Very good day,

This is to invite your attention towards the desirability, in today’s World__ where no one, be it a super power or a super-populated nation, is in a position to influence events __ of an inter-state alliance for the resolution of regional and global issues.

The present time demands a new World Order achievable through a Global Alliance of Jews, Christians and Muslims who need to get their vision adjusted to the logic of events as they have unfolded in the beginning of the 21st century. If, thus, the believers correct their course to pursue such values as conform with God’s universal plan, design and order, they will be rewarded with world leadership. Otherwise, Nature will, for the correction of course, permit the evil to gather momentum and rush with fury to a WAR ON THE BELIEVERS who will suffer substantial loss before reuniting to once again play a role on the world stage.

While the human beings have been waging bloody wars to block the transformation of one Culture/World Order into another, the forces of nature have continued for millennia to smoothly and peacefully transform day into night and darkness into light. I, therefore, request the sons of Ibrahim (Peace be upon him) to learn from nature and be united for replacing the illuminati World Order of the Industrial Culture era with a New World Order for the I.T. Culture era.

Having been blessed with a crystal clear vision of the centuries ahead, coupled with the expertise to develop a practical shape of the I.T. Culture, my suggestions are not only compatible with the prevalent democratic system but also have an inbuilt mechanism for the evolution of I.T. Culture in accordance with the divine order and design. In this context, briefs of the fundamental principles of “IN GOD WE TRUST”, Constitution, Smart Government and Structure of I.T. Culture Government are enclosed.

Since, besides, the United Nations (UN) has unfortunately failed to maintain global peace and its subsidiary organs have been unable to achieve their respective objectives, we need, on the one hand, to replace the UN with a new World Organization of the Nations (WON) and on the other, establish new subsidiary organs, namely GRACE, GOOD, JOIN, TOP and PACT, a brief of the fundamental principles of each of which is also enclosed.

Hoping we can all join hands to develop an inbuilt mechanism for Global Peace in the New World Order,

Sincerely yours,

SYED AMMAR BUKHARI
Cell: +92-321-2345617
http://www.goodgovernance.org.pk

The article has many useful information about Islam based on others. Accounts based on writings from as old as the time of the Prophet, witnesses by non-Muslim who witnessed, saw and experienced the manners of the Companions and the Tabi’un. Certainly, provides another source of information other than Sirah of Ibn Ishaq.

Dear brother,
The reference you mentioned based on Tolan Ed., (2000), The Medieval Christian perception of Islam, p13.
The link did not show the foot note, could you tell me the reference of the author information?

Thank you

I don’t quite understand why Muslims would go out of their way to pander Zionist racism by casting doubt on their scholarly qualifications and by insulting my wife

My dearest brother, I did not question your or your wife’s scholarly qualifications. I do not know you or her, so what right would I have to do that?

for no one except a Zionist or someone totally indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda talks about the Jewish conquest of Canaan. The proper terminology is the Israelite conquest.

Brother, I already dealt with this issue in the comments. Please scroll up to see what I said. I acknowledged that the term “Jew” I used was anachronistic. As for your unnecessary accusation, please note that Imam Ibn Kathir himself used the term “Jew” when referring to the conquest of Canaan. But like I said, I acknowledge that it is anachronistic, and that the more correct term would be Israelite, like you mentioned.

May Allah [swt] reward you!

-J.Hashmi

Among scholars I am fairly close to the mainstream in Jewish studies.

In this case, the preponderance of scholarship does not happen to agree with Zionist mythology even if common wisdom does, and to pretend that there is consensus on the issues my wife raised is the purest mendacity.

In her article my wife cited two well-respected scholars: Columbia University Professor Nadia Abu el-Haj and Tel Aviv University Professor Shlomo Sand (Zand).

I don’t quite understand why Muslims would go out of their way to pander Zionist racism by casting doubt on their scholarly qualifications and by insulting my wife, who is the Civil Rights Division Director of the National Association of Muslim American Women.

I was trying to be nice, but you simply do not understand the Biblical History, and I have to doubt whether you ever read the Bible, religious historians of Biblical Israel or secular historians of Biblical Israel, for no one except a Zionist or someone totally indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda talks about the Jewish conquest of Canaan. The proper terminology is the Israelite conquest. The Kingdom of Judah does not arise until after the reign of Solomon, and many contemporary archeologists and historians treat that whole period as mythological.

In the Hebrew Bible, the word Yehudi (יְהוּדִי equivalent to Arabic Yahudi) is not used until the Book of Esther, which among other things describes a massive conversion to some form of Judaism as it was practiced at the time period.

If I were translating Yehudi, I would use Jehudite because the group being described is quite distinct

1. from the Judahites of the pre-exilic Kingdom of Judah,

2. from the Judeans of the Greco-Roman time period, and

3. from Jews of the medieval to modern period.

Obviously, there is some disagreement in the terminology, but the issue of properly translating Hebrew yehudi and Greek ioudaios has been around since Reuchlein in the 15th century.

Reuse of gentilics or demonyms is hardly unusual in the European context, and Patrick J. Geary summarizes practice in The Myth of Nations, The Medieval Origins of Europe, pp. 118-119. His analysis applies at least as much to the term yehudi as it applies to any European ethnic name.

Conclusion: Old Names and New Peoples

The fourth and fifth centuries saw fundamental changes in the European social and political fabric. In the process, great confederations like those of the Goths disappeared, to re-emerge transformed into kingdoms in Italy and Gaul. Others like the Hunnic Empire or the Vandal kingdom seemed to spring from nowhere, only to vanish utterly in a few generations. Still other, previously obscure peoples, such as the Angles and the Franks, emerged to create enduring polities. But whether enduring or ephemeral, the social realities behind these ethnic names underwent rapid and radical transformation in every case. Whatever a Goth was in the third-century kingdom of Cniva, the reality of a Goth in sixthcentury Spain was far different, in language, religion, political and social organization, even ancestry. The Franks defeated by Emperor Julian in the fourth century and those who followed Clovis into battle in the sixth century were likewise almost immeasurably distant from each other in every possible way. The same was true of the Romans, whose transformation was no less dramatic in the same period. With the constant shifting of allegiances, intermarriages, transformations, and appropriations, it appears that all that remained constant were names, and these were vessels that could hold different contents at different times.

Names were renewable resources; they held the potential to convince people of continuity, even if radical discontinuity was the lived reality. Old names, whether of ancient peoples like the Goths or Suebi or of illustrious families such as the Amals, could be reclaimed, applied to new circumstances, and used as rallying cries for new powers. Alternatively, names of small, relatively unimportant groups might be expanded with enormous power. The Franks were the most significant of these. In the third century, they were among the least significant of Rome’s enemies. By the sixth century, the name Frank had eclipsed not only that of Goth, Vandal, and Sueb, but of Roman itself in much of the West.

Probably no greater fraud has ever been perpetrated in the history of the human race than Zionism.

I am quite offended that you write:

I wanted this article to deal only with that which is agreed upon by scholars and academics. [It is not a history where there is agreement. To pretend consenus exists is dishonest.] Although I only spent a few minutes on your site, I did notice a few things which bothered me. [Like what? On any point I make I can cite either primary research, primary literature or numerous secondary sources.] I think your writing is much more controversial and contested. [Your are simply saying that I do not agree with Zionist propaganda. A lot of Jewish studies researchers don't in fact agree with it. That should be a good thing. Good historical scholarship is often controversial.]

I generally have a very positive opinion of secular historians. I just tend to stick to the historical record that they agree upon, in order to avoid shoddy and selective scholarship. [There is no consensus in the history I was discussing except the nonsense Zionists are trying to foist on the rest of the world. If anything, you are regurgitating shoddy and selective scholarship.] Furthermore, I prefer dispassionate discourse instead of ideologically driven research. [Good research is objective even if it is passionate, and on some issues it is simply difficult to avoid passion. Jewish scholars of the Holocaust are not criticized for passion. They are criticized as Goldhagen was for selective or distorted use of sources.] With regard to your work, it is beyond my capability to comment on it, so I will just say nothing and apologize to you for snipping your links. [You are just admitting that you should not be pretending to write a factual summary and that you have no ability to justify your position.]

There is an open thread on MM. You may share whatever views you want there, and the MM staff there may be more lenient in letting certain posts pass. I however will keep an eye on my article to make sure we stick to what is agreed upon. [I have to reiterate there is no agreement in this area, but the preponderance of serious scholarship is closer to my summary than to yours.] Muslims already have a credibility issue, as we–like minorities in general–tend to flock to conspiracy theories.

There is a whole area of historical research devoted to conspiracy theories. (Fire in the Minds of Men by Billington is a popular but solid work in this genre.) Conspiracy theories are phenomenologies that people develop to explain observables in the face of a dearth of data. Usually when more data becomes available, previously formulated conspiracy theories must either be modified or dropped, but problems with a given conspiracy theory does not mean there are no conspiracies.

In fact, because conspiracies are fairly common, they have been criminalized in US law and there are several regulatory agencies that watch for them. Eastern European politics has been highly conspiratorial since the 18th century at least. Sometimes scholarly literature calls the Polish Socialist Party the 40 year conspiracy to create an independent Poland. Historically Eastern European Jewish communism was highly conspiratorial just as Eastern European Jewish Zionism is today. Muslims have problems with conspiracy theories not because Muslims are wrong to worry about Islamophobic conspiracies but because American Muslims do not have a clue about discussing conspiracy in a rational or persuasive fashion.

Censoring the discussion to avoid offending Jewish prejudices hardly makes American Muslims more credible especially when in this case the censorship is being applied to one of the 5 or so Muslims that actually has an in-depth knowledge of Jewish studies.

Is there any chance you can provide any information about the Greek rule of countries such as Syria before the influence of Islam?

Unfortunately I have only studied Middle Eastern history in university.

-J.Hashmi

I’m really sorry to do this to you, but I had to snip out your links. I wanted this article to deal only with that which is agreed upon by scholars and academics. Although I only spent a few minutes on your site, I did notice a few things which bothered me. I think your writing is much more controversial and contested.

I generally have a very positive opinion of secular historians. I just tend to stick to the historical record that they agree upon, in order to avoid shoddy and selective scholarship. Furthermore, I prefer dispassionate discourse instead of ideologically driven research. With regard to your work, it is beyond my capability to comment on it, so I will just say nothing and apologize to you for snipping your links.

There is an open thread on MM. You may share whatever views you want there, and the MM staff there may be more lenient in letting certain posts pass. I however will keep an eye on my article to make sure we stick to what is agreed upon. Muslims already have a credibility issue, as we–like minorities in general–tend to flock to conspiracy theories. I wanted to avoid this pitfall, insha-Allah.

-J.Hashmi

Is there any chance you can provide any information about the Greek rule of countries such as Syria before the influence of Islam? I have not been able to find much information about the subject.