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

The Religion of Peace analysis:

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " 

This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).  (See also: Response to Apologists)

This respected classical commentary(Tafsir) by Ibn Kathir on Quranic verses 216-218:

In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.''

https://shariawatch.org.uk/?q=content/quran-tafsircommentary-ibn-kathir-jihad-made-obligatory

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

UK Govt:


" We know that terrorism is really a symptom; ideology is the root cause."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470088/51859_Cm9148_Accessible.pdf

Statement by Islamic scholar Yahya Cholil Staquf following the shooting of Muslims in Christchurch:

Islam must confront the attacks in its name that have radicalised the West 

Among Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an urgent need to address those obsolete and problematic elements of Islamic orthodoxy that underlie the Islamist worldview, fuelling violence on both sides. The world’s largest Muslim organisation, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, of which I am General Secretary, has begun to do exactly that.


The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/24/prevent-another-christchurch-islam-must-confront-attacks-name/

Also available in this PDF: https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/2019/telegraph_prevent-another-christchurch-islam-must-confront-attacks-name_03-25-19.pdf

As well as being the General Secretary of the largest Muslim organisation in the world, Mr Staquf is also a member of the panel advising the Indonesian President.

Ed Husian:

Enough of blaming the West. The terror will continue until Muslims reject the need for a caliphate 
We are asking the wrong questions. Spain’s foreign policy shows that we cannot stop terrorism by changing our behaviour. In the mind of the Muslim extremists, Spain is not Spain, but al‑Andalus, part of a Muslim empire that lasted in Spain for 700 years.

Today’s Spain is considered to be “occupied land” that must be liberated. The last Muslim ruler of Granada, Boabdil, who negotiated a peaceful end to his emirate in 1492, made a terrible mistake, argue the extremists. Spain must return to their version of Islam, for in that literalist reading of religious scripture, the world is divided into two realms: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. And once a land is controlled by Dar al-Islam it must forever belong to that sphere. Terrorism is merely a tactic to support the aims of the caliphate.

In February this year, Isil warned that it would target Spain’s beaches and increase its propaganda material in Spanish. But Spain is not the only target. India was also part of their interpretation of Dar al-Islam because it was under the Moghuls until 1857 and must therefore return to the domain of the caliphate. Israel must be destroyed as the caliph must reclaim Jerusalem. Turkey’s Muslim reformer, Kemal Ataturk, ended the caliphate in 1924 and a secular Turkey must return to the fold. Charles Martel of France defeated the Umayyad caliph’s soldiers in the Battle of Tours in 732, and Austria held out against the Ottomans in the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Time and again, Isil refers to the West as “crusaders” and targets the Pope and Rome as eternal enemies of Islam.

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/enough-blaming-west-terror-will-continue-muslims-reject-need/

Also see this statement from Yahya Cholil Staquf:

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/top-muslim-scholar-stop-pretending-that-orthodox-islam-and-violence-arent-linked

https://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violence/

The way I see it, what ISIS did was that they want to force the reality of today’s living to be following what is in the source of Islamic teaching. Everything they [ISIS] did, they have the justification from the authoritative references of Islamic teachings.

http://islamandlibertynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Islamic-Civilisation-Four-Challenges-Kyai-Haji-Yahya-Cholil-Staquf.pdf

The above views of Yahya Cholil Staquf and Ed Husain are supported by this Egyptian-German scholar:


Egyptian-German scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad said that "Islamic extremism and terrorism stems from the “core of Islam” – from its texts, its history of conquests, its founder, and its ideology – and that the problem does not lie only with the returning ISIS members, but with the “multiple layers of radicalization,” with which the governmental and Islamic structures are not equipped to deal. “There are thousands, tens of thousands, of them living among us,” he warned, calling to try ISIS fighters in international tribunals and to impose harsher punishments. Abdel-Samad, who was participating on a talk show on the Austrian Servus TV channel on February 21, talked about the dangers to the child’s worldview posed by the victim’s mentality, by violence in the family, by mixed messages on sexuality, and by the clash of cultures. He discussed the violence and lack of freedom suffered by Muslim women, saying: “How often has this imaginary god ruined people!”

https://www.memri.org/tv/Egyptian-german-scholar-abdel-samad-harsher-punishment-for-isis-terrorists

https://www.memri.org/tv/Egyptian-german-scholar-abdel-samad-harsher-punishment-for-isis-terrorists/transcript

Stephen Coughlin: (former intelligence analyst with the US Dept of Defence: “TO OUR GREAT DETRIMENT”: IGNORING WHAT EXTREMISTS SAY ABOUT JIHAD

 

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/

rom 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/

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

Ex-Muslim MA Khan:

My belief is: suppression of Islamic radicalism through means other than the critical examination of the Islamic core, i.e. without true enlightenment about Islam, would not offer us a lasting solution to Islam's scourge on humanity. And the razor-sharp criticism of the Islamic core in Website like ours will play the decisive role in subverting the Islamic design, if we ever win this battle. Islam-watch.org, I believe, has made a contribution to that end in some measure. Enlightenment about Islam and consequent abandonment of it, silently or otherwise, is occurring on a scale never seen in history. A deluge is coming. And we will continue to battle on to enhance our contribution in this enlightenment, and, thereby, to the long-term solution of this struggle.
http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3907:five-years-of-islam-watch-is-the-fire-of-islamic-enlightenment-catching-on-&catid=179&Itemid=18

The author of: Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/islamic-jihad-m-a-khan/1112407938?ean=9781440118463

Ideology behind jihad must be reformed-Imam of Peace

Comparison of ISIS with the Quran:

How the Quran supports tenets of Jihad

Bill Warner PhD: Jihad not Terror He explains that we need to use the word jihad to describe attacks by Muslim jihadis not "terror" because the latter word helps disguise the Islamic nature of these attacks.

 

  • Islam Four Challenges
    Summary: 

    An extract from a paper presented to an Islamic conference in Nov 2017:

    The way I see it, what ISIS did was that they want to force the reality of today’s living to be following what is in the source of Islamic teaching. Everything they [ISIS] did, they have the justification from the authoritative references of Islamic teachings.

     

    Now, when we are thinking about whether Islam is compatible to democracy or not, we then have to observe the mindset of Muslims about Islam. The question would be: is the mindset of Muslims about Islam compatible to democracy? When we look into the references in classical discourse of Islam, we will find several problematic elements there. I can point out among many problematic elements - four centers of concerns - related to not just democracy but to the nature of our current civilisation.

    The first is the teaching about relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. In the classical discourse of Islamic teaching, the dominant view of this matter is that Muslims and non-Muslims are enemies. The basic norm of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims are enmity. That is what’s dominant in the classical discourse of Islamic teaching. For example, in the tafsir Quran by At-Tobari, or At-Tabarani or Ibnu Kathir, it was stated that non-Muslims, meaning infidel, is permissible to be killed merely because of their infidelity. That is there in the discourse. We also, for example, have in the very famous book in Shafi’ tradition, I’anatuth Thalibin, whereby it is stated there that Muslims have the collective obligation to do expansive jihad towards non-Muslims at least once a year. It is there in the discourse. So, we still have this problematic element in the reference that is still considered to be very authoritative among Muslims all over the world. Therefore, the first problematic element is the teaching about the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.

    The second problematic element is the teaching about the conflict of religion itself. What kind of conflict? The category of conflict that is eligible to be considered as conflict of religion. For example, when the Buddhist in Myanmar attacked Muslims there, it is already a legitimate reason for Muslims everywhere in the world to declare war against the Buddhists. I believe you are all aware that these kinds of arguments have also been the arguments that the terrorists groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda used to attract Muslims to join them. Because the infidels from America attack Muslims in Iraq and in the Middle East, then it is a legitimate reason for Muslims to attack any Western infidels all over the world. That is their argument. And it is justified in the classical course of Islamic teaching.

    The third problematic element would be the existence of nation states. You see, nation state is now the base of our current world order. The world order we have now is based on the existence of nation states but this is something new and there is no normative base about nation state in the classical discourse of Islamic teaching. What is dominant there in the discourse of Islamic teaching is the obligation for Muslims to struggle for one grand imamate meaning one universal political system under one Muslim ruler. It is in there in the classical discourse of Islamic teaching.

    Then, the fourth problematic thing would be the status of state laws as the alternative of Shariah. How would Shariah see the state laws? State laws that are produced by modern political processes, by democracy. Is it an obligation for Muslims to follow the state laws or should they reject the state laws and follow the Shariah instead? Is following state laws such as the traffic regulation an obligation for Muslim, a “Shariah obligation” for Muslim, or is it just a worldly affair not related to religion? All these are centers of our concern regarding Islamic teachings because it is still recorded in the most authoritative references of Islamic teaching.

    See also: 

    Among Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an urgent need to address those obsolete and problematic elements of Islamic orthodoxy that underlie the Islamist worldview, fuelling violence on both sides. The world’s largest Muslim organisation, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, of which I am General Secretary, has begun to do exactly that.

    The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.

  • Jihad is Islamic
    Summary: 

    Among Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an urgent need to address those obsolete and problematic elements of Islamic orthodoxy that underlie the Islamist worldview, fuelling violence on both sides. The world’s largest Muslim organisation, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, of which I am General Secretary, has begun to do exactly that.


    The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and  It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.

    It is our firm view that, if Muslims do not address the key tenets of Islamic tradition that encourage this violence, anyone – at any time – can harness them to defy what they claim to be illegitimate laws and butcher their fellow citizens, whether they live in the Islamic world or the West. This is what links so many current events, from Syria to the streets of London. There is a desperate need for honest discussion of these matters. This is why it worries me to see Western political and intellectual elites weaponise the term “Islamophobia,” to short-circuit analysis of a complex phenomenon that threatens all humanity. For example, it is factually incorrect and counter-productive to define Islamophobia as “rooted in racism,” as proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. In reality, it is the spread of Islamist extremism and terror that primarily contributes to the rise of Islamophobia throughout the non-Muslim world. That is why it is vital to challenge the prevailing “Muslim mindset,” which is predicated upon enmity and suspicion towards non-Muslims, and often rationalises perpetrating violence in the name of Islam. Otherwise, non-Muslims will continue to be radicalised by Islamist attacks and by large-scale Muslim migration to the West.

    See also:  

    where this article appeared in the UK press.

     

     

  • Summary: 

    Ending the cycle of violence requires addressing not only the ideology and motivations of someone like Tarrant, but also the historical framework he shares with many Muslims. That is, that Muslims and non-Muslims are and shall remain in a state of permanent conflict, until the end of time (according to Islamists) or the disappearance of Islam (according to advocates of a “counter-jihad”). Among Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an urgent need to address those obsolete and problematic elements of Islamic orthodoxy that underlie the Islamist worldview, fuelling violence on both sides. The world’s largest Muslim organisation, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, of which I am General Secretary, has begun to do exactly that.

    The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.

    There is a desperate need for honest discussion of these matters. This is why it worries me to see Western political and intellectual elites weaponise the term “,” to short-circuit analysis of a complex phenomenon that threatens all humanity. For example, it is as proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. In reality, it is the spread of Islamist extremism and terror that primarily contributes to the rise of Islamophobia throughout the non-Muslim world.

    See also: 

     

  • Summary: 

    The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

    In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.

    ...

    There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

  • 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: 

    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.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    22/01/2020
    Summary: 

    “If you’re one man and there’s a million kuffar (unbelievers), you are free to fight them, if your intentions are clear, you’re fighting for the pleasure of Allah. And if you die that’s completely fine, it’s even more virtuous, you know. The weapons are a must, these firearms, it’s a 100%… just make sure you have clips, Akhi (‘brother’), you have enough clips, know what I’m saying.”

  • Country: 
    France
    News Date: 
    08/01/2020
    Summary: 

    Sharia Watch: We get the impression that the powers that be in France are still in denial about the roots of as are the majority of

  • Summary: 

    What Tariq A. Al Maeena doesn’t explain is how the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to misinterpret all those hadiths, and why so many other groups do as well, and why they all misunderstand Islam in the same way. “Time to fight Islamophobia,” by Tariq A. Al Maeena, , December 28, 2019:

  • Summary: 

     Clearly we Muslims need to rethink some basic features of our theology. Success of jihadism lies in the fact that, at its core, the jihadi theology is not very different from the consensus theology of all other schools of Islamic thought. For instance, jihadists are able to misuse the intolerant, xenophobic, war-time verses of the holy Quran, as Muslims believe that all verses, regardless of the context, are of universal applicability. Indeed, the Islamic theology of consensus, taught in all madrasas, says that Quran is uncreated, meaning that it is just an aspect of God; and so, divine like God Himself.

    Sharia Watch: This interpretation relies very much on the claim that Muhammad was the 'injured party' when he was expelled from Mecca as a troublemaker. Those claims are addressed here by The Religion of Peace site:-

  • Country: 
    Iran (Islamic Republic of)
    Iraq
    Palestine
    Syrian Arab Republic
    Turkey
    News Date: 
    20/12/2019
    Summary: 

    An emergency relief expert in the Middle East has warned of a second genocide of Christians in the region. 

    Fr Andrzej Halemba, head of Middle East projects at Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), said that Christians could face total eradication from countries such as Iraq and Syria, where they have existed since the time of Christ's first apostles.

  • Country: 
    Turkey
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    13/12/2019
    Summary: 

    Turkey has deported four more foreign terrorists, this time British members of a terrorist group, to the United Kingdom, Turkey's Interior Ministry said Friday.

    Sharia Watch: Remember this quote from Islamic scholar Yahya Cholil Staquf:

     

  • Country: 
    Belgium
    News Date: 
    09/12/2019
    Summary: 

    No surprise here. The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13).

  • Country: 
    European Union
    France
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    09/12/2019
    Summary: 

    Sharia Watch: Time for the UK government to recognise reality!

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    09/12/2019
    Summary: 

    Sharia Watch:



    We doubt this will include a look at the ideology behind the jihad attacks and the occasionally violent counter responses they provoke!

    Among Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an urgent need to address those obsolete and problematic elements of Islamic orthodoxy that underlie the Islamist worldview, fuelling violence on both sides. The world’s largest Muslim organisation, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, of which I am General Secretary, has begun to do exactly that.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    06/12/2019
    Summary: 

    Now given that we have just been subjected to yet another Islamic terror attack where two people were murdered a few days ago in London, I want to start by talking about a policy that makes this party unique. That shows who we are our courage our strength and our determination to defend British culture and that issue is of course Islam.

  • Country: 
    Saudi Arabia
    United States of America (the)
    News Date: 
    06/12/2019
    Summary: 

    There needs to be a thorough and realistic reevaluation of this training program of foreign nationals. But that probably will not happen; it would be “Islamophobic.”

  • Country: 
    France
    News Date: 
    06/12/2019
    Summary: 

    The example of Muhammad is highly relevant here. According to the hadiths, he had at least five people killed in separate incidents for mocking him!

  • Dear Sir/Madam,

    As a follow-up to our letter (emailed to you – copy attached) of 2nd December on the London Bridge attack and your response, we would like to pose some further questions on positive actions we believe are required to address the issue of Islamic jihad attacks in the longer term. These are:

    Is your party prepared to:

  • Country: 
    Burkina Faso
    Cyprus
    Holy See (the)
    Nigeria
    Turkey
    News Date: 
    01/12/2019
    Summary: 
    • "I have a family of Christians who do not want to convert, what do we do with them?", a jihadist in Iraq asked his superior.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    02/12/2019
    Summary: 

    So once again, as always, jihad violence is the Infidel’s fault. If only the British authorities had gotten the poor lamb the help he was crying out for, all would have been well.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    30/11/2019
    Summary: 

    Sharia Watch: Shafi'i manual of sharia - ""Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion"

  • Country: 
    France
    Mali
    News Date: 
    27/11/2019
    Summary: 

    This must be some mistake. Macron, like virtually every other Western leader except for President Trump, is smugly certain that Islam and jihad have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Could France be breaking ranks and actually beginning to deal realistically with the problem of jihad? It’s more likely that this was just an oversight that will soon be corrected amid a cascade of charges of “Islamophobia.”

  • Country: 
    Turkey
    News Date: 
    26/11/2019
    Summary: 

    “Across Turkey’s mosques, the Diyanet, or the directorate of religious affairs, organized calls to prayer and recitation of the ‘Conquest’ chapter in the Quran, broadcasting it over loudspeakers. Turkish mainstream media, including state-run Anadolu Agency, broadcast Islamic clerics telling followers the northeast Syria operation was ordained by God. The pro-government media outlet shared dozens of posts allegedly showing Muslims from around the world reciting the ‘Conquest’ chapter of the Quran in support of the Turkish military.”

  • Country: 
    United States Minor Outlying Islands (the)
    United States of America (the)
    News Date: 
    18/11/2019
    Summary: 

    He  a Unity Interfaith Worship Service at a Montgomery church, where the Rev. Dr.

  • Country: 
    Kenya
    News Date: 
    18/11/2019
    Summary: 

    Sharia Watch: A more honest approach is that displayed by this Islamic scholar:

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    14/11/2019
    Summary: 

    Sharia Watch: When will the UK authorities face up to the underlying problem here, namely, Islamic doctrines and teachings?

    Among Muslims and non-Muslims, there is an urgent need to address those obsolete and problematic elements of Islamic orthodoxy that underlie the Islamist worldview, fuelling violence on both sides. The world’s largest Muslim organisation, Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, of which I am General Secretary, has begun to do exactly that.

  • Summary: 

    This sums up the situation:

    The Islamic roots of Islamic jihad terrorism are one reality that virtually no one at any point on the political spectrum wishes to address. Mead and other analysts like him, with unconscious paternalism, act as if Muslims were mere passive reactors to what non-Muslims do

    Establishment academic Walter Russell Mead, writing about the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in the  Monday, declared: “Movements like ISIS don’t spring from nowhere. It took centuries of decline, serial humiliations at the hands of arrogant European imperial powers, and decades of failed postcolonial governance to produce the toxic mixture of bigotry.”

    Really? ISIS (and presumably other Islamic jihad terror groups) arise from “serial humiliations at the hands of arrogant European imperial powers, and decades of failed postcolonial governance”? No chance that “movements like ISIS’ might have sprung from Islamic texts such as these?

    “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out; persecution is worse than slaughter. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, kill them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is all-forgiving, all-compassionate. Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:191-193)

    See also:

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    The Washington Post has unwittingly demonstrated the truth that Islam is not a religion of peace, a message it has been loath to acknowledge.

    Yesterday, it carried the obituary of self-styled ISIS Caliph Ibrahim, also known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, under this original headline: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘terrorist-in-chief,’ dies at 48. Inexplicably, a few hours later, it revised the headline to read, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48. After  and other social media sites, the Post editors reconsidered again and ran the obituary under a third headline: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.

    So, which was he? An austere religious scholar or the terrorist-in-chief extremist leader of the most vicious and diabolical terror organization in modern history? The answer is, both.

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    What Western leaders desperately need to understand is that ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and its brood of viper organizations, al-Qaeda, AQAP, al-Shabaab, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the IRGC, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Abu Sayyaf and scores of other Muslim jihadi groups are only symptoms, not the source. They are merely angry hornets, looking for whomever they can sting, but destroying them will not rid the world of Islamic terrorism. To do that, we must destroy the nest which endlessly produces them.

    That nest is the ideology of core Islam, i.e., the Islam of Muhammad as taught in its source materials: the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sira (early biographies) of Muhammad.

    Found prominently in all three is the directive that Muslims are to channel all their energies and resources into conquering the world for Allah and his religion. They are to use force, as necessary, to bring all human beings into subjection to Allah. This is the primary Qur’anic meaning of the well-known term “jihad.” Westernized Muslims often object to the translation “holy war”, and I would agree with them. There is nothing holy about jihad — but it is nevertheless a religiously mandated war against all unbelievers. Let’s just call it “religious war.”

  • Country: 
    Afghanistan
    News Date: 
    23/10/2019
    Summary: 

    A mosque? Why didn’t the mosque goers explain to those storing this materiel that Islam was a religion of peace and that they shouldn’t thus desecrate a house of worship?

  • Country: 
    France
    News Date: 
    20/10/2019
    Summary: 

    Admin: We believe President Macron needs to read up on the manual of sharia law! (See graphic)

    French President Emmanuel Macron has warned against “stigmatising” Muslims or making the link between Islam “with the fight against terrorism.” Macron also condemned what he called the “irresponsibility” of political commentators for the “fatal shortcut” of linking Islam with terrorism.

  • Country: 
    European Union
    News Date: 
    18/10/2019
    Summary: 
    • US President Donald Trump personally made a number of appeals to European leaders requesting they do more to take responsibility for their ISIS-affiliated nationals... the Europeans refused to budge, arguing that having them return home would increase the risk of Islamist-inspired acts of terrorism....

  • Country: 
    Netherlands (the)
    News Date: 
    14/10/2019
    Summary: 
    • Jawed S., 20, stabbed two Americans at Amsterdam station in 2018 terror attack 
    • Court has ordered him to serve 26 years and eight months and pay £2.6 million 
    • He travelled from Germany to Holland to 'protect the Prophet Mohammed' 
    • Wheelchair bound victim has a spinal cord injury and the other was wounded

    Jihad Watch comment:

  • Summary: 

    In a new video, an Islamic State (ISIS) spokesman named Abu Abd al-Azeem, “whose speech,” , “is peppered with Koranic recitations,” complained about the bad rap his cuddly group has gotten. “Why are we bombed by planes,” he asked plaintively, “why do all the nations of the unbelieving world come together to fight us?…What is our guilt? What is our crime? We (just) wanted to apply the sharia of Allah.”

    Indeed. And now, in light of that statement, here are some questions that mainstream counterterror analysts should ponder deeply: did the Islamic State actually apply Sharia? ISIS is routinely dismissed as un-Islamic, but what exactly did they do that cannot be backed up by specific citations from the Qur’an and Hadith? And if the Islamic State just wanted to apply Sharia, and Sharia is entirely benign and compatible with Western values, as Western analysts also regularly insist, then why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?

  • Summary: 

    In fact, Washington state’s source for its proclamations about Islam is rather peculiar. The infographic cites “Swedish Nomad,” a  published by a “Professional Travel Blogger and Photographer from Sweden.” He is also very much a non-Muslim.

    Relying on non-Muslims to explain “true Islam” to the world on behalf of Muslims everywhere is enormously helpful to the non-violent Islamists. These  may spout hatred behind closed doors, but they too offer these infographic-themed platitudes in front of the cameras. This distances them from the jihadists and legitimizes them as examples of “true Islam.”

    By denying the diversity of Islamic thought and speaking only of a dichotomy featuring true Muslims on one side and ISIS on the other, politicians and government officials homogenize Islam, making it impossible to separate moderate Muslim partners from the dangerous Islamist networks that operate lawfully within the “true Islam” of Western Muslim communities. This obfuscates counter-extremism and counter-terror work and hurts efforts by Muslim reformists to challenge Islamist influence within their own communities.

  • Summary: 

    We all have a learning curve when it comes to Islam, journalists especially. Consider this exchange, between Tim Marshall of Sky News and an insurgent prisoner in Syria ( 8 Dec 2012). He asks him:

    “What is the future in Syria for the minorities…?”

    “O.K., they have three choices, either they became a Muslim, or they have to pay the jizya, or to be killed.”

    “Wheesh!!” [or something, expressing surprise and disbelief]

    “Do YOU believe this?” he asks incredulously, and to the interpreter, “Does HE believe this?”

    ...

    This reaction is probably shared by most of us in the West, who doubtless find it as hard to believe as the reporter did. We, however, are at a great disadvantage: we are not acquainted with the teachings of Islam. How does the prisoner’s statement square with Islamic doctrine? He has surely got it all wrong, yes?

    To the contrary: a resounding NO. He has got it all right. He is expressing what the source texts say.

    Koran 9:5 (amongst many others) gives the clear instruction:

    “….kill the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent [convert to Islam], establish prayer, and give zakat [tithe money], let them [go] their way.”

    Koran 9:29 commands Muslims to make non-Muslims submit, by force, into subordinate dhimmi status as second-class citizens. “Islam”, after all, means “Submission”.

    “Fight those who do not …. adopt the religion of truth [Islam] … until they give the jizya [“protection” money extortion tax] with willing submission and feel themselves brought low.”

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    President Bush did not want to declare war on the Islamic world, so he chose Al-Qaeda. But then he confused the issue by invading first Afghanistan, then Iraq. President Obama created further obfuscation when he took pains to divorce the religion of the perpetrators from their ideology whilst , thus blurring the line between warfare and assassination.

    18 years later, we are no closer to a clear definition of an enemy and a statement of goals than we were on September 12, 2001. What would constitute victory in the Global War on Terror? No one knows.

    The Geneva Conventions have provisions for guerrilla fighters. Two rules must be met for protection under the Conventions: First, fighters must carry their weapons openly. Second, they must wear uniforms. The Islamist terrorists do neither and are thus not protected. During the Second World War, such fighters would have been treated to a perfunctory military trial and summary execution, whether caught by the Axis or the Allies.

    Unless the United States is clear about who its enemy is and the price it is willing to pay to defeat it, we are destined for an endless war with ever-growing encroachments on American liberties. If this is the path America chooses, then there can be no doubt that we have already lost the war.

    Sharia Watch admin: This confusion about the 'war on terror' is evident across the Western world. The refusal to acknowledge the roots of jihad lie within Islamic texts

  • Country: 
    United States of America (the)
    News Date: 
    23/09/2019
    Summary: 

    INSIDE MOSQUES - INVESTIGATING AND EVALUATING THREAT LEVELS

  • Jihad - The process of imposing Islamic values

    Author(s):

    Summary: 

    Quran: Surat al-Baqara (the Cow) verses 216-218: Quran Tafsir(Commentary on) Ibn Kathir -  Jihad is made Obligatory

    In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.''

    On the day of Al-Fath (when he conquered Makkah), the Prophet said:

    There is no Hijrah (migration from Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the victory, but only Jihad and good intention. If you were required to march forth, then march forth.

    Allah's statement:

    (...though you dislike it) means, `Fighting is difficult and heavy on your hearts.' Indeed, fighting is as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed, wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the hardship of travel. Allah then said:

    . ..and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting is followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues:

    (...and that you like a thing which is bad for you.)

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    I have not presented the entire scope of parallels that exist between the brutal behaviour of ISIS and Islamic doctrines upon which they are firmly supported; nor have I proffered the entire width and breadth of the available evidence that further illustrate the striking similarities highlighted in this piece.  Despite these concessions, I think it is fair to say that the parallels and evidence discussed provide any reasonable observer with strong justification to make the statement, ISIS is Islam.  The central doctrines of Islam do exhort believers to slay non-believers, they do prescribe rape, looting and all of the other barbarism we are witnessing ISIS perform, and to ignore these facts, to turn a blind eye for the sake of pandering to outdated notions of political correctness, is to pay insufficient heed to the core problems associated with not only this band of barbaric pirates, but to the root of this problem, a religion that has spawned some of the most vile and inhumane behaviour that our modern world has witnessed.

  • European Court of Human rights: "sharia is incompatible with democracy and human rights"
    Summary: 

    THE THREAT IS SHARIA

    The enemy adheres to an all-encompassing Islamic politicalmilitary-legal doctrine known as sharia. Sharia obliges them to engage in jihad to achieve the triumph of Islam worldwide through the establishment of a global Islamic State governed exclusively by sharia, under a restored caliphate.

    The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world – including many in America – do not follow the directives of sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news is that this reality reflects the fact that the imposition of strict sharia doctrine is at different stages across Muslim-majority and -minority countries. The appearance is thus created that there is variation in sharia. Of late, representatives of Muslim- and Arab-American groups8 and their apologists9 have been claiming that there is no single sharia, that it is subject to interpretation and no one interpretation is any more legitimate than any other.

    In fact, for especially the Sunni and with regard to non-Muslims, there is ultimately but one sharia. It is totalitarian in character, incompatible with our Constitution and a threat to freedom here and around the world. Sharia’s adherents are making a determined, sustained, and wellfinanced effort to impose it on all Muslims and non-Muslims, alike.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    19/08/2019
    Summary: 

    Why did the British government have to do this? Why weren’t there any hip, anti-terror, Westernized British Muslims who did it themselves? And while This Is Woke promotes the idea that it’s cool, dude, to be young and Muslim in Britain, and that all jihad terrorists need in order to drop their arms is a bit of training in the real Islam, what will those whom it influences do when jihad recruiters come around quoting Qur’an chapter and verse?

  • Summary: 

    Why is it that the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Guardian, when they bother to english it at all, continue to translate “Allahu akbar” as  “God is great”? Why does the BBC stick with “God is greatest”? And why can’t the Western media that, with “God is greater,” come the closest to what the phrase means, convey the proper meaning by adding a few words: “Our God is greater than your God”? It could reflect ignorance: they just don’t know what the phrase, when used by jihadis, means. Or it could reflect a deliberate desire not to convey the true meaning of the phrase, with its obvious supremacism that can only harden hearts and minds against Muslims. And that, of course, would never do.

    Now  supposing some intelligent journalists — even at the Times, even at the Post — are willing to concede that the best way to translate the phrase “Allahu akbar” is “Our God is greater than your God.” But they are faced with doubters, who insist that that translation is too long and too unwieldy  for a newspaper article. Just think, they say, of how it would read: “Mert Ney shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ (‘Our God is greater than your God’) as he stabbed random people in Sydney.” Or imagine someone on the radio saying it: “Said Kouachi shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ (‘Our God is greater than your God’) as he ran from the office of Charlie Hebdo.” It could be rejected for its length alone. There is a simple way to convey the meaning of “Allahu akbar,” without having to add all those  words. That is to begin with the possessive pronoun: “Our God is greater.” The “Our” is in obvious opposition to the unstated “Your.” And the triumphalist essence of “Allahu akbar,” when a jihadi uses  the phrase — “Our God is greater than Your God” — is properly conveyed.

  • Summary: 

    Boris Johnson says it is time to reassert British values in the face of extremist Islam.

    Supporters of the war have retorted that Iraq cannot be said to be a whole and sufficient explanation for the existence of suicidal Islamic cells in the West, and they, too, have a point. The threat from Islamicist nutters preceded 9/11; they bombed the Paris Métro in the 1990s; and it is evident that the threat to British lives pre-dates the Iraq war, when you think that roughly the same number of Britons died in the World Trade Center as died in last week’s bombings. In other words, the Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, though the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country, and given them a new pretext. The Iraq war did not introduce the poison into our bloodstream but, yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison. And whatever the defenders of the war may say, it has not solved the problem of Islamic terror, or even come close to providing the beginnings of a solution. You can’t claim to be draining the swamp in the Middle East when the mosquitoes are breeding quite happily in Yorkshire.

    The question is what action we take now to solve the problem in our own country, and what language we should use to describe such action. The first step, as we swaddle London and Yorkshire with Police/Do Not Cross tape, is to ban the phrase ‘war on terror’, as repeatedly used by G.W. Bush, most recently on 7 July in Edinburgh, with Blair nodding beside him. There is nothing wrong in principle in waging war on an abstract noun; the British navy successfully waged a war on slavery, by which they meant a war on slavers. But if we continue to say that we are engaged in a war with these people, then we concede several points to the enemy, and set up a series of odious false equivalences.

Pages

Subscribe to Jihad-Is-Islamic