On June 17th, an article titled Clarifications About the Concept of Jihad in Islam by Islamic scholar Maulvi Yahya Nomani was posted on the The American Muslim(TAM) website. It slammed the critics of Islam who say jihad is a license for cold-blooded murder. It's the evil Western imperialists that control the media who spin the news against Islam, the author explains. Although Nomani acknowledged a small number of Muslims have engaged in terrorism he insisted the West has a very bloody history and has carried out terrorist acts that were then blamed on Muslims. What?
Islamophobia is rising, too, Nomani claimed based on a Western driven "false projection of Islamic jihad". Yet, it's never the fault of articles, like his, as you will find out, or the religious rulings of Islamic leaders that state fighting for the sake of Allah in order to advance or protect Islam is OK, now is it?
Namani informs us jihad is a doctrine to promote peace. It is also a FIGHT against others for Allah's acceptance to protect Islam and to guide humanity, he goes on. The important point Namoni makes in his article is that this is OK to do only if the Muslims doing the fighting are Islamically pure. Then their "offensive" jihad would surely be a blessing to humanity!
Below are some excerpts:
...Rather, jihad is governed by a host of spiritual and moral principles and laws, observing which alone can qualify it to be truly called ‘struggle in God’s path’ (jihad fi sabil Allah).
...Caring nothing for worldly comforts, they led a life in service to God and in accordance with His will. So, when they were ordered to fight in defence against those who had launched a reign of terror and oppression against them, they were told by God that this was not simply to defend themselves, but, rather, to defend God’s faith on earth. This is why these wars were termed as jihad fi sabil Allah and were deemed a source of great reward.
...Rather, for a war fought by Muslims to be regarded as a jihad it must be fought, not for communal defence or the defence of Muslims’ lives and properties, but, rather to gain God’s acceptance, protect His faith, guide humanity, promote its welfare and save it from oppression and strife.
...Besides purity of the aims of fighting, proper intention, and strict obedience to Islamic rules and shariah limits in the conduct of war -- the Quran also indicates that those Muslims who take to the path of jihad must be so pure in their service of and commitment to God and so morally upright that, if as a result of their struggle they gain control of any territory, they would use their powers not to satisfy their lusts and base, worldly desires, but, instead, to spread goodness and the service of God and to rid the world of wickedness. Undoubtedly, jihad undertaken by such a group would be a blessing for humanity, and that is why God rewards such a struggle with great merit.
Can Muslims fight non-Muslims governments in countries that do not oppress Muslims? " -- after the demise of the Prophet, many of his companions spread out of Arabia into other lands and fought wars for this purpose," the author wrote.
Muslim must invite non-Muslims to the faith first. This position, we are told, can be backed by Hadith reports that insist on the need for peaceful propagation of Islam before fighting can at all be envisaged.
At least the article assures us at the end that Muslims are not on the true path of Islam today and therefore are not pure enough to wage offensive jihad. Hummm, is that really suppose to make us feel better? Did I mention jihadist attacks are at an all time high worldwide?
Namoni explained if these Muslims were to take control of a territory with their offensive jihad it must be only for the good of Islam. Oh, that's rich. It's easy to see how young impressionable Muslims are persuaded/indoctrinated into believing they are acting for the sake of Allah to please him by their Islamically pure acts as this religious idealogy is burned into their hearts and minds, day after day, year after year.
On The American Muslim's own Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism page they reference at least three Islamists who approve or have approved of martyrdom (its OK to kill yourself to kills others); Yusef Qaradawi, Jamal Badawi and Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi, the Grand Shaikh of al-Azhar in Egypt. There could be more which requires more research. Are we supposeto take this page seriously? The disclaimer at the bottom of each page states opinions expressed on their OWN website may notnecessarily reflect the editorial position of The America Muslim which is a pure cop-out. Are their hands tied who posts on their site? This is reliable?
According to the Islamic Society of Tulsa (IST) who actually links to the TAM anti-terrorism page this is a reliable website! Are you kidding me? The Islamic Society of Tulsa apparently want us to believe TAM is a credible source that will help alleviate our concerns about Islam and terrorism. Right? Wrong.
And Muslims wonder why they get such a bad rap.
-----
Also see:
TAM:
President Barack Obama to the Muslims. Just a speech? by Tariq Ramadan (grandson of the founder of the Islamic supremacy organization, the Muslim Brotherhood). Near the end of this article he refers to the president as just Barack before he adds a PS about being banned from the U.S.
Debating the Religious, Political and Moral Legitimacy of Suicide Bombings Part 1: The Debate over Religious Legitimacy
War & fighting in Islam (joint web-page by the Islamic Society of Tulsa and the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City)
