Anti-Jihad Is Anti-Muslim? Who’s The Misunderstander Of Islam, Now?
Jihad is part of Sharia, which is strict Islamic law. According to the introduction to Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Jihad is required by Sharia, and worldwide Sharia is the goal of Jihad.
About 85% of Muslims are Sunni, and it is usually recommended that they choose one of the four major schools to follow. Although it may seem that the fact that there are four schools means Islamic law is not a pillar, in reality, they are unanimous on 75% of the issues. When there is disagreement,three of the four schools are often in agreement.
How is that possible? Well, according to the Islamic doctrine of "ijma", or consensus, any time the Muslim world reaches a consensus, it cannot be wrong. That doesn't seem likely since there are over a billion Muslims worldwide. However, Muslim authorities have found a way around this in how they define "consensus". Firstly, only the opinions of the highest religious authorities count. Secondly, if at any time there is a consensus among the highest authorities, the dissenters can be ruled "heretics" so their opinions don’t count. And voila ... consensus!! How utterly convenient.
According to the scholarly research of Robert Spencer, the four major schools agree concerning Jihad (via Citizens Against Sharia):
Maliki School, jurist Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996):"Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."
Hanbali School, jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), popular with modern terrorists:"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare)."
Hanafi School, Hedaya, classic manual of Hanafi laws, 12th century:"It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war. If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."
Shafi’i School, scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058):"The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them … in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger … it is forbidden to … begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached …"
But wait...there's more...
One of the earliest elevated Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (838-923), explained that Surah 9:5 commanded the death of infidels if they would not embrace Islam, lest they should enter Mecca. Much later, Al-Mahili (d. 1486) also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5 offensively and aggressively:
"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."
Another of the most historically influential Muslim jurists and Quranic exegetists, al-Baidawi (d. 1286), gives a basic understanding of the doctrine, commenting on Surah 9:29:
"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation."
The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who was a jurist of the Maliki legal school affirmed the duty of Islam to gain power over other nations when he stated:
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same."
Conclusion: Violent Jihad is the responsibility/duty of the faithful Muslim, if infidels refuse to convert. Therefore, those who purport that Jihad is violent are correct. And those who claim Jihad peaceful are the TRUE misunderstanders of Islam.
Now, back to the anti-Jihad campaign...
If you do not live or work in NYC, where the 9-11 terror attacks took place ... you may not have viewed the message Pamela Geller and American Freedom Defense Initiative published, which falls unequivocally under free speech (and was confirmed so, by the courts): "In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."
It does not mention Muslims. It does not mention the Quran.
YET, even publications like the NY Post and news networks like Fox News Channel (via Jamie Colby) treated it like kryptonite, relinquishing their ability to reason for the paltering prose of the Soft Jihadists (those who support using our laws against us to defeat us for the sake of Islam, aka Lawfare).
What a shande un a charpe (a shame and a disgrace) ... and truly out of character for those media outlets.
It's time for those who purport to be “civil”, to now behave in an urbane manner and cease to slander the character of a woman (Pamela Geller) who does more to protect women trapped under the draconian fist of Sharia than any women's rights group (who do zilch). And instead, deal with the savages who torch, assault, eviscerate and slaughter innocents because they have a boo-boo on their thin Islamic skin.
As Socrates said: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
Obviously, the LOSERS are on the side of the Jihadists.
Shalom through strength...
Image courtesy of i84; author: Oskar Shmerling (1863–1938); public domain