-Caveat Lector-
From: "Jayson R. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the first place, I have some grave reservations about the
> veracity of this blurb. It does not correspond to what little I
> know of Islam, in that Islam does not have any evangelicism (convert
> or die) in its history.
http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/
Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society
Home
Women and Islam
Islamic Skeptics
Separation of Mosque and State
A Skeptic's Guide to the Koran
Human Rights Declarations
Human Rights and Islam
Jihad
News from the Islamic World
News from Bangladesh
News from Egypt
Recent Research on the Origins of Islam
Newsletter "Secular Islam" (Quarterly)
Reviews of Ibn Warraq
Articles
Books, Books, Books!
Links
Feedback:
Comments, Suggestions, Reactions
Online Discussion Forum
Letters from Readers
Site Map
Contact Information
-------------------------------------------------------
Jihad, the Arab Conquests and the Position of Non-
Muslim Subjects
Apologists of Islam still insist on perpetuating the
myth of an Islam which accorded equality to her non-
Muslim subjects, they talk of a time when all the
various religious communities lived in perfect harmony
in the Islamic lands. The same apologists minimize, or
even excuse, the persecution, the discrimination, the
forced conversions, the massacres, the destruction of
the churches, synagogues, fire temples and other
places of worship. This rosy but totally false
picture of Islam is also built up by
(1) ignoring the destruction and the massacres during
the actual process of the Arab conquests;
(2) by concentrating almost exclusively on the fate of
Jews and Christians, and consequently dismissing the
fate of idolaters (are they not human?), Zoroastrians,
Hindus and Buddhists
(3) by relying on Muslim sources, as though they are
bound to be less biased!
(4) by ignoring, or excusing the appalling behaviour
of the Prophet towards the Jews;
(5) by ignoring the intolerant, hostile, anti- Jewish,
anti-Christian, and above all, anti-pagan sentiments
expressed in the Koran which were the source of much
intolerant, fanatical and violent behaviour throughout
the history of Islam against all non-Muslims.
EARLY ATTITUDES: Muhammad and the Koran
The Koran has been divided into early and late Suras,
the Meccan and Medinan Suras respectively. Most of
the tolerant sentiments of Muhammad are to be found in
the early, Meccan Suras:
cix "Recite: O Unbelievers, I worship not what you
worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I
shall never worship what you worship. Neither will you
worship what I worship. To you your religion, to me my
religion l.45 "We well know what the infidels say:
but you are not to compel them."
xliii. 88,89 "And [Muhammad] says, "O Lord, these are
people who do not believe." Bear with them and wish
them 'Peace' . In the end they shall know their
folly."
The exceptions are to be found in Sura ii, which is
usually considered Medinan i.e. late:
ii.256 "There is no compulsion in religion";
ii.62"Those who believe [i.e.Muslims] and those who
follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and
the Sabians, and who believe in God and the Last Day
and work righteousness, shall have their reward with
their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they
grieve."
Unfortunately, as he gained in confidence and
increased his political and military power, Muhammad
turned from being a "persuader to being a legislator
and warrior, dictating obedience." The Medinan
chapters such as Suras ix, v, iv, xxii, xlvii, viii,
and ii reveal Muhammad at his most belligerent,
dogmatic and intolerant.
Muslim theologians are unanimous in declaring that no
religious toleration was extended to the idolaters of
Arabia at the time of Muhammad. The only choice given
them was death or the acceptance of Islam. This total
intolerance never seems to be taken into consideration
by the apologists of Islam when they lay claims to
Islamic tolerance. Unbelievers in general are shown
no mercy in the Koran which is full of lurid
descriptions of the punishments awaiting them.
xxii.9:"As for the unbelievers for them garments of
fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their
heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their
bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be
punished with hooked iron- rods. The Koran also
enjoins all Muslims to fight and kill non-believers:
xlvii.4: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off
their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter
among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
CHRISTIANS AND JEWS IN THE KORAN
Christians are marginally better regarded than the
Jews, but the Koran still accuses them of falsifying
the scriptures.
v.75:" They surely are infidels who say, "God is the
third of three"; for there is but one God; and if they
do not refrain from what they say, a severe punishment
shall light on those who are unbelievers."
They are also accused of worshipping Jesus as the son
of God, and like the Jews, they have been led astray
and must be brought back to the true religion, that
is, Islam.
According to the Koran, Jews have intense hatred of
all true Muslims, and as a punishments for their sins,
some of them had, in the past, been changed into apes
and swine (Sura v.63), and others will have their
hands tied to their necks and be cast into the Fire on
Judgment day. The attitude enjoined upon the Muslims
towards the Jews can only be described as anti-
Semitic, and certainly was not conducive to a better
understanding, tolerance or co- existence.
v.51: Believers, do not take Jews or Christians as
friends They are but one another's friends. If anyone
of you takes them for his friends, then he is surely
one of them. God will not guide evil-doers."
v.56_64: O Believers, do not take as your friends the
infidels or those who received the Scriptures before
you [Jews and Christians] and who scoff and jest at
your religion, but fear God if you are believers. Nor
those who when you call them to prayer, make it an
object of mirth and derision This is only because they
are a people who do not understand. Say: "People of
the Book: isn't it true that you hate us simply
because we believe in God, and in what He has sent
down to us, and in what He has revealed to others
before; and because most of you are evil doers?" "Why
don't their rabbis and doctors of lax forbid them from
uttering sinful words and eating unlawful food? Evil
indeed are their works. "The hand of God is chained
up", claim the Jews. Their own hands shall be chained
up -- and they shall be cursed for saying such a
thing."
Jews are often accused, in the Koran, of perverting
the scriptures, and holding doctrines they never held:
ix.29,30:"Declare war upon those to whom the
Scriptures were revealed but believe neither in God
nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God
and His Apostle have forbidden, and who refuse to
acknowledge the true religion [Islam] until they pay
the poll-tax without reservation and are totally
subjugated. "The Jews claim that Ezra is a son of
God, and the Christians say, "the Messiah is a son of
God. "Those are their claims which do indeed resemble
the sayings of the Infidels of Old. May God do battle
with them! How they are deluded!"
And they deserve fully any punishment they get:
ii.61:"Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon
them [That is the Jews] and they drew on themselves
the wrath of God. This was because they [the Jews]
disbelieved the signs of God and slew the Prophets
unjustly, and because they rebelled and transgressed."
iv.160,161: Because of the wickedness of certain Jews,
and because they turn many from the way of God, We
have forbidden them good and wholesome foods which
were formerly allowed them; and because they have
taken to usury, though they were forbidden it; and
have cheated others of their possessions, We have
prepared a grievous punishment for the Infidels
amongst them."
Such are some of the sentiments expressed in the
Koran, which remains for all Muslims, and not just
"fundamentalists", the uncreated word of God Himself.
It is valid for all times and places, its ideas are,
according to all Muslims, absolutely true and beyond
any criticism. I have already described the treatment
of the Jews by Muhammad, whose behaviour is certainly
not above reproach. The cold-blooded extermination of
the Banu Qurayza (between 600 and 900 men), the
expulsion of the Nadir and their later massacre
(something often overlooked in the history books) are
not signs of magnanimity or compassion. His treatment
of the Jews of the oasis of Khaybar served "as a model
for the treaties granted by the Arab conquerors to the
conquered peoples in territories beyond Arabia.
"Muhammad attacked the oasis in 628, had one of the
leaders tortured to find the hidden treasures of the
tribe, and then when the Jews surrendered, agreed to
let them continue cultivating their oasis only if they
gave him half their produce. Muhammad also reserved
the right to cancel the treaty and expel the Jews
whenever he liked. This treaty or agreement was called
a DHIMMA, and those who accepted it were known as
DHIMMIS. All non-Muslims who accepted Muslim
supremacy and agreed to pay a tribute, in return for
"Muslim protection", will be referred to as dhimmis
henceforth. The second caliph Umar later expelled the
Jews and the Christians from the Hijaz (containing the
holy cities of Mecca and Medina) in 640, referring to
the dhimma of Khaybar. He is said to have quoted the
Prophet on the right to cancel any pact he wished, and
the Prophet's famous saying: "Two religions shall not
remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs. "To
this day, the establishment of any other religion in
Saudi Arabia is forbidden.
JIHAD � PAST AND PRESENT.
The word Jihad comes from the Arabic word jahada,
which as Lane in his celebrated Arabic�English Lexicon
points out, means "He strove, laboured, or toiled;
exerted himself or his power or efforts or endeavours
or ability" Jihad, continues Lane, "properly
signifies using or exerting, one's utmost power,
efforts, endeavours, or ability, in contending with an
object of disapprobation, and this of three kinds,
namely, a visible enemy, the devil, and one�s self;
all of which are included in the Koran sura xxii.78.
�Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify
generally he fought, warred, or waged war, against
unbelievers and the like ."[1] [Emphasis added]
As Tyan in his article in the EI� (Djihad, I.538
ff.) makes clear, "in law, according to general
doctrine and in historical tradition, the jihad
consists of military action with the object of the
expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its
defence"[emphasis added]. Tyan expressly rules out
the thesis of a wholly apologetic character, according
to which Islam relies on peaceful expansion, and that
jihad is only authorized in cases of self-defence.
This thesis ignores entirely the doctrines developed
by Muslim theologians, the historical tradition, as
well as texts of the Koran and sunna. Another
scholar, Rudolph Peters [2], also emphasizes that
Classical Muslim Koran interpretation regarded the
Sword Verses of the Koran (see below), with
unconditional command to fight the unbelievers, as
having abrogated all previous verses concerning
relations with non-Muslims.
Koran VIII.60
Here are some hadith from Bukhari, Muslim and other
traditionists:
Bukhari [3] LI.1: "Verily Allah has purchased of the
believers their lives and their properties; for theirs
(in return) is Paradise. They fight in His cause, so
they kill (others) and are killed�"[using forms of the
verb " qatala" = to kill]
Bukhari:[4] LI.2 "Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard
Allah�s Messenger saying, "The example of a Mujahid in
Allah�s cause � and Allah knows better who really
strives in His cause � is like a person who fasts and
prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will
admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is
killed, otherwise He will return him to his home
safely with rewards and war booty."
Bukhari: [5] LI. 6 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The
Prophet said, �Nobody who dies and finds good from
Allah �would wish to come back to this world even if
he were given the whole world and whatever is in it,
except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of
martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and
get killed again."
Bukhari: [6] LI.22.Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu�ba::
Our Prophet told us about the message of our Lord that
"� whoever amongst us is killed will go to Paradise"
�Umar asked the Prophet, �Is it not true that our men
who are killed will go to Paradise and theirs will go
to the fire?� The Prophet said �Yes �.
Narrated �Abdullah bin Abi Aufa, Allah�s Messenger
said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of
swords." [meaning � under the protection of swords."]
Bukhari: [7] Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah�s Messenger
said, "Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one whom
kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One
fights in Allah�s cause and gets killed. Later on
Allah forgives the killer who also gets martyred (in
Allah�s cause)."
Bukhari [8]: Narrated as-Sa�b bin Jaththama: The
Prophet passed by me at a place called al-Abwa or
Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to
attack the pagan warriors at night with the
probability of exposing their women and children to
danger. The Prophet replied, "They are from them."
[i.e. the women and children are also pagans, hence it
is permissible to kill them. However there are other
hadith which do forbid the killing of women and
children.]
Even a cursory glance at the chapter on Jihad
(Vol.IV, pp. 34-199) in Bukhari is enough to show that
real battles, deaths, wounds, horses, swords, arrows,
prisoners of war, looting, booty, burning and
destruction are being referred to. Hadith after hadith
recount in horrible details as to how the Jihad
against infidels was to be carried out; no they do not
talk of metaphorical battles, or allegorical,
spiritual struggles, but bloody war.
Sunan Abu Dawud,[9] Kitab al �Jihad:
(2632) Ayas b.Salamah reported on the authority of
his father: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon
him) appointed Abu Bakr our commander and we fought
with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked
them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night
was � put to death; put to death�. Salamah said: "I
killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging
to seven houses."
(2664) Samurah b. Jundub reported the Apostle of
Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: � Kill the
old men who are polytheists, but spare their
children."[10]
Sahih Muslim [11] (4292); The Messenger of Allah made
a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and
their cattle were having a drink at the water. He
killed those who fought and imprisoned the others.
Sahih Muslim: (4294) If they (the enemy) refuse to
accept Islam, demand from the Jizya; If they agree to
pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If
they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah�s help and
fight them.
Averroes [12]: "Scholars agree that jihad is
collective not a personal obligation.... According to
the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the
jihad is founded on sura 2:216 �Prescribed for you is
fighting, though it be hateful to you.� � Scholars
agree that al polytheists should be fought. This is
founded on sura 8:39 �Fight them until there is no
persecution and the religion is God�s entirely."
Averroes: Par. 3. The Damage Allowed to be inflicted
Upon the Different Categories of Enemies.
Damage inflicted upon the enemy may consist in damage
to his property, injury to his person or violation of
his personal liberty, i.e. that he is made a slave and
is appropriated. This may be done, according to the
Consensus (ijma') to all polytheists: men, women,
young and old, important and unimportant. Only with
regard to monks do opinions vary; for some take it
that they must be left in peace and that they must not
be captured, but allowed to go unscathed and that they
may not be enslaved. In support of their opinion they
bring forward the words of the Prophet: 'Leave them in
peace and also that to which they have dedicated them-
selves, as well as the practice of Abu Bakr.
Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealings with
captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head
of the Islamic state, caliph]. He may pardon them,
enslave them, kill them, or release them either on
ransom or as dhimmi [non-Moslem subject of the Islamic
state], in which latter case the released captive is
obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya). Some scholars,
however, have taught that captives may never be slain.
According to al-Hasan Ibn Muhammad al-Tarri-1m71,11
this was even the Consensus ijma�of the Sahaba
[contemporaries of Mohammed that have known him].
This controversy has arisen because, firstly, the
Koran-verses contradict each other in this respect;
secondly, practice [of the Prophet and the first
caliphs] was inconsistent; and lastly, the obvious
interpretation of the Koran is at variance with the
Prophet's deeds. The obvious interpretation of
[47:41: 'When you meet the unbelievers, smite their
necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among
them, tie fast the bonds" is that the Imam is only
entitled to pardon captives or to release them on
ransom. On the other hand, 18:671: 'It is not for any
Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter
in the land, as well as the occasion when this verse
was revealed [viz. the captives of Badr] would go to
prove that it is better to slay captives than to
enslave them. The Prophet himself would in some cases
slay captives outside the field of battle, while he
would pardon them in others. Women he used to
enslave. Abu Ubayd has related that the Prophet never
enslaved male Arabs.
Ibn Khaldun [13]: In the Muslim community, the holy
war is a religious duty, because of the universalism
of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert
everybody either by persuasion or by force.
The totalitarian nature of Islam is no where more
apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War,
whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and
submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah.
To Islam alone has been granted the truth - there is
no possibility of salvation outside it. It is the
sacred duty - an incumbent religious duty established
in the Koran and the Traditions - of all Muslims to
bring it to all humanity. Jihad is a divine
institution, enjoined specially for the purpose of
advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight and kill
in the name of God:
ix.5-6:"Kill those who join other gods with God
wherever you may find them"
iv.76:"Those who believe fight in the cause of God..."
viii.12:"I will instill terror into the hearts of the
Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off
from them every fingertip."
viii.39-42:"Say to the Infidels: If they desist from
their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven
them ; but if they return to it, they have already
before them the doom of the ancients ! Fight then
against them till strife be at an end, and the
religion be all of it God's.
ii.256:"But they who believe, and who fly their
country, and fight in the cause of God may hope for
God's mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful"
It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle
against the unbelievers, those who do will roast in
hell:
viii. 15, 16:"Believers, when you meet the unbelievers
preparing for battle do not turn your backs to them.
[Anyone who does] shall incur the wrath of God and
hell shall be his home: an evil dwelling indeed."
ix.39:"If you do not fight, He will punish you
severely, and put others in your place."
Those who die fighting for the only true religion,
Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:
iv.74:"Let those fight in the cause of God who barter
the life of this world for that which is to come; for
whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or
triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward"
It is abundantly clear from many of the above verses
that the Koran is not talking of metaphorical battles
or of moral crusades; it is talking of the battle
field. To read such blood thirsty injunctions in a
Holy Book is shocking.
Mankind is divided into two groups - Muslims and non-
Muslims. The Muslims are members of the Islamic
community, the umma, who possess territories in the
Dar ul Islam, the Land of Islam, where the edicts of
Islam are fully promulgated. The non-Muslims are the
Harbi, people of the Dar ul Harb, the Land of Warfare,
any country belonging to the infidels which has not
been subdued by Islam but which, nonetheless, is
destined to pass into Islamic jurisdiction either by
conversion or by war (Harb). All acts of war are
permitted in the Dar ul Harb. Once the Dar ul Harb
has been subjugated, the Harbi become prisoners of
war. The imam can do what he likes to them according
to the circumstances. Woe betide the city that
resists and is then taken by the Islamic army by
storm. In this case, the inhabitants have no rights
whatsoever, and as Sir Steven Runciman says in his
"The Fall of Constantinople, 1453": "The conquering
army is allowed three days of unrestricted pillage;
and the former places of worship, with every other
building, become the property of the conquering
leader; he may dispose of them as he pleases. Sultan
Mehmet [after the fall of Constantinople in 1453
allowed] his soldiers the three days of pillage to
which they were entitled. They poured into the
city...They slew everyone that they met in the
streets, men, women and children without
discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep
streets...But soon the lust for slaughter was
assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and
precious objects would bring them greater profits."
In other cases, they are sold into slavery, exiled or
treated as dhimmis, who are tolerated as second class
subjects, as long as they pay a regular tribute.
THE ISLAMIC CONQUESTS
We have already alluded to Patricia Crone's analysis
of the causes of the Arab Conquests. Here, I shall
refer to the thesis put forward by the Economist
Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), a thesis which Bousquet
found convincing and important enough to translate
into French. My summary is based on Bousquet's French
version. According to Schumpeter, the Arabs had
always been a race of warriors who lived by pillage
and the exploitation of a settled population. Islam
was a war-machine which once it had been set going did
not stop at anything. War is a normal activity in
such a military theocracy. The Arabs did not even
search for a motive to conduct their wars; their
social organisation needed war, and without victories
it would have collapsed. Here we have expansionism
denuded of any concrete objective, brutal and born of
a necessity in its past. The Arab Conquests would have
existed without Islam. Certain particular details of
Arab imperialism can be explained by the words of the
Prophet but its force lay elsewhere. Muhammad would
not have succeeded had he preached humility and
submission. For the Arab warriors, "true" meant
successful, and "false" meant unsuccessful. Thus
religion was not the prime cause for the conquests;
rather an ancient warrior instinct. It is ironic that
the early heroes of Islam were, in fact, not at all
interested in religion: Khalid, the successful general
against the Byzantines has been described as someone
who "cared for nothing but war and did not want to
learn anything else." The same goes for Amr b. Al-As,
the conqueror of Egypt, and Othman b. Talha, who
amassed a fortune from the conquests. As Wensinck
realistically put it ,"The more clear-sighted
inhabitants of Mekka already foresaw shortly after the
unsuccessful siege of Medina that this fact was the
turning point in [the Prophet] Muhammed's career. It
is not strange therefore that men like Khalid b.al-
Walid, Othman b. Talha and Amr b.al-As went over to
Islam even before the capture of Mekka. Not much
importance is to be attached to the story of their
conversion."
EARLY CONQUESTS
The Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem (634_8) saw the
invaders as "godless barbarians"who burnt churches,
destroyed monasteries, profaned crosses, and horribly
blasphemed against Christ and the church. In 639,
thousands died as a result of the famine and the
plague consequent to the destruction and pillage.
After the death of the Prophet, the caliph Abu Bakr
organised the invasion of Syria. During the campaign
of 634, the entire region between Gaza and Caesarea
was devastated; four thousand peasants, Christians,
Jews, and Samaritans who were simply defending their
land, were massacred. During the campaigns in
Mesopotamia, between 635 and 642, monasteries were
sacked, the monks were killed, Monophysite Arabs
executed or forced to convert; in Elam the population
was put to the sword, at Susa all the dignitaries
suffered the same fate. We are better informed of the
conquest of Egypt by Amr b. al-As thanks to the
Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, written between
693 and 700. For John, the Muslim yoke was "heavier
than the yoke which had been laid on Israel by
Pharaoh." As Amr advanced into Egypt, he captured the
town of Behnesa, near the Fayum, and exterminated the
inhabitants: "whoever gave himself up to them [the
Muslims] was massacred, they spared neither the old,
nor the women or children." Fayum and Aboit suffered
the same fate .At Nikiu, the entire population was put
to the sword. The Arabs took the inhabitants of
Cilicia into captivity. In Armenia, the entire
population of Euchaita was wiped out Seventh century
Armenian chronicles recount how the Arabs decimated
the populations of Assyria and forced a number of
inhabitants to accept Islam, and then wrought havoc in
the district of Daron, S.W.of Lake Van. In 642, it
was the turn of the town of Dvin to suffer. In 643,
the Arabs came back, bringing "extermination, ruin,
and slavery." Michael the Syrian tells us how
Mu'awiya sacked and pillaged Cyprus, and then
established his domination by a "great massacre." It
was the same ghastly spectacle in North Africa:
Tripoli was pillaged in 643; Carthage was razed to the
ground and most of its inhabitants killed. Anatolia,
Mesopotamia, Syria, Iraq and Iran presented a similar
spectacle.
INDIA
"On the evidence of Baladhuri's account of the
conquest of Sind, there were certainly massacres in
the towns of Sind when the Arabs first arrived..."C.E.
Bosworth
The Muslim conquest of Sind was masterminded by
Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq, and effected by his
commander Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 A.D. Qasim's
instructions were to "bring destruction on the
unbelievers...[and] to invite and induce the infidels
to accept the true creed, and belief in the unity of
God... and whoever does not submit to Islam, treat him
harshly and cause injury to him till he submits."
After the capture of the port of Debal, the Muslim
army took three days to slaughter the inhabitants, but
thereafter Qasim is more tolerant allowing many to
continue their professions and practise their
religion. This is not acceptable to Hajjaj, who, on
receiving Qsaim's report of his victory, wrote back
:"My dear cousin, I have received your life -
augmenting letter. On its receipt my gladness and joy
knew no bounds. It increased my pride and glory to the
highest degree. It appears from your letter that all
the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience
of your men are strictly in accordance with religious
law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the
law is different from the one adopted by you, for you
go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without
any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great
God says in the Koran [xlvii.4]: O True believers,
when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their
heads. "The above command of the Great God is a great
command and must be respected and followed. You should
not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the
virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one
of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will
consider you a weak-minded man. Concluded with
compliments. Written by Nafia in the year ninety
three." Later, Hajjaj returns to the same theme: "My
distinct orders are that all those who are fighting
men should be assassinated, and their sons and
daughters imprisoned and retained as hostages."
Obedient to a fault, Qasim, on his arrival at the town
of Brahminabad, "ordered all the men belonging to the
military classes to be beheaded with swords. It is
said that about 6000 fighting men were massacred on
this occasion, some say 16000. The rest were
pardoned."
05.04
MAHMUD OF GHAZNI (969 -The real conquest of India by
the Muslims dates from the beginning of the 11th
century. In 1000 A.D., the head of a Turco- Afghan
dynasty, Mahmud of Ghazni first passed through India
like a whirlwind, destroying, pillaging and
massacring, all of which he justified by constant
references to the Koranic injunctions to kill
idolaters, whom he had vowed to chastise every year of
his life. As Vincent Smith put it, "Mahmud was a
zealous Muslim of the ferocious type then prevalent,
who felt it to be a duty as well as pleasure to slay
idolaters. He was also greedy of treasure and took
good care to derive a handsome profit from his holy
wars." In the course of seventeen invasions, in the
words of Alberuni the scholar brought by Mahmud to
India,: "Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the
country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by
which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered
in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth
of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of
course, the most inveterate aversion towards all
Muslims." Mahmud began by capturing King Jaipal in
the Punjab, then invaded Multan in 1004. On conquering
the district of Ghur, he forcibly converted the
inhabitants to Islam. Mahmud accumulated vast amounts
of plunder from the Hindu temples he desecrated, such
as that of Kangra. "Mathura, the holy city of Krishna,
was the next victim. 'In the middle of the city there
was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can
neither be described nor painted'. The Sultan [Mahmud]
was of the opinion that 200 years would have been
required to build it. The idols included 'five of red
gold, each five yards high', with eyes formed of
priceless jewels. 'The Sultan gave orders that all the
temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and
leveled with the ground. 'Thus perished works of art
which must have been among the noblest monuments of
ancient India." [VA Smith 207] At the battle of
Somnath, the site of another celebrated Hindu temple,
50000 were killed as Mahmud assuaged his lust for
booty.
Mahmud was equally ferocious with those whom he
considered heretics such as Dawud of Multan. In 1010,
Mahmud invaded Dawud 's kingdom and slaughtered a
great number of his heretical subjects. While Muslim
historians see him as one of the glories of Islam, in
reality, Mahmud was little more than an avaricious
bandit undeserving of admiration.
FRUZ SHAH
In 1351, Firuz Shah ascended the throne and became
ruler of the North of India. Though in many ways an
enlightened man, when it came to religion was a bigot
of the first order. He is said to have made "the laws
of the Prophet his guide." He indulged in wholesale
slave -raiding, and is said to have had 180000 slaves
in his city, all of whom "became Muslims." But, as
Vincent Smith says, he could be most savage when his
religious zeal was roused. He seized a number of
Shias, some he executed, others he lectured, and their
books he burnt. He caused the ulama to kill a man who
claimed to be the Mahdi, "and for this good action",
he wrote, "I hope to receive future reward." He went
to visit a village where a Hindu religious fair was
being held, which was even attended by some "graceless
Musalmans." He wrote: "I ordered that the leaders of
these people and the promoters of this abomination
should be put to death. I forbade the infliction of
any severe punishment on the Hindus in general, but I
destroyed their idol temples and instead thereof
raised mosques." Later a Brahman who had practised
his rites in public was burnt alive. Firuz Shah was
simply carrying on the tradition of the early Muslim
invaders, and he sincerely believed "that he served
God by treating as a capital crime the public practice
of their religion by the vast majority of his subjects
[i.e.Hindus]." Firuz Shah also bribed a vast number
of Hindus into embracing Islam, by exempting those who
converted from the jizya or poll-tax, which was
otherwise rigorously enforced, even on Firuz Shah,
when due allowance is made for his surroundings and
education, could not have escaped from the theory and
practice of religious intolerance. It was not possible
for him to rise, as Akbar did, to the conception that
the ruler of Hindustan should cherish all his subjects
alike, whether Muslim or Hindu, and allow every man
absolute freedom, not only of conscience but of public
worship. The Muslims of the fourteenth century were
still dominated by the ideas current in the early days
of Islam, and were convinced that the tolerance of
idolatry was a sin."
AKBAR THE GREAT (1542-1605)
It is significant and ironical that the most tolerant
of all the Muslim rulers in the history of India was
also the one who moved farthest away from orthodox
Islam, and in the end rejected it for an eclectic
religion of his own devising. Akbar abolished the
taxes on Hindu pilgrims at Muttra, and remitted the
jizya or poll tax on non-Muslims. Akbar had early
shown an interest in religions other than the rigid
Islam he had grown up in. Under the influence of
freethinkers at his court like Abul Fazl, and Muslim
and Hindu mysticism, Akbar developed his interest in
comparative religion to the extent of building a
special "house of worship "in which to hold religious
discussions. At first, the discussions were restricted
to Muslim divines, who thoroughly disgraced themselves
in their childish behaviour. Akbar was profoundly
disgusted, for their comportment seemed to cast doubt
on Islam itself. Now Akbar decided to include Hindus,
Jains, Zoroastrians, Jews, and eventually three Jesuit
fathers from the Portuguese colony of Goa. The Jesuit
fathers were treated with the utmost respect; Akbar
even kissed the Bible and other Christian holy images -
- something totally revolting to an orthodox Muslim.
One of the Jesuits became a tutor to Akbar's son.
There were further acts that alarmed and angered the
Muslims. First, Akbar proclaimed the Infallibility
decree, which authorized the emperor to decide with
binding authority any question concerning the Muslim
religion, provided the ruling should be in accordance
with some verse of the Koran. Second, Akbar again
scandalised the Muslims by displacing the regular
preacher at the mosque, and himself mounting the
pulpit, reciting verses composed by Faizi,the brother
of the freethinking Abul Fazl. The Muslim chiefs in
the Bengal now considered Akbar an apostate, and rose
up in revolt against him. When the rebellion was
crushed, Akbar felt totally free to do what he wanted.
And, in the words of V. Smith, "He promptly took
advantage of his freedom by publicly showing his
contempt and dislike for the Muslim religion, and by
formally promulgating a new political creed of his
own, adherence to which involved the solemn
renunciation of Islam." Akbar rejected the Muslim
chronology, establishing a new one starting from his
accession. He further outraged the Muslims by issuing
coins with the ambiguous phrase "Allahu Akbar", a
frequent religious invocation known as the Takbir,
which normally means "God is Great"(akbar = great),
but since Akbar is also the emperor's name,"Allahu
Akbar" could also mean "Akbar is God." Akbar 's aim
throughout his reign was to abate hostility towards
Hindus, and his own vague religion was "a conscious
effort to seem to represent all his people." He
adopted Hindu and Parsee (Zoroastrian) festivals and
practices. Thus it is not surprising that"his conduct
at different times justified Christians, Hindus,
Jains, and Parsis [Parsees] in severally claiming him
as one of themselves." Akbar's driving principle was
universal toleration, and all the Hindus, Christians,
Jains and Parsees enjoyed full liberty of conscience
and of public worship. He married Hindu princesses,
abolished pilgrim dues, and employed Hindus in high
office. The Hindu princesses were even allowed to
practise their own religious rites inside the palace.
"No pressure was put on the princes of Amber, Marwar,
or Bikaner to adopt Islam, and they were freely
entrusted with the highest military commands and the
most responsible administrative offices. That was an
entirely new departure, due to Akbar himself..."
AURANGZEB (1618-1707)
Akbar's great grandson, Aurangzeb, was, in total
contrast, a Muslim puritan, who wished to turn his
empire into a land of orthodox Sunni Islam, ruled in
accordance with the principles laid down by the early
Caliphs. Once again, we enter the world of Islamic
intolerance -- temples are destroyed (during the
campaigns of 1679_80, at Udaipur 123 were destroyed,
at Chitor sixty-three; at Jaipur sixty-six); and non -
Muslims become second class citizens in their own
country. The imperial bigot, to use Smith's phrase,
reimposed the "hated jizya, or polltax on non-Muslims,
which Akbar had wisely abolished early in his reign."
Aurangzeb's aim was to curb the infidels and
demonstrate the "distinction between a land of Islam
and a land of unbelievers." "To most Hindus Akbar is
one of the greatest of the Muslim emperors of India
and Aurangzeb one of the worst; to many Muslims the
opposite is the case. To an outsider there can be
little doubt that Akbar's way was the right one....
Akbar disrupted the Muslim community by recognising
that India is not an Islamic country: Aurangzeb
disrupted India by behaving as though it were."
[Gascoigne 227]
BUDDHISM AND BUDDHISTS
"Between 1000 and 1200 Buddhism disappeared from
India, through the combined effects of its own
weaknesses, a revived Hinduism and Mohammedan
persecution" Edward Conze [117] "[Buddhism in India]
declined after Moslem conquest of Sindh, A.D. 712,
and finally suppressed by Moslem persecution A.D.1200
" Christmas Humphreys
"It is partly, no doubt, because of the furor
islamicus that post-Gupta remains are surprisingly few
in Bihar..." J.C.Harle [199]
Qutb ud din Aibak, described as "merciless and
fanatical", sent his general, Muhammad Khilji, to the
northern state of Bihar to continue the Muslim
conquests that began in late 12th century. Buddhism
was the main religion of Bihar. In 1193,the Muslim
general, considering them all idolaters, put most of
the Buddhist monks to the sword, and a great library
was destroyed. "The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries
at Sarnath near Benares still bear witness to the rage
of the image-breakers. Many noble monuments of the
ancient civilisation of India were irretrievably
wrecked in the course of the early Muslim invasions.
Those invasions were fatal to the existence of
Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India,
where its strength resided chiefly in Bihar and
certain adjoining territories. The monks who escaped
massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet,
and the south.."
The Muslim conquests of Central Asia also put an end
to its Buddhist art. As early as the 8th century, the
monasteries of Kizil were destroyed by the Muslim
ruler of Kashgar, and as Benjamin Rowland says, "by
the tenth century only the easternmost reaches of
Turkestan had escaped the rising tide of Mohammedan
conquest. "The full tragedy of these devastations is
brought out by the words of Rowland: "The ravages of
the Mongols, and the mortifying hand of Islam that has
caused so many cultures to wither for ever, aided by
the process of nature, completely stopped the life of
what must for a period of centuries have been one of
the regions of the earth most gifted in art and
religion."
SCHOLARS, HISTORIANS AND THE DHIMMIS
SCHOLARS AND POLEMICS
Disagreement between scholars tends to focus on the
amount and intensity of persecution, the frequency of
forced conversions, and the prevalence of violence
against the dhimmi. On this subject, Jacques Ellul,
in his preface to Bat Ye'or 's"The Dhimmi, Jews and
Christians under Islam ", tells an interesting story.
Ellul reviewed the book when it first came out, in the
famous French newspaper Le Monde. "In response to
that review I received a very strong letter from a
colleague, a well-known orientalist, informing me that
the book was purely polemical and could not be
regarded seriously. His criticisms, however, betrayed
the fact that he had not read the book, and the
interesting thing about his arguments (based on what I
had written) was that they demonstrated, on the
contrary, the serious nature of this work. First of
all, he began with an appeal to authority, referring
me to certain works whose scholarship he regarded as
unquestionable (those of Professors S.D. Goitein, B.
Lewis and N. Stillman), that in his opinion adopt a
positive attitude toward Islam and its tolerance
toward non_ Muslims. "However, apologists of Islam
will be disappointed if they consult the works of the
abovementioned scholars, hoping to find some sort of
exoneration of Islam. Norman Stillman's book, "The
Jews of Arab Lands, A History and Source Book" is a
general historical survey from the 7th century to the
19th century, and a source book of translations of the
relevant documents. Reviewing Stillman, C.E. Bosworth
said: "This is a splendid book, even though the
subject is in many ways a MONUMENT TO HUMAN
INTOLERANCE AND FANATICISM"[Myemphases]. Stillman, on
the whole, lets the facts speak for themselves, and
the picture that emerges is not at all flattering to
Islam: "The invasion of the Middle East [by the Arabs]
was not by any means a joyous, liberating experience.
There was a great deal of death and destruction. The
inhabitants of towns taken by storm were either killed
or led into captivity, and their property was
forfeited"[24] "The jizya and kharaj [taxes] were a
crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry who eked
out a bare living in a subsistence economy"[28]
"Muslim authorities were concerned above all that
taxes be paid and that dhimmi subjects acknowledge in
a variety of ways, some more and some less
humiliating, the dominion of Islam. As long as the non-
Muslim complied, they were accorded a good measure of
internal self-rule. However, even in the conduct of
their own communal affairs, they were not entirely
free of government supervision and, at times,
downright interference"[38] "Furthermore, there was a
tenuousness in the cordiality of interfaith
relationships. The non-Muslim could never entirely
disembarrass himself of his dhimmi status"[62] "The
position of a Jewish community could also become
precarious in times of civil strife, famine, or other
catastrophe. Times of crises brought popular religious
frenzy to its height. The Jews were a small,
defenseless minority whose status as infidels and
humble tribute bearers was defined by Islamic law."But
what of the so-called Golden Age of mutual respect?
"Anti-Semitism, that is, "the hatred of Jews qua
Jews," did exist in the medieval Arab world EVEN IN
THE PERIOD OF GREATEST TOLERANCE...Outright
persecution...was rare but there was always that
uncertain possibility. At the whim of the ruler, the
harshest interpretations of the sumptuary laws could
be strictly enforced...Even in the best of times,
dhimmis in all walks of life and at every level of
society could suddenly and rudely be reminded of their
true status." [63]
Stillman does make one claim refuted by Bat Ye'or.
According to Stillman, there were no more than half a
dozen forced conversions of Jews over a period of
thirteen centuries. [76] Even Stillman concedes that
under the Almohad caliphs Al Mumin(d.1165), Abu Yaqub
(d.1184) and Al Mansur (d.1199), there were indeed
forced conversions, let us assume there was only one
conversion per reign, that makes three.In Yemen the
Jews were forced to choose between death and
conversion to Islam in 1165 and 1678; and in Aden in
1198. Bat Ye'or continues: "There are Muslims in
Tripolitania and elsewhere who are descendants of Jews
forcibly converted at different periods The Jews of
Tabriz were obliged to convert in 1291 and 1318,and
those of Baghdad in 1333 and 1344.Throughout Persia,
forced conversions from the sixteenth century to the
beginning of the twentieth century decimated the
Christian and, even more, the Jewish communities"[61]
Elsewhere, Bat Ye'or writes: "En 1617 et en 1622, les
juifs persans, diffam�s par des apostats, subissent
une vague de conversions forc�es et de
pers�cutions...Sous leregne de Shah Abbas II (1642 _
1666), tous les juifs de
Perse furent forc�s de se convertir de 1653... 1666."
[95] There was also forced conversions in Meshed in
1839, (and in the 1840s, according to Lewis [153]
That makes more than half a dozen! We are, of course,
talking of Jews only, forced conversions of
Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians and others is
another, even more grave, matter.
05.05
Bernard Lewis has, of course, written a great deal on
dhimmis, and, more specifically, of Jews under Islam.
In his "The Jews of Islam", Lewis points out that
there was never a question of "equality" between
Muslims and non-Muslims: "Traditional Islamic
societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended
that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order,
this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a
dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same
treatment to those who follow the true faithand those
who willfully reject it? This would be a theological
as well as a logical absurdity." "Discrimination was
always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent
in the system and institutionalised in law and
practice." "The rank of a full member of society was
restricted to free male Muslims. Those who lacked any
of these three essential qualifications -- that is,
the slave, the woman or the unbeliever -- were not
equal. The three basic inequalities of master and
slave, man and woman, believer and unbeliever, were
not merely admitted; they were established and
regulated by holy law." "Tolerance" in this context
has a negative connotation -- the Jews and Christians
were there on sufferance. Bat Ye'or points out the
difference between "tolerance" and "rights "-- while
"tolerance" is revocable, rights are inalienable.
Bernard Lewis makes more or less the same point. He
contrasts the notion of tolerance with that of genuine
coexistence: "Tolerance means that a dominant group
whether defined by faith or race or other criteria,
allows members of other groups some - but rarely if
ever all - of the rights and privileges enjoyed by its
own members. Coexistence means equality between the
different groups composing a political society as an
inherent natural right of all of them -- to grant it
is no merit, to withhold it or limit it is an
offense."
It is true Lewis does write, early on, in "The Jews of
Islam", "persecution, that is to say, violent and
active repression was rare and atypical." But a little
later, Lewis contradicts himself: "Under the Safavid
shahs they [the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians]
were subject to frequent vexations and persecutions,
and at times to forced conversions." (Perhaps the
adjective "frequent" does not qualify" persecutions")
And towards the end of the book, Lewis tells us that
"the Alliance [an international Jewish organisation]
records include NUMEROUS stories of ill-treatment,
humiliation, and persecution [of Jews]." [My
emphases] Lewis also tends to play down the violence
suffered by the non-Muslims. Confining ourselves to
Jews, we can only remind Lewis of the massacre of more
than 6000 Jews in Fez (Morocco) in 1033; of the
hundreds of Jews killed between 1010 and 1013 near
Cordoba, and other parts of Muslim Spain; of the
massacre of the entire Jewish community of roughly
4000 in Granada during the Muslim riots of
1066.Referring to the latter massacre, Robert Wistrich
writes: "This was a disaster, as serious as that which
overtook the Rhineland Jews thirty years later during
the First Crusade, yet it has rarely received much
scholarly attention."Wistrich, who takes Bat Ye'or's
research seriously, continues: "In Kairouan (Tunisia)
the Jews were persecuted and forced to leave in 1016,
returning later only to be expelled again. In Tunis in
1145 they were forced to convert or to leave, and
during the following decade there were fierce anti-
Jewish persecutions throughout the country. A similar
pattern of events occurred in Morocco after the
massacre of Jews in Marrakesh in 1232.Indeed, in the
Islamic world from Spain to the Arabian peninsula the
looting and killing of Jews, along with punitive
taxation, confinement to ghettos, the enforced wearing
of distinguishing marks on clothes (an innovation in
which Islam preceded medieval Christendom), and other
humiliations were rife."
BAT YE'OR
Bat Ye'or is an independent scholar who has been
working on the question of dhimmis for the last twenty
years, starting with the history of Jews in Egypt in
1971.This was followed by Le Dhimmi: Profil de
l'opprim� en Orient et en Afrique du Nord depuis la
conquete arabe", in 1980, with an enlarged English
edition in 1985, under the title "The Dhimmi, Jews and
Christians under Islam. "In 1991 and 1994, appeared,
respectively, "Les Chretient�s d' Orient entre Jihad
et Dhimmitude", and"Juifs et Chretiens sous l'Islam,
les dhimmis face au defi int�griste. "It is not
surprising that the colleague of Jacques Ellul was
disturbed, since the works of Bat Ye'or show with
ample documentation the massacres of the early
conquests, the subsequent humiliations of the dhimmis,
the oppressive fiscal system, the looting and pillage
of homes, churches and synagogues, and the whole
punctuated with forced conversions, which made the
lives of the non_Muslims such an ordeal.
DISCRIMINATORY TAXES:
KHARAJ
The kharaj was a kind of land tax which had its fiscal
and symbolic role. By it, the peasant no longer owned
the land but worked it as a tenant. The kharaj also
symbolised the God-conferred rights of the conquerors
over the land of the infidels and conquered. The
peasants were theoretically protected, but, in periods
of instability, they suffered the most
JIZYA
The jizya was a poll tax which, in accordance with the
Koran ix.29 ("until they pay the jizya from their
hand, being brought low"), had to be paid individually
at a humiliating public ceremony to remind the dhimmis
that they were inferior to the believers, that is, the
Muslims. The Muslim commentator on the Koran, as_
Zamakhshari ( 1075-1144) interprets Sura ix.29 to
mean, "the jizya shall be taken from them with
belittlement and humiliation. [The dhimmi] shall come
in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall
stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector
shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him,
and say: 'Pay the jizya!', and when he pays it he
shall be slapped on the nape of his neck."
OTHER TAXES
Apart from paying higher commercial and travel taxes
than Muslims, the dhimmis were subject to other forms
of fiscal oppression. In periods of economic
hardship, the Muslim rulers often had recourse to
arbitrary taxes on dhimmis . Church leaders were
imprisoned and tortured until ransoms were paid for
them.
The above taxes proved such a crushing burden that
many villages were abandoned as the villagers fled to
the hills or tried to lose themselves in the anonymity
of large towns to escape the tax-collector. In Lower
Egypt, for example, the Copts utterly ruined by the
taxes, revolted in 832. The Arab governor ruthlessly
suppressed the insurrection - burning their villages,
their vineyards, gardens and churches - those not
massacred were deported.
PUBLIC OFFICE
Various Hadith forbid a dhimmi to exercise any
authority over a Muslim. Various Koranic verses such
as iii.28 were used to bar dhimmis from public office.
Despite this, we find that dhimmis held high office.
However, in the Middle Ages, any appointment of a
dhimmi to a high post often resulted in public
outcries, fanaticism and violence, as for example, in
Granada in 1066, Fez in 1275 and 1465, Iraq in 1291,
and frequently in Egypt between 1250 and 1517.Many
dhimmis accepted to convert to Islam in order to keep
their posts.
INEQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
In all litigation between a Muslim and a dhimmi, the
validity of the oath or testimony of the dhimmi was
not recognised. In other words, since a dhimmi was not
allowed to give evidence against a Muslim, his Muslim
opponent always got off scot-free. The dhimmi was
forced to bribe his way out of the accusations.
Muslims were convinced of their own superiority over
all non-Muslims, and this was enshrined in law. For
example, any fine imposed on a Muslim for a crime was
automatically halved if the victim was a dhimmi. No
Muslim could be executed for having committed any
crime against a dhimmi. Accusations of blasphemy
against dhimmis were quite frequent and the penalty
was capital punishment. Since his testimony was not
accepted in court, the dhimmi was forced to convert to
save his life. Conversely, "in practice if not in
law, a dhimmi would often be sentenced to death if he
dared raise his hand against a Muslim, even in
legitimate self-defence."[Ye'or 57] Even the
accidental killing of a Muslim could condemn the whole
non-Muslim community to death or exile. [Ye'or 57].
Though a Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish
woman, a non-Muslim may not marry a Muslim woman. The
penalty for such a marriage, or any sexual
relationship, was death.
THE PACT OF UMAR
Some of the disabilities of the dhimmis are summarised
in the "Pact of Umar"which was probably drawn up in
the 8th century under Umar b.Abd al Aziz (ruled
717_20):
"We shall not build in our cities or in their vicinity
any new monasteries, churches, hermitages, or monks'
cells .We shall not restore, by night or by day, any
of them that have fallen into ruin or which are
located in the Muslims' quarters. "We shall keep our
gates wide open for the passerby and travellers. We
shall provide three days' food and lodging to any
Muslims who pass our way.
"We shall not shelter any spy in our churches or in
our homes, nor shall we hide him from the Muslims. "We
shall not teach our children the Koran. "We shall not
hold public religious ceremonies. We shall not seek to
proselytise anyone. We shall not prevent any of our
kin from embracing Islam if they so desire. "We shall
show deference to the Muslims and shall rise from our
seats when they wish to seat down. "We shall not
attempt to resemble the Muslims in any way..."We shall
not ride on saddles. " We shall not wear swords or
bear weapons of any kind, or ever carry them with us.
"We shall not sell wines. "We shall clip the forelocks
of our head. "We shall not display our crosses or our
books anywhere in the Muslims ' thoroughfares or in
their marketplaces. We shall only beat our clappers in
our churches very quietly. We shall not raise our
voices when reciting the service in our churches, nor
when in the presence of Muslims. Neither shall we
raise our voices in our funeral processions. "We
shall not build our homes higher than theirs." To
which was added, "anyone who deliberately strikes a
Muslim will forfeit the protection of this pact."
Even in their religious affairs, they were not
entirely free Muslims often blocked the appointment of
religious leaders.
Nothing could be further from the truth than to
imagine that the dhimmis enjoyed a secure and stable
status permanently and definitively acquired -- that
they were forever protected and lived happily ever
after. Contrary to this picture perpetrated by Islamic
apologists, the status of dhimmis was very fragile
indeed, and was constantly under threat. The dhimmis
were in constant danger of being made into slaves. For
example, when in 643, Amr conquered Tripoli, he forced
the Jews and Christians to handover their women and
children as slaves to the Arab army, and they were
told to deduct this "handover" from the poll-tax, the
dreaded "jizya." Between 652 and 1276, Nubia was
forced to send an annual contingent of slaves to
Cairo. The treaties concluded under the Umayyads and
the Abbasids with the towns of Transoxiana, Sijistan,
Armenia, and Fezzan (modern N.W.Africa) all stipulate
an annual tribute of slaves of both sexes. The
principal source of the reservoir of slaves was the
constant raids on the villages in the"dar al harb";
and the more disciplined military expeditions which
mopped up more thoroughly the cities of the
unbelievers. All the captives were deported en masse.
In 781, at the sack of Ephesus, 7000 Greeks were
deported in captivity. After the capture of Amorium in
838, the Caliph Al Mutasim ordered the captives, as
there were so many of them, to be auctioned in batches
of five and ten. At the sack of Thssalonica in 903,
22000 Christians were divided among the Arab
chieftains or sold into slavery. In 1064; the Seljuk
Sultan, Alp Arslan devastated Georgia and Armenia.
Those he did not take as prisoners, he executed. The
literary sources for Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia,
Armenia, and later Anatolia and Safavid Persia reveal
that those families who could not pay the crushing
Jizya or poll tax were obliged to hand over their
children and to"deduct "it from the Jizya. Christians,
for at least 300 years, suffered one other humiliation
not often discussed: a process known as DEVSHIRME. It
was introduced by the Ottoman Sultan Orkhan (1326 -
1359) and consisted of periodically taking a fifth of
all Christian children in the conquered territories
.Converted to Islam, these children aged between 14
and 20 were trained to be janissaries or infantry men.
These periodic abductions eventually became annual.
The Christian children were taken from among the Greek
aristocracy, and from the Serbs, Bulgarians, Armenians
and Albanians, and often from among the children of
the priests. At a fixed date, all the fathers were
ordered to appear with their children in the public
square. The recruiting agents chose the most sturdy
and handsome children in the presence of a Muslim
judge. Any father who shirked his duty to provide
children was severely punished. Needless to say this,
this system was open to all kinds of abuse. The
recruiting agents often took more than the prescribed
number of children and sold the "surplus" children
back to their parents. Those unable to buy back their
children had to accept them being sold into slavery.
This institution was abolished in 1656, though a
parallel system where young children between six and
ten were taken to be trained in the seraglio of the
sultan continued until the 18th century. The number
of children taken each year seems to have varied -
some scholars place it as high as 12000 a year, others
at 8000; there was probably an average of at least
1000 a year. The devshirme is an obvious infringement
of the rights of the dhimmis, a reminder that their
rights were far from secure, once and for all.
RELIGIOUS MATTERS
(1) Places of Worship
In the late 19th century, Ash Sharani summed up the
views of the four main sunni schools on the question
of the building of new churches and synagogues: "All
schools agree that it is not allowed to build new
churches or synagogues in towns or cities of Islam.
They differ whether this is permitted in the
neighbourhood of towns. Malik, Shafe'i, and Ahmad do
not permit it; Abu Hanifa says that if the place is a
mile or less from a town, it is not permitted; if the
distance is greater, it is. Another question is,
whether it is allowed to restore ruinous or rebuild
ruined churches or synagogues in Islamic countries.
Abu Hanifa, Malik,and Shafe'i permit it. Abu Hanifa
adds the condition that the church is in a place that
surrendered peaceably; if it was conquered by force,
it is not allowed. Ahmad...says that the restoration
of the ruinous and the rebuilding of the ruined is
never permitted."
The fate of churches and synagogues, as of Christians
and Jews, varied from country to country, ruler to
ruler. Some Muslim rulers were very tolerant, others
extremely intolerant. In 722 A.D., for example Usama
b. Zaid, the surveyor of taxes in Egypt, attacked
convents and destroyed churches. But the caliph
Hisham told him to leave the Christians in peace. Some
caliphs not only respected the rights of non-Muslims,
but very generously paid for the repairs of any
churches destroyed by mob violence. Tritton also gives
the example of Spain: "During the conquest of Spain
the Muslims were much less tolerant. On one of his
expeditions Musa destroyed every church and broke
every bell. When Marida surrendered the Muslims took
the property of those killed in the ambush, of those
who fled to Galicia, of the churches, and the church
jewels." Similarly, the caliph Marwan (ruled 744-750)
looted and destroyed many monasteries in Egypt while
fleeing the Abbasid army. He destroyed all the
churches in Tana except one, and he asked three
thousand dinars as the price for sparing that. In 853
A.D. the caliph Mutawakkil ordered all new churches to
be destroyed. As Tritton says, from an early date
churches were liable to be razed to the ground for
some caprice of the ruler. Often the Muslim mob took
matters into its own hands. Tritton gives the
following examples of riots in which religious
buildings were destroyed. In 884 the convent of
Kalilshu in Baghdad was destroyed, the gold and silver
vessels stolen, and all wood in the building sold. In
924 the church and convent of Mary, in Damascus were
burnt and plundered, and other churches wrecked.
Further destruction occurred in Ramleh, Ascalon,
Tinnis, and in Egypt during the invasion by Asad ud
Din Shirkuh. "Al Hakim biamr illah gave orders that
the churches in his dominions should be destroyed.
Their contents were seized and the vessels of gold and
silver sold in the markets... The church lands were
confiscated and every one who asked for some got it. A
Muslim historian reports that over thirty thousand
churches which had been built by the Greeks were
destroyed in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Bar Hebraeus
is more modest, he only says thousands." The riot of
1321 in Cairo in which several churches were
destroyed, in turn led to the destruction of churches
throughout Egypt -- in all more than fifty churches
suffered.
RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
On the whole, Muslims disliked the public display of
other forms of worship. Umar II and Mutawakkil tried,
in vain, to suppress the commonest manifestations of
Christianity. "The ringing of bells, the sounding of
the ram's horn, and the public exhibition of crosses,
icons, banners, and other religious objects were all
prohibited."
FORCED CONVERSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS
We have already mentioned the forced conversions of
Jews. Islamic history is also full of references to
the forced conversion of Christians, Zoroastrians and
pagans. For instance, under al Mamun in the 9th
century the pagans of Harran had to choose between
Islam and death. Tavernier, the 17th century French
traveler describes how in Anatolia," il y a quantit�
de Grecs qu'on
force tous les jours de se faire Turcs."
Armenian Christians seemed to have suffered
particularly severely from Muslim persecution. In
704_705, the caliph Walid I gathered together the
nobles of Armenia in the church of St. Gregory in
Naxcawan and the church of Xram on the Araxis, and
burned them to death. The rest were crucified and
decapitated, while their women and children were taken
as slaves. The Armenians suffered even more between
852 and 855. Given the constant humiliation and
degradation, fiscal and social oppression, it is not
surprising that many dhimmis sought a way out of their
impossible situation by converting But though
technically not "forced" on pain of death or at the
point of a sword, we can still consider these
conversions as having been forced on the dhimmis.
Surely, there is no moral difference between the two
kinds of "forced conversions." Each century has its
own, full account of the horrors. In the 8th century
we had the massacres in the Sind. In the 9th century,
there were the massacres of Spanish Christians in and
around Seville. In the 10th, the persecutions of non-
Muslims under the caliph al Hakim are well known.
In the 11th, the fate of the Jews of Grenada and Fez
have already been alluded to; we might add the
destruction of Hindus and their temples by Mahmud at
the same period. In the 12th, the Almohads of North
Africa spread terror wherever they went.
In the 13th; the Christians of Damascus were killed or
sold into slavery, and their churches burnt to the
ground. The Sultan Baibars, whom Sir Steven Runciman
calls "evil", not respecting his own guarantees of
safety to the garrison of Safed if they surrendered to
the Muslims, had all the population decapitated when
they did surrender. "From Toron he sent a troop to
destroy the Christian village of Qara, between Homs
and Damascus, which he suspected of being in touch
with the Franks. The adult inhabitants were massacred
and the children enslaved. When the Christians from
Acre sent a deputation to ask to be allowed to bury
the dead, he roughly refused, saying that if they
wished for martyrs' corpses they would find them at
home. To carry out his threat he marched down to the
coast and slaughtered every Christian that fell into
his hands. "As for Baibar's and the Muslims' capture
of Antioch in 1268, Runciman's says," Even the Moslem
chroniclers were shocked by the carnage that
followed."
In the 14th and early 15th century, we have the terror
spread by the infamous Timur the Lame, otherwise known
as Tamerlane or the "bloody and insatiate Tamburlaine"
of Marlowe's play. Tamerlane constantly refers to the
Koran, and tried to turn every one of his battles into
a Holy War, even though in many instances he was
fighting fellow Muslims At least in Georgia, he was
able to give his campaign the colour of a Jihad. In
1400 Tamerlane devastated the country in and around
Tifflis. In 1403, he returned to ravage the country
again, and destroying seven hundred large villages and
minor towns, massacring the inhabitants, and razing to
the ground all the Christian churches of Tifflis.
Rene Grousset summed up Tamerlane's peculiar character
by saying that whereas the Mongols of the 13th century
had killed simply because for centuries this had been
the instinctive behaviour of nomad herdsmen toward
sedentary farmers, Tamerlane killed out of Koranic
piety. To the ferocity of the cruel Mongols, Tamerlane
added a taste for religious murder. Tamerlane
"represents a synthesis, historically lacking up to
now, of Mongol barbarity and Muslim fanaticism, and
symbolises that advanced form of primitive slaughter
which is murder committed for the sake of an abstract
ideology, as a duty and sacred mission."
Confining ourselves to non-Muslims, we note that he
destroyed the town of Tana, at the mouth of the Don.
All the Christians were enslaved; their shops and
churches were destroyed.
According to the Zafer Nameh, our main source of
information for Tamerlane's campaigns, written at the
beginning of the 15th century, Tamerlane set forth to
conquer India solely to make war on the enemies of the
Muslim faith. He considered the Muslim rulers of north
India far too lenient towards pagans, that is to say,
the Hindus. The Zafer Nameh tells us that, "The Koran
emphasizes that the highest dignity to which man may
attain is to wage war in person upon the enemies of
the Faith. This is why the great Tamerlane was always
concerned to exterminate the infidels, as much to
acquire merit as from love of glory."
At Delhi under the pretext that the hundred thousand Hindu prisoners presented
a grave risk to his army, Tamerlane ordered their execution in cold blood. He
killed thousands, and had victory pillars built of the severed heads. On his
way out of India, he sacked Miraj, pulled down the monuments and flayed the
Hindu inhabitants alive, "an act by which he fulfilled his vow to wage the Holy
War. "This strange champion of Islam, as Grousset calls him, plundered and
massacred "through blindness or close-mindedness to a certain set of cultural
values."
Tamerlane systematically destroyed the Christians, and as a result the
Nestorians and Jacobites of Mesopotamia have never recovered. At Sivas, 4000
Christians were buried alive; at Tus there were 10000 victims. Historians
estimate the number of dead at Saray to be 100000; at Baghdad 90000; at Isfahan
70000.
05.06
ZOROASTRIANS
According to the Tarikh-i Bukhara, a history of Bukhara written in about 944
A.D., Islam had to be enforced on the reluctant inhabitants of Bukhara. The
Bukharans reverted to their original beliefs no less than four times: "The
residents of Bukhara became Muslims. But they renounced [Islam] each time the
Arabs turned back. Qutayba b. Muslim made them Muslim three times, [but] they
renounced [Islam ] again and became nonbelievers. The fourth time, Qutayba
waged war, seized the city, and established Islam after considerable
strife....They espoused Islam overtly but practiced idolatry in secret."
Many Zoroastrians were induced to convert by bribes, and later, out of economic
necessity. Many of these "economic converts" were later executed for having
adopted Islam to avoid paying the poll tax and land tax. In Khurasan and
Bukhara, Zoroastrian fire-temples were destroyed by the Muslims, and mosques
constructed on these sites. The Tarikh-i Bukhara records that there was
considerable outrage at these acts of sacrilege, and there was a concerted
resistance to the spread of Islam. One scholar sums up the situation thus:
"Indeed, coexistence between Muslims and Zoroastrians was rarely peaceful,
cooperation was fleeting, and conflict remained the prime form of intercommunal
contact from the initial Arab conquest of Transoxiana until the late thirteenth
century A.D."A similar situation existed in Khurasan: "The violent military
conflicts between the forces of the Arab commander Abd Allah b. Amir and the
local Iranian lords, combined later with the destruction of Zoroastrian
religious institutions, produced lasting enmity between Muslims and
Zoroastrians in Khurasan. "The early conquests of Zoroastrian Iran were
punctuated with the usual massacres, as in Raiy. If the town put up brave
resistance to the Muslims, then very few men were spared, as for example, at
Sarakh, only a hundred men were granted amnesty, the women were taken into
captivity; the children taken into captivity were brought up as Muslims. At
Sus a similar situation emerged - about a hundred men were pardoned, the rest
killed. At Manadhir, all the men were put to the sword, and the women and
children enslaved. At the conquest of Istakhr, more than 40000 Iranians were
slaughtered. The Zoroastrians suffered sporadic persecution, as their
fire-temples and priests were destroyed, as for example, at Kariyan, Kumm and
at Idhaj. In a deliberate act of provocation the caliph al Mutawakkil had a
tree putatively planted by Zoroaster himself cut down. Sometimes the fire
temples were converted into mosques. The fiscal oppression of the Zoroastrians
led to a series of uprisings against the Muslims in the 8th century. We might
cite the revolts led by Bihafarid between 746 and 748; the rising of Sinbadh in
755.
Forced conversions were also frequent, and the pressures for conversion often
led to conflict and riots as in Shiraz in 979.To escape persecution and the
forced conversions many Zoroastrians emigrated to India, where, to this day,
they form a much respected minority and are known as Parsis. Conditions for
the Zoroastrians became even worse from the 17th century onwards. In the 18th
century, their numbers, to quote the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2 ed),"declined
disastrously due to the combined effects of massacre, forced conversion and
emigration." By the 19th century they were living in total insecurity and
poverty, and suffered increasing discrimination. Zoroastrian merchants were
liable to extra taxes; houses were frequently looted; they had to wear
distinctive clothing, and were forbidden to build new houses or repair old
ones.
THE GOLDEN AGE?
All scholars agree, and even apologists of Islam cannot deny, that the
situation of the dhimmis got progressively worse. Many scholars believe that
as the Muslim world became weaker the position of dhimmis deteriorated
correspondingly. The same scholars would put the beginning of the decline at
the time of the Crusades. This perception has had the unfortunate consequence
of re-enforcing the myth of the Golden Age, when
supposedly total harmony reigned between the different
faiths, especially in Muslim Spain. It is a lovely
image, but, as Fletcher put it, this won't do. "The
witness of those who lived through the horrors of the
Berber conquest, of the Almoravid invasion... must
give it the lie. The simple and verifiable historical
truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of
turmoil than it was a land of tranquility. "Was there
ever tolerance? "Ask the Jews of Grenada who were
massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported
by the Almoravids to Morocco in 116 (like the Moriscos
five centuries later)." I have already alluded to the
general causes of the rise of this myth of Islamic
tolerance. More specifically, the notion of the
Golden Age of Moorish Spain was perpretated, in the
19th century by "newly and still imperfectly
emancipated" Western European Jews, as a means to
chastise Western failings. Inevitably, there was a
tendency to idealise Islam, to better contrast the
situation of the Jews in Europe, and "to serve at once
as a reproach and an encouragement to their somewhat
dilatory Christian emancipators."
Richard Fletcher has his own analysis. "So the
nostalgia of Maghribi writers was reinforced by the
romantic vision of the nineteenth century. This could
be flavoured with a dash of Protestant prejudice from
the Anglo-Saxon world: it can be detected in Lane-
Poole's reference to the Inquisition...In the second
half of the twentieth century a new agent of
obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the
liberal conscience, which sees the evils of
colonialism -- assumed rather than demonstrated --
foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of Al Andalus
and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly,
in the Moorish conquest and colonisation). Stir the
mix well together and issue it free to credulous
academics and media persons throughout the western
world . Then pour it generously over the truth...BUT
MOORISH SPAIN WAS NOT A TOLERANT AND ENLIGHTENED
SOCIETY EVEN IN ITS MOST CULTIVATED EPOCH"[My
emphases]
EIGHTEENTH, NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES
In general, as a logical consequence of centuries of
contempt, humiliation and persecution, the position of
the non-Muslims in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries
was very precarious indeed. As Lewis, talking of Jews,
says, "From the late eighteenth century through the
nineteenth century, expulsion, outbreaks of mob
violence, and even massacres became increasingly
frequent. Between 1770 and 1786 Jews were expelled
from Jedda, most of them fleeing to the Yemen. In 1790
Jews were massacred in Tetuan, in Morocco; in 1828, in
Baghdad. In 1834 a cycle of violence and pillage began
in Safed. In 1839 a massacre of Jews took place in
Meshed in Iran followed by the forced conversion of
the survivors, and a massacre of Jews occurred in
Barfurush in 1867. In 1840 the Jews of Damascus were
subject to the first of a long series of blood libels
in many cities. Other outbreaks followed in Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and the Arab countries of the
Middle East."
Coming to the twentieth century, we may mention the
virulent anti-Jewish literature that has been produced
in the last forty years in the Islamic world. Much of
this hate-filled literature is in the form of
translations from European languages of such works as
Hitler's Mein Kampf, and "the Protocols of the Elders
of Zion." But as Wistrich says, Muslim writers, "even
when they exploit Western anti-Semitic images and
concepts, usually manage to link these imported
notions in a natural, even an organic manner, with
ideas from within their own cultural tradition."
MASSACRE OF THE ARMENIANS
Armenian Christians have been subject to persecution
by the Muslims for centuries. Here I want to allude
to the massacres of 1894, 1895 and 1896. Against a
background of hostilities between Russia and Turkey,
Armenians looked to Russia for protection. But this
did not prevent the massacre of more than 250 000
Armenians in Sasun, Trapezunt, Edessa, Biredjik,
Kharput, Niksar and Wan. Many villages were burned
down, and hundreds of churches plundered. Further
massacres followed in 1904, and in 1909 when thirty
thousand Armenians lost their lives at Adana.
According to an article which appeared in "Revue
Encyclop�dique "in 1896, the massacres of 1894-1896
were deliberately planned and executed -- it was no
less than a methodical extermination of the Armenians.
Unable to support the idea of another nationality on
Turkish soil, the Turks began the liquidation of
Armenians, which ended in the infamous mass murders of
1915. These murders of 1915 have been described as the
first case of genocide in the 20th century. Much
polemic surrounds the events of 1915, with historians
like Bernard Lewis denying that it was" genocide" or
"planned." Indeed, Lewis is standing trial in France
for his position. While other historians and many
Armenians insist that more than a million Armenians
were systematically exterminated in cold blood --
thousands were shot, drowned (including children),
thrown over cliffs; those who survived were deported
or reduced to slavery. This is surely nothing less
than genocide, a genocide which seems to have deeply
impressed Hitler, and which may well have served as a
model for the genocide of the Jews carried out by him.
This genocide was but the natural culmination of a
divinely sanctioned policy towards non-Muslims, it was
nothing less than a jihad, perpetrated by Muslims, who
alone benefited from the booty: the possessions and
houses of the victims, the land, the women and
children reduced to slavery. It was not an isolated
incident, but a deliberate policy to eliminate any
nationalism of the dhimmis, and to keep the conquered
territory under Islamic jurisdiction. As Bat Ye'or
says, "the inner logic of the jihad could not tolerate
religious emancipation. Permanent war, the wickedness
of the dar al Harb, and the inferiority of the
conquered harbis constituted the three interdependent
and inseparable principles underlying the expansion
and political domination of the umma [the Muslim
community]."
THREE CONCLUSIONS
We are now in a position to appreciate the conclusions
of the three scholars quoted below. A.S. Tritton in
his "The Caliphs and their Non- Muslim
Subjects..."concludes:
"[The Caliph] Mutasim bought the monastery at Samarra
that stood where he wanted to build his palace. Other
caliphs destroyed churches to obtain materials for
their buildings, and the mob was always ready to
pillage churches and monasteries. Though dhimmis might
enjoy great prosperity, yet always they lived on
sufferance, exposed to the caprices of the ruler and
the passions of the mob. The episode of al Hakim [an
absolute religious fanatic] must be regarded as the
freak of a mad man, not typical of Islam. But in later
times the position of the dhimmis did change for the
worse. They were much more liable to suffer from the
violence of the crowd, and the popular fanaticism was
accompanied by an increasing strictness among the
educated. The spiritual isolation of Islam was
accomplished. The world was divided into two classes,
Muslims and others, and only Islam counted. There
were brilliant exceptions, but the general statement
is true. If a Muslim gave any help to the religion of
a dhimmi, he was to be summoned thrice to repentance,
and then, if obdurate, he was to be put to death.
Indeed, the general feeling was that the leavings of
the Muslims were good enough for the dhimmis."
C.E.Bosworth, writing some fifty years later, summed
up the status of the dhimmi:
"Although protected by the contract of dhimma, the
dhimmis were never anything but second-class citizens
in the Islamic social system, tolerated in large
measure because they had special skills such as those
of physicians, secretaries, financial experts, etc.,
or because they fulfilled functions which were
necessary but obnoxious to Muslims, such as money-
changing, tanning, wine-making, castrating slaves,
etc. A Muslim might marry a dhimmi wife but not vice
versa, for this would put a believing woman into the
power of an unbeliever; for the same reason, a Muslim
could own a dhimmi slave but not a dhimmi a Muslim
one. The legal testimony of a dhimmi was not
admissible in a judicial suit where a Muslim was one
of the parties, because it was felt that infidelity,
the obstinate failure to recognize the true light of
Islam, was proof of defective morality and a
consequent incapability of bearing legal witness. In
the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d.483 /
1090),"the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable
than that of an honest dhimmi." On the other hand, the
deposition of a Muslim against a dhimmi was perfectly
valid in law. It was further held by almost all
schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the
Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on
the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or half of
that of a free Muslim.
"It is surprising that, in the face of legal and
financial disabilities such as these outlined above,
and a relentless social and cultural Muslim pressure,
if not sustained persecution, that the dhimmi
communities survived as well as they did in mediaeval
Islam"
The third scholar is Bat Ye'or:
"These examples are intended to indicate the general
character of a system of oppression, sanctioned by
contempt and justified by the principle of the
inequality between Muslims and dhimmis...Singled out
as objects of hatred and contempt by visible signs of
discrimination, they were progressively decimated
during periods of massacres, forced conversions, and
banishments. Sometimes it was the prosperity they
achieved through their labor or ability that aroused
jealousy; oppressed and stripped of all their goods,
the dhimmis often emigrated."
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] E.W.Lane, Arabic �English Lexicon, Beirut
(Lebanon, Reprint 1968) Vol. 2 p.473
[2] R.Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam.A
Reader. Princeton, 1996, p.2
[3] Bukhari, Sahih, Vol.IV trans. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin
Khan, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi,1984; pp. 34.
[4] Ibid., p.38
[5] Ibid., p.42
[6] Ibid., p.55
[7] Bukhari, op.cit., p.60
[8] ibid., pp.158-159.
[9] Abu Dawud, Sunan, trans. A.Hasan, Kitab Bhavan,
New Delhi, 1997, p. 729
[10] Ibid. p.739
[11] Muslim, Sahih, trans.A.H.Siddiqi, Kitab Bhavan,
New Delhi,1997 pp. 942- 943
[12] Averroes al-Bidaya, trans. in R.Peters, Jihad in
Classical and Modern Islam, Princeton 1996, pp.29-31
[13] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, trans. F.Rosenthal,
Princeton, Abridged Edn., 1967 p.183
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
report bad links to the webmaster
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
