Jihad Unspun is a radical Muslim website that defends Osama bin Laden and others like him. Yesterday it posted an explanation of jihad, “The True Meaning of Jihad” by one Sidik Aucbur, which differs considerably from the peaceful version presented at UCLA last week by CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush.
(Thanks to Jean-Luc.)
In Onward Muslim Soldiers, I recount how American Muslim spokesmen often blame Western scholars — “Orientalists” — for inventing the notion that jihad has anything to do with war, while radical Muslims simultaneously blame “Orientalists” for creating the idea that jihad is a peaceful spiritual struggle! Likewise Ayloush asserts that “the image of long-bearded men carrying machine guns is media-produced,” while Aucbur, coming from an opposite perspective, says that “it should not surprise anyone that the West will try its utmost to distort the meaning of Jihad from the minds of the Muslims.” How are the wicked Westerners distorting jihad’s meaning? By saying that it’s peaceful:
There is no doubt that the effort to distort the true meaning of Jihad intensifies during a crusade against a Muslim nation. The styles vary, whether it is from Tony Blair who says, “Islam is a religion of Peace”, or whether it comes from his followers in the Muslim Council of Britain who argue that “Jihad is only about struggling against our desires.” . . . [I]t is clear that there is a concerted effort made by the Kuffar to destroy the true meaning of Jihad. All in all this line of discussion is a red herring, placed there by the Western governments in order to divert the Islamic agenda of discussion.
Aucbur understands that this war on terror is an ideological struggle, even as he caricatures the Western notion of freedom:
It should be understood that what makes a nation are the ideas it upholds as sovereign. In the West the ‘maximising of the pleasure’ is the predominant idea, whereas in Islam the ‘worship of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala)’ is the most prominent and fundamental idea.
Aucbur is ready with Qur’an verses to support his position — and playing on the religious sensibilities of young Muslims, of course, is a fundamental way that radical groups get recruits:
“O you who believe, fight those who encircle you (close to you geographically) of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you” [TMQ At-Tauba: 123]
That’s Sura 9 (At-Tauba, or Repentance), verse 123 of the Qur’an.
Aucbur also quotes a common hadith that is found multiple times in the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable:
The Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
“I was commanded to fight the people until they say ‘There is no god but Allah’.”
And so what is jihad in Aucbur’s understanding?
It is a consensus from the scholars of Islam that Jihad is, “fighting the kuffar to remove the obstacles in the way of making Allah’s (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) word the highest”, note here that there are two distinct points, the action is “Fighting the kuffar to remove the obstacles”, the reason “making Allah’s (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) word the highest”.
Aucbur quotes more Qur’an (4:95, 9:41, and 61:11) against the idea that jihad is “just fighting our inner desires.” Here for (relative) brevity’s sake is 61:11 only, and his conclusion:
“That ye believe in Allah and his messenger, and that you strive (your utmost) in the cause of Allah with your property and your persons; that will be best for you if ye but knew” [TMQ As-Saff: 11]
It is clear from the above verses that the meaning is to fight and to attribute the linguistic meaning in this context is incorrect.
Then he invokes each of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence, to one of which virtually all Sunni Muslims belong, to support his point:
It has been agreed upon by the classical scholars that the Shari’ah meaning of Jihad is to fight and kill the kuffar:
Â· Hanafi school in the book “Badiia as Saniia”
Â· Maliki school in the book “Manhal Jaleel”
Â· Shaffi school in the book “al Iqnaa”
Â· Hanbali school in the book “al Mughni”
What about the greater jihad/lesser jihad distinction that American Muslim spokesmen are so fond of quoting?
Some will go further and place the Shari’ah meaning, i.e. fighting and killing lower than that of the linguistic meaning i.e. struggling against ones desires. They quote the following hadith:
“I have returned from the small Jihad (Jihad Asghar) to the big Jihad (Jihad Akbar)” the Sahaba enquired “what is the big Jihad?” the Prophet (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) said “the Jihad al nafs (inner desires).”
We cannot accept this hadith as it is a fabricated one.
He goes on to argue against it also on other grounds, including that it contradicts other statements of the Qur’an.
Is jihad merely defensive? Sorry. Aucbur invokes Muhammad against this idea:
Moreover some will say that Jihad was only defensive; this is incorrect. A quick study of the Life of the Prophet (SalAllahu Alaihi Wasallam) shows us something different:
The Battle of Mut’ah was instigated by the Muslims against the Romans the Muslims were 3,000 faced against a Roman army of 200,000.
The Battle of Hunayn was inevitable shortly of the Muslims had conquered Makkah.
The Battle of Tabuk was also instigated to finally destroy the Romans.
We see from the ijmaa (Consensus) of Sahaba, that they too instigated Jihad, through As-Sham, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and North Africa. Moreover, the status of Martyr in Islam is of the highest, so how can it be that Jihad is reduced to anything lower that that.
After the careful invitation to Islam, the Muslims are forbidden from forcing the non-Muslim to embrace Islam as Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) said “there is no compulsion in the deen”. However, Islam came to ensure people live under the system of Islam as the dominance of Islam is the purpose of Jihad, without it, Islam would perish, as Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) states,
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance And the religion of Truth, so that it may dominate over all Religions even though the Pagans detest it.” [TMQ As-Saff: 9]
To “live under the system of Islam” means just that: domination. It means the institutionalized legal oppression, discrimination, and harassment of dhimmitude.
This is the war we’re in.