| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Yesterday the New York (aka New Duranty) Times published a lengthy piece on young men trying to find love in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places. Bottom line? It ain't easy.
But in the course of things, and without the Times reporter noticing, of course, the young men featured in the article treat us to their understanding of jihad, and let's just say that it's not something that's going to win them any friends in the Bush Administration.
From "Young Saudis, Vexed and Entranced by Love’s Rules," by Michael Slackman for the New York Times, May 12 (thanks to all who sent this in):
To Nader and Enad, prayer is essential. In Enad’s view, jihad is, too, not the more moderate approach that emphasizes doing good deeds, but the idea of picking up a weapon and fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.“Jihad is not a crime; it is a duty,” Enad said in casual conversation.
“If someone comes into your house, will you stand there or will you fight them?” Enad said, leaning forward, his short, thick hands resting on his knees. “Arab or Muslim lands are like one house.”
This is entirely in line with orthodox Islamic law, which stipulates that jihad warfare is fard 'ayn, or obligatory on every individual believer, when a Muslim land is attacked. For example, the Hanbali jurist Ibn Qudama explained in Al-Mughni that jihad becomes fard 'ayn when battle begins between Muslim and non-Muslim forces, when unbelievers attack a Muslim land, and when the leader of the Muslims calls a jihad.
Would he go fight?“I would need permission from my parents,” he said.
Here again, he is expressing conventional and orthodox understandings. Qatar's Sharia Court declared several years ago: "It is considered against Islam to travel to another country for Jihad without permission from one's parents."
Posted by Robert at May 13, 2008 11:37 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
These young men's utter contempt for women (bordering on hatred?) is disturbing as well. Even though the woman they see in the restaurant is completely covered--wearing a face veil, no less--they sneer at her, pretend to throw a cigarette at her, etc., to the degree that she is made uncomfortable. Even when the woman's husband joins her, they still express disgust at her for removing her face veil.
This gives me no hope whatsoever that things will ever get appreciably better for Saudi women--nor for Saudi men. How utterly sad to grow up to so isolated from the other half of humanity, so fearful and contemptuous of them.
Posted by: kaffirchick![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 13, 2008 12:29 PM
Is it the sexual frustration that creates such vicious fighters? Is that why mohammed (piss be upon him) came up with these silly rules? Create an army of sexually frustrated young males and then tell them they can rape any female prisoners and if they die, 72 virgins.
From a 7th century standpoint, makes sense, from a 21st century standpoint, come out of the stone age ya bunch of Neanderthals. My apologies to Neanderthals.
Posted by: walterc at May 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Strange world where a female who pulls her veil aside to take a bite of food is considered a slut. But Then, a female gnawing on a chicken leg is clearly a signal to most men that they're being solicited.
She's obviously asking for it.
Posted by: rational at May 13, 2008 1:28 PM
Permission from one's parents to engage in jihad? Sneering at a woman for sitting down alone and removing her veil? Oh man, how can any sensible person maintain that all cultures are to be equally respected?
Posted by: Wellington at May 13, 2008 1:38 PM
So, if there are a "tiny minority" of extremists-say 10%-of 1.2 Billion...which is approximately 120 Million "extremists"...and on average the plural form of "parent" is "parents"...which denotes at least two (2)...and the wannabe Jihadist need permission from their "parents"...does this mean there are at least 240 million understanders of true Islam? Sweeling the "tiny minority" to about 360 Million "true believers"? If this is true, doesn't that mean the actual number of the "tiny minority" is about 30%? Hmm, seems to be a big difference between 10% and 30%. Oh that's right, those being asked are the "moderates." Sweet.
at May 13, 2008 3:11 PM
“Arab or Muslim lands are like one house.”
Only after Arabs MADE them one house. Most Muslim lands were not Arab, pre-Mohammed. If Mohammed had stayed in his own house, figuratively speaking, Islam would be synonymous with Arabia. Instead, the world became his house.
at May 13, 2008 3:53 PM
The article goes a long way towards explaining why there's so much homosexuality there.
Posted by: PRCalDude at May 13, 2008 3:54 PM
"Permission from one's parents to engage in jihad?"
A normal parent would do everything they could to prevent harm to their children. But like everything else in Islam, there's nothing normal about parenting in the Muslim world -- from strangling their daughters for talking to a stranger to giving their offspring permission to blow themselves up -- there's nothing normal.
Posted by: rational at May 13, 2008 4:57 PM
What a disgusting, retrograde excuse for a nation. That we accept our government's maintenance of formal ties to this country leaves me feeling less than hopeful about our future.
Posted by: Abu Allah at May 13, 2008 5:22 PM
"Young Saudis, Vexed and Entranced by Love’s Rules"
What a misleading title. No love there.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at May 13, 2008 8:11 PM
"It is considered against Islam to travel to another country for Jihad"
Why would you need to go to another country for an inner spiritual struggle? That's what jihad is, right?
Posted by: Borg at May 13, 2008 11:00 PM
1. Now this is pure idiocy. The guys say it right in front of your face, and you don't even notice it. True, this happens to be one of the first times that you have actually posted what people say in these articles, but let's give it a shot:
"When somebody comes into your house" = defense
2. It's weird that you are able to contradict your own logic and people here still believe you, blindly following the march of the pseudo-scholars.
Let's even look at your own explanation from your un-suprisingly bad selections of Hanbali scholars (we won't tell anybody the fact that 99% of Muslims today don't even know what Hanbali or Qudama means nor do they follow their teachings, but we'll go with you):
When battle begins between Muslims and non = defense - given that you actually read the Arabic, which you didn't
When non invade Muslim land = defense
When leader of the Muslims declares it = please define the relevancy of this statement in 2008, or for that matter any time past around like 730 AD.
Also, you are leaving out a very important fourth point (although there have been a total of 12 points discussed upon this topic, they have been reduced to 4 in the modern literature, not like anybody pays attention to it):
When a needed person becomes obliged to do it = defense (added slightly later in the scholarly chain)
As always, it is continuously apparent that you have absolutely no knowledge about Islamic history or religion, but I've already said that before.
Just doing some thinking...
PS. I'm pretty sure that the last thing that Saudis are looking towards is the Qatari Sharia Council, but then to make that observation would require knowledge of the Middle East, which you don't have. Oh well, Arab is Arab is Muslim...right?
at May 14, 2008 6:25 AM
1) Nowhere in this article does Robert imply that their statements about defensive jihad are incorrect. Neither does the article attempt to ascertain whether these young men believe offensive jihad, opening the way, is right or wrong. You're on the wrong topic.
2) Again you bring up "defense", and again, nowhere is this issue raised in the post. As for most Muslims not following Hanbali scholarship - well, most Muslims don't understand a syllable of Arabic either. So?
3) Did this commentary assert that the Saudi's were looking for Qatari justification? No. Robert merely provided a recent, topic-relevant reflection of Islamic law interpretation in another Islam-dominated country.
Three straw men in a row. I'm impressed.
Posted by: Godefroi at May 14, 2008 8:35 AM
An American
Great to see you again! I apologize for the late reply to this -- I just saw it.
But pardon me if I'm not quite sure what you're on about. I mean, I know you have no interest in truth whatsoever, but are only interested in personal attacks. That much is clear from your first attempt to expose my ignorance to the world. You remember those Arabic texts you claimed to have, right? The ones from the Arabic hadith collection that you claimed to own, and that just happened to coincide with the citations in that bastion of honest scholarship, Wikipedia, contesting the mainstream Islamic position about Aisha's age:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016333.php
I'm still waiting for those!
And then there was the time when you informed everyone that I was completely misquoting Sura 9:29, which, you said, did not mention the People of the Book -- the only catch was that it does, as I showed you from the Arabic. That one is in the comments field here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017476.php
And now you're back again. I tell you, sir, if I were Meadowlark Lemon, I certainly would offer you a position on the Washington Generals!
But I still don't know what you're on about here.
1. Now this is pure idiocy. The guys say it right in front of your face, and you don't even notice it. True, this happens to be one of the first times that you have actually posted what people say in these articles, but let's give it a shot:"When somebody comes into your house" = defense
Say what? This is "one of the first times that you have actually posted what people say in these articles"? What site are you reading? At this one, I always post the portions of the articles I'm commenting on.
And as for the defensive aspect of jihad, is this something I'm supposed to have denied? Why don't you search for "fard ayn" at Jihad Watch and see how many times I've discussed defensive jihad?
2. It's weird that you are able to contradict your own logic and people here still believe you, blindly following the march of the pseudo-scholars.
Where exactly is there a contradiction here, my good man?
Let's even look at your own explanation from your un-suprisingly bad selections of Hanbali scholars (we won't tell anybody the fact that 99% of Muslims today don't even know what Hanbali or Qudama means nor do they follow their teachings, but we'll go with you):
On what do you base this statistic? And where did I ever say that most Muslims know what "Hanbali or Qudama" means?
When battle begins between Muslims and non = defense - given that you actually read the Arabic, which you didn't When non invade Muslim land = defense When leader of the Muslims declares it = please define the relevancy of this statement in 2008, or for that matter any time past around like 730 AD.
No problem. Read Raymond Ibrahim's Al-Qaeda Reader. Read any number of statements by the jihadists today. They routinely and frequently explain that they're waging a defensive jihad in response to what they see as the invasion of Muslim lands.
Also, you are leaving out a very important fourth point (although there have been a total of 12 points discussed upon this topic, they have been reduced to 4 in the modern literature, not like anybody pays attention to it):When a needed person becomes obliged to do it = defense (added slightly later in the scholarly chain)
Pardon me, but I have no idea what you're on about here. I've explained many times here the difference between fard kifaya and fard ayn. Do you know the difference?
As always, it is continuously apparent that you have absolutely no knowledge about Islamic history or religion, but I've already said that before.
Yes, but keep saying it! Someone someday might believe you!
Just doing some thinking...
And as I've said before, you never seem to do quite enough, my friend!
PS. I'm pretty sure that the last thing that Saudis are looking towards is the Qatari Sharia Council, but then to make that observation would require knowledge of the Middle East, which you don't have. Oh well, Arab is Arab is Muslim...right?
No, silly. Most Muslims aren't Arabs. Search this site to see how many times I've said that before also. But don't bother -- it would upset your caricature of me!
Gotta go sharpen my fangs. Later.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 18, 2008 6:17 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.)