Professional Soldiers ® - Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30909)

Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam

The link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/offensi...inglepage=true

What is the root problem between the Muslim world and the West? Muslims point to U.S. support for Israel and other grievances; Westerners point to Islam’s lack of freedoms and equality. In fact, the ultimate problem is offensive jihad — and that’s entirely Islam’s problem.

October 28, 2010 - by Raymond Ibrahim

A recent MEMRI report titled “Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad” alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying: “One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels.” It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to tone down Muslim talk of offensive jihad.

One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the “wiser” supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims “must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns.” In the meantime, according to these Muslims, “there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe.” Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively “on the assumption that the world doesn’t read, doesn’t monitor … and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading.”

Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: “Today, the Muslims’ circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught,” since discussing offensive jihad “arouses the enmity of people”; thus, “there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles.”

These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam’s imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.

Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. — are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility, for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside “help” or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia’s mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims can have no legitimate grievances.

And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as “right” and the “norm” for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong. After all, while humans disagree over any number of socio-cultural principles, all humans — secular or religious, Muslim or non-Muslim — agree that being forced to uphold a particular lifestyle against their will is unquestionably wrong, bringing us right back to our topic: the purpose of offensive jihad is to do just that — forcefully impose a particular way of life on non-Muslims, culminating with dhimmitude for those who, after being conquered, refuse to convert.

Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam. … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.” Scholar Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad “is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”

Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue … and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam … . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

Clearly, then, it is in the Muslim world’s interest to keep the West ignorant of the fact that, irrespective of all Muslim grievances — real or feigned — nothing less than Islamic law itself mandates a state of constant hostility. Indeed, if the implications of offensive jihad were fully embraced, humanity might be compelled to view the Muslim world as a perpetual, existentialist threat, in need of preemptive containment. That said, and considering the willful ignorance of the West’s political elite — who are guided less by objective facts and more by their “feel-good” ideals — Muslim talk of offensive jihad, no matter how loud or frequent, will likely continue to fall on deaf ears.

Quote:

What is the root problem between the Muslim world and the West?

IMO, Islamic ideology codified by Sharia...and the lack of reformation...

It's interesting to see what the above Arab Columnists say, held up against what Islamic Law says. Those interviewed seem to be in compliance with Sharia :munchin

r8.2 The Prophet said, "He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good {Islam/Sharia} or says something commendable is not a liar." "I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife... (A: in smoothing over differences)"

"...it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible....,and obligatory to lie if he goal is obligatory..." {Jihad - in the cause of Allah}
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - pgs 744-748)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

Quote:

“Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad”

Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the “wiser” supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims “must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns.” In the meantime, according to these Muslims, “there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe.” Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively “on the assumption that the world doesn’t read, doesn’t monitor … and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading.”

"...Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: “Today, the Muslims’ circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught,” since discussing offensive jihad “arouses the enmity of people”; thus, “there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles.”

TRUCES

o9. 16 (2) Truces are permissible, not obligatory…..

…..for it is a matter of gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of JIHAD….

There must be some interest served in making a truce {weakness} 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 material, 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 his time was up.

If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary…

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - pgs 604-605)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

Quote:

"...humans disagree over any number of socio-cultural principles, all humans — secular or religious, Muslim or non-Muslim — agree that being forced to uphold a particular lifestyle against their will is unquestionably wrong, bringing us right back to our topic: the purpose of offensive jihad is to do just that — forcefully impose a particular way of life on non-Muslims, culminating with dhimmitude for those who, after being conquered, refuse to convert."

{Kufr - Kafir - Kafiroon = Death}

f1.3 Someone...denies something…which there is scholarly consensus…is executed for his unbelief…{Kufr/Kafir/Kafiroon}

o4.17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim…{Kafir/Kafiroon}

o8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is either disciplined (def17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

(A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.

o8.7 (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future…

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief…

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam…

(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)

The Objectives of Jihad

o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.8 "...and if they will not {revert/convert}, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the the non-Muslim poll tax (Jizya, def: o11.4) which is the significance of their paying it....." {to spare the life of the Kafir/Kafiroon}

w4.0 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE

"...it is unbelief (KUFR) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world (dis: o8.7(20).

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - pgs 109, 595-598, 599-606, 846-852)
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

The Islamic ideological driven events across the globe to impose a Theo-Religious-Political system upon others are simply staggering. In my mind, the historical parallels of Islamism to 1923-1945 Nazi Germany are astonishing. Islam is an incarnation of fascist totalitarianism.

IMHO, the denial of hiding one's head in the sand of this phenomenon by the likes of WaPo's Frankie Martin, Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Campbell Brown, and the vast majority of the Liberal MSM dhimmis will not change either the situation or the threat, and will not make it go away, but only encourage it. Surrender and Dhimmitude is not an option.

Nosce Hostem > http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress....ept-of-war.pdf

Islamists want to re-install the Caliphate and rule the known world under Sharia, like they did in the 8th Century. The problem with that is, as stated in previous posts, the jihadists are more than willing to kill to do it.

That being said, Islam has to wake up every day, knowing that with the push of a button, the West could erase Islam's existence in minutes. Kinda hard to live with when indoctrinated with the idea that Islam is superior to all others' existence...

The Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam

:munchin

Quote:

The Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam

Edward Cline

November 1, 2010

Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, recently published an article, “Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam,” in the Middle East Forum and on Pajamas Media(October 30th). This excellent article for the first time (known to me, at least) addresses one of the fundamental problems of and with Islam I have always stressed: jihad. Jihad is a core tenet in what is a codified system of irrationalism that cannot be “reformed” without obliterating Islam as a distinct religious creed. Remove the belligerent jihadist commands from the Koran to wage jihad, for example, and it would cease to be Islam, not only in Muslim minds but in non-Muslim, as well.

There would, of course, remain a host of other irrational assertions and imperatives, such as the sanctioning of wife-beating and the murder of apostates and the like, which constitute, after some astounding mental gymnastics by Islamic clerics and scholars, chiefly the byzantine and illogical underpinnings of Sharia law. The jihadist elements of Islam, however, are easily transmutable into a political policy, which is conquest of all non-Muslim or infidel governments and their submission to Sharia. That makes it an ideological doctrine. Muslims are either obliged to wage jihad, or they are not. Mohammad and Muslim scholars say they are. End of argument, so far as Koranic interpretation goes, and that interpretation is biased to the literal.

Reading the debates about what Islam’s mission is and the role of jihad in it and what they truly “mean,” I am always reminded of H.L. Mencken's observation onreligious zealotry: "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." Islam is a puritanical creed that makes no allowances for either infidels or apostates or its adherents. I cannot believe that beneath the pious exterior of any person who would be seduced by Islam is not a seething, percolating envy of men who are indeed free, an envy easily and maliciously transfigured into violent jihad.

This policy is operative and underway today in Western nations with varying degrees of success, and it is making progress only by default. Islam is strong only because the West’s defenders are emasculated by multiculturalist premises and a general disinclination to condemn any religion. Aggravating the problem is an unadmitted but general fear in the tolerance-obsessed and pragmatists of “offending” Muslims, who might start rioting and demonstrating again, claiming discrimination and disrespect, etc., none of it spontaneous but clearly organized and orchestrated by so-called “radicals.”

I was initially impressed by Ibrahim’s quotation from an entry on jihad in the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is an admission that “Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated” – until I realized that it could just as well mean that, after a global caliphate has been established, there would be no more justification for violent jihad. Every nation would by then be conquered, recalcitrant infidels slain, enslaved, or reduced to dhimmitude, and Sharia made the law of every land.

But, if Islam is completely “made over” in the sense of reforming it, what would be left of Islam that virtually any other creed could not claim as its fundamental tenets, as well? And to “make over” Islam, its principal font of “kilman” or wisdom, the objectionable and barbaric Mohammad, would need to be dispensed with. He is a role model for killers and tyrants and other psychopathic individuals. Remove that one critical link of the irrational and arbitrary in Islam, and all the links fall to the floor.

What would be substituted for Mohammad? It would need to be something as enduringly fable-worthy as Mohammad, but measurably benign. But, Islam has no alternative icons. What then, would be Islam’s driving force, if not jihad as commanded by Allah as told to Mohammad?

Once Mohammad is removed from the text, the next step would be to question the existence and credence of Allah; if he commanded jihad, and if his word is sacred and unalterable, and known only through Mohammad, then he would need to be subjected to a “make over,” much as the focus of Christian doctrine was shifted from an Allah-like Jehovah of the Old Testament to the largely pacific New Testament with Jesus Christ (as God on earth) and his homilies. If a “reformation” of Islam is undertaken, who in Islamic lore is Christ’s counterpart? Would it be Abraham or Moses? But, neither of them was much better than Mohammad in terms of their behavior towards men of other faiths; they also advocated the righteous slaughtering of unbelievers and sinners and distributing slaves, women, and sheep among their more zealous followers.

But, then, all faiths are faced with that intellectual chore regarding their own individual conceptions of a “supreme being,” and not just Islam.

Ibrahim writes: “Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.” In sum, it is either-or: repudiate Islam entirely, or submit to the whole palimony of irrationalism that is Islam, including the imperative of jihad. The one incontrovertible problem with Islam (aside from the untenable claim of Allah’s existence) is its dependence on violent conquest, or the initiation of force. This renders the creed absolutely inconvertible to a pacific doctrine. That is its unarguable dead-end.

Or, as Ayn Rand might have put it: “You can’t have your mystic of muscle and deny him, too.” He is either the source of Islam’s potency, or he isn’t. And if he isn’t, whither Islam?

Source: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp