Question No 7 to Solkhar, Islamic Troll

Question number 7 for Solkhar the Islamo Troll:

The companions of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, believed (that, according to Egyptian mufti Dr. Ali Gum’a) that drinking his urine, licking his sweat and eating his excrements would help to purify and bless them.

Do you, Solkhar, of the Maliki school of Islam, agree with Dr. Ali Gum’a?

Yes or No will suffice. Thank you!



Today is Islamic Flashback Day: a walk down memory lane with Sheik Yer’mami:

Lets take a look at libel blogger  Charles Johnson from the little green sycophants:

No Compulsion in Islam?

Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 8:07:06 am PDT

Islamic apologists trying to explain away the death penalty for apostasy always quote Koran 2:256, which states, “There is no compulsion in Islam.” In Malaysia, though, they apparently see Koran 2:256 more as a guideline than a strict rule: Tougher Law For Malaysia Converts. The only opposition-ruled state in Malaysia has approved …

Full post…

Strange how things have changed. The Lizard sold his ass and the Arabs blow dynamite out of their asses…

4 thoughts on “Question No 7 to Solkhar, Islamic Troll”

  1. Hum,Hum….I’ll wait the answer of solkhar because he is a “proud “Muslim (funny proud of what…I don’t know..) … surely he must already drink a liter or more everyday and he can tell us if it’s really work…but Magic Potion from the muzz,let me very Cold i have a physical aversion

  2. “Leading Al-Azhar and Religious Endowments Ministry officials stated that Gum’a’s conclusions were mistaken even though they were based on Islamic sources. They added that his claims were inappropriate for the modern era.”

    I agree with this statement.

    So now we have had the fifth question were the blog-owner has not come up with anything to support his incorrect and BS statement that the Five Schools of Islam support and endourse Jihad.

    He also still has shamefully kept silent over his laughable statement that the Qur’an was prepared 200 years after the death of Mohammed.

    Score: 5 – 0 to Solkhar (I answered all but two because they were stupid questions and you chopped three out to hide the response to the readers)

  3. You have answered none of my questions, troll. None.

    All of the questions remain on the blog, you can look them up one by one. You made enough false claims, no need to lie out of habit, solkhar!

    I ask the questions here, Solkhar. Not you.

    But even so, I have answered your misleading jihad question repeatedly. If you wish, I do it again: Jihad is a central duty which every Mohammed worshipper is religiously obliged to participate in, be it by contributing money, by propaganda (by the pen, or by the mouth, which is what you are doing) or by fighting in Allah’s cause.

    The five schools of Islam have never renounced the doctrine of jihad. The global mission of making the world Islamic by all and any means stems from the prophet of Islam himself. Jihad is a duty, a central duty and without jihad there is no Islam. The jihad is permanent and relentless and continues to this day since the days of Muhammad.
    Jihad will not stop until the world is Islamic and all religion is for Allah.

    But since you are forcing my hand, I shall give it to you anyhow, solkhar.

    Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad

    Since I happen to have these quotes handy, here are some other Islamic scholars on jihad:

    Maliki jurist Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406): “ 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 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.” (Ibn Khaldun, “The Muqaddimah”. (Excerpted from Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans Franz Rosenthal, 1958). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 161). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    And also Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996): “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. … We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax , short of which war will be declared against them.” (Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani. (Excerpted from Leon Bercher, La Risala ou Epitre sur les elements du dogme de la loi d’Islam, 1945; English translation from Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude Seventh-Twentieth Century, 1996). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 146). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    Hanbali jurist Ibn Tamiyya (d. 1328): “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.” (Ibn Taymiyya, “Al-Siyasa Al-Shariyya”. (Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, 1996.) In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 168). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    Hanafi jurist Shaikh Burdanuddin Ali of Marghinan (d. 1196): “It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the trouble of war….” (From the Hidayah, vol. ii. p. 140, excerpted in Thomas P. Hughes, ‘A Dictionary of Islam’, ‘Jihad’ pp. 243—248. London, United Kingdom.: W.H. Allen, 1895.

    Shaafi jurist al-Mawardi (d. 1058): “The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them… in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interests of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun…. Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden us to initiate an attack… before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.” (Al-Mawardi, “Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah”. (Excerpted from The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans Asadullah Yate, 1996). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 190). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    Shia scholar al-Amili (d. 1621) “Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.” (Muhammad al-Amili. (Excerpted from Jami’-i Abbasi: Yakdawrah-i fiqh-i, trans. Fatemeh Masjedi, 1980.) In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 213). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    Shia (Jafaari) scholar Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1989): “But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. … Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.” (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. (Excerpted from “Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists”, 1942). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 226). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    Al-Azhar (Sunni) scholar Muhammad Sai’id al-Buti: “The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic jurisprudence is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form.” (Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al Buti. Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography. (7th edition, p 134))

    Islamic jurisprudence codifies into law 2 different kinds of obligations with respect to jihad. Self-defense is always an individual obligation (“fard-‘ayn”) upon every member of the ummah, while expansionist, aggressive jihad is a collective obligation (“fard-kifaya”).

    Majiid Khadurri notes, “The jihad, on the other hand – unless the Muslim community is subjected to a sudden attack and therefore all believers, including women and children, are under the obligation to fight – is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community. It is regarded as fard al-kifaya, binding on the Muslims as a collective group, not individually. If the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on others; the whole community, however, falls into error if the duty is not performed at all.” (Majid Khadduri, “The Doctrine of Jihad”. (From War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Book 2: The Law of War: The Jihad, 1955). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 309). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

    Reliance of the Traveler: “09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O [the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” and Allah Most High having said: “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good.” (Koran 4:95)”
    “If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.”
    “The first is when they [i.e. Muslims] are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever can.”

    Ibn Tamiyyah: “The most serious type of obligatory jihad is the one against the unbelievers and against those who refuse to abide by certain prescriptions of the Sharia, like those who refuse to pay zakat….This jihad is obligatory if it is carried out on our initiative and also if it is waged as defense. If we take the initiative, it is a collective duty [which means that] if it is fulfilled by a sufficient number [of Muslims], the obligation lapses for all others and the merit goes to those who have fulfilled it…But if the enemy wants to attack the Muslim, then repelling him becomes a duty for all those under attack and for the others in order to help them……So the latter [form of jihad] consists in defense of the religion, of things that are inviolable, and of lives. Therefore it is fighting out of necessity. The former [type of jihad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propogate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabuk and the like.” (Ibn Taymiyya, “Al-Siyasa Al-Shariyya”. (Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, 1996.) In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 171-172). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

    Molla Khosrew (d. 1480): “…jihad is a fard al-kifaya, that is, that one must begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight, because the Prophet…early on…allowed believers to defend themselves, later, however, he ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying, “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them…” (Q9:5). He finally ordered fighting without limitations, at all times and in all places, saying, “Fight those who do not believe in God, and in the Last Day…”(Q9:29); there are also other [similar] verses on the subject. This shows that it is a fard al-kifaya.” ({A0780129-88D6-4968-BB7C-54AC7AC858C0})

    Hasan Al-Banna: “The author of the “Majma’ al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqal-Abhar”, in describing the rules of jihad according to the Hanafi School, said: “Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief). It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this. If some of the people fulfil the obligation, the remainder are released from the obligation. If this fard kifayah (communal obligation) cannot be fulfilled by that group, then the responsibility lies with the closest adjacent group, and then the closest after that etc., and if the fard kifayah cannot be fulfilled except by all the people, it then becomes a fard ‘ayn (individual obligation), like prayer on everyone of the people. This obligation is by virtue of what He, the Almighty, said: ‘Then fight the polytheists…!’ (Surat at-Tawbah (9), ayah 5) and by what the Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Jihad is in effect until the Day of Judgement’ If the whole body [of believers] abandons it, they are in a state of sin’ (up to where the author of the book says: ‘If the enemy conquers any territory of Islam, or any regions of it, it becomes a fard ‘ayn, and the woman and the slave shall go forth without the permission of husband or master. In the same way, the child shall go forth without the permission of his parents, and the debtor without the permission of his creditor.”

    Sheik Al-Qaradhawi: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way. The repulsing Jihad takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered… [in that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability….”

    If that’s still not enough for you, here is more from Robert Spencer. A man you hate, but you can’t refute: here he dismantles another detractor, far more knowledgeable than you, but hopelessly wrapped in this belief system that stifles mental growth, Islam:

    In your book Islam Unveiled, you wrote: “Jihad is a permanent war that excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces to the political situation (muhadana). “
    That is indeed in the book, but it is a quotation of the historian Bat Ye’or. Thus we have dueling authorities. Why do you believe Streusand and Afroz Ali, but not Bat Ye’or? Because you wish to: you say that Streusand and Afroz Ali as “authentic Islamic scholars,” and that I am not, but here is an authentic Islamic scholar saying what you actually put into my mouth (and indeed, I did quote it).

    Also, as has been noted, an argument from authority is weak. That fact that someone with fewer degrees may disagree with someone with more degrees doesn’t make him ipso facto wrong. You don’t judge an argument by the number of degrees the person advancing it has; you judge it by its accuracy in terms of the data.

    Also, in your book Onward Muslim Soldiers, you wrote:
    “The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission.”

    I did indeed say that, in a discussion of Qur’an 9:29.

    Now: back to arguments from authority. Let us examine, to take just one example, the work of the great Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, who died earlier this year at the age of 98. Khadduri was an Iraqi and a scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, he says this about jihad:

    The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. Although it was not a consciously formulated policy, Muhammad’s early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

    Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument or carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared “some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ.” Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-Islamic — in the status of a tolerated religious community accepting certain disabilities — must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. (Page 64)
    Was Khadduri a “hate propagandist”? Was he clearly and consistently misrepresenting and falsely defining the word “jihad”?

    Want another? Happy to oblige! Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, an Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in his book The Methodology of Ijtihad writes that “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book [primarily Jews and Christians]…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

    But then why hasn’t the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recent times? Nyazee says it is only because they have not been able to do so: “the Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it.”

    So now we have Khadduri and Nyazee, along with Bat Ye’or, versus Streusand and Afroz Ali. We could keep playing this game endlessly, quoting authority after authority, but that would be pointless. The point I’m making is that to make the assertions I have made about jihad does not constitute “hate propaganda,” but is a perfectly demonstrable position from Islamic texts and teachings, and is, in fact, held by many scholars, including Muslim scholars.

    What’s more, the scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim, who deny the legitimacy of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism in Islam have, unfortunately, never answered the Islamic arguments advanced by the jihadist proponents of that legitimacy in a way that will convince any significant number of them that the jihad they’re waging is not actually Islamically sound. The jihadist appeal is traditionalist and based on Islamic scripture and law, and that’s what gives it its revivalist power in the Islamic world.

Comments are closed.