The New Duranty Times explores "jihadi etiquette," with the expected evasions and obfuscations.
"The Guidebook for Taking a Life," by Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet in the New York Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:
...Some of these rules have deep roots in the Middle East, where, for example, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because their compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians.
He does that here. It's good of the Times to notice, since Qaradawi still enjoys a widespread and undeserved reputation as a "moderate." Just recently I had a long email exchange with a willfully credulous individual who held up Qaradawi and CAIR, among others, as examples of moderate anti-jihadist reformers. It's a carefully cultivated image, both only those who can't face the truth fall for it.
The war in Iraq is reshaping the etiquette, too. Suicide bombers from radical Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups have long been called martyrs, a locution that avoids the Koran’s ban on killing oneself in favor of the honor it accords death in battle against infidels....
Classic Times disingenuousness. The Qur'an does indeed condemn suicide (4:29), or more precisely, it condemns killing oneself "in rancour and injustice" (4:30). But it doesn't just accord "honor" to "death in battle against infidels"; it actually guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111). That is much stronger than just honoring those who are killed in battle, and is the foundational Qur'anic justification for suicide bombing -- but you won't hear that from the Times.
Islamic militants who embrace violence may account for a minuscule fraction of Muslims in the world, but they lay claim to the breadth of Islamic teachings in their efforts to justify their actions. “No jihadi will do any action until he is certain this action is morally acceptable,” says Dr. Mohammad al-Massari, a Saudi dissident who runs a leading jihad Internet forum, Tajdeed.net, in London, where he now lives.
Yet the Times, as you'll see below, purports to sweep away the jihadist "claims" with a few easy Qur'anic proof-texts, as you'll see below. If only it were so easy -- if it were, there would be no jihadists today, because when they searched for that certainty that their actions were morally acceptable, they would come up empty. Unfortunately, that is not what's happening. And the Times, by pretending that the jihadists have little to support their views within Islam, undercut sincere Muslim reformers: you can't reform what you don't admit needs reforming.
Here are six of the more striking jihadi tenets, as militant Islamists describe them:Rule No. 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt.
The Koran, as translated by the University of Southern California Muslim Student Association’s Compendium of Muslim Texts, generally prohibits the slaying of innocents, as in Verse 33 in Chapter 17 (Isra’, The Night Journey, Children of Israel): “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause.”
But the Koran also orders Muslims to resist oppression, as verses 190 and 191 of Chapter 2 (The Cow) instruct: “Fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. ...”
In the typical car bombing, some Islamists say, God will identify those who deserve to die — for example, anyone helping the enemy — and send them to hell. The other victims will go to paradise. “The innocent who is hurt, he won’t suffer,” Dr. Massari says. “He becomes a martyr himself.”
There is one gray area. If you are a Muslim who has sinned, getting killed by a suicide bomber will clean some of your slate for Judgment Day, but precisely where God draws the line between those who go to heaven or hell is not spelled out.
Zarqawi wrote an extensive justification of the killing of Muslims in attacks targeting infidels a few years back. The problem here is that some consider no non-Muslim to be innocent. Unless and until peaceful Muslims address and reject that view, simply invoking the Qur'an against taking life "except for just cause" will accomplish nothing.
Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress.True, Islamic texts say it is unlawful to kill children, women, the old and the infirm. In the Sahih Bukhari, a respected collection of sermons and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, verse 4:52:257 refers to Ghazawat, a battle in which Muhammad took part. “Narrated Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.”
But militant Islamists including extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda’s ideology teach recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s, and enjoy the same access to virgins and other benefits as martyrs receive.
Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.
Rule No. 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.
In principle, nonfighters cannot be targeted in a militant operation, Islamist scholars say. But the list of exceptions is long and growing....
Here again, the "exceptions" are deeply rooted in the Sharia. Traditionally, Islamic law allows for the killing of women and children who are perceived as aiding the war effort against the Muslims ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2).
Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad.Muslims are instructed by the Koran to be true to their religion. “Therefore stand firm (in the straight Path) as thou art commanded, thou and those who with thee turn (unto Allah), and transgress not (from the Path), for He seeth well all that you do,” says verse 112 of Chapter 11 (Hud). Lying is allowed only when it is deemed a necessity, for example when being tortured, or when an innocuous deception serves a good purpose, scholars say....
"Scholars say." The Times doesn't bother to tell its readers about the Qur'anic basis for this idea, as underscored by mainstream commentaries on the Qur'an. In fact, the Qur'an allows Muslims to "utter unbelief" when "under compulsion" (16:106). And another verse also allows for deception of unbelievers: "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security" -- Qur'an 3:28.
How have Muslims understood this? "Allah said next, 'unless you indeed fear a danger from them,' [or as above, 'unless it be that ye but guard yourselves against them'] meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya, or religious deception] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'" -- Ibn Kathir's commentary on Qur'an 3:28
Rule No. 6. You may need to ask your parents for their consent.Militant Islamists interpret the Koran and the separate teachings of Muhammad that are known as the Sunna as laying out five criteria to be met by people wanting to be jihadis. They must be Muslim, at least 15 and mature, of sound mind, debt free and have parental permission.
The parental rule is currently waived inside Iraq, where Islamists say it is every Muslim’s duty to fight the Americans, Dr. Massari says. It is optional for residents of nearby countries, like Jordan....
The "Islamists say" this on the basis of the stipulation in Islamic law that if a Muslim land is attacked, jihad becomes fard ayn, or obligatory on every believer. Whether or not the American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan actually constitutes such an attack is not the point; the point is that this idea is not an invention of the jihadists, but is deeply rooted in Islamic law -- which is one reason why so many Muslims find it compelling.
"Jihadi etiquette"?
"The Guidebook for Taking a Life"?
Is one of the sidebar articles a how-to on bomb-making?
I like Ed Koch's comment about this "news"paper:
http://jewishworldreview.com/0607/koch061107.php3
"The Times simply will not accept the fact that we are at war and millions of Islamic fundamentalists believe it is their religious duty to kill every Hindu, Christian, Jew and other Muslims with whom they disagree on aspects of their shared religion. Wake up, New York Times. We are at war."
It seems the islamic tradition of making theology up as you go along to justify whatever outrage or excess you're currently engaged in is alive and well.
Actually, I was amazed to see this article in the "NYT" yesterday as it connects Islam and violence and killing. Now, who would have thought the "NYT" would recognize that connection?
I e-mailed the article's author w/these comments:
1. Why didn't he mention the Arabic word that means "Lying about Islam to the Infidel" - "al-taqiyya?" Does he even know that word? And, that they don't practice this sparingly as he reports in his article - they use it all the time, with the "religion of peace" being the pinnacle. "Religion of Peace" is a LIE; "Religion of War" is the TRUTH.
2. As he quotes Koranic verses, does he know the difference between the abrogated Meccan verses and the Medinan verses? Does he even know what the "Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation" regarding the Koran is? If not, he needs to find out forthwith, as Muslims will feed the naive-about-Koran-Westerner with all sorts of Meccan "taqiyya." (I'm surprised this "NYT" writer didn't print "There is no compulsion in religion!)
3. About Muslim "martyrs" and Muslim (male) "paradise": Can't he ("NYT" writer) figure out that Muhammed made up this "paradise with Virgins" crap so that his minions would go into battle for him more easily? I mean, please, that's so painfully obvious. Imagine the shock when a "martyr" for Allah dies and wakes up in hell rather than in a virgin whorehouse! I'd love to see the expression on that Hajiis face!
4. Finally, refrain from calling them "martyrs." They are murderers, pure and simple. Do not give them any distinction as having killed and died for a "Just Cause."
So Very Sincerely, Darcy
"Islamic militants who embrace violence may account for a minuscule fraction of Muslims in the world, but they lay claim to the breadth of Islamic teachings in their efforts to justify their actions." This is from the original article. The operative word is MINISCULE. That needs to have a number put on it and then the whole article would reflect the much more dire condition that actually exists.
Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there.
Militants living in a country that respects the rights of Muslims have something like a peace contract with the country, says Omar Bakri, a radical sheik who moved from London to Lebanon two years ago under pressure from British authorities.
Well then, that settles it. All we do is ban all Muslim travel to the US and we're home free. No Muslim who was born here can carry out jihad.
Did anyone tell them that?
Then again, they DO leave themselves an out. Someone will say the US doesn't "respect the rights of Muslims" and that will give everyone a pass. Not even living in a democracy obviates jihad, according to one of Bakri's students:
“We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target,” says Khalid Kelly, an Irish-born Islamic convert who says he studied with Mr. Bakri in London.
“We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target,” says Khalid Kelly, an Irish-born Islamic convert who says he studied with Mr. Bakri in London.
One question: doesn't Britain have a secret ballot? How would anyone know who voted for Tony Blair and who didn't?
Re Rule #4, many Muslims believe that the "covenant of security" was broken when Britain signed on to the war on terror. In fact I believe one prominent British imam announced the end of the covenant of security as far back as the end of 2001.
a Pipes article on the subject:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2742
An interesting quote from the Pipes article:
"It means that Muslims can no longer be considered to have sanctity and security here, therefore they should consider leaving this country and going back to their homelands. Otherwise they are under siege and obviously we do not want to see that we are living under siege."
If obstacles are placed in the way of freely practicing Islam, my understanding is that Muslims are obligated by islam to return to dar al-Islam. They can only remain in dar al-harb if they can practice islam as they would in dar al-Islam. Correct me if I'm wrong about that but that idea is something that should be exploited when considering ways of getting them to leave voluntarily. They have a persecution complex anyway, no matter how accomodating we are. It's a central part of their narrative from Islam's early days. So what difference does it make if we actually persecute them (i.e. by making it difficult for them to practice islam)? Putting aside our own delicate sensibilities, if you think about it it's actually all the same to them since they're evidently unable to distinguish between fantasies of persecution and the real thing.
just doing some thinking...
I bet this article was closer to front page news, and NOT on page 37, like the JFK plot was they pulled.
The NYslimes only criticizes the terrorists when their actions make the "Slimes" look like the colluders they are.
Oh, My! Can't have that!
LOL
"Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there."
? If those intrepid NYT pro-Islam propagandists are correct the Quran and Muhammad's example are illegal in Islam:
33:26. “And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.
33:27. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.”
Re permissibility of suicide in Islam:
Yes, it forbids suicide, like it forbids killing. The problem is in the exceptions and the situations where killing, possibly involving suicide is permitted. Suicide in jihad, for the intention of advancing the cause of Islam, is never ruled out in the Quran or in any hadith that I have come across in the apologists' extensive presentations of ahadith forbidding suicide.
I have a more extensive link, but it is not working at the moment. I will try to list some other important quotes.
As Robert noted, 4:29-30 forbids suicide but adds the qualifiers "in aggressiveness (or rancor) injustice," which simply returns us to square one as to whether or not suicide is permitted in jihad. Is suicide permitted if it is for "defensive" purposes and is "just"? Verse 9:111 seems to tip the scales in favor of suicidal attacks, provided they are done in Allah's Cause (i.e., to make Islam dominant, victorious, supreme; to maintain it and defend it).
4:29 also uses the term "anfusakum" which could mean "yourselves" or "your people." Thus, the verse is ambiguous as to whether it says "don't kill (q-t-l) yourselves" or "don't kill (q-t-l) your [own] people."
If we take the verse to mean "don't kill yourselves" (i.e., don't commit suicide), then there is a problem with this interpretation when applied to other verses which also use "anfusakum." Consider this verse, from a passage advocating jihad fighting in the cause of Allah:
4:66 (Pickthall) "And if We had decreed for them: Lay down your lives* or go forth from your dwellings, but few of them would have done it; though if they did what they are exhorted to do it would be better for them, and more strengthening;"
oqtuloo *anfusakum
Several translations and tafsirs have "kill yourselves" and "slay yourselves". Verse 2:54 also has the same phrase, though again several translators, perhaps worried about the implications of the rather ambiguous, double-edged phrase, have added (slay) "the guilty ones" etc. in parentheses, though such insertions are not in the Arabic text.
In fact, the Quran has other verses which show that seeking death for Allah's sake is laudable, praiseworthy. Here Allah chastises the Jews for not longing for death in his Cause:
62:6. "Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O you Jews! If you pretend that you are friends of Allah, to the exclusion of (all) other mankind, then long for death if you are truthful. 62:7. But they will never long for it (death), because of what (deeds) their hands have sent before them! And Allah knows well the Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers, etc.)."
True believers are expected to love the hereafter more than life:
14:3. “Those who love the life of the world more than the Hereafter, and debar (men) from the way of Allah and would have it crooked: such are far astray.”
This passage clearly states that the jihadists were longing for death in battle (of Uhud):
3:140-143. (Arberry). “If a wound touches you, a like wound already has touched the heathen [unbelievers]; such days We deal out in turn among men, and that God may know who are the believers, and that He may take witnesses* from among you; and God loves not the evildoers; and that God may prove the believers, and blot out the unbelievers. Or did you suppose you should enter Paradise without God know[ing] who of you have struggled** and who are patient? You were longing for death before you met it; now you have seen it, while you were beholding.” [brackets added]
*shuhadaa. **jahadoo
A favourite quote of Mohamed Atta:
6:162. “Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the Worlds.”
The Hadiths are also clear that seeking death in Allah's cause is good:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4655:
"It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Of the men he lives the best life who holds the reins of his horse (ever ready to march) in the way of Allah, flies on its back whenever he hears a fearful shriek, or a call for help, flies to it seeking death at places where it can be expected. (Next to him) is a man who lives with his sheep at a hill-top or in a valley, says his prayers regularly, gives Zakat and worships his Lord until death comes to him. There is no better person among men except these two."
The intention of the killer is a most important consideration. For example, Islam like most systems recognizes the difference between unintentional killing and deliberate killing, and gives a much lesser penalty for the former (4:92-93). This hadith also recognizes that unintentionally killing oneself in jihad is permitted:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2533:
“Narrated AbuSalam: AbuSalam reported on the authority of a man from the companion of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: We attacked a tribe of Juhaynah. A man from the Muslims pursued a man of them, and struck him but missed him. He struck himself with the sword. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Your brother, O group of Muslims. The people hastened towards him, but found him dead. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wrapped him with his clothes and his blood, and offered (funeral) prayer for him and buried him. They said: Apostle of Allah, is he a martyr? He said: Yes, and I am witness to him.”
What about deliberately killing oneself in jihad? These ahadith address the question indirectly:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 51:
Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: Allah's Apostle said, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Apostle, then his emigration was for Allah and His Apostle. And whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 352: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees him who strives in His Cause and whose motivation for going out is nothing but Jihad in His Cause and belief in His Word, that He will admit him into Paradise (if martyred) or bring him back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward and booty."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."
Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4635:
"It has been narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik (through a different chain of transmitters) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Nobody who enters Paradise will (ever like to) return to this world even if he were offered everything on the surface of the earth (as an inducement) except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
Of course, there were no suicide belts in the 7th century, no technical way to directly kill oneself while killing a larger number of enemies. Nevertheless, there are additional examples from Hadith and Sira that address the issue indirectly:
Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4681:
“The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain.”
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2567:
“Narrated Abbad ibn Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr: My foster-father said to me - he was one of Banu Murrah ibn Awf, and he was present in that battle, the battle of Mu'tah: By Allah, as if I am seeing Ja'far who jumped from his reddish horse and hamstrung it; he then fought with the people until he was killed.”
Ishaq, p. 534. “When the fighting began Zayd b. Haritha fought holding the apostle’s standard, until he died from loss of blood among the spears of the enemy. Then Ja‘far took it and fought with it until when the battle hemmed him in he jumped off his [roan-colored horse] and hamstrung her and fought till he was killed. Ja‘far was the first man in Islam to hamstring his horse.” [brackets added]
Ishaq, p. 535. “…the apostle said: ‘Zayd took the standard and fought with it until he was killed as a martyr; then Ja‘far took the standard and fought with it until he was killed as a martyr... I saw in a vision that they were carried up to me in Paradise upon beds of gold.” [This is also reported in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 55].
Also see this excerpt from an account of the Battle of Badr (Shia website):
"Awf was standing near to the Prophet, disappointed at having lost the honour of the challenge he had been the first to accept, and he now turned to him and said:
"O Messenger of God, what is it that maketh the Lord smile with joy at His slave?"
At once came the answer came:
"When he plungeth without mail into the midst of the foe!"
And Awf quickly began to striped off the coat of mail he was wearing, while the Prophet took up a handful of pebbles and shouted at Quraysh.
"Defaced be those faces!"
As, he hurled the pebbles at them, conscious that he was hurling disaster, and the wrath of God at the unbelivers.
"May their faces be deformed in ugliness(through the evil eye)!"
Then he gave the order to advance, and the battle cry he had devised for them:
"Ya Mansur Amit!"
"O thou whom God hath made victorious. Slay!"
Resounded loudly from every throat as the men surged forward in a quick walking formation behind Ali and his uncle Hamzah at his right leading the Muslim troops forward toward Quraysh.
And in the ranks behind them. There was Awf who was without his mail and Umayr. They were among the first to meet the enemy and both fought until they were slain."
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/history/prophet/02.html
There are also general, sweeping statements that anyone who dies in Allah's cause will be rewarded:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: "'Umar sent the Muslims to [invade] the great countries to fight the pagans... "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you [pagans] till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master..."
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2493:
Narrated AbuMalik al-Ash'ari: AbuMalik heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: He who goes forth in Allah's path and dies or is killed is a martyr, or has his neck broken through being thrown by his horse or by his camel, or is stung by a poisonous creature, or dies on his bed by any kind of death Allah wishes is a martyr and will go to Paradise.
NYT intrepid journalists wrote:
"Suicide bombers from radical Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups have long been called martyrs, a locution that avoids the Koran’s ban on killing oneself in favor of the honor it accords death in battle against infidels..."
Once again, the Koran does not ban all suicide. I t doesn't ban suicide in jihad--which is the relevant context in this discussion. It also does not ban the suicide of non-Muslims and Muslims who are not so enthusiastic about the success of Muhammad's mission to the world (a.k.a. Islam):
22:15. "Whoso is wont to think (through envy) that Allah will not give him (Muhammad) victory in the world and the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. Then let him see whether his strategy dispelleth that whereat he rageth!"
"Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress."
"True, Islamic texts say it is unlawful to kill children, women, the old and the infirm. In the Sahih Bukhari, a respected collection of sermons and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, verse 4:52:257 refers to Ghazawat, a battle in which Muhammad took part. “Narrated Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.”"
Actually the Quran says Muslims should not do anything to stop the polytheists who kill their own children, because it is Allah's will:
6:137 "Thus have their (so-called) partners (of Allah) made the killing of their children to seem fair unto many of the idolaters, that they may ruin them and make their faith obscure for them. Had Allah willed (it otherwise), they had not done so. So leave them alone with their devices."
NYT intrepid journalists appear to be quoting from the apologist cherry-picked ahadith. Why don't they discuss these?:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2678:
"Narrated Sa'id ibn Yarbu' al-Makhzumi: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam."
[A Muslim took it upon himself to slay a woman who had, he alleged, verbally abused Muhammad. Muhammad said:] “Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, 4321 (also 4322, 4323).
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. {also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256}
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664:
Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub: The Prophet said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.
Subsequently Islamic jurists had to make decisions between the apparently contradictory ahadith, which forbade the killing of women and children (and old men) under some conditions and permitted it under others.
See this jihadist's Islamic justification for the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11.
http://archive.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/islam/2002/12/a14122002.html
(citing the late Sheikh Hamoud Al-Uqlaa Ash-Shuaibi of the Arabian Peninsula)
"As for those who say that the people inside the Twin towers were ‘innocent’, Sheikh Hammod had this stark warning:
"Whoever says that there are 'innocent victims' without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is accusing the Prophet (SAWS) and the Companions and those after them that they killed ‘innocent victims’, according to them! That is because the Prophet (SAWS) used the Catapult in his war against Ta'if, and it is the nature of the Catapult that it does not differentiate between its victims." "
This is consistent with classical Islamic jurisprudence:
Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), Sufi theologian and Shafi'i jurist
“...one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…”
Averroes (d. 1198), philosopher and Maliki jurist:
“Most scholars agree that fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet used mangonels against the population of al-Ta'if.”
The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328):
“As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words and acts. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, .”
...the last part of the last quote in the above post is "but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.”
That is also stated in the Hidayah. As Suhas Majumdar writes in JIHÃD: THE ISLAMIC DOCTRINE
OF PERMANENT WAR:
(5) "Is it permissible to kill women and children in jihãd? Better not, says the Hidãyah, not because they are to be pitied but because they constitute booty. But if the mujãhid does kill them, he is not liable to punishment or fine, “because that which protects (that is Islam) does not exist in them”. Clearly, the Shariat is no believer in understatement or the soft option."
http://voi.org/books/jihad/ch9.htm
Rules for killing, omitted by those busy intrepid NYT journalists:
Rule numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10: Muslims may kill blasphemers, apostates, adulterers, and homosexuals.
Rule number 11: Muslims may kill a Muslim woman and a Muslim man who get married.
Rule number 12: Muslims may kill dhimmis who refuse to pay jizya.
[These killings, too, happen to conform to Islamic jurisprudence, and the Koran in light of the Hadith].
Also in regards to rule 5:
"Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad."
Of course. Muhammad said "war is deceit." Ali said "war is guile". Al-Ghazali said deceit is permissible if the goal is permissible. Since when is defence or promotion of Islam not permissible? Muhammad gave explicit permission to some Muslims to use deceit--specifically deceit pertaining to their religion and loyalty to Muhammad--in their assassination of the "blasphemer" Kab bin al-Ashraf.
Correction:
"Rule number 11: Muslims may kill a Muslim woman and a Muslim man who get married."
should say:
Rule number 11: Muslims may kill a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man who get married.
Khaybar - from your lips to the NYT's ears is all I can say!
But while one of the hadiths you cited burst a little bubble in my notion that if Muslims can't practice Islam in dar al-harb, then they are obligated to return home where they can, at the same time this hadith clarifies what it was I inchoately had in mind, which is that (good) Muslims can theoretically only migrate to dar al-harb for the express purpose of jihad and otherwise have no business dwelling at length in dar al-harb:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 51:
Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: Allah's Apostle said, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Apostle, then his emigration was for Allah and His Apostle. And whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for."
What that hadith seems to suggest is that it is unislamic to emigrate to dar al-harb for economic reasons only (or for any other reason for that matter), but it is permissible if Muslims are migrating for the sake of waging jihad.
As a start, that would require the huge bulk of Muslims living in dar al-Harb (who have come to dar al-harb for purely economic reasons) to return to dar al-Islam on purely Islamic grounds! The only ones with a legitimate Islamic right to stay here would theoretically be those dedicated to jihad. If that means violent jihad, then of course according to OUR laws, we would have a right to deport those jihadis back to dar al–Islam.
Ergo, appealing to a combination of Islamic law (from the Muslim POV) and western law (from our POV) – a lot of Muslims should have to return to dar al-Islam.
That leaves those who are left here with the pure intention, from an Islamic POV, to wage jihad by da’wa only, which would be a legitimate Islamic reason to stay and also not against any of our laws (currently).
BUT – if it were impossible to practice even da’wa here (i.e. impossible to wage jihad of any form) – then theoretically, there would be no Islamic reason for Muslims to stay in the west at all. And further, since none of these lands have ever been Islamic in the past (with the exception of Spain and maybe southern Italy), Muslims have no grounds to stay in the west in order to reclaim what they consider their rightful territory either.
The point being to consider whether we can appeal to Islamic law as it actually exists to get many Muslims to leave the west voluntarily on purely Islamic grounds – as good Muslims. And can change some of our own laws to give them a further incentive to leave peacefully but still entirely on Islamic grounds, thereby allowing them to save face.
Caroline,
"...Muslims have no grounds to stay in the west in order to reclaim what they consider their rightful territory either."
I suppose we could use a multiplicity of arguments and policies, directed at different subgroups of Muslims who might respond the way we'd like. However, I don't think this one would appeal to most Muslims who have already gone through a decision-making process to come to the west. Many of them also live in Muslim communities in the west that are separate from non-Muslims, in accordance with both the Quran (8:72-73) and the west's multiculturalist (cultural segregationist) policies.
Unfortunately, the Quran says Allah causes Muslims to inherit the land of the disbelievers, and Muhammad says "the earth belongs Allah and His Apostle" and has been made as a place for Islamic prayers. Also, the Quran says that Islam is a message to all humankind. Muslims are expected to call the non-Muslims to Islam (thus saving them from hell-fire), to establish the religion, and so on. In this context of their mission to all humankind, Muslims are expected to permit what's right (Islam) and forbid what's wrong (anything deemed contrary to Islam). (7:157-158).
I think Islamic law, being based on the Quran and Hadith, is too ambiguous and elastic for non-Muslims to try to use it for such a project as you suggest, i.e., to 'encourage' hard-line Muslims to leave the west. The ultimate goal of Islam is to make it dominant over the other religions, eventually to make all religion for Allah. The demographic and cultural jihads in the west have been too successful, too promising, for Muslims to abandon them at this late stage.
There is a statement in the Quran (4:97-98) about Muslims having to migrate, if they can, away from a place where they cannot practice their religion to a place where they can. However, such conditions would have to involve a forceful crackdown and ban on Islam--conditions resembling those of Mecca, pre-emigration. In fact the west is very accommodating. I see no signs that this trend is going to change. I think what will happen is that the west may succeed temporarily in pressuring Muslims to drop the harsh blasphemy and apostasy penalties, but those penalties will be reintroduced once Muslims obtain political pluralities or majorities.
Blocking Muslims from practicing their religion, including the practice of da'wa, is considered grounds for declaring jihad, according to classical jurisprudence. Also the policies derived from verses such as 9:29 and 9:123 require that Muslims who have the military means to do so must fight those non-Muslims and hypocrites who are near them--first the near, then the far areas--until they either become Muslim or accept dhimmi status. The exceptions are those with whom Muslims have a peace truce, but such truces can be overruled at the first feasible opportunity, following Muhammad's example conduct (e.g., "Treaty" of Hudaybiyyah). If you think about this from the Muslim imperialist perspective, it is clear that it would be unacceptable to allow non-Muslims to continue practicing and spreading their "corruption," thereby destroying all those souls, while Muslims have the military or other means to thwart and contain those "evil" practices, and potentially save some of those souls. Thus, 47:35 states: "Do not call for peace when you have the upper hand." Muslims can use whatever means they can to gain ground and souls for Islam. Thus, those Muslims who remain in such a country would be permitted to be there for the purposes of jihad of whatever kind. Even the uptight Qutb came to the west in order to gather "intelligence" about the culture of the disbelievers.
Khaybar - thanks for understanding what I was getting at. There may indeed be a great many loopholes that would give many Muslims an excuse to stay and wage jihad if we try to block their expansion but this one verse you cited gets back to my original point:
4:97: (Hilali-Khan tranlation): Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination!
Yes - that must have been the verse I had in mind which caused me to suggest on several threads in recent days my understanding that Islam itself requires Muslims to return to dar al-Islam rather than stay amongst the unbelievers if they are unable to fully practice their faith!
You write: "However, such conditions would have to involve a forceful crackdown and ban on Islam--conditions resembling those of Mecca, pre-emigration. In fact the west is very accommodating. I see no signs that this trend is going to change."
I know. But that is exactly my point! That if we made conditions inhospitable enough in the west for the practice of Islam, Islam itself requires Muslims to return to dar al-Islam in order to practice their faith!
Frankly, this is something which has rarely been discussed at all, even at this site. It needs to be discussed. Because the fact is that it provides Muslims with a religious rationale - on their own terms - to leave dar al-harb.
These people don't understand the concept of hospitality and other western and Christian concepts like reciprocity as we do. They operate like automatons in the world within a very strict understanding of their own laws. As long as they are able to operate within those "Allah-given" laws, they are OK with it. That's the kind of shift in understanding we need in finding creative ways to deal with this. We need to think "outside the box", which practically speaking may entail thinking "inside THEIR box".
As I stated in another thread, I've come to the realization that Muslims are incapable of even grasping the concept of "persecution" as we do. Even when we are bending over backwards to accomodate them, they still see "persecution" because its a central part of their narrative from Muhammad's Mecca days. But if they can't tell the difference between real persecution and their paranoid fantasies of persecution, then really - what difference does it make if we actually persecute them and make it impossible for them to practice their religion, thus forcing them back to dar al-Islam on terms that they can actually understand within the box of their narrow understanding of the world?
See what I'm getting at here? I'm not kidding. I'm dong as Spengler suggested when he said that we need more "empathy", by which I infer that we need to literally see the world from their POV. This IS seeing the world from their POV!
Caroline,
Yep, I understand what you're getting at. We all definitely need to put our intellects to work on solutions, and encourage all those we know to do the same. Educating those around us, calmly, rationally, with evidence, is job #1.