Misunderstander of Islam actually understands Islam well enough

In this article, David Pugliese does his best to portray Ghulam Rasol as an illiterate, manipulated naif, operating (no doubt) according to a twisted, hijacked version of Islam -- a classic Misunderstander of the Religion of Peace™. In reality, however, what Ghulam Rasol did was entirely in accord with Islamic law. His going to Afghanistan to fight the Infidels was in line with the Islamic doctrine that jihad becomes obligatory upon all Muslims whenever a Muslim land is attacked. (Provocations by Muslims from that Muslim land don't factor into this equation -- if the non-Muslim enemy strikes back, that constitutes an invasion of Muslim land.) All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when a non-Muslim force enters a Muslim land, jihad becomes the individual obligation of every Muslim (fard 'ayn) rather than a collective obligation of the entire umma, from which one is released if others are taking it up (fard kifaya). Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik ("The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,") says this:

Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.

The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i schools of Sunni jurisprudence further declare that jihad, once it is fard 'ayn, is no different from prayer and fasting -- in other words, to engage in warfare with non-Muslims in that case is a religious devotion that cannot lawfully be evaded. Hashiyah Ibn `Abidin, an authoritative text of the Hanafi school, says that jihad is "fard 'ayn if the enemy has attacked part of the Islamic homeland. It thus becomes an obligation like salah [prayer] and fasting which cannot be abandoned."

"Would-be suicide bomber explains himself," by David Pugliese for Canwest News Service, March 20:

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Several months ago, Ghulam Rasol packed his bag and quietly slipped out of his village in northwest Pakistan.

He did not tell his parents, his brother or sister what he was doing or where he was going. They still don't know what happened to him.

Rasol decided to leave after being told by mullahs, who had come to his village outside Peshawar, that Afghanistan had been occupied by foreign troops. It was his duty as a good Muslim to kill those infidels, he was told.

The 20-year-old had never been out of Pakistan. He knows little about Afghanistan. Yet he decided it was his responsibility to his religion that he should wage jihad by becoming a suicide bomber.

Rasol acknowledges he has never met a foreigner. He can't tell the difference between a Canadian, U.S. or British soldier. Nor does it matter to him.

"I cannot distinguish between foreigners and we don't care from which country they are from," he explained through an interpreter. "Whoever is not Muslim are infidels for us." [...]

He decided to devote his life to jihad because the mullahs had told him it was his responsibility to do so. After that Rasol was taken to a nearby madrassa, or religious school, where he received his "education."

"They told us that in Afghanistan jihad is allowed, it is legal and they said: 'Go to Afghanistan and start jihad,' " he said. "They told us that we are Muslim and that in Afghanistan there are infidels, so it's our responsibility to go to Afghanistan and do jihad." [...]

He informed the mullahs at the madrassa he didn't want to kill fellow Muslims but he was willing to fight international troops. "I was ready to blow up myself among Westerns," he said. [...]

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake" -- Qur'an 4:92

| 5 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

5 Comments

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake" -- Qur'an 4:92

Exactly why the Biden joke about how Scott Brown got in, by way of Ted Kennedy's death, who himself got off so lightly from what was obviously drunken manslaughter (while attempting adultery) ...

GOT NO LAUGHS

Let us observe how long it takes NPR to do a Boo Hoo story on how this child missed his life's calling.

""They told us that in Afghanistan jihad is allowed, it is legal and they said: 'Go to Afghanistan and start jihad,' " he said. "They told us that we are Muslim and that in Afghanistan there are infidels, so it's our responsibility to go to Afghanistan and do jihad." [...]

There are Muslims in UK and there are infidels.....
There are Muslims in Germany and there are infidels...
There are Muslims in the Netherlands and there are infidels..
There are Muslims in Spain and there are infidels...
There are Muslims in Italy and there are infidels..
There are Muslims in NIger and there are infidels...
There are Muslims in Thailand and there are infidels
and......etc....
It would appear the future for Islamic Jihad is going to be very busy...


Robert, or anybody at JW Towers reading this: are the Hanafi and Maliki texts referred to here available online? It would be useful having access to them for direct comparison with, and complement to, The Reliance Of The Traveller.

I think that Hanafi and Malki texts are from the 10th century. Thier concepts of Jihad have evolved by an Islamic figure named Yousef Al-qardawi. His view in this refard goes as follow :

What does Youssef al-Qaradawi say about waging war against non-Muslims at least once a year as part of fard kifaya, a task some classical jurists believed was incumbent upon the ruler?

"Al-Qaradawi does not believe that the classical jurists reached a consensus on this matter.
Instead, he believes that their opinions were dictated by the circumstances of their time, namely ‘the relationship between the Islamic state and its neighbors that were constantly threatening it, especially Byzantium.’ Muslims then had to ‘engage in skirmishes along their borders every once and a while, to ensure the security of their borders and assert their presence.’

This, he believes is akin to ‘what scholars today call “preemptive war”, which they consider to be justifiable and lawful.’ (issue 7) Preemptive war is more controversial in international law than al-Qaradawi implies. Some Israeli and US military strategists though might agree with al-Qaradawi that preemptive war is lawful".

Leave a Comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

Site Meter