By Keith
Thompson
Defining Jihad
In a radio debate, Muslim apologist
Jalal Abualrub limited the Islamic concept of jihad to “personal struggle.” He
stated, “Jihad means to struggle. It doesn’t mean to fight” (Jalal Abualrub vs.
Craig Winn debate, Mike Gallagher Radio Show, August 16, 2005).
A popular pro-Islamic website
similarly claims jihad “has nothing whatsoever to do with . . .Holy War. . . .
There is nothing ‘Holy’ about wars” (The
True Meaning of Jihad, www.justislam.co.uk).
This is a common tactic by Muslim
apologists in the West.
The Islamic propaganda organization
Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR even engaged in an ad campaign
where they put up banners on buses with slogans such as “my jihad is to stay
fit” to convey the idea jihad has nothing to do with holy war.
However, there is a wealth of
authoritative Islamic evidence jihad should not be defined in such a limited
way. Although in certain contexts it can refer merely to inward non-violent
struggle, professional Arabic lexical material, theological dictionaries,
Muslim scholars and early Islamic religious sources confirm in other contexts
it can also refer to struggle or
striving in the sense of offensive holy war.
Abdul Mannan Omar’s Dictionary of the Holy Quran notes one
of the meanings of jihad is “fighting or holy war” (Abdul Mannan Omar, Dictionary of the Holy Quran, [NOOR
Foundation, 2012], p. 106).
Penrice’s A Dictionary and Glossary of the Qur’an confirms jihad can mean “a going forth to fight (in the
holy war)” (John Penrice, A Dictionary
and Glossary of the Qur’an, [The Other Press, 2006], p. 44).
Moreover, in Sahih Bukhari, the most authentic hadith collection, jihad is explicitly defined as
“religious fighting” (Volume 1, Book 2,
Number 25; Volume 1, Book 10, Number 505), “holy
battles” (Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724; Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412), “holy fighting” (Volume 5, Book 58, Number 140), one
who “strives. . .[to be] martyred” (Volume
4, Book 53, Number 352), and “fighting in Allah’s cause” (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 598).
One of Islam’s most respected
scholars Ibn Kathir stated bluntly in his commentary on the Qur’an, “. . .
Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men” (Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 2:190).
In the glossary of his translation
of Ibn Kathir’s The Life of the Prophet
Muhammad, Muslim scholar Rafiq Abur Rehman defines jihad as “war for the
sake of Allah against unbelievers” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, trans. Rafiq Abur Rehman, [Darul
– Ishaat Karachi, 2010], p. 923).
An example of the Koran using the
Arabic word jihad in the sense of
“holy warfare” can be found in Surah 25:52 which says, “So obey not the
disbelievers, but strive against them
herewith with a great endeavour.” The
English word “strive” is jihad in the
original Arabic. Clearly this refers to holy warfare as even Muhammad’s cousin
Ibn Abbas stated in his early commentary on the Koran when he said: “. . .(but strive against them herewith) by means of the
Qur'an (with a great endeavour) by the sword” (Ibn Abbas, Commentary on 25:52).
Abrogating the peaceful verses for the violent
Muslim apologists in the West often
quote peaceful Qur’anic verses Muhammad produced in Mecca when he was weak and
didn’t have an army, or when in Medina prior to implementing offensive jihad.
However, the Qur’an clearly teaches
the principle of abrogation, meaning previous revelation sometimes gets
cancelled out for later revelation. As Surah 2:106 of the Qur’an states:
“Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better
than that or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah has the power to do
all that he wills?” (Surah 2:106).
Thus, when Muslims quote Surah 109:6
for example where Muhammad said to the pagans “to you your religion and to me
mine” in order to try to prove Islam is peaceful, it must be noted this was
abrogated by Muhammad’s later violent verses he gave after his migration to
Medina when he got powerful. As the influential Islamic commentary Tafsir al-Jalalayn says concerning that
earlier sounding peaceful verse, “this [S. 109:6] was
[revealed] before he was commanded to wage war [against the idolaters]” (Tafsir
al-Jalalayn, Commentary on 109:6).
This is abrogation. Such violent verses which abrogate earlier peaceful ones
include, but are not limited to, Surah 9:5 and 9:29.
Koran 9:5 and 9:29
Surah 9:5 and 9:29 contain the final marching orders of
Muhammad for Muslims for all time. This Surah was one of the last Muhammad
produced for his people. Surah 9:5 concerns pagans:
“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (Surah 9:5).
The context of this verse is the
Meccan pagans had already been subjugated and beaten by Muhammad’s armies at
this time. But, Muhammad was not happy with them remaining pagan. So he
produced this verse nullifying every treaty or agreement with them, ordering
them to become Muslim or be killed. This is confirmed and admitted by some of
the greatest and most respected Muslim scholars of history.
For example, Ibn Kathir stated,
“This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which
Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, ‘It abrogated every agreement of peace between the
Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term’” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir,
Commentary on 9:5).
Muslim scholar Ibn Juzayy also said,
“(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them) abrogating every peace
treaty in the Qur’an” (Ibn Juzayy, Commentary on Surah 9:5). Also, Islamic
scholar as-Suyuti affirmed, “This [Q. 9:5] is an Ayat of the Sword which
abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” (as-Suyuti Commentary on 9:5).
In Sahih Bukhari Muhammad
interpreted Koran 9:5 by saying,
“(The Statement of Allah) ‘But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) [prayers] and give Zakat then leave their way free.’ Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Messenger said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah’” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25).
This proves one-hundred percent
Muhammad’s final marching orders for Muslims are to force pagans, in an all
exclusive way, to either convert or die.
Now Surah 9:29 concerns what is to
be done with the Jews and Christians,
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are subdued” Koran 9:29).
Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir explains
how this is jihad and what exactly it
means,
“. . .Allah ordered them to wage jihad against the People of the Scriptures unless they believed or agreed to pay the jizyah” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, trans. Rafiq Abur Rehman, [Darul – Ishaat Karachi, 2010], p. 561).
These texts clearly teach offensive
jihad or warfare. Such texts explain why Muslims today hate Jews and Christians
and are violently conquering countries for Allah and murdering Christians and Jews
unless they convert to Islam or pay the tax of humiliation. The next verse (v.
30) explains why Muhammad wanted the Jews and Christians murdered and
subjugated:
“The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah’; and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (Koran 9:30).
This context shows according to
Islam the Christians and Jews should be murdered for their beliefs. These texts
cancel out any earlier peaceful verses such as Surah 109:6 which speak of
tolerance and peace (again it says “to you your religion and to me mine”).
Thus, according to these late, final
marching orders, anyone who disbelieves must be violently fought until they
convert or pay a tax of humiliation and live under subjugation and Muslim rule.
Hence, when Muslims cite earlier peaceful verses or verses Muhammad gave in
Mecca when he was weak and didn’t have a large army, this principle of
abrogation needs to be kept in mind.
Other verses and ahadith calling for offensive jihad
In Surah 8:12 we read,
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (Surah 8:12).
The next verse explains why Muhammad
taught Muslims should mutilate and murder people:
“That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty” (Surah 8:13).
Muhammad’s cousin Ibn Abbas
explained what it means to oppose Muhammad and Allah thereby incurring death
and mutilation: “. . . they opposed Allah and His
messenger in relation to Religion” (Ibn Abbas, Commentary on Surah 8:13). Therefore, those who oppose Islam by
holding to a different religion and rejecting Islam should be beheaded and
mutilated according to this verse.
The Arabic word for
“oppose” in Koran 8:13 does not refer to opposing Muslims violently, but rather
to mere contention, resistance or separating oneself (John Penrice, A
Dictionary and Glossary of the Qur’an, [The Other Press, 2006], p. 119). This is why Ibn Kathir explains “opposing” here
means “not including themselves in the camp of Allah's Law and faith in
Him” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 8:13).
Now,
Muhammad also taught offensive jihad in the following Sahih Muslim hadith:
“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 75; also Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 21, Hadith 69-70; Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, Book 13, Hadith 3024, p. 861).
In the same book Muhammad also
said,
“I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah” (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 33; also Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, Book 8, Hadith 2634-2635; Sunan Ibn Majah Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 71-72).
Muslim scholar Ahmad Hasan explains
this means “Muslims are allowed to fight with unbelievers until they utter the
credo of Islam” (Sunan Abu Dawud,
Vol. 2, ed. Ahmad Hasan, [Kitab Bhavan], p. 729, n. 1982).
This is clear offensive jihad as
taught by Muhammad proving Islam is not a religion of peace.
Another example of Muhammad
commanding offensive Jihad concerns his statements regarding wiping out all the
Jews so that the end of the world will happen:
“Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews” (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Hadith 6985).
This explains why
Muslims hate Jews and want to kill them and see Israel wiped off the face of
the earth.
Moreover, in Sahih Muslim we also read,
“It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that . . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . .” (Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4294).
Other abrogated or misused peaceful Koranic verses
Another earlier verse Muslim
apologists in the West cite in order to deceive people to think Islam is
peaceful is Surah 2:256 which says,
“There is no compulsion in religion. . .” However, again, the later verse Surah
9:5 abrogates this since it says to kill the pagans unless they convert, repent,
establish prayer, and give zakah - thus proving there is compulsion in the Islamic religion after all. Moreover, Ibn Kathir noted, “This verse
[2:256] is abrogated by the verse of ‘fighting’. . .(Tafsir Ibn
Kathir, Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 253 to 286 Surah Al-Imran, ayat 1 to 92,
Abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rifa‘I, [Al-Firdous Ltd, 1999], Part 3,
pp. 37-38).
Such Western Muslim apologists also
cite Surah 60:8:
“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly” (Surah 60:8; see also 4:91).
However, this verse was produced
prior to Surah 9:5 and 9:29 and various hadith which, as we have shown Islamic
scholars affirming, necessarily cancel out previous peaceful agreements and
terms such as this one. Tafsir
Al-Jalalayn explains this verse “was [revealed]
before the command to struggle against them” (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Commentary on
Surah 60:8).
Next, Muslims often quote this part
of Surah 5:32 as proof Islam is peaceful: “. . . whoever kills a soul unless
for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain
mankind entirely. . .” (Surah 5:32).
However, once the verse is read in
its entirety it is clear this is talking about what the ancient Jews were
allegedly told by Allah long before Muhammad, “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel
that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption. . . ” (Surah
5:32).Muslims ususally leave that part out.
Moreover, the next verse proves
Islam is not peaceful since it says to violently murder those who spread what
Muhammad considered mischief or corruption in Muslim lands,
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (Surah 5:33).
“Waging war” here according to
Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir, means merely to “oppose and contradict, and it
includes disbelief” (Ibn Kathir, Commentary on 5:33). The scholars Muhammad
Kahn and Muhammad Hilali say “To wage war against Allah means to reject faith
in him” (Muhammad Kahn and Muhammad Hilali, Interpretaton of the Meanings of
The Noble Qur’an, Vol. 1, [Darussalam, 2000], p. 492). So if you disbelieve you
are waging war against Muhammad and Allah and must be killed.
Also, spreading “corruption” or
“mischief” in Muslim lands is said by various Muslim scholars to include, among
other things, apostasy and spreading anti-Islamic propaganda (Allama Usmani, The Noble Qur’an: Tafseer-E-Usmani, Vol.
1, [Islamic Book Service, 2008], p. 470). Such things warrant violent execution
according to the verse right after the one Muslims quote in order to try to
prove Islam is peaceful!
Muslim scholars affirming Islam teaches offensive jihad
It is important to consult the Muslim scholars of history and
today who seriously studied the Koran and ahadith their whole lives to see what
conclusions they came to on the issue of jihad.
The 8th century Islamic
law scholar Abu Yusuf said,
“. . . one fights Arabs only to oblige them to embrace Islam without making them pay the poll tax. . . . The decision in respect to non-Arabs is different because they are fought not only to convert them but also to oblige them to pay the poll tax” (Abu Yusuf, Kitab Al-Kharaj, quoted in Andrew G. Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, [Prometheus Books, 2005], p. 175).
Commenting on Surah 2:256 Islamic
scholar Ibn Kathir stated,
“Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed” (Ibn Kathir, Commentary on 2:256).
The 12th century Islamic
Sheikh Burhanuddin Ali remarked,
“The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors. . .” (Burhanuddin Ali, The Hidaya, quoted in Andrew G. Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, [Prometheus Books, 2005], p. 184).
Influential Islamic scholar and
commentator of the Qur’an Abul Mawdudi who died in 1979 said,
“. . .the ultimate objective of Islam is to abolish the lordship of man over man and bring him under the rule of Allah . . . this purpose is called jihad. . . . undertake jihad and establish Allah’s rule on earth. . . . Let us come forward and fight in Allah’s cause with whatever we possess” (Abul A’la Mawdudi, Fundamentals of Islam, [Dar Al Wahi, 2008], pp. 245, 252, 264).
The 14th
century Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun said,
“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” (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, quoted in Andrew G. Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, [Prometheus Books, 2005], p. 161).
The 12th
century Islamic theologian Abu Al-Ghazali said,
“. . . [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . .” (Al-Ghazali, Kitab Al-Wagiz Fi Fiqh Madhab Al-Imam al-Safi’i, quoted in Andrew G. Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, [Prometheus Books, 2005], p. 199).
On Al-Aqsa
TV (April 11, 2008) Muslim cleric Yunis Al-Astal said,
“Allah has chosen you. . . . even to conquests through da’wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world” (Yunis Al-Astal, Al-Aqsa TV, April 11, 2008).
Lastly,
Robert Spencer notes the four major schools of Islamic law teach offensive
jihad:
“All four principle Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi’i, Malaki, Hanafi, and Hanbali schools, agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawana (d. 996), a Malaki jurist, declared that ‘it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.’ Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favourite of bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, explained that the aim of jihad was ‘that the religion in God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.’ The other schools echo these teachings. The Hanafi school stipulates, ‘If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to convert to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them . . . the Prophet, moreover, commands us to do so.’ Likewise the Shafi scholar Abdu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) taught that once infidels refuse the invitation to convert to Islam, ‘war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached’” (Robert Spencer, Stealth Jihad, [Regnery Publishing, 2008], pp. 37-38).
Islamic theology permits terrorism against civilians
In a 2014 online speech translated
by Memri TV the Sudanese cleric Muhammad Ali Al-Jazouli said,
“American tax-payers share the blame for the blood of every Iraqi child. Our Prophet Muhammad said that anyone who helps kill a Muslim man – even by uttering half a word – no longer enjoys protection. . . . In its war with the infidels, Islam recognizes no distinction between regular armies and civilians” (Muhammad Ali Al-Jazouli, Online Speech, June 20, 2014, translated by Memri TV).
The hadith Al-Jazouli paraphrased
can be found in Sunan Ibn Majah:
“It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Whoever helps to kill a believer, even with half a word, he will meet Allah with (the words) written between his eyes, 'He has no hope of the mercy of Allah’” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 21, Hadith 2620).
This gives Muslims justification for
blaming Western civilian tax payers for the death of Muslims since soldiers
their taxes fund fight and kill Muslim soldiers in the Middle East. Thus, many
Muslim scholars say Western civilians can be murdered in jihad because of this.
This is why we see Muslims murdering civilians on the street in the West.
Moreover, Islamic theologian Abu
Al-Ghazali said,
“. . .one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them. . .” (Al-Ghazali, Kitab Al-Wagiz Fi Fiqh Madhab Al-Imam al-Safi’i, quoted in Andrew G. Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, [Prometheus Books, 2005], p. 199).
This is based on two ahadith in
Sahih Muslim where Muhammad permitted the murder of innocent unbelieving women
and children:
“It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4321; see also Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4322-4323).
Muslim scholars note these ahadith
abrogate previous prohibitions against killing unbelieving women and children.
Also, the 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya said unbelieving
women and children can be murdered by Muslims if they merely “fight with words
[e.g. propaganda]. . .” (Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Siyasa
Al-Shariyya, quoted in Andrew G. Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, [Prometheus Books, 2005], p. 168).
The recent massacre in Pakistan
where over 130 students were murdered by Muslim militants is in accord with
Muhammad’s ordering of the beheading of around 700 Jewish boys and men of the
Bani Qurayza tribe (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, Book 33, Hadith 4390, p. 1227; Ibn
Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, [Oxford
University Press, 2014], p. 464-466). This massacre of a tribe of Jews
sanctioned by Muhammad included boys who just entered puberty. Thus, since
Muhammad allowed young boys to be murdered, the Muslim militants in Pakistan
who massacred over 130 boys have justification from Muhammad for doing
so.
Moreover, the reason Muslims engage
in terror attacks against those who draw cartoons of Muhammad or who speak
against Islam and Muhammad is because Muhammad allowed his followers to murder
anyone who insulted him. For example, Muhammad allowed a blind man to stab his
slave-mother to death for merely criticizing Muhammad (Sunan Abu Dawud,
Book 38, Number 4348), and he allowed a man to strangle a Jewish woman to death
for merely disparaging Muhammad (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4349).
Moreover, Muhammad said, “The people who will receive the severest punishment
from Allah will be the picture makers” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, Hadith 834).
Thus, terrorist attacks, against civilians, cartoonist, and those who criticize
Islam are all things justified by Muhammad and the early Islamic religious
sources.
This is why, according to the Clarion Projectpoll study, more than 42 million Muslims support ISIS. Also, according
to an Al-jazeera online Arabic
poll, 81% of those polled support ISIS.
These Muslims realize the ISIS caliphate and its brutal ways were actually
sanctioned and practiced by Muhammad and his early Caliph successors (we will
prove this below). Also, just concerning suicide bombings alone, 3,400 people
were murdered in Islamic attacks in 2014, with 529 bombings. This is
because Islam teaches terrorism.
Moreover, one could mention the
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist massacre
which left 12 dead, the Ottawa parliament attack which left a Canadian soldier dead, the Muslim convert who
did a lethal hit-and-run on a Canadian soldier in Quebec, the Muslim in France who
drove his car through a crowd screaming "allahuakbar", the Muslim who murdered
three people at the Brussels Jewish Museum, the two black Muslims in Britain
who ran over and then beheaded an innocent soldier named Lee Rigby in broad daylight with a
machete, the Muslim in Oklahoma who beheaded his female co-worker after being fired for trying to
convert people to Islam, the Nigerian
Muslim terror group Boko Haram murdering close to 2,000 people in an attack on the city of Baga and
surrounding villages in Borno state, the four Jewish hostages killed by Muslims in a Paris Kosher grocery store, the ten year
old suicide bomb strapped girl who murdered 19 in Maiduguri, north-eastern Nigeria, the 10 murdered and 45 churches torched during protests over a Mohammed
cartoon in Niger, the Libya hotel attack where Muslims massacred nine
people, the Detroit man who stabbed two people at a bus stop after asking whether or not they
were Muslim, the Kenyan al Shabaab Islamist militants who murdered 148 people at a university, the Taliban massacres 145 boys at a school, and the Muslim who murdered four Marines after storming military facilities in Chattanooga, etc.
These are just some of the Muslim
terror attacks inspired by Muhammad’s teachings which occurred during my
research into jihad. More have happened since then and will continue to happen
because Muhammad’s early, Islamic, religious texts about jihad exist.
Jihad as obedience with reward
Why are so many Muslims so quick to
murder unbelievers in the West or travel to the Middle East and join jihad
campaigns with the Islamic State or with the Taliban, etc (sources 1, 2)? Why do jihad groups even exist such as Hezbollah, ISIS,
Boko Haram, Hamas, al Shabaab, al-Qaida, Taliban, etc?
The motivation to engage in jihad
comes from the ahadith texts where Muhammad taught jihad holy war is one of the
best things a Muslim can do for Allah and that those who engage in it receive a
special reward in the afterlife.
For example, in Sahih Bukhari we read:
“Narrated by Anas bin Malik. The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).
And:
“Narrated by Anas bin Malik. The Prophet said, ‘Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause). . .’” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53).
Plus, the
promise of defiling virgins in the afterlife if you die as a martyr in jihad is
very appealing to many Muslim men. In a Sunan
Ibn Majah hadith we read,
“It was narrated from Miqdam bin Ma’dikarib that the Messenger of Allah said, ‘The martyr . . . is married to (wives) from among the wide-eyed houris [virgins]. . .’” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 4, Book 24, Hadith 2799).
The Koran in Surah 55:56 explains
this:
“Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse) before them” (Surah 55:56).
It is because devout Muslims across
the world see these terror groups like ISIS as accurately carrying out
Muhammad’s teaching and practice which is why so many of them who study the
Islamic scriptures join such groups in the hopes that they can die in martyrdom
and defile virgins for eternity. Muhammad taught terrorism and offensive
jihad.
Meanwhile in the West you have
ignorant liberals and leftists falsely claiming Muslims join ISIS because of lack of job opportunities or some other ridiculous explanation.
Then you have ignorant liberals in
the West who take school-children to mosques dressing them in Muslim garb
praying to Allah (sources 1, 2) while at the same time Muslims are murdering and doing
jihad because of Muhammad’s teachings. This is liberal insanity.
Muhammad and his early caliph successors engaged in offensive
jihad
If it can be shown Muhammad and his
early successors, the Caliphs (i.e., heads of the Islamic state), engaged in
offensive jihad warfare, that would prove jihad is part of Islamic teaching and
also that the Koran they were following teaches offensive jihad.
Moreover, if they carried out
offensive jihad that means according to Islamic theology Muslims for all time
are to emulate them and do that same. This is because Muhammad said: “. . .
keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of
the rightly-guided Khalifahs - cling to them stubbornly. . .’” (Al-Nawawi's
Forty Hadith, Number 28). The “sunnah” of Muhammad and the early Caliphs
Muhammad said must be followed are their teachings and actions. Hence, if they
engaged in offensive jihad, this is a valid Islamic practice Muslims for all
time must emulate. This is why ISIS, Boko Haram Al Shabaab and other Muslims
today practice offensive jihad.
What is more, Muhammad said the best
generations of Muslims were his and
the two after his (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 652; Sahih
Muslim, Book 031, Number 6159). Thus, if Muhammad and the Muslims of the
two generations after him engaged in offensive jihad, and they were the best
Muslims, then clearly Muslims today must follow their example and do jihad
according to Islam.
Also, with regard to the issue of
ijma or “consensus” of the ummah or “community,” in Sunan Ibn Majah “Anas bin Malik said: ‘I heard the Messenger of
Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them
differing, follow the great majority” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith
3950). Hence if Muhammad’s early community engaged in and supported offensive
jihad shortly after he died and agreed on it, this would prove offensive jihad
is a valid theological practice for Muslims for all time.
In light of all this, the following
is proof Muhammad and his early successors, “the rightly guided Caliphs,”
engaged in offensive jihad warfare in an attempt to conquer the world for
Allah.
The historian Will Durant notes,
“During his ten years in Medina he [Muhammad] planned sixty-five campaigns and
raids, and personally led twenty-seven” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization 4: The Age of Faith, [MJF Books, 1950],
p. 170). We will discuss some of these.
Offensive jihad campaigns of
Muhammad
In A.D. 625 Muhammad ordered an
offensive invasion against the Jewish Banu Nadir tribe. After the slaughter, Muhammad then expelled the
remaining survivors from Arabia (Sunan
Abu Dawud, 2676; Ibn Sa’d, Kitab
Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol. 2, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 70). As an excuse to
attack them Muhammad claimed he received a revelation from Gabriel that they
supposedly wanted to assassinate him (The
History of al-Tabari, Vol. 7, [State University of New York Press, 1987],
p. 157; Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-tabaqat
Al-kabir, Vol. 2, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 69).
However,
the context shows why he really attacked them. Historian William Montgomery Watt notes,
“The main underlying reason for the expulsion of the clan of al-Nadir was . . . Jewish criticisms endangered the ordinary Muslim’s belief in Muhammad’s prophethood and in the Qur’an as revelation from God. It should also be kept in mind that the attack was made only a few weeks after the Muslim loss of life at al-Raji and Bir Maunah, when many people in Medina must have been entertaining gloomy feelings . . . . it is also possible that the allegation [that the Banu Nadir tribe wanted to assassinate Muhammad] was no more than an excuse to justify the attack” (The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 7, [State University of New York Press, 1987], pp. xxxv-xxxvi parenthesis mine).
In
A.D. 627 Muhammad
sent his adopted son Zaid bin Haritha to lead an offensive, unprovoked jihad raid
at Al Jumum where the Muslims captured a group
of non-Muslims and stole a bunch of their camels and goats (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol. 2,
[Kitab Bhavan, 2009], pp. 106-107).
Again in A.D. 627 Muhammad sent
Abdur Rahman bin Auf to lead an offensive expedition of 700 Muslim men against
the Christian Banu Kalb tribe.
The reason was to get them to submit to Islam or die (Ibn Kathir, The Life of Prophet Muhammad,
[Darul-Ishaat, 2010], p. 446). Before sending Abdur Rahman bin Auf out on this
attack, Muhammad said to him, “Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those
who disbelieve in God” (Ibn Isaq, The Life of Muhammad, [Oxford
University Press, 2014], p. 672; cf.
Al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi,
[Routledge, 2011], p. 275-276). The Christians were forced to convert, die or
pay the jizya tax. Al-Waqidi
confirms, “At first they refused all but the sword” (Al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, [Routledge, 2011], p.
276).
In A.D.
630 Muhammad sent al-Dahak ibn Sufyan to lead a Muslim force to al-Zuji to
command the people of the Banu Kilab tribe
to embrace Islam or die. Al-Waqidi reported, “The messenger of God sent an army
to al-Qurata. . . . they met them in Zujj. They invited them to Islam but they
refused. So they fought them and defeated them” (Al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi,
[Routledge, 2011], p. 481). Ibn Sa’d confirmed the same thing, “They . .
. invited them to embrace Islam. They refused, so they attacked them. . .” (Ibn
Sa’d, Kitab Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol.
2, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 201).This is offensive jihad.
In A.D. 631 over a dozen men of the
Banu Azd clan led by Surad ibn Abdullah became new converts to Islam. Muhammad’s response was to order them to attack
their non-Muslim neighboring tribes i.e., the people of Jurash in Yemen. Ibn
Sa'd notes, “He (Surad) invited them [the neighboring tribes] to embrace Islam
but they declined” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab
Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol. 1, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 398). The historian
al-Tabari notes the Muslim Surad therefore “inflicted a heavy loss on them” (History of al-Tabari, Vol. 9, [State
University of New York Press, 1990], p. 88).
In A.D. 632 Muhammad sent Jarir ibn
Abdullah al-Bajali on an offensive expedition to destroy the Dhul Khalasa which was a religious temple of Yemenite pagans. Of course
if you send a military force to destroy a religious temple of a people then
there is going to be defensive resistance. Muhammad’s soldiers slaughtered
those trying to resist the Muslim conquerors and defend their temple. In Sahih Bukhari we read,
“The
Prophet said to me, ‘Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?’ So I set out
with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was
present there. Then I came to the Prophet and informed him, and he invoked good
upon us and Al-Ahmas (tribe)” (Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number
641).
In Hisham
Al-Kalbi’s The Book of Idols we
also read of this campaign’s offensive nature,
“. . . the Apostle addressed him [Jarir ibn-'Abdullah] saying, ‘O Jarir! Wilt thou not rid me of dhu-al-Khalasah?’ Jarir replied, ‘Yea.’ So the Apostle dispatched him to destroy it. He set out until he got to the banu-Abmas of the Bajilah [tribe] and with them he proceeded to dhu-al-Khalasah. There he was met by the Khath'am and the Bahilah, who resisted him and attempted to defend dhu-al-Khalasah. He, therefore, fought them and killed a hundred men of the Bahilah, its custodians, and many of the Khath'am; while of the banu-Qubafah ibn-'Amir ibn-Khath'am he killed two hundred. Having defeated them and forced them into flight, he demolished the building which stood over dhu-al-Khalasah and set it on fire” (Hisham Al-Kalbi, The Book of Idols, pp. 31-32).
These
are but some of the instances of offensive jihad warfare Muhammad ordered
proving this is part of Islam.
Offensive jihad campaigns of Muhammad’s early caliph
successors
We will now turn our attention to
some of the offensive jihad campaigns undertaken by Muhammad’s early Caliph
successors, that is, the “rightly guided Caliphs”.
In A.D. 628 Muhammad
sent his first Caliph successor Abu Bakr to lead an offensive expedition
against people of the Arab Banu Kilab tribe (Ibn
Sa’d, Kitab Al-tabaqat Al-kabir, Vol.
2, [Kitab Bhavan, 2009], p. 146). The
Muslims began the hostilities with this tribe by murdering some of their
innocent men (Safiur Rahman
Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar, [Darussalam,
2002], p. 353). In Sunan Abu Dawud we read about the later Muslim attack after those
innocent men were murdered, “The Apostle of Allah appointed Abu Bakr our
commander and we fought with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked
them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night was ‘put to death; put to
death.’ Salamah said: I killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging to
seven houses” (Sunan Abu Dawud,
2632).
After becoming Caliph in A.D. 632
after Muhammad’s death, Abu Bakr engaged in various offensive campaigns.
According to the book Biographies of the
Rightly-Guided Caliphs, which is a compendium from the works of Muslim
historians like Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, As-Syooti and others, the mindset behind
Abu Bakr’s conquests was the following:
“The basic aim of Muslim conquests was to spread the call to Islam to all nations in all lands. . . . calling on people to embrace Islam, or to enter a peace agreement and lead life under the protection of Muslims [i.e., second class subjugation under Muslim rule]. If they rejected both options, war would be the only choice left” (Biographies of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, eds. M. Ibrahim Kamara, Joanne McEwan, [Dar Al-Manarah, 2001], pp. 97-98 parenthesis mine).
This brings us to the conquest of
Iraq ordered by Abu Bakr, specifically, “The Battle of Chains.” Abu Bakr
ordered Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed to march to Iraq in the region of Uballah with a
Muslim force. The governor of this district of Iraq was Hormuz. Khalid Ibn
Al-Waleed sent Hormuz a letter saying, “Surrender to Islam, and you will live
in peace. In the alternative you may agree to the payment of Jizya, and you and your people will be
under our protection. Otherwise you will have only yourself to blame for the
consequences. I have brought you a people who desire death as ardently as you
desire life” (Biographies of the
Rightly-Guided Caliphs, eds. M. Ibrahim Kamara, Joanne McEwan, [Dar
Al-Manarah, 2001], p. 90). This is offensive jihad. This battle led to
thousands of non-Muslims being killed (Biographies
of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, eds. M. Ibrahim Kamara, Joanne McEwan, [Dar
Al-Manarah, 2001], p. 101).
Moreover, Abu Bakr had Khalid Ibn
Al-Waleed engage in offensive jihad against the people of Al-Anbaar which was a
town where caravans from Ash-Sham and Persia came. In regards to the Muslim
motivation for waging this battle, the book Biographies
of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs explains, “Khlaid grew impatient. He wanted
to spread Islam everywhere, so he looked westwards along the banks of the
Euphrates and saw Al-Anbaar” (Biographies
of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, eds. M. Ibrahim Kamara, Joanne McEwan, [Dar
Al-Manarah, 2001], p. 109). Although the governor of that district, Sheerzad,
tried his best to defend the town, but the battle was ultimately lost. One very
cruel aspect of this battle is that Khalid ordered his Muslim archers to aim
for the eyes of the enemies. This resulted in thousands of non-Muslims losing
their eyes before dying (Biographies of
the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, eds. M. Ibrahim Kamara, Joanne McEwan, [Dar
Al-Manarah, 2001], p. 109).
Regarding the second Caliph, Umar,
who reigned from A.D. 634 to 644, it is necessary to mention his harshness
towards the Christians of Ash-Sham after they were put under Muslim rule. Ibn
Kathir provides us with terms of his treaty with these Christians. Under these
terms the Christians could not erect churches, monasteries, or sanctuaries for
monks. They could not restore any place of worship that needed restoration.
They could not publically practice shirk (i.e., teach Jesus and the Holy Spirit
are divine), or invite anyone to such beliefs (i.e., Christian evangelism). If
a Muslim wanted to sit where a Christian was sitting, the Christian had to move
and let the Muslim sit there. They could not erect crosses on the outside of
their churches. And they could not bury their dead next to Muslim dead (Ibn
Kathir, Commentary on Koran 9:29).
Ibn Kathir reports Umar added, “These are the conditions that we set against
ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If
we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves,
then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed
to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion” (Ibn
Kathir, Commentary on Koran 9:29).
Moreover, Al-Bukhari tells us the
following story of Ibn Umar, “Abdu'r-Rahman said, ‘Ibn 'Umar passed by a
Christian who greeted him and Ibn 'Umar returned the greeting. He was told that
the man was a Christian. When he learned that, he went back to him and said, 'Give
me back my greeting'" (Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad, trans.
Aisha Bewley, chapter XDIII). This is because, as Al-Bukhari reports, “Abu
Hurayra reported that the Prophet said, ‘Do not give the People of the Book the
greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road” (Al-Bukhari,
Al-Adab al-Mufrad, trans. Aisha Bewley, chapter XDIII).
Thus, it is quite clear Muhammad and
his Caliph successors practiced offensive jihad and subjugation which means it
is part of Islam.
In sum, the historian Robert Hoyland
observes,
“In just over a hundred years - from the death of Muhammad in 632 to the beginning of the Abbasid Caliphate in 750 - the followers of the Prophet swept across the whole of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. Their armies threatened states as far afield as the Franks in Western Europe and the Tang Empire in China” (Robert Hoyland, In God’s Path, [Oxford Univsesity Press, 2015], front flap).
Islamic Spain was peaceful?
One typical Islamic response to all
this evidence is to falsely claim medieval Islamic Spain was peaceful and
Christians and Jews were treated well with mutual respect. For example, Muslim
apologist Karen Armstrong erroneously claimed,
“until 1492, Jews and Christians lived peaceably and productively together in Muslim Spain – a coexistence that was impossible elsewhere in Europe” (Karen Armstrong, “The curse of the infidel: A century ago Muslim intellectuals admired the West. Why did we lose their goodwill?” The Guardian, June 20, 2002).
This claim is made largely because
of a propaganda book called The Ornament
of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance
in Medieval Spain written by Maria Rosa Menocal. However, the first-rate Oxford historian Roger Collins refutes
this nonsense in his work Caliphs and
Kings: Spain where he notes,
“In recent years, to bring up the Umayyad period in Spanish history . . . often raises the issue of whether this was indeed that golden age of tolerance in which members of the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam coexisted in harmony and mutual respect. To which question there can be but one quick answer, and that is a wholly negative one. . . . if there were any truth to such a notion than it only applied to a very limited period of forty years or fewer in the mid-tenth century, in just one location, the city of Cordoba, and to a very small sector of society, the intellectual elite attached to the caliph court. Beyond these chronological, geographical, and social confines, life in Umayyad al-Andalus as recorded in our far from insubstantial sources looks more like Thomas Hobbe’s war of all against all than a realization of the prophetic visions of the wolf dwelling with the lamb, and the lion lying down with the goat. The Arab conquest created the conditions for a state of almost permanent warfare in the Iberian Peninsula that put special emphasis upon destruction and the display of dead enemies, with a lively slave trade as an additional incentive. This continued throughout the period covered in this book, and in scale and intensity exceeded anything to be found elsewhere in Western Europe in these centuries. Even in Cordoba at its cultural apogee it will have been hard to escape the reek of decomposing flesh from the decapitated heads displayed on the gates and the bodies of those publically crucified, left to rot in front of the palace. Quite why this roseate image of an age of mutual tolerance has taken so strong a hold on popular imagination both in the United States and throughout Europe is not easy to say. Perhaps we would like to believe that something we wish to achieve today once existed in the past, and therefore can seem an attainable goal. Worthy as the ideal may be, it needs to stand on its own two feet and not be made to rely on overly optimistic, and thus anachronistic, readings of the past” (Roger Collins, Caliphs and Kings: Spain, 796-1031, [John Wiley & Sons, 2012], introduction).
No comments:
Post a Comment