A recent Arabic article appearing in Egypt’s Al Ahram newspaper titled “Is Terrorism Jihad?” written by Islamic law expert Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris offers important lessons—from the fact that jihad does involve subjugating non-Muslims to why the Western mentality is still incapable of acknowledging it.
Idris, professor and chairman of Al Azhar University’s Department of Comparative Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Sharia Law, is a well-reputed legal scholar. He begins his article by quoting from various international bodies that correctly define terrorism as violence or threats of violence as a means of coercion.
Idris also mentions how “the Islamic Research Academy, in its report issued on November 4th, 2001, defines terrorism as terrorizing innocent people and the destruction of their properties and their essential elements of living and attacking their finances and their persons and their liberties and their human dignity without right and spreading corruption throughout the land.”
It is interesting to note that, although he quotes from several international bodies, it is only the “Islamic Research Academy” that includes words like “innocent” and “without right,” both of which clearly leave much wiggle room to exonerate terrorist acts committed against those perceived as not being “innocent” or who it is a right to terrorize, which according to many Muslims, includes the West.
At any rate, in the context of the Muslim Brotherhood’s recent terrorist attacks throughout Egypt—including the destruction of over 80 Christian churches—Idris agrees that,
It is therefore correct to define what happened recently [in Egypt] as terrorism and it cannot be called, as some have done [e.g., Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, et al.], a jihad or ribat in the path of Allah, for the difference between them is vast. Terrorism is a crime, both according to Sharia and the law; and all international conventions consider it a crime and call on all people to fight against it through all means.
Up until this point, Idris defines and agrees with the international definition of terrorism, and portrays the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (whom he never names) as terrorism.
So far so good.
However, Idris immediately makes a complete reversal in his follow-up sentences:
But jihad in the path of Allah, to make his word supreme, spread his religion, defend the honor of the Islamic nation [umma], and respond to the aggression against Muslims all around the earth—this is jihad: when a Muslim fights an infidel without treaty to make the word of Allah Most High supreme, forcing him to fight or invading his land, this is a permissible matter according to the consensus of the jurists. Indeed, it is an obligation for all Muslims. Now if the deeds of the jihad—including fighting the infidels and breaking their spine through all possible means—are permissible according to Sharia, then it is impossible to define those acts as terrorism, which Sharia-based evidence has made illegitimate. A large gap exists between them [jihad and terrorism]. And there is no connection between what is obligatory [jihad] and what is forbidden [terrorism].
At this point, the befuddled Western reader may be at a loss to understand how, exactly, jihad—“according to the consensus of the jurists,” no less—is different from the aforementioned definitions of terrorism.
What’s needed here is for the non-Muslim to try to transcend his epistemology and think, for a moment, like an observant Muslim, especially in the context of two points:
- According to Islamic doctrine, jihad, as Idris asserts, is an obligation for Muslims (offensive being communal, defensive being individual). As this expert of Islamic jurisprudence states: “But jihad in the path of Allah, to make his word supreme, spread his religion… this is jihad: when a Muslim fights an infidel without treaty [e.g. dhimma pact] to make the word of Allah Most High supreme, forcing him to fight or invading his land…”
- In Islamic thinking, even offensive jihad—including “breaking [the infidels’] spine through all possible means”—is seen as something of an altruistic affair, for the good of the world. More to the point, the ends justify the means.
Taking these two points together—(1) Allah commands Muslims to wage jihad and (2) it is good for all concerned, a means to a glorious end, i.e., “making Allah’s word supreme”—how can Muslims classify jihad as “terrorism,” even when, from a non-Muslim perspective, it seems identical to the international definitions of terrorism that Idris himself delineated and agreed with?
In short, jihad is not terrorism simply because Allah says so—even if the two, back in the real world, are identical. In the words of Idris: “Now if the deeds of the jihad—including fighting the infidels and breaking their spine through all possible means—are permissible according to Sharia, then it is impossible to define those acts as terrorism.”
Three final thoughts:
- Next time you wonder why “moderate” Muslims rarely if ever condemn the terrorism habitually committed in the name of their religion, you’d do well to remember Idris’ article and rationale.
- Regarding the supposedly “controversial” question of what jihad really is, who do you think is more authoritative—a Sharia law instructor at the Islamic world’s most prestigious university, writing in Arabic to fellow Muslims, or, say, a Karen Armstrong writing best-selling fluff pieces about a benign and “misunderstood” Islam to a naïve Western public?
- Why was Idris’ article left unreported? Imagine the international outrage that would spark if a Christian theologian wrote in the New York Times—which is what Al Ahram is equivalent to in Egypt—that “it is an obligation” for Christians to wage “holy war” on non-Christian infidels and “fight or invade his [non-Christian] land” to “make Jesus’ word supreme”?
And so we come back full circle to the lamentable fact that, while Islam’s commands are black and white, so easily ascertained and visible to all, the West still cannot accept reality—thanks in great part to its own endless array of liars, fools, and traitors.
Thank you for writing this. The West is guilted by the media to not be “racist” against any culture. Even if its a culture that wants to destroy every non-follower in the world. Insanity prevails I’m afraid.
WHICH PART OF THIS DOCTRINE DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri
09.0 JIHAD
(0: 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 lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the
lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) said as he was
returning from jihad,
“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the
greater jihad.”
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to
scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic
verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran
2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari
and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they
testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of
Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved
their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights ofIslam over them.
And their final reckoning is with Allah”;
and the hadith reported by Muslim,
“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight
in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”
Details concerning jihad are found in the
accounts of the military expeditions of the
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays
and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he
personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He
fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy
ibn Khalaf, at the battle of
UhuJ. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. Himself remaining at Medina, and these were
forty-seven in number.)
THE
OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD
09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).
When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer
obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying
(Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a
soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”
and Allah Most High having said:
“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).
If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it
does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is
guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time
of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal
obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent
times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.
The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def:
09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when
he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.
The second state is when non-Muslims invade a
Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory
(def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the
non-Muslims with whatever they can).
09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all
‘those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH))
(0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death
of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a
weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army
is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).
09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for
everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy
has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory,
even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim
forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but
must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.
All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people,
provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this,
as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to
provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim
and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in
whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that
he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he
knows he will be killed ifhe does not surrender, then he may either surrender
or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is
certain that she will not be subjected to indecent act if captured. If uncertain
that she will
be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not
permissible).
WHO IS
OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
09.4 Those ealled upon (0: to perform jihad when
it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty
and is sane.
09.5 The following may not fight in jihad:
(1) Someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave:
(2) or someone with at least one Muslim parent. until they give their
permission;
unless the Muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible
for them to fight without permission.
09.6 It is offensive to conduet a military
expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission (A:
though if there is no caliph (def: 025), no permission is required).
09.7 Muslims may not seek help from non Muslim
allies unless the Muslims are considerably outnumbered and the allies are of
goodwill towards the Muslims.
THE
OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD
o9.R Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews,
Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter
Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter
the social order of Islam by paying the non Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: 01
L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while
remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they
become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the
word of Allah Most High,
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not
what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of
truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax
out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29), the time and place for which is before
the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming,
nothing but Islam will be accepted from them. for taking the poll tax is only
effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is
the divinely revealed law of Muhammad, The coming of Jesus does not entail a
separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad, As for
the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
“I am the last, there will be no prophet after
me,” this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace),
since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).
09.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become
Muslim (0: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and
are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (iizya») (n: though
according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol
worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if
they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sale exceptions to
which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of
whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’
(y21). 6.48–49)).
THE RULES OF WARFARE
09 .10 It is not permissible (A: in Jihad) to kill women or children unless
they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals,
unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing
them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (0: old man
(shaykh) meaning someone more than forty
years of age) and monks.
o9.11 It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his
guarantee of protection (0: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one,
provided the number is limited, and the Muslim’s protecting them does not harm
the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached
puberty, is sane, and does
so voluntarily (0: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).
09.12 Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his
property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.
09.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the
fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
09.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers
the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s
death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in
exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner
becomes a Muslim (0: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
then he may not be killed, and one of the other
three alternatives is chosen.
09.15 It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy
their dwellings.
TRUCES
09.16 (0: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law
truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation
of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The
scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as:
(1) “An acquittal from Allah and His messenger…” (Koran 9:1);
(2) “If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also” (Koran 8:61);as
well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made
with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.
Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce
is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the
non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (025) (or his representative). When
made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them,
or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the
caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest
consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or
in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is
why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he
delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.
There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere
preservation of the
status quo. Allah Most High says,
“So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the
uppermost” (Koran 47:35).
Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness
because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming
Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in
the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope
that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up.
If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for
the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for
that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate
longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed
ten years.
The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax
(def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be
done to non-Muslims until it expires.)
010.0 .THE SPOILS OF BATTLE
010.1 A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to
the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it.
After personal booty (def: 010.2), the collective spoils of the battle are
divided into five parts.
The first fifth is set aside (dis: 010.3), and the remaining four are
distributed, one share to each infantryman and three shares to each cavalryman.
From these latter four fifths also, a token payment is given at the leader’s
discretion to women, children, and non-Muslim participants on the Muslim side.
A combatant only takes possession of his share of the spoils at the official
division. (A: Or he may choose to waive his right to it.)
010.2 As for personal booty, anyone who. despite resistance, kills one of
the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is
entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take
away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money, or
other.
010.3 As for the first fifth that is taken from the spoils, it is divided in
turn into five parts, a share each going to:
(1) the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and after his death,
to such Islamic
interests as fortifying defenses on the frontiers, salaries for Islamic judges.
muezzins, and the like;
(2) relatives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) of the Bani
Hashim and Bani Muttalib clans, each male receiving the share of two females;
(3) orphans who arc poor;
(4) those short of money (def: h8.11);
(5) and travellers needing money (h8.18)
011.0 NON•MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE
ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)
011.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:
(1) Jews;
(2) Christians;
(3) Zoroastrians;
(4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict
the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
(5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets
(upon whom be blessings and peace).
011.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol
worshippers (dis: o9.9(n:», or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something
that could have been a Book. (A: Something that could have been a Book refers
to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book.
As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as
the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a
Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)
011.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:
(a) follow the rules ofIslam (A: those mentioned below (011.5) and those
involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their
private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts,
enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);
(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax Gizya
THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX
011.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold)
per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not
levied on women, children, or the insane.
011.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that
pertain to the safety and indemnity oflife, reputation, and property. In
addition, they:
(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt
(zunna:r);
(3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” ;
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if
they acquire a
tall house, it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or
display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of
their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.
011.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns
around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days
(when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).
011.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under
any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may
Muslims enter churches without their permission).
011.8 It is, ohligatory for the caliph (def: 025) to protect those of them
who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of
those of them who are captured.
011.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the
rules of Islam. or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with
the state has been violated (dis: 0 I l.1 I) (A: though if only one of them
disobeys, it concerns him alone).
011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender
alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it,
and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated
that these break the agreement,
then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her:
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless
him and
give him peace), or Islam.
011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the
caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with
prisoners of war (09.14).
Seems clear enough…but only for those whose eyes and ears are open, for there are none so blind as he who will not see and none so deaf as he who will not hear.
Great article, Raymond. Keep up the sterling work.
The persecution in North Africa and in the Middle East is terrible, also in Europe is spreading, Definitely the antichrist will be Muslim, we must continue to denounce the atrocities of this violent and degenerate system. I share this study acerca prophecies about the end of Islam in the end times. NOT ISLAM
I invite you to visit http://www.islam-bible-prophecy.com I hope to give you a checked.
http://www.islam-bible-prophecy.com/book/the-resurrection-of-the-beast.pdf
http://www.islam-bible-prophecy.com/book/the-anti-messia.pdf
Hey Larry – If you really want to write at such length, why don’t you start your own blog? Most of the people that read this website are already familiar with the information that you are providing and don’t need to learn Islam 101.