Jihad? An Islamic imperative?

[Oldgamer]

The following is taken from an extensive article at Frontpage Magazine, and the article is a long read. I would hope that anyone who wishes to post in this thread will read the article first. Ummon, we need you here!

Nearly four decades later, Antoine Fattal, whose 1958 Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays' d'Islam remains the benchmark analysis of non-Muslims (especially Christians and Jews) living under the Shari'a (i.e., Muslim Law), observed:

…Even today, the study of the jihad is part of the curriculum of all the Islamic institutes. In the universities of Al-Azhar, Nagaf, and Zaitoune, students are still taught that the holy war [jihad] is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced against the Infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world... If he [the dhimmi] is tolerated, it is for reasons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority...In no way is the dhimmi the equal of the Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal in the Law Courts as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims...No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis...

The article's link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=21088

[bigfootedfred]

this book came up in another thread...

I took the liberty of doing a little research on it then.

The book this was based on.
Is a bit controversial in the readers comments...

The introduction to the book is written by Ibn Warraq
a fanatic who has rejected Islam and spends much time attacking it.

Wiki entry for Ibn Warraq
yeah...totally unbias that guy.....
He writes books himself. The publisher of which is...

good old Prometheus Books, same publisher as
"The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" (the book featured in the artcle)

Link

People who liked "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims"
(the book featured in the artcle)
Also like

"
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer
* Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'Or
* The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? by Tony Blankley
* Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry
"
Well anything for a quick buck huh?

Heres what the writer of this wonderful, "unbiased" book 'left out'.

Bostom also fails to provide any Sense of historical and cultural context for the religious commentaries or eyewitness accounts. There is no reference to the medieval Christian Crusades, the Turkic and Mongol invasions of Muslim lands, or the subsequent military campaigns that drove Muslims out of Spain and Eastern Europe and eventually brought most of the Islamic world under colonial rule.

The author uses virtually any military offensive carried out by Muslims as an example of jihad, ignoring restrictions classical and modern Islamic jurisprudence placed on it.

Christians have never expanded i suppose, in the opinion of the writer of this book i assume.

No of course, Christians have stayed in their own lands, and have never used convert/die tatics.
In fact, the history of Christianity (unlike Islam of course) is one of peace, and loving thy neighbors
Oh and...also expanding to 3 other continents...mass burning, crusades, ...you know that kind of thing, but we don't bring that up, because only Islam has history of violence and expansion, no other world religion, or indeed any other world nation, state, group or even indeed human kind itself does...

[Oldgamer]

No of course, Christians have stayed in their own lands, and have never used convert/die tatics.
In fact, the history of Christianity (unlike Islam of course) is one of peace, and loving thy neighbors
Oh and...also expanding to 3 other continents...mass burning, crusades, ...you know that kind of thing, but we don't bring that up, because only Islam has history of violence and expansion, no other world religion, or indeed any other world nation, state, group or even indeed human kind itself does...

Why has this thread, in two posts, devolved into an attack on Christianity? (Even though it was anticipated, and put into the Mud Pit for that reason.) The thread is not about Christianity. It is about the imperative of Jihad to be found in Islam. It's demanded in the Quran. It's been supported by hundreds of Islamic theologians over a thousand years.

I will say that part of the article is a call for Islam to reform itself and do a mea culpa, just as the Catholic Church did in Vatican II, and continues to do, to this day. Where is Islam's mea culpa?

We have some extraordinary individuals on this board who are Muslims. I think very highly of them, and hope to hear from them in the thread.

But I also want to see a denunciation of Jihad, of dhimmitude, and of conquest for the express purpose of conversion.

But once again, this thread is not about the past evil deeds of Christians. It is about Jihad, and whether or not Jihad is an Islamic imperative.

[bigfootedfred]

Why has this thread, in two posts, devolved into an attack on Christianity? (Even though it was anticipated, and put into the Mud Pit for that reason.) The thread is not about Christianity.

No it is not about christianity, and was not an attack on christianity.
But why single one religion out? why pick one, and point all of the blame to it?
If i wished to attack christianty, i would..but im not, it was an example.
Christianty, just like the rest of the human world, including islam, has commited violent acts, Jews, just as islam have a violent book.

I will say that part of the article is a call for Islam to reform itself and do a mea culpa, just as the Catholic Church did in Vatican II, and continues to do, to this day.

I couldnt agree more that is what should happen. Personally i wouldnt have any religion run any poltics of any kind...
But alot of hate is going in the muslim direction.
Ive heard "them" described as "an evil cult" among other things.
If they are, then are no more so than any of the other major religions based from abraham.

But once again, this thread is not about the past evil deeds of Christians. It is about Jihad, and whether or not Jihad is an Islamic imperative.

indeed.
The book used for this artcile, takes examples of almost any conquest by peoples who were muslim, as evidence of Jihad.
It puts no context on the subject.
The crusades are left out, lots of things are left out. only one side is portayed in that book.

[Ummon]

No it is not about christianity, and was not an attack on christianity.
But why single one religion out? why pick one, and point all of the blame to it?

Because that religion is the only one explicitly bent on world conquest. The only one with an army. The only one with political goals surviving today. The only one recommending slavery and apartheid of women. The only one stating that believers are superior to non-believers in this world.

[bigfootedfred]

Because that religion is the only one explicitly bent on world conquest. The only one with an army. The only one with political goals surviving today. The only one recommending slavery and apartheid of women. The only one stating that believers are superior to non-believers in this world.

Soo...
You are saying, the pope dosent exist, hes fiction.
Christains in africa dont have any slaves, that is fiction.
And the jews are not, in fact "the chosen people".

am i reading this right?

[Denny Crane!]

Why has this thread, in two posts, devolved into an attack on Christianity? (Even though it was anticipated, and put into the Mud Pit for that reason.) The thread is not about Christianity. It is about the imperative of Jihad to be found in Islam. It's demanded in the Quran. It's been supported by hundreds of Islamic theologians over a thousand years.

I will say that part of the article is a call for Islam to reform itself and do a mea culpa, just as the Catholic Church did in Vatican II, and continues to do, to this day. Where is Islam's mea culpa?

We have some extraordinary individuals on this board who are Muslims. I think very highly of them, and hope to hear from them in the thread.

But I also want to see a denunciation of Jihad, of dhimmitude, and of conquest for the express purpose of conversion.

But once again, this thread is not about the past evil deeds of Christians. It is about Jihad, and whether or not Jihad is an Islamic imperative.

I would say a mea culpa is dependant on the level of organisation and education within a religions structure. Most religions are borne amidst violence and raised and matured in a atmosphere of great conflict, Islam more so however it was endemic to its location and time and therefore inevitable.

The majority of Islams followers reside in places with poor levels of education and poverty ie. the third world and the fact that it has no central figure of worship or authority hinders any chance of their being a mea culpa. In areas where you find westernised islams though although they may not have admitted fault they do not sympathise with the idea of a jihad. A mea culpa as such will not take place but the sympathy with the idea of a jihad will disipate with higher levels of education, it will be a gradual process combined with a rise in secular government. So I do not believe a jihad is neccessary idea within Islam, religions are conceptual in nature without fanaticism. People cherry pick what they like, hence the reason why although there is a lot inspiration towards violence in the bible it is not viewed as a violent religion. The basic concepts of most religion are peace and harmony.

Peter

[Oldgamer]

I would say a mea culpa is dependant on the level of organisation and education within a religions structure. Most religions are borne amidst violence and raised and matured in a atmosphere of great conflict, Islam more so however it was endemic to its location and time and therefore inevitable.

The majority of Islams followers reside in places with poor levels of education and poverty ie. the third world and the fact that it has no central figure of worship or authority hinders any chance of their being a mea culpa. In areas where you find westernised islams though although they may not have admitted fault they do not sympathise with the idea of a jihad. A mea culpa as such will not take place but the sympathy with the idea of a jihad will disipate with higher levels of education, it will be a gradual process combined with a rise in secular government. So I do not believe a jihad is neccessary idea within Islam, religions are conceptual in nature without fanaticism. People cherry pick what they like, hence the reason why although there is a lot inspiration towards violence in the bible it is not viewed as a violent religion. The basic concepts of most religion are peace and harmony.

Peter

Peter, this was a very good post, and partly what I wanted from this thread. Secular government and increasing levels of education will have a salutary effect on diminishing Jihad among Muslims, it is to be hoped.

At the funeral of President Ronald Reagan, I had a chance to speak with Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan. He expressed his hope that the increase of education among his people ... especially the women ... would fundamentally alter the nature of the Islamic faith, in his country. He told me that Jihad, as it is currently practised by people of his faith, is an abomination, and the Islam itself must grow and mature, much as Judaism and Christianity have done.

He's a fine gentleman, and I was impressed by his obvious lack of guile and sincerity.

It is my hope that, like Karzai, there is not an imperative to Jihad in the Islamic faith. I think that the participant in the discussion that I linked to does believe in this imperative. If so, it will lead to decades, if not centuries, of warfare. This is also a reason why I'm hoping that all of TWC's muslims will weigh in on the issue.

Is Islam truly a religion of peace? Like Mulder, I want to believe ...

[Valus]

Moved to the ethos.

[Denny Crane!]

Peter, this was a very good post, and partly what I wanted from this thread. Secular government and increasing levels of education will have a salutary effect on diminishing Jihad among Muslims, it is to be hoped.

At the funeral of President Ronald Reagan, I had a chance to speak with Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan. He expressed his hope that the increase of education among his people ... especially the women ... would fundamentally alter the nature of the Islamic faith, in his country. He told me that Jihad, as it is currently practised by people of his faith, is an abomination, and the Islam itself must grow and mature, much as Judaism and Christianity have done.

He's a fine gentleman, and I was impressed by his obvious lack of guile and sincerity.

It is my hope that, like Karzai, there is not an imperative to Jihad in the Islamic faith. I think that the participant in the discussion that I linked to does believe in this imperative. If so, it will lead to decades, if not centuries, of warfare. This is also a reason why I'm hoping that all of TWC's muslims will weigh in on the issue.

Is Islam truly a religion of peace? Like Mulder, I want to believe ...

I am not knowledgable enough nor have I the abundance of spare time to learn enougha bout the islamic religion to say wether the koran inspires more violence than, for example, christianity (note to all: I don't want to debate it here either). It is however irrelevant in my opinion. Other religions without the relevant inspiration (or with depending on your interpretation of religious texts, or what you choose to quote) have in their infancy and up to sixty years ago been indirectly responsible for interpersonal violence and warfare.

Islam as a religion is approximatly 500 years older than christianity, therefore it would be reasonable to assume that its maturity will not happen until it has a similar age or social conditions equal the conditions with which christianity matured. Secular culture is obviously important for the seperation of the religous caste and the judiciary, but also the education levels as you mentioned.

Wether or not the concept of a jihad is integral to the islamic faith, a well educated populace would reject this idea of islam. As you fear though it could mean hundreds of years of conflict.

OT: You met Hamid Karzai; very nice. He did a very interesting interview (tue mornining) on Radio Four BBC about the situation in Afghanistan and the trials they still face you can listen to it by going to the bbc website radio and looking for listen again. Very disturbing things going on there at the moment.

[Darth Wong]

Why has this thread, in two posts, devolved into an attack on Christianity?

Because someone correctly anticipated that the people who would argue for this idea on this forum would apply an obvious double-standard to Christianity vs Islam on the issue of hateful passages in its holy texts translating into an intrinsic feature of the belief system. It's a fair point; look at the excuses thrown up for Christianity which are rejected for Islam.

Personally, I would say that both Christianity and Islam have an innate tendency to try and forcibly shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats, but of course, I'm not saddled with some irrational desire to pretend that one is substantially different from the other.

[Ummon]

Because someone correctly anticipated that the people who would argue for this idea on this forum would apply an obvious double-standard to Christianity vs Islam on the issue of hateful passages in its holy texts translating into an intrinsic feature of the belief system. It's a fair point; look at the excuses thrown up for Christianity which are rejected for Islam.

Personally, I would say that both Christianity and Islam have an innate tendency to try and forcibly shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats, but of course, I'm not saddled with some irrational desire to pretend that one is substantially different from the other.

How many Christians boycott christian-killing muslim nations?

[Darth Wong]

How many Christians boycott christian-killing muslim nations?

How many Christians were raised in true Christian theocracies instead of secular nations which happen to contain a lot of (sometimes pushy) Christians?

Go to a time in history when most Christian nations were theocracies, and then take a good look at how Christians behaved at the time.

[Patton85]

Ibn Khaldun an Islamic legal scholar and philosopher, who died in 1406, wrote:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense.

Or

Sura (chapter) 9 “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. . . . Fight against such as those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah. . . . Go forth, light-armed and heavy armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. That is best for you, if ye but knew.”

Ibn Hudayl , another 14th Century theologian said:

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden — if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them — as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word to do everything that might ruin and discourage him.

A respected contemporary Muslim cleric. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, “spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the “European Council for Fatwa and Research”, and popular Al-Jazeera television personality, reiterated almost this exact formulation of Dar ul Harb in July 2003:

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected…in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.

Information is taken directly from Front Page Magazine. All direct quotes of Muslim theologians.

[Patton85]

The difference between Christian wrongs and Muslim wrongs are that Muslims can justify their actions through the Qu'ran. The same can not be done through the Bible. Also the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression after four centuries of unprovoked Jihad. Church was a political, not just a religious organization, which didn't always follow the teachings of Jesus. However, modern Muslim terrorist are following the revelations to Muhammad. Big difference.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Sura (chapter) 9 “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. . . . Fight against such as those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah. . . . Go forth, light-armed and heavy armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. That is best for you, if ye but knew.”

You will find greater understanding if you read the whole surah and not just one sentence to understand the true meaning.

http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/9.htm

:laughing:

[Ummon]

I think I will answer the only part of the post which I find interesting: the quote from Seneca in the signature. Well, you have just picked the only one of Seneca's opinions which I don't agree with!

[Kanaric]

The OT is not a religion, unfortunately (for your argument).

Neither is the koran a religion, unfortunately. A book isn't a religion like you said, so why in another topic are you using the koran to say that islam is evil in another topic?

Also last I heard the Torah was the old testament. Stop trying to raise one religion over another on baseless reasoning.

The Pope is not a temporal sovereign anymore:

Neither is any islamic leader?

The Jews are the chosen people, if you want to believe them (or christians as well) but this doesn't make them superior in this world,

Who says? You?

You excuses on why islam is "evil" or whatever is equally applied to any abrahamic religion. You just refuse to see this because you enjoy bashing islam.

[Ummon]

Always the same 2 objections...

I don't know what Badawi has said here and there. But I know what the book in which he says he believes says. And it disagrees with him.

[Dromikaites]

The cure to Jihad (in its meaning of "Holy" War against the "Infidels") is secularisation of the Muslim countries and education. The big question is should the fundamentalist regimes be allowed to change by themselves or should they be forced to change through military intervention? Or should be there a selective treatment: fundamentalist regimes that openly support terrorism (like the Talibans) or try to acquire nukes (Iran) should be secularised by force while the other fundamentalist regimes should be changed through dipomacy?