Hits: 3388

The Quran describes Muslims as being nice to each other and harsh against the unbelievers (Q. 48:29 “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves…”). Some may argue that it is wrong and unfair to look only at the Muslims’ harsh side and make a judgement. This article browses through Islamic history attempt to see how nice the Muslims have been to each other. The following is only a small selection of events that come to mind.

The Quran correctly says that reminders benefit the believers (Q.51:55 “And remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers”). Let us hope that this reminder helps the unbelievers as well, although judging from how the West is dealing with Islamic invasion, this only seems more like a wishful thinking.

The Rashidun (the rightly guided) Era

There are conflicting reports about the nature of Muhammad’s death. Some Muslims insist it was a natural death while others (including Muhammad himself ) believed he was poisoned by a Jewish woman (probably a convert to Islam). Some even accuse Abu Bakr and Omar of plotting to assassinate Muhammad towards the end of his life. The Muslims’ split regarding succession surfaced immediately after their leader’s death and remains unresolved up to the present day. Abu Bakr’s era was marked with the a blood bath ( the Ridda wars) on a scale Arabia never experienced before.


The Umayyad’s Era

The Abbassid’s Era

The Ottoman’s Era

The Recent Futuhat (Conquests)

In Islamic terminology, it is wrong to call it invasion or occupation when Muslim armies invade and occupy a non-Muslim country; such actions are called “futuhat”. The word mean ‘openings’ and suggests that the country has now been opened to the Muslims and the blessings of Islam.

By Muhammad’s death, Arabia was already an Islam only region, therefore, all the wars that followed were Muslims vs Muslims wars. Once I read a Saudi account about the unification of the kingdom and was shocked to notice that they actually described their occupation of other towns as ‘futuhat’. The alliance between the house of Saud and the Ikhwan siege Muslim towns like Taif, Jedda and Mecca, conquered them, killed thousands of civilians and described their actions as ‘futuhat’. The description suggests that, from the Saudi perspective, the Muslim residents of those towns were actually not Muslims. Indeed, the civilian population of those towns were treated badly and thousands were butchered including women and small children. The Egyptian historian Al Gabarti gave a hair raising description of the Saudi conquest of Taif (1803 AD) and the rest of Hijaz. The atrocities of the Saudi/Ikhwan alliance were not limited to the Hijaz region but involved all of Arabia.

Interestingly, the Saudi leadership always sought a religious advice (fatwa) from the council of alma (scholars) before every conquest. Eventually, and after all the blood baths, King Abdul Aziz entered Mecca wearing the robes of Ihram, to comply with Islamic tradition! In preparation for Hajj in 1925 AD, and in keeping with centuries old tradition, the Egyptians sent their expensive ‘mahmal’ that included the hand woven dressing of Ka’aba. As the Egyptians entered the streets of Mecca, they were attacked and massacred by the Ikhwan who thought the Egyptians were not perfectly Islamic as they entered Mecca.

In fact, all the atrocities being committed by ISIS today are replicas of those committed by the Saudi/Ikhwan alliance over the last couple of centuries. No wonder that ISIS calls its occupation of new towns in Iraq and Syria as ‘futuhat’.

The Iraq/Iran war of the 1980s claimed far more losses than the Muslims’ wars against the Persians, the Romans, the Crusaders and the Mongols put together. The current Sunni Vs Shia conflicts may prove to be even worse. The recent Saudi interest in nuclear technology has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Iran. It just shows what is in their minds and how far the Muslims are prepared to go to eliminate the other Muslims.