‘Three Choices’ and the bitter harvest of denial: How dissimulation about Islam is fueling genocide in the Middle East

download (79)By Mark Durie:

Published first by Lapido Media.

Republished by permission.

In northern Iraq religious genocide is reaching end-game stage.  Islamic State (IS) soldiers, reinforced with military equipment originally supplied by the US, are driving back Kurdish defenders who had been protecting Christians and other religious minorities.  While hundreds of thousands of refugees have been fleeing into Kurdistan, around 40,000 Yazidis and some Christians are trapped on Mount Sinjar, surrounded by IS jihadis.  (Yazidis are Kurdish people whose pre-Christian faith derives from ancient Iranian religious traditions, with overlays and influences from other religions.)

The Assyrian Aid Society of Iraq has reported that children and the elderly are dying of thirst on Sinjar.  Parents are throwing their children to their deaths off the mountain rather than see them die of thirst or be taken into slavery by IS.

The IS jihadis are killing the men they capture.  In one recent incident 1500 men were executed in front of their wives and families.  In another incident 13 Yazidi men who refused to convert to Islam had their eyes plucked out, were doused with gasoline and burned alive.  When the men are killed, captured women and children are enslaved to be used for sex, deployed as human shields in battle zones, or sold to be used and abused as their new owners see fit.

The United States has ironically called for greater cooperation.  UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, urged ‘all parties to the conflict’ to allow access to UN relief agencies. She called on Iraqis to ‘come together’ so that Iraq will ‘get back on the path to a peaceful future’ and ‘prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity’.

Of course it is not ‘vibrant diversity’ which is being wiped out in Iraq, but men, women and children by their tens of thousands.  This is not about the failure of coexistence, and the problem is not ‘conflict’. This is not about people who have trouble getting on and who need to somehow make up and ‘come together’. It is about a well-articulated and well-documented theological worldview hell-bent on dominating ‘infidels’, if necessary wiping them off the face of the earth, in order to establish the power and grandeur of a radical vision of Islam.

The American administration, according to Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute, ‘withholds arms from the Kurds while awaiting a new, unified Iraqi government with a new prime minister. Meanwhile … no Iraqi troops are in Nineveh province.’  Only at a few minutes to midnight on the genocide clock has the US begun to launch military strikes against IS forces.

These events ought to be sobering to the West, not least because thousands of the IS jihadis were raised and bred in the mosques of Europe, North America and Australia, not to mention the madrassas of nations such as Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia.  Having been formed by the theology of radical Islam in their home societies, would-be jihadis are flocking to Syria and Iraq where they seek victory or martyrdom, killing and raping as they go.

Why is this so?  How did the Arab Spring, hailed by so many armchair western commentators as the next best thing for the Middle East, blossom bright red into a torrent of blood?

Part of the answer is that the West is in the grip of theological illiteracy.  It has stubbornly refused to grasp the implications of a global Islamic revival which has been gaining steam for the best part of a century.  The Islamic Movement looks back to the glory days of conquest as Islam’s finest hour, and seeks to revive Islamic supremacy through jihad and sacrifice.  It longs for a truly Islamic state – the caliphate reborn – and considers jihad to be the God-given means to usher it in.

This worldview was promoted in compelling, visionary terms by Indian scholar Abul A’la Maududi, whose writings continue to be widely disseminated by Islamic bookshops and mosques across the West.  Maududi argued in his radicalisation primer Let us be Muslims that the only valid form of government is Islamic theocracy – i.e. sharia rule – and Muslims are duty-bound to use whatever power they can muster to impose this goal on the world: ‘whoever you are, in whichever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God. … The name of this striving is jihad.’  And ‘If you believe Islam to be true, you have no alternative but to exert your utmost strength to make it prevail on earth: you either establish it or give your lives in this struggle.’

My own copy of Let us Be Muslims, which lies open before me as I write, was bought from a well-respected mainstream Islamic centre here in Melbourne, Australia.

When Pope Benedict gave a lecture in Regensburg in 2006, in which he suggested that Islam had been spread by force, the Muslim world erupted in violent protests.

Sheikh ‘Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, responded with a revealing defence of Islam’s record. Without a glimmer of irony he argued that the Pope was wrong to say Islam had been spread by force, because the infidels had a third choice, apart from death or conversion, namely to ‘surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims.’  He claimed that those who read the Qur’an and the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhammad) will understand the facts.

The reality unfolding in north Iraq today reveals to the cold light of day exactly what the doctrine of the three choices means for conquered non-Muslims populations, and why the dogma of the ‘three choices’ is no defence against the assertion that Islam was spread by the sword.

It is crystal clear that IS is not playing by the world’s rules.  It has nothing but contempt for the Geneva Convention.  Its battle tactics are regulated by sheikhs who implement the sharia’s rules of war.  Many of the abuses committed by IS being reported by the international media are taken straight from the pages of Islamic legal textbooks.

Consider IS’s announcement to Christians in northern Iraq:  ‘We offer them three choices: Islam, the dhimma contract – involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this, they will have nothing but the sword.’

These words are cobbled together from the pages of Islamic sacred texts.  It was Sa’d b. Mu’adh, a companion of Muhammad, who said of the pagan Meccans ‘We will give them nothing but the sword’ ( A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, OUP 1955 p. 454). Muhammad himself was reported to have said ‘When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [i.e. they are not Muslims] invite them to three courses of action.  … Invite them to Islam… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them’ (Sahih Muslim. The Book of Jihad and Expedition [Kitab al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar] 3:27:4294).  When the Caliph ‘Umar attacked Persia, he announced to them ‘Our Prophet [Muhammad] … has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay jizya’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, The Book of al-Jizya and the Stoppage of War 4:58:3159).

I have analysed the doctrine of the three choices in my book The Third Choice: Islam, dhimmitude and freedom, drawing extensively on Islamic sources to explain the worldview of jihad and the dhimma.  That book now reads as a grim prophecy of the tragedy unfolding in Syria and Iraq.

Read more at Mark Durie’s blog

Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

 

The Caliphate Means Constant War on Us on a Scale Not Yet Seen

al-baghdadi

Liberty GB, By Enza Ferreri

While the British government is making its own citizens pay for the jihadis allowed to return to the UK from Syria and Iraq, both in terms of money – through the £1.1 billion cash injection for defence announced yesterday, £800 million of which will fund an extra investment in intelligence and surveillance to deal with the threat of terrorism – and in terms of intrusion and greater state power – through emergency laws to monitor phone and internet records “to stop terrorists” –, people hear of the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East without the media – with few exceptions – providing any explanation of its real significance.

In Islam, only a caliphate has the authority to declare offensive war on infidel countries. That’s why Osama bin Laden was so keen on it and called for Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our ummah”, after Abdulhamid II’s Ottoman caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Republic of Kemal Ataturk in his secularisation (short-lived) attempts in 1924.

And that’s why jihadis always explain their acts of terrorism in terms of defensive war, as a response to the infidel’s armies occupying Muslim lands, for example.

Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim over 3 years ago explained the caliphate concept and predicted the re-establishment of a caliphate. If, as in science, accurate predictions confirm the validity of the theory from which they derive, we must take his words very seriously:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the ‘disbelieving’ world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the ‘Muslim world’ – from Morocco to Pakistan – was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions – economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or ‘dhimmis’ – who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax ['jizyah']; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses – the jihad continues.

A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish – before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Another US expert on Islam, Robert Spencer, has recently written:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized – and indeed, has the responsibility – to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of ‘interfaith dialogue.’

Offensive jihad to force all the world to submit to Islamic law is a duty for the ummah (the worldwide Muslim community), and no amount of media whitewashing can change that. The source to consult is not The New York Times but the Quran, e.g. this from 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.

Islamintern OIC, Which Seeks Jihad Destruction of Israel, Issues Orwellian Statement on Hamas-Instigated Gaza Fighting

oic2By Andrew Bostom:

I won’t dignify the repellant, egregiously counterfactual “Final Communique” of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—Sharia supremacist avatar of the Islamintern, and largest voting block in the U.N.—which purports to examine the ongoing Hamas-instigated conflagration in Gaza and Israel, by extracting its contents.

This Orwellian statement, “Final Communique Expanded Extraordinary Meeting Of The Executive Committee At A Foreign Ministers Level On The Grave Situation In The Occupied State Of Palestine Including Al-Quds Al- Sharif,” issued July 10, 2014, can be read in its entirety here.

Prior to re-casting itself as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, when it was dubbed the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the OIC’s intentions vis-à-vis Israel were pellucid: this ecumenical bloc of Sharia-supremacist states sought the jihad destruction of Israel.

That remains the OIC’s goal, a jihad, as the 1981 formulation of this genocidal intent proclaimed, “that all Islamic States must wage, each according to its means”.

Extracted from my 2008, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (p. 55) are two candid expressions of the OIC’s self-proclaimed mission of “liberation”—i.e., genocide, 22-years apart from 1981, and 2003, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and Putrajaya, Malaysia.

From the Mecca Islamic Summit Conference, 1981:

The undertaking by all Islamic countries of psychological mobilization through their various official, semi-official, and popular mass media, of their people forJihad to liberate Al-Quds. . . . Ensuring military coordination among the front-line statesand the Palestine Liberation Organization, on the one hand, and the Islamic States on the other, to ensure full utilization of the potentialities of the Islamic States in the service of the military effort; and setting up a military office in the Islamic Secretariat to be responsible for such coordination, in agreement with the Committee on Al-Quds. . . .

Resolution No.2/3.P (IS) on the Cause of Palestine and the Middle East: Considering that the Liberation of Al-Quds and its restoration to Arab sovereignty, as well as the liberation of the holy places from Zionist occupation, are a pre-requisite to the Jihad that all Islamic States must wage, each according to its means. . . .

Resolution No.5/3-P (IS)—Declaration of Holy Jihad: Taking these facts into consideration, the Kings, Emirs, and Presidents of Islamic States, meeting at this Conference and in this holy land, studied this situation and concluded that it could no longer be tolerated that the forthcoming stage should be devoted to effective action to vindicate right and deter wrong-doing; and have unanimously.

Decided: To declare holy Jihad, as the duty of every Muslim, man or woman, ordained by the Shariah and glorious traditions of Islam; To call upon all Muslims, living inside or outside Islamiccountries, to discharge this duty by contributing each according to his capacity in the case of Allah Almighty, Islamic brotherhood, and righteousness; To specify that Islamic states, in declaring Holy Jihad to save Al-Quds al-Sharif, in support of the Palestinian people, and to secure withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, wish to explain to the world that Holy Jihad is an Islamic concept which may not be misinterpreted or misconstrued, and that the practical measures to put into effect would be in accordance with that concept and by incessant consultations among Islamic states.

From the 2003 Putrajaya Islamic Summit speech by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad:

To begin with, the governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand. . . on Palestine. . . . We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships. . . . We may want to re-create the first century of the Hijrah, the way of life in those times, in order to practice what we think to be the true Islamic way of life. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter-attack. As Muslims, we must seek guidance from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Surely the 23 years’ struggle of the Prophet can provide us with some guidance as to what we can and should do.

ISIL Has Caliphate Dreams: The Eternal Muslim Ideal

The jihad terror organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) formally declared [1] a “re-creation” of Islam’s traditional solidary religio-political entity, the “Caliphate” in a pronouncement [2] issued June 29, 2014.

Here the flag of the Islamic State, the flag of tawhīd (monotheism), rises and flutters. Its shade covers land from Aleppo to Diyala.

book3

“State of the Islamic Caliphate” inscribed at the top of the alleged new “Caliphate” passport [4]. At the bottom, it states: “[If] holder of the passport [is] harmed, we will deploy armies for his service.”

ISIL’s rhetoric extolled its triumph over all infidels, with a particular emphasis on non-Muslims, and the attempted imposition of the totalitarian Sharia [5], in all its liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing barbarity. The jihad [6] terror organization also claimed [2] ISIL’s rule was restoring not only Sharia-mandated Islamic “justice” (for example, the destruction of Christian crosses, and extraction of the humiliating jizya [6], per Koran 9:29), but also local “stability,” and Islamic pride.

The Muslims are honored. The kuffār (infidels) are disgraced. Ahlus-Sunnah (the Sunnis) are masters and are esteemed. The people of bid’ah (heresy) are humiliated. Thehudūd (Sharia penalties) are implemented – the hudūd of Allah – all of them. The frontlines are defended. Crosses and graves are demolished.

The people in the lands of the State move about for their livelihood and journeys, feeling safe regarding their lives and wealth. Wulāt (plural of wālī or “governors”) and judges have been appointed. Jizyah (a tax imposed on kuffār) has been enforced. Fay’ (money taken from the kuffār without battle) and zakat (obligatory alms) have been collected. Courts have been established to resolve disputes and complaints. Evil has been removed. Lessons and classes have been held in the masājid (plural of masjid) and, by the grace of Allah, the religion has become completely for Allah. There only remained one matter, a wājib kifā’ī (collective obligation) that the ummah sins by abandoning. It is a forgotten obligation. The ummah has not tasted honor since they lost it. It is a dream that lives in the depths of every Muslim believer. It is a hope that flutters in the heart of every mujāhid muwahhid (monotheist). It is the khilāfah (caliphate). It is the khilāfah – the abandoned obligation of the era.

Despite subsequent dissatisfaction with ISIL, and its newly minted “Caliphate [2]”—already emerging [7] just 3-weeks after the regular Iraqi army and police forces of the al-Maliki central government were crushed, or fled—in the immediate aftermath of the Sunni takeover, 81.5% of Mosul’s predominantly Sunni residents felt more secure after the Sunni insurgents seized control of the city.

Hollow proclamations have followed suit from Muslim leaders claiming ISIL’s Caliphate “vision” [2] somehow distorted this idyllic historical Islamic institution. Sheikh Khaldoun Oraymet, secretary-general of Lebanon’s Supreme Islamic Council opined [8],

What ISIL is doing is in complete contradiction of the principles of the Islamic caliphate: a righteous caliphate which preserves the rights of all people, and respects all people and the opinions of others who are of different faiths, race, time and place.

Even the Jordanian jihad ideologist Issam Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdessi, claimed [9] on jihadist websites, that ISIL’s leaders evidenced, “no manners,” voicing his main concern,  “What would the fate be of other Islamist fighters in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere?”, before adding the obligatory disclaimer,  that ISIL was “distorting religion.” Previously, ahistorical drivel from the Western Muslim “advocacy” group the Muslim Association of Britain, lionized both the Caliphate, and the corollary implementation of Sharia, as promulgators of “a peaceful and just society [10].” Moreover, Egypt’s current President al-Sisi—recently elected in a landslide [11] victory—extolled [12] the Caliphate in his 2006 U.S. Army War College “mini-thesis” as “the ideal form of government,” broadly

…recognized as the goal for any new form of government very much in the manner that the U.S. pursued the ideals of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” From the Middle Eastern perspective, the defining words governing their form of democracy [emphasis added] would likely reflect “fairness, justice, equality, unity and charity.”

Such warped apologetics are reminiscent [13] of the equivalent protestations [5] made to advance destructive Communist totalitarianism, “Communists, what have you made of communism?”

The prototypical Caliphate under Umar Ibn al-Khattab [6] (d. 644), the second “rightly guided” caliph of Islam, merits summary examination. During his reign, which lasted for a decade (634-644), Syria, Iraq and Egypt were conquered, and Umar was thus responsible for organizing the early Islamic Caliphate. Alfred von Kremer, the great 19th century German scholar of Islam, described [14] the “central idea” of Umar’s regime, as being the furtherance of “…the religious-military development of Islam at the expense of the conquered nations.” The predictable and historically verifiable consequence of this guiding principle was a legacy of harsh inequality, intolerance, and injustice towards non-Muslims observed [14] by von Kremer in 1868 (and still evident in Islamic societies to this day, nearly 150 years later):

It was the basis of its severe directives regarding Christians and those of other faiths, that they be reduced to the status of pariahs, forbidden from having anything in common with the ruling nation; it was even the basis for his decision to purify the Arabian Peninsula of the unbelievers, when he presented all the inhabitants of the peninsula who had not yet accepted Islam with the choice: to emigrate or deny the religion of their ancestors. The industrious and wealthy Christians of Najran, who maintained their Christian faith, emigrated as a result of this decision from the peninsula, to the land of the Euphrates, and ‘Umar also deported the Jews of Khaybar. In this way ‘Umar based that fanatical and intolerant approach that was an essential characteristic of Islam, now extant for over a thousand years, until this day [i.e., written in 1868]. It was this spirit, a severe and steely one, that incorporated scorn and contempt for the non-Muslims, that was characteristic of ‘Umar, and instilled by ‘Umar into Islam; this spirit continued for many centuries, to be Islam’s driving force and vital principle….With a strong hand, he held the reins of spiritual and worldly power, commanded with unlimited full authority over the political and religious activities of  Muslims, already many millions in number. Under him, the conquest of Syria was completed, Iraq and Persia were conquered as far as the Oxus and the borders of Hindustan, while in the west, Egypt obeyed him…

The jihad campaigns waged [6] in the era of Umar’s Caliphate, consistent with nascent Islamic Law (Sharia), spared neither cities nor monasteries if they resisted. Accordingly,when [6] the Greek garrison of Gaza refused to submit and convert to Islam, all were put to death. In the year 640, sixty Greek soldiers who refused to apostatize became martyrs, while in the same year (i.e., 638) that Caesarea, Tripolis and Tyre fell to the Muslims, hundreds of thousands of Christians converted to Islam, predominantly out of fear.

Muslim and non-Muslim sources record that Umar’s soldiers were allowed [6] to break crosses on the heads of Christians during processions and religious litanies, and were permitted, if not encouraged, to tear down [6] newly erected churches and to punish [6] Christians for trivial reasons. Moreover, Umar forbade [6] the employment of Christians in public offices.

The false claims of Islamic toleration during this prototype “rightly guided” Caliphate cannot be substantiated even by relying on the (apocryphal?) “pact” of Umar ( [6]Ibn al-Khattab) because this putative decree compelled the Christians (and other non-Muslims) to fulfill self-destructive obligations, including [6]: the prohibition on erecting any new churches, monasteries, or hermitages; and not being allowed to repair any ecclesiastical institutions that fell into ruin, nor to rebuild those that were situated in the Muslim quarters of a town. Muslim traditionists and early historians (such as al-Baladhuri) further maintain [6] that Umar expelled the Jews of the Khaybar oasis, and similarly deported Christians (from Najran) who refused to apostatize and embrace Islam, fulfilling the death bed admonition of Muhammad who purportedly stated: “there shall not remain two religions in the land of Arabia.”

Umar imposed [6] limitations upon the non-Muslims aimed at their ultimate destruction by attrition, and he introduced [6] fanatical elements into Islamic culture that became characteristic of the Caliphates which succeeded his. For example, according to the chronicle of the Muslim historian Ibn al-Atham [15] (d. 926-27), under the brief Caliphate of Ali b. Abi Talib (656-61), when one group of apostates in Yemen (Sanaa) adopted Judaism after becoming Muslims, “He [Ali] killed them and burned them with fire after the killing.” Indeed, the complete absence [5] of freedom of conscience in these early Islamic Caliphates—while entirely consistent with mid-7th century mores—has remained a constant, ignominious legacy throughout Islamic history, to this day.

Don’t Call It A Caliphate, Yet: ISIS May Run Afoul of Islamic Law

802499242CSP, By Kyle Shideler:

The news over the weekend that the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) had declared as Caliph of the universal Muslim Ummah its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has shaken the Middle East (and the wider Muslim world).

In classic ISIS form, the jihadist insurgent army issued a communiqué, in multiple languages, including English, to explain their decision to make the announcement that Al-Baghdadi was now Caliph Ibrahim, and ISIS was now simply, “The Islamic State.”

According to the communiqué, Al-Baghdadi was invested with the position of Caliph through the oath of loyalty sworn to him by ISIS’s people of authority (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd). The communiqué notes:

…the Islamic State – represented by ahlul-hall-wal-‘aqd (its people of authority), consisting of its senior figures, leaders, and the shura council – resolved to announce the establishment of the Islamic khilafah, the appointment of a khalifah for the Muslims, and the pledge of allegiance to the shaykh (sheikh), the mujahid, the scholar who practices what he preaches, the worshipper, the leader, the warrior, the reviver, descendent from the family of the Prophet, the slave of Allah, Ibrahim Ibn ‘Awwad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Hashimi al-Husayni al-Qurashi by lineage, as-Samurra’i by birth and upbringing, al-Baghdadi by residence and scholarship. And he has accepted the bayat (pledge of allegiance). Thus, he is the imam and khalifah for the Muslims everywhere.

Compare to Minhaj al-talibin written by Imam Nawawi, a shafi’i jurist of the 13th century, as cited in the Reliance of the Traveller (Book O. Justice, O.25.4):

The Caliphate may be legally effected by an oath of fealty, which, according to the soundest positions, is the oath of those with discretionary power to enact or dissolve a pact (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd) of the scholars, leaders and notables able to attend.

Other legal options for investiture as a Caliph would be appointment as a successor by the previous Caliph, or to seize the position of Caliph by force of arms, but both would seem to require a pre-existing caliph from whom to take power.

So the question of whether, under Islamic law as understood, Al-Baghdadi may be legitimately recognized as Caliph rests on whether or not the ISIS “people of authority” meet the legitimate definition for that position.

While there is a range of opinion of exactly what constitutes the “ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd,” for this purpose, the commentary on Minhaj al-talibin included in Reliance notes that while the ruling is expected to be made by all people of authority able to attend, there is no such thing as a “quorum” and the presence or lack of any particular number of individuals is irrelevant.

A commentary by Muhammed Shirbini Khatib explains,

“…if the discretionary power to enact or dissolve a pact exists in a single individual, who is obeyed, his oath of fealty is sufficient.”

It’s unclear whether ISIS has at its disposal such a worthy dignitary. The quality of scholars supporting ISIS has always been a problem for the otherwise meteoric rise of the group once referred to as Al Qaeda in Iraq. While eminent Jihadi scholar Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi wasonce a major supporter of founder Al-Zarqawi, the most notable scholars, including al-Maqdisi, sided against ISIS, in its dispute with Al Qaeda emir Ayman Al Zawahiri. If the “people of authority” are deemed to be those scholars most esteemed within the jihadi world, then ISIS’s appointment of a Caliphate lacks authenticity and legal backing. And that does not even consider the wider world of Shariah authorities, whether operating from within the Muslim Brotherhood’s orbit such as Yusuf Al Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars (which has formally denounced the declaration), or in traditional venues like Al-Azhar University.

Despite a dearth of scholarship, ISIS can count on the fact that nothing succeeds like success. Two things are necessary for ISIS to win it’s gambit in declaring the Caliphate reestablished. The first is that it must continue to win. Continued territorial expansion fulfills its argument that ISIS is the implementer of the Shariah law over the largest and most historically relevant real estate.

Second, ISIS must succeed in winning the oath of loyalty of key elements of the global jihad. While ISIS has succeeded in gaining popular support among online jihadi communities, individual young mujahids are of no real consequence, except in as much as they serve as recruits to further conquest. What ISIS needs, ideologically, is the support of the emirs of major jihadi groups or the support of prominent scholars. So far this has not happened, although individual members have supported the call. Victory on the battlefield may lead to such oaths, as other jihadi groups look to take advantage of the boost in recruiting and fundraising that ISIS is receiving.

Still, it would be strategically useful to avoid unwittingly consecrating Al-Baghdadi’s claim to the position of Caliph while that issue remains open to (possibly bloody) debate in jihadist circles. ISIS is exceedingly conscious of media and particularly western media, and carefully formulates its message in terms most likely to terrorize, and appeal to media coverage (the logic of distributing both mass executions and crucifixion videos, and a jihad fighters holding cats Twitter account for example). They respond quickly to exploit opportunities that seem to affirm their caliphate status, as when ISIS supporters began to retweet a statement by DHS senior advisor Mohammed Elibiary that the Caliphate was “inevitable,” following ISIS’ success in Iraq. ISIS has capitalized on media coverage about their exploits, and claim in their communiqué that even the west recognizes their new status,

“They [referring to those Muslim groups with whom ISIS disputes] never recognized the Islamic State to begin with, although America, Britain and France acknowledge its existence.”

Given that ISIS is looking for legitimacy where it can find it, let’s not present ISIS’ declaration of Caliphate as a fait accompli. Instead to the degree the facts permit it, it would be advantageous to continue to point out that even within the legal context of shariah, ISIS is on shaky ground, that they are a relative newcomer, that in the grand scheme of the Islamic world they hold limited territory, and that they do not have the respect of key scholars or jihadi emirs. At the same time, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that these things may not change, especially if ISIS continues its winning streak. But for the meantime, ISIS is not a Caliphate… yet.

Originally appeared at Breitbart.com 

Emboldened ISIS Threatens Americans

by John Rossomando and Ravi Kumar
IPT News
June 26, 2014

Sharia, Permissible Lying, and the Duality of the Message

taqiyya1-300x225By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/18/14:

“You send two messages, one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”

Omar Ahmad
Chairman of the Board
Hamas (dba CAIR), 1994-2005

“It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Um Dat al Salik
Islamic Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveller)

While there are individuals who identify themselves as Muslims who do not seek to impose Sharia on the world, there still exists a Global Islamic Movement which seeks to do just that through all means possible including armed conflict. Woven into Sharia is the self-protective measure of lying to the unbeliever in order to further the Jihad until the war is won. As a matter of fact, lying to the infidel is obligatory if the goal is obligatory—Jihad is obligatory in the Sharia until the world is claimed for Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (all 57 Islamic States in the world represented at the Head of State/King level) all seek to impose Sharia on the rest of us per their stated doctrine.

So when Western leaders turn to their left or to their right to get advice from their “Islamic Advisors” and these advisors can be easily identified as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, we know our leaders are most likely being lied to. The strategic loss in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq despite overwhelming U.S. military victories there is just one example of the cost of relying on men who we know are not telling us the truth about the reality on the ground.

The US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (Northern District of Texas, Dallas, 2008). When HLF was indicted immediately after 9/11 it was the largest Islamic charity in America, and it was Hamas. HLF was one of four entities created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) in the United States. The other three organizations were the UASR (United Association for Studies and Research), IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

During a 1993 meeting of the U.S. Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hamas leaders from all over the country attended including senior Hamas official Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR. The FBI wiretapped phone conversations, microphones meeting rooms, and conducted physical surveillance the attendees because this was a meeting of Hamas leaders in America. During a meeting on October 2nd, Omar Ahmad – who helped plan and organize this meeting—was recorded discussing his assessment of where Hamas was in the United States and how to move forward. Specifically, he stated:

“I believe that our problem is that we stopped working underground. We will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…the media person among us will recognize you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims. If they found out who said that – even four years later – it will cause discredit to the Foundation as far as the Muslims are concerned as they will say ‘Look, he used to tell us about Islam and that it is a cause and stuff while he, at the same time, is shooting elsewhere.’ Then if we want to do something like that it is better that it is an independent, separate and new organization and no one knows any connections it has with Holy Land.”

In very practical terms, Omar Ahmad was restating what Sharia demands – there must be a duality of communications from Islamic leaders. It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is false about Islam, yet it is obligatory for Sharia adherent Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in pursuit of Jihad and the imposition of Sharia globally. Therefore, Sharia adherent Muslims must “send two messages” that necessarily contradict one another – one to the Muslim community and one to the non-Muslim community.

The key to Ahmad’s above mentioned recorded conversation is he is articulating what all of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders understand—if we (Americans) find out these Muslim leaders are lying to us, it will discredit them. Then we would realize the same guys telling us they mean us well and want to help us are actually a part of a larger jihadi organization killing people elsewhere. Well, that wouldn’t be good for business.

Factually, we know the Muslim Brotherhood, in the form of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Fiqh Council of North America (which ensures everything the Muslim Brotherhood does in North America is done in accordance with the Sharia) has its authoritative stamp of approval in the front of the Reliance of the Traveller—14th century authoritative Islamic Sacred Law published in Beltsville, Maryland. As is true with all authoritatively published Islamic Law, this MB-approved Sharia law only defines Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims” (Book O, Justice) and makes it obligatory until the world is under the rule of the Sharia. This same book, quoted above, obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in the pursuit of obligatory objectives (e.g. JIHAD).

Therefore, if we can identify Muslim leaders as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement, we know they are obliged to lie to us regarding these matters. This might explain why 100% of Sharia is in agreement on the matter of Jihad and its obligation by the Muslim community, but why all of our American leaders argue Islam “doesn’t stand for” what Al Qaeda is doing. Despite the fact Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law, our leaders call Al Qaeda’s pursuits “extreme” or a “warped version” of Islamic Law.

When we see Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) sitting on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, giving presentations at CIA Headquarters, and briefing the National Security Council, the one thing we know is this—when his lips are moving, he is lying.

Finally, we must ask ourselves a question – at what point do U.S. officials hold these Muslim leaders accountable for providing years of counter-factual information to our National Security apparatus which has led to catastrophic decisions in our war planning, foreign policy, and domestic counterterrorism strategy. More to the point, when do Americans hold our leadership accountable for the criminal negligence of utilizing such enemies to “help” us while citizens are dying on the battlefield and places like Little Rock, Boston, Fort Hood and elsewhere?

Signs of Sharia Adherence

jihad flagBy John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat:

As Americans come to better understand that Sharia is real law and jihadis intend to impose it on all Muslims and non-Muslims alike, it becomes important to know when Sharia adherence is increasing in a particular area because it indicates violence from the jihadis will soon follow.

As law enforcement and military units have discovered, adherence to Sharia is directly proportional to the level of violence advocated in the Islamic community against those who do not want to be adherent to Sharia – Muslims and non-Muslims alike. A 2004 study entitled Understanding Terror Networks by a former CIA case officer revealed that 97% of jihadis were highly adherent to Sharia. This adherence was measured in observable behavior including the wearing of traditional Islamic garb and growing a Sharia adherent beard.

A study published in 2011 randomly surveyed 100 mosques across America and measured the correlation between Sharia adherence and the promotion of violence through published literature at the mosque, comments and teachings of the Imam, and other factors. This “Mapping Sharia” study revealed a one to one correlation between Sharia compliance and violence taught at Islamic Centers, Mosques, and Masjids.

In the New York Police Department’s landmark 2007 report on the homegrown threat entitled, “Radicalization in the West” the NYPD identified the implementation of Sharia and the establishment of a global Islamic state (Caliphate) as the driving “Jihadi-Salafi ideology” behind jihadists in the U.S and beyond (page 17). The report notes the “progression or gravitation towards Salafi Islam” and regular attendance at a Salafi mosque are two key indicators of “radicalization” of Muslims towards jihad. The term “Salafi” comes from the Islamic phrase “al salaf al-salih” or the “righteous predecessors”—the first three generations of Muslims. These are individuals who strictly follow Sharia, and while there are debates among Salafis on a variety of issues, there is no legal disagreement in the Sharia on the definition and obligation of jihad, nor of how Muslims must relate to non-Muslims.

The NYPD report identifies “signatures” of “Salafism” – or what I call here “Sharia Adherence”—which include: being part of a group which will strengthen your Salafis/Sharia Adherence, and “wearing traditional Islamic clothing, growing a beard (page 31).” If you see an increase in Sharia adherence in your community, you will see an increase in violence and jihad.
Here are a few of those signatures of Sharia adherence:

Sunnah Beards

Sharia adherent men will have short/trimmed mustaches but their beards are often unkempt.

“Cut the mustaches short and leave the beard as it is.” Bukhari 7:781

Henna Beards

In Islam, Mohammad is the most perfect example of a Muslim. Islamic men who dye their beards red with henna are identifying themselves with the Prophet Mohammad who wore his beard this way.

Black Islamic Headdress

Islamic men who wear the black headdress are identifying themselves as jihadis. Overseas, American military soldiers and Marines understand this. While only a few sightings have been reported in the United States, if this is seen in your community, it should be taken seriously.

Gold and Silver

In Sharia, men are not to wear gold and women are not permitted to wear silver.

Hijabs and Burkas

The greater degree to which an Islamic woman covers herself is indicative of the level of Sharia adherence to which she subscribes or, more likely, with which she is forced to comply.

Black Flag of Jihad

While seeing the black flag of Jihad is not common in the United States, it is becoming more common in Europe and elsewhere. Seeing this flying in a market place (as it has been seen and photographed in numerous cities around Europe) is a significant indicator of violence brewing in your community. It means the jihadist are identifying themselves in the open meaning they are bold and unafraid of the local security apparatus (police etc).

Sharia: Real Law and the Language Our Enemies Use

By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, June 16, 2014:

The following is the first installment of a 5-part series this week on Sharia (Islamic Law) and why Americans need to pay attention.

Sharia is REAL Law

“To begin with, the law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah. The leader, or Khalifa of the Islamic nation, implements the Shari’ah in society and the people try to follow it…The basis of the legal and political system is the Shari’ah of Allah.” So states What Islam is All About, (pages 376 ad 381) one of the most popular junior high school text books used in Islamic schools in America.

This is a good place for us to begin this week’s series on Sharia – Islamic Law. Sharia is the “law of the land.” It is not ‘religious law’ or a ‘spiritual guide.’ It is law. Sharia is law adjudicated by jurists and legal scholars, and ruled on by Qadi judges. Sharia is real law. It should be likened to U.S. Federal Code, not Jewish Halakhah or Christian Canon Law.

So here is our first challenging question of this week’s series on Sharia: How can Sharia be so clearly defined and implemented by Islamic legal scholars and jurists around the world, taught to elementary and junior high school students in Islamic schools around the world, yet appears to be very confusing to leaders in the West?

ScreenShot2014_06_16at7_23_55PM

Now, on to the lesson…

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life.” What Islam is All About teaches the junior high schoolers “The way of life known as Islam is a complete code of life.” It is political life, cultural life, social life, religious life, military life, and everything else, all governed by Sharia.

The Sharia is primarily derived from the Quran and the Sunnah – the collection of the Hadith and the Sira (authorized sacred biographies of Muhammad).

For Muslims, the Quran is considered the “uncreated word” of Allah (the God of Islam). According to Islam, the contents of the Quran come from direct revelations to the Prophet Muhammad beginning in the year 610 AD and continuing to approximately 632 AD. The Quran’s 114 auras (chapters) are arranged generally by size, largest to smallest, not chronologically. This is critical to understanding the Quran, and therefore Sharia, because the chronologically earlier peaceful verses were abrogated/over-ruled (Quran 2:106, 16:101, 17:106) by the later violent verses calling for jihad as a permanent obligation until the world is conquered for Islam (9:5 and 9:29 among others). Specifically, the chronologically last Sura in the Quran is Sura 9, where Jihad is made a permanent obligation on the entire Islamic community. The last Sura to discuss relations with non-Muslims is Sura 5 (“Take not the Jews and Christians as your friends…” 5:51)

Every verse in the Quran has been authoritatively defined by Islamic jurists and legal scholars and compiled in Tafsirs. Remember Sharia is a legal system not a religious guide. Individual Muslims do not get to render their opinion on what certain Quranic verses mean to them. This bears no weight in Islam, just as Americans do not get to make up legal definitions for words already defined in the law.

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is the most perfect example of a Muslim. All he did and said is to be modeled by Muslims. The Hadith is the collection of all the practices, sayings and traditions of Muhammad and has been ranked and categorized based on authenticity by Islamic jurists and legal scholars. For instance, Muhammad married Ayisha when she was 6 years old and consummated the relationship when Ayisha was 9. Therefore, Sharia cannot make it unlawful for a 60 year old man to marry a 10 year old, for instance, because the example of the Prophet makes it lawful. Likewise, the Quran commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims until: (1) they are killed, (2) pay the jizya (non-Muslim poll tax) and submit to Sharia, or (3) convert to Islam. Muhammad waged numerous battles where he did just that. Therefore, Jihad in the Cause of Allah until the unbelievers either convert, submit, or are killed is a core part of Sharia and Islamic doctrine.

There is no such thing as a Sharia which does not mandate Jihad until the world is under the rule of the Sharia, and there is no other definition of Jihad in Sharia other than “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Sharia there exist “The Hudud” which are seven crimes for which the Quran provides specific punishments. These crimes are: Apostacy; Armed Robbery, Terrorism, and Perpetrating Corruption; Theft; Drinking Intoxicants; Illicit Sexual Intercourse; False Accusation of Illicit Sexual Intercourse; and Rebellion in the Land. For instance, the punishment for Hirabah (Armed Robbery et al) states: “The punishment for those who wage war against God and His messenger and pursue corruption on earth is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land (Islamic Criminal Law, The Hudud, Muhammad ‘at a Alsid Sid Ahmad, Malaysia). Because the punishments come from Allah via the Quran, they must be given to the guilty party and a judge may not show “mercy” because it would directly contradict Allah and is a capital crime.

In practice, there are Sharia Courts all over the world, judges that adjudicate the Sharia, prosecutors who prosecute, and defense attorneys who defend. To say that Sharia is not real law is to be wrong.

In Islamic countries across the globe – there are 56 plus Palestine making 57 Islamic states – where Sharia is the law of the land. The fact that varying levels of Sharia are enforced does not change the fact it is the law of the land and their constitutions say it is.

The Language Our Enemies Use

As has been documented in previous UTT Blogs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC – the largest international body second only to the UN made up of the heads of states of all Islamic nations), all state the imposition of Sharia and the establishment of the Caliphate (Islamic State) are their end objectives.

When leaders from known Muslim Brotherhood organizations or their allies speak, we must translate the English words they use into the meaning of the word as defined by Sharia. Once we do this, the enemy’s intentions become crystal clear.

“Jihad” and “Peace”
As mentioned earlier, 100% of all Sharia only defines Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.” Islam divides the entire world into two parts: the Dar al Islam (the House/Abode of Peace) and the Dar al Harb (the House/Abode of War). Anywhere in the world where there is Sharia under Islamic rule is the Dar al Islam. The rest of the world is the Dar al Harb. The purpose of Islam is to reduce the Dar al Harb to non-existence until the entire world becomes the Dar al Islam – then you have “Peace” under Sharia. Once this is achieved there is no need for Jihad which is why it is not one of the five pillars of Islam.

“Suicide” and “Martyrdom”
Suicide is unlawful under Sharia. Martyrdom, or being killed in Jihad, is the only way under Sharia to guarantee entry into Paradise.

“Innocent”
The only innocent people under Sharia are Muslims. Non-Muslims are never innocent and are guilty of not following Sharia or subordinating themselves to it.

“Terrorism”
Killing a Muslim without right. Under Sharia Muslims can be killed for leaving Islam (Apostacy) and for killing another Muslim without right to do so under Sharia. Any other time a Muslim is killed it is “terrorism.” Under Sharia, an example would be American troops killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Freedom”
Freedom from man-made laws. Only Sharia can be the law of the land.

“Justice”
Justice under the Sharia.

So, the next time you see a leader of the local Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Center in your hometown says “We denounce terrorism and call for a protection of all innocents because we want freedom, justice, and peace here and around the world” – don’t accuse him of lying because he isn’t. You need to adjust the reception on your end and translate with Sharia as the filter.

Finally, it should be noted that if readers would like to deepen their study on Sharia, they must purchase books written for Muslim audiences by Muslims who are recognized as scholars in the Islamic world. Anything other than this will be meaningless. Why? Because Sharia makes it a capital crime for Muslims to teach other Muslims something false about Islam. Go to your local mosque bookstore and buy books for Muslims on Islamic Law – and take cash.

 

Prisoner exchange – “How do they see it?”

4096367384

Center for Security Policy:

The media is abuzz with analyses regarding the release of American serviceman Bowe Bergdahl. Is it a victory for America, a victory for the Taliban, or something in between?  Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin lays out the theological context and strategic basis for prisoner capture and exchange in Islamic history.

 

According to Coughlin, the Taliban sees prisoner exchange as “normal activity in an ongoing jihad against an enemy.” This holds true in the precedent of Islamic law, as well as current events, such as the bounty of $900,000 offered by a Saudi royal in 2011 for any captured Israeli soldier.

Bill Warner: There are four types of jihad

Here is another excellent short lesson from Bill Warner. This one covers the different ways jihad is waged. It’s much more than by the sword!

 

To expand on this subject I will re-post here an excellent article from Islam Watch that I posted last year. It is still getting a lot of views:

Jihad – The Four Forms and the West

By Jon MC, Nov. 3, 2013:

In the west we often interpret “jihad” as “waging war in the name of Allah” or “Islamic holy war”. This is not without justification, but it also annoys and upsets many Muslims who see jihad as a “supreme effort” to lead a “godly personal and social life”.

Thus Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that “The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between Islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living).”

Again, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the term to describe the struggle to establish “a just moral-social order“.

Whilst these definitions seem utterly innocuous, it has to be remembered that in the eyes of Islam – and thus its scholars – “righteous living” and “a just moral-social order” can only be found when living in a society ordered by Shari’ah Law (or, for the really picky, a given interpretation thereof) thus for non-Muslims perhaps these definitions are not quite so harmless as they might at first appear.

Whilst many Muslim apologists would like us to believe that Jihad has only non-violent connotations, it is worth noting that from the word “Jihad” (root = jhd) we get words such as “Mujahid” and “Mujahideen” meaning (in practice at least) [Muslim] “fighter/soldier” (or “jihadi”) and “band of fighters/soldiers” (“jihadists”) respectively, which rather belies the “peaceful only” interpretation of jihad.

Furthermore Muslim jurists explained that there are four kinds of jihad fi sabili Allahi (“jihad in the way of Allah”):

  • Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combating “evil” (i.e. un-Islamic) desires and the devil in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. In other words this is the “internal” jihad.

  • Jihad by the tongue/pen (jihad bil lisan/qallam) is concerned with spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue or writing and the verbal (or written) defence of Islam.

  • Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong in Islamic terms with action, e.g. protest, demanding “special consideration” etc. Some Muslim writers see “hand-jihad” as subsuming sword-jihad (below{1}).

  • Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saifrefers to qital fi sabili Allahi ([armed] fighting in the way of Allah, or holy war), this is the most common usage by Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims and the most ancient. For example, Sahih Bukhari (the pre-eminent Hadith collection of Sunni Islam) has ~200 references to jihad and 98% (~196) of them refer to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims{2}.

Thus whilst jihad is not only warfare, it most certainly encompasses warfare, as history and the Islamic sources comprehensively demonstrate and it is even reasonable to say that jihad is mostly about warfare, since the majority of references to it in both hadith and Koran refer to sword-jihad.

Indeed, within classical Islamic jurisprudence jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Sharia law, and consists of wars against non-Muslims, apostates, rebels, dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam (i.e. heretics) and (curiously) highway robbers. Thus all war carried out by Muslims is (or should be) jihad{3}.

It is also worth noting that the primary aim of sword-jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but the expansion of the Islamic state (Koran 13:41) and its defence, as is well attested in history (e.g. the Eastern Christian, now part of the Islamic, world). This fact belies the “defence only” interpretation also used by some apologists.

That jihad is not primarily intended to convert needs a little further explanation. Whenever Islam conquered territory it generally allowed its subjugated peoples three choices:

  1. To convert.

  2. To accept the third-class status of dhimmi.

  3. To face a merciless war of annihilation.

Strictly, the second choice is only available to “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) and, according to some authorities, Zoroastrians and Sabians (these two terms may be synonyms); but where a war of annihilation was not readily practicable it was extended to other peoples (e.g. the Hindus and Buddhists of the Indian sub-continent whose numbers were too vast to be readily annihilated by the Muslim conquistadors).

***************

From the point of the non-Muslim it is relevant to note that of the four forms of jihad, three are aimed at non-Muslims.

An amplification and (partial) exemplification of these forms follows:

  • Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) and/or jihad by the pen (jihad bil qallam). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but there is more involved in that (in essence) Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (see the doctrines of Taqiyya/Muda’rat, Kitman, Tawriya and also Tayseer) to “spread Islam” either in terms of actually winning converts, or gaining acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the oft repeated statement that “Islam is a religion of peace” despite much evidence to the contrary from both its texts and its actions). It would also include attempting to silence criticism of Islam by labelling critics as “racists”, “fascists” or “Islamophobes” or any verbal/written means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.

  • Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad). It is important to realise that “what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong” must be understood from the point of view of Shariah Law systems, which define “right and wrong” by law (thus what is actually defined is “lawful” or ‘halal’ and “unlawful” or ‘haram’ which stands in place of the morality of right and wrong). Shariah Law systems often define “injustice” as anything that interferes with or prevents Muslims living their lives in a fully Sharia-compliant manner and the instruments of that “injustice” it labels as “oppression”.

    Thus hand-jihad would include demands for time off work for prayer; special (Muslim-only) washing facilities; Muslim or Muslim-women-only sessions in swimming baths, libraries and other Public facilities; that women doctors be continually available to treat Muslim women throughout the Healthcare system; that Halal food be supplied by default in public institutions; that Muslims be permitted not to handle “haram” things such as pork or alcohol in shops/businesses when all other employees would be required so to do; that ‘Sharia Courts’ (in the U.K. they are officially called “Muslim arbitration Tribunals”) be set up for Muslims; that the Police show special care and consideration when entering Muslims’ houses. Please note that the above are all things which have been demanded by UK Muslims and acquiesced to by UK governments, councils and, in the case of “special treatment of Muslim homes”, the Police Authorities (ACPO guidelines). That criticism of Islam be forbidden (see “vilification of religion” – U.N. resolution, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference or Cooperation and it’s successor document ’16/18 “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief”’ which led to the on-going – as of 2013 “Istanbul process”), or at least heavily curtailed legally. It would also include staging (violent) protests against anything giving “offence” to Muslims – from Remembrance Day and returning troops to anything derogatory about Mohammed, the Koran, or Islam in general; e.g. books, cartoons, plays, films etc. Another aspect of this is “lawfare”- legal warfare. In America this primarily takes the form where someone who makes “defamatory” comments about Islam (etc.) is sued in the Courts by Muslim advocacy groups. This always has the effect of tying them up in legal matters and may also bankrupt them. Thus the threat of lawfare adds to the pressure to silence criticism. In Europe, things may be even worse: in several European Countries the State has taken over the job of “lawfare”against its own majority population. In these cases the criticism of Islam brings, not a civil law-suit, but criminal persecution prosecution by the state – even if what is said is true. Examples include Geert Wilders (Holland), Lars Hedegaard (Denmark){4}, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria) to name but three three high-profile cases. And convictions have followed, thus proving that the truth and fact are no defence, a position perfectly consonant with Islamic Sharia (see conditions set in the “Pact of Umar” and “The reliance of the Traveller”) which regards as “defamation” anything that brings shame on Islam/Mohammed and Muslims etc. (hence the violent reactions of Muslims to truthful but embarrassing (shaming = defaming) critique.

A further element to this could involve something as simple as the building of large mosques, preferably on high-ground so that the building (or its minaret) symbolically “dominates” the surrounding landscape thus making sure that people have to “look up to Islam”. If this last sounds ridiculous, remember that in many Muslim Countries the Christian Church (etc.) many not be higher than, nor built within a given radius of, a Mosque. Thus in Islamic Countries the relative heights of Church (or temple etc.) and Mosque are used to show the dominance of Islam.

It is worth pointing out that both the two types of Jihad referred to above are at least as effective at spreading Islam as is warfare/terrorism.

Some Western commentators refer to these forms of Jihad as “stealth Jihad”, an apt description since both lead to the gradual acceptance of elements of Shariah Law as normative within a host society, generally without any fuss (or even awareness) on the part of the larger community, amongst whom it is passed off as “religious tolerance”, see examples above.

The Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups refer to this as “civilisation jihad” because they see it as a means to adapt and ultimately convert non-Muslim civilisations to and into Muslim ones, they would also see this as a process of “civilising” the non-Muslims of course. As their own documents put it: “[civilisation jihad is] a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their own hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Thus we can see that the aims of hand-jihad are wide-ranging, indeed globally encompassing.

There is much more at Islam Watch

See also this article: “The Janus face of Islam” which reveals the chronological development of Jihad doctrine within Islam.

Bostom With Steve Malzberg Discussing Apostasy & Boko Haram Jihadism

 

MPAC’s Dissimulation About Sharia-Mandated Punishment For ‘Apostasy’

PJ Media, By Andrew Bostom:

As I have discussed elsewhere, the circumstances of Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim’s arrest and “conviction” for “apostasy” are eerily reminiscent of those almost 200 years earlier surrounding Moroccan Jewess Sol Hachuel’s brutally unjust plight, and ultimate martyrdom. These shared dynamics, which negate basic freedom of conscience, provide stark evidence of the Sharia’s depressing persistence as a force of religious oppression—regnant, unreformed, and unrepentant—into our era. For example, dismissing the international outcry over Meriam Ibrahim’s Sharia-compliant, if Western human rights repugnant, “conviction,” Sudan’s Minister of Information, Ahmed Bilal Osman, replied with candor and defiance:

It’s not only Sudan. In Saudi Arabia, in all the Muslim countries, it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion.

Ahmet Akgündüz, Full Professor of Islamic Law at Dumlupinar University, Turkey, has written extensively about the Sharia, including his most recent work on the subject, a 733 pp. tome, Islamic Public Law (2011). Akgündüz’s frank, authoritative discussion of the Sharia-mandated punishment for apostasy in Islamic Public Law, validates Sudan Minister of Information Bilal Osman’s candid observation, the actual treatment of Meriam Ibrahim’s case, and over 13 centuries of similar applications of the Sharia, vis-à-vis Muslim apostates, since the advent of Islam.

All fiqh [Sharia-based jurisprudence] clearly testify that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate’s execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the great Companions of the Prophet, their Followers, the leaders among the mujtahids [most learned Islamic theologians] and, following them, the experts on Sharia in every century are available on record. All these together will assure one that, from the time of the Prophet to the present day, one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that there is no room whatsoever to suggest that the punishment of the apostate is perhaps not execution.

Some [Islamic] law schools allow imprisonment instead of death for apostate women. The schools vary on the question if an apostate may be allowed or encouraged to repent as well as on the status of the apostate’s property after death or banishment. But they agree that the marriage of an apostate is void. Under Islamic law, an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again. If he does not the apostate is killed without reservations. There are differences among the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the punishments with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and regarding the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between a murtad fitri, an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and a murtad milli, an apostate who had initially converted to Islam. Some additional punishments and considerations are mentioned: a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatizes; an underage apostate is imprisoned until he reaches the age of majority and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword.

The Ottoman state did not accept abolishing capital punishment for apostatesApostasy is punishable by death today in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Mauritania…Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law [at present] include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children, and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.

Notwithstanding this irrefragable, ugly living doctrinal and historical legacy, the U.S. cultural jihadist Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), issued a press release claiming,

The way Hudud [or “hadd, “i.e., mandatory Sharia prohibitions and punishments, such as apostasy, punished by death] is being implemented today does not adhere to the goals of sharia in its spirit and intention.

Recalling European Muslim Sharia supremacist Tariq Ramadan’s clumsy ploy when he invoked a “moratorium” on the hudud [hadd] punishment of stoning adulterers to death—not demanding such punishments be abrogated forever—MPAC opined that “Muslim-majority countries” should “implement a moratorium on so-called Hudud cases,” such as Meriam Ibrahim’s sentencing to death for “apostasy.”

MPAC’s disingenuous claim about lack of “adherence” to the Sharia, combined with its failure—ala Tariq Ramadan—to insist that hadd prohibitions and punishments be permanently eliminated—is consistent with a Sharia supremacist agenda. Indeed MPAC founding member Fathi Osman denounced Western societies who dared express concern, “about any movement or state which may commit itself to Islam and Islamic law.” These sentiments of MPAC’s Osman mirror Tariq Ramadan’s ultimate, guiding IslamicWeltanschauung:

anyone who opposes the Sharia, which is based on clear texts, deviates from the religion and is no longer a Muslim.

Blueprint for Jihadists

Jihad and QuranCitizen Warrior:

If you excerpted the parts of Islamic texts on jihad, you would get a short how-to book. That is what follows. The article below might be called, How To Wage Jihad in a Nutshell, Updated For The 21st Century, taken from the pages of Islam’s texts.

In the texts, it is clear that if you’re a believer, it is your duty to spend your time and money getting the whole world to follow Islamic law, no matter how long it takes and even if you have other things you’d rather be doing. It is your duty. Allah expects it of you, and there are serious consequences in the afterlife if you don’t. For those who choose to accept Allah’s mission, here are the instructions:

1. As a formality, always invite infidels to convert to Islam before you do anything else. They just might choose conversion rather than hostilities, and if they do, you’ve saved yourself a lot of time and money.

2. Probably they won’t take you up on your offer, so if you already have your own Islamic state, find a way to provoke a hostile response from an infidel country. Keep provoking until you get a hostile response. Don’t start outright war. Just provoke.

3. When you get a hostile response, use it as an excuse to escalate hostilities with that country. But make sure you call it “defending Islam.” Never think of it (or portray it as) an aggressive war, either to your own people or to the infidels. Only do this when you are sure you will not be wiped out by the enemy’s aggressive response.

4. When you aren’t in a position to defeat the infidel country militarily, make peace treaties with it, without actually intending to keep the treaties. Use a treaty as a way to prevent the country from attacking you while you gain enough strength to defeat it later. Pour any extra money you have into building up the power of your Islamic state and military prowess.

5. Use deception against the infidels. Lie to them. Pretend to be their friend, but never actually allow yourself any friendly feeling toward an infidel. Portray yourself in such a way that prevents them from trying to suppress you while you gain strength. Always remember, every Muslim in the world, wherever he is, is your brother. Every infidel is your enemy.

6. Do whatever you can to increase the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims. For example, have lots of children. Try your best to convert infidels peacefully to your religion. Men can marry up to four wives. Try to marry widows and convert infidel women to Islam and marry them. Gain a Muslim numerical advantage.

7. Undermine the infidels in any way you can without weakening your position. This is your most important activity when not actually in battle. In modern days, this might mean using the press to your advantage, trying to capitalize on any division you might perceive within the infidel country, immigrating to the country and trying to undermine their laws and pressing for Islamic concessions, strongly suppressing any criticism of Islam, giving money to organizations that will lobby for Muslim rights and organizations that will use the laws to put legal pressure on anyone who might slow down your jihad from within, using the internet to your advantage, infiltrating and invading into every place you can use to your advantage, taking full advantage of any freedoms and rights available in that country to eventually use them to undermine those freedoms and rights (by establishing Sharia law) once you gain the reins of power. All of this is jihad. Jihad is not only fighting on the battlefield and killing. Jihad is total war.

8. Make jihad your overarching mission in life, but keep it a secret from the infidels, because revealing it would weaken Islam. In fact, try to convince the infidels that you only want peace. Devote your life to jihad, and use all the time and money you can spare to forward the cause. Nothing is more important than jihad. It is the supreme act of religious devotion, it proves your faith, and it is Allah’s favorite act of worship, and that’s why the only way a man can guarantee himself a place in heaven is if he dies while fighting in jihad.

9. If you cannot fight on the battlefield, fight in anyway you can, including giving money, or giving support to jihad of whatever kind. In modern days, it might include going on web sites that criticize Islam to make comments that persuade the infidels it’s not true, or at least confuse them enough they won’t be motivated to do anything about it, going into the streets and protesting loudly whenever anyone criticizes Islam, even for something minor like a cartoon, etc.

10. Find any infidel allies, even unwitting ones, and use them to advance the cause of Allah. Later, when the country has become an Islamic state, you can hang the infidels who helped you if you like. But for now, use them. For a modern example, if there is a prevailing notion in infidel lands that all belief systems must be respected, then use that to try to get Islamic propaganda into infidel schools, on their public television programs, etc.

11. Do not try to convert people to Islam by force. Your goal is to convertgovernments to Islamic law. Once a government becomes an Islamic state, if the population converts to Islam, fine. If not, then the new Islamic government will make a lot of money on the “infidelity tax” (thejizya — a tax on dhimmis, the subjugated non-Muslims). This is a good source of revenue you can then use to fund further Islamic expansion. The goal is universal Sharia law rather than trying to force every person to be a Muslim. 

There it is. That’s the blueprint in a nutshell. That’s what it says very clearly in the Islamic texts, along with repeated warnings that if you don’t believe, and if you don’t put your faith into action, you’re going to burn for eternity.

So now, what should infidels like you and me do about this? What good does it do to know the game plan of the devoted Muslims following strict Islamic teachings?

First of all, now that you know about it, you can help thwart their plans, in many different ways and in many different places. There is no need to list every possible action you could take (although here’s a start). The number of possible actions are almost infinite and new opportunities will arise constantly. The knowledge of the game plan lends itself to innumerable possible ways to thwart it.

The important thing is to know what is being planned, and that they are deliberately hiding their intentions — that’s part of the plan.

The most important thing you can do about the jihad threat is inform your fellow infidels. That’s one of the hardest things to do, and it is also something the jihad warriors are trying to make even harder with their cries of Islamophobia, hate-speech, and racism. But it needs to be done, and you need to be one of the ones doing it. There aren’t many of us right now, and we’re in a race against time. Jihadists are recruiting new warriors every day. It is crucial that each of us who are “in on the game” alert those who aren’t. And the sooner the better.

When all of us are in on the game, it will be very difficult for the jihadists to fulfill their goals. Until that time, it is relatively easy for them.

**************

Also see The Counter Jihad Report’s menu item, “Islamic Texts”. Especially the page “Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts”

Robert Spencer Defines the War Against Jihad

976_largeby Andrew E. Harrod:

“America is at war; and has been since at least September 11, 2001, but no one is really sure who with,” Robert Spencer writes in his recently released Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We’re In. Thankfully, Spencer’s important book makes a significant contribution in clarifying this catastrophic confusion.

That “Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion” no different from…other faiths” in multicultural ecumenism, Spencer observes, forms a Western policy “cornerstone” and “cherished dogma of today’s political correct elites.” Yet President George W. Bush’s claim before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, that al-Qaida terrorists “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism” does not “become any truer for being oft repeated.”

“[U]unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion” whose “comprehensiveness is often a matter for boasting among Islamic apologists” in comparison to “Christianity’s vague set of moral precepts,” Spencer writes. Such detail includes a “denial of basic rights…integral” to Islamic law despite attempted Muslim portrayals of sharia as “so amorphous as to defy characterization.” Islam’s death penalty for apostasy, for example, gives it something in common with cults, making leaving in one piece difficult.

Sharia interpretations “more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy…have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.” However undesirable, centuries-old Islamic orthodoxy invariably and unsurprisingly has controlling legal authority.

“Jihad” in particular, “behind all the obfuscation and denial, is in fact primarily an Islamic doctrine of warfare,” drawn from the Qur’an’s “open-ended license to wage war against and plunder non-Muslims.” Despite various references to righteousness (e. g. Sura 5:8), the “Qur’an doesn’t teach that all are equal in dignity.” Rather, Islamic conversion can mean rejecting “nation and people as infidel” in favor of a “new loyalty instead to the supranational Islamic umma.”

Spencer offers plenty of examples, including Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Hasanhad a “broad tradition within Islamic teaching” justifying his killings with “numerous proponents.” Although “not the only understanding of Islam…even the larger number of Muslims who do not adhere to it have failed to work in any effective way to rein it in.” Accordingly, “Al Qaeda and other groups like it make recruits among peaceful Muslims” as “exponents of true and authentic Islam.” Unfortunately, faith fundamentals in Islam do not necessarily favor freedom over sectarian force.

Indeed, Muslim groups have no programs demonstrating “how the true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers,” Spencer criticizes. Similarly, “over twelve years” after 9/11, no “sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks” has developed. Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “are ready with the condemnations after arrests and explosions, but why wait passively?” Muslim communities must “demonstrate (not just enunciate) their opposition to jihad terror Islamic supremacism,” Spencer demands. Any silent Muslim majority in an oft-proclaimed “religion of peace” must preemptively speak out, both for its own credibility’s sake and for the wider community’s security.

A “Jihad against Talking about Jihad” by Muslim groups and others, meanwhile, brands as an “irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam” any “resistance to jihad” in attempts at “demoralization and marginalization.” Objective discussion of Islam’s less savory aspects has become the “third rail of American public discourse.” Here “tuxedoed barbarians” like the writer Reza Aslan, an Islamic Republic of Iran apologist, play a role, along with leading officials like President Barack Obama, who pledged in his June 4, 2009, Cairo address “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Obama “didn’t explain where in the Constitution he had found this awesome new responsibility,” Spencer says.

Read more at IPT