Imagine a world without Islam

AmirAshkan Pishroo
by AmirAshkan Pishroo

The mantra that Islam and violence are inextricably linked ignores one crucial fact: Take away Islam, and the world would still be left with the main forces that drive today’s conflicts, including colonialism, cross-national ideologies, ethnic conflicts and terrorism, says Graham Fuller, a professor of history at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia, and a former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence at the CIA.

In his article entitled A World Without Islam, published in Foreign Policy (subscription required), Fuller challenges us “for the sake of argument, in an act of historical imagination, picture a Middle East in which Islam had never appeared. Would we then be spared many of the current challenges before us? Would the Middle East be more peaceful? How different might the character of East West relations be? Without Islam, surely the international order would present a very different picture than it does today. Or would it?”

Fuller maintains that a religious/ideological fissure between the West and the Middle East would probably still exist, and the world order would still have experienced clash of civilizations, 9/11, and holy wars under the pretext of alternative religion or ideology, such as Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Marxim, or ethnic nationalism.


Recently by AmirAshkan PishrooCommentsDate
The assassination of an author
Oct 16, 2008
Americans: A nation of givers
Oct 10, 2008
John McCain & the making of a financial crisis
Oct 07, 2008
more from AmirAshkan Pishroo

Allbrite your quote from the Qur'an does not prove your point!

by AnahitaZ (not verified) on

Just thought i'd mention to you allbrite - that the quote you mentioned earlier from the Qur'an does not prove your point - you quoted:

Islam is never satisfied to be one religion among many. It has to be supreme; the one and only. “the (only) religion (acceptable) before God is Islam.” Surah 3:19 Within Islam, freedom of religion is never an option. Allah says, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him.” Surah 3: 85

Those two quotes refer to Allah and that to Allah, Islam is the only acceptable religion.

If anything Islam teaches that Muslims should respect other people's religions and that if they don't then they have done wrong.

Yes Muslims should try and convert non-Muslims but not in a forceful way

Khar Gir

Clarification from yours truly

by Khar Gir on

Regular Jewish people are cool.

Only radicals/Zionists belong to the donkey collection.

Happy donkey catching. Tally ho!

Khar Gir

Nice source of information, the Zionist Media

by Khar Gir on

For those of you who want to learn the 'truth' about the 'evils' of Islam you need to refer to the appropriate Zionist media to get the 'facts'.

The 'kind' Zionist heart is 'crying' for Iranian minorities and hates the evil Iranian Moslems for their 'inhuman' actions. What noble crocodiles, ahhh ... I meant people they are.


kaveh v: I couldn't agree

by So Anonymous (not verified) on

kaveh v: I couldn't agree with you more.

Education is the only way. we need more books published on the atrocities committed by the Islamic armies across the globe (wiping out of Iran from zoroastrian; slaughters of Indians and turing them to dihimmis or muslims); re-framing the issue of 'taboo' as a 'colonial Islamic mindset; Discussing Abbas Milani's book and owning the issue of democracy as part of our own Iranian heritage as opposed to the long-held propaganda that it is a Western concept, etc. These are tangible things we can do now.


so Anonymous

by KavehV (not verified) on

Thanks for the book recommendation. I would like to add to the points you raised about self-ethnic cleansing and self-genocide of Iranian heritage propagated by Islam. Although, I may disagree slightly with the terminology and would prefer to call them Islamic-ethnic cleansing and Islamic-genocide of Iranian heritage. Nevertheless, there has been total ignorance of these issues (lets call them Islamic atrocities for now) throughout the history.

There are basically two reasons for this, one historic and the other cultural. The historic reason is the lack of collective memory (or minimal memory) of the Islamic atrocities at various stages of its domination in Iran. These atrocities are gradually and largely forgotten and did not pass on to the next generations. Lack of education and literacy is one thing, but the religious clergy has also played an important role in manipulating and falsifying historical facts to their benefit. The result of which is an ignorant society with a totally false idealism of Islam that embarked on some bloody Islamic fantasy.

The cultural reason, in my opinion, is the taboo in public denunciation of Islamic atrocities. To this day, many Iranians, despite their awareness and knowledge of murderous and psychopathic nature of Islam are reluctant to publicly denounce Islam. This, as they explain, is out of respect for millions of other ignorant and supposedly moderate followers of Islam. This is a total fallacy that will only insure future catastrophes as these moderates will again paint a pretty picture of their Islam in collective memories and once again, when conditions are just right, another psychopath will lead another group of ignorant followers and many many more innocents to hell.

It is time to remove all taboos on the subject of Islam and articulate the bloody murderous nature of this primitive cult for everyone. This may be an easy task for now, but must keep your eyes on the future generations who may grow tired of anti-Islam at some point and relapse into this trap again.



by KavehV (not verified) on

Just about the only logical analysis one can make from your sparse and unrelated points:

2.5 million dead Vietnamese
+ 1 million dead Algerians
+ 1 million dead Iraqis
+ 0.35 million dead Yugoslav Muslims
+ Hundreds of thousands of dead south and central Americans
+ 2 million dead Cambodians
+ 3000 dead north Americans
= Over 6.853 million dead people

….definitely has something to do with mixing apples and oranges, since I can count a lot more dead people than this.

Btw, this "1953 coup" nonsense has become an excuse for just about anybody's shortcoming. Those who were robbed of sharing power and democracy were Hezb-e Tudeh and Jebeh Melli. No Islamist had ever had the chance in 1953. To all the Islamists (not necessarily Mammad): quit complaining about something that you were not even a part of.


OMG , zionists badmouthing Islam!!!Takbir

by Saraamin on

I am assuring you that Born to be Muslims are despising Islam more than you can EVER imagine ! And Stories like , Islam growing so fast , is BS !Somebody says in Egypt new generation tends to wear more Hijab !Hello , Have you ever been in Cairo or you just reading Pro-Islamic materials !!  Petrol money definitely helps the whole making mosque and cultural institues , but with the  rate of inventions and investments on green energies I wonder what would be the next big plan for Islamic countries , of course still Saudis have Mecca to make money , oh maybe they make more Meccas in each Islamic country !! human's nature is moving towards Progress and modernity , oppression  of Govs may affect the process but never stops it , look at china , after communist Gov , still most of Chinese , have no religion !!Although they are way behind being a free nation but they are moving towards it! The thing is Religion unfortunately will be around like 4ever, as Maslow describes it for fear of unknown ! 




Khar Gir

Wow. Looks like Islam has really hit the mark.

by Khar Gir on

Seems like good old Mohammad has had radical troublemaking Jews on the grill and was really kicking their butts big time!

Is Islam on the same track again on the radical Jews today?

Who knows, but it sure as hell looks like it!

So many anti-Islam posts definitly are the indication of such thing has happened and getting worse for our radical Zionist 'friends'. One would have thought that they are smarter than that! They just make it too obvious.



by Mammad on

Your example about 1953 coup is, in my opinion, pure shenanigan. There is no relation between the fate of a nation on its way to democracy in 1953, and your example. Therefore, I refrain from continuing this debate. It is, in my opinion, useless. We both have our opinion. But, as much as I reject your opinion, I don't call you shameless for believing it.



Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

I never said you shouldn't express your opinion. I only countered your opinion with mine. The words "spare us..." doesn't mean "you have no rights..." 

Do you understand the difference, Mammad?

I used the word "veghaahat" because its English translation, "shameless" does not do justice. Additionally, I was referring to your "1953 coup" remarks, not your religous atrocities remarks. In my opinion, your 1953 coup claim is border lining that word. Here is an example:

Judge: Why did you destroyed this man's house in 1979?

Defendant: Because my step-father who married my mother in 1953 was a tyrant! He made me be a repressed individual! It's all his fault! I can do whatever I want and it's always other people's fault!

Do you see your logic here? Is this defendant being "bi sharm", i.e. "vaghih", or not?



by Mammad on

I see that you have come back in top form.

What does "spare us" mean? Not expressing my opinion? You have yours, I have mine. Why is it that I should spare you? You don't like my opinion? Don't. You don't agree with my opinion? Don't. That is just fine. But don't tell me not to express my opinion. Why do you have to use "veghaahat?"

My point was EXACTLY what you wrote: Such atrocities happen everywhere. It is irrational and illogical just to pick one group.



In recent times,

by allbrite (not verified) on

In recent times, overshadowing the relative calm of the past few decades, there has been a sudden surge in violence and terrorist activities by the Islamic fanatics. Hence, there is a debate as to why Muslims did not indulge in terror and violence during the past decades and centuries. There might be some consolation in the thought that Islamic violence was not so evident during the early 20th century.

Muhammad's life is a testament of ceaseless raids and plundering expeditions of highway caravans and waging wars against the infidel (non-Muslims). He himself had orchestrated more than one hundred raids, plundering expeditions and wars. Even just before his death, he was in the planning of organizing an expedition, but he fell sick suddenly, from which he never recovered. By this time, he had already extirpated all the Jewish settlements around Medina by means of mass slaughter and enslavement (Banu Quraiza) and mass exile (Banu Nadir and Banu Qainuqa). He had also launched expeditions against the Jewish tribes in far-flung places, namely the prosperous Jewish settlement of Khaybar. In his death bed one of his last wishes was: “Let there be no other religion except Islam”. This wish was carried out to fruition by his immediate successors, notably Caliph Abu Bakar and Omar.

The fact is: the kind of terror and violence perpetrated by Prophet Muhammad have little or no parallel amongst the terrorism and violence of today’s Islamic terrorists. The extermination of the Jews from Medina requires another mention here. Consider the case of Muhammad’s raiding the Jewish enclave of Banu Quraiza, because they did not join the Muslim army when the Meccans attacked the Muslims in the famous battle of the Trench, which, the Quraiza tribe was allegedly obligated to do because of a covenant of mutual protection signed years earlier. The first reason of unwillingness of the Quraiza people to join the battle that Muhammad started was that the Jewish people were sick and tired of such violent activities and blood-baths, raiding and plundering expeditions and fighting wars one after another, which became the prominent feature of the Medina citizens' life once Muslims became powerful. Secondly, the Mecca army in this battle was too powerful to ensure a decisive victory, had it not been for the trenches Muhammad had dug – thanks to idea given to Muhammad by Salman the Persian from his Persian experience of war. After a 25-day seize of the Jewish enclave the Muslims, the Quraiza tribe surrendered unconditionally and pleaded with Muhammad to let them go into exile. Instead, Muhammad decided to slaughter all the males of weapon-bearing age, around 600 to 900 in numbers, captured their women and children as slaves and took possession of their homes, properties and farms as spoils of war and distributed them amongst the Muslims who had participated in this genocide. The world is yet to witness an example of similar barbaric atrocity perpetrated by today’s Islamic terrorists, though we can be absolutely certain that today’s Islamist jihadists ardently crave to match their Prophet’s examples.

Another incidence which requires mentioning again here is Muhammad’s victorious entry into the city of Mecca, his paternal hometown. Upon his entry into the city, he destroyed all the temples and deities which his ancestors had worshipped for centuries. Soon after his invasion of Mecca, the Prophet sent his general Khalid bin Walid to destroy all the pagan temples of the neighboring tribes of Mecca. Khalid reached the Jazima tribe and asked them to say, “We are Muslims”. But they said, “We are Sabians” – whereupon Khalid slaughtered the whole tribe. The Jazima tribe people had never given any troubles to the Muslims. Is there a parallel of such utter barbarity amongst terror acts of today's Muslim extremists? No, there isn’t. The truth is: by the end of his 22 years of religious campaign, Muhammad had depopulated the entire Southern Arabia of the infidel pagans, Jews, Christians and Sabians etc. through mass slaughter, enslavement and forced conversion and mass exile. These acts of violence, cruelty and barbarity of the Prophet have no parallel amongst violent acts of today’s Islamic terrorists. Of course, throughout the Islamic world, there are scattered incidences of violence and attacks on non-Muslims’ homes, churches and temples and incidences of raping the infidel women. But there is no incidence in which women of an entire community being captured as sex-slaves, all weapon-bearing males of a community put to summary execution or an entire village or community of the Kaffirs sent to exile.

The acts of violence and terrorism did not just disappear with the death of the Prophet but was redoubled by his immediate successors; namely, Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman et al. who were Muhammad’s closest friends. By the time of third Caliph Othman’s rule, all remaining Jews and Christians of entire Arabian peninsula were forcibly converted, expelled or slain which fulfilled Prophet’s death-bed wish that no second religion remain in the holy land of Arabia.

Immediately after Muhammad’s death, many Muslims who were forced to accept Islam wanted to leave Islam. Prophet’s first biographer, ibn Ishak writes, “When the apostle was dead, most of the Muslims thought of withdrawing from Islam and had made up their mind to do”. Many tribes rose in rejection of Islam, turned to their tribal leaders and refused to pay taxes. The immediate task of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, was to bring these fierce and intractable tribes into submission. Under the command of fierce Khalid ibn Walid, a bitter and sanguinary battle, termed the Wars of the Apostasy (ridda) followed. The revolt was cruelly suppressed and the recalcitrant tribes were forced back to the fold of Islam.

The fanaticism and barbarity associated with these conquering expeditions need a sampling here. The kind of fierce intolerance and fanaticism being inspired by Prophet Muhammad amongst his followers have no parallel in the annals of any other religion. Under his command, his followers were ready to kill even their own fathers and brothers, if given approval by the Prophet. Prophet’s biographer Hisahm al-Kalbi notes that the son of the great hypocrite Abduallah ibn Obayi had begged for prophet’s permission to kill his own father and bring the head to the prophet. But Abdullah was an influential man and the prophet didn’t dare. According to Ibn-Ishak, in July 624, being increasingly exasperated with the Jews, the prophet ordered: “Kill any Jew whoever falls into your power.” Thereupon a Muslim convert named Muhaysa fell upon a rich Jewish merchant who happened to be on the same way and killed him, despite the fact that he belonged to his own tribe. When his elder brother, still a Jew, scolded him for killing someone of his own tribe, Muhaysa replied, “By Allah, if Muhammad commanded me to kill you also, I would have cut off your head”. So impressed was the Jewish man by his brother’s conviction to Islam that he immediately converted to Islam. The prophet’s fanatic inspiration to intolerance and violence compelled Voltaire to comment: Such conducts cannot be defended by any person, ‘unless superstition has choked all the light of reason from him.’

The violent fanaticism, inspired by the Prophet, was carried forward with ruthless zeal by his immediate followers. Khalid ibn Walid, who fought on the enemy side in the battle of Ohud but later embraced Islam, became one of the most blood-thirsty and brutal of conquerors, if judged even by the standard of his day. Yet his cruelty and rapacity were and still are greatly extolled by the Muslims, honoring him with the title of “the Sword of Allah” (Sayif Allah).

The utter barbarity of Khalid was displayed in May, 633, when he defeated the Zoroastrian Persians at the Battle of Olayis in Southern Iraq (between Hira and Basra). For two days, his soldiers rounded up the great multitude of prisoners and fugitives, who were then herded on to a dry river bed and were butchered until it became a crimson stream. The place thereafter proudly bore the title of ‘the River of Blood’. Abu Bakr, the caliph was overjoyed when the news of victory and massacre reached him.

On the barbarity of Khalid, Benjamin Walker writes:

A wine-lover and lustful debaucher, Khalid took sickly sadistic delight in beheading a defeated chieftain on the battle-field, selecting his wife (if young) or daughter and celebrating his nuptials with her on the spot soaked with the blood of the victim (father/husband of the bride). [Walker, Foundations of Islam, p. 316]

Before Muslims conquered Jerusalem, the scattered communities of Jews and pagans lived in harmony along with the Christians. When Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem, much venerated in the Koran and a holy place in Islam, in 637 – the Jewish temples and Christian Churches were razed to the ground and widespread looting and pillaging was unleashed. The Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem (634-638), who witnessed spread of Islam in the Arabia and the fall of Jerusalem with his own eyes, described the Muslim invaders as “godless barbarians” who “burnt churches, destroyed monasteries, profaned the Crosses and blasphemed against Christ and the church.” The following year, thousands died of famine resulting from the destruction and pillage by the Muslim conquerors of Jerusalem. [Ibn Warraq, Why I am not a Muslim, p. 219]

The invading Muslims destroyed the main Jewish temple (Solomon Temple) and Omar laid, in its place, the foundation of the prestigious al-Aqsa mosque with his own hands. He declared a decree that Jews and Christians could practice religion only in the confines of their churches and homes. No new churches would be built, no conversion should be made, crosses should not be exhibited in their churches and no public display of their faith should be made. These rather benevolent treatments were accorded to the Jews and Christians under the privileged term of the Dhimmis (Zimmis) as accorded to the people of the Book in the Koran. Yet, repression and discrimination, attacks on pilgrims, raid and ransacking of the monasteries and the destruction of the places of worship of the non-Muslims continued.

The barbaric tradition of atrocity set in motion by the Prophet in the form a command for incessant Jihad against the Kaffirs in the Koran, continued well into the late period of the Ottoman caliphate. Even the highly magnanimous caliphs, like Harun-ur-Rashid and his son al-Mamun were thoroughly brutal in dealing with the Jews, Christians and pagans. The great caliph al-Mamun of the golden age of Islam, who instituted the heretic rationalistic Mutazili doctrine and non-divine nature of the Koran as state policy, too, was extremely harsh when it comes to dealing with the non-Muslim subjects. Under his rule in the 9th century, the pagans of Harran had to choose between Islam and death. Such barbaric tools of forced conversion of the infidels continued well into the late Ottoman period. Tavernier, the 17th century French traveler, describes how in Anatolia “Everyday there are numerous Greeks forced to become Turks”.

Certain Western authors and historians believe that after an early onslaught of Islamic conquests lasting until about the mid-eighth century, violence subsided and relative calm and peace prevailed throughout the Islamic world for the subsequent centuries [Saunders, J.J. A History of Medieval Islam. London: Routledge, 1965; p79]. In truth, such claims of existence of centuries of peace fly in the face of it. In reality, no period of the Islamic domination did ensure a peaceful life to the non-Muslims subjects – thanks to Muslims’ Jihadi campaigns in various forms, either by the state or by the Muslim mobs. Yet, some desperate minority of Muslim rulers were tolerant towards non-Muslim subjects in defiance of the Islamic injunctions. Islamic terror, as was unleashed by the Prophet, comprised of unprovoked attack on the unwarned and unprepared infidel territories, exiling or killing the adult male prisoners, taking the females and children as captives (beautiful and young women were used in the harem as sex-slaves, children for raising as Muslims and older females for sale), looting and plundering the infidels of their valuable properties and assets, imposing Jiziyah and of course, destroying the infidels’ religious institutions. Ibn Warraq, in “Why I am not a Muslims” [p. 219-240] has listed the Islamic atrocities and violence against the infidels of various sorts which I will summarized here.

7th Century

After Prophet Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, the exiling and extermination of 3 major Jewish tribes of Medina by 628, has been described above. In 630, Muhammad marched into Mecca, mercilessly captured, destroyed the most sacred pagan temple of Ka’ba and established the Islamic rule there. The pagan inhabitants were given a choice between death and Islam. To save lives, the pagans had no choice but to accept Islam. On the same day, Khalid ibn Walid’s massacre of the entire Jezima tribe for not accepting Islam has already been discussed. Khalid ibn Walid, upon command of Caliph Abu Bakr, launched the blood-letting wars of the apostasy (Ridda) to submit those, who deserted Islam immediately after Muhammad’s death, back to the faith. The utter barbarity of Khalid Ibn Walid against the defeated the Zoroastrian Persians at the Battle of Olayis in Southern Iraq in May 633, whereby he created what is famously called the River of Death has been discussed before.

After completing extermination/exiling the Jews of Medina in 628, Muhammad launched a campaign against the wealthy and prosperous Jewish community of Khaybar. He ordered his charges to destroy all the Jewish temples as they came across. Having defeated the community, he tortured the chief of tribe Kinana by setting fire on his chest to find out the whereabouts of his treasures. After extracting the location of the ensconced treasure, Kinana was beheaded, the treasures were looted, and Kinana’s wife Safiyah was rendered as his share of the booty. He married and took her to bed on the same night her husband’s dead body awaited burial on the next day. Incidentally, Safiyah’s father belonged to the Banu Quraiza tribe of Medina whom Muhammad had beheaded earlier.

In the Muslim campaign of 634, the entire region between Gaza and Caesarea was devastated and four thousand peasants, comprising of Christians, Jews and Samaritans, who were simply defending their lands, were massacred. In 637, the Victorian Muslim army’s march into Jerusalem, with Caliph Omar at the lead, and the accompanying destruction of the synagogues and burning of the churches, desecration of the Crosses and setting in the Dhimmi laws of submission to the Jews and Christians of the Holy Land have already been mentioned. In the expeditions against Mesopotamia between 635 and 643, monasteries were sacked, the monks slaughtered and Monophysite Arabs executed or forced to convert. In Elam, all the people were put to the sword and at Susa all the dignitaries suffered the same fate.

Details of conquest of Egypt starting with the capture of Alexandria by Amr Ibn Al-As in 641 comes from the “Chronicle of John” – the Bishop of Nikiu, written between 693 and 700 CE. As Amr advanced into Egypt, he captured the city of Behnesa near Fayum, and exterminated the inhabitants. Nobody was spared, irrespective of surrendered or captured, Old or Young or Women. Fayum and Aboit suffered the same fate. At Nikiu, the entire population was put to the sword. The Arabs took the inhabitants to captivity. In Armenia, the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out. Seventh century Armenian chronicles recount how the Arabs decimated the population of Assyria and forced a number of inhabitants to accept Islam and then wrought havoc in the districts of Daron, southwest of Lake Van. In 642, it was the turn of the town of Dvin to suffer. In 643, the Arabs came back with “extermination, ruin and slavery”.

It was the same ghastly spectacle in North Africa, Tripoli was pillaged in 643; Carthrage was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants were slaughtered. Michael the Syrian describes how the first Omayyad Caliph Muawiya, who took power in 661, sacked and pillaged Cyprus and then established his domination by a “great massacre”. In the capture of Istakhar (Persia), 40,000 Iranians were slaughtered. Indeed, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and wherever Muslims have marched, were presented with the same spectacle.

8th Century

In 712, Governor of Iraq, Hajjaj, ordered the conquest of Sind under the commandership of his nephew, Muhammad bin Kasim. He was instructed 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.” According to Al-Biladuri, after the capturing the port of Debal, the Muslim army slaughtered the inhabitants over three days and the priests of the temples were massacred.

After the initial surge of cruelty, Kasim became more tolerant and allowed the infidels to continue their profession and religious practice. Learning about this sympathetic treatment, a furious Hajjaj sent letter condemning Kasim’s method of pardoning the infidels. It read, “… The great god says in the Koran [47:7]: “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…. Henceforth, grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them..” Kasim quickly obliged to the divinely ordained command and on his capture of Brahmanabad, he invited the infidel idol-worshipers to accept Islam. On latter’s refusal, he ordered all adult males be beheaded with swords and their women and the children were captured as slaves. Eight thousands, some say 26,000, men were put to the sword. One-fifth of the captured slaves (women and children), which amounted to 20,000, amongst whom, were the daughters of Sind Chiefs along with King Dahir’s severed head, were sent to Hajjaj as the share of the states and the remainder were distributed amongst the soldiers. [Chachanama, Muhammad al-Kufi, trs Kalichbeg, I, 155; Shashi R Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans, p. 95]. The stream of captured slaves continued to flow from India to Baghdad ever since Kassim captured Sind and Hajjaj alone is said to have forwarded 60,000 slaves from India (~1/5 of total) to the caliph Walid I (705-715 CE). [Chachnama, I, 154]

In 704-705, Caliph Walid I gathered together the nobles of Armenia in the Church of St. Gregory and in the Church of Xram on the Araxis and burned them alive. The rest were crucified and their women and children were captured as slaves. The worse happened to the Armenians between 852 and 855. Over in Egypt, in 722, the surveyor Usama b. Zaid, attacked convents and churches but Caliph Hisham later asked him to leave the Christians alone. Caliph Marwan (ruled 744-750) looted and destroyed many monasteries in Egypt while fleeing the Abbasid army. In the sacking of Euphesus in 781, 7,000 Greeks were taken captives and were deported en masse.

9th century

In 853, Abbassid Caliph Mutawakil ordered all new churches to be destroyed. In 884, the convent of Kalilshu in Baghdad was destroyed. Caliph al-Mutasim, known as the Islamic hero, was a great wager of holy wars against the Christians and heretics. After the capture and pillage of Amorium in 838, there were so many captive slaves that Caliph al-Mutasim ordered them to be auctioned in batches of five and ten. During the rule of caliph al-Mamun – considered the most just Muslim ruler and harbinger of the so-called “golden age of Islam” – the pagans of Harran had to choose between Islam and death.

Ruined by the burden of imposition of Jizyah tax, the Coptic Christians of Lower Egypt revolted in 832. This revolt was ruthlessly suppressed by the Muslim rulers in which Christian villages, vineyards, gardens and Churches were burned. There were mass slaughter and those spared were deported.

10th century

In 924, the Church and convent of Mary in Damascus was plundered and burned and other churches destroyed. Further destruction occurred in Ramleh, Ascalon, Tinnis, and Egypt during the invasion of Asad ud Din Shirkuh. In the capture and sacking of Thessalonica in 903 CE, 22,000 Christian captives were divided amongst the Arab chieftains or sold into slavery.

There were massacres of the Spanish Christians in and around Seville. Al-Hakim biamr Illah gave orders that the Churches of his dominions should be destroyed. A Muslim historian records that over 30,000 churches built by the Greeks in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere were destroyed, their contents seized and sold in the markets and lands confiscated. [Tritton AS, The Caliphs and their non-Muslim Subjects. London, 1970, p. 54] more



Islam is never satisfied to

by allbrite (not verified) on

Islam is never satisfied to be one religion among many. It has to be supreme; the one and only. “the (only) religion (acceptable) before God is Islam.” Surah 3:19 Within Islam, freedom of religion is never an option. Allah says, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him.” Surah 3: 85

Domination is the name of the game. Islam’s objective is to obtain influence superior to that of all other religious groups. Its long-term agenda inevitably includes complete dominion over a nation. In free societies, as in America, they make no effort to hide such agendas. Omar M. Ahmed, chairman of the board of CAIR (Council on American- Islamic Relations) said once at a banquet, “I urge Muslims not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with those who are on the wrong side.” He added, “If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam. Islam isn’t here to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.”

The plan for the conquest and domination of Europe has been at work for some time. Giueppe Bernardini, the 72 year old Italian Archbishop of the archdiocese of Izmir, Turkey, said something startling. “The dominion has already begun with the petrodollars, used not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration, including Rome, the center of Christianity.”

Khar Gir

Okay Pishroo

by Khar Gir on

Let me close my eyes and imagine.

Wait, wait, ahhhhhh, heeeelp .... I see Zionist Jews everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!


Re: Mammad

by jamshid on


Please enlighten us on how many Iranians were killed by the Moslem conqueros 1400 years ago, in only the first 50 years of their invasion of Iran? Don't forget to adjust for population "inflation".

The fact is that ALL people of all race, religion and nationality have killed others in the past and will continue to kill in the future. Nobody can single out moslems or Christians or others. I am sure you agree with this.

You wrote, "why did the Iranian Revolution happen? Because the 1953 coup happend".

That is an absurd notion border lining "veghaahat". No, the Iranian revolution did not happen because of the 1953 coup. It happened because people like you wanted to bring down the Shah and replace him with an Islamic Republic. Now that your theories and ideals have failed in Iran, instead of being tall and admitting to your mistakes, you want to shift the blame to the 1953 coup.

Oh, it wasn't us who actually participated in the revolution and brought you the IRI, it was, umm... Let's see... It was... It was "them". Who? Umm, what about the 1953 coup collaborators? They did it! Not us who actually and directly participated in the revolution and made it possible.

Yeah right. Always shift the blame to others.

Had Mossadegh remained in power, but continued on with Shah's modernization efforts, imposing woman rights, ignoring more and more the traditional Mollahs and Baazaris, ignoring Islam and instead focusing on Iran's pre-Islamic heritage, allowing "Weternized" ideas into our culture, forcing a semi capitalist economy, building Iran into a real economical power house, diminishing the mollah and Bazaari's role in society, you and others in your camp, along with your obliged foreign allies would have tried to bring him down too in another revolution. This is despite a semi or even a full democratic society that someone like Mossadegh or Bakhtiar could have implemented in Iran.

Whether such person would have been able to stop another inevitable Islamic Revolution by standing their grounds, unlike the incompetent Shah, is a different discussion.

Your beef with the Shah had NOTHING to do with him being a dictator. We have a worst form of government in place today, and you don't seem to mind it. You hated him because of what he was doing in Iran.

So please spare us with your "revolution was due to the 1953 coup" bullshit. The revolution was due to mollah baazaris who couldn't tolerate the likes of Shah, Mossadegh, Bakhtiar or other Westernized individuals, by people who thought like you and believed in an Islamic paradise, by people who didn't think at all, such as me, and by greedy and obliged foreigners, ALL in 1978-79, not in 1953.

AmirAshkan Pishroo

Imagination is divine

by AmirAshkan Pishroo on

A post-religious society seems to me no more impossible than a post-modern one, and equally desirable.

Kaveh Nouraee

I'd rather imagine a world

by Kaveh Nouraee on

without Khamenei, Antarinejad, and that entire gang of criminals who call themselves a government.

I'd rather imagine that the last 30 years were nothing but a bad dream, or at least a sick April Fools joke.



by maziar 58 (not verified) on

Imagine a person without a tongue or two or.....
they can still communicate and live peacefully together if all uses their brain,therefore a common goal is neede in our journey from life to eternity,
Personally being decent humane is worthy of any other thing than having or not having a religion.

peace on earth


Reactionary nature of Islamists regarding this post

by NoDictatorship of Anykind (not verified) on

proves for itself that Islam is a bankrupt "ideology" (cult).

Can anyone imagine Islamists capable of expressing LOVE?

How do they express their LOVE for their wives, sisters, and daughters?

How do they express LOVE when making love?

They do not have REAL friendship with anyone but a Moslem. Adding to that that friend Moslem must be from same sect. What the ......! No wonder worshiping death becomes precious to Islam followers.

Imagine how lonely you become with this Islam religion!


Islam is for Aghabmoondeha

by Keyvan Sabett (not verified) on

I love how all the leftist and Islamic apologist come out of their rat holes and attack and blame US, Israel, Jews, Zionists, Colonialists, Imperialists....Standard scapegoating when you can't admit to your own shortcomings

I wish the Ottomans were still in power in the region to see the excuses you Aghamoondeha would come up with for why the Islamic mind has failed to compete with the West.


Imagine a world without naivity of AmirAshkan Pishroos...

by Anonymous56 (not verified) on

And their war mongering mentality of their masters.


Too long of a comment-forget it

by Abarmard on



Who was the guy before you?

by Daryush on

Amil Imani? You are not even considered his Noecheh. But I can see him in different cloths. This guy is another Israeli with an Iranian name, like Mehdi Mazloom. Reminds you of the quotes by Adolf, who described then to be now Zionists!

What's up with the Israelis? Didn't they learn that if people hate people what happens in result? If you like to judge people based on belifs or religion what happens? Those who don't learn things similar will happen to them historically. Seems like they are asking for another Adolf.

I am sure that all they need is a little spanky to come back to reality.


Fat Chance

by Fred on

Those  Islamist lefties  with enough sense left to know their Islamist republic is on its last leg are pushing for the charlatan duo Shariati/Ale-Ahmad’s version of the same Islamist hell minus the turban.



by Mammad on

2.5 million Vietnamese were killed by French and Americans between 1945 and 1975.

At least 1 million Algerians were killed by the French during the War if Independence.

Up to over 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed after the invasion.

350,000 Muslims were killed by the Serbs

Hundreds of of thousands were killed in killing fields of central and south America by military regimes trained and supported by the US.

2 million cambodians were killed by Pol Pot and his gang, whose regime was supported by the US, just to oppose Vietnam.


So, of all of these horrible killings the only thing you can "remember" is killing of 3000 innocents on 9/11?

Yes, why did the Iranian Revolution happen? Because the 1953 coup happend.



This business of imaginning is catchy so let's:

by Realist (not verified) on

This business of imaginning is catchy so let's:

Imagine a world where the West did not enter the Middle East (nobody invited them, you know).

Imagine The US and UK not planting the Shah in Iran that would later cause the 1979 revolution

Imagine a world where no entity could use 3000 year old rubish to claim the land of others as "god given".

Then you would have peace in the region with or without Islam.



by Mammad on

Yes, let's imagine:

1. Then who would invade Iraq illegally and destroy it? Who would create the Taliban and support it? Who would create Osama bin Laden and his gang, calling them (as Reagan did), "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers?" Who would bomb Afghans every day? Who would kill innocent Palestinian women and children every day? Who would invade Somalia, southern Lebanon, Iran? Have you heard about "state-sponsored terrorism?" Hello?

2. Then, how would you reappear, if you disappeared? How would all the prejudiced "sophisticaled, educated, enlightened" Westerners express their hatred of "foreigners" after destroying their nations?

3. Then, how would the White masochist in deep South kill any white that works and accepts blacks as equal? How would the Ann Coulters of the world suggest, "we should invade them and kill all of them, unless they convert to Christianity?"

4. Then, how would the heavily tilted justice system in the US (towards the rich) would send hundreds of blacks and hispanics to the gallows every year for crimes they did not commit? Ahaa, I got it: that is better than just cutting their hands!

5. Then, how would one sit on top of innocent Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib to suffocate them? That is one huge meat stone! how would one waterboard prisoners? That is a "melted" stone.

6. Then, how would corporate American pay 75 cents to a woman for every dollar to a man who do exactly the same job? How would women in the US struggle for decades and NOT succeed for an EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT to the Constitution? How would gays and lebians suffer? 

7. Then, what would happen to millions of hispanic cotton cutters, blacks in ghettos in the US? What would happen to surveillance of Muslims in the West? Millions of jobs for the "natives" depend on these.

8. Then, what would happen to nigers (for blacks), Charlie (for Vietnamese), Japs (for Japanese), Haji (for all Iraqis), and "honorary whites" for Japaneses by apartheid regime? What would happen to White American slave owners calling blacks "2/3 human?" What would happen to German "Aryans" calling Jews "not completely human?" 

9. Such as?

10. You have a point there. But, Dr. Ali Shariati, a Muslim, already proposed an Islam without Rouhaniyat. Sorry, no novelty there!




World without religion

by Atheistkurd (not verified) on

I like to see a world without Religion...


The fact is that Iran

by so Anonymous (not verified) on

The fact is that Iran without Islam is a much more tolerable society. Islam is an instrument of terror, murder and barbaric rage imposed by their followers on others (usually a majority) for the pleasure of the ruling Islamists -- whether Imams, mullahs, theocrats, islamic kings and leaders -- nevertheless, they are all muslims implementing their (murderous) god's will on others.

We as Iranians have a tradition of democracy that predates even the Greeks'. However, colonial Islamic ruling class have stripped us of that wisdom. They deceive us into thinking that democracy is a Western concept and if we talk unapprovingly of Islam, we are orientalists or Islamophobe.

The colonial Islamic mindset will prove to be the self-ethnic cleansing and self-genocide of our Iranian heritage if we don't take any action against these long prescribed lies and deception by the fundamentalist/terror-producing muslims. If Iran were ever to survive as 'Iran', we need to eventually purge ourselves from this colonial Islamic mindset that has infected our mind and soul.

Democracy is not a Western concept. It is an old Iranian concepts as old as Persia.

It is incumbant upon all true Iranians to read the book by Abbas Milani: "The Lost Wisdom".


Book Description
In the essays collected here, Abbas Milani uses an impressive array of cross-disciplinary Western and Iranian theories and texts to investigate the crucial question of modernity in Iran today. He offers a wealth of new insights into the thousand-year-old conflict in Iran between the search for modernity and the forces of religious obscurantism. The essays trace the roots of Shiite Islamic fundamentalism and offer illuminating accounts of the work of Iranian intellectuals—both men and women—and their artistic movements as they struggle to find a new path toward a genuine modernity in Iran that is congruent with Iran’s rich cultural heritage.
Lost Wisdom: Rethinking Modernity in Iran challenges the hitherto accepted theory that modernity and its related concepts of democracy and freedom are Western in essence. It also demonstrates that Iran and the West have more that brings them together than separates them in their search for such modern ideals as rationalism, the rule of law, and democracy.

These essays will reward the scholar and the general reader alike, and will go far toward explaining the enigma that is Iran today.

From the Publisher
"Milani shows that long before the European Renaissance generated the radical ideas that eventually reshaped Europe and the United States, Persian statesmen, artists, and intellectuals had formulated ideas that strikingly anticipate those of modernity.… Lost Wisdom is not only a powerful work of historical analysis; it is also a moving and eloquent account of a series of remarkable individuals, depicted with rare sensitivity and precision."—Stephen Greenblatt, Harvard University


Dear Samsam

by IRANdokht on

The religions that are pulling people apart and causing them to disrespect, mistreat and even kill each other don't offer my life any excitement. I believe what you meant was spirituality, and that's true, it brings direction and peace to one's life. But then again spirituality is something personal and should be practiced in private, between people and whatever it is they're worshiping. But if they are making their religion into a weapon against other people, then I have no use for any of them.

S o thinking the world would be just great if one of the religions was not there is silly. Christians have killed many jews throughout the history, and the only reason the focus is on islam now, is purely political.