Jihad

Jihad

Click here for a printable PDF pamphlet on the Three Stages of Jihad. (http://www.acts17.net/Pamphlets/ThreeStagesofJihad.pdf)

Click here for the passages discussed in "Qur'an in Context 1."

On November 5th, 2009, a Muslim Army Major named Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas. Many innocent people died, and Hasan has been charged with thirteen counts of premeditated murder and more than thirty counts of attempted murder.

Shortly after the Fort Hood shooting, CNN posted an article titled “Murder Has No Religion” (by Arsalan Iftikhar), which claimed that such attacks are forbidden in Islam. The article began:

Most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, "Anyone who kills a human being ... it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. ... If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind."

Notice that the article portrays Islam as a religion that condemns killing of any kind. But is this what the Qur’an actually says? Unfortunately for CNN’s readers, the author didn’t give a reference, so readers were left to find the quotation themselves. Yet when we turn to 5:32-33 of the Qur’an (the source of CNN’s severely edited quotation), we get a surprisingly different picture of killing in Islam:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

Two things are worthy of note in this passage. First, the teaching appealed to by CNN (“whoever slays a soul . . . it is as though he slew all men”) was given “to the children of Israel” (i.e. the Jews). It was not given to Muslims. Second, even if Westernized Muslims want to apply this verse to themselves, the verse obviously permits killing people who spread “mischief in the land.” Indeed, the very next verse commands Muslims to murder, crucify, and dismember those who wage war against Islam and “make mischief” in Muslim lands.

Since the United States is at war in two predominantly Islamic countries, knowledgeable Muslims understand that, according to Muhammad, U.S. soldiers meet the “mischief-making” criterion, and should therefore be killed. It’s no coincidence that Major Hasan targeted soldiers, many of whom were being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thus, CNN quoted two carefully edited portions of a passage that justifies the killing of enemy combatants and used them to show that Islam condemns attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting. While deceptions like this are easily spotted, there is much confusion in the world concerning the role of violence in Islam. This short pamphlet will clear up some of the confusion.

I. PEACE, VIOLENCE, AND ABROGATION

Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”

Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.

Qur’an 2:106—Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?

Qur’an 16:101—When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.

According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations.

What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?

II. THE CALL TO JIHAD: THREE STAGES

When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.

STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.

STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. . . .

Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.

STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).

Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.

It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”

III. WHEN MUSLIMS REACH STAGE THREE

Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur’an 9:30—And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Qur’an 98:6—Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.

Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”

Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.

IV. MUSLIMS IN THE WEST

Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.

According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations to be in: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, fighting non-Muslims and conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/jihad.html

David Wood

View Full Size

On Blogger since November 2006

Profile views - 12223

My blogs

• The Problem of Evil
• Answering Muslims

About me

Gender	Male
Industry	Student
Occupation	Self-Proclaimed "Shogun of Philosophy"
Location	The Bronx, New York, United States
Introduction	I'm currently working on my PhD in philosophy. My focus is the Problem of Evil.
Favorite Movies	Sophie's Choice, Little House on the Prairie, Patton, Boondock Saints, Unforgiven,Gangs of New York, The Last Dragon
Favorite Music	Dire Straits, Credence Clearwater Revival, Sara Groves, U2.
Favorite Books	The Bible, Crime and Punishment, Orthodoxy (Chesterton), Till We Have Faces (Lewis)

How is an ankle unlike a consequence?

You can't accept the ankles of your actions.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689

El Presidente Praises maahslimes While Thomas Jefferson Didn’t Trust Them

August 13, 2012 by Gary DeMar

Filed under 

11

The following remarks were made by President Obama at an Iftar Dinner for Muslims held at in the East Room at the White House:

As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson.  And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.

As Paul Harvey would say, “Now the rest of the story.”

The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen. “Barbary was Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.”^[1]

Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”^[2]

Little has changed since the eighteenth century. In Joseph Wheelan’s well researched and highly readable book on America’s first war on terror with Islam, we learn that “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”^[3] Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target. “Except for its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies were just as solidly Muslim — openly hostile toward Christians.”^[4]

The Quran’s peace initiatives are one sided. To have peace, opposing forces must submit to Islam or be destroyed. Paul Johnson writes:

[T]he history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.^[5]

As early as 1786, Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain at that time, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. Peace would come at a price.

If America wanted a “temporary peace” — a one-year guarantee — it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. The total cost came to $1.3 million. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.^[6]

Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Quran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah:

“Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.”

Unless a nation submits to Islam, that nation is by definition at war with Islam. Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, either by voluntary submission or by Allah’s sword.^[7]

When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute demanded by the Islamists of his day, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.

The Marine’s Hymn with the line “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli” should have been sung in the East Room of the White House to put history in perspective for the President and his Muslim guests.

Notes:

1. Stephen Clissold, The Barbary Slaves (New York: Barnes & Noble, [1977] 1992), 4. [↩]
2. Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102. [↩]
3. Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, xxiii. [↩]
4. Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, 7. [↩]
5. Paul Johnson, “‘Relentlessly and Thoroughly’: The Only Way to Respond,” National Review (October 15, 2001). Consider this from John Quincy Adams: Consider the following from John Quincy Adams: “The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.” [↩]
6. Quoted in Wheeler, Jefferson’s War, 40–41. [↩]
7. Robert Spencer, The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006) and Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) ( Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005). [↩]

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/obama-praises-muslims-while-thomas-jefferson-didnt-trust-them/
http://visiontoamerica.com/11519/obama-praises-muslims-while-thomas-jefferson-didnt-trust-them/

Do you realize that maahslimes are on the march?

Friday, August 10, 2012

MARSEILLES: NON-MUSLIM RESTAURANT OWNER BEATEN FOR OPENING DURING RAMADAN

25% of Marseilles is Muslim. Now sharia rules the city. Game over.

"Marseilles: Non-Muslim restaurant owner beaten for opening during Ramadan" Le Figaro, August 9, 2012 (hat tip Armaros) Google translate

A conservator Marseille was threatened and assaulted earlier this week, because he did not do Ramadan , officials said today a source close to the investigation, confirming a report in the daily La Provence.

Aged 64 years, the restaurateur, a French national of Egyptian origin that does not practice Islam, was discussed Monday by an individual traveling with a veiled woman. On several occasions, the suspect ordered the merchant, who practices in the area of ​​Belsunce (center of Marseille), to close his establishment for Ramadan, otherwise it would have on her retaliation. An hour later, the person returned and brought him a mighty belt. Hurt by the metal part of the belt, the restaurant was rushed to hospital in the design.

The suspect, aged about thirty years, is actively sought by police who seized videotapes may have recorded the assault. The restaurateur, who doctors have issued a temporary total incapacity for six days, filed a complaint. The president of the TradersAssociation of Belsunce Maxime Melka, "this is the first time such a story comes." Traders have written to elected officials at the prefecture and the police to express their "outrage" against the aggression and misunderstanding. Commissioner George Gasperini, head of security and proximity to the Public Security Directorate regretted an act "unacceptable both in substance and in form."

"I condemn this act", for his part said Haroun Derdal, imam of the mosque's Flea Market, in the northern suburbs of Marseille. "Individuals do not have to replace other individuals," he said. Ramadan, which began on July 20 due to end on August 19.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, August 10, 2012 at 04:33 PM in Fwance

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/marseilles-non-muslim-restaurant-owner-beaten-for-opening-during-ramadan.html

Is this the freedom of speech you want? What about islam?

Friday, August 10, 2012

“WE CAN’T PUBLISH THIS, WE’LL GET FIREBOMBED”

Watching the West self-destruct. Islamic supremacists should not be allowed a victory over free speech for their violent intimidation. Anything they don't like will always be met with threats of violence and bloodshed. It works with weak, wretched cowards.

We need to talk about Islam Index on Censorship, August 10, 2012 (thanks to David)

Fearing extremists reacting violently to the publication of books deemed to be offensive to Islam, many publishers have thought twice about what they release about the religion. Author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook Alom Shaha says it’s time to discuss faith properly

“We can’t publish this, we’ll get firebombed.” Apparently this was the response from one of the staff at Biteback Publishing, the UK publishers of my book, The Young Atheist’s Handbook, when it was first presented to them. Thankfully, Iain Dale, the managing director, laughed at the idea, saying, “it’s OK, we’re on the 10th floor” and went on to publish the book anyway.

It’s not just staff at Biteback who may have been concerned about publishing my book — according to a senior editor at one of the largest international publishers, who claimed to be personally keen to give me a deal, she was unable to convince her colleagues to agree because a “number of people” in the company would be “uncomfortable” about it. She then went on to explain that by “uncomfortable” she really meant “afraid”.

So, what is it about my book that has elicited such a response from people whose work it is to trade in ideas? Have I penned an incendiary tome that “insults” Islam or otherwise risks “offending” Muslims? Well, I don’t think I’ve done any such thing — I’ve simply written an account of how and why I came to be an atheist. It’s much less an attack on religion than it is a celebration of atheism. But the fact that it is written by someone from a Muslim background seems to have been sufficient to make some people afraid of publishing it. And that is surely an unacceptable state of affairs; we seem to have gone from a time when publishers and booksellers stood shoulder to shoulder in defence of free speech to publish and sell The Satanic Verses, despite the very real threat of violence, to a time when an entirely innocuous book like mine can be rejected for publication because people fear it will lead to violent repercussions.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, August 10, 2012 at 04:56 PM in FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE AGE OF JIHAD

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/-we-cant-publish-this-well-get-firebombed.html

Michele Bachman v spineless men

What can you say about Michele Bachmann?

Subscribe

July 25, 2012 byEric Rauch

Bachmann: A Woman Among Spineless Men

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has taken heat and ridicule lately due to her adamant claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is and has been infiltrating the halls of American government. And while Bachmann is not alone in her claims (four other Republican representatives have made similar accusations), she is taking the largest portion of the backlash. Never one to back down from a fight, Bachmann continues to encourage others to follow the same paper trail that she did by simply reading the documentation. She, of all people, should know that Americans don’t read, especially once they are elected to political office.

Turning Reagan’s famous phrase, “Trust, but verify,” on its head, most modern congressmen—including the consistently disappointing John McCain—have adopted a “Don’t Trust, Don’t Verify” philosophy when it comes to potentially controversial topics. Bachmann should be credited as one of the few willing to take the road less travelled and stand her ground on this and many other hot-button political issues. Why does it take a woman to show the men how to do their jobs? If what she is claiming is so demonstrably false, why can’t one of these congressional seat-fillers show the evidence to back up their claims, rather than simply trying to dismiss Bachmann with a wave of their magical (and limp-wristed) hand?

One of the few to actually respond to Bachmann, albeit ineffectively, was fellow Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison. Ellison has the distinction of being one of only two (professing) Muslim congressmen, gaining infamy years ago by swearing into office on a Koran instead of a Bible. Ellison’s response to Bachmann deliberately added words to a State Department letter in order to water down the force of Bachmann’s argument. Bachmann’s response, which was apparently read only by her own staff, doesn’t allow Ellison’s wordplay to stand. However, political correctness demands that Bachmann must be wrong, so facts really have nothing to do with the “truth” of the situation.

What is distressing about this whole affair is not the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood may be gaining access to American government thanks to the State Department. Let’s face it; this has been happening for years, well before Hillary Clinton took charge. What is really disturbing is that 530 congressmen out of 535 are unwilling to investigate the claims. What this means is that the Republican majority in the House (not to mention the whole of Republican senators) is, in reality, meaningless.

more
http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/bachmann-a-woman-among-spineless-men/

What's with Rubio's stand against Michele Bachmann?

Who can believe this attack on Michele Bachmann by prominent members of her own party?  What can we do to support her?  So far it looks to me as if she is right on target.

Nope- Rubio Doesn’t Get It Either

Question- would Rubio be taking a similar position if Abedin was Cuban and had family members with close ties to the Communist regime of Fidel Castro?

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=142485&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Iowntheworldcom+%28IOwntheWorld.com%29

Rubio Sides Against Bachmann, Rooney Regarding Huma Abedin’s Possible Ties to Terrorism

July 22, 2012 | Filed under: Florida Review,Marco Rubio | Posted by: Javier Manjarres

By Javier Manjarres
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s recent letter to the Department of State expressing her concerns about the possible infiltration of radical Islam throughout the federal government has received pushback from moderate Republican senators John McCain and Scott Brown.
McCain called Bachmann’s letter “scurrilous” and full of “sinister accusations,” and categorized the questioned raised about Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin as “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable citizen, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant.”  You can read Bachmann’s letter here.  Predictably, the Palm Beach Post is raising the specter of “McCarthyite tactics” being used by Rooney for simply signing the document. 
Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, Senator Marco Rubio has waded into this controversy and has sided with his Senate colleagues against Bachmann and Florida Congressman Tom Rooney, who has also signed Bachmann’s letter.  Senator Rubio responded to the Shark Tank’s request for further comment by stating, “I stand by my statements.”

more

http://shark-tank.net/2012/07/22/rubio-sides-against-bachmann-rooney-regarding-huma-abedins-possible-ties-to-terrorism/