The “Temple” of Ignorance: A Response to Ken Temple on Dhimmis, Jizyah, and Islam – Part III

The “Temple” of Ignorance: A Response to Ken Temple on Dhimmis, Jizyah, and Islam, Part III

Originally posted on the Quran and Bible Blog

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

– The Quran, Surah At-Tawba, 9:29

            This is Part III of the response to Ken Temple’s poorly researched diatribe about the Islamic concepts of dhimmis and jizyah. Here, we will give a short history lesson to Temple regarding the real reasons for the American-led Gulf War to “liberate” Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Temple’s shameless promotion of America’s dirty politics is truly sickening, as we will see.

Unveiling the “Temple” of Ignorance: The Gulf War

            Regarding the Gulf War, Temple repeated the same drivel we hear from biased western, and in this case, American, sources about the “goodness” of America or the western world in general, and its allies. We are told how the Americans heroicly “liberated” the Kuwaitis (and for sure, that was the feeling even among many Kuwaitis at the time), and then “left” them to enjoy the benefits of their new-found “freedoms” (the reality, of course, is that America has maintained a permanent presence with its military bases and continues to support the absolute monarchy). So let’s look at the facts on the grounds, and sift through the shameless and mindless repetition of the pro-western mantra that people like Temple routinely use.[1]

            To fully understand the dirty politics that led to the Gulf War (and also the second Gulf War as well), we need to go back to the late 1950s. As far back as 1959, Saddam Hussein was part of a CIA-sponsored plot to assassinate General Abd al-Karim Qasim, who was a member of the infamous Baath party.[2] The CIA maintained very close ties to the Baath party due to its anti-Communist policies, even while it was attempting to overthrow Qasim, and was instrumental in Saddam’s rise to power.

            It is also well-known that Saddam Hussein had American support in his war against Iran (1980-1988). As film director Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick stated in their book The Untold History of the United States:

“[t]he Reagan administration had cozied up to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, removing Iraq from the State Department list of terrorist states and backing it in its war on Iran. Even Saddam’s use of chemical weapons to crush Kurdish resistance had elicited little protest. Following a clumsy attempt by the United States to pin that crime on Iran, Bush [Sr.] extended an additional $1.2 billion in credits and loans to Saddam while Kuwait demanded that Iraq repay the money it had borrowed to wage war against Iran.”[3]

So not only was Saddam Hussein an ally of the Americans, he was also an ally of the Kuwaitis as well. Both provided financial assistance to give Iraq the upper-hand in the devastating Iran-Iraq war. Not only that, but the Americans provided intelligence, logistics, and satellite imagery to the Iraqi army, even when it was using chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas against the Iranians.[4]

Rumsfeld Saddam.jpg

Figure 1 – Donald Rumsfeld, then the Middle East envoy for the Reagan administration, shakes hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.[5]

            As for Saddam’s motivation for the invasion of Kuwait, the reasons were two-fold. First, as already stated, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Kuwait demanded the repayment of money that it had loaned to Iraq. Second, Kuwait manipulated the price of oil, which caused the price to drop, severely hampering Iraq’s ability to pay its debts (which had reached $40 billion by that time). Third, Iraq and Kuwait had been involved in a border dispute ever since Kuwait gained independence from Iraq in 1961.[6]

            When Saddam approached the Americans for help in his conflict with Kuwait, he was assured by US ambassador April Glaspie that President Bush (Sr.) wanted good relations with Iraq and “had ‘no opinion’” on the border dispute with Kuwait. Not only that, but the Ambassador plainly stated that Kuwait “had been no friend of the United States”.[7] This kind of double-dealing has sadly been part and parcel of the foreign policies of many western countries.[8]

            But the most sickening part of the whole saga was how the war on Iraq was sold to the American public. In one of the most shocking and putrid acts of propaganda ever conducted, the Bush administration, in league with the Kuwaiti royal family, used a 15-year old girl’s testimony to sell the war to “liberate” Kuwait. Her name was “Nayirah”. She was a “nurse” in a hospital in Kuwait and supposedly witnessed Iraqi soldiers barging into the hospital and throwing babies from incubators to the floor, leaving them to die. The “testimony” was hard-hitting and did the job. But it was later discovered that she was lying. Not only that, but she was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.[9] The Bush administration knowingly used this false propaganda to justify the war! Of course, this doesn’t mean that Saddam Hussein was not a war criminal. The Iraqi occupation of Kuwait would have definitely seen atrocities committed against the Kuwaitis, but if that was the impetus for the Gulf War, then why didn’t the US and its allies attack Saddam when he gassed his own people or when he used chemical weapons against Iran? Why did the Americans condemn one form of war crimes, but look the other way when another form occurred? The reason is simple: they didn’t care about human rights violations, unless it was politically advantageous.


Figure 2 – “Nayirah” cries as she recounts the harrowing story of the alleged murders of Kuwaiti infants by Iraqi troops.[10]

            The Americans and their allies also handsomely rewarded countries that supported the resolution to bomb Iraq, and severely punished those that didn’t. For example, one of the poorest countries in the Middle East, Yemen, was denied $70 million in aid from the US, while Saudi Arabia expelled 800,000 Yemeni workers.[11]

            Even the perceived Iraqi threat of an invasion of Saudi Arabia was based on a pack of lies. It is documented that shortly after the invasion of Kuwait, Dick Cheney (the future vice president), Colin Powell, and Norman Schwarzkopf met with King Fahd and showed him “doctored photos” of thousands of Iraqi troops and tanks along the Saudi border with Kuwait. These photos were exposed as fraudulent by Japanese and American news agencies.[12] In fact, Stone and Kuznick note that “[t]here is no evidence that Saddam ever intended to invade Saudi Arabia.”[13]

            These facts make the following deceitful and simplistic assessment of the Gulf War by Temple all the more outrageous:

“[t]he USA in Kuwait was a temporary thing, we helped them rebuilt [sic] their country, allowed freedom of thought, and left. To this day, the Kuwaiti people love George H. W. Bush for getting Saddam out of Kuwait.”

            It is hard to put such a ridiculous assessment into words. First, as already mentioned, the USA never “left” Kuwait. In the present day, it maintains at least 8 military bases in the tiny country.[14] Second, there really wasn’t that much “rebuilding” needed. Kuwait is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Third, to say that the USA “allowed freedom of thought” is one of the stupidest things Temple has ever said. Kuwait was and has remained a monarchy before and after the Gulf War. Nothing changed. The Americans did not care about the freedom of the Kuwaitis. They cared only about establishing their domination over the Middle East. In fact, they needed to go to war with Iraq and save the Kuwaiti regime at that point. As Stone and Kuznick explain, New York Times reporter Judith Miller described what was termed the “nightmare scenario” for the US and its allies:

“…an Iraqi withdrawal [from Kuwait] that would leave Saddam in power and his arsenal intact, especially if it were accompanied by calls for elections to determine Kuwait’s future political structure. […] The ruling Sabah family in Kuwait would either be toppled or have its powers sharply constrained. U.S. plans to establish a long-term presence in the Gulf region would be thwarted.”[15]

Spreading “freedom of thought” was not on the list of priorities for the Americans. This is a fact, and no amount of shameless propaganda from the likes of Temple will change that.

            Also, perhaps Temple can explain why the USA has continued to support dictators, drug lords, and even terrorists throughout the Middle East and also in Latin America for decades,[16] if it was so interested in “allowing freedom of thought”? I have a feeling he will be unable to provide any reasonable excuse. Such is the way with ignorant pro-western propagandists like him. The list of brutal regimes supported by the USA (see note #16) includes the Shah of Iran (who overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran), General Augusto Pinochet of Chile (who also overthrew a democratically-elected government), and even the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia![17]


Figure 3 – Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a freely elected official, was overthrown by a CIA-led coup, which brought the Shah to power in 1953.[18]

            Not only this, but during the Gulf War, US forces actually committed war crimes against the Iraqis as well. Incidents such as the “highway of death”, and the use of depleted uranium were examples of such activities. As Stone and Kuznick explain, depleted uranium’s:

“…radioactivity and chemical toxicity would produce cancers and birth defects for years. Victims may have included U.S. soldiers…”[19]

What makes this even more outrageous and a definite war crime is that depleted uranium was also used in the second war with Iraq (the so-called “Operation Iraqi Freedom”). So while the people of Iraq were freed from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein (even though he was supported by the Americans for 30 years), they had to contend with the health consequences of American military firepower, such as birth defects in infants.[20] One can find many images of horrendous birth defects, but we will not show them here due to their graphic nature (see note #20 for some examples).

            So in contrast to the romanticized revisionism of ignorant propagandists like Temple, the reality is that the Gulf War was the result of devious and dirty politics, and not a genuine concern for human rights and freedom.


            This concludes the three-part refutation of Ken Temple’s idiocy, incompetent research, and flat-out lies. Temple’s penchant for copy/paste research, using biased and equally incompetent sources shows that he is a propagandist rather than a truth-seeker. His bias against Islam leads him to present information about it from sources that are openly hostile and biased against it. There is no effort at objectivity or fairness. In short, the “Temple” of Ignorance has been shattered and left in ruins, as it should be.

            And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!

[1] This is not the first time Temple has spread such propaganda. See here for more examples, and my responses to him, which he ignored:


[3] Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States (New York: Gallery Books, 2012), pp. 473-474.



[6] Ibid., p. 474.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Another example is Operation Paperclip, when the United States recruited Nazi scientists in the aftermath of World War II. After fighting the Nazis alongside Stalin, the United States was now using the Nazis to fight the Soviets! Of course, the Soviets were doing the same thing.

[9] Stone and Kuznick, op. cit., p. 476.

Here is a clip showing the “heartbreaking” testimony of this girl:


[11] Stone and Kuznick, op. cit., p. 477.

[12] Ibid., p. 474.

[13] Ibid.


[15] Stone and Kuznick, op. cit., p. 478.


[17] Regarding the Khmer Rouge, Nicolas Davies of “Salon” states that:

“[w]hen President Nixon ordered the secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia in 1969, American pilots were ordered to falsify their logs to conceal their crimes. They killed at least half a million Cambodians, dropping more bombs than on Germany and Japan combined in World War II. As the Khmer Rouge gained strength in 1973, the CIA reported that its “propaganda has been most effective among refugees subjected to B-52 strikes.” After the Khmer Rouge killed at least 2 million of its own people and was finally driven out by the Vietnamese army in 1979, the U.S. Kampuchea Emergency Group, based in the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, set out to feed and supply them as the “resistance” to the new Vietnamese-backed Cambodian government. Under U.S. pressure, the World Food Program provided $12 million to feed 20,000 to 40,000 Khmer Rouge soldiers. For at least another decade, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency provided the Khmer Rouge with satellite intelligence, while U.S. and British special forces trained them to lay millions of land mines across Western Cambodia which still kill or maim hundreds of people every year” (Ibid.)


[19] Stone and Kuznick, op. cit., p. 478.

This atrocity is very similar to the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam (



Categories: History, USA

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

27 replies

  1. Say whaaaaaat????

    QB but, but next you’re going tell me that the US created ISIS after they stopped paying them underneath their original name the “sons of Iraq” after they used them as an unofficial death squad to maintain control of the country:

    According to Temple it’s only because they didn’t have Jesus is why the country is the way they are. So there. It’s clear that all of this is because the early Caliphates repressed all the opposition because of Al Jabbar blah, blah, blah.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. QB – there is a lot in this article that I agree with. I agree that the CIA backed coup in getting rid of Mosadeq in Iran was bad and wrong.

    My main point was that AT THE TIME, (1990)- it seemed right to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Even though there were dirty politics before, etc. (only in recent years did I know about a lot of that stuff)

    Do you think the USA should have just let Saddam take over Kuwait and do nothing?


    • You claimed that the USA was so noble for liberating Kuwait, when it was all just a set-up. Saddam would have probably withdrawn from Kuwait with enough international pressure, but as I showed, that was the “nightmare scenario” for the US. Most likely, it would also have led to the fall of the Kuwaiti regime, but the US would have none of that. They didn’t care about human rights or freedom. It was a political gold mine for them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Saddam would have probably withdrawn from Kuwait with enough international pressure,

        you have no way of knowing that. I doubt he would have withdrawn.


      • The Americans did, stupid. Plus, the impetus for the invasion was to stop him from invading Saudi Arabia, which he never planned on doing anyway. The US scared the Saudis into thinking he would invade so that they could send in their troops. It was a set-up.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The original context of my article was this audio lecture by Hamza Yusuf, and it was he who compared the liberation of Kuwait with the Dhimmi system of Islam.

    He said the liberation of Kuwait was a good thing, but that they had to pay for that protection.

    He claims that Dhimmi system is good because it is protection. (no way – there is no way to trust that Christians would be treated fair – because there is no allowance for evangelism or building new churches or criticism of Islam, or for Muslims to leave Islam if they want to.

    My point was even though the USA military got Saddam Hussein out and yes, there are military bases all over the gulf today because of protection from fanatical and evil groups like Al Qaeda, Isis, etc. and also as safeguards vs. Iran’s desire to spread Shiite Islam into other Muslim countries, etc.

    listen to Hamza Yusuf’s 7 minute speech on Dhimmitude.

    We don’t want that because there is no freedom to debate and criticize or evangelize and build new churches.


    • So your excuse is well Hamza Yusuf said it? Are you a moron?

      And lookie here! Pennywise is now excusing the military bases! There’s always an excuse, huh? Al-Qaeda didn’t exist in 1990 moron. It was actually formed BECAUSE of the US troop deployments to Saudi Arabia. The military bases in Kuwait are there to protect the corrupt monarchy. That is all.

      I could care less what you want. Why would Sharia law allow you to spread your false, pagan religion? It’s not just your religion. It’s any false religion, be it Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Judaism or any other ism. The point is that the dhimmis system allows for freedom of religion up to a limit. There are limitations on religion in western countries too. You can’t install the 10 commandments in a government facility. Some countries don’t even allow you to wear certain types of clothing!

      Liked by 1 person

      • QB wrote:

        Al-Qaeda didn’t exist in 1990 moron. It was actually formed BECAUSE of the US troop deployments to Saudi Arabia.

        You are right about those 2 facts. Thanks for the reminder. I was thinking more of why it is necessary for the military to continue to be there, (since the fall out and results of all of those things – and Islamic terrorism spreading all over the world – Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Isis, Al Qaeda, the Shiite versions in Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. ) because there is so much chaos from different offshoots of violent Muslims, and the nature of Islam is this violence – since the Hegira around 622 AD.

        Every dictator that the Muslim has in recent years, was the result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire & Caliphate and the fall of all these dictators / monarchies since then is the fruit of the violent nature of Islam itself, going back to Muhammad and the Caliphs.


      • Oh how convenient! We’ll stay to protect you from the problems we helped create! Yee-haw!! Go ‘Merica!

        You really are a moron, but one that continues to spew the same deceitful and shameless propaganda that you would expect from a wicked Evangelical clown.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, Muslims created the problems because of the violent nature of Islam itself whether by modern dictators al-Jabbars, or violent extremist Muslim terrorist groups. & Caliphate for centuries


      • You’re a moron, Pennywise. Your ramblings show that you are a broken record with nothing substantive to say. Most of the terrorist groups or their leaders had western support at one point or another. That’s not a coincidence. The hypocritical West pretends to be promoting peace and democracy, while secretly funnelling money and providing training to terrorists and dictators. And this is not only in Muslim countries. It has happened all over the world. Latin America, Africa, the Philippines…it goes on and on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Also, has the US even bothered to ask if the people of those countries want them there? 🤔

        Liked by 1 person

      • You can’t install the 10 commandments in a government facility

        It was good for many years, it is only in recent years that the atheists took over and complained and won court decisions on that issue.

        They are the basis for moral law, properly understood and properly applied.


      • Except that it was a violation of the Constitution, dummy. Separation of church and state…get it? That’s why the atheists won stupid.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Where is that phrase, “ separation of church and state “ in the US constitution?


      • Here we go with the stupidity again. It doesn’t have to literally say “separation of church and state” dummy. The Constitution says that there shall be no law establishing religion. If the 10 commandments were put up in a government building, it would be an endorsement of the Bible, which is prohibited. Not everyone believes in the 10 commandments.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, you don’t understand what the phrase meant in the original context.


  4. and another thing that H. Y. keeps saying, Dhimmi means “responsibility” – no it means “contract” / “covenant”/ agreement, etc.

    But when Muslims are in power, they can interpret any kind of action as violating the terms of the contract, which makes it very dodgy indeed.

    All based on Surah 8:39 and 9:28-29 and the other Hadith – it was a totally evil system of power and force.

    H. Yusuf even admitted that it took 300 – 500s years for Muslims to become Majority in Egypt and Syria – yes, same for Iran – even longer – they people were worn down by the economic and social pressures and Dhimmi oppression and “converted” just to survive.


    • You are an idiot. You for completely roasted and your shabby research and copy/paste nonsense were refuted.

      You’re such a mindless idiot that you just keep repeating the same nonsense I already refuted. There were no economic pressures dummy. See the study by Dennett.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Just some quick points:

        1. They can spread their falsehoods among each other. (Sorry we don’t allow Satanic religions to be spread to Muslims)
        2. They can build churches
        3. They (most importantly) can RULE among themselves which is WAY more than they can do in a secular country.
        4. Ummayads were double taxing converts TO Islam.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh and 4. It doesn’t matter if “it seemed good at the time” it was based on a lie and is thus evil.


  6. @ Everyone

    Hahahahahaha!!! I tokd you guys he was going to say Al Jabbar blah, blah ,blah. Man these people are getting way too predictable. Also notice Ken seems to conveintly forget who put the dictators in power on the first place. Something about WW1 and the Skyes-Picot?

    So anyways we have proven:

    1. The US created ISIS as a DEATH squad in Iraq to maintain control of the area.

    2. Colonial powers carved up the current boundaries of Africa and the Middle East, installed dictatorships whobthey control. (Seems awfully similar to Rome and a certain King Herod)

    3. The US and its allies were caught lying about BOTH Gulf Wars.

    4. The CIA/ Mossad have been caught MULTIPLE times influencing policies or coups while claiming to represent “freedom of thought”

    PS on this note, it wouldn’t be so irritating if the just did like Russia and China and not try to pretend to be good guys.

    5. The US HEAVILY supported Shia death squads in Iraq AND was again responsible for putting them in power in the first place but in Ken’s mind it was because of Islam.

    Time is the only thing restricting me from listing more things but I have full confidence you guys can inform him more about “Christian America” who he must agree with especially considering they were responsible for the sytematic oppression, assasination, deportatiin and arrests of key minority figures like Malcom X. Yeah Ken it was sooooo much better then.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. 1. The US created ISIS as a DEATH squad in Iraq to maintain control of the area.

    A goofy and ridiculous statement; a stupid statement. A foolish statement.

    “created” ? – or Al Bagdadi and the bitter Sadam generals chose in their hearts to react in sinful hatred and anger and create it for themselves.

    All human beings are responsible for their reactions.

    You act like Muslims are not responsible to choose the right way, even in trials and tribulations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: