Article

2007-07-31 Olde Tyme Religion

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2007-07-31 07:09|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top
File under: Global Jihad

#1 Takiyah. The fact is that in the Koan itself every mention of Jihad is a bout exterminating and enslaving infidels. Period.

Takiyah or lying to himself. The mentions about "pacific Jihad" are in haddiths and 99,9% og Haddiths are apocryphal. The question is if they were invented by Muslims whoi wanted to curb Islam's violence or if they were for Kaffir cosnumption so they didn't knew that there would never be lasting be with Islam and didn't move to crush it.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-07-31 09:13|| 2007-07-31 09:13|| Front Page Top

#2 Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch is 'Blogging the Quran', and his comments on 'no compulsion of religion" are printed below. Seems fair and balanced.... and open to a lot of interpretation itself.

Immediately following is the famous statement that there is no compulsion in religion (v. 256). Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote it to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Quran 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and feel themselves subdued (9:29).

Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order. Says Asad: All Islamic jurists (fuqahd), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of conversion or the sword. Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the sword. Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight until religion is for Allah (v. 193), saying that Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs. Rather, jihads main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security although not with equality of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that stable society is the Islamic social order, the establishment of which is a chief objective of jihad.

In this light verses 256 and 193 go together without any trouble. Muslims must fight until religion is for Allah, but they dont force anyone to accept Allahs religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam so as to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude but when they convert, they do so freely. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya that is paid by the dhimmis. Then religion will be for Allah, and there will be no further need for jihad.

Posted by Bobby 2007-07-31 10:14|| 2007-07-31 10:14|| Front Page Top

#3 eeeehhh...I wage jihad everynight on the toilet

Posted by Boss Craising2882 2007-07-31 14:18|| 2007-07-31 14:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Jihad is also used sometimes in terms of striving against oppression and aggression.

Which makes violent jihad a logical extension of how Muslims regard the mere existence of Infidels as a form of oppression and aggression against them.

1. Warfare should be avoided; Muslims should not begin wars and should only use warfare as a last resort.

Unless its on a day in the week whose name ends in the letter y.

2. Warfare is a limited enterprise. Its purpose is only defensive and it should only be used to stop aggression and oppression.

Which says little in light of how all Muslims deem anything not Islamic to be a form of aggression and oppression.

3. War should be only conducted against those who fight. Non-combatants should never be targeted and every possible precaution should be taken to protect them.

Unless its a month in the year whose name ends in the letter, y,h,l,e,tor r.

4. Water resources, animals, agricultural lands and other resources should be protected from harm as much as possible.

But only if these things belong to Muslims. Otherwise they are tools for aggression and oppression against Islam and must be destroyed.

5. Warfare should stop as soon as the enemy inclines to peace, and negotiations should be used. All treaties and agreements should be fully observed.

Until such a time as Muslims have sufficient strength to violate them with impunity.

While Im sure that Muzammil Siddiqi means well, his observations simply are not reality based. He himself may believe hes telling the truth. However, the vast majority of Muslim actions turn his words into taqiyya. We are fools to believe someone like Siddiqi when daily evidence tells us the exact opposite.

The Fatwa said:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting the civilians are Haram (forbidden) in Islam.

Notice how this leaves the door wide open for terrorist attacks against military or political targets?

2. It is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate or associate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

Unless this occurs within a calendar year whose last place contains a numerical digit.

3. It is the duty of Muslims to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

Unless those civilians are not Muslim in which case all bets are off.

Those who invoke Islam to justify any acts of extremism, aggression or violence are not only committing sin but they are also defaming Islam and misrepresenting the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and law abiding.

Except for how the vast majority of Muslims are not peaceful and law abiding. They knowingly contribute zakat despite its regular use to sponsor global terrorism. They also support sharia law which demands violent overthrow, subjugation or punishment of those who do not follow it. They also practice Abject Gender Apartheid which makes them violators of human rights.

In plain speech, total bullshit.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-31 15:50|| 2007-07-31 15:50|| Front Page Top

#5 But what if we say "NO" to Dhimminitude? What if we say "NO" to Jizaya? What then?

Dhimminitude as an institution is a total REVERSAL of what Americans fought over to achieve in World War II and the Civil War. Hell, Jizaya, the selective imposition of taxes as a tangible statement of inferiority, is what the Revolutionary War of the United States was all about.

To hell with respect for Muslims if, in their minds, respect from non-muslims MUST be in terms of submission to THEM.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2007-07-31 21:14|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2007-07-31 21:14|| Front Page Top

23:58 OldSpook
23:57 Zenster
23:48 Xenophon
23:47 Zenster
23:43 trailing wife
23:33 Anonymoose
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:07 Pappy
22:48 Zenster
22:48 Broadhead6
22:45 Pappy
22:43 JosephMendiola
22:40 Zenster
22:39 Broadhead6
22:35 Shieldwolf
22:29 Pappy
22:28 Sigmund Freud
22:27 Shieldwolf
22:24 Sigmund Freud
22:23 Pappy
22:11 Zhang Fei
22:07 Old Patriot
21:49 Mike