Qaradawi's jihad

Recently I posted two pieces -- an explanation of jihad and a critique of the separation of religion and state -- written by Muslims, and invited moderate Muslims who rejected them on Islamic theological grounds to explain why, so as to help distinguish themselves from the "extremists" and demonstrate the reality of the moderate Islam that everyone longs to see and believes in so fervently.

So let's make it a series. Every so often I will post explanations of various aspects of Islam, especially jihad, written by Muslims who use the Qur'an and Sunnah to argue for warfare against unbelievers, the subjugation of women, etc., and yet again invite those Muslims who say they don't believe in all that to explain why the posted material is wrong. And we'll kick it off with a most interesting piece: a lengthy explanation from the Muslim Brotherhood's English website, IkhwanWeb, of the jihad theology of the internationally renowned and influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has endorsed suicide attacks, prayed for the genocide of the Jews, affirmed Islam's death penalty for apostates, and been hailed by John Esposito as a "reformist."

This paper explains, as its title has it, "what is new about Qaradawi's jihad." In the course of so doing, it sets out in illuminating detail what the old, i.e., the established and mainstream, theology of Islamic jihad consists of. Surprise of surprises, it involves warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, contrary to the self-righteous charges of "ignorance," "racism," and "Islamophobia" that Muslims in the West regularly direct at those non-Muslims who have the temerity to point out this fact. Qaradawi's jihad is a bit less lethal for unbelievers, but its difference from the traditional view is actually more tactical than principled. After all, Qaradawi has predicted that Islam will soon conquer Europe, but that this conquest will come not "by the sword but by preaching and ideology."

"What is New about Al-Qaradawi's Jihad?," from IkhwanWeb, September 25, 2009 (thanks to David):

In the name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent

The importance of this conference is due to its focus on the most critical concept in contemporary Islamic thought- that of Jihad, which occupies an important position in the edifice of Islam. Jihad is "the summit of Islam and its pinnacle" according to the hadith, and is the subject of widely divergent views and stances from within and outside Islam, views which have serious consequences for international relations, in view of Islam's growing role internationally.

Those views, moreover, have an effect on relations between Muslims themselves, with their governments, and with non-Muslims, in view of the awakening witnessed across the Muslim world, both at the level of faith and the level of practice. This has led to a greater connection between Islam as a religion (creed, rituals, morals) and an ideology of great influence on the thought and behaviour of Muslims, socially and politically, or what is known as "political Islam", in which jihad occupies a central position in one way or another.

This paper owes its importance to the position of the figure whose views on this crucial concept it attempts to present - that is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who occupies an important position in contemporary Islam, as testified by his role at various levels: at the intellectual level, his writings have exceeded 150 works, covering all aspects of Islamic thought. In addition to his membership of the major intellectual and juristic councils, he was elected President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, as well as being the chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and a number of charity organisations, and a member of various Islamic Studies academic committees, including the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. As for "political Islam", he grew up inside one of its groups, the "Muslim Brotherhood", occupying leading positions within it. He is also a rising star in the world of modern media, through his patronage of the most important Muslim website Islam-online, and through his famous weekly programme on Aljazeera channel "Sharia and Life" which is followed weekly by over 60 million viewers.

Al-Qaradawi has developed a principal theory in contemporary Islam, from which all his views and stances emanate, and to which he tirelessly calls, widening its appeal and marginalising its opponents - that is the principle of Islamic Wasatiyya or moderation. This was inspired by the verse in the second chapter of the Quran, "And thus we made you into a middle (wasat) nation". Thus, he presents Islam as the middle position between opposing and conflicting rigid positions; as the middle ground that brings all together, - a middle position between materialism and spiritualism, between individualism and collectivism, between idealism and realism, etc.

Starting from this wasati viewpoint, he presents all his ijtihads in all aspects of Islamic thought, including his ijtihad on the question of jihad, as revealed in his latest book "The Fiqh of Jihad: a comparative study of its rulings and philosophy in light of the Quran and Sunnah". This study was described by its author as one which "took several years of continuous work, and occupied his thought for decades". The fruits of this work are presented in a momentous book of two volumes, in which he puts forward, from the wasati perspective, his views on this critical issue, elaborating his theory on jihad, which he hopes will contribute towards forming consensus on this grave matter. The book springs from the conviction that "it is dangerous and wrong to misunderstand jihad, to shed inviolate blood in its name, to violate property and lives and to taint Muslims and Islam with violence and terrorism, while Islam is completely innocent of such an accusation. However, our problem in such grave matters is that the truth gets lost between the two extremes of exaggeration and laxity."

Our exposition of this momentous work will focus on clarifying the general view of jihad in Islam according to Sheikh Qaradawi based on the Quran and the Sunnah and their interaction with the tafsir [commentary on the Qur'an] and fiqh [Islamic jurisprudential] heritage as seen in the historical contexts in which it emerged, and through the current state of the Muslim ummah [worldwide community] as it is engaged in major conflicts with the forces of despotism or with external forces, under the current power balances, a modern culture that glorifies the value of freedom, and an international law that recognises state sovereignty and limits legitimate war to self-defence.

Within these contexts, Al-Qaradawi's view of jihad was formed. What we wish to explore is not its details, but the general picture - what is novel in it, particularly in relation to major questions, such as jihad's relation to freedom, and to relations between Muslims and others, whether it is inside or outside Muslim societies. So, what are the foundations of this methodology? What is jihad? What are its forms? What are its goals? Defensive or offensive? Between Dar al-Islam [House of Islam] and Dar al-Kufr [House of Unbelief]? What are the rulings regarding captives in Islam? Is there jihad within the ummah? Where is jihad in the ummah's current causes?

1. Issues of methodology:

In the introduction, the author defined the foundations for his study thus:

a. Relying on the Quran as the absolutely authentic text which serves as the criterion for other sources including the Prophetic Sunnah. It is to be understood using the logic of its original language, Arabic, without forcing meaning onto the text, and on the basis that all its verses were revealed to be applied, "thus we questioned at length the claim of those who say that there is a verse in the Quran, which they called Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword), which has allegedly abrogated one hundred and forty verses or more, although they differed over which verse that is". The author almost entirely invalidates the principle of abrogation in the Quran, depriving the extremists of a sharp weapon with which they have disabled hundreds of verses promoting kindness, forgiveness, dealing with non-Muslims with wisdom and beautiful preaching and distinguishing between a hostile unjust minority amongst non-Muslims with which defensive jihad can be used, and a peaceful majority towards which justice and kindness are due.

b. Relying on authentic Sunnah which does not contradict stronger evidence, such as the Quran. Thus the author judges as weak sayings such as "I was sent with the sword" and others, using the tools of the science of Hadith. He also interprets an authentic hadith which commands fighting against people until they say "there is no God but Allah", by taking the generic word "people" as being used to mean a specific group, that is the hostile Arab polytheists.

c. Benefiting from the rich heritage of fiqh, without bias towards a particular school, and without restricting oneself to the well-known schools, basing himself on the methods of comparative law, analysis, critique and selecting the most suitable opinion. He distinguishes between Fiqh and Shariah: the latter being of divine origin, and the former the product of intellectual effort to deduce the rulings of Shariah. True fiqh is not what is copied from books, but rather the jurist's own ijtihad (intellectual exertion) to produce something suitable for his specific time and place, particularly as in our time, major changes have taken place.

d. Using the method of comparison between Islam and other religions and legal systems.

e. Relating fiqh to the current reality: The Muslim faqih (jurist) when speaking about jihad must realise the fixed principles in this matter, such as the law of tadaafu` (mutual checking), the obligation to prepare all possible sources of power to ward off the enemies, and to fight against those who initiate fighting against the Muslims, the prohibition of transgression, etc. There are, however, other matters that have emerged (considered mutaghayyirat, or changing factors), such as condemnation of war, seeking peace, and the emergence of international law, human rights conventions, the United Nations, and the sovereignty of states. In this respect, the author affirms that "we can live, under Islam, in a world that promotes peace and security rather than fear, tolerance rather than fundamentalism, love rather than hatred. We can live with the United Nations, international law, human rights conventions and environmentalist groups. In truth, our main problem with our rigid brothers who have closed all doors and insisted on a single viewpoint is that they live in the past and not the present, in books rather than reality". [...]

g. While studying "Fiqh al-Jihad", one can easily perceive its author's care not to present himself as the sole proponent of the above views amongst jurists. Instead he is very keen to refer to supporting views amongst old and contemporary scholars, even if such views were neglected or ignored, removing the dust that had collected and shedding light on them, presenting them in a more attractive appearance, and thus giving them new life. He is also careful to support his views with relevant values and expertise from modern culture, benefiting from his profound knowledge of the sources of Islamic culture and his familiarity with modern culture. Thus he constructs a new, coherent, well-rooted yet contemporary view of Islamic jihad, one which shares a wide common space with contemporary culture in relation to war and peace. What is new in this view is not the details, for its parts are scattered and buried deep inside books, but rather the whole picture, making this work a meeting point and a point of consensus, wherein all - or most - parties can find something familiar that facilitates their acceptance of what is unfamiliar. This ability to build consensus is a traditional characteristic of the great scholars. Thus the author does not exaggerate when describing the dire need among jurists, lawyers, Islamists, historians, Orientalists, diplomats, politicians, military men, and the educated masses for such a study.

2. The essence of jihad and its forms:

No Islamic concept has been the target of a continuous flow of attacks, and has brought a constant flow of attacks to Islam and Muslims, as much as that of jihad. It has fallen into the two extremes of exaggeration and laxity. The latter is promoted by a group that wants to abolish jihad from the life of the ummah, spreading the spirit of submission and surrender, under the guise of various calls such as tolerance and peace, described by the author as "agents of colonialism whose hostility to jihad is such that it has gone as far as creating groups which fabricated an Islam without jihad, and devoted themselves to promoting it, such as Bahais and Qadianis [Ahmadiyya]... At the other extreme, there is another group that makes of the concept of jihad a raging war it wages against the whole world, taking the natural state of things in relation to non-Muslims to be that of war, and regarding all people as enemies of Muslims, as long as they are not Muslim". This latter group may agree with those Orientalists who define jihad, as in the encyclopaedia of Islam as "spreading Islam by the sword, an individual duty upon all Muslims, such that it is almost a sixth pillar of Islam" (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Arabic Translation, p. 2778).

The author tackles this extremism on both sides, through the linguistic analysis of the word jihad, which essentially means exerting oneself, making an effort, and through its occurrence in the Quran and Sunnah and its use by Muslim jurists. He concludes that there is a clear distinction between jihad and qital (fighting), as the command to engage in jihad was revealed in Mecca where there was no fighting, but rather jihad of da'wah (preaching) through the Quran, "And strive against them with the utmost endeavour with it (the Quran)" (p. 50-52). The word is also used in the Quran and Sunnah with various meanings, including exerting oneself in resisting the enemy, resisting the devil, resisting one's desires, etc. Thus the word jihad is much wider than just fighting, for jihad, as the author quotes from Ibn Taymiyya, "can be with the heart, by calling to Islam, by countering invalid arguments, by advising or facilitating what is beneficial to Muslims, or by one's body, that is fighting".

The author further seeks support from a fourteenth century scholar, the eminent Ibn al-Qayyim, student of Ibn Taymiyya, in order to clarify the vast scope of jihad, which makes every Muslim a mujahid - but not a muqatil (fighter) by necessity. Ibn al-Qayyim concluded from his study of the process of Islamic da'wah that there are 13 levels of jihad: first, jihad al-nafs (jihad of the self) which comprises 4 levels, exerting oneself to learn the guidance, to act upon it, to call to it, and to persevere on those actions; second, jihad against shaytan, which includes 2 levels, struggling against the doubts in one's faith which Satan instigates, and resisting the desires and corruption to which he calls; third, jihad against the non-believers and hypocrites, including 4 levels: with one's heart, tongue, wealth, and self; and fourth, jihad against the oppressors and the corrupt, comprising 3 levels: with one's hand if possible, if not then with one's tongue, if not then with one's heart. The author differs in regarding jihad against oppression and corruption as preceding jihad against disbelief and external transgression, while stressing that peaceful confrontation is to be adopted against oppressors "profiting from the reasonable forms which others have developed in confronting unjust rulers, such as elected parliaments, parties, and the separation of powers" (p. 198).

The author also stresses the importance of intellectual and cultural jihad "through the establishment of specialist Islamic academic centres, catering for exceptional youth - academically and morally - in order to prepare them academically and intellectually in a methodology that unites our heritage and modern culture... We do not call for isolation from the rest of the world, but rather to cultural and civilisational interaction. We choose what to take or leave based on our own philosophy and criteria, just as they had borrowed from us in the past concepts and inventions which they then developed and used to build their civilisation. What we take will be imbued with our own spirit, character and moral heritage such that it becomes a part of our intellectual and moral system, losing its original character" (p. 190-192).

The author concludes in his study of the fiqh of jihad in Islam that there are two types of jihad: civil and military - meaning fighting against enemies who attack Muslims, which necessitates preparing for it when there is a need; this type is a matter for states. Spiritual civil jihad "encompasses the academic, scientific, cultural, social, economic, educational, health, medical, environmental and civilisational fields. The objective of this civil jihad is to exert oneself for Allah's sake in order to educate the ignorant, employ the unemployed, train workers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, treat the ill, achieve self-sufficiency for the needy, build schools for pupils, universities for students, mosques for worshippers, clubs for sports lovers to practice their hobbies" (p. 215).

3. Objectives of jihad

Islam is a call to peace; it abhors war, but cannot prevent it, hence it prepares for it, but does not wage it unless it is forced upon it, which is due to Islam's realistic nature and its recognition of sunnat al-tadafu`, the law of mutual checking. However it has sought to limit its consequences by surrounding it with rules and ethics. Islam has not been the exception in recognising war of necessity amongst other religions, including Christianity, whose followers have been among the most frequent participants in conflicts and wars, both against other Christians and against others. Luke's Gospel reads "I have come to bring fire on the earth... Do you think I came to bring peace on earth?". The Old Testament contains numerous calls to genocide, against 7 nations that inhabited Palestine that had to be completely eradicated- such that the modern calls to "transfer" and massacres committed by modern Zionist gangs are but miniature versions.

The quotation from Luke's Gospel, of course, has never been understood by Christian exegetes as a call for warfare against unbelievers on a par with the Qur'an's calls to kill unbelievers (2:191; 4:89; 9:5) and subjugate the People of the Book (9:29). And the "calls to genocide" in the Old Testament have never been understood either as such or as any kind of instruction for believers in succeeding generations, either by Jewish or Christian exegetes.

Jihad in Islam has specific objectives which Al-Qaradawi summarises as repelling transgression; preventing fitna- that is guaranteeing freedom of faith for Muslims and others; saving the oppressed; punishing those who break treaties, and enforcing internal peace within the ummah. Thus, expansion and appropriation are not amongst the objectives of jihad, nor is the eradication of disbelief from this world, for that is against God's law of difference and mutual checking. Nor do the objectives of jihad include imposing Islam on those who do not believe in it, for that contravenes God's law of diversity and pluralism (pp. 423).

The guarantee of "freedom of faith for Muslims and others" means that no obstacle may be placed in the way of the preaching of Islam in non-Muslim countries; if no obstacle is placed, no jihad will be waged. This sounds like a simple call for religious freedom, but since Sharia has a political aspect, it essentially amounts to a demand that non-Muslim states submit to their own slow conquest and Islamization, and the imposition of Sharia, without resisting.

4. Military Jihad: Between Daf' and Talab (Defensive and Offensive Jihad)

Following the tradition of classical and contemporary jurists, Al-Qaradawi questions the nature of jihad and its status in Islam: Is it of a religious nature, meaning it is obligatory upon Muslims to fight non-believers until they embrace Islam or submit to its authority, which they call jihad al-talab, that is voluntary offensive jihad? Or is it of a political nature, necessitated by the need to defend the lands of Islam against transgressors and to defend Muslims against those who prevent them from freedom of faith, and the oppressed generally- which they have termed jihad al-daf`, that is necessary defensive jihad, which, if Muslims must engage it, should be engaged in with pure intentions, for God's sake, and following strict ethical guidelines which cannot be neglected.

Classically, and in the modern era, jurists have been divided between two groups, which al-Qaradwi calls the hujumiyyin (proponents of offensive jihad) and difa`iyyin (proponents of defensive jihad), proclaiming his proud adherence to the second group. The hujumiyyin consider it an obligation for the Muslim nation to attack the land of the non-believers at least once a year in order to call to Islam and expand its territories. They hold disbelief per se as a sufficient reason to initiate war and legitimate killing, even if non-believers do not attack or harm Muslims, to the extent that Muslims would be sinful if they do not do so. The proponents of this view, a large number of jurists, most prominent of which among classical scholars is Imam al-Shafi`i, and among contemporary thinkers are Sayyid Qutb and al-Mawdudi, support their view with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah, and from historical practice. The Quranic texts used call for fighting against all polytheists, such as verse 36 of surat al-Tawba "and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together", verse 5 "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them", and verse 29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission". They differed as to which of those verses is the one they called Ayat al-Sayf, or verse of the sword, which, according to them, abrogated all contradicting verses, over 200 such verses calling for mercy, forgiveness and freedom of belief, prohibiting compulsion in faith and severity, and considering the judgment of people's faith a matter to be left to God alone. They also sought support from prophetic sayings such as "I have been commanded to fight people until they say 'there is no God but Allah'" (narrated by Bukhari). They also consider the early Islamic conquests as evidence for their view that war, rather than peace, is the natural state in Muslims' dealings with others.

Noteworthy here is Qaradawi's acknowledgment that the proponents of the idea that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against non-Muslims solely by virtue of the latter group's unbelief base their view on the Qur'an and Sunnah, and represent a broad mainstream within Islam. If Qaradawi were a non-Muslim making this point, charges of "ignorance," "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" would rain down on his head on a daily basis.

Al-Qaradawi's disagreement with the above group does not prevent him from looking for excuses for them, particularly classical scholars, due to the relations between states at their time, which were based on power and war, and due to the existential threat to which Islam had been subjected since its birth in the Arab peninsula.

Al-Qaradawi stresses, alongside classical and contemporary scholars, the consensus that jihad becomes obligatory upon every Muslim if a Muslim land is attacked, or Muslims suffer fitna (are prevented from freedom of faith), and that every Muslim must practice some form of jihad, be it striving against one's desires, against evil and corruption, and striving to promote good and support religion, as much as one is able to. However, Al-Qaradawi, through his study and analysis of the various texts related to jihad and the views of classical and contemporary scholars, concluded the following:

1. That Quranic verses, particularly those of surat al-Tawba commanding fighting against all polytheists, are to be understood as a reaction and an equal retribution, just as the verse says "as they fight you all together", and not a general command or a basis for dealing with all non-Muslims, but was rather concerning a specific group of the Arab polytheists which declared war on Islam since its emergence, chased it out and followed it to its new home, broke treaties and mobilized everyone to eradicate it "Will you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first to assault you?" (The Quran, 9:13). Within the same chapter, as well as in other chapters, there are limits and conditions restricting the above -seemingly general- command: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it" (8:61). There is no need to set one verse of the Quran against another; rather one should look at all relevant verses and ahadith, all of which confirm the rule that Islam seeks peace with those who are peaceful towards it, and fights those who fight it.

2. Military jihad is not an individual obligation upon every Muslim, of the same level as the obligations of the testimony of faith, prayer, fasting, alms giving and pilgrimage, for despite its importance within Islam, it was not included in the inherent characteristics of the God-conscious in surat al-Baqara, nor in the characteristics of the believers as described in surat al-Anfal or surat al-Mu'minun, nor in the characteristics of those with true understanding as described in surat al-Ra`d, nor in the characteristics of the servants of the Most Merciful as described in surat al-Furqan, nor in the characteristics of the pious in surat al-Dhariat, nor of the righteous ones described in surat al-Insan. Thus, the practice of military jihad only becomes an obligation upon Muslims when its conditions arise such as an attack on Muslims, their land or their religion. Preparing for such an incidence, on the other hand, is an obligation upon them, according to their ability, in order to deter enemies and maintain peace.

3. There is no obligation upon Muslims to invade the lands of non-Muslims, if they are safe from them. It is sufficient for them to have a powerful army in possession of the latest weapons and trained soldiers guarding their borders and deterring enemies such that the latter do not thing of attacking Muslims, for the collective duty to be fulfilled (p. 91). It is worth noting that Al-Qaradawi prefers using the term non-Muslims instead of kuffar or disbelievers, for that is the way of the Quran which uses the terms "O people of the Book", "O people", "O Man", "O Children of Israel", "My people", "O Children of Adam". It never addressed non-Muslims as disbelievers, except in a few exceptional cases where there were negotiations regarding creed.

Actually the Qur'an (5:17, 5:72) says that Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e., virtually all Christians, are disbelievers (kafara).

4. Islam recognised freedom of belief and each individual's responsibility for his belief before God. On that basis, its societies, on the whole, did not experience religious wars. Under it, various monotheistic and pagan religions coexisted and continue to coexist, under the system of Dhimma which granted citizenship to non-Muslims regardless of religion. All they needed to do in order to enjoy the rights of protection by the Muslim state alongside Muslims was for those able to pay the jizya tax to do so, which is equivalent to the military service tax in some modern systems. According to Al-Qaradawi, unifying the tax rate and generalising military service make such a system which has been misunderstood and misused unnecessary.

Here the author delicately omits the dhimmis' concomitant obligation to submit to the Muslims and "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29), which became the basis in Islamic law and history for an elaborate system of institutionalized discrimination which denied basic rights to the dhimmis.

5. It was historical conditions, rather than the texts of Islam, that made many jurists believe offensive jihad to invade non-Muslim lands to be obligatory. The ummah was constantly threatened by its powerful neighbours, the Persians and Romans (p. 82), and there were no international laws based on mutual recognition of state sovereignty and prohibition of hostility as is the case today- despite their contravention by the powerful.

6. The natural state of affairs in relations between Muslim and others is peace and cooperation in goodness. Islam abhors war and only engages in it unwillingly and as a necessity "Fighting is prescribed for you, though it is hateful to you" (Quran, 2:216). Peace is the essential character of Islam; it is the greeting of Muslims, the greeting of the people of Paradise, it is one of the names of Allah. The most hated name in Allah's sight is Harb- which means war, one of the ancient Arab names, as Arabs were warriors. However, when the Prophet, peace be upon him, was told by his son-in-law that his daughter Fatima had given birth to a boy and that he called him Harb, he commanded him to name him Hasan (meaning good).

7. Islam welcomes international conventions that prohibit transgression and promote peace between nations, and welcomes international bodies that protect such laws, such as the United Nations, UNESCO, etc. However, the West still maintains its belief in the principle of power in its relation with other states and other nations. An example of that is the exclusive enjoyment of its major states of the right to veto, in a flagrant disregard for the principle of equality, thus guaranteeing the protection of their interest and the avoidance of any condemnation of its violations, as the US and UK did in their invasion of Iraq, without any legitimacy, with full impunity from any condemnation, and similarly with their continuous protection of the Zionists' various forms of hostility against Palestine and its people.

Probably he is so exercised about the veto because it prevents the Organization of the Islamic Conference from absolutely running the table at the UN -- which it very nearly does anyway.

8. Under international recognition of human rights, including freedom of belief and preaching, as well as freedom to establish institutions and protect minorities, one of the principal justifications of jihad al-talab becomes redundant, that is invasion in order to enable the call to Islam by dismantling oppressive regimes which used to prevent their people from thinking freely or choosing beliefs that are different to those of their rulers, such as the Pharaoh who reprimanded the Children of Israel for believing without his permission: "He said: You believe in him before I give you leave?" (Quran, 20:71). In contrast, today, unprecedentedly, in any previous era of Islam history, mosques and Muslim minorities are found everywhere, making our need greater for "huge armies of competent preachers, teachers, media experts, all suitably trained and able to address the world in its different languages, and using methods of this modern age, which, unfortunately, we possess less than a thousandth of what is required", (p.16). Al-Qaradawi laments that you may find many who are ready to die for Allah's sake, but very few who are willing to live for His sake.

In other words, international laws regarding religious freedom, and the openness of Western societies, render armed jihad unnecessary, since Islamic preachers can spread Islam freely, and the spread of Sharia in non-Muslim societies can advance unimpeded. So the goal -- the conquest and Islamization of those societies -- remains the same. Only the method is different.

9. The sources of Islam reveal that, according to Islam, the world is three abodes: dar al-Islam, the abode of Islam, where its law reigns, where its rituals are publicly practiced, and where its adherents and preachers are secure; Dar al-`ahd- the abode of accord, that is states between which and the Muslim state there is mutual recognition and prohibition of hostility; and finally dar harb, or the abode of war. Al-Qaradawi regards Muslims, in view of their being part of the system of the United Nations, as being in a state of accord/pact with other states, except with the Zionist state, because of its usurpation of the land of Palestine and its dispossession of its people, which unfortunately took place with the support of major states. Thus Al-Qaradawi considers the greatest problem in our relation with the West to be its constant and unlimited support of Israel and its continuous aggression against Palestine and its people.

10. Al-Qaradawi distinguishes between jihad and irhab- terrorism, or between legitimate irhab -being feared by the enemy to deter it from any aggression, and illegitimate irhab, that is terrorizing innocent people as done by groups using the name of Islam, which declare world [sic] on the whole world in an illegitimate use of jihad in an inappropriate setting, terrorizing innocent people- Muslims and non-Muslims- in order to achieve alleged political ends inside or outside Muslim lands, flagrantly contravening the principles and ethics of jihad in Islam. Hence Al-Qaradawi condemned violent acts committed by extremist groups in Muslim and non-Muslim countries against innocent people, whether tourists or others. He further stripped the indiscriminate killing and shedding of innocent lives committed by these groups of any legitimacy.

Qaradawi here appears to differ from Anjem Chaudary and other Islamic supremacists who maintain that there is no such thing as an innocent non-Muslim. This may be enough to get called a "reformist" by the Saudi-funded Esposito, but again, his difference with these "extremists" is only tactical. He does not differ with them about the overall goal of conquering non-Muslim states, as his words about the conquest of Europe show.

11. Al-Qaradawi is extremely careful to distinguish between extremist groups that declare war on the whole world, killing indiscriminately, tainting the image of Islam and providing its enemies with fatal weapons to use against it, on the one hand, and on the other groups resisting occupation. And as much as he condemns the former and delegitimizes its foundations, he defends the latter, and calls on the ummah to support them, particularly in Palestine, as long as their operations are against military targets. He does not hesitate to justify martyrdom operations, considering them to be the weapon of one with no other options, who is deprived of equivalent weapons to those of the enemy, in order to defend his home and his land. God's justice does not allow the weak to be completely deprived of any weapon, hence the latter's use of his own body as a deterrent weapon. In any case, the ethics of jihad must always be respected, and only combatants can be targeted.

But he himself, remember, has said that in Israel, the society is "militarized," thus substantially increasing the number of those who could be considered "combatants."

12. As he stresses that the first jihad to be obligatory upon the ummah in this age is liberation from colonialism, particularly in Palestine, Al-Qaradawi warns and stresses the fallacy of those who wrongly believe that the conflict between us and Zionists is due to the fact that they are Semites- for we are also Semites, both of us coming from the progeny of Abraham- or that it is a religious conflict- for Muslims regard Jews as People of the Book, whose food is lawful, with whom marriage is lawful, and who have lived amongst Muslims in safety and have sought refuge in our lands when Spain and other European countries expelled them, finding refuge nowhere but among Muslims. In reality, the conflict between us and Zionists started for one single reason: their appropriation of the land of Palestine, dispossessed its people, and imposed their presence with violence. The conflict will continue as long as its causes remain. No one can give up any Muslim land, but it is possible to have a truce with Israel for an agreed period of time. As for the principle of "Land for Peace", it is indeed a bizarre principle imposed by the logic of the enemy's brute force, for the land is our land, not the enemy's, so that it can bargain it in return for peace (p. 1090).

"No one can give up any Muslim land" -- i.e., the jihad against Israel must continue until Israel is completely destroyed.

13. Just as he, and his mentor Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, had a leading role in confronting those extremist groups and preventing them from hijacking Islam and diverting it from its mainstream towards the margins, through stripping their actions of any legitimacy based on jihad, both inside and outside Muslim lands, Al-Qaradawi praised the important revisions made by the most important of those groups, which found great support in his writings- after having attacked and rejected his views- in order to engage in their revisions, which he described as brave and enlightened (p. 1168).

5. Ethics of Jihad:

"War in Islam is ethical, just like politics, economics, science and work, none which is divorced from ethics, in contrast to war in western civilisation, which is not necessarily bound by ethics." For Muslims, war is governed by a moral code, because morals are not an option, but rather an essential part of religion. That includes: a) Islam's prohibition of the use of unethical methods to infiltrate the enemy and obtain their secrets- including sex, intoxicants, etc. b) prohibition of transgression, as the Quran commands "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." (2:190). The author inteprets transgression to mean killing non-combatants, by killing women, children, the elderly, the ill, farmers, and others not engaged in fighting (p. 728). The ethics of jihad also include the prohibition of mutilation of the enemy. c) the fulfillment of agreements and prohibition of treachery and betrayal. d) Prohibition of cutting down trees and demolishing buildings. e) The non-legitimacy, islamically, of what is called weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons which kills thousands or millions at once, without discriminating between the guilty and innocent, destroying life and all living beings. Islam prohibits the use of such weapons, because Islam prohibits the killing of non-combatants, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, strongly condemned the killing of one woman in one battle. However, that does not prevent the ummah from seeking to acquire such deterrent weaons, since others are in possession of them and can threaten Muslims nations with those weapons, particularly as the Zionist enemy which has usurped its land is in possession of such weapons, and their scripture legitimises the obliteration of all their neighbours. What is astonishing is that America and other great nations prohibit other nations from possessing these weapons, while they themselves possess them. They prevent Arab and Muslim states from acquiring them, while Israel possesses over two hundred nuclear heads. The mutual deterrence between the western and eastern blocks had contributed to the maintenance of world peace, and similarly between India and Pakistan. Such weapons cannot be used, except in the most exceptional circumstances, when a nation is subject to an existential threat (p. 592). F) Islam enjoins its mujahidin to treat captives kindly. After a detailed discussion of all texts and all juristic opinions concerning war captives, particularly on the question of whether they can be killed, the author concluded that the final ruling is that revealed in surat Muhammad "either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves)" (47:4), possibly with the exception of war criminals. On the whole, the author approves the articles of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of captives.

In conclusion: Al-Qaradawi's study on the fiqh of jihad can be regarded as an authentic Islamic ijtihad, upholding the principle of jihad as an eternal Islamic mechanism of defence in its wider meaning, one which has suffered a great number of misrepresentations leading to tainting the image of Islam. Al-Qaradawi recuperates the effectiveness and moderation of this mechanism, taking it out of the hands of extremists. His courage in standing up to the campaigns waged against the concept of Islam has been just as great as his courage in rejecting the arguments of extremist groups who declare war against the entire world. He did not shy away from criticising the great number of jurists who uphold the principle of offensive war (jihad al-talab), nor was he ashamed of his proud adherence to the group believing in jihad as defensive only. He continues to counter the arguments of the former group, without fear or hesitation, without injustice, undermining or misrepresenting the views of those he disagrees with, but rather he seeks excuses for them. He has continued to do so, until he almost destroyed what is known as jihad al-talab, establishing instead defensive jihad in its wider meaning, jihad with no trace of relation to the charge of terrorism -which he clearly distinguishes from legitimate resistance of occupation-, a jihad with ethics that agree with international conventions and their principles, values and laws prohibiting aggression, occupation, the use of weapons of mass destruction and the torture of captives; a jihad that welcomes an open world in which ideas and persons move freely, dealing through proofs and arguments rather than violence and power, until the most valid triumphs. Through such a presentation of jihad, Al-Qaradawi has opened a vast space for dialogue, tolerance, agreement and coexistence between Islam and other religions, human values, and international accords, enabling a response to the eternal Quranic call "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct." (49:13)

- lecture at Edinburgh University - 9 September 2009

The overall problem here is that the idea of jihad as being merely defensive refers only to jihad as warfare. Qaradawi clearly affirms the Muslim community's obligation to conquer -- a word he used -- non-Muslim polities. He is thus in favor of imposing Sharia upon the West, albeit not by violent means, but by way of the steady advance of Sharia principles through legal and cultural challenges -- which is exactly what we see happening in the West today, as I discussed in Stealth Jihad.

And so I once again invite Muslims in America to carve out a third path, differing from both the proponents of offensive jihad with whom Qaradawi disagrees, and with Qaradawi himself, in advancing the view, based on Qur'an and Sunnah, that Muslims must live with non-Muslims in states that do not have an established religion, as equals, on an indefinite basis, without trying to bring Sharia to the society in whole or part. I look forward to hearing from you!

| 28 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

28 Comments

If you read all this, how on Earth could it ever have started with allah, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent? Only mahoundian epistemology can explain that.

About that third path that Robert invites Muslims to take:

Wow, great! It has not even dawned on the vast majority of politicians, journalists and citizens in Holland, dealing with and commenting on the issues the freedom party raises in relation to Islam, that ....

The Muslims might NOT want that 3rd path. It certainly isn't asked them what it is they really want politically. It's generally assumed that they are just "normal Dutch citizens."

Wilders's criticisms-exposures-protests-accountable-holdings of Muslims are most often met with rejection of him/ his party, because of discrimination, debasement to 2ndrank-citizens of Muslims. and treated with disdain, contempt.

This 3rd path of Robert must be asked, if possible to every self-confessed, registered Muslim. Coming from the recognition that there now exists, within the borders of democratic nations, an alternative legal organisational system, a competitor to the secular democratic one. And that choice for the "home-system" over its competitor should be made increasingly important. Thinking: "it's in the LAWS, stupid" to paraphrase Bill Clinton in 1992.

Paramount in this 3rd parth must be the choice between freedom of apostasy or death-penalty for apostasay.

As a beginning, we take it from there, we try to distinquish between democracy-loyalists and theocracy-loyalists among Muslims in Democratic nations. And in a worldwide meaning too. See how that works out.

And when you speak you don't mince words.


I admit I have to stretch up to understand a lot of this information. This is some serious reading here. Let me sit down with this piece.

I woke up this morning with a thought that, perhaps soemone has to sit down with islamics and deconstruct each main point of their death cult, eh, "religion", - do this as if they wre little children.

For example, when they say, they are servants of Allah...then you as them, "but if Allah made everything, why would Allah need servants?" That sort of argument, you know?

If your basic axioms are wrong, all reason and opinions that follow are equally wrong. Islam lives in a bubble universe invented by their 'prophet' that is nothing like the real world. The "divine origin" of Sharia is a twisted reality where 'freedom' is no more than repackaged 'slavery'. All the "ijtihad" (intellectual exertion) cannot right what is wrong, nor can 'peace' mean anything other than 'conquest' of the unbelievers in this Islamic universe. Non-believers in that Islamic universe can never be treated as equals under Sharia, which is the whole impetus for Jihad, to subdue them.

Islam is fundamentally flawed because it denies human beings equal right to be responsible individuals in the real world, what fundamentally defines human freedom. All else is conversation, and as meaningless as music and the arts flourishing under Islam, or the 'separation of religion and state' under Sharia, or the freedom of teaching one's religion is Muslim countries. It just ain't so. Qaradawi's "jihad" is delusional, or else deceitful, out of touch with reality. The Islamic bubble universe might have been acceptable in the ignorance of the 7th century, but it is no longer acceptable today. Whether extremist or moderate Islam, it is all the same. Time to burst their 'world conquest' fictitious bubble. Submitting to "fiqh" or "jihad" is out of touch with the modern world. They will never accept the "third path" of mutual coexistence, which makes Sharia seditious. Time it be put down. "No Sharia" means no Jihad.

Wow! Now you see why not one of the Islamists will debate Robert.
Thank you so much for all you do!

I'm not an "Islamists", but let's address why I won't debate Robert about Qaradawi.

1) He belongs to a much different sect of Islam than I do - it would be like a Mormon posting a defense of Eastern Orthodox practice.

2) Every time I post here the personal attacks are just non stop. Calling me a liar, or a child rapist or whatever. No one ever seems to address my points, why bother with yours?

Moderation? Pssht.

Islam is asking the West to live in the same house as an unrepentant, yet "reformed" murderer. How well would you sleep?

In addition to above, Qaradawi was featured in this article: The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad? (2007)

Here is a sample of his twisted thinking, not so 'moderate':

The Muslim Brotherhood's Global Goals

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a staunch Islamist, who in the past was a candidate for the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, issued a fatwa in April 2003, describing how Islam would conquer Europe and defeat Christianity by exploiting Western liberalism and democracy. It would be made possible, he promised, by spreading Islam until it was strong enough to take over the entire continent. He wrote that "it is eminently clear that the future belongs to Islam, and that the religion of Allah will be victorious and will, by the grace of Allah, conquer all other religions." His prediction was based on an Islamic tradition according to which the prophet Muhammad said that one of the signs of redemption in Islam would be the initial conquest of Constantinople and then the conquest of Rome.

The equation is very simple: Eliminate any possibility of Sharia in the West, and that eliminates a large impetus for Jihad in all its forms, which would unravel over a thousand years of war. If we want "World Peace", this first step is necessary, we must outlaw Sharia.

I haven't read the piece yet. Gonna take a while, but I'm sure that Specer feels that extensive erudition is required here, given that Jihad is a central tenet of the Moslem belief system.

*** 2:216 ***

Off topic, sorta:

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Thousands of Indonesian Muslims are rallying outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta to denounce a Florida church's plan to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11.

Burn the Koran. Use pages from the Koran as toilet paper. Even pee on the Koran, as was fallaciously alleged about Gitmo. While these are noble thoughts, burning the thing fails to delve into that which we need to know.

Terry & Sylvia are off base down there at the Dove World Outreach Center, what's really needed is a televised grand tour of the contents of the Koran. A rant-by-rant, blow-by-blow, corpse-by-corpse guided tour for Infidels not yet so apprised.

Jakarta is Prez Obama's home town. Maybe we can have him narrate the televised grand tour of the Koran, be our guide so to speak. He's a good speaker, an Ivy League Man, so he's richly qualified for the job.

Will Hussein agree to do the tour? Could be, the dude never seems to shut up and is a publicity whore from the get-go, never saw a camera he didn't like (or a mirror).

*** 8:12 ***

And another question: how's security at the Dove World Outreach Center down there in Gainesville?

The root of your sect of the cult of mo/allah is evil.

As long as you perpetuate the root, the hydra keeps growing more shoots... You can't stop another individual from coming to an evil conclusion using the root materials of islam...

You are simply a luke-warm believer...

Understand?

To Alarmed Pig Farmer: It's always a mistake to burn what other people believe is their sacred book. They'll just protect the texts more.

What we have to do in the West, is stop catering to the islamics. Apply common sense, use the old maxim " Your rights stop where my nose begins."

… it is eminently clear that the future belongs to Islam.

I agree with this; this is clear thinking. Very little stands in the way of the Cause, or in the way of any individual Moslem Man, and that little has yet to timidly rear its little head. So you're right the stage is set for the mozzies to take over the whole operation. The Moslems have mastery over us.

*** 8:71 ***

… he was elected President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, , as well as being the chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

Like the research done in 2003 by Saudi cleric Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd before he issued Osama that fatwa that it’s ok to go ahead and nuke a major Western city?

Al-Qaradawi has developed a principal theory in contemporary Islam … of Islamic Wasatiyya or moderation. … a middle position between materialism and spiritualism, between individualism and collectivism, between idealism and realism, etc.

... and also between globo-socialism and national-capitalism. But the Infidels who take this middle position have been consistently obeisant to the incessant demands made by Moslems.

There is no obligation upon Muslims to invade the lands of non-Muslims.

Yeah, it just seems to somehow turn out that way time after time. It too just over 70 years for Islam, from the day of Mohammed's death, to take all the land from Yathrib to the Rock of Gilbrater, and, looking East, to the door of Hindustan.

*** Bukhari:Vol 5 Bk 59 Nbr 512 ***

That Quranic verses, particularly those of surat al-Tawba commanding fighting against all polytheists, are to be understood as a reaction and an equal retribution, just as the verse says "as they fight you all together", and not a general command or a basis for dealing with all non-Muslims.

Did the Jewish tribes in Western Arabia attack Mohammed before his attacks? The Arabian pagans and polytheists? No. Asia Minor? The Gauls of 732? No. The Huns of Vienna in 1648? No. No. The Israeli Jews? No. The Americans of 2001? No.

No no no no. But yes yes, professor Qaradawi, sir, you can ladle out the fake history with the best of them, better even than Prez Barack Hussein, I'd say.

The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken as captives. The captives were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him.

Mohammed was a thief. 33:21. Lotsa current day Moslems are thieves.

Military jihad is not an individual obligation upon every Muslim.

Except for all those verses where Allah told Gabriel to tell Mohammed that it was ok for the young, the infirm, and the elderly to stay back in the tent when the Jihadists rode out to terrorize, murder and steal. They were, according to the Ko-Ran, meeting their obligations.

*** Bukhari:Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 311 ***

Allah's Apostle said, 'There is no migration after the Conquest of Mecca, but only Jihad.

Jihad being the continued outward hegemonic expansion by way military force in the name of a putative religion.

It was historical conditions, rather than the texts of Islam, that made many jurists believe offensive jihad to invade non-Muslim lands to be obligatory. The ummah was constantly threatened by its powerful neighbours...

This must be why Moslems are always the ones on the attack, and almost never the ones who are attacked (thank you IDF for the one exception).

Whole lotta pre-emptive attacking going on the last 1,350 yrs.

*** 8:39 ***

Yeah, like when Mohammed issued his infamous called the Letter To The Kings in 628, a threatening letter, a hate mail filled with felony terroristic threats, in which he promised to destroy all their thrones unless they immediately converted their populations to Islam. They didn’t comply, Mohammed attacked as he promised,, and the populations were forcefully converted in Egypt, Persia, Asia Minor and Abyssinia.

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.

Plain and simple, Allah’s command in 8:39 is for aggression. And the command has been obeyed in large. For example, what aggression did the Hindus pose to the Persians before the Moghul, whereafter at least 70 million men, women and children were butchered in the name of Allah.

The natural state of affairs in relations between Muslim and others is peace and cooperation in goodness. Islam abhors war and only engages in it unwillingly and as a necessity…

When a necessity. Hmm, requirements are based on frameworks, and through the framework of the Ko-Ran and the Su-Nah and the Seer-Rah anti-Semitism is certainly a foundation stone of Islam. So in 1948 unprovoked attack certainly became necessary.

… the US and UK did in their invasion of Iraq, without any legitimacy, with full impunity from any condemnation, and similarly with their continuous protection of the Zionists' various forms of hostility against Palestine and its people.

The attack was legitimized by the complaints of Saudi and Kuwait, by the attack on the Murrah, by Saddam’s use of WMD against the Kurds, by his braggadocio about his nukes, by a whole lotta things. Have you read history Mr. Qaradawi? Or, are you ahistorical like our Prez Barack Hussein where you just make things up on an as needed basis?

War in Islam is ethical, just like politics, economics, science and work, none which is divorced from ethics, in contrast to war in western civilisation, which is not necessarily bound by ethics." For Muslims, war is governed by a moral code, because morals are not an option, but rather an essential part of religion. That includes: a) Islam's prohibition of the use of unethical methods to infiltrate the enemy and obtain their secrets- including sex, intoxicants, etc. b) prohibition of transgression, as the Quran commands "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." (2:190). The author inteprets transgression to mean killing non-combatants, by killing women, children, the elderly, the ill, farmers, and others not engaged in fighting…

When I read War in Islam is ethical the hair on the back of my neck goes up. Ethical like when Daniel Pearl’s head was sawed off with a steak knife? Ethical like the way those first graders were butchered and murdered by Al Qaeda in Beslan? Ethical like how Mohammed, your Holy Prophet, sat on a throne and saw 800 men beheaded in front of their wives, sisters and prepubescent little brothers.

Like that?

... Qaradawi has predicted that Islam will soon conquer Europe, but that this conquest will come not "by the sword but by preaching and ideology."

This prompts me to articulate a formulation to clarify what I have found amiss in the connotative implications of articulations presented heretofore of stealth jihad.

The articulations heretofore have the focus backwards: In their formulation, Muslims are hiding non-violent jihad. But in actuality, what Muslims are hiding is violent jihad. That's what stealth jihad is all about: the cloaking of the dagger -- or, as Hugh Fitzgerald, quoting Chaucer, refers to as the "smyler with the knyf under the cloke". The way that Spencer and others (including Fitzgerald) articulate stealth jihad, more often than not, it almost sounds like they think the danger of Islam is in its non-violent expansion itself, as though that non-violent expansion does not, or need not, include violence necessarily in its train.

But the precise purport of that Chaucer phrase is that the smile is hiding the knife, not the other way around: and the knife is, when the rubber meets the road (i.e., when the Westerner finally wakes up to the horror of Islam and therefore consequently refuses to submit), the sine qua non of Jihad. For, in order to force someone to submit, who refuses to submit, one must use violence -- either to terrorize him into submission (which also works, as a spectacle and menace, to cow others into submission), or to winnow out the ones who refuse to submit to the end, through massacres.

Of these expositors of stealth jihad, we can surmise the motive for their errant formulation: They feel forced by the stupidity of our surrounding Western society which, with its dominant and mainstream PC MC, remains so blind to the dangers of Islam and its Muslim carriers, and their blindness admits of only the narrowest most delimited definition of the danger -- viz., the "tiny minority of extremists" who conspicuously deploy ultra-violent tactics -- to err on the other side of the equation: i.e., to frame their warning as one of calling attention to the non-violent infiltration of Muslims and insinuation of Islam in our society, such that their message seems to be detaching non-violent jihad from violent jihad altogether.

This is precisely why, for example, journalist Lisa Miller of Newsweek balks at the concept of stealth jihad: she is balking at a straw man -- but a straw man, I'm afraid, which our expositors in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement have helped fashion through their unclear formulation of that concept. As documented in a previous Jihad Watch notice, Lisa Miller wrote:

As for his "stealth jihad," it's virtually impossible to imagine how such an event would--logistically--occur. Would the construction of an Islamic prayer site near Ground Zero inevitably lead American women to wake up one morning and find themselves veiled and confined to their homes?

Lisa Miller's instincts are correct here. Since our expositors of the concept of stealth jihad have tended to effectively decouple it from violence, the logistics of its success becomes reasonably baffling -- at least with regard to a civilization as sophisticated and powerful as the modern West. Were we talking about an archipelago of primitive fishing villages in the 8th century A.D. (i.e., Indonesia), the logistics of a relatively unviolent take-over by Muslims would make more sense (though even with regard to the Islamization of Indonesia, I suspect its non-violent nature has been exaggerated to the point where it has become a myth no less tenacious than the "Myth of Andalus"). But we are not talking about a primitive and weak society: we are talking about the most advanced and powerful civilization in all history: the modern West. And alongside that, we are talking about its purported take-over by probably the most regressive and among the weakest cultures in modern times: Islam, whose followers would not have been able to succeed in attacks on the West thus far had they not had available money, were they not possessed by an astoundingly driven fanaticism impelling them to mass-murder, and were they not being coddled by the very same civilization they seek to terrorize and subjugate.

The way that our expositors frame the concept of stealth jihad, with its curious detachment from violence, the only sense one could make out of the threat being warned about in terms of a potential success would be a scenario where Westerners allow Islam to take over the West by increments over time without one shot being fired. This "sense", of course, is preposterous, because we are not talking about a benign ideology taking over, but an ideology that goes profoundly against Western values and is in most of its respects actually criminal with respect to Western laws.

To salvage the "sense" here, one must do another operation of decoupling: one must decouple the notion of potential success from stealth jihad. Thus, the appropriate concern and threat we have to face from stealth jihad is not that Muslims will actually succeed in taking over the West through non-violent osmosis over time -- but rather that they will accomplish two things short of that:

1) over time they will increasingly infiltrate more and more deeply into our societies and institutions, making it easier for them to plot major terror attacks that will far surpass 911

2) over time they will increasingly destabilize our societies in myriad ways, as described by a Jihad Watch commenter, "dumbledoresarmy", in the comments section of that same notice on stealth jihad I linked above -- though it is noteworthy that most of the destabilization caused by Muslims along with their increasing aggrandizement in our societies described by dumbledoresarmy is riddled and bristling with violence.

Thus, for the Lisa Millers of the world (who, unfortunately, are still dominant and mainstream), the concept of stealth jihad remains, as an academic she quotes put it, "...ever-so-slightly goofy" -- so long as in our exposition of it we curiously decouple violence while at the same time we curiously attach the potential for success.

Incidentally, in the follow-up notice about Lisa Miller which Spencer published (on how the Muslim Brotherhood appreciated her support), Spencer wrote of the infamous Muslim Brotherhood memo:

Eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house -- that's the very definition of the stealth jihad modus operandi.

That phrase, actually, does not describe the modus operandi of stealth jihad: it describes the goal of stealth jihad. The modus operandi of stealth jihad is to hide the various ways by which Muslims will be trying to realize that goal -- and among those ways will be necessarily included violence.

Note: I said "trying to realize that goal" -- I didn't say they had a chance to succeed. It's in the trying where Muslims will continue to destabilize our societies and will continue to perpetrate violence in myriad ways -- including riots and looting (e.g., France, Netherlands), harassment and intimidation, sudden jihad syndrome attacks, lone wolf attacks, more concerted terror cell plots, and the occasional commando mission (e.g., Bali, Mumbai, Madrid, London, New York City; not to mention dozens of unsuccessful attempts at same).

Finally, it is important to stress that since Muslims are now, have been for the past 300 years, and will continue to be, incapable of formal military assaults on the West, the violence they will pursue as a necessary conjunction to their stealth jihad will fall under two categories:

1) a stillicide of various types of violent acts by a certain number of Muslims who, because they seem contrasted to the larger numbers of Muslims not doing any violence, will continue to be labelled as a "tiny minority of extremists".

2) continued covert plots aimed at spectacularly large, horrific and damaging attacks in the indeterminable future.

With regard to #1, it may seem counter-intuitive, but there is good reason to suppose that in fact the seemingly non-violent behaviors of the stealth Muslims are actually helped by the violence of their brethren as noted in #1 above: the more that their brethren perpetrate those various types of violence, the more our PC MC society anxiously hastens to believe in the harmless and peaceful existence and intentions of "most Muslims". So, in this case, violence is positively helping the stealth jihad, and the stealth jihad continues to cloak the connections they have -- material and/or ideological -- to their violent brethren.

With regard to #2, the continued belief and support for the non-violent Muslims among us (and continuing to immigrate into the West by droves) will tend to ensure that Muslims penetrate more and more deeply into our societies and institutions, thus becoming more and more capable of succeeding in deploying the kinds of attacks that require deep penetration and trust -- attacks that will exceed 911 in horror, terror, lives lost, and damage to infrastructure.

That is the proper concern we should focus on in our exposition of stealth jihad: not the incoherently formulated and conceived threat of "creeping Sharia".

"a modern culture that glorifies the value of freedom"

For any man to be free every man must allow others to be free. (paraphrased from some similar quote some where)

Respect for individual freedom is the middle ground position (the only acceptable middle ground), hammered out over thousands of years. It is derived from looking at empirical evidence that men in power inherently seek ever more power, invariably at the expense of individual freedom. The US bill of rights articulates core individual rights (not corporate rights) that are routinely denied by any generic tyrannical entity claiming power. We can use it as a formula to define tyranny.

From the preamble to the bill of rights is a merely aspirational sentiment -- "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"

The bill of rights is not self-enforcing. They are just words, just as are the words in religious texts or in the Webster's definition of tyranny.

Glorification of individual freedom:

Thomas Jefferson pledged "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man[]"

I like this summary from the author of that same linked source -- "[Jefferson] thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."

It is perfectly acceptable to -- no, a duty to -- hate both tyranny and tyrants, be they petty budding tyrants or those who have fully taken over the reins of government.

Another Jefferson quote -- "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

Can any Sharia proponent prove Jefferson wrong on that very point, past or present? How about calling it a prophecy that when religion and government mix that tyranny must and will follow? This is not the same thing as saying the religion is an essential component of tyranny. A tyrant can dream up an infinite array of rationalizations, some more absurd than others. But always threatening to individual liberty, and reliant on compulsion.

The words of Jefferson found at the link above seem equally applicable to the people suffering from the abuses of ordinary Islamic tyrants. A sharia judge applying sharia law, even if only in limited partnership with an otherwise-exclusively-secular government, is a tyrant if they conflict with the US bill of rights.

One definition of moderate Muslim might be one who unequivocally rejects the notion that government should in any way apply sharia law. Their arguments would, ideally, look like Thomas Jefferson's. Rather than the antithesis of his arguments. Benevolent dictatorship is still dictatorship. If sharia judges were stripped of all governmental power then the quibbling among them about how benevolent to be or not to be would become moot. Which is, I think, sort of what Thomas Jefferson seemed to be arguing.

TJ (irony) -- "The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

Even more ironic was that Jefferson's copy of the Ko-Ran --- which he bought to try and find out what was motivating the Moslems who were taking 50% of the federal budget at the turn of the 18th century with their Jihad piracy --- was taken from the Library of Congress by Democrat U.S. Representative-elect Keith Ellison, a Detroit Afro-American convert to Islam, to swear his oath on in place of a Bible.

*** 89:5 ***

Now that was ironic. I bet Jefferson was rolling in his Virginia grave as Rep. Keith D-Minn was "swearing" his oath of allegiance to the Constitution, a document largely authored by Jefferson himself, before he was forced to take up his interest in Islam.

Excellent point, Hesperado, that "stealth Jihad" is really nothing more than a cover for "violent Jihad". But there is more. You said in summation of your long, but very worthy post:

With regard to #2, the continued belief and support for the non-violent Muslims among us (and continuing to immigrate into the West by droves) will tend to ensure that Muslims penetrate more and more deeply into our societies and institutions, thus becoming more and more capable of succeeding in deploying the kinds of attacks that require deep penetration and trust -- attacks that will exceed 911 in horror, terror, lives lost, and damage to infrastructure.
That is the proper concern we should focus on in our exposition of stealth jihad: not the incoherently formulated and conceived threat of "creeping Sharia".
(bold mine)

Sharia, whether 'creeping' or overtly advocated, is the magic button of the beast. Kill Sharia and Islam becomes toothless. Sure, they can still cause trouble, but that is easily addressed with criminal prosecution, such as we witness more frequently of late, where budding jihadists are apprehended before they can set off their bombs. I expect this will be the modus operandi for a long time. But this same modus will be eternally ongoing if we do not press that magic button of Sharia, and nip it dead. Like pdxnag said in his/hers:

Respect for individual freedom is the middle ground position (the only acceptable middle ground), hammered out over thousands of years. It is derived from looking at empirical evidence that men in power inherently seek ever more power, invariably at the expense of individual freedom. The US bill of rights articulates core individual rights (not corporate rights) that are routinely denied by any generic tyrannical entity claiming power. We can use it as a formula to define tyranny.

This is the only acceptable middle ground position, our individual freedoms, which means NO Sharia. When Muslims come to live with us, they must be in compliance with our social laws according to our socially-agreed-upon principles of equality and personal responsibility, what legally defines our Constitutional personal freedoms. Sharia is antithetical to our values, since it discourages personal responsibility, all is the 'Will of Allah' (really the will of Mohammed) as defined in the Koran, so they do not feel themselves responsible to our laws. But that is an error in their thinking, and if they cannot comply without violating their Sharia, they must be invited to leave, or if we are threatened, then forced to leave. There is no compromise middle ground on this issue. You live in our countries, you obey the law or else be prosecuted by our laws. Jefferson understood this, that all forms of tyranny must be disempowered, same as many of us understand it today, but he (and we) who stand down tyranny have been branded "Far Right extremists" by our modern liberal Left. What happened in the past two hundred years? Education gone bad, or bad socio-political ideology, viz. Marxist utopia brought to its logical conclusion, as the modern Left? I'll leave that to future historians to sort out.

I think harping on all that is wrong with Islam, and there's books full of stuff, is not necessarily a winning strategy. They will always find ways to hide behind our tolerance for religion, our willingness to give immigrants an even break, or our natural sense of compassion and expected reciprocity. They don't have any of that, but we cannot condemn them for being heartless and socially irresponsible (criminal and fraudulent), when we go to great lengths to have them 'fit in' with our Western society. Of course, they can't because they have a agenda that does not let them, their Sharia domination. We know Sharia would be hell, the end of our hard won freedoms. Spencer is right to shine the light on the horrors of women abuse in Islam (Western Feminists are discreetly quiet on this, most likely cowed by Islam), especially the horrific absurdity of Ashtiani in Sharia compliant Iran. Islam without Sharia is like any cult worship, to be watched and restrained, but with Sharia it goes to a whole new level. This is why the neo-Islam resurrected by the Muslim Brotherhood calls for its implementation world wide. They know that this is where the power is. And Islam has always been about power. So to disempower Islam, it is mandatory to stop Sharia. That is the magic bullet that will kill this Islamic hydra, anything less is merely a 'whacking the mole' syndrome.

The first order of the day must be Sharia is outlawed to preserve our anti-tyranny, free social order. (Even sharia banking will ultimately be outlawed, probably for fraud under banking laws and consumer protection. Family Sharia law should be banned outright as engendering inequality, especially for women.) There is no room for a dual system of political and legal jurisdiction in a free society. The laws that protect the individual, that protect our right of belief, such as our First Amendment, and laws prohibiting inequality, or slavery, such as the Fourteenth Amendment, is what our Constitutional laws are all about: equality before the law for ALL people. Comply with this equality, or feel yourself unwelcome here. Stop Sharia, and you just unravelled a major part of what is wrong with Islam. After that, it's merely technicalities of catching the 'bad guys'. And that is doable.

In time, if we stop Sharia, even people like Lisa Miller and her ilk become marginalized, they no longer have a say. The second dividend from stopping Sharia is that the Marxist-utopia-dreaming-Left also becomes marginalized. They bang against the wall of 'personal responsibility' over the collective responsibility of everyone having to believe in the 'multicultural' dogmas. Multiculturalism is a shimmera, there is no such thing. There is only the right of the individual to protect that right, by constitutional law, and this is the foundation on which our modern Western civilization if built upon. There is no 'compromise' on this issue. Either they comply with our laws, or Muslims are made unwelcome. Outlaw Sharia, and you've taken away all their ammo. The third dividend, if we kill Sharia, is we may actually have the foundation for a lasting World Peace. Sharia is our 'magic bullet', it kills Jihad in one shot. Get rid of it, and the ripple effect is potentially spectacular.


APF, I think Jefferson was doing somersaults in his grave when Ellison swore on his library copy of the Koran. :-) LOL

"The quotation from Luke's Gospel, of course, has never been understood by Christian exegetes as a call for warfare against unbelievers on a par with the Qur'an's calls to kill unbelievers (2:191; 4:89; 9:5) and subjugate the People of the Book (9:29). And the "calls to genocide" in the Old Testament have never been understood either as such or as any kind of instruction for believers in succeeding generations, either by Jewish or Christian exegetes."

So then, the holy texts of any religion are simply there for cherry picking? Take from it what you like, what is convenient for the time and ignore anything controversial? Don't try to explain or understand anything, just remove what you don't like or don't understand. Ignore context and don't acknowledge to Bible, Torah, or Quran as a whole?

"The guarantee of "freedom of faith for Muslims and others" means that no obstacle may be placed in the way of the preaching of Islam in non-Muslim countries; if no obstacle is placed, no jihad will be waged. This sounds like a simple call for religious freedom, but since Sharia has a political aspect, it essentially amounts to a demand that non-Muslim states submit to their own slow conquest and Islamization, and the imposition of Sharia, without resisting."

There is no compulsion in religion (2:25) So if they are allowed to preach Islam without persecution then they won't "wage jihad" and thus the people come to Islam of their own free will. Those who still refuse and reject Islam are welcome to do so as long as it does not manifest itself into aggression against Muslims. The states' "[submission] to their own slow conquest" is simply the most negative way of saying that more people may come to Islam of their own free will.

The term "Islamization" seems to be used as such a negative term because so many have determined Islam is bad without allowing for any alternative explanation. When a thorough explanation is offered, it is rejected so that those determined to hate Islam may continue believing what they want to believe unchallenged. The word "Islam" is derived fom the Arabic root "SLM" which means, among other things, peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission and obedience to the Will of God. Thus "Islamization" is the goal of having the whole world obedient to one God. This "Stealth Jihad" that everyone is so afraid of is simply the peaceful means of bringing all people to the belief of one God.

"'No one can give up any Muslim land' -- i.e., the jihad against Israel must continue until Israel is completely destroyed."

That is to say, until the land which Isreal occupies allows for Muslims to live there as well without fear of religious procecution. You also left out the part about the possibility of a truce that could be worked out. Though you would undoubtedly convince yourself the truce would not be conceived for good. For some reason you say you believe there are moderate Muslims yet you strive to demonize all of them, saying the positive actions of any of them are only subversive ways of accomplishing their "evil."

"And so I once again invite Muslims in America to carve out a third path, differing from both the proponents of offensive jihad with whom Qaradawi disagrees, and with Qaradawi himself, in advancing the view, based on Qur'an and Sunnah, that Muslims must live with non-Muslims in states that do not have an established religion, as equals, on an indefinite basis, without trying to bring Sharia to the society in whole or part. I look forward to hearing from you!"

Your invitation is a complete and total insult, you know it, and accomplishes nothing but perpetuating hatred. You're the self-proclaimed "Islamic scholar" so you're fluency of the Arabic language, understanding of hisotical contexts, and research of historic and modern scholarly comentary should allow for you're own in depth analization of the Quran and Sunnah to find this third path you desire. However you know this does not exist so you bring forth this impossible challenge so that when it remains unanswered, your readers continue to believe fallacies about Islam.

You are trying to make Islam what you want it to be and not trying to understand what it is. Qaradawi has clearly provided a thorough examination of the aspect of jihad in moderate terms and you strive to reject it. Jihad derives from the desire of self preservation, something present in any religion and in all people. If you are truly as convinced as you say you are that there are moderate Muslims then you should be striving as hard as Qaradawi to find and work with these Muslims to promote a positive, moderate image of Islam. There is no need to "carve" out a path when a straight path has been set before you. Your efforts need to be put into understanding that path, not rejecting it (and maybe accepting it but as stated before, it's not compulsory so there is no need for you to feel this is being forced upon you.)

@ Battle_of_Tours "Multiculturalism is a shimmera, there is no such thing. There is only the right of the individual to protect that right, by constitutional law, and this is the foundation on which our modern Western civilization if built upon. There is no 'compromise' on this issue."

How is this NOT oppression? You're essentially saying "my way or the highway" and that there are not multiple cultures.

2:256, not 2:25, I forgot that my "six" key doesn't always respond and overlooked the error.

Strangely, Yusef YK, I am glad that Muslims post here. Because were we to have to go to Islamic sites to argue with them, we would be censored a lot, but Muslims here are not censored at all. Except with censorship that is done to all that transgress in some clearly stated ways.

But now, for all the visitors to read, great arguments can be given to Muslims, while hopefully many Muslims and so-called neutral or undecided people learn a lot.

There is this religion/ political ideology Islam. And you say you belong to a different sect of it than Qaradawi, and that Wahhabi's are your enemy also.

But ..... I put it to you, that it's easy to be a Muslim, you only have to be born into an Islamic family and at some time say the Shahada. Or be converted into Islam and say it. It's harder to get out than to get into Islam.

There is no recognized authority in Islam either. Muslims can easily go against authorities like Qaradawi.

Next consider the ambiguity, self-contradictive, incomplete nature of the most important Islamic guiding texts. Hence those texts are clearly at fault, for conveying their meaning and are far too much misunderstood. The greatest fault of you Muslims is not to update your most important guiding texts.

And consider that infidels have to deal with ALL Muslims, not just with one group, that claims that Islam really is a peaceful religion. Maybe that's your group, Yusef YK.

But that group has only one version of Islam, the other versions of Islam cause Islam to grow and other religions/ atheism to suffer and your group profits from that.

You distinquish yourself from Qaradawi? Not nearly good enough, you must not stay an independent kind of Muslims, that are still profiting from the Qaradawi-kind of Muslims. You must in the end declare that you will prefer our political system over and above Qaradawi's. Albeit that you may negotiate about minor points, like Jehovahs witnesses do.

Now, you are profiting from and helping our enemy.

Battle of Tours,

"Sharia, whether 'creeping' or overtly advocated, is the magic button of the beast. Kill Sharia and Islam becomes toothless."

Given the fanatical resolve of Muslims to pursue their objective of Islamization of the world, any sufficiently broad attempts by the West to criminalize Sharia will be met with resistance. I.e., we will more likely than not have to use force (i.e., violence) to implement such a program (probably preceded by outbreaks of violence by Muslims perhaps to a higher degree than otherwise). Criminalizing Sharia but continuing to allow Muslims to live in the West is like telling Muslims "You can live here, just don't be Muslim."

"Sure, they can still cause trouble, but that is easily addressed with criminal prosecution, such as we witness more frequently of late, where budding jihadists are apprehended before they can set off their bombs."

We have only been lucky. Our luck won't last forever. There will be a plot -- or more likely several plots in many different places -- that will elude the hot dog vendor who just happens to see something suspicious in Times Square, or the video clerk who just happens to see a suspicious video rental in New Jersey; etc. And it is reasonable to suppose that the fanatical Muslims bent on mass-murdering us are trying to get better and more horrific at it. Again, given what we know about Muslims, if we enact a broad program of criminalizing their being Muslim (which is what criminalizing Sharia effectively is), it will make them even more fanatically determined to plot to mass-murder us, and will also likely have the effect of triggering many more sudden jihad syndromes and lone wolf attacks than would otherwise occur. Unless we deal with Muslims themselves, it will be like closing the barn door after the wolves have gotten in.

...

"The first order of the day must be Sharia is outlawed to preserve our anti-tyranny, free social order."

I maintain that this cannot be useful in abstraction from dealing with Muslims -- at the very least as a back-up plan ready to be implemented immediately (i.e., rounding up and deporting indiscriminately).

I don't think you're looking at the broader context in which such a solution occurs. That broader context contains a dominant & mainstream PC MC + a presence of millions of Muslims already within our societies and for the next two decades at least continuing to move in at greater numbers, and more deeply into the fabric and institutions of our societies. By the time the West is ready to even think about doing what you propose, there will be millions more Muslims within the West.

It takes no violence at all for a judge or a legislature to refuse to recognize sharia law, or to refuse to recognize as lawful any organization who's members believe in the right to kill former members of such organization (where the first amendment protects the right to associate or not associate as freely as one can change political party affiliation, or to choose none at all).

There is a distinction between mediation and arbitration. A formal arbitration award or judgment can be filed with a court and have the full force and effect, i.e., state compulsion, of any final court judgment. This includes invoking the full faith a credit clause of the federal constitution, for recognition of judgments among the states and between the federal courts and state courts. Mediation does not involve state compulsion. Consenting adults are surely free to engage in non-compulsory mediation as they see fit. Certainly no less so than consenting adults can do whatever they like behind closed doors as in the Lawrence v. Texas case. Mediation is a private matter.

If an insular muslim community will not apply the bill of rights to coreligionists then it would stand to reason that they would not extend the protections of the bill of rights to non-coreligionists.

Can you imagine if a sharia judge (or even sharia judge acting solely as a mediator) were faced with the prospect of fairly applying, as an example, the Fair Housing Laws among muslims, let alone between muslim and non-muslim? It would be safe to say that she would be wholly unprepared for the task, even if properly motivated. Would a sharia judge recognize non-muslims as a "protected class" to be specially protected from presumed discriminatory action by muslims?

If the Fair Housing Laws were applied in any way to the actions of muslims then oicruok (a commenter above) might call it OPPRESSION because it fails to acknowledge the virtue of multiculturalism (the virtue of community insularity, the virtue of creating a state within a state complete with a separate court system unreviewable by our supreme court unless populated by Islamists). The Fair Housing Laws themselves might even be deemed inherently hateful for their lack of cultural sensitivity and for "perpetuating hatred" against insularity.

I'm curious about this notion that "no one can give up any Muslim land".

What's considered "Muslim land" exactly? From what I understand it's any geographical area that was once under Islam's control. Is this correct?

If so, couldn't the same argument that Hamas makes against Israel be used against the parts of Europe that were once under Islamic rule? For example, Athens?

"Because were we to have to go to Islamic sites to argue with them, we would be censored a lot, but Muslims here are not censored at all. Except with censorship that is done to all that transgress in some clearly stated ways."

If you like, here are several sites that allow for open interfaith dialogue. They likewise allow mature debate and discussion that does not transgress reasonable limits such as no name calling, swearing, or insults:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?
http://www.imanway.com/en/
http://www.gawaher.com/
http://islamfactor.org/
http://islam.trivuz.com/forums/index.php
http://www.islamicboard.com/
http://www.myiwc.com/forums/index.php?s
http://forum.netmuslims.com/
http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/index.php
http://whyislam.org/forum/default.asp
http://www.yanabi.com/forum/

And pretty much any Muslim forum allows for any number of controversial questions to be asked about Islam so long as the person asking is genuinely seeking answers and not simply trying to make accusations.

"I put it to you, that it's easy to be a Muslim, you only have to be born into an Islamic family and at some time say the Shahada. Or be converted into Islam and say it. It's harder to get out than to get into Islam."

It is, in fact, easy to become a Muslim, but despite this ease it is not a decision to be made lightly. It then is certainly not always easy to be a Muslim.

"The greatest fault of you Muslims is not to update your most important guiding texts."

So once or twice a century maybe the Bible or the Torah could use a good review, too? Forget about some chapters that don't suit the current socio-political climate and find something suitable to take its place? The Will of God does not change according the the will of man.

"You must in the end declare that you will prefer our political system over and above Qaradawi's."

And I'm sure he would feel subdued, humbled, brought low, etc. by submitting to your political system.

@ Battle_of_Tours "Multiculturalism is a shimmera, there is no such thing. There is only the right of the individual to protect that right, by constitutional law, and this is the foundation on which our modern Western civilization if built upon. There is no 'compromise' on this issue."
How is this NOT oppression? You're essentially saying "my way or the highway" and that there are not multiple cultures.

I'll answer your question "how is this NOT oppression" with a quote from yours above.

"Qaradawi has clearly provided a thorough examination of the aspect of jihad in moderate terms and you strive to reject it. Jihad derives from the desire of self preservation, something present in any religion and in all people." (my bold)

Muslims have a major difficulty understanding the difference between self-preservation and submission to an autocratic belief-system that mandates all must surrender to Islam (conquer the world for Allah). 'Surrender' is NOT self-preservation. Our laws protect individual human beings from being forced to surrender to aggression; Muslim da'wa invites people to 'surrender' in submission to Islam. Big difference! Freedom is an inalienable right in our modern society, surrender is not. By this logic, all people living in Islamic lands who feel themselves oppressed by their Muslim overlords (Sharia) should be doing 'Jihad' in response to this oppression; that means all missionaries who are prevented from preaching the Gospel should feel themselves 'oppressed' and fight a reverse Jihad? Or anyone from Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism, should be doing 'Jihad' against Muslims if they feel themselves persecuted and their freedoms attacked? Everywhere in Muslim lands where churches or temples cannot be built should be doing 'Jihad' for self-preservation? Are they protected under Islamic Sharia of their right to self-preservation? But this is exactly what our laws protecting our freedoms demand, that no one is to be denied this right to "self-preservation", as long as they reciprocate and do not oppress in return. Islam fails the 'reciprocation' test in all its Sharia dominated societies, where for all who do not submit are tyrannized with "my way or the highway" (which makes Islam a political-ideology first, not really a religion). We ALL have a right to 'self-preservation' universally, and that is what our Freedom-based society is all about. Where does Islam protect one's freedom except the freedom to surrender to it in 'submission', and often accompanied by violence? Islam fails the test (of self-preservation for non-Muslims) universally. And if Muslims feel themselves "oppressed" by the laws that protect our human freedoms, they should be invited to leave, return to the Sharia based world where oppression is their vaunted norm.

Can you understand the difference between our freedom of 'self-preservation' and Islam's mandated religio-political 'oppression'? We call our freedom based laws Constitutional, in particular our Bill of Rights protecting the individual from institutionalized oppression. If that is oppressive to you and you cannot accept our right to self-preservation, then you are in the wrong place, wrong country, wrong time in history in our 21st century.


@ pdxnag: "It takes no violence at all for a judge or a legislature to refuse to recognize sharia law"

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind, that we can stop this legally and nip Sharia in the bud, before Islam has a chance to metastasize into something more violent, as feared by Hesperado (with good reason). If we don't do this, we run the risk of civil war later, if not sooner. I would not want to see countries in the West going the way of Lebanon.

"It takes no violence at all for a judge or a legislature to refuse to recognize sharia law, or to refuse to recognize as lawful any organization who's members believe in the right to kill former members of such organization..."

I'm surprised at how many people just don't think things through about this. The fact is, all laws require violence. The healthier society will have more people who comply with laws without having to be forced to comply. But as no society is perfect, even the best societies (in the modern West) have police and jails.

Let's take the seemingly innocuous scenario of a parking ticket to illustrate the necessity of violence as an adjunct of law enforcement:

A man gets several parking tickets over time.

He refuses to pay them.

He then gets a summons to appear in court.

He refuses to go to court.

A sheriff is sent to his home to tell him he must go to court.

The man refuses and slams the door in the sheriff's face.

The sheriff goes back to his office.

A second personal warning is given to the man.

He still refuses.

At that point, the police at his door order him to leave his home and come with them. "We are placing you under arrest", they say.

The man still refuses. The police order him again.

The man continues to refuse.

At that point, the police must lay hands on him -- itself an act of violence, even if it won't necessarily injure the man.

The man resists arrest. The police tighten their hold on him, order him to the ground.

The man continues to resist arrest, struggling to get free, perhaps tries to kick one of the officers.

The police do what they have to do to control the suspect.

Etc.

I repeat: All laws necessarily are backed up with the threat, and use if necessary, of violence.

Only a perfect society would need no enforcement of its laws.

And when we are talking about a subculture like Islam, whose tenets are riddled and bristling with violence and xenophobic tribalism, the attempt by a society to formally command Muslims to disobey Allah and Mohammed would obviously inflame Muslims even more than they are already (which is saying a lot) -- and more importantly for my point here, would require violence on our part to enforce, given the violent and fanatical nature of Muslims.

Thank you, oicruok, for the polite reply. And for the links, interesting, I could well go there if they let me speak.

By becoming subservient to our political system Muslims only become equal to followers of all other faiths/ ways of life.

But by becoming subservient to the Islamic political system, followers all faiths; Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, all small religions become second-rank-civilians.

About the most important guiding texts of Muslims. If you do not change your supposes message of God, than at least build an intterpretation/ explanation around it and make it clear and broadcast it.

What happens now? Muslims rely heavily on Quran and Hadith. But these are very ambiguous, unclear, contradictory in parts and very incomplete. The result is that there are many interpretations of Quran and Hadith possible and in fact existing. And there is no authority in Islam that says what is and what is not Islamic that is followed by all or most Muslims. You Muslims continue to assure us democracy-loyalists what Islam MEANS, is meant to be from Allah. But the texts are thus that that message simply does not seem to be UNDERSTOOD. But is MISUNDERSTOOD by vast numbers of Muslims. And that means that Allah failed, that the most important guiding texts have NOT conveyed their real meaning into enough people's minds.

Because of so-called radical Muslims openly practising and aiming for theocratic Islam-supremacist way of organising society opposing among democracy-loyalists is now very strong.

And because Muslims cannot change their holy texts and will not unite under an explanation of it that is followed by the vast majority of its followers, it is easy for democracy-loyalists to defeat Muslims in debate.

Your inability to change your texts or augment your texts with another text that unifies those under the name of Muslims, makes you Muslims sitting ducks for criticizing your religion, once you no longer have the military power to prevent criticizing.

In my opinion at least part of you need somehow to align with democracy-loyalists, if need be through negotiations. At least a part of you needs to be acceptable to democracy-loyalists who know what Islam is all about.

Now, there is so much division among Muslims, but infidels have to deal with ALL Muslims, and anyway, anything in defense of Islam a Muslim says, while he/ she is still part of the Ummah, more than of the democratic community, makes that Muslim hypocritical, because he/she still profits from unjust terrorism and oppression that benefits Islam and is detrimental for the other religions.

Thank you for your polite reply as well. You do raise some good points that I think would be more than welcome to be discussed on many Islamic forums (thought I admit, not all.) I can't readily answer everything thoroughly because I have only been studying Islam for about half a year. I'll make the disclaimer that my responses can't be considered a "Muslim" response because I don't yet have enough knowledge to feel confident what I say can be representative of the religion (also, largely because I'm not a Muslim.) So I'll respond to what I can as best I can and admit defeat to what I can't answer.

"About the most important guiding texts of Muslims. If you do not change your supposed message of God, than at least build an interpretation/explanation around it and make it clear and broadcast it."
-I think that's what a lot of moderate Muslims are doing. I feel that it is because the interpretation is still not exactly what people (especially in the West) want to hear so it still gets put down.

"The result is that there are many interpretations of Quran and Hadith possible and in fact existing."
-Some of the multiple interpretations and the misinterpretations/misunderstandings that follow arise from translating the texts. This issue occurs when translating almost any language to almost any other language. There are idiosyncrasies, nuances, and cultural elements that continue to get lost in translation if thorough care is not taken. And even when thorough care is taken some things just can't translate (without long two volume explanations of a single word :P ) Added to that, the Quran is classical literature so the language used is older and more academic.

"You Muslims continue to assure us democracy-loyalists what Islam MEANS, is meant to be from Allah. But the texts are thus that that message simply does not seem to be UNDERSTOOD. But is MISUNDERSTOOD by vast numbers of Muslims."
-As I said, part of this comes from translating the texts and the texts' age. Because language is not static the Arabic spoken today is different from the Arabic of 1400 years ago. However, if the Quran were to be written in today's modern Arabic there would still be things lost in translation which it partly why Islamic study has become so scholarly and academic and non-pedestrian.

"And that means that Allah failed, that the most important guiding texts have NOT conveyed their real meaning into enough people's minds."
-I say this as a valid defense only if you do believe in some sort of omniscient, infallible god: It cannot be the case that God has failed, it is the finite nature of humans that is the cause of the shortcomings. It is also frequently stated in the Quran (paraphrased) that Allah guides whom he wills to and from the straight path and that he is omniscient. Thus there is a reason for so many being misguided, even if there is no reason we as humans can perceive for it.

"And because Muslims cannot change their holy texts and will not unite under an explanation of it that is followed by the vast majority of its followers, it is easy for democracy-loyalists to defeat Muslims in debate"
-I think the ease of the debate depends on the subject of debate and how one determines a "winner" and loser." However you do raise an extremely good point in the first part of your statement. The texts cannot be changed but Muslims should strive for some sort of united "explanation."

"In my opinion at least part of you need somehow to align with democracy-loyalists, if need be through negotiations. At least a part of you needs to be acceptable to democracy-loyalists who know what Islam is all about."
-When you say "what Islam is all about" if you are implying something positive I can agree with the statement. If, however, you are implying Islam needs to change to suit the modern West (without the West also being willing to come to a middle ground) then there is a continued stalemate on this point.

"anything in defense of Islam a Muslim says, while he/ she is still part of the Ummah, more than of the democratic community, makes that Muslim hypocritical because he/she still profits from unjust terrorism and oppression that benefits Islam and is detrimental for the other religions."
-Well then as a non-Muslim American doing my best to understand Islam in order to confidently defend it I am not a hypocrite. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with a defense for someone in the Ummah. My best try is that if a moderate Muslim within the Ummah is offered something (money, power, etc.) and at any point they become aware its existence derives from terrorism or oppression then they should reject it.

"But by becoming subservient to the Islamic political system, followers all faiths; Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, all small religions become second-rank-civilians."
-I don't have the knowledge to dispute this.

That's all I've got for now. :)

Thanks a lot for your interesting reaction, oicruok. My thoughts are still evolving and here and there I may have spoken rashly.

Stalemate? Well, I think the secular Democratic system is already the fairest existing system for a multitude of religions, living together, but negotiating a few points by Muslims could be considered.

Also, Muslims could be totally honest and in their own states set up a good Islamic system, taking in all Muslims who honestly are more loyal to Islamic Theocracy than to Secular Democratic system. And also those that are expelled from Democratic states for that reason after being caught in a hostile act.

And the Democratic states could consider carefully taking in citizens of Islamic states that want to exchange Theocratic with Democratic rule and system and are prepared to swear an oath to that effect. And given current Islamic practices, many young Muslima's may avail themselves of this opportunity I think.

So, OK, I'll leave Allah out of it, but what is UNDERSTOOD of Quran and Hadith, in contrast to what is MEANT, is vastly divided. And part of the Muslim interpret unchangeable Quran and Hadith in a way very detrimental for followers of other faiths and the secular democratic system. And the infidels have to deal with all Muslims, not just the best understanding ones.

Islam profits from terrorising and oppressing Muslims and so all Muslims profit from it. I wasn't talking about money, but faith. If a persons faith profits and the competitor faiths of it suffer, then I say that person profits already.

The Muslims lose debates constantly because the texts they have to rely on are just too unclear, uncomplete, contradicting each other and ambiguous. And the infidels are now incredibly knowledgeable about them. More than one interpretation are more or less valid. No Muslim can say anymore what Islam is and what Islam is not with any authority. If she/ he tries to do so it is to be considered ignorant and arrogant. It's that bad for Muslims now.

And Quran and Hadith being originally in Arabic and even less understandable because of translation makes the already big diversity in understanding and misunderstanding that much bigger.

If Muslims cannot unite in vast majority behind an actually followed authority..... With a well updated, clear text following Quran and Hadith, then ....

Muslims either must unite against democracy in an honest way, or preferably for us, split.

Normally in democratic societies strict neutrality is OK, but citizens being in alliance with foreign enemies is NOT.

Islamic citizens in Democratic countries will have to become
Democrats first, over and above being Theocrats, or face the consequences of siding with an enemy. It's hard for them to be neutral in this, and it would be unreasonable to ask of infidels to trust them if they did NOT choose Democracy over Theocracy. Even if they do this, trust from infidels still has to be earned by Muslims with good behavior, meaning pro-democratic, anti-theocratic behavior.

If they can't do it, they should honestly admit it and I think separate; the loyal Democrats to Democratic nations, the loyal Theocrats to Theocratic nations. And economic motivations should either come second after this consideration, or must force a Theocrat into swearing an oath to be a Democrat.

At least in an honest world, where the best system wins in a fair competition.

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