Following America's invasion of Iraq, the phrase 'state terrorism' has acquired much popularity. It is used generally by the Muslims, and also by many Christians of the West, to express their dislike and disapproval of America's involvement in Iraq on a ground that still remains, and would continue to remain in the foreseeable future, in a cloud of suspicion.

Interestingly, America's attack on Afghanistan went ahead with almost no criticism or opposition from any quarter. Even Muslims of other countries did not take to their streets in large numbers to protest the bombings with which America initiated its military action in this country of the Muslims. Almost all Muslim countries supported America's involvement in Afghanistan, but it is a different story in case of Iraq: almost all Muslim countries have condemned or opposed America and its allies' war activities in this country.

Many Christians of the West, especially those of America, joined the Muslims not only in vigorously opposing their country's invasion of Iraq; they also categorized their country as a Terrorist State to make their denunciation of it dramatic. In fact, many American Christians have proved to be more critical of their government's action in Iraq than the Muslims. They equate their country and its allies' actions in Iraq with terrorism. Mr. Amir Taheri, an acclaimed writer of Iranian descend, has succinctly described the anti-American attitude of the American Christians as well as how the American print and electronic medias portray their government in his article 'Are Arabs Anti-American?' It can be read at the link: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AmirTaheri50930.htm.

Americans' right to express themselves freely is guaranteed by their Constitution. In this respect, they are a people who have been blessed by their nation's founding fathers. Their founding fathers were able to grant this basic human right to their future generations because they were farsighted and also full of wisdom.

Armed with this right, many Americans did a lot of things for the suffering humanity, their occasional waywardness notwithstanding. Whenever they found someone stifled or gagged by their government, they took up their cudgels to free him from his condition. They have been doing not only in case of their compatriots; they have been extending the benefits of their constitution even to those who are not Americans. Once you are on the soil of America, its constitution is as protective of you as it is of the native-born American themselves.

It is a unique feature of a unique document that was written by a group of fallible, but determined Americans to ensure that their succeeding generations enjoyed all the benefits to which they are entitled in their lives. They knew that a human being is not a human being until and unless he is able to express what he thinks or feels about certain things, or he is able to do whatever he wants to do with his life without harming or creating nuisance for others.

Despite all the good and sincere intentions of its framers, many Americans have presented or misrepresented their constitution in ways that the framers had not anticipated in their time. Americans, as a nation, have been overcoming this problem with the help of their Supreme Court.

This highest court of the land interprets its constitution according to what the majority of its justices think was the basic and principal intention of its framers. Against their decision, there is no appeal.

Despite being perfectly able to frame constitutions and laws - much better than the divine ones - to govern their own conducts, most believers in one religion or another want their religions to tell them what is, and what is not, permissible for them to do in their lives. For them, their Religious Scriptures are their constitutions, dictated from heaven. It is this reason that requires them to consult them very often. But where they find their stipulations difficult to understand, they seek the help of their religious leaders and scholars. What they tell them is almost final; there is no provision for the believers to appeal against their interpretations. They can, however, consult, if they so wish, other religious leaders and scholars to make sure that what they have been told by them is actually what their religious scriptures tell them on certain aspects of their conducts and lives.  

After the completion of the verification and consultation process, adherence to, and being guided by the stipulations of the religious scriptures becomes unavoidable for their believers. Any attempt to bypass or sidetrack them is a sinful act, entailing the sinner to the punishments his religious scripture has prescribed for him.

Noting how important it is for the various denominations of religious believers to live their lives in accordance with the teachings and dictums of their religious books, I want the whole world to know the kind of the Islamic government Muslims' Holy Book, the Quran, envisions for all the inhabitants of our earth, and the duties the Islamic governments have to perform once they are established. The Quran postulates:

1. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (9:5).
2. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (9: 29).

What are stipulated in the above verses, and for whom? Is the order to kill the Pagans was relevant only to the times Muslims were fighting them to establish Islam in the Arabian Peninsula? Who it is that Allah wants to collect Jizya (poll tax) from the Pagans, Jews and the Christians?

Since my answers to the above questions are likely be taken as an attempt on my part to disparage Islam as well as the governments that the Muslims are under obligation to Allah to establish all over the world, I will have two of the highly respected Muslim scholars answer them in their own words. One of them stated:

We saw that Sura VIII {of the Quran} dealt with the large questions arising at the outset of the life of a new Ummat or organised nation: questions of defence under attack, distribution of war acquisitions after victory, the virtues needed for concerted action, and clemency and consideration for one's own and for enemies in the hour of victory. We pass on in this Sura {9} to deal with the question: what is to be done if the enemy breaks the faith and is guilty of treachery? No nation can go on with a treaty, if the other party violates it at will; but it is laid down that a period of four months should be allowed by way of notice after denunciation of the treaty; that due protection should be accorded in the intervening period; that there should always be open the door to repentance and reunion with the people of God; and that if all of these fail, and war must be undertaken, it must be pushed with the utmost vigour.

These are the general principles from the Sura {9}. The immediate occasion for their promulgation may be considered in connection with the chronological place of the Sura.

Chronologically, verses 1-29 were notable declaration of State policy promulgated about the month of Shawwal, A. H. 9, and read out by Hadhrat Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later in order to give the policy the widest publicity possible (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Vol. 1. p. 436).

Yusuf Ali made a brilliant attempt at softening the stipulations of the verses 1-29 of Sura 9, before admitting that all the stipulations were intended for, and to be implemented by, the Islamic State that was about to be founded by Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. A brief discussion on why Muhammad had declared an immunity for the Pagans (verse 9:1) and why he had to wait till the expiration date of some treaties (?) before taking actions (verses 9:4 & 5) against them is necessary for understanding the true implications of his intention.

After the defeat of the Pagans of Taif, Muhammad became almost an absolute monarch of the Arabian Peninsula. This afforded him the opportunity to take revenge on those Pagans, whom he suspected of dissembling, but was constrained by specific understandings he had with them (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, pp. 617, 618). To overcome this difficulty, he first dissolved the understandings, which protected his targeted Pagans against his retribution and then granted them immunity from molestation for four months (verses 9:3, 1 & 2). Within this period, they were required to repent {accept Islam} or face grievous penalty after the period of immunity was over.

Being a politician of first order, Muhammad did not revoke or annul alliances he had built up with some Pagan tribes, for they had not come short in anything in regard to him and did not help anyone against him. They were served notice that after expiration of a period of four months (called sacred or forbidden months, because he had fixed them as their time-Ibn Ishaq, op. cit, p. 618), the alliances would be dissolved and that they would be killed, seized and subjected to all other stratagem of war, if they did not convert to Islam, and refused to carry out all the obligations that were associated with his religion (9:5). His intention to break the alliances with the Pagans evolved around his desire to establish his Islamic State as soon as it was possible on his part.

Muhammad had this announcement made at the congregation of the Greater Hajj to let the Pagans know what policy he was going to follow once his Islamic State had begun functioning in the Arabian Peninsula, it being: No Pagan or the people of other faiths would be permitted to live within his State.

Muhammad's State policy is still being pursued by the rulers of Saudi Arabia. They do not permit their people to follow any religion other than Islam

Maulana Abul Ala Mududi explained the implications of verse 9:29 in the following words:

The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not as one might think to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather, their purpose is to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith {i.e. Islam}; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in a state of subordination. Unbelievers are required to pay Jizya (poll tax) in lieu of the security provided to them as the Dhimmis (protected people) of an Islamic state. Jizya symbolizes the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam. To pay Jizya of their own hands humbled refers to payment in a state of submission. Humbled also reinforces the idea that the believers, rather than the unbelievers, should be the rulers in performance of their duty as God's vicegerents (Towards Understanding the Quran, Vol. 3, p. 202).

The learned Maulana has not mentioned what would be the fate of the Dhimmis, if they refused to pay the Jizya to their Islamic States.

The answer to the question is: They must be put to death, if they refuse to buy their protection from their governments through the payment of Jizya.

From the above discussion, it should become clear to every logical and thinking mind that the Islamic States must not only terrorize their non-Muslim inhabitants; they must also kill them, if they refuse to pay them Jizya (or extortion money), as per the stipulation of verse 9:29 of the Quran, which all Muslims, irrespective of their status and positions must follow, if they want to avoid the fire of Hell on the Day of Judgment.

Would those Christians of the West, who call their countries Terrorist States, like to be the part of the truly Islamic States where they cannot live with honor and dignity and where they stand to lose their lives, if they refused to pay protection money to their Islamic governments?