More misleading talk and half-measures, this time from Pakistan's top Muslim clerics. From the BBC via the Pakistani Newspaper, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
Lahore, July 29: Pakistan's top Muslim clerics have said it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to preach the real concept of jihad, or holy war, to young Muslims."The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is radicalising young people," says Mufti Rafi Usmani, one of Pakistan's highest-ranking clerics.
"And an angry young man is in no-one's control," he said.
In other words, what these angry young men do is no one's responsibility. Thus Mufti Rafi neatly deflects attention away from the jihad ideology that is being preached all over Pakistan -- young men aren't joining jihad because of that, you see. They're just angry young men, out of control.
Other high-ranking Islamic scholars have also endorsed these views.Mufti Rafi Usmani heads Darul Uloom Karachi, one of Pakistan's most respected religious schools, or madrassas.
"Islam does not allow killing of innocent civilians and non-combatants under any circumstances," he said in an interview with the BBC News website.
Here we go again. Who is innocent? What is a civilian? When a moderate Muslim spokesman addresses and refutes the assertions by Muslims that various Western non-combatants are neither innocent nor civilians, I will begin to think that the moderate Islam that is supposed to be the solution may actually have some chance of appearing somewhere in the world.
Asked to explain the concept of jihad as expounded in mainstream Islamic thought, Mufti Usmani said it had been laid down in great detail precisely to avoid any confusion."To begin with, jihad is not incumbent on all Muslims and a call for jihad can be given only under special circumstances," he said.
Right. Traditional Islamic law teaches that jihad is an obligation incumbent on the community as a whole -- fard kifaya. If some people in the umma, the worldwide Muslim community, are fulfilling this obligation, the others are freed from it. However, if a Muslim land is attacked (a highly elastic concept that Osama bin Laden and others use artfully today), jihad becomes fard ayn -- compulsory for all Muslims either to fight in or aid in some way. But as Islamic jihadists today routinely claim that they are fighting in defense of Muslim lands, they also claim that jihad today is fard ayn -- in other words, that the "special conditions" to which Mufti Usmani refers do exist now.
Islamic scholars - or ulema - agree that injunctions explaining the circumstances for jihad and the people's conduct during jihad constitute the core principles of the doctrine.According to three top scholars interviewed by the BBC News website, jihad can only be called in the following circumstances:
If a Muslim community comes under attack, then jihad becomes an obligation for all Muslims, male and female, in that community
If that particular community feels it cannot fight off attackers on its own, then jihad becomes incumbent on Muslims living in nearby communities
That's why so many Muslims from neighboring countries have been streaming into Iraq.
If a Muslim ruler of a country calls for jihad, then it is incumbent upon the Muslims living under that ruler to join the jihad.Mufti Usmani says that even in such circumstances, jihad is obligatory only on as many Muslims as are required to defend the community under attack.
But others must aid it materially -- hence the proliferation of "terror-supporting charities."
"If Pakistan is attacked but its army is sufficient to deal with the threat, then Pakistani civilians are under no obligation to join jihad," he said.The second principle relates to the conduct of the jihadis. Under no circumstances are Muslims allowed to attack women, children, the old and the meek, the sick, those that are praying and civilians, say these ulema.
Unless they are perceived as aiding the enemies of the Muslims (cf. Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2; 'Umdat al-Salik o9.10).
Muslim militants argue that if innocent Muslims are killed in enemy action then Muslims are allowed to kill innocent people in retaliation.But clerics strongly disagree with this line of thinking, arguing that Islam does not allow Muslims to respond to "a mistake" by another mistake.
"Islam is absolutely clear on this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right," Mufti Usmani said.
"If they feel that the US or the UK are killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, it does not give them the right to kill innocent citizens in London or New York," he said....
Very well. But here again he doesn't address the core issue: are those civilians in London or New York innocent at all? Osama and his ilk would say no. How would the Mufti respond? Can he refute this view on Islamic grounds? If so, he should do so, and do so quickly.
"When a Muslim visits a Western country or if he is living there, then he is under a kind of a contractual obligation to abide by the law of that land," explains Mufti Usmani."Islam is so strict about honouring commitments that a commitment cannot be revoked unilaterally even in times of battle."
This is ridiculous in light of Muhammad's own behavior, particularly regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiya which the early Muslims concluded with the pagan Quraysh. After the treaty was concluded, a woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that she be returned "in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya." Muhammad refused because Allah forbade it: he gave Muhammad a new revelation: "O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers" (Qur’an 60:10).
In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before any treaty violations by the Quraysh. Breaking of the treaty in this way would reinforce the principle that nothing was good except what was advantageous to Islam, and nothing evil except what hindered Islam.
Mufti Akram Kashmiri, the head of Jamia Ashrafia in Lahore - another top madrassa whose students have risen to top posts in various Islamic countries - says that the existing circumstances are making it extremely difficult for the ulema to preach this message to disaffected Muslim youth."Angry young Muslims are no longer satisfied with this doctrine," he says.
"That is why they go around to all kinds of ulema with dubious credentials to seek religious sanctions to deal with the rising tide of anger inside them," he says.
These ulema are convinced that the solution to terrorism no longer lies in the hands of the Muslim world or the clerics.
The West, they say, must seek a resolution of all the conflicts involving the Muslim world and hit at the root causes that have spawned terrorism all over the world.
Sure. It's all the West's fault. Yet I seem to remember a good number of jihads being waged long before there was any Western "imperialism" or "colonialism" to speak of.
Hm, all this from LAHORE, where arrested Lodi's were suspected of training? Gee, one does not need a GPS system to find Usama from there.....
go south.....turn right......bingo.
""And an angry young man is in no-one's control," he said."
Wonder if they've ever heard of self-control, respect for self and anger management?
Guess not .. it's more like 'take 3 verses of bloody Qur'an and blow yourself up in a crowded pizza parlor tomorrow'. Blammo! Anger gone, problem solved.
We've had wall-to-wall muslims on FNC lately. All trying to sell us the old "it's other muslims" story. How I wish the truth was a valuable commodity again.
"Yet I seem to remember a good number of jihads being waged long before there was any Western "imperialism" or "colonialism" to speak of."
--- from the article above
Yes, every single Jihad that was waged outside the area of European influence or control -- for example, the jihads in Hindustan, in Central Asia, in the East Indian archipelago.
Or, the Jihad declared in 1804, in West Africa, by Uthman Dan Fodio, resulting in the "caliphate" of Sokoto -- how would that be related to Western "imperialism" or "colonialism"?
Of course the Jihad is related to the must successful colonialism and imperialism in human history, one that causes entire peoples to forget their own histories, their own achievements, even give up, or denigrate, their own languages and to accept the names, and language, of the conqueror -- Arab colonialism, Arab imperialism, Arab supremacist ideology of which Islam has always been the determined and malevolent vehicle. This is the colonialism, and this the imperialism, that needs now to be discussed.
Spot on Hugh, as always insightful.
Yes, I tire of this "Islamic aggression is caused by western imperialism" Excuse it is a bunch of crap, but it only plays in the west, because the west has a disability the Arabs don't have.. a social conscience and guilt.
Robert, the situation as I see it.
Muslims all over the world get their shorts in a rip about the happenings in other countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine... but only where they believe that Islam is under threat or insulted.
Compare that to the attitude of westerners or Christians, what would be the situation if we took the same attitude towards Muslims, everytime they killed or attacked non Muslims.
(Maybe we should, maybe we should raise the consciousness of non Muslims).
How is a Pakistani, American, Brit, Algerian, Egyptian Muslim discomfited, disadvantaged by the happenings in Palestine, Iraq,Afghanistan? They aren't, in fact it is none of their business, and truth is that they don't care one bit about the people of those countries.
For instance, Saudi Arabia has a new citizenship law that grants citizenship to a million Muslim expatriates, but exempts "Palestinians".
Lebanon restricts Palestinians to ghettos, and prohibits them from repairing homes and building new ones, and limits the occupations that they can enter to about 70.
There is no real charity, in the sense of providing, food, blankets, shelter given by muslims one to another. Saudi Charities are war charities, subsidies for "martyrs" families, mujahideen, arms,ammo, transport and support of mosques and dissemination of Jihad propaganda.
Point is that Muslims don't care about other Muslims, not one bit, and any tears shed are crocodile tears, shed to jerk around the westerner who, unlike Islam, can be manipulated by guilt and altruism.
Muslims are the most guilt free, and conscienceless people on the planet. A consequence of an ideology that is sans free will, an ideology in which all is the will of Allah even the apostate and kufr are the will of Allah,because Allah has sealed their hearts and minds.
Islam is nothing more than the Arab, bedouin, tribal mentality, culture and ethos, expressed in religious terms. When one becomes a Muslim,one becomes an Arab, a member of a tribe, and the ethos of the tribe is that individual survival and prosperity depends on the state of health of the tribe.
These 'outraged' Muslims have no personal sense of self, but are no more than drones in a hive.
A perception of an attack (affront, insult) on another Muslim is perceived as an attack on all Muslims, and as we know an attack is perceived when the kaffir resists or refuses to submit to Islam.
Another reason they get so outraged about Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine etc, is because Islam is perceived to be perfect, the perfect ideology for the world, and thus muslims are superior to non muslims,thus the muslim when confronted with the reality of superiority of non muslims, feels humiliated and wounded (another manifestation of the Arab tribal mentality).
The Jews have demonstrated their superiority, in terms of organization, economics, military prowess by defeating Arab Armies three times, and by holding at bay the Jihadi's. Israel exists, where in the Arab mind, it should not exist, which should be proof that Allah is not on the side of the Arab/Muslim, but that is rationalized away with "no one knows the way or will of Allah, so it is part of Allah's greater plans". The role of the individual Muslim thus is to play the drone, to attack the perceived threat to the hive (tribe) or to support the warrior drones that attack the perceived threat.
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was more proof of the inferiority of Islam, it is as though the West went in and cut off their testicles (manhood), and they have to reclaim that manhood by reaction and violence.
Islam (hence the individual) Muslim was "neutered", neutered with the successful creation of an Israeli state, and the ability of Israelis to hold back and defeat the massed array of ARabs, by the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And here is how that understanding is important. Soccer riots plaque Europe, they are costly and destructive of property and lives. The European Community was so concerned that they commissioned a study as to the cause of the riots.
It seems that men vicariously identify with teams,and when their team loses, their testosterone level plummets and they are chemically neutered, sexually disempowered, impotent. The same thing happens in nature during the rutting or mating season. Rams, elephant seals, even wolves who lose out in the mating rut experience a drop in testosterone level until the next mating season, and hang out on the periphery of herds and packs as neutered batchelors.
The way humans reclaim their manhood (re elevate) testosterone levels is by acting out, committing acts of violence.
Very few people have a true personal identity, nor a basis for their ego other than in relation to membership in some hive, sometimes more than one.
Ask a person this question: What are you? and you will find the basis for their identity. In the west the person will usually answer in terms of occupation or profession, in Europe you will often find answers in terms of avocation (I'm a skier or cyclist). But a Muslim (Arab) will answer "I'm a Muslim".
As a consequence he perceives an assault,setback, affront on Islam as a personal assault on himself, and his manhood.
These Jihadis have been "neutered" and the only way they can reclaim their manhood is by acts of violence (like the soccer riots) and by believing that ultimately Dar al Islam will vanquish Dar al Harb.
The belief that "martrydom", {Shahidi) in the struggle for the way of Allah (Jihad), will give them a free pass and immediate entrance into Paradise where they can avail themselves of unrestricted sex and gluttony, which they have been denied in the temporal world, is the icing on the cake, the carrot dangled before them.
The sexual repression of the Islamic ideology, the prohibitons against interacting with women, the veiling of women, only built up sexual tension and frustration which must find release.
Release is found in violence (fighting and shahidi in the way of Allah)and aggression, which can be and is verbal, if physical aggression is not possible.
Examine the behavior of CAIR, examine the behavior of the various Islamic and muslim associations,examine the behavior of muslims on the internet.. their behavior is always aggressive, there is never an admission of error or wrong, only rationalizations and justifications for their aggressive behavior. (You made me do it, I'm only acting out because you invaded Iraq - a country in which he has no interest and people for whom he really doesn't care, there are no bleeding hearts in Islam, and there tears are farcial).
If Americans had the same mentality as Muslims, there would be no incessant propaganda about violation of human rights, or 100,000 dead Iraqi's, no allegations of racism.
That is our weakness, our conscience, Muslims don't have one, that's why they can so easily behead people, holler Allahu Ahkbar as the executioner swings his sword, that's why they don't care if 100,000 fellow Muslims die in a Tsunami, or if half a million subsequently die of starvation.
Note here: Only Saudi Arabia and Kuwait contributed any money to the Tsunami survivors, but not out of conscience, out of embarassment in front of the world. The infidels of Dar al Harb were contributing hundreds of millions and the muslims were sitting on their ass doing nothing.
I highly recommend for starters, Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind, it is actually sensitive and considerate of the Arab, but it is also insightful, and insight is something the west needs.
Personal responsibility appears to be non-existent in Islam because Muslims must constantly run to Imams and other scholars for opinion as to what is and isn't appropriate. There appears to be no internal mechanism of self-government. They have been programmed to accept the word of the imam in all things. Thus, there is no second thought when told to kill the infidel as the arbitrar of right and wrong has spoken, and they have no option but to obey.
"The West, they say, must seek a resolution of all the conflicts involving the Muslim world and hit at the root causes that have spawned terrorism all over the world."
If the madrasses do not seek a resolution by halting incitement to violence, then the West will seek a resolution, and it will involve alot of death and destruction. We will have no other choice. Those root causes (the madrasses, Islamic terror fundraising) that have spawned terrorism fwill be destroyed. As you wish, sir.
"Yes, I tire of this "Islamic aggression is caused by western imperialism" Excuse it is a bunch of crap, but it only plays in the west, because the west has a disability the Arabs don't have.. a social conscience and guilt."
That's putting the situation much too simply. The problem in the West over the last 50 years is that the West has developed, to a morbidly EXCESSIVE degree, the virtues of conscience, guilt and self-criticism -- and much of this morbid excess of health is directly related to our history of Western Colonialism.
In the astonishingly short span of roughly the last 60 years, the West has changed from a civilization proud of its colonializing mission of spreading human rights, secularism (or further back, Christian virtues which were the direct precursors to modern secularism), and capitalism to the non-Western world, to a civilization excessively ashamed of its own evil colonial past and evil present in the way it "exploits" the Third World, blah blah blah.
Note for sophomores: the issue is not whether the West's colonial past was flawless -- nothing in this life is flawless; the issue is whether it was on balance a good thing for the West and for the rest of the world, despite its many flaws.
"Here we go again. Who is innocent? What is a civilian? When a moderate Muslim spokesman addresses and refutes the assertions by Muslims that various Western non-combatants are neither innocent nor civilians, I will begin to think that the moderate Islam that is supposed to be the solution may actually have some chance of appearing somewhere in the world."
The only way Muslims will definitively surmount this semantic problem of the "innocent civilian" is when Muslims abandon their doctrinal distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I.e., Muslims have to reform Islam to the point where on a sociopolitical level they cease being Muslims and join the rest of the human race. This will necessarily entail that they must also dismantle much symbolic apparatus that is a central part of their religion, including the dar-al-Islam/dar-al-Harb distinction, among other things.
They may continue to retain a Muslim identity on a personal psychological level, and they may continue to nurture that personal psychological identity in the context of their private prayers and their ritual activities in the mosque and on pilgrimage, but they must become satisfied with this personal psychological identity being left UNREPRESENTED and UNEXPRESSED in the sociopolitico-legal spheres of existence, and they must learn to develop that spiritual Tension of Existence which most Christians have learned, expressed in the Christian dictum "in this world, but not of it". Most Christians (who remain faithful to their doctrines, and many don't anymore) cultivate this otherworldly identity yet are able with grace and maturity to continue to be good citizens of this world controlled overtly by "Caesar" (the secular authorities) and covertly to a certain extent by "Satan".
Of course, the vast majority of Muslims will be unable to do this, so we'll just have to be prepared to indefinitely defend ourselves against the ongoing Jihad which grows out of their distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim.
Metaxy,
That is an excellent summary of where we the Infidels and they the Muslims are. They just cannot accept us as equals.
Reset.
Most excellent post Giaour!!! Very good. You got their number!