Cannibalizing Islam

 

Abul Kasem

In Pakistan, currently, Islam is fighting against Islam. On one side is the Islam of the Pakistan Government, the so‑called ‘enlightened’ Islam, invented by the Islamic general Pervaiz Musharraf. On the other side the ‘true’ Islamic soldiers of Allah, the Pakistani Talibans. What was previously ‘Pakistan’s war on terror’ is now an open, declared war on the Talibans. Reportedly the Pakistan army has killed more than seven hundred Taliban fighters, their own Muslim ‘brothers’. Whereas, the Talibans has slaughtered around seventeen Pakistan army jawans, also their Muslim brothers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As ‘tit for tat’ the Talibans haave also declared ‘fight to the death’ jihad on Pakistan army and oligarchy. It is not difficult to guess where the war is heading. Very soon, the Talibans will go underground and launch Islamic guerilla warfare, thus ensuring a protracted Islamic cannibalization.

 

 
Picture: Baitullah masood


Picture: A Pakistani islamic Army Officer
 

Both sides claim they are fighting for Islam. Both sides pray in mosques, supplicate to Allah for victory, and pronounce ‘Allahu Akbar’when killing each other. Pakistan army, which reportedly had clandestine links with the Talibans via ISI, is now on a Jihad path to cannibalize their own flesh and blood. Likewise, the Talibans has also vowed to ‘eliminate’ the Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari and his Prime Minister, Yussuf Raza Gilani. Readers should note that very recently Pakistani Taliban leaders gloated that they had assassinated Ms Benazir Bhutto, the two‑time Prime Minister of Pakistan, and the wife of Mr Asif Ali Zardari.

 

What the world is witnessing today is the re‑play of the seventh century Islamic cannibalization. It is a war on Islam by Islam. Islam’s life‑force is human blood, just like the petrol for a car. When infidel blood becomes difficult, Islam cannibalizes itself.

Since its birth Pakistan has always considered India its eternal enemy. Pakistan’s policies are designed to face or to annihilate its arch enemy the ‘Hindu’ India. Pakistan had a few wars with India. In all of them Pakistan had tested defeat or stalemate. But Pakistan has to learn a few lessons now.

 

It is clear that Pakistan’s real enemy is not India; it is Islam. Pakistan has to defeat Islam if it were to survive. Will Pakistan learn this simple truth before Islam destroys Pakistan once and for all?

 

To know more about cannibalizing Islam please read on. Although this essay was written about three years ago, during the time when Muslims were slaughtering Muslims in Iraq, it has unerringly demonstrated the cannibalistic umbilical cord of Islam.

 

 

 

 

Recent events in Iraq and in some other Islamic Paradises, like Darfur, Pakistan, Bangladesh, is unfolding a bizarre picture of Islam—the picture of cannibalization of Islam! Bereft of any sensible reasons, the Muslims are killing Muslims! How is this unthinkable possible?—we might wonder in awe.  After all, Islamic killing really means wanton murder of the infidels, as had been amply demonstrated by 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Jakarta, 7/7 and many other episodes of horrendous Islamic genocides.

 

Having quenched, to some extent, its thirst for infidel blood, it appears that Islam is now turning on itself. After all, now-a-days, it is gradually becoming more difficult to murder infidels in large number—as the kafirs have, slowly, but surely become smarter, and have learnt their bitter lessons vis`-a vis` Islam. They are now fully alert, cautious, stern and decisive in combating Islamic terrorism. We no longer hear President George Bush exhorting, ‘Islam means peace’, neither does Tony Blair say, ‘Islam is tolerant’. Instead, these kafir leaders are now loud and clear—saying without hesitation, ‘Islam is an evil ideology’ used by the terrorists. These infidel lands are now busy enacting tough legislations to call ‘spade a spade’. What we have been writing for many years, is, finally being heeded by these infidels. This is good for them, and is surely good for the entire humanity. But this is not at all good news for Islam.

 

You see, Islam cannot blissfully thrive without red hot blood—the human blood. As a car cannot run without petrol, so is Islam. The fuel that propels Islam is blood. When infidels’ blood is difficult to shed, Islam spills its own blood. Blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, hate its foundation. Therefore, when needed, Islam must cannibalize itself, just to run its own course, set by Muhammad, the last Prophet.

This cannibalism is nothing new in Islam. Islamic history is profusely replete with many such savage anecdotes of cannibalization.

 

During the last few decades we have witnessed much such Islamic cannibalism. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs) but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism.

 

Here, I shall illustrate a few such cases of Islamic cannibalism as was perpetrated during the nascent stages of Islam, and ponder if we could learn a few lessons from those gruesome episodes.

 

Strangely, the earliest example of Islamic cannibalism is found in the Holy Qur’an, in verses 9:108-110. These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of none but Muhammad when he was returning after his expedition to Tabuk, a resourceful town in the Syrian-Byzantine territory. This Islamic incursion story goes like this:

 

The Destruction of an Opposition Mosque at Dhu Awan by Muhammad–April, 631CE

 

Proceeding further from Tabuk on his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba (about 4 kms. from Medina), an hour’s journey from Medina. There, an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us” (Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). As Muhammad was too busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, he excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque but assured the dissident group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina (from Tabuk).

 

When Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan, he accused its builders of being unjust and sent a band of jihadists to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque. He said to his band of hooligans, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). His band of raging arsonists stealthily entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.

 

Then he extolled the virtue of the first mosque (known as Masjid Takwa) that was built by him at Quba when he migrated to Medina and where he had asked his followers to pray. This instruction is written in the Qur’an in verses 9:108-110

 

Here are those verses that had laid the foundation of cannibalism in Islam:

009.107
And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity – to disunite the Believers – and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
009.108
Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.
009.109
Which then is best? – he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? – or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.
009.110
The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

 

These verses, when taken in true Islamic spirit, call for the devastation of rival mosques. The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it naturally becomes a moot-point.. It is therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed. Thus, Sunnis are free to destroy Shia mosques; the Shias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such depravities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises. In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shias and burning their mosques. Then the Shias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chair of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims! Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunna (Muhammad’s deeds and examples), the two principal sources of Islam.

Arguably, we might wonder why such mayhem must be never-ending when the apologist Muslims, living in infidel lands (especially, in the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia) are vociferous in claiming ‘Islam is peaceful’ and Islam could never condone such murder and violence. To solve this puzzle, we must, at first, find out the sect structure of Islam. Simply stated, we must be aware of the various sects/classes/denominations of Muslims.

If we do a little Googling we might discover the following main sects or branches of Islam:

 

Sunni

            Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbal

Sufis

Wahabis

Salafists

Submitters (Qur’an only Muslims)

Khilafites

Deobandis

 

Shia

Jaffri, Islamilia, Zaidiah, Yazdis

 

Ashariyahs

Alawis

Qadianis

Ahmedis

Druzes

Dawoodis

Bohras

Kharizis

Kurds

 

There might be many other groups and sub-groups that might not be readily known to us.

 

Even Muhammad had predicted that the Muslims will be divided into seventy-three  sects. Here are a few ahadith on this from Sunaan Abu Dawud:

 

 

Muslims will be split into 73 sects…40.4579

 

Book 40, Number 4579:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.

 

Seventy-two of the seventy-three Muslim sects will go to hell; only one of the sects will be in Paradise; it is the majority group…3.40.4580

 

Volume 3, Book 40, Number 4580          

 

Abu ‘Amir al-Hawdhani said: Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan stood among us and said: Beware! The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood among us and said: Beware! The people of the Book were split up into seventy-two sects, and this community will be split up into seventy-three: seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group.

 

Islam has seventy branches…3.40.4659

 

Volume 3, Book 40, Number 4659

 

Abu Hurairah reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Faith has over seventy branches, the most excellent of which is the declaration that there is no god but Allah, and the humblest of which is the removal of a bone from the road. And modesty is a branch of faith.

 

A hadis from Sunaan Abu Dawud tells us that whoever creates disunity in Islam, kill him. This is akin to an open licence to pre-emptively murder anyone who is suspected of creating division among Muslims. Thus, all the sects I listed above are free to practice Islamic cannibalism as per their wish/s.

 

Whoever creates disunity in the Islamic community kill him…3.40.4744

 

Volume 3, Book 40, Number 4744

 

‘Arfajah told that he heard the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Various corruptions will arise in my community, so strike with sword the one who tries to cause separation in the matter of Muslims when they are united, whoever he be.        

 

On a note (foot note 4153), the English translator of Sunaan Abu Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community, it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’

 

Yet another hadis from the same source asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadis even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims.

 

Many people will recite the Qur’an but will leave Islam very quickly; so kill them wherever you find them…40.4747

Book 40, Number 4747

Narrated Abu Sa’id al-Khudri; Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Soon there will appear disagreement and dissension in my people; there will be people who will be good in speech and bad in work. They recite the Qur’an, but it does not pass their collar-bones. They will swerve from the religion as an animal goes through the animal shot at. They will not return to it till the arrow comes back to its notch. They are worst of the people and animals. Happy is the one who kills them and they kill him. They call to the book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. He who fights against them will be nearer to Allah than them (the rest of the people). The people asked: What is their sign? He replied: They shave the head.

 

Muhammad predicts the demise of Islam?

 

As strange and as unbelievable as it might appear in these days of unremitting Islamic terrorism and Islamic cannibalism, Muhammad himself had predicted the demise of Islam. Comparing Islam with a snake, he likened Islam to be confined between the mosques of Mecca and Medina. Please read these Sahih ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

 

Sahih Bukhari

 

Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake…3.30.100

 

Volume 3, Book 30, Number 100:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger).”

 

There will be no trace of Islam in some believers…9.84.65

 

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 65:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Yasar:

That they visited Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and asked him about Al-Harauriyya, a special unorthodox religious sect, “Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about them?” Abu Sa’id said, “I do not know what Al-Harauriyya is, but I heard the Prophet saying, “There will appear in this nation—- he did not say: From this nation —- a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them).”

Sahih Muslim

 

Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole…1.0270

 

Book 001, Number 0270:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Islam initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange. So good tidings for the stranger.

The Islamic faith will recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls into its hole…1. 0271, 0272

 

Book 001, Number 0271:

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar (‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.

Book 001, Number 0272:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Verily the faith would recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.

We already learned about the very first Islamic cannibalism as mentioned in the Qur’an. Ever since then, the practice of killing Muslims by Muslims is truly endemic. During the time of Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) this cannibalism took a serious turn, sparing not even the two last caliphs, ‘Uthman and Ali. Both of them were cruelly murdered by savage Islamic cannibals. Among these two cases of Islamic cannibalism, perhaps the murder of ‘Uthman stands out to be the most aghast.

Here is how it was carried out, as described by Tabari (volume xv):

After the rebels laid siege on Uthman’s residence for 49 days (or 40 days, according to another narration), they grew impatient. They had already set ablaze the portico of his residence and had halted the supply of water. But ‘Uthman survived this peril—thanks to his secret guards. They sneaked in water for ‘Uthman’s consumption. The dissidents became desperate to finish ‘Uthman. They hand-picked three experienced killers; dispatched them one after another to assassinate ‘Uthman. Every time one of these professional assassins entered ‘Uthman’s chamber, ‘Uthman adjured them for Allah’s sake not to murder him—lest they too received Allah’s unbound wrath. Being really fearful of this punishment of Allah, they could not strike their sword on an aged, emaciated ‘Uthman. One by one, they returned, having failed to accomplish their mission. Frustrated, the rebels selected Muhammad b. Abu Bakr (caliph Abu Bakr’s son), another cannibal, to murder ‘Uthman. Muhammad, too found it extremely difficult to kill ‘Uthman, as’Uthman pleaded for his life for Allah’s sake. So, Muhammad returned empty handed—without the blood of ‘Uthman on his hands.

 

Now, read on what Tabari writes:

 

 [Please note that Na’ilah bt. Alfarafisah was the 8th, the youngest and the most beautiful of all his wives. She was with ‘Uthman when the assassins entered his chamber. ‘Uthman was eighty-two years when he was killed. Also please know that Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, one of the main killers of ‘Uthman was a half-brother of Aisha, the dearest and the youngest wife of Muhammad, the Prophet]

 

pp.215-216

 

When Muhammad b. Abi Bakr came out and they learned that he had failed, Qutayrah al-Sakuni, Sudan b. Humran al-Sakuni, and al-Ghafiqi rose up and attacked [‘Uthman]. Al-Ghafiqi struck him with an iron tool he was carrying and kicked the Qur’an with his foot. The sacred text flew over, dropping into [‘Uthman’s] hands, and as blood flowed upon it, Sudan b. Humran came up to strike him, and Nailah bt. Alfarafisah bent over him and warded off the sword with her hand. He aimed at her and struck off her fingers. As she turned to flee, he fondled her hips and said, “How large her buttocks are!” Then he struck ‘Uthman and killed him. Some of ‘Uthman’s slaves entered alongside the rebels [‘qawm] to defend him. ‘Uthman had manumitted certain of them, and when they saw that Sudan had struck him, one of them fell on him and cut off his head. Qutayrah jumped on the slave and killed him. [The rebels] pillaged the house and drove out those who lived there. Then they locked the three dead men inside.

 

When they went out into the courtyard of the house, another of ‘Uthman’s slaves jumped on Qutayrah and killed him. The rebels coursed through the house taking everything they found, even what was on women. One man, named Kulthum b. Tujib, snatched Na’ilah’s head wrap. Na’ilah turned away and he said, “Woe to your mother! How full your buttocks are!” A slave of ‘Uthman saw him and killed him then was killed himself. The rebels shouted to one another: “Every man should keep an eye on his comrades.”  Within the house they cried out, “Seize the Public Treasury! No one must get there ahead of you.” The guards of the Public Treasury—in which there were but two sacks—heard their voices and said, ”Run! These people are only after worldly goods.” They fled while [the rebels] came to the Treasury and pillaged it.

 

Another version of ‘Uthman’s murder is narrated in this manner:

 

p.218

 

‘Uthman ordered Abu Karib—a man of [the tribe of] Hamdan—and one of the Helpers to stand guard at the door to the Public Treasury, which contained just two sacks of silver coin. When the fire was eventually extinguished, ibn al-Zubayr and Marwan skirmished with (the assailants). The two men were threatened by Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, and when he entered ‘Uthman’s presence they both fled. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr seized [Utman’s] beard, and he said “Let go of my beard! Your father would not have grabbed it.” So he let go. Then the [rebels] came in and attacked [‘Uthman]; one was striking him with iron tip of his scabbard and another was beating him with his fists. A man with broad iron-tipped arrows came and stabbed him in the throat, and the blood flowed down on the Qur’an. Even as they did this they were afraid to kill him, but he was old and lost consciousness. Still others came in, and when they saw that he was unconscious they dragged him away by the leg. Na’ilah and her daughters screamed. Al-Tujibi drew his sword to plunge it into [‘Uthman’s] belly. Na’ilah shielded him, but [al-Tujibi] cut her hand, then he leaned on [‘Uthman’s] chest with his sword. ‘Uthman—may God be pleased with him—was murdered before sunset. Someone cried out, “How is it that his blood is lawful and his property forbidden?” So they pillaged everything, and then broke into Public Treasury. The two guards threw down the keys and fled for lives, shouting, “Flee! Flee! This is what the rebels (al-qawm) are after.”

 

And here is yet another version of this Islamic murder (read Islamic cannibalism):

 

pp.219-220

 

…Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, accompanied by Kinanah b. Bishr b. ‘Attab, Sudan b. Humran and ‘Amr b. al-Hamiq, reached ‘Uthman by climbing over the wall from the house of ‘Amr b. Hazm. They found ‘Uthman, with his wife Na’ilah, reading the Surah of the Cow from the Qur’an. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr came up to them and seized ‘Uthman’s beard. “May God disgrace you, you hyena,” he said. ‘Uthman replied, “I am no hyena. I am God’s servant and the Commander of the Faithful.”Muhammad said, “Neither Mua’wiyah nor anyone else has been of any use to you.” ‘Uthman said, “Son of my brother, let go my beard. Your father would not have gripped like this.” Muhammad replied, “Had my father seen you doing these things, he would have denounced you for them, and I mean to do worse to you than grab your beard.” ‘Uthman said, “I seek God’s help and support against you.” Then Muhammad pierced his forehead with a broad iron-tipped arrow that he was holding. Kinanah b. Bishr raised some arrows of the same kind that he was holding, and plunged them into the base of ’Uthman’s ear down to his throat. Then he fell on him with his sword until he killed him

 

According to ‘Abd al-Rahman—Abu ‘Awn: Kinanah b. Bishr struck his forehead with an iron bar. He pitched forward, face down, and Sudan b. Humran al-Muradi bet him after he had fallen ad killed him.

 

…As to ‘Amr b.al-Hamiq, he jumped on ‘Uthman and sat on his chest—he was still barely alive—and stabbed him nine times. ‘Amr said, “I stabbed him three times for God’s sake and six times because of the anger in my breast against him.”

 

If we are troubled reading those passages, please remember that all of those who ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman were impeccable Muslims—the most ardent jihadists, belonging to the stock of Muhammad (pbuh), the Hashim clan of the Quraysh. This example is the epitome of true Islamic cannibalism.

 

The above Islamic cannibalism did not end there. The cycle continued until Aisha (Prophet Muhammad’s dearest wife), along with two of her brothers-in-law, Talha and Zubayr set out to avenge ‘Uthman’s murder. When she reached al-Basrah, a rebel stronghold, she killed (by beheading) six hundred of the suspected rebels who had ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman. Ali, being sucked into the vortex of this cannibalistic cycle, set out to punish Aisha’s gang. The result: ten thousand Muslims, including Talhah and Zubayr lay perished in al-Basrah, equal in proportion from both sides. Aisha’s life was spared by the cannibals, but her camel was hamstrung. In Islamic history this is known as the Battle of the Camel. This is perhaps one of the most moving examples of how ‘Islamic cannibalism’ really perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence and mayhem. This is the reason why we shall, perhaps, never observe a let up to the succession of Islamic cannibalism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan  or Sudan.

 

The narration of this very important chain of Islamic cannibalism will remain incomplete till we learn the fate of all the participants sucked into this whirlpool of cannibalism and counter cannibalism.

 

The following passages, adopted from Tabari’s Tarikh al-Tabari  (vol. xvii) illustrate, very briefly how this cycle of Islamic cannibalism continued, and perhaps, continues even today.

 

Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and a close relative of caliph ‘Uthman demanded from Ali the handing over of the killers of ‘Uthman. When Ali refused to comply with this request, Muawayiah b. Abi Sufyan, and his right-hand man, ‘Amr b. al-‘As (the deposed governor of Egypt), became open enemies of Ali. They gathered forces and set off to attack Ali. Ali met this force at Siffin. Fearful of defeat at the hands of Ali’s fierce and well-trained army, Muwayiah and ‘Amr devised quite an innovative trick. Their soldiers attached copies of the Qur’an at the tip of their lances and raised them high in air. Ali’s soldiers went in stupor and were hesitant to charge their enemy, lest they trample the Holy Qur’an. Both sides remained standstill—the battle became a stalemate. In the end, both parties agreed to stop fighting and decided on a speedy negotiated settlement by appointing an arbiter from each side. Having mutually reached this agreement, both sides separated and returned.

 

But not everyone on Ali’s side was happy with Ali’s prompt decision. A faction of Islamist extremists thought judgment belonged to Allah and Ali’s decision to appoint arbiters for a peaceful settlement is contrary to Islamic principle. This dissident group of Ali was known as the Kharijites. They insisted that Ali resume fighting. But Ali could not renege on his treaty of a peaceful settlement. The Kharijites declared Ali to be a sinner and asked him to repent. Initial attempt by Ali for a reconciliation with the Kharijites met with feeble success. So, ultimately, Ali had to cannibalize the cannibals. He had to fight a major battle at the canal of Nahrawan, east of river Tigris in Iraq. This battle ended with a merciless mass slaughter of the Kharijites. But this cannibalization did not completely eradicate the Kharijite problem. Many Kharijites survived this genocide, went into hiding, and some of them returned to Kufa (Ali’s headquarter in Iraq) stealthily. A few of them went to Egypt.

 

Ali appointed Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, the killer of ‘Uthman as the governor of Egypt, replacing the former governor appointed by ‘Uthman. This appointment infuriated Muawiyah and ‘Amr. They plotted to assassinate Muhammad b. Abi Bakr and to replace him by ‘Amr b. al-‘As. On the instruction of Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr b. al-‘As raised a battalion of 6,000 men and arrived at Egypt, ready to fight Muhammad b. Abi Bakr. One of the commanders of this 6,000 strong army was Muwayiah b. Hudhayj (no relation of Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan) who lived in Egypt. After surrounding Muhammad b. Abi Bakr’s forces, ‘Amr sent him the letter written by Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan (the governor of Syria).

 

It may be worthwhile to quote the content of this letter, as it exposes the hypocrisy and the vile nature of Islamic piety. ‘Amr b. al-‘As wrote:

 

p. 153 (Tabari, vol.xvii)

 

The outcome of injustice and evil is great harm. Whoever sheds prohibited blood does not escape retribution in this world or evil consequences in the next. We do not know of anyone who was more persistent in injustice against ‘Uthman, more shamefully wicked against him, or more fervent in opposing him than you. You were among those who rushed against him in assault, and you were among those who shed his blood. Then you thought that I would overlook or forget you to the extent that you made yourself ruler (amir) over the land in which you are a neighbor of mine, and majority of the people of which are my supporters who share my views, heed what I say and call on me for help against you. I have sent against you a band of men that is enraged against you, seeks your blood to drink, and attempts to draw near to God by jihad against you. They have given God an undertaking that they will make an exemplary punishment of you, and if it were not that they intend for your something more than merely killing you, I would not have warned you nor given you notice. I would have liked them to kill you for your evil, your breaking the bonds of relationship, and your enmity against ‘Uthman on the day when he was pierced by your arrow heads between the bone that protrudes behind the ear and his jugular vein. But it is abhorrent to me that I should make an exemplary punishment of a Quraish, though God will never deliver you from retaliation wherever you are. Salutations.

 

Muhammad b. Abi Bakr replied to Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan thus:

 

p.155 (ibid)

 

I have received your letter in which you remind me of the matter of ‘Uthman, and I make no apology to you regarding that. You tell me to withdraw from you, as if you were a sincere advisor, and you try to frighten me with reference to an exemplary punishment (al-Muthlah) as if you were sympathetic to me. I hope that fortune will raise me up again over you and that I will sweep you away in battle, but if you are given the victory and authority (al-amr) in this world is yours, then, by my life, how many a Believer you will have killed and mutilated (mathlatum). But both you and they must appear before God, for all things return to Him, and “He is the most merciful of the merciful and God’s help is to be implored against what you describe.” Salutations.

 

Muhammad b. Abi Bakr lost the battle, his army fled, and forlornly, he took shelter inside an abandoned house. He was completely exhausted, severely hungry, thirsty, and hopelessly resigned to his fate. Soon, he was caught by Muawiyah b. Hudhayj’s soldiers and was brought to Muawiyah b. Hudhayj’s presence. The following conversation between Muhammad b. Abi Bakr and Muwawiyah b. Hudhayj will demonstrate how savage those Islamist terrorists were:

 

Here is the text of the conversation as written on pp.157-158 (ibid):

 

Muhammad said to them, “Give me some water to drink,” but Muawiyah b. Hudhayj answered him, “May God not give him anything to drink if he ever gives you a drop. You prevented ‘Uthman from drinking water until you killed him, while he was fasting and in a state of ritual purity (ihram), and God received him with choice sealed wine. By God I will kill you, ibn Abu Bakr, and God will give you drink, boiling water and pus.”

 

And finally,

 

Muawiyah became angry, had him brought forward, and killed him. Then he cast him into the corpse of a donkey and set fire to it.

 

The chain of this Islamic cannibalism will remain unfinished until we learn the fates of Ali, Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan and ‘Amr b. al-‘As.

 

As mentioned earlier, a few kharijites sneaked into Kufa and Egypt. Among them were the Islamist terrorists, ibn Muljam, al-Burak b. Abdallah and ‘Amr b. Bakr. They took the following vows:

 

Ibn Muljam: to kill Ali (in Kufa)

Al-Burak b. Abdallah: to kill Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan (in Syria)

‘Amr b. Bakr: to kill ‘Amr b. al-‘As (in Egypt)

 

True to his promise, ibn Muljam bought a menacing sword, sharpened and poisoned it for little over a month and got ready to murder Ali. On the 17th day of Ramadan (the holiest month in the Islamic calendar), very early Friday morning, he, accompanied with another accomplice, lay in darkness at the door of the mosque for the arrival of Ali to lead the morning-prayer. When Ali approached the door of the mosque, both the perpetrators struck Ali with their swords. Ibn Mujlam’s accomplice’s sword missed Ali; he fled in panic. But ibn Muljam’s sword hit Ali right on his head. He was gravely injured, taken to his residence and on the Saturday night he died of acute poisoning of the wound.

 

The people caught ibn Muljam on the spot. He was calm, composed and expressed no remorse for what he had done—everything was done Islamically. He did not break any Islamic rule—he claimed. After Ali died, al-Hasan, Ali’s eldest son, beheaded him. Then the people took ibn Muljam’s corpse, wrapped him in straw mats and burned him.

 

On the same day Ali was struck down, al-Burak b. Abdallah also attacked Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan when he went to the mosque to offer the morning-prayer. But his sword only cut the buttock of Muwayiah. The sword was poisoned, so the doctor treated him with a potion, the effect of which made Muawiyah infertile for life.

 

Al-Burak b. Abdallah was caught and Muawiyah ordered him to be beheaded.

 

As for ‘Amr b. al-‘As, he survived, as he had stomach problem and could not lead the morning prayer. His assailant, ‘Amr b. Bakr killed the acting imam, thinking him to be ‘Amr b. al-‘As.

 

The killer ‘Amr b. Bakr was caught, brought to ‘Amr b. al-‘As and was beheaded.

 

Please note that all those killing missions were carried out almost simultaneously (those terrorists agreed to conduct their mission in that manner—Tabari writes), at the same time This is indeed strange, when we observe their uncanny resemblance of today’s Islamist terrorists attack on infidels. They also conduct their murder operations almost in chorus. Isn’t this the resurrection of the Kharijits?

 

Every time we switch on television and watch those gory, despicable, horrific, gruesome and frightening scenes in Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Algeria, Darfur perpetrated by the Islamist jihadists, we are actually witnessing the playback of the past of Islamic cannibalism. Every time we see those horrible scenes we are, in fact watching re-enactment of the incidence of Uthman’s murder and its aftermath. Grasping this truth will enhance our perception of Islamic terrorism, its depth, width and extent of savagery and why this barbarism is not going to go away so soon. Do remember, the victims of these mayhems are not infidels. They are truly Muslims, being cannibalized by truer Muslims. One day we shall surely watch how these truer Muslims would be cannibalized by the truest Muslims. It is just a matter of time before this cycle repeats itself, if we were to learn any lessons from the episodes of Islamic cannibalisms I illustrated from the earliest Islamic period.

 

Conclusion:

 

Islamic cannibalism is a non-stop musical chair which continues forever, or at least until Islam is extinguished completely in the manner postulated by none other than Muhammad (see above for the ahadith) himself. The concept of a single Islamic Ummah is simply a myth. When the killing of infidels becomes difficult, Islam kills itself. Isn’t this a little piece of good news for humanity?

 

Bibliography

 

  1. The Holy Qur’an. The internet version of three English translations can be read at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html

 

  1. Ali, Abdullah, Yusuf, The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary. Amana Corp., Brentwood, Maryland, 1983.

 

  1. Abu Dawud, Sulayman b. al-Ash’ath. Al-Sunaan, a collection of Hadith Translated in English by Prof. Ahmad Hasan.  Internet version: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/

 

  1. Abu Dawud, Sulayman b. al-Ash’ath. Al-Sunaan, a collection of Hadith,vol.iii.  Translated in English by Prof. Ahmad Hasan. Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 (India), 2001
  2. al-Bukhari, Muhammad b. Ismail. Sahi Bukhari.  Ttranslated in English by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Internet version: [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ ]
  3. Muslim, Abu al-Hussain b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushairi. Sahi Muslim.  Translated in English by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui. Internet version: [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ ]

 

  1. al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, The Last Years of  the Prophet, vol. ix. Translated by Ismail K. Poonwala, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990. ISBN 0-88706-692-5

 

  1. al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, The Crisis of the Early Caliphate, vol. xv. Translated and annotated by R. Stephen Humphreys, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990. ISBN 0-7914-0155-3
  2. al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, The First Civil War, vol. xvii. Translated and annotated by G. R. Hawting, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1996. ISBN 0-7914-2394—8

 

The article was initially written on September 18, 2005, revised and updated on May 16, 2009.

 

Abul Kasem writes from Sydney, Australia. His e-mail address is: [email protected]

Comments

comments