Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The fatwa, in full,isn't posted online yet.

Let me know, when it is fully posted, where the fatwa denounces offensive Jihad warfare.

Otherwise, it sounds like you've been caught in another lie.

I've done my bit - it's over to you now to back up your claims about the fatwa (which seems weird now it is clear you haven't actually read it - or even admitted to reading the article even).

Ad hominem attacks won't disguise the fact you've tried to issue a fatwa without actually reading the evidence.

I too am interested to read whether he will agree with your 'tired canary'/quaint belief and so am looking forward to your analysis.

Anyway - as I said, it's fascinating that you're siding with Al Qaeda and even exceed them in your radical views about killing people and enslaving virgins (that it is ok, as long as the excuse 'god told me to do it' is given)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Your personal 'tired canary' about Islam teaching that there should be perpetual warfare is also demolished in this fatwa.

Where does the fatwa 'demolish' the concept of perpetual warfare waged by a nation-state?

Ok, first let's clear up something that you seem to be implying - I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your views:

Do you agree, or disagree, with the fatwa's main finding that Islam condemns/does not allow any acts of terrorism - i.e. killing of civilians will send you to hell, not to heaven? This is clear from the Article.

(You seem to be arguing that the fatwa may not address another issue - that of what you call 'offensive jihad' - so, let's just clarify that on the point of Terrorism and the killing of civilians specifically - Islam forbids this action)


Now coming to your quaint belief:

Your 'tired canary'/'quaint belief' is that Islam is violent and teaches that Muslims should wage a perpetual war with non-Muslims. The correct belief is that Jihad is nothing more than the concept of 'Just War' to be found in Christianity.

The Al Qaeda theological arguments (which you seem to be defending) justify the killings of innocents (just like you justify the slaughters carried out by Israelites). The article clearly states that this theological argument is demolished.

Along with this, any 'quaint belief' that Jihad is actually a perpetual war and Islam condones attacking nations just because they are non-Muslim (rather than only going to war for the conditions that God states constitutes a Just War) is also demolished.

Just because you think your 'quaint belief' that Jihad is offensive war (which you coyly term as 'Jihad as practised under classical Islam' but is more correctly labelled as 'Jihad as imagined by orientalists') - is correct, is not really the Sheikh's problem.

He has just cut the theological legs out from under you and Al Qaeda sympathisers.

However, I'm only going by what I quoted in the first article - so I am genuinely interested in reading your analysis of the fatwa itself when you get to read it.

You can show me I'm wrong and quote him saying that it is ok to wage war against all non-Muslims as long as Muslims are strong enough... and whatever else accords with the 'tired canary'/quaint belief view of Islamic theology.

Cheers,
Shafique

Just because you think your 'quaint belief' that Jihad is offensive war (which you coyly term as 'Jihad as practised under classical Islam' but is more correctly labelled as 'Jihad as imagined by orientalists') - is correct, is not really the Sheikh's problem.

Great - why don't you show me that Jihad's primary meaning in classical/medieval Islam was an inner struggle and not a holy war waged against disbelievers.

He has just cut the theological legs out from under you and Al Qaeda sympathisers.

Well, his fatwa hasn't come out yet. But considering that he probably has only rehashed the typical tired old canards about Islam, that Jihadist scholars demolish on a routine basis, I won't throw caution to the wind and imagine that this is a 'case closed' opinion.

The Al Qaeda theological arguments (which you seem to be defending) justify the killings of innocents (just like you justify the slaughters carried out by Israelites). The article clearly states that this theological argument is demolished.

Along with this, any 'quaint belief' that Jihad is actually a perpetual war and Islam condones attacking nations just because they are non-Muslim (rather than only going to war for the conditions that God states constitutes a Just War) is also demolished.

That's a straw-man you've set up. You can condemn vigilantism without condemning police officers, obviously. You can condemn the blatant murder of civilians but still defend the horrible mass beheading of civilians (if you're a Western Muslim). You can condemn wars by secular nation-states but defend the wars of aggression by the 'rightly' guided caliphs (once again, if you're a Muslim, Western or not).

There's nothing in the article you quoted that says the sheik has addressed the concept of offensive warfare in Islam. He condemns terrorists, but doesn't condemn the doctrines of Islamic supremacism and Jihad which is the swamp water for these people to breed.

From wikipedia, Shafique's primary source of information:

Controversy has arisen over whether use of the term jihad without further explanation refers to jihad of the sword, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[20]

Some scholars consider the Hadith in which Muhammad speaks of greater and lesser Jihad as of doubtful authenticity.[21] The hadith has been analysed to be fabricated by different individuals.[22][clarification needed][23]

Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[24]

Scholar David Cook writes:

In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.[25]

And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare."[26]

Don't worry, I don't expect shafique to actually address the quotes (apparently, he has read more from Muslim scholars than either two historians cited above combined), but I'll provide the quote for the reader's benefit to help them wade through the torrent of spin (copy/pastes from that Qadiani site) that will inevitably be posted by shafique.

Interesting EH.

This is what Andre Möller, Department of History and Anthropology of Religions, Lund University, Lund, Sweden thinks of the book written by David Cook.

event horizon wrote:He simply issued a fatwa against suicide bombings (claiming those who carry them out will go to hell - sounds unIslamic to me) and provided a vague condemnation of massacring civilians (presumably, civilians can only be massacred by Muslims after an Islamic state is established and by the Caliph's army)

True. You will see a lot of people condemning killing civilians, including Chubby. Only the definition of what is a civilian differs.

Whilst you're digesting and considering how to reply to Robby's post above, you seem to have overlooked this from my last post:

shafique wrote:Ok, first let's clear up something that you seem to be implying - I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your views:

Do you agree, or disagree, with the fatwa's main finding that Islam condemns/does not allow any acts of terrorism - i.e. killing of civilians will send you to hell, not to heaven? This is clear from the Article.

(You seem to be arguing that the fatwa may not address another issue - that of what you call 'offensive jihad' - so, let's just clarify that on the point of Terrorism and the killing of civilians specifically - Islam forbids this action)

Cheers,
Shafique

I think it would be fair to derive the essential meaning of Jihad from historical warfare and differences in ordering a Jihad between Sunni and Shiiete Arabs.

Warfare in Muslim societies

History records instances of the "call for jihad" being invoked by Islamic leaders to legitimate wars of conquest. The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia) each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. In the Ottoman empire, the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad. The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople (Christian Byzantium) by justifying ghaza as a basic duty.

Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Persian Safavid dynasty. Thus both rival empires established a tradition that a ruler was only considered truly in charge when his armies had been sent into the field in the name of the true faith, usually against giaurs or heretics — often meaning each other.

The 'missionary' vocation of the Muslim dynasties was prestigious enough to be officially reflected in a formal title as part of a full ruler style: the Ottoman (many also had Ghazi as part of their name) Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, 6th Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421 - 1451), literally used Sultan ul-Mujahidin[citation needed].

The so-called Fulbe jihad states and a few other jihad states in western Africa were established by a series of offensive wars.[118]

The commands inculcated in the Quran (in five suras from the period after Muhammad had established his power) on Muslims to put to the sword those who will neither embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (Jizya) were not interpreted as a general injunction on all Muslims constantly to make war on the infidels (originally only polytheists who claimed to be monotheists, not "People of the Book", Jesus is seen as the last of the precursors of the Prophet Muhammed; the word infidel had different historical uses, notably used by the Crusaders to refer to the Muslims they were fighting against).

It was generally supposed that the order for a general war can only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which is vacant), such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states, always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad; there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate. Some proclaimed Jihad by claiming themselves as mahdi, e.g. the Sudanese Mahommed Ahmad in 1882.

As can be seen from the underlinings above, is that there is an evolution of Jihad. Also in the last underlining it is summarized that 'there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate'.

So in presuming this is accurate, we can conclude that the perpetuating Jihad is nowhere close to modern day reality. From the differences in Sunni and Shia muslims, as long as the mahdi and/or caliphate is non-existent / vacant, the Western infadels are safe from the old Jihad (since early time of caliphate)..

Quite stressing to me...considering Ahmadinejad and his UN speeches about the mahdi...

Robby, a few thoughts on your last highlighted quote - as was explained by Berrin's copy-paste article on 'Jihad is not perpetual warfare', the Muslim scholar points that in practice, only the Rashidun and Umayyad kalifas actually implemented perpetual warfare. That isn't to say that Islam's borders were peaceful after later dynasties were established. But, as your article explains, but for practical purposes, perpetual warfare was too costly for these later empires. They were forced to limit the scope of their warfare against disbelievers to border raids and skirmishes - which are explicitly allowed, in fact, were commanded by Caliph Umar.

What I think needs to be distinguished is Islam in theory and Islam in practice. Islamic law certainly does command warfare against disbelievers and it teaches that Muslims are to rule over disbelievers. Classical Muslim scholars divided the world between belief and disbelief, with one prevailing over the other (I won't tell which one the Muslim scholars were rooting for).

Thankfully, due to infighting between 'Islamic' empires, Muslims often shirked on their responsibilities of waging perpetual warfare against disbelievers. I can quote Muslim scholars, who quote other Muslim scholars, who say that there is a scholarly 'consensus' to wage war against disbelievers. Even the article Berrin was keen on posting pointed this fact out, when the author admitted that the majority of early Muslim scholars viewed that Jihad was a perpetual obligation for the Ummah to wage - the minority seemed to view Jihad as commendable, but not necessarily an obligation.

Perhaps a Muslim will highlight the minority view, for whatever reason, and spin this view into something that it is not - it is not a denunciation to wage war. It is not a condemnation against offensive warfare. The minority position seemed to tread on caution, not on pacifism.

Interesting, thanks for that viewpoint.

How thrustworthy are these scholars and their interpretations of the Jihad as written in the Quran?

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.

Any thoughts on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wy8M ... ature=fvwp

I am trying to determine whether Geert Wilders has a point (or not) in that the Quran can be seen as a ideological threat to other religions and non-believers, if and when an Islamic country/union would ever obtain economic power once again, like the Ottoman or the Persian empire.
There are so many views from scholars out there on the worldwide net, so I'm in the dark when it comes to translations and correct interpretations of that holy book.

I noticed that Walid Shoebat was missing from the above video, so I found this with Fox News. I was amazed by these two former terrorist confessions about Jihad even though its an interview with Fox news...

Thanks rob, I'll take a look.

The wikipedia article on Jihad has a lengthy, but very informative section on Jihad in the Koran and sayings of Muhammad and his followers.

Some highlights:

The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Qu’ran.[29] This word of Allah explicitly encourages the use of Jihad against non-Muslims.[30] Sura 25, verse 52 states: “Therefore, do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with this, a great striving.”[31] It was, therefore, the duty of all Muslims to strive against those who did not believe in Allah and took offensive action against Muslims.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war..."[34]

Which takes as its basis the quranic verse 9:29

“ Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued..

Not equal are those of the believers who sit [at home] without any [genuine] excuse and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has given preference by a degree to those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit [at home]. [In reality], for each, Allah has made a good promise and [in reality] Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight above those who sit [at home] by a huge reward. Degrees of [higher] grades from Him and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.
—Qur'an , [Qur'an 4:95]

O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.
—Qur'an , [Qur'an 8:15]

I also found that a chapter of David Cook's book is available online:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10213/10213.ch01.php

RobbyG wrote:How thrustworthy are these scholars and their interpretations of the Jihad as written in the Quran?

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.

Any thoughts on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wy8M ... ature=fvwp

I am trying to determine whether Geert Wilders has a point (or not) in that the Quran can be seen as a ideological threat to other religions and non-believers, if and when an Islamic country/union would ever obtain economic power once again, like the Ottoman or the Persian empire.
There are so many views from scholars out there on the worldwide net, so I'm in the dark when it comes to translations and correct interpretations of that holy book.

I noticed that Walid Shoebat was missing from the above video, so I found this with Fox News. I was amazed by these two former terrorist confessions about Jihad even though its an interview with Fox news...

Well, if it's on Fox news, then it must not be trusted. Everyone knows that the BBC is the most trusted name in news.

I look forward to reading the discussion as it develops - should prove interesting.

eh, I note you didn't comment on what Rob posted about Cook's tactics in his book about Jihad above.

I also note you haven't said whether you agree that Islam does not condone terrorism as the fatwa in question clearly states.

Carry on guys.

Cheers,
Shafique

Rob only provided one page of the critical review of Cook's book. I'll need to read more than one page. Not everyone can read a few sentences and pontificate on string theory, dontya know?

Fair point, let us know what your view is after you've read more than the one page which states Cook is up to the old trick of selective quoting.

How about the question about the fatwa against terrorism (rather than the discussion about jihad) - do you agree with the Fatwa that says Islam teaches that it is a sin to commit acts of terrorism?

Cheers,
Shafique

I forgot to say earlier - see the thread 'Islam and Terrorism' in the religion forum (bumped earlier today) for an article with Quranic and Hadith quotes explaining what Islam's stance on terrorism is.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:
Well, if it's on Fox news, then it must not be trusted. Everyone knows that the BBC is the most trusted name in news.

Love your irony, but seriously.

Are these confessions valid from your perspective?

The first video you linked to does bring up some excellent points, to say the least.

The Koran creates quite a loophole for itself by guaranteeing that Muslim 'holy' warriors who die whilst killing disbelievers are granted *immediate* entry into Paradise:

Koran 9:111 - God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.

Normally, for Muslims who have not died murdering disbelievers, their souls are rejoined with their corpse in what is known as the torture of the grave. Muslims, if they sinned, will be punished until the day of judgment, at which time, these Muslims will go through a period of purgatory where they'll be tortured some more and cleansed in the fires of hell (in case you're wondering, disbelievers will also be sent to hell and tortured....but for all times).

A Muslim martyr, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, however, does not go through any of the above. They journey straight to Paradise to enjoy the virgins and other sensual/childish pleasures the Koran guarantees for them.

But herein lies the contradiction/loophole. The Koran says that martyrs will be sent to Paradise without going through any type of purgatory. Does that mean Muslim martyrs led completely sinless lives as Muslims before dieing whilst killing disbelievers? Of course not! So, how can a martyr escape the torture of the grave and the fires of hell that await him in the next life without being completely sinless?

This must mean the sins of a Muslim, all of them, are completely erased when the Muslim pulls the detonation cord on a bus full of apostates or Jews or what have you.

So, the Koran says suicide is bad. It's a sin, right? But the sins of a Muslim martyr will be forgiven - completely erased clean, as long as he dies fighting for Allah. So, that means the Koran creates quite a nifty loophole for our martyrdom seekers. They can strap explosives to themselves and walk into a night club or Shia mosque and need not worry about if they will be punished for their act of suicide - it will all be forgiven.

This view is also supported from the sayings and biographies of Muhammad. One example that I can cite (and I use it because shafique claims that Baruch Goldstein was a suicide 'bomber') is about a Muslim who learns about the rewards that are offered to Muslim martyrs at the battle of Badr.

The recent convert, after hearing that martyrs will immediately be sent to Paradise and enjoy the company of luscious virgins, strips off his armor and storms the enemy lines, taking out a few Pagans until he is finally killed. So, we see that past Islamic precedent does support the actions of modern day Islamic suicide bombers. After all, if Baruch Goldstein's action was suicidal, then this man's action must be as well.

I think you analyzed that pretty well EH.

Just read about that Baruch Goldstein terrorist, and his actions show the resemblance of an islamic martyr, shooting 29 people, wounding 150 until he was beaten to death by the crowd.
No bombs involved, obviously an act of suicide if you consider his surroundings, the location and the absence of him fleeing the place in order to survive.

So from my perspective, clearly a martyr-like terrorist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McpEqskn ... re=channel

The reason this fatwa (and previous ones) were needed is because there are some Muslims who do indeed believe and act like Baruch Goldstein and his supporters _- I..e. It is meritorious to kill civilians and martyr yourself as long as you do it in the name of religion.

Jews and Muslims therefore have to decide whether they agree with this interpretation of the Bible (in Goldstein's case) or the Quran(in al qaeada's case) or whether the points made in this fatwa and other rulings (by jews and muslims) are correct.

Those arguing that religion does not condone terrorism view those justifying acts of terrorism (whether suicide bombings, Goldstein's calculated massacre or even the Biblical slaughter of civilians and enslavement and rape of virgins by Israelites) as religous fanatics.

This particular fatwa clearly counters the supposed loophole eh describes - but I guess as with other religius fanatics the clear facts in the fatwa will be ignored and the distorted spin will be just repeated as fact. I did ask eh whether he agreed with the fatwa - and from the eloquent reply above it appears the answer is no. Which puts him in the same company as Al Qaeda and those who venerate Goldstein.



Cheers
Shafique

The reason this fatwa (and previous ones) were needed is because there are some Muslims who do indeed believe and act like Baruch Goldstein and his supporters _- I..e. It is meritorious to kill civilians and martyr yourself as long as you do it in the name of religion.

Not aware of any previous fatwa that universally condemned terrorism. I think this is the first without the usual loopholes.

or the Quran(in al qaeada's case) or whether the points made in this fatwa and other rulings (by jews and muslims) are correct.

The Koran is crystal clear - the sins of those who die fighting for Allah, by dieing whilst murdering disbelievers, are immediately washed away.

Do you disagree with my example of the Muslim soldier at the battle of Badr? Was his daring charge, in which he stripped off his armor and charged into the Pagan lines by himself, not an act of suicide?

This particular fatwa clearly counters the supposed loophole eh describes

Ok - let's see how the cleric explains to Muslims that passages in the Koran guaranteeing martyrdom for those who fight and die killing disbelievers should not be interpreted literally.

Which puts him in the same company as Al Qaeda and those who venerate Goldstein.

It's not my fault - the Koran is too clear for me to disagree with what its contents say. I have to side with the Koran that the Koran justifies Islamic suicide terrorism.

Eh - did yiu read the previous fatwas referred to in the article in the first post?

Cheers
Shafique