| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Daniel Pipes has an interesting piece in FrontPage today, discussing David Cook's new book Understanding Jihad, which I have not yet seen. In his review, Pipes succintly sums up the history of the concept of jihad in Islam, showing the hollowness of claims that it has always primarily represented a spiritual struggle:
The Koran invites Muslims to give their lives in exchange for assurances of paradise.The Hadith (accounts of Muhammad’s actions and personal statements) elaborate on the Koran, providing specific injunctions about treaties, pay, booty, prisoners, tactics, and much else. Muslim jurisprudents then wove these precepts into a body of law.
Muhammad’s conquests: During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every 5-6 weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet’s jihad.
The Arab conquests and after: During the first several centuries of Islam, “the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive.” After the conquests subsided, non-Muslims hardly threatened and Sufi notions of jihad as self-improvement developed in complement to the martial meaning.
The Crusades, the centuries-long European effort to control the Holy Land, gave jihad a new urgency and prompted what Cook calls the “classical” theory of jihad. Finding themselves on the defensive led to a hardening of Muslim attitudes.
The Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century subjugated much of the Muslim world, a catastrophe only partially mitigated by the Mongols’ nominal conversion to Islam. Some thinkers, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328) in particular, came to distinguish between true and false Muslims; and to give jihad new prominence by judging the validity of a person’s faith according to his willingness to wage jihad.
Nineteenth century “purification jihads” took place in several regions against fellow Muslims. The most radical and consequential of these was the Wahhabis' jihad in Arabia. Drawing on Ibn Taymiya, they condemned most non-Wahhabi Muslims as infidels (kafirs) and waged jihad against them.
However, there are some elements of this analysis about which I have questions. Read on:
European imperialism inspired jihadi resistance efforts, notably in India, the Caucasus, Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, and Morocco, but all in the end failed. This disaster meant new thinking was needed.Islamist new thinking began in Egypt and India in the 1920s but jihad acquired its contemporary quality of radical offensive warfare only with the Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966). Qutb developed Ibn Taymiya’s distinction between true and false Muslims to deem non-Islamists to be non-Muslims and then declare jihad on them. The group that assassinated Anwar El-Sadat in 1981 then added the idea of jihad as the path to world domination.
Does jihad's "contemporary quality of radical offensive warfare" refer to the idea that true Muslims must fight against false Muslims, or Islamists against non-Islamists? Or is the point that jihad is "radical offensive warfare" the contemporary innovation? The latter can't be so, since -- as this very analysis shows -- jihad has been conceived of as radical offensive warfare since the time of Muhammad. But the idea that Muslims declaring jihad against Muslims is a contemporary innovation is also false. This has occurred throughout history: the Muslim Mongols fought the Abbasids, the Abbasids fought the Fatimids, etc. etc. etc.
If anything, it is the "Islamist"/"non-Islamist" distinction that is the innovation. As this analysis shows, in earlier times every Muslim was a forthright Islamist, in that he knew that it was part of his religion to fight to extend Islam's political power.
In fact, Qutb and other contemporary jihad theorists such as Maududi were not innovators, but radical traditionalists who were fighting to restore what had been the mainstream understanding of jihad that had prevailed throughout most of Islamic history. You can find this explained in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers.
The article continues:
The anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan led to the final step (so far) in this evolution. In Afghanistan, for the first time, jihadis assembled from around the world to fight on behalf of Islam. Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian, became the theorist of global jihad in the 1980s, giving it an unheard-of central role, judging each Muslim exclusively by his contribution to jihad, and making jihad the salvation of Muslims and Islam. Out of this quickly came suicide terrorism and bin Laden.
Again, to attribute all this to Azzam is ahistorical. Travel for jihad is nothing new. For example, as I show in my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery), jihadis assembled from around the world in the tenth century to wage jihad against the Byzantines. Saif al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi’ite Hamdanid dynasty in Aleppo from 944 to 967, appealed to Muslims to fight the Byzantines on the pretext that the Byzantines were taking lands that belonged to the House of Islam; this appeal was so successful that Muslim warriors traveled to Hamdanid lands from as far off as Central Asia to fight in the jihads.
Nor is suicide terrorism an innovation: such operations are a feature of Islamic history. One example was recently unearthed by Dr. Andrew Bostom: John Paul Jones encountered suicide attacks by Muslim Turks in 1788!
“…for it was the intention of the Turks to attack us and board us, and if we had been only three versts further the attempt would have been made on the 16th [June 1788] (before the vessel of the Captain Pacha ran aground in advancing before the wind with all his forces to attack us,), God only knows what would have been the result…The Turks had a very large force, and we have been informed by our prisoners that they were resolved to destroy us, even by burning themselves, (in setting fire to their own vessels after having grappled with ours.) [note added by Jones: Before their departure from Constantinople, they swore by the beard of the Sultan to execute this horrible plan…if Providence had not caused its failure from two circumstances which no man could forsee.”]
That's from John Paul Jones’ Letter to Prince Potemkin, June 20, 1788, from Life and Character of John Paul Jones-A Captain in the Navy of the United States, John H. Sherburne, 1825, p. 308.
Pipes concludes that "the current understanding of jihad is more extreme than at any prior time in Islamic history." That may be, but just how that understanding is more "extreme" than that of previous times remains unclear. I have ordered Cook's book and am looking forward to receiving it.
Posted by Robert at May 31, 2005 7:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
And another busy day for Jihad’s 5th Column:
Italian Moral Stupidity In Iraq (Leftist MSM report)
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18239
The West’s muslim allies:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18230
Leftist media vs. America:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18237
Vindication: There Is An Unholy Alliance
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18223
Life, Liberty and the Avoidance of Reality:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20050531.shtml
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 31, 2005 8:56 AM
I respect Daniel Pipes, but think that he is incorrect about some of the history of jihad.
I was taught in school that the Muslims hates the United States because of our support for the modern nation of Israel. Whichever history one chooses to believe--Spencer's or Pipes's--the Muslims hated the United States well before 1948. When will we see that truth expounded?
Posted by: WatchfulEye at May 31, 2005 9:41 AM
Look again, WatchfulEye:
This is not the history of Jihad by Daniel Pipes, this is Daniel Pipes's review of David Cook's history of Jihad.
And the Jihad is only one aspect of the core antagonism of Islam towards, well, all of humanity, actually.
at May 31, 2005 9:54 AM
ajm,
Thank you. I stand corrected. In a few moments, I'll go to Front Page and carefully read the article in its entirety.
But notice this by Spencer: Pipes concludes that "the current understanding of jihad is more extreme than at any prior time in Islamic history." That may be, but just how that understanding is more "extreme" than that of previous times remains unclear.
What makes jihad more extreme now is the weaponry. The understanding was always inherent in Islam.
Reforming "extreme Islam" is an exercise in futility because any such reformation will be viewed as apostasy.
Posted by: WatchfulEye at May 31, 2005 10:14 AM
Back again. Here are Pipes's concluding words:
"The great challenge for moderate Muslims (and their non-Muslim allies) is to make that rejection come about, and with due haste."
I wish that I COULD believe in the existence of moderate Islam.
Posted by: WatchfulEye at May 31, 2005 10:16 AM
What Pipes means here, in my view, is rather that the Jihad has reached its objective peak nowadays. It is directed at the whole world, literally so, it includes bad Muslims, it is highly suicidal, modern technology makes it more dangerous than ever, it is very well financially backed, it is deeply anchored in academe and politics, in the west too, it is a strong political ("democratic") force in the ME. It has a will and means it never had.
What it needs is a reform of Islam, of the Koran, I fully agree. Personally. But I have no problems with all those who help along. I don't think any effort in the right direction is futile.
at May 31, 2005 10:25 AM
You are right not to believe in moderate Islam. That obviously doesn't exist. But there are quite a bunch of people who happen to be Muslims but only moderately so.
Say you are a Muslim because all your parents were Muslims since generations, but you happen to be able to think for yourself nevertheless, maybe thank to the attribute of modernity, and you are thinking just the way you are now, on this forum. What are you doing?
You stay quiet. Until, hopefully, something happen, some true reform starts to show, strong enough for you to come out without having to fear for your life and your loved ones'.
The closer you are from Islam, the more courage it takes to stand strong against it, to question its core. And the core is the bad thing.
Posted by: ajm at May 31, 2005 10:33 AM
ajm,
You said, "[T]here are quite a bunch of people who happen to be Muslims but only moderately so."
Yes! And they need to find a way to stand up against the core. Extremely difficult to do.
Signing out now until this evening.
at May 31, 2005 10:51 AM
Indeed. The most difficult part of the job can be done only by Muslims: they have to create a schism at the very basis of their religion, to contest its very foundation. Can you imagine that? For if they don't, sooner or later, Jihad will flare up one times too many. We have to speak to those Muslims, even if they don't respond. We have to "believe" in them!
Posted by: ajm at May 31, 2005 11:12 AM
It comes down to a duel between JIHAD and IJTIHAD.
(The militant form of JIAHD, of course, not the often mentioned yet never seen "spiritual struggle". How do you drive a carbomb into your soul has stumped many a Muslim cleric.)
The problem with JIHAD needs little explanation, since it is killing people around the globe, daily, thanks to the root Koranic suras (9:5, ad nauseam) that sanction the slaughter if anything that moves -if it happens to irritate some fanatical Islamic 'holy warrior'.
IJTIHAD could be the antidote to JIHAD. This concept -of interpreting the Koran in fresh ways- would allow Islam to elude the mental and spiritual paralysis which has it in a homicidal headlock.
When are the 'moderates' going to get off their indifferent butts and use this last tool of their creed to pry the maniacs loose from their deathgrip on the Koran and begin a civilizing re-think of the medieval evils inherent in their 'sacred book'?
Until then, Mr. Pipes, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Cook need to keep the intellectual and moral heat on these all-too-passive 'moderates'.
Posted by: BigSleep
at May 31, 2005 11:13 AM
I doubt that you can make a schism with Ijtihads. It seems to me that it's like trying to break a stone with a feather. That's just too soft.
What we need is a new Koran, a declaration of faith endorsed by the bulk of Muslim people and that effectively buries Uthman's old Koran. Something like that, Something that big.
Posted by: ajm at May 31, 2005 11:54 AM
It is not just the muslims that need to make an effort but the PC fanatics that insist on repeating the mantra "Why, islam is a religion of peace and anybody that says otherwise is an islamaphobic bigot." Instead of bending over backwards to pander to likes of CAIR, our politicians need to tell them to shove it. Instead of outreach "workshops" to help our understanding of a third world cult we should firmly say no thank you particularly in our education system. If you need to find out about islam, go to a mosque don't allow it in schools. And BTW, the same applies to any religion. No special room for praying 5 times a day at school or at work. If our work schedule doesn't fit in with your religious obligations, oh well, NEXT APPLICANT PLEASE.
Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at May 31, 2005 12:59 PM
Mr. Spencer adduces the experience of John Paul Jones in the 18th century encountering suicidal tactics among the Turkish Muslims. The Spanish (and later, the Americans) encountered fanatically suicidal tactics among the Muslims (the "Moros") in the Philippines.
It's likely that further research into Islamic tactics in any region where Islam has penetrated will show suicidal tactics throughout the history of their jihads.
Posted by: metaxy at May 31, 2005 1:22 PM
"I was taught in school that the Muslims hates the United States because of our support for the modern nation of Israel. Whichever history one chooses to believe--Spencer's or Pipes's--the Muslims hated the United States well before 1948."
Actually, even 1948 is a bit early for this theory to be true. America did recognize the state of Israel in 1948, but it did not provide material support to their war of independence. America soon began to give financial aid to Israel, but not weapons. America also stomped on the Anglo-French-Israeli plan to invade the Suez. Israel didn't get American weapons until 1962, and then they had to pay for them. The so-called "uncritical" support of Israel that America is supposed to have been giving cannot start from 1948 in any analysis that even pretends to be objective.
Posted by: Viking5 at May 31, 2005 1:40 PM
Some of the posters here bend over backwards to take the bite out of Islam: Forget it. Jihad is always conquest and subjugation of others. There is nothing spiritual in Islam, period.
9/11 was a 'great victory'- All Mohammedans look at this atrocity gleefully as a great victory. That includes the educated ones. The tiny minority that doesn't support this view is no more than 5 or 10 per cent.
OBL is the new Saladin, Zarqawi is a 'great hero'- The situation may be different if it wasn't for the trillions of dollars that are feeding the Jihad- monster, which the Saudis resurrected, so I guess if you wanna blame ourselves then blame it on that. For if it wasn't for the vast amounts of undeserved wealth which the Saudis (for lack of better use) plough back into the spread of Islam (by all and any means) this insult to anyones intelligence under the guise of religion would now most likely be on its last leg.
at May 31, 2005 1:50 PM
Spencer mentions John Paul Jones' experience with suicide tactics from the Turkish Muslims.
Fanatically inspired suicide tactics were also common among the Muslims of the Philippines (the so-called "Moros"):
"...believing that they would enter Paradise if killed in battle against infidels, would whip themselves into obsessed states of self-hypnosis and, kris in hand, charge blindly into the ranks of the enemy, be he Spaniard, American, Japanese or Filipino. In this semimystical trance the juramentados often raced directly into heavy volleys of rifle fire, shrugged off incredible wounds, and had to be killed on their feet literally, before their attack ended. "
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196504/kris.and.crescent.htm
(Incidentally, the anecdote from Spanish Pacific Island history in that link that follows my quote above is very interesting, and implies that Muslim leaders have much more influence on supposedly "rogue" Muslims than is commonly thought -- perhaps because there is a tighter more organic cultural cohesion inherent to Islam than with other cultures)
Posted by: metaxy at May 31, 2005 10:35 PM
To quivel over this or that about Islam being dead on acurate is not the point. The overiding impression is that once the Muslims subjugate a population into Islam they then break out into conflict over who is a real muslim. In other words an endless cycle of violence as can be seen in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Institutionalized murder and madness, such is the state of Islam.
If the jihad prevails to any degree in the western world, it could very well plunge world culture back into a dark age. Civilization is on the line in a struggle between Western democracy and Jihad terror.
Democracy must prevail. To kill every terrorist in say Saudi Arabia would be pointless if the Royal Family stayed in power. Such a state of affairs would just breed more terrorist. Ditto Pakistan with the " Good General " in charge. All the billions in bribes is no substitute for democracy.
--- Nossy
at May 31, 2005 11:53 PM
Democracy is not enough anymore. Scrap the Saudi is not enough anymore. Those times are over. Today, the message of hate (the Koran) has gone global and personal. It is but wishful thinking to hope that a political or societal change can prevent the effect of that book. This is religion. And religion is a deep need for most people. And the Koran now exists everywhere, in all languages. And more and more people can read.
We have to fix religion, or die at it.
It is not urgent, and maybe not even necessary for "normal" religions, but it is a must for Islam. And I am quite sure that true pious Muslims feel that, know that. But they can't speak that out. It's just crazy. Even for their (actual) brothers, even for their children, for they would not have a chance in a Muslim world, if they weren't Muslims at heart. See the hell?
So those people are like blind, deaf, dumb beings, walking along the high walls of an endless prison. They are isolated, they don't know each others. We can understand them, from here, talk to them, give them keys, ways to recognize themselves, to gather, to create a weapon of faith, against the Koran, for life. We must. Believe. In them.
at June 1, 2005 12:31 AM
Qur’an fotenote on verse 2:190 from the free Qur’an given away in the West. It is translated by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and funded by King Fahd. I quot; "Aljihad (holy fighting) in Allah's cause (with full force and numbers and weaponry)is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands.) By jihad islam is established, Allah's word is made superior, (his word being La Ilaha Illa Allah which means non has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and his religion (Islam) was propagated. By abandoning jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destryed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."
Abbas
at June 1, 2005 5:34 AM
Qur’an fotenote on verse 2:190 from the free Qur’an given away in the West. It is translated by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and funded by King Fahd. I quot; "Aljihad (holy fighting) in Allah's cause (with full force and numbers and weaponry)is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands.) By jihad islam is established, Allah's word is made superior, (his word being La Ilaha Illa Allah which means non has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and his religion (Islam) was propagated. By abandoning jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destryed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."
Abbas
at June 1, 2005 5:34 AM
Qur’an fotenote on verse 2:190 from the free Qur’an given away in the West. It is translated by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and funded by King Fahd. I quot; "Aljihad (holy fighting) in Allah's cause (with full force and numbers and weaponry)is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands.) By jihad islam is established, Allah's word is made superior, (his word being La Ilaha Illa Allah which means non has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and his religion (Islam) was propagated. By abandoning jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destryed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."
Abbas
at June 1, 2005 5:34 AM
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
Qur’an 74:31 “We have appointed nineteen angels to be the wardens of the Hell Fire. We made a stumbling-block for those who disbelieve and We have fixed their number as a trial for unbelievers in order that the people of the Book may arrive with certainty, and that no doubts may be left for the people of the Book, those in whose hearts is a disease. And for those to whom the Scripture Book has been given, and the believers, there should be no doubt. The unbelievers may say, ‘What does the Lord intend by this?’ The Lord will lead astray whomever He pleases, and He will guide whomever He pleases: and none can know the armies of your Lord except He, and this is no other than a warning to mankind.”
This can be broken by Yes it is the Army of the people of the Book who he has chosen to Free [USA] the Iraqi people as it says
He will guide whomever He pleases: and none can know the armies of your Lord except He, and this is no other than a warning to mankind.”
Yes he has chosen the USA!!
TO FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM THE MONSTER saddam [FOUND IN A HOLE DON’T SHOOT I’M A YELLOW COWARD]
And let’s look at another part?
The Lord will lead astray whomever He pleases,
Ubl,saddam,zawari,all who Kill and destroy mankind?
There will be no more warnings?
Earthquake in Iran kills 31,000 who harbors ubls[YELLOW COWARD WHO RUNS AWAY] son and wife’s??
And now Locus in Egypt
NOW IF THAT IS NOT TELLING YOU ARE ON THE WRONG PATH NOTHING WILL??
Kazakhstan Blast in mine??
Islamic terrorist- killing Iraqis??
Earthquake in Algeria??
The typhoon in Philippines Remember they ran away from the Fight in Iraq??
http://www.onlypunjab.com/fullstory1104-insight-Pink+Locusts+from+North+Africa-status-15-newsID-503.html
Pink Locusts from North Africa Swarm Through Cairo
Publish Date : 11/18/2004 5:09:00 PM Source : Science and Technology News Onlypunjab.com
Swarms of pink locusts swept through the Egyptian capital on Wednesday, evoking the biblical description of the plagues which struck in the time of Moses.
The swarms of millions flew high above tall towers or swooped down onto treelined streets, where scared pedestrians stamped
on them or ran for cover.
The flying insects arrived from neighboring Libya after devouring the countryside in central and western Africa in past months.
YES I SAY ubl[YELLOW COWARD WHO RUNS AWAY] is losing and trying to regain control??
What verses did he say in his rambling and to say about the people of the book??
The people of
the book didn’t lose their crops??
Now Earthquake of mulsum Islands of Indonesia?? 9.3 and afterwards mass killer waves that effect many countries?/
Who is coming to the aid of the people But the Red Cross and India to help the people and Israel and the USA and the Western countries!!
210,000, mulsum killed in Indonesia alone?? Whole mulsum towns gone?? And Churches still standing??
We are waiting for the mulsums to help other mulsums?? Or with the entire fund raising they do help people instead of making war??
And now more 6.2 earthquakes in Indonesia?? Because they have sent Islamic terrorist to terrorize the victims of the killer wave??
January 11, 2005 Philippines an 4.3 Earthquake ??
Maybe small there because the fight against Islamic Terrorist??
Was ubls[YELLOW COWARD WHO RUNS AWAY] family in Indonesia we know they support Islamic Terrorist??
January 23 6.3 Earthquake in Indonesia??
AND THE LATES FOR THE FOLLOWERS OF THE CURSED??
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=NL712421F&news_headline=abu_hamza_covered_in_scabs
Since then, he has been charged in the UK with 16 offences including soliciting others to murder non-believers, racial hatred and possessing a document liable to help terrorists.
Hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza is covered from head to foot in scabs because he has an ailment that makes his skin bleed.
One theory is that he could have psioriasis, which results in flakes falling from crusty red patches on the skin.
NOW IF THIS AINT TELLING YOU SOMETHING??
May 29,2005 Indonesia mulsums kill Christians in a Market try to blow up a church?? 22 dead 40 injured?
May 30,2005 an Earthquake in Indonesia in mulsum region 5.4??
I hear that extra guards have been posted on the Grapevine raisins??
at June 1, 2005 11:47 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)