Reply to Pat2- Taxis and Jihad

Submitted by Chris G. (United States), Jul 26, 2007 at 01:06

First off Pat, let me apologize for not researching that particular case about the Taxi drivers. I made some assumptions without even bothering to go look it up. So yes, I was most definitely wrong about that and I'm sorry if I offended you.

In this case, yes absolutely they are wrong, even from an Islamic standpoint. In one article I read about it, even one local Imam agreed that they were wrong and were going to extremes. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say not to give service to someone who has alcohol. Originally it was actually allowed in Islam until people started coming to prayer drunk. That early ruling allowing alcohol however was not put into the Qu'ran. But it is part of hadiths.

I just ran across a verse somewhere about allowing liquor in wine skins as long as they didn't drink it...I wish I could find it again... it was quite interesting. Then you have the issue of avoidance of dogs...again taken to extremes. Muslims are allowed to have dogs as working animals as long as they don't do things like sleep in the same bed with it and as long as they wash themselves seven times after coming into contact with the dog so as to make sure they are clean. Some Muslim cultures are more paranoid than others about dogs. In Iran for example pet dogs are very popular. But in Somalia, they are not and are often shot for fun. The same goes in Saudi Arabia where they often shoot at wild Saluki dogs. They are really paranoid of dogs sometimes.

But yeah...those Somali drivers definitely should lose their jobs. That was BS and their religious reasons don't hold water. Even if they did, they shouldn't have that job then.

As for verse 21:44 that verse is about Mohammad talking about going to war with the Meccans who tried to destroy them.

In 28:58, again he is speaking to the Quraish tribe of Mecca after talking about the prophet Moses (Musah) trying to convince them to become Muslims.

24:55 reads:
"Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange; they shall serve Me, not associating aught with Me; and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the. transgressors."

This kinda reminds me of passages in the Bible about how the righteous will inherit the earth and God's kingdom in heaven. Nothing special here. Its not saying "I order you to control the world" but God will grant righteous Muslims as rulers if they follow believe in him and don't associate God with anything or anyone else (like idols). The Old Testament has similar such warnings against those who associate idols with God as well as stories of the promised land for God's chosen people....just in this case its Muslims instead of Jews. I guess everyone wants to feel special. At any rate, this particular verse doesn't bother me. Do you love God? I love God. Do you associate God with anything else (like Jesus?). I don't.... so I guess I'm safe.

Verse 48:14....again not a big deal...same stuff the Bible says basically that God punishes who he wills but is merciful.

Verse 3:19....just says God will punish them if they don't accept Islam. It doesn't say in what way. Remember, other then invading and ruling them, Muslims can't force someone to believe in Islam. Granted coercion did occur depending on how severe the dhimmitude was, but it varied quite a bit and is just about non-existent today in most Muslim countries. There were even cases of Christians fighting alongside Muslims in Jihad. I can the reference for you if you'd like. Its in one of my books on Islam around here somewhere. Its quite interesting.

Finally, I notice that you use Ibn Kathir alot to try backing up your interpretations. but it would be nice to see direct references to what book, chapter, etc... Most of the info I talked about can be found here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ The commentary however is by Syed Abul Ala Maududi who was a very popular Pakistani extremist influenced heavily by Syed Qutb.

Qutb was a major figure in the Islamic Brotherhood of Egypt who's writings and fatwas would eventually become part of the foundation of Al-Qaeda ideology and tactics against the West..

Speaking of fanatics, while Ibn Kathir was regarded as a great scholar, he is even more so today because he was a pupil of the greatest of all Salafi/Wahhabi scholars, Ibn Taymiyyah. He also wrote during a great period of warfare with the Mongols, internal warfare with Shi'a, as well as other groups. So while Wahhabis may have vaulted him to the standing of being one of the greatest scholars of Islam, I would take what he says with a hefty grain of salt as his predecessor, Ibn Taymiyyah was regarded as a heretic and a radical. He actually died in jail because of his radicalism.

Some scholars however disagree and say that Ibn Kathir shows little influence from Ibn Taymiyyah because they belonged to different madhhabs. Nevertheless, when it comes to matters of Jihad they appear to have many similar opinions. I'm not saying that Ibn Kathir was a pseudo-scholar. He was not. He was one of the few who memorized over 100,000 hadiths (although I've never seen that type of feat duplicated except by idiot savants and few other rare exceptions of non-savants). Whatever the case, what he says does have bearing but that nevertheless should be looked at in the context of his historical period of great turmoil.

I will freely admit that there are some mainstream interpretations that do call for domination of the non-Muslim world and a handful of Qu'ran Ayas and Hadiths that seem to confirm this if taken literally in their translation. What I am currently researching is whether or not this is has been ruled on by the majority of scholars to be a part of Jihad and mandatory to all Muslims. If all of the madhhabs are in agreement with this, then, yeah there is reason to worry.

Nevertheless that does not mean you wipe all Muslims off the face of the earth (especially when most are more concerned with their day to day survival then thinking about world domination). It simply means that emphasis on foreign policy must be placed on supporting any type of secular regime, be it a dictatorship or a democracy. However if possible, support should be done covertly. In addition meetings must be held by other major powers in order to convince them to halt sales of advanced weaponry as well as technology for nuclear weaponry. We must also be absolutely united in preventing any nation such as Iran in attaining nuclear weapons.

Aside from all that however, it does not mean efforts should not be made to gently encourage Islam into a more modernist religion at the same time. Regardless of any interpretation, Muslims have to figure out how to live alongside the non-Muslim world who they will never be able to force into Islam. To do so will destroy all of the cultures that helped to produce all of the wonders of technology that they enjoy today. Not only that, Islam is so fractured by different sects, that the chance of them uniting are zilch. Aside from during the lifetime of Mohammad, Muslims have never been united and have been at constant war with each other from the very beginning.

That is perhaps the biggest reason why I do not fear an Islamic world empire especially since most of the Wahhabi theology can be easily refuted using moderate interpretations of traditional scholars. They can't even unite their own area of the world let alone conquer anyone else.

My biggest worry is more from WMD production and acquisition. With WMD's it only takes one wacko group or leader to kill an massive amount of people. That is another reason why de-escalating tensions with the Islamic world is a good thing. It gives groups like Al-Qaeda and countries like Iran a lot less excuses to use such weapons especially when with Iran, there are MAJOR economic and political incentives to having good relationships with the United States. Plenty of trade and nice healthy economies tend to keep the radical Islamists at bay.

Chris G.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".