Schills: Your knowledge of Islam and Islamists is zilch

Submitted by Plato (India), Jun 30, 2012 at 02:42

Schills, you wrote:

>>Jihad in Arabic means "struggle." Muslims believe Jihad takes two forms, physical struggle, and spiritual struggle. The spiritual struggle against one's base self is considered to be the "greater struggle." This greater Jihad does not concern us. The physical struggle, or the "lesser Jihad," takes a variety of forms from spending on the poor, to engaging in warfare. We are only concerned with Jihad as warfare.<<

Muslim interpreters are just being disingenuous. The so-called lesser jihad should actually be termed VIOLENT jihad because it has to do with verses like 9:29 and 9:111 which demands that Muslims fight unbelievers. Verse 2:216 in fact tells Muslims that they must fight even if they dislike it for it is possible that fighting is good for them!

002.216 YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. In fact Muslims of the time of the Prophet plaintively ask why war had been made COMPULSORY for them.

Qur'an:4:77 "Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: 'Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?'"

>>Muhammad set out a variety of restrictions on how warfare should be conducted. He forbade the killing of civilians, non-combatants, indiscriminate killing, the destruction of public works, and a variety of other restrictions which resemble western restrictions on how warfare should be conducted.<<

This is a false claim as the incident with the Banu Quraiza illustrates. Mohammed slaughtered all the males (600-800) of the Banu Quraiza tribe including civilians after the specious charge of their having reneged on some agreement. He sold the women and children in the slave markets to acquire more weapons for expanding Jihad. Read about this incident in his biography (Ibn Ishaq). There is a verse connected with this incident:

033.026 YUSUFALI: And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

>> Anyone informed on these matters can see that the actions of bin Laden, Hamas, Hisbullah, et al. are not legitimate even from an intra-Islamic perspective.<<

Al Qaeda and its affiliates scrupulously follow the example set by their prophet in their execution methods, beheading their enemies, as he did, the Banu Quraiza males.

>>Mr. Pipes has observed Islamists are generally made up of individuals who are not schooled in the tradition of Islam.<<

Mr. Pipes is wrong. Violently dealing with opponents is the tradition of Islam from its very inception. The Sword of Islam, Khalid bin Walid, made a river run with the blood of his enemies because of an oath to Allah. Zaid bin Haritha had an old woman leader of a tribe executed cruelly: Allah's Messenger sent Zayd to Wadi Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his Companions were killed, and Zayd was carried away wounded. …. After he recovered, Muhammad sent him with an army against the Fazarah settlement. He met them in Qura and inflicted casualties on them and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. He also took one of Umm's daughters and Abdallah bin Mas'adah prisoner. Zyad bin Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two. Tabari Vol.8:Page.96

>> They know enough to clothe themselves in that tradition and are able to tap into the general discontent in the Muslim world. As long as they are allowed to retain an air of Islamic legitimacy, violent Islamists will continue to draw support from the masses of Muslims.<<

The Islamists know they have clothed themselves in Islamic lore and tradition when executing innocents cruelly. The examples quoted above are just a few of the better known ones of Islamic methods of executing people. The atrocities have legitimacy in the Islamic tradition. >>Knowledge of what Muhammad forbade in the conduct of warfare allows the educated individual to strip violent Islamists of their legitimacy and expose them as frauds.<< There was not much Muhammad forbade in war.

For instance: As you saw with the Banu Quraiza incident Muslims can massacre their prisoners including the aged and enslave their women and children. Public works like farms and orchards are fair game in Islam during war: 59:4 What you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm trees (of the enemy), or you left standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah….. Bukhari Book 019, Number 4326: 'Abdullah b. Umar reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) burnt the date-palms of Banu Nadir.

>>As for Muslims trying to convert non-Muslims, it should really be of no concern to anyone so long as they do so in a non-violent manner.<<

This the right attitude to religious conversion except for the fact that in Islam it is a one way street. In Islamic countries conversion activities can bring heavy penalties including death. And a Muslim who of his own free will converts out is killed according to Islamic laws.

Regards

Plato

---

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".