| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
"The Many Meanings of Jihad to 2 Prominent Muslims" in today's Washington Post is part of their ongoing "On Faith" whitewash series, in which prominent Muslims retail pleasing platitudes about Islam and ignore the real issues. This segment is no exception: the paper's introductory paragraph to the statements by Ali Gomaa and Ayatollah Fadlallah even acknowledges that Fadlallah is "known for his support of the armed Shiite movement Hezbollah" (not, you'll notice, the "terrorist group Hezbollah"), although it doesn't mention Ali Gomaa's support for the same terrorist group.
Ali Gomaa's bit is entitled "Jihad Is Not Just Armed Struggle." The frequency with which Islamic apologists trot out this particular theme always surprises me. This is supposed to be reassuring to the potential and actual targets of armed jihad? I fail to see how the fact that jihad has multiple meanings, including interior spiritual struggle, somehow renders less lethal the AK's and bombs with which other jihadists wage jihad.
After sketching out jihad's pacific meanings, Gomaa says:
...In addition to these meanings, the term jihad refers to the defense of a nation or a just cause. These characteristics that amount to "in the way of God" are summed up in the Koran, "Fight in the way of God against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression -- for, verily, God does not love aggressors." (2:190) . . .
In saying this, Ali Gomaa does nothing to refute the jihadist contention that all non-Muslim belief constitutes aggression against the Muslims that allows the Muslims to fight back. Sayyid Qutb says that "aggression has been committed in the first place, against God's Lordship of the universe and against other human beings who are forced to submit to deities other than God." "Aggression," then, is rebelling against God and submission to deities other than God: he sees the aggression simply as not believing in Islam. So does the British jihadist Anjem Chaudary, here.
Thus by emphasizing that Muslims must not be aggressors, Ali Gomaa has said something that non-Muslims will understand in one way, and jihadists in quite another. And his statement does nothing to show those jihadists in any way that what they are doing is wrong from an Islamic perspective.
Same thing with the rest of it:
As for suicide bombing, Islam forbids suicide, it forbids the taking of one's own life. Attacking civilians, women, children and the elderly by blowing oneself up is absolutely forbidden in Islam. No excuse can be made for the crimes committed in New York, Spain and London, and anyone who tries to make excuses for these acts is ignorant of Islamic law (Sharia), and their excuses are a result of extremism and ignorance.
The bit about no excuses for New York, Spain, and London is good, but here again, what Ali Gomaa says will not convince any jihadists that they are on the wrong path, since they contend that suicide bombers are not committing suicide, they are seeking Islamic martyrdom (per Qur'an 9:111, which guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah), and thus the prohibition of suicide doesn't apply to them. And they further contend that their targets are not civilians at all, but people who are aiding in the war against Islam, and thus are fair game.
If Ali Gomaa really wants to stand for reform in Islam, he needs to address and refute those contentions on Islamic grounds. But he doesn't do that here.
Fadlallah is no better:
Jihad in Islam (the violent confrontation of the enemy) is the fighting movement that aims at preventing the enemy from forcing its hegemony over the land and the people by means of violence that confiscates freedom, kills the people, usurps the wealth and prevents the people's rights in self-determination. Therefore, Jihad is confronting violence by means of violence and force by force, which makes it of a defensive nature at times and a preventive one at others.
And who is the enemy, and what constitutes its hegemony? Fadlallah has said nothing incompatible with the idea that Muslims must wage war until "religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 2:193) -- that is, until the hegemony of Islamic law is established over the whole world.
He then goes on to explain that jihad is purely self-defense, which in light of Qutb's and Chaudary's contention about the aggressive nature of unbelief, gets us exactly nowhere once again.
As for those suicidal bombers who kill innocent people, as well those who accuse others of unbelief, just because they differ with them in some sectarian views even within the same religion, or those who explode car bombs, killing women, children, elderly and youth who have nothing to do with any war of aggression. To those we say that their inhuman brutal actions have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever, and that what they are doing will lead to God's wrath and not His satisfaction.
The key word in that paragraph is "innocent."
Posted by Robert at July 28, 2007 9:40 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
What we are witnessing is a concerted campaign to mainstreaming Islamism. Pretty soon, lapidation and amputation will somehow be redefined in the Western press as a legitimate means of maintaining public morality.
Depressing....
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 28, 2007 10:49 AM
If all of those inhuman acts have nothing to do with Islam, then isn't it a coincidence that all of them are done by Muslims?
There's taqqiyah, then there's self-taqqiyah.
at July 28, 2007 10:54 AM
...we, indeed, know when Muslims use the word "innocent", it does not have the same meaning as when we use the word "innocent"....
....I have learned this by reading here often....I read all comments, learning more and more every day....it becomes easier and easier to read between the lines when ever a Muslim speaks....
...Muslims hate it when the Infidels know their hidden agenda.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:01 AM
"The bit about no excuses for New York, Spain, and London is good,..."
Please forgive me since I am not talking about NY, Spain and London ; what I want to know is what explains the behaviour of muslims in Central India. Over the past week there have been riots in 5 small cities around mine, more than 12 people (Infidels) were killed, nearly 70 are hospitalized (muslims) in the backlash. Curfew is imposed in these cities and now no news is coming out. The local newspapers carried the stories for a day or two, and the MSM never did.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 28, 2007 11:08 AM
Is this the same Imam Gomaa who first said that people had a right to change their religion, then said they did not, and then again said, "Well sort of." If it is the same guy, he obviously will say anything that he thinks will make Islam acceptable, even attractive, to Westerners.
Posted by: maryrose at July 28, 2007 11:26 AM
"and the MSM never did.
Posted by: arjun.sevak "
...as usual....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:29 AM
Myth: Jihad is defensive only:
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/3171.aspx
"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.” [8]
And also Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996): “Jihad is a precept of 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 the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax , short of which war will be declared against them.” [9]
2. Hanbali jurist Ibn Tamiyya (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.” [10]
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....” [11]
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 interests of the Muslims and 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 us to initiate 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.” [12]
5. 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.” [13]
6. 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.” [14]
7. 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.” [15]
(For an in-depth treatment of similar statements from contemporary Muslim scholars, see “Truth about Islam, Part I, by Shabana Muhammad. [16] )"
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”).
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. " [17].
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." [18]
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." [19]
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." [20]
Al Ghazali: " One must go on jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year"...[21]
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." [22]
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.” [23]
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." [24]
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." [25]
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….” [7]"
Posted by: Caroline at July 28, 2007 11:33 AM
I wonder if the newspapers ever had important Nazis explain the different types of fascism during WWII?
The butt kissing is just pathetic.
I do know that it is nearly impossible to get a letter to the editor published in my local paper if it is critical of islam.
at July 28, 2007 11:33 AM
Typical twistedness of Muslim thinking, by giving "jihad" multiple meanings, some aggressive while others non-aggressive, and then redefining "non-aggression" in a self serving terms to mean "defense" against all who disagree with their aggressive-jihadist-belief system. It's a closed loop of irrationality, enough to make people crazy, except their bombs and AK47s tell the truth. They want to conquer the world for their Islamic Jihad. Nothing pacific about that, is there?
Why would WaPo or any press have trouble with this? It's simple irrationality, to deceive with aggression. Most people call it lying, those sneaky little devils. Muslims have refined it to a fine art, in their half-brained thinking, and from generations of duplicity, hostage taking, caravan raiding, and genocidal conquests.. What idiots would still fall for this? They, through their Quran-Hadiths, and their perfect-man-Mohammed, are programmed to lie, feel themselves the victims, and attack anyone who disagrees with them until they are subdued. What's so opaque about that? Jihad means "conquest" and nothing else.
at July 28, 2007 11:34 AM
Typical twistedness of Muslim thinking, by giving "jihad" multiple meanings, some aggressive while others non-aggressive, and then redefining "non-aggression" in a self serving terms to mean "defense" against all who disagree with their aggressive-jihadist-belief system. It's a closed loop of irrationality, enough to make people crazy, except their bombs and AK47s tell the truth. They want to conquer the world for their Islamic Jihad. Nothing pacific about that, is there?
Why would WaPo or any press have trouble with this? It's simple irrationality, to deceive with aggression. Most people call it lying, those sneaky little devils. Muslims have refined it to a fine art, in their half-brained thinking, and from generations of duplicity, hostage taking, caravan raiding, and genocidal conquests.. What idiots would still fall for this? They, through their Quran-Hadiths, and their perfect-man-Mohammed, are programmed to lie, feel themselves the victims, and attack anyone who disagrees with them until they are subdued. What's so opaque about that? Jihad means "conquest" and nothing else.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 28, 2007 11:34 AM
"and the MSM never did.
Posted by: arjun.sevak "
...as usual....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:34 AM
Typical twistedness of Muslim thinking, by giving "jihad" multiple meanings, some aggressive while others non-aggressive, and then redefining "non-aggression" in a self serving terms to mean "defense" against all who disagree with their aggressive-jihadist-belief system. It's a closed loop of irrationality, enough to make people crazy, except their bombs and AK47s tell the truth. They want to conquer the world for their Islamic Jihad. Nothing pacific about that, is there?
Why would WaPo or any press have trouble with this? It's simple irrationality, to deceive with aggression. Most people call it lying, those sneaky little devils. Muslims have refined it to a fine art, in their half-brained thinking, and from generations of duplicity, hostage taking, caravan raiding, and genocidal conquests.. What idiots would still fall for this? They, through their Quran-Hadiths, and their perfect-man-Mohammed, are programmed to lie, feel themselves the victims, and attack anyone who disagrees with them until they are subdued. What's so opaque about that? Jihad means "conquest" and nothing else.
at July 28, 2007 11:37 AM
"I do know that it is nearly impossible to get a letter to the editor published in my local paper if it is critical of islam.
Posted by: interestinconundrum"
.....the MSM constant coverup of the fact that there is a real world war going on only delays the inevitable fact that there is a real world war goin on....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:40 AM
Why don't they just cut to the chase and print the paper on silly putty?
Never let the enemy define the terms.
Why do they let these "little Goebbels" (with a nod to a Ward of the State for the phrase) control the discourse and invert the meanings of fundamental words like: innocent, aggression, struggle, et al?
Why no bullet points at the tops of such articles saying:
*There are no "innocent" non-Muslims [infidels] to many Muslim scholars.
*Disbelieving in Islam is considered "aggression" by mainstream Muslims.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2007 11:42 AM
This is a classic case of "kitman". From Hugh:
"“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php
Posted by: Caroline at July 28, 2007 11:48 AM
Caroline-
Excellent work.
If the WaPo did it's job, you -and Robert- wouldn't need to be their after-the-fact-checkers.
The intellectual laziness and derelection of duty of the MSM is shocking.
Or is it purposeful?
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2007 12:02 PM
Caroline & others,
Confirming our understanding of the true meaning of jihad by posting here is, well, as they say, preaching to the choir.
I have been over at WashPO Muslims speak out here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/
all week long trying to make sure the Ali Gomaas and Tariq Ramadans are not allowed to go unanswered. I have provided links to JW/DW in almost every post.
I think our time is better spent at THAT website rebutting all that nonsense.
I know he has his hands full keeping JW readers up to date here, but I am hoping to come across a post or two from Robert Spencer.
at July 28, 2007 12:41 PM
lol @ wapo
same camp of collaborators as "(s)newsweak" pew zogby etc etc etc...and those are the more moderate.
They're just sanitized versions of their more-openly hostile partners, like one who's accusing the President of having Pat Tillman knocked off, masqueraded as an "investigative question"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56895
aided and abetted by equally militant MSNBC (which is why their ratings are in the gutter).
Bottom line here...hate doesn't sell.
No surprise here.
Posted by: jcom972 at July 28, 2007 7:43 PM
(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.)