Jihad- an integral part of Islam (An absolute, critical MUST READ: know thy enemy)

Many people have written many books, treatises and articles for the purpose of defining the role jihad is supposed to play in the lives of the Muslims. Most writers have tried, in their own ways, to come up with the [true] meaning of the Arabic word [Jihad,] others took circuitous routes to emphasize on what they believed was the purpose for which Allah has purportedly made the launching of jihad by Muslims an integral part of their lives.

Until recently, my mind had remained in a state of dichotomy; it being the result of the inadequate attention, I admit, I had paid to the contents of the Quran while reading it a number of times. On one hand, I tended to think that Jihad was a word that was used in the Quran to denote [striving] with one’s inner thoughts and desires; on the other, I believed Allah required the Muslims to engage themselves in bloody wars in order not only to sustain their existence through plunders, but also to occupy others’ lands and possessions through the use of brute force.

My dual-mindedness ended when I had the opportunity to read the book [Forbidden Love.] The author of the book is a Jordanian woman. In it, she pointed out the meaning, as it is understood by the Arabic speaking people, of the words [qatilu] and [jihadu] that appear repeatedly in the Arabic text of the Quran.

My newly-acquired familiarity with the correct meaning of the words [qatilu] and [jihadu] made me to go over the Quran once again. Reading it this time with great care it deserves from all readers, I gleaned from it the true import and significance of both the words Allah conveyed to Muhammad and his followers through His revelations.

Qatilu: Meaning to wage wars (fight), this word appears 64 times in the Quran. Through the use of this word in the celestial book, Allah commanded all Muslims to wage wars on the unbelievers (kaferun in Arabic), mainly, for the purpose of plunder. In such wars, Muslims have Allah’s permission to kill their victims in order to enable them to take over their possessions together with their female family members.

The first action enabled Muslims to fill up their empty stomachs; the taking over of the female captives satisfied their huge sexual appetite. [Qatilu] also means a warfare that Muslims are supposed to launch on, and against the non-Muslims, who live in Muslim countries, firstly, to subdue, and then to force them to pay Jizya - a protection tax- to their Islamic governments. Failure of the surviving unbelievers to pay protection tax is a ground for the Muslims either to uproot and deport them from their habitats, or to kill them ‘in the cause of Allah.’

[Dhimmis,] as the tax-paying non-believers are supposed to be called, they must live among their compatriots in total submission to them. Wearing badges of different colors to identify their religious affiliations, dhimmis should neither build tall buildings, nor should they ride horses to show their ‘inferior’ status to that of their ‘superior’ Muslim neighbors.

In order to substantiate my stated claims, citation of the following verse from the Quran should be in order:

9:29: [Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and fell themselves subdued.]

Commenting on the above verse, Mohammed Arkoun, whose works Robert D. Lee has translated into English, says in [Rethinking Islam]:

[{This verse} like the rest of Sura 9, warrant a long historical and theological commentary. They have fed an interminable polemic from which there is no escape because it is conducted at the dogmatic level. I cite them here not to touch off new controversies but to attract attention to the urgent need for a modern rereading {?} of these sacred texts that takes account of historical context and doctrinal struggles aggravated by the appearance of the Qur’an at the beginning of the seventh century.] (p.72).

Professor Philip K. Hitti has been candidly straightforward while drawing our attention to the historical facts that had formed the basis of the Muslims’ aggressions against the non-Muslims from the time Islam was in its infancy to the time it had acquired enough military muscle that had enabled it to conquer almost one third of the world’s pagan, Jewish and Christian’s lands.

Writing in the History of the Arabs (pp. 143 & 144), he says: [? Outside the Arabian peninsula and especially in the instance of the ahl-al-kitab (Christians and Jews) there was a third and, from the standpoint of the conquerors, more desirable choice besides the Koran and the sword-tribute. [Make war ? upon such of those to wwhom the Book has been given until they pay tribute offered on the back of their hands, in a state of humiliation.]

This third choice was later by necessity of circumstances offered to Zoroastrians and heathen Berbers and Turks; in the case of all these theory gave way to expediency. ? The passion to go to heaven in the next life may have been operative with some, but the desire for the comforts and luxuries of the civilized regions of the Fertile Crescent was just as strong in the case of many.

? Al-Baladhuri, the most judiciouss of the historians of the conquest, declares that in recruiting for the Syrian campaign abu-Bakr “wrote to the people of Makkah, al-Taif, al-yaman and all the Arabs in Najd and al-Hijaz summoning them to a ‘holy war’ and arousing their desire for it and for the booty to be got from the Greeks. Rustam, the Persian general who defended his country against the Arab invasion, made the following remark to the Muslim envoy: “I have learned that ye were forced to what ye are doing by nothing but the narrow means of livelihood and by poverty. A verse in the Hamasah of abu-Tamam has put the case tersely:

The first qatilu Muslims launched under Muhammad’s leadership against the Meccan pagans, took place at the grounds of Badr in 624 A.D. It was designed to ambush an unarmed Meccan caravan, and to loot the goods and valuables it was transporting from Syria to Mecca.

The caravan, however, escaped unscathed due to an evasive action taken by its leader. Had Muslims been able to lay their hands on the riches of the caravan, we would now be reading a story that would have been shorter, and different from the one we read about Islam’s travails, and the opposition it supposedly endured during its rise among the pagans, Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula.

The cause or causes for which Allah has permitted Muslims to launch [qatilu] (wars) on the non-Muslims having been made clear, let’s now examine the word [jihadu] to understand its significance, true meaning and import in the context of the Quran.

Jihad: Read [jihadu] in Arabic, it is the equivalent of the word [Jihad] we non-Arabic speaking people generally use in our writings and conversation. It appears 33 times in the Quran.

In many cases, the word [jihadu] appears in the Quranic verses to gather with the phrase [fi sabil Allah.] It means [in the cause of Allah.]

Like qatilu, Jihad also denotes hostile acts, in the shape of wars, which Muslims, under Allah’s command, undertook in the past and are required to undertake even now and in future against the non-Muslims, specifically with the purpose of converting them to Islam. In Jihads, Muslims should not expect to gain any booty, but should it come their way in the aftermath of their ‘striving in the cause of Allah,’ they should not only accept it gladly, they must also cherish it wholeheartedly, for all rewards and gifts come from Allah. Refusing gifts from Allah is a cardinal sin (cf. Quran; 66:1).

Converting the non-believers to Islam is what the Quran subtly refers to as being the [cause of Allah.]

Other pre- and post- jihad rules are like those of qatilu. Those of the unbelievers who escape death in wars must convert to Islam. Unwilling infidels must pay protection tax; their failure to do so entitles the Muslims either to kill them or to deport them to another country that is willing to give them shelter. At the time of leaving their homesteads, deportees must leave behind what they may be forbidden by their Muslim masters from carrying with them. The list of the prohibited ‘goods’ may include their young mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.

In the backdrop of the above discussion, let us now explore some of the Quranic verses in which, the word [jihadu] appears, as well as the purpose and intent for which it has been incorporated in them. While reading the verses being quoted here, we must keep in our mind the situation and the circumstances that had prevailed at the time these were ‘revealed’ by Allah to Muhammad, as well as his listeners’ inability to ‘dissect’ each and every word to find out their etymological roots and grammatical correctness in the manner we are able to do today. They were simple folks, with no education. They, therefore, took each word of the revelations in the sense they knew and believed they were supposed to convey to them.

4:75: [And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed))? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: [Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee one who will protect; and raise for us from Thee one who will help!]

Two causes are mentioned in the above verse for Muslims to fight for; one to protect the oppressed, which is undoubtedly a good cause, and the second [in the cause of Allah,] a cause that remained undefined. The following verse sheds light on what we should understand to be Allah’s cause:

4:76: [Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.]

In the sight of Allah, the unbelievers are the friends of Satan. Fighting them, and to bring them to the fold of Islam is what the verse says is the responsibility of all the Muslims. This effort on the part of the Muslims is ‘a cause of Allah.’ Fighting for the purpose of converting non-Muslims to Islam can, in no way, be taken to mean a Muslim’s struggle against his ‘inner thoughts and desires.’

4:100: [He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah finds in the earth many refuge, wide and spacious: should he die as a refuge from home for Allah and His Apostle, his reward becomes due and sure with Allah: And Allah is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.]

As the above verse postulates, leaving one’s home, taking refuge elsewhere and dying for Allah and His Apostle is the cause of Allah. It, in no way, relates to one’s struggle with his or her “inner thoughts and desires.]

9:41: [Go ye forth (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.]

Clearly, striving with equipment is not a struggle that can be construed to be a struggle with one’s inner thoughts and desires. Striving (jihadu in Arabic) means a war against those who are unbelievers, hence they deserve to be eliminated from the face of Allah’s earth through violent actions, and killings.

29:6: [And if any strive (with might and main), they do so for their own souls: For Allah is free of all needs from all creation.]

Striving with ‘might and main’ is not a struggle against one’s inner thoughts and desires. It clearly means a physical war all Muslims have been ordained by Allah to launch against those non-believers who refuse to accept Islam and its doctrines.

66:9: [O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed).]

The above verse lays bare the true meaning of the word [jihadu.] Through it, Allah asked Muhammad to strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Killing by him of the unbelievers and the hypocrites is implied here; for Allah can consign them to the fire of hell only after their dearth. No humans can be made to take their residence in hell until they die or are killed.

In the parlance of the Quran, the torment of a sinner begins immediately after his burial. Soon after he is laid to rest, angels visit him to find out whether or not he was an Allah-fearing and pious Muslim in his worldly life. If he is found to have lived a sinful life, the angels curse him and leave him in the grave to suffer from all the punishments the grave is ordained by Allah to continuously inflict on his person.

On the Day of Judgment, he would be raised and after being judged by Allah again, he would take up his residence in hell.

It is the last scenario that the above verse refers to. And this scenario begins unfolding only after one has died or been killed. Striving hard against the unbelievers and hypocrites was, therefore, a command from Allah to Muhammad for putting them to death; otherwise the verse under discussion would have had no justification for its inclusion in the Quran.

For those readers, who like to read or hear straightforward talks or arguments, the following clear cut definition of Muslim struggle or Jihad given by Abd al-Salam Faraj should be sufficient and satisfying:

[? It is our duty to concentrate on our Islamic causes, and that is the establishment first of all of God’s laws in our own country and causing the word of God to prevail. There is no doubt that the first battlefield of the jihad is the extirpation of these infidel leaderships and their replacement by a perfect Islamic order, and from this will come the release of our energies.] (Al-jihad: l-Farida al-Ghaiba (Amman, 1982). English translation: The Neglected Duty: The Creed of Sadat’s assassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East (New York, 1986), pp. 159 ff.

The first Jihad that Muslims had undertaken came to be known as the ‘conquest of Mecca.’ Their campaign against the Meccan pagans was aimed at taking over their city, and to convert all of it inhabitants to Islam. From this effort, Muhammad and his followers gained no material benefit. This was not something that was unexpected, for, in case of Jihad, Muslims should not expect to obtain any material gains, as the very purpose of Jihad is to ‘serve Allah and His cause’ in the ways I have discussed above.

Jihad launched by Osama Bin Laden and his ilk against the infidel West is what the Quran has prescribed for the Muslims. His efforts at killing the unbelievers cannot, in any way, be called an un-Islamic act. Osama knows and clearly understands his responsibilities as a Muslim, and he has been carrying them out ‘in the cause of Allah.’ Muslims who hail him as a hero rightfully do so; he is after the West not to gain anything for himself but to convert all the non-Muslims of the world to Islam, thereby helping Allah in establishing His perfect religion for all humans to follow now, and in future.

After all, it is Allah to whom belongs the whole Universe, including the Earth, and also it is He who has the sole right to do whatever He wants to do with it. Humans can inhabit it only with His permission.

Islam will be doomed, if its followers do not kill the ‘infidels’ to establish Islamic rule on every land of the world. Jihad is like a prayer to most Muslims; execution of it successfully ensures heaven for them after their death; dying in Jihad makes them martyrs, and martyrdom transports them instantaneously to heaven, and into the arms of most beautiful and virgin houris to live with forever.

All the hijackers of September 11 are martyrs. They are now living in heaven in the company of houris, and Allah. This is what most Muslims aspire for in their lives. Therefore, Jihad would continue to dominate our earth for so long as the exhortation by the Quran to take up arms against the infidels would continue to inspire the Muslims.

We can prevent destruction of our earth only if we are willing to fight for the elimination of those verses of the Quran that exhort Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah. Failure to do so would only exacerbate the sufferings of the non-Muslims. Therefore, let us join hands and work together to get rid of all those verses of the Quran that incite Muslims to launch Jihad against the non-Muslims of the world.

In our success lies the safety and wellbeing of the world. Our failure would be a cause for its destruction. Should we let it happen, especially when it is preventable?

Note for readers: Due to a technical problem, I have used [] in this article in place of inverted commas. I hope readers will not mind my innovative technique- Mohammad Asghar

From the words of a fifth columnist in America (this article's writer)

RoPers clarifying the true meaning and obligation of

Jihad:

...the importance, reward and requirement for the Muslims to perform Jihaad Fi Sabeel Lillah i.e. physical struggle:
...the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihaad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

"I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah."

As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihaad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh. Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihaad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihaad is defensive...

In such wars, Muslims have Allah’s permission to kill their victims in order to enable them to take over their possessions together with their female family members.

It doesn't matter whether normal human beings believe this swill.
It suffices that the absolute dregs of humanity believe it, and seal their own fate.

Reason with nonsense written by the absolute ignorant for the absolute ignorant? I don't think so. Suffice to say that every "reward" listed in the comic book satisfies or appeals to the absolute basest physical human appetitites.
Could have been written for every subhuman species on the planets; all the way below the cockroaches.

"We can prevent destruction of our earth only if we are willing to fight for the elimination of those verses of the Quran that exhort Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah. Failure to do so would only exacerbate the sufferings of the non-Muslims. Therefore, let us join hands and work together to get rid of all those verses of the Quran that incite Muslims to launch Jihad against the non-Muslims of the world."

Perhaps I am missing an imortant element in this essay...
but, is this writer not saying certain parts of the qu'ran need to eliminated in order to save the world?

Or is this just double talk on the part of the author?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.