Classical Tasfir... Jihad means to war against non-Muslims...shirk (Polythei

[Guest guest]

>"Bhakti Ananda Goswami" <bhakti.eohn

>vaidika1008

>Classical Tasfir... Jihad means to war against

>non-Muslims...shirk (Polytheism)

>Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:16:57 -0000

>

>Classical Tasfir... Jihad means to war against non-Muslims...shirk

>(Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing

>

>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SRamesh60415.htm

>

> Unveiling the reality behind Jihad

>

> - S.Ramesh

>2006/04/15

>

>The buzz word after 9/11 has been jihad. This isn't a new term that

>has come to existence but a word which as haunted this earth for the

>past 1400 yrs. The purpose this article is to find out what this word

>actually means, for what reason this jihad is performed.

>

>Jihad in Arabic means `endeavor'. It is an Islamic way of

>establishing physical supremacy over the unbelievers or `infidels'.

>Now let us examine the meaning of jihad.

>

>What jihad means?

>

>Jihad is obtained from the word Jahada.

>

>JIHAD = JAHADA (verb). To struggle, strive, fight for the faith.

>

>Now let us allow our Muslim friends to describe what jihad is.

>

>Tafsir, is a commentary on the quran by Islamic scholars & one of the

>most renowned commentators of Koran is Ibn Kathir. This is what he

>says regarding jihad, in the book "tasfir of Ibn Kathir", volume 2,

>pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191:

>

>As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our

>attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the

>disbelievers and their avoidance of Allah's path are far worse than

>killing. Thus Allah says, "And Fitnah (unbelief) is worse than

>killing." This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and

>worse than killing.

>

>In the book "Reliance of the Traveler" (This 1200+ page voluminous

>book on Sharia contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence), one

>of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology, compiled

>by "the great 13th century Hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Iman

>Nawawi, and others. Defines jihad and its application in page 599 as

>follows:

>

>JIHAD: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically

>derived from the word "mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the

>religion. And it is the less Jihad. As for the great Jihad, it is

>spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the

>Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.

>

>Bassam Tibi wirtes in "War and Peace in Islam":

>

>At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims

>are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout

>the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-

>Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da'wa) can be

>pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war

>against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the

>call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a

>religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya.

>World peace, the final stage of the da'wa, is reached only with the

>conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that

>expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the

>Qur'anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to

>force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used

>only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are

>not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening"

>the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between

>dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of

>unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to

>the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists.

>Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa,

>are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued

>peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist

>Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power

>is weak is `temporary truce' (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ

>on the definition of `temporary').

>

>"The Qur'anic Concept of War", by Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, it

>says

>

>(in the preface):

>

>"But in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only

>when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His

>Will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind."

>

> "Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some

>of the above verses in the Qur'an to be able to contend that world of

>Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As

>to them it is a sufficient answer to make... that the defiance of

>God's authority by one who is His slaves exposes that slave to the

>risk of being held guilty of treason and as such a one, in the

>perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be treated as a sort of that

>cancerous growth on that organism of humanity.... It thus becomes

>necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by

>surgical means, in order to save the rest of humanity."

>

>This what America's close ally of war on terror thinks about this

>islamic terror (jihad) which is what America should be actually

>fighting against. Sure, America will win the war with such allies.

>

>These definitions from Islamic scholars are more than enough to prove

>that jihad is about bloody war against non-Muslims, forcing them to

>embrace Islam.

>

>Now if today's so called Islamic scholars and apologists have a

>problem with this tell them to quarrel with the Muhammad & Islamic

>scholars of the past and not with us.

>

>The truth about moderate Islam:

>

>Many people do believe in an illusion of moderate Islam. But I have

>got bad news for them. Though, jihad narrowly misses out from being

>the sixth pillar (obligations for a Muslim) of Islam. It is

>obligatory for a Muslim to perform jihad.

>

> "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal

>to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives.

>Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a

>whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has

>promised great good." Koran 4:95

>

>Some people think say that even Muslims are killed by acts of terror

>by these jihadis, how come it is Islamic?

>

>The Koran has answered this query on jihad.

>

> Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith,

>with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well

>as those who gave (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) friends and

>protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not

>into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into

>exile…..

>

>Koran 8:72

>

>As this verse clearly states that the protection of those Muslims who

>have accepted the faith but don't fight aren't in the hands of these

>jihadis.

>

>So does this mean all the muslims may not be a part of this jihad?

>Well, to say the truth, "may be" because we don't know exactly. As

>the tafsir Ibn kathir says:

>

>In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in

>Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-

>Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually

>joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is

>required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if

>aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he

>is not needed, then he remains behind.'' It is reported in the Sahih:

>

>«ãóäú ãóÇÊó æóáóãú íóÛúÒõ æóáóãú íõÍóÏøöËú äóÝúÓóåõ ÈöÇáúÛóÒúæö¡ ãóÇÊó

>ãöíÊóÉð ÌóÇåöáöíøóÜÜÉ»

>

>(Whoever dies but neither fought (i.e., in Allah's cause), nor

>sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-

>Islamic era of ignorance).)

>

>On the day of Al-Fath (when he conquered Makkah), the Prophet said:

>

>«áóÇ åöÌúÑóÉó ÈóÚúÏó ÇáúÝóÊúÍö æóáßöäú ÌöåóÇÏñ æóäöíøóÉñ¡ æóÅöÐóÇ

>ÇÓúÊõäúÝöÑúÊõãú ÝóÇäúÝöÑõæÇ»

>

>(There is no Hijrah (migration from Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the

>victory, but only Jihad and good intention. If you were required to

>march forth, then march forth.)

>

>Finally, from Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadis #0033, and Sahih Bukhari,

>volume 1, Book 8, Hadith #387, comes a telling insight on the true

>meaning and scope of Jihad:

>

>Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight against people until

>they say that "there is no god but Allah", that "Muhammad is the

>messenger of Allah", they pray, and pay religious taxes. If they do

>that, their lives and property are safe."

>

>The Qur'an says Jihad receives the highest reward and is the surest

>way to paradise if the "fighter" dies: "Think not of those who are

>slain in Allah's way as dead … they live … in the presence of their

>Lord" (Qur'an 3:169). "… To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah …

>soon shall we {God} give him a reward…." (Qur'an 4:74).

>

>Allah also allures them with a reward (paradise).

>

>But the good news is many Muslims don't do this and some, who know

>about this, are leaving Islam.

>

>Peace according to Islam:

>

>Then, don't the today's Islamic scholars and apologists of Islam; say

>that Islam is a religion of peace? Then if jihad plays such an

>important role in Islam when is peace achieved and how?

>

>According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi,

>

>"Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith

>throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or

>subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not,

>Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. … Those who resist

>Islam cause wars and are responsible for them"

>

>So after all the infidels are the one who don't want world peace

>according to Islamic scholars.

>

>World peace in accordance to Islamic teachings can be achieved only

>when all the people in the world submit themselves to Islam.

>

>

>

>next >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>The biggest lie about Koran ever told:

>

>Today's Islamic scholars have a pleasure in showing the "NO

>COMPULSION IN RELIGION VERSE" (Koran 2:256). But these Islamic

>scholars who accuse the critics of using koranic verses out of

>context must check out the context of this verse. This is exactly

>what we will do:

>

>But before we go into this we have to see when and why a verse was

>said by Muhammad (1) and does he contradict his earlier verses in

>that process (2)? In that case what happens (3)?

>

>To know why and when Muhammad said some thing as a revelation (1) we

>need to make use of the chronology of the koranic verses obtained

>from the Hadiths and Siras, and the tafsir will also help us in this

>issue. Though there is no standard and accepted chronology of the

>Koran

>

> The Egyptian standard edition gives the following chronological

>order of the Suras, with the verses said to date from a different

>period given in parentheses:

>

>XCVI, LXVIII (17-33, 48-50 Med.), LXXIII (10 f., 20 Med.), LXXIV, I,

>CXI, LXXXI, LXXXVII, XCII, LXXXIX, XCIII, XCIV, CIII, C, CVIII, CII,

>CVII, CIX, CV, CXIII, CXIV, CXII, LIII, LXXX, XCVII, XCI, LXXXV, CVI,

>CI, LXXV, XCV, CIV, LXXVII (48 Med.), L (38 Med.), XC, LXXXVI, LIV

>(54-6 Med.), XXXVIII, VII (163-70 Med.), LXXII, XXXVI (45 Med.), XXV

>(68-70 Med.), XXXV, XIX (58, 71 Med.), XX

>

>(130 f. Med.), LVI (71 f. Med.), XXVI (197, 224-7 Med.),XXVII, XXVIII

>(52-5 Med., 85 during Hijrah), XVII (26, 32 f., 57, 73-80 Med.), X

>(40, 94-6 Med.), XI (12, 17, 114 Med.), XII (1-3, 7 Med.), XV, VI

>(20, 23, 91,114, 141, 151-3 Med.), XXXVII, XXXI (27-9 Med.), XXXIV (6

>Med.), XXXIX (52-4 Med.), XL (56 f. Med.), XLI, XLII (23-5, 27 Med.),

>XLIII (54 Med.), XLIV, XLV (14 Med.), XLVI (10, 15, 35 Med.), LI,

>LXXXVIII,XVIII (28, 83-101 Med.), XVI (126-8 Med.), LXXI, XIV (28 f.

>Med.), XXI, XXIII, XXXII (16-20 Med.), LII, LXVII, LXIX, LXX,

>LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXXII, LXXXIV, XXX (17 Med.), XXIX (1-11 Med.),

>LXXXIII Hijrah, II (281 later), VIII (30-6 Mec.), III, XXXIII, LX,

>IV, XCIX, LVII, XLVII (13 during Hijrah), XIII, LV, LXXVI, LXV,

>XCVIII, LIX, XXIV, XXII, LXIII, LVIII, XLIX, LXVI, LXIV, LXI, LXII,

>XLVIII, V, IX (128 f. Mec.), CX.

>

>The Encyclopedia of Islam, op cit, also details three Western Islamic

>scholars chronology of the Qur'an. (Noldeke was one of the greatest

>Qur'anic scholars from the West). This is the chronological order of

>the last Medinan Suras listed in their work:

>

>Weil: 2, 98, 62, 65, 22, 4, 8, 47, 57, 3, 59, 24, 63, 33, 48, 110,

>61, 60, 58, 49, 66, 9, 5.

>

>Noldeke and Blachere: 2, 98, 64, 62, 8, 47, 3, 61, 57, 4, 65, 59, 33,

>63, 24, 58, 22, 48, 66, 60, 110, 49, 9, 5.

>

>[NOTE: Traditional Western dating breaks the chronological order of

>the Qur'an up into 3 or 4 groups. The last group (sometimes

>called "late Medinan") is presented above. There are earlier suras in

>both lists above, however, for space's sake, and editing time, only

>the last sura grouping is presented. Note that sura 9 is the second

>to last in all these three scholar's groupings.]

>

>Canon Sell in "The Historical Development of the Qur'an", page 204,

>details that Jalalu-d-Din as-Syuti (a great Muslim Qur'anic scholar)

>lists chapter 9 second to last, and Sir William Muir (a great Western

>Islamic scholar) lists chapter 9 as last. All of the above-mentioned

>references also list chapter 5 near the chronological end, if not at

>the very end. The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, volume 6, book 60, # 129

>(or 5.59.650), Hadith states: "The last Sura that was revealed was

>Bara'a…" So Sura 9 was considered by him to be one of the last, if

>not the last revealed chapters of the Qur'an. Therefore, the works of

>six top scholars, (3 Muslim, 3 Western), all agree that chapter 9 is

>either the last or second to last chapter to be spoken or revealed by

>Muhammad. Consequently, since this chapter

>

>So, here we see that sura 2 has been revealed at an earlier period of

>Muhammad's life time when he didn't have adequate power to be

>aggressive, but in contrast, sura 9 has been revealed at a time close

>to his death when he was powerful enough to be aggressive.

>

>Do Muhammad's later revelations contradict the earlier ones? (2) The

>answer is yes.

>

>His earlier verses which were much more tolerant were replaced by his

>later verses which were aggressive and intolerant. And the irony is

>that the Koranic verse Q 4:82 rules out this discrepancy. Now the

>question is do the muslims accept this? Yes, they do.

>

>In "Islam: Muhammad and His Religion", page 66, the great Islamic

>scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote: "The Qur'an is unique among sacred

>scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which

>later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and

>void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which

>verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur'anic science known

>as "Nasikh wa Mansukh", i.e.: "the Abrogators and the Abrogated".

>

>The revered work "al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh" (The Abrogator and the

>Abrogated) deals in great detail with many subject matters addressed

>in the Qur'an wherein there appears to be some conflict or

>contradiction. The book goes through every sura (chapter), pointing

>out in full detail every verse which has been canceled, and the verse

>(s) which replace it. The author notes that out of 114 suras, there

>are only 43 which were not affected by this concept. If there no

>contradiction why was such a branch of science ever needed?

>

>So, it is clear that a lot of the earlier verses have been abrogated

>by the later ones and verse 2:256 we are analyzing is one among

>them.

>

>Now on to our third query, what happens in that case?

>

>Ibn Warraq summarizes the Muslim concept of abrogation as follows:

>

>"Contradictions do abound in the Koran, and the early Muslims were

>perfectly well aware of them; indeed they devised the science of

>abrogation to deal with them. It is a very convenient doctrine that,

>as one Christian unkindly put it, `fell in with that law of

>expediency which appears to be the salient feature in Muhammad's

>prophetic career'. According to this doctrine, certain passages of

>the Koran are abrogated by verses revealed afterward, with a

>different or contrary meaning. This was supposedly taught by Muhammad

>himself, at Sura 2, verse 105: 'Whatever verses we cancel or cause

>you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' …Now we can see how

>useful and convenient the doctrine of abrogation is in bailing

>scholars out of difficulties- though, of course,

>

>it does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages

>preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early suras), and all

>the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-

>called Sword Verses are Medinan (i.e., later); `tolerance' has been

>abrogated by `intolerance'. For, the famous Sword verse,

>

>Sura 9, verse 5, 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,' is

>claimed to have canceled 124 verses that promote tolerance and

>patience."

>

>Now as our three most important questions regarding the context of

>passages have been answered we will go into the historical context of

>the verse 2:256

>

>An analysis of verse 2:256:

>

>Here is the verse

>

>"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from

>Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the

>most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and

>knoweth all things."- Koran 2:256

>

>This is the verse that is often shown to us, when we say Islam is not

>a religion of peace.

>

>Now look at the verses that have been highlighted in bold. It says

>there is no compulsion in religion because Truth stands out clear

>from Error. That is, Islam is true and other religions are false.

>Then onto the line that follows this one, whoever rejects evil and

>believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold. i.e.

>those who reject other religions and embrace Islam. Many apologists

>may argue that what Allah is talking about (as error and evil) need

>not necessarily be about other religions, in that case, those who say

>this must also accept that other religions are also true and they are

>not evil. If they do accept that how can they justify Allah when he

>says "Allah is the only true god"? And why does he need to send a

>prophet to guide people who are already in the course of truth?

>

>So we can clearly see even when revealing this sura, which the

>islamists show to prove the tolerance of Islam. Muhammad and his god

>didn't stop their torment against the other religions. Hence,

>Muhammad's tolerance towards other religions in any time in his

>entire life may well be a myth. That's because some body who says to

>be a prophet of god had no urge to be tolerant to what he believes to

>be falsehood and evil, in fact the job of a prophet is to eradicate

>these from the world.

>

>We haven't still dealt with the context of this verse. So, let's get

>on with that aspect of it.

>

>The reason why this verse was revealed is clear from this line Hadith

>(Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2676):

>

>Book 14, Number 2676:

>

>Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

>

>When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive,

>she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would

>convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia ),

>there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They

>said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted

>revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out

>clear from error."

>

>So, the reason for this revelation is that when the Banu an-Nadir

>Jews were expelled from Arabia , they didn't want to leave their

>children behind and didn't want convert to Islam for which the

>prophet reveals that "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth

>stands out clear from error"

>

>Now let us hear tafsir Ibn Kathir on this (pages 37, 38):

>

>Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not

>force anyone to embrace Islam because it is clear, and its proofs and

>evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to

>Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah

>misguides, blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a

>covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force.

>

>

>

>< back next >

>

>

>

>The reason for the revelation of this verse was that the women of

>Ansar used to make a vow to convert their sons to Judaism if the

>latter lived. And when the tribe of Bani an-Nadhir was expelled from

>Madinah, some children of Ansar were among them, so their parents

>could not abandon them; hence Allah revealed: "There is no compulsion

>in religion…" narrated by Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Ibn Abbas,

>Abu Dawud and an-Nasa'I, on the authority of Bandar, Abu Hatim, and

>Ibn Hiban from the Hadith of Shu'bah, Mujahid and others. However

>Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ibn Abbas said: it was revealed with

>regard to a man from the tribe of Bani Salim Ibn Awf called al-

>Husayni whose two sons converted to Christianity but he was himself a

>Muslim. He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam,

>they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. But,

>this verse is abrogated by the verse of "Fighting": "You shall be

>called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you

>shall fight them, or they shall surrender" (sura 48:16). Allah also

>says: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelieves and the

>hypocrites, and be harsh against them" (9:73), and He says, "O you

>who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you,

>and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those

>who are the Pious, (9:123).

>

>Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If

>anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they

>should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of

>compulsion. In the Sahih (al-Bukhari), the Prophet said: "Allah

>wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning

>prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace

>Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the

>people of Paradise .

>

>

>

>He clearly says that this verse has been abrogated by

>verse "FIGHTING". And it must be obeyed. If jihad is not fought with

>the intent to convert one by force to Islam, then there is no need

>for the "FIGHTING" verse to abrogate this "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION

>VERSE".

>

>The internet edition (at www.tafsir.com) of the tafsir Ibn kathir

>presents an interesting Hadith of Imam Ahmad and says it is

>authentic. In this hadith Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said

>to a man, "Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The

>Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'' The Prophet said to the man

>that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace

>it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

>

>When, tafsir Ibn kathir gives a stamp of authority to this Hadith,

>then I find no relevance to the verse 2:256 because the so called

>best Muslim and the best human being on earth according to muslims

>(i.e. prophet Muhammad) didn't follow it. I see know reason why other

>Muslims will follow it.

>

>Moreover Ibn kathir's tafsir makes it clear this verse was meant to a

>particular situation and has been abrogated therefore, all people of

>the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do

>so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are

>killed.

>

>I believe this information is sufficient to prove that this verse

>(2:256) no longer has and had any relevance to today's world and in

>the Islamic history respectively.

>

>Still have doubts, now here is the stumper.

>

>Koran 3:85

>

>If anyone desires a religion other than Islam,

>never will it be accepted of him; and in the

>Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have

>lost all spiritual good.

>

>After all this any apologetic view that Islam is tolerant towards

>other religions is nothing but a sham.

>

>Allah: "Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the

>Entire World"

>

>Koran 48:28

>

>It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of

>Truth, to proclaim it over all religion: and enough is Allah for a

>Witness.

>

> Ibn Kathir, says this in his tafsir on the above mentioned vers:.

>

>The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and

>ultimately the Entire World

>

>Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said, while delivering the glad

>tidings to the believers that the Messenger will triumph over his

>enemies and the rest of the people of the earth,

>

>[åõæó ÇáøóÐöí ÃóÑúÓóáó ÑóÓõæáóåõ ÈöÇáúåõÏóì æóÏöíäö ÇáúÍóÞøö]

>

>(He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion

>of truth,) with beneficial knowledge and righteous good deeds.

>Indeed, the Islamic Shari `ah has two factors, knowledge and deeds.

>The true religious knowledge is by definition true, and the accepted

>Islamic acts are by definition accepted. Therefore, the news and

>creed that this religion conveys are true and its commandments are

>just,

>

>[áöíõÙúåöÑóåõ Úóáóì ÇáÏøöíäö ßõáøöåö]

>

>(that He may make it superior to all religi- ons.) all the religions

>of the people of the earth, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, whether having

>certain ideologies or being atheists or idolators.

>

>[æóßóÝóì ÈöÇááøóåö ÔóåöíÏÇð]

>

>(And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness.) that Muhammad is His

>Messenger and that He will grant him victory. Allah the Exalted and

>Most Honored has the best knowledge.

>

>[ãøõÍóãøóÏñ ÑøóÓõæáõ Çááøóåö æóÇáøóÐöíäó ãóÚóåõ ÃóÔöÏøóÂÁõ Úóáóì

>ÇáúßõÝøóÇÑö ÑõÍóãóÂÁõ Èóíúäóåõãú ÊóÑóÇåõãú ÑõßøóÚÇð

>ÓõÌøóÏÇð íóÈúÊóÛõæäó ÝóÖúáÇð ãøöäó Çááøóåö æóÑöÖúæóÇäÇð ÓöíãóÜåõãú Ýöì

>æõÌõæåöåöãú ãøöäú ÃóËóÑö ÇáÓøõÌõæÏö Ðóáößó

>ãóËóáõåõãú Ýöì ÇáÊøóæúÑóÇÉö æóãóËóáõåõãú Ýöì ÇáÅöäÌöíáö ßóÒóÑúÚò ÃóÎúÑóÌó

>ÔóØúÃóåõ ÝóÂÒóÑóåõ ÝóÇÓúÊóÛúáóÙó ÝóÇÓúÊóæóì

>Úóáóì ÓõæÞöåö íõÚúÌöÈõ ÇáÒøõÑøóÇÚó áöíóÛöíÙó Èöåöãõ ÇáúßõÝøóÇÑó æóÚóÏó

>Çááøóåõ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÁóÇãóäõæÇú æóÚóãöáõæÇú

>ÇáÕøóÜáöÍóÜÊö ãöäúåõã ãøóÛúÝöÑóÉð æóÃóÌúÑÇð ÚóÙöíãÇð ]

>

> Muhammad's religion is set to conquer the entire world and the

>option we have is to fight back to save ourselves.

>

>Are we being told the truth about jihad?

>

>The answer is NO. Allow me to Quote Daniel pipes, in his article

>Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning. He deals

>extensively about this, how we have been cheated into believing jihad

>is a fight against injustice and human rights violation ( indeed

>jihad involves both of them)

>

>One can read the entire article here:

>http://hnn.us/articles/1136.html

>

>Let me quote passages from his article.

>

>"through an examination of media statements by such university-based

>specialists, they tend to portray the phenomenon of jihad in a

>remarkably similar fashion—only, the portrait happens to be false.

>

>JIHAD: THE PROFESSORS' VIEW

>

>SEVERAL INTERLOCKING themes emerge from the more than two dozen

>experts I surveyed.* Only four of them admit that jihad has any

>military component whatsoever, and even they, with but a single

>exception, insist that this component is purely defensive in nature.

>Valerie Hoffman of the University of Illinois is unique in saying (as

>paraphrased by a journalist) that "no Muslim she knew would have

>endorsed such terrorism [as the attacks of September 11], as it goes

>against Islamic rules of engagement." No other scholar would go so

>far as even this implicit hint that jihad includes an offensive

>component.

>

>Thus, John Esposito of Georgetown , perhaps the most visible academic

>scholar of Islam, holds that "in the struggle to be a good Muslim,

>there may be times where one will be called upon to defend one's

>faith and community. Then [jihad] can take on the meaning of armed

>struggle." Another specialist holding this view is Abdullahi Ahmed An-

>Na'im of Emory, who explains that "War is forbidden by the shari'a

>[islamic law] except in two cases: self-defense, and the propagation

>of the Islamic faith." According to Blake Burleson of Baylor, what

>this means is that, in Islam, an act of aggression like September

>11 "would not be considered a holy war."

>

>To another half-dozen scholars in my survey, jihad may likewise

>include militarily defensive engagements, but this meaning is itself

>secondary to lofty notions of moral self-improvement. Charles

>Kimball, chairman of the department of religion at Wake Forest, puts

>it succinctly: jihad "means struggling or striving on behalf of God.

>The great jihad for most is a struggle against oneself. The lesser

>jihad is the outward, defensive jihad." Pronouncing similarly are

>such authorities as Mohammad Siddiqi of Western Illinois, John

>Iskander of Georgia State , Mark Woodard of Arizona State , Taha

>Jabir Al-Alwani of the graduate school of Islamic and social sciences

>in Leesburg , Virginia , and Barbara Stowasser of Georgetown .

>

>But an even larger contingent—nine of those surveyed—deny that jihad

>has any military meaning whatsoever. For Joe Elder, a professor of

>sociology at the University of Wisconsin , the idea that jihad means

>holy war is "a gross misinterpretation." Rather, he says, jihad is

>a "religious struggle, which more closely reflects the inner,

>personal struggles of the religion." For Dell DeChant, a professor of

>world religions at the University of South Florida , the word

>as "usually understood" means "a struggle to be true to the will of

>God and not holy war."

>

>Concurring views have been voiced by, among others, John Kelsay of

>John Carroll University , Zahid Bukhari of Georgetown , and James

>Johnson of Rutgers . Roxanne Euben of Wellesley College, the author

>of The Road to Kandahar: A Genealogy of Jihad in Modern Islamist

>Political Thought, asserts that "For many Muslims, jihad means to

>resist temptation and become a better person." John Parcels, a

>professor of philosophy and religious studies at Georgia Southern

>University, defines jihad as a struggle "over the appetites and your

>own will." For Ned Rinalducci, a professor of sociology at Armstrong

>Atlantic State University , the goals of jihad are: "Internally, to

>be a good Muslim. Externally, to create a just society." And Farid

>Eseck, professor of Islamic studies at Auburn Seminary in New York

>City , memorably describes jihad as "resisting apartheid or working

>for women's rights."

>

>Finally, there are those academics who focus on the concept of jihad

>in the sense of "self-purification" and then proceed to universalize

>it, applying it to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Thus, to Bruce

>Lawrence, a prominent professor of Islamic studies at Duke, not only

>is jihad itself a highly elastic term ("being a better student, a

>better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control

>one's anger"), but non-Muslims should also "cultivate . . . a civil

>virtue known as jihad":

>

>Jihad? Yes, jihad . . . a jihad that would be a genuine struggle

>against our own myopia and neglect as much as it is against outside

>others who condemn or hate us for what we do, not for what we

>are. . . . For us Americans, the greater jihad would mean that we

>must review U.S. domestic and foreign policies in a world that

>currently exhibits little signs of promoting justice for all.

>

>Here we find ourselves returned to the sentiments expressed by the

>Harvard commencement speaker, who sought to convince his audience

>that jihad is something all Americans should admire.

>

>< back next >

>

>

>

>THE TROUBLE with this accumulated wisdom of the scholars is simple to

>state. It suggests that Osama bin Laden had no idea what he was

>saying when he declared jihad on the United States several years ago

>and then repeatedly murdered Americans in Somalia, at the U.S.

>embassies in East Africa, in the port of Aden, and then on September

>11, 2001. It implies that organizations with the word "jihad" in

>their titles, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's

>own "International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and

>Crusade[rs]," are grossly misnamed. And what about all the Muslims

>waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at

>this very moment, in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir,

>Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not

>heard that jihad is a matter of controlling one's anger?

>

>But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists

>worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists.

>More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in

>keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

>

>In premodern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims,

>then as now the Islamic majority. It meant the legal, compulsory,

>communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in

>Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-

>Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of

>jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the

>Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former

>has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its

>ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over

>the entire world.

>

>By winning territory and diminishing the size of areas ruled by non-

>Muslims, jihad accomplishes two goals: it manifests Islam's claim to

>replace other faiths, and it brings about the benefit of a just world

>order. In the words of Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University ,

>writing in 1955 (before political correctness conquered the

>universities), jihad is "an instrument for both the universalization

>of [islamic] religion and the establishment of an imperial world

>state."

>

>As for the conditions under which jihad might be undertaken—when, by

>whom, against whom, with what sort of declaration of war, ending how,

>with what division of spoils, and so on—these are matters that

>religious scholars worked out in excruciating detail over the

>centuries. But about the basic meaning of jihad—warfare against

>unbelievers to extend Muslim domains—there was perfect consensus. For

>example, the most important collection of hadith (reports about the

>sayings and actions of Muhammad), called Sahih al-Bukhari, contains

>199 references to jihad, and every one of them refers to it in the

>sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims. To quote the 1885

>Dictionary of Islam, jihad is "an incumbent religious duty,

>established in the Qur'an and in the traditions [hadith] as a divine

>institution, and enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing

>Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims."

>

>JIHAD WAS no abstract obligation through the centuries, but a key

>aspect of Muslim life. According to one calculation, Muhammad himself

>engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch)

>was defensive. Within a century after the prophet's death in 632,

>Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in

>the west. Though such a dramatic single expansion was never again to

>be repeated, important victories in subsequent centuries included the

>seventeen Indian campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030), the

>battle of Manzikert opening Anatolia (1071), the conquest of

>Constantinople (1453), and the triumphs of Uthman dan Fodio in West

>Africa (1804-17). In brief, jihad was part of the warp and woof not

>only of premodern Muslim doctrine but of premodern Muslim life.

>

>That said, jihad also had two variant meanings over the ages, one of

>them more radical than the standard meaning and one quite pacific.

>The first, mainly associated with the thinker Ibn Taymiya (1268-

>1328), holds that born Muslims who fail to live up to the

>requirements of their faith are themselves to be considered

>unbelievers, and so legitimate targets of jihad. This tended to come

>in handy when (as was often the case) one Muslim ruler made war

>against another; only by portraying the enemy as not properly Muslim

>could the war be dignified as a jihad.

>

>The second variant, usually associated with Sufis, or Muslim mystics,

>was the doctrine customarily translated as "greater jihad" but

>perhaps more usefully termed "higher jihad." This Sufi variant

>invokes allegorical modes of interpretation to turn jihad's literal

>meaning of armed conflict upside-down, calling instead for a

>withdrawal from the world to struggle against one's baser instincts

>in pursuit of numinous awareness and spiritual depth. But as Rudolph

>Peters notes in his authoritative Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam

>(1995), this interpretation was "hardly touched upon" in premodern

>legal writings on jihad.

>

>IN THE vast majority of premodern cases, then, jihad signified one

>thing only: armed action versus non-Muslims. In modern times, things

>have of course become somewhat more complicated, as Islam has

>undergone contradictory changes resulting from its contact with

>Western influences. Muslims having to cope with the West have tended

>to adopt one of three broad approaches: Islamist, reformist, or

>secularist. For the purposes of this discussion, we may put aside the

>secularists (such as Kemal Ataturk), for they reject jihad in its

>entirety, and instead focus on the Islamists and reformists. Both

>have fastened on the variant meanings of jihad to develop their own

>interpretations.

>

>Islamists, besides adhering to the primary conception of jihad as

>armed warfare against infidels, have also adopted as their own Ibn

>Taymiya's call to target impious Muslims. This approach acquired

>increased salience through the 20th century as Islamist thinkers like

>Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), Abu al-A`la Mawdudi

>(1903-79), and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1903-89) promoted jihad

>against putatively Muslim rulers who failed to live up to or apply

>the laws of Islam. The revolutionaries who overthrew the shah of Iran

>in 1979 and the assassins who gunned down President Anwar Sadat of

>Egypt two years later overtly held to this doctrine. So does Osama

>bin Laden.

>

>Reformists, by contrast, reinterpret Islam to make it compatible with

>Western ways. It is they—principally through the writings of Sir

>Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a 19th-century reformist leader in India—who have

>worked to transform the idea of jihad into a purely defensive

>undertaking compatible with the premises of international law. This

>approach, characterized in 1965 by the definitive Encyclopedia of

>Islam as "wholly apologetic," owes far more to Western than to

>Islamic thinking. In our own day, it has devolved further into what

>Martin Kramer has dubbed "a kind of Oriental Quakerism," and it,

>together with a revival of the Sufi notion of "greater jihad," is

>what has emboldened some to deny that jihad has any martial component

>whatsoever, instead redefining the idea into a purely spiritual or

>social activity.

>

>For most Muslims in the world today, these moves away from the old

>sense of jihad are rather remote. They neither see their own rulers

>as targets deserving of jihad nor are they ready to become Quakers.

>Instead, the classic notion of jihad continues to resonate with vast

>numbers of them, as Alfred Morabia, a foremost French scholar of the

>topic, noted in 1993:

>

>Offensive, bellicose jihad, the one codified by the specialists and

>theologians, has not ceased to awaken an echo in the Muslim

>consciousness, both individual and collective. . . . To be sure,

>contemporary apologists present a picture of this religious

>obligation that conforms well to the contemporary norms of human

>rights, . . . but the people are not convinced by this. . . . The

>overwhelming majority of Muslims remain under the spiritual sway of a

>law . . . whose key requirement is the demand, not to speak of the

>hope, to make the Word of God triumph everywhere in the world.

>

>In brief, jihad in the raw remains a powerful force in the Muslim

>world, and this goes far to explain the immense appeal of a figure

>like Osama bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of September 11,

>2001 .

>

>Contrary to the graduating Harvard senior who assured his audience

>that "Jihad is not something that should make someone feel

>uncomfortable," this concept has caused and continues to cause not

>merely discomfort but untold human suffering: in the words of the

>Swiss specialist Bat Ye'or, "war, dispossession, dhimmitude

>[subordination], slavery, and death." As Bat Ye'or points out,

>Muslims "have the right as Muslims to say that jihad is just and

>spiritual" if they so wish; but by the same token, any truly honest

>accounting would have to give voice to the countless "infidels who

>were and are the victims of jihad" and who, no less than the victims

>of Nazism or Communism, have "their own opinion of the jihad that

>targets them."

>

>….For usage of the term in its plain meaning, we have to turn to

>Islamists not so engaged. Such Islamists speak openly of jihad in its

>proper, martial sense. Here is Osama bin Laden: Allah "orders us to

>carry out the holy struggle, jihad, to raise the word of Allah above

>the words of the unbelievers." And here is Mullah Muhammad Omar, the

>former head of the Taliban regime, exhorting Muslim youth: "Head for

>jihad and have your guns ready."

>

>IT IS an intellectual scandal that, since September 11, 2001 ,

>scholars at American universities have repeatedly and all but

>unanimously issued public statements that avoid or whitewash the

>primary meaning of jihad in Islamic law and Muslim history. It is

>quite as if historians of medieval Europe were to deny that the

>word "crusade" ever had martial overtones, instead pointing to such

>terms as "crusade on hunger" or "crusade against drugs" to

>demonstrate that the term signifies an effort to improve society…."

>

>

>

>Conclusion:

>

>Here we clearly find jihad as offensive war carried out against the

>non-Muslims when they reject Islam and follow the religion or

>philosophy of their wish. Jihad is performed to convert these

>infidels to Islam by force or accept humiliation by paying poll tax,

>jizya.

>

>No justification what so ever can be given to what Muhammad & his

>companions did in the name of jihad. Muhammad's Islam knows no

>tolerance. All it knows and wants is complete dominance.

>

>Though jihad around us is going on unabated, there is a serious and

>dangerous conspiracy going around us to give to a normal person "a

>renovated and civilized" view of Islam and jihad. These apologetic

>views which are being spread are more dangerous than Jihad which we

>are talking about. These apologists prevent people from understanding

>the real threat, and when they will understand that on their own, it

>will be too late.

>

>Jihad is knocking at the door steps of the civilized world disguised

>as renaissance with the help of those whom Respected Ali Sina rightly

>quotes as "useful idiots" and it trying to enter our homes spelling

>doom to Mankind. But Dr. Sina, may be wrong they aren't "useful

>Idiots" but "Useless Idiots" they don't do justice to their job or

>neither to mankind.

>

>It is high time we realize the threat of Islamic Jihad and stand up

>strong against it for our own survival.

>

>

>

>< back

>

>

>

>

>