UK: New Muslim think-tank says it will challenge the jihad ideology with the true, peaceful Islam

This venture is getting an extraordinary amount of attention for a new group, suggesting that it has people with money and power behind it. I've been inundated over the last few days with links to enthusiastic press reports about it -- clearly a lot of people in the mainstream media and elsewhere have a great deal invested in its success. Unfortunately, however, this is yet another case of the Moderate Emperor's New Clothes.

"New Muslim think-tank aims to challenge extremist ideology," from Ekklesia (thanks to all who sent this in):

A new Muslim think-tank, which aims to bring together voices who oppose violence and extremism, and who want to explore Islam in a modern European setting, was launched at the British Museum yesterday.

Author Ed Husain, who charted his own journey away from what he calls "a dark place" in his controversial book 'The Islamist' is a prime mover in the venture, along with Essex-born Maajid Nawaz.

Ed Husain is the author of The Islamist, a book about how he entered and then left the jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Last year he debated Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and subsequently wrote a piece in The Guardian, "Stop supporting Bin Laden," about how Hirsi Ali, my dear friend Ibn Warraq and I are playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden himself by noting the deep traditional foundations within Islam of the jihad ideology. I wrote about it here. You can see at that link that Ed Husain in his piece wrote disingenuously about Islamic teaching on apostasy and other matters, and ignored the deep scriptural, theological and legal foundations of Islamic violence and supremacism. Hardly a promising performance for a genuine reformer.

The Quilliam Foundation (named after a 19th century British convert) is being pitched as advancing the counter-argument to extremism.

The founders say Islam in its purest universal form, as what Muslims believe is the last global message of God to humankind, sits perfectly well in modern multicultural societies - providing that Muslims find the right way to express their faith.

If British Muslims rediscover the purity of the faith, they argue, they can cast off the political and cultural baggage that would see Islam as the enemy of the West.

These bland and reassuring statements stop short of actually saying that the supremacist tradition within Islam must be rejected and opposed by Muslims. All this pleasant tosh about Islam fitting in with multicultural societies and not being seen as the enemy of the West could easily come out of the mouth of the most committed, but clever, jihadist. He would not even be lying -- he'd be working from the proposition that Islam allows for something of a multicultural society, provided that non-Muslims stay in their place as dhimmis and do not aspire to rights equal to those of the Muslims. And he'd have in mind the idea that Islam is not the enemy of the West, but the friend of the West, the friend that wants to give the West a gift -- the gift of the law of Allah. I have seen jihadists say exactly these things. Thus it is not reassuring to see them come from a foundation supposedly dedicated to moderate Islam, and named, significantly enough, for an English convert to Islam.

The think-tank aims to develop its arguments out of the Islamic theological tradition, rather than simply use Western secular arguments against versions of political Islam which it regards as distorted and damaging.

Its founding statement says: "Western Muslims should be free from the cultural baggage of the Indian subcontinent, or the political burdens of the Arab world. We were born and raised in a milieu that is different from the Muslim East. As such, our future and progeny belong here.

"Just as Muslims across the globe have adopted from and adapted to local cultures and traditions, while remaining true to the essence of their faith, Western Muslims should pioneer new thinking for our new times. Here, Muslim scholastic giants, such as the noble Abdullah bin Bayyah and Shaikh Ali Goma (Mufti of Egypt), have provided ample guidance."

Not reassuring. Ali Gomaa is the statue-hatin', wife-beatin', Hizballah-supportin', Muhammad's-urine-drinkin' Mufti of Egypt, who not long ago denied reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates. The delirious Dinesh D'Souza has praised him as a "traditional Muslim" with whom American conservatives should cultivate an alliance. I do not think Americans should be so naive, and do not think that the Quilliam Foundation's invocation of this man as a moderate bodes well for its own claims of moderation.

| 48 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

48 Comments

Were we all born yesterday? This is so obviously an attempt to approach the islamisation of the UK from a more media savvy angle.

Wake up and smell the sharia!

It's all about "World Peace" through Islam.

The Quilliam Foundation (named after a 19th century British convert)

The very fact that this 'think-tank' is named after an English convert tells us what their intents are. They are not about challenging the Jihadism of the Koran, they are about Da'awa, the soft jihad; about fooling the gullible anglo-sphere into accepting Islam as non-challanging to traditional western values and thereby easing the fall of Britain to Muslim supremacy.

The think-tank aims to develop its arguments out of the Islamic theological tradition, rather than simply use Western secular arguments against versions of political Islam which it regards as distorted and damaging.

And here you have their goal layed before you, they plan to diguise *traditional* Islamic theology (i.e. the Koran with all its anti-semitism and kaffirphobia, its prejudice against women and gays, and its curtailling of freedom of speach and freedom of belief) in order to limit the damage to the advancement of Islam in the West. In other words, they aim to apply the grease which make the transition to Islam rule smoother, quicker, and less traumatic for the British kaffir.

Let these mufti study islam from the depths of a cave in Tora Bora.

Unless and until they clearly and publicly denounce the idea that a society based on islam and an islamic government are the ultimate goals, it's just a more prevarication.


On the other hand, even if they did make such pronouncement, who could believe them?

"We were born and raised in a milieu that is different from the muslim East. As such, our future and progeny belong here."

Says it all.

If British Muslims rediscover the purity of the faith, they argue, they can cast off the political and cultural baggage that would see Islam as the enemy of the West.
......................................

This is terribly strange phrasing, although I doubt most readers will notice. The few who do will probably just chalk it up to somewhat awkward use of the English language.

Note he is not calling to cast off the baggage that "would *cause Islam to be seen* as the enemy of the West"--that is, Muslims using terrorism and intolerance and other nastiness in the name of the religion.

No, he is referring to "political and cultural baggage that *would see* Islam as the enemy of the West--in other words, the supposed prejudices of the West--"orientalism" and "Islamophobia" and even, oddly, "racism". In other words, this is just the same old bleat that there is no problem with Islam at all, just biased Westerners who don't uncritically embrace all its supposed blessings.

The Foundation aims to...

Training
A vital area of our work, that only former Islamists can undertake effectively, is training civil society in being able to identify, understand, assess, and critique the Islamist ideology with its various strands and offshoots. In this regard, we conduct training workshops for key sectors of society in the UK and around the world.

So the fox really is already in the henhouse.

Public Information We hold regular public events to explain Islamism and its differences with Islam for specialists, journalists, policymakers, parliamentarians and the wider public. We also hold mass debates to challenge extremism of Islamists and others. We tour Britain, Europe, the Americas, and Asia on programmes of countering Islamism, and supporting Islam.

The differences between Islam-ism and Islam would be? Never mind its all reletive but im sure the Quilliam Foundation is well prepared to employ taqiyya and obfuscation techniques to get Londonstan and Eurabia realised. After all the Quilliam Foundation want to

"revive a genuinely Western Islam"
so start adjusting your clocks for Mecca mean time. Im sure though if they can get journalists,policy makers and parliamentarians all parroting the same war cry "Islam is peace" the wider public will just fall into place sort of like in Nazi Germany fell into place.

As the first thing the British public will have heard about this organisation are the reports in newspapers yesterday of Death threats to Jemima Khan I don't think we are likely to be that easily fooled.
Not these days. The Genie is definitely out of the bottle.
As my associate says "Unfortunately Muslim extremism is very combustible. I'm beginning to think that even water might set it alight. Engaging with moderate Muslims - especially moderate Muslims as engaging as Jemima Khan - seems to have done the trick".

Aggressive islam has a huge closet full of costumes for all occasions. This is one example made in genuine British Worsted Wool...there are many others.

was launched at the British Museum yesterday.

where it will be on display for a week and then taken down and put into storage.

was launched at the British Museum yesterday.

where it will be on display for a week and then taken down and put into storage.

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. This is just soft Jihad in sheep’s clothing.

Anything short of separation of mosque and state is no good. It’s the usual Da’wa and Taqiyya dressed in transparency of Sharia world domination. No good. As noted above, the wording is obscure, putting the blame on the West for not accepting Islam rather than making Islam accept the West’s inalienable freedoms.

If they want to fit in with a secularized Western ideal of democratic freedoms, they must separate mosque and politics of state, i.e., Sharia. Can they do that? Wouldn’t hold my breath. Think this ‘think tank’ looks empty. Say what they will, it’s still a sow’s ear.

".....Muslim scholastic giants...."

Who do they think they're kidding?


".....Muslim scholastic giants...."


LMAO, I just about passed my coffee through my nose on that one.

This is the really important point:

"And he'd have in mind the idea that Islam is not the enemy of the West, but the friend of the West, the friend that wants to give the West a gift -- the gift of the law of Allah." I have seen jihadists say exactly these things.

Indeed.

One could say it better: 'Take our nice gift of the law of Allah now, in peace' - and become useful dhimmis, or else ...

As Robert says above:
"I have seen jihadists say exactly these things."

Just so - dhimmitude or death.

So sorry - no deal.

Mind - as long as that lot and other muslims in GB fight amongst each other, they'll have less time, strength and resources to fight us. A bit like the fights between Sunnis ands Shi'ites.
So - get on with it, we'll watch. The loser will be all of Islam.

"challenge the jihad ideology with the true, peaceful Islam"

Disingenuous BS.

But Ed Hussein is onto a winner: this gravy-train will roll for a long time, he knows that the Brown-nosing British government needs this kind of 'moderate' Muslim prop to deflect away from its abject failures created by the multiculti policies that are designed to replace native Brits with a Muhammedan proletariat.

The chickens are coming home to roost!

Ah, almost forgot:

One of the members of this group is the illustrious Jemima Khan, ex-wife of the Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but does she actually believe that anyone, Muslims or non-muslims, will find her 'moderate Islam' crapola credible?


http://sheikyermami.com/2008/04/23/jemima-khan-thinks-she-is-a-moderate-muslim/

If you have read Ed Husain’s “The Islamist,” you will know that it ends with him rejecting “Islamism,” in favour of the “Classical Islam that existed in the time of Mohammed.”

Well, thank God for that!!!

For a minute I thought he was advocating violence!!!!!!!

The idea that only former Islamists can distinguish between Islamism and Islam is another way of saying that, to the modern PC mindset, Islam is off-limits for critical discussion by the general public.

Islam is the only religion/ideology in the world that gets this privilege.

Death of democracy.

Just as Muslims across the globe have adopted from and adapted to local cultures and traditions, while remaining true to the essence of their faith

And that last is precisely the problem. The essence of Islam is the conquest of the lands, wealth, power, booty (including women) of the Infidel. That is what happened in the "Classical Islam that existed in the time of Mohammed.”

But let us proceed. Let us consider for argument, the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e. the "canonical texts" as Hugh F puts it, or the "Classical Islam that existed in the time of Mohammed". They will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam. Islamic strategists take the long view - in several decades or more.

Quilliam Foundation also wants to go back to the roots of Islam. Note the equivalence with Christianity that is being sold here. In Europe there were wars of religion, until it was realised (when the Bible became available to all), that the message of Jesus was one of love. What the Quilliam Foundation is trying to do is to sell the idea, that Islam is like Christianity, and that the violence of Islam now, is quite out of keeping with the message of Mohammed. Of course this is pure Taqqitya - it is trading on the ignorance of people, who believe that all religions must be peaceful and good, and it is just the extremists who are to blame. It is trading on the gullibility of politicians, who would desperately like to believe in the inherent peaceful nature of Islam, thus absolving themselves from the mess they created, and not having to do what is difficult and painful - rejection of Islam in the West, and its slow and steady removal from our shores.

Does anyone remember that story from a couple years ago - British government to spend 150 million in Afghanistan or Pakistan? to teach muslims true peaceful Islam.
What happened to that plan.

Does anyone remember that story from a couple years ago - British government to spend 150 million in Afghanistan or Pakistan? to teach muslims true peaceful Islam.
What happened to that plan.

British to " teach muslims true peaceful islam".
What happened to the plan?
Rob

They couldn't get enough signed up to make a class.

"British to " teach muslims true peaceful islam".
What happened to the plan?
Rob"


well, the one Muslim who did show up was an old goatherder named ABU...who was prompltly assassinated by the locals when it was discovered he was drawing cartoons showing MOhammad picking up a black rock that fell from the sky (these days we have learned such rocks are metorites that have survived the burn through encountered while entering earths atmospshere)...THe caption on his cartoon: "I call thee Islam"..

at any rate the money was paid and the government proceeded on with the task in mind of coming up with a new worthless idea on how to spend money on those whose sole mission in life was to kill them..

Write up is good, but I am afraid you missed something important:

one of the "speakers" that is allegedly gonna "enlighten" the British public against extremism/terrorism was/is none other than a Legislative Director from CAIR:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/142

* Arsalan Iftikhar

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23951_Video-_Kaufman_vs._Iftikhar_(CAIR)&only

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005568.php

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/118.pdf

He either has/has not renounced his previous ideas or is deliberately deceiving the British public. This needs to be brought out, and I strongly advise you to consider writing to the Guardian CiF about this.

Sam

Now there are some words I bet you never thought you'd see juxtaposed: "Muslim" and "think tank."

Now there are some words I bet you never thought you'd see juxtaposed: "Muslim" and "think tank."

The Muhammedan mind and the inability to reason:

To lionise former extremists feeds anti-Muslim prejudice

by Ziauddin Sardar/Fuardian:

'Poverty causes terrorism and the policies of the UK government are to blame, along with the perpetual suffering of the Palestinians," and "far from "obeying" this government, Muslims are duty-bound to challenge it"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/24/islam.religion

We have practically no way of knowing whether or not these allegedly "former" Islamists have actually changed their views. The British intelligence could, of course, bug their phones and take other covert measures to find out what these "former" jihadists are really up to. We already know what was really going on with the other so-called moderate Muslims (see Channel 4, Dispatches, Undercover Mosque series).

From what we can see though, there is no evidence that these guys have done anything other than change tactics, from jihad of the sword to jihad of the tongue and pen. (They are openly promoting Islam and are attacking and smearing honset critics of Islam). We can also see that huge amounts of British taxpayers' money is being spent on this exercise in rhetoric. In other words, the West is losing and Islam is gaining something. These guys are going to be allowed to run around buffing and polishing Islam's image at taxpayer expense, apparently with no checks in place to measure whether they are having an effect in taming the hard-liners and dealing with the problems in the primary Islamic texts. And the media, eager to hear from these allegedly moderate Muslims, will for the most part lap it up. These Islamic propagandists will probably accomplish little other than lulling the non-Muslim public into a false sense of security about Islam while confusing them further.

We've seen this show before, and it is getting tired.

"Here, Muslim scholastic giants, such as the noble Abdullah bin Bayyah and Shaikh Ali Goma (Mufti of Egypt), have provided ample guidance."" --from the article.

Robert has already cited some of the problems with Goma. What about bin Bayyah? I wasn't able to find much on him, but what I did find indicates that he too is basically a taqiyya master who, nevertheless, reveals enough to show us that he's not a modern "moderate" scholar as is commonly claimed.

Exhibit A.
Bin Bayyah was a major force behind the move for an international law criminalizing criticism of Muhammad or Islam. This is clear in his endorsement of the fatwa below:
[start]
"Question:
What do Muslim scholars and leaders say about the Danish cartoon crisis?
Answer:
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate
All praise is due to God, and may He send His blessings and salutations upon our master, Muhammad, as well as upon his kin and companions.
The events in Denmark concerning the Messenger of God represent an aggressive act that has violated the highest sanctities of the Muslim people. Moreover it is devastating to the ideal of convivial dialogue between peoples, as enjoined in the Quranic verse which reads, 'And We created you as nations and tribes that you might know one another'.
In consequence, we affirm the following:
[…]

6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration criminalizing any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure.

7. We also take this opportunity to remind the Muslims about the necessity and importance of reviving their connection with the beloved Prophet by loving him, following his example, and embodying his moral character and noble guidance. This rising-up by the Muslims in support of the Prophet should not constitute a mere reflex that ends when the occasion ends. Rather, this vocation should forever remain alive within the Muslim people.
[...]
Signatories of the Declaration
Abdullah bin Bayyah - Professor in King Abdalaziz University Jeddah (Mauritania)
[…et al.]
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=9528
[end]

Exhibit B.
Bin Bayyah recommends that Muslims living in Non-Muslim lands enage in Meccan Islam, with the clear implication that they are preparing for a time when they will implement Medina Islam (i.e., Islamic law and government).
[excerpt]
"....Muslims need judges; they need courts; they need police-all of these things relate to these ahkam. These types of rules which are known as the ahkam as-sultania are not the concern of those people who are living in a land in which there is not a legitimate state authority of Muslims.

If we want to look at an analogy, we will find it in the Makkan stage of the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. If you look at the Makkan period, the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was not making any claims to government authority. He was calling people to tauheed: the unity of Allah. He was calling people to prayer. He was calling people to the purification of their hearts. He was calling people to leave shirk. All this is known as the jihaad of the tongue: jihaad al-kalima; it is not the jihaad of the sword-or now the gun or the atom bomb or whatever. It was the jihaad of the tongue. Allah subhaana wa ta'aala said, "jaahidhum bihi jihaad al-kabir." "Jaahidhum bihi" means to struggle against them with the Quran. In other words, "speak the Quran to them, and struggle against them with the truth in word;" and this was the jihaad of Makkah. You can say in a modern sense that this is speaking with a strong tongue in the face of wrong, in the face of injustices.

When the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, went to Medina, a different stage began, and there was now a jihaad of a physical type, a martial struggle where they went out. However, Allah subhaana wa ta'aala says to fight them until the war comes to an end. This type of jihaad has an end in time, and yet jihaad in its broader understanding in the sharia' never ends. The struggle for the sake of Allah never ends as long as somebody is in this abode. This is why jihaad is the expenditure of one's efforts for the sake of good. It means to do good things. It means to exert one's effort in the society to help people, to expend one's wealth-to give charity-to change the conditions around you: if they are bad, make them better. This can be done without martial effort in many places, and this is still a type of jihaad. This is why it is wrong for people to narrow the understanding of jihaad to some limited definition which only gives the understanding of military struggle because that is not what jihaad means in Islam."
[end of excerpt]
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/shariah/muslims_in_non_muslim_land.htm

Exhibit C.
Bin Bayyah still refers to non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim lands as dhimmis.

“...This subject concerns the difference between ahlu l-dhimma and ahlu l-'aahad. Ahlu l-dhimma are people who are in a minority status in the Muslim lands. Ahlu l-'aahad are Muslim people in minority status in non-Muslim lands...”
http://www.themodernreligion.com/world/muslims-living.html#nm

Exhibit D.
According to the Muslim author below, Bin Bayyah ruled against women leading prayers.

"IMPORTANT

Salams

I just got back from the Abdulllah bin Biyyah and Hamza Yusuf talk in Bradford. Maybe others can post later with their feedback on the talk, i'm just posting now to clear up an important issue.
on the 8th of february, someone posted with an article from arabic news website asking for it to be translated.

Myself and two other posters translated most of the article, which concerned a fatwa by Sheikh Abdullah about Sister Amina Wadud leading the friday prayer last year, in which the article alledged the Sheikh had permitted the prayer.

Sheikh Hamza confirmed this evening that this is absolutely FALSE, and Sheikh Abdullah said nothing of the sort. The article had (deliberately) twisted his words out of context, presumably to suggest some kind of imaginary conflict amongst the scholars.

Sheikh Abdullah confirmed that what he actually said is that Miss Wadud should not be debated for what she has done but rather should be excused for reasons of tolerance. He confirmed that the prayer was NOT valid, and that women do not lead men in the prayer. This is not because they are inferior, he pointed out, but because the roles of men and women are different.

I must apologise profusely for stupidly translating such an unusual article without making sure it was authentic. It should have been clear to me that an Arab news website is not the best place to obtain authentic statements from our scholars. I hope that no lasting damage has been done. Wassalam."

http://www.deenport.com/iframes/viewtopic.php?topicurl=viewtopic.php?t=7598&sid=84a4ad8e81b289186ec83df3c7b156d0


...In other words, Bin Bayyah is not what most non-Muslims would consider a "moderate".

I attempted to post material quoting Bin Bayyah, one of the supposed moderates mentioned in the article. Again, I get the delay notice, and have no idea as to whether this information will actually appear. I will therefore try this again, this time leaving out the quotes and the links.

Exhibit A.
Bin Bayyah was a major force behind the move for an international law criminalizing criticism of Muhammad or Islam. This is clear in his endorsement of the fatwa below
[start]
"Question:
What do Muslim scholars and leaders say about the Danish cartoon crisis?
Answer:
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate
All praise is due to God, and may He send His blessings and salutations upon our master, Muhammad, as well as upon his kin and companions.
The events in Denmark concerning the Messenger of God represent an aggressive act that has violated the highest sanctities of the Muslim people. Moreover it is devastating to the ideal of convivial dialogue between peoples, as enjoined in the Quranic verse which reads, 'And We created you as nations and tribes that you might know one another'.
In consequence, we affirm the following:
[…]

6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration criminalizing any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure.

7. We also take this opportunity to remind the Muslims about the necessity and importance of reviving their connection with the beloved Prophet by loving him, following his example, and embodying his moral character and noble guidance. This rising-up by the Muslims in support of the Prophet should not constitute a mere reflex that ends when the occasion ends. Rather, this vocation should forever remain alive within the Muslim people.
[...]
Signatories of the Declaration
Abdullah bin Bayyah - Professor in King Abdalaziz University Jeddah (Mauritania)
[…et al.]
[end]
...
Exhibit B.
Bin Bayyah recommends that Muslims living in Non-Muslim lands enage in Meccan Islam, with the clear implication that they are preparing for a time when they will implement Medina Islam (i.e., Islamic law and government).

"....Muslims need judges; they need courts; they need police-all of these things relate to these ahkam. These types of rules which are known as the ahkam as-sultania are not the concern of those people who are living in a land in which there is not a legitimate state authority of Muslims.

If we want to look at an analogy, we will find it in the Makkan stage of the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. If you look at the Makkan period, the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was not making any claims to government authority. He was calling people to tauheed: the unity of Allah. He was calling people to prayer. He was calling people to the purification of their hearts. He was calling people to leave shirk. All this is known as the jihaad of the tongue: jihaad al-kalima; it is not the jihaad of the sword-or now the gun or the atom bomb or whatever. It was the jihaad of the tongue. Allah subhaana wa ta'aala said, "jaahidhum bihi jihaad al-kabir." "Jaahidhum bihi" means to struggle against them with the Quran. In other words, "speak the Quran to them, and struggle against them with the truth in word;" and this was the jihaad of Makkah. You can say in a modern sense that this is speaking with a strong tongue in the face of wrong, in the face of injustices.

When the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, went to Medina, a different stage began, and there was now a jihaad of a physical type, a martial struggle where they went out. However, Allah subhaana wa ta'aala says to fight them until the war comes to an end. This type of jihaad has an end in time, and yet jihaad in its broader understanding in the sharia' never ends. The struggle for the sake of Allah never ends as long as somebody is in this abode. This is why jihaad is the expenditure of one's efforts for the sake of good. It means to do good things. It means to exert one's effort in the society to help people, to expend one's wealth-to give charity-to change the conditions around you: if they are bad, make them better. This can be done without martial effort in many places, and this is still a type of jihaad. This is why it is wrong for people to narrow the understanding of jihaad to some limited definition which only gives the understanding of military struggle because that is not what jihaad means in Islam."
[end of excerpt]

...
Exhibit C.
Bin Bayyah still refers to non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim lands as dhimmis.

“...This subject concerns the difference between ahlu l-dhimma and ahlu l-'aahad. Ahlu l-dhimma are people who are in a minority status in the Muslim lands. Ahlu l-'aahad are Muslim people in minority status in non-Muslim lands...”
...
Exhibit D.
According to the Muslim author below, Bin Bayyah ruled against women leading prayers.

"IMPORTANT

Salams

I just got back from the Abdulllah bin Biyyah and Hamza Yusuf talk in Bradford. Maybe others can post later with their feedback on the talk, i'm just posting now to clear up an important issue.
on the 8th of february, someone posted with an article from arabic news website asking for it to be translated.

Myself and two other posters translated most of the article, which concerned a fatwa by Sheikh Abdullah about Sister Amina Wadud leading the friday prayer last year, in which the article alledged the Sheikh had permitted the prayer.

Sheikh Hamza confirmed this evening that this is absolutely FALSE, and Sheikh Abdullah said nothing of the sort. The article had (deliberately) twisted his words out of context, presumably to suggest some kind of imaginary conflict amongst the scholars.

Sheikh Abdullah confirmed that what he actually said is that Miss Wadud should not be debated for what she has done but rather should be excused for reasons of tolerance. He confirmed that the prayer was NOT valid, and that women do not lead men in the prayer. This is not because they are inferior, he pointed out, but because the roles of men and women are different.

I must apologise profusely for stupidly translating such an unusual article without making sure it was authentic. It should have been clear to me that an Arab news website is not the best place to obtain authentic statements from our scholars. I hope that no lasting damage has been done. Wassalam."
[end]

I would be happy to provide the links, but there seems to be some technical problem with jihadwatch. For verification, it should be possible to obtain the links by googling a sample of the text from each of the above quotes.

Will they have the courage to declare as abject crimes, the islam sponsored genocides ?

How will they reconcile their new brand of islam with their felonic prophet and the koranic injunction to all muslims to follow his example ?

Is this good old Al Takkeya at work? I agree it seems on the level but the jury's still out for me. I'm waiting for them to start pushing for a change in foreign policy in the UK and towards the Palestinians "in order to convince the Islamist extremists that the UK Government is serious about stamping out extremism.

Is this good old Al Takkeya at work? I agree it seems on the level but the jury's still out for me. I'm waiting for them to start pushing for a change in foreign policy in the UK and towards the Palestinians "in order to convince the Islamist extremists that the UK Government is serious about stamping out extremism.

Great idea... whilst some Muslims are think-tanking, their buddies - and BOTH are Islamizing.

When there is enough Islam, the talking will stop... And we'll get what's always been coming.

Is this good old Al Takkeya at work? I agree it seems on the level but the jury's still out for me. I'm waiting for them to start pushing for a change in foreign policy in the UK and towards the Palestinians "in order to convince the Islamist extremists that the UK Government is serious about stamping out extremism.

Ed Hussain may be gaining popularity in Britain as an exponent of the “True, peaceful Islam.”

But when you examine the facts, is he really the great scholar many believe he is?
Well, recently he held a debate with Ayan Hirsi Ali, chaired by Douglas Murray.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2007/11/centre_hosts_debate_between_ay_1.html

When questioned about how he felt about Mohammed’s marriage to nine-year old Aisha he simply replied, “he didn’t,” denying that such a marriage had ever taken place.

Despite the fact that it is in the Hadith – Bukhari.

Ed Husain seems to simply ignore facts when it suits him. He also writes about Mohammed’s “Chivalry.”

The historical record indicates things like the assassination of Asma Bin Marwan, the beheading of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza etc.
This is what Ed Husian means by “Chivalry.”


We need to under stand Islam. The first and foremost will be that we should bear in mind that Islam has not come as rival of other religions. Rather Islam confirms and validates the previous divinely teachings [1] and offers higher degree guidance in accordance with the universal divinely plans of God Almighty which has been destined for the future of the mankind. A higher education is never against the basic or primary educations [2]; rather they are interdependent in bringing the improvement and enlightenment in the society.

It has always been difficult for the humans to shed and shake the adopted myths because humans by nature love and relish to remain restrained and bound by mysteries and illusions. And if these myths happen to be religious myths like in Judaic and Christianity; it is more so difficult in leaving those self imposed mythical confinements because these myths are also influenced and rightly or wrongly, very strongly guarded by the religious zealots and their other supporting groups with vested interests.

The preset mind and preconceived ideas eventually result in creating more distances and keep us bound to the old ruts and restrict in thinking without prejudice. There is no supremacy elements contained in Islam; it is simply a home coming after wandering and flouting in disdain on this planet. Since when a homecoming which makes us comfortable where we rest in peace and it absolves us into the strong arms of our castle of security and affirmation, has to be labelled as supremacy?

Let’s build the bridges; not the barriers and find the common grounds.
---------------------------------
[1] Primary Teachings contained in the books of Torah, the Bible and other Holy Books of former religions.
[2] As imparted by Judaic and Christianity previously.

above--"There is no supremacy elements contained in Islam (sic)" And the patronizing and condescending remarks toward non-Islam and the "mythical confinements" of Judeo-Christianity are an indication of what?

"Islam has not come as rival of other religions"-Of course not, because Islam has come as a replacement of other religions--the "corrupted"
religions of Jews and Christians and the generous and beneficent elimination of "pagans" and "idolaters" altogether, for their own good, of course (a sort of "higher education"). Could the learned poster define "kafir" for us or "dar al-harb" or why such concepts would exist if Islam has no "supremacy elements"? Then go on to explain why Jihad and the institution of "dhimmi" exist if Islam has no "supremacy elements".

You might also explain this from Muhammad: "I have been ordered by God to fight with people (mankind) till they bear testimony there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger and that they establish prayer and pay zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are safe from me." (Bukhari V1 p.13). How was this understood by Muslims historically, in practice?

Here is Azhar scholar Dr.Muhammad al-Buti ('The Jurisprudence of the Biography'): "Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission...it was followed by another phase, that is, calling ALL people to embrace Islam, so that NOTHING LESS would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God than that they embrace Islam. Also, nothing less would be acceptable from the People of the Book except conversion to Islam or being SUBJUGATED to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight anyone who attempts to stand in its way." (p.242). Is this building bridges or walking the plank?

THE SHATTERED DREAMS OF CHRISTIANITY

IN THE FIELD of Religion for the human; Islam is the latest Commandment of God that God Almighty has revealed for the mankind; where Muhammad (pbuh) is the Prophet and Quran is the Holy book containing the Commandments. The phenomena of Issue of commandments of God and their revelation for the people through the prophets is not some thing new. The teaching of Abraham and Book of Jacob was superseded by the Torah brought by Moses. It was later duly reformed, when required so… by Jesus (as). Like wise when God decided to complete His word to bestowed this world with the final religion; He just arranged to reveal Quran and here we are; that we are now confronted with …Islam.

THIS PLANET IS WITNESS to the most tragic episode that Jesus was rejected out rightly by the haughty minded Israelite and their cohort on the pretext that Jesus whom they awaited was some one; supposed to be King of the Kings and vested with some supreme powers to dish them out the supremacy on the lands, the opulence and the wealth; but instead, they got a humble and docile soul; spreading just the message of love and tolerance.

SAME IS THE CASE OF ISLAM; that Christianity had since carved wide ranging myths restricting any more commandments that these be revealed (if at all) in this world, be only with in the periphery of Christianity. But Islam is very much here. The dawn of Islam has basically shattered the dreams of Christianity and shaken the web of its myths.

THE CENTURIES HAVE GONE BY; but Christianity is unable to relieve itself of self created myths. It fears Islam as its rival and a challenger to its myths. Out of sheer desperation in order to monopolize God and keep Him confined to the house of Christendom a unique campaign remains on.

There are various lobbies dedicated to spread a sense of fear in the western world and depict Islam; some thing as enigma which has some vicious spermatic business and designs at hand.

But Islam is not some ‘Private Enterprise’ being run by Muslims that they are all out to subjugate or conquer the entire world with the help of Holy Quran. Accepting Islam is just like coming Home (after lot of wandering and flouting in disdain in the world)

If we understand the mechanism of plans of God set forth for the mankind; this may not be difficult to understand that after the receipt of final Commandments in Quran all the previous Holy Books and all the old teachings and practices stand null and void. In the presence of this latest Commandments; what ever the significance we may like to attach to the old teachings; once superseded they bear no value and hold no authority. They become the things of the past.

God is all knowing; all wise. After knowing Him to be such; His creation, we the human being has only one simple choice left. Come forward and submit to His will.

The latest universal commandment for mankind is Islam; which is all but to submit to His will.

Allah categorically vouches safe for this book of Quran and Allah says in [15:9] ‘Verily, it is We Who have sent down this Exhortation (Quran), and most surely We are its Guardians’.

Rest all is sure just conjuncture and Allah says: [2:78] ‘And some of them are ignorant they know not the book but their own false notions, and they do nothing but conjecture.’


Adabarez

Thanks for the rhetorical boilerplate and thanks for not responding to a single question I asked you, Adabarez. You did validate that Islam is a replacement (supremacist) religion: "what ever the significance we may like to attach to the old teachings; once superseded they bear no value and hold no authority." Exactly. Point and match.

By the way, Christianity does not fear Islamic theology, just Islamic thugs who live out the meaning of the motto: "I have been made victorious with terror" and the Surah Nine Verse 9:29 concerning People of the Book which begins "Fight" and in the Arabic translates "Fight to kill" for those "ignorant" enough not to either convert or accept abject subjugation. An honest debate, an exercise in reason with intellectual and moral integrity?
Fat chance, right Adabarez?

Nick Danger and Friends,

Slay The Idolaters Wherever You Find Them???

The famous verses of Holy Quran; Chapter 9, ‘The Repentance’; pertains to the glory and triumph of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his clear vindication after the Fall of Mecca and re-entry in his own City from where he was earlier driven out as a friendless fugitive and with a price on his head. On this occasion God Almighty command the believers to fight out the miscreants; even to exterminate them, if they don't come to terms, so that long awaited peace, harmony and security returns in the society. The word; ‘Repentance (Taubah)’ in it self clearly denotes even by its name that some one among the adversaries of Islam have done a folly and are being guided to repent and come back on to the right tracks.

This was earlier prophesized and declared in unmistakeable terms that he will come back to it in triumph and glory. The verse makes a solemn declaration that Islam and Holy Prophet have completely vindicated by the Fall of Mecca. The prophecy was full filled and Rule of Islam through out Arabia was established.

The history tells us that with the fall of Mecca and the defeat of Hawazin in the ‘Battle of Hunain’, the rule and authority of Islam had been established through out Hijaz (Arabia). Certain tribes had made treaties with the Muslims and had laid down arms. These treaties were to be fully observed but there were other tribes who had not yet made formal submission. They had not laid down their arms and also had not made any treaty with the Muslims, required to ensure the maintenance of peace and the observance of law and order. They had since commenced hostilities against Muslim and though they had in effect been vanquished; they had not yet acknowledge defeat nor had agreed to live in peace with the Muslims. These tribes were given a four months period of respite during which operation against them would remain suspended. They could also go about freely in the land and satisfy themselves that their further resistance was useless. They could make their submission and make treaties and it is to these tribes that verse refers to; in case they prove otherwise’.


To pick these verse and that too in Isolation will amount to cherry picking with intent to misquote and misguide the readers. By picking just one odd verse and leave the preceding or succeeding verses aside will certainly obscure the main subject and spirit active behind the commandment. For benefit of readers the subject verses are produced here:-

Chapter 9- The Repentance; verses 1-12

[9:1] This is a declaration of complete vindication on the part of Allah and His Messenger to the idolaters to whom you had announce a commitment that Islam would triumph in Arabia.

[9:2] So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers.

[9:3] And this is a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that Allah is clear of idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah. And give tidings of a painful punishment to those who disbelieve,

[9:4] Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely Allah loves those that are righteous.

[9:5] And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captive, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakaat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

[9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters seeks protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.

[9:7] How can there be a treaty for these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, Except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they are true to them. Surely Allah loves those who fulfil their obligations.

[9:8] How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of kinship or covenant in respect of you. They would please you with their mouths, while their heart repudiate what they say and most of them are perfidious.

[9:9] They have bartered the Signs of Allah for a paltry price and have turned men away from His way. Evil indeed is that which they do.

[9:10] They observe not any tie of kinship or covenant in respect of any believer. And it is they who are transgressors.

[9:11] But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakaat, then they are your brethren in Faith. And We explain the Signs for a people who have knowledge.

[9:12] And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief --surely, they have no regard for their oaths, - that they may desist.
-----------
Adabarez

"God Almighty command the believers to fight out the miscreants; even to exterminate them, if they don't come to terms, so that long awaited peace, harmony and security returns in the society."--from above.

So your argument is that Surah Nine is simply historical, limited to a certain place and time, and it's violence justified by the fact the "miscreants" had not acknowledged their defeat? This is not how the great scholars and Qur'anic commentators have understood these mandates, nor how the Companions and successors of Muhammad understood them, those who led the Islamic armies to conquer the world for Allah. There would have been no Jihad, no Muslim conquests had it been so. Islam would have stayed put in Arabia.

Every Jihadist group today stands on 9:5 (Verse of the Sword) as a divine command to fight,
nowhere and in no sense do they consider it something "historical" and consigned to the past. Ibn Kathir (Commentary on Qur'an vol2pt4pg8-9):
"Fighting the non-Muslims was prohibited in the four holy months...at the end 'Kill them wherever you find them!' means in any part of the earth. And 'take them' means take them a prisoner of war if you want or kill them if you want. 'And besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush' means do all this to make it harder for them and to put them in a position to repent and become a Muslim or to be in reach of your hand so that you can cut them and kill them. And Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, based the War of Conversion upon that verse when he killed the people who refused to pay the zakat. And in the hadith narrated by ibn Omar, the Messenger of Allah said "I was commanded to fight ALL MEN until they confess there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger and do the prayer and give the zakat." Clearly, there is no historic "context" to Verse 9:5, it is an open-ended mandate. Polytheists must convert to Islam or be killed. The protection of 9:6 is only for purposes of conversion and allowing them to spread Islam. If 9:5 were only about self-defense why were the "idolaters" given the convert or die proposition?

Tasfir ibn Kathir "this honorable Ayat (9:5) abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet & any idolater, every treaty and every term. These ayat allowed fighting people unless and until they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations...Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay zakat."

The purpose of this verse and the others was to free Muslims from earlier covenants with infidels not to kill them. "When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentence was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight ANYONE who did not become a Muslim..whether (they) fought him or not." ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. "Everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5" Jalaluddin Suyuti "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam, submitting and paying Jizya tax or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated..by the obligation of fighting." al-Shawkani

The intent of 9:5 and the whole of Surah Nine is enshrined in Islamic law. 'Umdat al-Salik, the Shafi'i legal manual endorsed by Al-Azhar not only defines Jihad as war against non-Muslims to establish the religion, it gives priority to Surah Nine as the last word on the subject, quoting 9:29 on the objectives of Jihad "the Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians...the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non Muslim poll tax, in accordance with the word of Allah Most High: "fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden--who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the poll tax out of hand(with submission)and are humbled (with humiliation)." You do see these are understood as guiding Muslims then and now?

ibn Kathir: "This beloved verse 9:29 is the first command to fight the 'People of the Book' after the idolaters were subdued...'with submission' means that they are forced to pay and should be downcast. 'with humiliation' means they are reviled, disgraced and debased...the People of the Book are despicable, lowly, and rebellious."

The (current) legal definition of Jihad is "to wage war against non-Muslims to establish the religion" or as Ibn Khaldun said "in the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (obligation) to convert everybody to Islam either by persuation or by force." Finally, Azhar scholar Muhammad al-Buti "Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission...after that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling ALL people to embrace Islam so that nothing less would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God. ALso, nothing would be acceptable from the People of the Book except conversion to islam or being subjected to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight ANYONE who attempts to stand in its way."

So who is misquoting and misguiding the reader?

I didn't mean to quote Dr. al-Buti twice.
Here is another of his, published by Al Azhar:
"The concept of Holy War in Islam does not take into consideration whether (it is) a defensive or offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of God and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of God's kingdom on Earth regardless of the means."

The Book of the Islamic State by al-Nabahan (1953) says "The foreign policy of Islamic states must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of holy war. This process has been established through the course of the ages from the time the Apostle settled down until the end of the last Islamic state which was ruled by Islamic law. This process has never changed at all. The Apostle Muhammad, from the time he founded the state in the city Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam...the Islamic system is a universal system, thus it was natural it would spread and natural that countries would be conquered. The Apostle of God had designed the plan of conquest before his death, then after him, his successors undertook the responsibility for implementing this plan when they started conquering the countries... people's resistance or rejection does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people in all countries."

Ponder that last sentence. Now tell us precisely how this understanding of Islam is incorrect and misguided, so that your co-religionists will realize their mistake. And so we understand you better, would you state explicitly that you reject religious warfare against non-Muslims, that you reject these Qur'anic justifications for violence against non-Muslims, that you reject the subjugation of non-Muslims under Islamic law as the goal of Islam, and that you embrace permanent and equal co-existence and peace with the non-Muslim world (which means you reject the division of the world, ethically, politically, & judicially
into Muslim and non-Muslim; dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb; the believer: a brother, and the kafir: despised)?

Yes or no will suffice.


As discussed earlier with the dawn of Islam the parties other than the Pagan tribes, which were affected the most, were the people of the books .i.e. Jews and Christian. If they would have been the God fearing and true believers in divinity and His prophets; there would have not hesitated to accept Muhammad (pbuh) as Prophet and Quran as the divine Book. The problem arose was that they found Islam standing there to challenge their not the Belief in God but the concocted myths that they have floated around the divinity as well the blown up exalted stations of Jesus considering him their divine God (naoz billah).

But in the matter of unity of God; we having here a jealous God and our God simply can’t bear that some one comes up (at some pretext ) and claims to be worthy of worship beside Him. Almighty has created a touch stone for this purpose; to be strictly adhere to it and in Surah Al-Ikhlas - chapter112 it says;-

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:1] Say 'He is Allah, the One!
[112:2] Allah the Independent and Besought of all
[112:3] 'He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:3] And there is none like unto Him.

Any body who qualifies the above four criterions can be said as God only and for sure Jesus; a humble soul who never claimed to be a god also; is seen being thrown out of the weighing pan.

Where as Islam takes a serious view of Myths in Christianity which are thought to be incorrect and false belief influenced by the prevalent culture and vested interest of concerned disciples. These myths are taken as the sacred stories believed to be the true by the people having deep attachment of religious and spiritual significance to it. Over the centuries these myths have taken roots in the masses where first hand commandment of God was totally absent.

On the other hand Islam is a word of God and is a first hand speech from God. It does not need any hear says or other fables to support the narrations of its commandments; so myths do not find their way to attain any encroachment in Islam.

The myths created by the Christianity needs to be tackled or fought out and not the Christian or the true Christianity. The deep routed myths may take strenuous efforts to eradicate them and relieve the people of misconceptions through logic and reasoning and not through sword or force.

The potential seen in the Muslim of breaking the myths as per teaching of Quran has tended the oppressing enemy forces of Islam to carve the policies in Muslim countries that Muslims remain target of oppression and subjugation with in their own countries. They are under going enormous restriction to advance or excel in worldly knowledge or technology. They could relieve themselves and break the shackles of oppression only when they are able to obtain the potent defensive arsenals with offensive capabilities and deterrence. God Almighty warns and commands Muslims in Surah Anfal [8:60] ‘And make ready for them who fight you whatever you can of armed force and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you know not, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah, it shall be paid back to you in full and you shall not be wronged.’

Deterrence is the weapon which guarantees your honour; guards your physical as well as ideological borders and keeps your enemies at bay.


In the famous verse [9:29] “Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection”. Although this looks like a Standing Rule to conduct a war against the rival Jews or Christian but this verse has got few Arabic expressions which have their special meanings pertaining to a particular warring time. For instance ‘an Yadin’ means (1) willingly and in acknowledgement of superior power of Muslims (2) In ready money and not in the form of deferred payment (3) Considering it as a favour from Muslims; the particle ‘an’ meaning, on account of, and ‘Yad’ denoting power and favour (Lane). The verse refers to those People of the book who lived in Arabia at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Like the idolaters they too had been actively hostile to Islam and had planned and plotted to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizyah was a tax which these non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. It may be noted that as against Jizyah which was imposed on non-Muslims, a much heavier tax – Zakat was levied on the Muslims and non-believers were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military duty.

The word ‘Saghirun’ expresses their subordinate political status; otherwise they enjoyed all social rights equally with Muslims. The idolaters of Arabia and Jews and Christians who lived in their neighbourhood were the principal adversaries of Islam. After having dealt with the believers relations with the People of the Book, the surah with this verse proceed to deal with especially their religious beliefs and doctrines.


Adabarez

Ooops- a draft went through earlier; Sorry, Please find here the edited one.

Islam Takes a Serious View of Myths in Christianity

As discussed earlier with the dawn of Islam the parties (other than the Pagan tribes) affected the most, were the people of the books .i.e. Jews and Christian. If they would have been the God fearing people and true believers in divinity and His prophets; then they would have not hesitated to accept Muhammad (pbuh) as Prophet and Quran as the divine Book. The problem arose was that they were finding Islam standing there to challenge their concocted Belief of more than one God and other myths that they were spinning around the divinity as well the blown up exalted stations of Jesus; considering him their divine God (naoz billah).

But in the matter of unity of Divine God; we have got a jealous God and our God simply can’t bear that some one may comes up and put forward a claim to be worthy of worship beside Him. Almighty has created a touch stone for this purpose to be strictly adhere to vide Surah Al-Ikhlas – chapter 112, which says;-

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:1] Say 'He is Allah, the One!
[112:2] Allah the Independent and Besought of all
[112:3] 'He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:3] And there is none like unto Him.

Any body who could qualify the above four criterions can be called God only; and it is for sure that a humble soul like Jesus never claimed to be a god. He is seen her, being thrown out of the weighing pan of Surah Al-Ikhlas in this regard.

Where as Islam takes a serious view of Myths in Christianity, which are thought to be incorrect and false belief influenced by the prevalent culture and vested interest of concerned disciples. These myths are taken as the sacred stories believed to be the true by the people having deep attachment of religious and spiritual significance to it. Over the centuries these myths have taken roots in the masses where first hand commandment of God was totally absent.

On the other hand Islam is a word of God and it is a first hand speech from God. It does not need any hear says or other fables to support the narrations of its commandments; so myths do not find their way to attain any encroachment in Islam.

The myths created by the Christianity needs to be tackled or fought out and not the Christians or the Christianity. The deep routed myths may take strenuous efforts to eradicate them and relieve the people of misconceptions through logic and reasoning and not through sword or force.

The potential seen in the Muslim of breaking the myths as per teaching of Quran has tended the oppressing enemy forces of Islam to carve the policies in Muslim countries that Muslims remain target of oppression and subjugation with in their own countries. They are under going enormous restriction to advance or excel in worldly knowledge or technology. They could relieve themselves and break the shackles of oppression only when they are able to obtain the potent defensive arsenals with offensive capabilities and enough deterrence. God Almighty warns and commands Muslims in Surah Anfal [8:60] ‘And make ready for them who fight you whatever you can of armed force and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you know not, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of Allah, it shall be paid back to you in full and you shall not be wronged.’

Deterrence is the weapon which guarantees your honour; guards your physical as well as ideological borders and keeps your enemies at bay.


In the famous verse [9:29] “Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection”. Although this looks like a Standing Rule to conduct a war against the rival Jews or Christian but this verse has got few Arabic expressions which have their special meanings pertaining to a particular warring time. For instance ‘an Yadin’ means (1) willingly and in acknowledgement of superior power of Muslims (2) In ready money and not in the form of deferred payment (3) Considering it as a favour from Muslims; the particle ‘an’ meaning, on account of, and ‘Yad’ denoting power and favour (Lane). The verse refers to those People of the book who lived in Arabia at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Like the idolaters they too had been actively hostile to Islam and had planned and plotted to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizyah was a tax which these non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. It may be noted that as against Jizyah which was imposed on non-Muslims, a much heavier tax – Zakat was levied on the Muslims and non-believers were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military duty. The word ‘Saghirun’ expresses their subordinate political status; otherwise they enjoyed all social rights equally with Muslims. The idolaters of Arabia and Jews and Christians who lived in their neighbourhood were the principal adversaries of Islam. After having dealt with the believers relations with the People of the Book, the surah with this verse proceed to deal with especially their religious beliefs and doctrines.


Adabarez

Clearly, you have no response and there is nothing further I need to add. Apparently, you can only load up da'wa from some website. 9:29 is the foundation for the legal institution of dhimma and the basis for the dhimmi, which has been operative for 1400 years. By this verse Muslims were explicitly directed to make war against and subjugate Jews and Christians, not just in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. In fact here was the command for all the countries who were not Arabia: (Sahih Muslim 4294)"fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah, fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists invite them to 3 courses of action...invite them to accept Islam, if they respond to you accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...if they refuse to accept Islam demand from them the jizya (penalty tax). If they agree to pay it accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help to fight them." Surah Nine was a basis for the historic Jihad and its handmaiden, dhimmitude.

Here is the 12th C. Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:
"Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of Jizya...this leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the Word of Allah through jihad and the option of poll tax is to be exercised only after subjugation (of non Muslims)." Now how is this understood as something limited to Jews and Christians in Arabia at the time of Muhammad?

from above--"The word ‘Saghirun’ expresses their subordinate political status; otherwise they enjoyed all social rights equally with Muslims".
An absolute lie. The following Sheikh merely elaborates the rules for the dhimmi set so long ago. Saudi Sheikh al-Ghamdi (2002): "if infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the
conditions set out by the Prophet...they pay the jizya to the Islamic treasury...do not renovate a
church... they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, they do not imitate Muslims in dress or speech nor ride horses nor own swords, nor arm them-selves...do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer...do not incite anyone against Muslims, do not strike a Muslim..if they violate these conditions they have no protection."

Which leads us to this guy:
"There are only 3 choices in Islam: either willing submission or payment of the jizya thereby physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam, or the sword--for it is not right to let him live (an infidel). The matter is summed up for every person alive; either submit or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die... Divine foundations (are) built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with
tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility
The Prophet was 'sent in the final hours with the sword so that none is worshipped but Allah alone,
partnerless'...Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system,
barring any practice that contradicts the Shari'a
from being publicly voiced among the people."
--Osama bin Laden
"Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West"







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter