The more books that are published in English that reveal the truth about Jihad, that expose it for the wicked perversion of religion that it is, the better. Mayer points out one of the popular lies about Jihad up front in his article.
Though the idea of a “greater jihad” one involving a struggling internally to do the will of Allah was dealt with, primarily by Muslim ascetics especially the Sufis, it by no means supplanted the original meaning. When jihad was discussed generally it was understood to mean religiously condoned warfare.
Of the professional apologists for Islam – people of the ilk of Dr. John Esposito [director of the Saudi Wahhabist funded – $20 million – Prince Waleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University] who persist in trying to confuse the issue, arguing that the meaning of jihad is somehow unclear, professor Cook wryly observes that such efforts are never seen in the languages spoken in Islamic countries; it would be rejected in those locales because those audiences fully understand the implications and meaning of jihad, having grown up with it.
So do not be fooled by the scholarly liars for Islam such as John Esposito. Their salaries are paid for by those who would conceal the true agenda of Saudi Arabia and other terror-spawning states.
One way that Moslems attempt to conceal the nature of Jihad is to state that Jihad can only be defensive, not offensive. If non-Moslems do not invade Moslem countries then they have nothing to worry about, “live and let live” and all that. Unfortunately that is also a lie.
Jihad again needed to be redefined in the twentieth century in light of popular Marxist criticisms of the West’s “imperialism.”
Given Islam’s violent origin and subsequent military conquest wasn’t it also subject to similar questions? And moreover wasn’t it disingenuous to claim, apologetically that jihad was primarily defensive in nature?
As Understanding Jihad points out, Rashid Rida an Egyptian had a response, further clarifying the meaning of jihad:
“Our religion is not like others that defend themselves…but our defense of our religion is the proclamation of the truth and the removal of the distortion and misrepresentation of it.”
This blurs the lines between defense and offense to the point where they become irrelevant. (source)
In another example of how defense means offense when it comes to Jihad, we have the words of Hassan Al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Moslem Brotherhood.
Such explanations did not go far enough to satisfy all, as was the case with Egyptian Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Al-Banna likened peace to acceptance of Allah and jihad as the process whereby that might be attained.
“God obligated the Muslims with jihad not as a means of aggression nor as a vehicle for their personal desires, but in order to protect the proclamation [of Islam], as a surety of peace, and as a means to fulfill the great mission whose burden has been take up by the Muslims, which is the mission to guide people to the truth, Islam.”
And the third in our trifecta of terror theorists is the terrible Qutb.
On par with Al-Banna, the other pivotal Egyptian theorist [the American educated] Sayyid Qutb, also extended the idea of offense to mean the defense of Islam.
“It is the right of Islam to move first, because Islam is not the belief of a [single] group, nor the system of a state, but the way of life of God and a system for the world. Thus it has the right to move to destroy impediments, whether systems of circumstances, that rob the person of the freedom to choose. It does not attack individuals in order to compel them to embrace its creed, but it attacks systems and circumstances in order to liberate the individual from false influences that corrupt the nature [of man] and prevent freedom of choice.”
This is an all-encompassing conceptualization of jihad.
Under it, any belief structure outside of Islam is seen as an impediment to the ability of people to be able to freely choose and therefore questions of defensive war versus offensive war become largely moot. This doctrine justifies a perpetual state of conflict which exists between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. (source)
In other words:
- Dar al-Islam
- “The House of Islam”: The Islamic portion of the world, under Sharia law with a Caliph or other Islamic tyrant ruling
- Dar al-Harb
- “The House of War”: The non-Islamic portion of the world, subject to eternal Jihad until it is conquered by Moslems and all religion is for Allah alone.
Scary, in a crazy way. Not so scary that we should give up. But scary enough that we have to wake up and oppose it by all the means we have at our disposal.
Technorati Tags: jihad