To Mo on Saudi, Jihad

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Jan 15, 2007 at 02:06

You write: "Jihad (offensive and defence; militarily speaking, not that of the internal, inner purification) cannot be used to kill the innocent, nor can it be used to merely accumulate worldly gains like spoils and the like thereof. However it is used to change the political dynamics of lands, the people are not killed, as limits in transgression is imposed, meaning the dead are not to be mutilated, the POWs are not to be treated with disrespects and brutality, they eat and sleep in the same manner as the Muslims do (during the time of the Prophet (p) the POWs were given further privileges as to be given meat while the rest of the Muslims were left to eat vinegar with their bread). Also when the opposing side sought peace, it then must be given to them immediately without further delay."

Mo, you say Jihad "cannot be used to kill innocents, nor can it be used to accumulate worldly gains". You know the revelation after the treaty of Hudaibiya. The one which promises the Muslims much booty. "God promises you men much booty which you will take, and He will hasten it for you. And He kept the people's hands off you".

Why does Allah promise booty to his followers if not for worldly gains. And they got it quickly enough when a surprise raid was conducted on the hapless Jews of Khaibar. What you state and the reality in the Koran have no connection.

Read this verse: 8:69 But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good: but fear God: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful ( Taking booty is alright as long you fear god?)

To quote you: "However, it is used to change the political dynamics of the lands, the people are not killed......meaning dead are not to be mutilated,...." What happened to the dead of Badr. Have you read your Sira, Mo. They were left to rot for some time and then they were dumped into a well, with the Prophet taunting the dead and asking the bodies if they had realised their error. Even his companions wanted to know what he was up to, talking to the dead. The dead are not to be mutilated but how about the living. Read Ibn Ishaaq about what the prophet did to the killers of his camel herder. Their hands and legs were chopped off, they were blinded and left to die in the blazing sun. What is the big deal in mutilating dead bodies, they feel no pain. What is horrendous is the mutilation of living beings.

Treatment of POWs? Go back to Badr. Even the Prophet's uncle was chained and kept locked up. The prophet had to especially intervene on his behalf to ease his discomfort. You can imagine the treatment of the others.

Also when the opposing side sought peace, it then must be given to them immediately without further delay." And what if the opposing side refused to pay jiziya with willing submission?

Why do you say "However, it (Jihad) is used to change the political dynamics of the lands. Change the political dynamics??? No need to be obtuse and coy. Why don't you be honest and say what it means is, to put it bluntly, invade your neighbours and bring them under Muslim rule.We get the message.

Maududi has no hesitation when he says: In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State"

Neatly put. No verbal jugglery to make it sound as though Jihad is not an exhortation to invade unoffending people.

What is amazing and also amusing is to read people like you, either because you have no clue, except what you were exposed to in madrassas, about the real history of Islam or what is in your scriptures blithely telling any one who will listen that they must read the Koran and about the Prophets life.

There are Muslims who claim that destroying plants in war, killing women and children, ill-treating women, offensive wars are all against Koranic teachings. They seem to think that readers will accept them merely because they say so. But when Koranic verses expressly allowing such atrocities or the Prophet himself induging in them are brought out they go silent and then are never heard from on the subject.

So Mo, "changing the political dynamics of the lands" is threat of invasion or not? Does 8:69 allow Muslims to take war booty and enjoy it or not, and war meant to "change the political dynamics of the lands"? Did the Prophet "transgress the limits" when the dead of Badr were taunted and dumped into a well or when those killers had their legs and hands hacked off, blinded and left to die?

Please don't disappear as some of your brethren have done.

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".