No, Robert, all those terrorists like Zarqawi and Bin Laden have misunderstood the Koran is exactly the same way, just like those proverbial monkeys in space who just happened to randomly reproduce all the works of Shakespeare.
By the way, lately I haven't been able to post comments - I get a "You're not allowed to post comments" message, yet I logged in ok; it happens pretty frequently, but not always.

Posted by: jewdog at December 24, 2006 9:11 AM

We do not have to engage in "demonizing" Muslims; they are doing a good job of it on their own.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 24, 2006 9:19 AM

Safi is just another smooth talking snake oil salesman.
Robert is right that Safi should be selling that line to the mis-understanders in his own back yard.
His backyard is full of them...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 24, 2006 9:27 AM

Robert--
I realize that letting slanderous attacks go is hard to do. Yet as one who is at your blog daily and reads most of what you post--I think your defenses should be much shorter. The ALREADY POSTED quotes of the koran and such are all that is needed--AND demonstrating that the jihadists are using those same verses. I hate to see your blog turn into a place where you are spending such a high percentge of the space defending your name against each attack point by point. It is not necessary--you could pretty much keep the necessary contents of your books as hyperlinks for those who are new to the site.

Your enemies are distorting/slandering you at every turn. It will NEVER stop and will only increase each day. A shorter summary of the latest taqquia lies about you would suffice us.

What is more important now is the MOBILIZATION of our POPULATION against "ISLAMIZATION" to save our CIVILIZATION!! i. e--getting done what Virgil Goode is now calling for--to stop the insanity.

On behalf of many JWer's I want to remind you that we LOVE you and appreciate your stand for truth and the courage it takes to do what you do in the face of all the slander and threats you get. You are a modern patriot--so NEVER BACK DOWN!!!

Merry Christmas RS!

Posted by: BB at December 24, 2006 9:29 AM

Safi acts as if it is I who have originated the idea that the Qur'an is the jihadists' inspiration and justification.

After reading all of your books Mr. Spencer and checking up on you myself -- I find your material accurate and your material presented more as a 'neutral report' or expository essay of the subject of islam.

It appears to me that for someone who wants to be tolerant, unbiased, and objective -- that Safi uses many emotionaly charged words in his assesment of your words.

For example: Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims...

okay, where is the value judgement here? Why does this not sound objective to me?

One thing I do credit you for Mr. Spencer, is that you have not seeded your prose with the value judgements, but maintain your academic honesty in presenting the facts.

Finally, I will inform you that many people with whom I engage don't look at me as if I had three heads anymore, when I mention your insights about islam.

(Many people I deal with engage in business in the Middle East and MUST deal with islam unfortantely)

They used to think that I was misinformed; but now, having their own business dealings and being forced to deal with islam -- MANY, MANY people are starting to awaken to what islam is and what it entails.

NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE DISAGREES WITH ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN!

The only ones who do disagree with you are community college professors who have left their neighborhood school district for over thirty years, and who don't dare read your books perhaps in fear that doing so would not be politically correct.

Nevertheless, Word IS getting out!

Posted by: witness at December 24, 2006 9:31 AM

Not that I am one for PC usuage, but perhaps, to make it abundantly clear to idiotic writers that you are dealing with how current Jihadist's use the Qu'ran to justify their actions and gain their motivation, you should start to title further books along the lines of:

An exploration of the current understanding and application of Jihad as understood by: N, N, and N; where N stands for the Name(s) of persons that are the Islamic experts / religious leaders in the Middle East who support the offensive Jihad. Thus, if accused of cherry-picking; one only has to point to the source.

Personally, I'd love for Islam to be peaceful and tolerant, but that has not been my experience; nor the experience of countless other human beings ever since Islam was founded and decided to go on a military crusade that hasn't stopped in over 1500 years; unlike the Christian Crusade I might add.

Posted by: Monkeywho at December 24, 2006 9:37 AM

"Having little insight into Muslim societies and Islamic faith and history,"

Why would people, not Robert Spencer, but just folks in America or Europe have little insight into Muslim societies?

Could it be because many Muslim countries are highly intolerant of non-Muslims going there?

Someone's essay pointed out that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. Could that be why they have little insight? Isn't that insight enough.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 24, 2006 9:49 AM

Safi's comments about how Robert asserts that certain Muslims use the Quran to justify jihad are interesting. The fact that he denies this is true is baffling. I have seen interviews with bin Laden where he asserts that the Quran is what gives him the authority to carry out his jihad. I have seen similar interviews with his followers, from certain Palestinian representatives and the Islamic Courts in Somolia. I recently saw a captured video that was taken by Iraqi jihadists as they carried out the bombing of a hotel. In Arabic they can be clearly heard to say, "God is Great." With all of the sources available, I wonder why Safi has such a problem finding them. Do you think that maybe is aware of them, but does not use them because they do not jibe with what he wants us to think? After careful consideration, I believe that the latter is the only rational explaination for his assertions. Who is kidding who here?

Posted by: Dispeller at December 24, 2006 9:52 AM

Consider the Goode Letter and the Koran as two texts. Which text is more intolerant?

Now consider those who call Goode intolerant. Who is more intolerant, those who object to Goode's Letter or Goode objecting to the Koran?

Let > mean more intolerant.

If

Koran > Goode Letter

then

Criticizing Koran

If Goode Letter = bigotry, then we can substitute

bigotry

So those who criticize Goode as a bigot or intolerant are super bigots and super intolerant.

Let those who disagree with this conclusion say which part of the argument they don't agree with.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 24, 2006 10:05 AM

The previous post didn't come out for some reason, it didn't like the symbols. So in words it looks as follows.

If Koran is more intolerant than Goode Letter

then

Criticizing Goode Letter is more intolerant than Criticizing the Koran

So if Goode Letter = bigotry, then

Criticizing Goode Letter is more intolerant than Goode's alleged bigotry.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 24, 2006 10:08 AM

Like all other muslim fakers and liars, Safi the Scumbag simply ignores the obvious: that Muslims murder, rape, torture, enslave, and steal the property of all those who disagree with their dead pedophile-in-chief false prophet. They have always done this and openly taken much pride in it. If Islam were the peaceful, benevolent religion he claims it is, every Muslim country would be a full-fledged democracy instead of totalitarian dictatorship. Christians, Jews, and other religious faiths would be practicing openly and without fear. Obviously, this is not the case. His empty words do not square with reality. He is just another enemy who we need to be on our guard against.................

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at December 24, 2006 10:15 AM

People criticize politicians like Goode or writers like Robert Spencer based on picking out the most intolerant phrase they can find. Then they attack that on a TV segment or article and ignore everything else the person has said or written.

So the metric (or comparator) is that a person's bigotry or a text's bigotry is based on the most extreme statement they have said or written. This is the metric used by TV and newspapers and typically on the internet.

So the same metric is used for the Koran. Just as Goode or Spencer are judged by their most allegedly intolerant or bigoted statement, so is the Koran and so is Muhammed. That is the metric the TV people use.

Its possible to do the same thing with them or those denouncing Goode. Take a statement from the Koran and ask them if they agree with it. Ask them if its intolerant or bigoted. Also one can take a statement and not tell them its from the Koran and just ask them if they agree with it, especially if its close relative is also in Mein Kampf or some other place.

Those attacking Goode have to use the same metric or the same order relation.

Courts of law including war crime trials do the same thing. A person is convicted based on doing the extreme thing, often the worst thing they ever did.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 24, 2006 10:21 AM

Saying that you cherry pick the bad bits out of the koran, is like saying someone cherry picks the bad bits of Nazism (Holocaust) while ignoring the good bite (laws pertaining to the more humane treatment of shellfish when killing them).

As for that bit about "historical context", is he admitting that islam is a context based ideology in which case it can now be largely discarded?

Posted by: Celsius at December 24, 2006 10:28 AM

Just the facts Mamn, just the facts.
Thats what I like about you Robert,no matter how hard the apoligists try to lead you down the yellow brick road you bring them back to a reality they have no answer to or even attempt to address,while at the same time trying to make it sound as if YOU are the problem.

The stark reality is, so called moderate Muslims need to address the issues head on and instead of trying to educate 294 million Americans on the peaceful nature of Islam,they need to instead concentrate on getting six million American Muslims educated on the American culture they are now living in and to teach them ways to adapt to our culture rather than to try to get the 294 million to adapt to their culture.

The alternative to this will be a hard road indeed. Aside from the fact a great number, a number so high I would hate to even speculate, would rather adapt to a subserviant position in this American society, but yet not so high of a number that it would result in vast amounts of bloodletting. A future and a vision that one does not want to dwell on.

One only needs to look at back issues of Voice of the Martyr's for the last 15 years, going back even further if one needs to see the documintation, at what life is like in Muslin nations for Christians, non-Christians, and Muslims alike, that is not needed if you take at face value even the latest issue. And the cure for this maltreatment in those nations was to, disguise,run,hide,and try to find anyone anywhere who would be willing to shelter and administer medical care.

Posted by: havekoranwilltravel at December 24, 2006 10:28 AM

Mmm well...no , i will not change my mind.
Muhammad was a deluded,lying,mass murdering,
raping,robbing,kidnapping,child molesting gangster.
I hope Santa will leave all muslims the gift of
an intelligence quotent of three figures to help with thier evolution.
Happy Christmas.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 24, 2006 10:34 AM

International Institute of Islamic Thought: The very definition of an oxymoron.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at December 24, 2006 10:36 AM

Once we accept cherry picking to judge error or bigotry, the Koran is bigoted.

Once we accept the Koran is bigoted, Robert Spencer and Virgil Goode are not bigoted to point it out. Nor is anyone bigoted to try to prevent the US from becoming more bigoted than it is.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 24, 2006 10:37 AM

Louay Safi ought to be fighting against this interpretation of Islam among his fellow Muslims, instead of fighting against me for noting its existence, as if I originated it.(*

That aint gonne change. The day Muslims will learn to be critical of themselves many of the problems may well disappear. Islam never ever took on critique ever since its invention like the Christianity did. Criticism is a totally new phenomenon for the Muslims, that I mean criticizing themselves. They are well trained to criticize the others, which is obvious in every other Islamic scripts… We are pigs etc. The logic is absurd. They bend backwards to get ‘pigs’ converted to Islam, as if a ‘pig’ can change after chanting a couple sentences read out of Cowran.

I wouldn't hold my breath too long and expect Muslims to be reasonable, that is not even a pipedream.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 24, 2006 10:45 AM

Robert:

But who in the Muslim world or the umma decides when their cause for jihad is justified?

Who decides when non-Muslims or a western country is qualified to be recognized as part of the dar-al-harb? We know that Islamic armies raged across the middle East and into Spain in an offensive position, had Spain attacked,or threatened Islam? Where all these countries that Muslims conquered over the past 1,300 years threats to the Islamic world?

Posted by: Mackie at December 24, 2006 10:48 AM

Muslims don't need infidels to carry on a campaign showing the evils of Islam. They are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, and they do, every day. Check the London Telegraph or check worldnetdaily.com, which has a link to it

http://worldnetdaily.com/

The Christian community in Mosul predates Islam by at least five centuries. Yet they are unable even to celebrate Christmas without fear of attack. It's not because of the war. It's because Sunnis are looking to ethnically cleanse their city, where Christians have lived for almost two thousand years and where Islam has coexisted with Christianity for fifteen hundred years.

"A letter was delivered to my door with two bullets placed on top of it," said Mr Fadi, 32, standing watchfully in the neat garden of his two-storey villa. "It said: 'Leave, crusaders, or we will cut your heads off.' They want us to go from Mosul completely."

The earlier story in JW spoke of Britons of Pakistani descent conspiring out of Pakistan to blow up the Chunnel. Are either of these examples of "peaceful tolerant Islam"? Are they cherry-picking? Show me where Muslims are welcoming to anyone who doesn't share their faith and who won't accept dhimmitude.

Posted by: PMK at December 24, 2006 10:55 AM

Has anybody ever drawn up a abrogation chart? I understand that such a thing would be somewhat speculative, given that the chornology of Koranic surahs is poorly understood, but it would be good to have a verse-by-verse chart of abrogations in the Koran.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 24, 2006 10:57 AM

Evangelical Christians are bigoted, we start with that. Evangelical Christians don't kill, but they criticize the Muslims who do. Therefore it isn't the killing, or the reason for the killing that is bigoted, its the criticism.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 24, 2006 11:05 AM

Out of the hundreds of the Quran’s verses left out of Spencer’s discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

muhammad sent his muslims to neighboring villages telling them to "first" offer them a chance to convert to islam, if they refuse, then offer them a chance to pay jizya, then if they refuse fight them. "And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; " according to the surah above the muslims have been "turned out" if they refuse the muslim offer to convert or pay jizya!

Another point i would make about mr safis statement aboput the far right turning this war on terror into a war on islam, is that it is not the far right nor the far left nor the middle that is seeking to tirn this war on tarror into a war on islam! It is infact the muslims(islam) that is seeking to turn this war on terror into a war on islam.
Did president Bush not say loudly, and clearly, "this is not a war against muslims and islam"?

It is infact the muslims and their so called representatives who at every step america takes against the "hijackers" of the islamic faith that they scream the nonmuslims are nattacking their religion!
So then one must ask, when we attack and fight the terrorist( hijackers of islams faith) are we actually fighting "true islam?"
I and many others await your answer mr safi!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 24, 2006 11:08 AM

Oh, ok, evil far-rightists are trying to start a civilizational conflict while we righteous liberals are working for peace.

But Islamic aggression against non-muslims on a civilizational conflict (casualties in many tens of thousands globally just in the past decade or so) scale is happening (and has a previous and long historical record). Just talk to any of the tens of thousands of people in Nigeria, the Sudan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Phillipines (I could go on and on) that had relatives killed by international muslim military organizations (following their goal of muslim global dominance) for the crime of not being muslim. Any time you have tens of thousands of casualties on a global scale, that is NOT the work of a few guys with a screw loose who just happen to be muslim.

What the liberals (and, yes, even many conservatives) mean is that the vast majority of the people being killed by muslim jihadis are non-westerners, so essentially who cares? So let's not offer support to any non-muslims being killed by muslim jihadis, let's not even say that they are being killed by muslim jihadis, because that might make muslims angry and then muslim jihadis may try to kill us even harder (i.e. it might make this a “conflict of civilizations”!). Let's not even say that muslim jihadis had killed people in the past, such as the Armenian genocide or the Byzantine Greek ethnic cleansing, because that may also make us more of a target.

Hopefully, if we coddle muslims enough, we can go back to that wonderful period of "peace" before 9/11, when essentially all of the tens of thousands of non-muslims killed by muslim jihadis were non-westerners, who don't count. Hey maybe we can chip in with some international aid and bomb non-muslims that fight back to make the jihadis work a little easier.

That morally bankrupt policy failed the first time, and it won't work now either, because the jihadis accurately recognize it for the cowardice that it is and are encouraged to go after the countries that practice it.

What reasonable people are advocating is a response tailored to scale of the global Islamic aggression against non-muslims which would be designed to defeat it. The weak "war on terror" seems to be designed less to defeat that aggression then to convince jihadis to go back to killing only non-western non-muslims. What we need is a global strategy based on moral clarity. One side already IS fighting a civilizational war (and has been for hundreds of years) to the best of it's ability and resources, all the while trying to spread enough disinformation to the non-muslim sides to prevent them from uniting and responding on the same scale.

Muslims have not done any meaningful fighting in this war on terror, polls show that they see even this limited PC war on terror as a "war against muslims", they don't inform on the radicals among them on a significant level, they complain that even the very limited police measures taken since 9/11 are oppressing their community. But they are with us against the terrorists 100%! hmmm....yeah right. How can you at the same time be both against something and also against everything that is designed to combat that something?

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 24, 2006 11:47 AM

khaibar, khaibar, ive heard the muslims scream this many many times. ive read the friday sermons muslim clerics give at their masjids from memri.org and heard their imams screaming khaibar ,khaibar. I was interested in finding out just what was this glorious moment in islams history that leaves them still screaming about khaibar today.
Ive named this hadith "rape of safiya" the reason for the name will be apparent as you read this hadith. notice when muhammad and his muslims descended on this village it wasnt an offering of peace they were bringing, nor an offer to convert or pay jizya. muhammad said when he approached a village it was ""evil"" he and his muslims were bringing to that village!
notice also the vilagers came out with their farm tools to work, not with arms to do battle!

þ*** Found in: Volume 1.- 1.367: Narrated `Abdul `Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a nation (to fight) then EVIL will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraidha and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawaq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walima (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle ."þ

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 24, 2006 12:04 PM

i feel this is an appropiate place to add this little gem from the sunnah of muhammad concerning the captive women muhammad and his muslims took after slaughtering the men and boys from the villages they attacked!

Salih Bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al al-Sheikh-hadith # 816
Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Banu Al-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women. We were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we refrained from copulation with our female captives lest should we lose the right of asking ransom for them (in case they bear children for us). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is among us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter whether you perform `azl or not, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Hadith number in Sahih Muslim [Arabic only]: 2599

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 24, 2006 12:08 PM

Professor Spencer!

Merry Christmas!

Take the squeals from the Muslim spokesmen and their 5th column, the liberal American left, as a sign of your success - the more criticism, death threats, etc., the better. What you do indeed takes much courage. Keep the books and articles coming.

Probably, Muslims through shear ignorance and/or stupidity do not realize that when they agitate the English-speaking peoples, they are setting themselves up for their own destruction. If it keeps up and especially, if they serve up to Americans on American soil, any more charred bodies, Mecca will eventually become a charred hole, strawberry patch, and/or parking lot. One half of this country is asleep, but the Muslims can awaken it very quickly. I believe, professor Spencer, that you and all who support your efforts here know this and like myself are trying to prevent such a turn of events. At a time like this in our country's history, civility and sensitivity is a bunch of crap. Finally, your dedication to this cause of proactive communication in defense of Western Civilization, bespeaks it as your raison d'etre. Thank you and may the God of the New Testament, bless you and care of you this holiday season.

BTW, I have two of your books and have read one. Well done!

If any Muslims read this and want proof of the danger they are in, they should consider the evangelical Christian General of the Civil War, Thomas Jonathan Jackson. His spirit is still alive. Be careful!

Keep up the good work, Professor Spencer.

Crusading in the name of Jesus!

Posted by: Crusader at December 24, 2006 12:09 PM

So muhammad, this perfect man, this messenger of allah condones rape and adultery!

its not his story,
its not my story,
its history!!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 24, 2006 12:11 PM

Archimedes addresses this 'cherry picking' charge in the Debaters' handbook project here. Only two things I'd add to that:

• When these 'cherries' are put in 'context', they are shown to be even worse. For instance, Surah 109, which allegedly promotes tolerance, aside from being abrogated, came up in the context of the satanic verses, where Mohammed was refusing to worship the pre-existing gods of the Arab pagans (who, it must be said, were better than Islam has been throughout its history)
  
• Even if the 'good' verses were picked, they'd be shown to be bad when... put in context. The Islamic meanings of truth, knowledge, persecution, corruption, mischief, justice, et al.
  For instance, for the definition of truth, use Quran 16:105, not only to see what it means in Islam, but also how it forms the underpinnings of rejecting Infidel testimonies in Shariah courts.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 24, 2006 12:36 PM

CAIR essentially claims Goode to be a bigot.

Two questions: Can I go to Mecca if If so choose? Does anyone know?; Could I build a Baptist Church in Saudi or elsewhere in the Middle East?

Posted by: sounder at December 24, 2006 12:48 PM

To Crusader and Robert: May God protect you both. We're in a great fight. Praying for you daily. Will soon be mobilizing more against the enemy here in Toronto. United we stand.

Posted by: hasvfidra at December 24, 2006 1:06 PM

Robert:
First of all, Merry Christmas, to you and all anti-Jihadists here.

Second, it just occurred to me that what you and Hugh are doing is restoring "interpretive sanity" to the study of Islam.
On a thread at Dhimmi Watch yesterday, about Karen Armstrong's article in the Guardian, Alarmed Pig Farmer had a great insight, as usual, and just as usually expressed laconically but full of flavor: graduates of exclusive finishing schools--Oxford in this case--such as Armstrong become masters of "contortionist" techniques to deny the obvious and turn reality on its very head.
Armstrong's is an instance of the deconstructionist disease that infects the thinking in almost all academia, not just elite schools.
I see this as the plague of contemporary intellectual life. Sinister, deadly.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at December 24, 2006 1:57 PM

Robert--
I realize that letting slanderous attacks go is hard to do. Yet as one who is at your blog daily and reads most of what you post--I think your defenses should be much shorter. The ALREADY POSTED quotes of the koran and such are all that is needed--AND demonstrating that the jihadists are using those same verses. I hate to see your blog turn into a place where you are spending such a high percentge of the space defending your name against each attack point by point. It is not necessary--you could pretty much keep the necessary contents of your books as hyperlinks for those who are new to the site.

Posted by: BB at December 24, 2006 09:29 AM

BB much as I agree with the sentiments in your post, I think it would be unwise for Robert to take a more casual/flippant approach to rebuking his detractors, please see below for why.

The first great war of the 21st century is a war unlike any other and as it is a war based on information, perception and propaganda, Robert and those of us that do post on JW should always commit the time to post clear and logical counter arguments (no matter how superfluous) to those who would otherwise use subterfuge and lies as a means to propagate their own (usually Islamic) agenda. To not do so is to abandon probably the best weapon we have in countering the global jihad.

On this special day my heart felt thanks goes out to not only Robert and the staff at JW but also to all the regular posters who do sacrifice their own precious time to construct the necessary arguments for countering the greatest ideological threat of our time.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to you all.

KM

Posted by: km at December 24, 2006 2:21 PM

Muslims complain when Robert quotes violent or intolerant verses from the Quran and Hadith stating they are taken out of their socio-historical context and are not applicable to present day Islam.

If this is their defence, then is it not logical to conclude that all peaceful verses from the Quran and Hadith must be maintained within their period specific, socio-historical context and not permitted relevance to modern day Islam?

If so, then Islam ceases to exist. Has anyone ever lobbied this logic?

Why do we allow them to have their cake and eat it too?

Furthermore, Muslims including Ibrahim Hooper, believe a crusade is being launched against them by Western civilization. If so, their life and their religion is in danger; therefore, the use of taqiyya is very much permissable (in their warped minds) they accept the persecution of war against them?

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 24, 2006 3:50 PM

Robert:

They only satisfy their own peers' insecurities and paranoia...we both know that. The rest of the world is too rational to buy their BS anymore.
Besides, they're using the same old playbook that most of us NORMAL people see right though, knowing it's rooted in an age-old mental disorder.

As Michelle Malkin so accurately put it in a segment at her site a few weeks ago:
"Lights! Camera! PROJECTION!"

Nuf Sed...lol

PS- and Merry CHRISTmas!

;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at December 24, 2006 5:20 PM

Merry Christmas to all at JW/DW. I hope Santa brings you everything you want. For you jihadis reading this, I hope Santa brings you everything you deserve....

Posted by: duh_swami at December 24, 2006 6:28 PM

“Spencer cherry picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Quran directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites. The Quran is unequivocal that fighting is a last resort and is permitted to repulse aggression and stop oppression and abuse.”
From the article

When I see an apologist essentially making the claim that Islamic jihad is defensive only, I feel compelled to drag out this lengthy rebuttal which took a considerable amount of time to put together but which is the reason why some of us over at islam-watch (which has been down for over a week now) are working on creating this handbook for infidel debators, in order to provide everyone with an iron-tight rebuttal whenever we see these same myths dragged out. Everytime I read these threads I see more rebuttals which need to be formulated by willing particpants ASAP - including some I've seen here merely in the past few days, e.g. the tu quoque argument about Christianity being just as violent as Islam as well as the myth about the "3 Abrahamic faiths" - arguments which we haven't gotten to yet. But here is my rebuttal to the jihad is defensive only myth (compiled from many online sources including Spencer, as well as some quotes from Andrew Bostom's book):

Note: I believe one can skip past this entire thing by hitting page down. I have never before posted something of this length but I am doing so now because it is relevant to this common apologist argument and also because I don't know how to link directly to a particular post in the middle of a thread at another site).

1.6: Jihad is defensive only

Myth: Apologists cite verses of the Koran that reference jihad in the context of terms like oppression and persecution in order to convey the impression that jihad is prohibited to self-defense (or merely “just” retaliation) and does not sanction violent, offensive warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of spreading the Islamic faith.

Rebuttal Summary:

1.61. Apologists are [the ones who are] cherry-picking Koranic verses and ignoring the Sunnah, which provides the necessary context for interpreting the non-chronological and often conflicting verses of the Koran in mainstream, traditional Islam.

1.62. Muhammad waged offensive jihad.

1.63. Sura 9 (especially 9:29), which legitimizes offensive jihad against unbelievers, is not abrogated or otherwise restricted by any chronologically prior verses, which appear to limit jihad to self-defense only.

1.64. The primarily offensive meaning of jihad is reinforced by hadiths with the strongest chains of narration.

1.65. Muhammad’s behavior is not historically circumscribed. Muslims regard Muhammad as the perfect man to be emulated for all time and the Koranic verses regarding jihad are viewed in mainstream Islam as having universal applicability and timeless relevance.

1.66. All mainstream Islamic schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse an offensive understanding of jihad.

1.67. Traditional Islamic jurisprudence codifies into law 2 different kinds of obligations with respect to jihad. Self-defense is always an individual obligation (“fard-‘ayn”) incumbent upon every member of the ummah, while expansionist, aggressive jihad is a collective obligation (“fard-kifaya”).

1.68. The imperialistic history of jihad conquests after Muhammad’s death, beginning with the 4 “rightly guided caliphs” and continuing for 13+ centuries to the present day, reflects and confirms the legitimacy of waging offensive jihad in mainstream Islamic tradition.

1.69. The terms “oppression” and “persecution” in the Koranic verses typically cited by the apologists are imperfect English translations of the Arabic word “fitnah” which also means “disbelief” and “disorder” (conditions where the divinely-sanctioned supremacy of the Islamic order is absent). Hence apologists citing these verses in support of the claim that jihad is defensive only, if not merely ignorant about the doctrine of jihad, are often engaging in taqiyyah and manipulating language in an Orwellian fashion by inverting the normative (from an infidel perspective) meanings of the terms “oppressor/persecutor” and “oppressed/persecuted”, resulting in the thoroughly dishonest blaming of millions of genuine victims of Islamic jihad for their resistance to subjugation and oppression.

End of summary. Rebuttal itself:

Myth: Apologists typically cite the following verses from the Koran in defense of the claim that jihad is prohibited to self-defense.

22:39-40: (the first chronological verse sanctioning the use of warfare after Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina): Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed able to give them victory (39); those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah. For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down (40)

2:190-191: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. (190) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (2:191).

8:61: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower.

4:75: And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

17:33: Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

The apologist claim here is not that jihad is strictly nonviolent (an inner struggle), but rather that a necessary precondition for physical fighting (or qital) is circumstances of “persecution”, “oppression” and “injustice” and that Islamic jihad thus falls under the rubric of “just-war” theory, in particular, the part of just war theory concerning the justice of resorting to war (jus ad bellum), which implies:

“…self-defense from external attack; the defence of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected. ….Walzer, and most modern just war theorists, speak of the one just cause for resorting to war being the resistance of aggression. Aggression is the use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2)

Rebuttal:

1.61 Apologists are cherry-picking the Koranic verses cited above.

A) Apologists are neglecting to mention other verses of the Koran, which convey an offensive understanding of jihad, including Sura 9:

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (9:5)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.(9:29)”

He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers. (9:33) (see also 48:28, 61:9)

B) Further, there is currently no mainstream “Koran-only” tradition in Islam. In mainstream Islam, the Sunnah, or Traditions of the Prophet (Muhammad’s deeds and actions) are critical to interpreting and resolving the meanings of the non-chronological and often conflicting “revelations” regarding jihad in the Koran. (In his farewell address, Muhammad said, “I leave behind me two things, the Quran and the Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray.)." Mainstream Islam also includes the ahadith, or narrations about the life of Muhammad (depending upon the established validity of their “chains” of narration), as critical to interpreting the Koran.

1.62 Muhammad waged offensive jihad.

A) Given the central importance of the Sunnah in mainstream Islam for making sense of the jihad verses in the Koran, it is critical to establish that Muhammad himself waged offensive jihad, as a common tactic of the apologists is to claim that all of Muhammad’s actions were defensive only in nature.

During his own lifetime, Muhammad was directly or indirectly implicated in at least 70 (there is reported variation in the exact number) raids or battles over a brief 10-year period.

1. Some of these military endeavors could be classified as defensive, if one entirely ignores the history of Muslim provocation preceding them, including the Battles of Uhud (625) and “Trench”(627).

2. Numerous raids could also be classified as simple revenge attacks (e.g. on the B. Lihyan (Sept 627), the B. Thalabah at al-Taraf (Oct 627), the B. Judham (Oct 627) and the B. Farazah at Wadi al-Qura (Jan 628).

(The issue as to whether the final prophet of God’s revelation to mankind had any business engaging in so many bloody revenge attacks is beyond the purpose of this rebuttal. It is merely sufficient to note that both ostensibly defensive, as well as reasonable retaliatory military operations, still fall within the context of “just war theory”.)

3. More problematic were the numerous “pre-emptive” attacks on other tribes based merely on rumor, hearsay or even divine “revelation” of supposed hostile intent (including several raids on the Ghatafan tribe in 624 and 625 (e.g. at Dhat al-Riqa) the raid on the Jewish tribe B. al-Mustaliq in 627, the raid on B. Sa’d b. Bakr at Fadak in 627, and the expedition sent to the Byzantines of Tabuk in 630). Included in this category is the siege and subsequent exile of the entire Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir, merely on the grounds that the angel Gabriel supposedly “revealed” to Muhammad that some B. Nadir were planning to drop stones on several Muslims’ heads who had come to demand blood money.

4. Other attacks were so grossly disproportionate in terms of the provocations for which they were supposed retaliations, as to annul the legitimacy of a “defensive” claim in the context of just war theory. Among these were the siege and exile (ethnic cleansing) of the entire Jewish tribe of Banu Quanayza in 624, stemming merely from the fact that a Jew played a crude trick on a Muslim woman, the flimsy grounds for Muhammad breaking the treaty of Hudaybiah with the Quraysh before conquering Mecca, the punishment (roughly 800 men beheaded and their wives and children sold into slavery) meted out to the Jewish tribe of the Banu Quarayzah after their failure to actively defend Medina during the battle of the Trench, and the prolonged siege of Taif (it is difficult to argue that a prolonged siege of a community taking refuge behind their fortresses is somehow an act of self-defense). These sorts of grossly disproportionate actions on Muhammad’s part were based on “pretexts” so flimsy as to nullify the validity of a defensive claim.

5. Additionally, there were numerous raids for which there is no apparent defensive explanation at all (raid on B. al-Qurata at Dariyyah (627), raid on B. Hawazin at Turbah (628) raid on B. Murrah at Fadak (628,629), raid on B. Uwal and B. Thalabah (629), raid on B. Malawwih and B. Laith at al-Kadid (629), and raids on B. Amir and B. Tamin (629)).

6. Finally, there were attacks on tribes and peoples who merely declined an invitation to accept Islam (raids on the Christians of Dumat al-Jandel (Duma) in 627 and 631, raid on the Jews of Wadi al-Qura in 628, raid on the Bani Sulaym at Fadak in 629, raid on the B. Qudah at Dhat Athah on the border of Syria in 629, raid on the B. Kilab at al-Zuji in 630, and several attacks on Yemenese tribes in 631.) It goes without saying that waging war against those who refuse to surrender their religious beliefs upon an invitation to do so is not an action of self-defense. (note: ref for all of the above is Abul Kasem: http://www.islam-watch.org/abulKasem/RootsTerrorism0.htm)

7. Moreover, a fundamental feature of all of these raids and battles was the seizure of copious amounts of “booty”, not only property but women and children as well. Shortly after moving to Medina, Muhammad and his followers began attempting to raid the caravans of the Meccan Quraysh, even though there was no indication that the Quraysh had any aggressive designs on Muhammad after his departure from Mecca. Apologists claim that the Muslims were merely trying to seek recompense for the Meccans having seized their property when they fled from Mecca to Medina. These attempted raids finally succeeded at Nakhla (Jan, 624) and much booty was seized (including prisoners). Nevertheless, attempted raids on the Quaraysh caravans still continued (leading, e.g. to the Battle of Badr in Mar 624). Muhammad and his followers, over the course of a 10-year period, seized so much booty (including human beings) in the process of presumably merely “defending” themselves against attack that they became extremely rich and prosperous. However, the seizure of booty (especially human beings who are sold into slavery) is not a “defensive” act and the sheer amount of attention paid to capturing booty in Muhammad’s brief 10-year career in Medina, betrays a fundamentally aggressive intent.

B) Many apologists strain to provide some plausible “defensive” justification for each of Muhammad’s aggressive actions, as his actions, enacted in the context of the “revelation” of the jihad verses, provide the best template for those seeking to understand the Islamic doctrine of jihad. A close examination of the apologist justifications for his actions turns out, as noted above, to include as “defensive”, not only violent and grossly disproportionate retaliation for comparatively minor offenses such as ridicule, the breaking of treaties on flimsy grounds, ethnic cleansing and preemptive strikes on the basis of merely anticipating or fearing future hostile intent (sometimes justified by “revelations” on Muhammad’s part), as well as attacks on the grounds that an invitation to accept Islam had been declined.

However, this entire apologist line of argument falls apart on its own logic, since if all these sorts of disproportionate and violent actions that Muhammad routinely engaged in were supposedly justifiable on defensive grounds, then from the outset, the Quraysh were presumably justified in expelling Muhammad from Mecca from the time he began assaulting their religious beliefs, and as Muhammad’s power grew in the wake of his unrestrained use of violence, any non-Muslims would have been justified, on similar “defensive” grounds, in not only plotting, but actually succeeding to assassinate either him or his followers at any time, as these would be actions which would qualify as “defensive” on the same moral grounds that apologists use to excuse Muhammad’s behavior.

C) What makes the apologist reasoning here disingenuous is in assigning the label “defensive” to each and every action perpetrated by Muhammad while at the same time assigning the label “offensive” (or “oppressive” or “persecutory”) to the very same actions (insult and ridicule, forced exile, plotting to assassinate or assassinating, murder, torture, theft and plunder, violent retaliation, the use of treachery and deceit, marshalling troops due to fear of being attacked, breaking of treaties and so on) when initiated by non-Muslims. Muhammad’s own example thus provides for an extremely one-sided and self-serving interpretation of what constitutes “aggression” on the part of unbelievers and what constitutes “self-defense” justifying the use of violence on the part of Muslims. We see this today, for example, when Muslims accuse western governments who are trying to fight terrorism within their borders, of “aggression” against the Muslim community, with attendant warnings that this “aggression” will justify (“defensive”) violence on the part of Muslim citizens in these countries. Similarly, restrictions on (or even legal prosecution) of Christian proselytizing in Muslim countries is considered “defensive” while any parallel attempt at restricting the expansion of Islam within predominantly Christian countries is viewed as an act of “aggression”.

1.63 A chronological ordering of the jihad verses in the context of the Sunnah shows a progression from an apparently defensive (or at least restrained, with respect to the use of violence) posture to a mandate to wage offensive warfare for the express purpose of spreading the Islamic faith.

A) The apparent “defense-only” verses were revealed relatively early after Muhammad’s exile from Mecca to Medina, while the offensive verses of Sura 9 were revealed later in the Medina years as Muhammad proceeded to consolidate his power on the Arabian peninsula (e.g. Sura 9:5 was “revealed” at the time when Muhammad broke the treaty of Hudaybiah with the Meccans, while 9:29 was revealed in the context of Muhammad sending an offensive expedition against the Christian Byzantine empire at Tabuk). Traditional Islam has generally viewed Sura 9 as abrogating or “replacing” the previous jihad verses that appear to limit jihad to self-defense only, although it is also true that many reformist Muslims have rejected this claim of abrogation. However, appeal to abrogation isn’t necessary to rebut the apologist claim that jihad is prohibited to self-defense only, as it merely sufficient to note that there is no mainstream Islamic tradition in which Sura 9 (especially 9:29) when interpreted within the indispensable context of the Sunnah is clearly offensive in nature, is in itself considered to be abrogated or even restricted by any chronologically prior verses related to jihad, which means that there is currently no mainstream tradition in Islam which deligitimizes the mandate to wage offensive warfare for the express purpose of spreading the Islamic faith.

B) If one accepts the equal validity of both types of jihad verses, offensive and defensive, then the question becomes one of understanding, based on the Sunnah, when the offensive, as opposed to the defensive understanding of jihad, is to be applied. But contrary to the apologists claims, this does not imply that the apparently defensive verses somehow impose restrictions upon the offensive verses (like 9:29). Rather, the co-existence of these 2 types of verses has been interpreted by Muslims historically to imply the permissibility of restricting jihad merely to self-defense and expedient self-restraint when weak, while waging offensive jihad to make Islam supreme when Muslims are in a position of strength to do so. In this, Muslims are merely following the example of Muhammad himself.

C) Not un-coincidentally, the apologetic “defensive” interpretation of jihad gained a good deal of currency in the past century precisely when Islam was, historically speaking, at its weakest and also when Islam happened to come into deeper historical contact with the West, for whom the offensive nature of the jihad doctrine is anathema to their sensibilities, leading to a developed “apologetics” (partly developed by westerners themselves) about the jihad doctrine. As the Islamic world has experienced a resurgence, however, with the retreat of western colonialism (which held the jihad impulse in check), the influx of enormous oil capital into Muslim coffers and the unprecedented migration of Muslims into dar al-harb, there has been an historically parallel resurgence of offensive Islamic jihad on a global scale, impacting modern-day Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, the Phillipines, Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan, Nigeria, the Balkans, and now, in what we call “terrorism”, the heart of Europe and the United States as well.

1.64 The offensive meaning of jihad is reinforced by hadiths with some of the strongest chains of narration.

A) Some apologists claim that the frequent reference to “unbelievers” in the Koran is merely a factual description of the polytheists who were actually fighting with Muhammad and not an indication that Muhammad was fighting them because of their unbelief. This claim is negated not only by the numerous lives that Muhammad agreed to spare after battle only if they accepted Islam but also by the fact that Muhammad issued the invitation to embrace Islam prior to attacking many polytheists and ‘people of the book’. (If Muslims were merely defending themselves against literal physical attack, then of what relevance would be their adversaries’ beliefs?).

B) That Muhammad was fighting people because of their unbelief is demonstrated by several hadith which are accepted by mainstream Islamic tradition as some of the most well validated, in terms of the established authenticity of their chains of narration (verses considered as mutawatir). They are also considered to represent the chronologically final statements of Muhammad in terms of clarifying his own understanding of his Prophetic mission:

(Bukhari 1:24): Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (also Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33)

(Bukhari 4:65): “A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off. Which of them fights in Allah’s cause? The prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s cause.”

(Sahih Muslim 3:4294): "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them.. ….. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them Jizya [tax]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them."

C) There is no plausible defensive interpretation of these hadith (and neither, given the fact that there is no mainstream “Koran-only” tradition in Islam, can they be dismissed out of hand), which make clear that Muslims emulating the example of their prophet, are to fight physically in order to propogate the Islamic faith. The lives of unbelievers who refuse to embrace Islam upon an invitation to do so, are to be spared provided they agree to accept Islamic rule and pay the jizya.

1.65 Muhammad’s example is not historically circumscribed. He is considered the perfect man to be emulated and the Koranic verses regarding jihad are considered by Muslims to have universal applicability and timeless relevance.

A) Some apologists concede that while it may be true that Muhammad waged offensive jihad, Muhammad’s behavior is historically circumscribed and not intended to apply beyond the context of 7th century Arabia.

However, in Islamic tradition Muhammad is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, and uswa hasana, the most perfect model of conduct to be emulated. (Koran 33:21 “Ye have indeed in the Apostle of God a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in God and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of God” and 34:28: “We have not sent thee but as a universal (Apostle) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not).

Sheik Al-Qaradhawi reflects the mainstream Islamic view on this: “The prophets that Allah sent prior to Muhammad were sent for a limited time ...and to a specific people. ... Allah established in the life of the Prophet Muhammad general, eternal, and all-inclusive characteristics, and he gave every human being the possibility to imitate him and take his life as a model.”

B). The instruction to wage jihad until judgment day, as conveyed in several hadiths, also belies the claim of ‘historical circumscription’.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2526:
Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2478:
Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.

When these hadiths are interpreted in light of the meaning of jihad verses such as 9:29, it can be concluded that Muslims are to fight the polytheists and the “People of the Book” into perpetuity, until they either embrace Islam or agree to pay the jizya “in willing submission” to the divinely sanctioned Islamic order.

C. Furthermore, if the apologist claim were true that Muhammad’s example with respect to jihad had no relevance beyond 7th century Arabia, then there would be no logical reason to assume that anything else revealed in the Koran or Sunnah should have any applicability beyond the 7th century either. Any basis for assuming the timelessness and universality of the Islamic religion, as revealed in the Koran, would be called into question by this claim.

1.66 In accordance with the reasoning laid out above, all mainstream Islamic schools of jurisprudence endorse an offensive understanding of jihad.

1.. Maliki jurist Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406): “ In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam by persuasion or by force.... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

And also Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996): “Jihad is a Divine institution. … We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have either the alternative of converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war is declared against them.”

2. Hanbali jurist Ibn Tamiyyah (d. 1328): “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

3.Hanafi jurist Shaikh Burdanuddin Ali of Marghinan (d. 1196): “It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the trouble of war....”

4. Shaafi jurist al-Mawardi (d. 1058): “The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them... in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and the most harmful to the mushrikun.... Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger...it is forbidden to begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”

5. Sufi scholar (Shaafi school)) Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) said the objectives and methods of Islam are to: "…suppress the enemies of religion through the jihad in His cause, and to gain their wealth, women, and lands until they surrender to Islam."

6. Shia scholar al-Amili (d. 1621) “Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”

7. Shia (Jafaari) scholar Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1989): “But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.”

8. Al-Azhar (Sunni) scholar Muhammad Sai’id al-Buti: “The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic jurisprudence is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form.” (ref)

(For an in-depth treatment of similar statements from contemporary Muslim scholars, see “Truth about Islam, Part I, by Shabana Muhammad: http://www.islam-watch.org/Shabana/TruthAboutIslam1.htm).

1.67 Islamic jurisprudence codifies into law 2 different kinds of obligations with respect to jihad. Self-defense ("Al-Jihad al-Daf’a") is always an individual obligation (“fard-‘ayn”) upon every member of the ummah, while expansionist, aggressive jihad ("Al-Jihad al-mubadahah") is a collective obligation (“fard-kifaya”).

A) Obviously, the existence of these two categories of obligation in traditional Islamic jurisprudence negates the claim that jihad is defensive only.

According to Rudolph Peters, “Expansionist jihad is a collective duty (fard ‘ala al-kifaya), which is fulfilled if a sufficient number of people take part in it. If this is not the case, the whole umma is sinning...Sometimes jihad becomes an individual duty. …Moreover, jihad becomes obligatory for all people capable of fighting in a certain region if this region is attacked by the enemy. In this case, jihad is defensive. " (“Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam”, in Legacy of Jihad).

Majiid Khadurri notes, "The jihad, on the other hand - unless the Muslim community is subjected to a sudden attack and therefore all believers, including women and children, are under the obligation to fight - is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community. It is regarded as fard al-kifaya, binding on the Muslims as a collective group, not individually. If the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on others; the whole community, however, falls into error if the duty is not performed at all." ("The Law of War”, in Legacy of Jihad.)

Moreover, “…many of the stipulations and restrictions governing aggressive jihad were dropped in the case of defensive jihad. For example, the Muslim ruler did not have to announce the obligation to join the defensive jihad nor conscript soldiers for its prosecution. Similarly, all those groups who were normally exempt from participating in the aggressive jihad, e.g., women, minors, the elderly, young men who had not been granted permission by their parents, were required to participate in defensive jihad." http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html

B) The existence of these 2 obligations in Islamic law is confirmed by Muslim sources:

Reliance of the Traveler: "09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O [the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” and Allah Most High having said: “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good.” (Koran 4:95)”

“If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.”

“The first is when they [i.e. Muslims] are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever can."

Al Ghazali: " One must go on jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year"... http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495

Ibn Tamiyyah: " The most serious type of obligatory jihad is the one against the unbelievers and against those who refuse to abide by certain prescriptions of the Sharia, like those who refuse to pay zakat....This jihad is obligatory if it is carried out on our initiative and also if it is waged as defense. If we take the initiative, it is a collective duty [which means that] if it is fulfilled by a sufficient number [of Muslims], the obligation lapses for all others and the merit goes to those who have fulfilled it...But if the enemy wants to attack the Muslim, then repelling him becomes a duty for all those under attack and for the others in order to help them......So the latter [form of jihad] consists in defense of the religion, of things that are inviolable, and of lives. Therefore it is fighting out of necessity. The former [type of jihad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propogate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabuk and the like." (LOJ - excerpted from Rudolph Peters "Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam").

Ibn Qudama (d. 1223): “Legal war (jihad) is an obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are exempted.”

Molla Khosrew (d. 1480): “…jihad is a fard al-kifaya, that is, that one must begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight, because the Prophet...early on…allowed believers to defend themselves, later, however, he ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying, “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them...” (Q9:5). He finally ordered fighting without limitations, at all times and in all places, saying, “Fight those who do not believe in God, and in the Last Day...”(Q9:29); there are also other [similar] verses on the subject. This shows that it is a fard al-kifaya."

Hasan Al-Banna: “The author of the "Majma' al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqal-Abhar", in describing the rules of jihad according to the Hanafi School, said: "Jihad linguistically means to exert one's utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief). It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this. If some of the people fulfil the obligation, the remainder are released from the obligation. If this fard kifayah (communal obligation) cannot be fulfilled by that group, then the responsibility lies with the closest adjacent group, and then the closest after that etc., and if the fard kifayah cannot be fulfilled except by all the people, it then becomes a fard ‘ayn (individual obligation), like prayer on everyone of the people. This obligation is by virtue of what He, the Almighty, said: ‘Then fight the polytheists...!’ (Surat at-Tawbah (9), ayah 5) and by what the Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Jihad is in effect until the Day of Judgement’ If the whole body [of believers] abandons it, they are in a state of sin’ (up to where the author of the book says: ‘If the enemy conquers any territory of Islam, or any regions of it, it becomes a fard ‘ayn, and the woman and the slave shall go forth without the permission of husband or master. In the same way, the child shall go forth without the permission of his parents, and the debtor without the permission of his creditor.’”http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/#all_muslims

Sheik Al-Qaradhawi: " In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way. The repulsing Jihad takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered... [in that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability….”

1.68 The imperialistic history of jihad conquests after Muhammad’s death, beginning with the 4 “rightly guided caliphs” and continuing for 13+ centuries into the present day, reflects and confirms this offensive understanding of jihad.

A) After Muhammad’s death in 632, the first 4 caliphs and their successors proceeded to conquer nearly half the known world for Islam. And here, the chronology of Muslim conquests speaks for itself.

It goes beyond straining credulity (into downright dishonesty) to claim that each step in the history of Muslim conquests beginning with Muhammad’s conquest of the Arabian peninsula and extending outwards first to conquer the Byzantine and Persian empires, and then proceeding to conquer northern Africa, parts of India and central Asia and even parts of Europe (including Spain, the Balkans, parts of Poland and Hungary) as well were all somehow undertaken “defensively” and solely in response to what non-Muslims normally understand by the terms “oppression”, “persecution”, or “injustice” as by any objective historical standard, Islam has been one of the most successful imperialistic ventures in human history.

B) Nor, in contrast to the claims of some apologists, did this conquest occur nonviolently (see Handbook Section 1.5: Islam Was Not Spread by the Sword).

C) Nor will it do to claim that the first 4 caliphs, who enacted this pattern of aggressive conquest far from the Arabian peninsula, after Muhammad’s death, were somehow ignorant of the “true” defensive meaning of jihad. Rather, it requires some hubris for modern apologists to claim that they have a better understanding of the ”true” meaning of jihad then the 4 “rightly guided” caliphs, as the caliphs were all intimate companions of Muhammad himself.

1.69 Orwellian use of language by the apologists: the word “fitnah”

A. The apparent defensive meaning of the verses cited by the apologists, in which permission is granted (22:34) or even commanded (2:191) to fight persecution and oppression (more broadly construed as “injustice” by the apologists) is elastic enough to support an understanding of jihad which is actually offensive in nature.

The word “persecution”, employed in these translations (by Pickthall) is only one translation of the Arabic word “al-fitnah” (which is rendered literally only in the Koranic translation of Hilali Khan). “Fitnah” is translated as “tumult and oppression” by Yusuf Ali, “as oppression” by Khalifa, as “sedition” by Palmer, as “idolatry by Dawood, as “civil discord” by Rodwell, and as “temptation to idolatry” by Sales. (Elsewhere it is variously translated as “commotion”, “internal discord”, “tumult”, “division” and “insurrection”). The term fitnah is evidently a difficult one to translate into English. According to an Islamic glossary (http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryEF.html),

“Fitnah has been used in the Quran in two meanings. It refers, firstly, to persecution, to a situation in which the believers are harassed and intimidated because of their religious convictions. Secondly, it refers to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is other than the One True God.”

Given the historical context of the revelation of 22:34, it is reasonable to assume that the first meaning (actual persecution) applies in this verse. The word “fitnah”, however, also appears in verse 8:39 (And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do). The addition here of “and religion is all for Allah” suggests the second meaning of “fitnah”.

B. Hence, Muslims invoking “persecution” or “oppression” as a precondition for waging jihad, often mean something special with regard to these terms which differs from the normal non-Muslim understanding, namely that the non-acceptance of the Islamic faith or resistance to the divinely-sanctioned political “order” of Islam (the imposition of Sharia law and the reduction of non-believers to dhimmitude) in itself constitutes conditions of “oppression”, “injustice”, and “persecution”, whereas violent jihad to spread the Islamic faith and impose Islamic law is a “defensive” struggle to remove these conditions.

The so-called “extremists”, as it turns out, are often more honest about these subtleties than are the apologists. According to Sayyid Qutb, for instance, “If we insist on calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word ‘defense’ to ‘defense of man’ against all those elements which limit his freedom. These elements take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as of political systems…..”. According to S.A.A Maududi, “ "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth - not just a portion, but the whole planet." (Jihad in Islam, Lahore, 1991 ).

Hence, a more nuanced understanding of what Muslims mean when they cite supposedly “defensive” verses, and use terms such as “oppression” and “persecution” and “injustice” to legitimize Islamic jihad in the supposed context of “just war” theory, sometimes reflects mere ignorance about the doctrine of Islamic jihad itself but is also quite often a mere exercise in taqiyyah, in which Muslims use Orwellian language to conceal the real meaning of these terms from the infidels, namely that unbelievers opposing or resisting the Islamic agenda to reign supreme are guilty of “persecuting” or “oppressing” Muslims, which legitiimizes the “defensive” use of violence against them in order to fight against their “aggression”.

Conclusion: Given the flexibility in the Muslim meanings of terms like “oppression”, “persecution” and “injustice”, the infidel debater should press the apologist espousing this myth to clarify iin no uncertain terms whether or not he/she would support or justify the use of violence in any situations where the unbeliever either thwarts the propogation of Islam or resists or thwarts attempts to impose Sharia law, which reduces the unbeliever to dhimmi status within the Islamic order.

Posted by: Caroline at December 24, 2006 7:00 PM

"Spencer ... misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Quran directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith."

It seems obvious to me that "fight them ... until religion is only for God" is a clear and unequivocal statement that Muslims should fight non-Muslims because they have different faiths. "Religion is only for God" is a statement of Islamic supremacy i.e. Islam should be the only religion.

"let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" is another statement of Islamic supremacy. "Oppression", in Islam, is the act of promulgating any religion other than Islam, or preventing the spread of Islam. Thus "hostility to those who practice oppression" is identical to "hostility to those who don't worship and refuse to worship Allah", yet another clear command to fight non-Muslims only because they aren't Muslim.

Safi's own quotes damn his claims, and he thinks we're too stupid to notice.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at December 24, 2006 7:38 PM

Louay Safi is a few cards short of a full deck.

He hasn't an inkling, that an exponentially increasing number Infidels are wising up, and feeding Muslims back their own garbage.

Consider the word 'Milsum'... Muslim spelled backwards.

Milsums treat Muslims, exactly and precisely the way Muslims treat Infidels.

They want Muslims in the USA, to be treated the same way Jews and Infidels are treated in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

Just like Muslims, they pull on ski masks, to hide their identities, when they do their dirty deeds.

They want textbooks in US schools, that teach the same evil, vile crap about Muslims, that the Saudi Arabian textbooks say, about Jews, and Infidels.

...right on down the line... tit for tat, right up to and including, Reverse Sharia, where the Muslim is forced to endure the Dhimmi role... to live exactly as they treat everyone else on the planet.

Convert, Submit, or Die.

Posted by: cheese_burger at December 24, 2006 9:39 PM

Safi can't point out violent passages spoken by Jesus, can he?

Posted by: kevin at December 25, 2006 1:51 PM