This is the rhetorical question — “no” being the only conceivable response — that the Iranian-born David Shariatmadari, now living in the U.K., asked in a recent article in The Guardian.
He began his exercise in taqiyya by insisting that while in the late 20th and early 21st century, some Muslims have begun to resort to “jihadi terrorism,” such a weapon had never before been used in the 1400-year history of Islam. And since nothing had changed in the message of Islam – the texts have remained the same since Islam’s beginning – what could explain this sudden appearance, in the late 20th century, of “jihadi terrorism”?
Shariatmadari locates the cause in the “political economic, military, and social changes in the Middle East.” He deplores the fact that many non-Muslims are starting to seek in the Qur’an the explanation of Muslim violence. He quotes the philosopher Roger Scruton as saying “that we need to deal with these difficult suras,” and notes condescendingly of Scruton that “it’s not an unreasonable thought if you’re unfamiliar with Islam.” For Shariatmadari says that what’s in the Qur’an “provides an easy-to-grasp account of acts that otherwise seem inexplicable. Who knows (or can be bothered to find out) what those verses [really] say, and how they can be interpreted?” Yes, Infidels will misunderstand the Qur’anic verses – they can’t “be bothered to find out” what they really mean – that is, will take them literally, and in this manner, will explain the phenomenon of “jihadi terrorism.”
However, he doesn’t feel obliged to let his readers decide for themselves what Qur’anic verses may mean. He fails to quote a single verse or sentence or phrase from the Qur’an or Hadith. Shariatmadari wants you to stay well away from those texts, insisting that “a proper explanation [for Muslim terrorism and violence] isn’t to be found here [in the Islamic texts].” In fact, the Qur’an gets in the way of a meaningful inquiry: “all it [looking into the Qur’an] really does is stand in the way of a proper investigation. It’s like a sign that says ‘look here and no further,’ obscuring sometimes a little too conveniently, far more complex causes.” So let’s have no more talk about the Qur’an.
Shariatmadari says we have to “look beyond the [Islamic] texts.” Why? Is it because the texts are beyond an Infidel’s understanding, and would only confuse him, as he implies, or is it, rather, that the texts are all too clear – and have been for 1400 years – in commanding the use of violence and terror against the Infidels?
Few will agree with Mr. Shariatmadari that looking into the Qur’an “stand[s] in the way of a meaningful inquiry” into Islam. It is, in fact, the only way to find out what Islam teaches. And when he mocks those who claim that “Islam is especially predisposed towards violence,” this makes one even more eager to take a look at those texts. So let’s round up the usual Qur’anic suspects. Here are just four of the most telling:
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority“
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
There are more than one hundred other verses in the Qur’an that are all about violence and terror. Shariatmadari does not mention, not even in an attempt to explain away, by “contextualizing,” any of the 109 Jihad verses, and the violence that runs through the Qur’an and the Hadith. He keeps up his extended mockery of those who want to draw conclusions from what is in those texts: “Who knows (or can be bothered to find out) what those verses say, and how they have been interpreted?” Well, many Unbelievers have not been dissuaded from finding out “what those verses say”and “how they have been interpreted” is clear from the 1400-year behavior of Muslims. If 1.5 billion Muslims can find out “what those verses say” then so can I, and so can you, and so can any man. And we discover those commands to Believers, telling them to engage in violent Jihad against, and to terrorize the Infidels, the very verses cited by al-Awlaki and al-Baghdadi and Osama bin Laden and other leaders or members of terror groups, so scrupulous in adducing textual justification for their acts.
These verses are prescriptive, valid for all time, for Muslims everywhere. Can similar verses commanding violence and terror against an enemy, and prescriptive rather than descriptive, be found in the Jewish scriptures? In the New Testament? Robert Spencer notes the significance of this difference: “Indeed, throughout history, these texts[in the Bible] have never been taken as divine commands that either must be or may be put into practice by believers in a new age. All these passages, after all, are descriptive, not prescriptive. They nowhere command believers to imitate this behavior, or to believe under any circumstances that God wishes them to act as his instruments of judgment in any situation today.”
Do we find violence prescribed, or described, for Hindus in the Bhagavad Gita? And where does Christ speak of war and violence in the way that Muhammad does? Did we overlook something in the Sermon on the Mount? Where does Christ preach war against non-Christians? Where does the Buddha preach unending war against all non-Buddhists? Jews may lay claim to the Land of Israel, but Muslims lay claim to the entire world. There is a difference. Islam, claims Shariatmadari, “is not especially predisposed toward violence.” But no major religion’s foundational texts have anything like the violence that is to be found throughout the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira.
What about the Muslim wars of conquest? asks Shariatmadari. Yes,” they definitely happened” he admits, “but not in a way that marks Islam out from other cultures.” For “the dominant (often genocidal) military powers since the 17th century have been Christian.” Not for the first time, his Tu-Quoque is showing. Here’s the difference, and it’s a simple one: When Muslims conquered many different lands and subjugated many different peoples, they were acting according to what Allah had commanded, and following the example of Muhammad, the Model of Conduct and the Perfect Man, and the leader of many military campaigns, as recorded in the Hadith and Sira. When Christians conquered lands and subjugated non-Christian peoples (as the Spanish did, with such ferocity, in South America), they were acting not according to, but in defiance of, the teachings of Jesus. That’s what “marks Islam out from other cultures.” One might also note that the behavior of the Spanish conquistadores in South America does have something to do with Islam, for their violence reflected the effect of 770 years of the Reconquista, when the Spanish tactics and attitudes mirrored the brutality of the Muslims they were fighting.
Shariatmati mocks those who may have concluded that there is something “special” about Islam:
Since the Westminster attacks, many people seem to have been getting stuck on the following question, as they do after most acts of jihadi violence: “Is there something special about Islam? Something that lends itself to terrorism?”
There may be some people still “stuck on the question” of whether “there is something special about Islam,” but fewer with every attack by Muslim terrorists. That “something special” is to be found in the verses I’ve quoted above, and more than a hundred others in the same deadly vein. And it’s to be found, too, in the words and deeds of Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith and Sira. People in the Western world have had their attention fixed on Muslim terrorists not, pace Shariatmadari, “ever since the Westminster attacks,” nor intermittently, “after most acts of jihadi violence,” but steadily, since 9/11/2001, when the attack by jihadi terrorists on the World Trade Center signaled the real beginning of their campaign of terror against Infidels in the West. That campaign has continued, with more than 30,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists world-wide recorded since that fatidic date. And terror has been used, along with the conventional warfare conducted in recent decades by Jihadis against the Unbelievers, in many places: in Afghanistan, against Russian soldiers; in Kashmir, against the Hindu Pandits; in the Philippines, against the Christian farmers in the Moro Islands; in both Thailand and in the Chittagong Hills of Bangladesh, against Buddhists; and in Nigeria, against the Christian Igbo.
In the West, many have come to understand what it is about Islam that has led so many Muslims either to participate in, or to give support to, or express agreement with, terrorism against Infidels. These people realized that they could not rely on what Muslims themselves said about Islam, for the practice of taqiyya – religiously-sanctioned deception to protect the faith of Islam, which originates in Shi’a Islam but has analogues in Sunni Islam – has become too frequent and too transparent. Nor could they trust the academic “experts” in Islam, given the intellectual corruption in universities (where Islamic studies are almost everywhere in the hands of apologists in the Esposito and Armstrong line). Instead, they have engaged in self-directed study, a kind of home-schooling, reading the Qur’an and significant portions of the Hadith, and Sira, to make sense of this faith that, they soon discovered, is also a political ideology. For Islam not only regulates almost every aspect of life for its adherents, but imposes a duty of conquest on them as well. Islam is based on an uncompromising division of the world between Muslims and Unbelievers, and prescribes war between the two, until the ultimate triumph of the Jihadis, when Islam will everywhere dominate, and Muslims rule, everywhere. This is something David Shariatmadari does not mention.
Many non-Muslims have not wanted to look too closely into Islam. It’s upsetting. They choose to believe that Islam is “peaceful” and “tolerant” (as Muslim apologists keep assuring them). That’s a comforting fiction, but also dangerous, as it minimizes the menace, and keeps too many in the imperiled West whistling in the dark. It is especially disturbing to see those in positions of power, who are supposed to instruct and protect us, choose rather to dismiss Islamic terrorism as “having nothing to do with Islam,” or as being carried out by “misunderstanders of Islam” (Barack Obama). Others declare that Muslim terrorists “defame” Islam (General Mattis), or insist that what those terrorists do constitutes a “perversion of the faith” (General McMaster, Theresa May). No matter how many times Muslim terrorists declare quite clearly the justification for their attacks by quoting from the Qur’an and Hadith, no matter how many learned clerics similarly justify these attacks by citing Islamic jurisconsults, many Infidels still refuse to connect Islam to Islamic terrorism, and further declare that anyone who does so is guilty of Islamophobia, an unpardonable offense in today’s topsy-turvy world.
David Shariatmadari insists that the people who connect terrorism by Muslims to what is in the Qur’an and Hadith are proving themselves “unable to deal with the complexities of a world in which politics…interacts with religion.”
Shariatmadari’s claims are absurd. Those who “connect terrorism” to the Qur’an and Hadith are not “unable to deal with the complexities of the world,” but on the contrary, they are the ones most able to squarely face the disturbing reality of what Islam teaches. It is those who deny that connection who cannot bear too much reality. Those who have taken the trouble to study the Qur’an and the Hadith (that is, a few hundred of the Hadith most relevant to Jihad and terrorism), the very people Shariatmadari repeatedly mocks, know there is indeed something “special” about Islam. They know that the Qur’an contains more than a hundred verses extolling and commanding violence, and verses telling Believers to “strike terror” in the hearts of the Infidels. They know that Muhammad was a military leader, who conducted many dozens of raids on the enemy, and that the Hadith and Sira are full of stories of his taking part in attacks, and even participating in mass decapitations of prisoners. They know, because they’ve read them, that the texts of Islam are suffused with violence.
Shariatmadari writes: “Let’s assume for a moment, then, that Islam is especially predisposed towards violence. If that’s your view, then you’ll need to show why the history of jihadi terrorism is so very short: this is emphatically a late 20th and early 21st century phenomenon, yet Islam has been around since the seventh century.”
This is the heart of Shariatmadari’s argument, and is flatly false. The history of jihad terrorism is as old as Islam itself. For the Islamic conquests were not merely a matter of armies clashing, but of terror deliberately inflicted by Muslims in order to subdue much more numerous populations. How was the conquest of North Africa, all the way across to the Iberian Peninsula, and then into France, where the Muslims were finally halted by Charles Martel at Tours, achieved? Was there no terrorizing of the conquered populations? What were the Muslim conquests of the Byzantine Empire, or of the Sasanian Empire, if not acts of sustained terror by mass killings? What was the conquest of India, if not one vast exercise in jihadi terrorism that constituted the greatest genocide in history, where rule by a tiny Muslim minority was maintained over centuries by terror, with many millions of Hindus killed in campaigns designed to keep them from any thought of revolt? Instead of today’s terrorism of suicide vests and trucks, it was, rather, that of “striking terror” into the hearts of Infidels by massacring not only enemy soldiers taken prisoner, but non-combatants, including women, children, the elderly.
Shariatmadari pays no attention to the history of Islamic conquest except to insist that while such “wars of conquest” did happen, it was “not in a way that marks Islam out from other cultures.” He is, after all, defending the faith, and lying in its defense is not just permissible, but laudable. It is true that the kind of terror we naturally think of today was not possible before the late 20th century. For the first thirteen hundred and fifty years of Islam, the deadliest weapons used by modern terrorists – the explosives, the suicide vests, the automatic weapons that could spray a nightclub or restaurant with gunfire, the planes to be commandeered or blown up, the trucks and cars to be stolen and rammed into crowds of Infidels, the pressure-cookers repurposed to explode in the middle of other crowds – simply did not exist. But jihadi terror was inflicted on civilians for 1400 years, with sword and scimitar and mangonel (a siege weapon to shoot projectiles over city or fortress walls), and, much later, with guns too. If you massacre helpless civilians, no matter how limited your means, that is not conventional warfare; that is sowing terror, as the Qur’an commands.
What Shariatmadari should have said is this: modern technology has done two things for Muslim terrorists: first, it has provided them with deadlier and more varied instruments of terror (though decapitation is still a mainstay) than were available to Muslim terrorists in the past; second, technology has now made possible the instant dissemination of news of those attacks all over the world, through the Internet, as was never possible in the past, and thereby makes such terrorism more vivid and frightening.
There is another change, not mentioned by Shariatmadari, that explains the greater use of terror by Muslims in the West, starting in the late 20th century. It’s because they can. It is only during the last few decades that Muslims have been allowed to enter and settle in that same West, among those who would then become victims of Islamic terror. The Muslims who committed the terror attacks in London, who put bombs in Underground trains, who butchered Drummer Rigby, who killed French cartoonists, Jewish shoppers, nightclubbers, and diners in Paris, and strollers on the promenade in Nice, who executed Pim Fortuyn (killed by a Leftist who said he “did it for Dutch Muslims”) and Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, who murdered Americans in San Bernardino and Orlando and Fort Hood and Boston, would in an earlier day simply not have been living in Great Britain, or France, or the Netherlands, or the U.S. The great migration of Muslims to the West — there are now tens of millions of them in Europe — and the availability of new weapons, and new ways to weaponize what were never intended as weapons (planes, trucks, buses, cars), are what explain the flourishing of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. We in the West take note of Muslim terror now because we are its well-publicized, and latest victims, and we tend to forget that in numbers far more people, millions of them, have been killed in Asia and Africa over the centuries in campaigns of Islamic terror.
Shariatmadari claims that in the late 20th century, certain “political, economic, military and social changes in the Middle East,” caused jihad terrorism to start up. So why doesn’t he describe even one of those changes? What does he have in mind? Surely the main change in the Middle East has been this: some Muslim countries, once poor, became fabulously rich from oil and gas. And how would all these carefully unspecified changes “in the Middle East” explain the jihad terrorists who are to be found outside the Middle East, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, even China, and in many dozens of other countries? How do changes in the Middle East explain the jihad terrorism by converts to Islam in Europe? Could it be deprivation — poverty or lack of education — that explain why Muslims support or engage in sustained campaigns of war and terror against non-Muslims? No, all the studies agree that the Muslims who engage in terrorism are both better off and better educated than the average Muslim. Africans in wretched sowetos, impoverished Hindus in Calcutta, Christians in miserable favelas in Brazil, do not become terrorists, but rich Muslims – especially Saudis and other Gulf Arabs – do. The one constant among jihad terrorists, whether in the Middle East, or Asia, or in Europe, and whether they are converts or Muslim from birth, or rich or poor, is that they have read, and have taken to heart, the Qur’an and Sunnah. For Jihad terrorism, that is both necessary, and sufficient.
Yes, there is something “special” about Islam. It comes back to Muhammad as a military leader, bent on conquest and grabbing loot. The Qur’an is a manual of war. Shariatmadari hopes you won’t bother to read either it or the war stories that are included in the Hadith. He hopes you don’t know much about the history of Islamic conquest, but will assume it involved only a series of battles between regular armies, and not the campaigns of terror as well, that were so often the Muslim norm.
The weapons of jihadi terrorism have changed over time, the technology to broadcast bulletins of terror has become immeasurably more powerful, and the peoples against whom such terror is directed have also changed, as new venues (Paris! London! New York!) have presented themselves. Violent jihad is central to the ideology of Islam, and given the immutable nature of the Qur’an, will never fall from favor, or become anything else.
John A. Marre says
He obviously thinks “no.”
mortimer says
‘Obviously’. Koran 8.60 “Turhibunna” (terrorize them).
Part of Islamic terrorism is LYING ABOUT ISLAMIC TERRORISM to shield it from EXPOSURE and to shield Muslims from GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.
After all they FREELY CHOOSE to participate in a TERRORISM CULT that says “WE LOVE DEATH” and “TURHIBUNNA.”
Muslims can leave this DEATH CULT if they don’t like it … and yeah I know about the apostasy exit strategy.
Jeanette says
Good point about the death penalty for apostates from Islam.
I can’t remember ever reading about an apostate being executed for being an apostate.
Although I’m sure that executions of apostates are not non-existent, they also are apparently not very common.
More people than we could count have had to leave groups that had histories of retaliating against escapees. Some of the Founding Fathers of America paid very dearly.
Sometimes one must do what is right, come what may.
Who knows, that might be a Test on a very grand scale.
SK says
Another concept that I thought of is that the terror-sowing you speak of was conducted as an imperial army; because the Ottoman Caliphate was taken away by Ataturk and friends, there wasn’t any widely accepted Islamic world empire for most of the 20th century.
Muslims interested in violent jihad did think of ways around it, though.
gravenimage says
It is just Muslim apologists who make the claim that Jihad can only be declared by a Caliph.
And even that fig-leaf is compromised now, when so many pious Muslims consider the Islamic State a valid Caliphate.
mortimer says
GI is CORRECT! Any Muslim can conduct jihad with or without the caliph. A self-declared jihad will put the DEAD JIHADIST amongst the 72 virgins JUST AS QUICK and with less red tape.
So, “WHY NOT, MUSLIMS?” What’s holding you back from committing … I mean… CONDUCTING a suicide attack similar to that of Khalid Masood?
Anyway, the CALIPH al-Baghdadi has told you to go ahead. The fatwa is in your court. Or are you mainly cowards who DON’T REALLY BELIEVE IN THAT 72 virgins stuff… you are mostly HALF-HEARTED MUSLIMS, otherwise you would be blowing yourselves up every few minutes instead of ‘ONLY’ 4.5 times a day EVERY DARNED DAY OF THE YEAR.
(sarc/off)
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer–and a disturbingly large number of Muslims do indeed consider Al-Baghdadi to be the Caliph–and of those who don’t few are actually opposed to him on ideological grounds–they just think they should be running the Caliphate themselves.
Wellington says
And If I’m not mistaken, gravenimage, the “caliph directive” concerns only offensive warfare, not defensive. At any time, a caliph existent or not, Muslims can engage in defensive warfare when Islam is threatened or insulted or land is taken away from Muslims (examples being Spain and Israel) or for most any reason since Islam is so easily outraged by even the most trivial matters.
So, in effect, the distinction between offensive and defensive warfare becomes pretty much a distinction without a difference. Just one more game that Muslims play with themselves and with others.
mortimer says
II is immaterial quibbling to discuss ‘defensive’ jihad, because THE CALIPH OF ALL MUSLIMS Abu Bakr Baghdadi has GIVEN THE COMMAND and has INSTRUCTED ALL MUSLIMS to weaponize automobiles, carving knives, stones, clubs, fists. He has named the countries they should attack…FRANCE IS FIRST… then US, UK, Australia, Canada. Do the politicians in those countries even GET IT?
The supreme leader of ALL MUSLIMS has called on ALL MUSLIMS to hit tax-paying citizens of those nations wherever they can. This is ALL-OUT WAR and Western politicians are still in denial about it.
The attacks are happening every week. THE CALIPH OF ISLAM HAS CALLED FOR TERRORISM! It is an AGGRESSIVE JIHAD of CONQUEST and a DEFENSIVE JIHAD to defend ISIS.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington–and we know that any act of savage aggression, including every terrorist attack against the West, can be passed off as “defensive Jihad”, so this is a moot point.
Wellington says
Well, I don’t agree, mortimer, that it is quibbling since assuming ISIS can be done away with we’ll still have Muslims offended by most anything and engaging in “defensive jihad.”
Angemon says
Indeed.
gravenimage says
True.
JIMJFOX says
Mortimer is wrong again & not for the first time. Modern jihad erupted LONG before al Baghdadi proclaimed himself caliph of a non- existent caliphate. We should not forget the atrocities before 911- embassy bombings in many countries, the Beirut attack on the US Marines, etc.
Ciudadano says
Christians are the most prosecuted, oppressed, killed and humiliated people around the world, specially in islamic countries, but you never hear of Christians, priests or pastors plotting terrorist attacks.
On the other hand, there have been 30 531 islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Islamic terrorists are frequently imams and well off Muslims or Muslims living comfortably in Western countries enjoying social welfare.
The difference between Christans and Muslims is the same difference between the lives of Jesus Christ and Mohamed , and the same difference between the message of the Gospel and the coran and the same difference between Jesus disciples and mohamed’s disciples: forgiveness and love versus retaliation and hate.
gravenimage says
All true.
Dawn says
Yup ! You are correct !
Emilie Green says
Shariatmadari wants you to stay well away from those texts [of the Quran], insisting that “a proper explanation [for Muslim terrorism and violence] isn’t to be found here [in the Islamic texts].”
*****
Chico Marx summarized this approach, “Well, who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”
from Duck Soup (1933).
noanoa says
Islam was founded by an illiterate war mongol, and is part of the Quran.
Most Muslims are trapped in the 9th century, and aren’t able to co-exist in the 21century, especially within
Western societies. As evidence in events in their own world, and the West.
Sadly, the West is blinded by political correctness, which will result in an inevitable clash between the Two worlds.
Ciudadano says
It’s an scandal how low information people are being mislead with platitudes like “why the history of jihadi terrorism is so very short: this is emphatically a late 20th and early 21st century phenomenon”
Terrorism is a word invented in 20th century, however Mohamed and his band of caravan raiders themselves introduced the use of terror as a tool of coerced conversions.
Jenny H says
Didn’t Muhammed say, “I have been made victorious by terror.” Isn’t that the exact definition of a terrorist, to frighten a population so as to achieve social or political ends?
Ciudadano says
But but Muhamed himself was a terrorist, long before the word terrorism was invented!
Benedict says
It is difficult to understand, what it is that appeals to people who embrace Islam, or what it is that keeps Muslims from leaving their religion. Islam is the ultimate escape from freedom in our time manifested in Authoritarianism, Destructiveness and Conformity.
Islam is best understood in Pauline terms as a religion of the flesh, through the flesh and to the flesh. Add the demonic spirits that excel in this realm and within the framework of Islam, and we get radicalized Muslims wallowing in resentment, hatred and rejection sanctified in the service of their religion.
Why don’t politicians get it?
underbed cat says
Politicians don’t get it because of the outreach done by mosques, mb professional leadership,that established themselves as credible, polished speakers denying the doctrine to the unbelievers, presenting fantasy, demanding that it is a religion with protection from our constitution, denying the brutal commands of sharia, and the goal of spreading the influence, donating money to causes and politicians, universities, medical institutions you name it and fearing being called a racist. Islam is not a race. Terrorism would fade if the truth were known.. but the democratic party/ some Republicans has partnered in this mess to the degree that is does not allow the truth to be spoken, presenting and colluding that it is a peaceful religion with no ties to the terrorist who quote the Quran and follow sharia. I guess they did not read the book the terrorist quote..lots of clues.
Halal Bacon says
go back to Iran you tool
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: “Should We Blame Islam For Terrorism?”
……………………………..
It can certainly be blamed for over 98% of terror in the world today.
And yes–this *is* on the texts and tenets of Islam, and dates back to the model of the “Prophet”.
More:
Shariatmadari claims that in the late 20th century, certain “political, economic, military and social changes in the Middle East,” caused jihad terrorism to start up. So why doesn’t he describe even one of those changes? What does he have in mind?
……………………………..
Far from noting the fact that many Middle Eastern countries are *richer* with unearned oil wealth, Shariatmadari probably wants his readers to come away with some vague idea that modern Jihad terror has to do with poverty and disenfranchisement, and the general sense that Muslims only recourse to terrorism because they have no other options–which is utter bs, of course.
A fine article from Hugh Fitzgerald, and one that dismantles this blatant Taqiyya.
And here’s more from the dishonest David Shariatmadari, where he describes Trump
s efforts to protect Americans from Jihad terror as “war on Islam”–clearly showing that he *does* consider Jihad central to the practice of Islam:
“How war on Islam became central to the Trump doctrine”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/war-on-islam-central-trump-doctrine-terrorism-immigration
The Confessions says
Thanks for the info, gravenimage.
gravenimage says
Thanks, The Confessions.
God's Warrior says
All that Shariadude proved was that stupid people are drawn to the ‘religion’. It’s not necessarily that they can’t deduce that 2+2=4, but that they cannot see what is and what is not Godly. Their natural spiritual intelligence is covered by the dust of worldly attachment.
They will perform all manner of mental gymnastic aberrations and violent subtrafuge to hang on to their precious delusions of grandeur. The book, on every page combines intimidation and flattery to incite fear and vanity to enlist followers.
And even though they might reject half the teachings, they still follow. Then the little bobble-heads walk around thinking “Look at me – I am so holy.”
And so, they waste their lives. Or even worse, waste ours. Or worse yet, as is becoming even more popular these days, waste us – when they’re not wasting each other.
Daniel says
This has to be the best article I’ve read about Islamic driven terrorism. Thank you Hugh F. for your clairity, concise language and perception of the greatest problem facing the world today. The monster has now at least clearer contours. But Hugh help us find the answer to stop the beast. I’m writing from Norway. Neighbor to Sweden. We’re scared here Hugh. People are almost afraid to talk about it. The newspaper won’t criticize the “multicultural project” that has been pushed down our throats. Economic migrants disguised as war refugees. It’s kinda like you feel a sort of cancer creeping in over us. Politicians are so ver very politically correct. Some are organizing groups on Facebook etc. people are afraid of criticizing Islam for fear of being called racist…thanks again Hugh… write some more. Help us Hugh. God help us all
gravenimage says
Keep speaking out, Daniel–even if it is difficult. Norway needs her patriots now!
Stan Lee says
Shariatmadari was born in Iran, which is a dominantly Shiite Muslim country. The Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims worship each a different brand of Islam, which has led, and does lead, to Sunni-Shiite bloody confrontation.
The example of this kind of Muslim friction is Iraq, where once the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein was controlled by Saddam’s terror while it favored his people of Tikrit, Iraq (Sunni) while the higher populace Shiites were underdogs in most everything, even in Saddam training and equipping Sunni Arabs into his elite military divisions which he kept 100% Sunni. Shiites were conscripted and served in none of Saddam’s elite divisions. They were the Arabs who suttendered in hordes to U.S. forces when we invaded. The crack Sunni divisions put up a fight against coalition forces.
Today, the tables are turned in Iraq, where the higher populated Shiites now control government, are given preference, while the Sunnis are “on the outside looking in.” Now, Shia Islam in Iraq is “getting even”, but that also motivates Sunnis to seek the overthrow of the Iraqi government, in memory of when Sunni Islam was in control there. An unknown amount of Sunnis have joined ISIS.
At the bottom of all this is an approx. 800 (?) year-old disagreement between Shiite and Sunni over a ritual (or a few) concerning practicing of the Muslim religion. It is very serious, serious enough for Sunnis & Shiites to kill each other. The center for Shia Islam is Iran, which is after nuclear weapons, etc. in order to dominate Islam. The center of Sunni Islam is Saudi Arabia, which has its own fighting forces equipped with standard military items sent by the USA. Obviously, Saudi Arabia has been dependent upon a U.S. military shield.
Iran is a terrorist regime, and the Sunni Arabs fighting against the Iraqi gov’t, which today is backed by U.S. forces are just as capable of terrorism against non-Muslims, which would include U.S. forces in Iraq who are about 95% non-Muslim if not more. In any event, Sunni Islam now sees U.S. Forces as allies of the Shiite Iraqi government fighting ISIS, which is full of Sunnis.
If the Arabs are confused, then we are even more confused about them and who’s who!
Wellington says
Excellent refutation by Hugh Fitzgerald of this turkey, David Shariatmadari. And how ironic that the first five letters of this man’s last name are “Sharia.” Yean, just can’t make up stuff like this.
This person is either being sincerely ignorant or engaging in deception. Either way his assessments are worthless, as Fitzgerald overwhelmingly proved. However, I have no doubt that those in the West who will accept the bogus arguments proffered by this guy will reveal a direct proportional relationship respecting how much college education they have since the more one attends college in the West nowadays (and especially at the graduate school level) the more likely it is that common sense and moral intelligence, and often just good old general knowledge too (think Reza Aslan here), will be in absentia.
mortimer says
Agree with “excellent refutation”.
Shariatmadari wants us to concentrate on HIS OPINIONS, rather than on what the texts ACTUALLY SAY.
Most Muslim apologists are EMBARRASSED by what Allah & Mo ACTUALLY SAY and so they spend their WHOLE LIVES explaining that Allah & Mo did not SAY what they ACTUALLY SAID.
Muslim apologists are fatuous professional liars.
AleX_ says
Should we blame islam for terrorrism?
It takes too long for the short attention span of mohomeedans to admit the fault of their beautiful cult of death.
It is much easier and quicker to blame the Crusades.
(Note: islam was already terrorising all cardinal points on the map, 300 years before the Crusades were even invented!)
common sense says
Excellently writen and summarized by Hugh. Wow.
First- Charles Martel aka “The Hammer” for all the defeats he handed Islam. We need one, a sledge of mass proportion.
Two- “He fails to quote a single verse or sentence or phrase from the Qur’an or Hadith. Shariatmadari wants you to stay well away from those texts, insisting that “a proper explanation [for Muslim terrorism and violence] isn’t to be found here [in the Islamic texts].” In fact, the Qur’an gets in the way of a meaningful inquiry: “all it [looking into the Qur’an] really does is stand in the way of a proper investigation. It’s like a sign that says ‘look here and no further,’ ”
Next time somebody brings up “the crimes done in the name of Christ” remind them of how William Tindall was burned at the stake for heresy for translating the bible to English so that people could read scripture for themselves. That act led to an eventual reformation that I do not see anyone in Islam calling for or very few. This nincompoop is acting just like the dark age papacy of old to disseminate knowlegde the way he sees fit to do. This is much worse than the myths woven around the inquisition or ancient church methodology to keep biblical text from commoners. In fact its way worse once one grasps the insult to the world that Islam really is. As stated the tragic stories of the bible are descriptive lessons to help us be a better person. Islam is the exact opposite as we well know with so many calls for slaugher and jihad.
So if someone wants to argue about Catholic oppression and white supremacy then Islam is still in the act on a massive scale as ppinted out by High using tech and reaching all corners of the world and William Tindall proves the point, he did not die in vain. Where are the Muslims who are willing to go the opposite way from Islam? They martyr themselves for every wrong reason. Those Muslims are Christians now for this very reason.
Jon says
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/islam-101.aspx is a very good in depth and well researched way to understand the truth about Islam and violence, taqqiya and many other reasons why Islam is an inherent opponent of true Godly virtue, and especially those who follow the true orthodox christian way
AleX_ says
Correction: 400 years after the first terrorist mohomot invented religious terrorism, the Crusaders came about to break some skulls (oh too few, unfortunately)
Islam was meant to be a tool for terrorism since its inception in VIIth century.
marina says
As long as Muslims believe that Koran is the direct word of Allah and Mo was the perfect man on earth there will be no peace. But they are so heavily indoctrinated even the peaceful ones that it is an impossible task to make them see that they are following a fake religion.
Ed Lee says
Hugh Fitzgerald points out three times that Mr. Shariatmadari is concerned about the way that both believers and unbelievers have interpreted Qur’an verses. There is a huge problem with that: Sura 3, verse 7 explicitly prohibits man from interpreting the Qur’an. Since any behavior in violation of Qur’an dictates is defined as apsotasy, how does Mr. Shariatmadari, clearly an apostate, claim to be a spokesman for Islam?
jewdog says
Let’s not forget that modern technology, and widespread literacy, has made the Islamic texts more available to the masses. Unfortunately, many people are gullible and simply take what they read literally. Raymond Ibrahim has written about this in detail.
Also, Robert Spencer wrote a book showing how there is little evidence of a religious basis for the initial Arab conquests, that Sharia and Islam were invented later as a way to justify and control the conquered peoples.
Dry Academy says
Should we blame salmonella for food poisoning?
RodSerling says
Agreed–we’d blame those who put it there or allowed it, and who failed to use adequate safety standards, ultimately all the people involved in the causal chain from beginning to end.
I’ve expanded on a similar theme below.
DFD says
“…“Should We Blame Islam For Terrorism?”
NO! It’s obvious who is behind all this, ***THE TRUE CAUSE!***
Peter Pan!
========
Damn! Now the greens will after me.
billybob says
So that was more fake news from the Guardian – really, really fake. It’s so fake that you could find a dozen Imam’s on YouTube that would contradict it in the span of 5 minutes. I would like to see the Guardian publish Mr. Fitzgerald’s rebuttal, but they wouldn’t do that in a million years.
The other day an idea came to me. I had earlier been trying to explain to somebody why I consider the MSM as purveyors of fake news. The idea takes the form of a thought experiment. Can you imagine seeing one of the MSM interviewing an articulate ex-Muslim about why he or she left Islam? Someone like, say – this one…
A Canadian ex-Muslim tells it all
http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org
How about an hour long interview featuring several ex-Muslims? Could you imagine seeing such a thing? How about a piece on FGM and the 90% of Muslim women who have been cut? Combine that with a piece about child brides, death sentences for apostates & gays, and the brutality of Sharia? Things we take for granted on YouTube, for example? Like, how about 60 Minutes doing such a piece? Or CNN? Of course not. They never would. But why not? Islam is topical. People should be just as interested in such stories as anything else about Islam, but you will never, ever see that. People also need to be informed, but the MSM will give you fake news such as we just read about here instead of information. Then that is proof right there that the MSM will not give you the news. They are advocates rather than journalists these days.
ploome says
What is generally called ‘terrorism’ is in reality, jihad.
So the answer is YES
RodSerling says
Islam as an ideology has a causal role in jihad terrorism, clearly, as it is understood and applied by its agents. And it is important, as Hugh does here, to educate the broader public on the aspects of Islam-the-ideology that contribute to acts of jihad terror.
But we don’t blame an ideology, even if the ideology commands the terrorism, as Islam does. We blame the agents, i.e., the people, who carry out, support, fail to stop, (intentionally or unintentionally) enable, fail to solve or at least manage the problem of terrorism. We can also talk about Islam as a system that promotes (causes) jihad terrorism, but blame is primarily ascribed to people. Islam itself as an ideology can cause nothing without people to enact, or enable, what it commands or logically implies. The people to blame for jihad terrorism happening in Western countries include:
1.
-the jihadists and the planners of the attacks
-the Muslims who support the jihadists practically (financing, supplies, housing, communication and networking, secret-keeping)
-Muslims who support the jihadists socially and who are supportive of jihad attacks against the West
-Muslims who make threats against outspoken opponents of jihad
-Muslims who deny that jihad terrorism is a result of Muslims applying Islam’s doctrine (these Muslims include everyone from (a) ordinary Muslims in casual conversation with non-Muslims, to (b) academics, (c) media personalities, (d) activists, and (e) advisors to political and military leaders).
-Muslims who fail to alert the authorities when they suspect one or more of their fellow Muslims is involved in a terrorist plot
-Muslims who fail to alert the authorities when an imam or member of a mosque makes statements in support of terrorism
-Muslims who are working in myriad ways toward the same goals of the terrorists (to establish sharia and “humiliate” the West) but who do not think that violent jihad is prudent at this stage. By keeping the goals alive, they keep alive the possibility of attaining those goals.
-Muslims who engage in violent crime (murder, rape, torture, assault, theft, etc.) against non-Muslims but who do not organize violent events for large-scale mainstream media publicity (i.e., terrorist attacks)
-Muslim adults who insist on indoctrinating their children in the Qur’an and Sunnah, which command hatred and terrorism against non-Muslims who do not conform to Islam or who are of a people who are “at war against Muslims” (potentially, that’s anyone of any country that participates in military battles that happen to be against Muslim opponents)
-Muslims who, following terrorist attacks, use the opportunity to promote “peaceful, misunderstood” Islam, or otherwise engage in denial, deflection, and distraction
-Muslims who use the occasion of a terrorist attack to blame the victim, blame the Western governments
2.
-Non-Muslims who aid and abet the terrorist operation itself
-non-Muslims who engage in propaganda that is consistent with jihadists’ propaganda against the West
-non-Muslim politicians who vastly increase the risk of terror attacks by practicing and promoting “open borders” policies that allow in vast numbers of people–legally or illegally–among whom are dangerously high numbers of Muslims of the type described above in 1.
-non-Muslim political parties that strategically woo Muslim voters, often at the expense of other groups, by making concessions to Islam and sharia while being soft on jihad terrorism (Trudeau’s Liberals, Obama’s Democrats, Merkel’s CDU, et al.)
-non-Muslim politicians who use their enormous influence to praise the wonders of Islam (Blair, Bush, Obama, Trudeau, et al.) while denying its role in violent jihad
-multiculturalists and cultural relativists who insist that sharia and Islamic education in schools, which includes jihad, should be allowed, i.e., that Islam is merely another “perspective,” no better or worse than any other. (These people often in practice treat Islam as superior and the West as inferior).
-non-Muslim owners and members of the media who also engage in propaganda to whitewash Islam viz. jihad, and who give prominent platforms to Islamic propagandists.
-non-Muslim universities and colleges that accept funding from sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
-non-Muslim academics and experts on Islam and jihad who minimize the causal role of Islam in jihadist terror
-non-Muslim judges and lawyers who find every conceivable reason “in the book” to not deport jihadists or those at risk of jihad, whilst ignoring every conceivable reason in that same “book” by which the jihadists could be deported
-non-Muslim supervisors in law enforcement who unquestioningly obey their political overlords and do not support their officers to an adequate degree in enforcing the law (e.g., in Sweden, U.K., Germany, and elsewhere)
-any non-Muslim who, in response to those who voice reasonable concerns about jihad terrorism, Islam, and the large-scale and growing presence of Muslims as a risk factor, calls them “Islamophobes,” “racists,” “bigots,” etc., i.e., makes accusations that place a strong social stigma on the accused that has real consequences (loss of job, social isolation, etc.).
-etc. -I could go on and on.
3. Finally, the fact that “Islam” is not merely an ideology but a system in which terrorism and other forms of violence and hostility toward non-Muslims play key roles toward the goal of establishing sharia rule throughout the world implies that anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who supports or enables the system of Islam is to some extent to blame, responsible for the continued and increasing violent jihad in the West.
Muslims are not going to stop Islam-the-system as it works its way through the West. There is little incentive for them to do so under the status quo. Indeed, there is a big incentive to strive to continue establishing Islam, because the West is weakening and declining, while Muslims are increasing and gaining power in the West. Why on earth would they abandon their 1400-year obsession with conquering non-Muslims now, when they are gaining so rapidly and practically cruising to victory in the historically-prized West? Their religion requires them to wage jihad of all kinds. Why would they stop that when there is so little resistance? Why would significant numbers of Muslims abandon or “reform” Islam when Islam is obviously the better long-term investment in this world and, they believe, the next? For the vast majority of Muslims, Islam is not merely a religion or an ideology, but it is a project, a striving that they must actively carry forward until Judgement Day.
Given that a well-informed rational assessment by non-Muslims shows that Muslims in significant numbers are not going to oppose jihad and the Islamization of the West, the onus then, for all practical purposes, rests on non-Muslims to achieve that monumentally important task–perhaps the most important task humanity has ever faced. We are the only ones who can realistically stop and reverse Islamization. We are to blame if we do not make a sufficient effort to oppose Islamization.
Educating non-Muslims is an important component in this grand task. In doing so, we must emphasize that the problem is (a) primarily Muslims who apply or enable Islam as a system, and (b) the role that some non-Muslims have in enabling that process.
Philip Horowitz says
“Shariatmadari claims that in the late 20th century, certain “political, economic, military and social changes in the Middle East,” caused jihad terrorism to start up. So why doesn’t he describe even one of those changes? What does he have in mind?”
Hugh, I believe he is hinting at the foundation of Israel. This hint will be picked up by Guardian readers.
plusaf says
The very concept that “Islam has been peaceful for 1400 years and suddenly you’re complaining about recent terrorist activities” boggles the mind.
History may show (with some doubts) quiescent periods, but the current events and those of the past few violent decades are completely irrelevant to such history. “Nice” past history is no excuse for current atrocities.
There is zero logic in such a statement from him.
heather says
I don’t like I-slam, I don’t trust muslims. Jesus stood up to the Devil and He wants us to do the same. I don’t see any difference between I-slam and the Devil.
heather says
ONCE, just ONCE I would like to see a muslim, ANY muslim, ANYWHERE in the World quote a verse from the koran that tells them to LOVE everyone and FORGIVE everyone, and for it to be TRUE.
But I don’t think they can, because there aren’t any and it is NOT TRUE.
ALL they ever talk about is Sharia law and THEIR RIGHTS. What more PROOF do I need to despise it.
Pal says
Guardian is a leftist edition.
“Should we blame islam?”:
Here’s the answer:
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical ‘science of Koranic interpretation’, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evocation of sanctity for its justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies”.
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (1943-2010), Egyptian scholar, author and reformer and therefore persecuted by islam authorities of his country.
DP111 says
But as I’ve posted several times before – Terrorism is not the existential threat. Jihad is simply an indicator of the number of Muslim that are in the country. The more Jihad terror, the more Muslims. And it is the last, the demographic threat, that will destroy Western civilisation for good.
TH says
The references to the Spanish Conquistadores as being extremely violent vis a vis others does not hold water. Do you really think that Cortés with less than 1000 Spanish troops could have brought down the Aztec Empire, or that Pizarro with only 450 could have done the same to the Inca Empire. Besides, they did not even have regular army troops. The reason why they defeated the Aztecs and the Incas was that a great number of the other natives who had been under the heel of these violent empires joined the Spaniards and helped them win. The Aztecs used to take out the hearts of some 20,000 young boys to placate their god. It is no wonder that the natives realized that Christianity was far superior to those barbaric religions, and that Spain in its almost 300 years of governing America had very few probles with revolts. Of course. there were excesses, but compared to the treatment meted out to the North American Indians by the English, they are little.
Troybeam says
In the beginning was Mohammed fair, seems the Koran states so that is until rejection became to much and his mental state began to falter and fall into insanity which led him to completely tell people to murder, rape and conquer in any means, women were well nothing but servants to be used and abused, children were the same, animals meant something or nothing as well, 1400 plus years later the people who follow this insanity created called Islam, a disease that infects rational thought and turns it into violence against those not taken with said disease, so whats the cure here in America……remove said disease with no possible re-entry into the nation. And Yes, Islam is to blame for the worlds violence, its plain for all who see.
Alula says
Terrorism is not only related to islam,any one who is not happy or has problem in politices,economic,unjustice ,can creat violence or revolution
Wellington says
Yes, but Islam is by far, no contest here, the major religion which facilitates and condones violent tendencies in a person in religious disguise. I mean how many who become Christian kill in the name of their deity? Or how many who are Buddhist kill in the name of Buddha? And so on. C’mon. Wake up.
Over 30,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide just since 9/11 helps to confirm what I have stated. And Islam from the get-go has facilitated violent and psychopathic tendencies in its believers. Fitting since the founder of Islam, Mohammed, demonstrates the character of a psychopath. Not so with Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Zoroaster, et al. Keep in mind what John Quincy Adams said of Mohammed, “The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust—-to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of mankind.” Just so. Quite a role model the Model Man has been over the centuries. Yes indeed.
Jeanette says
270 million people killed by Muslims since Mohammed first instructed them to kill everyone else.
185 million enslaved.
(American Thinker)
And those are the murders and slaves that left a trail. Which means that those figures are probably quite low.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington.
Troybeam says
This post is about violence by a secular group, name other like groups to back up your statement/Name in current history say last 8 years.
Jeanette says
Those individuals are not condoned by their cultures, and are not following institutionalized violence as set out in the Koran.
A sprinkling of evil people is bad enough, but 1.7 billion people supporting violence being perpetrated on the other 5.3 billion is another matter altogether.
Jeanette says
Alula,
Are you, perhaps, a Muslim?
SuchindranathAiyerS says
Mahomet was a Bandit leader. A Dacoit rather than a military leader. The Quran and the Hadiths are Total War and Garrison rule manuals that deal in great detail with how to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with spoils of war.
Jeanette says
I look at this evil man’s face and all I see is a monster that enjoy his wife’s Muslim genital mutilation, which altered her physically so that his sensation mimics have sex with a little boy.
And I wonder if this evil man will someday rape his own toddler granddaughter, as a Muslim grandfather recently did. (The poor child’s mother drowned the child in a bucket of water, so that the family wouldn’t be dishonored by the child’s behavior.)
I have a pretty good vocabulary, but I simply cannot find the words to adequately express my disgust and repulsion of supporters of Islam, Muslim or not.
Jeff says
Unable to ascribe any violence truly related to Islam, I can’t help but wonder why Mr. Shariatmadari chooses to live in the UK instead of the idyllic Islamic Republic of Iran.
Jan Aage Jeppesen says
The question “Should We Blame Islam For Terrorism?” is not necessarily a rhetoric question.
Taken at face value the answer must be “NO, we should NOT blame Islam.”
Explanation: Religious doctrines or ideologies does not kill people, people kill or terrorize people. Analogous with what is said about guns.
The ethics of Western culture is founded on the assumptions of free will and personal responsibility for crimes committed. You cannot be acquitted of a crime by claiming that God or Hitler or Stalin ordered you to commit genocide or terror. You are always personally responsible for the crimes you commit and you should have rejected the order as unlawful and taken the consequences.
This ethic is summed up in the so called “Nuremberg principles”, a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
]
Principle I
“Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
Principle II
“The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
Principle III
“The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
Principle IV
Superior Orders
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders'”.
Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as “Superior Orders”. After the prominent, high-profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the “Nuremberg Defense”. In recent times, a third term, “lawful orders” has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.
Principle V
“Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”
Principle VI
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
Principle VII
“Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”
My closing arguments. You cannot put God, a religious or political doctrine on trial for demanding that its followers commit crimes against humanity, but we must and can put such followers on trial for crimes committed in the name of such abstract or transcendent ideas.
August West says
To answer this I think it is helpful to refer to three primary documents and see where they lead:
1)The Fatwa issued in November 1914 by the Ottoman Empire calling the entire global Muslim community at that time to Jihad.
This is easy to find on line and read.
2)The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Again this document is easy to find online and read.
Look for the section entitled Ideological Army in the Preamble. Here you will see a specific call to global conquest, jihad and Koran verse 8:60 is quoted.
3)The Hamas Covenant
Again this document is easy to find online and read.
Article 2 links Hamas to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Look at article 8 which says: allah is the target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran is its constitution, jihad is the path and death for the sake of allah is the loftiest of wishes. Al Bukari (compilation of Hadith) is also quoted in article 7 of this document.
When you read these three documents you are immediately drawn to concepts such as: Allah, Koran, Mohammad, Islamic Law, martyrdom, Hadith and Jihad.
Therefore, any discussion of the role of Islam in conflicts which in anyway involves the Ottoman Empire, Modern Day Iran or The Muslim Brotherhood that does not mention and address these core Islamic documents and concepts is bogus.
For further discussion and analysis read Huntington’s excellent “The Clash of Civilizations”. Here data is presented which justifies Huntington’s claim that “Islam has bloody borders”.
laverner says
Islamic jihad terrorism has been active since 700AD. 512 wars have been conducted in the name of Allah since that time. The tribal backgrounds of Islamists make them like flea infestations. If you let them breed long enough in your house, pretty soon that house will be theirs and you and your family will be road kill for Allah.
A.J. Hakimi says
I had studied the duty to prevent and punish acts of terrorism and militancy for my Bachelor of Laws from 1997-1998 and here’s my gist :
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ISLAMIST TERRORIST GROUPS – AL-MAUNAH AND ISIS : THEY BOTH RAID MILITARY CAMPS OF MILITARY WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has said the Al-Ma’unah cult aimed to overthrow his government and set up an Islamic state.
He says most of the 1,800 cult members nationwide also belong to the main opposition party, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/870776.stm
ISIS has hit another military base in Iraq, this time in the town of Heet about 100 miles from Baghdad and seized more military equipment and weapons.
http://fusion.net/isis-seizes-more-military-equipment-after-capturing-ira-1793842680
https://www.amazon.com/ISLAMIST-TERRORISM-Beslan-Children-Torment-ebook/dp/B01K4NXJAK/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Lilythewise says
I have to conclude that Islam is to blame for the terror that is commencing today.
The rapes and murders perpetuated by Muslims is all the evidence I need as well as the Quran itself.