You are here

Jihad-Is-Islamic

Summary:


The fundamental point about jihad has been well made by Denis MacEoin:

What seems not to be understood about "the religion of peace" is that "peace" comes only after the entire world has been converted to Islam so that a "Dar al-Harb", the "Abode of War," will no longer even exist.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10723/uk-terrorists

Sharia law (Shafi'i school): "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion." Manual of Sharia law: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Manual-Islamic/dp/0915957728

From the earliest days Islam has been spread by aggressive jihad as this dynamic timeline shows clearly:
http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/content/jihad-vs-crusades-dynamic-timeline

Consider the track record of Muhammad, the man all Muslims say is the example of a perfect Islamic life:

  • He ordered or supported over 40 instances of killing, including one slaughter of 800 Jews at Banu Qurayza.
  • He kept slaves
  • He fought or ordered over 60 battles
  • Looted trade caravans

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf

https://umdatalsalik.wordpress.com/186-2/

Then we have this from a 14th century respected Islamic scholar when Islam was at the height of its power:

"In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force" ...."But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."


https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah.pdf

Through to the present day plans as they face non-Muslims with powerful armies and weapons. The aim hasn't changed, merely the strategy for achieving it!
http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/the-jihadis-master-plan-to-break-us/

In an article unambiguously titled, "Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You," the Islamic State (ISIS) confessed that "We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers." As for any and all political "grievances," these are "secondary" reasons for the jihad:

What's important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary [...] The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay (the) jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis added].

http://www.meforum.org/7238/is-israel-the-cause-of-jihad

Ayatollah Khomeini devoted his entire life to the study of Islamic doctrine. He became the spiritual and religious leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the foremost religious authority for the entire Shiite world (differences between Shia and Sunni Islam are fairly superficial). Here is what he had to say about Islam and warfare.

“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.”

 

http://www.johnwalton-is.net/download/Story%20of%20Mohammed%20Islam%20Unveiled.pdf

Ideology behind jihad must be reformed-Imam of Peace

Comparison of ISIS with the Quran:

How the Quran supports tenets of Jihad

Summary: 
  • Although the internet evidently did play a role in the radicalization process, the study showed that face-to-face encounters were more important, and that dawa, the proselytizing of Islam, played a central role in this process, as the men themselves became missionaries for Islam.

  • The third factor was the establishment of a "them and us" distinction between the radicalized men and the rest of the world, especially the belief that the West is an enemy of the Muslim world. The distinction also involved a rejection of democracy and a commitment to the establishment of a caliphate governed by sharia law, which the men want to bring about either through dawa(proselytizing) or violence (jihad).

  • "The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar's programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from non-Muslims]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?" — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, scholar of Islamic law, graduate of Egypt's Al Azhar University, explaining why it refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, 2015.

Summary: 

Imam Tawhidi

0:48 "Youths are being radicalised. This happens because of the books that we have, the Islamic scriptures that we have...They are being led to believe that if you go out there, you kill the infidel you will gain paradise"

4:16 "I disagree, for the past 1400 years we have had a religion of war, that's exactly what we have had"

Summary: 

As I have said quite a few times before, it is simply wrong to say that Islam and Christianity have much the same view of war and peace. Judging from its founding texts, Christianity is a pacifist religion, for its founder rejected violence. Islam’s founder was a warlord.

As I have also said quite a few times before, the real issue is not violence or terrorism but theocracy. Islamist violence stems from anger that Islam’s theocratic potential is being thwarted. Again, it is Christianity that is different: its founding texts reject theocracy.  For many centuries this was obscured, but then it was gradually understood and put into practice – which entailed the invention of modern politics, as I explain in my new book God Created Humanism.

In our opinion, the Imams and Islamic scholars have failed to make the case that the jihad currently practised by ISIS and other groups is not sanctioned by Islamic texts. The critics have broken the very rules they accuse ISIS of not following when they try to make their case by ignoring abrogation and parts of Islamic texts that are inconvenient to their argument.

They have also tried to substantially misrepresent the way Islam was spread after the initial conquest of the Arabian peninsular as been by defensive wars and peaceful invitations to people to become Muslims. The historical record shows a very different picture.

Similarly with slavery, their claim that Islamic states have abolished it (under pressure from Western countries it must be said) is technically accurate, however slavery is still legal under Islamic Sharia law and it is still widely practised in several Islamic states. There is no will or movement in Islam that we are aware of to change Sharia law to abolish slavery and that such a movement is most unlikely to occur as Muhammad kept slaves himself and the Qur'an itself says that captured women may be used as sex-slaves:

[Quran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" Also Quran (23:5-6) , Quran (4:24) , Quran (8:69) ]

Fatwa: https://islamqa.info/en/20802

Blog: http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/does-islam-allow-sex-with-female-captives-of-war/

The critics have also implicitly endorsed the principle of Sharia hadd punishments (Stoning, flogging, amputation) provided correct [Islamic] procedure has been followed. That these senior figures of Islam, many in the West, who purport to be moderate implicitly endorse such punishments rather than flatly rejecting is troubling.

The most troubling aspect however is that a multitude of senior Islamic figures are unable to make clear and unambiguous case against Islamic jihad and an Islamic caliphate that all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, can clearly understand. The truth is that this letter appears to be mostly a public relations exercise designed to quiet growing Western fears regarding Islam. To that end, this letter is just another example of 'jihad by the pen' and one our governments have been quietly complicit in since 9/11 as this white paper on Reversing the Ostrich Complex makes clear.

As the article from 2013 by Tom Holland says - “It is not enough to engage with the jihadis solely on the battlefield. They must be defeated as well in mosques, and libraries, and seminar rooms. This is a battle that, in the long run, can only be won by theologians.” On the basis of this very serious effort by these Muslim critics of ISIS, we appear to be a long way from that happening, if indeed that case can be made in any unambiguous way?

Summary: 

One of the most frequently quoted Quranic verses is chapter 9 verse 5. This verse is known as "The Verse of the Sword." Muslim terrorists cite it to justify their violent jihad. Correspondingly, critics of Islam claim that it commands Muslims to act with offensive aggression towards the non-Muslims of that period, and contributes to Islam’s final theological doctrine of aggression towards all non-Muslims of all times. Apologists for Islam claim that 9:5 is purely defensive. Which side is right?

As the Islamic source materials are examined it will become evident that verse 9:5 is part of the theology of jihad and is meant to be both offensive and defensive. It is directed against Pagans living both near to and far away from Muhammad.

Understanding 9:5 in context requires an examination of the passage in which it is found. This passage consists of 29 to 41 verses or so (depending on which scholar’s view you hold). Because of time and space constraints however, I will only review the first 8 or so verses. I believe that they set the passage’s tone and belay its directives.

Islam’s final theological position regarding the use of violence to further its domain does not rest upon one verse or passage. Rather the entire Quran, other Islamic source materials, and Muhammad’s actions and lifestyle (Sunnah) must be examined and evaluated. We’ll do that with a view toward Sura 9:5.

I have attempted to keep this article focused on 9:5 within the broad theology of jihad. 9:5 is a foundational stone in the building of jihad and general aspects of jihad must be discussed. There is also the related topic of abrogation, but that has been dealt with elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4.

Summary: 
  • I have lived for years in these places in the Middle East and seen with my own eyes the cruelty and abuse that takes place under extremist Islamic law. I have heard the screams of families as their loved ones were tortured and slaughtered for the simplest acts -- singing, dancing, voicing an opinion, or simply being a non-Muslim -- all of which are crimes.

  • If we play the game of misinforming and misleading people about Islamism, by making irrelevant analogies to whitewash the violence and terrorism which are generated by Islamic fundamentalism, we are indoctrinating the literally millions of innocent children who will be either the perpetrators or victims of the next radical Islamic terror attacks -- including Muslims.

  • Meanwhile the real scholars of Islam, such as Robert Spencer, who are trying to warn the public about these apologists, are called "Islamophobes," poisoned, often fired from work, censored on social media and barred from entering democratic countries such as Britain.

Summary: 

Following last night's London terror attack, Maajid Nawaz wants people to stop disassociating terrorism and religion - because they are undeniably linked.

Summary: 

Muslim demands for non-Muslim “infidels” to pay jizya on pain of death are growing, even as the West fluctuates between having no clue what jizya is and thinking that jizya is an example of “tolerance” in Islam.

In the video where the Islamic State slaughters some 30 Christian Ethiopians in Libya last April, the spokesman repeatedly pointed out that payment of jizya (which the impoverished Ethiopian migrant workers could not render, nor the 21 Copts before them) is the only way for Christians around the world to safeguard their lives:

But whoever refuses [to pay jizya] will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.

Summary: 

Will Muslim spokesmen in the West denounce this call as un-Islamic, or remain silent about it? I’m betting the latter, in light of passages like these that make it clear that al-Qadi is speaking in complete accord with the Qur’an and Islamic law:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, and do not forbidden what has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and do not acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying:

“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

MEMRI, December 17, 2017:

 

See also:

From MUQADDIMAH by Abd Ar Rahman bin Muhammed ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)


In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the Holy War was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a Caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

A respected and celebrated Islamic scholar, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), studied Al Qur'an in its original Arabic and other Islamic texts.

https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah.pdf 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah

Pages

Subscribe to Jihad-Is-Islamic