Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > History of the World
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-05-2010, 01:50 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Qaradawi's jihad

Qaradawi's jihad




Recently I posted two pieces -- an explanation of jihad and a critique of the separation of religion and state -- written by Muslims, and invited moderate Muslims who rejected them on Islamic theological grounds to explain why, so as to help distinguish themselves from the "extremists" and demonstrate the reality of the moderate Islam that everyone longs to see and believes in so fervently.

So let's make it a series. Every so often I will post explanations of various aspects of Islam, especially jihad, written by Muslims who use the Qur'an and Sunnah to argue for warfare against unbelievers, the subjugation of women, etc., and yet again invite those Muslims who say they don't believe in all that to explain why the posted material is wrong. And we'll kick it off with a most interesting piece: a lengthy explanation from the Muslim Brotherhood's English website, IkhwanWeb, of the jihad theology of the internationally renowned and influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has endorsed suicide attacks, prayed for the genocide of the Jews, affirmed Islam's death penalty for apostates, and been hailed by John Esposito as a "reformist."

This paper explains, as its title has it, "what is new about Qaradawi's jihad." In the course of so doing, it sets out in illuminating detail what the old, i.e., the established and mainstream, theology of Islamic jihad consists of. Surprise of surprises, it involves warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, contrary to the self-righteous charges of "ignorance," "racism," and "Islamophobia" that Muslims in the West regularly direct at those non-Muslims who have the temerity to point out this fact. Qaradawi's jihad is a bit less lethal for unbelievers, but its difference from the traditional view is actually more tactical than principled. After all, Qaradawi has predicted that Islam will soon conquer Europe, but that this conquest will come not "by the sword but by preaching and ideology."

"What is New about Al-Qaradawi's Jihad?," from IkhwanWeb, September 25, 2009 (thanks to David):
In the name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent The importance of this conference is due to its focus on the most critical concept in contemporary Islamic thought- that of Jihad, which occupies an important position in the edifice of Islam. Jihad is "the summit of Islam and its pinnacle" according to the hadith, and is the subject of widely divergent views and stances from within and outside Islam, views which have serious consequences for international relations, in view of Islam's growing role internationally.

Those views, moreover, have an effect on relations between Muslims themselves, with their governments, and with non-Muslims, in view of the awakening witnessed across the Muslim world, both at the level of faith and the level of practice. This has led to a greater connection between Islam as a religion (creed, rituals, morals) and an ideology of great influence on the thought and behaviour of Muslims, socially and politically, or what is known as "political Islam", in which jihad occupies a central position in one way or another.

This paper owes its importance to the position of the figure whose views on this crucial concept it attempts to present - that is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who occupies an important position in contemporary Islam, as testified by his role at various levels: at the intellectual level, his writings have exceeded 150 works, covering all aspects of Islamic thought. In addition to his membership of the major intellectual and juristic councils, he was elected President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, as well as being the chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and a number of charity organisations, and a member of various Islamic Studies academic committees, including the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. As for "political Islam", he grew up inside one of its groups, the "Muslim Brotherhood", occupying leading positions within it. He is also a rising star in the world of modern media, through his patronage of the most important Muslim website Islam-online, and through his famous weekly programme on Aljazeera channel "Sharia and Life" which is followed weekly by over 60 million viewers.

Al-Qaradawi has developed a principal theory in contemporary Islam, from which all his views and stances emanate, and to which he tirelessly calls, widening its appeal and marginalising its opponents - that is the principle of Islamic Wasatiyya or moderation. This was inspired by the verse in the second chapter of the Quran, "And thus we made you into a middle (wasat) nation". Thus, he presents Islam as the middle position between opposing and conflicting rigid positions; as the middle ground that brings all together, - a middle position between materialism and spiritualism, between individualism and collectivism, between idealism and realism, etc.

Starting from this wasati viewpoint, he presents all his ijtihads in all aspects of Islamic thought, including his ijtihad on the question of jihad, as revealed in his latest book "The Fiqh of Jihad: a comparative study of its rulings and philosophy in light of the Quran and Sunnah". This study was described by its author as one which "took several years of continuous work, and occupied his thought for decades". The fruits of this work are presented in a momentous book of two volumes, in which he puts forward, from the wasati perspective, his views on this critical issue, elaborating his theory on jihad, which he hopes will contribute towards forming consensus on this grave matter. The book springs from the conviction that "it is dangerous and wrong to misunderstand jihad, to shed inviolate blood in its name, to violate property and lives and to taint Muslims and Islam with violence and terrorism, while Islam is completely innocent of such an accusation. However, our problem in such grave matters is that the truth gets lost between the two extremes of exaggeration and laxity."

Our exposition of this momentous work will focus on clarifying the general view of jihad in Islam according to Sheikh Qaradawi based on the Quran and the Sunnah and their interaction with the tafsir [commentary on the Qur'an] and fiqh [Islamic jurisprudential] heritage as seen in the historical contexts in which it emerged, and through the current state of the Muslim ummah [worldwide community] as it is engaged in major conflicts with the forces of despotism or with external forces, under the current power balances, a modern culture that glorifies the value of freedom, and an international law that recognises state sovereignty and limits legitimate war to self-defence.

Within these contexts, Al-Qaradawi's view of jihad was formed. What we wish to explore is not its details, but the general picture - what is novel in it, particularly in relation to major questions, such as jihad's relation to freedom, and to relations between Muslims and others, whether it is inside or outside Muslim societies. So, what are the foundations of this methodology? What is jihad? What are its forms? What are its goals? Defensive or offensive? Between Dar al-Islam [House of Islam] and Dar al-Kufr [House of Unbelief]? What are the rulings regarding captives in Islam? Is there jihad within the ummah? Where is jihad in the ummah's current causes?

1. Issues of methodology:

In the introduction, the author defined the foundations for his study thus:

a. Relying on the Quran as the absolutely authentic text which serves as the criterion for other sources including the Prophetic Sunnah. It is to be understood using the logic of its original language, Arabic, without forcing meaning onto the text, and on the basis that all its verses were revealed to be applied, "thus we questioned at length the claim of those who say that there is a verse in the Quran, which they called Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword), which has allegedly abrogated one hundred and forty verses or more, although they differed over which verse that is". The author almost entirely invalidates the principle of abrogation in the Quran, depriving the extremists of a sharp weapon with which they have disabled hundreds of verses promoting kindness, forgiveness, dealing with non-Muslims with wisdom and beautiful preaching and distinguishing between a hostile unjust minority amongst non-Muslims with which defensive jihad can be used, and a peaceful majority towards which justice and kindness are due.

b. Relying on authentic Sunnah which does not contradict stronger evidence, such as the Quran. Thus the author judges as weak sayings such as "I was sent with the sword" and others, using the tools of the science of Hadith. He also interprets an authentic hadith which commands fighting against people until they say "there is no God but Allah", by taking the generic word "people" as being used to mean a specific group, that is the hostile Arab polytheists.

c. Benefiting from the rich heritage of fiqh, without bias towards a particular school, and without restricting oneself to the well-known schools, basing himself on the methods of comparative law, analysis, critique and selecting the most suitable opinion. He distinguishes between Fiqh and Shariah: the latter being of divine origin, and the former the product of intellectual effort to deduce the rulings of Shariah. True fiqh is not what is copied from books, but rather the jurist's own ijtihad (intellectual exertion) to produce something suitable for his specific time and place, particularly as in our time, major changes have taken place.

d. Using the method of comparison between Islam and other religions and legal systems.

e. Relating fiqh to the current reality: The Muslim faqih (jurist) when speaking about jihad must realise the fixed principles in this matter, such as the law of tadaafu` (mutual checking), the obligation to prepare all possible sources of power to ward off the enemies, and to fight against those who initiate fighting against the Muslims, the prohibition of transgression, etc. There are, however, other matters that have emerged (considered mutaghayyirat, or changing factors), such as condemnation of war, seeking peace, and the emergence of international law, human rights conventions, the United Nations, and the sovereignty of states. In this respect, the author affirms that "we can live, under Islam, in a world that promotes peace and security rather than fear, tolerance rather than fundamentalism, love rather than hatred. We can live with the United Nations, international law, human rights conventions and environmentalist groups. In truth, our main problem with our rigid brothers who have closed all doors and insisted on a single viewpoint is that they live in the past and not the present, in books rather than reality". [...]

g. While studying "Fiqh al-Jihad", one can easily perceive its author's care not to present himself as the sole proponent of the above views amongst jurists. Instead he is very keen to refer to supporting views amongst old and contemporary scholars, even if such views were neglected or ignored, removing the dust that had collected and shedding light on them, presenting them in a more attractive appearance, and thus giving them new life. He is also careful to support his views with relevant values and expertise from modern culture, benefiting from his profound knowledge of the sources of Islamic culture and his familiarity with modern culture. Thus he constructs a new, coherent, well-rooted yet contemporary view of Islamic jihad, one which shares a wide common space with contemporary culture in relation to war and peace. What is new in this view is not the details, for its parts are scattered and buried deep inside books, but rather the whole picture, making this work a meeting point and a point of consensus, wherein all - or most - parties can find something familiar that facilitates their acceptance of what is unfamiliar. This ability to build consensus is a traditional characteristic of the great scholars. Thus the author does not exaggerate when describing the dire need among jurists, lawyers, Islamists, historians, Orientalists, diplomats, politicians, military men, and the educated masses for such a study.

2. The essence of jihad and its forms:

No Islamic concept has been the target of a continuous flow of attacks, and has brought a constant flow of attacks to Islam and Muslims, as much as that of jihad. It has fallen into the two extremes of exaggeration and laxity. The latter is promoted by a group that wants to abolish jihad from the life of the ummah, spreading the spirit of submission and surrender, under the guise of various calls such as tolerance and peace, described by the author as "agents of colonialism whose hostility to jihad is such that it has gone as far as creating groups which fabricated an Islam without jihad, and devoted themselves to promoting it, such as Bahais and Qadianis [Ahmadiyya]... At the other extreme, there is another group that makes of the concept of jihad a raging war it wages against the whole world, taking the natural state of things in relation to non-Muslims to be that of war, and regarding all people as enemies of Muslims, as long as they are not Muslim". This latter group may agree with those Orientalists who define jihad, as in the encyclopaedia of Islam as "spreading Islam by the sword, an individual duty upon all Muslims, such that it is almost a sixth pillar of Islam" (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Arabic Translation, p. 2778).

The author tackles this extremism on both sides, through the linguistic analysis of the word jihad, which essentially means exerting oneself, making an effort, and through its occurrence in the Quran and Sunnah and its use by Muslim jurists. He concludes that there is a clear distinction between jihad and qital (fighting), as the command to engage in jihad was revealed in Mecca where there was no fighting, but rather jihad of da'wah (preaching) through the Quran, "And strive against them with the utmost endeavour with it (the Quran)" (p. 50-52). The word is also used in the Quran and Sunnah with various meanings, including exerting oneself in resisting the enemy, resisting the devil, resisting one's desires, etc. Thus the word jihad is much wider than just fighting, for jihad, as the author quotes from Ibn Taymiyya, "can be with the heart, by calling to Islam, by countering invalid arguments, by advising or facilitating what is beneficial to Muslims, or by one's body, that is fighting".

The author further seeks support from a fourteenth century scholar, the eminent Ibn al-Qayyim, student of Ibn Taymiyya, in order to clarify the vast scope of jihad, which makes every Muslim a mujahid - but not a muqatil (fighter) by necessity. Ibn al-Qayyim concluded from his study of the process of Islamic da'wah that there are 13 levels of jihad: first, jihad al-nafs (jihad of the self) which comprises 4 levels, exerting oneself to learn the guidance, to act upon it, to call to it, and to persevere on those actions; second, jihad against shaytan, which includes 2 levels, struggling against the doubts in one's faith which Satan instigates, and resisting the desires and corruption to which he calls; third, jihad against the non-believers and hypocrites, including 4 levels: with one's heart, tongue, wealth, and self; and fourth, jihad against the oppressors and the corrupt, comprising 3 levels: with one's hand if possible, if not then with one's tongue, if not then with one's heart. The author differs in regarding jihad against oppression and corruption as preceding jihad against disbelief and external transgression, while stressing that peaceful confrontation is to be adopted against oppressors "profiting from the reasonable forms which others have developed in confronting unjust rulers, such as elected parliaments, parties, and the separation of powers" (p. 198).

The author also stresses the importance of intellectual and cultural jihad "through the establishment of specialist Islamic academic centres, catering for exceptional youth - academically and morally - in order to prepare them academically and intellectually in a methodology that unites our heritage and modern culture... We do not call for isolation from the rest of the world, but rather to cultural and civilisational interaction. We choose what to take or leave based on our own philosophy and criteria, just as they had borrowed from us in the past concepts and inventions which they then developed and used to build their civilisation. What we take will be imbued with our own spirit, character and moral heritage such that it becomes a part of our intellectual and moral system, losing its original character" (p. 190-192).
The author concludes in his study of the fiqh of jihad in Islam that there are two types of jihad: civil and military - meaning fighting against enemies who attack Muslims, which necessitates preparing for it when there is a need; this type is a matter for states. Spiritual civil jihad "encompasses the academic, scientific, cultural, social, economic, educational, health, medical, environmental and civilisational fields. The objective of this civil jihad is to exert oneself for Allah's sake in order to educate the ignorant, employ the unemployed, train workers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, treat the ill, achieve self-sufficiency for the needy, build schools for pupils, universities for students, mosques for worshippers, clubs for sports lovers to practice their hobbies" (p. 215).

3. Objectives of jihad

Islam is a call to peace; it abhors war, but cannot prevent it, hence it prepares for it, but does not wage it unless it is forced upon it, which is due to Islam's realistic nature and its recognition of sunnat al-tadafu`, the law of mutual checking. However it has sought to limit its consequences by surrounding it with rules and ethics. Islam has not been the exception in recognising war of necessity amongst other religions, including Christianity, whose followers have been among the most frequent participants in conflicts and wars, both against other Christians and against others. Luke's Gospel reads "I have come to bring fire on the earth... Do you think I came to bring peace on earth?". The Old Testament contains numerous calls to genocide, against 7 nations that inhabited Palestine that had to be completely eradicated- such that the modern calls to "transfer" and massacres committed by modern Zionist gangs are but miniature versions.
The quotation from Luke's Gospel, of course, has never been understood by Christian exegetes as a call for warfare against unbelievers on a par with the Qur'an's calls to kill unbelievers (2:191; 4:89; 9:5) and subjugate the People of the Book (9:29). And the "calls to genocide" in the Old Testament have never been understood either as such or as any kind of instruction for believers in succeeding generations, either by Jewish or Christian exegetes.
Jihad in Islam has specific objectives which Al-Qaradawi summarises as repelling transgression; preventing fitna- that is guaranteeing freedom of faith for Muslims and others; saving the oppressed; punishing those who break treaties, and enforcing internal peace within the ummah. Thus, expansion and appropriation are not amongst the objectives of jihad, nor is the eradication of disbelief from this world, for that is against God's law of difference and mutual checking. Nor do the objectives of jihad include imposing Islam on those who do not believe in it, for that contravenes God's law of diversity and pluralism (pp. 423).
The guarantee of "freedom of faith for Muslims and others" means that no obstacle may be placed in the way of the preaching of Islam in non-Muslim countries; if no obstacle is placed, no jihad will be waged. This sounds like a simple call for religious freedom, but since Sharia has a political aspect, it essentially amounts to a demand that non-Muslim states submit to their own slow conquest and Islamization, and the imposition of Sharia, without resisting.
4. Military Jihad: Between Daf' and Talab (Defensive and Offensive Jihad) Following the tradition of classical and contemporary jurists, Al-Qaradawi questions the nature of jihad and its status in Islam: Is it of a religious nature, meaning it is obligatory upon Muslims to fight non-believers until they embrace Islam or submit to its authority, which they call jihad al-talab, that is voluntary offensive jihad? Or is it of a political nature, necessitated by the need to defend the lands of Islam against transgressors and to defend Muslims against those who prevent them from freedom of faith, and the oppressed generally- which they have termed jihad al-daf`, that is necessary defensive jihad, which, if Muslims must engage it, should be engaged in with pure intentions, for God's sake, and following strict ethical guidelines which cannot be neglected.

Classically, and in the modern era, jurists have been divided between two groups, which al-Qaradwi calls the hujumiyyin (proponents of offensive jihad) and difa`iyyin (proponents of defensive jihad), proclaiming his proud adherence to the second group. The hujumiyyin consider it an obligation for the Muslim nation to attack the land of the non-believers at least once a year in order to call to Islam and expand its territories. They hold disbelief per se as a sufficient reason to initiate war and legitimate killing, even if non-believers do not attack or harm Muslims, to the extent that Muslims would be sinful if they do not do so. The proponents of this view, a large number of jurists, most prominent of which among classical scholars is Imam al-Shafi`i, and among contemporary thinkers are Sayyid Qutb and al-Mawdudi, support their view with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah, and from historical practice. The Quranic texts used call for fighting against all polytheists, such as verse 36 of surat al-Tawba "and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together", verse 5 "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them", and verse 29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission". They differed as to which of those verses is the one they called Ayat al-Sayf, or verse of the sword, which, according to them, abrogated all contradicting verses, over 200 such verses calling for mercy, forgiveness and freedom of belief, prohibiting compulsion in faith and severity, and considering the judgment of people's faith a matter to be left to God alone. They also sought support from prophetic sayings such as "I have been commanded to fight people until they say 'there is no God but Allah'" (narrated by Bukhari). They also consider the early Islamic conquests as evidence for their view that war, rather than peace, is the natural state in Muslims' dealings with others.
Noteworthy here is Qaradawi's acknowledgment that the proponents of the idea that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against non-Muslims solely by virtue of the latter group's unbelief base their view on the Qur'an and Sunnah, and represent a broad mainstream within Islam. If Qaradawi were a non-Muslim making this point, charges of "ignorance," "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" would rain down on his head on a daily basis.
Al-Qaradawi's disagreement with the above group does not prevent him from looking for excuses for them, particularly classical scholars, due to the relations between states at their time, which were based on power and war, and due to the existential threat to which Islam had been subjected since its birth in the Arab peninsula. Al-Qaradawi stresses, alongside classical and contemporary scholars, the consensus that jihad becomes obligatory upon every Muslim if a Muslim land is attacked, or Muslims suffer fitna (are prevented from freedom of faith), and that every Muslim must practice some form of jihad, be it striving against one's desires, against evil and corruption, and striving to promote good and support religion, as much as one is able to. However, Al-Qaradawi, through his study and analysis of the various texts related to jihad and the views of classical and contemporary scholars, concluded the following:

1. That Quranic verses, particularly those of surat al-Tawba commanding fighting against all polytheists, are to be understood as a reaction and an equal retribution, just as the verse says "as they fight you all together", and not a general command or a basis for dealing with all non-Muslims, but was rather concerning a specific group of the Arab polytheists which declared war on Islam since its emergence, chased it out and followed it to its new home, broke treaties and mobilized everyone to eradicate it "Will you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first to assault you?" (The Quran, 9:13). Within the same chapter, as well as in other chapters, there are limits and conditions restricting the above -seemingly general- command: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it" (8:61). There is no need to set one verse of the Quran against another; rather one should look at all relevant verses and ahadith, all of which confirm the rule that Islam seeks peace with those who are peaceful towards it, and fights those who fight it.

2. Military jihad is not an individual obligation upon every Muslim, of the same level as the obligations of the testimony of faith, prayer, fasting, alms giving and pilgrimage, for despite its importance within Islam, it was not included in the inherent characteristics of the God-conscious in surat al-Baqara, nor in the characteristics of the believers as described in surat al-Anfal or surat al-Mu'minun, nor in the characteristics of those with true understanding as described in surat al-Ra`d, nor in the characteristics of the servants of the Most Merciful as described in surat al-Furqan, nor in the characteristics of the pious in surat al-Dhariat, nor of the righteous ones described in surat al-Insan. Thus, the practice of military jihad only becomes an obligation upon Muslims when its conditions arise such as an attack on Muslims, their land or their religion. Preparing for such an incidence, on the other hand, is an obligation upon them, according to their ability, in order to deter enemies and maintain peace.

3. There is no obligation upon Muslims to invade the lands of non-Muslims, if they are safe from them. It is sufficient for them to have a powerful army in possession of the latest weapons and trained soldiers guarding their borders and deterring enemies such that the latter do not thing of attacking Muslims, for the collective duty to be fulfilled (p. 91). It is worth noting that Al-Qaradawi prefers using the term non-Muslims instead of kuffar or disbelievers, for that is the way of the Quran which uses the terms "O people of the Book", "O people", "O Man", "O Children of Israel", "My people", "O Children of Adam". It never addressed non-Muslims as disbelievers, except in a few exceptional cases where there were negotiations regarding creed.
Actually the Qur'an (5:17, 5:72) says that Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e., virtually all Christians, are disbelievers (kafara).

4. Islam recognised freedom of belief and each individual's responsibility for his belief before God. On that basis, its societies, on the whole, did not experience religious wars. Under it, various monotheistic and pagan religions coexisted and continue to coexist, under the system of Dhimma which granted citizenship to non-Muslims regardless of religion. All they needed to do in order to enjoy the rights of protection by the Muslim state alongside Muslims was for those able to pay the jizya tax to do so, which is equivalent to the military service tax in some modern systems. According to Al-Qaradawi, unifying the tax rate and generalising military service make such a system which has been misunderstood and misused unnecessary.

Here the author delicately omits the dhimmis' concomitant obligation to submit to the Muslims and "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29), which became the basis in Islamic law and history for an elaborate system of institutionalized discrimination which denied basic rights to the dhimmis.
5. It was historical conditions, rather than the texts of Islam, that made many jurists believe offensive jihad to invade non-Muslim lands to be obligatory. The ummah was constantly threatened by its powerful neighbours, the Persians and Romans (p. 82), and there were no international laws based on mutual recognition of state sovereignty and prohibition of hostility as is the case today- despite their contravention by the powerful.

6. The natural state of affairs in relations between Muslim and others is peace and cooperation in goodness. Islam abhors war and only engages in it unwillingly and as a necessity "Fighting is prescribed for you, though it is hateful to you" (Quran, 2:216). Peace is the essential character of Islam; it is the greeting of Muslims, the greeting of the people of Paradise, it is one of the names of Allah. The most hated name in Allah's sight is Harb- which means war, one of the ancient Arab names, as Arabs were warriors. However, when the Prophet, peace be upon him, was told by his son-in-law that his daughter Fatima had given birth to a boy and that he called him Harb, he commanded him to name him Hasan (meaning good).

7. Islam welcomes international conventions that prohibit transgression and promote peace between nations, and welcomes international bodies that protect such laws, such as the United Nations, UNESCO, etc. However, the West still maintains its belief in the principle of power in its relation with other states and other nations. An example of that is the exclusive enjoyment of its major states of the right to veto, in a flagrant disregard for the principle of equality, thus guaranteeing the protection of their interest and the avoidance of any condemnation of its violations, as the US and UK did in their invasion of Iraq, without any legitimacy, with full impunity from any condemnation, and similarly with their continuous protection of the Zionists' various forms of hostility against Palestine and its people.
Probably he is so exercised about the veto because it prevents the Organization of the Islamic Conference from absolutely running the table at the UN -- which it very nearly does anyway.
8. Under international recognition of human rights, including freedom of belief and preaching, as well as freedom to establish institutions and protect minorities, one of the principal justifications of jihad al-talab becomes redundant, that is invasion in order to enable the call to Islam by dismantling oppressive regimes which used to prevent their people from thinking freely or choosing beliefs that are different to those of their rulers, such as the Pharaoh who reprimanded the Children of Israel for believing without his permission: "He said: You believe in him before I give you leave?" (Quran, 20:71). In contrast, today, unprecedentedly, in any previous era of Islam history, mosques and Muslim minorities are found everywhere, making our need greater for "huge armies of competent preachers, teachers, media experts, all suitably trained and able to address the world in its different languages, and using methods of this modern age, which, unfortunately, we possess less than a thousandth of what is required", (p.16). Al-Qaradawi laments that you may find many who are ready to die for Allah's sake, but very few who are willing to live for His sake.
In other words, international laws regarding religious freedom, and the openness of Western societies, render armed jihad unnecessary, since Islamic preachers can spread Islam freely, and the spread of Sharia in non-Muslim societies can advance unimpeded. So the goal -- the conquest and Islamization of those societies -- remains the same. Only the method is different.
9. The sources of Islam reveal that, according to Islam, the world is three abodes: dar al-Islam, the abode of Islam, where its law reigns, where its rituals are publicly practiced, and where its adherents and preachers are secure; Dar al-`ahd- the abode of accord, that is states between which and the Muslim state there is mutual recognition and prohibition of hostility; and finally dar harb, or the abode of war. Al-Qaradawi regards Muslims, in view of their being part of the system of the United Nations, as being in a state of accord/pact with other states, except with the Zionist state, because of its usurpation of the land of Palestine and its dispossession of its people, which unfortunately took place with the support of major states. Thus Al-Qaradawi considers the greatest problem in our relation with the West to be its constant and unlimited support of Israel and its continuous aggression against Palestine and its people. 10. Al-Qaradawi distinguishes between jihad and irhab- terrorism, or between legitimate irhab -being feared by the enemy to deter it from any aggression, and illegitimate irhab, that is terrorizing innocent people as done by groups using the name of Islam, which declare world [sic] on the whole world in an illegitimate use of jihad in an inappropriate setting, terrorizing innocent people- Muslims and non-Muslims- in order to achieve alleged political ends inside or outside Muslim lands, flagrantly contravening the principles and ethics of jihad in Islam. Hence Al-Qaradawi condemned violent acts committed by extremist groups in Muslim and non-Muslim countries against innocent people, whether tourists or others. He further stripped the indiscriminate killing and shedding of innocent lives committed by these groups of any legitimacy.
Qaradawi here appears to differ from Anjem Chaudary and other Islamic supremacists who maintain that there is no such thing as an innocent non-Muslim. This may be enough to get called a "reformist" by the Saudi-funded Esposito, but again, his difference with these "extremists" is only tactical. He does not differ with them about the overall goal of conquering non-Muslim states, as his words about the conquest of Europe show.
11. Al-Qaradawi is extremely careful to distinguish between extremist groups that declare war on the whole world, killing indiscriminately, tainting the image of Islam and providing its enemies with fatal weapons to use against it, on the one hand, and on the other groups resisting occupation. And as much as he condemns the former and delegitimizes its foundations, he defends the latter, and calls on the ummah to support them, particularly in Palestine, as long as their operations are against military targets. He does not hesitate to justify martyrdom operations, considering them to be the weapon of one with no other options, who is deprived of equivalent weapons to those of the enemy, in order to defend his home and his land. God's justice does not allow the weak to be completely deprived of any weapon, hence the latter's use of his own body as a deterrent weapon. In any case, the ethics of jihad must always be respected, and only combatants can be targeted.
But he himself, remember, has said that in Israel, the society is "militarized," thus substantially increasing the number of those who could be considered "combatants."
12. As he stresses that the first jihad to be obligatory upon the ummah in this age is liberation from colonialism, particularly in Palestine, Al-Qaradawi warns and stresses the fallacy of those who wrongly believe that the conflict between us and Zionists is due to the fact that they are Semites- for we are also Semites, both of us coming from the progeny of Abraham- or that it is a religious conflict- for Muslims regard Jews as People of the Book, whose food is lawful, with whom marriage is lawful, and who have lived amongst Muslims in safety and have sought refuge in our lands when Spain and other European countries expelled them, finding refuge nowhere but among Muslims. In reality, the conflict between us and Zionists started for one single reason: their appropriation of the land of Palestine, dispossessed its people, and imposed their presence with violence. The conflict will continue as long as its causes remain. No one can give up any Muslim land, but it is possible to have a truce with Israel for an agreed period of time. As for the principle of "Land for Peace", it is indeed a bizarre principle imposed by the logic of the enemy's brute force, for the land is our land, not the enemy's, so that it can bargain it in return for peace (p. 1090).
"No one can give up any Muslim land" -- i.e., the jihad against Israel must continue until Israel is completely destroyed.
13. Just as he, and his mentor Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, had a leading role in confronting those extremist groups and preventing them from hijacking Islam and diverting it from its mainstream towards the margins, through stripping their actions of any legitimacy based on jihad, both inside and outside Muslim lands, Al-Qaradawi praised the important revisions made by the most important of those groups, which found great support in his writings- after having attacked and rejected his views- in order to engage in their revisions, which he described as brave and enlightened (p. 1168). 5. Ethics of Jihad:

"War in Islam is ethical, just like politics, economics, science and work, none which is divorced from ethics, in contrast to war in western civilisation, which is not necessarily bound by ethics." For Muslims, war is governed by a moral code, because morals are not an option, but rather an essential part of religion. That includes: a) Islam's prohibition of the use of unethical methods to infiltrate the enemy and obtain their secrets- including sex, intoxicants, etc. b) prohibition of transgression, as the Quran commands "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." (2:190). The author inteprets transgression to mean killing non-combatants, by killing women, children, the elderly, the ill, farmers, and others not engaged in fighting (p. 728). The ethics of jihad also include the prohibition of mutilation of the enemy. c) the fulfillment of agreements and prohibition of treachery and betrayal. d) Prohibition of cutting down trees and demolishing buildings. e) The non-legitimacy, islamically, of what is called weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons which kills thousands or millions at once, without discriminating between the guilty and innocent, destroying life and all living beings. Islam prohibits the use of such weapons, because Islam prohibits the killing of non-combatants, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, strongly condemned the killing of one woman in one battle. However, that does not prevent the ummah from seeking to acquire such deterrent weaons, since others are in possession of them and can threaten Muslims nations with those weapons, particularly as the Zionist enemy which has usurped its land is in possession of such weapons, and their scripture legitimises the obliteration of all their neighbours. What is astonishing is that America and other great nations prohibit other nations from possessing these weapons, while they themselves possess them. They prevent Arab and Muslim states from acquiring them, while Israel possesses over two hundred nuclear heads. The mutual deterrence between the western and eastern blocks had contributed to the maintenance of world peace, and similarly between India and Pakistan. Such weapons cannot be used, except in the most exceptional circumstances, when a nation is subject to an existential threat (p. 592). F) Islam enjoins its mujahidin to treat captives kindly. After a detailed discussion of all texts and all juristic opinions concerning war captives, particularly on the question of whether they can be killed, the author concluded that the final ruling is that revealed in surat Muhammad "either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves)" (47:4), possibly with the exception of war criminals. On the whole, the author approves the articles of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of captives.

In conclusion: Al-Qaradawi's study on the fiqh of jihad can be regarded as an authentic Islamic ijtihad, upholding the principle of jihad as an eternal Islamic mechanism of defence in its wider meaning, one which has suffered a great number of misrepresentations leading to tainting the image of Islam. Al-Qaradawi recuperates the effectiveness and moderation of this mechanism, taking it out of the hands of extremists. His courage in standing up to the campaigns waged against the concept of Islam has been just as great as his courage in rejecting the arguments of extremist groups who declare war against the entire world. He did not shy away from criticising the great number of jurists who uphold the principle of offensive war (jihad al-talab), nor was he ashamed of his proud adherence to the group believing in jihad as defensive only. He continues to counter the arguments of the former group, without fear or hesitation, without injustice, undermining or misrepresenting the views of those he disagrees with, but rather he seeks excuses for them. He has continued to do so, until he almost destroyed what is known as jihad al-talab, establishing instead defensive jihad in its wider meaning, jihad with no trace of relation to the charge of terrorism -which he clearly distinguishes from legitimate resistance of occupation-, a jihad with ethics that agree with international conventions and their principles, values and laws prohibiting aggression, occupation, the use of weapons of mass destruction and the torture of captives; a jihad that welcomes an open world in which ideas and persons move freely, dealing through proofs and arguments rather than violence and power, until the most valid triumphs. Through such a presentation of jihad, Al-Qaradawi has opened a vast space for dialogue, tolerance, agreement and coexistence between Islam and other religions, human values, and international accords, enabling a response to the eternal Quranic call "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct." (49:13)
- lecture at Edinburgh University - 9 September 2009
The overall problem here is that the idea of jihad as being merely defensive refers only to jihad as warfare. Qaradawi clearly affirms the Muslim community's obligation to conquer -- a word he used -- non-Muslim polities. He is thus in favor of imposing Sharia upon the West, albeit not by violent means, but by way of the steady advance of Sharia principles through legal and cultural challenges -- which is exactly what we see happening in the West today, as I discussed in Stealth Jihad.

And so I once again invite Muslims in America to carve out a third path, differing from both the proponents of offensive jihad with whom Qaradawi disagrees, and with Qaradawi himself, in advancing the view, based on Qur'an and Sunnah, that Muslims must live with non-Muslims in states that do not have an established religion, as equals, on an indefinite basis, without trying to bring Sharia to the society in whole or part. I look forward to hearing from you!
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 09-05-2010 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-30-2010, 02:41 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Offensive Jihad

Offensive Jihad
The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam


by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
October 28, 2010
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8258/offensive-jihad



A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.

One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."

Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."

These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.

Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.

And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong. After all, the age-old argument that "we must supplant your ways, with our better ways, for your own good," works both ways, and in fact has been an oft cited justification for offensive jihad since the 7th century. Or would the reader be surprised to learn that jihadists (i.e., terrorists) regularly posit their war as an expression of altruism to "liberate" Westerners from their self-imposed "delusions"? Even Al Qaeda partially justifies its jihad against America for being "a nation that exploits women like consumer products"; for not rejecting the "immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury." In short, if the "white man's burden" is to "civilize" Muslims, the "Muslim man's burden" has long been to "civilize" Western man, namely, by enforcing sharia law. To justify the one is to make allowance for the other.

Yet while civilizations continue to quarrel over the philosophical position of man, one fact remains: all humans — secular or religious, Muslim or non-Muslim, from antiquity to today — agree that being forced to uphold a particular lifestyle against their will is wrong, bringing us right back to our topic: the purpose of offensive jihad is to do just that — forcefully impose a particular way of life on non-Muslims, culminating with dhimmitude for those who, after being conquered, refuse to convert.

Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated." Scholar Majid Khadurri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad "is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."

Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: "Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue… Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam... Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die."

Clearly, then, it is in the Muslim world's interest to keep the West ignorant of the fact that, irrespective of all Muslim grievances — real or feigned — nothing less than Islamic law itself mandates a state of constant hostility. Indeed, if the implications of offensive jihad were fully embraced, humanity might be compelled to view the Muslim world as a perpetual, existentialist threat, in need of preemptive containment. That said, and considering the willful ignorance of the West's political elite — who are guided less by objective facts and more by their "feel-good" ideals — Muslim talk of offensive jihad, no matter how loud or ubiquitous, will likely continue to fall on deaf ears.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-01-2010, 05:45 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam

Offensive Jihad:
The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam




A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.

One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."

Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."

These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.

Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.

And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong. After all, the age-old argument that "we must supplant your ways, with our ways, for your own good," works both ways, and in fact has been an oft cited justification for offensive jihad since the 7th century. Or would the reader be surprised to learn that jihadists (i.e., terrorists) regularly posit their war as an expression of altruism to "liberate" Westerners from their self-imposed "delusions"? Even Al Qaeda partially justifies its jihad against America for being "a nation that exploits women like consumer products"; for not rejecting the "immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury." In short, if the "white man's burden" is to "civilize" Muslims, the "Muslim man's burden" has long been to "civilize" Westerners, namely, by enforcing sharia law. To justify the one is to make allowance for the other.

Yet while civilizations continue to quarrel over the philosophical position of man, one fact remains: all humans — secular or religious, Muslim or non-Muslim, from antiquity to today — agree that being forced to uphold a particular lifestyle against their will is wrong, bringing us right back to our topic: the purpose of offensive jihad is to do just that — forcefully impose a particular way of life on non-Muslims, culminating with dhimmitude for those who, after being conquered, refuse to convert.

Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated." Scholar Majid Khadurri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad "is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."

Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: "Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue… Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam... Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die."

Clearly, then, it is in the Muslim world's interest to keep the West ignorant of the fact that, irrespective of all Muslim grievances — real or feigned — nothing less than Islamic law itself mandates a state of constant hostility. Indeed, if the implications of offensive jihad were fully embraced, humanity might be compelled to view the Muslim world as a perpetual, existentialist threat, in need of preemptive containment. That said, and considering the willful ignorance of the West's political elite — who are guided less by objective facts and more by their "feel-good" ideals — Muslim talk of offensive jihad, no matter how loud or ubiquitous, will likely continue to fall on deaf ears.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-12-2010, 05:06 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine (Part I)

The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine (Part I)



Violent jihad warfare on infidels is the norm, not the exception, in Islamic history. Once successful, jihad leads to the imposition of humiliating, degrading, violent, and expensive oppression under dhimmitude, the institutionalized imposition of lowly status upon those who refuse to abandon their faith and adopt Islam. Among the worst victims of jihad and dhimmitude have been the Jews and Christians who lived in historic Palestine.

Edward Said's ridiculous polemic, The Question of Palestine, quotes the following observation by a Dr. A. Carlebach published in Ma'ariv (October 7, 1955).
The danger stems from the [Islamic] totalitarian conception of the world... Occupation by force of arms, in their own eyes, in the eyes of Islam, is not at all associated with injustice. To the contrary, it constitutes a certificate and demonstration of authentic ownership. [1]
Said cites Carlebach with ostensibly self—evident derision. Unwittingly, Said thus reveals his own belligerent obliviousness to Carlebach's acute perceptions about the ugly realities of jihad war, the resultant imposition of dhimmitude, and their brutal legacy in historical Palestine and the greater Middle East.

As elucidated by Jacques Ellul, the jihad is an institution intrinsic to Islam, and not an isolated event, or series of events:
.. .it is a part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world... The conquered populations change status (they become dhimmis), and the shari'a tends to be put into effect integrally, overthrowing the former law of the country. The conquered territories do not simply change 'owners'. [2]
The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al—Tabari' s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al—Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al—Basrah (636 C.E.), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar reportedly said:
Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur'an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted. [3]
Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means "to strive in the path of Allah," embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur'anic verses and long chapters in the Traditions (i.e., 'hadith', acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, especially those recorded by al—Bukhari [d. 869] and Muslim [d. 874] ). [4]

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
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... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. [5]
Indeed, even al—Ghazali (d. 1111), the famous theologian, philosopher, and paragon of mystical Sufism, (who, as noted by W.Montgomery Watt, has been ".. .acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad.. ." [6]), wrote the following about jihad:
...one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...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...If a person of the Ahl al— Kitab [People of The Book —Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked...One may cut down their trees... One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need... [7]
By the time of the classical Muslim historian al—Tabari's death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to the Indian subcontinent. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as Eastern Europe. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized.

Arab Muslim invaders engaged, additionally, in continuous jihad raids that ravaged and enslaved Sub—Saharan African animist populations, extending to the southern Sudan. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired. These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slaughtered, or enslaved and deported, the cities and villages which were pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), as well as Hebrew sources, and even the scant Hindu and Buddhist writings which survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate this narrative, and ,complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non—Muslim victims of jihad wars. [8]

In The Laws of Islamic Governance al—Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non—Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya).

He notes that "The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation. " Al— Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, "it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future. ". (II). Payment is made yearly and will "constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established".

Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years. [9]

A remarkable account from 1894 by an Italian Jew traveling in Morocco, demonstrates the humiliating conditions under which the jizya was still being collected within the modern era:
The kaid Uwida and the kadi Mawlay Mustafa had mounted their tent today near the Mellah [Jewish ghetto] gate and had summoned the Jews in order to collect from them the poll tax [jizya] which they are obliged to pay the sultan. They had me summoned also. I first inquired whether those who were European—protected subjects had to pay this tax. Having learned that a great many of them had already paid it, I wished to do likewise. After having remitted the amount of the tax to the two officials, I received from the kadi's guard two blows in the back of the neck. Addressing the kadi and the kaid, I said" 'Know that I am an Italian protected subject.' Whereupon the kadi said to his guard: 'Remove the kerchief covering his head and strike him strongly; he can then go and complain wherever he wants.' The guards hastily obeyed and struck me once again more violently. This public mistreatment of a European—protected subject demonstrates to all the Arabs that they can, with impunity, mistreat the Jews. [10]
The 'contract of the jizya', or 'dhimma' encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non—Muslim "dhimmi" peoples. Collectively, these "obligations" formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non—Muslims—Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists—subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non—Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non—Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non—Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non—Muslims. [11]

It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari' a. Again, the writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al—Ghazali highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari'a:
...the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay thejizya [poll tax on non—Muslims]...on offering up thejizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells...their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddler—work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths...[dhimmis] must hold their tongue. [12]
The Great Jihad and the Muslim Conquest of Palestine
September 622 C.E. marks a defining event in Islam— the hijra. Muhammad and a coterie of followers (the Muhajirun), persecuted by fellow Banu Quraysh tribesmen who rejected Muhammad's authenticity as a divine messenger, fled from Mecca to Yathrib, later known as Al—Medina (Medina). The Muslim sources described Yathrib as having been a Jewish city founded by a Palestinian diaspora population which had survived the revolt against the Romans. Distinct from the nomadic Arab tribes, the Jews of the north Arabian peninsula were highly productive oasis farmers. These Jews were eventually joined by itinerant Arab tribes from southern Arabia who settled adjacent to them and transitioned to a sedentary existence. [13]

Following Muhammad's arrival, he re—ordered Medinan society, eventually imposing his authority on each tribe. The Jewish tribes were isolated, some were then expelled, and the remainder attacked and exterminated. Muhammad distributed among his followers as "booty" the vanquished Jews property—plantations, fields, and houses—and also used this "booty" to establish a well—equipped jihadist cavalry corps. [14] Muhammad's subsequent interactions with the Christians of northern Arabia followed a similar pattern, noted by Richard Bell. The "relationship with the Christians ended as that with the Jews (ended) — in war", because Islam as presented by Muhammad was a divine truth, and unless Christians accepted this formulation, which included Muhammad's authority, "conflict was inevitable, and there could have been no real peace while he [Muhammad] lived." [15]

Within two years of Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, launched the Great Jihad. The ensuing three decades witnessed Islamdom's most spectacular expansion, as Muslim armies subdued the entire Arabian peninsula, and conquered territories which had been in Greco—Roman possession since the reign of Alexander the Great. [16]

Gil, in his monumental analysis A History of Palestine, 634—1099, emphasizes the singular centrality that Palestine occupied in the mind of its pre—Islamic Jewish inhabitants, who referred to the land as 'al—Sham'. Indeed, as Gil observes, the sizable Jewish population in Palestine (who formed a majority of its inhabitants, when grouped with the Samaritans) at the dawn of the Arab Muslim conquest were, 'the direct descendants of the generations of Jews who had lived there since the days of Joshua bin Nun, in other words for some 2000 years...' [17] Jews and Christians speaking Aramaic inhabited the cities and the cultivated inner regions, devoid of any unique ties to the Bedouin of the desert hinterlands, who were regarded as bellicose and threatening, in the writings of both the Church Fathers, and in Talmudic sources. [18]

The following is a summary of the devastating consequences of the Arab Muslim conquest of Palestine during the fourth decade of the 7th century, directed by the first two Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar b. al—Khattab [notwithstanding Pervez Musharaff's hagiography of the latter, in a recent New York City speech].

The entire Gaza region up to Cesarea was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634, which included the slaughter of four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants. Villages in the Negev were also pillaged, and towns such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Cesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated. In his sermon on the Day of the Epiphany 636, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, bewailed the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns and villages, and the fields laid waste by the invaders. Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague wrought by this wanton destruction.

The Muslim historian Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.), maintained that 30,000 Samaritans and 20,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone just prior to the Arab Muslim conquest; afterward, all evidence of them disappears.

Archaeological data confirms the lasting devastation wrought by these initial jihad conquests, particularly the widespread destruction of synagogues and churches from the Byzantine era, whose remnants are still being unearthed. The total number of towns was reduced from fifty—eight to seventeen in the red sand hills and swamps of the western coastal plain (i.e., the Sharon).

Massive soil erosion from the Judaean mountains western slopes also occurred due to agricultural uprooting during this period. Finally, the papyri of Nessana were completely discontinued after the year 700, reflecting how the Negev also experienced the destruction of its agriculture, and the desertion of its villages.[19]

Dhimmitude in Palestine During the Initial Period of Muslim Rule
Dramatic persecution, directed specifically at Christians, included executions for refusing to apostasize to Islam during the first two decades of the 8th century, under the reigns of Abd al— Malik, his son Sulayman, and Umar b. Abd al—Aziz. Georgian, Greek, Syriac, and Armenian sources report both prominent individual and group executions (for eg., sixty—three out of seventy Christian pilgrims from Iconium in Asia Minor were executed by the Arab governor of Caesarea, barring seven who apostasized to Islam, and sixty Christian pilgrims from Amorion were crucified in Jerusalem).

Under early Abbasid rule (approximately 750—755 C.E., perhaps during the reign [Abul Abbas Abdullah] al—Saffah) Greek sources report orders demanding the removal of crosses over Churches, bans on Church services and teaching of the scriptures, the eviction of monks from their monasteries, and excessive taxation. [20] Gil notes that in 772 C.E., when Caliph al—Mansur visited Jerusalem,
..he ordered a special mark should be stamped on the hands of the Christians and the Jews. Many Christians fled to Byzantium. [21]
Bat Y e' or elucidates the fiscal oppression inherent in eighth century Palestine which devastated the dhimmi Jewish and Christian peasantry:
Over—taxed and tortured by the tax collectors, the villagers fled into hiding or emigrated into towns. [22]
She quotes from a detailed chronicle of an eighth century monk, completed in 774:
The men scattered, they became wanderers everywhere; the fields were laid waste, the countryside pillaged; the people went from one land to another. [23]
The Greek chronicler Theophanes provides a contemporary description of the chaotic events which transpired after the death of the caliph Harun al—Rashid in 809 C.E. He describes Palestine as the scene of violence, rape, and murder, from which Christian monks fled to Cyprus and Constantinople. [24]

Perhaps the clearest outward manifestations of the inferiority and humiliation of the dhimmis were the prohibitions regarding their dress codes, and the demands that distinguishing signs be placed on the entrances of dhimmi houses. During the Abbasid caliphates of Harun al—Rashid (786—809) and al—Mutawwakil (847—861), Jews and Christians were required to wear yellow (as patches attached to their garments, or hats). Later, to differentiate further between Christians and Jews, the Christians were required to wear blue. In 850, consistent with Qur'anic verses associating them with Satan and Hell, al—Mutawwakil decreed that Jews and Christians attach wooden images of devils to the doors of their homes to distinguish them from the homes of Muslims. [25]

Muslim and non—Muslims sources establish that during the early 11th century period of al—Hakim's reign, religious assaults and hostility intensified, for both Jews and Christians. The destruction of the churches at the Holy Sepulchre [1009 C.E.] was followed by a large scale campaign of Church destructions (including the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, and additional churches throughout the Fatimid kingdom), and other brutal acts of oppression against the dhimmi populations, such as forcible conversion to Islam, or expulsion.

The discriminatory edicts al—Hakim imposed upon the dhimmis beginning in August 1011 C.E., included orders to wear black turbans; a five pound, 18—inch cross (for Christians), or five pound block of wood (for Jews), around their necks; and distinguishing marks in the bathhouses. Ultimately al—Hakim decided that there were to be separate bathhouses for the dhimmis use. [26]

During the early through the mid 11th century, the Jews, in particular, continued to suffer frequently from both economic and physical oppression, according to Gil. [27]

Muslim Turcoman rule of Palestine for the nearly three decades just prior to the Crusades (1071— 1099 C.E.) was characterized by such unrelenting warfare and devastation, that an imminent "End of Days" atmosphere was engendered. [28] A contemporary poem by Solomon ha—Kohen b. Joseph, believed to be a descendant of the Geonim, an illustrious family of Palestinian Jews of priestly descent, speaks of destruction and ruin, the burning of harvests, the razing of plantations, the desecration of cemeteries, and acts of violence, slaughter, and plunder. [29]

The brutal nature of the Crusader's conquest of Palestine, particularly of the major cities, beginning in 1098/99 C.E., has been copiously documented. [30] However, the devastation wrought by both Crusader conquest and rule (through the last decades of the 13th century) cannot reasonably be claimed to have approached, let alone somehow "exceeded", what transpired during the first four and one—half centuries of Muslim jihad conquests, endless internecine struggles for Muslim dominance, and imposition of dhimmitude.

Moreover, we cannot ignore the testimony of Isaac b. Samuel of Acre (1270—1350 C.E.), one of the most outstanding Kabbalists of his time. Conversant with Islamic theology and often using Arabic in his exegesis, Isaac nevertheless believed that it was preferable to live under the yoke of Christendom, rather than that of Islamdom. Acre was taken from the Crusaders by the Mamelukes in 1291 by a very brutal jihad conquest. Accordingly, despite the precept to dwell in the Holy Land, Isaac b. Samuel fled to Italy and thence to Christian Spain, where he wrote:
...they [the Muslims] strike upon the head the children of Israel who dwell in their lands and they thus extort money from them by force. For they say in their tongue, ...'it is lawful to take money of the Jews.' For, in the eyes of the Muslims, the children of Israel are as open to abuse as an unprotected field. Even in their law and statutes they rule that the testimony of a Muslim is always to be believed against that of a Jew. For this reason our rabbis of blessed memory have said, 'Rather beneath the yoke of Edom [Christendom] than that of Ishmael. [31]
Notes:

[1] Edward Said. The Question of Palestine. New York: Vintage Books, 1980, pp. 89—90.

[2] Jacques Ellul. Foreward to Les Chretientes d'Orient entre Jihad et Dhimmitude. VIIe — XXe siecle, 1991. Pp. 18—19.

[3] Al—Tabari, The History of al—Tabari (Ta'rikh al rusul wa'l—muluk), vol. 12, The Battle of Qadissiyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine, translated by Yohanan Friedman, (Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press, 1992), p. 167.

[4] The Noble Qur'an ; Translation of Sahih Bukhari; Translation of Sahih Muslim

[5] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah. An Introduction to History, Translated by Franz Rosenthal. (New York, NY.: Pantheon, 1958, vol. 1), p. 473.

[6] Watt, W.M. [Translator]. The Faith and Practice of Al—Ghazali, Oxford, England, 1953, p. 13.

[7] Al—Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al—Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al—imam al—Safi'i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190—91; 199—200; 202—203. English translation by Dr. Michael Schub in Andrew G. Bostom, editor, The Legacy of Jihad—Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non—Muslims, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2005, p. 199.

[8] Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, especially pp. 24—124, 368—681.

[9] Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 190—95.

[10] Cited in, Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, p.31.

[11] Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 29—37.

[12] Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, p. 199.

[13] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, translated by Ethel
Broido, Cambridge and New York, 1992, p. 11.

[14] Gil, A History of Palestine,p.11.

[15] Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, London, 1926, Pp. 134—135; 151; 159—161.

[16] Demetrios Constantelos, 'Greek Christian and Other Accounts of the Moslem Conquests of the Near East', in Christian Hellenism : Essays and Studies in Continuity and Change, New Rochelle, N.Y., A.D. Caratzas, 1998, pp. 125—26.

[17] Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, p. 2.

[18] Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, pp. 15, 20; Constantelos, 'Greek Christian and Other Accounts of the Moslem Conquests of the Near East', pp. 126—130.

[19] Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, p. 44.; Bat Ye'or, 'Islam and the Dhimmis', The Jerusalem Quarterly, 1987, Vol. 42, p. 85. Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, pp. 61, 169—170; Naphtali Lewis, 'New Light on the Negev in Ancient Times', Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1948, vol. 80, pp. 116—117; Constantelos, 'Greek Christian and Other Accounts of the Moslem Conquests of the Near East', pp. 127—28; Al—Baladhuri The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitah Futuh al—Buldan), translated by Philip K. Hitti, London, Longman, Greens, and Company, 1916, p. 217.

[20] Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, pp. 471—474; Constantelos, 'Greek Christian and Other Accounts of the Moslem Conquests of the Near East, p. 135.

[21] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, p. 474.

[22] Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, p. 74.

[23] Chronique de Denys de Tell—Mahre, translated from the Syriac by Jean—Baptiste Chabot (Paris, 1895), part 4, p. 112. English translation in: Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, p. 74.

[24] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, pp. 474—75.

[25] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, p.159; Q16:63— 'By God, We (also) sent (Our apostles) to peoples before thee; but Satan made, (to the wicked) their own acts seem alluring: he is also their patron today, but they shall have a most grievous penalty'; Q5:72—'They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' Whoever joins other gods with Allah,— Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong—doers be no one to help.' Q58:19— 'The devil hath engrossed them and so hath caused them to forget remembrance of Allah. They are the devil's party. Lo! is it not the devil's party who will be the losers?'; Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, p. 84.

[26] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, pp. 371—379.

[27] Moshe Gil, 'Dhimmi Donations and Foundations for Jerusalem (638—1099)', Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 37, 1984, pp. 166—167.

[28] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, pp. 412—416.

[29] Julius Greenstone, in his essay, 'The Turcoman Defeat at Cairo' The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 22, 1906, pp. 144—175, provides a translation of this poem [excerpted, pp. 164—165] by Solomon ha—Kohen b. Joseph [believed to be a descendant of the Geonim, an illustrious family of Palestinian Jews of priestly descent], which includes the poet's recollection of the previous Turcoman conquest of Jerusalem during the eighth decade of the 11th century. Greenstone comments [p. 152], 'As appears from the poem, the conquest of Jerusalem by Atsiz was very sorely felt by the Jews. The author dwell at great length on the cruelties perpetrated against the inhabitants of the city...'

[30] For example, Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades— Vol. 1— The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge, 1951, Pp. 286—87; Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634—1099, p. 827 notes, 'The Christians violated their promise to the inhabitants that they would be left alive, and slaughtered some 20,000 to 30,000 people, a number which may be an exaggeration...'

[31] Isaac b. Samuel of Acre. Osar Hayyim (Treasure Store of Life) (Hebrew). Ms. Gunzburg 775 fol. 27b. Lenin State Library, Moscow. [English translation in, Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, Pp. 352—54.

Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and author of the recently released, The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books.
on "The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine (Part I)"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_legacy_of_jihad_in_histori_1.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-12-2010, 05:11 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The Legacy of Jihad in Historial Palestine (Part II)

The Legacy of Jihad in Historial Palestine (Part II)


By Andrew G. Bostom
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...n_histori.html


Violent jihad warfare on infidels is the norm, not the exception, in Islamic history. Once successful, jihad leads to the imposition of humiliating, degrading, violent, and expensive oppression under dhimmitude, the institutionalized imposition of lowly status upon those who refuse to abandon their faith and adopt Islam. Among the worst victims of jihad and dhimmitude have been the Jews and Christians who lived in historic Palestine. Part II of this article examines jihad and dhimmitude in historical Palestine in the pre—modern and modern eras.

Although episodes of violent anarchy diminished during the period of Ottoman suzerainty (beginning in 1516—1517 C.E.), the degrading conditions of the indigenous Jews and Christians living under the Sharia's jurisdiction remained unchanged for centuries. For example, Samuel b. Ishaq Uceda, a major Kabbalist from Safed at the end of the 16th century, refers in his commentary on The Lamentations of Jeremiah, to the situation of the Jews in the Land of Israel (Palestine):
...there is no town in the [Ottoman] empire in which the Jews are subjected to such heavy taxes and dues as in the Land of Israel, and particularly in Jerusalem. Were it not for the funds sent by the communities in Exile, no Jew could survive here on account of the numerous taxes... The [Muslims] humiliate us to such an extent that we are not allowed to walk in the streets. The Jew is obliged to step aside in order to let the Gentile [Muslim] pass first. And if the Jew does not turn aside of his own will, he is forced to do so. This law is particularly enforced in Jerusalem, more so than in other localities. [32]
A century later Canon Antoine Morison, from Bar—le—Duc in France, while traveling in the Levant in 1698, observed that the Jews in Jerusalem are "there in misery and under the most cruel and shameful slavery", and although a large community, they suffered from extortion. [33]

Similar contemporary observations regarding the plight of both Palestinian Jews and Christians—subjected to the jizya [infidel tax], and other attendant forms of social, economic, and religious .. discrimination, often brutally imposed, were made by the Polish Jew, Gedaliah of Siemiatyce (d. 1716), who, braving numerous perils, came to Jerusalem in 1700. These appalling conditions, recorded in his book, Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, forced him to return to Europe in order to raise funds for the Jews of Jerusalem.
No Jew or Christian is allowed to ride a horse, but a donkey is permitted, for [in the eyes of Muslims] Christians and Jews are inferior beings... The Muslims do not allow any member of another faith—unless he converts to their religion—entry to the Temple [Mount] area, for they claim that no other religion is sufficiently pure to enter this holy spot.

In the Land of Israel, no member of any other religion besides Islam may wear the color green, even if it is a thread [of cotton] like that with which we decorate our prayer shawls. If a Muslim perceives it, that could bring trouble.

Moreover, the Muslim law requires that each religious denomination wear its specific garment so that each people may be distinguished from another. This distinction also applies to footwear. Indeed, the Jews wear shoes of a dark blue color, whereas Christians wear red shoes. No one can use green, for this color is worn solely by Muslims. The latter are very hostile toward Jews and inflict upon them vexations in the streets of the city...the common folk persecute the Jews, for we are forbidden to defend ourselves against the Turks or the Arabs. If an Arab strikes a Jew, he [the Jew] must appease him but dare not rebuke him, for fear that he may be struck even harder, which they [the Arabs] do without the slightest scruple. This is the way the Oriental Jews react, for they are accustomed to this treatment, whereas the European Jews, who are not yet accustomed to suffer being assaulted by the Arabs, insult them in return.

Even the Christians are subjected to these vexations. If a Jew offends a Muslim, the latter strikes him a brutal blow with his shoe in order to demean him, without anyone's being able to prevent him from doing it. The Christians fall victim to the same treatment and they suffer as much as the Jews, except that the former are very rich by reason of the subsidies that they receive from abroad, and they use this money to bribe the Arabs. As for the Jews, they do not possess much money with which to oil the palms of the Muslims, and consequently they are subject to much greater suffering.[34]
These prevailing conditions for Jews did not improve in a consistent or substantive manner even after the mid 19th century treaties imposed by the European powers on the weakened Ottoman Empire included provisions for the Tanzimat reforms. First introduced in 1839, these reforms were designed to end the discriminatory laws of dhimmitude for both Jews and Christians, living under the Ottoman Shari'a. European consuls endeavored to maintain compliance with at least two cardinal principles central to any meaningful implementation of the reforms: respect for the life and property of non—Muslims; and the right for Christians and Jews to provide evidence in Islamic courts when a Muslim was a party. Unfortunately, these efforts to replace the concept of Muslim superiority over 'infidels', with the principle of equal rights, failed. [35]

Almost two decades later, two eyewitness accounts from Jerusalem, one written by the missionary Gregory Wortabet, (published in 1856), and the second by British Jerusalem Consul James Finn, (reported November 8—11, 1858) make clear that the deeply ingrained Islamic religious bigotry, discriminatory regulations, and treacherous conditions for non—Muslims in Palestine had not improved, despite a second iteration of Ottoman "reforms" in 1856. Wortabet's narrative depicts the common, prevailing attitudes of Muslim Jew hatred derived from a purely Islamic perspective. Indeed, Wortabet refers, quite plausibly to the hadith about Muhammad's poisoning by a Khaybar Jewess as a primary source of such animus. Finn's report highlights the legal discrimination and physical insecurity suffered by both Jews and Christians.
[Wortabet's account] The Jew is still an object of scorn, and nowhere is the name of "Yahoodi (Jew)" more looked down upon than here in the city of his fathers. One day, as I was passing the Damascus gate, I saw an Arab hurrying on his donkey amid imprecations such as the following:
'Emshi ya Ibn—el—Yahoodi (Walk, thou son of a Jew)! Yulaan abuk ya Ibn—el—Yahoodi (Cursed be thy father, thou son of a Jew)!'

I need not give any more illustrations of the manner in which the man went on. The reader will observe, that the man did not curse the donkey, but the Jew, the father of the donkey. Walking up to him, I said: —

'Why do you curse the Jew? What harm has he done you?'
'El Yahoodi khanzeer (the Jew is a hog)!' answered the man.
'How do you make that out?' I said. 'Is not the Jew as good as you or I?'

'Ogh!' ejaculated the man, his eyes twinkling with fierce rage, and his brow knitting.

By this time he was getting out of my hearing. I was pursuing my walk, when he turned round, and said: —
'El Yahoodi khanzeer! Khanzeer el Yahoodi! (The Jew is a hog! A hog is a Jew!)'

Now I must tell the reader, that, in the Mahomedan vocabulary, there is no word lower than a hog, that animal being in their estimation the most defiled of animals; and good Mahomedans are prohibited by the Koran from eating it.

The Jew, in their estimation, is the vilest of the human family, and is the object of their pious hatred, perhaps from the recollection that a Jewess of Khaibar first undermined the health of the prophet by infusing poison into his food. Hence a hog and a Jew are esteemed alike in the eye of a Moslem, both being the lowest of their kind; and now the reader will better understand the meaning of the man's words, 'El Yahoodi khanzeer!' "

[Finn's account]...my Hebrew Dragoman, having a case for judgment in the Makhkameh before the new Kadi...was commanded to stand up humbly and take off his shoes...during the Process, although the thief had previously confessed to the robbery in the presence of Jews, the Kadi would not proceed without the testimony of two Moslems — when the Jewish witnesses were offered, he refused to accept their testimony—and the offensive term adopted toward Jews...(more offensive than Giaour for Christians) was used by the Kadi's servants... In continuing to report concerning the apprehensions of Christians from revival of fanaticism on the part of the Mahometans, I have... to state that daily accounts are given to me of insults in the streets offered to Christians and Jews, accompanied by acts of violence... the sufferers are afraid.[36]
Tudor Parfitt's analysis concluded that these problems persisted through the close of the 19th century,
...the courts were biased against the Jews and even when a case was heard in a properly assembled court where dhimmi testimony was admissible the court would still almost invariably rule against the Jews. Inside the towns, Jews and other dhimmis were frequently attacked, wounded, and even killed by local Muslims and Turkish soldiers. Such attacks were frequently for trivial reasons. [37]
During World War I in Palestine, the embattled Young Turk government actually began deporting the Jews of Tel Aviv in the spring of 1917—an ominous parallel to the genocidal deportations of the Armenian dhimmi communities throughout Anatolia. A contemporary Reuters press release discussing the deportation stated that,
Eight thousand deportees from Tel Aviv were not allowed to take any provisions with them, and after the expulsion their houses were looted by Bedouin mobs; two Yemenite Jews who tried to oppose the looting were hung at the entrance to Tel Aviv so that all might see, and other Jews were found dead in the Dunes around Tel Aviv. [38]
Ultimately, enforced abrogation of the laws and social practices of dhimmitude required the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, which only occurred during the European Mandate period following World War I. Remarkably soon afterwards, however,( i.e., within two years of the abrogation of the Shari'a!) by 1920, Musa Kazem el—Husseini, former governor of Jaffa during the final years of Ottoman rule, and president of the Arab (primarily Muslim) Palestinian Congress, demanded restoration of the Shari'a in a letter to the British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuels:
[Ottoman] Turkey has drafted such laws as suit our customs. This was done relying upon the Shari'a (Religious Law), in force in Arabic territories, that is engraved in the very hearts of the Arabs and has been assimilated in their customs and that has been applied ...in the modern [Arab] states... We therefore ask the British government...that it should respect these laws [i.e., the Shari'a]...that were in force under the Turkish regime...[39]
A strong Arab Muslim irredentist current, which achieved pre—eminence after the 1929 riots, promulgated the forcible restoration of dhimmitude via jihad, culminating in the widespread violence of 1936—39. Two prominent Muslim personalities Sheikh Izz al—Din al—Qassam, and Hajj Amin el—Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, embodied this trend. And both these leaders relied upon the ideology of jihad, with its virulent anti—infidel (i.e., anti—Jewish, anti— Christian, and anti—Western) incitement, to garner popular support.

Al—Qassam called for the preservation of the country's Muslim—Arab character, exclusively, and urged an uncompromising and intensified struggle against the British Mandate and the Jewish National Home in Palestine. Palestine could be freed from the danger of Jewish domination, he believed, not by sporadic protests, demonstrations, or riots which were soon forgotten, but by an organized and methodical armed struggle. In his sermons he often quoted verses from the Qur'an referring to jihad, linking them with topical matters and his own political ideas. Al—Qassam and his devoted followers committed various acts of jihad terror targeting Jewish civilians in northern Palestine from 1931 through 1935. On November 20, 1935, al—Qassam was surrounded by British police in a cave near Jenin, and killed along with three of his henchmen.
In the immediate aftermath of his death,
Virtually overnight, Izz al—Din al—Qassam became the object of a full—fledged cult. The bearded Sheikh's picture appeared in all the Arabic—language papers, accompanied by banner headlines and inflammatory articles; memorial prayers were held in mosques throughout the country. He was proclaimed a martyr who had sacrificed himself for the fatherland, his grave at Balad al—Shaykh became a place of pilgrimage, and his deeds were extolled as an illustrious example to be followed by all. In addition, a countrywide fund—raising campaign was launched in aid of families of the fallen, and leading Arab lawyers volunteered to defend the members of the [surviving] band who were put on trial. [40]
Hajj Amin el—Husseini was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British High Commissioner, in May 1921, a title he retained, following the Ottoman practice, for the remainder of his life. Throughout his public career, the Mufti relied upon traditional Qur'anic anti—Jewish motifs to arouse the Arab street. For example, during the incitement which led to the 1929 Arab revolt in Palestine, he called for combating and slaughtering "the Jews", not merely Zionists. In fact, most of the Jewish victims of the 1929 Arab revolt were Jews from the centuries old dhimmi communities (e.g., in Hebron), as opposed to recent settlers identified with the Zionist movement.

With the ascent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, the Mufti and his coterie intensified their anti—Semitic activities to secure support from Hitler's Germany (and later Bosnian Muslims, as well as the overall Arab Muslim world), for a jihad to annihilate the Jews of Palestine. Following his expulsion from Palestine by the British, the Mufti fomented a brutal anti—Jewish pogrom in Baghdad (1941), concurrent with his failed effort to install a pro—Nazi Iraqi government.

Escaping to Europe after this unsuccessful coup attempt, the Mufti spent the remainder of World War II in Germany and Italy. From this sanctuary, he provided active support for the Germans by recruiting Bosnian Muslims, in addition to Muslim minorities from the Caucasus, for dedicated Nazi SS units. [41] The Mufti's objectives for these recruits—and Muslims in general—were made explicit during his multiple wartime radio broadcasts from Berlin, heard throughout the Arab world: an international campaign of genocide against the Jews. For example, during his March 1, 1944 broadcast he stated:
Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. [42]
Invoking the personal support of such prominent Nazis as Himmler and Eichmann, [43] the Mufti's relentless hectoring of German, Rumanian, and Hungarian government officials caused the cancellation of an estimated 480,000 exit visas which had been granted to Jews (80,000 from Rumania, and 400,000 from Hungary). As a result, these hapless individuals were deported to Nazi concentration camps in Poland.

A United Nations Assembly document presented in 1947 which contained the Mufti's June 28, 1943 letter to the Hungarian Foreign Minister requesting the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Poland, includes this stark, telling annotation: "As a Sequel to This Request 400,000 Jews Were Subsequently Killed". The Mufti escaped to the Middle East after the war to avoid capture and possible prosecution for war crimes.

The Mufti's legacy of virulent anti—Semitism continues to influence Arab policy toward Israel. Not surprisingly, Yasser Arafat, beginning at the age of 16, worked for the Mufti performing terrorist operations. Arafat always characterized the Mufti as his primary spiritual and political mentor.
Yasser Arafat orchestrated a relentless campaign of four decades of brutal jihad terrorism against the Jewish State, [44] beginning in the early 1960s, until his recent death, interspersed with a bloody jihad (during the mid 1970s and early 1980s) against the Christians of Lebanon. [45]

Chameleon—like, Arafat adopted a thin veneer of so—called "secular radicalism", particularly during the late 1960s and 1970s. Sober analysis reveals, however, that shorn of these superficial secular trappings, Arafat's core ideology remained quintessentially Islamic, i.e., rooted in jihad, throughout his career as a terrorist leader. And even after the Oslo accords, within a week of signing the specific Gaza—Jericho agreements, Arafat issued a brazen pronouncement (at a meeting of South African Muslim leaders) reflecting his unchanged jihadist views:
The jihad will continue and Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian people alone...It is for the entire Muslim umma. You are responsible for Palestine and Jerusalem before me...No, it is not their capital, it is our capital. [46]
During the final decade of his life, Arafat reiterated these sentiments on numerous occasions.'He also acted upon them, orchestrating an escalating campaign of jihad terrorism which culminated in the heinous orgy of Islamikaze violence [47] that lead to Israel's Operation Defensive Shield military operations in the West Bank two days after the Netanya Passover massacre on March 27,2002. Moreover, throughout Arafat's tenure as the major Palestinian Arab leader, his efforts to destroy Israel and replace it with an Arab Muslim sharia—based entity were integrated into the larger Islamic umma's jihad against the Jewish State, as declared repeatedly in official conference pronouncements from various clerical or political organizations of the Muslim (both Arab and non—Arab) nations, for over five decades. [48]

These excerpts from the recent 2003 Putrajaya Islamic Summit speech by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad highlight the official, collective sentiments of Muslim leaders reiterated ad nauseum since the creation of Israel:
To begin with, the governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine... We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships... We may want to recreate 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 l.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 AI—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... [49]
After more than thirteen centuries of almost uninterrupted jihad in historical Palestine, it is not surprising that the finalized constitution for the proposed Palestinian Arab state declares all aspects of Palestinian state law to be subservient to the Shari'a, while contemporary Palestinian Authority religious intelligentsia, openly support restoration of the oppressive system of dhimmitude within a Muslim dominated Israel, as well. [50]

An appropriate assessment of such anachronistic, discriminatory views was provided by the Catholic Archbishop of the Galilee, Butrus Al—Mu'alem, who, in a June 1999 statement dismissed the notion of modern dhimmis submitting to Muslims:
It is strange to me that there remains such backwardness in our society; while humans have already reached space, the stars, and the moon... there are still those who amuse themselves with fossilized notions. [51]
A strange notion for our modern times, certainly, but very real, ominous, and sobering.

Conclusions
Ibn Warraq's trenchant critique of Edward Said pointed out the bizarre evolution of this Christian agnostic into,
...a de facto apologist and protector of Islam, the least Christian and certainly the religion least given to self—doubt. [52]
Moreover, as Warraq observed, despite Said's admission,
...that he does not know anything about Islam, and...the fact that he has never written a single scholarly work devoted to Islam, Said has always accepted the role in the West of an Islamic expert, and has never flinched from telling us what the real Islam is. [53]
Warraq highlighted this tragic irony, just prior to Said's death, which even had Said lived, is unlikely to have ever been resolved. It is almost certain, for example, that Said would have reacted with hypocritical silence to the early September 2005 Palestinian Muslim pogrom against the small West Bank Christian village of Taiba.
As a secularist defending Islam, one wonders how he will be able to argue for a nontheocratic state once Palestine becomes a reality. If Islam is such a wonderful religion, why not convert to it, and why not accept it as the basis for any new constitution? At some stage, Said will have to do what he has been avoiding all his adult life, criticize Islam, or at least indirectly the idea of a theocracy. [54]
Ibn Warraq has also noted how Said — the Literature Professor and literary critic, made a distressingly stupid error in Orientalism, (both in the 1979 and 1994 editions) confusing the words "eschatological" and "scatological". [55] A revealing, even pathognomonic error to this medically—trained observer.

In closing, let me move, mercifully, from the ridiculousness of Edward Said to the penetrating insights of Bat Ye'or. Noting the ceaseless calls for jihad in Palestine during modern times, from 1920 through the present era, Bat Ye'or observed, that jihad remained,
...the main cause of the Arab—Israeli conflict. Since Israelis are to be regarded, perforce, only as a religious community, their national characteristics — a geographical territory related to a past history, a system of legislation, a specific language and culture — are consequently denied. The 'Arab' character of the Palestinian territory is inherent in the logic of jihad. Having become fay territory by conquest (i.e. 'taken from an infidel people'), it must remain within the dar al—Islam. The State of Israel, established on this fay territory, is consequently illegal. [56]
And she concluded,
...Israel represents the successful national liberation of a dhimmi civilization. On a territory formerly Arabized by the jihad and the dhimma, a pre—Islamic language, culture, topographical geography, and national institutions have been restored to life. This reversed the process of centuries in which the cultural, social and political structures of the indigenous population of Palestine were destroyed. In 1974, Abu Iyad, second—in—command to Arafat in the Fatah hierarchy, announced: "We intend to struggle so that our Palestinian homeland does not become a new Andalusia." The comparison of Andalusia to Palestine was not fortuitous since both countries were Arabized, and then de—Arabized by a pre—Arabic culture. [57]
Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is the author of the recently published, The Legacy of Jihad, This text was delivered as a lecture on Monday October 31, 2005 at a Conference on Post—Colonial Theory sponsored by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East
Notes

[32] Samuel b. Ishaq Uceda, Lehem dim'ah (The Bread of Tears) (Hebrew). Venice, 1606. [English translation in, Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, Pp. 354.

[33] Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude— Where Civilizations Collide. Cranbury, NJ.: Associated University Presses, 2001; p. 318.

[34] Gedaliah of Siemiatyce, Sha'alu Shelom Yerushalayim (Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem), (Hebrew), Berlin, 1716. [English translation in, Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, Pp. 377—80.]

[35] Edouard Engelhardt, La Turquie et La Tanzimat, 2 Vols., 1882, Paris, Vol. p.111, Vol. 2 p. 171; English translation in, Bat Ye'or. Islam and Dhimmitude— Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001, pp. 431—432; Reports from Her Majesty's Consuls Relating to the Condition of the Christians in Turkey, 1867 volume, pp. 5,29. See also related other reports by various consuls and vice—consuls, in the 1860 vol., p.58; the 1867 vol, pp. 4,5,6,14,15; and the 1867 vol., part 2, p.3 [All cited in, Vahakn Dadrian. Chapter 2, 'The Clash Between Democratic Norms and Theocratic Dogmas', Warrant for Genocide, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Transaction Publishers, pp. 26—27, n. 4]; See also, extensive excerpts from these reports in, Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity, pp. 409—433; and Roderick Davison. 'Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian—Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century' American Historical Review, Vol. 59, pp. 848, 855, 859, 864.

[36] Gregory Wortabet, Syria and the Syrians. Vol. II, London, 1856, pp. 263—264; Consul James Finn, published in, Albert M. Hyamson. The British Consulate in Jerusalem (in relation to the Jews of Palestine) , Edward Goldstein Ltd., London, 1939, p. 261.

[37] Tudor Parfitt, The Jews of Palestine, 1800—1882, Suffolk, England, The Boydell Press, 1987, p. 168, 172—173.

[38] Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 2000, p. 77.

[39] Musa Kazem el—Husseini, (President Palestinian Arab Congress), to High Commissioner for Palestine, December 10, 1920 (Translated January 2, 1921), Israel State Archives, R.G. 2, Box 10, File 244.

[40] Shai Lachman, 'Arab Rebellion and Terrorism in Palestine 1929—39: The Case of Sheikh Izz al—Din al—Qassam and His Movement', in Zionism and Arabism in Palestine and Israel, edited by Elie Kedourie and Sylvia G. Haim, Frank Cass, London, 1982, p. 72.

[41] Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and The Fuehrer, New York, 1965; Zvi Elpeleg, The Grand Mufti Haj Amin Al—Hussaini, translated by David Harvey, Frank Cass, 1993; Yossef Bodansky, Islamic Antisemitism as a Political Instrument , Houston, 1999, p. 29.; Jennie Lebel, Hajj Amin ve Berlin (Hajj Amin and Berlin), Tel Aviv, 1996; Jan Wanner, in, 'Amin al—Husayni and Germany's Arab Policy in the Period 1939—1945', Archiv Orientalni Vol. 54, 1986, p. 244, observes,
'His appeals...addressed to the Bosnian Muslims were...close in many respects to the argumentation used by contemporary Islamic fundamentalists...the Mufti viewed only as a new interpretation of the traditional concept of the Islamic community (umma) sharing with Nazism common enemies'
[42] Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and The Fuehrer, p. 151.

[43] Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and The Fuehrer, pp. 152—63; Jan Wanner, in his 1986 analysis ('Amin al—Husayni and Germany's Arab Policy', p. 243.) of the Mufti's collaboration with Nazi Germany during World War II, concluded,
'...the darkest aspect of the Mufti's activities in the final stage of the war was undoubtedly his personal share in the extermination of Europe's Jewish population. On May 17, 1943, he wrote a personal letter to Ribbentrop, asking him to prevent the transfer of 4500 Bulgarian Jews, 4000 of them children, to Palestine. In May and June of the same year, he sent a number of letters to the governments of Bulgaria, Italy, Rumania, and Hungary, with the request not to permit even individual Jewish emigration and to allow the transfer of Jews to Poland where, he claimed they would be 'under active supervision'. The trials of Eichmann's henchmen, including Dieter Wislicency who was executed in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, confirmed that this was not an isolated act by the Mufti.'
[44] Efraim Karsh, Arafat's War, New York, 2003.

[45] Walid Phares, Lebanese Christian Nationalism, Boulder, CO, 1995; Farid El—Khazen, The Breakdown of the State in Lebanon— 1967—1976, Cambridge, 2000.

[46] Efraim Karsh, Arafat's War, p. 117. A decade and one half earlier, upon Khomeini's ascension to power in Iran, Arafat immediately cabled the Ayatollah relaying these shared jihadist sentiments (February 13, 1979):
'I pray Allah to guide your step along the path of faith and Holy War (Jihad) in Iran, continuing the combat until we arrive at the walls of Jerusalem, where we shall raise the flags of our two revolutions.'Quote from, Bat Ye'or, 'Aspects of the Arab—Israeli Conflict', Wiener Library Bulletin, Vol. 32, 1979, p. 68.
[47] Raphael Israeli, Islamikaze— Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology, Frank Cass, London, 2003.

[48] For example, From Cairo, 1968, The Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, Sheikh Hassan Khalid, Mufti of the Republic of Lebanon, (excerpts from, Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, Pp.391—94.)
'Your honorable conference has been an Arab, Islamic and patriotic necessity in view of the present circumstances in which the Arabs and Muslims face the most serious difficulties. All Muslims expect you to expound Allah's decree concerning the Palestine cause, to proclaim that decree, in all clarity, throughout the Arab and Muslim world. We do not think this decree absolves any Muslim or Arab from Jihad (Holy War) which has now become a duty incumbent upon the Arabs and Muslims to liberate the land, preserve honor, retaliate for [lost] dignity, restore the Aqsa Mosque, the church of Resurrection, and to purge the birthplace of prophecy, the seat of revelation, the meeting—place of Prophets, the starting—point of Issa, and the scenes of the holy spirit, from the hands of Zionism — the enemy of man, of truth, of justice, and the enemy of Allah...The well—balanced judgement frankly expressed with firm conviction is the first stop on the road of victory. The hoped—for judgment is that of Muslim Scholars who draw their conclusions from the Book of Allah, and the Sunna of His prophet. May Allah guard your meeting, and guide your steps! May your decisive word rise to the occasion and enlighten the Arab and Muslim world, so that it may be a battle—cry, urging millions of Muslims and Arabs on to the field of Jihad, which will lead us to the place that once was ours...Muslims who are distant from the battle—field of Palestine, such as the Algerians, the Moroccans, all the Africans, Saudi Arabia people, Yemeni people, the Indians, Iraqi people, the Russians, and the Europeans are indeed sinful if they do not hasten to offer all possible means to achieve success and gain victory in the Islamic battle against their enemies and the enemies of their religion. Particularly, this battle is not a mete combat between two parties but it is a battle between two religions (namely, it is a religious battle). Zionism in fact represents a very perilous cancer, aiming at domineering the Arab countries and the whole Islamic world.'
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 for Jihad to liberate Al—Quds...Ensuring military coordination among the front—line states and 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, many or woman, ordained by the Shariah and glorious traditions of Islam; To call upon all Muslims, living inside or outside Islamic countries, 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.' (excerpts from, Bat Ye'or, Eurabia— The Euro—Arab Axis (Galleys), Cranbury, NJ.: Associated University Presses, 2005, Pp. 288—90; 295.)
[49] excerpts from, Bat Ye'or, Eurabia— The Euro—Arab Axis (Galleys), Cranbury, NJ.: Associated University Presses, 2005, Pp. 314—19.

[50] MEMRI, 'Muslim—Christian Tensions in the Israeli—Arab Community', August 2, 1999, ; MEMRI, 'A Friday Sermon on PA TV: ... We Must Educate our Children on the Love of Jihad...' ', July 11, 2001.

[51] MEMRI 'Muslim—Christian Tensions in the Israeli—Arab Community'

[52] Ibn Warraq. 'Edward Said and the Saidists— Or, Third World Intellectual Terrorism', in Robert Spencer, editor, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2004, p. 511.

[53] Ibn Warraq. 'Edward Said and the Saidists', p. 511.

[54] Ibn Warraq. 'Edward Said and the Saidists', p. 511.

[55] Ibn Warraq. 'Edward Said and the Saidists', p. 476. The original 1979 edition as well as the 1994 reissue edition of Orientalism each contain this howler, supporting the notion that the use of the word 'eschatological' instead of the appropriate 'scatological' was not a mere typographical error. Here is the relevant paragraph from p. 68 of both editions:
Mohammed's punishment, which is also his eternal fate, is a peculiarly disgusting one: he is endlessly being cleft in two from his chin to his anus like, Dante says, a cask whose staves are ripped apart. Dante's verse at this point spares the reader none of the eschatological [sic...should be "scatalogical"] detail that so vivid a punishment entails: Mohammed's entrails and his excrement are described with unflinching accuracy.
[56] Bat Ye'or. The Dhimmi—Jews and Christians Under Islam. Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1985, p. 116.

[57] Bat Ye'or. The Dhimmi, pp. 122—123.

on "The Legacy of Jihad in Historial Palestine (Part II)"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...n_histori.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-14-2010, 05:01 PM
Hizkiya Hizkiya is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35
Hizkiya is on a distinguished road
Default

Today, Muslims must understand that they should live in their own territories, those 12 million square kilometres they have attacked and occupied between 632 and 732! They should stop imposing their religion onto others. They should accept that Eretz Israel, including Judea and Samaria, is no longer Muslim territory. Those with the oldest deed in their hands have liberated their lands! Just like Spain and Persia did!
They should also accept the fact that Europe is Christian Territory although it has forgotten its religious identity by chosing secularism as an intelligent alternative, which is wrong!

Last edited by Hizkiya; 12-14-2010 at 05:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-18-2011, 08:41 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow How Legitimate and Relevant Is Offensive Jihad?


Muslim Clerics, Saudi Commentators Ask: How Legitimate and Relevant Is Offensive Jihad?

By: D. Hazan*

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5014.htm


In recent months, discussion of the legitimacy and relevance of jihad today has emerged in the Arab media, and particularly the Saudi media. While the legitimacy of defensive jihad (jihad al-daf') is not in question, there is disagreement over the legitimacy of offensive jihad (jihad al-talab[1]): Is the directive to wage jihad against the infidels to occupy their lands, convert them to Islam or force them to live under Islamic rule and pay the jizya[2] until the entire world is occupied and Islam the only religion still valid in our time?

The main discussion was between Sheikh Salman Al-'Odeh, the former dissident sheikh who publicly broke with Osama bin Laden in 2007, and who is now a loyal supporter of the Saudi regime, and Sheikh 'Abd Al-Rahman bin Nasr Al-Barrak, an extremist cleric who is a former lecturer at the Saudi Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University. Al-'Odeh represents the more liberal Islamic position, i.e. that Islam does not seek war but considers it an inevitability to be avoided as much as possible. He claims that offensive jihad was appropriate to the circumstances during the early Islamic era, when might made right, but that it is not relevant today, when international laws regulate relations between countries. He considers that if there had been such arrangements then, Islam would have welcomed them. Sheikh Al-Barrak, in contrast, represents the traditional rigid Islamist position, i.e., that jihad is an imperative originating in the Koran and the Sunnah – and that, as such, it supersedes any man-made law and Muslims are obligated to implement it until the Day of Judgment.[3] Each cleric based his statements on Koran verses and hadiths.

At the periphery of the dispute was the issue of slavery, presented by Al-'Odeh as an example of a phenomenon in Islam's past – just as it existed all over the world at that time – but which today is not accepted in the world or in Islam; at that time, Islam, which did not approve of slavery, had reconciled itself to its practice. However, Al-Barrak stated that the right to enslave infidel captives is imparted to the mujahideen by Islam, and that opposing slavery was the same as opposing the Koran and the Sunna.

Following are the main discussions of the matter that appeared in the Arab and Saudi media.

Al-'Odeh: Jihad in Islam Is Strictly Defensive, Except in the Case of Surprise Attack; There Is No "Open-Ended War" in Islam

On August 8, 2010, during an appearance on Al-Jazeera TV's "Shari'a and Life" program, Al-'Odeh said, in response to a question on how the Koran defines the term "war," that the killing and war verses of the Koran – such as 47:4: "When you meet the unbelievers (in battle), smite their necks" – in no way refer to encountering infidels in the street or at home. Anyone who reads the Koran, he said, knows that the context is always "the day of the encounter" – that is, in wartime, on the battlefield.

Al-'Odeh stated that while war is a common part of human life, Islam does not yearn for it, but sees it as a situation that, while inevitable, is to be avoided as much as possible. He based his statements on the part of Koran verse 47:4[4] that says "until the war ends," saying that this is proof that wars would one day end, as would the situation of human suffering in which innocent people are killed. He noted that the Prophet Muhammad himself implemented this, when, at the beginning of his path, he stayed in Mecca for 13 years and was commanded by Allah to refrain from war, despite the plots against the Muslims; when he later emigrated to Al-Madina, his first battle was Badr. Four years later, he signed the Hudaybiyya treaty, a 10-year ceasefire, with the people of Mecca.[5]

Giving another example of the Prophet's lack of zeal for war, Al-'Odeh stated that after three days of a siege of the city of Al-Taif, Muhammad left when his comrades were lightly wounded. From this, Al-'Odeh concludes that "there is no open-ended war in Islam."

Asked by the program host about defensive and offensive jihad, Al-'Odeh said that defensive jihad is natural and necessary, and that there is a consensus on this in all religions and in all human laws. He noted, however, that the terms "defensive jihad and offensive jihad came later, and do not appear in the Koran, the Sunna, or the sayings of the early imams. In any event, Al-'Odeh said, during the era of the Prophet and of the caliphs, there were no agreements among countries, and the strong triumphed over the weak – but, had there been stability, security, and pacts that were honored, Islam would have supported all these.[6]

On August 28, 2010, on his website Islamtoday, Sheikh Salman Al-'Odeh discussed whether jihad today should include offensive jihad, or be limited strictly to defensive jihad. He first said that the question in this form did not appear in any book or in the Sunnah, and that its basis lay in the misconception that there are two and only two kinds of jihad:defensive and offensive.

With regard to defensive jihad, Al-'Odeh said that it was agreed by all Muslim clerics, and, in fact, by all Muslims and people, in general, that every man had the right to defend himself from attack and occupation. He said that the term "war" in Islam meant only defense of "the Islamic program," that is, of land, religion, and the Muslims, although sometimes defense might include a preemptive strike. Thus, for example, when a nation with no bilateral or international agreements or pacts with the Muslims plans to attack the Muslims, no Muslim should rule out the option of preemption – on the contrary, they must attack first, in order to defend themselves.

Al-'Odeh based his statements on the Koran, and said that Allah had permitted the Muslims to go out to war for several reasons, including:
  • In response to aggression and oppression, as stated in Koran 22:39: "Permission (to fight) has been granted to those [believers], for they have been wronged."
  • In response to an attack on their lands and homes, and in response to harm to their right to religious worship, as stated in the Koran 22:40: "Those who were unjustly expelled from their homes, for no other reason than their saying: 'Allah is Our Lord.'"
  • To wage war on someone plotting against and fighting the Muslims, as stated in Koran 2:193: "Go on fighting with them till there is no more a state of tribulation and Allah's way is established instead. Then, if they desist from it, there should be no more hostility, except against those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality."
Here Al-'Odeh noted that this verse supports the claim that war means defense of Islam, and stressed that it contains no intent to force Islam on anyone – but rather, that whoever fights the Muslims must be fought, in order to defend the Muslim populace from them.[7]


Liberal Saudi Writer: Our Media Era Has No Room for Offensive Jihad – Because the Islamic Message Has Reached Everywhere, and Because There Should Be No Coercion in Religion
In this context, on August 16, 2010, the Saudi daily Al-Watan published an article by Khaled Al-Ghanami, a liberal Saudi writer, titled "The End of Offensive Jihad." In it, Al-Ghanami claimed that offensive jihad had had relevance when there was no way to spread the message of Islam, and many people in the world knew nothing about it. This, he said, is why Muslims were permitted to wage offensive jihad, in order to abolish tyranny from oppressed people who had never had a chance to choose their religion or way of life. Today, however, there are numerous ways to spread the message of Islam – and this message has already reached everyone, so that anyone who wants to believe may do so, and anyone who disbelieves may also do so, as "there is no compulsion of religion."[8]

Al-Ghanami said that nowadays the idea of attack and conquest by force is not accepted, even by many who advocate the Islamic solution – particularly if they live in Europe, because they know that if these countries become Islamic, they will have less than one quarter of the civil rights they now enjoy.

Al-Ghanami noted sarcastically that the above view is not acceptable to everyone, and that some, though not many, maintain that all Muslim rulers must declare jihad against the whole world, so that the Muslims will mount their horses and camels and "use their swords to take over the Eiffel Tower and fix the Leaning Tower of Pisa." More, however, consider the Muslims to be in a state of weakness, and therefore maintain that they must keep a low profile until they regain strength, returning to their horses, swords, and conquests. Al-Ghanami added, "And if [all] this isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is."

He added that even though in reality the world fears Muslims and Islam, the Muslims in favor of offensive jihad falsely believe that the world is not monitoring their written and verbal calls for killing and aggression. He said that their approach to jihad gravely damages Muslims worldwide.[9]

Saudi Writer: Offensive Jihad in the Salafi Sense, in Today's Reality, Is Crazy
In a similar vein, on October 19, 2010, the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah published an article titled "Offensive Jihad – Like Slavery – Is Irrelevant in Our Time," by Muhammad bin 'Abd Al-Latif Aal Al-Sheikh, the liberal son of Saudi Mufti 'Abd Al-Latif Aal Al-Shaikh. In it, Aal Al-Sheikh said that those who repeatedly claim that Islam obliges waging jihad until the Day of Judgment, basing their statements on Koranic verses, were narrow-minded simpletons with a mistaken grasp of reality.

He said that they had been so influenced by what they heard at home and in school, and from mosque preachers and the media, that they no longer had the capacity for judgment or discernment, or to ask questions.

Turning to Saudi educators, Aal Al-Sheikh said that if they felt compelled to teach middle and high school students about jihad, it would be best to explain to them about how today's balances of power in the world, nuclear weapons, and international pacts and agreements have changed the situation, such that attacking another countryis forbidden by international law. They also need to explain that the world is in the grips of a nuclear arms race, and that the arms already in existence are more than sufficient to destroy the world a hundred times over – and that for these reasons, offensive jihad in the Salafi sense in today's reality is crazy.[10]

Sheikh Al-Barrak: Everyone – Muslim or Infidel – Must Know That Jihad Will Continue until Judgment Day and Cannot Be Abolished, Neither By Tyranny Nor By International Agreements
On November 28, 2010, Sheikh 'Abd Al-Rahman bin Nasser Al-Barrak published an article on the website Islamlight titled "International Treaties Do Not Supersede the Law of Jihad in Islam," in response, inter alia, to the statements by Salman Al-'Odeh and Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh. He wrote that in contrast to Al-'Odeh's statements, the Koran commands Muslims to wage offensive jihad; he based his statements on Koranic verses and hadith.

He asks, referring to Koran 9:5 – "But when the sacred months expire, slay the polytheists wherever you find them; seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them everywhere" – and Koran 9:29 – "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and Judgment Day, who do not hold to the true religion among those to whom were given the book, until they pay the jizya out of their own hands and are utterly subdued": "Can the doctor [i.e. Salman Al-'Odeh] state that these quotes deal with defensive jihad?"
Al-Barrak noted that it is known that the concept of offensive jihad is used by the Orientalist enemies of Islam and their ilk in order to attack Islam. He said: "Some ignoramuses and lickers of the plates of the infidels, from among those who [ostensibly] defend Islam, are now limiting the aim of jihad in Islam to defense alone, since no one can condemn the repelling of an attacker."

Al-Barrak also rejected Al-'Odeh's claim that today there is no room for wars, because of international agreements and pacts, and that if stability, security, and agreements honored by the signatories had been in place during the time of the Prophet, Islam would have welcomed them. He said that these statements mean that Islam welcomes international agreements drawn up by infidels in the framework of U.N. laws banning aggression, which included jihad. He said that making this claim is nothing but lying about Islam, since it means the abolition of jihad for the sake of Allah – which Islam demands – in favor of joining the crowds under the aegis of international law that prohibits Muslims from waging jihad.

In this context, Al-Barrak stated that Aal Al-Sheikh's statements mean that today's international pacts and agreements supersede the eternal laws of shari'a, and added that Aal Al-Sheikh believes that there is no need to teach schoolchildren about jihad at all. Al-Barrak stressed: "Everyone – Muslim or infidel – must know that jihad will continue until Judgment Day, and that [nothing] can abolish it – neither a despot's tyranny nor international agreements."

Further clarifying the concept of agreements in Islam, he noted that an agreement with Muslims always has a time limit, or is provisional upon the infidel's submission and acceptance of Muslim oversight.

He concluded by saying that conditions for agreements between Islamic and infidel countries were already in place, and are eternal, as far as Muslims are concerned; international law, he stressed, does not apply to agreements in Islam.[11]

Liberal Saudi Writer: According to Al-Barrak, "As Muslims, We Must... Attack Non-Muslim Countries and Drown Them in Blood – Until China Submits to Us and the U.S. Administration Pays Us Jizya"

Following the sparring between Al-'Odeh and Al-Barrak, Khaled Al-Ghamani responded sarcastically to Al-Barrak, in a December 6, 2010 article titled "Between Al-Barrak and Salman Al-'Odeh" that was posted on the Islamist website Muslim.net: "Al-Barrak's statements show that, as Muslims, we must draw our swords, attack non-Muslim countries and drown them in blood, until China submits to us and the U.S. administration pays us jizya with its own hands, and is utterly subdued [see Koran 9:29, above]."

Al-Ghamani went on to say that this was utterly crazy, and that if those who held this view had any self-respect at all, they would themselves implement these verses – but they only propose doing so to young drug addicts who want to repent and purify themselves of their sins, and who, because no one tells them that Allah's mercy is great, carry out suicide attacks, leaving distraught mothers in their wake.[12]

Is Offensive Jihad, like Slavery, Outmoded?
To further underline his statements ruling out the relevance of offensive jihad today, Al-'Odeh mentioned slavery as an example of a phenomenon that is no more. He said that while slavery was once common worldwide, and thus also among Muslims, Islam nevertheless enjoined masters to treat slaves humanely, to clothe them, not to overburden them, and not to harm them. It was very clear, he said, that Islam, in fact, sought the freeing of slaves, by any means under Islamic law; thus, Islam welcomes the freeing of slaves and the abolition of slavery in our time, as it is compatible with its spirit and values.[13]

Al-Barrak countered Al-'Odeh's argument, calling slavery "one of the branches of jihad for Allah" and stating that slaves are one of the things that the mujahideen are entitled to take as booty. He said that slave laws appear in most books of Islamic law, and that these slave laws are absolute laws. He said, moreover, that anyone who opposes slavery opposes the Koran, the Sunnah, and the general consensus.[14]

Al-'Ghanami, for his part, underlined that Al-Barrak's statements about slavery essentially mean that "there is no escape from returning from 'this exciting journey' [i.e. offensive jihad] with many blonde, blue-eyed women (French or perhaps Italian) for purposes of enjoyment, and then for selling at the slave market – which must be revived, because abolishing it means war on the Koran."[15]


*D. Hazan is a research fellow at MEMRI.

Endnotes:
[1] I.e., jihad declared by the imam of the Muslims with the aim of conquering non-Muslim countries.

[2] The jizya is a poll tax paid by "people of the book," that is, Christians and Jews, living under an Islamic regime.

[3] In this context, it should be noted that during last Ramadan, Al-Barrak called on the world's Muslims to step up the jihad during Ramadan. See MEMRI JTTM Report No. 636, "Calls in the Muslim World to Intensify Jihad During Ramadan," September 13, 2010, http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=4599¶m=IDTA.

[4] "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war ends."

[5] The agreement was violated two years later by the Muslims, who grew much stronger in the interim, at which time Muhammad took Mecca.

[6] Al-Jazeera TV, August 8, 2010; transcript from Aljazeera.net, August 12, 2010.

[7] Islamtoday.net, August 28, 2010.

[8] Koran 2:256.

[9] Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, August 16, 2010.

[10] Al-Jazirah, Saudi Arabia, October 19, 2010

[11] Islamlight.net, November 28, 2010.

[12] Islam.net, December 6, 2010.

[13] Al-Jazeera TV, August 8, 2010; transcript provided at Aljazeera.net, August 12, 2010.

[14] Islamlight.net, November 28, 2010.

[15] Muslim.net, December 6, 2010.


http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5014.htm
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Jihad

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America


Watch all parts from the links below:














__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-15-2011 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-11-2011, 03:10 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Jihad’s Child Suicide Bombers

Jihad’s Child Suicide Bombers
The Taliban’s spring offensive begins with the suicide bombing of a 12-year-old boy
by Frank Crimi




Despite the Taliban’s denial that it uses children as human explosives, its spring offensive began with a suicide bombing by a 12-year-old boy. The attack is just one more sign that the militant group and its terrorist allies are increasing their efforts to recruit, train and utilize child suicide bombers.

The young terrorist’s suicide blast, which killed four Afghan civilians and wounded twelve in the Afghan province of Paktika, was roundly condemned by Afghan President Hamid Karzai as “inhumane and against all Islamic principles.”

Yet, it was one of two such suicide attacks carried out by child bombers in eastern Afghanistan over the past several weeks, attacks that killed over 15 people. Soon after those assaults, Afghan authorities showed off five captured would-be suicide bombers –all under the age of 13 — trained by Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan.

As one Afghan intelligence official said, “They have been told that infidels are in Afghanistan … and they have been encouraged to go for Jihad.” In a disturbing twist, one of the captured bombers thought he would survive the attack when he was told by his instructors that “the (infidels) will be killed and you will live.”

For its part, the Taliban denied using children as human explosives, saying they do not use “beardless” or underage boys in their militant operations. According to a statement released by the terror group, “Those who haven’t grown a beard due to being underage are prohibited to spend time with the mujahedeen in residential and military centers.”

Unfortunately for the Taliban, that statement contradicts its past claims to have trained anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand juveniles as suicide bombers. In fact, the Afghan government places the figure of trained child suicide terrorists closer to 5,000.

While the number of suicide bombers can range from as little as age seven to over forty, most suicide bombers are under the age of 18. Sadly, the recruitment and training of these children is not only extensive and well organized, but growing.

To that end, suicide training factories have sprouted up all over the Afghan-Pakistan border, with most located in the Pakistani province of Waziristan. There, it’s been estimated that the Fedayeen-e-Islam have trained over 1,000 suicide bombers at three facilities. More disturbingly, many suicide training centers have been designated into junior and senior camps.

The Pakistani army found one such junior camp, equipped with computers, video equipment and literature, where children as young as age 10, according to one army officer, “knew about the planting of explosives, making and wearing and detonating suicide jackets.”

The increased demand for child bombers comes as the Taliban have focused its efforts on attacking an expanding list of civilian targets, sites which include schools, mosques, markets, government offices and other public places.

Tragically, the results have been all too effective. In the month of February alone, Afghanistan saw suicide bombings in the capital of Kabul that killed 10 civilians; an attack in Khost that killed nine; an attack in Kandahar that killed 18; an attack in Jalalabad that killed 40; and an attack in Kunduz that killed 28.

To some, the emphasis on suicide bombings is seen as a sign of the terror group’s desperation. According to one Afghan army commander, the Taliban and its terrorist allies have “no ability to conduct large scale operations anywhere, so he has switched tactics.” As district leader Hamdullah Nazak, a reported survivor of 11 attempts on his life said, “Of course. It’s the only way for the Taliban now.”

Whether the increase in suicide attacks is a sign of desperation or not, the reality is that the vast majority of the bombings continue to be made by the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, as children make particularly good suicide terror candidates, they remain the Islamists’ favorite choice of human explosive.

According to a report by the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantanamo, child suicide bombers “are more willing to martyr themselves due to their lack of reasoning on taking innocent lives.” That willingness to die is of course exploited by the militants through a variety of ways, including desensitization and brainwashing. As one Afghan official has noted, “They are made to watch video films, showing physical torture and killing of Muslims women and children …by what they call infidels.”

Like their adult compatriots, juvenile bombers are told that the rewards for performing such deadly deeds are great. One captured suicide bomber said he was told by his instructors that as a good Muslim he had a duty to defend Islam and that “as soon as I blow myself up, I will be in heaven and will get eternal peace.” Even the fact that a bomber may kill another child is justified by the Islamic trainers, who argue that those killed are “non-believers or children of non-believers.”

Still, despite the indoctrination, most suicide recruits are not trusted to complete their deadly tasks on their own. That is why the terrorist trainers ensure that most recruits are accompanied to their targets by a handler who leaves them to detonate their explosives. For those who display a change of heart in the process, the terrorists rely on the threat and use of violence to ensure compliance.

As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has said, the terrorists “purposely inflict violence on children to strike fear in those who oppose them.” That need to resort to violence to guarantee obedience comes from the fact that many recruits don’t come to the jihad willingly, but are the victims of kidnapping by the terrorists. Willing or not, a suicide recruit remains a highly valued product. In fact, the sale of recruits has become a very lucrative business. The Taliban alone have reportedly been buying children as young as seven. As one Afghan official stated, “The ongoing price for child bombers has been fixed at $ 7,000 to $ 14,000; the price depends on how quickly the bomber is needed and how close the child is expected to get to the target.”

While 90 percent of the trained bombers are estimated to have been used in Afghanistan, it has been reported that 5,000 Pakistani children have received training on suicide bombing for use in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s interior minister claimed that of the 2,488 incidents of terrorism in Pakistan in the last two years — which claimed the lives of 3,169 people — most were the result of suicide bombings conducted by underage terrorists. The most recent attack came in April when two young suicide bombers struck a Pakistani shrine that killed 50 worshippers and wounded more than 100.

Of course, the fact Islamist militants would continue to use children in such a grotesque manner comes as little surprise. After all, these same terror groups have used children with Down syndrome and mentally impaired women as suicide bombers in the past.

So, in a world where underage suicide bombers are referred to by their terrorist handlers as “weapons of mass destruction or atom bombs,” and where children play a game called suicide bomber with the frequency American children play tag, it’s understandable that they will continue to be preyed upon by their malevolent elders.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-19-2011, 03:33 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Saif Al-'Adl's Views on Jihad and the War against the West




May 18, 2011
Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.689




Saif Al-'Adl's Views on Jihad and the War against the West
By: R. Green*




Introduction
On May 17, 2011, reports were circulated according to which Al-Qaeda had appointed one of its military masterminds, Saif Al-'Adl, as its new chief or interim leader.[1] Fairly little is known of Saif Al-'Adl's personal history. Moreover, little has been heard from him during the past decade.[2] In general, he is not considered an important intellectual figure in the jihadi movement, although he did pen several essays on military strategy and tactics.

Following a lengthy period of silence, two series of articles believed to be written by Saif Al-'Adl were published on Mafa Al-Siasi,[3]a website belonging to Mustafa Hamid, also known as Abu Al-Walid Al-Masri, who is a veteran jihadi figure and Saif Al-'Adl's father in-law.

In the articles, Saif Al-'Adl acknowledges that the jihadists have made mistakes which they must now mend, but stresses that these do not rule out the jihad movement as a whole. He lays out his vision of Al-Qaeda's strategy of all-out war with the U.S., claiming that through its attacks on the U.S., Al-Qaeda, as the vanguard of Islam, has succeeded in bringing about the collapse of the entire Western political and cultural system. He also credits Al-Qaeda with exposing the true face of the Arab and Muslim rulers to the Arab masses and empowering the latter to rise up against their oppressive regimes.

The following, which is a preliminary dispatch to be followed by a more extensive MEMRI report on the dialogue between Saif Al-'Adl and Mustafa Hamid, will present some of Saif Al-'Adl's positions on the concept of jihad, on Al-Qaeda's strategy and tactics, and on the war against the U.S. and the West.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-31-2011, 10:46 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Jihad in the Digital Age

Jihad in the Digital Age




Jihad has gone digital.


Al-Qaida has long embraced the Internet and modern technology, but loosely-affiliated jihadists are hunting for new ways to fight the West in the Information Age. At the cutting edge of technology, from Apple IPad 2 to using new internet protocols, jihadists are carrying the 7th century idea of an Islamic Caliphate well into the 21st century.

Recently, jihadi hackers have produced a magazine of their own and Islamist programmers have modified a shooting game for al-Qaida. A major jihadi commentator even released his first message to the 'brothers' on Facebook, a sign that Western social media is being used by those who want its destruction. Collectively, there is a growing jihadi reliance on high technology, social media, and the Internet.

The "Magazine for the Technical Supporters of Al-Qaida for Information Security and Hacking," provides news about hacker attacks on high-level political and economic sites, as well as holes in security to exploit. Word Press blogs, PlayStation's Internet network, and mysql.com, "the world's most popular open source databases," appear to be popular targets.

Hacker attacks on the now-defunct blog of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the theft of millions from American banking magnate Citi Group show the potential in mass hacking attacks. Many of the articles in the magazine are drawn from a group called "Arab Pirates," a little-known hacking group that runs a password protected forum.

An article about IPV6, the long-discussed replacement Internet protocol for IPV4 that is only just now making headway online, is also a topic of discussion.

In addition to hacking, the magazine discusses technological innovations and attacks on the large-scale hardware that makes Internet possible.
In one article, the magazine marvels about reports that a 75-year-old woman from Georgia accidentally cut Internet access to the entire country of Armenia. The article mentions the weakness of concentrated Internet lines in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Another article notes how Libyan rebels were able to build their own cell phone network, rerouting existing infrastructure to bypass Gaddafi's brutal crackdown on the flow of information.




The development of "AlQaida-Strike 1.4," a modification of a popular but dated game called Counter-Strike, is one of several first-person shooter games developed by the group. Easily modifiable, this version of the popular series replaces secular music with jihadi nasheeds - or instrument-less songs - and adds levels adapted to al-Qaida. A screenshot of the modified game's opening image shows links to a method to play on a local offline network and images from al-Qaida training camps.

Critical to al-Qaida's needs, the modification contains another feature important to the group's needs. Chat rooms link players to one another, attracting those who glorify the group's violent aims.

"The Media Organization of the Lion's Den," a group associated with al-Qaida web forum Shumukh al-Islam, also released a poem praising the brothers of the forum and Facebook. While the poem itself is relatively insignificant, senior commentator Umar bin Masud al-Hadushi recognizes that Facebook is playing an increasing role in organizing jihadists.

A statement from Shumukh al-Islam, which has been on the forefront of embracing new technology, is symbolic of social media's importance to hardcore jihadists. "Active pro-jihad contributors to 'al-Faloja Islamic Forums' urged al-Qaida's supporters to "invade" Facebook in December 2008 by creating sympathetic groups—a feature available on the networking site—to spread the Salafi-Jihadi message," wrote Jamestown Foundation's Murad Batal al-Shishani in "Taking al-Qaeda's Jihad to Facebook."

While al-Shishani claimed then that radicals "cannot easily infiltrate Facebook," the acknowledgement of Facebook activists by al-Hadushi suggests otherwise. "Jihad supporters and mujahideen are increasingly using Facebook… to propagate operational information, including IED recipes primarily in Arabic, but in English, Indonesian, Urdu and other languages as well," said an internal DHS memo, "Terrorist Use of Social Networking – Facebook Case Study."

"The majority of extremist use of Facebook focuses on disseminating ideological information and exploiting the site as an alternative media outlet for terrorist propaganda," the memo continues. "However, to a lesser degree, the site is used as a gateway to radical forums and jihadi sites with explicit radical agendas (and easily downloadable operational information) and as a platform to promulgate some tactical and operational information."

Read More: Internet jihad
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-06-2011, 05:21 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Global Jihad Marches: Islam and Forced Conversion

Global Jihad Marches:
Islam and Forced Conversion
"Another woman who refused to convert was raped, became pregnant and jailed under Saudi Law. She then later miscarried because of harsh conditions in the prison."




I have been producing a weekly synopsis and articles on the global encroachment of Islam for about two years. In that time, a week hasn't passed without certain 'staples' of Islam perpetrated on Muslims and Non Muslims alike. One of the traits that are unquestionably unique to Islam is 'forced conversion'.

With very little research, it is easy to discover that forced conversion in hand with over-breeding, is part of a larger Islamic strategy to achieve the state of Dar al-Islam, or the 'house of Islam'. Simply defined, it is the chipping away at a country until it is an Islamic state and continuing this, on a global scale, until all religion is for Allah. The weekly synopsis certainly gives a clear picture of this objective.

This past week, The Pakistan Christian Post reported on yet another case of young girls being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. The father of the girls, Rehmat Masih, was told by a rich, local businessman that he intended to marry both daughters and had threatened to kidnap them if this wasn't approved of. A complaint to the local Police Station proved pointless as the Police refused to take action.

A few days later, the girls were kidnapped by the man while on the way home from a market. Rehmat rushed back to the Police Station to complain. After an investigation, Rehmat was accused of making false accusations against the Muslim business man. It was further stated that Rehmat was a drunk and that he often beat his daughters and they had likely ran away from home to escape this treatment.

Forced conversion isn't unique to Pakistan and in fact regularly occurs in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt and even England. It begs the question, what could possibly embolden the adherents of Islam to engage in such a heinous act? The answer is simple, the teachings of Mohammed.

Islam was spread by the sword after a slight initial, peaceful hiccup. The warlord and slave –trader Mohammed's war conquests are very concisely documented. Sûrah al-Baqarah 256: Allah says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things".

Sadly, this verse and other verses of peace were replaced by more violent ones, like Sura 8:12, 9:5, 47:4 and many others.

Prior to emigrating from Mecca to Medina (the Hijra) in 622 CE, Mohammed preached sermons of peace and tolerance, taking and perverting verses from the Bible, the Torah and sacred Greek texts. This had proven to be an abject failure to Mohammed, as barely 100 to 150 people had converted to Islam in its first 13 years. Most of these converts were either close or long-time friends or members of his family.

From 624 CE, raids on defenseless communities reaped great rewards for the early Muslims in slaves, wealth and converts to Islam. A large portion of these people converted for self-preservation as the warring Muslims murdered, tortured, enslaved and raped their way across Arabia. This had proven a more lucrative tact to the one of peace and tolerance.

This is accentuated in Ibn Ishaq 814: "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head". As well as Sahih Muslim 31:5917: "Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger."

The people of Mecca who refused to convert to Islam were forcibly removed following Mohammed's last sermon in 632 CE. The same offer was made to the Christians and Jews in Arabia, though their choice was extended to either accept Islam as their faith, leave their land or be killed.

From Mohammed last sermon, Koran 9:5, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Sahih Muslim 19, 4366, Narrated Umar b. al-Khattib: "I have heard the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) say:' I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim'."

In June 2008, Saba and Anila Younas, both Christian girls from Pakistan, were abducted by a group of Muslims, and forced to marry and convert to Islam. When the matter came before the court, Naeem Sardar, the District and Sessions Judge, ordered that the girls were not to be remanded to their Christian parents because the girls are Muslim now.

In June 2009, a Hindu woman Koli Goswami, 21, from Bangladesh was asleep in her bed when five Muslim men broke into the family home. They vandalized her home and attacked other family members that attempted to intervene before they abducted her. After some investigation by authorities, Kolis mother was told that she had converted to Islam after a 'long, mutual love affair' with one of the abductors. Her parents eventually gave up pressuring authorities for answers, Kolis mother stated, "we are afraid we may further be attacked and our other daughters might be abducted."

In January 2010, Joselyn Cabrera, a Filipino Catholic nurse working at Riyadh Hospital in Saudi Arabia said, "After some months, employers give you an ultimatum, telling you to become Muslim to keep your job. For us, it is hard to make such a choice, but if we don't, we become the victims of abuse."

In her 10 years in The Kingdom, she said she saw at least 50 forced conversions at work. She tells of another woman that refused to convert that was raped, became pregnant and jailed under Saudi Law. She then later miscarried because of harsh conditions in the prison.

In March 2010, Chakra News reported that "Susceptible teenage girls who are forced to convert to Islam by Muslim men are being protected by London police." 'Aggressive conversions' at university campuses are being discovered and Police are looking into finding the groups of men responsible. The Hindu forum of Britain has claimed that Hindu and Sikh girls are the primary targets of these terrorizing men who lure girls and take them out on dates before revealing to them that they must convert.
On April 19, 2011, USNewswire released the following statement: "Eighteen Members of Congress, from both parties, expressed "concern over continuing reports of abductions, forced marriages and exploitation of Coptic women and girls in Egypt".

Writing on the 16th of April to Ambassador Luis C deBaca, Director of the State Department's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Office, the Members noted that they had received disturbing reports documenting 'a criminal phenomenon that includes fraud, physical and sexual violence, captivity, forced marriage and exploitation in forced domestic servitude or commercial sexual exploitation and financial benefit to the individuals who secure the forced conversion of the victim.'

According to a statement of the Canadian Egyptian Organization for Human Rights on the situation of the Coptic minority in Egypt, Islamist groups practice forced conversions of members of the Coptic community to Islam: "Forced conversion of members of the Coptic community to Islam, largely publicized as a psychologically demeaning tactic against the minority, is practiced by Islamism groups under police manipulation and with their cooperation. Some of these cases start with rape of under age girls.

From Mohammeds day to present day the heinous action of forced conversion continues, unabated and with little acknowledgement by anyone other than advocacy groups.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-24-2011, 11:55 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Understanding the Jihad against Israel and America

Understanding the Jihad against Israel and America(PJ Media)
The hate starts with Muhammad and his narrated Quran.
June 24, 2011 - by Andrew G. Bostom





The late Southern Sudanese leader John Garang, in 1999, posed the following dual-part existential question for our era:
Is the call for jihad against a particular people a religious right of those calling for it, or is it a human rights violation against the people upon whom jihad is declared and waged?
As I hope to make plain, the answer to both parts of John Garang’s query is “Yes!”

Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita was interviewed July 13, 2008, on Al-Aqsa TV. After reminding listeners that the Koran’s opening prayer itself, the Fatiha, which pious Muslims repeat 17 times daily, declares that the Jews are “those who incur Allah’s wrath,” specifically in the 7th verse of the Fatiha, re-affirming the verse’s standard exegesis, or interpretation, for over 13 centuries, he declared:
The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God.
Three months earlier Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal had made these more elaborate remarks during a speech which aired on Palestinian Al-Aqsa TV April 11, 2008:
Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs [i.e., Jews, Koran 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166, and other foundational Muslim texts] in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam — this capital of theirs [Rome] will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe. I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad …
These words debunk widely accepted tropes that Hamas is merely a nationalist movement, albeit religious, desiring a “Palestinian homeland” in the territories of Gaza (which it already possesses), Judea, and Samaria. Hamas’ blatantly annihilationist rhetoric towards Jews and Israel within the 1949 armistice borders indicates that the jihadist organization wishes to replace Israel. Why then, in addition to the monotonous rhetoric of Jew-hatred (which is Islamic, and specifically Koranic, in origin), the unabashed expression of Hamas’ will to wage global jihad?

Not surprisingly, Hamas’ founding covenant issued in 1988 is redolent with similar Islamic Jew-hatred and jihadism, but also expressly integrates this jihad terror organization into the largest Sunni Muslim jihadist movement — the Muslim Brotherhood. As I will demonstrate, it is this nexus — Hamas’ connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, mainstream Islam’s most important movement, which has deep roots and extraordinary popularity amongst the global Muslim masses — that explains the closely related phenomena of Islamic Jew-hatred, and the jihad against Israel, the U.S., and indeed all outposts of Western civilization.

Koran 3:112 is featured before the pre-amble to Hamas’ foundational Covenant — it is literally part of the very first statement of the document. [Here is the standard Hillali-Khan translation of 3:112: “Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the Wrath of Allah, and destruction is put over them. This is because they disbelieved in the revelations (Ayat proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allah) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allah's disobedience, crimes and sins).”]

In classical and modern Koranic exegeses by seminal, authoritative Islamic theologians this central motif is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60, and 5:78, which describe the Jews transformation into apes and pigs (5:60), or simply apes, (i.e. verses 2:65 and 7:166), having been “ … cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). Muhammad himself — Islam’s founding prophet — repeats this Koranic curse in a canonical hadith (the words, deeds, and even unspoken gestures of Muhammad as ostensibly recorded by his earliest pious Muslim companions; Sunan Abu Dawoud, Book 37, Number 4322), “He [Muhammad] then recited the verse [5:78]: ‘ … curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary’”. And the related verse, 5:64, accuses the Jews — as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did in a January 2007 speech, citing Koran 5:64 — of being “spreaders of war and corruption,” a sort of ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Koranic curse (verses 2:61/3:112) upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets, including Isa, the Muslim Jesus (or at least his “body double” 4:157-4:158), is updated with perfect thematic logic in the canonical hadith: following the Muslims’ initial conquest of the Jewish farming oasis of Khaybar, one of the vanquished Jewesses reportedly served Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), which resulted, ultimately, in his protracted, agonizing death. And Ibn Saad’s sira account — the sira being the earliest pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad — maintains that Muhammad’s poisoning resulted from a well-coordinated Jewish conspiracy. Thus Hamas cleric Wael Al-Zarad explained on Al-Aqsa TV on February 28, 2008 that the Muslims’ blood vengeance against the Jews, “will only subside with their [the Jews] annihilation, Allah willing, because they tried to kill our Prophet (i.e., Muhammad) several times.” And they ultimately succeeded. Again, these allegations are part of a central antisemitic motif in the Koran — simply repeated in the Hamas Covenant, and ad nauseum by Hamas clerics — which decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews for slaying the prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah (Koran 2:61/ reiterated at 2:89-91, and 3:112).

The annihilationist sentiments regarding Jews, as expressed by Hamas cleric al-Zarad, are further rooted in Islamic eschatology [end of times theology], and also incorporated permanently into the foundational 1988 Hamas Covenant. As characterized in the hadith, Muslim eschatology highlights the Jews’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl — the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ — or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan, or Jerusalem, wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered — everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree, as per the canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985) included in the 1988 Hamas Covenant (in article 7). This hadith is cited in the Covenant as a sacralized, obligatory call for a Muslim genocide of the Jews:
…the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985)
Article 28, which is free of any eschatological references, clearly “widens the circle of hate” towards Jews, as historian David Littman first observed, targeting all contemporary Jews: “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people: ‘May the cowards never sleep.’”

Articles 22 and 32 invoke modern conspiratorial themes reminiscent of European (secular) antisemitic motifs, especially the latter (article 32), which makes explicit mention of the Czarist Russian forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But even these articles are peppered with Koranic citations, including references in both articles 22 and 32 to Koran 5:64, mentioned previously as the Koran’s ancient antecedent to The Protocols. (Arberry translation, Koran 5:64: “The Jews have said, ‘God’s hand is fettered.’ Fettered are their hands, and they are cursed for what they have said. Nay, but His hands are outspread; He expends how He will. And what has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will surely increase many of them in insolence and unbelief; and We have cast between them enmity and hatred, till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, God will extinguish it. They hasten about the earth, to do corruption there; and God loves not the workers of corruption.”)

Jihad is the other pillar of Hamas’ foundational Jew-annihilationist ideology featured in the 1988 Covenant. Once again, this is already suggested in the opening statement before the preamble which includes the following quote by Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood: “Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it.” Hamas openly claims to be a wing of the International Muslim Brotherhood. Article 2 of the Hamas Charter states: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.”

But the body of the Hamas Covenant includes unequivocal statements of Hamas’ irredentist commitment to the annihilation of Israel via jihad. Jihad martyrdom is lauded in article 8 “the Hamas slogan,” (in fact borrowed from the 1928 Charter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood), which states, “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” Article 13 makes plain that Hamas’ jihadism is completely incompatible with any meaningful Middle East peace settlement:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that … there is no solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors.
And article 15 (subtitled, “Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is a Personal Duty”) elucidates classical jihadist theory — including jihad martyrdom (i.e., homicide bombing) operations — as well as its practical modern application to the destruction of Israel by jihad, and the need to recruit the global Muslim community, or “umma” in this quintessential Islamic cause:
The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters. The indoctrination campaign must involve ulama, educators, teachers and information and media experts, as well as all intellectuals, especially the young people and the sheikhs of Islamic movements …

It is necessary to establish in the minds of all the Muslim generations that the Palestinian issue is a religious issue, and that it must be dealt with as such, for [Palestine] contains Islamic holy places, [namely] the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is inseparably connected, for as long as heaven and earth shall endure, to the holy mosque of Mecca through the Prophet’s nocturnal journey [from the mosque of Mecca to the Al-Aqsa mosque] and through his ascension to heaven thence. “Being stationed on the frontier for the sake of Allah for one day is better than this [entire] world and everything in it; and the place taken up in paradise by the [horseman’s] whip of any one of you [jihad fighters] is better than this [entire] world and everything in it. Every evening [operation] and morning [operation] performed by Muslims for the sake of Allah is better than this [entire] world and everything in it.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja). “By the name of Him who holds Muhammad’s soul in His hand, I wish to launch an attack for the sake of Allah and be killed and attack again and be killed and attack again and be killed.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim)
Unfortunately, Hamas’ views on the jihad against Israel, and Islamic Jew hatred, are entirely concordant with those of the most authoritative religious educational institution within Sunni Islam for over 1200 years, since the late 8th century — Al Azhar University, in Cairo, Egypt. Consider a fatwa written January 5, 1956, by then Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Hasan Ma’moun, and signed by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar, and the major representatives of all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. [English translation from State Department Telegram 1763/ Embassy (Cairo) Telegram 1256 D441214] This ruling elaborated the following key initial point: that all of historical Palestine — modern Jordan, Israel, and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza — having been conquered by jihad, was a permanent possession of the global Muslim umma (community), “fay territory” — booty or spoils — to be governed eternally by Islamic Law. The January, 1956 Al Azhar fatwa’s language and arguments are indistinguishable from those employed by Hamas (in its Covenant), revealing the same conjoined motivations of jihad, and conspiratorial Islamic Jew hatred:
Muslims cannot conclude peace with those Jews who have usurped the territory of Palestine and attacked its people and their property in any manner which allows the Jews to continue as a state in that sacred Muslim territory.

[As] Jews have taken a part of Palestine and there established their non-Islamic government and have also evacuated from that part most of its Muslim inhabitants … Jihad … to restore the country to its people … is the duty of all Muslims, not just those who can undertake it. And since all Islamic countries constitute the abode of every Muslim, the Jihad is imperative for both the Muslims inhabiting the territory attacked, and Muslims everywhere else because even though some sections have not been attacked directly, the attack nevertheless took place on a part of the Muslim territory which is a legitimate residence for any Muslim.

Everyone knows that from the early days of Islam to the present day the Jews have been plotting against Islam and Muslims and the Islamic homeland. They do not propose to be content with the attack they made on Palestine and Al Aqsa Mosque, but they plan for the possession of all Islamic territories from the Nile to the Euphrates.
The continual, monotonous invocation by Al Azhar clerics of such jihadist and antisemitic motifs from the Koran (or other foundational Muslim texts) is entirely consistent with the published writings and statements of the late Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi — Grand Imam of this pre-eminent Islamic religious institution from 1996, till his death in March 2010.

My book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism includes extensive first-time English translations of Tantawi’s academic magnum opus, Jews in the Koran and the Traditions. Tantawi wrote these words rationalizing Muslim Jew-hatred in his 700-page treatise:
[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/ 3:112], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness … only a minority of the Jews keep their word … [A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not.
Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, a position he held for 14 years. These were the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope — the head of the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, which represents some 85 to 90 percent of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi never mollified such hatemongering beliefs after becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on “dialogue” (January 1998) with Jews, the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs” (April 2002), and the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews (April 2002) make clear.

Tantawi’s statements on dialogue, which were issued shortly after he met with the Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Israel Meir Lau, in Cairo, on December 15, 1997, provided him another opportunity to re-affirm his ongoing commitment to the views expressed about Jews in his Ph.D. thesis:
Anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward. My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Koran], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews … wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah. I still believe in everything written in that dissertation. [i.e., Jews in the Koran and the Traditions, cited above]
Consistent with Islam’s institutionalized jihadism and Jew-hatred since the 7th century advent of the Muslim creed, the 1956 Al Azhar fatwa, and the more recent pronouncements of the late Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent, Sheikh Tantawi, represent only the last 55 years. Likewise, Hamas merely reflects the triumph of modern jihadist movements that avow, unabashed, not just their annihilationist Jew-hatred, with open calls for a jihad genocide against Israel, but the over-arching desire to re-establish a Caliphate — the transnational hub of past Islamic Empires — and submit the world to Islamic rule — all in accord with living, classical jihad doctrine, and popular contemporary Muslim sentiment.

Brynjar Lia’s 1998 analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s formative years (1928-1942) points out how founder Hasan Al-Banna’s and the Brotherhood’s vision remained steadfastly Islamic — hence its deep resonance with the timeless aspiration of the Muslim masses to establish a transnational Muslim Caliphate via jihad.

Quoting the Qur’anic verse [2:193] “And fight them till sedition is no more, and the faith is Allah’s,” the Muslim Brothers urged their fellow Muslims to restore the bygone greatness of Islam, and to re-establish the Islamic empire … [T]hey even called for the restoration of “former Islamic colonies” in Andalus (Spain), southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans, and the Mediterranean islands.

Two decades earlier, Charles Wendell had published a magisterial 1978 translation of five important Al-Banna treatises, highlighting the traditional, mainstream Islamic authenticity of his vision. What Charles Wendell knew and was unafraid to proclaim is that Al-Banna represented a continuum — not just from the so-called “Muslim modernists” of the late 19th and early 20th century — al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, most directly — but from foundational, mainstream Islam itself — the Islam that still appeals most to the Muslim masses wherever they reside, including sadly, here in the U.S. These are Wendell’s critical summary insights:
Hasan al-Banna’s fundamental conviction that Islam does not accept, or even tolerate, a separation of “church” and state, or of either from society, is as thoroughly Islamic as it can be. Any attempt to translate his movement into terms reducible to social, political, or religious factors exclusively simply misses the boat.
The “totality” created by the Prophet Muhammad in the Medinese state, the first Islamic state, was Hasan’s unwavering ideal, and the ideal of all Muslim thinkers before him, including the idle dreamers in the mosque. His ideology then, before it was Egyptian or Arab or whatever, was Islamic to the core. Since it embraced all aspects of human life and thought, it was at least as much religious as anything else. Practically all of his arguments are shored up by frequent quotations from the Qur’an and the Traditions, quite in the style of his medieval forbears. If one considers the public to whom his writings were addressed, it becomes instantly apparent that such arguments must still be the most compelling for the vast bulk of the Muslim populations of today. The nagging feeling that Islam must, and very quickly at that, catch up with the West, had even by his time filtered down from above to the masses after having been the watchword of the modernizing intellectual for almost a century. There was also the notion that all these Western sciences and techniques were originally adopted from Islamic culture, and were therefore merely “coming home” — a piece of self-conscious back-patting that was already a cliché of most Muslim political writing.
The immensely popular current Muslim Brotherhood “Spiritual Leader,” Yusuf al-Qaradawi — after whom the “moderate” Qatari government created the Orwellian-named “Al-Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation,” and the “moderate” Egyptian Army welcomed back to Cairo from a long exile after Mubarak was deposed — represents the apotheosis of the “Arab Spring.” Fittingly, Sheikh Qaradawi promulgates virulent Jew-hatred and champions a jihad genocide of the refuge of Middle Eastern, and world Jewry — Israel. During recent interviews published at the Muslim Brotherhood’s English website “IkhwanWeb,” Qaradawi elucidated his overarching beliefs and goals, while extolling the putative “moderate vision” of MB founder and paragon, Hassan al-Banna. And Qaradawi has publicly advocated all of the following:
  • That Muslims emulate their prophet Muhammad as a model for violent, expansionist jihad, which includes the sanctioning of so-called jihad “martyrdom operations”
  • The re-creation of a formal transnational United Islamic State (Islamic Caliphate)
  • The jihad conquests of Europe and the Americas
  • Universal application of the Sharia, Islamic Law including Islamic blasphemy law, and the Sharia-based hadd punishments (for example, notably, executing so-called “apostates” from Islam)
  • Homicide “martyrdom” bombings of all Israeli Jews, including non-combatants, and subsequently, invoking Hitler and expanding the circle of hatred, a call for the frank jihad genocide of all Jews (“This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”) Qaradawi also expressed a personal longing to die in a homicidal “martyrdom” operation targeting Jews: “I’d like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Allah’s mercy and blessings upon you.”)
Notwithstanding all this contemporary evidence — which reflects a seamless continuum of Islamic doctrine and history — the Obama administration’s lead counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, vociferously advocates an exclusive, bowdlerized definition of jihad in the public discourse as, “to purify oneself or one’s community,” lest the tender sensibilities of Muslims be offended. He further claims that, somehow, self-described jihadists, “have truly just distorted the whole concept” of jihad. But it is Brennan, irrespective of whatever flimsy, ahistorical rationale he provides, who thoroughly misrepresents jihad — a living, bellicose Islamic institution which dates from Islam’s origins almost 14 centuries ago.




The dangerous absurdity of Brennan’s jihad denial is self-evident: nearly 17,500 jihad terror attacks have been committed by Muslims worldwide since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism committed against the United States itself on September 11, 2001. These data should remind us that there is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite such contemporary apologetics. The root of the word Jihad appears 40 times in the Koran, and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries — from the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazzali), to ordinary people — meant and means “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” As described by the seminal 19th century Arabic lexicographer E.W. Lane, “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers.” A contemporary definition, relevant to both modern jihadism and its shock troop “mujahideen” — was provided at the Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research at Al Azhar University, in 1968, by Muhammad al-Sobki:
the words Al Jihad, Al Mojahadah, or even “striving against enemies” are equivalents and they do not mean especially fighting with the atheists … they mean fighting in the general sense.

Muhammad himself, during the last decade of his life (622-632), waged a series of proto-jihad expeditions to subdue the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. Not surprisingly, the Jews figured prominently in these campaigns. Muhammad’s failures or incomplete successes were consistently recompensed by murderous attacks on the Jews. The Muslim prophet-warrior developed a penchant for assassinating individual Jews, and destroying Jewish communities — by expropriation and expulsion (Banu Quaynuqa and B. Nadir), or massacring their men, and enslaving their women and children (Banu Qurayza). Just before subduing the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza and orchestrating the mass execution of their adult males, Muhammad invoked perhaps the most striking Koranic motif for the Jews debasement — he addressed these Jews, with hateful disparagement, as “You brothers of apes.” Subsequently, in the case of the Khaybar Jews, Muhammad had the male leadership killed, and plundered their riches. The terrorized Khaybar survivors — industrious Jewish farmers — became prototype subjugated dhimmis whose productivity was extracted by the Muslims as a form of permanent booty. And according to the Muslim sources, even this tenuous vassalage was arbitrarily terminated within a decade of Muhammad’s death when Caliph Umar expelled the Jews of Khaybar.

Numerous modern day pronouncements by leading Muslim theologians confirm that Muhammad has been the major inspiration for jihadism, past and present. (See for example, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s, “The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model”.)

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist, reknowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
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 … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Classical Islamic jurists such as Ibn Khaldun also formulated the concepts Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb (Arabic for, “The House of Islam and the House of War”). As described by the great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, Joseph Schacht:
A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, “in a state of war”, “enemy alien”; his life and property are completely unprotected by law …

Yusuf Al-Qaradawi reiterated almost this exact formulation of Dar al Harb during July 2003, both in conceptual terms, and with regard to Israel, specifically. Accordingly, innocent non-combatant “harbis” can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being “harbis” during endless razzias — raids — and or full-scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the specific institutionalized religio-political ideology, i.e., jihad, which makes Islamdom’s borders (and the further reaches of today’s jihadists) bloody, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington, across the globe.

The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the classical Muslim historian al-Tabari’s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al-Khattab (the second “Rightly Guided Caliph”) to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 C.E.), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar reportedly said:
Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Koran 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.

By the time of al-Tabari’s death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to the Indian subcontinent. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as Eastern Europe. Under the banner of jihad, the Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized by waves of Seljuk, or later Ottoman Turks, as well as Tatars. Arab Muslim invaders engaged, additionally, in continuous jihad raids that ravaged and enslaved Sub-Saharan African animist populations, extending to the southern Sudan. When the Ottoman Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired. These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphant jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slaughtered, or enslaved and deported, the cities, villages, and infidel religious sites which were sacked and pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized.

This sanctioned, but wanton destruction resulted, specifically in: the merciless slaughter of non-combatants, including women and children; massive destruction of non-Muslim houses of worship and religious shrines — Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, and Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist temples and idols; and the burning of harvest crops and massive uprooting of agricultural production systems, leading to famine. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), as well as Hebrew sources, and even the scant Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist writings which survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate this narrative, and complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non-Muslim victims of jihad wars.

And what was the nature of the system of governance imposed upon those indigenous non-Muslims conquered by jihad? In his seminal The Laws of Islamic Governance al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel “dhimmi” (which derives from both the word for “pact”, and also “guilt” — guilty of religious errors) population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the Koranic poll tax (jizya), based on Koran 9:29. Al- Mawardi notes that: “The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” He then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, “it does, not however, prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future.” (II). Payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established.” Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years. This same basic formulation was reiterated during a January 8, 1998 interview by Yusuf al-Qaradawi confirming how jihad continues to regulate the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims to this day.

The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples. Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims — Jews, Christians, [as well as Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists] — subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished dhimmis, and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims. It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’a.

Thus, the Jewish travelogue writer J. J. Binyamin (II) recorded the following account after his 1847 sojourn in Palestine—the plight of the Jews he witnessed being consistent with their sacralized degradation under Islamic Law, and despite putative “reforms” of the Sharia imposed upon the Ottoman Muslim rulers in 1839 by the Western European powers:
Deep misery and continual oppression are the right words to describe the condition of the Children of Israel in the land of their fathers … They are entirely destitute of every legal protection and every means of safety. Instead of security afforded by law, which is unknown in these countries, they are completely under the orders of the Sheiks and Pashas, men, whose character and feelings inspire but little confidence from the beginning. It is only the European Consuls who frequently take care of the oppressed, and afford them some protection. … With unheard of rapacity tax upon tax is levied on them, and with the exception of Jerusalem, the taxes demanded are arbitrary. Whole communities have been impoverished by the exorbitant claims of the Sheiks, who, under the most trifling pretences and without being subject to any control, oppress the Jews with fresh burdens … In the strict sense of the word the Jews are not even masters of their own property. They do not even venture to complain when they are robbed and plundered … Their lives are taken into as little consideration as their property; they are exposed to the caprice of any one; even the smallest pretext, even a harmless discussion, a word dropped in conversation, is enough to cause bloody reprisals. Violence of every kind is of daily occurrence. The chief evidence of their miserable condition is the universal poverty which we remarked in Palestine, and which is here truly astounding … It even causes leprosy among the Jews of Palestine, as in former times. Robbed of their means of subsistence from the cultivation of the soil and the pursuit of trade, they exist upon the charity of their brethren in the faith in foreign parts … In a word the state of the Jews in Palestine, physically and mentally, is an unbearable one.

It is within this overall historical context that one must view contemporary Muslim pronouncements regarding the status of non-Muslims — under past, present, and future Islamic rule.

For example, Palestinian Authority (PA) Undersecretary for Religious Endowment, Sheik Yussef Salamah, representing the PA at a May 1999 “Inter-Cultural Conference,” in Tehran, praised the 7th century system of Ahl Al-Dhimma (i.e, the system of dhimmitude, which I have briefly described), as the proper paradigm for relations between Muslims and Christians today.

During a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, Palestinian Authority employee Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews:
We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.

Tragically even the still apposite lessons from America’s own first encounter with jihadism have failed to resonate in the current era. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan [modern Libyan] Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy — murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets — emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Thus an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 years — exploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the U.S.

Moreover, American Presidents John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt each possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institution of jihad war — both its doctrinal basis, and history. Regarding jihad, Quincy Adams states in an 1829-30 essay series:
… he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind … The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.

Adams also captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement:
The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.

And Roosevelt offered this historical perspective in 1916 on the consequences for Western civilization of succeeding, or failing to repel jihad conquerors:
The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization … [including] those of Charles Martel in the 8th century [over Arab jihadists] and those of John Sobieski in the 17th century [over Ottoman Turkish jihadists]. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier [Martel] and the Polish king [Sobieski], the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence [is] … concerned … There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do — that is, beat back the Moslem invader. It is of course worthwhile for sociologists to discuss the effect of this European militarism on “social values” but only if they first clearly realize and formulate the fact that if European militarism had not been able to defend itself against and to overcome the militarism of Asia and Africa, there would have been no “social values” of any kind in our world today, and no sociologists to discuss them.

Nearly a century later, the preponderance of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia share the goal of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Polling data released April 24, 2007 in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007 — 1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians — reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed — almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority” — desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate.” The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.”

Publication June 7, 2011 of the landmark “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques” study provides irrefragable evidence that 81% of this nationally representative sample of U.S. mosques — consistent with mainstream Islamic doctrine, practice, and sentiment since the founding of the Muslim creed — are inculcating jihadism with the goal of implementing Sharia here in America. These mosque data represent another manifestation of institutional American Islam’s jihadism expressed clandestinely 20 years ago in a Muslim Brotherhood statement dated May 22, 1991, written by an acolyte of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America,” the document — uncovered during the Holy Land Foundation trial — is indeed self-explanatory.
The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
[i]
Whittaker Chambers’ transcendent 1952 autobiography Witness, which chronicles his apostasy from Communism, offers these searing insights that elucidate how American Muslims could rationalize such seditious behaviors — consistent with Islamic doctrine — and why this phenomenon remains largely incomprehensible to non-Muslim Americans, despite its existential threat to them:
What went on in the minds of those Americans … that made it possible to betray their country? Did none of them suffer a crisis of conscience? The question presupposes that whoever asks it has still failed to grasp that Communists mean exactly what they have been saying for a hundred years: they regard any government that is not Communist, including their own, merely as the political machine of a class whose power they have organized expressly to overthrow by all means, including violence. Therefore the problem of espionage never presents itself to them as a problem of conscience, but a problem of operations…

The failure to understand that fact is part of the total failure of the West to grasp the nature of its enemy, what he wants, what he means to do and how he will go about doing it. It is part of the failure of the West to understand that it is at grips with an enemy having no moral viewpoint in common with itself, that two irreconcilable viewpoints and standards of judgment, two irreconcilable moralities, proceeding from two irreconcilable readings of man’s fate and future are involved, and hence their conflict is irrepressible.
Does 21st century America possess Whittaker Chambers’ moral compass and fortitude to combat the modern scourge of ancient Islamic totalitarianism?

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-25-2011, 02:22 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Marketing jihad: bin Laden wanted to re-brand al-Qaeda

Marketing jihad: bin Laden wanted to re-brand al-Qaeda

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/ma...-al-qaeda.html


"At the White House, the documents were taken as positive reinforcement for President Barack Obama's effort to eliminate religiously charged words from the government's language of terrorism," like "jihad."

You can't challenge an ideology you can't name or acknowledge to exist. And to constantly misdirect efforts by insisting the enemy isn't what he says he is, is to fight an imprecise, misguided war that is needlessly wasteful of blood and treasure.

The connection between bin Laden's use of "jihad" and why the Obama administration thinks its non-use of it constitutes a victory isn't ever really stated here, unless they feared they would be validating al-Qaeda's position by calling them jihadists. But we all know how much al-Qaeda looks to Pennsylvania Avenue for validation. To call jihad for what it is would be to put a stop the semantic shell game, at home and abroad.

"Osama wanted new name for al-Qaida to repair image," by Matt Apuzzo for the Associated Press, June 24:
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Osama bin Laden watched his terrorist organization get picked apart, he lamented in his final writings that al-Qaida was suffering from a marketing problem. His group was killing too many Muslims and that was bad for business. The West was winning the public relations fight. All his old comrades were dead and he barely knew their replacements.
Faced with these challenges, bin Laden, who hated the United States and decried capitalism, considered a most American of business strategies. Like Blackwater, ValuJet and Philip Morris, perhaps what al-Qaida really needed was a fresh start under a new name.
The problem with the name al-Qaida, bin Laden wrote in a letter recovered from his compound in Pakistan, was that it lacked a religious element, something to convince Muslims worldwide that they are in a holy war with America.
Maybe something like Taifat al-Tawhed Wal-Jihad, meaning Monotheism and Jihad Group, would do the trick, he wrote. Or Jama'at I'Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida, meaning Restoration of the Caliphate Group.
As bin Laden saw it, the problem was that the group's full name, al-Qaida al-Jihad, for The Base of Holy War, had become short-handed as simply al-Qaida. Lopping off the word "jihad," bin Laden wrote, allowed the West to "claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam." Maybe it was time for al-Qaida to bring back its original name.
The letter, which was undated, was discovered among bin Laden's recent writings. Navy SEALs stormed his compound and killed him before any name change could be made. The letter was described by senior administration, national security and other U.S. officials only on condition of anonymity because the materials are sensitive. The documents portray bin Laden as a terrorist chief executive, struggling to sell holy war for a company in crisis.
At the White House, the documents were taken as positive reinforcement for President Barack Obama's effort to eliminate religiously charged words from the government's language of terrorism. Words like "jihad," which also has a peaceful religious meaning, are out. "Islamic radical" has been nixed in favor of "terrorist" and "mass murderer." Though former members of President George W. Bush's administration have backed that effort, it also has drawn ridicule from critics who said the president was being too politically correct....
The purpose of jihad in all of its forms is to impose Islamic law on all levels of society, from the individual to an entire country; only the means vary. Therefore, it is inaccurate to believe one can neatly parse off non-military means of jihad from its armed form, when the goal is the same.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-06-2011, 06:15 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow School of death

School of death

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/school-of-death.html


Jihad is not only a mujahid with machine-gun; jihad is an ideology that develops, adapts, and seeks new opportunities and allies to strike at the enemies of Islam.

Before a jihadist or a jihadi group will strike at a target, they learn it well. It is already well known that they bide their time, and human life has no value to them.

But by far the most terrible weapon the jihadists employ is the lie, the blurring of the mind.

Not far from Grozny, only around a half hour's drive, hundreds of mujahideen have been trained for a future of shooting the enemies of Islam. They had come there from many countries, as well as from the Caucasus. I visited two jihad training camps in the North Caucasus, in Chechnya. At one of them I was a frequent guest for 3 months. It was founded by the Jordanian Arab jihadist Amir ibn al-Khattab (real name: Samer Saleh al-Suveylem). Chechens called this camp "the Islamic Institute of the Caucasus."

There were many Arabs there, but they ignored me because I was not Muslim. Only one Arab spoke to me. He knew that I knew the jihad leaders Khattab and Basayev personally. My Chechen guide explained to me what was what.

Before this camp opened, there was a children's recreation area on that site. Ironically, in 1997 in that same area there began the "training of death." Since 1997, this Institute has trained thousands of Mujahideen. Arabs taught Institute attendees the Qur'an and Islam. The instructors for military training were the Chechens. Their responsibility was to train young students in the possession of weapons. Training in the creation of a bomb using any available materials was the responsibility of the Arabs.

"They have a lot of practice," remarked one of the mujahideen. He learned about the camp from a friend. Advertising had also been on TV. "They promised to us salaries, weapons, uniforms and free education in the madrasah. I'm lucky if I die for the faith of Islam," he said, and looked at me proudly.

At first I was not clear on what was the point of creating this camp. The Chechens have always been good warriors. I was surprised that they had to be taught by Arabs.

Abdul-Walid from Saudi Arabia, a teacher of explosives, explained to me that jihad is not only physical war. It is a religion, and the essence of Islam as written in the Qur'an. "The Chechens are good soldiers, but they do not understand Islam," he said. "They fight with the Russians, but do not know that the real enemy of Muslims and Islam is the Jew. This the Qur'an teaches us. Nobody can win the war without the will of Allah."

In this camp I also heard about the organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Khattab created a branch of Muslim Brotherhood in the northern Caucasus. I learned that many students come from the Middle East, too, and will learn military affairs from Chechen trainers, as the Chechens learned Islam from the visiting teachers.

This symbiosis has been very beneficial to all concerned. Jihadism became stronger in the Caucasian region, and the visitors learned martial arts. One Caucasian jihadist gave me an example of how the Chechens did not know Islam: once he was in the mosque reading the sacred pages of the Qur'an, but later, after he was educated in Saudi Arabia and returned to the northern Caucasus, he realized that the text he had been reading was not from the Qur'an.

Maybe it was a joke, maybe not. But they all serious about one thing: they believe that if you are not Muslim, jihadists can kill you, and this is not a sin.

In the camp the trainees are fed so well that many students came from poor regions of Russia and Azerbaijan. They were given uniforms and guns. Also, at that time I already knew that the families of the deceased received compensation from the sponsors of jihad.

The jihadists have succeeded in just one or two years: jihad is not only continuing, but is also spreading to new territory.

Every day for months, I looked at the people who wanted to kill the "enemies of Islam." At the beginning of the training they would in conversation talk about various things, but after a few months in the camp the only topic of conversation was the jihad and the Zionists. All other people were Zionist agents.

But worst of all were those who were not included in these conversations. They were spending their time praying, were never late for classes, and were dressed in Arab costumes of bright material. Just hearing the azan made them raise their heads and start praying (making namaz).

Looking at this, I realized that all these brainwashed people were serious about killing. They had different techniques, but one idea. They were ready to explode bombs and kill innocents just because these innocents were not Muslim. And during the killings and executions they say: in the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 07-06-2011 at 06:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-06-2011, 06:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow An interview with an Egyptian jihadist--why Sadat was murdered

An interview with an Egyptian jihadist--why Sadat was murdered

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/an...-murdered.html


Buried deep down in this mainstream media treatment are some interesting if not troubling revelations regarding a jihadist in Cairo named Aboud Al-Zomor, who was recently released from prison by the post Mubarak regime. Any emphasis added below is my own. Excerpts from "Sadat’s assassination plotter remains unrepentant", MSNBC, 5 July 2011:
Egyptian authorities...believed Zomor was one of the plot’s top masterminds. He was sentenced to life in prison. But Zomor was released as part of an ongoing amnesty program after the revolution in Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier this year overthrew President Mubarak.

I spoke with Zomor for an hour in a humble fifth-floor walkup apartment a few miles from the Great Pyramids on the edge of Cairo. Zomor, now 64 years old, remains an Islamic hardliner. His beard, now grey, falls to his chest. He is unrepentant about killing Sadat. His only regret, he says, is that assassinating Sadat brought Mubarak to power.
...
Our conversation then returned to Sadat. I wanted to know what motivated him and the other plotters to kill the Egyptian president. Was it the peace deal with Israel, or something else?

“Was Sadat killed because he wanted a deal with Israel, was that the only reason?” I asked.

“This was not the only point, this point [the peace deal], preceded [the assassination] by two years. He made that deal and no one killed him or planned to,” Zomor said.

“The decision [to kill Sadat] was based on a number of factors together. The first issue was the issue of sharia [Islamic law], that he was standing against sharia, against its implementation and application. This was the primary reason that this regime must be removed.
...
After the interview, Zomor left the apartment. I watched him walk down the street. He was stopped repeatedly. People came up to shake his hand. They wanted to meet him. A poor man pushing a cart bought him a glass of sugarcane juice. Zomor was treated more like a celebrity – more like a fellow revolutionary – than an organizer of Egypt’s most notorious assassination in modern history.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-09-2011, 08:24 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Taliban Spokesman Outlines Global Basis of Jihad



July 8, 2011
Special Dispatch No.3983
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5448.htm


Taliban Spokesman Outlines Global Basis of Jihad, Says: 'The War and Jihad by Our Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan is Directed Against All Infidels of the World, Wherever They Are'
Ehsanullah Ehsan, the spokesman of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, or the Movement of Pakistani Taliban), recently wrote an article in which he outlined the grounds for the Taliban's jihad against the Pakistani government. The article, titled "Islamic or Secular System in Pakistan?" appeared in the first issue of Khilafat (Caliphate), a quarterly magazine published by the TTP.

Khilafat, which was released on jihadi internet forums for the first time in June 2011, is a new Urdu-language publication launched by the TTP under the leadership of Umar Khalid Khorasani, the Taliban commander for Mohmand Agency, one of the seven Pakistani tribal districts known for hosting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants. In the article, Ehsanullah Ehsan stressed that although the Taliban's jihad is against those infidels and apostates who live in its proximity, the ambit of the mission of jihad is global. He stated: "The war and jihad by our Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan is directed against all infidels of the world wherever they are… And after Allah the Almighty thrusts defeat on infidels nearby, then we – Allah willing – will wage jihad against the infidels residing in the far corner of the world."

The full text of this report is available to MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor Subscribers.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5448.htm
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-26-2011, 08:33 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Tears of Jihad

Tears of Jihad



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-30-2011, 08:38 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Whitewashing Jihad(Media Research Council)

Whitewashing Jihad(Media Research Council)
A group funded by George Soros teaches journalists how to downplay Muslim holy war and Sharia


By Iris Somberg
September 29, 2011


Program launched to teach press about Muslim sensitivities blames 'right-wing activists.'

A new course on Islam designed for journalists tries to minimize the impact and importance of ''jihad'' by comparing it to the number of murders in America each year. That same course claims ''right-wing activists'' tried to tie American Muslims to terrorism and doesn't mention examples of Islamic attacks on press freedom.

That's the way a prominent news organization is teaching journalists in a three-hour online course. The Poynter News University, part of the Poynter Institute, launched the free course ''Covering Islam in America'' to guide the media on their coverage of Muslim communities.

The George Soros-funded Social Science Research Council, which received $50,000 from the Open Society Institute ''For Initiative on HIV/AIDS and Social Transformation,'' is one of the groups behind the initiative, along with the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. That fits with a theme for liberal financier Soros, who has spent more than $52 million on influencing the media. The Islamic course also links to another Soros-funded entity, the well-financed Center for American Progress.

In about 30 pages of text with links to other reports and articles, journalists can go through and read about the history of Islam, Muslims in America, and how to cover stories on Islam. Besides learning basic facts about Muslims and their history, the course adds ways to put ''jihad'' into perspective, attack conservatives, and provide a list of liberal groups that can be contacted for expert advice and quotes.


The pre and post-assessments give a hint as to the nature of the course. One question asked, ''What grievances might sources associated with 'Political Islam' hold against Western journalists?'' The answer is that ''Western journalists are seen as all of the following: ''hostile to Islam,'' ''focus too much on Islamic violence,'' ''viewed as water carriers for Western government agendas,'' and ''thought to be unable to understand Islam unless they embrace Islam.''

Course instructors Lawrence Pintak and Stephen Franklin are both former foreign correspondents. Pintak serves as dean at The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University, which is a partner of the project. He also has two books on journalism and Islam and defends the biased, activist network Al Jazzera English.

This course is ''A project of The Poynter Institute funded by The Knight Foundation.'' Soros's Open Society Foundations have worked closely with The Knight Foundation. They partnered up to start the Investigative News Network, which received $200,000 from the Knight Foundation and $100,000 from the Open Society Foundations. The Knight Foundations President and CEO, Alberto Ibarguen, is also on the board for AOL and yet another key Soros backed group, the progressive investigative reporting start-up ProPublica.

There is some useful information in the Islamic course for those journalists that did not pay attention in their history classes and are ignorant of Islamic beliefs. However, this does not excuse statements that accuse conservatives of bigotry.

''Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a group of right-wing activists who view themselves as 'anti-Jihadists' have aggressively tried to tie American Muslims to terrorism overseas and in the United States. You can learn more about some of these groups in the following...''

The reports that journalists are told to look at to uncover the ''right-wing activists'' agenda are even more telling. The first is a report from none other than the Soros-funded progressive group Center for American Progress, which received $7.3 million from the Open Society Foundations since the year 2000.

Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, details charitable groups that ''spent almost $43 million financing anti-Muslim campaigns.'' One of the coauthors of the report is the Koch-hating Lee Fang, who writes for Center's left-wing blog Think Progress. Fang continuously goes after the Koch brothers for their contributions to conservatives and Tea Party support.

The other report is by The Tennessean in Nashville titled Anti-Muslim Crusaders Make Millions Spreading Fear. This article details the story of ''activists who have raised millions of dollars after they convinced donors that the nation's Muslim population posed a security threat.''

Another section of the course also encourages journalists to add context to their stories. They note it is important to explain political motives stating ''Politicians do not oppose or support proposed mosques and other Muslim-American projects without taking into account their own interests.''

One of the more offensive statements is that ''context is essential in covering this global story in a way that does not amplify fears of jihad.'' Journalists ''are far more likely to report on jihad-related incidents than other violence' which gives people a ''skewed impression of the prevalence of jihad.''

In order to combat this, journalists are told to compare the ''approximately 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001'' by terrorists to the general murder rate:

''To give those numbers some context, the FBI reports that approximately 15,000 people in the U.S. are murdered each year (A half-million individuals die each year from nutritional deficiencies, more than 800,000 from malaria, and two million from HIV/AIDS.) Jihad is not a leading cause of death in the world, even in the three countries that account for the bulk of the casualties: Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.''

The first section of the course described Shariah law and the concerns surrounding it. ''Most Americans have heard some reference to Shariah law. There is even a movement in the U.S. dedicated to fighting what its members claim is the encroachment of Shariah, or Islamic law, in this country.''

Without describing the concerns about the encroachment of Shariah law within the U.S., the course blandly described Shariah and compared it to other religions.

''Shariah literally means the "straight path." It is Islamic law based upon the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunna, which are the habits and customs of the Prophet Muhammad. At some level, Shariah governs every aspect of Muslim life. However, just as some Catholics might ignore strictures on birth control or Jews may eat pork, Muslims also sometimes veer off "the straight path."

While Catholics may ignore birth control rules or Jews may eat pork, they are rarely killed for doing so. In Islamic countries that abide by Shariah law, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, ''non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law' and one can be stoned to death, beheaded, or flogged for ''crimes of sin such as adultery,'' as described by Former Muslims United Director Nonie Darwish. Just a week ago, a Sudanese worker was executed in Saudi Arabia for ''sorcery.''

Besides leaving out the violent nature of Shariah law, other important facts about radical Islam and journalism are omitted. No where in the course does it mention The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who published a cartoon of Muhammad sparked global riots around the globe. Protesters in 2006 ''burnt embassies and stormed several European buildings in a wave of rioting and flag-burning in which more than 100 people were killed.'' There was even an assassination attempt four years later.

Nor does it mention Molly Norris, another cartoonist who changed her name and went into hiding ''on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I.'' She was ''threatened by Islamic extremists' for promoting ''Everybody Draw Muhammad Day'' on the internet after Comedy Central ''edited out references to Muhammad from an episode of 'South Park' that month' which ''triggered threats from extremists.''

This isn't the first time Soros foundations have advocated for Islamic causes. Soros's Open Society Foundations have funded and hosted events that promote similar ideas. Their ''At Home in Europe Project'' explored Muslim integration in cities across Europe. ''As a result of the attacks in New York, Madrid, and London, Muslim communities in Europe today are under heightened scrutiny. Yet, there is also increasing acknowledgment of the prejudice Muslims experience and the social and economic disadvantages they suffered.''

An OSI forum from 2004 had Olivier Roy discussed his book Globalized Islam, ''neo-fundamentalist movements, in particular al Qaeda, as a direct response to globalization pressures exerted by Western cultural and economic values. 'Islamic radicalization is a pathological consequence of Westernization,'' he said.'

Another OSI forum summary, this time from 2006, was described on its website, ''Central Asian leaders are exaggerating the danger posed by Islamic radicals, two experts asserted.''

Numerous Soros-funded groups chimed in on these issues too, such as The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It received $1,880,398 from Open Society Foundations since 2000, promoted recognition of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in 2004 received a $75,000 grant ''To challenge selective application of immigration law with regard to Muslims.''

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum