* al-Ghazali’s writings on jihad war :
…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. A woman and her child taken into slavery should not be separated…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need…. 7
Jihadist Zardari …
This should be the hottest news story of the year decade. This Paki “friend” of ours is telling the truth about Islam, and the MSM snoozes right through it:
Pakistan: India telling us to stop jihad terrorism is “unacceptable”
What did Singh say to Zardari that was “unacceptable”?
Ready?
Here it is.
“I am extremely happy to meet you, but my mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India.”
Horror of horrors!
Racism!
Islamophobia!
Give the Pakis a few more billion dollars!
* Well, who can blame them? They are only following their religious obligation to wage jihad and to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. We can only blame ourselves for not learning what Islam’s all about…/ed
“Manmohan Singh’s remarks unacceptable: Pak,” from the Times of India, June 17 (thanks to JW)
ISLAMABAD: Apparently irked by prime minister Manmohan Singh’s blunt message to president Asif Ali Zardari in front of media that Pakistan should not allow its soil for terrorism against India, Islamabad on Wednesday said his remarks were “unacceptable”.In a statement made in the Senate or Upper House of Parliament, minister of state for foreign affairs Malik Ahmad Khan said Singh’s comments made during his meeting with Zardari in Russia on Tuesday were unacceptable to Islamabad.
During the meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Russia, Singh told Zardari: “I am extremely happy to meet you, but my mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India.”
Malik Ahmad Khan said Pakistan had asked the Indian government not to resort to “aggressive media statements” and clear the air by talking directly with Pakistan instead of using the media. “I would still ask India to come to talks as engagements would be fruitful rather than estrangements,” he said.
Pakistan will never allow any force to use its soil for terrorist activities directed against any country, he said.
“During the past six months, Indian officials uttered some inappropriate statements about their certain reservations which were totally against diplomatic norms,” Khan said.
_______________________________________________
The Religious Obligation to Wage War Against Non Muslims:
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
from, Ibn Khaldun, “The Muqudimmah. An Introduction to History”, Translated by Franz Rosenthal. (New York, NY.: Pantheon, 1958, vol. 1, p. 473).
Ibn Khaldun’s classic assessment reflects exactly what another respected contemporary Sunni Muslim scholar, Professor Bassam Tibi, maintains:
“…The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (futuhat, literally “opening”, in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call of Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war (‘idwan). …”
from, Bassam Tibi, “War and Peace in Islam” in “Islamic Political Ethics”, Edited by Sohail Hashmi (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2002, p.178).
Written by a former oppressed dhimmi- now living in freedom in the West- if Muslims and non-Muslims are to share this planet in peace:
Thirteen years ago (September, 1990) Bat Ye’or made these prescient observations regarding the struggle against what she termed the “Islamist trend,” by its myriad victims:
“…this effort cannot succeed without a complete recasting of mentalities, the desacralization of the historic jihad and an unbiased examination of Islamic imperialism. Without such a process, the past will continue to poison the present and inhibit the establishment of harmonious relationships. When all is said and done, such self-criticism is hardly exceptional. Every scourge, such as religious fanaticism, the crusades, the inquisition, slavery, apartheid, colonialism, Nazism and, today, communism, are analyzed, examined, and exorcized in the West. Even Judaism- harmless in comparison with the power of the Church and the Christian empires- caught, in its turn, in the great modernization movement, has been forced to break away from some traditions. It is inconceivable that Islam, which began in Mecca and swept through three continents, should alone avoid a critical reflection on the mechanisms of its power and expansion. The task of assessing their history must be undertaken by the Muslims themselves…there is room to hope that the ending of the contentious dhimmi past will open the way to harmonization of the whole human family….”
And in 1996, Bassam Tibi wrote this:
At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. “We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamicjihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”). 9
