The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Project Rebuttal – Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Issue 42 [42:18]: Bat Ye’or, Author – The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam – The Muslims see the extension of Jihad as a war liberating the infidels from their infidelity and a privilege for them to enter in the religion of Islam and to abandon their wrong belief. So Jihad is seen as a favor which is given to the infidel population in order to change their ways and convert to the true religion: Islam.

Rebuttal 42: These are just hollow opinions of another so called “expert” in the documentary whose personal background and agenda was brought to light in Issue 3 before. Jihad means no more than striving. The documentary forces a synonymic view of Jihad and war, which has no place in Quran as shown in numerous Rebuttals before – Muhammad Ali (Issue 27), Pickthall (Issue 27) , Zahid Aziz (Issue 33), Nooruddin (Issue 36) and G.W. Leitner (Issue 37). Bat Ye’or is possibly right with slight amendment when she states:

So Jihad [by pen, argument and personal example] is seen as a favor which is given to the infidel [or anyone of the] population [including Muslims themselves] in order to change [and improve] their ways and convert [their thinking on merit] to the true religion: Islam [which means submission to and mastery of all physical and moral Laws while free of anxieties].

Bat Ye’or is ignorant of the following sample verses when she made her assertion without quoting an example. These verses from among many in Quran are a plain rebuttal to her statement:

“Whoever goes aright, goes aright only for the good of his own soul; and whoever goes astray, goes astray only to its detriment. And no bearer of a burden can bear the burden of another…” (17:15).

“If they accept Islam, then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, your duty (O Prophet) is only to deliver the message.” (3:20)

Never for once Ye’or imagined that the West she is trying to educate and teach actually practices what she is trying to smear Islam with. Lets contextualize her own statement to her own lifetime:

The West see the extension of “Democracy” as a war liberating the “backwards” from their backwardness and a privilege for them to enter in the “modern democratic systems” and to abandon their wrong belief. So “Democracy” is seen as a favor which is given to the “backward” population in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine in order to change their ways and subjugate to the true religion: “American and Israeli Hegemony a.k.a. Democracy.”

Oops! She forgot that it was the ‘heathens’ of Americas and the ‘savages’ of Africa and ‘opium smokers’ of Asia that Christianity and the West tried to ‘salvage’ either by the tip of the sword or slavery of their bodies and souls or exploitation of resources and labor or any combination thereof, all in last few centuries alone. A better title for her book might have been:

The Dhimmi: Africans, Asians, Indians, Middle Eastern (esp. Palestinians), Incas, Mayas, Aztecs, American Indians, Pacific and Australian Aborigines under Christianity, Judiasm and the West.

Note: [comments in square brackets above are not part of the original quoted text]

References:
The Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz

Issue 41 [@41:50]: Slide projected with voice – SAHIH AL-BUKHARI Vol 4, Bk 53, Hadith 392. While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews,” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

Rebuttal 41: This documentary has exploited to the maximum the out of context use of Quranic verses and Hadith quotations. This out of context use is known as Contextomy, attention to which has been repeatedly drawn in earlier rebuttals. This contextomy was fully used by Nazis against Jews. Now the same technique is knowingly being used against Islam. To understand the contextomy usage, suppose a person living in the farthest part of the globe who was unaware of American idiom and history is told that President Johnson a few decades ago declared “War on Poverty.” Will it be fair for that person to draw the conclusion that United States is ruled by tyrants and that American forces were actually deployed in the streets of its poor neighborhoods? Absolutely not. It begets that person to ask for more information before developing an opinion.

Nature of Hadiths is distinct from Quran in that the injunctions of the latter might have historical context, but their implications are for ever. On the reverse, Hadiths in general show “good practices” of the time of Prophet Muhammad, but if they explain Quran, then they tend to carry a lasting value. Still Hadiths do not match the quality control as enjoyed by Quran. If push comes to shove, a Hadith may be rejected but not Quran. In general, if an incidence in history is reflected in a quoted Hadith, it begets the reader to understand the context of other events around it that let to such a Hadith and the implications of Hadith as to if it is a lasting example. Therefore, before we read the above quoted Hadith, lets look at its context in the light of Quran and try to understand the moral underpinnings around the main actors in the Hadith, i.e. the Muslims and Jews and their interplay:

5:51. O you who believe! do not take these Jews and the Christians for allies. They are allies of one to another (when against you), and whoso from amongst you takes them for allies, is indeed one of them. Verily, Allâh does not guide the unjust people to attain their goal.

The emphasis is on “those” opposing communities including Jews and Christians of Medina and its vicinity at the time when Muslims of Makkah had migrated to Medina to escape thirteen years of relentless persecution. “these” initially signed alliance treaties but were factually united against the city government of Muslims that was established in Medina. “These” are on record for aiding and abetting attacks on Medina by Makkans. Quran contextualizes “these” in the verses adjoining the above verse:

5:50. Do they seek to enforce the law of (the days of) ignorance? [i.e., when might was right, there were no human rights, women were mere property, slavery was rampant before Islam]

5:52. Now you shall see those [weak at heart Muslims] in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) vying one with another towards them (– the Jews and Christians [who were powerful and influential in Medina] to take them for allies). They [i.e. early Muslims of Medina] say, `We are afraid lest a misfortune should befall us [because of not siding with the powerful].

5:58. And when you call (the people) to Prayer, they [Jew and Christian communities of Medina] take it lightly [i.e., make mockery] and consider it [Islam] worthless [like a sport, i.e.. not to be taken seriously and a religion not worth adopting]. They do so because they are a people who do not understand.

5:59. Say, `O People of the Scripture! do you find fault with us [Muslims] only because we believe in Allâh and in that which has been revealed to us, and in that which was revealed before (us [on you, i.e., Torah, Bible, etc.])? Whereas most of you are disobedient (to God)’. [and flaunt His standards of fairness even in their own religions]

5:60. Say, `Shall I inform you of those who shall receive from Allâh a recompense worse than that of those (who try to find fault with Us)? They are those whom Allâh has deprived of His blessings and upon whom He brought His displeasure and indignation and of whom He has made (as) apes and swine [in their behavior who copy and imitate each other without thinking and have no moral boundaries] and who serve the transgressor (– the devil) . It is these who are indeed worse-placed and farther astray from the right path.’

5:61. And when they [Jews and Christians of Medina] come to you they say, `We believe,’ while, in fact, they enter without faith and go out without it. And Allâh knows best all they conceal.[i.e., they would strategically convert and revert in the then time of state of war with Makkans and were a source of dissent and treason]

Quran further analyzes such behavior of the people of the Book toward Muslims:

5:66. If they had only observed the Torah and the Evangel and that which has been revealed to them (now) from their Lord, [because no Divine Book will endorse such behaviors as above] they would surely have eaten (of good things) from above them [i.e., spiritual gains] and from under their feet [i.e., material gains], (thus would have enjoyed the boons of the heaven and the earth). [Quran does not measure all members of the opposing tribes with the same yardstick and acknowledges that] Though there is amongst them a community who is moderate (and of balanced mind), yet a large number of them are such that evil are their deeds [which are on record in the secular neo-Islamic history].

Quran further encourages the people of the Book to follow their own Scriptures for a virtuous behavior and its outcome:

5:68. Say, `O People of the Scripture! you stand nowhere unless you observe the Torah and the Evangel and that (– Qur’ân) which has (now) been revealed to you from your Lord’. And certainly that which has been revealed [i.e., Quran] to you [all] from your Lord will increase many of them in ordinate rebellion and disbelief; so do not grieve for the disbelieving people.

5:69. Verily, those who have believed and those who judaised and the Sabians and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allâh and the Last Day and does righteous deeds, they shall have no cause of fear nor shall they ever grieve.

Quran then gives historical references to the above mentioned behaviors which are replete in history by the same people:

5:70. Surely, We took a covenant from the Children of Israel and We sent Messengers to them. Every time there came to them a Messenger with that (Message) which did not suit their fanciful desires, (they defied him so that) some they treated as liars and others they sought to kill.

5:71. And they thought there would be no punishment (for them) so they willfully became blind and deaf; (then they sought Allâh’s pardon) then Allâh turned to them (with mercy with the advent of Jesus), yet again many of them became blind and deaf. And Allâh is Watchful of what they do.

Quran is quite clear about friends and foe of Muslims:

60:8. Allâh does not forbid you to be kind and good and to deal justly with those who have not fought you because of your faith and have not turned you out of your homes. In fact Allâh loves those who are equitable.

60:9. Allâh only forbids you to make friends with those who have fought you because of your faith and who have turned you out of your homes, and have abetted your expulsion. Indeed, those who make friends with them are really the unjust.

Despite such treacherous behaviors by opponents, Quran does not claim righteousness for Muslims alone:

3:113. They (– the people of the Scripture) are not all alike. Among these people of the Scripture there are some upright people. They rehearse the Message of Allâh in the hours of the night and they prostrate themselves (in His worship).

3:114. They believe in Allâh and the Last Day and enjoin good and forbid evil, and they vie one with another in (doing) good deeds. And it is these who are of the truly righteous.

Now, getting back to the Hadith in reference, lets read the earlier quoted verses again that bring out the historical and moral context of the said Hadith:

5:70. Surely, We took a covenant from the Children of Israel and We sent Messengers to them. Every time there came to them a Messenger with that (Message) which did not suit their fanciful desires, (they defied him so that) some they treated as liars and others they sought to kill.

5:71. And they thought there would be no punishment (for them) so they willfully became blind and deaf; (then they sought Allâh’s pardon) then Allâh turned to them (with mercy with the advent of Jesus), yet again many of them became blind and deaf. And Allâh is Watchful of what they do.

Jewish tribes of Medina are on record for their treacherous behavior against the government of Medina. Despite their peace and alliance treaties with the government of Medina, they repeatedly violated it and supported attacks by Makkans on Medina. They fanned intrigues against Muslims by secret support of the hypocrites in Medina who were led by Abdullah bin Ubbay. They even tried to kill Muhammad as an invited guest, once in Medina and once in Khyber. Such sedition against the government of Medina resulted in the famous wars against Muslims in and around Medina, namely Badr, Uhad and Battle of Trench. The said Jewish violations and their consequences have been addressed in Issues 1 and 2 before. The usage of the words “Allah and His Apostle” in Quran and Hadith imply the City government of Medina in early Islam. As the head of the government, Muhammad had a choice to either annihilate or enslave the treacherous Jewish tribes along the lines of their own tradition of Joshua in Jericho, confiscate all their property as Herem, and follow the law of Torah i.e. Deuteronomy 20:

12. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13. And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

15. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

18. That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

19. When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege:

20. Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

Despite of treaty violations, Muhammad did none of the above of Torah or Jewish history and gave the treacherous Jewish tribes the choice to either freely accept Islam on its merits and live as peaceful citizens or leave Medina. Else, Muslims had no choice but go to a full scale war with the treaty violators. Thus is the full context of the Hadith and Quran which reads:

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said,“Let us go to the Jews,” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras [-Jewish Madrassah, probably associated with Banu Qainqah]. He [Muhammad] said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the earth [-Medina] belongs to Allah and His Apostle [i.e. City government of Medina].”

5:70-1. Surely, We took a covenant from the Children of Israel and We sent Messengers to them. Every time there came to them a Messenger with that (Message) which did not suit their fanciful desires, (they defied him so that) some they treated as liars and others they sought to kill.And they thought there would be no punishment (for them) so they willfully became blind and deaf[to their treaties, treacheries and consequences of their violations]…

There were three Jewish tribes in or around Medina each with their fortifications, namely Banu Qainqah, Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizah. Reader is reminded that besides these three Jewish tribes, there were other Jewish groups numbering about 20,000 who lived in peace and harmony in and around Medina. Over period of time, each of the said tribes conspired against the Muslims and for which they were besieged after the three wars respectively i.e. Qainqah – Badr, Nadir – Uhad, Quraizah – Battle of Trench. The first two were judged by Muhammad by their choice, who let them relocate away from Medina with their full possessions. Banu Qainqah resettled in Syria and Banu Nadir relocated to their brethren in faith in Khaibar at a distance of ninety five miles north of Medina. Banu Nadir were one of the main instigators and participants of the Trench War against Muslims and on their canvassing the third tribe of Banu Quraizah broke their treaty and actually fought against the Muslims in the same war. When Banu Quraizah were besieged for sedition, they appointed as arbitrator, their old acquaintance and ally, the chief of Aus tribe. To their dismay, they were awarded verdict from their own Mosaic Law by a judge of their own choosing and in their own historical tradition – ” [Muhammad The Prophet, pg 108-109]. About sixteen or seventeen of Banu Quraizah ring leaders of conspiracy were executed and rest of the tribe was let go and they left Medina after selling their property and taking their belongings. See Issues 1 and 2 for more discussion on Jewish treachery in Medina.

So, Mr. Spencer when you quote the Hadith in reference, at least you can see for yourself both in the words of Hadith and historical events connected with the Hadith, that Muhammad did not create the dispossessed refugees with no future out of the Jewish tribes unlike the millions of victims under collective punishment of 1948 and 1967 occupations of Palestine. Those tribes left Medina at different times and reasons with full possessions and after sale of their properties. Neither, did Muhammad banish those tribes with internment as is customary of the modern democracies e.g. internment of ethnic Japanese in United States during WWII. Neither did Muhammad enforce Gaza like ghettoized-apartheid on the treacherous tribes. Neither did Muhammad force convert, torture or plunder those tribes, unlike the Inquisition set into motion for centuries by Pope Innocent-III or the current Pope Benedict XVI who presumably believes that Native Americans longed for Christianity, genocide and slavery. Neither did Muhammad try to save the ‘heathens’ from themselves, unlike the Catholic church in Americas. Neither did he kill every living soul be it a human or animal or a leaf in the Jewish fortifications in Medina, unlike Joshua in Jericho. Neither did Muhammad massacre thousands of hostages in the name of Crusades, unlike the “Holy” crusader – Richard in Acre.

One thing does stand out about Muhammad as a statesman. He complied with all the terms of his agreements and when the other party violated the treaty he enforced his agreements be they with Jewish tribes in Medina or the idolaters of Makkah. Despite his numerical, economic and political disadvantage, Muhammad overcame the far superior offenders and attackers. As a conqueror he shone as a Prophet, he forgave whosoever he overcame. He forgave from position of strength unlike like others who allegedly forgave from their weakness when pinned to the cross by the treachery of the same people – Every time there came to them a Messenger with that (Message) which did not suit their fanciful desires, (they defied him so that) some they treated as liars and others they sought to kill. And they thought there would be no punishment (for them) so they willfully became blind and deaf…

Note: [comments in square brackets above are not part of the original quoted text]

References:

Contextomy – Wikipedia
War on Poverty – Wikpedia
Joshua in Jericho – Wikipedia
Herem – Wikipedia
Deuteronomy 20 – Bible Gateway
Palestinian Refugees – Wikipedia
Japanese American internment – Wikipedia
Gaza Ghetto – Portrait of a Palestinian Family – New Day Films
The Inquisition – Jewish Virtual Library
Pope Benedict XVI: Native Americans Longed for Christianity, Genocide, Slavery – About.com
Battle of Jericho – Wikipedia
Richard the Lion Heart Massacres – Eyewitness to History.com
Holy Quran – Nooruddin

Issue 40 [@40:48]: Robert Spencer – “Islam understands its earthly mission to be to extend the law of Allah over the world by force. Now, this is distinct from extending the religion by force. Muslims often indignantly deny that Islam was spread by the sword, as the old expression goes, and that anybody is ever forced to convert to Islam. Now, of course forced conversion are a constant hallmark of Islamic history, but they are technically forbidden by Islamic law. Now, the idea in Islam is that Muslims must force to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Not everybody will be forced to become a Muslim but non-Muslims will be relegated to second class status, not be able live in the society equal to the Muslims. And it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to fight to institute that kind of society.”

Rebuttal 40: Robert Spencer now shifts gears and makes utterly baseless allegations against Islam. He is wrong both from secular and doctrinal aspects of Islam. He falsely tries to impress upon the audience that Islam was spread by force and that there were forced conversions under Islam. He uses scare tactics for those unfamiliar with Islam and alleges that it relegates non-Muslims to a second class citizenship. These statements by Spencer are mischievous and a smear against Islam. He stated all this without quoting an example to back up his allegations because there are none. His allegations are addressed as follows:

Rebuttal 40a: Robert Spencer is factually wrong when he states – “Islam understands its earthly mission to be to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.” This and other statements of Spencer were rebutted by Muhammad Ali in 1936, decades before Spencer was even born. In his book, The Religion of Islam, under the topic of Jihad [p. 409-413], Muhammad Ali writes:

The Spread of Islam by Force[?]

The propagation of Islam is no doubt a religious duty of every true Muslim, who must follow the example of the Holy Prophet, but “the spread of Islam by force”, is a thing of which no trace can be found in the Holy Qur’an. On the other hand, the Holy Book lays down the opposite doctrine in clear words. “There is no compulsion in religion”, and the reason is added: “The right way is clearly distinct from error” (2:256). This verse was revealed after the permission for war had been given, and it is therefore certain that the permission to fight has no connection with the preaching of religion. That the Holy Qur’an never taught such a doctrine, nor did the Holy Prophet ever think of it, is a fact which is now being gradually appreciated by the Western mind. After beginning his article on Djihad with the statement that “the spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general”, D.B. Macdonald, the writer of the article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, in a way questions the correctness of his own allegation, by adding that there is nothing in the Holy Qur’an to corroborate it, and that the idea was not present even to the mind of the Holy Prophet:

“In the Meccan Suras of the Kur’an patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Medina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Hadith are explicit on the point [Footnote in the book: It will be shown later on that even Hadith does not teach propagation of Islåm by force.]; but the Kur’anic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless.”

Here is a clear confession that the Holy Qur’an does not enjoin the waging of war against all unbelievers so as to subdue them to Islam, nor was the idea present to the mind of the Holy Prophet. The logical consequence of this confession is that genuine Hadith cannot inculcate such a doctrine, for Hadith reports the saying of the Holy Prophet. And if the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Prophet never taught such a doctrine, how could it be said to be the religious duty of the Muslims? There is obviously a struggle here in the writer’s mind between preconceived ideas and an actual knowledge of facts. [Emphasis added]

Circumstances under which War was Permitted

It is a misstatement of facts to say that patience under attack was taught at Makkah, because there was no other alternative, and that the right to repel attack came at Madinah. The attitude was no doubt changed but that change was due to the change of circumstances. At Makkah there was individual persecution and patience was taught. If the conditions had remained the same at Madinah, the Muslim attitude would have been the same. But individual persecution could no more be resorted to by the Quraish of Makkah, as the Muslims were living out of their reach. This very circumstance fanned the fire of their wrath, and they now planned the extinction of the Muslims as a nation. The sword was taken up to annihilate the Muslim community or to compel it to return to unbelief. That was the challenge thrown at them, and the Holy Prophet had to meet it. The Holy Qur’an bears the clearest testimony to it. The earliest permission to repel attack is conveyed in words which show that the enemy had already taken up the sword or decided to do so: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them — Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, in which Allah’s name is much remembered would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps His cause” (22:39, 40). The very words of this verse show that it is the earliest on the subject of fighting, as it speaks of a permission being given now which evidently had not been given up to this time. This permission was given to a people upon whom war was made by their enemies (yuqatal∂na); and it was not a permission to make war with people in general but only with the people who made war on them, and the reason is stated plainly “because they are oppressed” and “have been expelled from their homes without a just cause.” It was clearly an aggressive war on the part of the enemies of Islam who thus sought to exterminate the Muslims or to compel them to forsake their religion: “And they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion if they can” (2:217). It was a holy war in the truest sense because, as stated further on, if war had not been allowed under these circumstances, there would be no peace on earth, no religious liberty, and all houses for the worship of God would be destroyed. Indeed there could be no war holier than the one which was needed as much for the religious liberty of the Muslims as for the principle of religious liberty itself, as much to save the mosques as to save the cloisters and the synagogues and churches. If there had ever been a just cause for war in this world, it was for the war that had been permitted to the Muslims. And undoubtedly war with such pure motives was a jihad, a struggle carried on simply with the object that truth may prosper and that freedom of conscience may be maintained.

The second verse giving to the Muslims permission to fight runs as follows: “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, and be not aggressive; surely Allah loves not the aggressors” (2:190). Here again the condition is plainly laid down that the Muslims shall not be the first to attack, they had to fight — it had now become a duty—but only against those who fought against them; aggression was expressly prohibited. And this fighting in self-defence is called fighting in the way of Allah (fi sabilillah), because fighting in defence is the noblest and justest of all causes. It was the cause Divine, because if the Muslims had not fought they would have been swept out of existence, and there would have been none to establish Divine Unity on earth. These were the very words in which the Holy Prophet prayed in the field of Badr: “O Allah! I beseech Thee to fulfil Thy covenant and Thy promise; O Allah! if Thou wilt (otherwise), Thou wilt not be worshipped anymore” (Bu.56:89). The words fi sabili-llah are misinterpreted by most European writers as meaning the propagation of Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Muslims were not fighting to force Islam on others; rather they were being fought to force them to renounce Islam, as shown by (2:217) quoted above. What a travesty of facts to say that war was undertaken by the Muslims for the propagation of Islam!

It is sometimes asserted that these injunctions, relating to defensive fighting, were abrogated by a later revelation in ch. 9. Yet anyone who reads that chapter cannot fail to note that it does not make the slightest change in the principles laid down earlier. Fighting with idolaters is enjoined in the ninth chapter, but not with all of them. In the very first verse of that chapter, the declaration of immunity is directed towards only “those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement” not all the idolaters—and even in their case an exception is made. “Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their terms; for Allah loves those who keep their duty’’ (9:4). This shows that there were idolatrous tribes on friendly terms with the Muslims, and the Muslims were not allowed to fight with them; it was only the hostile tribes who broke their agreements and attacked the Muslims that were to be fought against. And individual idolaters, even if belonging to hostile tribes, could still have safety, if they wanted to enquire about Islam, and were given a safe conduct back home even if they did not accept Islam: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek protection by thee, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not” (9:6). The idolater who stood in need of protection evidently belonged to a hostile tribe, because the friendly tribes, being in alliance with the Muslims, had no need of seeking protection of the Muslim government. Thus even a hostile idolator was to be sent back safely to his own tribe and not molested in anyway, as the words of the verse show. The idolaters with whom fighting was enjoined were those who had violated treaties and were foremost in attacking Muslims, as the words that follow show: “If they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship, nor of covenant in your case” (9:8). “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger and they attacked you first” (9:13). Thus chapter 9, which is supposed to abrogate the earlier verses, still speaks of fighting only against those idolaters who “attacked you first”, and this is the very condition laid down in earlier verses, such as (2:190). [Emphasis added]

Rebuttal 40b: Spencer self contradicts when he states – “Now, of course forced conversion are a constant hallmark of Islamic history, but they are technically forbidden by Islamic law.”

At least there is admission by Spencer that it is “technically forbidden by Islamic law” to force convert anyone to Islam either by a direct or implied threat or any act of discrimination. Thank you Mr. Spencer for clarification. This doctrine of freedom of religion for all is based upon merits of Islam unlike dogmas of Christianity. The latter has spared no mythology to make a laughing stock of God and religion. Couple of verses of Quran separate Spencer’s confabulated view of history from reality of history i.e.

2:256-7. There is no compulsion in religion — [and as proven historically] the right way [of Islam] is indeed clearly distinct from error [i.e. of Christianity]. So whoever disbelieves in the devil [of forced conversions, colonization, exploitation, slavery of souls– both literally and figuratively] and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Allah is the Friend of those who believe — He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve, their friends are the devils who take them out of light into darkness [and Christian history is a testament to all this]. They are the companions of the Fire; in it they abide [both in here and hereafter].

If forced conversions were constant hallmark of Islamic history, then why is it so that it is the Christian Spain which is remembered for Inquisition, its trials, executions and exiles rather than the Muslim Dynasty that ruled Spain for 800 years? The latter are remembered for reviving the Jewish art and culture. If Spencer is so true in his assertion, then why India has more than a billion Hindus and the Muslims in sub-continent are still a minority, even though India was ruled for centuries by Muslim rulers? The Mogul Emperors were known for having Hindu wives and Hindu artists and generals as prominent members of their courts. Why the largest country in the world, Indonesia, never saw a foreign Muslim soldier on its soil? Spencer might be disappointed by these facts of history, if nothing else, by his own words i.e. his fabricated forced conversions are “technically forbidden by Islamic law.”

On the reverse, why does Spencer fail to tell the world the plight of Incas, Mayas and Aztecs and all the exploitation of the lands and its peoples that was wrought in the name of Salvation by his own religion where Christianity was spread at the tip of sword to save the ‘heathens’ from their own selves. Christianity claims ‘love’ and ‘forgiveness’ at its core. But the history tells us otherwise. With this kind of ‘love’ who needs ‘hate’.

Rebuttal 40c: Spencer – “Now, the idea in Islam is that Muslims must force to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Not everybody will be forced to become a Muslim but non-Muslims will be relegated to second class status, not be able live in the society equal to the Muslims. And it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to fight to institute that kind of society.”

Sufficient is to say that this statement of Spencer is false, fabricated and absurd. Islam has nothing to do with Spencer’s allegation towards non-Muslims. Spencer is repeating himself. He instigated before the same topic by totally absurd meaning of ‘Dhimmi’, which was answered in Issue 15d. The movie falters at the door steps of simple dictionary and equates Islam with war, whereas it means peace, it equates Dhimmi as second class citizen, while it factually means extra care and burdened responsibility of the state towards its minorities.

Note: [comments in square brackets above are not part of the original quoted text]
References:
Religion of Islam – Muhammad Ali
The Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz
Spanish Inquisition – Wikipedia
Golden Age of Jewish Culture in Spain – Wikipedia
Navaratans – In the Court of Akbar – Wikipedia
Economy in Spanish Colonization – Wikipedia
Religion in Spanish Colonization – Wikipedia

Issue 39 [@33:18]: This issue is broken into following segments.

Issue 39a: Walid Shoebat – “Shaheed, the word Shaheed, means witness, to witness to testify, to testify there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. And you die as a Shaheed for that cause, you are a witness, you are considered a witness and martyr, and a martyr becomes glorified. Your family will glorify you after you die.”

Rebuttal 39a: One of the many tactics employed by this documentary is to keep repeating an allegation, no matter how false. Sooner or later it will psychologically stick with the audience as the truth. Shaheed interpreted as a martyr is one such construct that this documentary keeps repeating and wrongly attributes it to acts of terrorism. This wrong perception of Martyrdom attributed to Islam was clarified in detail in the Issue 34 under the heading ‘Martyrdom’ based upon excerpted section from the book “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” [p. 50-2] by Dr. Zahid Aziz.

Footnote – Shoebat himself acknowledges that Shaheed means witness. Thus, it would be totally ridiculous to substitute the word ‘martyr’ for ‘witness’ in Quran e.g.

“Allah is witness of what you do” (3:98)

“Allah is sufficient as a witness between us and you” (10:29).

Issue 39b: Walid Shoebat – “To a Muslim fundamentalist living in the Middle East I had to be initiated. I had to basically either kill my first Jew or destroy my first Zionist infrastructure. I had to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that I was worthy. And there are ample amount of students, teenagers, men, who are willing to die a suicide martyrs. Willing to put explosives. The martyr application is filled. There are many applicants. There are not enough bombs to fulfill the applicants. And to get in one of those missions indeed you must have been chosen. You must have been really good. You must have been violent enough. You must have been going out on every demonstration in the streets of Jerusalem or Bethlehem or our village. You must have shown yourself worthy of a greater operation. So when I explained what I have done and people have seen me in the community and I was worthy, [pause] I ended up in prison, I was of course recruited. And I remember Mr. Mahmud Al-Mughrabi. He was a proud, he was proud to have planted fifteen bombs. Killed many Israelis. He was being bailed out by a Jewish-Israeli lawyer. He back right in the street. So you find your bomb maker and you apply. You say, ‘look, I want to join, I want to do my first martyr operation, planting a bomb, whatever’ and you need connection. I found my connection. I rendezvous with this guy in Jerusalem in [unclear location] and he built this explosive charge with a timer in a loaf of bread and I had to smuggle it from the Temple Mount under the auspices of Al-Waqf department. Al-Waqf police is the Islamic police appointed by the government to watch over the holy sites. Them knowingly that I have explosive charges, smuggle me so that I can escape from the check points. There I carried my explosive charge from Jerusalem to Bank Leumi in Bethlehem. I was supposed to place the explosive charge at 6 pm exactly. I was supposed to have this explosive charge in my hand at 6 pm exactly. Five to six [o,clock] I saw some Arab children running around and I did not want to kill any Arabs. So, I decided to place this explosive charge on the roof, I tossed it on the roof. At 6 pm it went off and there was this big explosion. I looked behind me. I see a thick black smoke coming out of the building. And I started running. That’s the moment I first got a glimpse of the reality of killing. I thought people have died. And, I remember, I didn’t sleep for three days, constantly worried that I have killed somebody. Even terrorists have reality check that you kill or about to die. You can sense it. This is why in Israel, the way the nature of finding out a suicide bomber is to look at their eyes. They will have these glossy eyes. They are sweating profusely. They are not paying attention because in their mind they are about to go. And its, you weight the reality that now you are gonna die. Many times I have been in this situation or I had thought I was going to get killed shooting back and forth as we stone at the Israelis and they shoot back at us and things like that. I was face to face with death. When you think in your minds that you are going to die, you struggle between the requirements of your Islamic upbringing and between the reality that you value your life. And, at some point one has to outweigh the other. And, for a Muslim fundamentalist we always chose death. We always chose the suicide. My cousin died on his way to Ben-Yahuda street and he got killed. He died. I had people and relatives die fighting the Israelis. And as I look at now, I think what a waste. What a waste of life!”

Rebuttal 39b: Shoebat once again fabricates facts and logic for a scripted tearjerker account of his past. He cunningly chooses his words. To insinuate the audience he tacitly mentions the Temple Mount i.e. Al-Aqsa Mosque where allegedly his bomb was made. Then he makes sure that Al-Waqf police is mentioned as his accomplice in the terror plot. Like the plot of DaVinci Code, he touches every landmark in the holy land. Whom is Shoebat trying to fool or please? Equivalent of his lies in Christian world would be a Vatican staff member who manufactures a bomb for a terrorist in Sistine Chapel and then the Pontifical Swiss Guards of the Vatican slip the terrorist and his bomb into some populated part of Rome, e.g. St. Peter’s Square. His synthesized facts are laughable. Probably, of many reasons, it was this fantastic account that caught the attention of CNN. His self awakening to Christianity based upon his past of being a “terrorist” is rubbished by the CNN investigative journalism (see Part – 1 of “Ex Terrorist Rakes’ in homeland security bucks”).

CNN was not able to locate any incidence or police report of bombing of the bank that Shoebat takes “credit” for. The video clip clearly shows that the bank is housed in a tall building. It is just impossible for someone to lob up a bomb from street level to its roof, unless it is Shoebat throwing it in his fantasies of Marvel Comics characters the Fantastic Four. There are no police records of Shoebat’s self alleged arrests and imprisonment in Israel. Even his family members mock his fabricated “terrorist” activities. Obviously, Shoebat is more of a wannabe terrorist or a terrorist of a make belief for the gullible Western audience.

Shoebat not only unravels himself by his lies, he factually throws the whole documentary into a pseudo-intellectual gutter. Looking back at the previous issues, all his arguments similarly appear hollow and fabricated to please certain audience and pocketbooks.

Since, Shoebat is trying to placate certain masters who see the ghettoized-apartheid perpetrators as righteous and the subjugated populace as terrorists, it begets a review of the history of Palestine in last century. Shoebat might be surprised to find that founders of terrorism in Middle East are none but the founders of Israel, of which Yitzhak Shamir rose to be the Prime Minister. He wrote the book on terrorism and lived the life of one. The following is a direct quote from the written doctrine of LEHI group, a terrorist organization that he belonged to:

Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.” But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.

It is quite difficult to reconcile the morality of last sixty years of Middle East geopolitics through the lens of this documentary. Recent history tells us that even if you are a terrorist, like Yitzhak Shamir, in cahoots with Nazis, you can be rewarded with land and country for your terrorist killings, face no accountability, then rise to the highest office in the country by an election which in turn itself reflects the lack of morality of the electorate – that enforces racism, apartheid, forced ghetto segregation for the occupied, kills indiscriminately, even chokes the food, water and electricity of the subjugated, robs the minorities of their present and future – then you belong to a civilized world, you are the citizen of the “lone democracy in the Middle East.”

Next time, Mr. Shoebat when you see rebellion in the walled-off ghettos in the Middle East, please be mindful that rebels might be borrowing a page from none other but the holy book of the occupiers or the script of the founding fathers of the occupiers. Quran is fully cognizant of such double standards of civility, human rights and right of self-determination that are allowed as a right to occupiers and the transplanted, yet denied to the natives who are occupied and displaced:

83:1-13.Woe to the cheaters, who, when they take the measure (of their dues) from people, take it fully, but when they measure out to others or weigh out for them, they give less than is due! Do they not think that they will be raised again, to a mighty day? — the day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds. No, surely the record of the wicked is in the prison. And what will make you know what the prison is? It is a written book. Woe on that day to the rejectors who call the day of Judgment a lie! And none calls it a lie but every exceeder of limits, every sinful one; when Our messages are recited to him, he says: Stories of the ancients!

Terrorism, whether committed by the Prime Minister of a country or a homeless of the native land; terrorism, whether sanctioned by actual words of Torah or fabricated in the name of Islam has no room in Quran:

5:32. …We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, unless it is for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. And certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excesses in the land.

References:

Islam, Peace and Tolerance – Dr. Zahid Aziz.

‘Ex Terrorist Rakes’ in homeland security bucks Part – 1, Part – 2 – Anderson Cooper 360 – CNN

The Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz

Issue 38 [@32:22]: Mr. Serge Trifkovic – “It is a very dangerous element of Islamic teaching because this instant gratification through martyrdom is an attractive concept. And by the way, when the so called martyr operation is carried out by Hammas, what is announced from the minarets of mosques is not the death of so and so who carried out the attack, but the wedding of so and so to the hooris. In other words, they immediately make the implication that far from having to cry over his disappearance over the end of his physical life, his parents should be happy and celebrate and throw a party because their son is now being not only transported into heaven but greeted there with these voluptuous beauties.”

Rebuttal 38: Trifkovic gives a totally wrong perception of martyrdom in Islam when he states – “It is a very dangerous element of Islamic teaching because this instant gratification from martyrdom is an attractive concept.” His argument hinges on the assumption that humans can confer the status of martyr on someone. In Islam, humans can only pray for someone to be granted the status of a martyr after his death. According to Quran this prerogative is only with God. Various aspects of martyrdom and the distortion of hooris, which are “voluptuous beauties” to Trifkovic were fully dealt with in Rebuttals 34 and 35 before. Besides possibly Trifkovic, it is doubted if anyone has actually seen a heavenly hoori to give the description of “voluptuous beauty?” Muhammad had this to say about an apparent martyr:

“The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them. Then will Allah say: What did you do? He will say: I fought for You until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a brave warrior. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into hell.” (Sahih Muslim, book: ‘Government’; in A.H. Siddiqui translation book 20, ch. 43, number 4688.) [Islam, Peace and Tolerance, p 51]

Suicide has no support in Quran. On the reverse, self-preservation is a duty. See Rebuttal 33.

Christianity has to be credited, if not blamed for infusing non-sense in other cultures and religious thought. Christianity influenced other peoples in such a manner that the neo-cultural values and myths adopted by latter found expression as rituals and canons in the name of the prevalent religion. In the Issues discussed so far we seen such examples of stoning to death for blasphemy (Rebuttal 21, Leviticus 24:10-23), the infamous verse of sword in Bible (Rebuttal 28 – Matthews 10:34), the aggression of Holy wars – Crusades, stoning to death for adultery and now killing oneself with a reward in heaven can be attributed to none but the Bible.

The suicide bombing in Middle East stems from the Biblical tradition of Jesus that has seeped into that culture through Christianity. Jesus while predicting his own death said, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.” John 12:23-26

In the light of above Bible quote, Trifkovic failed to ask the fundamental question from the to be suicide bombers about their living situation under occupation, generation after generation, in Palestine as to – do they hate their life in this world? Chances are that Trifkovic will be “surprised” to get “Yes” as an answer. To such a suicide bomber, Bible gives solace – that the bomber “will keep it [-his reward] for eternal life.” after his suicide.

When a Mullah glorifies the death of a suicide bomber, he is factually glorifying words of Bible – “They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” Revelation 12:11-12

Suicides in the name of self-sacrifice andmayhem have no place in Quran. Yet, Quran is not apologetic when it decrees self-defense against an imposed aggression and persecution:

2:190. And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but do not be aggressive. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors.

2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.

2:193. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah [ – the Lord of Mankind, i.e. secure religious freedom for all]. But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

2:194. …Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted…

Quran is strictly against any aggression or preventive war (which is distinct from preemptive strike in an existing state of war), the values that stand even today in the Charter of United Nations.

Since Trifkovic gives specific example of Palestine, it becomes important to understand the historical perspective of the Middle East. Christianity had a long run to ingrain certain not too proud values in the local culture. Both Judaism and Christianity has its own litany of Martyrs that are extolled in their religious literature till today. Why is Trifkovic anguished if a frustrated Palestinian suicide bomber retaliates against tyrannical apartheid or walks in step of Hannah, Ten Martyrs, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ignatius and others, who all landed in heaven. In light of such a precedence, how can Trifkovic deny others to kill themselves or get killed in their sleep by bombs, so as to be Martyrs? Martyr literally means Witness – to his faith and cause. How different is the fate of these founders of Martyrology than a suicide bomber? Unknown to Trifkovic, but from his own mouth, he lays out the Biblical standards of salvation for those committing suicide or offering themselves to be killed i.e. – “…they [-the Mullahs] immediately make the implication that far from having to cry over his [-suicide] disappearance over the end of his physical life, his parents should be happy and celebrate and throw a party because their son is now being not only transported into heaven.”

Just for the record, getting killed while killing other non-combatants is not an invention of modern day “Jihadists.” That credit goes to the “Judaists” – Sicarii, the Jihadists almost two thousand years ago who were protesting their deprivation from the same temple that Jihadist of today have a cause for. There are other big hitters escaping the attention of the documentary including Kamikazes and LTTE to name a few who have large set of badges of carnage on their lapels.

Mr. Trikovic, at least this documentary gave us a common cause. Lets join hands and eliminate the source spring of such suicides, the doctrine of self-immolation and submission of oneself to be killed without resistance for a salvation, which is found in none other than Bible and Christianity. Lets move on to the Final Testament, the Quran, which categorically states:

“Do not cast yourselves to destruction by your own hands.” — 2:195

“Do not kill yourselves.” — 4:29

References:

Bible – Today’s New International Version – Bible Gateway

Charter of United Nations – United Nations Organization

Islam, Peace and Tolerance – Dr. Zahid Aziz

The Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz

Issue 37 [@31:15]: Walid Shoebat – “Jihad in Islam means struggle. That’s what the literal meaning of the word, struggle. But what the West doesn’t understand is that the hadith, the compilation of the traditions of Prophet Muhammad of Islam is almost 100 hadiths regarding Jihad. And if you look at every single one of them, every single one of them have the sword, war or a military effort. And in the end of the expedition, Jihad expedition, he [Muhammad] said – Now I resort to the jihad within, the jihad that is within the self-struggle. And as a matter of fact, I had this dialog with an Islamist one time, he says – ‘Walid, come-on, tell the West that Jihad means struggle.’ I said, ‘Yes, it does mean self-struggle, you’re right. Jihad does mean self-struggle, but so does Mein Kamph.’ Mein Kampf means My Struggle. In the same fashion, the Islamists look at Jihad.”

Rebuttal 37: To a western audience, Shoebat might come across as well read with catchy punch lines, tie-ins and bridging phrases. What they do not know is that his is a clichéd style of a typical swindling carpet seller or a story teller in back streets of Middle East where he is from, a style which has lots of song but no substance. Rebuttal to his “scholarly” rant needs a breakdown as follows:

Rebuttal 37a: Shoebat, like Al-Araby in Issue 36, could not hide the true meaning of Jihad. He admits – “Jihad in Islam means struggle. That’s what the literal meaning of the word, struggle….”

He seeks refuge in broad swipes against Hadiths without quoting any specifics. Whatever specifics he musters can be heard from his mouth – “… But what the West doesn’t understand is that the hadith, the compilation of the traditions of Prophet Muhammad of Islam is almost 100 hadiths regarding Jihad. And if you look at every single one of them, every single one of them have the sword, war or a military effort. And in the end of the expedition, Jihad expedition, he [Muhammad] said – Now I resort to the jihad within, the jihad that is within the self-struggle…”

What does Shoebat expect of Muhammad when the latter spoke about a defensive war? Should Muhammad had given lectures on how to best offer oneself for crucifixion when faced with a defensive war? Any unbiased audience who lives in a real world can read very clearly even in Shoebat’s own words the preference of Muhammad to struggle within the person over the struggle of an imposed defensive war. Obviously, the struggle of person with his/her inner demons is intellectually and morally much higher struggle than an outward war in self defense. What is wrong and immoral with such a teaching? Burden is on Shoebat to explain his preaching, not on Muhammad, not on Quran and not on Hadiths in light of Quran. The partial Hadith that he refers to is addressed in the article below.

The documentary experts keep on bringing the distortions of the word – Jihad, and we will keep on providing the facts of Jihad. In earlier rebuttals Muhammad Ali (Issue 27), Pickthall (Issue 27) , Zahid Aziz (Issue 33) and Nooruddin (Issue 36) explained Jihad. Now, an article – Misconceptions about the Islamic concept of Jihad (pub. 1886) – by Dr. G.W. Leitner, a British orientalist and a linguist, updated for its use of archaic words by Dr. Zahid Aziz is presented below:

Meanings of the word jihad
The subject of jihad is so thoroughly misunderstood both by Western scholars and by the bulk of Muslims themselves that it will be well to point out what really constitutes jihad. In order to do so, it is necessary to analyse the word and to show when and how it was first used.

Etymologically the root is jahd, “he exerted himself”, and the infinitive that is formed from it means “utmost exertion”. Its first use amongst Arabic authors refers to that particular exertion which takes place under great difficulties, and, when applied to religious matters, it means an exertion under religious difficulties on behalf of the true religion.

It will be seen at once how a word of this kind would be subject to interpretations according to circumstances. Taking into consideration the surrounding life of an Arab, if he forces his camel or horse to take a desperate ride through the night so as to surprise the violators of his peace before the early morn, it is jihad; if he appeals to his kinsmen to shake off their lethargy and to rally round the tribal standard or to spread the opinions of the true faith, it is jihad; and if he abstains alike from worldly cares and amusements in order to find that peace which meditation alone can give in spite of an obdurate heart, it is jihad. Nor can the student‟s jihad in poring over his books, the merchant‟s jihad in amassing money, the ploughman’s jihad in winning food from an obstinate soil, be forgotten.

So that when people say that jihad means the duty of the Muslims to wage war against a non-Muslim government or country and call this jihad (although it is possible that under certain circumstances this use of the word might be legitimate), they really talk nonsense, and cast an undeserved libel on a religion with which they are not acquainted.

Different meanings of the word jihad
Like other Arabic roots, jihad has first a concrete and then an applied meaning. This applied meaning varies according to the circumstances of Arabian life and the development of Arabic literature, but never loses its original keynote of exertion against difficulties.

Jihad, therefore, in the first form of that root, is applied to exertion, and in the third, sixth, and eighth forms to the unsparing exertion in speech or action, or in order to arrive at a correct opinion in spite of difficulties. Thus, an examiner in dealing with a candidate and a physician in treating a patient have tasks before them which tax their power; and so has a petitioner who wishes to extract a favour from an official.

In the third form, which adds the notion of causation to that of the original meaning, the object which causes exertion is obviously put into the foreground, and as resistance is greater, so efforts must be increased. These adverse things are generally objects of disapprobation. As with the Christian, the Muslim has to wage war with “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” and so jihad is of three kinds, namely, against a visible enemy, against the devil, and against one‟s self; and all these three opponents are included in the term jihad, as used in the 22nd chapter of the Koran, verse 27 {Editor’s Note: The opening words of verse 78 must be meant here}. Thus, to fight an enemy under conditions of great difficulty and opposition, the enemy doing the same, is jihad, it being remembered that the earliest enemies with whom Islam had to fight for its very existence were non-Muslims desirous of suppressing a hated religion. It was only natural that when reference was made to a “jihad in the path of God” the word should have come to mean a fight in the cause of religion, and that, finally, when the words “in the path of God” were dropped in ordinary conversation, or writing, it should assume the meaning of a “religious war”, which it has kept to the present day.

Various other forms of the word jihad
The other forms of the word jihad continue the general meaning of the original form as modified by the super-added value of the derived form. Thus, to the labourer it becomes in the fourth form the entering upon land, such as is termed “jihad, a desert, a plain”, or “open, barren country,” whilst in dealing with affairs, that form adds “the necessity of prudence, precaution, and sound judgement.” The physical result of this is the old man‟s hoariness and the appearance of white hair in the dark beard, but exertions steadfastly prosecuted have the effect of both concrete and abstract difficulties being removed, and, therefore, ajhad means that “the earth, the road, or the truth become open to him who takes trouble,” and finally ajhad means that “the matter in hand becomes within one‟s reach.”

We now, passing over the sixth form as being very much the same in meaning as the first, approach the eighth, which has had such an importance in the theological government of the Shi‘ah community in which the mujtahids are the scholastic witnesses, commentators, and guides of the faith, whose words, whether it be at Lahore, at Lucknow, or at Tehran, the faithful of the Shi‘ah sect find it impossible to resist. Mujtahid as a conventional term means “a lawyer exerting the faculty of the mind to the utmost for the purpose of forming a right opinion in a case of law respecting a doubtful and difficult point by means of reasoning and comparison,” and, similarly, ijtihad means “the referring a case proposed to the judge respecting a doubtful and difficult point from the method of analogy to the Koran and the Sunnah.”

The simple noun, jahd, therefore, obviously means power, ability, labour, effort, a stringent oath, or else the difficulty, affliction, or fatigue with which the above named qualities have to contend. Physiologically, of course, disease is jahd. The trouble of a large family combined with poverty, or the difficulty of a poor man in paying exorbitant taxes, are all jahd. Applied to land, jihad has already been explained to be the land, in which there is herbage, or level and rugged land, sterile and ungrateful, though it is also applied to land of which the herbage is much eaten by cattle in the form jahid. Mujhid, if referred to a friend, shows that he is a sincere and careful adviser; if applied to oneself, denotes an embarrassed condition, and if to one‟s beast, one that is weak by reason of fatigue. The passive participle of jahd similarly refers to the distressed condition of affairs, of disease, of dearth, or drought; but we think we have said enough to prove that none of the meanings in any of the forms necessarily implies the fighting of a man because he is of a different religion, or the opposition to a non-Muslim government, and that it even does not go so far as the word crusade, as animating a community in an attempt to oust the unbeliever from foreign land in order to obtain the guardianship of the Holy Sepulchre, or to simply wrest land from the Muslims for the glory of a most Christian king.

Jihad, to summarise the ordinary meanings as given by Arabic lexicographers, is simply as follows:

– Jahd – To exert oneself, endure fatigue, to become emaciated from disease, to examine, to extract butter from milk, to wish for food, to live in straitened circumstances.
– Jihadat – The hard ground which has no vegetation.
– Jihad – War with an enemy.
– Ijhad – The increase of white hair, the unfolding of truth, exertion, and (in special applications) to divide and to waste property.

The Prophet’s perception of holy war
When some people applied to Muhammad for permission to join in a holy war against those who were oppressing Muslims, he replied to them:

“Your true jihad is in endeavouring to serve your parents.”

The Quran, when using the word jihad, seems preferentially to use it for war with sin:

“Whoever wages jihad in morality We will show him the true way.” (29:69)

Elsewhere (25:52), the Koran exhorts us to fight infidels with the “great jihad”, the sword of the spirit and the arguments of the Muslim Bible.

In the traditions regarding the sayings and doings of the Prophet, a band of holy warriors is returning cheerfully from a victorious war with infidels to the peace of their homes and the tranquil observation of their faith. In passing the Prophet, they exclaim:

“We have returned from the small jihad” (the war with the aggressors on the Muslim faith) “to the great jihad” (the war with sin).

No compulsion in religion
The principal references in the Koran relating to religious war are found in the following chapters.

No violence is to be used in religious matters, although the popular impression is that this is the very essence of Islam. The second chapter of the Quran distinctly lays down:

“Let there be no violence in religion” (2:256).

This passage was particularly directed to some of Muhammad‟s first proselytes, who, having sons who had been brought up in idolatry or Judaism, wished to compel them to embrace Islam. Indeed, even when the mothers of non-Muslim children wanted to take them away from their believing relatives, Muhammad prevented every attempt to retain them. The second chapter similarly says:

“Surely those who believe (viz. Muslims) and those who are Jews, and Christians and Sabaeans, whoever believes in God, in the last day, and does that which is right, they shall have their reward of their Lord” (2:62).

These words are repeated in the fifth chapter, and, no doubt, several Muslim doctors consider it to be the doctrine of their prophet that every man may be saved in his own religion, provided he be sincere and lead a good life. However, under the pressure of the followers of Muhammad, this latitude was curtailed and was explained to mean “if he became a Muslim,” though this explanation is manifestly a faulty one, because if an idolater became a Moslem, he would be equally saved, and so there would be no difference between him and an Ahl-e Kitab (possessor of a sacred book) namely, a Christian or a Jew.

The fact is that there is an essential difference between the chapters delivered at Mecca and those delivered at Medina. In the first case, we have the utterances of one who, as a true prophet, calls people to repentance and to a godly life apart from worldly considerations. In the chapters, however, given at Medina, we necessarily find these worldly considerations paramount, Islam struggling for its very existence, and being confronted, not only with the necessity of legislation among its own followers, but also with the organisation of war, and with the circumstances that give rise to it or the results that follow from it; so that it is obvious that instructions given to warriors or in a code of legislation must differ from appeals to salvation. It is only in bearing in mind the circumstances under which each particular instruction was given that we can come to a right conclusion as to whether war with infidels, as such, is legitimate or not.

We have no hesitation in stating that an unbiased study of the Muslim scriptures will lead one to the conclusion that all those who believe in God and act righteously will be saved. Indeed, the ground is cut off from under the feet of those people who maintain that jihad is intended to propagate the Muslim religion by means of the sword. It is, on the contrary, distinctly laid down in the chapter called The Pilgrimage, that the object of jihad is to protect mosques, churches, synagogues, and monasteries from destruction (22:40), and we have yet to learn the name of the Christian crusader whose object it was to protect mosques or synagogues. Of course, when the Arabs were driven from Spain, to which they had brought their industry and learning, by Ferdinand and Isabella, and were driven into opposition to Christians, the modern meaning of jihad as hostility to Christianity was naturally accentuated. Indeed, jihad is so essentially an effort for the protection of Islam against assault, that the Muslim generals were distinctly commanded not to attack any place in which the Muslim call to prayer could be performed or in which a single Muslim could live unmolested as a witness to the faith.

Permission to fight against aggression
Fighting for religion is, indeed, encouraged in the second chapter, which was given under circumstances of great provocation, but even in that it is distinctly laid down:

“And fight for the religion of God against those that fight against you, but transgress not by attacking them first, for God loves not the transgressors; kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out of that whereof they have dispossessed you, for temptation to idolatry is more grievous than slaughter; yet fight not against them in the holy temple until they attack you therein, and if they attack you, slay them, but if they desist, God is gracious and merciful; fight therefore against them until there be no temptation to idolatry and the religion be God‟s, but if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against the ungodly” (2:190–193).

In other words, fight sin but not the sinner in times of peace. Again, in the third chapter, when the Lord of Hosts is invoked as being more powerful than all the confronting armies of enemies, when the Quraish endeavoured to induce the Muslims to return to their old idolatry as they fled in the battle of Ohud, the encouragement to fight given in that chapter has, of course, only special application:

“How many prophets have encountered foes who had myriad troops, and yet they desponded not in their mind for what had befallen them in fighting for the religion of God, and were not weakened (in their belief), neither behaved themselves in an abject manner …” (3:145).

“God gave them the reward of this world and a glorious reward in the life to come” (3:147).

And again: We will surely cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers (3:150), in allusion to the Quraish repenting that they had not utterly extirpated the Muslims, and to their beginning to think of going back to Medina for that purpose, but being prevented by a sudden panic which fell from God.

Again, in the fourth chapter, Fight therefore for the religion of God, and oblige not any one to do what is difficult except thyself (4:84). This is in allusion to the Muslims refusing to follow their prophet to the lesser expedition of Badr so that he was obliged to set out with no more than seventy men. In other words, the Prophet only was under the obligation of obeying God‟s commands, however difficult.

“However, excite the faithful to war, perhaps God will restrain the courage of the unbelievers, for God is stronger than they and more able to punish. He who intercedes between men with a good intercession shall have a portion thereof” (4:84–85).

And further on, When you are saluted with a salutation, salute the person with a better salutation (4:86). In other words, when the purely Muslim salutation of Salam aleikum is given by a Muslim, the reply should be the same with the addition, “and the mercy of God and His blessing.” Again, in the eight chapter:

“All true believers! When you meet the unbelievers marching in great numbers against you, turn not your backs on to them, for whoso shall turn his back on to them in that day, unless he turn aside to fight or retreat to another party of the faithful, shall draw on himself the indignation of God” (8:15–16).

The fact was that on the occasion when the injunction was given, Muslims could not avoid fighting, and there was, therefore, a necessity for a special strong appeal; but jihad, even when explained as a righteous effort of waging war in self defence against the grossest outrage on one’s religion, is strictly limited in the passage to which we have already alluded and which we now quote in extenso from the chapter entitled Al Hajj (The Pilgrimage):

“Permission is granted unto those who take arms against the unbelievers, because they have been unjustly persecuted by them and have been turned out of their habitations injuriously and for no other reason than because they say: our Lord is God. And if God did not repel the violence of some men by others, verily monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of God is frequently commemorated, would be utterly demolished” (22:39–40).

Publisher’s Note:
Dr Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner (1840–1899) was a linguist and university academic who built the Mosque at Woking, Surrey, in 1889, where he also intended to establish an oriental university. This is an abridgement of an article he published in 1886 in his Asiatic Quarterly Review, October 1886. Writing as a Christian scholar of Islam and religious history, he has most ably clarified the concept of jihad in Islam. In this leaflet we have replaced certain antiquated names used in the original article by their proper, current equivalents. Hence Muhammadans, Mussulmans, Muhammadanism etc. have been replaced here by Muslims and Islam.

Rebuttal 37b: After unavoidably admitting the true meaning of Jihad i.e. struggle, Shoebat could not keep away from his cheap shots, where he states – “…And as a matter of fact, I had this dialog with an Islamist one time, he says – ‘Walid, come-on, tell the West that Jihad means struggle.’ I said, ‘Yes, it does mean self-struggle, you’re right. Jihad does mean self-struggle, but so does Mein Kamph.’ Mein Kampf means My Struggle. In the same fashion, the Islamists look at Jihad.”

Shoebat, obviously you have not read “Mein Kampf” which is clear from the way you tried to rhyme in a distortion by using Hitler’s autobiography and his political ideology. This is similar to Issue 28 where you falsely score points by stating – “What part of kill don’t you [the West] understand?”

The documentary tries to inculcate in the audience a totally wrong perception of Jihad, which is far from its dictionary meanings, far removed from its implied meanings in Quran and has no example from life of Prophet Muhammad. All one can say to these pseudo-experts of the documentary is that Jihad is one of the strongest aspect of Islam. There are no apologies in rebutting and explaining the meanings, implications and purpose of Jihad as taught by Quran and practiced by Muhammad.

By using a bad and dishonest allegory, Shoebat is trying to teach the world a distorted doctrine of Jihad by citing a bad apple example of Jihadi fanaticism that was created and funded by West to begin with. On the reverse, he should not complain if someone preaches to the world the Christianity and its love of humanity by citing Hitler as its prime example.

References:

Misconceptions about the Islamic concept of Jihad (pub. 1886) – Dr. G.W. Leitner

Issue 36 [@ 30:54]: Abdullah Al-Araby – “Jihad in Islam can be spiritual or physical. The spiritual Jihad is striving to be a better Muslim. But also there is a physical part of Jihad that you cannot take it away from Islam.”

Comment 36: Even though the above statement will be later used by the documentary to build up a case against Islam, but if taken at its face value, Al-Araby is correct in his statement to a certain extent. Just like – idea and action, noun and verb, body and soul, brain and mind, wood and fire, physical hygiene and spiritual growth, healthy food and healthy mind – where each is an inherent property of another and are inseparable – similarly, Jihad has its own components i.e. physical and spiritual. But the interesting point is that since Jihad is sum total of physical and non-physical effort, hence its rewards are both physical and non-physical. Simplistically, a student has to physically and mentally strive in his or her studies before the spiritual and material benefits come forth as rewards e.g. a doctoral degree with is material reward of salary and spiritual rewards of a social status and benefit to humanity. It is because of these secular principles, unlike Christianity, monasticism and asceticism have no room in Islam. Because these apparently high moral offices in Christianity are all talk but no action. Factually, Jihad in Islam is inseparable from life of a Muslim, because the ultimate goal of a Muslim is to assume Allah’s colors which in words of Al-Abraby is “striving to be a better Muslim,” and that is a dictate of Quran:

2:138. (Assume) the attributes of Allâh! and who is fairer than Allâh in attributes? We are His worshippers ever.

By being worshippers ever of Allah, Muslims are constantly toiling on towards their Lord:

84:6. O Mankind! verily you are (by nature) toiling on towards your Lord a laborious toiling, then (through arduous service to Him) you shall surely meet Him.

Such is the goal of life in Quran which directs every man to walk with God by treading along with a message of peace – Islam.

The matter of Jihad has been explained and clarified by various authors in previous issues, namely Muhammad Ali (Issue 27), Pickthall (Issue 27) and Zahid Aziz (Issue 33). The following is another discourse about Jihad which is taken (and referenced verses inserted) from the introductory comments in Translation of Quran by Nooruddin – “JIHÂD -HOLY WAR- A MISCONCEPTION”[p. 37A-38A]

And strive your hardest to win the pleasure of Allâh, as hard a striving as is possible and as it behoves you. He has chosen you and has imposed no hardship upon you in the matter of your faith, (so follow) the creed of your father Abraham. He named you Muslims (both) before this and (again) in this (Qur’ân) (22:78).

A great misconception prevails, particularly among the Christians, propagated by their zealous missionaries, with regard to the duty of JIHÂD in Islam. Even the greatest research scholars of West have not taken pains to consult any dictionary on Arabic, or to refer to the Qur’ân to find out the meaning of the word. The word Jihâd according to the Arabic-English Lexicon of E. W. Lane and the great scholar of Islam Râghîb means: The use of or exerting of one’s utmost powers, efforts, endeavours or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation, and this is of three kinds, namely; a visible enemy, the devil and against one’s own self. All these meanings are used in the Qur’ân when a reference of JIHÂD is made. The duty of JIHÂD is far from being synonymous with that of war, and the meaning of JIHÂD, ‘the Holy war’ as supposed by the western writers is unknown equally to Arabic and the fundamental teachings of the Holy Qur’ân. Even in the Traditions of the Prophet (Hadîth), this word was never synonymous with ‘the Holy war’. The Prophet of Islam called the greater Pilgrimage to Makkah (Hajj) as JIHÂD (Bukhârî 25:4).

22:40. Those who have been driven out of their homes without any just cause. Their only fault was that they said, ‘Our Lord is Allâh.’ If Allâh had not repelled some peoples by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allâh is mentioned very frequently, would have been razed to the ground in large numbers. And Allâh will surely help one who helps His cause. Allâh is, indeed, All-Powerful, All-Mighty.

The permission to fight (22:40) under certain circumstances has no connection with the preaching of the religion by force and at no time did Islam permit the use of force for the purpose of preaching.

9:41. Go forth (all whether) light (- being ill-equipped) or heavy (- being well-equipped) and strive hard with your possessions and your persons in the cause of Allâh. That is better for you, if only you knew (your own gain or loss).

Again the Qur’ân says: ‘Strive hard with your possessions and your persons in the cause of Allâh’ (9:41) and:

25:52. So do not follow the disbelievers, and strive hard against them with the help of this (Qur’ân), a mighty striving.

‘Strive hard against them (the enemies of Islam, the nonbelievers) with the help of this (Qur’ân, which is full of arguments and reasoning) a mighty striving’ (25:52). God expects from us a JIHÂD against our souls, against our NAFS AMMÂRAH, our commanding self which is continuously inciting us towards evil.

2:114. And who can be more unjust than those who prohibit the name of Allâh from being extolled in (any of His) houses of worship and strive to ruin them. It was not proper for such, ever to enter these (places) except in fear and awe. For them is disgrace in this world, and there awaits them a severe punishment in the Hereafter.

God has not given us any permission to use any kind of force to prohibit people from going to places of worship – Churches, Synagogues and Temples – ‘where the names of God are being glorified’ (2:114).

The way this documentary distorts the meaning of Jihad is analogous to Health as to how much weights can a person lift. The word Health has a wide spectrum of connotations with it. Health is not just physical health but it also includes mental health, spiritual health, economic health, social health and so on for a person. Thus, when one discusses health or gives advice about health, one has to take into consideration all these aspects under the rubric of health. Given this spectrum of implications of health, if some health buff only equates health to how much weights can one lift in a gym, it would be a sign of pure ignorance. Such a person will rightfully earn the title of health fanatic. To such a tunnel vision of health, a child or an older person cannot be healthy as they will not be able to lift any significant pounds. But still, a weight lifter can be accepted as healthy as long as he stays within the moral and ethical boundaries of not doping, else such a person is no more than a drug addict who presents to the world his muscles as false representation of health.

Similarly, as mentioned before by Nooruddin, Muhammad Ali, Pickthall, Zahid Aziz and others, in light of Quran, the word Jihad has implications of – The use of or exerting of one’s utmost powers, efforts, endeavours or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation, and this is of three kinds, namely; a visible enemy, the devil and against one’s own self. Similar to example of a healthy weightlifter, a war against a visible enemy is a sub-component of Jihad as long as it is in self-defense, else an aggressive war might outwardly be sold as Jihad, but it is no different than that of a weightlifter who apparently is healthy, but for all intent and purposes is a doper. The “experts” of this documentary only present to the world the doped-up Jihad as actual Jihad, which is wrong and willfully dishonest. The audience who cheer the these “experts” are no more than the audience who cheer the prime-time mock fights of dopers on steroids who sell wrestling as athletics to the ignorant.

References:

The Holy Quran – Noourddin

Issue 35 [@ 30:13]: Robert Spencer – “The Quran contains no guarantee of paradise except for those who slay or slain in the cause of Allah.”
 
@ 30:32 – Slide projected with voice – The Noble Koran – 9:111 Verily, Allah has purchased of the the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.
 
@ 30:42 – Rober Spencer – “In other words the guarantee of Paradise is for the people who are killed while they are killing to establish the hegemony of Allah or Islamic Law in the world.”
 
Rebuttal 35: STOP THE PRESSES! Spencer and others almost always quote verses out of context, but in current issue he is intellectually dishonest. He not only uses the verse 9:111 out of context, but has actually put the verse on chopping block and removed the references to Torah and Gospel from within the verse, which are highlighted in bold below. He is quite “savvy” and obsequious, because if he quoted the whole verse, he would then be forced to smear Torah and Bible too in the same breath by the very distortions that he uses against Quran. To set the record straight, the same verse 9:111 and its context in subsequent verse in excerpted from the translation and commentary by Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz:

9:111. Surely Allah has bought from the believers their persons and their property — theirs (in return) is the Garden. They fight in Allah’s way, so they kill and are killed. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Quran.

[Footnote] The promise binding on Allah is that Allah will grant the believers His blessings, if they exert themselves with their persons and their property in His way. The Gospels give the same promise: “If you want to be perfect”, said Jesus to a wealthy man, “go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Matthew, 19:21). To Peter he said: “everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life” (Matthew, 19:29). Moses’ teaching contains similar promises. For instance, the promise of “a land flowing with milk and honey” is made conditional on “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy, 6:3–5), which is the same as exerting oneself to the utmost in the way of God with one’s person and property.
 

It should be borne in mind that the words, they fight in Allah’s way, so they kill and are killed, are not a part of the promise, but are expressive of the condition of the Companions, and show that they were true to their promise.

The promise to spend one’s person and property may be carried out in various ways under different circumstances, and the Companions of the Holy Prophet were as true to this promise during the thirteen years at Makkah as during the ten years at Madinah.
 
[Comment by the writer: They fight – i.e. strive – in Allah’s way, – for human rights, justice, equality, freedom of expression and faith etc. – so they kill – in defensive battles for survival – and are killed – either in the same defensive battles or they are persecuted for their faith. There is no net loss for such persons who strive in Allah’s way – the path of Truth, with their persons and their property. Only a believer will accept such a bargain because such a believer believes in the fundamental concept of God and all the moral and spiritual laws and their assurances that emanate from it. The belief then becomes the guarantor of freedom of thought and action for the believer to undertake all hardships of their persons and their property in Allah’s way.

Reader, please note that no believer can undertake aggressive actions in Allah’s way, because any aggression is against the fundamental teachings of Quran e.g.
 
2:190. And fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight and persecute you, but commit no aggression. Surely, Allâh does not love the aggressors.
 
2:191. And slay them (the aggressors against whom fighting is made incumbent) when and where you get the better of them, in [a] disciplinary way, and turn them out whence they have turned you out. (Killing is bad but) lawlessness is even worse than carnage. But do not fight them in the precincts of Masjid al-Harâm (the Holy Mosque at Makkah) unless they fight you therein. Should they attack you (there,) then slay them. This indeed is the recompense of such disbelievers.
 
2:192. But if they desist (from aggression,) then, behold, Allâh is indeed [the] Great Protector, Ever Merciful.
 
2:193. And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is (freely professed) for Allâh [note – in Qur’ân Allah uses his unique name as God for all peoples]. But if they desist (from hostilities) then (remember) there is no punishment except against the unjust (who still persist in persecution).
 
2:194. (The violation of) a sacred month [according to Arab tradition] may be retaliated in the sacred month and for (the violation of) all sacred things the law of retaliation is prescribed. Then he who transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent he has transgressed against you, and take Allâh as a shield, and know that Allâh is with those who guard against evil
 
-verses 2:190-194 excerpted from translation by Nooruddin]

And who is more faithful to his promise than Allah? Rejoice therefore in your bargain which you have made. And that is the mighty achievement.
 
9:112. They [– the believers referred to in verse 9:111 above]
who turn (to Allah),
who serve (Him),
who praise (Him),
who fast,
who bow down,
who prostrate themselves,
who enjoin what is good and
forbid what is evil, and
who keep the limits of Allah
— and give good news to the believers.

Verse 9:112 brings to light the attributes and moral stages of the believers mentioned in the previous verse 9:111. Both of these verses are tightly coupled. It is only the people with such moral and spiritual attributes who can fearlessly but without hate or vengence, with patience and forbearance, confront and overcome opposition of ideas, aggression and persecution, not only against themselves but for the rest of the humanity as well. It were such handfuls about 1500 years ago, who set the world on the course of human rights and dignity that the West enjoys in their constitutions today. It is these who followed the original teachings of Torah and Gospel before Muhammad and of Quran after Muhammad. In summary all such followers are commonly known as Muslims. It is this Islam – What the West needs to know and not the Islam of make believe, that the “experts” in the documentary want to portray to the West.
 
The message of verse 9:111 is closely paralleled by the following verses:

61:10. O you who believe, shall I lead you to a bargain which will deliver you from a painful punishment?
61:11. You should believe in Allah and His Messenger, and strive hard in Allah’s way with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if only you knew!
61:12. He will forgive you your sins and make you enter Gardens in which rivers flow, and goodly dwellings in Gardens of perpetuity — that is the mighty achievement —
61:13. and yet another (blessing) that you love: help from Allah and a victory near at hand; and give good news to the believers.[Muhammad Ali, Ed. Dr. Zahid Aziz]

A keen reader of Quran will see similarities between Muhammad and Jesus. They are similar as both were Prophets with their respective Books and with a common Message from the same Source descending on the same humanity who offered similar response to the Message, some accepting and others rejecting it. Acceptors ultimately triumphing over the rejecting ones, based upon strength of ideas and the content of the Message:

61:14. O you who believe, be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the
cause) of Allah. So a party of the Children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became predominant.[Muhammad Ali, Ed. Dr. Zahid Aziz]

Hadith as quoted in Rebuttal 34 alone can refute the distorted narration and interpretation of the verse 9:111 by Spencer as he maliciously tries to imprint on the audience the need to be killed in order to attain salvation:

“The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them. Then will Allah say: What did you do? He will say: I fought for You until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a brave warrior. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into hell.” (Sahih Muslim, book: ‘Government’; in A.H. Siddiqui translation book 20, ch. 43, number 4688.) [Islam, Peace and Tolerance, p 51]

In light of the verse 9:111 and above Hadith, it becomes quite clear as to proclaim anyone as martyr, such a striving person must also had fulfilled the requirements of verse 9:112 as well, i.e.

9:112. They [– the believers to referred in verse 9:111 above] who turn (to Allah), who serve (Him), who praise (Him), who fast, who bow down, who prostrate themselves, who enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and who keep the limits of Allah — and give good news to the believers.

Outwardly, we can be a witness to who praise (Him), who fast, who bow down, who prostrate themselves, who enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. Inwardly, how much that person turned (to Allah), served (Him), kept the limits of Allah is known only to Allah. One of the requirements of limits of Allah is non-aggression. The ultimate judge of martyrdom is Allah alone. We as surviving humans can only wish and pray for the status of martyrdom for the soul that was striving.
 
Lets revisit the pearls of wisdom as expressed by Spencer. He states – “In other words the guarantee of Paradise is for the people who are killed while they are killing to establish the hegemony of Allah or Islamic Law in the world.”
 
Using Spencer’s logic, if getting killed is so fundamental to be guaranteed Paradise then there will be no Muslim left on the face of the earth. They all would have sought to be gotten killed more than fifteen hundred years ago. Further more, in the light of same logic the remaining Muslims in the world are “fake” Muslims who have not gotten themselves killed as yet. Why is then Spencer worried at the hands of “fake” Muslims? Is he so sympathetic to Muslim cause that he want to make the Muslims of the world realize their “falsehood” and convert them to “real” Muslims so that they all annihilate themselves in order to be guaranteed Paradise. To extend it further, the way Spencer interprets Islam and Quran is that every alive Muslim is hell bound by his own hands because he has not gotten himself killed yet. In his logic, if by some collective effort Muslims are able to “establish the hegemony of Allah or Islamic Law in the world” then there is no incentive left to achieve Paradise because then there is no one left to to fight and Muslims will be disappointed for being unable to get “killed while they are killing.” Spencer is plain ridiculous. He defies logic. He is nonsensical.
 
If Spencer is correct in his interpreting the verse 9:111, then his proclamation of “hegemony of Allah” is no different than “hegemony of Lord Jesus.” Hegemony of God is essentially a Christian doctrine as outlined by following passages from Bible:

Firstly, Christianity is directed to expand and dominate – Matthew 28:

18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
 
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
 
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Secondly, suppression of any differing opinion or faith is mandated – 2 Corinthians 10:

5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6. And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Thirdly, the annihilation of non-believers is a duty – 2 Thessalonians 1:

7. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

World history is a testament to Christians carrying forth the above mandate of “Hegemony of Lord Jesus” all over the world. All nations of the world accepted this hegemony except the Muslims. Despite being overwhelmed by Christian temporal power, Muslims never flinched to Christian moral onslaught. For that the credit goes to their Quran which stood as the bulwark to the Christian missionary tide. Not only that, the tide is reversing back to Christian lands and minds, but now the tide is that of Quran.
 
Spencer so casually tries to smear Islam with words such as “hegemony of Allah,” but rest assured that Quran is not dogmatic like Bible. Instead of Allah’s hegemony, Quran assures the survival of Christian faith:

Firstly, Christianity will survive till the last day, though with a caveat of their mutual hatred:

5:14. And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant,b but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, so We stirred up enmity and hatred among them to the day of Resurrection.

[Footnote] The prophecy that there shall always be hatred and enmity between the various Christian peoples has proved true in all ages, and never more clearly than in modern times with the World Wars in Europe.

And Allah will soon inform them of what they did. [Muhammad Ali – Ed. Zahid Aziz]

Secondly, Christians will always dominate Jews:

3:55. When Allah said: O Jesus, I will cause you to die and exalt you in My presence and clear you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of Resurrection.

[Footnote] This is the fourth promise made to Jesus in this verse, that those who follow Jesus shall be made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment. Its truth is witnessed to this day in the dominance of the Christians over the Jews. [Note: Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet] [Muhammad Ali – Ed. Zahid Aziz]

The above verses are yet another proof that as a matter of doctrine Islam can co-exist with other religions. Unlike as a matter of failure of Christianity which now has no choice but to accept other religions on the face of the earth besides itself.
 
Spencer’s also declared – “The Quran contains no guarantee of paradise except for those who slay or slain in the cause of Allah.” This is a plain wrong statement. Many counter arguments can be unloaded from Quran, but suffice for him and his co-experts are the following verses re-posted from Rebuttal 31c. These versesshould be an eye opener alike to both the preacher and the preached of the documentary. Spencer comes across immature, infantile and selfish in light of these verses whereas Quran stands out as fair, mature and word of God:

2:62. Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.[Muhammad Ali – Ed. Zahid Aziz]
 
5:69. Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians — whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good — they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. [Muhammad Ali – Ed. Zahid Aziz]
 
3:113. They (– the people of the Scripture) are not all alike. Among these people of the Scripture there are some upright people. They rehearse the Message of Allâh in the hours of the night and they prostrate themselves (in His worship).
 
3:114. They believe in Allâh and the Last Day and enjoin good and forbid evil, and they vie one with another in (doing) good deeds. And it is these who are of the truly righteous. [Nooruddin]

Once again as in other issues before, the “experts” of this documentary bring up issues that might not be of their liking. Spencer inadvertently while distorting Quran, falls on his own axe by bringing up the fundamental concept of Salvation, which was fully addressed in Rebuttal 31 before, which the reader is referred to.
 
Note: [comments in square brackets above are not part of the original sources]. Verse 9:112 is stylistically re-formatted into a list of attributes solely for educational purposes.
 
References:
 
Islam, Peace and Tolerance – Dr. Zahid Aziz
New King James Version – BibleGateway.com
The Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz
The Holy Quran – Noourddin

Issue 34 [@ 29:40]: Serge Trifkovic – Rockford Institute for International Affairs – “Quran is quite clear about the heavenly rewards for a jihadist who falls fighting in the path of Allah. He will be granted instant access to the Paradise. And a Muslim Paradise is an extremely sensual one. It is full of ‘houris’, black eyed beauties, that will await the martyr and the gratification that follows is eminently not suitable for family audience.”

Rebuttal 34: Trifkovic sensationalizes certain topics in the name of Islam – martyrdom, reward for martyrdom, houris, implied matters of flesh and the “sensual” Paradise – but all with wrong meanings, out of context usage and for all the wrong reasons that reflect his conceited “expertise.” Each of these topic will be dealt with below:

Martyrdom

This movie in various places tries to create a wrong perception of Martyrdom in Islam, which needs a detailed understanding. Following is an excerpted section from the book “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” [p. 50-2] by Dr. Zahid Aziz:

What is martyrdom in Islam?

The word for ‘martyr’ in Islamic literature is shaheed. This word in fact means ‘witness’ and is used commonly in the Holy Quran as meaning a witness to something. God is repeatedly called a shaheed, as in “Allah is witness of what you do” (3:98) and “Allah is sufficient as a witness between us and you” (10:29). The Holy Prophet Muhammad is called a “witness” upon his followers, and Muslims are called “witnesses” or bearers of witness to all mankind (2:143), i.e. bearers of truth. Every prophet, including Jesus, is referred to as a witness over his followers (4:41, 5:117). The same word is used for witnesses in contracts and civil matters (2:282, 4:135).

Similarly, the word for martyrdom is shahada, but it is used in the Quran only as meaning testimony of any kind or something that is obvious and seen, as in “do not conceal testimony” (2:283), “our testimony is truer than the testimony of these two” (5:107), and the statement which occurs several times about God that “He is the knower of the unseen and the seen (shahada)” (6:73). This word as meaning testimony is also famously applied to the act of testifying to become a Muslim, and even in English one hears the expression “making the shahada” when referring to this act. These words are applied to martyrs and martyrdom because the life and death of a martyr is a testimony to the truth of Islam. But who is a martyr? Just as jihad is not synonymous with war, a Muslim can be a shaheed without being killed in any connection with a battle. It is reported in Hadith:

“The Messenger of Allah asked (his Companions): Whom do you consider to be a martyr among you? They said: Messenger of Allah, one who is slain in the way of Allah is a martyr. He said: Then the martyrs of my people will be few in number. They asked: Messenger of Allah, who are they? He said: One who is slain in the way of Allah is a martyr, one who dies in the way of Allah is a martyr, one who dies of plague is a martyr, one who dies of cholera is a martyr.” (Sahih Muslim, book: ‘Government’; in A.H. Siddiqui translation book 20, ch. 50, number 4706.)

Anyone dying in any manner while working sincerely in the service of Islam is thus a martyr or shaheed. On the other hand, a Muslim just by being killed in a battle is not necessarily a martyr, as shown by the following statement of the Holy Prophet:

“The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them. Then will Allah say: What did you do? He will say: I fought for You until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a brave warrior. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into hell.” (Sahih Muslim, book: ‘Government’; in A.H. Siddiqui translation book 20, ch. 43, number 4688.)

It is clear from this that while a Muslim may consider that a certain act would earn him martyrdom yet he may find himself condemned by God in the Hereafter for making a false claim and punished for it. The fact is that martyrdom in Islam is a spiritual rank in the life after death and no one can be sure that if he died while engaged in certain work God would bestow this rank upon him.

What we can be sure of, however, is that this rank cannot be attained by acting against the teachings of Islam, even though the deceased may have believed he was engaged in a struggle in support of Islam. What must be further emphasised is that a martyr is one who dies as a result of someone else’s action against him which he resists as far as possible, or due to circumstances entirely beyond his control. It has been mentioned in the Hadith report quoted above that a Muslim who dies of cholera or the plague is a martyr. But, quite obviously, it is completely against the very basic teachings of Islam for a Muslim deliberately to seek to catch these diseases in order to die as a martyr! Indeed, a Muslim should take all measures to avoid falling a victim to them. But if he should happen to fall ill unintentionally and die while serving Islam he will earn a high place in the hereafter.

Similarly, a Muslim killed in battle must be killed by the action of his enemy, while he is repelling that opponent, or due to some other external cause beyond the scope of his control and planning, as one of the conditions to be a martyr.

“Houris”

After making false connotations of a martyr, Trifkovic then follows the centuries old Christian missionary script and tries to connect martyrdom in Islam to heavenly reward of “hooris” or more explicitly the famous seventy virgins. He obviously is an expert of ignorance for what the word “houri” means. The monthly, Islamic Review [May 1930, p 79-80] rectifies the distortion of the word “houri” and expounds its actual meaning and significance:

What is a Houri?

In a recent series of articles and letters which appeared in the Daily Chronicle on the subject of the “Conception of Heaven,” Sir Denison Ross, of London University, observed that the Muslim paradise promised to each Muslim a number of “houris to gaze upon.” The word “houri” one of
those beautiful and unfortunate words which, although quite respectable in their original sense, have lost their significance entirely as a consequence of malevolent propaganda. The distortion of quite a number of words in English language offers a very interesting study to anyone interested in the methods by Christian Europe during the early part of the Middle Ages to create a gulf between Islam and Christianity at a time when, as everyone knows, the two had settled down to understand each other.

The way in which words lose their meanings can perhaps be best exemplified by quoting the origin of “dunce,” which now stands for a “blockhead,” but derives from the name of a philosopher of Oxford in the Middle Ages named “Duns Scotus.” His enemies, being desirous of discrediting him, called his followers “dunces “; and the word “houri” falls into precisely the same category. Why “houri” should be taken to mean a voluptuously beautiful woman can only be understood if one remembers the distorted European conception of the Muslim Heaven.

That even Sir Denison has made no effort to discover the real meaning of the word serves to show that even fair-minded Europeans are liable to flounder in the morass of misconceptions which Europe has inherited from the Middle Ages.

The word “houri” is the mutilated form of the Arabic word “hur,” which is the common plural form of both the masculine and singular Ahwar and feminine singular Haurã. The word “hur” applies to both men and women as also to qualities and actions.

Why it should be limited particularly to “beautiful women” or “damsel,” as Rodwell [translator or Quran] renders it, passes our understanding. Maulana Muhammad Ali translates this word as “pure ones.”

The Holy Quran does not speak of any conjugal relations being maintained in a physical sense in the life to come. Besides, wherever the various blessings of paradise or the torments of hell are spoken of, they are but physical manifestations of spiritual blessings which the doers of good enjoy in this life as well as in the next. There are gardens, trees, rivers, milk, and numerous blessings spoken of by the Quran as being found in paradise. but that all these are not things of this life can be easily understood from a tradition of the Holy Prophet, who says:

“Allah says I have prepared for my servants what no eye has seen and no ear has heard and what the heart of man has not conceived of.”

The Holy Quran speaks in the same strain when it says: No soul knows what is hidden for it.”

For this reason the “hur” or pure ones are not the things of this life – decidedly not the beautiful women of this life. “Hur” are a heavenly blessing which the righteous women shall have along with the righteous men.

The late Al-Hajj Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, the founder of above monthly, once had the opportunity to deliver a lecture on the philosophy of heaven and hell to an atheist gathering in England. At the conclusion of the address, someone objected to the presence of beautiful women (houris) in paradise. To this, he replied: “Is there any society in the world that is complete without women? Indeed, man’s rough edges, his wildness and barbarity can never be removed unless woman is present. So, if the presence of women is compulsory in this life for the nurturing of a society’s civilization and culture, then will they not be needed in heaven which is a place for the advancement and perfection of every aspect of civilization and culture?”

“Seventy Virgins” for martyrs?

While mocking Islam, Trifkovic could not help to stay away from the cliché of the utter nonsense of “’houris’, black eyed beauties, that will await the martyr and the gratification that follows is eminently not suitable for family audience.” Dr. Zahid Aziz in the same book above “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” [p. 54-9] puts to rest such a distorted notion:

Virgins in heaven as reward for martyrs?

The misconceived notion that a Muslim male who dies as a martyr is rewarded in the hereafter with seventy-two virgins has brought Islam into disrepute and ridicule, and proved a source of much amusement and mockery for those unaware of the teachings of Islam regarding the hereafter. In this booklet we cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the Islamic concept of paradise or the garden of the next life but the following key points are necessary to know.

Firstly, the rewards of the hereafter are not the material things that we enjoy in this physical world. The life after death is in a world that cannot even be conceived by the human mind in this life, and human beings there will have an entirely different existence that cannot be known here. The Holy Quran says:

“We have ordained death among you and We are not to be overcome, that We may change your state and make you grow into what you do not know.” — 56:60–61.

Other English translations phrase the second part of this quotation as “changing the nature of your existence and bringing you into being anew in a manner as yet unknown to you” (Muhammad Asad), “producing you again in a form which ye know not” (Rodwell), and “that We may transfigure you and make you what you know not” (Pickthall).

The enjoyments in the gardens of the hereafter are of an unknown nature in this world, as the Quran says:

“No soul knows what refreshment of the eyes is hidden for them: a reward for what they did.” — 32:17

This is why the description of the garden of the hereafter is called a parable, as in:

“A parable of the garden which is promised to those who keep their duty” (13:35 and 47:15).

Secondly, the Quran has made it abundantly clear no less than eight times that men and women are equally entitled to the rewards of the heavenly life. It says:

“And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, and is a believer — these will enter the Garden …” — 4:124

“Allah has promised to the believers, men and women,Gardens, in which flow rivers, to abide in them, and goodly dwellings in Gardens of perpetual abode. And greatest of all is Allah’s goodly pleasure. That is the grand achievement.” — 9:72

“Gardens of perpetuity, which they enter along with those who do good from among their fathers and their wives and their offspring…” — 13:23

“O My servants, … Those who believed in Our messages and submitted (to Us): Enter the Garden, you and your wives, being made happy. … in there is what their souls yearn for and the eyes delight in, and in them you will abide.” — 43:68–71

“On that day you will see the believers, men and women, their light gleaming before them and on their right hand. Good news for you this day! Gardens in which flow rivers, to abide in them.” — 57:12

Thus the women among the believers will have the same rewards and enjoyments as the men of the believers.

Thirdly, all these rewards are manifestations of the good qualities shown and good deeds done by a person in this life, which are unfolded before him or her. For example, the “light gleaming before them and on their right hand” (57:12) is not a physical lamp of this world, but a representation of their light of faith. In one place we read:

“And those who believe and do good are made to enter Gardens, in which flow rivers, abiding in them by their Lord’s permission. Their greeting therein is, Peace! Do you not see how Allah sets forth a parable of a good word as a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are high, yielding its fruit in every season by the permission of its Lord? … And the parable of an evil word is as an evil tree pulled up from the earth’s surface; it has no stability.” — 14:23–25

After mentioning the gardens of the next life, a good word is compared to a good tree, ever bearing fruit. Therefore the trees of the gardens of the hereafter are a person’s good deeds done in this life which appear as trees that bear fruit, just as his good deeds bore fruit.

Likewise, the “beautiful maidens” of the next life are not as women of this world with whom men will have sexual relations. They are the good qualities shown in this life, such as honesty, purity of character, charity, integrity and faith that are manifested in this form. These maidens are called “pure companions” (2:25, 3:15, 4:57) because they are the appearance of the pure qualities that were one’s companions in this life.

In fact, in verse 3:15 the desirability of the “pure companions” is clearly differentiated from the sexual desire for women in this life. Verse 3:14 refers to the attractiveness of the material desires of this world as follows:

“The love of desires is made attractive to people — of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well-bred horses and cattle and crop produce. This is the provision of the life of this world. And with Allah is the good goal of life.” — 3:14

The next verse then says:

“Shall I tell you of what is better than these? For those who guard against evil are gardens with their Lord, in which rivers flow, to abide in them, and pure companions and Allah’s goodly pleasure.” — 3:15

It is clearly obvious from these passages that while sexual desire for women is a craving and a necessity for this material world, better and superior than this is to strive to acquire the qualities that become our “pure companions” in the next world. This repudiates the very idea that we should wish for our physical desires of this world to be satisfied, as a reward, in the next world.

In many recent articles, published on websites and elsewhere, a saying of the Prophet Muhammad from Tirmidhi is quoted, often by way of ridicule and mockery, according to which a man in paradise will have 72 “wives” (what these articles refer to as the 72 virgins). But in the same Tirmidhi we find, only a little later, the following report:

“Faith has seventy and something gates, the least of which is to remove from the road a harmful thing and the highest is to say ‘There is no god but Allah’.” (Tirmidhi, chapters on Faith.)

It is the “seventy and something” constituents of faith, two of which are specified here (one high and one low, and another one often mentioned in such reports is modesty) that, for those who possess them in this life, become represented in the next life as “maidens”.

There is also another explanation of the concept of “virgins” in the next world, based on the following verses of the Quran which refer to some of the rewards to be found there:

“Surely We have created them (as) a (new) creation, so We have made them virgins, loving, equals in age…” — 56:35–37.

The pronoun “them”, occurring twice here, is in the feminine. A commonly-accepted meaning is that this refers to the believing women. They will be raised in the next life in a new form of creation corresponding to their purity of character in this world, and thus it is said: We have made them virgins. This interpretation is also supported by an explanation of these verses reported from the Holy Prophet Muhammad, again in the same Tirmidhi:

“An old woman came to the Prophet and said: Messenger of Allah, pray to Allah that I will enter paradise. He said jokingly: Mother of so-and-so, no old women will enter paradise. The old woman went away crying, so the Prophet said: Tell her that she will not enter paradise as an old woman, for Allah says: Surely We have created them (as) a (new) creation, so We have made them virgins.” (Shama’il Tirmidhi, ch. 35: ‘Joking of the Messenger of Allah’, report 230.)

Their resurrection as “virgins” is only a spiritual representation of the purity with which they led their lives in this world. There is no question of sexual relations in the next life as that life is not physical life which requires such relations. The word for “equals in age” in the above passage can also signify that they are similar in their good qualities to the believing men.

It may be noted that the term “virgin” has been used in the Bible as a symbolism. The nation of Israel is called a “virgin” in many places (for example, Jeremiah, ch. 31, Amos, ch. 5). The Gospel of Matthew contains the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, which Jesus begins to relate as follows: “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins” (ch. 25, v. 1). Obviously, virgin girls for men’s pleasure are not meant here.

Matters of “flesh”

The experts in this documentary inadvertently instigate debates in certain spheres that they might not like or able to handle. Serge Trifkovic tries to act “holy” and “pious” when he tacitly uses the word “sensual” for Muslim Paradise. By sensual he implies sexual. Thereafter, he leaves it to the audience to expand in their minds upon his insinuation of “sensual.” Now that is very obsequious and sly. Since the movie is intended for Western audience it is quite logical to conclude that the audience out of their experience and resources of “sensuality” prevalent in their own societies will think in magnified base terms as to what a Muslim Paradise has to offer, no matter how wrong it maybe. The frailty of Western mind is based upon its religious and cultural experience of alcohol mixed with free sexuality which de-emphasizes marriage while encourages all the institutions that exist in their midst whose financial and business models are framed on such human weakness. These institutions include neighborhood bars, clubs, casinos, media outlets and other similar locations, and the activities therein, which in the words of Trifkovic are “eminently not suitable for family audience.” What to talk of a business or a company, whole cities and states are established for the sole purpose to provide gratification to the weakness of flesh. It is in the midst of these institutions and cities that Trifkovic himself likely dwells and not for a moment does he raise his objection against such “sensual” places, legalized or otherwise. Mr. Trifkovic you have many faces to your morality. Your silence to “in your face” sensuality is indicative of your complicity to societal values sanctioning such carnal desires of flesh, yet you are mocking an imaginary “sensual” Paradise for others.

By using the word “sensual,” Trifkovic brings to light the fundamental weakness of Christianity whose basis hinges upon the nonsense of a “virgin birth”. For Christianity, their highest moral office is a product of a so called “virgin birth” i.e. a birth outside the moral bonds of a dignified marriage and the subsequent life of a man who according to Bible never experienced marriage despite attaining a mature age. Hence, Christianity cannot perceive any moral goodness from a God given human faculty, the needful union of man and a woman. For them the very act of marriage, one of the highest social institution of mankind is equivalent to loosing one’s chastity. Whereas, in Islam the same marriage preserves the chastity of man or a woman. Marriage is a necessity for adults in Islam. It was the same marriage that assured chastity of Mary, a lady of the high moral status in Quran. Institutions and individuals who shun marriage, like Vatican and Pope, will never be able to lift humanity to its moral pinnacles. For them “flesh” is a base word. What they do not realize is that it is the same “flesh” and “passions of flesh” that once fully understood can lift humanity to a moral celestial stage. Christianity has not been able to differentiate between marriage on one hand and debauchery on the other. It fails to separate marriage from hedonistic life and terms it all under “flesh.” Khwaja Kamaluddin discussed this in his lecture that he delivered in Burma under the subject “Philosophy of Islam” [Islamic Review and Muslim India, Vol . VIII, No. 10, Oct 1920, excerpted from pg 350 onwards, The Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, The Shah Jehan Mosque, Woking, England]. The following is adapted and excerpted quote, in which verses are inserted from Holy Quran translation by Nooruddin:

There is a general consensus that that passions come out of flesh. But the question then arises how to train and sublimate them? One cannot kill and crush them as long as our body exists. Therefore, any creed or philosophy that teaches killing of these passions will not fully help human edification. Islam does not for the same reason enjoin upon us any kind of monastic life.

Quran makes a mockery of monasticism when it says:

57:27. …And We placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him, but as for monasticism they invented it themselves, We did not enjoin it upon them….[him refers to Jesus]

Quran does not lay down any code of such asceticism, which may annihilate our passions and desires. Islam does not believe in renunciation and suppression of what one can sublimate into something high and noble. Islam accepts all passions and desires as God-given gift; they decidedly are not man made things. Low and carnal as they are, they act as bedrock for further progress and development. One may speak of lust and flesh, one may condemn them totally, but when dissected and analyzed that noble passion generally called “pure love” in human breast, which is regarded as something of Divine nature. But the same is exhibited as well in lower animals in relation to their offspring. If we trace the origin of the so-called Divine love one is constrained to admit that the very animal lust is its origin. Purged of all earthly grossness, it gets converted into something very high, very noble and sacred. That carnal nature in the long run becomes sublime and spiritualized, finds its best illustration in the institution of marriage.

Animal desires, in the first place bring marital relations into existence; but the object of Divine economy in the marriage institution is not only to satisfy flesh, but to arouse and then nurse high morals, love, tenderness of heart and kindness of mind.

As the Qur-án states:

30:21. And (it is one) of His signs that He has created spouses for you from your own species that you may find comfort in them. And He has induced mutual love and tenderness between you. Behold! there are signs in this for a people who would reflect.

It becomes difficult for those who do not enter into family life as they are not circumstanced to grow and cultivate these noble passions in their natural course. In general marriage prevents fidgety and peevish temper.

Marriage provides one the institution of family where various members of family in the capacity of children, brothers and sisters help one to mould one’s character, soften one’s heart, mitigate one’s anger and make one’s strong passions more mellowed in nature. One cannot afford to be harsh to one’s own children as sometimes one can be in relation to other strangers, when something unpleasant or distasteful to one occurs. One has to share one’s earnings with one’s people. Thus one learns the first lesson of selflessness in the circle of one’s family.

64:15. Verily, your possessions and your children are a means to reveal your hidden attributes. As for Allâh there awaits an immense reward with Him.

Quran elevates the status of parenthood to the extent that it states And give thanks to Me and to your parents as both are creators, sustainers and nurturers:

31:14. `And (Allâh says), “We have enjoined on every human being concerning his parents (to be good to them). His mother is worn and wasted in bearing him and it takes her two years to wean him. And give thanks to Me and to your parents. To Me shall be the (ultimate) return (of you all).

Family circle, in short, is a moral nursery where one’s carnal nature will be tamed down to produce what in the long run will make the divine flame in man’s breast ablaze and God-in-man will come out and receive incarnation. It is in family life where individual consciousness, in a very little time, becomes converted into family consciousness; one begins to feel for those near and dear to one, as we feel for ourselves. This family consciousness when broadened creates in man national consciousness. One become patriotic and feels for one’s nation and country as one feels for oneself.

This very spirit, however, when abused, causes wars and fighting between nations, and the only remedy to avoid these evils lies in sublimating this national consciousness into humanity-consciousness, to feel for the whole human race as one feel for oneself.

The final stage of upliftment is still further. This humanity-consciousness has to produce cosmic consciousness to feel for every other creature as one feels for oneself. This stage when cropped up enables man to live with and in the company of God when he walks humbly with the Lord; such a person becomes an agent and true servant of Allah, who is Rabbul A’alumini, the Creator, the Sustainer and the Evolver of all nations, races and various other worlds. And a Muslim for the reason in all his daily prayers is reminded of this duty when he says” Alhamad-u-Lillahi Rabbul aalamine.” He glorifies the Nourisher and Sustainer of all worlds. This is the goal of all spiritual soaring and the pinnacle of all human upliftment, which under Islam is open to every man on this side of the grave. But do not forget, for a minute that it got its origin only from lust and desires that are generally condemned. It would be a mistake to think for a moment that all the high morality and spirituality has nothing to do with what is termed as lower passions. Control them if one will, but one cannot crush them. For this very reason monastic life was prohibited in Islam. All that constitutes spirituality is only a sublimated form of carnal emotions. It was for this object that revelation came from God to raise man from the level of animality up to the borders of divinity. Religion comes to vivify, as far as human nature allows, that Divine flame which in him was the nucleus of our existence on the Day of Emanation. It exists in every human heart, and religion comes to make it full ablaze. Then one rises to live in Divine precincts and tastes the elixir of life, where one experiences Beatific Vision. One sometimes performs things that may appear to others as works of God. This stage of human edification produces Abraham, David and Solomon, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, Ramachandar, Krishna and Buddha. These great men, in addition to the revelation they received from God, have left their footprints on the surface of human history to act as guides for the upliftment of the coming generations.

Heavenly View in Islam – anything but sensual

It is quite clear from Quran that the heavenly abode cannot be perceived in terms of human physicality as “No soul knows what refreshment of the eyes is hidden for them: a reward for what they did.” — 32:17. Still, Quran gives a simile of reward for the righteousness. This similitude closely approximates a joyous festival of blissful magnificence and tranquility of princes and princesses in a King’s courtyard. King in this instance is God himself:

56:7. And (at that time) you shall be (sorted out into) three distinct categories,
56:8. (First) those that are blessed. How (lucky) the blessed will be!
56:9. And (then) those that are wretched, how (miserable) the condition of the wretched will be!
56:10. And (third) those that are foremost (in faith). They are by all means the foremost (in the Hereafter).
56:11. It is they who have (really) achieved nearness (to their Lord).
56:12. (They shall abide) in Gardens of bliss.
56:13. A large party of them (will hail) from the early (believers [- the early companions of Muhammad PBUH, who faced most trials and tribulation and gave the most sacrifices in cause of Truth]);
56:14. While a few (of them will hail) from the later ones [i.e. door of salvation and reward are open for coming generations].
56:15. (They will be in the Garden seated) on couches inlaid (with gold and precious jewels).
56:16. (They will be) reclining thereupon (and sitting) face to face.
56:17. (Their) young sons will go round about them, who will remain as young as ever [Side note for this rebuttal – there is no physicality or frame of passing time or moral decay in heaven, hence there is no growing old and the inhabitants there – who will remain as young as ever. Christian reader in this verse might see a hint of cherubs or putti surrounding the main character depicted in Vatican paintings as – young sons [who] will go round about them],
56:18. Carrying goblets and (shining) beakers and cups (full) of pure and clean drink
56:19. They will get no headache (or giddiness) from their (drinks), nor will they be inebriated and talk nonsense [Side note for this rebuttal – the clarification in this verse removes any hint of an intoxicant drink].
56:20. And (carrying) such fruits as they choose,
56:21. And (with) flesh of birds exactly to their taste.
56:22. And (there will be present) fair houris with lovely large eyes.
56:23. (Chaste) like pearls, well-guarded and well preserved.
56:24. (Such shall be) the reward of their (good) deeds.
56:25. There they shall hear no idle-talk, no sinful speech [Side note for this rebuttal – This verse expunges any sense of “sin and sensuality” as there will be no idle-talk, no sinful speech from/by/about fair houris with lovely large eyes].
56:26. But (all that they hear on all sides will be) good and pure words (of salutation) – `Peace be, peace be.’ [- Peace, that’s what Islam means, seeks and provides]
56:27. Those that are blessed – how (lucky) the blessed will be!
56:28. They shall abide amidst (the land of thornless) Sidrah (- Lote tree, a symbol of bliss);
56:29. And (in the Garden of) clustered bananas;
56:30. And (in) extended shades;
56:31. And (near) water falling from heights;
56:32. And (amidst) abundant fruit;
56:33. (The season of) which is not limited, and (they are) never forbidden.
56:34. And (they will have) noble spouses [Side note for this rebuttal – noble spouse is one of the greatest bliss that any human can seek, at least in this world].
56:35. Verily, We have made them (women) excellent and have raised them into a special new creation;
56:36. And have made them virgins, pure and undefiled.
56:37. They are the loving ones (of their husbands), suiting to their ages and matching them in every respect.
56:38. (They are meant) for the blessed ones.
[Note: The above verses are from translation of Quran by Nooruddin]

After the preview above of Surah Al-Waqiah – The Event, reader may want to read its detailed commentary by Dr. Basharat Ahmad as translated by Kalamazad Mohammed where the author in one place further distinguishes the heaven in Quran from that of Bible – The paradise of the Holy Qur’an is also completely dissimilar to the Jewish and Christian heaven into which, as they allege, Satan, disguised as a snake, had slipped and had deceived Adam and Eve causing them to commit a sin and so bringing about their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Contrary to this, the heaven that the Holy Qur’an describes is a heaven from which Satan is totally excluded and it is a place where not only sin can never be committed but not even any talk of sin can be heard. Thus the account we find in the Bible is nothing but a story. It is for this reason that the Holy Qur’an in plainly stating I am going to place a successor in the earth (2:30), has corrected that erroneous belief of the Jews and the Christians by openly disclosing that Prophet Adam (as) was made a ruler on earth and not in heaven. In addition, it is clear that the heaven which he was given to inhabit as a gift from the Almighty was a verdant, fruit-bearing tract of land. Or, it may refer to that condition of bliss, peace and ecstasy that man enjoys prior to his commission of sin and which was described by Allah, Most High, as paradise.

Note: [comments in square brackets above are not part of the original sources]

References:

Philosophy of Islam – Islamic Review
Al-Waqiah – a detailed commentary by Dr Basharat Ahmad as translated by Kalamazad Mohammed.
Islam, Peace and Tolerance – Dr. Zahid Aziz
The Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz
The Holy Quran – Noourddin

Issue 33 [@ 28:58]: Robert Spencer – “This is the calculus behind modern suicide bombing. Many people will say, modern Muslim advocates will say that Islam forbids suicide. And this is plainly dishonest because all the advocates, all the defenders of suicide bombing in the Islamic world, start out by saying – ‘This is not suicide, the intention of the person is not to kill himself, the intention of the person is to kill others. And that is sanctioned because this is Islamic Jihad. And if in the process are killed themselves, that is an unavoidable consequence of their action. And they will be rewarded with the reward of martyrs in Paradise ‘”

Rebuttal 33: Robert Spencer is trying to tell the audience that suicide bombers kill by finding justification in Islam and by implication from Quran. Whether it is suicide bomber or Spencer smearing the Quran, in the words of Spencer himself such justification on either side of the aisle “is plainly dishonest.”

Nowhere Quran allows the suicide or killing of the innocent and non-combatants. It “is plainly dishonest” to ensnare Quran in such a nonsensical argument and that too while trying to find justification out of Quran for a carnage either by the perpetrator or the insinuators like Spencer himself. Self immolation if at all is only found in Bible that Spencer himself follows. Killing of self and mayhem on others for Atonement is none but Biblical. Exodus 32 – King James Version states:

25. And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies)

26. Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

27. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

29. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

30. And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

Suicide, no matter what its objective, is plainly not allowed in Islam. There is no room for any discussion to justify it, be it by a misguided zealot or the so called expert of this documentary who tries to find justification for such a zealot. Factually, in Quran, the argument is directly opposite that of a suicide i.e. it emphasizes self preservation. Dr. Zahid Aziz in his book “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” [p. 52-4] writes the following:

Suicide is a sin in Islam, and self-preservation is a duty

The committing of suicide is a very serious sin according to the clear teachings of Islam. The Holy Quran instructs:

“Do not cast yourselves to destruction by your own hands.” — 2:195

“Do not kill yourselves.” — 4:29

In Hadith reports, committing suicide is strongly condemned by the Prophet Muhammad who said:

“… whoever commits suicide with something, will be punished with the same thing in the hell-fire.” (3 Bukhari, book: ‘Oaths and vows’. In Muhsin Khan translation see 8:78:647.)

In Sahih Muslim, there is a chapter entitled Abandoning of funeral prayer for him who committed suicide in which it is reported that the Holy Prophet Muhammad personally refused to say the funeral prayer for a deceased who had killed himself (Sahih Muslim, book: ‘Prayer’. In A.H. Siddiqui translation see book 4, ch. 205, number 2133.). In Muslim countries, attempted suicide has always been a criminal offence and a person guilty of it would face legal penalties. Self-preservation and saving of one’s life is the most basic human instinct. Actions to save one’s life are regarded in the Quran as matters of such high priority that it allows a Muslim to set aside certain obligatory duties and prohibitions, if necessary, to save his life. We give some details of this below.

1. Where the Quran prohibits the eating of certain things, including the meat of the pig, it allows their consumption if it becomes unavoidably necessary in order to save one’s life. In two verses, after mentioning the prohibited foods it is stated:

“But whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining wilfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” — 5:3

“But whoever is compelled, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.” — 6:145

Nowhere does the Quran say that if a Muslim invites certain death upon himself rather than make use of a prohibited food to save his life then he is some kind of a martyr.

2. A Muslim who denies his faith under duress and coercion in order to save his life, while believing in Islam in his heart, is excluded from condemnation in the Quran:

“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief — not he who is compelled while his heart is content with faith, but he who opens the heart for disbelief — on them is the wrath of Allah, and for them is a grievous punishment (in the hereafter).” — 16:106

Thus if a Muslim is threatened by an enemy of Islam that he will be killed unless he renounces Islam, or face some other dire consequences, the Quran allows him to save his life by making merely an outward renunciation, even though it would constitute a grave sin to make the same denial voluntarily.

3. If fasting during the month of Ramadan would endanger the life of a Muslim man or woman, young or old, this obligation is suspended. Again, to knowingly cause injury to oneself, in order to carry out the duty of fasting, is not any kind of a good or meritorious deed in Islam.

4. It is well known that the obligation of going to perform the Pilgrimage to Makka (hajj) does not apply to anyone whose life would be in danger for any reason by undertaking the visit.

Finally, as explained earlier in this book, even the taking up of arms to fight, by risking one’s life, is only allowed by Islam in order to save and preserve life as the alternative would be to face certain death and destruction. For instance, verses 22:39–40 have been quoted in Section 4 of this book [inserted – “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And Allah is able to assist them — those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah.” — 22:39, 40]which allow Muslims to fight if war has been made upon them, and they are required to repel their enemies in order to save all places of worship from destruction [inserted – “And if Allah did not repel some people by others, then cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down.” — 22:40]. By repelling their enemy the Muslims saved their own lives, not committed suicide.

Equating Jihad with violence is “plainly dishonest.” To understand the significance and meaning of Jihad in Quran see earlier Issues 27 and 32. Spencer used the word “Islamic Jihad” to make his case for violence by some ignorant in the name of Jihad. The term “Islamic Jihad” used by Spencer needs further exposition. Dr. Zahid Aziz in the same book above “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” [p. 43-9] clarifies the fundamental understanding about the Jihad that this documentary is trying to distort and ingrain in the audience:

What is Jihad?

The Arabic word jihad means striving or exerting yourself to the utmost against something disapproved. It does not as such mean war or fighting by means of arms. No doubt an armed conflict could also be described as a jihad, but that usage would be similar to applying the word ‘struggle’ in English to a war. To determine what is considered as jihad in the teachings of Islam, we need to examine the usage of this word in the Quran. In such a broad sense is the word jihad used in the Quran that it is applied to the striving carried out by those opposed to Islam to make Muslims worship other beings and things than the One God:

“And We have enjoined on man goodness to his parents. But if they strive with you to ascribe partners to Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them.” — 29:8 and see also 31:15

The Arabic word translated as ‘strive’ here indicates the act of jihad. This use shows that, firstly, jihad does not mean war, as no war is being waged here, and secondly that even the opponents of the Muslims are spoken of as undertaking a jihad against the Muslims!

In the Quran we find that the jihad, or striving, that it requires Muslims to conduct is of the following kinds:

1. Striving to attain nearness to God by improving yourself morally and spiritually and overcoming your bad desires;

2. Sticking to Islam under difficult circumstances, such as when facing persecution, by showing perseverance and patience in conditions of suffering;

3. Striving to take the message of Islam to others, by devoting your time, energy and money for this work;

4. Fighting, or helping to fight, in battle in the defence of the Muslims community, under the conditions in which Islam allows Muslims to fight a war by military means.

Jihad to attain nearness to God

This is mentioned in the following verse:

“And those who strive hard for Us, We shall certainly guide them in Our ways. And Allah is surely with the doers of good.” — 29:69

The word translated as “strive hard” indicates the act of doing jihad in the original Arabic. The meaning is clearly striving hard to bring about your moral and spiritual improvement. It may be noted that a synonym of jihad is the word mujahada, which is applied to religious exertions such as fasting.

The two verses given below indicate the same jihad, where again the word “strive” is used to translate the act of jihad:

“And strive hard for Allah with due striving. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you any hardship in religion … so keep up prayer and pay the due charity and hold fast to Allah.” —22:78

“And whoever strives hard, strives for himself. Surely Allah is Self-sufficient, above need of His creatures.” — 29:6

These verses were revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad while he was living under persecution at Makka, and therefore the command here to do jihad cannot refer to fighting. In case of the first verse, the form of striving is indicated as by prayer, giving in charity and holding fast to God.

Jihad of patience and endurance

This is indicated in the following verse:

“Then surely your Lord, to those who flee after they are persecuted, then strive hard and are patient, surely your Lord after that is Protecting, Merciful.” — 16:110

This verse was revealed while the Holy Prophet was still resident at Makka, before Muslims had been commanded to fight in battle, while they had started to emigrate to Madina. Their striving hard or jihad was to bear all this hardship with patience, and did not mean fighting.

A jihad of this kind is also indicated in a well-known Hadith report, in which the Holy Prophet Muhammad said:

“The most excellent jihad is to say a word of truth before an unjust ruler.” (Tirmidhi, Abwab-ul-Fitan.)

Here, speaking the truth for a noble purpose, when it requires great courage to do so, is called jihad, indeed the most excellent jihad, by the Holy Prophet of Islam.

Jihad of propagating the message of Islam

The jihad of the verse 16:110, quoted above, includes propagating the message of Islam, because it was for this also that the Muslims were being persecuted. This verse requires them to persevere in the jihad of preaching and be patient as to the results.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad is commanded:

“And if We pleased, We could raise a warner in every town. So do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it.” — 25:51–52

The mighty or great striving, the great jihad (jihad kabir in Arabic) mentioned here, is the mission of the Holy Prophet Muhammad to spread the truth with the Quran, which is what the words “with it” refer to. This is also the duty of every Muslim as the great jihad. This verse, again, was revealed during the Makkan phase of the Holy Prophet’s life and therefore the command in it to “strive a mighty striving”, which mentions jihad twice, cannot possibly refer to undertaking any armed conflict.

There are also verses revealed much later at Madina in which jihad cannot mean fighting by arms. For example:

“O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them.” — 9:73; 66:9

The hypocrites were a group who were outwardly a part of the Muslim community but at critical junctures they deserted the cause of Islam and showed insincerity of faith. No war was ever undertaken against them. The striving hard or jihad against them were the efforts to convince them of the truth of Islam. The same form of ‘striving’ also applies in case of the disbelievers mentioned here. More than ten English translations of the Quran render the meaning of doing jihad in these two verses as “strive hard”, and not as “fight” or “wage war”.

For another example of verses revealed at Madina where jihad cannot mean fighting, we refer to chapter 61, verse 11:

“You should believe in Allah and His Messenger, and strive hard in Allah’s way with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if you but knew!”

Three verses later it is stated:

“O you who believe, be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah.” — 61:14

The striving hard, or jihad, of verse 11 is explained in this verse 14 as making yourselves helpers in the cause of Allah in the manner in which the disciples of Jesus responded to his call to be helpers in the Divine cause. The disciples of Jesus, whether according to Islamic or Christian sources, were not asked to fight in any battle with weapons. They helped the cause of truth by propagating his message in the face of persecution and the utmost difficulties.

Jihad of war

The Quran also speaks of jihad by fighting, as for example:

“Go forth, light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah’s way with your wealth and your lives.” — 9:41

“And when a chapter is revealed, saying, Believe in Allah and strive hard along with His Messenger, the wealthy among them ask permission of you (O Prophet) and say: Leave us behind, that we may be with those who sit at home. … But the Messenger and those who believe with him strive hard with their property and their persons.” — 9:86, 88

There are instances reported in Hadith where, when certain Muslims expressed the desire to join a jihad of fighting, the Holy Prophet told them that their jihad was to perform some other duty entirely unrelated to fighting. For example:

“Aisha (wife of the Holy Prophet) asked: Messenger of Allah, we consider jihad to be the most excellent of all deeds. Should we not then engage in jihad? He said: The most excellent jihad is the properly-performed Hajj (Pilgrimage to Makka).” (Bukhari, book: ‘Pilgrimage’, ch. 4. In the Muhsin Khan translation see the report 2:26:595.)

“A man came to the Prophet and asked his permission for jihad. He asked: Are your parents alive? The man said, Yes. He said: Then do jihad in their way.” (Bukhari, book: Jihad, ch. 138. In the Muhsin Khan translation see the report 4:52:248.)

The words “do jihad in their way” can only mean, and are understood by everyone as meaning, “exert yourself in the service of your parents”. The Holy Prophet here has not presented the Pilgrimage or service of parents as a metaphorical or lesser alternative for people unable to take part in a real jihad. He has described these as the actual jihad on their part. A very illuminating incident is recorded in Hadith, of a time some sixty years after the death of the Holy Prophet, when there was a rebellion of some Muslims led by Ibn Zubair against the Muslim government of the time. Abdullah ibn Umar, one of the greatest authorities on the Quran and son of the second Caliph Umar, was urged by some to join this rebellion as they considered it as jihad. It is reported:

“A man came to Ibn Umar and said: Why is it that one year you go for the Hajj and one year you go for the Umra (a lesser form of the Pilgrimage), and yet you have discarded jihad in the way of God? You know how much God has encouraged jihad? Ibn Umar said: My nephew, Islam is based on five things: Belief in God and His messenger, five prayers, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat, and the Pilgrimage to the House of God. The man said: Do you not hear what God has said in His Book, … ‘so fight them till there is an end to the mischief ’. Ibn Umar said: ‘We acted on this in the time of the Holy Prophet. At that time, Muslims were few, and a man (who accepted Islam) used to face persecution for his religion — they would kill him or punish him. But then the followers of Islam multiplied in number, and there was no mischief left’.” (Bukhari, book: ‘Commentary on the Quran’, ch. 30 under Sura 2. In the Muhsin Khan translation see the report 6:60:40.)

Thus Ibn Umar refused to recognize that this armed conflict, regarded as jihad by many Muslims, was at all a jihad that a Muslim must join even though it is generally regarded as a just cause against a caliph who was a usurper of that position. As his reference to the five pillars of Islam shows, Ibn Umar did not consider it a duty in Islam to join that so-called jihad.

Conditions for a jihad by arms

For a war to be a jihad in Islamic terms, it must fulfil the conditions specified in the Quran. We have already seen in Section 4, ‘When is war allowed?’, the circumstances in which wars are permissible in Islam. It must be a war of self-defence and self-preservation by an entire Muslim community which is being persecuted for its religion. Only the government of a state or the leadership of a community can call upon Muslims to engage in such jihad. There must be negotiations with the enemy to avoid war and establish peace, if possible. In battle, the clear instructions of Holy Prophet Muhammad must be followed, who strictly forbade the killing of the noncombatants and the defenceless among the enemy such as women, children, old people, and even those only doing labouring work for the enemy soldiers, not being fighters themselves. Again, the Holy Prophet’s example must be followed in the proper and humane treatment of any captured prisoners of war, who must eventually be freed to rejoin their people (These clear directions can be found in the leading collections of Hadith, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud in chapters on Jihad or Wars.)

There is no legitimacy at all in Islam for fringe, secretive, self-styled ‘Islamic’ groups to declare a jihad of war in the first place. Then to conduct their so-called jihad by acts such as indiscriminate violent attacks on the general, unsuspecting public, and kidnapping people and holding them as hostage, is simply abhorrent to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Robert Spencer at the end of his statement maliciously segues into the concept of Martyrdom. This topic will be taken up in the next Issue 34.

Exodus 32 – King James Version – Bible Gateway
Islam, Peace and Tolerance – Dr. Zahid Aziz