el-Din (1998)
Ansar Hussain (1999)
Hüseyn Hilmi Işik (2000)
Yusuf Islam [Cat Stevens] (2001)
Giovanni Magnani (2001)
Harun Yahya (2002)
Frederick Quinn (2002)
Let’s Go Inc. (2003)
Bruce Merry (2004)
J. Gordon Melton (2004)
Brian Paciotti (2004)
Reza Shah-Kazemi (2005)
R.W. McColl (2005)
Elizabeth A. Zachariadou (2005)
Martin Gray and Graham Hancock (2007) Jean-Pierre Isbouts (2007) (authentic according to tradition) K. Staikos (2007) (authentic according to tradition) David Douglas (2007)
Andrew Eames (2008)
National Geographic (2008) (authentic according to tradition)
‘Abdurrahman Wahid (2009)
David Dakake (2009)
Muqtedar Khan (2009)
Peer-Jada Qureshi (2009)
Mohamed el Hebeishy (2010)
J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann (2010)
Zia Shah (2011)
Raj Bhala (2011)
Hedieh Mirahmadi (2011)
Farhad Malekian (2011)
Ahmed Shams (2011)
Altaf Hussain (2011)
Zora O’Neill (2012)
Judy Hall (2012)
Areej Zufari (2012)
Kyriacos C. Markides (2012)
James Emery White (2012)
Helen C. Evans (2012)
Father Justin of Sinai (2012)
Pave the Way Foundation (2012)
Shemeem Burney Abbas (2013)
Nikos Kazantzakis (2013)
Timothy Wright (2013)
John Andrew Morrow (1990, 2012, 2013, 2015)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
John Watson (2014) (authentic according to tradition)
Brad Tyndall (2014)
Qasim Rashid (2014)
Muhammad Quraish Shihab (2014)
Zaid Shakir (2015)
Hamza Yusuf (2015)
Ronald H. Stone (2015)
Calum Samuelson (2015)
Alexander Winogradsky Frenkel (2015)
Sayyid ‘Ali Asghar (2015)
‘Azizah al-Hibri (2016)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE) Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
‘Abdurrahman Wahid (2009)
David Dakake (2009)
Muqtedar Khan (2009)
Peer-Jada Qureshi (2009)
Mohamed el Hebeishy (2010)
J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann (2010)
Zia Shah (2011)
Raj Bhala (2011)
Hedieh Mirahmadi (2011)
Farhad Malekian (2011)
Ahmed Shams (2011)
Altaf Hussain (2011)
Zora O’Neill (2012)
Judy Hall (2012)
Areej Zufari (2012)
Kyriacos C. Markides (2012)
James Emery White (2012)
Helen C. Evans (2012)
Father Justin of Sinai (2012)
Pave the Way Foundation (2012)
Shemeem Burney Abbas (2013)
Nikos Kazantzakis (2013)
Timothy Wright (2013)
John Andrew Morrow (1990, 2012, 2013, 2015)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
John Watson (2014) (authentic according to tradition)
Brad Tyndall (2014)
Qasim Rashid (2014)
Muhammad Quraish Shihab (2014)
Zaid Shakir (2015)
Hamza Yusuf (2015)
Ronald H. Stone (2015)
Calum Samuelson (2015)
Alexander Winogradsky Frenkel (2015)
Sayyid ‘Ali Asghar (2015)
‘Azizah al-Hibri (2016)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE) Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Waqidi (745-822 CE)
Ibn Ishaq (d. 761 or 770 CE) / Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE)
Muqatil ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi (d. 767)
Abu Yusuf (d. 798 CE)
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 805 CE)
Yahya ibn Adam (d. 818 CE)
Abu ‘Ubayd (728-825 CE)
Ibn Zanjawayh (d. 865 CE)
Abu Dawud (817-889 CE)
Habib the Monk (878-879 CE)
Baladhuri (d. 892 CE)
Ya‘qubi (897-898 CE)
Chronicle of Seert (9th century CE)
Shaykh al-Mufid (11th century CE)
Abu al-Futuh al-Razi (1078-1157 or 1161 CE)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209 CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (1292–1350 CE)
Ibn Kathir (1301–1373)
Maris (12th century CE)
Qalqashandi (1355 or 1356-1418 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Giuseppe Simonio Assemani (1721)
‘Abdullah al-Ma’mun al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905)
Muhammad Siddique Qureshi (1991)
Abu Muhammad Ordoni (1992)
Muhammad ‘Amarah (2002)
Harun Yahya (2002)
‘Adil Salahi (2002)
Milka Levy-Rubin (2011)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Yasin T. al-Jibouri (2014)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE) Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE) Tabari (838-923 CE)
Mas‘udi (896-956 CE CE)
Caliph Muqtafi II of Baghdad (1138 CE)
Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233 CE)
Ibn Ishaq (d. 761 or 770 CE) / Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE)
Muqatil ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi (d. 767)
Abu Yusuf (d. 798 CE)
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 805 CE)
Yahya ibn Adam (d. 818 CE)
Abu ‘Ubayd (728-825 CE)
Ibn Zanjawayh (d. 865 CE)
Abu Dawud (817-889 CE)
Habib the Monk (878-879 CE)
Baladhuri (d. 892 CE)
Ya‘qubi (897-898 CE)
Chronicle of Seert (9th century CE)
Shaykh al-Mufid (11th century CE)
Abu al-Futuh al-Razi (1078-1157 or 1161 CE)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209 CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (1292–1350 CE)
Ibn Kathir (1301–1373)
Maris (12th century CE)
Qalqashandi (1355 or 1356-1418 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Giuseppe Simonio Assemani (1721)
‘Abdullah al-Ma’mun al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905)
Muhammad Siddique Qureshi (1991)
Abu Muhammad Ordoni (1992)
Muhammad ‘Amarah (2002)
Harun Yahya (2002)
‘Adil Salahi (2002)
Milka Levy-Rubin (2011)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Yasin T. al-Jibouri (2014)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE) Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE) Tabari (838-923 CE)
Mas‘udi (896-956 CE CE)
Caliph Muqtafi II of Baghdad (1138 CE)
Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233 CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Maris (12th century CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Father Pacifique Scaliger (found in 1629; dated 1538 CE) René de l’Escale Pacifique de Provins Scaliger (1627) Louis XIII, King of France (1601-1643)
André Du Ryer (c. 1580-1660)
Jacobo Nagy de Harsany (b. 1615)
Gabriel Sionita (1630)
Antoine Vitray (1630)
M.J. Fabricius (1638)
Claudius Salmasius (d. 1653)
Johann Georg Nissel (1655; 1661)
L. Addison (1679)
Giovani Paolo Marana (1642-1693)
Des grossen Propheten und Apostels Muhammad’s Testament… (1664) Pierre Briot and Paul Ricaut (1668 CE)
Abraham Hinckleman (1690)
Henri Basnage de Beauval (1657-1710)
Eusѐbe Renaudot (1646-1720)
A.C. Zeller R. Abrah. b. Dior (1724)
Claude-Pierre Goujet (1758)
Edward Gibbon (1776)
Comité d’instruction publique de la Convention Nationale (1795) Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre de Villebrune (1795)
Societe d’Amis de la Religion et de la Patrie (1797)
Asiatic Annual Register (1801)
Ministers from various Evangelical Denominations (1839)
C.B. Houry (1840)
Henry Layard (1850)
Jakobs Georgios Pitzipios-Bey (1858) Sir Travers Twiss (1809-1897) Pedro de Madrazo (1816-1898) Edward Rehatsek (1819-1891)
M. Grassi (Alfio) (1826) Alexandre de Miltitz (1838) Alphonse de Lamartine (1862) Edward Van Dyke (1881)
Henry Layard (1850)
‘Abdullah al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905) James Thayer Addison (1887-1953) Sésostris Sidarouss (1907) Meletius IV (1922)
Ibrahim Auwad (1933)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
Edmond Poupe (1938)
Maris (12th century CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Father Pacifique Scaliger (found in 1629; dated 1538 CE) René de l’Escale Pacifique de Provins Scaliger (1627) Louis XIII, King of France (1601-1643)
André Du Ryer (c. 1580-1660)
Jacobo Nagy de Harsany (b. 1615)
Gabriel Sionita (1630)
Antoine Vitray (1630)
M.J. Fabricius (1638)
Claudius Salmasius (d. 1653)
Johann Georg Nissel (1655; 1661)
L. Addison (1679)
Giovani Paolo Marana (1642-1693)
Des grossen Propheten und Apostels Muhammad’s Testament… (1664) Pierre Briot and Paul Ricaut (1668 CE)
Abraham Hinckleman (1690)
Henri Basnage de Beauval (1657-1710)
Eusѐbe Renaudot (1646-1720)
A.C. Zeller R. Abrah. b. Dior (1724)
Claude-Pierre Goujet (1758)
Edward Gibbon (1776)
Comité d’instruction publique de la Convention Nationale (1795) Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre de Villebrune (1795)
Societe d’Amis de la Religion et de la Patrie (1797)
Asiatic Annual Register (1801)
Ministers from various Evangelical Denominations (1839)
C.B. Houry (1840)
Henry Layard (1850)
Jakobs Georgios Pitzipios-Bey (1858) Sir Travers Twiss (1809-1897) Pedro de Madrazo (1816-1898) Edward Rehatsek (1819-1891)
M. Grassi (Alfio) (1826) Alexandre de Miltitz (1838) Alphonse de Lamartine (1862) Edward Van Dyke (1881)
Henry Layard (1850)
‘Abdullah al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905) James Thayer Addison (1887-1953) Sésostris Sidarouss (1907) Meletius IV (1922)
Ibrahim Auwad (1933)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
Edmond Poupe (1938)
Nikēphoros Moschopoulos (1956)
Joseph Hajjar (1962)
Abdullah Alladin (1971)
Josée Balagna (1984)
Mithoo Coorlawala (2011)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Maris (12th century CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1268 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Asahel Grant (1841)
Horatio Southgate (1856)
Adolphe d’Avril (1864)
Thomas William Marshall (1865)
Bedr Khan Beg (d. 1868), his son, and his grandson
Vital Cuinet (1891)
Saturnino Ximénèz (1895)
Earl Percy (1902)
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1904)
William Ainser Wigram (1910, 1920 and 1929)
Abraham Yohannan (1916)
Surma D’Bait Dar Shimun (1920)
J.G. Browne (1937)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
George David Malech (1910)
William Chauncey Emhardt and George M. Lamsa (1970)
Carleton Stevens Coon (1972)
John Joseph (1983)
Gabriele Yonan (1996)
A.M. Hamilton (2004)
R.S. Stafford (2006)
Theodore D’Mar Shimun (2008)
Albert Edward Ismail Yelda (2001, 2002, 2004)
Areej Zufari (2012)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Joseph Hajjar (1962)
Abdullah Alladin (1971)
Josée Balagna (1984)
Mithoo Coorlawala (2011)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Maris (12th century CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1268 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Asahel Grant (1841)
Horatio Southgate (1856)
Adolphe d’Avril (1864)
Thomas William Marshall (1865)
Bedr Khan Beg (d. 1868), his son, and his grandson
Vital Cuinet (1891)
Saturnino Ximénèz (1895)
Earl Percy (1902)
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1904)
William Ainser Wigram (1910, 1920 and 1929)
Abraham Yohannan (1916)
Surma D’Bait Dar Shimun (1920)
J.G. Browne (1937)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
George David Malech (1910)
William Chauncey Emhardt and George M. Lamsa (1970)
Carleton Stevens Coon (1972)
John Joseph (1983)
Gabriele Yonan (1996)
A.M. Hamilton (2004)
R.S. Stafford (2006)
Theodore D’Mar Shimun (2008)
Albert Edward Ismail Yelda (2001, 2002, 2004)
Areej Zufari (2012)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
Witnessed by the Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Sebēos (660 CE)
Ja‘far al-Sadiq (8th century CE)
Maris (12th century)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Shah ‘Abbas and Safavid Shi‘ite scholars (1606)
Leon Arpee (1948)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013 CE)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016 CE)
N.B. For a complete study of the sources that support the genuine nature of the Covenants of the Prophet, kindly refer to “The Provenance of the Prophet’s Covenants” in Islam and the People of the Book (Cambridge Scholars, 2017).
*
In addition to the bare question of authorship, I have identified what I believe are two “hurdles” to Christian acceptance of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad. The first is the notion that the intent behind our work in disseminating these documents is simply to “whitewash” Islam, to give it a better public relations image. Nothing could be further from the truth. While some Muslims may believe that the Covenants can be used for this purpose, in reality they represent a powerful challenge to Muslims to renounce both active terrorism (which, as we will see, actually excludes those who practice it from the Muslim fold) and their half- conscious, passive acceptance of terrorists as “people whose methods we abhor, but who are still ‘our guys’”, and follow the explicit commands of our Prophet. [See my article “The Covenants of the Prophet: A Call to Repentance” at https://covenantsoftheprophet.org/2017/05/30/the- covenants-of-the-prophet-a-call-to-repentance/ ] Far from “making Islam look good”, the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad make those Muslims who are still reluctant to treat Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups with simple human decency look decidedly bad. While the vast majority of Muslims, an estimated 93%, reject jihadism, a certain reluctance to come out strongly against it is still apparent in some population groups. This is due to a mixture of shame at the bad name the jihadists are giving Islam around the world, a very real fear of terrorist reprisals if they are openly condemned, and the general passivity of human nature, irrespective of race or religion. Some Muslims still see groups like ISIS as the “black sheep” of the Muslim family, lowlife relatives whose shameful actions must be hushed up. The Covenants, however, have begun to give some of us the courage to go beyond passive shame and actively break identification with these mad dogs, based on an understanding that that they are in open
The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia
Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
Witnessed by the Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Sebēos (660 CE)
Ja‘far al-Sadiq (8th century CE)
Maris (12th century)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Shah ‘Abbas and Safavid Shi‘ite scholars (1606)
Leon Arpee (1948)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013 CE)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016 CE)
N.B. For a complete study of the sources that support the genuine nature of the Covenants of the Prophet, kindly refer to “The Provenance of the Prophet’s Covenants” in Islam and the People of the Book (Cambridge Scholars, 2017).
*
In addition to the bare question of authorship, I have identified what I believe are two “hurdles” to Christian acceptance of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad. The first is the notion that the intent behind our work in disseminating these documents is simply to “whitewash” Islam, to give it a better public relations image. Nothing could be further from the truth. While some Muslims may believe that the Covenants can be used for this purpose, in reality they represent a powerful challenge to Muslims to renounce both active terrorism (which, as we will see, actually excludes those who practice it from the Muslim fold) and their half- conscious, passive acceptance of terrorists as “people whose methods we abhor, but who are still ‘our guys’”, and follow the explicit commands of our Prophet. [See my article “The Covenants of the Prophet: A Call to Repentance” at https://covenantsoftheprophet.org/2017/05/30/the- covenants-of-the-prophet-a-call-to-repentance/ ] Far from “making Islam look good”, the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad make those Muslims who are still reluctant to treat Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups with simple human decency look decidedly bad. While the vast majority of Muslims, an estimated 93%, reject jihadism, a certain reluctance to come out strongly against it is still apparent in some population groups. This is due to a mixture of shame at the bad name the jihadists are giving Islam around the world, a very real fear of terrorist reprisals if they are openly condemned, and the general passivity of human nature, irrespective of race or religion. Some Muslims still see groups like ISIS as the “black sheep” of the Muslim family, lowlife relatives whose shameful actions must be hushed up. The Covenants, however, have begun to give some of us the courage to go beyond passive shame and actively break identification with these mad dogs, based on an understanding that that they are in open
violation of the Qur’an, the Islamic doctrine of just war, and the explicit commands of the Prophet—not to mention the fact that their Muslim victims far outnumber their Christian ones. This excommunication of the jihadists as intrinsically un-Islamic was formalized in August, 2016 at a conference in Grozny, Chechnnya, sponsored by Russia, which included Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar and a number of Grand Muftis. The conference issued a group fatwa, explicitly declaring that “Salafi-takfirists, Daesh (so-called ‘Islamic State’) and similar extremist groups” are not Muslims. The fatwa was seconded by a similar statement from the Russian Council of Muftis. [See http://chechnyaconference.org/material/chechnya-conference-statement-english.pdf For the full text of the Grozny Declaration.] In addition to the Declaration, the turn against Takfiri terrorism in the Muslim world has resulted in literally hundreds of other declarations and campaigns against the jihadists; links to thirty of the most important of these can be found here: https://ing.org/global-condemnations-of-isis-isil/
The second hurdle is the suspicion among certain Christians that the Covenants may be a kind of subtle Muslim plot, concealed under a show of false friendship, to return them to a state of second-class citizenship under the dhimmi system. If they will think for a minute, however, they will realize just how unlikely this is. Outside the short-lived and bogus “Caliphate” of ISIS, which is now in the process of being painfully de-constructed, and other efforts by Takfiri jihadists, nowhere in the world are Christians in danger of falling under Muslim rule outside of those nations long-considered to be part of Dar al-Islam. And if ISIS would grant dhimmi status to the Christians who have temporarily fallen under their yoke rather than massacring them wholesale, the lot of Christians under their regime would be greatly improved. This is not likely, however: ISIS and the other Takfiri terrorists hate the Covenants of the Prophet since these documents explicitly define them as laboring under the curse of Allah and his Prophet; there is even some indication that Da’esh may be searching for whatever Prophetic Covenants might remain in their conquered territories, possibly housed in ancient monasteries, in order to destroy them. As for the situation of Christians in Muslim-majority nations, no nation that is not officially Muslim could conceivably have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Covenants after a century-long hiatus, which in any case would require renewed negotiations between Christians and Muslims, like those that took place in the Prophet’s time, before both parties agreed to the terms of any particular new treaty based on the Covenants model. The rights granted to Christians under the Covenants, which lay both duties and rights on Muslims as well as Christians, if they could be renewed today would certainly represent an improvement in the status of Christians in some Muslim-majority nations—Turkey for example, where an enforcement the provision that Christians must not be prohibited from repairing their buildings would represent a real gain for the Christian population. Such a development, however, seems highly unlikely from many points of view.
It is the position of the Covenants Initiative that, in the absence of a Muslim political entity like the Ottoman Empire, or a viable plan to renew the Covenants within an officially Muslim nation such as Iran—which would require equitable negotiations between Christians and Muslims involving a detailed revision and updating of the terms of the original agreements, thus doing away with their status as actual Covenants of the Prophet—another approach is required. Muslims, whether or not they are part of the ulama (the religious authorities), need to discern the basic intent of the Prophet Muhammad in drafting these documents, and make it their own. Muslims must embrace the spirit of the Covenants as individuals, and then try their best to prevail upon their governments to embrace that spirit as well—because the Prophet did not declare the Covenants binding upon all Muslims only until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but until the end of time. Anyone who reads the texts of the Prophetic Covenants will necessarily be struck with the great respect and admiration Muhammad felt toward the followers of Jesus, expressed in terms of a noble and chivalrous pledge to defend them from all who would menace them, non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
The second hurdle is the suspicion among certain Christians that the Covenants may be a kind of subtle Muslim plot, concealed under a show of false friendship, to return them to a state of second-class citizenship under the dhimmi system. If they will think for a minute, however, they will realize just how unlikely this is. Outside the short-lived and bogus “Caliphate” of ISIS, which is now in the process of being painfully de-constructed, and other efforts by Takfiri jihadists, nowhere in the world are Christians in danger of falling under Muslim rule outside of those nations long-considered to be part of Dar al-Islam. And if ISIS would grant dhimmi status to the Christians who have temporarily fallen under their yoke rather than massacring them wholesale, the lot of Christians under their regime would be greatly improved. This is not likely, however: ISIS and the other Takfiri terrorists hate the Covenants of the Prophet since these documents explicitly define them as laboring under the curse of Allah and his Prophet; there is even some indication that Da’esh may be searching for whatever Prophetic Covenants might remain in their conquered territories, possibly housed in ancient monasteries, in order to destroy them. As for the situation of Christians in Muslim-majority nations, no nation that is not officially Muslim could conceivably have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Covenants after a century-long hiatus, which in any case would require renewed negotiations between Christians and Muslims, like those that took place in the Prophet’s time, before both parties agreed to the terms of any particular new treaty based on the Covenants model. The rights granted to Christians under the Covenants, which lay both duties and rights on Muslims as well as Christians, if they could be renewed today would certainly represent an improvement in the status of Christians in some Muslim-majority nations—Turkey for example, where an enforcement the provision that Christians must not be prohibited from repairing their buildings would represent a real gain for the Christian population. Such a development, however, seems highly unlikely from many points of view.
It is the position of the Covenants Initiative that, in the absence of a Muslim political entity like the Ottoman Empire, or a viable plan to renew the Covenants within an officially Muslim nation such as Iran—which would require equitable negotiations between Christians and Muslims involving a detailed revision and updating of the terms of the original agreements, thus doing away with their status as actual Covenants of the Prophet—another approach is required. Muslims, whether or not they are part of the ulama (the religious authorities), need to discern the basic intent of the Prophet Muhammad in drafting these documents, and make it their own. Muslims must embrace the spirit of the Covenants as individuals, and then try their best to prevail upon their governments to embrace that spirit as well—because the Prophet did not declare the Covenants binding upon all Muslims only until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but until the end of time. Anyone who reads the texts of the Prophetic Covenants will necessarily be struck with the great respect and admiration Muhammad felt toward the followers of Jesus, expressed in terms of a noble and chivalrous pledge to defend them from all who would menace them, non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
It is also necessary to mention that, while groups like ISIS certainly seek membership among Muslims with Wahhabi or Takfiri/Salafi beliefs, plenty of evidence is now emerging that ISIS itself was formed with help from the West as part of its geopolitical brinksmanship against Syria, Russia and Iran; see the article in the Guardian by Seumas Milne, “Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq” at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq?CMP=share_btn_fb
It only remains to say that, as soon as Christian leaders have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the Covenants of the Prophet, their existence should be widely publicized, and no effort spared in getting them into the hands of the Christian communities who need them. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is quite a hefty volume; it contains exhaustive arguments, both textual and historical, for the validity of the Covenants, and provides a great deal of background. More appropriate for bulk distribution is the pamphlet-sized Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time which contains only the actual texts of these documents. This book has already been translated into 14 languages: English, Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian, Azeri and Urdu. The English and Azeri editions have already appeared. As soon as various arrangements for publication of the rest have been finalized, we intend to make them available in bulk, free of change, to any Christian leader who can show us a viable plan for their distribution to Christian communities presently under terrorist threat, or possibly vulnerable to such threat in the future.
As opposed to the more usual interfaith initiatives, where religious dignitaries meet and smile at each other in various “safe spaces”, in contexts that exert a subtle but constant pressure upon them to soft-pedal any “divisive” doctrines, the Covenants Initiative neither requires nor encourages any degree of doctrinal agreement between Christians and Muslims. Rather, it is an example of what I call “united front ecumenism”: the will to make alliances between the faiths in the face of common enemies. Christians need not accept Muhammad as rasul Allah, a Messenger sent by God. All that’s required is that they accept him as a religious leader with a great respect and veneration for the followers of Jesus, one sworn to defend them against all comers. As for how the Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time and our other documents might be used by Christian communities in danger of attack, it’s pretty obvious that showing them to the Takfiris themselves would be worse than useless; the Takfiris care nothing about the commands and prohibitions of the Prophet Muhammad, and often react with violence against those who do. However, this book could be of great help to Christians in establishing ties with local Muslims who, while in no way supporting terrorism, may be uncertain as to how to respond in a situation where armed Takfiris claiming to be Muslims are beginning to issue threats, or have already appeared in force. We would be glad to provide any interested Christian leader with single copies of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, free of charge. In return we hope that these leaders will begin to consider how the books could best be distributed to local Christian communities in various parts of the world. Upon submission of viable plans for such distribution, we will to provide additional copies of Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, also free of charge, so they can be forwarded to Christians in need of the kind of protection they could potentially provide.
It only remains to say that, as soon as Christian leaders have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the Covenants of the Prophet, their existence should be widely publicized, and no effort spared in getting them into the hands of the Christian communities who need them. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is quite a hefty volume; it contains exhaustive arguments, both textual and historical, for the validity of the Covenants, and provides a great deal of background. More appropriate for bulk distribution is the pamphlet-sized Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time which contains only the actual texts of these documents. This book has already been translated into 14 languages: English, Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian, Azeri and Urdu. The English and Azeri editions have already appeared. As soon as various arrangements for publication of the rest have been finalized, we intend to make them available in bulk, free of change, to any Christian leader who can show us a viable plan for their distribution to Christian communities presently under terrorist threat, or possibly vulnerable to such threat in the future.
As opposed to the more usual interfaith initiatives, where religious dignitaries meet and smile at each other in various “safe spaces”, in contexts that exert a subtle but constant pressure upon them to soft-pedal any “divisive” doctrines, the Covenants Initiative neither requires nor encourages any degree of doctrinal agreement between Christians and Muslims. Rather, it is an example of what I call “united front ecumenism”: the will to make alliances between the faiths in the face of common enemies. Christians need not accept Muhammad as rasul Allah, a Messenger sent by God. All that’s required is that they accept him as a religious leader with a great respect and veneration for the followers of Jesus, one sworn to defend them against all comers. As for how the Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time and our other documents might be used by Christian communities in danger of attack, it’s pretty obvious that showing them to the Takfiris themselves would be worse than useless; the Takfiris care nothing about the commands and prohibitions of the Prophet Muhammad, and often react with violence against those who do. However, this book could be of great help to Christians in establishing ties with local Muslims who, while in no way supporting terrorism, may be uncertain as to how to respond in a situation where armed Takfiris claiming to be Muslims are beginning to issue threats, or have already appeared in force. We would be glad to provide any interested Christian leader with single copies of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, free of charge. In return we hope that these leaders will begin to consider how the books could best be distributed to local Christian communities in various parts of the world. Upon submission of viable plans for such distribution, we will to provide additional copies of Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, also free of charge, so they can be forwarded to Christians in need of the kind of protection they could potentially provide.
Let any Christian leader or activist who is interested in receiving one copy of each of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World (now available in English and Italian, and hopefully soon in Arabic) and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, free of charge, place his or her order via the contact form at http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com/ As already noted, only the English and the Azeri versions of the Six Covenants are presently available; please feel free, however, to request a copy in Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian or Urdu; we will provide one, again free of charge, as soon as it is published in the language you’ve requested.
In conclusion, please don’t take too long to decide whether or not to participate; these documents can save lives.
WHITE RACIST BULLSHIT AND DEFAMATION!
Don’t worry, though; a Moslem living in Australia has come up with a perfect solution for this demographic crisis!
(The Daily Stormer)
White countries tend to be nice places in which to live. Their infrastructures are developed, their economies are stable, their corruption levels are much lower than the global average, and their environments are clean and well-managed.
Unfortunately, due to numerous external factors that have absolutely nothing to do with Jews, most White countries suffer from fertility rates that are below population replacement levels.
Stay Connected With Us
In conclusion, please don’t take too long to decide whether or not to participate; these documents can save lives.
Newsletter from The White Resister
BY EMAILWHITE RACIST BULLSHIT AND DEFAMATION!
More and more and more WHITE bull shit!
MY PATIENCE HAS INTELLECTUAL LIMITS!
"Moslem Says Whites are a “Dying Breed,” Encourages Fellow Hajis to “Fertilize” Australian Women"
WHEN YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS, OR CHRIST, WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP FOREVER?
BAFS
|
Moslem Says Whites are a “Dying Breed,” Encourages Fellow Hajis to “Fertilize” Australian Women
Don’t worry, though; a Moslem living in Australia has come up with a perfect solution for this demographic crisis!
(The Daily Stormer)
White countries tend to be nice places in which to live. Their infrastructures are developed, their economies are stable, their corruption levels are much lower than the global average, and their environments are clean and well-managed.
Unfortunately, due to numerous external factors that have absolutely nothing to do with Jews, most White countries suffer from fertility rates that are below population replacement levels.
Stay Connected With Us
News.com.au:
This is one hardcore Haji.
Seriously, I wish all Moslems were as honest as Mohamed Elmouelhy. He was clearly absent from class when his imam taught the children about “taqiyya,” the art of deceiving infidels to subvert their nations from within.
Alternatively, perhaps he has just become overconfident, like a lot of colored folk these days, after realizing he can say whatever he wants about White people with impunity.
Either way, Islam is undoubtedly a cult of conquest, and using White women as brood mares for the global caliphate – which is Elmouelhy’s obvious implication – is essential for its continued proliferation across the globe.
Nothing in Mohamed Elmouelhy’s Facebook post is an exaggeration. His vision of an Islamic Australia would be identical to Sadiq Khan’s vision of an Islamic Britain.
The only difference between the two men is that Khan is too disciplined to share Elmouelhy’s sentiments in public, which makes him much more dangerous.
The head of the Halal Certification
Authority says Australian women need Muslim men to fertilise them to
“keep them surrounded by Muslim babies”, declaring that the “white race
will be extinct” in 40 years.
Mohamed Elmouelhy made the comments on
Facebook in response to a study by researchers from the Hebrew
University, published in the journal Human Reproduction Update, which
found declining fertility rates among men in North America, Europe,
Australia and New Zealand.
“According to the Hebrew University,
Australian men [sic] sperm count has declined by 52 per cent over the
last 40 years so your men are a dying breed, Australian women need us to
fertilise them and keep them surrounded by Muslim babies while beer
swilling, cigarette smoking, drug injecting can only dream of what
Muslim men are capable of,” Mr Elmouelhy wrote in a Facebook comment,
which was first reported by The Daily Mail and has since been deleted.
“If the country is left to the bigots the
white race will be extinct in another 40 years. Muslims have a duty to
make your women happy because you are declining, better go chose [sic] a
plot for yourself at your local cemetery. If you can’t afford it,
commit suicide it is a cheaper alternative for bigots.”
This is one hardcore Haji.
Seriously, I wish all Moslems were as honest as Mohamed Elmouelhy. He was clearly absent from class when his imam taught the children about “taqiyya,” the art of deceiving infidels to subvert their nations from within.
Alternatively, perhaps he has just become overconfident, like a lot of colored folk these days, after realizing he can say whatever he wants about White people with impunity.
Either way, Islam is undoubtedly a cult of conquest, and using White women as brood mares for the global caliphate – which is Elmouelhy’s obvious implication – is essential for its continued proliferation across the globe.
Nothing in Mohamed Elmouelhy’s Facebook post is an exaggeration. His vision of an Islamic Australia would be identical to Sadiq Khan’s vision of an Islamic Britain.
The only difference between the two men is that Khan is too disciplined to share Elmouelhy’s sentiments in public, which makes him much more dangerous.
You may mock Jesus Christ
as much as you want, but you must not mock Anne Frank. Poke fun at
Christ carrying his Cross—no problem!—but don’t dare to breathe a word
about Anne Frank’s sacred ball point pen!
'I prefer to die than live like a rat': Bravery of slain...
Crowds gather in central Paris in solidarity with murdered...
Standing together in defiance, thousands gather across...
Merkel and Cameron given extraordinary joint terror briefing...
#JeSuisCharlie sweeps Twitter as Internet users rush to show...
Soldiers on the streets: Military is brought in to protect...
Obama condemns 'cowardly evil' attack on French newspaper...
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist reveals terrorists threatened to...
Were they militarily trained? Terrifying footage shows how...
'Very little seems funny today': Private Eye editor Ian...
I hope the Isreali people do something to rein him in before Isreal is destroyed….forever!
This is one truth that has always been kept away from the public: THAT ISLAM FORBIDS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Beautiful article and a rare gem!
BAFS
VERITATIS SPLENDOR
1993
CHAPTER I – “TEACHER, WHAT GOOD MUST I DO…? ” (Mt 19:16)
– Christ and the answer to the question about morality
“Someone came to him…” (Mt 19:16)
6. The dialogue of Jesus with the rich young man, related in the nineteenth chapter of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, can serve as a useful guide for listening once more in a lively and direct way to his moral teaching: “Then someone came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?’ And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. ‘He said to him, ‘Which ones?’ And Jesus said,
‘You shall not murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
Honour your father and mother; also,
You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’
The young man said to him, ‘I have kept all these; what do I still lack?’ Jesus said to him,
‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me’ ”
(Mt 19:16-21).13
BAFS:
Note that in the very First Commandment (God’s, not Jesus’s!) the Pope has changed the word KILL into that of MURDER, which is the correct translation as made by the “Hebrews” or today’s JEWS. For nearly 2,000 years Rome had preached the wrong religion.
Now, Catholics are allowed TO KILL, but not MURDER! So, KILLING Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and other defenceless nations on earth amounts just to KILLING which is no more stressed as before!
This position of Rome is in contradiction with Saint Paul’s teachings who got rid of the Mosaic Law, nailing it to the Cross! And, by that one magical stroke, the Pope has also got rid of the doctrine of TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, which was a fallacy anyway!
Until Christians do not start thinking BY THEMSELVES and not stop listening blindly to Churches and Popes, they will never be obeying God’s Commandments!
Thank God, in Islam, we do not need Churches or Popes to tell humankind what to believe or not and what to do or not.
But, after Council Vatican II, Rome and the Churches worldwide sold out to Zionism and the International Jewish Mafia!
BAFS
20 September 2012
“Thank God, in Islam, we do not need Churches or Popes to tell humankind what to believe or not and what to do or not.”
SATAN: But, can’t you see, you fool, that even when Muslims know EXACTLY what to believe and what to do, they still believe in and do the wrong things, EXACTLY the way I want things to be done! I have got them all EXACTLY where I want, those stupid Godly Christians and Godly Muslims, those hypocrites and money-loving fake Believers, those cowards and treacherous Paradise lovers?
BAFS: Unfortunately, I do see what you mean, O Master of this wretched world! But, let’s see what your adversary God has in store for His own Creation, the Good, the Evil and the Ugly! Isn’t it strange that you the Devil should obey God faithfully by doing the maximum of evil on earth and mislead His creation whereas Believers in God would disobey Him to such an extent that they now face total annihilation?
SATAN: So, tell me, you Earthling, WHO IS THE BEST OF PLANNERS, God or Me! Who is greater, God or me?
BAFS: Are you serious, O Master of this world? Do you want me to blaspheme? But, as you say, they well deserve their fate, don’t they? All our good and saintly people are being murdered one by one and we keep drinking Coca-Cola, watching television, football, and sing to the tune of the Kosher Nostra! Whole nations of nice people that were never contaminated by the diabolical West have now completey disapperared.
SATAN: This is nothing, just wait and see!
BAFS: Well, I will wait no more as my time is almost up and I leave it to our progeny if there will be any left with good health, a free mind and humanity in their heart.
BAFS
Thursday 20th of September 2012
Actress in anti-Muslim movie sues for its removal online; sues filmmaker for fraud
Share this:
Like this:
On page 3 of the same issue, we see the photographs of the editor of Hara-Kiri Georges Bernier aka “Professor Shoron” and of three naked women holding their legs up and showing their genitals wide open with a caption saying they were “authentic” Bosnian women with banners attached to their legs saying:
Bon appétit with the French Jewish Marxist porn!
P.S. THIS IS WESTERN CIVILISATION!
Competitors in Brazil's Miss Bum Bum pageant wait to record a TV program in Osasco, a surburb of Sao Paulo, on September 24. Brazil's upcoming municipal elections are being overshadowed by the online contest, which seeks to find the cutest female behind
New French cartoons inflame prophet film tensions
THE UGLY TRUTH (MARK GLENN)
Egypt Issues Arrest Warrants for Terry Jones and Anti-Islam Filmmaker
Share this:
Like this:
Anti-Islam Film: Seventeen Killed in Pakistan
:: Pakistan
Tens of thousands protested around the country after the government encouraged peaceful protests and declared a national holiday - "Love for the Prophet Day".
But demonstrations turned violent as police and protesters clashed in several Pakistani cities – including Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. Five people were killed in Peshawar and 12 in Karachi.
One of the dead was identified as Mohammad Amir, a driver for a Pakistani television station, who was killed after police opened fire on rioters torching a cinema in Peshawar.
The United States has paid for adverts on Pakistani television which show US President Barack Obama and US Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the film.
But the president has also suggested Islamist extremists are manipulating the protests for their own ends.
"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage of the video was used as an excuse by extremists to see if they could directly harm US interests," he said.
:: France
Meanwhile, security has been tightened in France after a satirical magazine published drawings featuring the Prophet Mohammed naked.
French authorities declared street protests had been banned and interior minister Manuel Valls said there would be a crackdown if the ban was challenged.
"There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up," he said.
Charlie Hebdo magazine has said the cartoons were merely designed to satirise the international furore over the film, and the pictures have yet to cause public disorder in France.
But French embassies, schools and cultural centres have been shut in 20 Muslim countries, on orders from French authorities, and the magazine's offices have been put under police guard.
Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Muslim Council, described both the film and the cartoons as "acts of aggression". But he appealed to French Muslims not to take to the streets to protest.
:: Germany
Several hundred people gathered in the city of Freiburg in southwest of Germany to protest the film. Police banned inflammatory slogans.
Some carried banners saying: "The dignity of the Prophet Muhammad is our dignity."
The Interior Ministry postponed a poster campaign aimed at countering radical Islam among young people due to tensions caused by the US-made video.
Posters for the campaign - in German, Turkish and Arabic - were meant to go on display in German cities with large immigrant populations on Friday, but are being withheld because of the changed security situation.
:: Iraq
About 3,000 people, mostly followers of Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim groups, protested against the film and French cartoons in Basra.
Demonstrators carried Iraqi flags and posters of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, chanting "death to America" and "no to America."
:: United Kingdom
Some 100 people gathered near the Bullring in Birmingham on Friday afternoon, although the motive of the protest is unclear. No violence has been reported.
:: Bangladesh
About 10,000 Bangladeshis took to the streets of Dhaka, outside the country's National Mosque, shouting slogans and carrying placards.
A mock coffin of President Obama was burnt and a mock execution was held of the creator of the film Innocence Of Muslims.
The protesters also set fire to a French flag as they carried placards stating "Obama, you are a cheater!" and "Protest the disgrace of Prophet Muhammed!"
About 90% of Bangladesh's 153 million people are Muslims.
:: Sri Lanka
In the Sri Lankan capital Colombo, up to 2,000 Muslims were reported to have burnt effigies of Mr Obama
One of the protest organisers, Mujibur Rahman, said Muslims in Sri Lanka "have come to the streets today to join with Muslims all over the world" to protest against the film's insults to Islam and Prophet Mohammed.
He threatened to continue protests if the "US fails to ban this film and arrest its creators".
:: North Africa
Tunisian authorities banned all demonstrations on Friday and in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed last week, but protests were being planned.
Lebanese Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites took part in protests in the southern port city of Sidon, where Sunni clerics called "a day of rage" against insults to the Prophet Mohammed but urged followers to contain their anger to inside the mosques.
:: Lebanon
Thousands gathered in the Bekaa valley for the latest in a series of protest rallies organised by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Protesters carried the yellow Hezbollah flag.
:: Malaysia
About 3,000 Muslims marched on the US embassy, burning an American flag topped with the Jewish Star of David.
Although there was no violence, angry demonstrators declared their willingness to sacrifice their lives to defend the honour of the Prophet Mohammed and warned "there will be consequences" over the film.
"We will not allow the prophet to be insulted. We are willing to sacrifice our lives and property," said Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, an official with the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, which spearheaded the march.
:: Indonesia
Indonesians staged anti-French and anti-American protests in the capital Jakarta. Protesters gathered outside US and French embassies, which were closed on the Muslim holy day amid fears of violence.
Demonstrators targeted American fast food outlets, and there were minor scuffles with police.
In Medan, North Sumatra province, dozens of protesters from the hardline Islamic Defenders Front burnt an American flag outside the US consulate.
:: Afganistan
About 900 people have gathered for a protest against the film in the capital, Kabul, chanting "death to America" and burning an effigy of President Barack Obama and an American flag.
A few hundred demonstrators also protested inside a mosque in the eastern city of Ghazni. The protests were peaceful.
“Basheer so true, this along with the firing of the generals are good moves by Egypt.”
DEAR MJ
Salaam
Thanks for the observation.
As you know I have been spending quite some time interviewing and speaking to Satan himself, and I enjoy doing it, but this woman is worse than Satan. Miss Leigh Sales has hate written on her face and every word she utters is full of lies, hate, disinformation and venom.
Of course, Brother Mustafa is not a “preacher of hate”, and Miss Leigh knows this very well as she has gone through the ‘pain’ to find out whether he was preaching hate or not. Strangely enough, she should have known this was not true, but by some kind of (Jewish) miracle all she found was one fake website, most probably set up by MOSSAD, Jews or Zionists, with totally fabricated statements that Brother Mustafa confirms are not from Hizb ut Tahrir, and which she almost defiantly ‘handed over’ to him as HER evidence. And, she really did not seem concerned in the least that she was wrong, or caught up using disinformation live, when Brother Mustafa said “this does not look like our website”. Her main concern was exclusively about Jews and Israel.
“ERADICATING ISRAEL AND PURIFYING THE EARTH OF JEWISH FILTHS”. That is certainly hateful, isn’t it?
This is all she could come up with as evidence, a fake website! She does not give a damn about Muslims, about their suffering, about them being exterminated by the millions, starved, persecuted, exiled, tortured, demonised, and raped, and so on.
“DO YOU THIK THAT JEWS SHOULD BE ERADICATED?” This is all she is interested in, and she even condones the slaughter the West and the Jews (like Bernard Henri Lévi, Nicolas Sarkozy, Laurent Fabius…) carried out in Libya because she argues Colonel Ghaddafi committed the capital crime of “not doing a great job for its citizens”!
On the good side, Brother Mustafa managed to say without being interrupted (which shows that Miss Leigh is not that vicious!) what Hizb ut Tahrir and I have been saying for decades now, that WE NEED TO ESTABALISH A KHILAAFAH AND SHARI’A LAW IN OUR OWN MUSLIM LANDS!
Miss Leigh proves that she is just another stooge for Israel and the Jews or Jewish interest by trying to insinuate that Br Mustafa was condoning the killing of the US ambassador. Her logic stinks.
After admitting that she heard Br Mustafa say on a Youtube video: “American ambassadors should not be in Muslim countries. They should leave and go home.”, which he confirms, she asks Br Mustafa if he was saying THEREFORE THAT THE US AMBASSADOR WAS ASKING FOR IT BECAUSE HE WAS THERE, which, of course, he was not saying!
Lastly, our brave Miss Leigh seemed so concerned about a child carrying a sign saying:
“BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT PROPHET MUHAMMAD!”
But, she shows no concern at all about all the Muslims that the West is beheading, bombing, killing, holocausting, on a daily basis.
But, I bet if Brother Mustafa would explain himself and Hizb ut Tahrir policy independently, no mainstream media would air it at all, including her.
Yet, on the whole, we have to give the she-devil her due, as she allowed Brother Mustapha to say what he wanted to say and toned down her aggressiveness near the end. So, she is not that bad after all, and may even make a good Muslimah, insha’Allah!
I am glad to see our Brother Mustafa keeping his calm. I would not have been able to. But, my initial remark (which I have removed) was that our Brother Mustafa was a blooming idiot for exposing himself and Muslims to ridicule like our Br Dr Tariq Ramadan does so often. This nonsense about “peaceful protest” by calling for street picnics where the innocent gets injured and even killed should stop! Sixteen got killed today FOR NOTHING in Pakistan!
Why not PEACEFUL BOYCOTT INSTEAD?
I went shopping to buy wholemeal sliced bread several times, but each time I found it had E471 in its ingredients, which is en anzyme obtained either from pork (cheaper to make) or beef. So, I did not buy it. Out of all the drinks they sell in the shops, I buy only juices pressed from fruits and with no artificial junk like aspartame. I try to avoid meat as much as possible because meat is a killer and eat as ‘natural’ as possible although I have not far to go in life. My grand daughters want me to live longer and I pray to God to give me health to be able to take care of them as long as possible! I do not waste food or money and do not buy junk like most City Muslims do! So, protesting is picnic (in my view) while boycotting hurts the usurious Jews and the war mongers EXACTLY where it should! Now, it is useless to protest when we support Muslim governments that are members of the Zionist United Nations Dictatorship! We will not be able to establish the Khilaafah as long as we bow down to UN dictates!
Without the Khilaafah, Islam will remain in the gutter and Muslims will continue to be exterminated!
Thanks again.
Salaam.
Basheer
PAK DEFENCE UNIT
Blasphemy or freedom of speech
Muslims have been protesting against the movie, at some places protests are staged in a peaceful way while in most states these have turned violent, such as the killing of American diplomats in Libya and the burning of public and private property and loss of innocent lives in Pakistan. This is not the first time when blasphemous act has been committed against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there has been a chain of events, at first books were written to defame the Prophat Muhammad (PBUH), then caricatures were drawn in Denmark and other European newspapers and now a malicious attempt has been made to produce a sacrilegious movie. This movie has followed by publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Frenchmagazine Charlie Hebdo that have added fuel to anti-Western sentiments in Muslims.
In the post 9/11 era the wrong image of Islam has been portrayed in the Western societies and it is considered as a threat to Western civilization. New terminologies are being introduced that are being associated with Islam such as radicalization, extremism, fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia. People like Sam Bacile are representing the so-called Islamophobia, the filmmaker has deliberated focused on fermenting violence. Filmmakers should have anticipated that it will create unrest and violence in Muslim societies because for the Muslims, love for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been considered as part of the faith. Veneration of all prophets of Allah is a fundamental principle of faith in Islam. If we see what has been the reaction of Muslim states it becomes obvious that Muslim masses are protesting against blasphemy of their religion but their leaders are silent. They have not raised a collective voice. Unfortunately, there is lack of will on the part of Muslim leaders to project a common cause.
Criminalizing the defamation of religion has been on the agenda of OIC for some time but it could not get support from the western liberal democracies. At present, Turkey is heading the OIC, but it is not yet clear that organization has consulted with its members to bring a resolution to ban blasphemy. OIC member states must get agreed on a common agenda that UN should declare blasphemy as a criminal offence and should present their case from a unitary platform so that it could have a forceful effect. If denial of holocaust has been prohibited by law in majority of Western states to respect the sensitivities of 13 million Jewish population then why indifferent laws and practices against over 1.5 billion Muslim population?
It is our right to protest against such attacks on our religion but the protest should be staged in a peaceful manner. Our Prophet (PBUH) stood for peace in his whole life. If we resort to violent means and destruction of our own property then we may not be able to highlight the noble cause to which each one of us is duty bound to raise our voice. Western notion of freedom of speech and expression can not be accepted in its current form. There should be a clear distinction between what constitutes free speech and what will be considered as hate speech against any religion. Turkish Prime Minister has rightly said that free speech comes with boundaries, “Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others starts”.
UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon referring to anti-Islam movie has also made it clear that the right of freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs can not be protected, it can only be guaranteed and protected as a fundamental right when it is used for common justice, and common purpose. To promote interfaith harmony, it is the duty of Western governments to take this issue seriously and to come up with some proposals that could address the discriminatory law of freedom of expression and could differentiate between freedom of speech and blasphemy.
Insults, incitement and Islam
Across the Muslim World there is rightly outrage and hurt at the latest calculated attack on Islam, in the form of the film trailer Innocence of Muslims. All who hold human rights and moral decency close to their heart share their indignation.Freedom of speech is a basic human right, protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. And 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Rights enshrined in law that are nevertheless denied to many, rights supposedly honoured in democratic countries.
Expressions of free speech that are little more than propaganda, that consciously incite hatred and spark acts of violence are rightly restricted under the very law that protects our freedom of expression. Article 20, paragraph 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Innocence of Muslims
The deliberately amateurish film with no real narrative portrays the Prophet Mohammed as a violent and lascivious fool. It is cheaply made, poorly acted and directed, and as a piece of filmmaking it is to be dismissed out of hand, but as The Guardian 17/09/2012 put it “the really sinister thing is that all this ham-fistedness and crassness is an important sense deliberate. It has to look like propaganda for the provocation to be effective.” The actors claim they did not know what the film was about, or it’s purpose and some speak of suing the producers. The BBC reports, “One actress featured in the film said she had no idea it would be used for anti-Islamic propaganda and condemned it.” Offensive dialogue that insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has been crudely added after filming.
The trailer was written and produced in the USA by Nakoula Basseley, a Coptic (Egyptian) Christian living in California, who drafted much of the script whilst serving a prison sentence for fraud. And directed, according to Gawker “by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts …. He’s the creative vision behind soft-core porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.” Whether a full film version exists is speculation, the trailer however has done its toxic, destructive work.
Basseley says his wife’s family paid for the film, but it is still unclear how it was funded or what the cost was. Whatever the amount, it is hard to justify any expense at all on a film rooted in such prejudice and hatred, which serves no purpose other than to hurt and insult Muslims throughout the World, reinforce negative stereotypes, incite violence and fuel division. The film is as The Guardian 17/09/2012 state “a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world… it might be risible were it not for the ugly Islamophobia which it promotes and whose effects are now being seen around the world.”
Intended fury
The film has unsurprisingly prompted widespread protests throughout the World. On the 11th September In Cairo protesters scaled the walls of the embassy, pulled down the US flag and called for the expulsion of the US ambassador to Cairo. In Libya the U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American staff members were killed in the American embassy in what appears to have been an unrelated pre-planned military style attack, as The Observer 16/09/2012 comments “The murder of US diplomats was not carried out spontaneously, but by a jihadist militia that wanted to kill Americans on the 9/11 anniversary.”
Protests directly triggered by the offensive, degrading film, have since taken place in countries with large Muslim populations, sadly causing as the BBC 14/09/2012 reports more loss of life. “Three people were killed when the US embassy in Khartoum was attacked, Sudanese state radio said. In Tunisia, two people were killed after crowds breached the US embassy compound in Tunis. There was one death in Egypt and one in Lebanon.” In Yemen hundreds of students demonstrated in the capital Sanaa and demanded the US ambassador be expelled, thousands waved flags on the streets of Beirut and chanted “America hear us – don’t insult our Prophet.” The Guardian 17/09/2012 reports that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah has “called for new demonstrations to express outrage at a film that denigrates Islam and the prophet Muhammad. “Prophet of God, we offer ourselves, our blood and our kin for the sake of your dignity and honour,” Nasrallah told supporters who chanted “death to Israel” and “death to America” at a rally in the southern Shia suburbs of Beirut.”
The Philippines Indonesia, usually calm Qatar, Afghanistan, London, Kashmir, all have witnessed demonstrations and in Pakistan access to You tube has been blocked by the government, the Prime Minister, rightly describing the film as “”blasphemous.” Such is the deep-seated feeling amongst the people of the Muslim community. An open wound has been deliberately inflamed and the people cry out in anger and frustration.
Free speech or incitement
The film and the reaction to it, has prompted much to be written and spoken about unrestricted free speech and the dangers of censorship. Writing in The Observer Nick Cohen argues that, “Nothing, however vile, justifies censorship. Even in the hardest of cases such as this anti-Islamic film, the old arguments against censorship remain the best.” The observation of basic human rights is the foundation for any democratic society and free speech is a fundamental requirement. Where it is absent totalitarian control of one kind of another becomes possible, perhaps inevitable.
There are though many methods of control and restriction of freedoms, both crude and subtle. Is for example the manufacturing of consent, a form of sociological coercion commonplace in America (and elsewhere) compatible with freedom and/or democratic principles of independent thinking and participation. Noam Chomsky, “the anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious, and for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.” The ‘Great Beast’ is of course us – the 99%.
The making and distribution of this film is not an expression of freedom of any kind, it contributes nothing of value to the political environment or social discourse and has no artistic merit. The Anna Lindh Foundation reinforces this view in their statement made on 16/09/12, asserting “Innocence of Muslims is an inflammatory pamphlet, the distribution of which – on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th – cannot be abridged to a manifestation of freedom of expression.”
International law, acting as a guide and aid to clarity of thinking, states there are limits to free speech. Where such expression is clearly based on racial or religious hatred and incites violence, then it is illegal and the perpetrators subject to prosecution. For where the law is infringed consequences follow – something Israel should be made aware of. What is crucial is the motive. If something is spoken, written, painted, drawn, filmed etc. with the premeditated intention of causing offense, because it is rooted in hatred of one kind or another it is outside the law.
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental human right, but it does not stand alone, or above other related rights, such as human dignity and mutual respect. All need to coexist and indeed all are indivisible.
Unless the filmmakers of Innocence of Muslims are completely naïve or plain stupid, they would have known that producing a film in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed, as a violent, promiscuous simpleton would inevitably cause offense and would probably result in violent demonstrations. Therefore the film breaches international guidelines on free speech, and should be banned, its makers charged and prosecuted. Al Jazeera 14/09/2012 quote the filmmaker Danny Schechter, whose view on the film is clear: “It is very political from beginning to end. It’s not about free expression; it’s about propaganda. The film is incitement – it’s not information, it’s not filmmaking and it’s really intended as a technique of war-making.”
What good can possibly come from continuing to allow such a distasteful film to be circulated? It serves no purpose other than to provoke further potential violence. Enabling Muslims to be marginalized and demonized once more, constructing some perverse justification for continued American and Israeli intimidation, aggression and the spreading of paranoia. Allowing this film to be shown or not has little to do with censorship and/or free speech, and to reduce this issue to such notions is a convenient, distraction, fabricated in order to avoid discussing the filmmakers intention and the underlying causes of Islamists hurt and anger, which arise largely out of American foreign policy.
Simmering resentment “the safeguard of justice”
Opinion amongst large numbers of Islamists throughout the Muslim World towards America is overwhelmingly negative. The Pew Research Center found in a recent survey that “There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular.” In fact according to the Pew report only 15% of Muslims have confidence in President Obama, approve of his foreign policies and hold favorable views of America in general. Pew state, “In a number of strategically important Muslim nations, America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency.” In fact it has deteriorated, as US policies throughout the region continue to cause consternation amongst large numbers of Muslims, (and of course more widely).
American support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, which violates a host of international and indeed national laws and contravenes numerous UN resolutions, is perhaps top of the list. Followed by the Iraq war US involvement in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen, long running proxy wars in Somalia, and US support for what the BBC call ‘friendly dictators’. Add confinement without trial, abuse and torture in Guantanamo and Bagram prisons, the burning of the Qur’an by US soldiers in Afghanistan and Florida Pastor Terry Jones and disrespecting the dead bodies of Afghans. The list is indeed long and damning, and so it goes on.
The recent demonstrations were simply sparked by the film Innocence of Muslims; it was of course not the root cause of the protests. As the BBC 15/09/2012 state “we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism – with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a trigger.” Of course extremists were involved they never miss an opportunity, their violent actions distorting the events feeding prejudice and creating a convenient diversion from the issues.
US ideals of peace justifying conflict
All violence is to be condemned and the attacks that caused deaths and injuries resulting from these protests are no exception, they should not be allowed to take centre stage though, and it must be stated that the vast majority of actions undertaken have been peaceful and without incident. The Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF) says in relation to the protests that “the vast majority of Muslim public opinion has expressed its anger to the release of the film peacefully and individually, and the Arab governments of the region have reiterated their commitment with cultural inclusiveness while condemning the attacks to diplomatic delegations.”
To speak with solemnity and shock, calling for justice against the perpetrators of violence as US officials have, is expected and indeed right, albeit hypocritical and reactionary. In order to create peace however it is necessary to remove the causes of conflict, in this case those causes are complex and not confined to one poorly made deeply offensive film. Offensive let us add, not just to Muslims, who are understandably enraged, but to all right minded men and women respectful and tolerant of others beliefs and cultures.
American foreign policy is seen by many to be that which seeks to extend the influence and maximize the power of America, safeguard their interests at the expense of others and the natural environment and support criminality – Israel comes to mind. Such distasteful American foreign policies go back decades, as Noam Chomsky states in The Guardian “Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive regimes to take their oil.” A perception proved to be correct.
Ideologically driven, rooted in a desire to export worldwide an American version, or vision, of democracy, which they claim to be the highest ideal for all. The attitude is that when all follow America’s lead on matters relating to economics, politics, religion and social affairs, peace will inevitably follow, and not until. With this doctrine in mind America has sought to dominate the world, repeatedly making war in the name of peace.
Peace though is beyond ideology. For peace to envelop our world as men ad women everywhere hope, there must be tolerance, cooperation and understanding of others, not ideological imposition – of any kind. The equitable sharing of natural resources, of knowledge, ideas and experience will create justice. Dissipating mistrust and resentment leading to peace and a natural movement towards unity that encourages the greatest possible diversity enriching the lives of us all.
Occidental double standards
The recent outrage by the Muslim Ummah protesting against a low budget blasphemous movie produced in theUSAand the West’s condemnation of the remonstration of the Islamists depict occidental double standards.The US State Department assures the Muslims that the sacrilegious film was not sponsored by it. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, during her meeting with her Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar, made it clear that the protests that had turned violent and, sadly, resulted in loss of life, cannot be tolerated. She admitted that there is provocation, and theUShad made clear that it does not in any way support provocation. She reiterated that theUSadministration found the video, which is at the core of this series of events, offensive, disgusting and reprehensible.
Unfortunately, the West displays double standards in its dealing. Terry Jones, a small time pastor of Dove World Outreach Centre, a small nondenominational Christian church inGainesville,Florida, had his 10 minutes of fame when he burnt copies of the Holy Quràn. His despicable act was condemned, but no legal action was taken against him. The Danish caricatures ridiculing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were in bad taste and violently protested by the Muslim Ummah, but no legal action was taken against the cartoonist, who caused mental agony to billions of Muslims all over the globe. Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses, was revered by the West although his blasphemous book was reviled by the Muslims all over the globe. Now similar revulsion has been caused by the profane film, which would have gone unnoticed if the producer had not taken pains to translate it in Arabic and post it on YouTube.
The sad aspect is that all these heinous acts causing mental anguish to Muslims for defaming their beloved Prophet (PBUH) are brushed aside by the West under the ‘Freedom of Speech Act’.
It is, indeed, doublespeak when the punishment for the denial of Holocaust ranges to imprisonment of one up to 10 years in a number of Western countries. Nudity is permissible but in some Western countries, Muslim women covering their heads with scarves can be punished or sacked from their jobs or expelled from educational institutions. InDenmark, the construction of magnificent palaces, citadels and mansions is permissible, but the domes of mosques are prohibited. Smoking at public places is prohibited as it is injurious to health, but the onslaught of venomous comments against a religious entity is permissible under freedom of speech. InGermany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is banned, but books preaching hate and odium against Islam are tolerable. It is high time that the Occident reviews its laws against blasphemy and the reviling of other religions.
On the other hand, Muslims, and especially Pakistanis, need to rein in our anger.September 21, 2012, was declared as the day of ‘Love for the Holy Prophet (PBUH)’, but it turned into a day of expressing extreme hatred, violence and aggression. The same Holy Prophet (PBUH), whom we revere and whose Sunnah (teaching and practices) we are ordained to follow, were conveniently forgotten. The Prophet (PBUH) was a paragon of love and virtue. He decried violent behaviour and forgave even those who caused him physical harm.
Against this backdrop, Pakistanis, who attacked and burned a church, cinema houses, looted ATMs, torched cars and petrol pumps, only caused damage to their own country. They lost an ideal opportunity to display to the world that their sentiments had been hurt. By giving vent to their emotions through violent acts, they only revealed their barbaric nature and brought Islam a bad name. No wonder, an Indian student has taunted that India does not need to build Pakistan-specific Agni and Prithvi missiles —- “just produce a blasphemous movie, post it on YouTube and in retaliation, Pakistanis will destroy their own country.”
Brazil moves against Google over videos
A Brazilian court has ordered YouTube to remove an anti-Islam video that prompted violent protests across the Muslim world, while an elections court has ordered the arrest of a Google executive after the popular video-sharing service failed to remove a video attacking a mayoral candidate.Tuesday’s decision by a state court in Sao Paulo, home to a large Middle Eastern immigrant community, came just hours after Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff criticised “Islamophobia” in Western countries in a speech at the UN.
In a statement, the court said Judge Gilson Delgado Miranda gave the video-sharing site ten days to remove videos of the film, “Innocence of Muslims”.
After that, it will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil.
The case against the controversial film was brought by a Brazilian Muslim group, the National Islamic Union, against Google Inc, the owner of YouTube, for posting on the internet a film it said was offensive and a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Miranda said the case juxtaposed freedom of expression and the need to protect individuals or groups of people from action that might incite religious discrimination.
Miranda concluded that banning something illegal should not “offend” freedom of thought and expression, according to the ruling posted online by Estado de S. Paulo newspaper.
It was not the only Brazilian court ruling against Google on Tuesday. Earlier, an elections court ordered the arrest of Google’s most senior executive in Brazil after the company failed to take down YouTube videos attacking a local mayoral candidate.
Google is appealing the order, which follows a similar decision by another Brazilian election judge. In that case, a judge found another senior executive responsible for violating local election law. That decision was overturned last week.
The legal challenges underline broader questions about Google’s responsibility for content uploaded by third parties to its websites.
Fifteen people were killed in Pakistan during demonstrations over the video on Friday.
People involved in the film, an amateurish 13-minute clip of which was posted on YouTube, have said it was made by a 55-year-old California man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
Muslim leaders condemn Islamophobia at UN General Assembly
Muslim leaders have called on the Western countries to stop spreading Islamophobia and blasphemy in their communities, challenging US President Barack Obama’s defense of freedom of expression.In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama condemned the “violence and intolerance” which has erupted across the world over a blasphemous anti-Islam film produced in the United States.
He also stated that the removal of such sacrilegious videos or offensive publications from the Internet would be a violation of the US constitution, which “protects the right to practice free speech.”
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono challenged Obama’s speech, saying the insulting movie was another example of religious defamation.
He also called for the establishment of an international “instrument to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs.”
In addition to Yudhoyono, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari asked the UN to take actions against the “incitement of hate” against Muslims.
“Although we can never condone violence, the international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” Zardari said during his speech at the General Assembly.
Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced the anti-Islam movie and said, “The menace of Islamophobia is a worrying phenomenon that threatens peace and co-existence.”
The Muslim world has been boiling with anti-Western sentiments over a blasphemous film named Innocence of Muslims, which insults Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Muslim protesters across the globe demand the US government apologize to the Muslims and punish those behind the blasphemous act.
Freedom of Speech - Double Standards?
Islam21c requests all the readers of this article, and others, to share it on your facebook, twitter, and other platforms to further spread our efforts.
So what they are doing now is shifting the focus, after they have finished off Christianity, they are now attacking Islam. But the whole war is against spirituality as a whole."
This last week in yet another anti-Muslim move, a French magazine published a caricature of the prophet of Islam (PBUH), sparking more outrage in the Muslim world and with no stoppage or condemnation by France or any other Western governments.
Press TV has interviewed Mr. Manfred Petritsch, an international activist and prominent finance expert. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: 1.3 billion people… Muslims. And we have this new wave of attack on Islam. These people, these Western countries, the Western people, those who are attacking Islam - Who are these people and why is it they are doing so?
Petritsch Well, I think they are trying to… We have to see this as a general picture of a war against spirituality. That means, they are not particularly attacking Islam, but they are attacking spirituality as a whole.
The attack against Christianity has been happening already since a long time and Christianity is more or less destroyed.
So what they are doing now is shifting the focus, after they have finished off Christianity, they are now attacking Islam. But the whole war is against spirituality as a whole.
Press TV: We saw in the United States the blasphemous film that sparked tensions and protests all across the world. The US Ambassador to Libya was killed; more than 40 people across the world were killed in those protests.
And right in the midst of all these protests and tensions, France allows a person, a magazine, a publisher to print another set of blasphemous material, this time cartoons insulting the prophet of Islam. And yet the French authorities did not do anything to stop that although they knew that it might create further tension in the world - they didn’t stop that.
At the same time, they stopped the French magazine that published nude pictures of the British princess. So, what is going on here? Why is this happening, why the disparity?
Petritsch Well, this shows you exactly the double standard the West operates in many ways. So if it is against what they want then they of course stop it, like the photos of the princess, which is of course, wrong to invade her personal life.
But how can the insult of a whole religion be less important than the personal feelings of one person?
So, on the one hand the same government or the same system in France closes down a magazine because of nude pictures, but on the other hand allows insulting cartoons against a whole religion. And this shows how the West always uses double standards, in many ways… This exposes it, that what they are doing is a lie.
Press TV: Do you think the attacks will continue - the attacks on Islam?
Petritsch As I said before we are talking about a war against spirituality… You see, a lot of people believe that the cause for all this protest is the film. But I think it’s not the film, the film was just the ignition point.
There was a whole explosive mixture existing because of the American foreign policy or the foreign policy of the West as a whole against all Islamic countries; against the war they are fighting; against this double standard they are doing; against the killer drones, which are killing hundreds of civilians.
And all this explosive mixture was there and now the film came along and was the ignition point. So I think the people are not protesting specially against the film, they are protesting against the whole attitude of the West towards the Islamic countries.
Press TV: The issue of human rights particularly the issue of European countries talk more often than not about the issue of human rights in terms of, they want those countries that they say violate human rights to be brought to justice and they themselves say that they are the biggest advocates of human rights in the world.
A lot of people say that the sanctions against Iran that primarily affect ordinary people in the country; they say these sanctions are in essence in violation of human rights of the Iranian people. What do you think?
Petritsch Absolutely. Anybody who reads the Charter of the United Nations sees that sanctions must not cover, for instance, medical supplies or food and things like that. That means anything that touches the basic human rights of people you cannot sanction, right?
But they are doing it, so they are violating not only their own laws, but also the laws of the United Nations. But who is there to take them to court? That is a big problem, you know.
Press TV: You come from Switzerland. Switzerland is part of the countries that are imposing sanctions against Iran. Is that something legal in terms of the Swiss Constitution, the Swiss internal laws?
Petritsch: No. The Swiss government is acting illegally because Switzerland and the spirit of Switzerland, is based on neutrality. That’s what Switzerland is all about. And it’s about humanitarian aid. That’s also why the Red Cross has its headquarters there, and UNICEF and all these humanitarian organizations.
So what the Swiss government is doing by blindly following the sanctions of the United States and of the EU is, in my opinion, definitely breaking the laws and the spirit of Switzerland.
That is not correct because they’re taking sides, and Switzerland does not take sides -- it always helps, normally, people who are suffering. And I know that the Iranian people are suffering because of these sanctions.
Press TV: How does Switzerland explain, justify the sanctions against Iran?
Petritsch: The Swiss Foreign Ministry and the government say that they cannot step out of line, out of this NATO policy. They cannot be something different because otherwise they will suffer themselves.
But I think that the Swiss politicians should have enough backbone to say to the EU and NATO countries ‘you can do what you want, but we have our own policies’.
Press TV: Switzerland is not taking independent policies?
Petritsch: No. That is a big problem that a lot of people see, that more and more, Switzerland is losing its independence, its own free decision-making, its neutrality. This has a couple of reasons:
First, the reason is that we are, in Switzerland, under huge pressure from the outside because we are surrounded by NATO countries and by EU countries. So you can imagine being a small island in this sea, we are under huge pressure - just like Iran.
They don’t like independent countries. They don’t like countries that don’t follow their policies. So this is a huge pressure. The problem is that our government is collapsing to these pressures and they shouldn’t do that.
Press TV: Let’s talk about a different topic, the issue of terrorism in the world. Militants, insurgency, a lot of al-Qaeda fighters, al-Qaeda insurgents who have been fighting American and NATO forces in the past 11, 12 years, these people are now fighting in Syria against the Syrian government.
When they fight in Afghanistan, they are called insurgents, they are called terrorists. When they fight in Syria, they are called freedom fighters. How does that sit in terms of double standards in the way that the West is looking at these people, the same people, but different titles when it comes to different countries?
Petritsch: Well, here we have again the proof that the West works with double standards. So for the West, there is good terrorism and bad terrorism.
Turkey is a very good example. Turkey allows bases for al-Qaeda terrorists, training camps where they’re supplied with weapons, and then sent to Syria to cause terror. But at the same time, the government fights terror, which comes from the outside, from Iraq, from the PKK.
Here we have a perfect example of how on the one hand they support terrorism when it is to their own good; and on the other hand, they fight it when it is against them. This shows how the West always uses double standards in many ways.
Press TV: Is there anything else that you wanted to discuss?
Petritsch: I would like to say to your viewers that Iran has many friends in the West who are realizing more and more that the way Iran is treated is wrong. Also, that there is a completely wrong picture about Iran out there.
The reason is that the Western media purposely is showing the wrong picture about how the Iranians are, what they think, what they want.
I hope that with more and more information, we can open up the minds of the people more so that they understand that what their governments are doing is wrong against Iran.
We are fighting here an information war. The question is, who will win this information war? We are up against a huge enemy with endless resources, who control all the media and therefore they can show this wrong picture. The question is can we counter that?
SC/GMA/JR