A friend asked me to reply to this message he received on an email list. Since these themes are constantly repeated, I thought I'd share my response with you.
Here is the message:
In the case of Islam, one must look at the Qur'an; authentic traditions of Muhammed, the principles of the various classical legal schools, and, in the case of the Shiites, traditions of their 12 Imams to say "this is what Islam essentially says."Now, if we look at any of these sources, we find that Islam DOES NOT prescribe or condone the taregting of civilians; terrorist activity; or genocide. Classical Islam does allow for, or even prescribe, offensive jihad, or wars of expansion. HOWEVER, offensive jihad can, according to traditional Islamic jurisprudence, ONLY be declared by the "Commander of the Faithful." For the Sunnis, that was the caliph, and the caliphate was abolished at the end of World War One. For the Shias, that is the Imam, and the last Imam has been in "occultation" or absent from visible view for the past 1100 years or so.
There are numerous ways in which the actions of Al Qaeda and others contradict classical, traditional, orthodox Islamic jurisprudence.
Would that it were so, but the writer of this message seems to have a knowledge of Islam that is sketchy at best. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. My response:
Re targeting of civilians:"It is not permissible to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims." ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.10).
"It is not permitted to kill women and children in battle, nor elsewhere, as long as they are not fighting..." (Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2).
The idea of civilians ("women and children") fighting making it permissible to kill them has led modern jihad terrorists to justify 9/11 etc. by saying that everyone who was killed there was aiding the American war effort against Islam -- and that therefore killing them was ok.
"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law....I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb [House of War] or not..." Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i, director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, London, July 8, 2005.
Re offensive jihad:
Under ordinary circumstances, what he is saying is true: only the Commander of the Faithful can declare offensive jihad. That's why jihadists are so keen to reestablish the caliphate. Osama even had Mullah Omar of the Taliban proclaimed "Emir al-Momineen" (Commander of the Faithful) in 1996.
Also, the concept of defensive jihad requires no caliph. Jihad is ordinarily fard kifayah: an obligation on the community as a whole, which if some discharge, others are freed from. However, when a Muslim land is attacked, it becomes fard ayn: obligatory upon everyone individually. Abdullah Azzam, a founder of Al-Qaeda, and others have argued that jihad is now fard ayn because of the West's attack on Islam (Azzam was murdered, probably by Osama, in 1989, so he wasn't talking about Iraq).
This places every Islamic jihadist action in the context of the defense of Muslim lands, and so justifies today's jihad according to classical, traditional, orthodox Islamic jurisprudence.
If Osama's contemporary jihad violates "classical, traditional, orthodox Islamic jurisprudence," then let's see moderate Muslims refute his arguments using classical, traditional, orthodox Islamic jurisprudence. If they have done so, please send me their articles. I'm at director@jihadwatch.org.
Hello Robert:
I'd like to see something from the "moderate" Islamists but that something is always so couched with protective statements (so as to not upset the apparently majority extremists) that it speaks in circles which are incredibly easy for anyone with half a brain to tear appart.
I'd like someone of the Muslim persuasion to explain why Slobodan is being held. Maybe a "moderate" Islamist can make a case for holding him that doesn't cross into some religious diatribe because I do not see that the man did anything other than protect his people and culture in the only way available to him. Reading your notation here one would say he was acting, albeit on the opposite side, as a Muslim believes a Muslim is commanded to act.
Robert, do you believe a large percentage of the ummah see Bin Laden as the 1st caliph of this century. Islam feels buffed and powerful right now, just who would declare this Caliphate and name a Caliph? Where would the OIC come into this? Saudis, since they consider themselves the topdogs of Islam (after all, it is THEIR religion), would want to control who is Caliph. Ahh the glorious caliphate. Endless assasinations and chaos.
Do not you people see the absurdity of what you are doing? You are trying to prove to the world a fact that is self evident, irrefutable, and unworthy of debate. I say that because any Westerner that believes that Islam is a religion of peace is not fit to be considered a human being. There are certain constants in this Universe that are immutable, among them is the unequivocal certainty that Islam has been violent since its inception, it teaches a militant totalitarian ideology as the core of its creed, it has visited upon mankind the largest and longest enduring man-created catastrophe.
Speaking of history, here's something I added to my blog. What got my attention is that a Ph.D. in history and Muslim convert could have such a different view of Muslim history. I don't care to speculate about his sincerity.
Here is my blog entry (or rather 'update'):
While perusing the comments on the Amazon webpage for Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet, I came across a typical angry rejection of the notion that Jihad is militant and intrinsic to Islam, by a Michael D. Berdine, Ph.D., of Tucson, Arizona, who also calls himself the 'history professor'. A Google search indicates that he did get a Ph.D. in History at the University of Arizona in August, 2001, and has taught Middle Eastern and Islamic History at the University of Texas at El Paso, where he has been a visiting professor. He has converted to Islam and also goes by the name Muhammad As‘ad. He says, regarding Trifkovic's book,
"This is a Muslim-bashing at its worst. Lies, half-truths and distortions do not history or truth make. While there are some truths mentioned, most were half-baked, twisted or distorted and without the full story. Other despicable acts mentioned are the work of evil humans who call themselves Muslim, but hardly act as Islam teaches. This is just like the Christian Crusaders, who boiled, roasted and ate babies (documented facts) on the First Crusade, the Spanish Inquisitors who tortured, maimed and killed in the name of Jesus, or Adolf Hitler and his cohorts, ostensibly Christians all, who perpetrated the most heinous crimes against humanity in recorded history. None of these acts had anything to do with what Christianity teaches either. So, why identify an entire religion with what a few of its so-called adherents did?"
There is a crucial difference between the evil deeds of Christianity and of Islam, which a history professor should know. Jesus neither advocated nor engaged in violence in the name of religion, whereas Mohammed did, according to the authentic Muslim accounts as described above. As I have emphasized, this does not mean that Muslims share in collective guilt, but it does mean that the Islamists justifiably find their inspiration in the life of their prophet. This cannot simply be ignored. At least Berdine recognizes such violence as 'despicable', regardless of who commits it. (Note: To imply that Hitler sincerely identified himself with Christianity or fought on its behalf is not true.)
Benjamin
http://orionnewsblog.blogspot.com/
I agree Mercy, and for a peaceful religion to have a whole chapter of Hadiths devoted to Jihad becomes a little hard to explain away at some point. Some interesting examples from the Hadith,"The book of Jihad,compiled by Abu Abdullah Muhammed bin Isamil. Chapter 146 "It is permissable to kill the enemies with the probability of killing the babies and children." verse 3012. Chapter 158, verse 3031 addresses the issue of telling lies in, war as deceit(chapter 157 verse 3027.
While I'm at it, it is comforting to know how sensitive the London police are to the dainty sensibilities of the Moslems, so as to not offend a Muslim when entering the house, or to offend the female Muslim. On the other hand,the police might wnt to check out the Islamic search protocol, such as Hadith chapter 195, whhich adresses the same subject, except from a Muslim point of view: "It is permissable for a man to look in or search the hair of the Dhimmmi women and that of the non- believers and to compel them to take off their clothes if necessary."..."...we requested the lady to hand over the letter... We said to her, "Take out the letter or else we will strip off your clothes..." As for the letter writer himself, he fared even worse upon making and appearance: "Umar said, "Allow me to chop of his neck as he has proven to be a hypocrite."The Prophet said to Umar..."Do whatever you like..."
Another episode in the religion of "peace."
Just remember this.....Not all Muslims are terrorists, but so far....all the terrorists are Muslims!!
Al Queda connections are not, they are acting in the name of Islam. This is not a religion of peace!
Dear Robert
Thankyou for your work, and ongoing work. It is the brave work of people like you that has enabled myself to write letters (that were published) in local papers that debate the PC stance on Islam. The more knowledge that you arm us with, the more we can spread the word. You (and others) have made letter writing and debating the ignorant easy - and far less time consuming.
Thankyou - and keep up the good work, oh and the website.
3rdtime
The problem isn't just what Islamic theology says about warfare, it's that it says far too much about warfare.
I wouldn't know where to look in the Bible for Jesus' opinion on military tactics. I don't think it exists. But Mohammed practically wrote a military treatise in the Koran. Defensive war? Check. Offensive war? Check. Feel like being peaceful for a while? Check. Time to get violent again? Check.
Did the first crusaders (Christians) really boil and eat babies??? He states that is a 'documented' fact, without showing us the documentation or where to find it...he sounds like the muslims who claim that Israli's capture Palestinian children and pluck out their eye's and otherwise torture and murder them.
Anything is possible, but not everything that's possible is probable...that the crusaders were cannibals is possible, but not probable...
duh_swami-
I think it's a mistranslation of "baby-back ribs", known as "ra-Zal ka-BAB SUL-sah" in Arabic.
Ther Crusaders had some taste.
Beagle, all there is a lot in the Bible about warfare,slavery and slaughter but it is in the Old Testament.
In the new Testament is Christ's version of the verse of the Sword
Matthew 10:34
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword
And I think it is way past time for the Church to unsheath yet again, the Sword of Christ and strike back at the Arab Imperialists.