Zayed-Spencer debate: Did Muhammad teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers?

It certainly has become easier to spot a confused and/or lying Muslim ever since I began to research Islam...Muslims hate it when the truth about Islam reaches Infidels willing to learn....The cloak of Islam falls to the ground...

Some scholars say that Islam discriminates against non-Moslems.

There's a problem with this statement; a ridiculous problem. The Ko-Ran, Ha-Deaths and Sear-Rah all flatly command discrimination against Infidels. So why the debate, which would only be productive if held on Hannity or O'Reilly or the Situation Room where some good might be done.

The central problem of the Resistance has always been a PR problem (or lack of PR). Great progress has been made in this regard, but it's been a slow progress that is now being outstripped by the pace of events.

Did Muhammad teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers?
Do bears shit in the woods?

Let's see what the mufasireen -- the expert exegetes -- say on this matter...

"[T]he believers have been ordered to fight all non-believers until mischief-that is, every system of thought, belief, and action which is not based on recognition of Allah as the Supreme Authority, and which therefore will perpetually remain the source of all strife and unrest-has been wiped out, and entire humanity adopts the approved way of life, Allah’s Deen."

Syed Abul-Ala Maududi, "Four Basic Quranic Terms", http://is.gd/sxUkkN

"Offensive Jihad is that the Muslims should invite the kuffar towards Islam. If they do not accept then they should be asked to pay Jizyah (kufr tax). If they also deny this then a war must be waged against them because it is not possible that a kafir, a rebel against Allah who denies Islam can carry on ruling upon Allah’s land. This type of Jihad is Faradh-e-Kifaya i.e. if one group fulfils this obligation then it will be sufficient on behalf of the whole Ummah."

“I Have A Question”, Maulana Mohammed Masood Azhar, http://is.gd/Y57fwh

"We, as Muslims, are commanded to establish the sovereignty of Allah’s Law in the land of Allah and over His creation. We are commanded not to allow anyone to judge between people by anything other than the Law of Allah. Those who refuse and resist must be fought...

[S]o either people believe and have peace of mind or they will have to pay Jizyah in humiliation, with the laws of Islam reigning supreme. But if they refuse to do so out of arrogance and obstinacy, then we will have to wield the sword until all these false deities are removed."

In Pursuit of Allah’s Pleasure, Dr. Naajeh Ibrahim, Sheikh ‘Aasim ‘Abdul Maajid, Sheikh ‘Esaam-ud-Deen Darbaalah, Supervised by Dr. Sheikh Umar Abdur Rahman, http://is.gd/iKjomC

"The injunction to fight spells out four reasons in this verse:
1. They do not believe in Allah.
2. They do not believe in the Hereafter.
3. They do not take as prohibited what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited.
4. They do not submit to the Faith of Truth...

Since all wars must end, a limit and end of the action of fighting against those people has also been set forth in this verse where it has been said: (until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are humbled). Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the Shari’ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing...

Regarding the instruction given in this verse that once these people have agreed to pay jizyah, fighting should be stopped, a little explanation may be useful. According to the majority of Muslim jurists, it includes all disbelievers – whether from the People of the Book or from those other than them. However, the Mushriks of Arabia stand excluded from it for jizyah was not accepted from them...

[S]oon after the expiry of the treaty deadline, Jihad is obligatory against all Mushriks and disbelievers."

Ma’ariful-Qur’an, Volume 4, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’i, translated by Prof. Muhammad Hasan Askari & Prof. Muhammad Shamim, http://is.gd/OLKuXR

"As for the payment of Jizyah, the Qur’an made it together with humiliation as the sabab (cause) of stopping the fighting, not the cause of fighting itself. From here it came that the sabab (cause) of Jihad is disbelief.

If those whom we fight accept the da’wah they become Muslims. If they refuse to accept Islam, but accept to pay the Jizyah and be ruled by Islam (i.e. accept to be a subject to the Islamic ruling), it is accepted from them and they are not fought...

As long as they accept to be ruled by it and pay the Jizyah, they have submitted to the da’wah even if they did not embrace Islam. However, if they accept to pay the Jizyah but refuse to be ruled by Islam, it is not allowed to accept this from them because the cause (sabab) of fighting, which is that they are disbelievers who have refused to accept the da’wah, remains standing. So fighting them remains obligatory; an obligation which has not fallen from the necks of the Muslims.

Therefore the cause (sabab) of Jihad is that those whom we fight are disbelievers who have refused to accept the da’wah and there is no other cause (sabab) for Jihad.

This means that the Shar’i ruling to perform the Jihad will remain existent so long as there remain people in the world who are disbelievers who have refused to submit to the Islamic ruling. If this is the case then Jihad will exist until the Islamic da’wah encompasses the whole world...

[W]hat requires the application of Jihad, that is the matter that brings it into existence (sabab), is if there are disbelievers present in the world and who are not under the ruling system of Islam, that is, under the Khilafah State.

Therefore, Jihad is obligatory until the whole population of the world either becomes Muslim or accepts the da’wah. Meaning that the ruling system of Islam encompasses the whole world...

If a state and its people did not accept the invitation to Islam, nor if accepted the ruling of Islam and the expansion of the Khilafah State, then fighting and warfare ensues to remove any obstacles in the way of practically and comprehensively implementing the ruling by what Allah has revealed. This would mean that they would inevitably become citizens of the Khilafah State, like our forefathers before us and be governed by the ruling of Allah. Once citizens of the Islamic State, that is, once the Khilafah State has successfully removed the obstacles to establish its ruling, the objectives of fighting have been achieved and it thus stops and the conquered are ruled over by Islam."

"Jihad and the Foreign Policy of the Khilafah State", Zahid Ivan-Salam, July 3rd 2001, http://is.gd/n5ddTP

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5389)

How much more offensive can the prophet of Islam go!!!!! Sinister design/rule above is not for a war-like environment; instead, its a rule for daily life and its sick beyond any reasonable doubt.

Thanks Robert for educating Zayed and liberal west.

Tom B and gerard: Why is this still a question or up for debate..OF COURSE they teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. The question should be ignored because answering it gives the question credibility. We should be past this by now.

You are so right Dee Jay. It only raises the status of the Islamacist argument to accept that their questions have any merit at all.

Note that in the debate that Zayed, when ever mentioning the "prophet",Mohammed, did not dare to omit the phrase, "Peace be upon him." To omit this fawning phrase is to invite a trip to Hell...forever. This truly is mind-jail. No Muslim dares to omit "Peace be upon him." "Islam", most of us now know, means "submission." This is a theology for slavery: Muslims must give up even free thought. I mentioned in another comment that anyone who believes in an "all-powerful" god, but still thinks this all-mighty one has a rival, is by definition schizophrenic. And since anybody who has taken Psychology 101 is taught that that one cannot explain schizophrenia to a schizophreniac, debate with religious fanatics is a waste of time. But, if the fanatic begins to feel he is losing the debate, or feels even a fraction of doubt due to the words of his opposite debater, real fear sets in because he is trained to believe that a devil rules the bodies of the "non-believers, and how else could the non-believer be winning the debate unless inspired by a devil? This fear can cause such a strong release of brain chemicals that near-hallucinations can develope thus reinforcing the idea that a devil is in the body of the chap winning the debate: in this state the fanatic will very likely get violent. I know: I've been a religious fanatic! There is biological explainations for the violence, for the sheer madness of religious fanatics. Yes,its a biological thing, but Muslim religion, law and culture all too often encourages this crazy, violent behavior that in other cultures is considered criminally insane. In my case of religious fanaticism, after being away only a week from the reinforcement of my fellow fanatics, reason popped up again like a cork out of milk: not a drop stuck to me. That was 38 years ago, proving that religious insanity is curable! Cheers.

well,

it is just ridiculous that the guy keeps on claiming that mo was the greatest human being that ever lived. a man who personally beheaded people, married a nine year old, and recited a bunch of incomprehensible stuff to justify his actions claiming they were from god! also he is supposed to have consummated his marriage when his child bride was 9 but if i am right, he was 'thigh-ing' her in the interim three years. whatever that means, it is a pretty sick image. so he did not screw the poor six year old but he 'thigh-ed' her eh? and he did not have lust? do muslims even have a brain?

i mean the reality of mo was that he did KILL his enemies in a brutal manner. was that the way of jesus? would jesus have beheaded his enemy the same way if they had been captured? would jesus even fight a war? look at where the debate descends when it comes to mo. i am an atheist but i feel people like jesus and the buddha existed in a different plane than mo. mr. spencer could have driven this point home.

the muzzie argument is that everyone in the area was violent. but the answer is no, it was not the case. jesus was born in the same area, mo knew his example and simply did not follow it.