Bismika Alllahuma

책 예언자의 칼 박사에 의해 쓰는. 서지 (일컬어. Serbian 추출물의 Srdja) Trifkovic는, (Judith 밀러 & Co. 같이 가짜 전문가가 써지는) 이슬람교의 감지한 "위협"를 써지는 많은 그런 냉전후 시대 책과 유사하다, 유리한 요금 텔레비젼에 있는 우리의 눈의 앞에 살아 있는, 상담, 재발하는 외관 지킬 것을 및 유리한 저술 계약을 보장하고 있는 동안. 이들에 편협한의 낱단은, 신문인을, 안으로 요즈음, 특히 9/11 후에 엿듣고, 속이고 각자 승진시켜서, 거기 주의를 끌고 책을 판매하는 아니 더 낫고 쉬운 방법 이슬람교도와 이슬람교를 인간성을 빼앗기 위하여 떨어뜨리고 이다. 그것은 발견 공통점에 이 고집통이를 동기를 주는 너무 많은 통찰력을 가지고 가지 않는다.

나는 무슨 배경에서지 그들의 기여금의 가치를 재판하고 그들의 생각 및 아이디어의 질을 이해하기 위하여 나오는 누구이고 알고 있는 것이 중요하다는 것을 생각한다. 그들의 교육 배경의 면밀한 조사는 이 미워하 작가는 이슬람교에 있는 어떤 전문 기술도 다는 것을 계시할 것입니다. 그들을 함께 묶는 무엇이 이슬람교와 이슬람교도를 위한 일반적인 증오심이다.

박사학위 취득 후 연구를, 그리고 텔레비젼 방송사와 나중에를 위한 신문인 덮음 남동 유럽으로 그 때 일해 후버 기관, 캘리포니아에 추구한지 서지 Trifkovic 의 Southampton, UK의 대학의 졸업생은 사람으로, 확인된다 미국. 뉴스 & 세계 보고 그리고 워싱톤 포스트. 그는에 빈번한 헌납자 그리고, 1998년부터, 외교 문제 편집자이다 역사에 남긴다: 미국 문화의 잡지, 그의 Serbian 매우 국가주의적인 대가 쉽게 식별할 수 있는 곳에. 그것은 그가 이전 유고슬라비아에 있는 그의 천연 세르비아, 보스니아인과 Kosovar 이슬람교도의 인종 정화의 유죄 인 국가 국외에서 아무 회교도 국가나, 방문한 경우에 명확하지 않다. 그의 학과목은 사람들 또는 그가 그의 미워하 책에 대략 쓰는 종교 하고 무관했다 예언자의 칼. 그러나 그의 무지는 이 짓궂고 부정확한 일에 있는 이슬람교도에 대하여 그의 독 배출에서 그를 설득하여 단념시키지 않았다.

이슬람교에 "전문가"로 Trifkovic가 무엇에 의하여가 오늘 자격을 주는가? 에서 서문 to his book, he himself confesses of his hatred or as he mildly puts it “lack of a priori admiration” for Islam. As one may also recall, during the genocide of Muslims in the Balkans, he tried to defend the case for his murderous Serbian leader — now being tried for crimes against humanity in The Hague. While the whole world saw the savagery of the Serbian Christians against unarmed Muslims in Bosnia, he blamed the victim Muslims by stating that the latter had brought it down upon themselves through “self-inflicted atrocities and stage-managed massacres.”¹ What a criminal and sick mind to invent something like this! In a keynote speech at the Ball Union League Club, Chicago, in June 7, ?96, he dared to equate the genocide as honor-killing by stating that “Bosnia is honor, and Yugoslavia a tragedy, but there was no ‘holocaust’.” To him, the total tally of Muslim victims in Bosnia was not 250,000 (as stated by President Clinton, addressing the nation on Nov. 27, ‘95), but could have been as small as only 2,500, i.e., a mere 1% of the reported casualty.² He actively condemned the jurisdiction of the Hague Tribunal (ICTFY) that was established by the Security Council of the UN in 1993 on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Resolution 827) for investigating crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia. He also opposed the deployment of NATO and UN forces in the Balkans to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims. When his propaganda failed to dissuade the Clinton Administration, he disappeared from spotlight for some time until the tragedy of 9/11 occurred. When he surfaced this time he came up with his Mein Kampf. That basically sums up a very disturbed and sadistic individual with a desire to settle old scores.

It is said that falsehood oft repeated achieves the veneer of truth and some are sure to swallow it. Trifkovic’s The Sword of the Prophet is a typical example of such an attempt at disseminating falsehood with doggedness and cruelty. A collection of lies and half-truths, many fuzzy facts, quite a few obsolete and unreliable sources and mindless anecdotes, and a plethora of imagination and false interpretation, therefore, forms the nucleus material for the above work. His hate-book demonstrates his belief that, in the post-Milosevic era, it has fallen on shoulders of ultra-nationalist Serbian zealots like him to carry the mantle of Milosevic, Karadzic & their gang of sub-human brutes to finish their yet unfinished business through misinformation campaign what the half-decade long extermination campaign could not achieve physically in the battle field. It is no wonder that in this endeavor he is aided by all the bigots - from the pujaris of Hindutva (who want to cleanse India of non-Hindu minorities) to Zionists (who want to justify the annexation of entire Palestine by uprooting Palestinians) — as is reflected in several websites belonging to these latter hate-groups which routinely post his lies and distortions. Truly, the fascists, racists and bigots have discovered a prized comrade in their common crusade.

In order to assess Islam and the Muslim world, areas that are unfamiliar to him, Trifkovic uses the writings of discredited journalists and ex-Muslims — whose motivation was nothing honorable either. Such arguments hardly carry any conviction. Truly, the work epitomizes his intolerance against Islam and Muslims, and in that process reveals nothing but his ‘anti-Muslim paranoia and bigotry’. He quotes his peers like Judith Miller and Ibn Warraq voraciously in his book. Because that is the level of his learning or education on the subject he dared write about.

Let us look now at Miller’s work itself that Trifkovic uses. I shall try to be brief in my analysis here since I personally do not see the merit to a more comprehensive criticism of her work (or that of Ibn Warraq). For those interested in a more comprehensive report, they may consider reading the book reviews by scholars of repute. I personally liked the book review by Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University, NY.³

Books like Judith Miller’s “God has ninety-nine names” are symptomatic because, as Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University had rightly pointed out, they are “weapons in the contest to subordinate, beat down, compel and defeat any Arab and Muslim resistance to U.S.-Israeli dominance.” In her book, Miller shows her pro-Israeli, pro-Phalangist (a fascist organization) bias against the uprooted Palestinians. She disdains facts. She prefers quoting endless talks to justify the marauding activities of the Israeli apartheid government and the U.S. support of it. Israel’s war against civilians is simply buried in reams of chatter. Despite her knowledge of violent activities by right-wing Jewish fanatics, she deliberately omitted their murderous acts and promised, instead, to write a book on right-wing Judaism in Israel. It has already been more than six years; still we have not seen that book and probably never will.

And when did Miller became an “expert” on Islam? Truly, her work resembles the work of a name-dropping university student, who begins with an anecdote and then moves to a potted history. She cites unreliable sources that cannot be verified. Her footnotes only prove her ignorance, lamentable prejudices and failures of comprehension. In her summary on the life of the Prophet of Islam, she does not quote one Muslim source, - none of the classical biographies of the Prophet. I wonder if Simon & Schuster, her publisher, would allow a book on Jesus or Moses that does not make a single mention of Christian or Judaic authority. But such pseudo-scholarship, hate literatures are now kosher when it comes to Islam. One wonders what are we coming to in this age?

Miller’s book is full of interviews with whole bunch of self-serving scoundrels that are not too convincing for any objective minded reader. Her use of phrase “my friend” (a few hundred times), rather than convincing her readers, puts them off the track through long digression that follows. And even when she manages to cite certain names, she misidentifies their religion. These lapses in her account would not have been so bad if she was not bent on revealing her intimacy with those individuals. She talks about Jews and their suffering but does not mention Jewish beliefs and laws against the goyim, the rabbinical sanctioned practices of killing, demolitions, deportations, land confiscations, annexation, etc.⁴ What a jaundiced view of Israel and the Occupied Territories of Palestine!⁵

After reading her book, one wonders why she truly wrote this book? After all, she confesses that she dislikes all the Arab countries for one reason or another. She does not mention a single thing she loves about the people she wrote about. Arabs have a quality to be open, welcoming, to think well of others, to be hospitable and courteous to their guests. She seldom has a good word for their hospitality. She neither had the nobility to return the courtesy shown to her nor the decency to respect truth and to be as impartial as possible in her evaluation of Muslims. Truly, hers is an epitome of betrayal of trust. Her book is a pathetic display of a deeply partisan journalist, a hostile combatant, who does not and cannot communicate with the people she writes about - the common mass, listen to their conversation, read their books, listen to their music. Yet she has no problem poking fun at the people she met, the history and culture of a place that to her is one long saga of jumbled rage and resonance. In summary, as Prof. Said correctly pointed out, Miller is a shallow and highly-opinionated journalist whose voluminous work is unnecessarily too long and short on facts, analysis, structure and reflection.

What has been stated above about Miller’s book is equally applicable for Trifkovic’s book since the latter copies her blindly. He often uses sources that are dubious. Many of his comments on Islam and the Muslim world are provocative, scornful and provide a philosophy for religious bigotry. His analysis on matters pertaining to Islamic faith lacks scholarship and sensitivity, and is based on innuendo and false interpretation. The Qur’an, which is revered by more than a billion Muslims, deserves greater respect than he is willing to concede. For example, in his discussion around whether Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, he demonstrates his total lack of comprehension and narrow mindedness. He has no problems subscribing to Trinity, a notion which for the past two millennia the Church itself had difficulty in explaining logically not only because of its confusing nature, but has problems with the simple, logical and uncompromising monotheism in Islam, a doctrine that is equally shared among the Jews (see Deut. 6:4).⁶ He does not disclose the fact that Islam is not alone in its rejection of Trinity. Mahatma Gandhi, when asked about Trinity, said, “Jesus was the son of God only in the sense that we are all children of God. The belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is to me contrary to reason.”⁷

Trifkovic tactfully forgets to share with us the fact that the concept of Trinity is nowhere propounded within the so-called Old Testament and that Jews also reject the concept of original sin and vicarious atonement - concepts that they find repugnant and arguably pagan in origin. His cynicism reveals his blatant Orthodox Christian leanings. In the Mosaic story about Samiri, who lured the Children of Israel into cow worship, he confuses Samiri with the Samaritans, who, according to the Biblical narrative, were implanted into Samaria after the Assyrian conquest (in the 8th century BCE). In his jaundiced view, he fails to see the similarity in how child Moses (Ar. Musa) was cared for in his infancy (Exodus 2:1-9). He doubts the Islamic version of sacrifice of Ishmael (Ar. Isma’il), but has no problem in accepting the Hebrew Biblical version in Gen. 22:2, where it states, “Take thy son, thine only son Isaac.” How is Isaac the only son of Abraham when he was born 14 years later than Ishmael (see Gen. 21:5, 17:25, 16:3)?⁸ Trifkovic questions the Arabic names for idols of Noah’s time but has no problem accepting Anglicized names for his lord Jesus, or for that matter any of the Biblical Prophets. Did Jesus (or any of the Biblical Prophets) speak English or any of the European languages? What a selective understanding and thoughtlessness! His arguments are so silly and ridiculous on all such matters that it does not warrant reviewing each of those points. His knowledge of Islam is incredibly flawed, weak and childish.

Trifkovic’s knowledge of history is equally defective. While he had no problem deflating the Bosnian Muslim casualty, he had no qualms inflating casualty figures when the victims were non-Muslims. If his sources were reliable, one could accept such, but he provides not a single credible source and chooses propaganda materials from websites that are managed by bigoted non-Muslim fundamentalists who are on a revisionist mode of their own now to alter historical facts, in order to justify their religious-cleansing activities against Muslim minorities.⁹ He seems to be unaware of what credible historians and great minds of the past two centuries said about Islam and its Prophet. H. G. Wells, e.g., commenting on the impact of Prophet’s last sermon, states,

…they established in the world a great tradition of dignified fair dealing, they breathe a spirit of generosity, and they are human and workable. They created a society more free from widespread cruelty and social oppression than any society had ever been in the world before.¹⁰

Writing about Islam, he further states,

It (Islam) was full of the spirit of kindliness, generosity and brotherhood; it was a simple and understandable religion….Against it were pitted Judaism, which had made a racial hoard of God; Christianity, talking and preaching endlessly now of trinities, doctrines, and heresies no ordinary man could make head or tail of; and Mazdaism, the cult of the Zoroastrian Magi, who had inspired the crucifixion of Mani.¹¹

Of the Mughal rule in India, Wells says,

…(Mogul dynasty) marks the most splendid age that had hitherto dawned upon India.¹²

Mahatma Gandhi said:

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind? I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.¹³

Sir George Bernard Shaw wrote:

I have studied him (Muhammad) ? the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.¹⁴

James Michener wrote,

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea.¹⁵

Writing about Islamic civilization, Bertrand Russell stated:

From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to Christendom at this time (699-1000) was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary.
¹⁶

Trifkovic, in short, is typical of the cynical anti-Muslim hawks. His book is trash and falls under the category of hate-books. It implants prejudice and harvests hatred. Naturally, in the aftermath of 9/11 his capacity as a “pen-pusher” has endeared him among Muslim-haters and Islam-bashers. We learn from history that fascism is always preceded by carefully concocted ideological distortions. It is writings like these that make our world more divided than ever before.

Books of this kind do not belong to the shelves of serious researchers except those who are searching for dirt and filth. Truly, if one were to search for such materials, there is no shortage of such in any community.¹⁷

1. Kosovo: The Real Story, The Chronicles and the Rockford Institute (1999). http://www.inwave.com [back]
2. Srdja Trifkovic, The Hague ‘Tribunal’: Bad Justice, Worse Politics, keynote speech at the S.B.A. Annual Scholarship Ball Union League Club, Chicago, June 7, 1996. [back]
3. A Devil Theory of Islam, review article by Prof. Edward Said, The Nation, August 12/19, 1996. In review of Miller’s work I shall paraphrase Prof. Said’s arguments, wherever applicable. [back]
4. See, e.g., Exodus 15:3; Deut. 13:6-10; Psalms 144:1; Jeremiah 13:14, 48:10; Book of Numbers; Joshua; Esther (ch. 8 and 9); Mishnah Torah; Sanhedrin 57a, 58b; Baba Kamma 37b, 113b; Soferim 15, Rule 10; Abhodah Zarah (26b); Zohar (I, 25a), (I, 38b, and 39a); Ialkut Simoni (245c. n. 772); Hilhoth Akum (X, 1) [back]
5. Baruch Goldstein, a religious Jew, killed about 30-40 Arab Muslims during their prayers at the Patriarchs mosque in Hebron. He had apparently taken literally the commandment in the Book of Esther to wipe out descendants of Haman, an enemy of ancient Persia’s Jews. The right-wing settlers in Israel’s territories agreed he had followed God’s commandment and said that making peace with their Arab enemies was tantamount to violating God’s will. [Encyclopedia Brit.] [back]
6. Islamic monotheism is void of Jewish exclusiveness, as noted by H. G. Wells in The Outline of History, p. 485 [back]
7. See Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi; also Missionaries in India by Arun Shourie. [back]
8. Gen. 16:3 shows that Hagar was Abraham’s (Ar. Ibrahim) legitimate wife and not a concubine. Gen. 17:25 shows that Ishmael, Abraham’s “son”, was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised. [back]
9. See, e.g., my articles: Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb?s Religious Intolerance: Truth or Fiction? (pub. News From Bangladesh website: http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/dec/20/f20122001.htm); Hindutva and Historical Revisionism, pub. NFB (Oct. ?10) http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/oct/10/g10102002.htm . See also NPR Morning Edition report on Indian textbooks: http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=872595 [back]
10. H. G. Wells in The Outline of History, Garden City Books, NY, (1961), p. 484 [back]
11. ibid., p. 485 [back]
12. ibid., p. 577 [back]
13. Statement published in Young India (1924) [back]
14. The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, no. 8 (1936) [back]
15. James Michener, Islam: The Misunderstood Religion, Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70. [back]
16. Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy, London, 1948, p. 419. [back]
17. Here is a small list of such books that provide plenty of materials that might be objectionable to others: The Ramayana of Valmiki 1:13:24-33; Brahmavaivarta Purana 3:8:19-33, 83-8, 3:9:1-26; Mahabharata Adiparvan 95; Kurma Purana 2:38:39-41; cf. Haracaritacintamani 10:74; Yagisvaramahatmya 26a. 14; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:96-8, 163-8, 193-202, 213-14; cf. Kurma Purana (1818), 2:37:33-9; Bhavisya Purana 3:4:17:67-78; Brahma Purana 72:18; Vamana Purana 27:56-9; cf. Siva Purana, Jnanasamhita 18:62-8; Siva Purana 2:3:49:3-10; Skanda Purana 1:1:26:15-22; Siva Purana, Jnanasamhita 49:65-80; Skanda Purana 3:40:1-59; Satapatha Brahmana 1:7:4:1-7; Skanda Purana 6:153:2-27; Mahabharata I:203:15-26; cf. Skanda Purana 5:3:150:18, 6:153:2-27; Matsya Purana 158:27-50; Padma Purana 5:41:118-42; cf. Haracaritacintamani 9:196-221; Skanda Purana 5:1:34:60-6; Siva Purana 3:22:45-55; 3:23:1-36; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 9:46-61; Matsya Purana 155:1-34, 156:1-40, 157:1-24, 158:1-27; Padma Purana 5:41:1-118; Skanda Purana 1:2:27:58-84; 1:2:28:1-14; 1:2:29:1-81; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:49-55; Padma Purana 1:56:15-53, 4:101:174-9; Saura Purana 62:5-12; Padma Purana 5:26:91-125; cf. Linga Purana 1:106:1-27; Matsya Purana 252:5-19, 179:7-186; Kurma Purana 1:16:141-222; — Mahabharata 13:81:1-86; Brahmavaivarta Purana 4:47:11-45; Rig Veda 10:86:6; Jaiminiya Brahmana 3:199-200; Satapatha Brahmana 13:5:2:1-9; Hinduism Unveiled: Forbidden Verses in Hindu Scriptures. Presented by Hinduism Unveiled Enterprises; Oh You Hindu Awake by Dr. Kamal Chatterjee, pub. by Hadwa Dom, Dalitstan Journal; The Talmud: Judaism’s Holiest Book Unmasked by Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, St. Petersburg Printing office of the Imperial Academy of Sciences 1892; The Truth about the Talmud by Michael A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley, Independent History & Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816; The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, Penguin Books. [back]