| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Yesterday evening I shortened this post and sent it as a letter to the Emory Wheel. Do you think they will publish this? Whether they do or not, note that Caldwell's letter was yet another example of something we have seen here again and again and again: in response to specific information about what Muslims believe about jihad, an Islamic apologist makes broad-brush but unsubstantiated charges of ignorance and hatred. This letter provides in response more specific information aboout Islamic teaching on jihad. What will be the reply?
In “Jihad Means Much More Than Violence,” Will Caldwell objects to the David Horowitz Freedom Center's ad, "What Americans Need to Know About Jihad,” as “propaganda,” and calls for it to be censored. He asserts that “most in our community are educated enough to understand that statements like ‘The goal of jihad is world domination’ are completely ignorant and intentionally provocative.”Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. It is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.
These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution….[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: “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.”
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them…” (Hidayah)
The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ) agrees, saying that if unbelievers “refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them…”
All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “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 either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream.
Will Caldwell calls upon the Wheel “to provide the community with reliable and useful information.” Reliable and useful information about jihad was in the ad and is in this letter. I'd be happy to discuss or debate this, and what can be done about it, with Will Caldwell or anyone else. I can be reached at director@jihadwatch.org.
Posted by Robert at February 17, 2007 2:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
It never ceases to amaze me how the apologist of Islam try to spin "Jihad". I have, as of yet, to hear anything philosophical contained in the Quran. Clearly, neither Mohammed, nor any of his gangsters where deep thinkers... they were, in fact, bandit warriors. Mohammed is not speaking about some abstract inner soul searching or struggle, he is speaking about overt and covert WAR in the most unambiguious terms.
Mr.Caldwell apparently has had an overdose of Edward Said, John Esposito, Karen Armstrong and Ibrahim Hooper... he (Caldwell) really needs to get a clue... he needs to wipe his mouth, because I believe there is still a bit of s**t on his upper lip. He and his like appear to have terminal cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.
If he is truly sincere, he should debate Robert... maybe Caldwell could bring along Abu Izzadeen... now that would be interesting.
Posted by: gnegypt![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 17, 2007 3:44 AM
Posted by: gnegypt
I believe there is still a bit of s**t on his upper lip.
And a lot more below his lower lip
Posted by: shiva at February 17, 2007 4:08 AM
Experience tells us that Robert will receive no reply to the specific points he raises. With a few exceptions such as Dean Esmay's attempts at academic apology, writers like Will Caldwell seem to work from very simple assumptions. The thought of the existence of "schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence" has probably never occurred to them. Therefore, when confronted with specifics such as these to which they have no reply, they simply choose "ignore" mode.
Posted by: anti-uffe at February 17, 2007 7:37 AM
Were there no more recent references that could have been cited? Some people will look at when those statements were made and simply dismiss them as ancient and irrelevant. After all, the Catholic Church once taught that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. Catholic doctrine has been updated since the Middle Ages. Is there no way to show people that Islamic doctrine has not?
Ayatollah Khomeini, for one.
Posted by: PMK at February 17, 2007 9:41 AM
Gnegypt, you presume that caldwell's rants reflected his own ignorance of his cult's precepts. I'm not so sure about that. caldwell and his buddies are forever trying to keep US ignorant and defenseless.
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 17, 2007 10:48 AM
PMK:
1991 is two years after Khomeini's death.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 17, 2007 10:54 AM
PMK raises an excellent point:
We (Islam critics generally) need more recent references, across the board.
I have raised a similar point in regards to the apostasy penalty. For that matter, the same point should be raised any time an Islam critic states that such-and-such schools of Islamic jurisprudence state such-and-such policy.
Any apologist could, in playing to a general audience, dismiss most of what Robert has posted by using the "statements of dead clerics" rebuttal--i.e., that Muslims no longer follow the policies cited. However, they cannot dismiss Robert's The Reliance of the Traveller quotes, because those are known to be accepted at present (as Robert has pointed out). We should also keep in mind that nothing much has changed in the jihad policy since Muhammad. But we do need those up-to-date official statements from each of the main Sunni and Shia schools (there are at least 8 of them altogether), otherwise the Islam apologist can simply resort to the "dead clerics" rebuttal in responding to most of what we are citing from those several schools.
If it is not possible to obtain official statements from all or most of the mainstream schools, then we are left to scavenge for unofficial quotes from various Islamic leaders (including the heads of the various schools) when, on occasion, they happen to be translated from Arabic. This is much more problematic because such leaders can simply claim that their statements are misunderstood, quoted out of context, mistranslated from Arabic, cherry-picked, etc., or simply claim that they have more recently changed their opinion (witness Gomaa's retraction regarding women not being permitted to be leaders in Islam)...or they can engage in their usual verbal gymnastics, evasion, and double-talk. Unless we have clear statements on paper that are taken to be the official position of any given school right now (or as recently as possible), our presentations will be susceptible to the "dead clerics" rebuttal.
Still another problem is obtaining quotes from current clerics. I have a file of incriminating statements from many well-known Islamic clerics and scholars that show their support for jihad, apostasy penalty, etc., but this barely even scratches the surface. What we need are files on every cleric in every western country, for starters. This is necessary for documenting what kinds of views they are speading, right now, to their followers (i.e., ordinary Muslims). Although the need for such a project is obvious, who has the time, money, and expertise with which to do it (and maintain it)? Also, such a project is only one part of the larger project of exposing Islamic doctrine, teachings, beliefs, and present-day actions thoughout the world.
Will Caldwell wrote:
“Most in our community are educated enough to understand that statements like "The goal of jihad is world domination" are completely ignorant and intentionally provocative. However, this does not mean the Wheel should offer its complicity in spreading ignorance.”
I have compiled evidence that Islam's goal is world domination here.
It contains the statements of not only dead clerics but also of live ones, not to mention the quotes from the Koran, Sahih Hadith, and Sira, which all point to world domination. According to the currently-accepted Reliance of the Traveller, for a Muslim to state that Islam was not intended to be the religion followed by the whole world constitutes apostasy*, the penalty for which, in this same text, is death. Indeed, the Koran itself states that those who do not wish Muhammad to be victorious should go hang themselves (22:15). The Reliance of the Traveller text also states that jihad is holy war (physical fighting, killing), waged in pursuit of the goal to establish Islamic rule and/or to convert all people to Islam or subjugate them (see section o9., esp. o9.8). It appears then, that Will Caldwell is either himself ignorant, or else he knows that what he is saying is false and is engaged in deception--which is considered permissible if the goal is permissible in Islam (according to authoritative commentary cited in the Reliance of the Traveller). The goal of establishing Islam is (more than) permissible; therefore deception (i.e., to confuse the non-Muslims) in pursuit of such a goal is permissible. And as Muhammad said, "War is deceit."
*
Result 4 from 11
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE >> "Chapter O-8.0: Apostasy from Islam (Ridda)
O-8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:
[…] 20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w-4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y-4), 423-24). )
There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)"
Qaradawi, the popular, influential, and still living Muslim scholar, who consults with the current top scholars of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, writes:
"1. In his Sahih, Imam Muslim recorded that Thawban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) as saying: “Almighty Allah has gathered the earth for me so that I could see all its corners. My nation will rule over all that which Almighty Allah has gathered for me.”
2. Ibn Hibban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: “This matter (i.e. Islam) will spread to cover all areas where there is night and day. Allah will never leave a house in a rural area or in urban community without its people being Muslims. Honor is for those who embrace it (i.e. Islam) while disbelievers are doomed to disgrace and humiliation.”
This hadith, along with many others, give us glad tidings that the patch of the Muslim state will expand to cover the whole earth and that the strength of this state will grow and become obvious to all. This also denotes good news for the long-cherished hope of revival of Muslims’ unity and rebirth of Islamic Caliphate."[Source] Posted by: Khaybar Oasis
at February 17, 2007 11:53 AM
"Qaradawi, the popular, influential, and still living Muslim scholar, who consults with the current top scholars of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, writes: "
A.) ... a Fatwa contending that it is haram (sin) for any Muslim to give up any bit of Palestine (including the territory of the State of Israel).
B.) ... that martyr operations are: a) a defense of Islamic territory and religion; b) Jihad in honor of Allah; c) not terrorism but heroic acts; and d) not by any means suicide, but as far removed from suicide as conceivable.
C.) ... Jihad is now an absolute necessity for the entire Arab nation. Everyone must engage in Jihad with everything he is and with everything he has.
D.) ... it is permissible for him [a husband] to beat her [his wife] lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.
E.) ... [that] some women enjoy the beating and for them, only beating to cause them sorrow is suitable…
Remember, Qaradawi is widely regarded as a moderate Muslim.
(The above passages from Qaradawi fatwas quoted at: http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2005.01.17.JTA.Facts_on_Qaradawi.html)
at February 18, 2007 2:28 AM
Interestingly, Will Caldwell hasn't replied to his many detractors. There is not one comment to his article in support of his view!
Posted by: darcy at February 18, 2007 8:25 AM
Will Caldwell posted yesterday on the thread below.
Posted by: remote_control at February 18, 2007 2:24 PM
Will Caldwell is either totally ignorant of his religion or is doing his duty to spread mis-information about it to lull it's future victims to sleep.
The thrust of the ad talks about Iran and it's publicly stated desires to " wipe Israel off the face of the map ". No if Will Caldwell is soooooo concerned about the misrepresentation of Islam, then why does he not take issue with the Iranian government? It is doing more than this little example of the right to free speech in mis representing his so-called " religion of peace ".
Go ahead Mr. Caldwell go over to Tehran and tell the Ayatollah Ali over there that the government under his thumb, with all their terrorist squads and funding and supporting of terrorist organizations such as Hezzballah misrepresents Islam.
I won't hold my breath waiting for Will Caldwell to do that. Even if he had the sincerity and courage to stand up for his interpretation of his 'religion of peace' and do that.......he would not make it back. For those advocates of ' peace ' would have him killed as a heretic and an affront to Islam.
----Nossy
at February 18, 2007 7:18 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)