Jihad-Is-Islamic

Summary:


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."

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

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/

Type: Opinion

Summary: 

In a radical turn of events, Muslim writers from across the Arab world are admitting that Islam itself is a problem, and the only way to curb the terror carried out in its name is to conduct a fundamental overhaul of Islamic texts and their interpretations.

Summary: 

Forget the Five Pillars of Islam.  It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of  Western Democracy.  Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press.  We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment  values.

Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam.  The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression.  Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket.  The demographics change but the story is the same. 

Summary: 

Since 9/11, we often hear so-called “experts” in the West say that the Crusades especially have been the main cause for the negative attitude of Muslims towards the so-called “Christian countries,” which is totally wrong given the expansionist and violent history of Islam. A U.S. News & World Report cover story “takes for granted the idea that the Crusades constitute a looming grievance against the West that rightly resonates to this day.” While America was still an undiscovered part of the world during the Crusades in the Middle east (1095-1291), the Islam still considers the US as the Great Satan and it all can be explained because of the Crusades. The mentioned U.S. News & World Report was written by Andrew Curry and first published on april 31, 2002 (The first Holy War – During the Crusades, east and west first met on the battlefield) and republished on april 7, 2008 (The first Holy War – the truth about the epic clash between east and west).

To obtain a good understanding of the historical background on the Crusades and the Jihad, we republish some interesting articles which are a response on the allegations in the Andrew Curry article that the Crusades are responsible for the Islamic Jihad against the West. The first article is from a newspaper column by Vincent Carroll, member of staff of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver.

Summary: 

“In my opinion, as long as the spread of the Salafi Jihadi ideology is not stopped decisively by all parties, then the threat of IS and other terror groups with the same ideology will not dissipate. In fact it will grow further.”

Indeed. “He also warned of so-called ‘religious experts’ who depicted the terrorist group’s actions as justified.” But what if the group’s actions are indeed justified in Islamic law? That, too, needs to be confronted

Summary: 

Germany is at a crossroads where it must choose how to respond to the wave of terrorist attacks that has engulfed the country. Prayers and “Ich bin ein Berliner” hashtags, public statements of shock and horror, and landmarks going dark in solidarity with the victims will not suffice to deal with the difficult question the German leadership now faces. It is pivotal that the commitment to address the root cause behind the  atrocity – the ideology of Islamism – triumphs over well-intentioned but ultimately meaningless platitudes.

Summary: 

You can’t talk about the credibility of individual jihadi strategists without talking about religion, without talking about Islam, without talking about the religious texts they’re quoting. So if you deny that, if you say that’s prohibited territory, then all you have is the killing part of it, the whack-a-mole that we call it here in the United States. And as a result, you miss the broader picture, which is the ideology of why people become terrorists.

Summary: 
  • "Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution." — The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
  • "The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar's programs... 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... Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?" — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt's Al Azhar University.
  • The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them..." and Quran 8:39, "So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah."
  • Archbishop Welby -- and Egypt's extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi -- has finally had the courage to say in public that if one insists on remaining "religiously illiterate," it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.
Summary: 

Over the past few years, Western leaders whose knowledge of Muslim scripture is scanty in the extreme have repeatedly been obliged to pose as experts on Islam. The atrocities currently being committed by jihadis in the Middle East have prompted them to a particular slew of commentary. John Kerry, speaking recently in Iraq, was typical. The Islamic State, he declared, “claims to be fighting on behalf of Islam but the fact is that its hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam.” A reassuring assertion, and one that almost everyone, including the vast majority of Muslims, would desperately like to believe – but wishful thinking, all the same.

The grim truth is that sanctions can be found in the Qur’an, in the biographies of Muhammad and in the histories of early Islam for much that strikes the outside world as most horrific about the Islamic state. “Kuffar are afraid we will slaughter yazidis,” a British jihadi tweeted recently from Syria, “our deen [religion/ law] is clear we will kill their men, take their women and children as slaves insha Allah.” That this reading of assorted qur’anic verses and episodes from the life of the Prophet is the most brutal one imaginable does not necessarily invalidate it. To be sure, there are other, richer, more nuanced interpretations possible – and yes, the bone-headed literalism of those who would interpret the Qur’an as a license to maim, enslave and kill represents a challenge to everyone who prizes it as a revelation from God, supremely compassionate and supremely wise. That is no reason, though, to play the jihadis’ own takfiri game, and deny them a status as Muslims. The very appeal of their sanguinary interpretation of Islamic scripture is far too lethal to permit such a tactic. 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.

Summary: 

Claims that the atrocities of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have “nothing to do with Islam” are harming efforts to confront and combat extremism, the Archbishop of Canterbury has insisted.

Religious leaders of all varieties must “stand up and take responsibility” for the actions of extremists who profess to follow their faith, the Most Rev Justin Welby said.

He argued that unless people recognise and attempt to understand the motivation of terrorists they will never be able to combat their ideology effectively. 

Summary: 

Can the wave of violence sweeping the Islamic world be traced back to the religion's core teachings? An FP debate about the roots of extremism.

 However, during his time in Mecca, Mohammed and his small band of believers had little success in converting others to this new religion. So, a decade after Mohammed first began preaching, he fled to Medina. Over time he cobbled together a militia and began to wage wars.

Anyone seeking support for armed jihad in the name of Allah will find ample support in the passages in the Quran and Hadith that relate to Mohammed’s Medina period. For example, Q4:95 states, “Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).” Q8:60 advises Muslims “to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” Finally, Q9:29 instructs Muslims: “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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to maintain that the so-called “sword verses” (9:5 and 9:29) have “abrogated, canceled, and replaced” those verses in the Quran that call for “tolerance, compassion, and peace.”

 

 

Summary: 

As a secular Muslim, Zineb El Rhazoui is allowed to say in the mainstream what others are excoraited as “anti-Muslim extremists” for saying. The truth is true no matter who says it, but in today’s culture of identity politics, it’s truer when coming from racially and culturally approved voices. “Zineb el Rhazoui, Charlie Hebdo survivor, discusses why the world needs to ‘Destroy Islamic Fascism,’” by Emma-Kate Symons, New York Times (of all places), October 18, 2016:

Summary: 

The book rejects a Huntingtonian clash of civilizations, and describes the real ideological dispute of the modern world as a "furious" intra-Islamic struggle to "claim or reclaim what Islam stands for in the twenty-first century". But the battle within British (and global) Islam between the 'moderates' and the Islamists is a competition fought on losing ground. As long as scripture and, importantly, the sayings of Mohammed, are the deciding factor that overrides everything else, the moderates will lose. Admin: No such thing as 'British' Islam.

Summary: 

A summary of quotations from the Koran which clearly incite to hatred and violence can be found in the following link

There is an abundance of fatwas (religious edicts) by Muslim authorities inciting to genocide and suicide attacks against Christians and Jews. All these fatwas are based on the Koran and Hadeeth.

Ali Gom’a, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he says, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs, not only the Jews.

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.”

Yousef Al Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist organization, the Muslim Brothers, urged on Al Jazeera TV (Jan. 9, 2009) Muslims to kill the Jews, not only in Israel but also worldwide. He added, “No peace can be made between us (Muslims) and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.” 

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.” 

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes). Further, there is not such a thing as Shiites, Sufis, etc. There are only Sunnis. All these sects must renounce their pagan beliefs and return to Sunna, the right path of Islam.”

Summary: 

WHEN WE discover some basic facts about Islam, our first impulse is to think, “But surely it’s only a small minority of extremists!” If you’ve looked into it, and especially if you’ve read the Quran, you realize the “extremists” are following standard, mainstream Islamic doctrine. That’s a real shock when this first dawns on you.

One day when I was reading yet another popular Muslim leader giving a speech and saying something that would be considered “inflammatory rhetoric” if I said it, but that was nothing more than just plain, ordinary Islamic teachings, I thought I should start collecting a list. Here’s what I have so far (below). I’m sure I’ll add to it as I go along, and I hope you to add to it in the comments.

Summary: 

It is just common sense for them to study the texts that form the motivating ideology behind the global jihad. But they have to do it quietly, behind the scenes, because the Obama administration is committed as a matter of policy to denying that Islam has anything to do with jihad. This denial of reality is the source of innumerable policy errors. It is good that at least some in the Pentagon are trying to fight against this.

 

Admin: This denial started with Bush and Blair in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and has hampered us ever since. Islam doctrines are the problem

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: 

Western recruits for jihad are inspired by the literal interpretation of Muslim sacred texts. This is what we must fight.

....

Naturally, I agree that interacting with ISIL recruiters is a bad idea, but I believe what the recruiters themselves say sheds the most insight on the radicalization process. ISIL’s primary recruiting technique is not social or financial but theological. With frequent references to the highest sources of authority in Islam, the Quran and hadith (the collection of the sayings of the prophet Muhammad), ISIL enjoins upon Muslims their duty to fight against the enemies of Islam and to emigrate to the Islamic State once it has been established.

Summary: 

In 2014, after President Obama and numerous others stated that ISIS was not Islamic, and indeed that it was anti-Islamic, al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni learning in the Arab world, refused to denounce ISIS members as non-Muslims. The contrast was stark: Western leaders and Muslim apologists residing in the West denounce ISIS members as non-Muslims while the main representative of Sunni Islam refuses to do so.

Summary: 

The article goes on to list six reasons why they hate the West and why they fight Westerners. They six reasons are as follows:

  1. “We hate you first and foremost, because you are disbelievers, you reject the oneness of Allah.”
  2. “We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted.”
  3. “In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.”
  4. “We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.”
  5. “We hate you for your crimes against Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bombs, kill, and maim our people around the world.”
  6. Sixth “We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out.”

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, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. 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 jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you…

Summary: 

Jordanian politician: Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah”… “There is no such thing as ‘ISIS ideology’ — it’s Islam”

Type: Article

In our opinion, the critics 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 critics of ISIS, we appear to be a long way from that happening, if indeed that case can be made in any unambiguous way?

Type: News

Country: 
France
News Date: 
23/01/2017
Summary: 

The State Council – France’s highest administrative court – ruled the controversial Paris mosque is to remain closed until the end of the state of emergency in July. This is the second time in less than three months that the mosque’s leaders attempt to reopen the prayer hall; and the second time that their plea is dismissed. The Al Rawda mosque, a prayer hall located in Stains, an impoverished and multi-ethnic suburb north of Paris, was shut down by former interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve in November following a crackdown on religious extremists. 

Country: 
Germany
News Date: 
07/01/2017
Summary: 

GERMANY'S Vice Chancellor has called for a ban on Islamist mosques in the country.

Calls for UK to do the same:

 

Calls in Germany for Islamist mosques to be shut down the UK must do the same https://t.co/s0QrXzdUHE

— David Jones (@DavidJo52951945) January 7, 2017

Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
News Date: 
19/11/2016
Summary: 

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said "we will see no resolution" to terrorism until the world recognises that Islamic State (IS) is basing its actions on Islam. Most Rev Justin Welby said those who say IS is "nothing to do with Islam" are making it "incredibly difficult, probably impossible, to overcome".

Country: 
Australia
News Date: 
10/08/2016
Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
News Date: 
11/01/2015
Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
News Date: 
15/07/2016

Pages

Subscribe to Jihad-Is-Islamic

These links and any other content or links on this website are provided for information only. No warranty is provided regarding their accuracy, and no liability is accepted for reliance on them. Sharia Watch UK Ltd. is not responsible for the content of external sites. We do not necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed on these external sites.