• Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Minarets: The ‘Bayonets of Islam’?

E-mail Print PDF

Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan recited in 1998 that 'minarets are our bayonets', and the Swiss voters banned minarets in Switzerland in a 30 November 2009 referendum, claiming that it's a symbol of Islam's political domination. Both Erdogan and Swiss voters are right. Moreover, minarets are not Islamic, indeed anti-Islamic, and borrowed from Christianity...

Islamic minarets ban in switzerland
Swiss voters banned minarets

In a public gathering in 1998, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling Islamist party and current Prime Minister of Turkey, recited: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

These words earned him a conviction and minor jail-term for inciting religious hatred.

Taken from Erdogan’s recitation or not, the phrase, minarets our bayonets, it appears, has caught the Swiss with alarm amidst its rising Muslim populations. In a referendum on Sunday, 29 November 2009, some 58% of Swiss voters backed a ban of minarets on mosque-tops in Switzerland on the ground that it’s a symbol of political domination in Islam, which threatens the secular nature of the Swiss society, since there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam.

The backing of the referendum—initiated by right-wing parties, but condemned by the government, major political parties, media and intellectuals, even outside of Switzerland—surprised observers, including initiators of the move, because opinion polls, days earlier, showed only 34% of the voters would back the motion.

Quite understandably, passing of the referendum has caused global uproar and flurry of condemnations. There has been threat of boycott of Swiss products by Islamic countries to hauling the Swiss government before the European Commission and the UN, because legislating the ban would amount to denial of freedom of religion to Muslims.

The backers of the move were quick to reassure Muslims of their religious freedom in Switzerland. Said one activist behind the move, "…this will in no way change their [Muslims’] right to practise their religion, to pray or to gather [in mosques]… However, society wants to put a safeguard on the political-legal wing of Islam, for which there is no separation between state and religion".

While much has been said about the referendum, this article will focus on what minarets represent in Islam, religiously and historically. In other words: Are minarets a symbol of ‘political domination’ or the ‘bayonets’ of Islam?

Origin: Not at all Islamic but Christian

minaret of christian churches
Minarets on Christian Churches

Whatever it represents, the bayonet-shaped minarets have become a proud and exclusive symbol of Islam today. Yet, minarets are, fundamentally, neither Islamic nor an innovation of Islam.

Going back to Prophet Muhammad—who basically founded a monotheistic religion, Islam, for the Bedouin desert Arabs, never dreaming it would ever spread out of the Arab Peninsula—he himself had no conception of minarets; he would have duly rejected such sumptuous structures on mosque-tops or attached to them.

Fitting for a desert Prophet and the prevailing sociopolitical situation and institutions, Muhammad founded a creed, perfect for the underdeveloped desert Arab Bedouins. He opposed creating buildings on a grand scale, saying that “Truly the most unprofitable thing that eats the wealth of a believer is building” and that “Every expense of the believer will be rewarded except the expense of the building”.

And, despite founding a powerful Islamic state, poised to dominate the world in the next two decades, the two early mosques founded by Muhammad, one in Koba and the Prophet’s mosques in Medina, were simple structures until his death. Rain leaked through the roof of his ramshackle mosque in Medina. And when a companion asked if it should be repaired, Muhammad answered: “No, a mosque should be simple and modest, a booth, like the booth of Moses.”

Obviously, such structures, as approved by the prophet as mosques, could not even hold minarets on their tops. The idea of minarets never crossed Muhammad’s mind. And for eight decades after Muhammad’s death, minarets were not a part of mosques.

Minarets became a part of mosques in the period of the “Godless” Umayyad dynasty that came to power by ousting the Prophet’s grandson Hasan (661 CE), and later exterminating the Prophet’s offspring, including his other grandson Husayn, a pretender to the caliphate (Battle of Karbala, 680 CE). The Godless Umayyads first introduced the tradition of building gorgeous architectural and building structures, including elegant mosques, defying prior tradition and pious Islamic injunctions against it.

Islamic minarets, borrowed from Christianity
Islamic Minarets borrowed from Christianity

Umayyad Caliph al-Walid I (r. 695–715) was the first to introduce minarets to mosques, emulating the steeple, a bell-tower structure that was a feature of Christian churches. This move faced strong resistance from the pious, who objected to constructing anything higher than walls of the mosque. They also condemned the rulers for incorporating Christian symbols to sacred mosques.

Minarets have undergone refinement, becoming a gorgeous architectural symbol of Islam, but it is obviously not Islamic; in fact, it is anti-Islamic and borrowed from Christianity. It’s a Christian religious symbol in its originality. Even the term mosque, masjid in Arabic, is also usurped from Christianity; it is an Arabic rendering of the Aramaic term masgeda, then in Christian usage, meaning their ‘place of worship’.

What does a minaret represent?

To most observers, minarets would appear as a simple religio-architectural symbol, having nothing to do with ‘political power’, opposed to what Erdogan and the Swiss voters would have us believe. But minarets have a political dimension, at least, from the viewpoint of its origin and history.

After knocking out the world’s second-greatest power, Persia and capturing Central Asia and North Africa, the Umayyads—despite gaining considerable grounds in the Christian East and later in Spain—remained horn-locked in an impossible, and often disastrous, battle with Christian Byzantium as well as Christian Europe. For many centuries, the Christian world remained the enemy par excellence of Islam. Islam’s mission of global conquest, initiated by Muhammad, was persistently held back by Christian Europe, despite slowly losing grounds, before attaining supremacy over the Islamic Jihadis and beating them back, and even going on to capture most of the Islamic lands in the so-called Colonial Age.

Only after the Umayyads turned Islam into the master world-power, they started building imposing structures—initially in the form of sumptuous palaces, to which gorgeous mo mosques, minarets and mausoleums were added later on—all over the conquered lands (although clearly prohibited by Muhammad and the Quran) so as to declare the religious and political supremacy of Islam.

As concerns introduction of minarets, its beginning was, in fact, an act of borrowing the icon from Christian religious structures and using it to declare Islam’s supremacy over Christianity, the arch-enemy of Islam. And there was no better place of doing it than in Palestine, the holiest land of Christianity and the birthplace of Jesus. Here, al-Walid I, in 712, constructed first gorgeous mosque, the al-Aqsa mosque, fitted with a dome (of central Asian origin). The dome was constructed using remains of a destroyed church in Asia Minor. Thereafter, minarets began to be added on mosque-tops all over the world.

Hereon, wherever Muslims has gone, mosques, fitted with imposing domes and minarets, became the feature of all political centers of Islam, from India to Spain to Constantinople, declaring the supremacy of Islam and Muslims over non-Muslims. Indeed, building gorgeous mosques with minarets often became the first building initiative, which Islamic conquerors undertook in the newly conquered lands. For example, in India, the construction of the famed Quwat-al-Islam (Might of Islam) Mosque and the Qutb Minar (minaret) in Delhi were undertaken by Islamic conquerors in the 1190s, well before the founding of the permanent Muslim Sultanate in 1206.

Sky-piercing minarets, thus, became the familiar icon of the seats of Islamic power throughout history. Istanbul—the captured heartland of eastern Christianity Constantinople, which became the indomitable powerhouse of the Islamic Ottomans that terrorized Christian Europe for centuries—is also dotted the world’s finest minarets, an indication of what Istanbul stood for in the Islamic world. Erdogan, a well-versed Islamist ideologue, could hardly be wrong: Minarets are the ‘bayonets’, the symbol of Islam’s power.

Minarets represent a declaration not only of ‘who is in power’, but also of the supremacy of the Islamic creed. It is from here the residents, Muslim or non-Muslim, would be reminded, one likes it or not, in ear-blaring loudness five times a day that Islam is in power, that Islam calls the shot, that Islam is your ultimate choice. It’s not only a call to prayer to the faithful, but also a call to the infidels for the submission to Islam, five times daily, however irritating it may be.

If one has traveled in Asia, he/she would find that, even in the predominantly infidel cities in India, in Singapore, where Islam has been dislodged from power, thanks to British colonial interventions to some extent, but the people, overwhelmingly non-Muslim, must have to bear with the reminder for submission to Islam five times a day, including the most irritating wee-hour call to prayer.

Islamic power has gone from these lands, but the symbol remains. And, given the high breeding rates amongst Muslims, it also amounts to sign of the things to come again: absence of Islam’s hold on power in these lands is not permanent.

The Swiss minaret ban has drawn epithets such as shame, disgrace, Swiss racism, victory of Islamophobia, illiberal decision and so on for the nation. But the Swiss have obviously got it right in taking Erdogan’s message seriously: Minarets are Islam’s symbol of political domination.

Muslims are the fastest-rising populations in Western countries, with increasing Islamic orthodoxy and radicalism. The Islamic world, somewhat secularized in the Colonial Age and by the western influence of socialism/communism in the early 20th century, is witnessing increasing political integration of Islam, too. It is people like Erdogans, who want to turn minarets into bayonets of Islam, get unrivalled political backing from Muslims. Given these fact, the Swiss, indeed the wider secular West, has much to ponder when those lands are poised to witness Muslim dominance in a century, if not in a half.

Muslim immigrants in Europe today may acquiesce to not using minarets for ear-blaring calls to prayers five times a day as the Swiss Muslims have promised. But that’s what is minarets are meant for, and they would be bidding for time: first for being able to use minarets for the loud calls to prayer, and eventually for turning them into the bayonets of Islam by introducing Sharia in the West, something they have been strenuously striving for even at this stage.

M. A. Khan is author of Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, and the editor of islam-watch.org.

Comments (22)Add Comment
Well done, M. Khan!
written by Acharya S , December 05, 2009
Excellent article, my friend. The only conclusion can be that, despite its origin, the minaret is the bayonet and spear of the push for global domination by Islam.

Let us hope more countries follow suit with Switzerland and take strong measures to protect themselves against Islam.

Please see my recent post concerning the Mumbai massacre, which contains quotes from the terrorists showing precisely how it was Islam that motivated their evil acts.
The Little Country That Could
written by Steve , December 05, 2009
Can you imagine what the Swiss could accomplish if they had the military power of the US when confronting Islamization? A great example for the rest of Europe, the USA and Canada. It is time for non-Muslims everywhere to stand shoulder to shoulder against the encroaching beetles.
Tough people in tough spot
written by Kohi , December 05, 2009
Swiss are good tough people put in the tough spot by a group of uneducated sand flys. Hope the swiss hang tough and don't give in to polical correctness!
Thanks Acharya
written by M. A. Khan , December 05, 2009
It's a pleasure to see an scholar of your caliber, be the first reader of my article.

The Age (Australia) today termed the Swiss ban an ‘Irrational response to rational anxiety about Islam’. But I would say, it is probably the first 'rational response to a rational anxiety'.

I had a look at your Mumbai massacre article and run it on Islam-watch.
GOOD for the Swiss
written by Anne , December 06, 2009
I think it is the height of HYPOCRISY for muslims to make even one complaint about the Swiss violating freedom of their religion ,and they cannot be taken seriously until they address the very real PERSECUTION of non-muslims in Islamic countries..most do not allow churches to be built, those churches that still exist such as in EGYPT, are at the present time being attacked and burnt by MUSLIMS, with the police standing by watching..Christians are beheaded,tortured,and not ONE muslim voice is raised in protest! So cut out the theatricals, muslims , until churches can be built in muslim countries unhindered, NO mosques should be allowed in the West..
Do you know where Bethlehem is?
written by saladin , December 06, 2009
I find it strange you always hear complaints from Islamophobes about churches in the muslim world.Yet the silence is deafening concerning the situation of churches in Palestine.I wonder why this is?
written by y.m , December 06, 2009
A very good article by m.A.Khan.I think you are one of the better schalor of Islam than any Mullah.May God bless you.Deception and hypocricy is the part of muslim faith.They bring islam in every thing.They foolishly brag islam is their way of life.They are creating problmes for the other religious communities in the west.True muslims have make the muslim lands burning hell.Now they wants to do the same to the west.Muslims have conviced that the problmes of their countries are the falt of the west.Muslims immigrants have taken a great step by coming to west for better life,yet they want to destroyed it.As soon the christian Europe realised that islam is the evil idology is better for them.If you read the newspapers or book or any publication you will found that muslims have become crazy and mentally deranged to obtain power in Europe and America and they want to establish the islamic caliphate in Europe.Minds and hearts of the muslims have to open beyond the boundary of their religious hatred.Their grudge and hate aganist the non-muslims will reduce and they will not plot and kill innocent human being in hoping to enjoy sexual gratification with the houris(beautiful virgins)in paradise.
Really a good article...thanks
written by duh_swami , December 06, 2009
Minarets are also phallic symbols...An erect tubular structure, complete with an opening at the top and five times a day emissions of adhan... Allahgasms... I could go on, but you get the picture. There is lots of sexual symbolism in Islam...Mohammad was obsessed with it, and so were his merry men...it shows in lots of places...Among its other charming attributes, Islam is a sex and violence cult.
written by Mumin Salih , December 06, 2009
Thank you MA Khan for such an excellent work; this is one of the best articles I read.
Indeed, the original Islam prides itself of simplicity, not extravagance, in building mosques. Minarets had no place in Mohammed’s Islam; they were later additions. Personally, I believe that Mohammed decided not to compete with the Christians in the race of architecture because he knew he would lose. The Arabs simply were not talented builders; this is why Mohammed focused on simplicity.
Nowadays, the minarets are used as sign of supremacy and dominance in the same way the hijab is used to reflect the Islamic dominance in the streets.
Good Article
written by Dr. D. M. , December 06, 2009
Good article Dear MA Khan. Thanks.
written by machmoed elchalid , December 07, 2009
'Not at all Islamic but Christian'.

Like i already told here..that's because the first caliphs (i don't mean the right guided caliphs, cause these had left no evidence whatsoever...they might not have existed at all) was a christian. The real devision is made abd almalik. After him islam is almost what it is today, but before him islam was less oppresive. Before this the gouvernment started a campagne to propagate islam...at the same time they invited ibn ishaac to write a biography of an eternal prophet and not like the east muslims (shia-ali etc) who wanted a living prophet (Mullahs also 12 like the discipels of jesus of 12 followers of mythras or the 12 helpers of Horus). When ibn ishaac finished his book, the gouvernment didn't believe his findings and then it's kept inside the walls of the rulers. After a while ibn hisham atarted to write an other biography with the notitions of ibn ishaac. At the same time they invented the Hadieth. And then they replaced the time of 7th century with the written stories.
written by duh_swami , December 07, 2009
At the same time they invented the Hadieth. And then they replaced the time of 7th century with the written stories.

That may actually be the case, but at the same time, the Ahadith are top heavy with stories that fall into the 'You can't make this stuff up category'...The inventors of ahadith must have had a twisted sense of humor...
written by nader , December 07, 2009
if you understand islam, you'll reliase thats its all about peace and submission to the creator. There is no point in blaming islam just because its been used by people who call themselves muslims.

As history repeats itself, religions were used often for power and resources (e.g. Africa) and islam never used terrorism to change people's religion but also commands to act peacfully unless attaced. So if you compare war religions you'l clearly see the difference (check Europe and the middle ages).

By the way, minarets existed at the begining of islam to allow ventilation of mosque and to call muslims to prayer.

With all due respect to your'e opinions, please don't be so narrow minded and try to be unbiased by doing more research. You'll see that islam is very logical.

It all boils down to what you want to believe.

written by duh_swami , December 07, 2009
There is no point in blaming islam just because its been used by people who call themselves muslims.

Uh huh...I guess you never heard of jihad, or even read the Quran...
There is just no end to the number of Mohammadans who 'misunderstand' Islam...You know, the minute minority of bad apples who hijack Islam, and give it a bad name...
No one can say just how many a minute minority is, but it seems to be a lot of Muslims. Islamic misunderstanders are everywhere...Most of them hang out at mosques...
Did you know that jihad is an obligation incumbent on all Muslims? Did you know that those solid Muslims who refuse to participate die as hypocrites...Did you know that there are no hypocrites in Allah's Paradise? Do you know that there actually is such a place as Allah's Paradise? Do you know what you have to do to guarantee entry? Do you know you have been duped?
written by PG , December 07, 2009
"It all boils down to what you want to believe."
Sorry, but it doesn't. Not for me, anyway, and many others I know. There is something called logic which, along with facts, gets in the way of some things we might like to believe. But if you are stuck in Islam with no escape, maybe you "want" to believe all kinds of silly things, or you would be too annoyed at having to waste your life as a "slave of Allah."
By the sword
written by Tom Billesley , December 07, 2009
"islam never used terrorism to change people's religion"

For the campaign against apostates, the Caliph Abu Bakr gave these general instructions to the commanders of his forces:

Seek the tribes which are your objectives
Call the Azaan.
If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack.
Those who submit will not be attacked.
Those who do not answer with the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by sword.
All apostates who have killed Muslims will be killed.

I presume that "dealt with by the sword" for not fully submitting to Islam is not terrorism in your book.
written by Machmoed elchalid , December 08, 2009
'You can't make this stuff up category'...

They didn't make it all up. It seems that the prophet had characters of many individuals. It's been based on true stories with a lot of stories borrowed from zoroastrian etc. When we compare the life of Muhammad and zarathoestra..well a lot of comparisons can be made. Muhammad was an orphan and when he was 40 years old (40 years of moses in the desert or Jesus Christ who spent 40 days in the desert ) he became a prophet etc. etc. The stories about Muhammad are not unique. For example: i am sent to fullfill the religion of god and the scriptures of the jews and christians have been changes etc. is not from Muhammad but from prophet Mani who lived 300-400 years before Muhammad. This is one of the reasons that scholars believe Muhammad never existed like professor M. Kalish in Germany.
written by nader , December 08, 2009
The word "Jihad" means effort in Arabic, and in Quaran is to show effort by spending money and life for the creator. (Saf 10-11) When this verse revealed, believers at that time where under extreme conditions (torture, persecution, etc..) from non-believers and they were granted to defend themselves.
Effort to spread religion, help muslims and protect self from forbidden fruits. All within reason and balance.

For a religion which proposes peace and true democracy, did you ever think why such minorities are doing what they are doing now; perhaps a pressure from certain powers to provoke and create fear. Its easier to control scared people.

"Zakat" is a tax to support muslim communities, much like the taxes we pay for government. It is imposed on all muslims who have no debts.

Spreading islam got rules (e.g. respect for other religions) i hence Abu Bakr wouldn’t have killed people to impose islam (read ottomans empire history). However, taxes were imposed to support the army.

War shouldn’t be against islam but against who fears its true democracy. Socialism didnt’t work and so much for Capitalism. What kind of freedom and democracy is in the west anyway? one who gives to its own citizens and to the hell with others, the same one who does not respect other religions and symbols. And governments who are controlled y corporates. So you tell me about hypocracy.

God knows what he created and his mercy is enough to wipe out all sins as long as true belief is in someone. Fo someone who didn’t exist, he sure had lots of “Ahadith” to pass and there are many “Ahadith” who got no relations with islam for both its contradiction with quran and its unverified sources.

Finally, I hope I made myself clear with my humble English and would like to thank you for reading my post. No religion is as flexible and detailed as islam to show the way of life which only shows that its non man made and I’m proud to be a muslim.
written by lw1 , December 11, 2009
You haven't answered Tom Billesley's point --' By the sword'.Re: Instructions by Caliph Abu Bakr -- 'Those who do not answer with the Azaan or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt by the sword.' The sword is to cut heads off, so you can't say that is not terrorism. How is this proposing peace and true democracy? Also why is the money collected through Zakat only for Muslim communities? Why do you discriminate against non-believers ?
written by nader , December 13, 2009
'Those who do not answer with the Azaan or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt by the sword.' means reply by acceptance of defeat, convert to islam or fight. So they had a choice.

And there were many things not mentioned by Tom; Abu Bakr ordered many things (which is the general rule in islamic wars) like sparing children, women and old people, trees, resources, etc.. and that is peace within war. And torture is out of the question.

I recommend reading about "Rights of enemies at war" in Islam history applied 1300 years ago, while nations actually codificated the 'international law' in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Zakat is collected according to wealth, however, a symbolic tax was collected from non-believers and no one in the community was left to suffer. Peace was displayed by great relations in 'Abbasi' and 'Emevi' periods toward Jews and Christians because both religions (originally) believe in only one god.

why doesn't tom write about human rights in Islam ? like sharing your food with your neighbor, protect the poor, respect others. Rights which were granted by God and not by by the kings or the legislative assemblies, which can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred.

I can't recall anything like this in other civilizations, do you ?

written by fsdrthg , January 01, 2011
The payment of the jizyah was not only to collect revenue on which the Islamic state depended, but had to be made in conditions, as Lal says but that are not detailed in the quotation above, would demonstrate to one and all, Muslim and dhimmi alike, the inferior status of the dhimmi. The dhimmi was supposed to appear with the payment, and in many places he would be struck on the side of jaw, or otherwise. Not, that is, merely symbolically. In India where Hindus had to pay both zakat and jizya, one practice deserves mentioning (this may be in Lal, or on Sarkar, or elsewhere): the Hindu, treated as a kind of dhimmi even though, as a polytheist, he did not actually count as a member of the ahl al-Kitab or "people of the Book".

There is something else. The payment either of jizyah, or the land-tax, kharaj, is only the best-known of the many disabilities, economic, political, and social, which dhimmis had to endure. Examples include the requirement that clothing of Christians and Jews, and their dwelling-places, bear marks indicating that they were either Christians or Jews. The zunnar, or belt, often blue, of the Christians, or the yellow star of the Jews (Hitler borrowed his idea from the "tolerant" court of Abbasid Baghdad), helped to identify people. And why would not need to identify them? Well, suppose one of them did not obey the rules pertaining to dhimmis. For example, dhimmis could not ride on horses, but only on donkeys, and only side-saddle, and they had to dismount whenever they came upon a Muslim. Dhimmis could not repair or build new houses of worship. Dhimmis could not testify against Muslims in court, so if there were any quarrel, the Muslim would always win. And there were of course always the threat that if even a single dhimmi did not fulfill an obligation, or violated some prohibition, not only he, but his entire community could suffer.

Of course, even with this the massacre of whole communities -- such as that of all the Jews in Grenada in 1066 -- still went on, despite the payment of the "protection money" (Islamic defenders phrase it, rather cunningly, as "money spent for protection" -- as if the Christians and Jews were merely paying for the local police, or fire department, rather than paying Muslims off for "protection" against Muslims themselves, who otherwise would be even harsher, and possibly kill those not conforming to the requirements of dhimmitude.

written by fsdrthg , January 01, 2011

Among the Christians in the Balkans, and Bulgaria, the Ottoman Turks practiced the devshirme, the forced levy (kidnapping, really, by the Ottoman state) of Christian males to be trained up for service to the Ottomans. Although some (e.g. Bernard Lewis) present this as a rather innocuous fate, and Lewis goes so far as to suggest that Muslim parents were envious of the Christian children who were "recruited" (Lewis' preposterous word) by the Ottomans (sounds more like agents from Istanbul fanned out, offering fat contracts in the manner of a Yankees agent in Santo Domingo than it what it really, and heart-rendingly, was -- but then Lewis has never fully confronted the Ottoman treatment of non-Muslims, instead offering couleur locale, and some nunc pro tunc backdating of Kemalism). While everyone finds reason to admire Kemal Pasha (and his friendshp with his dentist, Dr. Grunberg), and everyone is grateful that the Jews booted out of Spain so cruelly sought, and found refuge in, among other places (remember a little place called Amsterdam, and some of those portraits of rabbis by Rembrandt?), and of course in Salonika (where these Sephardic Jews replaced a previous group of Jews who had much earlier been forced to leave by the Ottomans) and elsewhere, gratitude has its limits, or should, in the historian who prides himself on his icy objectivity.

The most comprehensive statement of dhimmitude can be found in the works of Bat Ye'or, especially "Islam and Dhimmitude," and above all, for its calm sobriety about the legal regime,, Antoine Fattal's "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam." Unfortunately, the latter remains to be translated into English from the French -- apparently, those students of Islam in this country who know of the book either are hiding its existence, or are of the old school, and assuming that their graduate students can easily read French. But Fattal's work is useful, if intelligently englished, everyone -- not least for those people presuming, in American law schools, to teach something they call "Islamic Law" but which is really theology. They at least ought to give a full accounting of how, under the Shari'a, non-Muslims are to be treated -- it is of increasing relevance today. It may be Europe's future. Why not find out now what that future holds in store?

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

Last Updated on Sunday, 06 December 2009 01:20  

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Sign petition:  Grant Imran Firasat Asylum in the USA


Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy