Was Islam Spread by the Sword? by Idris Tawfiq

Here's another excellent mind opening article, a reply by Idris Tawfiq (a British writer who became Muslim a few years ago. Previously, he was head of religious education in different schools in the United Kingdom. Before embracing Islam, he was a Roman Catholic priest) from a question at Islam-Online.net web forum; 'Was Islam Spread by the Sword?'

"Perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions about Islam is that it was spread by the sword. However, this idea is now so widespread that people accept it as a fact. Even the Pope, whether he intended to or not, caused great offense to Muslims throughout the world by referring to this myth of Islam being spread by the sword. It is not the place here to discuss the Pope's ill-timed and ill-conceived remarks, but we can address your central question about whether or not Islam was spread by the sword. It is, in fact, a pleasure to do so, since Islam has nothing to be ashamed of.

Indonesia has around 450 million Muslims, which is more than the population of all the Arab countries put together. In fact, Arabs count for only around 18 percent of all Muslims. By far the greatest concentration of the world's 1.1 billion Muslims lives in Southeast Asia. Islam has been deeply rooted there for centuries. Those who beat the drum of Islam being spread by the sword fail to mention Southeast Asia, since it does not fit into their agenda. No Muslim armies ever went there. In fact, the story of Islam being brought there is quite marvelous and well worth telling. It was brought not by soldiers, but by merchants.

Soon after the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the death of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, the Muslim faithful were led by Caliph `Umar, one of the
Prophet's Companions. When `Umar entered Jerusalem at the head of a Muslim army in 638 CE, just six years after the Prophet's death, he entered the city on foot, as a gesture of humility in a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres or forced conversions.

On the contrary, those who wanted to leave were allowed to do so with all their possessions. Those who wanted to stay were granted protection for their lives, their property, and their places of worship. `Umar very famously declined to pray one of the five daily prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, lest in years to come Muslims might try to turn it into a mosque in his memory. Instead, `Umar cleansed the so-called Temple Mount with rose water and built a small mosque there, where the Dome of the Rock now stands.

All of this is in marked contrast to what happened when the Crusader armies later took Jerusalem. Seventy thousand men, women and children were slaughtered. Any remaining Muslims and Jews were driven out. When the city was recaptured by Salah Ad-Din (Saladin), the Christian inhabitants were granted protection and were escorted to safety by the Muslim army. But those who have a different aim would have us believe that it is Islam that is cruel.

When Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) finally entered Makkah at the head of a Muslim army in AH 8, he did so not to force the Makkans to convert, but because they had violated their peace treaty with the Muslims. The Prophet entered with great humility, ordering that there should be no fighting or bloodshed. Instead, he forgave all those who had opposed him and the growth of Islam for so many years. Those who wanted to leave were allowed to do so. The whole city, so impressed by the men they had fought against for so long, converted to Islam.

We might ask if Islam was taken to America by the sword, or taken to Denmark or Ireland or Poland by the sword. It wasn't. And yet Islam is now the world's fastest growing religion, according to some people.

Islam is a religion of peace. It is the natural religion of mankind and has existed since the beginning of time. In some countries today we see violence on a massive scale. We see tragedy in Afghanistan and Iraq as the people respond to the invasion of their countries by foreign armies. We see violence in Palestine as the Palestinians respond to oppression and injustice.

Let it be clear that Islam does not condone violence against innocent people. Perhaps those driven to violence are being mistaken for Islam itself. If individual Muslims present a distorted image of Islam, all Muslims in the world must not be labeled as violent. When IRA violence was at its height in Northern Ireland and Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, no one spoke of Christian terrorists. The ETA bombing campaign in northern Spain is not labeled Catholic. So why are all Muslims linked with violence?"

Muhammad's Sword & Uri Avnery

As a respond to the Pope Benedict XVI's recent controversial remark, this is by far one of the most interesting article that i've come across in recent times (note that the writer is an Israeli peace activist and also a former Israeli MP). Avnery pointed out clearly and condemn the 'evil legend' that of Islam was spread by the sword by narrating historical facts on relationship between the Jews under Muslim and Christian rule, the Golden Age of Islam in Muslim Spain, Christian subjects under Ottoman rule and etc.

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism" , in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations" .

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish" Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/35746

Domain Renewal

Congratulations. Your Domain Name shahnon.com has been Renewed.

Outlandish - Look Into My Eyes

See I've known terror for quite some time
57 years so cruel
Terror breathes the air I breathe
It's the checkpoint on my way to school
Terror is the robbery of my land
And the torture of my mother
The imprisonment of my innocent father
The bullet in my baby brother
The bulldozers and the tanks
The gases and the guns
The bombs that fall outside my door
All due to your funds
You blame me for defending myself
Against the ways of my enemies
I'm terrorized in my own land (what)
And I'm the terrorist?

beautiful song by Outlandish. love the lyrics :)

Ramadhan kembali..

Selamat menyambut bulan Ramadhan 1427H.

Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah: Raja bukanlah monumen hiasan kaku, tanpa nyawa, tanpa jiwa..

Saya tertarik membacakan teks ucapan Raja Muda Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah bertajuk 'Kecemerlangan institusi beraja' di Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, sempena sambutan hari keputeraan Sultan Brunei Darussalam yang ke-60, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, yang banyak menyentuh tentang sejarah institusi beraja dan mengupas faktor, punca dan kesan daripada jatuh bangunnya sesebuah kerajaan beraja di serata dunia.

Pada hemat saya, faktor-faktor kejatuhan kerajaan-kerajaan beraja, atau runtuhnya institusi beraja akibat revolusi rakyat dan sebagainya di negara-negara lain di serata dunia tidak harus dijadikan kayu ukur atau dibuat perbandingan dalam menentukan hala tuju sistem beraja Melayu Islam di Malaysia yang setakat ini masih kukuh diterima rakyat dalam mendepani cabaran dunia masa depan.

Berikut antara beberapa petikan ucapan baginda;

"..Dua peperangan dunia mengubah landskap politik dunia. Dua peperangan dunia menyaksikan perubahan imbangan kuasa dunia. Dua peperangan dunia menyaksikan kemusnahan, menyaksikan pertambahan perbelanjaan ketenteraan, menyaksikan kebangkitan semangat nasionalisme, menyaksikan kemunculan ideologi baru dan menyaksikan kelahiran rupa bentuk pemerintahan dan kerajaan baru. Lalu berlaku transformasi politik membentuk persekitaran politik yang berbeza. Abad kedua puluh menyaksikan kebangkitan gerakan nasionalisme dan corak pemerintahan berlandaskan perlembagaan. Berlakulah evolusi dalam pemerintahan beraja.

Raja-Raja di Eropah yang peka, memahami dinamik yang berlaku berikutan gerakan politik rakyat berpaksikan masyarakat industri dan masyarakat kota. Raja yang sebelumnya dianggap Dewata mewakili tuhan memerintah hamba-hamba di bumi, bertukar peranan sebagai pembela kepada kebajikan dan kebaikan warga di sesebuah negara bangsa. Raja-Raja tersebut berjaya melakukan pengubahsuaian, lantas takhta dapat dikekalkan. Malah dengan kemunculan gerakan politik berparti, Raja yang berada di atas politik, diiktiraf sebaik hakim, memenuhi fungsi sumber keadilan, berupaya mendamaikan persengketaan di antara puak-puak yang bertelingkah; konsep ini menjadi perintis - menjadi asas kepada doktrin pemisahan dan perkongsian kuasa antara Raja dan rakyat di era pasca Perang Dunia Pertama dan Perang Dunia Kedua.

Nicholas II, Raja (Tsar) Rusia terakhir adalah antara pengajaran memperlihatkan kelemahan seorang watak yang gagal memenuhi tanggung jawab berat sebuah institusi. Sepanjang tempoh pemerintahan Baginda, Nicholas dibatasi dan dikelilingi dengan pengaruh orang-orang yang Baginda senangi sama ada pemimpin agama, Permaisuri dan Paderi kesayangan Permaisuri bernama Rasputin. Pegawai-pegawai berwibawa tidak disenangi dan gagal mendapat kepercayaan Baginda. Akhirnya Baginda terperangkap dengan kepalsuan dan tidak berpeluang memahami realiti. Berakhirlah Pemerintahan Baginda apabila terputusnya sokongan rakyat.

Di Asia, sistem Maharaja di Cina berakhir berikutan revolusi 1912. Dalam tahun 1948, pemerintahan berteraskan demokrasi berparlimen menggantikan 'Britisih Raj' di India. Indonesia memilih sistem Republik. Namun ikatan emosi terhadap Raja masih berakar di hati rakyat, terutama mereka yang berketurunan Jawa, dengan pegangan mistisisme, menghargai konsep 'Ratu Adil'. Langit Jakarta berawan mendung, bumi Jawa gerimis hiba, menerima berita kemangkatan Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX di Washington pada bulan Oktober 1988. Seratus lima puluh ribu ratus (150,000) rakyat memberi penghormatan terakhir dalam tempoh enam belas (16) jam jenazah Baginda ditempatkan di Kraton. Meski Indonesia adalah sebuah republik, Baginda diiktiraf wira negara; Baginda dirujuk sebagai 'Raja Kita'.

Raja Bhumibol Adulyadej di Thailand, secara bijaksana lagi teliti berupaya mendapat sokongan rakyat dengan mendampingi para petani, mahasiswa dan siswazah; mencerminkan imej seorang Raja yang mengambil berat akan tanggung jawab sosial, bersifat patriotik kepada negara bangsanya serta menjalin hubungan erat dengan agama. Raja Bhumibol secara bijaksana telah mengolah dan memberi makna akan fungsi takhta dalam sistem Raja Berperlembagaan. Bahawa Raja dan rakyat disatukan. Raja melambangkan kedaulatan sebuah negara bangsa merdeka, memperlihatkan pendirian yang mendukung prinsip demokrasi dan memihak kepada pemerintahan sivil. Semalam berlaku satu lagi rampasan kuasa di Thailand. Dalam 'intermission' sesuatu babak di panggung pemerintahan, ketika tirai dilabuhkan, Raja Bhumipol berasaskan rekod, sentiasa berada di 'center stage' mempengaruhi arah haluan babak selanjutnya.

Jika Kerajaan beraja lenyap di Vietnam - lenyap Laos, terperangkap dalam pertelagahan kepentingan antara wibawa Raja, kuasa kolonial Peranchis, kebangkitan nasionalisme dan ideologi komunis, tetapi Kampuchea meskipun jatuh ke tangan komunis, memberi nafas kepada sistem beraja untuk memberi kesahihan kepada kerajaan Hun Sen; karisma dan kebijaksanaan Putera Sihanouk, berpengaruh menyesuaikan peranan Raja mengharungi konflik semasa, walaupun Baginda berulang kali pula gagal menentukan arah haluan secara konsisten. Namun legasi yang ditinggal, membuatkan rakyat Kampuchea menghargai sistem pemerintahan beraja, kerana itu institusi Raja Berperlembagaan diwujudkan pada tahun 1993.

Sistem Raja Berperlembagaan perlu ditafsir sebagai perkongsian kuasa antara Raja dan rakyat. Raja menjadi sumber rujukan ketika berlakunya krisis di kalangan rakyat. Raja memastikan bahawa berlakunya secara adil mekanisme semak dan imbang antara cabang-cabang perundangan, eksekutif dan kehakiman; sekali gus memperkukuhkan institusi demokrasi di dalam negara. Secara umum Raja bertindak berasaskan nasihat pimpinan kerajaan pilihan rakyat. Namun Raja tidak harus sama sekali merasakan tertekan dan tidak semestinya memberi perkenan, jika nasihat yang disembahkan bercanggah dengan semangat perlembagaan, bertentangan dengan keluhuran undang-undang serta melanggar prinsip keadilan sejagat. Raja sama sekali tidak boleh memihak kepada perbuatan yang tidak melambangkan keadilan atau merestui tindakan yang tidak mencerminkan kebenaran.

Raja-Raja di alam Melayu mempunyai hubungan yang rapat dengan Islam. Islam mempengaruhi dan mengubah corak pemerintahan, beralih dari pemerintahan berpaksikan individu kepada pemerintahan berpaksikan undang-undang. Undang-undang Melaka menjelaskan bahawa martabat tinggi seseorang Sultan, dinilai dari sudut amal makruf Baginda menyempurnakan tanggung jawab. Terkandung dalam Kanun bahawa seseorang Raja perlu mengamalkan sifat-sifat perkasa lagi tegas, adil lagi saksama, pengampun dan belas kasihan. Sifat mengampuni dan belas kasihan adalah antara sifat yang diutamakan di dalam Islam. Allah itu Maha Pemurah - Maha Mengasihani, seperti yang terkandung dalam kalimah 'Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim', diulang sebanyak seratus empat belas (114) kali di dalam Al-Quran, mendahului permulaan setiap surah melainkan surat 'At -Taubah'; kalimah 'Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim' diulang dua kali dalam surah 'An-Namli'.

Islam telah membawa Raja Melayu kepada konsep murni, muafakat dan adil. Konsep adil dapat ditafsirkan sebagai menepati semangat perjanjian antara Demang Lebar Daun dengan Sang Sapurba yang dijadikan 'magna carta' Melayu bertuankan Raja bersandarkan konsep keadilan yang dibayangkan dengan kata-kata 'Raja Adil - Raja disembah'."

Teks penuh ucapan Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah dalam ucapan baginda bertajuk 'Kecemerlangan institusi beraja' di Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, sempena sambutan hari keputeraan Sultan Brunei Darussalam yang ke-60, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah. [berita lanjut]

InsyaAllah, jika panjang umur dan tatacara giliran pelantikan Yang diPertuan Agong mengikut seperti sedia ada, Raja Dr. Nazrin akan ditabalkan menjadi Yang diPertuan Agong yang ke-18 pada tahun 2020.

CNN Founder, Ted Turner says Iraq war among history's 'dumbest'

Turner called it a 'joke' that Bush demanded that Iran abandon any ambitions for nuclear weapons while at the same time hoping to ban all such bombs..

"They're a sovereign state," he said of Iran. "We have 28 000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel - They've got 100 of them approximately - or India, Pakistan or Russia. - Reuters.

"He's not civilised, he shouldn't be talking about civilising others." - Dr. Mahathir on George Bush

No such thing as a moderate Muslim - ex-Malaysian PMBy Michael Steen

ASTANA (Reuters) - There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and U.S. President George W. Bush is mistaken in casting his war on terror in terms of a "struggle for civilisation", Malaysia's outspoken former prime minister says.

Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled Malaysia for 22 years and is known for his frequent barbs against what he has called Western double standards, said he believed even the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were at root linked to Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

"What is happening today has got nothing to do with religion. It has got to do with territorial disputes, mainly the dispute over Palestinian land," he told Reuters after a religious congress in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan.

He said Bush's description of America's "war on terror" as "a struggle for civilisation" on the fifth anniversary of the attacks was flawed, as was the West's hope that moderate Muslims would have a dominant voice.

"There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."

ROOT CAUSE
On Bush's comments, Mahathir, 81, said: "He's not civilised, he shouldn't be talking about civilising others."

Although most of the men who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks were Saudis, Mahathir - whom Israel has in the past dubbed anti-Semitic - said he saw the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands as the root cause of Islamist extremism.

"They (the hijackers) had no direct link but there is a great deal of sympathy for the sufferings of the people of Palestine," he said.

"Maybe that is because they are co-religionists but it is not because their religion urges them to do so. The West tends to blame religion, they blame Islam for whatever happens and associate Islam with terrorism," he said.

He said he believed dubbing a fight against Islamic extremism as a struggle for civilisation risked becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"(Muslims) are without arms, they are weak and they are pushed into a corner. If you are pushed into a corner and the only thing you can do is bite, you bite," he said.

The tactics used by the United States and allies such as Britain were an attempt to "out-terrorise the terrorists" and would therefore fail, Mahathir said.

"Saddam Hussein terrorised his people, he killed many people. But how many did he kill compared to the numbers the Americans have caused to be killed?" he asked.
"They have opened a Pandora's Box and you have a civil war."

Mahathir provoked controversy throughout his long career. In 2003 he said Jews ruled the world by proxy, prompting condemnation from Israel and Western countries.

The jailing of his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 on sodomy charges that Anwar said were trumped up caused many western democracies to shun Mahathir.

But he has also been widely hailed as the architect of modern Malaysia and a strong voice among Muslim and developing countries.

"When you target Muslim countries, other Muslims get angry and they try to retaliate the only way they can, by bombing or maybe attempts to blow up aircraft and so you think that these Muslims are really bad," Mahathir said.

"But think first what you have done to them and then you will realise that if you were in their position you would do the same thing."