In the wake of Linda Sarsour’s declaration of jihad against President Trump, Leftists and Islamic supremacists have been taking the line that only “Muslim extremists” and “Islamophobes” say that jihad involves violence:
Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush said much the same thing:
The clear intention here is not just to intimidate people into dismissing the idea that jihad involves violence, for fear of allying with hated groups, but also to liken foes of jihad terror to its proponents, thereby stigmatizing resistance to jihad terror as “far-right extremism.”
There is just one obstacle to this objective: the truth. One can easily get the impression that jihad involves violence not just from terrorists and “Islamophobes,” but from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “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 troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “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.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to conclude that jihad involves violence without ever referring to statements of either terrorists or “Islamophobes.” But Mehdi Hasan and Hussam Ayloush will never tell you that.
IQ al Rassooli says
I have for ever asserted that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any Muslim to be a LOYAL citizen among non Muslims. Linda Sarsour and Mehdi Hassan prove my point every time they open their Taqiyyah (Deception) filled sewer mouths
Both are the most perfect example of Stealth Jihad. They PRETEND to be part and parcel of the American Dream but are actually Sharia Compliant and hence TRAITORS to both the American Constitution and the American people as I shall prove forthwith
The word Jihad in the Arabic language has its root in JAHADA which does mean Struggle/ Endeavour/ Strive
Unfortunately, those who explain it in SPIRITUAL terms (like Linda Sarsour, Mehdi Hassan etc) are deliberately deceiving and misleading the public about its actual meaning based entirely upon the Arabic language of the Quran and the Hadiths.
In innumerable verses in the Quran and the Hadiths JIHAD means only ONE thing:
“PHYSICAL WARFARE in the cause of Allah” which in Arabic it is:
“Jihad fi Sabil^Allah”
Most human beings, whether followers of Muhammad or not, do not know that Muhammad UNILATERALLY declared TOTAL and ETERNAL war, 1400 years ago, against ALL UNSUSPECTING Human Beings who do not believe as he does.
Contrary to all the falsified assertions by politically correct westerners and aided and abetted by Muslims who have every reason to hide the truth, Jihad is not a SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE for excellence but a CONTINUOUS WAR against all so called UNBELIEVERS until all of humanity is either converted to Muhammadan Islam, is subject to it or is SLAUGHTERED.
In fact, among Muslim scholars, Jihad constitutes the unwritten SIXTH PILLAR OF MUHAMMADAN ISLAM.
Muhammad’s Quran and the Hadiths (the foundations of Sharia) are crystal clear in affirming this. The Quran and Ahadith contain hundreds of verses attesting to and asserting this DOGMA.
Not ONCE in the Quran or Hadiths can anyone find the word JIHAD mentioned by itself meaning SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE.
All the derivatives of the word JIHAD in the Quran and Hadiths represent ACTS of WAR and AGGRESSION to spread the belief in Allah AND in Muhammad as the messenger of Allah.
To be able to INDOCTRINATE any human being, to be so prepared as to willingly die for a belief, thus becoming a martyr [shaheed] who would be rewarded with ETERNAL SEXUAL, SENSUAL and CARNAL PLEASURES in the afterlife than in life on earth, in Muhammad’s Whorehouse version of Paradise should be considered among the most DIABOLICAL weapons of war ever conceived.
In such a war, very little mercy could be shown to the enemy until it is totally subdued, converted or exterminated.
This IDEOLOGICAL ‘weapon’ has been used throughout ‘Islamic’ history both against the ‘infidels’ as well as against other ‘unbelieving’ sects of Islam.
In all of the Quranic verses – as well as in the Ahadith – Jihad is invariably associated with physical warfare and fighting and not as a spiritual striving for a higher morality and or discovery of self.
In reality, there is no SECULAR WAR in Muhammadan Islam because from the very beginning of the Muhammadan Islamic polity, war and aggression were the means by which the Muhammad and his followers built up their empire.
Jihad became a perpetual HOLY DUTY of warring against ALL infidels/ Kuffar; that is a continuous war of aggression against ALL those who do not believe as they do; in
“Allah and his messenger, Muhammad”
These wars were not in defense of ‘Islam’ but to gain territory, economic wealth, slavery, booty, rape and plunder. Converting these peoples to ‘Islam’ was last on the agenda of Muhammad’s followers but became a very important by-product of these wars of aggression.
It is a cruel irony – if not actually divine justice – that among the largest victims of Jihadi terror were, and continue to be OTHER MUSLIMS. Each side of the conflict between two or more of the warring ‘Muslim’ factions or sects, accuse their opponents of Kufr and or Unbelief, turning them into ‘Enemies of Allah’ and hence subject to ‘divinely’ sanctioned destruction.
In this manner and according to the Quran, their unholy book, since all are Muslims killing other Muslims, none will ever be received in Paradise but will assuredly end up in Allah’s Hell.
For those who are in doubt, the following very few sample verses and Hadiths should easily and conclusively sober you up:
Al Tauba 9:5 “But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay [fa’qtuloo] the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war”
Al Tauba 9:29 “Fight [qatiloo] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth [ISLAM] (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians & Jews] until they pay the Jizya (Financial penalty for not being a Muslim) with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated”
Sahih Al-Bukhari 4.50 Narrated by Anas bin Malik
“The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause {Qital fi Sabil Allah} (JIHAD) is better than the world and whatever is in it.’”
Sahih Muslim Hadith 4631 & 4626 Abu Huraira
“I heard Muhammad say: … I love that I should be killed in Allah’s Cause [Jihad]; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in Allah’s Cause [Jihad].’”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.73 Narrated by Abdullah bin Abi Aufa
Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
There are HUNDREDS more of similar verses in the Quran and the Hadiths for those who have the appetite for blood.
I wish Linda would debate me
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
David says
And you won’t hear stuff like this discussed on the mainstream media.
Jaladhi says
Jihad is “holy war” in the minds of regular Muslims in any Islamic country! All these useful idiots should go there and talk to them to teach them the real meaning of “internal spiritual struggle”! But they doing a wonderful job of fooling the Western citizens by totally lying about jihad!
DrSique says
Yeah, I find it far more “interesting” that Islam is the only religion in which millions of followers misinterpret their own faith to mean mass killings mean an express elevator to paradise. ‘Course, this would make me just one more islamophobe who needs to be dealt with by decapitation. Until then, I will continue to point out the diametrically opposing views of Jesus and Muhammed. One said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” The other said, “Hand me that stone, I want to go first.”
Mark Swan says
Good One DrSique
gravenimage says
+1
Andy says
Islam is the most dangerous cult in the world and should be banned everywhere in a civilized country.
Veteran Blinded By Omar Khadr Says Trudeau Guilty Of Treason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUnRpBwZ6E
Andy says
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/09/veteran-blinded-by-omar-khadr-says-trudeau-guilty-of-treason/
Andy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw
walter says
She will only wish to take your balls away…
Debi Brand says
Amen, al-Rassooli, amen.
Andy says
If you don’t agree with Mehdi Hasan he will blow you up to prove how peaceful moslems and the cult of Islam is!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Oops not so peaceful after all.31,155 victims of the so called religion of pieces cult of islam and counting!
BAN ALL MOSLEMS AND ISLAM EVERYWHERE IN A CIVILIZED NATION!
Andy says
AND BUILD THE WALL HIGHER AND STRONGER THAN YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE! MAGA!
Peter Buckley says
Poor old Mehdi should have a word with another muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who has had the honesty to admit that ” Islamic terrorists, as heinous as their acts are, they are often merely doing what the scriptures are telling them.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571880/Muslim-psychiatrist-worried-terror-apologists-ABC.html#ixzz4l0VUncJK
The “moderate” Tanveer Ahmed , according to Mehdi, is an “Islamophobe”…..
Hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5foN-2ucZc
Jaladhi says
This is hilarious and I wonder if this guy is still alive and killed by the followers of that criminal, the founder of this cult!!
Godwin says
Mehdi Hasan believes in flying donkey that fled into space. He might as well believe the ayah that says that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water.
He is the Takiyyah-in-chief of Aljazeera.news channel.
Andy says
Thank you Peter for this video, Great!
Peter Buckley says
It’s only a parody. I think the guy is actually talking about Muhammad Morsi. Still funny though..
Another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=306NMgH31nw&t=203s
If you check out the references, those hadith do actually exist, but are “weak” (although it doesn’t stop devout muslims from following some of them, notably this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJYUsfsCZo
I enjoy those by ex-muslims, like these girls. Enjoy……….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEdeDusYBw
gravenimage says
I’ve seen this before–I hope this guy is safe.
PRCS says
He got slapped around for that.
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/883515426168201218
paul says
More muslim apologists lies…
JW_Reader says
Mehdi claimed, in one debate at Oxford, that without a Muslim invention, there will not be any computer today. He was saying a muslim invented algorithm. If this moron had any idea about Algorithm he would have known, it can not be invented. And algorithm is just a first step in designing a computer software.
manat bint allaha says
i believe however, that ir was the first muslims who invented bipedal walk.
that was about the time when the climbed down the banana tree to live like humans.
gravenimage says
Ha ha.
Santa Voorhees says
Saudi Arabia must be full of terrorists and islamophobes then…
Jayell says
“Only “the terrorists and the Islamophobes” say that jihad “refers to violence”……..”
So this is proof that the Prophet Mohammed, with all those quotes of his referencing violence, was a terrorist. I’m glad that’s cleared up now, thanks to Mehdi Hasan . I was going to say that I might be a bit puzzled about the Great Prophet also being an ‘islamophobe’, but of course no-one can be ‘islamophobic’ since detesting islam is perfectly rational, so the whole concept is spurious.
CogitoErgoSum says
Here is something interesting: I am not an Islamophobe because of what the terrorists say; I am an Islamophobe because of the things I have read in the Quran and because of what the Islamic scriptures have revealed to me about the character of Muhammad.
Another thing of interest is how many people claim that Islam is benevolent yet can’t support their assertions through reference to Islamic scripture. Such people are like so many birds tweeting and changing their song until they find the tune most pleasing to other birds.
Jayell says
Since it is clearly based on informed reasoning, your negative opinion of islam is not phobic. So you should tell anyone who accuses you of being an ‘islamophobe’ (a) to educate themselves properly in the English language or/and (b) take a running jump.
Boston Tea Party says
Of course, as Robert has done, one can find vast evidence from Islamic sources that Jihad is indeed to be understood as a violent pursuit.
But beyond that, it’s such a silly debate to be having at this point. It’s like in 1939 having some big discussion about whether or not Nazism is a legitimate historical expression of German nationalism. Who cares?!! Whatever the answer is, we still have Nazis to worry about!!
Boston Tea Party says
To clarify my point—I’m not saying it’s silly for Robert to rebut the claims that jihad is non-violent. I mean it’s silly for someone like Mehdi Hasan to think that defining the “true” meaning of jihad is in any way helping to solve the problem of the jihadis who have a different interpretation and are acting on it.
Norger says
This is the point that Andrew McCarthy frequently makes. In a sense, it doesn’t really matter whether the “extremist” or violent interpretation of Islam is “true” or “correct.” (Although it’s a completely plausible interpretation of Islamic theology by any objective analysis). The inescapable fact is that there are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide who (not surprisingly) interpret the term “jihad” as meaning warfare to establish the religion. And as Mr. Spencer points out, they are not pulling this out of nowhere, this interpretation of the term” jihad” is grounded in mainstream, authoritative Islam sources. Perhaps Ms. Sarsour was encouraging ” jihad of the tongue,” but these are just points on the seditious continuum of Islamic religious warfare. She knew (and meant) exactly what she was saying.
gravenimage says
BTP, Muslims like Mehdi Hasan are just trying to distract us from the prevalence of Jihad, and make us feel guilty for daring to notice it.
Jaladhi says
Jihad is violence against non-Muslims! As usual this Muslim is lying to conceal the truth about jihad and Islam from us. And the useful idiots of the West are helping him!!
One doesn’t have to go any Islamic sources to find the meaning of jihad – it is self evident from the 1400 year old history of Muslims during which they have carried out genocide of non-Muslims killing more than 370 million non-Muslims worldwide! And that includes more than 80 million Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and others in India alone! It was by “peaceful” jihad aright!!
TamurLAME says
One good technique is to ask these ‘moderate’ taqqiya/tongue jihadis, who is more important to listen to, you, or the Muslim rulers in Muslim history?
“My principal object in coming to Hindustan … as been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the Mohammedan religion; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was … that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Musalmans who war for their faith” – Amer Timur
So let’s see that’s… war…and… pillage…nice “religion” you have there guy.
newUser says
They are twisting everything. If someone thinks jihad is related to terrorism, that person is islamophobe and responsible for ISIS atrocities. They can’t punish ISIS, but can punish law obeying citizens using false charges. These two individuals are just as terrorist as ISIS.
Buford says
This falls into the Deception category which is one of the tools of both the Quran & this P O S
associated with the Terrorist Associated Group known as CAIR.
sammy says
The definition of Jihad is explained in the Muslim handbook of jurisprudence called the Reliance of the Traveller.
If Sunni Muslims want to argument against this, then they must take it up with their own scholars, not the people quoting from them.
Reliance of the Traveller:
[Section o9.0, page 599]
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
o9.0 JIHAD
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;
and the hadith reported by Muslim,
Sahih Muslim Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:
“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.
gravenimage says
All true.
mortimer says
Islam specialist Dr.David Cook wrote:
“In reading Muslim literature — both contemporary and classical — one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.”
– Cook, David, Understanding Jihad, University of California Press, 2005, p.165-6
root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran.
There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite contemporary apologetics. Jahada, the root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran—under a variety of grammatical forms. With 4 exceptions, all the other 36 usages (in specific Koranic verses) are variations of the third form of the verb, i.e. jahida. Jahida in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—from the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazzali), to ordinary people—meant and means “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like,” as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E.W Lane. Indeed, Lane’s, An Arabic English Lexicon (6 volumes, London, 1865) is still used to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars for definitive Arabic to English translation. Thus Lane, who studied both the etymology and usage of the term jihad, observed, “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers”. Not surprisingly, there is unanimity between all major Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi’i, and Maliki), as well as the Shi’ite jurisprudence regarding the permanent, aggressive nature of jihad war.
The Hadiths of Bukhari can be used to define jihad. The discussion of jihad takes up 20% of Bukhari’s total text. Of the hadiths texts devoted to jihad, only 3% are about the inner struggle, the lesser jihad. Some of these are considered of doubtful authenticity.
“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”
The preceding definition of jihad is as close to an “official” definition of jihad as we can get. It was printed in the footnotes on p.39, ‘The Noble Koran’, published by King Fahd Complex for Publication of the Quran, Madinah, KSA, and quoted from p.580 of the Islamic University of Medina’s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari’s Hadiths; it opens Bukhari’s Book of Jihad.
The Legal Definition of Jihad in Sharia law is…
“Jihad means warfare against non-Muslims (kufaar).” o9.0 Reliance of the Traveller (Sharia)
“The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller.
“The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim”, Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller.
Hindu American says
RS, you should challenge this islamic brotherhood front man for a debate on this “thesis”.
Steve Klein says
I am sure in my busyness I missed where this saying, “A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad” comes from. I’ve seen it before. I looked for it in my Kindle Qur’an and Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim Hadith. I cannot find it. Does anyone know?
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
Steve,
That’s a great question. I’m a novice when it comes to learning about Islamic doctrine (for the record, I’m learning about it in the context of “know thy enemy”), but a Google search for “jihad” on several online, English translations don’t turn up anything that looks at all similar to that quote, as far as I can tell. That said, why would she stop at just twisting the truth, when she knows that, for most of the Western world, she can just make $hit up?
And while I greatly appreciate all of the authoritative, well-referenced information provided by several of the knowledgeable folks in these comments, and I continue to learn a lot from them, I’ll also point out that, in spite of Google’s attempts to censor the truth about Islamic doctrine, as of the time of this comment, the 4th and 5th search results for the word jihad are:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad
Define jihad: a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/jihad
jihad: (“struggle,” or “battle”), a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war; jihad has come to denote any conflict waged for principle or …
Gee, pretty much the leading English language dictionary and encyclopedia in the world define jihad as waging or fighting a war. Maybe Linda Sarsour needs to go back to the madrasa. It’s not like she could become (any more) radicalized…
gravenimage says
Steve, David Wood says this Hadith is *not* Sahih (reliable), but merely Hasan (good), and so is not included in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim’s compendiums.
Debi Brand says
“Does anyone know?”
“It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed Al-Kurdhi said: ‘The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The best of Jihad is a just word spoken to an oppressive Sultan or “an oppressive Amir.” (Hasan) (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, The Book of the Great Battles, Darussalam, 2008, #4344.)
That stated, as is often so in Islam, there is also yet another best jihad “The Messenger of Allah” spoke of: ” bin ‘Abdullah said, ‘I came to the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?” and He said: “(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’” (Sahih” (Ibn Majah, Ibid [Vol 4], #2794.)
Footnotes thereat read, “Sacrificing both life and wealth is better than the sacrificing of the soul only.” (Ibid, P. 65.) So too, “the death in Jihad is a way of entering Paradise.” (P. 64.)”
Rendition of the above hadith as cited by the Sheik of Islam, ibn Tamiyyah, in his Kitab al-Iman: “The Prophet” answering to “Which jihad is best?” with: “strive in the Cause of Allah with your property and life until your horse is wounded and your blood is spilled.” (Tamiyyah, Kitab al-Iman [Book of Faith], Iman Publishing, P. 22.)
And on jihad, of course the Qur’an provides concerning the believer, “They fight in the Way of Allah and they kill [(read as yaqtuluna wa yuqtaluna or as yuqtaluna wa yaqtuluna “are killed and kill”]) and are killed.”
Thus, instructs “Allah,” “Rejoice then … in the bargain you have made. That [transaction] is the great victory [which obtains the Goal]. (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn; 9:111)
What’s more, in my hard copy of Sahih Bukhari, intro into the “Book of Jihad,” provides this rendition of the above verses: “Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed….” [so] “rejoice in the bargain you have concluded.”
In the same stated source, we read in footnotes following the above-cited verses at the intro to the noted Sahih al-Bukhari’s Book of Jihad:
In the Book of Jihad in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, this of jihad in the way of “Allah” provided, as “reported from Salamah bin Al-Akwa, who said,” as follows:
As we see, no violence in any of the above mentioned acts of jihad. And if there were any such acts mentioned, clearly, it was, as Medhi Hasan has stated, only spoken of by “ ‘Muslim extremists’ and ‘Islamophobes.’”
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
gravenimage and Debi Brand,
I’m (obviously) not the OP, but thank you for sharing your knowledge on this question. I’m learning a lot from both of you.
gravenimage says
Thank you.
Debi Brand says
Thank you, IRQC,
‘ appreciate it. What’s more, ‘ pleasure, so to speak…
Would have thanked you sooner, but for some darn reason, had net connection cutoff for a day or so.
Thanks.
dl
Hindu American says
Hey, these two cunning mohammadans can’t be that bad. Look, they are both wearing ties and smiling….
In all seriousness, what this mehdi character (a front man for the islamic brotherhood) is trying to do in a typical sneaky, fascist way is to equate islamophobia with terrorism in order to make us islamophobes think twice. Read between the lines, ladies and gentlemen of JW. If no one challenges this warped islamophilic thesis, then we will have to live with it as “proven” within our generation. We are the front line between civilization and these stone age lunatics.
Muslims know this adage well:
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” – Goebbels.
Mark Swan says
Why does this word need concocted defending if it is benign ?
gravenimage says
True, Hindu American.
HugoHackenbush says
Gee, my copy of “Reliance of the Traveller” (section o9.0, aka page 599) defines “jihad” as “…to war aginst non-Muslims…”. I’m going to complain to Amazon as this MUST be a major typo.
sammy says
The Muslim handbook of Islamic jurisprudence defines what “jihad” is.
Is Muslims have a problem with this, then they must take it up with their own scholars, not with the people who quote from them.
Reliance of the Traveller:
[Section o9.0, page 599]
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
o9.0 JIHAD
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;
and the hadith reported by Muslim,
Sahih Muslim Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:
“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.
Michael Copeland says
“Where is your weapon? Where is your weapon? Come to the jihad!”
Omar Bakri
NotAFool says
It seems that ‘Islamophobe’ is a new word for infidel.
mortimer says
It is the equivalent of ‘kafir harbi’.
R Cole says
Medhi Hasan only has credibility because he tells the Left what they want to hear. But look what Mehdi Hasan has to say when speaking to a Muslim-only audience, about non-Muslims.
Here’s Mehdi Hasan saying non-Muslims are animals!!
https://youtu.be/xZAfYpdn468
Suppose Mehdi wants us to imagine when Muhammad raised his sword and commanded his followers to do so, that this can be blamed on Western “Islamophobia!!” After all, he is a ‘peaceful’ Muslim and so he should know best!!
::
Let’s not forget Muslim Brotherhood types love their civilization jihad. Where they try to conquer, that is to bring the US under Islamic law through political means. With the Left so eager to carry their water, why should these suited jihadis lift a finger to make war to create an Islamic state, the Left will bring them their theocracy shortly! If the Left act with willing submission, [Koran 9:29] what can we say!!
::
In all it’s a good opurtunity to learn more about Islamic jihad.
Here’s more on jihad terrorism:
Wellington says
The “terrorists” mentioned here = the most devout Muslims. The “Islamophobes” mentioned here = those who really understand what Islam is about.
No wonder the two Muslims referenced by Robert Spencer in this article asserted what they have. Yes, no wonder. And anyone who would still wonder has, to put it mildly, not been paying much attention, now have they?
gravenimage says
Mehdi Hasan: Only “the terrorists and the Islamophobes” say that jihad “refers to violence”
……………………….
Yeah–Churchill was just the same as Adolf Hitler, because they both said that Fascism was violent…
Boston Tea Party says
Exactly–that’s the whole logic of this argument. I guess for many, attacking the messenger is always a much easier and more appealing approach than addressing the actual problem.
gravenimage says
Exactly, Boston Tea Party.
Ren says
Islam essentially refers to violence.
Lydia says
Jihad refers to violence based on the…. oh, wait a minute here…. the… quran!
So ‘islamophobes’ are afraid of islam because it incites violence, resulting in terrorism which leads to bloodshed. So assuming terror is bad, and resisting terror is good, all of this looks good.
Okay, so what is his problem with that logic again?!
: D
BTW, he can tell Linda that she is wrong, it’s not all for allah (who is a false god and does not exist), but all must be done to honor the God of the Bible and we won’t assimilate with muslims or unbiblical types, in our land or theirs.
Dapto says
Everyone knows Jihad means inner struggle to replace all other religions with Islam by any means necessary.
gravenimage says
+1
saturnine says
It’s propaganda. He’s actually just saying this:
No Fear says
So……both terrorists and Islamophobes say “jihad” means violence. Mentioning “terrorists” and “Islamophobes” in the same sentence is simply a way of conflating the two groups. Similarly, muslims say that “Jesus” and “Mohammed” are both prophets, this is an attempt to conflate the two, somehow implying that Jesus is the same as Mohammed.
In reality, Jesus is NOTHING like Mohammed. In reality Islamophobes are NOTHING like Jihadis.
The solution to violent “Jihad” is NOT to stop criticism of Islam. The solution is to show Islam as being the totalitarian death cult that it is.
Imagine saying, in 1930, “The only two groups who say Nazism is violent are the ideological SS men and the White Rose group (pacifists)”.
dumbledoresarmy says
I like your final paragraph.
Very helpful analogy.
Singh the Sikh says
Somewhat off-topic but still pertinent in some respects to the subject matter –
Brilliantly-argued piece on liberal cowardice and double-standards when it comes to calling out Islam:
http://www.opindia.com/2017/07/cow-vs-kaaba-the-missing-spine-of-liberals-when-it-comes-to-islam/amp/
scherado says
The answer to Hasan’s question is yes.
scherado says
To clarify: While I don’t acknowledge the label he used for me and, generally, us, it IS curious that he and his ilk do NOT acknowledge the terrorists’ view of jihad. What wouldn’t surprise me would be to see Hasan deny the terrorists’ view up to–and, possibly, beyond–his head being cut off by a terrorist.
Max Publius says
Translation of terrorist and islamophobe: dedicated muslims and those who are have been harmed by dedicated muslims.
Anne Smith says
The BBC loves Mehdi Hassan and has had him on their Question Time. He came over as a pretty poisonous little creep.
Dustin says
…and Muhammad
jewdog says
If the Islamic sources are so peaceful, then defenders of the faith should welcome their examination.
Alien Republican says
Since I’m an “islamophobe” but otherwise a peaceful law abiding citizenz the statement is “falsified”. I tad of Karl Popper might lightened up the gloomy islamists “mind”.
mortimer says
Mehdi Hasan and Hussam Ayloush are sly members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both men are Islamic supremacists.
10 Facts About CAIR:
• CAIR was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic supremacist organization that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism and sanctions violence against civilians.
•CAIR only has about 5,000 members, despite a membership fee of just $10.
•CAIR represents the opinions of only 12% of Muslim-Americans according to Gallup.
•CAIR receives financial support from foreign powers who have also provided direct support to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Hamas.
•CAIR has solicited money from sponsors of terror and received financial support from convicted terrorists.
•CAIR founders have praised terrorists to Muslim audiences and said that suicide bombers are acting on behalf of Islam.
•CAIR has raised funds for terrorists under the guise of helping 9/11 victims.
•CAIR board members have called for the overthrow of the United States and the imposition of Islamic law. CAIR has suggested applying Sharia punishment (ie. the death penalty) to users who criticize Islam on the Internet.
•At least 15 high-level CAIR staff members have been under federal investigation for ties to Islamic terror.
•CAIR has discouraged Muslim-Americans from cooperating with law enforcement and has spent more time and money advocating on behalf of convicted terrorists than for their victims.
gravenimage says
+1
Peacemaker says
Muslim likes playing victim. Islam is a religion that mandates Muslim to wage war against unbelievers, however, those Muslim apologists tell us that unbelievers are waging war against Islam and Muslim.
Tom says
Deception and deceit are the tools of their trade as operatives of Islam working openly to deceive the sheeple who are willingly searching for an answer, any answer that will cleanse them of the sin of Islamophobic thought.
“How dare I even have a thought that places guilt onto the poor, war beaten, pure as the driven snow refugee” “I must cleanse myself of all such thoughts and listen to the ones who tell us how evil it is to think such thoughts that refugees could have such a thought as violent jihad, oh the pain. It must be those evil white males with all that privilege that are to blame.”
This is exactly the leftist mindset.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
It’s a darned shame that the Infidels aren’t familiar with the contents of the Holy Ko-Ran. Read it and it’s undeniable that Jihad means war. I mean, when Allah commanded Fight until there is no God but Allah did he mean to wage a mighty internal struggle until all Infidels convert? Or, what about all the commands to kill Infidels?
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
To answer my own questions, here’s a snippet from Reliance of the Traveller (taken from today’s Andrew McCarthy essay over at PJMedia):
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is the spiritual warfare against the lower self ( nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
gravenimage says
Good posts, APF.
Dacritic says
If there is one person I’d like Robert Spencer to debate and slam dunk totally, it’s this arrogant slick talker Mehdi Hassan. Nothing will give me more pleasure personally than to see this loud mouthed liar’s trap being shut off by facts. Better still if the audience are invited to judge the debate.
staffsgt7 says
seems allah and Mohamed were islamophobes too!
Debi Brand says
Precisely.
Ric says
Nowhere in the twisted perversity of Islam and its apologists is there an utterance of intolerance of those diverse of this odious and malicious cult. The ‘Once Upon a Time’ Great Britain and those of the EU have sown their ultimate downfall since mollycoddling this Cult of Barbarity. Placating Islamist while prosecuting those whose intent is not to become victims, more so to maintain Western Civilization from the bilious grasp of this alleged Religion of Peace.
One asks oneself, how can a woman, Linda Sarsour, advocating Jihad on President Trump not be deemed an Enemy of the State? The US authorities if this threat had been aimed at Obama, would be in lock-and-load mode. Trump apparently, although the legitimate President of this Republic, is not worthy of the same security measures afforded the former Messiah.
There are more Enemies of the State than Islam. They come in all shapes, sizes, and colors; however, possessed by one similarity, disdain, and bigotry of those, not of their political, religious doctrine.
Trump is the sole, Western leader daring to battle against this undemocratic, godless scourge. The evil described above employs denigration and falsehoods in an attempt to usurp Trump and his war to preserve Western Civilization. Islam and the Leftist Progressives act in accordance to a nihilistic diktat; if they are permitted to continue on this perfidious course, our collapse is not far off.
Andy says
(The Internet Strikes Back)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNcwtPW2bY
Andy says
Vol. 2 Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaML9Zj-4E