It is conventional wisdom among the West’s Islamophilic opinion elites — and thus prototypically among Obama administration officials — that jihad, the Islamic injunction to struggle in Allah’s cause, has been distorted by sharia-obsessed Islamophobes into a summons to destroy the West. Jihad, this wisdom holds, is just an internal exercise in self-betterment — kind of like greening the planet and brushing after every meal. Jihad becomes confrontational and even violent only in self-defense, when Muslims are truly under siege.
Au contraire, says al-Azhar’s Imad Mustafa. To be sure, he agrees that the doctrine of “defensive jihad” calls for war against non-Muslims who “attack” Muslims. But defense, for purposes of this doctrine, is in the eye of the beholder — or, more accurately, in the eye of the mufti who decides what sorts of provocations constitute an “attack.” Implicitly, that leaves room for lots of pretty offensive jihad if the mufti construes the concept of “attack” broadly enough. What is bracing about Mustafa’s new fatwa, however, is that he’s not leaving anything to chance. He’s making what is implicit unmistakably explicit.
Besides the defensive variety, Mustafa expressly endorses “offensive jihad” as the license to attack non-Muslims living in non-Islamic countries. It is the consensus of sharia scholars, he instructs, that offensive jihad is “permissible” in three different situations: (a) “to secure Islam’s border”; (b) “to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it”; and (c) “to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”
Well, that wraps it up, eh? Just exactly where is "Islam's border"? Vienna? Caucasus? London? And which governments do "not allow" Islam? (Better question: what constitutes "allow"? Is it tolerance, which is the case in Western Europe and the US, or does "allow" mean sanction of sharia courts--which are NOT sanctioned in the US?)HT Captain's Journal
7 comments:
Yeah, I know. Sigh. Next thing you know, they'll be asking for tax money to support their private schools, and asking to put a model of a mosque on the courthouse lawn during Eid al-Fitr.
Silly goose, John, here's the answer. Let's insist our government create propaganda to notify the public of the disease known as Islam. Even better, have the military round up all of the Muslims--who cares if they are American citizens--and lock them up. Actually, here is the best response...deport them. We can't murder them, what would Jesus say? No, deport them I say. Then we don't have to worry about sharia law in the United States because we will be an exclusively Christian nation. That is the sure fire way to remove the threat known as Islam within our borders! At least that is what the [pseudo-] intellectuals are implying.
Mmmm, am I serious or being sarcastic. You decide...
I think what the author is suggesting is that government should be large enough and involved enough in our personal lives so that it can judge the goodness and the badness of religions and other beliefs. The author doesn't explain which religions are off-limits in this examination.
Not only that, but are we supposed to interpret their texts literally? If it says I can't eat shellfish, should shellfish be banned?
Not hard to understand why Anonymii follow you around and bother you, John.
Don't fret, Dad29. You and I agree that we don't want Islam injected into our political and governmental systems.
[Government] can judge the goodness and the badness of religions and other beliefs...
Careful what you wish for, Foust.
"Not hard to understand why Anonymii follow you around and bother you, John."
Actually, Dad29, I usually support Foust's positions. I'm not one of his detractors who have their own jihad!
For the record, I was being sarcastic. Although some are dead serious with the line of thinking I mocked. I refer to the regular posters at "Weasel Zippers". What a crew!
Oh, I was being sarcastic in my first comment, too. I'd like Dad29 to explain how government could or should pick-and-choose the goodness or badness of religions.
There may be several Anonymous out there, so he's referring to the bad ones who disagree with me, not the good ones who agree with me. You know, the bad ones who might've agreed with Dad29, but who were behaving badly.
I for one wish that Dad29 had more commenters in general. Why so little traffic, Dad29-io?
Post a Comment