Many, many people have sent me this, some as a response to my request here: "If anyone does come across an attempt, or the appearance of an attempt, to refute Nidal Hasan's Koranic exegesis, please send it to me at director[at]jihadwatch.org, and I will happily feature and discuss it here." But I haven't had time to look at it closely until now, and when I did, I was surprised -- and yet in a deeper sense not surprised at all -- to find that there was nothing here, just another example of the much ado about nothing that generally characterizes Western media coverage of any slight shadow of a hint of disagreement with the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism.
"New jihad code threatens al Qaeda," by Nic Robertson and Paul Cruickshank for CNN, November 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- From within Libya's most secure jail a new challenge to al Qaeda is emerging.Leaders of one of the world's most effective jihadist organizations, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), have written a new "code" for jihad. The LIFG says it now views the armed struggle it waged against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's regime for two decades as illegal under Islamic law.
The new code, a 417-page religious document entitled "Corrective Studies" is the result of more than two years of intense and secret talks between the leaders of the LIFG and Libyan security officials.
The code's most direct challenge to al Qaeda is this: "Jihad has ethics and morals because it is for God. That means it is forbidden to kill women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, traders and the like. Betrayal is prohibited and it is vital to keep promises and treat prisoners of war in a good way. Standing by those ethics is what distinguishes Muslims' jihad from the wars of other nations." [...]
But this is not some new discovery or new doctrine. Nor is it something of which Al-Qaeda is unaware. All these principles come from statements of Muhammad in ahadith that Muslims regard as authentic, and they are part of Islamic law regarding jihad. Is Al-Qaeda unaware of these stipulations? No. In fact, this controversy has been raging within the Islamic world for several years (at least). The late Zarqawi argued in a closely argued theological treatise in 2005 that "the goal must be pursued even if the means to accomplish it affect both the intended active fighters and unintended passive ones such as women, children and any other passive category specified by our jurisprudence." He cites several Islamic scholars to justify jihad attacks against unbelievers even when those unbelievers are using Muslims as a shield, if "there is no other way of reaching, separating, and killing the Kuffar."
Zarqawi was responding to arguments identical to the one put forth here. I am not saying Zarqawi was right and the Libyans are wrong -- but it cannot truthfully be maintained that this is some kind of new idea or new rebuke to the jihad doctrine.
While the code states that jihad is permissible if Muslim lands are invaded -- citing the cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine -- the guidelines it sets down for when and how jihad should be fought, and its insistence that civilians should not be targeted are a clear rebuke to the goals and tactics of bin Laden's terrorist network....
The idea that jihad is permissible if Muslim lands are invaded is likewise a bit of classic Islamic theology -- that jihad becomes fard ayn, incumbent upon every believer to aid in any way possible -- if Infidels invade a Muslim land.
When Saif al Islam al Gadhafi, the son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, decided he wanted to open a dialogue with the LIFG he needed to convince them he was genuine so he sought out a former LIFG commander Noman Benotman, who was living in London.The younger Gadhafi convinced Benotman he would free LIFG members from jail if they renounced their long war with the regime. He promised Benotman immunity from prosecution and in January 2007 flew him back to Libya to meet with the LIFG leaders in the high-security Abu Salim jail.
Benotman and the other leaders in the LIFG had fought together in Afghanistan in the early 1990s helping the Afghan Mujahedeen overthrow the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. During those years they'd come to know bin Laden and many other of al Qaeda leaders.
Although they'd been brothers in arms with bin Laden, the LIFG never merged its operations with al Qaeda due to differences in approach. In particular the Libyan group never endorsed bin Laden's global jihad, preferring to concentrate their attention on overthrowing the Gadhafi regime and replacing it with an Islamic state. From the mid-1990s the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's Afghan-trained fighters waged a fierce insurgency against the Libyan regime. [...]
In late 2007 as Benotman, the LIFG leadership and Libya's security officials debated the way forward al Qaeda tried to derail the peace process. Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri issued a statement declaring the LIFG had joined al Qaeda.
Benotman fired back an open letter to Zawahiri questioning his credibility. "I questioned their idea of jihad ... directly you know. This is crazy, it is not Islamic and it's against the Sunni understanding of Islam," Benotman told CNN. Zawahiri chose not to respond. As late as this August Zawahiri's video statements included praise of LIFG leaders, in what may have been a desperate attempt to head off the condemnation he could see coming....
"Benotman fired back an open letter to Zawahiri questioning his credibility. "I questioned their idea of jihad ... directly you know. This is crazy, it is not Islamic and it's against the Sunni understanding of Islam," Benotman told CNN. Zawahiri chose not to respond."
Hmmm? Now who does that remind me of? Some one who makes bold, sweeping statements about islam and jihad. Then when "questioned about their idea of islam or jihad," They choose not to respond. Hmmm... Who could it be?
Any idea Dijjal?
:-D
"it is forbidden to kill women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, traders and the like"
What wonderful ethics you Islamists have. It still says you can kill non-believers. I guess as long as they don't fall into the above categories.
The funny thing is, Christianity is not known as the "religion of peace" however, I remember something as plain as day that read "Do not kill."
It was really that simple. Is there really any other religion in the world besides Islam that condones murder?
Blah, blah, blah.
Closely related to this—and especially germane here—is the ongoing argument among Jihadists as to whether it is permissible to attack Muslim regimes.
The answer seems to be that yes, it is permissible to attack Muslim regimes—if they are "un-Islamic". Well, this is obviously subjective—there are Islamist groups launching terrorist attacks on regimes we would consider all-too-Islamic, such as Saudi Arabia. Through the handy concept of Takfir, virtually anyone or anything can be deemed "un-Islamic" or "insufficiently Islamic", even a Shari'ah state. This is also a big issue in Pakistan, as the Taliban justify their attacks on a Muslim state in the same terms.
That is all that is going on here.
One of the leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group got tired of sitting in one of Libya's squalid prisons, and decided it was politic to declare that fighting against Gadhafi's regime was Haram after all.
It might get him out of prison. It will change the debate on Jihad—and what constitutes permissible targets, not one whit.
It is also worth noting, that while there is some actual debate about the permissibility of Jihadists targeting Muslim states, there is *no such debate* about the legality of attacking Kaffirs. We are fair game, and always have been.
And how does this lover's spat in the ummah affect us? Consider the following verses -
Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."
9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."
47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter, either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
Pretty clear, right? Kinda hard to misunderstand, isn't it? No matter what any deluded dhimmi will tell you, as long as Islam exists, it is a loaded gun pointed at the head of humanity. We must defeat not simply the agents of the jihad, but the basis for all jihads past, present and future.
"*no such debate* about the legality of attacking Kaffirs. We are fair game, and always have been."
Right, there is no such debate because only bass ackwards muslems are innocent.
Riiiiiight.
"it is forbidden to kill women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, traders and the like"
What wonderful ethics you Islamists have. It still says you can kill non-believers. I guess as long as they don't fall into the above categories.
The funny thing is, Christianity is not known as the "religion of peace" however, I remember something as plain as day that read "Do not kill."
It was really that simple. Is there really any other religion in the world besides Islam that condones murder?
Xiustah,
I suggest you re-read your Bible, if in fact you are a Christian, if not, and you are Jewish, re-read the Torah.
You will find multiple more times hte commands for killing and genocide in those than you will ever find in the Quran.
Peace
Abdullah
tanstaafl, what's the solution? It seems that what's needed in the world is to start thinking about Islam like a project manager who must first (a) identify the problem to be solved and (b) state the problem succinctly before (c) developing solution options, (d) writing a plan, and (e) implementing the plan. Furthermore, the project manager ought not to be enslaved by the project.
The problem: Islam is a totalitarian cult that prescribes malice, aggression, extortion, violence, and homicide against nonmuslims. As such it is intrinsically criminal, and the behavior of Muslims indicates that Muslims will act criminally as long as there is Islam.
Some solution options:
(1) Ask the Muslims to grow up and to be nice.
(2) Incarcerate or kill all Muslims who are planning or have engaged in intimidation, aggression, violence, etc. or who are encouraging other Muslims to do so.
(3) Persuade Muslims that Islam is false and immoral such that all Muslims abandon Islam.
(4) Incarcerate or kill all Muslims. In brief, the least bad Muslims serve out the remainder of their lives in confinement, and the worst Muslims, i.e. the imams, the proselytizers, the apologists, etc., are given the death penalty.
The first suggests that one can be both a Muslim and yet grow up, be nice, etc. This contradicts Islam, itself, so we rule it out as inherently flawed. Unfortunately, this is where peaceniks and bleeding hearts have become stuck. The second option is where politicans and many critics of Islam have become stuck. However, does it solve the problem? In fact, we know that not all Muslims are active plotters and terrorists, and it seems that only a minority of Muslims are in this class. Even if all the people of the identified class were incarcerateed or killed tomorrow, Islam would remain to enjoin jihad upon remaining Muslims and converts. A minority of these would accept the call for criminal aggression against nonmuslims, so the root problem would remain unsolved for at least as long as Muslimas and converts can replace those incarcerated and killed, which is probably forever. The project manager is enslaved by the project. So (2) is not a realistic solution.
People who think that faith is valuable for its own sake will be made anxious just thinking the third option. Of course, it's not a reasonable solution given the pigheadedness of Muslims generally, and in the meantime you still have to stop the ones actively engaged in aggression. In fact, I doubt (3) would have been a good solution even in March 624 when there were only a few handfuls of Muslims. The potential viability of (3) is further undermined by the fact that opponents of Islam adhere to contradictory ideologies (e.g. Christianity, Marxism, secularism) to which they will seek to divert Muslims, so teamwork will be limited and infighting common. Still, we know that people do abandon Islam on occasion, and that apostasy can sow division among Muslims, as it would among any type of cultists. So stimulating apostasy should part of the project manager's solution if not itself the whole solution.
The fourth, too, is politically incorrect, to say the least. Yet does it solve the problem? Does it do so fairly both for the criminals, i.e. the Muslims, AND for those who have a legitimate interest in not being menaced, threatened, attacked, etc. by Muslims? If there are no other viable solution options, not even impractical ones, and if a solution must be obtained, then (4) is the project manager's choice and the next step is to craft a plan. Remember, the problem does not go away until Islam goes away.
As if the problem, itself, were not difficult enough, we must figure out how people are to be organized when implementing a solution option. If one must depend upon government, as M. Muthuswamy recommended in "Defeating Political Islam", if government paternalism is the central organizing theme, then the project plan will be no more durable than the whims of politicians. So what becomes of the ideal to incarcerate Muslims if misguided ideas of civility and compassion let Muslims go free after a period of confinement?
As for those antiislamists who find (4) unconscionable, you ought to explain precisely what purpose is served by your complaints about Islam when you fail to prescribe a viable solution.
Sell any rats lately?
: )
Peace
Abdullah
LP,
You have neither any idea of the true value of your statements nor to whom they are valuable.
Peace
Abdullah
Abdullah Mikail, you have the habit of repeating the word "Peace" but you do not mean peace in any honorable sense of the word. In fact, you mean "Malice", as vv. 28-29 of Fatah make clear. You affirm that you plan to harass, to assault, to batter, to falsely imprison, etc., although your criminal intent was manifest beforehand.
Your problem is that you are a narcissistic, run-of-the-mill punk, like that common in any lower middle class neighborhood in the USA. You, the punk, bait others into conflict, elicit a response that you pretend not to want, and then you run to an adult who you think can be manipulated by your tattling and posing as a victim.
Eventually, however, a few adults figure out the punk's M.O. at which point the punk, in this case you, is either disciplined harshly or driven from the neighborhood.
Now, since you find it irksome to grow up and to behave, why not at least do the favor of being predictable? Go on, Mikey, give it a go.
LP,
Made for a good fantasy when you wrote it, didn't it?
Peace is for people who desire peace, and sincerity is always in the intention of offering it.
But, with many here, they clearly express what they want despite the offer of
Peace
Abdullah
Xiu, please. Christianity and Judaism both worship a deity who has requested that his believers deliver nothing less than genocide. 1 Samuel 15:3 makes that abundantly clear that "slay the Amalekites, every man, woman, child and beast of burden". Nothing in the Qur'an or hadith comes close to that.
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/15-3.htm
Is this a request for all time that the believers are allowed to commit genocide on all people at all times? Of course not. The same goes for most ayats and hadith quoted so often by jihadwatch readers. Most have a real context. Go back to your holy books, see how they have in the past been used to justify slaughter and get back to us when you have a legitimate revelation on the matter.
AM & GT : But it's in the Bible!"
Ok, now show us how often around the world we see YHWH or JC being invoked as an attack happened this week/month/year?
It just doesn't. The god of the islamic cult, allah? All the time.
There is no way you can spin it.
Actually it did just happen. Israel just arrested a man, I believe his name is Yakov Tydal, for terrorism. He's a devout Jew who emigrated to Israel and has targeted Palestinians and Messianic Jews for years. How about Baruch Goldstein who mowed down numerous worshipers at a masjid?
Let's not forget the King David Hotel. How about Lehi and Irgun? Do you think they espoused "non violent resistance" against their British masters? No, they were terrorists. (Still are, btw)
It has certainly been used to justify violence in the past and it shall also in the future. The problem is far more complex than the absurd conspiracy theorist fantasies being pushed here at JW.
Ladies and gentlemen...it occurs to me to wonder whether any Muslim is *ever* able to respond to criticism *without* immediately resorting to 'tu quoque'?
Dumble? You're the ones with the tu quoque argument. You're stating that the other Abrahamic religions are somehow different in this capacity when the scripture tells a very different story. If I can produce for you numerous verses from the Torah which allow for genocide as in the case of 1 Samuel 15:3 or Moses questioning why the Midianite children weren't raped in Deuteronomy it is to show that YOUR argument of Christian and Jewish exceptionalism is absolutely nuts.
Ladies and gentlemen
observe the Muslim resort to 'turnspeak', and the fact that it *cannot* refrain from persisting in tu quoque.
'GerbilTea' cannot produce one verse from the New Testament that can be construed as a command from Jesus, to his followers, to commit genocide. Not one.
And although 'GerbilTea' can rummage around in the most archaic books of the TaNaKh that have to do with the conquest of the tiny territory of Canaan, and the defence (within strictly defined borders) of that territory, it will not find anything comparable to the myriad verses in the Quran and passages from the Sira and Hadit that clearly enjoin a violent program of unending warfare and imperial conquest with the goal of subjecting the whole planet to sharia under an Arab/Muslim totalitarian despotism.
As for the specious attempt to claim kinship with the Biblical faiths, Judaism and Christianity (and there is abundant evidence to show that Islam in fact *hates* Jews and Christians with a deep and abiding hatred), I have to say:
Nonsense.
Franz Rosenzweig, Jewish philosopher, classified Islam as a species of paganism: meaning by paganism, any form of NON-biblical faith. He did this because he saw that Islam's theology, cosmology and anthropology are radically alien to that which is found in the Bible.
But it is not just that the Muslim thought-world is *different* from the biblical thought-world (that could be said of other world faiths that are not so ferociously aggressive). Islam, invented by people who had encountered Jews and Christians, is consciously and aggressively ANTI-Biblical. The thing that is 'allah' sets itself implacably *against* YHWH, all the way down the line.
Both Jacques Ellul in his brilliant essay, 'Islam et Judeo-Christianisme' and Mark Durie in his excellent little book 'Revelation: Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit and God in Christianity and Islam', agree with Rosenzweig's diagnosis: the capricious 'allah' before whom Muslims flatten themselves in terrified obedience, and the covenant-keeping YHWH whom Jews and Christians confidently address as their loving Father, are two entirely different gods. YHWH is defined by steadfast love; 'allah', as Wafa Sultan trenchantly points out, is "a god who hates".
I have frequently had occasion to quote the conclusions of Tina Magaard, a linguist who compared the texts of Islam with the sacred texts not just of Jews and Christians, but of nine other world religions.
Here they are again, for the benefit of newbies here:
Jyllandsposten, Denmark, 10 September 2005.
Islam er den mest krigeriske religion
'Islam is the most Warlike religion
"...Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting *to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions* {my emphasis - dda}, concludes Tina Magaard.
'She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions.
“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.
'There are also straightforward calls for terror.
"This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard.
'Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem.
"It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence.
"Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is," says Tina Magaard." END QUOTE
There are two taxonomies one can use, in discussing world religions. One way is to see the Biblical faiths (Judaism, and Christianity, together both testifying to the self-revelation of the infinite-personal God who loves, YHWH); and then, on the other hand, the non-biblical faiths, Islam being one among them, which have other ways of imagining the divine and the human. Islam, however, stands out from among the rest of these, because in all its core teachings it is actively and aggressively ANTI-biblical rather than being, like Hinduism or Shinto, simply 'non-biblical'.
The other distinction is this, which Tina Magaard has demonstrated - among ALL major world religions, Islam stands out as far and away the most warlike, the most aggressive and violent. It is also the only one that explicitly rejects the universality of the Golden Rule. This is clear from Surah 48:29 - 'those who follow him (Muhammad) are ruthless to the unbelievers but compassionate to one another'. Its ethic is not universal but dual.
The debate appears to be about "If muslim lands are invaded or
occupied by infidels".
According to written history of islam, the only muslim land is
and was arabia.
Therefore, islam and allah the demon that advocates that the
barbarianism is holy needs to be sent back to arabia for the
sake of peace on earth.
I have said this before, but it is always important when quoting the Koran, Hadith etc. to also point out that the violent passages in Islam are meant to be examples for today. It is not enough to simply quote these passages, as the Islamists will come back with Old Testament quotations every time. Point out the diffences in modern practice.