In Onward Muslim Soldiers I detail how prominent jihadist theorists such as Hassan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Abdullah Azzam (founder of Al-Qaeda) argue that the idea that the "greater jihad" is a spiritual struggle is based on a weak hadith, a false tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, and that jihad is legitimately and primarily only warfare against unbelievers.
The implications of this, of course, are enormous. In the first place, it shows -- as I have argued ever since the beginning of my public work in this field, in my books and at this site many times -- that the jihad terrorists of today have not hijacked a peaceful religion, as the State Department and media would have us believe, but are operating within the Islamic mainstream. Those seeking to create a basis upon which Muslims can live in peace with non-Muslims must find some way to refute arguments like this one: a Muslim case against the spiritual jihad (thanks to Faith Freedom).
The problem is that as long as Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice and the rest continue to pretend that these arguments do not exist, or are not widely believed in the Islamic world, they are whistling in the dark. As long as they continue to behave as if terrorists have hijacked Islam, they will not be addressing the real source of the problem we face, and will continue to leave America open to being blindsided by attacks from sources we assumed were benign.
Here is part of the Muslim argument against jihad as spiritual struggle:
And even more doubtful than that, there is within the Sanad of this Hadith a narrator by the name of Yahya bin Al Ula Al Bajili who according to Imam Ahmad is a known Kadhdhaab -liar-, and forger of Hadith. Also, Amru bin Ali, An Nasai and Daruqutni state: "His Hadith are renounced." Ibnu Adi states: "His Hadith are false." [Refer: Tahdhibut Tahdhib 11/261-262]Ibnu Taimiyyah states: "There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet (s.a.w) said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser] to Jihad Akbar' [greater]. This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind." [Refer: Al Furqan baina Auliyair Rahman wa Auliyaisy Shaitaan, matter 44-45].
More on Ibn Taimiyyah and Jihad at Islamist Watch:
http://www.islamistwatch.org/main.html
""The most serious type of obligatory Jihad is the one against the unbelievers and against those who refuse to abide by certain prescriptions of the Shari'ah, like those who refuse to pay zakaah, the Kharijites and the like."
--Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah
"Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud and that is Kufr Akbar – and will take them out of the fold of Islam."
--Al Muhajiroun (Bakir School of Thought)
Are Bush, Rice, et al pretending? What evidence exists that they are pretending.
Are they ignorant? I know without a doubt that Uncurious George is ignorant, as he is ignorant of most everything, and has confessed his lack of curiousity. (Sure makes one feel comfortable knowing the leader of the free world is both ignorant and uncurious).
The demonstrated and proven House of Bush House of Saud connections, amongst other things, the unfettered ability given to the Saudis by our REPUBLICAN government and President to ship in subversive materials to mosques.
I have to constantly wonder what is going on, but I get no help from other anti Jihadis, as they are unrepentant apologists for their hero in chief.
See no, hear no, speak no evil.
*takes off the blinds and earplugs* Sorry? I was avoiding listening to kennedy, kerry, pelosi, boxer and co...
Glour:
This is something that puzzled me for a long time: Are they ignorant? Are they not curious? In the case of Bush perhaps, it is also convenient for him to ignore the obvious since, as a Texan he, his family and just about everyone around him have vested interests in the oil game and the Saudis are their partners: Money talks!
We may feel cheated or upset about it, but they simply have too much at stake to rock the boat!
But the churches, the' televangelists' and all the bible bashers and chrisitan fundamentalists, where are they? They can't be ALL IGNORANT? Isn't one of these 'miracle' workers an ex- paley? Benny in the white suit...
But then again: Theire probably all in it for the money too, and if they KNOW about Jihad (and Jihad KILLS!) they will not rock the boat either. And if you read all of the above about what Jihad really is, then it is the"highest DUTY" of every muslim to fight the jihad and to kill the infidels!
Which makes OBL and Zhwahiri "good muslims"...
Giaour-
Did you bother to read the Freedom House report?
"One of the documents from Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Ministry bears the post-9/11 publication date of 2002, while most of the other titles were published in the 1980s and 1990s."
Was Bush in office during the Nineties? Did we not have diplomatic and cultural relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the Clinton Administration?
I remember reading an article a while back, sorry but I can't find a link now, that the 'greater jihad' is a spiritual struggle waged against oneself to overcome one's dislike of war and reluctance to fight the 'lesser jihad'.
As an aside, the same article, if I remember rightly, stated that islamic violence is not actually violence at all, but punishment. Furthermore, the victim is responsible for his own suffering/punishment.
In reading the arguments you cite
here in support of your contentions:
I must confess to some confusion. The article discusses Jihad Akbar (greater) and Jihad Asghar (lesser), and which of the two more properly refers to jihad in the battlefield, and which relates to jihad with the self (desire).
Your post seems to present the idea that there is only one jihad, and that it is against the disbelievers. Dis I miss something, or could your comments have been restated thusly...?
There is no Great Jihad/Lesser Jihad dichotomy.
The whole school of thought of greater/lesser but a house of cards build by ego and idle minds.
The Tabuk Expedition
He had to shame his followers into raising to battle.
What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? (9:38)
He had to threaten them.
If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things. (9:39)
They had to travel far and fight hard to get their reward.
Had it been a near gain (booty in front of them) and an easy journey, they would have followed you, but the distance (Tabuk expedition) was long for them...(9:42)
Homeward bound, dirty, tired, but happy with the booty gained, they draw close.
Imagine it in your mind, first you can hear the dogs heralding your return. Then coming closer still you begin to hear the children. Finally you can hear the calls of the women.
Mohammed turned slightly toward Bakr and said, "We return from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater jihad".
The men laughed heartily. Any man who had been married for any length of time would have instantly understood what he meant. He told a joke about mans' eternal struggle to survive in close company with the female of the species.
This joke is the root of all of the rationalizations of the meaning of great/lesser jihads.
There is only one jihad. It is total war for the globe. Winner take all.
Any other interpretation is simply an invention.