"We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad." -- from a statement by the “reformist” Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
What could be clearer? Depending on who is in the audience, Al-Qaradawi tells us, he will vary his pitch. When he's at the sober gathering of the Al-Quds Institute, with too many non-Muslims possibly present, it will be the presumed sweet reason of a merely "civil jihad." When he can let down his hair without any Infidels overhearing, then of course, he will tell his Muslim audience, "I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations."
Arafat whispered one thing to the credulous Clinton, and said quite another to what he assumed were all-Muslim audiences, beginning with that one he addressed in September 1994 in Johannesburg, telling them not to worry about the Oslo Accords he had just signed, because they didn't commit him to anything; he was just following in the steps of the great Master. And then he proceeded to refer, as one might expect, to Muhammad's deviousness with the Meccans when he signed the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. That has been the model for all subsequent treaties between Muslims with Infidels -- always temporary, always to be broken. Whatever promises of friendly relations and "peace" or even "permanent peace" may be solemnly undertaken, it means nothing -- Muslims are required to break such agreements the minute they feel strong enough to do so. They know, Al-Qaradawi knows, Arafat knew, Mubarak and the Saudi rulers, all daggers and dishdashas and sneers of cold command, know this. Every single Muslim ruler or ordinary Muslim understands this, and understands that Muslims have a right to sign things and then never live up to them, or to break them with impunity whenever they feel like it. "War is deception," said Muhammad.
The only strange thing is: if this is such an obvious part of Islamic treaty-making, why don't the Israelis, even with their celebrated incompetence, begin to mention the little matter of how Muslims regard treaties. Hmmm? (See Majid Khadduri, The Law of War and Peace in Islam -- say, do you think Dennis Ross, or Richard Haas, or anyone at all in the whole American State Department has ever looked at that book, or even read it, or bothered to inquire as to what, in Islam, the rule is on treaties with Infidels? No? You don't? Neither do I.) Might the mention of such matters by the Israelis spoil Rose Garden ceremonies? Or queer somebody's pitch for a Nobel? What, exactly?
Meanwhile, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is just doing what all Muslim leaders do. But unlike them, he, apparently unaware that everything is overheard these days, tells the truth: that is, he tells the truth about the fact that he essentially lies. He calls here for "civil jihad" and makes the gullible think that's all he's calling for, but over here, among fellow Muslims only, he calls as well for the other kind, the kind with bomb belts and homicide bombers on busses, in cafes, in schools and at Passover celebrations. That's Al-Qaradawi: a nice blend of Mahmoud Abbas (the "civil jihad") and Haniya (the other kind): the Slow Jihad and the Fast Jihad. Or rather, both the tactics of the Slow Jihad and the tactics of the Fast Jihad at the very same time.
And we are supposed to pretend we didn't hear this. Or if we heard it, it doesn't mean what of course any sensible person knows perfectly well what it means. It means what Muslims, speaking to other Muslims, know perfectly well it means.
For god's sake, la commedia e finita. Or at least it ought to be. We can only stand so much willful ignorance and stupidity exhibited by those pushing for that madness, the "two-state solution" (which must be a "solution," some will say, because otherwise why would they call it that?).
How long, O Lord, how long?
"Whatever promises of friendly relations and "peace" or even "permanent peace" may be solemnly undertaken, it means nothing -"
...quick!,, someone tell the Pelosi entourage going to Syria what to expect.....
"Arafat whispered one thing to the credulous Clinton, and said quite another to what he assumed were all-Muslim audiences"
...and didn't he get a "peace prize"....ugh...
I found it!
For a long time I've been searching for this gem from the mufti Ibrahim Desai 'ask the imam' site: Save it and have it handy when needed. And you will be needing it, no doubt:
Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
by Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
I have a question about offensive Jihad. Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam?
I have been reading Tafsir e Usmani for the last month or so. In it I have read that offensive Jihad (first attack) should be done by Muslims for 2 reasons. 1) For the sake of Allah (in the Way of God) 2) For the sake of subjugated people under oppression like in Kashmir, Palestine etc. Now the second reason I completely understand. But the explanation given of the first reason is "For the sake of Allah includes the propagation of Islam, the survival of Islam, the extermination of those hindrances which impede the progress and expansion of Islam." (explanation of verse 190, Surah baqara) I really don't understand this explanation. What does propagation of Islam mean here? Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam? For example, there are many countries in the world which are not enemies of Islam in any way (at least I think so). Please explain to me against which Non-Muslims, the Muslims have to do Jihad and against which, Jihad is not allowed. JazakAllah Khair.
Answer 12128 2004-07-13
You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.
Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=12128
Great post SY'M.
So the only way anyone in the world is not a target of war by jihadifascists is when you surrender, eh? Well, isn't that conveeeeenient? So when is somebody gonna grab a democrat and shake them til they get it through there dhimmi, thick skulls, that they are acting in support of terrorists?
It is obvious to me that getting their hands on some of cairs advertised $50 million dollars is more important to San Fran Nan Bellicosi and Dingy Harry Greed than the safety of America. My last question to the more legally informed, is, how do we stop these politicians from taking the side of the enemy while we are at war?
'Arafat whispered one thing to the credulous Clinton'
I used to believe that Clinton was Like Jimmy carter naive or defficient in knowledge of islam to disbelieve these little gems of double talk.
These men were quite aware amd chose to accept such false intentions rather that face them.
The reasons would fill several books
Furtheremore they were not the only ones but where joined by the leaders of Europe and the UN, whose purpose it was to lionize Arafat, the sworn murdered of Jews, at the same time demonizing Israel.
we are now far more aware in hindsight of the true reasons than we were back then, aghast at the immorality of western and american politicians as we were..
We can only stand so much willful ignorance and stupidity...
They're just getting started, hunkering down for the long haul. A good solid operable Fictive Reality --- and the Islam Fictive Reality is certainly that --- relies on a constant steady supply of willfully ignorant stupes present in abundant numbers all over the place.
Too bad, cuz the Moslems never actually make peace, they just pause the Jihad for as many as 10 years by way of military truce (the decade time limit is commanded by Islamic scripture).
"they just pause the Jihad for as many as 10 years by way of military truce..."
-- from a posting above
A hudna can be extended if conditions warrant, though it is ordinarily is not supposed to go beyond the time of the agreement between Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D.
But while a hudna may be in force as far as military means go, this may not mean much because all the other instruments of Jihad will be exploited by the Muslim side.
Qaradawi is more dangerous than Bin Laden, Zawahiri or Meshaal combined.
The way I see it is that the one of the weapons against Swedes in neighouring Sweden is criminality. I do not know whether this fallacy has a name - bandwagon perhaps - but it works something like this:
The mullah:
"We demand that men and women are to be separated in swimming halls. We demand separate times for men and women"
The swede:
"No, that won't do."
(The debate ends for now. However, the rape cases in swimming halls get more and more common - committed by muslims.)
After a few years, the mullah:
"It appears that swedish tradition does not appear to be working. While there are so many rape cases in swimming halls, it is obvious that men and women are to be separated."