A reply to Islamic typical allergy to Islamic Terrorism roots searching
A reply to the following article: "The Logic of Islamist Terror", by Mustafa Akyol (Link)
How to make 3 logical fallacies in 11 lines:
- tu quoque fallacy: to show that other religions might have the same problem of Islam doesn’t solve the issue of violence that Islam is facing
- Your quotes of the Bible shows that you are an ignorant. You cannot read the Bible (that has 50+ books, each with another stile and “Lesegattung”) like you read the Qur’an. Moreover, you put together several books from the Old Testament, but you treat them all the same! The Qur’an is not chronologic, and is prescriptive (the very opposite from the Bible). You cannot treat for examples poems like history books. But that’s what you are doing (you didn’t pay too much attention during your literature classes did you?)
- You show again your ignorance by quoting only verses from the Old Testament. You should know that after that…there are the four Gospels. Show please where Jesus calls people to be beheaded, wives to be stoned and raped…
You make me laugh…”terrorists must be executed in KSA”? Hahaha…they are the product of their own wahabi-pure-Islamic ideology! You can be get 200 slashes if you go drinking a coffee in a Starbuck in KSA with a (f) work colleague or if you dare praying Buddha Jesus or anyone else with some other that share your faith. Have you ever heard of an “islamist” being beheaded over there? Please show me as well where you should care not being killed by Christians around the world because they want you to be converted! It seems that you want to show that Muslims are not committing acts of terror around the world and explaining and justifying them by reference to “Christian jihad theology”!
Definitely, logic is not your strongest asset
Some introducing remarks to your post:
“While Islam teaches the path to win God's consent by being a righteous believer, Islamism envisions a roadmap to establish a totalitarian political system.”.. Islam is more than a religion, it is an ideology, a totalitarian system, that controls all aspects of your life.
“ And while Islam has existed since the early seventh century, Islamism has been around only since the early 20th century”. Actually not, it has just gained momentum with the discovery of Oil in the M.E. and with the differential of living standards widening, that exposed how backward Islam societies are (just give a look at the differences between India and Pakistan!)
“ It is true that Islam has a concept of jihad, which is sometimes translated as “holy war,”” Actually, it is the only religion that has a well structured concept of “holy war” that derives directly from “the God”, Allah. It is the only religion that has these characteristics. Actually, it is a little more complex: In Islam we have the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The last one, sometimes tells us a different picture. Muhammad often went against the tenets of his faith, and he had to be rebuked several times by Allah himself for not following his orders.
“Bernard Lewis, one of the prominent Western experts on the history of Islamic Middle East”. Bernard Lewis, is not an Islamic scholar, and by telling “— as far as I am aware —” he actually admits himself that he might be a great historian, but that he does lack knowledge of Shari ‘a and Fiqh. Anyway, it sounds strange that you have to take out a Western Scholar while there are thousands of Islamic Scholars specialized on these issues. It suffices to show that he says “At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder”, while it is enough to cite Q 3:151 (Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers (Yusuf Ali)) and 8:012 (I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (Yusuf Ali)). or even Muhammad’s own words ”Bukhari 52:220 “Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’”. And Muhammad saying that who will try to escape martyrium will go directly to hell: Bukhari 8.76.428 (Allah will not accept excuses if you will after being 60 years old)
Osama Bin Laden repeatedly said that his followers should “kill American and Jews,” without making any distinction between civilians and combatants. Actually there is no difference in Islam between civilians and combatants. The division is between Muslims and Unbelievers (it is not “par hasard” that the world is broadly divided into Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb (the house of war). In fact. Paradoxically OBL and the “islamists” stand on firm orthodox Islamic ground. This is why there were practically no fatwas condemning him, and the few that were issued just spoke about not spilling innocent blood (that is actually the blood of Muslims, because Infidels are not innocent by definition)
“ their motivation comes from politics in the first place, not religion” …but as actually already explained, politics and religion in Islam are not divided.
Now give a look to these last sentences (the last one is actually the end of the article): THEY ARE VERY REVEALING:
“The problem is, in other words, Islamism but not Islam.”
WHAT DOES THIS SHOW?....IT’S ALWAYS OTHER’S FAULT. THE MUSLIMS ARE NEVER RESPONSIBLE OF ANYTHING. EVEN WHILE KILLING OTHER PEOPLE! SIC
Let’s go to the article…where there is a lot to be praised, but a lot as well of “wishful thinking” and not-knowledge of Islam (I don’t want to say here that you are misleading expressly all readers through some kind of taqyya of khida)
The author cites 2:190 (“ Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors” (Yusuf Ali))
Actually, 2:190, is ironic, because it was Muhammad that was the aggressor.
Just as an “entrée”, let’s show you the beautiful example of Muhammad, the perfect example for the whole humanity, how he “did not go beyond the limits”: You know the story of the banu Ukil (a tribe in Arabia, where he decided to cut their feet and hands because they eventually decided to renounce Islam, and how he put some burning nails over their eyes (Bukhari, vol. 4.52.261). And what about the very brutal torture of Kinana of Khaybar, where Muhammad desperately wanted to find out where he was hiding the treasury of the tribe? Don’t forget, of course, because Muhammad was such a sweet person, after having tortured and killed Kinana, he just raped on the same day his youngest most beautiful wife (Safiya)
The problem with all that is that actually, Shari ‘a manuals endorse the view about not exceeding some limits (for example the Shafi’i manual on jihad says that it is not ok to kill women and children except in the case that they fight (children and women “fight”?) against Muslims ( 9.10). But what are these limits? And what does “to fight” mean? For ibn Taymiyyah it is enough if you fight with words (propaganda).
There is a famous Fatwa issued by bin-Baz (Grand Mufti of KSA till 1999) on Q 2:190
“ As for Surah 2:190 some said this verse was a command to Muhammad to fight only those who fought him, and to cease fighting those who did not fight him; other said about this verse. There is nothing in this verse which indicates this meaning; rather it has a command to fight those who are fighting him – meaning those who deserve to be fought against…etc” …
… And the later interpretation is clearer in regards to the meaning of the verse. This is why Allah said in few verses later (Surah 2:193), so it was known by this verse that the meaning is for Muhammad to fight the infidels and not just those who are fighting against him only. It meant the infidels as a whole until the religion (Islam) should be only for Allah, and there should be no more hostility except against the oppressors, and the oppression is the Shirk.
Then Allah revealed the Sword Verse in Surah 9 (9:5). And the former scholars (may Allah’s mercy be up on them) said this verse abrogated all of the previous verses which contained forgiveness and no fighting against the infidels. They said the Sword Verse is the verse of fighting, the verse of jihad, the verse which calls out to roll up our sleeves and to fight the enemies of Allah with our money and body, until they repent of their Shirk and perform the prayer and give the Zakat (alms), so if they did then they have sealed (protected) their blood and their monies by the truth of Islam
This is what we know about this verse from all of the people of knowledge of the commentators and non-commentators, all of them said this verse has abrogated what came before it of those verses that contained commands for forgiveness or fighting only those who fight against us…and similar to it are Surah 8:39 … and Surah 9:36 and Surah 9:29, as Allah commanded fighting against the People of the Book and did not command to cease fighting against them unless they pay the poll tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. And Allah did not say until they give us the poll tax and then stop fighting us, but rather Allah said they pay the poll tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
… And in Surah 9:5 and 9:11 it is clear that Muslims should not stop fighting against the infidels until they repent of their shirk and accept Allah’s religion (Islam). Those are the ones that Muslims should cease fighting against, but as for the People of the Book, cessation of fighting does not take place until they pay the poll tax with submission; only then do we cease fighting against them even if they did not become Muslims.” (Link)
Actually, the main orthodox view is that it is ok to kill infidels, except children and women, not because you have to show your good heart, but because they are Muslim property
Let’s now show how Jihad is not meant any more to be defensive, but aggressive.
Ibn Ishaq (the first biographer of Muhammad) on jihad: “at first it was to be meant tolerant, then defensive, at the end aggressive”
But what means the Qur’an by "defensive"? Q 2:193:
" And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression "
Ibn Ishaq adds: “ till there is not but Allah”. Just the fact that Muslims have unbelief around them, is perceived by Muslims as an aggression.
You can double check all this on this paper on jihad produced by the Chief Justice of KSA Shiekh Abdullah Muhammad bin Humaid: “Jihad in the Qur’an and the Sunnah by Shiekh Abdullah Muhammad bin Humaid”, here the Link ).
In fact, if Jihad had to be defensive, why did Muhammad send threatening letters to world leaders in order to have their conversion, or to face the “holy war”? It is true that defensive Jihad is fard (obligation) for the whole Umma, and it doesn’t need the “ok” from a Khalifa. But the same is true for example when taking back land that once belonged to the Umma (and with that you can explain the issue about Israel, Al-Andalus, the south of France, Sicily, Hungary etc etc). The existence or not of the Khalifa does not hinder this aggressive tenure, because this is perceived as defence of Islam and of his land. Following Shari ‘a, war is inevitable because it is against aggressors (everything/one that does not accept 100% Islam), liberates from oppriment rulers and fights against Governments that don’t allow the free unhindered practice of Islam.
In other words: if infidels treat Muslims as Muslims treat infidels in KSA, then war is inevitable.
The fact that the Qur’an seems to endorse only a defensive jihad, is true, but it is only a part of the issue: because even defensive battles fought by the Muslims were caused by their robbery against the Meccan caravans. This lead for example to the battle of Badr. Actually Islam considers any criticism as a fight against Islam, that inevitably leads to Jihad. For Muslims it is ok to kill defenceless people, it suffices that they dared to criticise Muhammad and Islam. Actually Muslims say that the infidels (Meccans) instigated persecutions against Muhammad. But reality is that Muhammad initiated attacking and mocking their religion and their gods. Meccans wanted him to stop, but he refused.
Let’s go to the next issue:
Is it true that “Fighters in jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoners, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honour agreements” and that “it is not a war without rules”? Let’s give a look at what these rules are:
- captured women are property of Muslims, they can be raped/sold (married or not, because their marriage is annulled). Muhammad himself (as a good example) had not a really gentleman approach to captured wives as well. I quote: “Give me that woman” (Muslim 4345). He raped Kinana’s wife (Safiya, already mentioned), and he did the same with Rihana, after having exterminated the same day her whole tribe, family, parents and husband. Ali, even if he was married with Fatima, raped several women, with the benediction of Muhammad
- fruit trees are ok to be destroyed 59:5. This contradicts Muhammad’s words. Or better: did Muhammad contradict Allah’s eternal words?
- There are some ahadith that say that women and children cannot be murdered in war except when there is low visibility and during night Muslim 4321, Bukhari 4.52.256, Dawud 2666 (Abu Dawud Vol 2 p 739, Lahore 1984). But you can kill them if you think that they are aiding the enemies of Islam (hard to imagine they would just stay in the corner and watch!
Take a look as well at “umdat al-salik” on Q 9.10 (known as “ Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper”, a classical manual of Fiqh (Link) for the Shafi’i (Link) school of Islamic Jurisprudence (Link), what it says about these issues: about the fact that old men (above 40 years old) and priests/monks can be executed, captured man can be killed, enslaved, liberated or sold (these are the four options they have, only if he converts he doesn’t risk being beheaded); how women and children can be target in the case they fight (if they resist actually, sic) against Muslims, how they become slaves after their capture, and about the sexual abuses they have to suffer and how it is ok to cut their trees.
There are some verses in the Qur’an that seem to protect women, children and older people. But in the Qur’an we have as well that it is ok to kill idolaters. This is an inclusive language (the dualistic nature/problem of Islam). The Qur’an says that it is forbidden to kill the own children (81:8-9), but he never says that it is forbidden to kill idolaters’ children.
Last but not least, about the respect of treaties:…please inform yourself about the treaty of Hudaybiya (humiliating for the Muslims), a 10-year treaty that was not respected by Muhammad himself after 2 years, after he got strong. After that it became the classical standard for the whole Umma how to respect the treaties with infidels (the classical way that Hamas and Fatah applies to all treaties with Israel btw).
It seems that nothing is ok, except what is ok for Islam